Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLUA-06-071_Report 01(fl n )> r rn ":, 0) " ...., Q z (") ;o ...; r 0 v XJ 0 v 0 (j) rn 0 (j) --l rn v ' :t> z "l'--. r • ~ 0 ~ -i I -<>• rv c . o c: .-co o , 0 . CP c. rv < 0 , ' 0 0 0 822 NO RTH I OI H PLACE, SUIT E 305C 0 tp C r u,o '-Z ;;,::: G") <..N 0 U1 ----------------------------~ 17'-2 ' TH E LANDING· RENTON. WA 98057 ~ (J) 0 C ;:a -r N ~O . m lO 0 7' <..N TI slator + Oep u,m nm ;:a 14004 Roosevelt B v d. Sle. 605. Clearwater, Fl 33762 727 .851 6681 tp C N' . 0 <..N -;;,:::Z G") <..N COPYRIGHT© 2012 SLATOR + ASSOCIATES LLC ALL RIGHTS RESERVED . ~\f l ~ ·' Jh-,.;i l _(·11 ,· · u,. J-1,\LL ' ' ' :i' ' ~, "," {X \ .. 1·}1 /\. .Y 1 § ' 4 ===~t - H-1------------- t: ____ _J [~~J ~ ~R_o ~9 s~o F L OOR PLAN J> o~,--..D a N N . '0 -0 co co b ~ N TENA NT IMP RO VEMENTS FOR: ~ WORLD OF BEER 822 NORTH I 0 TH PLACE. SUITE 305C 11-'E LANDING· RENTO N , WA 9805 7 .___...,.____.__---fl slator + associates LLC 14004 Roosevelt Blvd. Ste . 605, Clearwater, FL 33762 727 .851.6681 ·, ~·~· ' ! ._< i :;I ,1 " " C.' ! ~J , ;:o rn z 0 rn ;:o -z G') < -m i 0 (.)J I z 0 ;:o -I I O=._j ;:o rn z 0 rn ;:o -z G') < -rn ~ I (\ \r 0 II (JJ -;:o L • 0 (J) rn -< rn TENANT IMPR O VEMENTS FO R: ~ WORLD OF BEER 822 NOR II I I 0TH PLACE SUI TE 30SC THE LAN DING · RENTON. WA 98057 0 A ;:o rn z 0 rn ;:o -z G') < -rn i 0 ~ I (J) 0 C -I I 0 N ;:o m z 0 rn ;:o -z G') < - rn )> (J) -I --. .·, ., . ., •.. l C ~,,, ; .. ---·,,.L_ I } i,,J. 1, ··=: . ' ~, . \' ..... :,=-:-\ I~,~ 1 1 \:---~: ~, ----4 l1i ~ .... ·,-,. I •• .c .. _. - ·I ea, " slat or + ,',<,1 i: 1.~t (", COP YRIGHT © 2012 SLATO R + ASSOC IA TES l lC All RIG HTS RESE RV ED. 14004 Roosevelt Blvd. Ste. 605, Clearw ater, FL 33762 727.851.66 81 0 (_,N -0 I 0 -{ 0 < rn i 0 (JJ z 0 :::0 -{ I 0 -0 I 0 -{ 0 < rn i 0 (.J) 0 C -{ I ' ' 0 ' (-............. J> o , ~ I '-O •tv ~:_.. 8 • !)J co 0 ~ t0 TENAN T IM PRO VEME NTS FOR: ~ WORLD OF BEER 22810 U.S . HIGHWAY 28 1 N. SAN ANTO NIO, TEXAS /82!>9 0 .!:,.. -0 I 0 -{ 0 < rn i 0 ~ z 0 :::0 -{ I 0 N -0 I 0 -{ 0 < rn i 0 N rn J> (.J) -{ s I at or + 1 ',,, n l I t1 t, , ,, ! ,. 14004 Rooseve lt Blvd. Ste. 605, Clea rwater, FL 33762 727.851.668 1 COPYRIGHT © 2012 SLATOR + ASSOCIATES LLC ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Printed: 09-26-2012 Payment Made: CITY OF RENTON 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Land Use Actions RECEIPT Permit#: LUAOG-071 Receipt Number: R1204401 Total Payment: 09/26/2012 08: 45 AM 103.00 Payee: Tap House NW Development 1, LLC Current Payment Made to the Following Items: Trans Account Code Description Amount ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 3080 503.000000.004.322 Technology Fee 5022 000.000000.007.345 Variance Fees Payments made for this receipt Trans Method Description Amount Payment Check 5031 100.00 Payment Cash 3.00 Account Balances 3.00 100.00 Trans Account Code Description Balance Due --------------------------------------------------------------------- 3021 303.000000.020.345 Park Mitigation Fee 3080 503.000000.004.322 Technology Fee 5006 000.000000.007.345 Annexation Fees 5007 000.000000.011.345 Appeals/Waivers 5008 000.000000.007.345 Binding Site/Short Plat 5009 000.000000.007.345 Conditional Use Fees 5010 000.000000.007.345 Environmental Review 5011 ooo.000000.007.345 Prelim/Tentative Plat 5012 000.000000.007.345 Final Plat 5013 000.000000.007.345 PUD 5014 000.000000.007.345 Grading & Filling Fees 5015 000.000000.007.345 Lot Line Adjustment 5016 000.000000.007.345 Mobile Home Parks 5017 000.000000.007.345 Rezone 5018 000.000000.007.345 Routine Vegetation Mgmt 5019 000.000000.007.345 Shoreline Subst Dev 5020 000.000000.007.345 Site Plan Approval 5021 000.000000.007.345 Temp Use, Hobbyk, Fence 5022 000.000000.007.345 Variance Fees 5024 000.000000.007.345 Conditional Approval Fee 5036 000.000000.007.345 Comprehensive Plan Amend 5909 000.000000.002.341 Booklets/EIS/Copies 5941 000.000000.007.341 Maps (Taxable) 5954 650.237.00.00.0000 DO NOT USE -USE 3954 5955 000.05.519.90.42.l Postage .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 5998 000.000000.000.231 Tax .00 Remaining Balance Due: $0.00 Department of Community & Economic Development 1055 South Grady Way Renton WA 98057-3232 r; ' ....l) % -5 o"' w"' f-"" "'_, OU </) f-w"' "'~ ,_x<f-p 0.CL \ J ~b-J1, ~.·;) '--11 // {tr- 'l /\ . 't>,..-.,tSPOs-.. ~ '-1,, • "«' §~, ~:,::·:t;,J'.;,;;;;;c,:c;"'" 'z ' ~::;;,i<\1T'" Afi'fel'1'F1-"' aw-~ "_:) · . '·U•,>,h> .. ,.-1-,1~,1 i l«>'NI ', ~-2 11'"'1 $ 00.539 02,04278S90 ~'Ji:" :>~1:"1 MAILED rROM ZIP COL)[-_ •Jc:;~: 32 ---~---- -. -------------------- ~-- Transwestern Harvest Lakeshore LLC ~ 8214 Westchester Drive #650 / Dallas, · :;.c; r:· .9'wm:a-:r©:i.e:ii.'i'C:: :;;,• N:CX:IE 7.SO DE :t. 0() DO/ ;;;8/ 1 l F~ETURN TO SENDER NOT DEL~VERAeLE AS ADDRESSED UNAF.J! •. E TO FOFIWAFICl SC: f;f-JQ.5'7::320.'255 '~0434-06219--28-~2 II , I , I I I I I I II I I I I I I I I I II I I II I I , II I I I I I JI 111 I I I I I I I I I I I I 111 I I I I ) ' Denis Law r City of -----~M:a:yo:, ____ ................. • _1 .. ~P tttOJl July 26, 2011 Department of Community and Economic Development Alex Pietsch, Administrator CITY OF RENTON Rodney Swift, Senior Property Manager JSH Properties, Inc. AUG 2 9 2011 RECEIVED 10655 NE 4th Street, Suite 901 Bellevue, WA 98004 CITY CLERK'S OFFICE SUBJECT: LANDING, REQUEST FOR MINOR MODIFICATION OF APPROVED SITE PLAN (FILE NO. LUAOG-071, SA-A) Dear Mr. Swift: I am in receipt of your letter and attachments dated June 9, 2011 wherein you request revisions to the current signage approved at the subject site. Based on the submitted letter the original sign plan provided with the Landing development application considered signage only for the "big box" retailers and did not consider the needs of the smaller retailers located within "The District" (along North 10th Street and North 10th Place). The requested revisions are summarized below: 1) Four directional signs, one located on Park Avenue North, two along Logan Avenue, and one in the SW corner of North 10th Street and Garden Avenue. See the attached Exhibit 1. 2) Up to three illuminated monument signs, one located in the roundabout, one in the concrete triangular area at the east entrance to North 10th Place, and one located in the area between Building #310 and #309 on North 10th Street. See the attached Exhibit 1. 3) Light pole banners along Park Avenue North, Logan Avenue, North 10th Street, North 10th Place and the parking lot light poles. See attached Exhibit 2. 4) Window decal signs on storefront glass throughout the shopping center. Renton Municipal Code Section 4-9-2001, allows minor adjustments to an approved site plan, provided: 1. The adjustment does not involve more than a ten percent (10%) increase in area or scale of the development in the approved site plan; or Renton City Hall • 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov Rob Swift Page 2 of 5 July 26, 2011 • 2. The adjustment does not have a significantly greater impact on the environment and facilities than the approved plan; or 3. The adjustment does not change the boundaries of the originally approved plan. Analysis of Request The site plan modification requested and as shown in your June 9, 2011 submittals have been compared to the Site Plan as approved by the Development Services Director on August 17, 2006, and the subsequent Site Plan Modifications. Overall, the Site Plan Modifications proposed for The Landing focus on providing a comprehensive sign program for the entire development, including the smaller retail shops and restaurants and the larger "big box" retail tenants. When signs were originally looked at in the site plan review it was determined that all signage within the development shall be an integral part of the design approach and that pole signs, roof signs, and back-lit signs with letter or graphics on a plastic sheet were prohibited. The original sign program submitted in 2006 focused on the "big box" retailers and did not address the needs of the smaller business located within The District. The applicant has identified that over time, as The Landing has developed and began to fill with smaller retail tenants that they have become increasingly aware of the lack of signage dedicated to these tenants. This lack of signage has become an issue for both the existing business and well as the developer's ability to lease the vacant spaces. The goal of this modification is to expand upon the original sign program through comprehensive review to ensure the new signs proposed will result in a cohesive sign program that is an integral part of the design approach of the development. In order to increase "way finding" throughout The Landing, the applicant has proposed three monument sings and four directional signs. The monument signs would contain the names of the smaller businesses and provide these business exposure along Park Avenue, North 10th Street, and North 10th Place. Monument A is located in the brick island near the intersection of Park Avenue North and North 10th Place. Monument Bis proposed to be located in the roundabout at the intersection of North 101h Place and North 10th Street and monument C is proposed along the pedestrian court yard just north of North 10th Street. Both monument A and B fit within the development as an integral part of the design approach. However, all monuments should be limited to 5-feet in height and shall comply with the design district regulations. Monument B is proposed within the landscaped roundabout and will fit with the design of the development if placed directly east of the currently existing 'The Landing" sign and al/ landscaping is re-installed and or replaced surrounding the new sign. Monument sign C, does not meet the design approach of the development, as it is proposed immediately west of an existing f I Rob Swift Page 3 of 5 July 25, 2011 informational sign resulting in an overconcentration of signage in a pedestrian area. As such, staff recommends denial of Monument C. Four directional signs are proposed and identified as directional sign A-D herein. The directional signs are proposed to be more generic in nature, identiefying The District area by utilizing the terms "shops, movies, and restaurants". The need for additional directional signs through the area could be helpful to the general public to maneuver to The District area of The Landing. These signs are also designed to fit with the overall development in sign character and height. However, directional sign Band Dare proposed to be located on corners where there currently is a larger 14-foot sign with the names of individual tenants located within the development. These two directional signs would conflict with the existing signage at the site resulting in an overconcentration of signage. However, the need for this additional signage is apparent as therefore staff recommends approval of four directional signs provided they are located a minimum of SO-feet from any existing Landing identification sign or another location approved by the Planning Director. The location proposed for directional signs C and A do not conflict with other existing Landing signage. In addition to the freestanding signs proposed, the applicant has proposed light pole banners signs and window decals. The window graphic decal signs are proposed to be used only when store fronts are vacant. These decals add decoration to the vacant storefronts minimizing the effect vacant spaces has on the overall atmosphere of the shopping center. Sixty light pole banners are proposed to be placed on pedestrian light poles along Park Avenue North, Logan Avenue, North 10th Street, North 10th Place and on parking lot light poles. The pole banners are proposed to be 24-inches by 48-inches and would allow for a minimum 10-foot clearance for traffic and pedestrians. The applicant has indicated the purpose of the banners is to create a more festive atmosphere. The pedestrian light fixtures at The Landing are privately maintained by The Landing on both Park Avenue N. and North 10th Place. However, the pedestrian light fixtures on N 10th Street match the private poles, but were built and are maintained by the City of Renton. As such, the City has evaluated these poles differently than the poles maintained by The Landing. It is the City's responsibility to ensure the pedestrian light fixtures along N 10th Street are maintained in good condition and damage to these poles is the City's responsibility. As such, staff recommends as a condition of approval that the Applicant be responsible for any damage caused to the pedestrian light fixtures, and shall repair any damage immediately. Furthermore, there are times the City has special events and/or other reasons to place banners on our light poles. The Landing shall work with the City to coordinate the City's banner efforts with The Landing banner efforts as events or needs arise. Rob Swift Page4 of 5 July 26, 2011 If the conditions of approval are met, the proposed changes would not result in more than a 10 percent increase in area or scale of the development as the proposed. The sign program would not change any portion of the commercial space, parking area, access and circulation, or pedestrian circulation throughout the development. The proposal would not have a greater impact on facilities, nor would it change the boundaries of the original approved site plan. The project site is zoned Urban Center North 1 (UC-Nl) and is located in Design District C. All signs shall be required to meet the zoning and design standards as required by Renton Municipal Code. Decision Based on staff's analysis, I have determined the proposed revisions are within the parameters defined by the Renton Municipal Code with the exception of Monument sign C. Therefore, the proposed modification to the site plan, excluding Monument sign C, is approved subject to the following conditions: 1. Monument sign A shall not interfere with the safety of traffic maneuvers and sight distance at the intersection of North 10th Place and Park Avenue North. 2. Monument sign B shall be located directly east of the existing "Landing" sign and all landscaping shall be replanted and/or replaced after installation. 3. Directional signs shall be located a minimum of 50 feet from other Landing free standing signs or another location as approved by the Planning Director. 4. Any landscaping that is removed and/or damaged as a result of sign installation shall be re-planted or replaced. No trees shall be removed for sign installation. 5. The Applicant shall be responsible for any damage directly or indirectly caused by the banners to the pedestrian light fixtures on N 10th Street. The applicant shall repair any damage immediately following identification of such damage. 6. All City light poles shall be restored to the condition prior to banner installation, upon removal of banner signs. 7. The applicant shall provide a Traffic Control Plan which shall be approved by the Development Services Division prior to installation of any banner signs. 8. The applicant shall pay an annually fee of $10.00 for the temporary use of public right-of-way, per RMC 9-2-4 and complete a Revocable Permit application. 9. This permit shall be subject to termination upon 30 days written notice by the City. 10. Liability and damage insurance shall be required pursuant to RMC 9-2-4 t Rob Swift Page 5 of 5 July 26, 2011 11. The applicant shall furnish unto the City an appropriate hold harmless and indemnity agreement. 12. The applicant shall work with the City to coordinate the City's banner efforts with The Landing banner efforts as events or need arise. This determination will be final unless a written appeal of this administrative determination -accompanied by the required filing fee-is filed with the City's Hearing Examiner within 14 days of the date of this decision. Should you have any questions regarding this determination or the requirements discussed in this Jetter, please contact Vanessa Dolbee, Senior Planner, at (425) 430-7314. Sincerely, \J ~ ~ C. £. L-----><J C. E. "Chip" Vincent Planning Director Encl: Exhibit 1-Monument and Directional signs Exhibit 2-Banner and Window Decal signage Exhibit 3-City owned light poles cc: LUA06-071, SA-A Jennifer Henning-Current Planning Manager Vanessa Dolbee -Senior Planner Parties of Record - 'l"'I I- 1-1 m C t-1 ~ :c a: Ee >< vi w "' z ;s z 5 ~ ~ e-- ., J • C ! a • ~ ~ " J ' • t~ ., E ~ 7 2 ~z;j~~ ~:;i;~~ I ,~v;<;<~.::; I g N The LAND ING · ll luminuted Monumen t Op ti on A Conceptual Vi ew {Monument ] Sea e: Not to Scale Existing Location Scole; No t io Scale Quant ity: (1) One fode Maus,~ & Oap[,y Cof?C r~tix: 818 S. ll1 ~ot11 St Se,111111. WA ~SiD8 5.l,J.... ZOG.623.7676 ~... Z06.62J.5 007 Cll~i~· 11~1'\;i,l/,\1;n The Lanrliu9 i\l'F~ij',•,\\~ ·,1'.t:{IJPH :·J,NA~tr. ,'fi(I.H-r.l f,' Af.J1~i'l"II· :.~ r , i,i 1 iilG ~.:1:1JUl"TMi','Mra1: J im Smith ·-r.u l(f. r ~.1~r~1i1;n: Scot Hoffman IJr-f,lli:•1,1, SIi ill f r:,•"'1.;L 1103Ul !-'.l i-.i:r OAT;· J.).) 1 i'.f 'Jl::llli. 11·\l l.~ ,,., J.29-1 1 SH 0 4-~-11 SH U) 4 -15 -11 SH ,j) 4-7.l-l 1 SH (ft 5-5-1 1 SH COLOnS llfrfllSfNT(fll,'jll~SL'E ~~ "1,[/rnF"FISl-•m.1,DNP\llf~S(i l><Y li.t1 Wlll ~'(Jf l,l,\l(-Ml)J(J flNIS1IEC, ~CIQIJt·,c,-mm. C0lORC•,l OOTS4'll:f 00 .lr. MA.OilSctost•Sl"OSSIOl[ l'tS O~Q.'l),l l.~"UU..ISUCil D£Sl(',N IS lllf'$Ol t:,>WFHll t Of 1"\.'\0E"'4.i'.l'll.(.if,N,!il"ls.ol;.l t CIIP,tl M•511HN SUE-Ml,(01Ci'IYCIUR r(R!.OIIAl USI' IN Cr)Hr.l.(jl()N W:T't A t'ffOPOSlU "OOJCCJOCV!G l'I.NfNi'O fOfi.yjU0Yrtl~UM.IJIX.ITtA~ClT E~ lllPll.OOOC(O, cor:ro (lR ()lo"M THI. r.'Wtll.J.fO"l,.ull,WllftOO TrflSI Cfl1.a.lHINGWR1Hf~(DN<".{111 '~M 1/U,OUMIU Sir..,A.OSP\..trCORf'. J(l i; j·j U :, 1;.~ [ J.: 110301 s1:,r; r frr: Monument opli on A Page 3 of 6 OJ C 0 <( -;;; C a ·.;::; u 2 -r---·-- •• \ I . I M • .. .. ~ '. 0 M 0 ..... ..... <( 1 0 c.c = 0.. f D \Ma. EXHIBIT 2 ,ONS Winc!spillTM JR ,mn er Mounting Hardware (U .S . . iOi 4 ) .,r five (5) yc3rs. Lifetime wa1rn11ty against rusting. n Sha ll fit ro und , "'l'"'re, octagonal and nutcd poles as small as 1 Yi " di<1metcr 11 Can be la g -bolted 1<1 wuuucu poles and CTat walls. o rviaiu 1,;asli11g:,; 01ust IJt: t.Ji:;sigoed so the arm u 11it mounts onto Hie base ,mil with two 3/li " diam. x l" long self-locking flange bolls 11ml :i re inser ted through t be slots in the arm and threaded in to the base ,mil. Once -U1e bolts are properly installed, there is no c.irc.1mstauce i.lrnt w ill allow the arm unit to accidentally separate from the b ase uuit. o .t\li mclal pa1 t::; nflh~ i.:ai;h h ra1,;ket system s hall he ofT-51 hcat- lreLlil'.d cast alum.i.J1 um1 wh.icb will prcvcnl n1 sti.ug , discoloration or peelrng paiut. The base 1mil (product #5511) s hall have a minimum H:cigl1t of II;: l b. The n.nn unit (pruclucl n umber 5527) sllall have a minimum weight of llb. 12 oz .. T he minimum surface con tact area lJetw?cn the a1:u uoi l no<l lhc base unit shall be 6 square jnchcs . O Th~rc must be a 1/4'' <l iameler bau11cr attachment hole built into the ;uu1 1rnil lo ,;ecmcly and e asily attach n tic-down for the pole :J jJe of the ha.Jlm::r. n 131]6'1 UV 1.reatcd li he::rg lass ann:,,; must flex to allow "spilling'' of some w ind forc e llff th;~ s,ufacc of the banner, thus, reducing wind loml Crom buruter$ and p(l lcs. fiberglass a , ms must be properl y epox ied into the aim c,1sting to eliminate failure of the rou due to 1uov,anent io !hv casti11g ur due to attachment holes drilled through lbc rnd. o Fiberglass anm mu~I withstand up to 70-mph wind force without pcrmancnl Jislortfrm v,ith 30" x g4n banners iustallcd. o flex ib ility o r arms must a llow the return of each ba,mer lo ligu1Iy stretched position. o I3 ud t-i.n a rm canlllcver effect eli minates tbc need for bawu~r \vind fl o:i,µs. breakaway clips i:i.lld constant maintenance. u There shall be no nc"d fo r "hitch pi.os" or other co11"cctivc safoty devices , as the engineering of the system wil l not allow the arm ooit to separate from the base 1111it unless tbe bolls arc completely removed. (l} '. I \ lOWE"S DESIGNATES PROPO SED LOCATIONS FOR BANNER INSTALLATION -\ J C~·-. \, ,•'':-. '<,,:,,; JG I P,\rtXlrlG GAl<,\Ot ·, '.;·J, ·'"-··, ' OEGA ~ C lnEIU,S lll? .. ~ --..:., ..... ~-..: 'l:i.o , ...._rtOC111 ._\.,~~-~'.:~ \ ~Q l '" ... _J. , ... _ .. ~ ,. ,.~ ... ,· .... "' -~,_.: ....... "': "' . \\, ......... ZQ1 l.ti r1 1'"c,.::. CO Lf u1.~•~, -~ i~ DAn; I PilOJECT NAM!: 07-13-2001 5.CAlE f,ODRES:S. •.Js noted ___ _ [jf!A';m BY CITY/STATE/Zlr CAM .~ .. ,::, .,, if -~-· 4C2 Tota l Park i ng: 2 . 765 CUENT Harvest Portners ADDnns 8070 Pork Lo ne CITY/SlAlEflJr Dollns, TX ·,. ~) ............ . ' \ \ ~le,> J H,\V i \ !U~lDrN TIAl er u.rnru:.o \ -.\ ' \ ·· 1-Sign-m . 1 .,. , ," 1 1 920-R Par k Avenue Renton, WA 98057 . ....._____~-,------ r-~,j -··----·... . \.":\ ·~·-<. --~~ : i )) ~ ... ,cu1-1,11.T &fAPln Joc·s CONTACT M ichol!c Davi!i PHONE l:Ml1ll J. l bl: c~,ront d1nl1ohfl1 pc·J1 r,du,1ttd OJ?IO'ftll ~~1t,~it-.ab~rktllo1t :l1;l11. ilWc-nl O t 1l,:t(.) wdl nti l:1m1101~1 lor pro~l.:an ar l.,alf~~(icl tho11c~:lb1n I L.h r~~11:~:~;~,7~~';,~~tJ·(~:~' ,1,11 .. ti ~,1, ,),!~r.. A • UcNI k!JrMid1 c'W,1elfd li:01~r1ig,~1irn,,•~J .. itl1c10¥1.14.,.lrn'1~i11,f/G'Mlti.,Cb•fa1'1il J .. ' \ \ \ \ \ \. -;-v\ --..., '--, \ \ \ \ ·\ \ \ \ \ \ .} \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ - .t"t. ;!J"-1 $;. ·.~ r 1..-·s HCCTCIOHICS .. t N .. , \ \ ' ' .. \ \ \ \ DRAW ING NUMr!Ef: l 0-0713 S heet 4 of 4 2' 4 Bnnn ers SCALE : 3/4' = 1'-0' Job Nurno ~LANDING I Addrass _2110 Lo ~\lht!) ~~ WJ,. Rep r<He11tcil ive :=':::) Install Sixty {60) indivi dual l)anners ·•B,.;,ners to lx, su pplil;ld by custo mer Banners are 2' wide by 4' ta ll Receive and install banner bracl<ets on exi sting ligl,t poles Wi t1dspill Jr. p ol o banner b rackets (see page 2 of 2 for specs.) HE:SHT: Minimum 1 o· clearance above g rade to bottom of bcm mn Setl:;ack will be aligned w i th cu rb. Typical b anner In s tallatio n No Sc81e DCJ IO OY. JO. ·o Design Nvmbcr Sf 100:139"1 Rev ision / Dore Cv~rom~r Approva l ltmd 1ord A pproval ,, ....... ,~ ... ·,>oui.. .,. .... , .... ,.,.. ,,t .... , ~ ...... I"'~'":••~ .. ~-, , .. 1,,, .. ...t ... ,., ,.~,., . .,~ ......... , .... ,. ,,. , ..... ••' .. , ... , ..... ~. , .... ,1, ... , ..• ,.. ~ .... ,.,. I ~ .......... ~ ... , .... -~--.. -·-·,.,~ "'"""'"''••-·"•ho•~•''-••,..u ..... ,."-.,11 .. .... ,..., ............ ~-, ... .., ... .,., ... .-1 ...... 0-......... 111111 ........... , .... , ... ~ ....... , ..... ~ .... , .. _.,_ ... .,~ .... ~ ... 1 ·., •• , .,; ~, ~ •• ..,. j .... ,. ,., •• ~ ..... -..... -........ " _...,.,,.,, •• ..,.,., .. , ..... 4 ,tl' . .., •••• , ... 4 ... ~ .... 11>0 :~:.:··-4 ...... "''"'~""'' .... ). '""""' 1,.,.,.. ...... I Ol 5 "'" s,, ... Klr~lond, W A. 90033 ,,t-. 4 25.822.1 :200 fx 425 ,82 7, I 07.-1 8 00.565.2066 ..,.._,1M 1lor'li C'"16r7 w, "'· ~om tnfo) .._ STGCliME;iT(Q"/aY.'} ~--=-~-,..;-· - ,-SPEC!FiCATIONS W indspilPu JR Adjustable !Banne r Mounting Har dware (U .S . Patent D53701 4 ) a Watnnted fm live (5) ye ars. Lifetime warranty agai nst rusting. o Shall lit ro und, square, octagonal and fluted poles as small as I Yz 11 d iam eter. o Can be lag -bolted to woorlen poles and flat walls u as ti ngs must be d esigned so the ann uni t mounts onto the illy w:i~· vilo ,: E,ryn Mawr \.1 ... •.,.c,·. ·~I ~: = N·l~\·'•-'' t ¥~~ ... ;.~!ttl!::i ")· ,: --~ .\ I•, -;: • .,, ;ji, ~-,f ',: /t ·~1," ., Re nton ,,'. ... .1,, -1.!; ~· ~.,.~ s~ ... ~· ,e· v,,•.-j -~·, -~ \ .. ./,\ 1 1 ... 11; DESUiNATES PROPOS E[) LOCAHONS FOR BAN!~ER !t~STALLATm r~ NEIG HBOR HO OD LOCATION ...... ··, 1ow,·, / ba s It w ith two 3/R" di am . x l " lu ng self -locking flange bolts tha t a,e inserted th1011g h the sl ots ,n the arm an ti threaded into th e base u nit. Onc e the bolts ar e propc, ly ins ta lled, there: is no circumstance that will allow the ann umt to accidentally sep arate fro111 the base u nll . . ,(·'· 1 l --,;.:·: .-·.-.:-:-~-.::.::~ tuf::~f\ :".\\ \ ':..~ '· f..,,,, UIIOt:NflAl It r Al~il HO t N o All metal pal1S of the each bcacket system shall be ofT-5 1 heat- rr e at cd cast a lumi11um, whic h will prevent ousting , disco lora ti on or pcel111g pai nt. The base unit (product #5S 11) sh all have a minimum weight of Y, lb . The arm uni t (product number 5 527) shall have a mininwm wt:ight of l lh . 12 O'l .. The mrn1m um sur face contact a rea between the arm un 11 and the base unit shall be 6 square inches. o The, e must be a I /4 " di:imete, banner a11 ad11 nent hole huilt into the am1 un it to securely anrl ea sily anach " tie-down for the pole side of the banner. J 13/16" UV trea ied fiber glass ar:-r.5 mus t !l ex to all ow "spi lling" of son:c wind fo ,ce o ff the surface of the banner, thus, reducing wind t,_,ad fro m banners and poles. f-ibe rglass a rms must be properly epoxied into t~e ?nrt casting to cli n nnate failure or the rod due to mo vement in !he casting or due tu allachment ho les dr ilkd throu gh the r n I· )ass anns mus t withsiand up to 70-mph wind forc e without perrna nc:it d1s1o r1i o n w11h JO" x 84" banners ins talled. C l•lexib!l iry o f anns must allow the 1cturc of each bann er to tigh tly st:-etc!1t!d posit ion. 11 Buil t-in ann canti lever effect eliminates rh e need fo , banner wind !laps, breakaway clips and co nstant maintenance. ii TI,ere shall he no need fo , "hitch pins" or o ther corre,:;uve safety de vi ces , as the engineering of the system will not allow the ann 1111it to se parate from the base ,111 il un less the bolt s arc completely remov e<l . ~ .. !,:. J~ _i~ I ' ; .... N \D""'~~-t . Gi+'f Lil\Y\-r Po,qts 1.•.f'"'''i OOL f GALI.IT ,. N \ '" ,umlMG CUUGE -~~ ~~ "' '" ·· i,.a ~ To la I Parking· IUUl eun•u 'io t ' I "' '°' Sign -I I 920 -R Park Avenu e · Renton, WA 98057 ~~ . 'r, .. / ...... _ .... -.rr~ ---·--·,:'-, Sig n-I \ , 921 -E Pa rk Avenue '" · Renton, WA 98057 1 ,cruu ar • ,.us 11U JOl':'!J 2,765 • y_,l,,\;L (C..~ o .....iu~b .i MA..•um1 .... .:.~) • L-.....,c ,~'°' FU'I U ECT JI.OMlct o~u ... 1)/MAl'-'"\t L>iD M I:; ca .... :I: ~ --,.,-.. _. "··· ·-·~ ··-·---... -..... . I --#co.rvestP,.:rme,s Mich ~llaDcvis x 1 ... ~ ... 111n,o,n .~/~wllf,;1L,•:1a-.:i •·*-i ~1....: ...... ____ i~~. --· ~ · ~ · P~';IM: --be11"9'1~b~r,-Dt.1e"1!/fl ~'wrpe~i.-.1ht,c.u!d•.,, i 6 as no1 .. d F 80""0 p ~1' I 11:11-'~1~•,rw•PleJbf~iw~,ttleuJ•1oi1n1t .. ·-; -··-·· ---·-..:.._ -· -- -----------, , o , .one ·~~d .. _.,.-11,,.,JfhNI~ 3 7 . ~'!J..t\" ~-r.1-,f;;~.'I:/"! 1' {.;l"'.'::.IAT[f1!i E,.,\A. "{ltcce tt-"~1P<•cJl!t"hl.,..rn,11{1I ·· · -'.: 10-0713 r,r.AWlli~NliA\£l!:P ·~ '-"·/\•, n ... tL-•: ,.., Department of Commun ity & Economic Developme nt 1055 South Grady Way Renton WA 98057-3 232 ~/ Nicole Hernandez W&H Pacific o"' .u"' t-<r a::_; OU Vi I- :;_: (/) ei::a:: Q. u: ,\\>-',I'S" -~ .0 ;::: z .) -1'<- r11t.:JL~ ·---·rR, Ll $ 00.53 9 3350 Monte Vi ll a Pkwy Bothell, WA a::.!:;;: F' ·._/ :t· c;; (~PS?.;~,~~ N:t>-'. IE: 900 DC 1 oo oe10.t11.1 RETURN TO SENDER NOT DELIVERABLE AS ADDRESSED UNABLE TO rORWARC OC: 'i.l00.S732:3~S5 *~•a~-0~7~1-01-3s 11, I,,},, LJ I,," J ,Ll,,, l, ,Ji,, ,LL, J J,, ,LL J, l,, l ,L,,, l lJ , Denis~w c· f ---~M=ayo~r -------~ r 1ty O l --1_~l!W1l July 26, 2011 Department of Community and Economic Development Alex Pietsch, Administrator Rodney Swift, Senior Property Manager JSH Properties, Inc. 10655 NE 4th Street, Suite 901 Bellevue, WA 98004 SUBJECT: LANDING, REQUEST FOR MINOR MODIFICATION OF APPROVED SITE PLAN {FILE NO. LUAOG-071, SA-A) Dear Mr. Swift: I am in receipt of your letter and attachments dated June 9, 2011 wherein you request revisions to the current signage approved at the subject site. Based on the submitted letter the original sign plan provided with the Landing development application considered sign age only for the "big box" retailers and did not consider the needs of the smaller retailers located within "The District" {along North 10th Street and North 10th Place). The requested revisions are summarized below: 1) Four directional signs, one located on Park Avenue North, two along Logan Avenue, and one in the SW corner of North 10th Street and Garden Avenue. See the attached Exhibit 1. 2) Up to three illuminated monument signs, one located in the roundabout, one in the concrete triangular area at the east entrance to North 10th Place, and one located in the area between Building #310 and #309 on North 10th Street. See the attached Exhibit 1. 3) Light pole banners along Park Avenue North, Logan Avenue, North 10th Street, North 10th Place and the parking Jot light poles. See attached Exhibit 2. 4) Window decal signs on storefront glass throughout the shopping center. Renton Municipal Code Section 4-9-2001, allows minor adjustments to an approved site plan, provided: 1. The adjustment does not involve more than a ten percent {10%) increase in area or scale of the development in the approved site plan; or Renton City Hall • 1055 South Grady Way • Renton,Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov Rob Swift Page 2 of 5 July 26, 2011 • 2. The adjustment does not have a significantly greater impact an the environment and facilities than the approved plan; or 3. The adjustment does not change the boundaries of the originally approved plan. Analysis of Request The site plan modification requested and as shown in your June 9, 2011 submittals have been compared to the Site Plan as approved by the Development Services Director on August 17, 2006, and the subsequent Site Plan Modifications. Overall, the Site Plan Modifications proposed for The Landing focus on providing a comprehensive sign program for the entire development, including the smaller retail shops and restaurants and the larger "big box" retail tenants. When signs were originally looked at in the site plan review it was determined that all signage within the development shall be an integral part of the design approach and that pole signs, roof signs, and back-lit signs with letter or graphics on a plastic sheet were prohibited. The original sign program submitted in 2006 focused on the "big box" retailers and did not address the needs of the smaller business located within The District. The applicant has identified that over time, as The Landing has developed and began to fill with smaller retail tenants that they have become increasingly aware of the lack of sign age dedicated to these tenants. This lack of signage has become an issue for both the existing business and well as the developer's ability to lease the vacant spaces. The goal of this modification is to expand upon the original sign program through comprehensive review to ensure the new signs proposed will result in a cohesive sign program that is an integral part of the design approach of the development. In order to increase "way finding" throughout The Landing, the applicant has proposed three monument sings and four directional signs. The monument signs would contain the names of the smaller businesses and provide these business exposure along Park Avenue, North 10th Street, and North 10th Place. Monument A is located in the brick island near the intersection of Park Avenue North and North 10th Place. Monument Bis proposed to be located in the roundabout at the intersection of North 10th Place and North 10th Street and monument C is proposed along the pedestrian court yard just north of North 10th Street. Both monument A and B fit within the development as an integral part of the design approach. However, all monuments should be limited to 5-feet in height and shall comply with the design district regulations. Monument Bis proposed within the landscaped roundabout and will fit with the design of the development if placed directly east of the currently existing "The Landing" sign and all landscaping is re-installed and or replaced surrounding the new sign, Monument sign C, does not meet the design approach of the development, as it is proposed immediately west of an existing ' Rob Swift PcJge 3 of 5 July 26, 2011 informational sign resulting in an overconcentration of signage in a pedestrian area. As such, staff recommends denial of Monument C. Four directional signs are proposed and identified as directional sign A-D herein. The directional signs are proposed to be more generic in nature, identiefying The District area by utilizing the terms "shops, movies, and restaurants". The need for additional directional signs through the area could be helpful to the general public to maneuver to The District area of The Landing. These signs are also designed to fit with the overall development in sign character and height. However, directional sign Band Dare proposed to be located on corners where there currently is a larger 14-foot sign with the names of individual tenants located within the development. These two directional signs would conflict with the existing signage at the site resulting in an overconcentration of signage. However, the need for this additional sign age is apparent as therefore staff recommends approval of four directional signs provided they are located a minimum of SO-feet from any existing Landing identification sign or another location approved by the Planning Director. The location proposed for directional signs C and A do not conflict with other existing Landing signage. In addition to the freestanding signs proposed, the applicant has proposed light pole banners signs and window decals. The window graphic decal signs are proposed to be used only when store fronts are vacant. These decals add decoration to the vacant storefronts minimizing the effect vacant spaces has on the overall atmosphere of the shopping center. Sixty light pole banners are proposed to be placed on pedestrian light poles along Park Avenue North, Logan Avenue, North 10th Street, North 10th Place and on parking lot light poles. The pole banners are proposed to be 24-inches by 48-inches and would allow for a minimum 10-foot clearance for traffic and pedestrians. The applicant has indicated the purpose of the banners is to create a more festive atmosphere. The pedestrian light fixtures at The Landing are privately maintained by The Landing on both Park Avenue N. and North 10th Place. However, the pedestrian light fixtures on N 10th Street match the private poles, but were built and are maintained by the City of Renton. As such, the City has evaluated these poles differently than the poles maintained by The Landing. It is the City's responsibility to ensure the pedestrian light fixtures along N 10th Street are maintained in good condition and damage to these poles is the City's responsibility. As such, staff recommends as a condition of approval that the Applicant be responsible for any damage caused to the pedestrian light fixtures, and shall repair any damage immediately. Furthermore, there are times the City has special events and/or other reasons to place banners on our light poles. The Landing shall work with the City to coordinate the City's banner efforts with The Landing banner efforts as events or needs arise. Rob Swift Page 4 of 5 July 26, 2011 If the conditions of approval are met, the proposed changes would not result in more than a 10 percent increase in area or scale ofthe development as the proposed. The sign program would not change any portion of the commercial space, parking area, access and circulation, or pedestrian circulation throughout the development. The proposal would not have a greater impact on facilities, nor would it change the boundaries of the original approved site plan. The project site is zoned Urban Center North 1 (UC-Nl) and is located in Design District C. All signs shall be required to meet the zoning and design standards as required by Renton Municipal Code. Decision Based on staff's analysis, I have determined the proposed revisions are within the parameters defined by the Renton Municipal Code with the exception of Monument sign C. Therefore, the proposed modification to the site plan, excluding Monument sign C, is approved subject to the following conditions: 1. Monument sign A shall not interfere with the safety of traffic maneuvers and sight distance at the intersection of North 10th Place and Park Avenue North. 2. Monument sign B shall be located directly east of the existing "Landing" sign and all landscaping shall be replanted and/or replaced after installation. 3. Directional signs shall be located a minimum of 50 feet from other Landing free standing signs or another location as approved by the Planning Director. 4. Any landscaping that is removed and/or damaged as a result of sign installation shall be re-planted or replaced. No trees shall be removed for sign installation. 5. The Applicant shall be responsible for any damage directly or indirectly caused by the banners to the pedestrian light fixtures on N 10th Street. The applicant shall repair any damage immediately following identification of such damage. 5. All City light poles shall be restored to the condition prior to banner installation, upon removal of banner signs. 7. The applicant shall provide a Traffic Control Plan which shall be approved by the Development Services Division prior to installation of any banner signs. 8. The applicant shall pay an annually fee of $10.00 for the temporary use of public right-of-way, per RMC 9-2-4 and complete a Revocable Permit application. 9. This permit shall be subject to termination upon 30 days written notice by the City. 10. Liability and damage insurance shall be required pursuant to RMC 9-2-4 Rob Swift Page 5 of 5 July 26, 2011 lL The applicant shall furnish unto the City an appropriate hold harmless and indemnity agreement, 12. The applicant shall work with the City to coordinate the City's banner efforts with The Landing banner efforts as events or need arise. This determination will be final unless a written appeal of this administrative determination -accompanied by the required filing fee -is filed with the City's Hearing Examiner within 14 days of the date of this decision. Should you have any questions regarding this determination or the requirements discussed in this letter, please contact Vanessa Dolbee, Senior Planner, at (425) 430-7314. 1 Sincerely, \ / ~ C. £. V L~--x'.J C. E. "Chip" Vincent Planning Director Encl: Exhibit 1-Monument and Directional signs Exhibit 2 -Banner and Window Decal signage Exhibit 3 -City owned light poles cc: LUA06-071, SA-A Jennifer Henning -Current Planning Manager Vanessa Dolbee-Senior Planner Parties of Record I N 'l'"'I I- 1-1 ca 1-1 C --" :::c ~ J'! >< vi w co z o z + 5 " ,= The LAND ING -Illum inate d Monument Opti on A Co n ceptual Vil!VJ (Monu ment] Sci11e: Ne: t.:-1 ~ra lP ii a Ex is ting Location Sea e. ~ot tu Si.::ole Quantity: (1) One ~ ,.-::~-;.,_,'.:\ . ·~~· 4 -;--'o,.,~J ll':r·,~~~-9~\ ,:.~~~~,,,,,~ ~-;!~',\ ... ,·,11'1 ·-----,,:Q}/ ~-~ ... ~-.!if ~~ fo:MI M1,n S lf,~O.spt:,,,Cc~-;,1.«1 H16 5 . O~l(C1l1. SI. Soo1Ub.WA9 9 106 :J.~ 20G.G2J./676 :J.. 20,.623.5 007 'I ,, ·:r li';i m;·,1,; 11,:~. fhe landinn ."1Pl'';i)\i,1:,.. 1Umr.:· ·u.:J{~11: ,·;,O ,l-i: ;:;,·,:.tr,,·t ;I , .... +r.:·ilj,'.)"" : .. :1:ll;l i i l ;i,'Jid;iH J im Smith :-011) 1·1 ·.!i.'4•i 1:rn Si:ot Hoffman :)1.::1:,•,11;_ SI! ;-If PU,·,;~ 11 030 1 ~ i ~!: n;. I 3-7-1 1 1:::,,1wi:-1 ;111.11:-: '.'i 3-2~-11 SIi ' 0 a.5.1 1 s11 G 4-15-t 1 SH \~ /i -27-1 1 511 (0 5 5 1 1 511 C0l04l5 fii PHHmtil1N~45Df$1GN All(IOl'IP~.f $.£1'1T:.HO"li"\DC~S ""'· Wff 'MLL N(H '.'~lCtl YOOfi f lfl~~HU rR~;ruc r n 1i.1r.:l, t.tllOO f.;.ll f~llS ARl FOi\ I. UJ,l(HAS C.LO![ •~l'C!.Sl.lll NS mGNAlU',PlJ31.Sm:l [,(Slt,N s~l+i.SOU!'lll.JffR·v c• n,,{.l('!•HS:L,,\'&ll.~"l.ll CM!' i·~s nm H~·.~r.rc r~ ,ou1 l'(!'!~()H:.t LS.::•,: l)JN,lr.\Cl1!1~ 'MTll 11 PkQP.'.l~n,r..air:111CltlGf".A\Mt1 rcr, '!'C-u ll~ 1r.~L'l-M•·•.~. 11 c,vm11 r ll!.ltli,;OtLCtU. (Ol"llCliJr\l'(IUUO, ~ Wllill E OP\ i'Afll. Wl',t:>UT 'llS" Oi11',1,>;IHCWFl'l f U,,f.r.·.!;fr,·f ~!',1 HI/.UEM~IO. 51.:;•. '°'OS"L,.) COOF. l jl~ j j ~J, :1:1 ;.; 110301 :,;1::~ nY Mumm1e 11t optinn A Page 3 uf 6 .~ c ro :, 0 OJ ..c I- .., ,.:, . ' \ -j ... ; 0 M 0 ..... ..... = ~ C. EXHIBIT 2 ,ONS Windlspiif 7r1. JR drmer ::v!ount ing Hardware {iJ .S. , fJ14) \V;,,_ ,,r fivl: (:'i) yc:.i:·s. L1fct i111c \Va rra nty agarnst ru sting. \.. She:.!! fit round1 y;quHrc . nctagoual a rld llulcd poles as sniall as l 11~." diameter. C CJn be k,g.tw ll~d w \i..•oodcn poles and :'iai. w,.:.ll s . J l\.1:1in casting:; m.ust b e d esigned so the ar :11 u11it mounts onh1 th e base un il with twc 3 /S" r:ii1u1 . ;-... l O l uug .sclf-lm:kir.g Oangc bolts lha l arc inserted througU :!Jc .s lo ts in t be arm and ll1Jeaded mto the (Jase unit. Once i.b::: boHs arc (JJopcrly inslnlled, there i., uo ci n..:uu :t..la uce 1;iat will illlow the ,u-in unil lo a ccideutaJl y s~pa ratc from l11c base ,uiL C /di mcfr,l p.i;ts of the each bracket system shall be o fT-51 hca t- trc,:lcd cast ahi m.iJ1 um) \Vhid1 \,vill prc vcni. r uslll l;_;, d i~colurali ua or pceliag painL.1'bc b ase 11uit (p roduct /!551 l) s h all have a m inimum !Fei:·/ll of Y:, lb. The ;,11 m u 1d (p1u d w.:t um n b cr 5~2./) shall have a 11w:umm1 weight of llli. l 2 oz .. T bc minll1rn111 smfac c contact z.rca \J ct ween lhc ann t:nit nnd the base u11 it shall be G square inches. U Th..::rc must i,c j 1/'1 '' diameter banner att:1chmenl hole huill into the arm u ni t to secw cl / and easily allach a tic-down for the pole ~ idc uf tbc baun<:r. u 1Ji!(i" UV ticnicd 11 .Jcrg lass nr~ns m us t flex to c1ilow "spilling" o f ,,omc wind force off th ,~ s urface of the bauncr, thus, reducing wind load from lrn:w n~ ;ind pl'lcs. F ihcrgl.1s5 arms must be properly cp u:,,ed into the arm c,,sting to clim1c atc failmc of th~ rod due to n10•1cmc 11t in th+; ,-;a 5ti11g ur due tu altachme11t holes rir ill cd through lbc i'l"•d . c F1llc ;-g b ss ar,;1s rnu~I witnstand up to 70-mpb wmd force w;!lw uL pcnu:.mcnl dis lo r tto n v:ith 30'' x 8411 ban.acrs iuslaHcd. c fl cxibi:1 1y or arms must a ll ow ,he return or each ban.ncr to ti giltly ::.t:·ckhcd position. : 1311 Jl t-m <irtn caul1k!vcr .:-ffi:cl climiu..:i.t~s Lh1.: GC\,;d for banner \V ind [!rip s, bJc taka 1x ay c lips ;ind constant nrni ntcnancc. J Th{:rC shall be no need fo r '1h.:.tch pws'' or oll1t!r l:<>rrec.ti vc safc.:ty clcv ic:cs, as th e c nr;inccri n g o ftbc system will not allow lbc arm unit tu s eparate frn a1 the ha::c w1i, unless th e bolts arc completely rcnm·.:i.'.<l ~ LOl'I E'$ DESI GNAlf ES PROPOSED LOC ATIONS FOR BANNER INSTAL LATION . " ··\ ... ~11 '" P 1lll l'. :rn c;u~,\GL jQ, .... ,. \,~o~\ ... \\. ·~..;. -:.··..,..,,_n;-' >-. "' ; ii~~,~.> . >·-··~ ....... , H'~ -.,, ·~. \ '-.,.,, '" ... _ ........ LA, J1fPI CS~ r,C L' ::: o,·.~•x~ :. '" l ~c; -ola ! Pa r kin [;. CIIJfJU,~ JIJ I ', -, "' r.on ~, 76 5 .-._. ' '•J06 \ \. R~,aD (N TJ.',L t '! fAIRf l ELC. -, \ -)1)3 · 1· -, -. 1 Sign-m-~ J O('$ 920 -R p k I . . ar Avenue -'-,~R~nton , WA 98057 1 ,.,·--r~ ---,_ . ~ •. .. . • . I, ~IJ·,. .--.. :::_ .... -, 1~~ .• I I ,.:':TlAlt; :;~,\PUS ur.i;;n ··-·-.. -·-··---, .-! \ I \~\.- . ...._~\ \ \ .\ \ \ \ ' o.r1TE I f'ROJECT NAM(: CU!:NT . co_Nlf,CT . 'lhkc,~"tlO~drc .,-11~/:lll1C'Jlf11~}tw 1in~D;pr11d /·. 1 ,f., 0 7 -13-2001 I Harvest Porlners I M1ch ollc Davis bdt '~ 1~~bb rl1~1k 11 ~a~'n:. ~l'f"~ Dt1lp01t.U .,c: -1~ .. 1"· ·-"\ rr.\"!. H .E~rrn,1.11:s t N \ I \ OR/I.WING NUMRU'. ·10 -0 713 SCA!.r:. ,"t0Drl~S5 1\0Dni:SS ~ ~HONE b11:1p~i11t.o lor t :~b1:m:orl,1irlljll~~a 1~l1:,lli:i!-.ll'I~ ,l ., j ,.. 1 d 1 . . 5070 p k L na:~.uJt,:l1:D~marltJ},,lr1r,1l,1:ra.ln ~fll•k d:,:~"I.. ·1 ;, a.., no c , --~_:-~ ·~~111~m~rmyl1M"1<.p4:il,J<Gl~rt. ,t._ .. Ofi,W."N il\' t urv1srArr1z,r I CITY/ST,\iflllr' E,\V,!l ·UJ~nt10p·rtiG1G rdi:~:~lil)d11ig1 1iF.\Jl1:1J .-· J~ 4 . CAM Do llo:c., TX -------·-\f1~1~rt""'d"'1" .. ::~.~co·rti>,,~~,i:1{,) A.~11. !u'i She et o f 4 :t ~r Bu nnon; SC/\LE: 3/4" ~ 1'-0" Job Nr~ml! ~LANDING I Ad<l,o.s _1~:·~'-~~ \',',\, qc-p rcsent<1live i=::::, Install Sixty (6 0) ind ividuol ln inners *Banners to l)e supplie d by cL.sto1T1 er Banners tiro 2· w :de by 4 ' tall Fl oceive ano inst al l ::>anner bracl<ots e n existing light poles Wi11dspi ll Jr. pole banner bra::l<ets (soe page 2 o f 2 for sp ecs.) HE IG HT: Minimum 1 O' clearance above grade to bottom or banne;- Setback w ill ba a ligned w i th cu rb. Typ ical b an ner instollot ion Do:o C''). JO. iO Dcs:1111 N1.mbc1 .\f 1003)9-l ~c·.,isio"l / Ju!e No Scale - Cu,!Qml:'r Approvol Lcind:ord Approvul ,,..,, ......... -~ .... ··~·-, ... r,.1,., ..• .,,~,. I •, '"''' •,u,, .. ~·-~•v,•, I, f •a« 1•'" II ~~,tl.,...,.J . , •.• ••vt<t, ·~,. ~ ....... ... I ~. ··-~·-·"'-"'"'~°'"'"-"~""''"· .., ''"''""' _ _,. 'Nl ~t'h _,. • .,.,,.,.,"""I°'/.,-., ~~~ ::~;:~.:;.:~::·~-~.:: :~: ~.7:;~:;·.~ 1 3 15 •• ,. ,,, ... Kh~lond, WA. 9H033 ph ,1:;i _o;.11n.1200 fA 425.,027.JQ/,1 OU0.505.:2066 ww .. _1t.••la'>ft1<1 0 r)u10.co~, 'l?iol -. -, rsTb!SJ'lzAcJibtrY'!-·~~--:::~;->· I @ J @ ,------------·--·------··----------------------·· SPECIF lCATIONS Windspi!F" J~ Aclj :rntable Banner M o unting Harciwar,a (U.S . Pa'.e nt D5370i 4) Bryn M :nvr I, I \ 'l-j'. ,\~·t.:. r ,,.,i,\l. ·- (; \JESiGl~ATi:~ ?R0fl0S t 0 rn c,rrm,~s FOP. BMH'.!ER 1r~S TAll ATION ·..:• -:· : ... u Warranted fo r fi ve (5) yt.:n rs Lifolime wa11T1nty againsl ru sting. .. '.\ ~·~tt~~-zr=rpr.~~• NEIGH BORHOO D LOC ATION ? ,lty111J~' ,. ; ' I/ c Sh,1I: f,1 rornd, ,quare, octa;io:ial a~d nmeJ pole s as ,mall as : Y1" U1c.11rn!lc 1 ~ Can be lag-hoitt!d h.l wood~n po~l!S and flat wa lls. : 1 ;I.;' sti11gs mu s! be <h.:s igned so t!1e arm unit mo unts onto 1hc b as~ v1th two 3i8" c i,un. x I " long self~locking llange bolt s th;H nit: msentd t!11r,11gb th e s lots m tb e ann a11d Lhread..:.d into the bse llllll. Once 1he bolls a,c properly :nsta llcd, there 1s no circumstar.ce :hm w ill allow the a1111 uni~ to !lcc11le11ta ll y scpa1a 1t:: f10111 lhe base unit o Ai' metal parts of the ea:'.1 hrncket systc:n sha ll beofT-)1 heat- 11 ea:ed cast alum111urn, \vluch wil l prevent tll.:)ting, d is co loration 01 peelmg paiul. The ba5e unit (product 1155 11) shall have a 11111 .. mwn we:ghr :..1f fl ib . The! ann nnn (prnduct riumhcr 5527) shall hav~ n mu·inrum ~1,dgb: of! lb 12 oz .. The n:ir~imum surffu.:e conta:t a:"e:i :lctv:ccn the a,m mi ll ar.d 1I!c h?.~e unit shall be 6 square ?iu.:hes u Ti~e~·~ mus t 1'.)e a J/.;.' di~ct~r bnnner ntta c h n ::r.1 hok hmh imo 1he .,rm u:1:t 10 securely and easily a 11,ch" tic-do wn for tl:e pole s :Jc of the bornle 1 \o'i[n- __ .,;, :J !3t~6" 1;v ::-:::~[c<l fihergl!'l:iS a:rn s must i1cx 10 all ow "sp1 1'.i11g'' of . ,011;i:: wir..:! foi ce qffthe su 1 far:t: of the ban:1 e.r, thus, rcC.uc ir~g wind lrJ:1d fro:11 hrn:iers a 11d polc.s. F1berg'.a:s~ itr.ns must b~ properly cpr:liktl :r.to thi..: ~1nn ...:ns:in~ to el:min ate failure ot'the rod due :o m ('V:!tnem i:) the c:1sling o: due to attachment hoks drilled through :he :od. ~l ::i ":'j anr.s r:11:st \':ith~1;1:1d \.IP to ~/0 n1ph wind fore.:~ wi:h01:t p er'ilar.c1:.t d·stortioc with JO" x S4" ha m~rs insta;Jed. J Fl exi bi '.i1y o f am1s mus! allow t!1:.: 1etur G o feHch b,mn er to 1ighlly ::itrct chctl position. r nui!1-rn anll Cil11 ll:t.:ver effect eliminates the nr:ed :Or harmer wind tL1::s, b1c::,,1,way clips and constan~ n mi·Jtcnancc. o There sha ll be no ~e~d fo1 "hi!ch pms" 0 1 o:her co11 ecuvc safety clcv 11:cs, as the e u~ir!t:crmg of the ~ystem will n ot a Dow t:1c arr., un i~ 10 serara1e from t:1~ ha sc unll unle ss the bolts are completely l~lllll \'t(I. ~--.-----1 / ,, \•, [. 1-if'.'. -~~" '"a~. \JV\,;. Ji I ~ r-· -,.{j(·"'··· · ·-·~' .s ·t\ 'l~··1tr · l... .. ,. . ... ., ~ .c\:, tr--:fi\ .. ' ;1:·:), .• c •• ,,, < Ran tc,11 r~·/ .. '!,i·· ~·,, '',: ·.~ ... :;.-, ·,1 I•" ~; '.;.'r·~ ': ·,,~·' i~! • :i ~ .· .: ~' .~ ~ . ,' ' I· I ~: -:-· =-tur~::"·.:1..:.J< ~~. . I, ~. .. _-,'· ~~1 ',.\ !:.-. .. ' N \o--+1-. ~-L C.,i "!Y Li'-\ 'v,.-\- A x,-r( e-S \ H4 l A.f'UltH oo~, G: .. All f . ... , ·!:-. ~· N "' r,llll t.<l.:lU.lC[ ~~ !~ "' "' '" "' T:i:.1 1 Pa, ,i .,g r(tl! IU 'i:Ul Cllol(•AS IOI ' / "' ,,,,..--.. ..,.'- ~---~ . '" "' Ji,;~·, 2,/65 ti~.,,.. ~~ ... , 1~.l.\\! -T•'"W I ... o ... ,. .... ,, i-107 ~l 3-2001E_ _ __ .~~orvt1~~P1.:rh1.ers . lv'lichcll.~ Dcwi\ ,!1 ~i:.r.1:: ,1r;ot::s ~ .11 0~.?L'i'i r~:,~1;; . ,7..£. as n o l ~ _ ____ 8(170 P<u~ _l.:..<:.,e _ --·--rJ.t~i.·.. . I~~·-........ 1.1-· .• _;,':' .... ,r.,~.·Z-· i =,.., .... :, •,),"''.: '::(:\· . i';,11,-.-P' ltl 'lf 1f1Al 01 f.lO:tltl~ lOWt:,. Sign-I 920 -R Park Avenue Re nt on, \f\/A 98057 / [f':5, r~·'=' S·1a1, (opt,r.. 1;1. -1-~a,."t·' l Cl ~ \ 921 -E Park Avenu e Renton, WA 98057 1 'ttllil.U!f H,l,PUS ·--------·· ""'JP:ll'tCJ !i,or.~11 i..,, ... ,1 ff, ... -... .. ,,c;,,"II 1 1,e1,..1 11 ru1u11111,~...,,.i. Cl'.'c.,~w-.011.::wil.llt.f • • hrt '-P"ll,l'Jl.l..1p«!iJr111 ,·Jh1.TCKl"-killlll t)l.ldt, .. t i r.c:11:AJW'-,t..x, , .... ,,,!nllll1·ep1:r,1-1. .. ,•,c,1.i.,· .. 1·. ··-- ·~-=i..ll•n ••t1•i.>II "'"''••:ilm 1 . l "{..i;fl)j#~Ji:fofii,IIJl.'tl,cll1f,11hU1(11 ; t N • 7..,\:,\,(., (C..Ylf o,....-.J .. 't) .i M ti..•._,r n,..,~t:i.) • L,._ue1u1...i 01,,WUWb /MA.1Ul1\11J i .!) f!U'I tlEC I ltll NICI ft.-·-~---~ I M t:; ca 1-4 :c >< UJ {l'!l,1/1 •<I'.# 1,,n1;,~~I 10-0713 June 9, 2011 Vanessa Dolbee Senior Planner ..... .JSH I PROPERTIES, INC. Department of Community & Economic Development City of Renton Renton City Hall -6th Floor 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 RE: Site Plan Adjustment The Landing, Renton, Washington Dear Mrs. Dolbee: [ represent Transwestern Harvest Lakeshore L.L.C., the owner of The Landing in Renton, Washington. Pursuant to our conversations in May 2011, please accept this letter as a request for a Site Plan Adjustment at The Landing. The Landing is a 607,797 square foot retail shopping center with a vibrant mix of large "big box" retailers such as Dick's Sporting Goods, smaller retailers such as Poggi Bonsi and Creative Mom Toys, restaurants, and a movie theater. The original approved drawings for the shopping center included a sufficient number of pole-mounted and ground-based monument signs primarily dedicated to our large "big box" retailers. Unfortunately directional and monument signs for the remaining tenants were not included. A great many of our smaller retailers and restaurants are located in an area we call "The District". This area is anchored by the movie theater, and includes tenants on North 10th Street and North IO'h Place. As the center's tenant base in ''The District" has grown, we have become aware that the lack of signage dedicated to those tenants is an issue for our current tenants and our leasing efforts. In order to increase visibility to our smaller retailers and restaurants in "The District" we would like to add signs and banners visible to vehicular traffic in and around the shopping center. Specifically we would like to add the following signage to the master site plan: )> Directional Signs -Up to four (4) directional signs on Park Avenue North (I sign), Logan Avenue (2 signs), and the SW corner of North IO'h Street and Garden Avenue (1 sign). See Exhibit A. The purpose of the directional signs is to inform vehicular traffic on those arterials of the "Shops, Movies, and Restaurants" located in "The District". )> Monument Signs -Up to three (3) illuminated monument signs in the round-about on the intersection of North 10th Place and North 10'h Street (I sign), in the concrete triangular area at the east entrance to North JO'h Place (! sign), and the area between Buildings #310 and #309 on North 101h Street (I sign). See Exhibit A. The monument signs would specifically list the names of our smaller tenants. )> Light Pole Banners -Light pole banners on Park Avenue North, Logan Avenue, North 10•h 10655 N.E. 4th Street, Suite 901 I Bellevue, Washington 98004 I T 425.4SS.OSOO I F 425.455.3100 ..... .JSH I PROPERTIES, INC. Street, North 10•h Place and the parking lot light poles. See Exhibit B. The purpose of the banners is to create a more festive atmosphere in the shopping center. >"" Window Decals -Large, graphic window decals on storefront glass throughout the shopping center. See Exhibit B for an example. The purpose of the window decals is to attract more attention to the shopping center, and add decoration to vacant storefronts. Thank you in advance for your attention to this matter. We strongly feel that the increased signage detailed in this request will greatly enhance the shopping center's appeal to customers and future tenants at The Landing, and contribute to an already vibrant shopping area in Renton. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at 425-455-0500. Sincerely, JSH PROPERTIES, INC. -r;s~· Rodney Swift Senior Property Manager 10655 N.e. 4th Street, Suite 901 l 6ellevue, Washington 96004 I T 425.455.0500 I F 425.455.3100 <t ~ t\L) .:. C ~ n: -~ ~ '-.? z i5 z :s ~ ;'= 7 1. Q c I: 0 ~;1i11hi1 ... ~ -... ,. ... HU~iH!~ ..... -'a '~i°!! Fl = ti , =1·11 M !!. N = ~ i •Hi ii, -.li l !ll-i ~U!:r -~ I .J- ( I Th e LANDING -Illu minated Mon ume nt Opti on A Conceptual View [Monument) Scale: Not tn Scale Existing Lo cati o n Scale: Not to Scale Quantity: (1} One • TrodoMa,S,,,&°"""e«,,,,""' 818S. Dahl.I St. SN nl,.WA.9I IOI :ll,J-206.623.7676 :J.. 206.623.$001 ;r ·,r,: .. The landing ,;,;)>::j,. j :u: ,f, l ~--·-;., ·i ~ , ,"HIJ· :" .. _,i'·.,',i~~ ,,·:·,-;,;b ,r,·i:; Jim Smith ·t;. 1 :t'F• t " Scat Hoffman I ;,, ;• ~ SH ll[ '. ,;! 11 030 1 JIil ;,,,[)', I ', J.29.11 SH ~ 4-5,11 SH .~ 4,15,11 SH ·, 4-27· 11 SH ··. 5-5-11 SH CO.~l'l(f'Rl&NIWIN rftS[lSO'I .W Hlfl ~~ltllOON~S <h.l Jft:Vl'r1,.HOJMA·CJl101.1of~ f1IOOOC l ~MHCILl (1100 C.:.U 001~ .W. I('! A t.1,110,;.:;aosi.:.sros:sir.:.r. lllSOHGIN~LIJNJ'Ull !..>t;U) IA~ISllf.SOJP'flCP(itTlOf !RAO( MA.~.~ StGII & (liSl\,t.f coot !1 ~l.\SDCCl'i :l.~n (OHF.WU~ F-'l11SOAA1.USl1N COIN'Clll'•witt1 :. f'!.OPO:Srn t"fi.kC ! BCNG f'U \'\f ~ I-OAl'(N 8~1'4.Wt.MW lltAIIWOT Ol Af.P'flOOUUll. tl\r'lf:O Ok U:.Hltlllll) tlwttr.l.lORP"111.'ll'lll<OUTflf!ST OU:..itNG MGI IE.Po' CON&~· fllCl-M HWlO,l.'Jll ~'" & ~kl co,,;. Or, ,lJ'.,!L,, 110301 .S;V.1 ·-f· Monument option A Page 3 ol 6 Th e LA NDING · Non-I l lum inated Di rectiona l A I I I Conceptual View [Directional A) Scal e: Not to Sca le wiilit ...... Ex isting Location Scale: Not to Sca le Quantity: (1) One :I • TodoM.xS..,,&IJa,l,,C..,,.-.;., 81 1 S.D1kota St s .. ttl•, WA. 18101 :J.4J... ZOUZJ.7676 :J~ 206.523.5007 Th e landing :. ·'f'~~· .. , .. ~7 .,,;. f ;_, ,11:t:;;(J",1' ~:·J , Jim Smi1h 1"l;i1f .1,·-1:, Scot Hoffman ;·1-~ SH f• ·;.:..Ii 110301 3.7.11 ,·1 '.'i,: 1,,1,,1 u~; --~ :J 3-29-11 SH :.:' 4-5-11 SH t 4·15-11 SH '4-2 7-11 SH '.., 5-5 -11 SH CO..aitSIIJ'ffl.SlNTI:D li"itS DCs.G.'j £k!:f0H MSl:Nl41Kl11'\.1U'OSlS "'"' "!(1 M U NOT MC C.H Y/1,11 Hit!"" l1-IOUUC ll'l.HHC!Ll to..Ol(UJ.I.OU !S ;JU.fOOA MATl'l'.:..'lCJO~ :.S l'OSSll!.tl. lH~OAIOH l~llLSHlU C.:SIGN IS 1'4i:St'lf~lm (lf TPJ.Dt'..MAJl(Sl:iNI.DL<;f\UCO~ IT ~S l!U. .. 5UBMntD f OO 10t.FI P\"ll.~lJS(111 00NNt(IION 'Nnll l\ pqoros:rn ~il.J({I F..flN(:f\AlffO 1oomu m11WW r.1Afll n c.,rw01 ill llU"IUlllC[D COPl(D (J'i [.Xlt RllfQ. ,i 111:-.cu Oh ..,,~,. t1i1rnoo1 msr f'II T.u<ll~l'orl llDI COHSI.HI HtJM IRAOCMARX ~M 1.~•¥CO!lt' '6·,lJW',t; 110301 ;\, -~ : 'f". Di rec tional A Page 4 of 6 e #ili31, rs SPECIFICATIONS Windspill™ JR Adjustable Banner Mounting Hardware (U.S . Pat ent D5 37014) J W,mantcd for five (:5) years . Lifetime w a rran ty aga inst ru sting. n S ha ll tit round, squa re , octagonal and nutcd poles as smaU a s I 1/1" di ameter. J C a n be lag-bo lted to w ooden poles and tlat walls. .. Main castmg, m ust be des ig ueu so the ann umt m ounts onto the ba se unit with two 3/8" dia m . x l " long self.Jocking n ange bolts ,hat a re m scrtcu through the slots in th e arm and threaded in to the b,c;e uni t. Once the bolts are proper ly msta ll e d , there is no ~i rcums laocc that will allow th e a.rm u n it to a cctdcnta ll y separate from t he b ase u ni!. n A JI metal parts of th o; each bracket s ystem s hall beofT-51 hea t- treated cast a luminum , wh ich w ill p revent rus t mg. d isco lornt100 o r peeling pa int. The bas e un it (product 11551 1) s ha ll have a minimum weight of Y, l b. l'he anu unit (product numbe r 5527) shall have a minimum weight of llb. 12 oz .. The mi n imum surface contact a re a be tween the arm unit ~ud the base un it s hall be 6 square inches. -T here must be a 114 " d iamete r banner anaclunc o t hole b uih wto the a rm un it to secur ely ,111d easily attach a ti e -d own for the pol e side <>f the bann er. D 13; 16" UV trc.1Lcd tl bcrglass arms musl nex to allow "s pilling" of som e w ind force off the s urface of the banner, thus, reducing w ind loatl from b anne rs and r o les. Fi be rglass a rms must be p roperly e poxied imu the am1 casting to eliminate failure o f the rod due to m ovement in the castin g or due to a ttachme nt holes dnllcd throug h the rod. J F iberglass arms mu,i w ithstand u p t o 70-m ph wind fo rce without perm a nent d isto rtion with 30'' x 84" banners ins talled. u F kx1bil ity of arms m ust alluw the rc tun1 o f ea ch banner to li ghtly stretc hed pos ition. -! Bu1h-111 a rm cantilever e ffect climina ies the need for banne r w iDd Haps. breakaway clirs and consta nt m a 1ntc nancc. u The re shall he no need for "hitc h pins·• or niber corrective sa fe ty devices, as the engineering of the system w ill not a llow the a rm unit to separate from the base u n it unless the bolts arc comp lete ly r emoved I 'l2 7 william, avonuo ,outh, ,onton, wo, 980~/ pho,,o '125 1J8.4S0S fu•· 425.75..t 0922 omu,I · do!.1qnlfl'4wo,ddc:i,ign.com !)On ..,,u~•••ionnl t. wt1h. www.4worddus19n com LO'fllll'S e DESIGNATES PROPOSED LOCATIONS FOR BANNER INSTALLATION 111 0 ·, 1011111 \ ., \ \ ]1 1, "' , ... u.a loAI AGl ... ', l tl". JU -· \ ~-. ... ...... ".-- "' )10 "' ' l h '" uc;.u (ll'UM.IJ 1n ' ', -- "' "' RUIHNTIAL IT rAlltflll..G r-·- 1Sign-l ·1 ·\ .... 920-R Par1< Avenue , m ~n, WA98E~1 ~ ~' ... ... "' ,uuu1tt J TU 'LCS TUC.ET ,oL• ~= "' ,~ -~ IIOU JO l'S t .~ ,iuu1 GALAXT .. :~ PATE I rlOJECl NAME: 0 7-13-2001 SCAlE I ADOH SS as noted DAAWN I Y I CITT1$TAlt/ZJf CAM To ta l Pa rki rg 2 . 7 65 Q.IENT Horvost Partners ADDaESS 8070 Porte lone CtlY/STATl/llP Dallas, TX COHIACT Mich&ll e Davis PtlONf EMAIL - =.r:":4ia:,=::t:'w:"O:,.'::'-4h =:.::::=-~::::... 4. ___ ....,.___ ..1 ·-....... -,10..-.,.-a;,1 ~ fl:11,...,.,....,, . .ratti.~ ~ A A. A A rc,·s tU:CflONICS t N OltAWIHG NUMIU l 0-0713 Sheet 4 of 4 . ' 4· Jch Nnm~ 2· : ". ~ ";~ ~ ~~ I,~ RI ~[X1'f(W! .\ " ....... ~,.1 -,---'.y. .. CJ> Banners SCALE: 3/4 " = l '·D'' ~lANDING (I') .~, .. : "),i>-.... ~Jr~~l·::-;;;;:i-t, (,~o.., .... , .... ~,J ~-~·.-;---) ~, ~\.;/~ <:Li !LANDING I Addms rt .. i..a-.d;.-..., ~...-.•,;,r V.A Repre,se ircmve E:.S Install Sixty (60) individual banners *Banners to be supplied by customer Banners are 2' w,de by 4 · tall Rece ive and insta ll banner brackets on existing li ght poles Windspil l Jr. pole ba nner brackets (see page 2 of 2 for specs.) HEIGHT: Minimum 1 o· c learance above gra de to bottom of banner Setback will be ali gned w ith curb. Typical banner installation No&:aia Desi gn Number I CtJ~tomer Approval 51' 100339; 1-~---- Re,-..lsion / Dall!! J Landlord Approvol I Dote 09 :w 1C 1-. ........ -.....-~ ... . ... ~ ......... .. ....... "' .. _ .... ......... -, .... ,. ••f-'"-·-.. ~-·..-1, ~-....... _.,.. ..... ..................... ~ ....... 1 --··~-----·-·-··h I a,s,"'s ..... :.:E;~:..~~i.:·:_ ~~~;;:s~¢.ii~3 3 1o .... -.i,w...,_, .. "",...,.-........ -... 1:.. 415.827.lOl-4 --... ---~~ ...... -.. ........ , ... lit-~~.,.. 1u 800.58 .5,2066 ::=,--, ............ -.. _ .... _ ! ... --.,.,.·foctc.ryl.lOIO.(Offl ~;!S.-;..,,CJ~~¥7JJ ~~ I A '' , l V ~ The LANDING -Non -Illuminated Directional B '\ ' Conceptual View [Directional B] Sca le: Not t o Sca le Existing Location Scal e: Not to Sca le Quantity: (1) One Tride Mau S,,. & ~ay Corporatm 1 111 S . D•h t• St. Su ttl1, WA 98108 J.t.,J.-. 206.623.7676 1~ 206.623.5007 CUEN l IMORf\l A IION: The Landing APPROVAIS ACCOUm ~'ANAGFR PROJFCT I/ AIJAGFR. cS I Ir,;,\ l ING: ACCOU'JT MANACFR Jim Smith PROJEC T ll'ANAGER: Sco t Hoffm an DES GIIER· SH FILE NAME: 110301 START DATf 3-7-11 Rt VISION 01\ H:S: (i) 3-29-11 SH 0 4-5 -11 SH 6) 4-15 -11 SH 0 4-27-11 SH © 7-7-11 SH COLORS REPRESENTED IN THIS 0£SIGN ARE FOR PRESENTATION PURPOSES ONLY. THEY WILL NOT MATCH YOUR FIMSHEO PRODUCT PfRffCTI Y. COLOR CALL OUTS ARE FOR A MATCH AS CLOSE AS POSSIBLE. THS ORIGINAL UNPUBLISHED DESIGN IS TH E SOLE PROPERTY OF TRAOEMARX SIGN & DISPLAY CORP. IT HAS BEEN SUBMJmo FOR YOUR PfRSONAL USE IN CONNECTION WITH A PROPOSED PR!IJECT B8NG PLANNED FOR YOU BY TRA DE-MARX. IT CA~DT BE REPROOUCEO. COPIED OR EXHIBITED. IN WHOLE OR PART, WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING WFUTTIN CONSENT FROM TRADE-MARX SIGN & DISPLAY CORP. JOf\ NUMRFR 110301 SI GN TYPE Directional B Page 5 of 6 The LANDING -Non-Illuminated Directional D Conceptual View [Directional DJ Scale : Not t o Sca le J. ·-· Existing Location Scal e: Not to Scale Quantity : (1) One • ~-~ I I l I Trade Max Sign & Display Corporatm 1111 S. Dakata St . Seattle. WA 98108 :J.1.,,1-206 .623.7676 Ju 206 .62 3.5007 CllrNT INF ORMA TIDrJ The Landing APPROVALS ACCOU~T N'A'J~GFR PROJECT I/ANA3ER ___ _ FSTII/ AT NG ACCOUNT Ii ANA GER Jim Smith PROJECT r:ANAGtR: Scot Hoffman UtSIGNtR: SH FILE NAME 11030 1 STA~T D~T E: 3-7-11 RFvlS' 0/J n A TFS. (IJ 3-29 -11 SH (i) 4-5-11 SH (jJ 4-15-11 SH © 4-27-11 SH © 7-7 -11 SH COLORS REP1l£SENTEO IN THIS DESIGN ARE FOR PRESENTATION PURPOSES ONLY. THEY WILL NOT MATCH YOUR FIMSHEO PRODUCT PE RFECTLY. COLOR CALL OUTS ARE FOR A MATCH AS CLOSE AS POSSIBLE- TH S ORIGINAL UNPUBUSHEO DESIGN IS THE SOLE PllOPERTY OF TRADE-MARX SIGN & DISPLAY CORP. IT HAS BEEN SUBMlffiO FOR YOUR PERSONAL USE IN CONNECTION WITH A PROPOSEO PROJECT BEING PLA,-,.ED FOR YOU BY TRADE-MARX. IT CANNOT BE REPRODUCED. COPIED OR EXHIBITED. IN WHOLE OR PART. WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING WRITIEN C~SENT FROM TRADE -MARX SIGN & DISPLAY CO R?. JOB NUMBER. 110301 SIGN TYPE: Dir ectional D Pa ge 6 of 6 CITY -:lF RENTON 0".,,,~f\'Y ~~ . + ~ + Department of Community and ~ Economic Development ~ -~ Denis Law, Mayor Alex Pietsch, Administrator ~N~o,:r----.;....---------------..;_---~ June 16, 2008 Mark Hower, Associate Callison Architecture, Inc. 1420 Fifth Avenue #2400 Seattle, WA 98101-2343 SUBJECT: THE LANDING LOT lA, REQUEST ~IFICATION OF APPROVED SITE PLAN (FILE NO._.._ir Dear Mr. Hower, I am in receipt of your correspondence and attachments dated June 10, 2008 wherein you request revisions to the approved Site Plan for Building 301 of The Landing. This building is located at the intersection of Logan Avenue NE and NE 10th Street As your letter discloses a minor adjustment to the approved fa<;ade of the parking garage is proposed. The requested revisions are summarized below: 1) A change to the east fa~ade would eliminate the wire meshing along the second floor of the parking garage. This fa~ade faces the proposed theater; 2) A change to the north fa~ade would eliminate approximately one fourth of the vertical wire meshing and would eliminate the horizontal meshing on the second floor of the garage. This fa~ade faces Logan Ave. NE; and 3) A change to the south and west fa~ade would eliminate the wire meshing on the second and third floors of the parking garage. Thesefa~ades face NE 101h Street and NE 10 1• Place. Renton Municipal Code Section 4-9-2001, allows minor adjustments to an approved site plan, provided: I. The adjustment does not involve more than a ten percent (I 0%) increase in area or scale of the development in the approved site plan; or 2. The adjustment does not have a significantly greater impact on the environment and facilities than the approved plan; or 3. The adjustment does not change the boundaries of the originally approved plan. Analysis of Request The site plan modification requested and as shown in your June 10, 2008 submittals have been compared to the Site Plan as approved by the Development Services Division Director on August 17, 2006. -------l-0-55-So_u_th_G_r-ad_y_W-ay_-_R_e_n_to-n,-\\-,_as_h_in_gt_o_n_9_80_5_7 ______ ~ @ This paper contains 50% recycled material, 30% post consumer AHEAD OF THE Ct:'RVE June 16, 2008 Page 2 The proposed changes in the facades of the parking garage would reduce the amount of wire meshing on all four sides of the building. The applicant has indicated that proposed changes in the fa9ade design would reduce the possibility of water damage to the landscaping and pedestrian pathways surrounding the structure. The proposed changes would not result in more than a 10 percent increase in area or scale of the development. The proposal would not have a greater impact on the environment and facilities, nor would it change the boundaries of the originally approved site plan. The project site is zoned Urban Center -North I (UC-NJ), and is subject to District B of the Urban Center Design Regulations. All applicable setback, lot coverage, and landscaping standards would continue to be achieved. Decision Based on staff's analysis, I have determined the proposed revisions are within the parameters defined by the Renton Municipal Code. Therefore, the proposed modifications to the site plan are approved subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant is advised that all code requirements and conditions of the site plan approval are still applicable to the development of the site: The applicant should also understand that Environmental SEPA Review and Site Plan Review may be required for future modifications to the site plan. This determination will be final unless a written a!'.!peal .of this admjnistrative determination - accompanied by the required $75.00 filing fee-1/; filed with the City's Hearing Examiner within 14 days of the date of this decision. Should you have any questions regarding this determination or the requirements discussed in this letter, please contact Vanessa Dolbee, Associate Planner, at (425) 430-7314. Sincerely, tJdu/~ Neil Watts, Director Development Services Division cc: Rob King, Harvest Partners LUA-06-071, SA-A Jennifer Henning Vanessa Dolbee ~~~ELEVAT IO N -0 8' 16' 32' {EL z\ SOUTH ELEVAT ION )~6' 32' \ i~ARVEST l~~ R f N E R S ., ,, 1,· l ~LANDING II T_R~.N~~E~T~R!'4 Prnjecl # 204300.00 M1:1rcll 12th , 2007 Sitt:i Plan Revi~w UPoate ·a· O f\GI /JAL I (i CA LL ISO N ® MATERIALS LEGEND 1. CONCRE,E 2. PAINTED STEEL MEMBER 3. CMU 4. ORNAMENTAL METAL SCREEN I-or leasing information conlact GARAGE ELE VATIO N S MadisonMaiquette {!i2'. SOUTH ELEVATION \. ) ---. -· 0 8' 16' 32 ~ ,,, ARVEST ' ' ,', A R T NER S I " /'' II T-~~!"l~~~~T~~~ ~LANDING Prcjecl JI 204300 .00 Marc 'i 12th, 200 7 Site Plan Rewew Update 'B 1.~ V([~A~c\ rrloc\. ' fJ. lO'(v\~ (i CA LL IS ON MATERIALS LEGEND 1 CONCR[T[ 2. PAINTED STE EL ME MBCR 3. CMU 4. ORNAMENTAL META L SCREEN N~-tO f\"1.-p I ~/o'b For teasinq information ccntac: GARAGE E LE VATI ONS MadisonMarquette t J.,. / I ( lU f K f.AJJ sf,,, [ i(,-i (( h{/··ft~fu}~ ? ow &w a )rt) ~ 2~~po(6- (ELz\ NORTH ELEVATION _j ~-·2· {EL1\ EAST ELEVATION '.. .. :.J ~--·2· iii ARVEST l7~RTNE R S //~ II T~~~~~E~!!:~~ !LANDING P roJec l ti 204300.00 i March 12th. 2007 Sim Plan Rev1ow Updato 'B' C:1L\t1\/\J AL (i CALL I SON MATERIALS LEGEND 1 (";('}N<:RETE -- 2. PAINTED STEEL MEMBER 3. CMU <. ORNAMENTAL METAL SCREEN 5. EGO SCREEN LETICRS Fer leasing information conlact GARAGE ELEVATIONS MadisonMilll!Uette f J l ) .... r.:\ ~:. ','. ~ 'f't ,, I I · ~-·•~ .· .. • /' .... . i# ,. • • ~; ,. i)~-;. I;,:.;_•. : ,:.,:, .,... ~· ...,.,,. 'ltJlll(f, I I i I l ; J j 1 ·1 ! I t i l 1 l I t I I I i I l 1 t } '! J l } l 1 I ~ /$~ I £,.,~gwy ,i~ARVEST ,, . ~ . A R T N E R S ·a~\ EAST ELEVATION ,.·/~ -· o a· ,s· 32· ,~ ~ft,<.. y ~1'--( f..J[ fu+ ·) II TRANSWESTERN ~ . . ,. . . . . .. ' ~LAN PrOJP.:ct # 204300.00 ' ING M-,:1rc11 1 21h. 2C07 S ite Plan Re1,1ew Update 'B ,Ir ,..-, r (C ()C,)-k:: c_\ mccl ;-0 ' Fn .r.:i,mg tn'orma:ic-: ::cnta::t MadisonManiuette (i CALL I SON MATERIALS LEGEND 1 CONCRETE 2 PAINTED STEEL MEMBER 3. CMU 4 ORNAMENTAL METAL SCREEN S. EGO SCREEN Lf.lTERS ~ GARAGE ELEVATIO N S 3/vf> CITY )F RENTON Department of Community and Economic Development Denis Law, Mayor Alex Pietsch, Administrator June 26, 2008 Mark Hower, Associate Callison Architecture, Inc. 1420 Fifth Avenue #2400 Seattle, WA 98101-2343 SUBJECT: THE LANDING LOT lA, REQUEST FOR MINOR MODIFICATION OF APPROVED SITE PLAN (FILE NO, LUA06-071, SA-A) Dear Mr. Hower, I am in receipt of your correspondence and attachments dated, June 10, 2008, wherein you request revisions to the approved Site Plan for Building 301 of The Landing. This building is located at the intersection of Logan Avenue NE and NE 10th Street As your letter discloses, the following minor adjustments to the approved site plan are proposed: 1) The addition of an "Auto Teller" drive through lane, sited on parking level Pl along the east side of the garage. The "Auto Teller" would provided two stacking spaces, which was approved through a driveway modification on June 26, 2008 (enclosed); and 2) The reduction of 8 parking stalls to provide space for the proposed drive through "Auto Teller" lane. Renton Municipal Code Section 4-9-200!, allows minor adjustments to an approved site plan, . provided: J. The adjustment does not involve more than a ten percent (I 0%) increase in area or scale of the development in the approved site plan; or 2. The adjustment does not have a significantly greater impact on the environment and facilities than the approved plan; or 3. The adjustment does not change the boundaries of the originally approved plan. Analysis of Request The site plan modification requested, as depicted irt your June 10, 2008 submittals have been compared to the Site Plan approved by the Development Services Division Director on August 17, 2006. The proposed changes to the parking garage would decrease the number of parking spaces by 8 stalls. Previous minor amendments have increased the total number of parking spaces to 2,728 from the original 2,630 spaces. After the subject site plan modification the remaining 2,720 parking stalls would result in a decrease in parking stalls from the previously approved minor site plan modifications. This site plan modification would reduce the parking by 8 spaces bringing the total amount of parking spaces to 2,720 for the project; as such, the subject modification would not result in a 10 percent increase in the area or scale of the development. The proposal -------l-0-55_S_o_u_th_G_r_ad_y_W_a_y ___ R_e-nt-o-n,-W-as-hin_gt_on_9_80_5_7 ______ ~ @ ThiS paperCOfltains 50% recyded material, 30% post consumer AHEAD OF THE CURVE June 16, 2008 Page 2 would not result in a greater impact on the environment and facilities, and would not change the boundaries of the originally approved site plan. The proposed "Auto Teller" drive through is permitted within the UC-NI zone as an accessory use. The proposed "Auto Teller" would not result in a IO percent increase in the area or scale of the development, would not result in a greater impact on the environment and facilities, and would not change the boundaries of the originally approved site plan. The project site is zoned Urban Center -North I (UC-NI), and is subj eel to District C of the Urban Center Design Regulations. All applicable setback, lot coverage, and landscaping standards would continue to be achieved. Decision Based on staffs analysis, I have determined the proposed revisions are within the parameters defined by the Renton Municipal Code. Therefore, the proposed modifications to the site plan are approved subject to the following conditions: I. The applicant is advised that all code requirements and conditions of the site plan approval are still applicable to the development of the site. The Environmental SEPA Review and Site Plan Review may be required for future modifications to the site plan. This determination will be final unless a written appeal of this administrative determination - accompanied by the required $75.00 filing fee -is filed with the City's Hearing Examiner within 14 days of the date ofthis decision. Should you have any questions regarding .this detehninaticin or the requirements discussed in this letter, please contact Vanessa Dolbee, Associate Planner, at (425) 430-7314. Sincerely, Neil Watts, Director Development Services Division cc: Rob King, Harvest Partners LU A-06-071, SA-A Jennifer Henning Vanessa Dolbee June 26, 2008 Mark Hower, Associate Callison Architecture, Inc. 1420 Fifth Avenue #2400 Seattle, WA 98101-2343 Subject: Parking Modification Request for The Landing, LUA 06-071 Dear Mr. Hower: The City of Renton is in receipt of your request for a parking modification dated June I 0, 2008 regarding the property located at The Landing, Building 301 (the parking garage). The following summarizes your request, project background, analysis and decision. Summary of Request/Background The applicant has requested a modification from section 4-4-0SOF.10 Number of Required Spaces of the City's Parking Regufations. Section 4-4-0SOF.10 requires that drive-through facilities shall be so located that sufficient on-site vehicle staking space is provided for the handling of motor vehicles using such facility during peak business hours. Typically, 5 stacking spaces per window are required unless otherwise determined by the Development Services Director. Stacking spaces cannot obstruct required parking spaces or ingress/egress within the site or extend into the public right-of-way. The applicant is proposing to locate one drive-though lane inside the parking garage at The Landing. A modification has been requested in order to provide 2 stacking spaces per window instead of the required 5 stacking spaces. The justification for the request is as follows: The project site is zoned Urban Center-North I (UC-NI), and is subject to District C of the Urban Center Design Regulations. The design regulations state "When fronting along pedestrian-oriented streets, parking structures shall provide space for ground-floor commercial uses at a minimum of75 percent of the frontage width." The Landing's proposed parking garage fronts a pedestrian-oriented street, I 00 percent of the front fayade has provided space for ground-floor commercial uses. Key Bank is proposed to occupy one of the subject commercial spaces located along the front fa;:ade of the parking garage. Key Bank would like to provide a drive through "Auto Teller" for its patrons. In order for Key Bank to maintain the pedestrian-oriented design, the only available space for a drive through would be within the parking garage. The rear wall of Key Bank is the front wall of the parking garage; as such, an "Auto Teller" would be feasible in this location. In order to maintain the maximum number of parking spaces available within the parking garage a drive though with stacking for only two vehicles would only eliminate 8 parking spaces instead 16 or more, if 5 stacking spaces were to be provided. The Landing Parking Modification Page 2 of3 Section 4-4-0SOFd allows the Development Services Division to grant modifications from the parking standards for individual cases provided that the modification meets the following criteria (pursuant to RMC 4-9-250D2): 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 proposed modification is the minimum adjustment necessary to implement these policies and objectives; b. Will meet the objectives and safety, function, appearance, environinental protection and maintainability intended by the Code requirements, based upon sound engineering judgment; c. Will not be injurious to other property(s) in the vicinity; d. Conform to the intent and purpose of the Code; e. Can be shown to be justified and required for the use and situation intended; and f. Will not create adverse impacts to other property(s) in the vicinity. Analysis 1.) Substantially implements the policy direction of the policies and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element and the Community Design Element and the proposed modification is the minimum adjustment necessary to implement these policies and objectives. Comprehensive Plan policy supports pedestrian-oriented building design with allowing provisions for transit and automobiles where appropriate. In order to maintain the proposed pedestrian oriented design the best location for the Key Bank drive though lane is within an area already designed for automobiles, the parking garage. The feasibility of the design requires drive though stacking to be reduced to 2 stacking spaces. The reduction in required stacking would allow for the maximum amount of parking stalls to be retained within the parking garage. The proposed modification is the minimum adjustment necessary to implement these policies and objectives. 2.) Will meet the objectives and safety, function, appearance, environmental protection and maintainability intended by the Code requirements, based upon sound engineering judgment. The Urban Center Design Regulations for parking and Vehicular Access stress the importance of safe and convenient access to the Urban Center. The Key Bank drive though would not increase access points within the project and would provide convenient access to a drive though facility. In order to reduce traffic The Landing Parking Modification Page 3 of3 volumes and other impacts from vehicles, the Urban Center Design Regulations indicate sufficient parking shall be provided, while encouraging creativity in reducing the impacts of parking areas. Reducing the stacking to 2 spaces would allow for sufficient parking to remain wile creatively reducing the impacts of a bank drive through on the pedestrian oriented portion of the site. The code encourages active pedestrian environments by maintaining contiguous street frontages, without parking lots sited along sidewalks and building frontages, while minimizing the visual impact of parking lots. The visual impacts regularly associated with a drive though facility would be reduced if not eliminated by its placement within the parking garage, which has approved fa9ade treatment that fosters a pedestrian environment. The proposed stacking space conforms to the interest and purpose of the parking regulations by providing adequate space to handle peak business demands for customer drive-trough activities of Key Bank. The reduction of stacking space less than what is allowed should have no negative impact relative to the environment. The proposal for an internal drive through lane with provisions for two stacking spaces would meet the objectives and safety, function, appearance, environmental protection and maintainability intended by the Code requirements. 3.) Will not be injurious to other property(s) in the vicinity. The proposed stacking space reduction would not be injurious to other properties in the vicinity, as the maximum number of parking spaces would be preserved by granting the subject modification. The drive though Jainfacility would be screened from view via the parking structure. It is not anticipated that the approval of a modification to permit 2 stacking spaces would be injurious to other properties in the vicinity. 4.) Conform to the intent and purpose of the Code. The proposed modification would conform to the intent and purpose of the parking regulations as previously stated above under criterion 2. 5.) Can be shown to be justified and required for the use and situation intended. The proposed stacking space reduction is justified and required for the situation intended. In order for Key Bank to maintain the pedestrian-oriented design, the only available space for a drive through lane would be within the parking garage. In addition, is appears justifiable that two stacking spaces would result in the ability to maintain the maximum number of parking spaces available within the parking garage. A drive though lane with stacking for two vehicles would only eliminate 8 parking spaces instead 16 or more, if 5 stacking spaces were required. The stacking space standards ( 4-4-080.F) require a minimum of five vehicles per drive-through window. Based upon the customer volumes the applicant The Landing Parking Modification Page 4 of3 anticipates the reduction of the minimum stacking space requirement is considered to be reasonable. 6.) Will not create adverse impacts to other property(s) in the vicinity. As stated under criterion 3, the proposal should not create adverse impacts to other properties in the vicinity of the banking branch. Decision The applicant's request for a modification from the parking requirements ofRMC4-4- 080F.10, to provide two stacking spaces for a drive through service facility instead of the required 5 stacking spaces, is approved. This decision to approve the proposed revisions as a minor modification is subject to a fourteen (14) day appeal period from the date of this letter. Any appeals of the administrative decision must be filed with the City of Renton Hearing Examiner by 5 :00 pm, July 10, 2008. If you have questions regarding this correspondence, feel free to contact Vanessa Dolbee at (425) 430-7314. Sincerely, Neil Watts Development Services Director Cc: Vanessa Dolbee LUA06-071 i ·---- .... ._ __ ,~,,~.tff'/. , • I 1 "· i : ,/ ! -r: 1 ___ .. . .... ;,.,/ . '1 :':? ( I i / I / I / # ',, '\'. y 0 LW/(Jp--011 CITY JF RENTON Planning/Building/Public Works Department Gregg Zimmerman P.E., Administrator (!~,. :<'¢; ~ ~ ~ i Kathy Keolker, Mayor ~l\T"fo:,,r--------------------------- .__'--,.iecember 6, 2007 William Barton, Associate Callison Architecture, Inc. 1420 Fifth Avenue #2400 Seattle, WA 98101-2343 SUBJECT: THE LANDING UPDATE L (BUILDINGS 307 AND 311) REQUEST FOR MINOR AMMENDMENT OF APPROVED SITE PLAN (FILE NO. LUA06- 071, SA-A) Dear Mr. Barton, I am in receipt of your letter and attachments dated December 4, 2007 wherein you request approval of revisions to the approved Site Plan for The Landing. As the information you submitted discloses, two minor adjustments to the approved site plan are proposed. The requested revision is summarized below: 1) Changes to the elevations of Building 311 as described in greater detail below; and 2) Relocation of the fireplace that was to be located on the southeast corner of Building 307. Renton Municipal Code Section 4-9-2001, allows minor adjustments to an approved site plan, provided: 1. The adjustment does not involve more than a ten percent (10%) increase in area or scale of the development in the approved site plan; or 2. The adjustment does not have a significantly greater impact on the environment and facilities than the approved plan; or 3. The adjustment does not change the boundaries of the originally approved plan. Analysis of Request The site plan amendments requested and as shown in your December 4, 2007 submittals have been compared to the Site Plan as approved by the Development Services Division Director on August 17, 2006. The proposed changes are described as follows below: Building 311 has retained its footprint, but has increased in height from 14 feet to almost 16 feet. The windows that were previously located on the north half of the west fai;:ade have been moved to the center of the building and the windows located on the north elevation have been replaced with an overheard door. The submitted elevations also show optional trellises that may be added to the southeast and southwest elevations. -------l-05_5_S_o_u_th_G_r_ad_y_W_a_y ___ R_e-nt-on-,-W-as-hin_g_t_on_9_80_5_7 ______ ~ @ This paper contains 50% recycled material, 30% post consumer AHEAD OF THE Cl:~VE , I D.ecember 6, 2007 Page 2 The fireplace that was originally located on the southeast corner of Building 307 has been moved into the plaza area located to the east of the building and is now free standing. The southeast corner of Building 307 and the fireplace have been redesigned. The fireplace design is inspired by an airplane wing section. The height of the southeast corner of Building 307 has been increased from 23 feet to 29 feet, a metal canopy has been added around the building entrance, and the materials have changed from stucco to corrugated metal with a lapped metal siding detail around the building entrance. The proposed changes to the building facades would not result in a 10 percent increase in the area or scale of the development, would not result in a greater impact on the environment and facilities, and would not change the boundaries of the originally approved site plan. The project site is zoned Urban Center-North 1 (UC-N1 ), and is also subject to District C of the Urban Center Design Regulations. All applicable setback, lot coverage, and landscaping standards would be achieved. Decision Based on staff's analysis, I have determined the proposed revisions are within the parameters defined by the Renton Municipal Code. Therefore, the proposed amendments to the site plan are approved subject to the following condition: 1. Prior to the issuance of the final building permit for The Landing, 3 full size copies and 1 8 :h x 11 inch PMT of a final site plan, building elevations, and landscape plan for the Landing shall be submitted to the Development Services Division project manager. This determination will be final unless a written appeal of this administrative determination -accompanied by the required $75.00 filing fee -is filed with the City's Hearing Examiner within 14 days of the date of this decision. Should you have any questions regarding this determination or the requirements discussed in this letter, please contact Andrea Petzel, Associate Planner, at (425) 430-7270. Sincerely, Neil Watts, Director Development Services Division cc: LUA-06-071, SA-A Jennifer Henning Andrea Petzel Parties of Record lam.ling update L site plan amend.doc • THE LANDING CALLISON 12.4.2007 MINOR J\DJUST:\-IE>JT TO APPROVED SITE PLA'.'J REVIEW-DATED JULY 21'T, 2006 CODE DISCUSSION 4-9-200 SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW: I. MINOR ADJUSTMENTS TO AN APPROVED SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN: Minor modifications may be permitted by administrative determination. To be considered a minor modification, the amendment must not: 1. Involve more than a ten percent (10%) increase in area or scale of the development in the approved site development plan; or The area and scale of the development has not increased more than 10%. 2. Have a significantly greater impact on the environment and facilities than the approved plan; or The impact on the environment and facilities has not significantly increased. 3. Change the boundaries of the originally approved plan. (Ord. 4802, 10-25-1999; Amd. Ord. 4954, 2-11-2002; Ord. 5028, 11-24-2003) The project boundaries have not changed. DESCRIPTION OF CHANGES The change described in this update is limited to the area known as "Quadrant A" (also known as Zone Three) and applies specifically to the hardscape design, buildings 307 and 311. No other buildings are included in this update and any changes to them have been, or will be, addressed in other "Minor Adjustment" submittals. Building 311 has retained its footprint, but has increased in height, material detail and the configuration of windows and doors. The elevations also now show optional plant trellises at some corners. These were not on the originally approved SPR elevations and are considered an optional upgrade pending owner approval. The fireplace that was originally on the southeast corner of building 307 has been moved into the plaza and is now free standing. Both the corner of 307 and the fireplace have been redesigned. This move was made so that the fireplace could be more accessible and useful to both the adjacent tenant of 307 and the public plaza. The design is inspired by a wing section. The fireplace insert may become centered in the housing or may remain as shown in the elevation. The plaza has been changed to accommodate the fireplace move. CALLISON ARCHITECTURE, INC. 142 0 FIFTH AVENUE aii2400 SEATTLE. WASHINGTON 98101 ·2343 -T 206 623 4646 F 206 623 4625 www.callison com II II TABLE OF CONTENTS QUADRANT A (ZONE THREE) ENLARGED PLAN BUILDIN G 307 ELEVATIONS FI REPLACE ELEVATIONS BUILDIN G 311 ELEVAT IONS ,A,_~~~s.~ -~~~ PAGE 3 PAGE4 PAGE S PAGE 6 !LANDING Pmject # 204300.00 December 4 , 2007 Site Plan Review Update 'L' PROJECT DIRECTORY Owners hip Group Transwestem Harvest LakeshOre LLC 8214 Westchest8' Drive, Suite 650 Dalas. TX 75225 T: 214 369.0860 RC Construction and M anagement, Inc. 20503 a&llAvenue. West Edmonds, WA 98026 T: 425.778.1921 Archlt8<:I Calison Arct-.tectt.re, Inc. 1420 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2400 S8altle, WA 9810 1 T: 206.623.4646 Lando ea~ Archtt.ct Brumbaugh & Associates 600 North 85th Avenue. Suoa 102 S8attk>, WA 98103 T: 206.782.3650 Structural Engineer M agnusson Klemencic (M K.A) 8214 We s1cne s1er Drive. SUie 650 Dallas, TX 7522 5 T: 2 14 369 0860 Mech anic .ii Engineer f lack ~ Kurtz 14 17 Founh A11enue, Suite 400 Seallle . WA 98 101 T: 206.342 9900 Electrlc al Engln N r S parling 720 O livo Way, Surtc 1400 Seallle. WA 98101 T: 206.667 .0555 Lighting D&1igner Candela 720 Olive Way, Surte 1400 Seattle. WA 98101 T: 206.667.0 5 11 Ctvil En gineer W & H Pacific. Inc 3350 Monte V1Ua Pancway Bothell , WA 98021 T: 425.951.4887 General Contractor SO Deacon Corporation of Wasningron 2375 130th Avenuo N .E., Sui1e 200 Bellevue. WA 98005 T: 425.284.4000 Blame Lee. Pat1ntt< Bob Baker, Partner Rob King Bil Barton Mar1<Hower Charie K~mme~ Man< Brumbaugh , Principal Kristen Lundquist, Projed Manager Shelley Clark. Pnncipal Eric Anderson Allan ~\ontpeH,er. Vice PresKJenl K eUy Mamer Lauren MacLe<XI. Senior LKJht1ng Designer Ted faerage . Director of Land Oevetopmenr Soott Evans B rad Howell, S&nklr Estimator (i CALLISON TABLE OF CONTENTS ti 30 5 NOT A. P fa.R T Cl:~~tv1A NOT .11. P faf<T 0- \~ ·,.\, ,P'\ ., I . ·• ·' ·,, •, ':,., . ' . .,. ,,...· \ ,' ,.. ' ' ' " ( < ·, I ' .' ;... ). ~ "·-.-· '~ '\/; ' •. 308 NOi A Pi\R T !.,,. ·, ',, ' \ \. ~-· ..... \.>\ ·-, ~ . ,,_/ , __ '\ .,\ A . \ '1 . ,--'O / / ' \' '. \ V \ -"..~· . , (ii) CALLISON . •. I / \,/, \ ,Jor' .';,. / I·< ' / 1 .\ ··. \ . -~"y . >-I' -· . '. \.-r ,... . _ ...... , .. ' . 'O ·' '\ .. I/ , , ./ . ·\ ·~r -' \ ·\ /---:----...__y/ / 'Q". 'y• \ '. I • \ \ '\ \ ,,\, \_,/(' . I / ,.f . \:., . . .\ . \ .\\\\ ' ' /( ,/ . -<'· \'Q \ \~..\ 1"\-' ~ Y .. \~; \' t· ,.\ '\ '• /' •~-1' ""1 I \ ·'/ -A', • / , ._, , , , ,.,-\ I I .. 1 I / "/ , _. 'i ' '·-;-~,..~,:" . ', ...-~--1 ~· . '· ·, ' r·c -!. .: , .,,1 , , · ~,·: 1 1 \ _l,'I, •. , , , • \ " ,,-:; . 1 ! I , ' r -,... c; 1 -..!_ l . -'· . f ', -··ti I -\·····,. ,, '· •. • ~' I / .·' ;. -... ) ••• • \ •• ),_, )., \ I J ,-!\ ' .\··1 I_'1--r-1'_'x·/,, f's--. ..,· .A·· . . I ' , . , I i l r / . ·/ ····:·--.\ >' / il 1\ '\ \i 11··11 /-' ;.. , ' 1 • .,,....... , J 1 . t · 1 \ ' • /-J A t \ ·~ , 1·_..,,__, --· ,'<._ 1 / \\ / .. i _,/ 1 c'" _.-.>" (-< _,'~ .. · 1) -., ~. ; I / I 1 / , _ _,., . .. ... /'t•. · /t. J ' r _..,..,.. (-·. v---f , ,, ,,....... j ;, : : __.__..,, I · .! i / ! . :,/ \' ! I ! ' ' , I _I .• \ .' ,_ I I . ------. I " I.... j ' I _,,.--......., __ :'--:;: ·, i. i I i ' ' . ,., __.__.,, I \.., -,,,, \ ' / .... ' ' ' I ' \ , ~ \' ... . .-~-· ) I .,...r·· \ ' /< / /' •. , . , ,, '< \ .-, .. '° _ __,, I I ,,-/ \ ' ' •• K..._ f / ' I \ \ \_ '\ }-,~ -..---I ---II _/ _.-:.;' J /. /. ' \ /'·-.. /.Z. I:.. ··. ! I,' • ... \"' _. _.-. -.. . ,, I / ,, > . •, ' . '~ ---I \ \ _ • .--y' ' '· -•, I '·/ ';"' '>.;_ . 8 .. ·, .)..-'J.· . ----··· _.,-\ -···\ ----'' /, \ '. .1 .J . ~ , •. .,--·.-' _ _.... . I _. -- 1 / I ' /' /··· ,---/\ I I, ___ .,.-,~,.. v ' ''). ' ----I I) \ I --------</ \ •. ..: ';, ~-~ I ' .--" '1._' -r \ ,,( -\ -509 1~0 T A PAR T .---· '\ I/ _.--• ... ,, -r . ., ..->· o . · __,,-\ I y.._..---.,,c··:~ -;:; .• "'i·-, --, j' '\ . • '-, ' -,_. ;.<<-' / A,,<, _.-./ -I ,,. __.,.-~•" f • ,-L, ,·/ / ,, / /' / ,;,;-.-·.•\ ,, -~ -"f· \_,/ .. ---• : \ .> . /' / ', . _. ' I ' __.--""' .. -· J_ , , -. . .?' ---. \ I _. ', .,· /, , , / / . ·,. • / / ,, I .<'o • / ;t \ \ ,, ·', / !-\ r<\ \ _.-·v~·-' '\ . -. yv ... ·' .. / /' I _...-.,.-·;;~o:· 7 10 1 / / ~.· .. ,'~ ... ,· / . . • . J . . k· ,. . . "-~,, . , ·. . //\ _.. \" \ \_ / _,..---· -.,. .· • r , T ~ . \ Y ( . :<\'.j'' S'f (E? .. 1·,I • i . ', . ,,,,, .. , ' / ,.., . 'lu " , . ..,.. I ' T' ·,.,, , , / • ' ,. / ' \ I , •.• • ., ~/ "'-.. ,./ . /./ .. >-~-·, Pl1 RT ,,,· I .-·' -/, / ,.,z ·. .. ~ . .,.,.c, -~-- / ' .~ 'II ATER t OIJi.i TAlt, ~ f:=~O' G 12'·6" 25' / / .... ' ARVEST ARTNERS -~ ilANDING QUADRANT A SITE PLAN El Proied # 204300.00 December 4, 2007 Sito Plan Re view Update "L' o~l6 ))~~~ Q " CPUIJ o:[J rm:. "'1D Rll 307 -B 2327 st 307 -A 178 4 sf "='b WE ST ELEVAT ION ,~~v.~~~ I ~ t. -~~~ I 9=....---E==< 307-D RES TAURANT b lr-:tC 'JL '- L .~s =f ~~sd. ...... Ct TP'I ~ '1 I ;, 1,p · '''t ~ _ ... ,.,v ·,, i p -+N."-: .. EAS1 ELEV Al lOI\ .---i ,_, !LANDING Project# ~300.00 December 4 , 2007 Site Plan Review Update 'L' / J. '.J ~ .307 A 178 4 sl ,'!l .. SOUT H tl 1VA TIO \J '' ."1:)7 B 1.S1 / sl ;~ l (i CALLISON MATERIALS LEGEN D 1 CMU 2 BRICK 3 LAPPED MET Ai. SIDIN G 4 CORTEN T IL E 5 METAi. LOUVERS 6 METAi. CANOPY 7 CANVAS AWNING 8 EXPOSED STEEL I-BEAM /COLUMN. TYP 9 STANDING SEAM METAL R OO F 10 ALUMINUM STOREFRONT 11. CAST-IN-PLACE CONCR ETE BASE 12. CONCRETE FIBER BOARD 13. ST UCCO 14. CORRUGATED METAL SIDIN G 30 7-D j RES T AL,~ANT -..... 3852 sf ,:i:, \:· +A:~.oit -i i---------1.0 307 ELEVATIONS II WE ST ELE VATI ON ,~~v_~s,-r, -~ !LANDING Pmjed#:10<30000 Docember 4 , 2007 Site Plan Review Update ·L' (i CALLISON MATERIALS LEGEND CMU BRICK LAPPED METAL SIDING 4. CORT EN TILE 5. METAL LOUVERS 6. METAL CANOPY 7. CANVAS AWN ING 8. EXPOSED STEEL l·BEAMICDLUMN . TY P. 9 STAND ING SEAM METAL ROOF 10. ALUMINUM STOREFRONT 11 CAST-IN -PLACE CONCRETE BASE 12. CONCRclE FIBER BOARD 13 STUCCO 14. CORRUGAlED MElAL SIDING 15 OVERHEAD DOOR 16. OPTIONAL PLANT TRELLIS 17. CUSTOM METAL FABRICAT ION FIREPLACE W/METAL MESH SCREEN ·-·-·-· -~H,6.'·f ' ... ~EL.0'.·Q'.' __ SCN..£•1/4"·1'·0" ~ 0 2' 4' 8' FIREPLACE ELEVATIONS El ,,aQ ~l]o o'v LA']~ []:AJ]=:J c:cJ ,~~v.,~s.~ -~~~~ NO RT HEAS T ELEVATI ON !LANDING P!ojeet 11204300.00 December 4 , 2007 Site Plan Review Update 'L' NORTH WES T ELEV ATI ON (i CALLISON MATERIALS LEGEND 1 CMU 2 BRICK 3 LAPPED M ETAL SIDIN G 4 COH f'EN TILE 5 METAL LOUVERS 6 METAL CANOPY 7 CANVAS AWN ING 8 EXPOSED STEEL I-BEAM/COLUMN. TYP 9 STANDING SE AM METAL ROOF 10 ALUMINUM STOREFRONT 11. CAST-IN-PLACE CONCRETE BASE 12 CONCRETE FIBE R BOARD 13 ST UCCO 14 CORRUGATED METAL SIDIN G 15 OVERHEAD DOOR 16 OPTIONAL PLANT TRELLIS OPTIONAL 12' PLANT TRELLIS, TYP. ... .... _ ----+tt:,{. SOUTHEAST ELEVATION .W.t... SC.11Jf'•l4'·0'~ SOUTHWEST ELEVATION 'ioCA.C•r ·l'C--~ ~ f Q' 1• 4 •. It 14 311 ELEVATIONS II , , Kathy Dietrich Architects Associative 8513 NE Hazel Dell Avenue, Suite 102 Vancou ver, WA 98665 CIT~ )F RENTON Planning/Building/Public W arks Department Gregg Zimmerman P.E., Administrator SUBJECT: THE LANDING UPDATE J (BUILDING 400) REQUEST FOR MINOR AMMENDMENT OF APPROVED SITE PLAN (FILE NO. LUA06.;071, SA-A) Dear Ms. D ietrich, I am in receipt of yo ur letter and attachments dated October 16, 2007 wherein you request approval of revisions to the approved Site Plan for The Landing . As the information you submitted discloses, two minor adjustments to the approved site plan are proposed. The·requested revisions are summarized below: 1) Changes to the elevations of Building 400 as described in greater detail below; and 2) A reduction in the size of the building from 53,000 to 52,200 square feet. Renton Municipal Code Section 4-9-2001 , allows minor adjustments to an approved site plan, provided: 1. The adjustment does not involve more than a ten percent (10%) increase in area or scale of the development in the approved site plan; or 2. The adjustment does not have a significantly greater impact on the environment and facilities than the approved plan; or 3 . The adjustment does not change the boundaries of the originally approved plan. Analysis of Request The site plan amendments requested and as shown in your October 16, 2007 submittals have been compared to the Site Plan as approved by the Development Services Division Director on August 17, 2006 and the subsequent amendment that was approved on March 13, 2007. The proposed building square footage would be reduced from the originally approved 53,000 square feet down to 52,200 square feet, which is a reduction of 800 square feet. The proposed reduction would not result in a 10 percent increase in area or scale of the development, result in a greater impact on the environment, or change the boundaries of the originally approved site plan. The proposed changes to the building facades are described as follows below: -------,-0-55-So_u_th_G_ra_d_y_W-ay--R-e-n-to_n_, W-a-sh-in-g-to_n_9_8_0_57 _______ ~ @ This paper contains 50% recycled material. 30% ~st consumer A H EA U O F THE CU RV E . October 22, 2007 Page 2 Five additional windows have been added to the north fa9ade and additional display windows have been added on either side of the store entrance. Three windows have · been added to the east fa9ade. The color of the emu block has been changed from gray to brown. Two additional canopies have been added flanking the front entrance of the buil.ding and the steel beams that originally extend.ed from the sidewalk to the top of the . · curved roof have been replaced with vertical metal strips attached to either side of the entrance. The proposed changes to the building facades would not result in a_ 1 O percent increase in the area or scale of the development, would not result in a greater impact on the environment and facilities, and would not change the boundaries of the originally approved site plan. · The project site is zoned Urban Center -No'rth 1 (UC-N 1 ), and is also subject-to District C of the Urban Center ·oesign Regulations. All applicable setback, lot coverage.; and landscaping standards would b.e· achieved. Decision Based on staff's analysis, I have determined the proposed revisions are within the parameters defined by the R(?.nton Municipal Code. Therefore, the proposed amendments to the site plan a~~·approved subject to the foHowing condition: 1. Prior to the issuance of the final building pexr.nit for The La.nding, 3 full size copies and 1 a·~ x 11 inch PMTtjf a final sife. plan,:buildi~g elevations, and landscape plan:for the Landing s~all be submitted .to th.e Development Services Division projectmana~er. · .. . . · · · This determination will be final unless: a w r:itten-~ppeal of this administrative determination -accompanied by the required $75.00 filir]g fee -is fi·led. with the City's Hearing Examiner within 14 day's of the date of this dec1sion. Should you have any questions regarding this determination or-the requirements discussed in this letter, please contact Jill Ding, Seni_or Planner, at (425) 430-7219 . . Sincerely, Neil Watts, Director Development Services Division cc : LUA-06-071, SA-A Bill Barton Jill Ding Parties of Record la nding update J site pl an a men·d.doc THEL\ND1 N G CALLISON 7 .17 .2007 ?vfI NOR ADJ US T MENT T O A PPROVED SI TE PLAN R EVI E \'<l D ATED .J U LY 21 ~T , 2006 CODE DISCUSSION 4-9-200 SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW: I. MINOR ADJUSTMENTS TO AN APPROVED SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN: Minor modifications may be permitted by administrative determination. To be considered a minor modification, the amendment must not: 1. Involve more than a ten percent (10%) increase in area or scale of the development in the approved site development plan; or The area and scale of the development has not increased more than 10%. 2. Have a significantly greater impact on the environment and facilities than the approved plan; or The impact on the environment and facilities has not significantly increased. 3. Change the boundaries of the originally approved plan. (Ord. 4802, 10-25-1999; Amd. Ord. 4954, 2-11-2002; Ord. 5028, 11-24-2003) The project boundaries have not changed. DESCRIPTION OF CHANGES The change described in this update is li mited to the area known as "Quadrant B" (also known as Zone Two) and applies specifi cally to building 400. No other bui ldings are included in this update and any changes to them have been, or wi ll be, addressed in other "Minor Adjustment" submittals. This building changed prev iously in "Update A" and was approved by the city . The changes described below refer to the approved design of "Update A ." The design of the building has been changed to accommodate the requirements of a major, retail tenant. The design includes colors and materials that are in use on the res t of the project. The main entry has changed in configuration. Glazing and canopies remain. The cent ra l tower and northeast to wer have been made more skeletal and the scale unchanged. Glazing has been added to the north and east facades as we ll as additiona l canopies. T here are some changes to massing and the bui ldin g footp rint. Building colors have been revised from the "Update A" rendering. CALLISON ARCHITECTURE , INC. 142 0 FIF T H A VEN UE n 4 00 SEATT L E. W A S HI NGTON 98 10 1 ·23 4 3 -T 206 623 4 6 4 6 F 206 6 2 3 4 625 ww w c al l ison .com II II TABLE OF CONTENTS QUADRANT B (ZONE TWO) EN LARGED PLAN BUILDING 400 ELEVATIONS ,~~~~s.~ -~~ PAGE 3 PAG ES 4.5 ~IANDING Pn,jod # 204300.00 J !jy 17th. 2007 Site Plan Re0ew Updale 'J' PROJECT DIRECTORY Ownership Group Transwestern Harvest Lakeshore LLC 8214 Westchester Drive, Sutte 6 50 Dal las, TX 75225 T 2 14.369 .0860 RC Construction and Management, Inc. 20503 88th Avenue. West Edmonds, WA 98026 T: 425.nS.192 1 An:hitect Callir.on Architecture, Inc. 1420 Fifth Avenue . Suite 2400 Seattle , WA 98101 T: 206.623,1646 L.andacapo Archie.ct B rumbaugh & Associates 600 Nor1h 85th Avenve. Suite 102 Seattle, WA 98103 T: 206.782.3650 Structural EnglnN r Magnusson Klemencic (MKA) 8214 Westchester Drive. Suite 650 Dallas, TX 75225 T: 21 4 369.0860 Mechanical Engineer Flack+ Kurtz 1417 FourthA...,enue. Suile 400 Seattle, WA 98101 T 206 .342.9900 Elecirlcal Engineer Sparling 720 OIN'e Way, Suite 1400 Seattle, WA 98101 T 206 667 0555 Lighting Designer Candela 720 ()fr.re Way, Suite 1400 Seattle , WA 98101 T 206.6670511 Civil Engineer W & H Pacific . Inc. 3350 Monie Villa P arkway B olhell, WA 96021 T <25.951.-4887 Genaral Contra ctor SD Deacon Corporation of Was hing Ion 2375 130l hAvenuo N.E ., Suite 200 Bellevue, WA 98005 T: 425.28".4000 B laine Lee, Partner Bob Baker, Par1ner Rob King Bill Barton Mart.Hower Charlie Krimmert Mark Brumbaugh, Principal Krislen Lundquist. Prqect Manager Shelley C lark, P rincipal Eric Anderson Allan M onlpellier. V ice Presid1:1nl K elly Mamer Lauren Macleod. Senior l ighti ng Designer Teo E verage, Of"ector of Land Development Scott Evans Brad Howell, Senior Esl imatOf e CALLISON Table of Contents fl r-· l L-------_,, --- -, J ARVEST ARTNIRS ' c-· ·-:J LJ Ji n-~· ol J I /~ C -J ">:t . . , t:::J .CJ ) I~ I 0 0 ~~-' /13'..;, ,45' \W T A r·~()T .A 40(\ J p LIR-, I\ F)µ,RT r::, 1·; '; (< ·-.JL . L,, CT' ~, N I =-- rnA<;H CO MPACTOR LOADING of -·-----·-·)··--(---~~ ~-------r--::~--/ _ 'CO -t, LOADING I , 1 l j __J \ -· -· · -· · . --'?\-.. :_6:·9:_fll', 5CRD WAL L ., ;· \7 102· \ .. -. --.. -· · --· -/ / __ sY' / TRAS H CALCULATIONS : B.DG <00 WAST[ R[OU,R[D 522 sl WA'.;1[ "R Ovc rn 522 -,f~,l;f>JORi -/ NORTH 8T H _,49• ",r)E ,_ T .:) I ,r, t_ I / ( i <A!ON [ ,.,__._ __ l \ I \_ r··· ~ L [ 1: I [ -I I : ~ ~-, __ l ~:):._ "---- ~ R[O CL[ "[•~URcD -2&; sf '\ RtUCl f 0 ROVICC 770 sf / I ..... ;l]>- SUH '\· 50' -0' '\-;,-- ' ==::;§,.\)' t:::==::::f -/ I::-= ------< 0 25 oO' 100 -~ !LANDING Project# 204300.00 QUADRANT B SITE PLAN El J!Jiy 17th, 2007 Site Pla n Review Updala 'J ' / .... *' CITY )F RENTON Planning/Building/Public Works Department Gregg Zimmerman P.E., Administrator o'~~Y_o~ ~ ~ · i Kathy Keolker, Mayor ~N~o·:;---------------------------------------_..;.-----._.__october 22, 2007 Kathy Dietrich Architects Associative 8513 NE Hazel Dell Avenue, Suite 102 Vancouver, WA 98665 SUBJECT: THE LANDING UPDATE J (BUILDING 400) REQUEST FOR IYIINOR AIYIIYIENDIYIENi OF APPROVED SITE PLAN (FILE NO. LUA06-071, SA-A) Dear Ms. Dietrich, I am in receipt of your letter and attachments dated October 16, 2007 wherein you request approval of revisions to the approved Site Plan for The Landing. As the · information you submitted discloses, two minor adjustments to the approved site plan are proposed. The requested revisions are summarized below: 1) Changes to the elevations of Building 400 as described in greater detail below; and 2) A reduction in the size of the building from 53,000 to 52,200 square feet. Renton Municipal Code Section 4-9-2001, allows ininor adjustments to an approved site plan, provided: 1. The adjustment does not involve more than a ten percent (10%) increase in area or scale of the development in the approved site plan; or 2. The adjustment does not have a significantly greater impact on the environment and facilities than the approved plan; or 3. The adjustment does not change the boundaries of the originally approved plan. Analysis of Request The site plan amendments requested and as shown in your October 16, 2007 submittals have been compared to the Site Plan as approved by the Development Services Division Director on August 17, 2006 and the subsequent amendment that was approved on March 13, 2007. The proposed building square footage would be reduced from the originally approved 53,000 square feet down to 52,200 square feet, which is a reduction of 800 square feet. The proposed reduction would not result in a 10 percent increase in area or scale of the development, result in a greater impact on the environment, or change the boundaries of the originally approved site plan. The proposed changes to the building facades are described as follows below: -------1-0-55-So_u_th_G_r-ad_y_W-ay_-_R_e_n_to_n_, W-as-h-in_g_to_n_9_8_05_7 _______ ~ @ This paper contains 50% recycled material, 30% ~st consumer AHEAD OF THE CURVE October 22, 2007 Page 2 Five additional windows have been added to the north fagade and ad.ditional display windows have been added on either side of the store entrance. Three windows have · been added to the east fai;;ade. The color of the .emu block has been changed from gray to brown. Two additional canopies have been added flanking the front entrance of the building and the steel beams that originally extended from the sideWalk to the top of the curved roof have been replaced with vertical metal strips attached to either side of the entrance. The proposed changes to the building facades would not result in a. 10 percent increase in the area .qr scale of the development, would not result in a greater impact on the. environment an.d facilities, and would not change the boundaries of the originally approved site plan, The project site is zoned Urban Center~ North 1 (UC-N1 ), and. is also subject to District C of the Urban Center ·Design Regulations: All applicable setback, lot coverage, and · landscaping standards would be achieved. · · Decision ,, . . Based on staff's analysis, I have de!ei"miqed the p}/5posed revisions are within the parameters defined by the R§nfon MuhicipiJI Code. . . . . . ,;, . "• '';\ Therefore, the proposed amend merits lo the site pla~ ar'e,11pproved subject to the follbwing condition: . . '· \ 1 .. Priono the issuance of the final 91Jildihgj~err1it (9r The 0~ndlng, 3 full size copies and 1 8 Y. x 11 ihch PMTRf a fiJJaC!ljtl:! pla"r1, buildiqg elevations, and landscape plar,:forthelandiJJg$hlilll l:J,~s!f,)'irhittedtto tt:te Development Services Division projectmanag13r. " · ··· · · ·· · This determination will be final unless.a vv'titten·i.tilleal of\his adrriinistrative determination -accompanied:f5y the required $75:'00 filihg_Jee -.is filed with the City's Hearing Examiner within 14 days of the date of this. decision: ' Should you have any questi&n:;;tegarding this det~rminatjon or-the requirements discussed in this letter, please contact Jillt)ing, SeniprcPfanner, at (425) 430-7219. . Sincerely, Neil Watts, Director Development Services Division cc: LUA-06-071, SA-A Bill Barton Jill Ding Parties of Record landing update J site plan amen'd.do·c THE LANDING CALLISON 7.17.2007 MINOR ADJUSTMENT TO APPROVED SJTE PLAN REV JEW DATED JULY 21 sr, 2006 CODE DISCUSSION 4-9-200 SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW: I. MINOR ADJUSTMENTS TO AN APPROVED SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN: Minor modifications may be permitted by administrative determination. To be considered a minor modification, the amendment must not: 1. Involve more than a ten percent (10%) increase in area or scale of the development in the approved site development plan; or The area and scale of the development has not increased more than 10%. 2. Have a significantly greater impact on the environment and facilities than the approved plan; or The impact on the environment and facilities has not significantly increased. 3. Change the boundaries of the originally approved plan. (Ord. 4802, 10-25-1999; Amd. Ord. 4954, 2-11-2002; Ord. 5028, 11-24-2003) The project boundaries have not changed. DESCRIPTION OF CHANGES The change described in this update is limited to the area known as "Quadrant B" (also known as Zone Two) and applies specifically to building 400. No other buildings are included in this update and any changes to them have been, or will be, addressed in other "Minor Adjustment" submittals. This building changed previously in "Update A" and was approved by the city. The changes described below refer to the approved design of "Update A." The design of the building has been changed to accommodate the requirements of a major, retail tenant. The design includes colors and materials that are in use on the rest of the project. The main entry has changed in configuration. Glazing and canopies remain. The central tower and northeast tower have been made more skeletal and the scale unchanged. Glazing has been added to the north and east facades as well as additional canopies. There are some changes to massing and the building footprint. Building colors have been revised from the "Update A" rendering. CALLISON ARCHITECTURE, INC. 142 0 FIFTH AVENUE #240D SEATTLE. WASHINGTON 98101-2343 -T 206 623 4646 F 206 623 4625 www.callison.com r----·---------+ [I-.... _ ........ 1r ........ ~ .... - i• .. .... ..... "'a.!'1.!,~ ..... ~ Ld ~~ II ~.-\V ... 1'10l'l,,l1 '"lit " Jil>J.\V ··~~ , ... nJOI"I ~' <lOOGJ.(10 'Sl.<lOd S S.:1<Jf WI 3 <1 0 1.S .' > I i c. ! \ < ~ > .. ,.::· ~- ,~ + >+-+ CITY )F RENTON Planning/Building/Public Works Department Gregg Zimmerman P.E., Administrator e;"~'l'Ro,., ~ ::! . <' Kathy Keolker, Mayor :<2'N'f0r--......;_......; ___________________ _ 1 · eptember 14, 2007 William Barton, Associate Callison Architecture, Inc. 1420 Fifth Avenue #2400 Seattle, WA 98101-2343 SUBJECT: THE LANDING UPDATE K (BUILDINGS 309 AND 310) REQUEST FOR MINOR AMMENDMENT OF APPROVED SITE PLAN (FILE NO. LUAOG- 071, SA-A) Dear Mr. Barton, I am in receipt of your letter and attachments dated August 31, 2007 wherein you request approval of revisions to the approved Site Plan for The Landing. The proposed revisions are in response to issues of constructability, tenant requirements, and economic considerations. As the information you submitted discloses, one minor adjustment to the approved site plan is proposed. The requested revision is summarized below: 1) Changes to the elevations of Buildings 309 and 310 as described in greater detail below. Renton Municipal Code Section 4-9-2001, allows minor adjustments to an approved site plan, provided: 1. The adjustment does not involve more than a ten percent (10%) increase in area or scale of the development in the approved site plan; or 2. The adjustment does not have a significantly greater impact on the environment and facilities than the approved plan; or 3. The adjustment does not change the boundaries of the originally approved plan. Analysis of Request The site plan amendments requested and as shown in your August 31, 2007 submittals have been compared to the Site Plan as approved by the Development Services Division Director on August 17, 2006. The proposed changes to the building facades are described as follows below: The curved northwest fa<;:ade of Building 309 has changed in the following ways: the canopy height has been lowered and the clerestory windows were removed as a result. The concrete columns have been replaced with larger brick pilasters, and lapped metal siding and brick have been replaced with cement plaster. The southeast fa,;:ade of Building 310 has been revised to respond to a change to the roof. The various heights of the building have been maintained, however some of the modulation has shifted and some upper glazing has been replaced with co~ 1055 South Grady Way-Renton, Washington 98057 R E N T Q N @ This paper contains 50% recycled material, 30% post consumer AHEAD OF THE CCRVE September 14, 2007 Page 2 metal. The Cor-Ten steel panels on the western "point" of the building have been replaced with Car-Ten tiles. The proposed changes to the building facades would not result in a 10 percent increase in the area or scale of the development, would not result in a greater impact on the environment and facilities, and would not change the boundaries of the originally approved site plan. The project site is zoned Urban Center -North 1 (UC-N1 ), and is also subject to District C of the Urban Center Design Regulations. All applicable setback, lot coverage, and landscaping standards would be achieved. Decision Based on staff's analysis, I have determined the proposed revisions are within the parameters defined by the Renton Municipal Code. Therefore, the proposed amendments to the site.plan are approved subject to the following condition: 1. Prior to the issuance of the final building permit for The Landing, 3 full size copies and 1 8 Y, x 11 inch PMT of a finalsite plan, building elevations, and landscape plan for the Landing shall be submitted to the Development Services Division projectmanager. · This determination will be fiRa( unless a wtmerra;peal of this. administrative determination ~accompanied by the rec(ulhai:!il&75.00 filing' fee~ is filed with the City's Hearing Examiner with.in 14 .days of the oate qfthis decision . . •·, ' . . ' Should you have any questions regarding this det~rminationor the requirements discussed in this letter, please.contact Jill Ding, Senior Planner, at (425)430-7219. . , . .. Sincerely, ;\)14 L{}aJt{ Neil Watts, Director Development Services Division cc: LUA-06-071, SA-A Jennifer Henning Jill Ding Parties of Record landing update.K,site plan arrlend.doc THEL\NDING CALLISON 8.31.2007 DEV MINOR ADJUST:'v!ENT TO A.PPROYED SITE Pl .AN R~:v11-:w DATED JULY 21~~(,J';'J:~11i':!''''':-J CODE DISCUSSION 4-9-200 SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW: AUG 3 O 2r RECEI\I I. MINOR ADJUSTMENTS TO AN APPROVED SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN: Minor modifications may be permitted by administrative determination. To be considered a minor modification, the amendment must not: 1. Involve more than a ten percent (10%} increase in area or scale of the development in the approved site development plan; or The area and scale of the development has not increased more than 10%. 2. Have a significantly greater impact on the environment and facilities than the approved plan; or The impact on the environment and facilities has not significantly increased. 3. Change the boundaries of the originally approved plan. (Ord. 4802, 10-25-1999; Amd. Ord. 4954, 2-11-2002; Ord. 5028, 11-24-2003} The project boundaries have not changed. DESCRIPTION OF CHANGES The change described in this update is limited to the area known as "Quadrant A" (also known as Zone Three) and applies specifically to buildings 309 and 310. No other buildings are included in this update and any changes to them have been, or will be, addressed in other "Minor Adjustment" submittals. The design of the buildings has been changed to respond to issues of constructability, tenant requirements and economic considerations. The curved fa,;:ade of 309 has changed in the following ways: the canopy height has been lowered a few feet and the clerestory windows were removed as a result. Concrete columns have been replaced with larger brick pilasters, lapped metal siding and brick have been replaced with cement plaster. Canopies have been replaced with awnings. The southeast corner of 310 has been altered to respond to a change to the roof. Heights have been maintained and some elements have been shifted and some upper glazing has been replaced with corrugated metal. The Cor-Ten panels on the western point of 310 have been replaced with "Cor- Ten" tiles. This has solved numerous issues and aesthetics have not been sacrificed. ~(Sr t.J,J__,ll,O(o-01 i ~~) YeJIOl,J f, 'le_. CALLISON ARCHITECTURE, INC. 142 0 FIFTH AVENUE Jl2400 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101-2343 -T 206 623 4646 F 206 623 4625 www.call1son com TABLE OF CONTENTS QUADRANT A (ZO NE THREE ) ENLARGED PLAN BUILD ING 309 ELEVATI ONS BUI LDI NG 310 ELEVATI ONS ,, ARVEST ARTNfRS , -~~~~~~~ PAGE 3 PAGE4 PAGE 5 !LANDING Project# 20•300.00 August 31st. 2007 Site Plan Re ... iew Upda1e 'K' PROJECT DIRECTORY Owner•hip Group T ranswesl em I iarvest Lak eshore LLC 8214 Westchester Ori11e. Suite 650 Dallas , TX 75225 T: 2 14.369.0860 RC Construchon and Management. Inc 20503 88thAvenue. West Ed!T'OfldS, WA 98026 T: 425.778.1921 Architect C alison Archi1ed:ure . Inc. 1420 Fifth Avenue. Surte 2400 Seattle, WA 98101 T: 206.623.4646 Landscape Archititet Brumbaugh & Associates 600 North 851h Avenue. Suite 102 Seattle, WA 98103 T 206. 782 3650 Structural Engineer Magnusson Klemencic (MK.A) 82, 4 WeslchesltH Onv~. Su1lt, 650 Dallas. TX 75225 T: 214 369 0860 Mech anlcal Engineer F lack • Kurtz 1417 Foun:n A .. ·enue, Su11e 400 Seatt le WA 98101 T: 206.342 9900 Electrical Engineer $parti ng 720 O livo Way. S uite ·\400 Seottls. WA 98101 I: 206.667 .0555 lighting Designer C<mdela 720 Olive Way, Suite 1400 Seattle. WA 98101 T 200.6f37 .0511 Ci v il Engineer' W & H Pao fk:. loc 3350 ~ionte Villrt Par'l(way Do!ltell. WA 9802 1 T. 425.951.4887 (riner'al Conuacto, SD Deacon COfpcirdlion of Washington 2375 1301n Avenue N .E .. Suire 200 Dellevue. WA 98005 T: 425 284 4000 Olijtne Lee. Pijr1uer Bob Brtke,, Partne, Rob King Bill Barton Mafkt-tov,,er Charlie Krimmert Mark Btumbaugh, Prineipal Kristen Lundquist. ProJed Manager Shelley C lan(, Pnnc1pa1 Eric Anderson Allan M ontpeHier V1C0 President Kelly Mamer Lauren M acl eou. SenK.lf Ltyhhny Oe:siyner Ted Everage. Director of Land Oevetoprnenl Scott Evans Brad Howell Seniot Estimator <i CALLISON Table of Contents fl _.. NO T A PAR T / 310 18 ,610 sf NOT A PART • 309 28 ,020 sf ··-··-··-··--·----··-··-··-··-··-··-·· NOT A PART I I I e-\ o.\ ~i -I ~ . --(i CALL I SON r · ~ / J: . :· \ f- Cc 0 2: I Lu : reE :) 2: I' I NOTE: BU ILD ING SQUARE FOOTAGE AND PROVIDED TRASH AR EA ARE UNAFFEC TED BY THESE CHANG ES sc1i . .Ec , ... so·-o.. ~ (\ ?,· ,I\· ,M• ' ARVEESR~ -~~~~~~~ A RT N , !LANDING Projed # 204300 00 AuguSI 31st. 2007 Sile Plan ReV1ew Update 1<' Q UADRANT A SITE PLAN El MATER IALS LEGEND C MU BRICK METAL SID ING COH l l::.N TILi:. METAL LOUVERS 6 MElAL CANUPY 7 C ANVAS AWNING 8 tXP0StD S!Etl I BEAM /COLUMN IYP 9 STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF 10 ALUMJNU M SIOHl::.1-HON l 11 CAST-IN -PL ACE CONCRETE BASE 12 CON CHl::.l l: 1-li::H:.R C()AHD 13 STUCCO 14 CORRUGATED METAL SIDING ..... (i CALLISON SOUT H ELEVATIO N S(:J,,l l"·!•·o· ~·~1= ~ G . It NW µ D II c:w::::J I I CD II O II O II O II D II o:::J I I CJ 1"'I Cl ... a ·111 w 1 1 1 o o::::=:J 1 1 o .,._, ,\ EAST ELEVATION r=l • 0 NORT HW EST ELEVA TI ON (E XPAN DED) .. Ll WA£•r•t4 ·1r~ ~ 4' er I• I, ARVEST ~ ARTNERS -~!~~~~~ ~LANDING Project# 204300.00 August 31st. 2007 Site Plan Review Update 'K ' 309 ELEVATIONS a ...... __ _ .. ~ j{ARVEST rARTN ER S MATERIALS LEGE ND CMU BRICK M[ TAL S IDING 4 CORll:.N llll:. 5 ME TAI LOUVER S 6. Ml:. JAL C/\NOPY C A NVAS AWNING L Xl-'OSEO S f([L I ULAMJCOL U MN l Y P 9 STANDING SEAM M ETAL ROOF 10 Al U M IN UM STO R EFRO NT 11 CASI IN PLACI:. CONC H I:. 11:. 8 /;,SI:. 1? CONCRFTF F IBFR AO ARD l l. SIUCCO 14 CORRUGATED METAL S IOING SOUTH ELEVATIO N ........ +v• WE ST ELEVATION .. It&·-·-· I ~I .i ),, \ I I I~ ?J EAS T ELEVAT ION +-·-« ~=eJ /) ~ •· ~ n ~ (i CALLISON ~~~.o ....... - __ ...,..._ · -· ,.) 4:;J H L.R ti I I H 1 I I l """'I I I L ::J I I I-! I I I ~ I I I_.....J I I l •""C:,:::::, __..., .. ... L t 111 u.1 1n,;'-,*'I u r,1 11 1 1 u 1-1 1 1 1M 1 1 t1 ~~ NORTH ELEV ATION ~ I tr 1• -~~~~ ~LANDING Project # 20•300 00 310 ELEVATIONS El Augusl 31st 2007 S~e Plan Ra ,..iew Update ;K' ,. CIT1-_ F RENTON Planning/Building/Public Works Department Gregg Zimmerman P.E., Administrator ~~~ ~~,--.~~· ~N"fO:,,------------------------ September 20, 2007 Charles Bell BB Architects, Inc. 1590 South Coast Hwy, Suite 18 Laguna Beach, CA 92651 RE: The Landing (File No. LUA06-071): Regal Cinema (Bldg 300) Modification to RMC 4-3-100 Urban Design Regulations Section J. Signage Dear Mr. Bell: The City of Renton is in receipt of your request for a modification to the Signage Section of the Urban Design Regulations dated September 13, 2007 regarding the Regal Cinema (Building 300) at The Landing. The following summarizes your request, project background, analysis and decision. Summarv of Request/Background Per RMC 4-3-lOOJ.l.c.ii roof signs are not permitted for developments located within the Urban Design Overlay District. Building 300 (Regal Cinema) is part of The Landing development, which is located within District C of the Urban Design Overlay, the requested modification would permit the Regal logo sign to project above the roofline. The proposed sign is located above the tower located on the south elevation adjacent to the box office area. The applicant contends that the proposed roof sign is integral to the tower design and adds a beneficial architectural element to the south fai;:ade of the building. Section 4-3-lOOL permits the Development Services Director to grant modifications to the minimum standards of the design regulations subject to the provisions of 4-9-250D, Modification Procedures, and the following requirements: 1.) The project as a whole meets the intent of the minimum standards and guidelines in subsections E, F, G, H, I, J, and K of the design regulations; 2.) The requested modification meets the intent of the applicable design standard; 3.) The modification will not have a detrimental effect on nearby properties and the City as a whole; 4.) The deviation manifests high quality design; and -------l-05_5_S_o_u-th_G_ra_d_y_W_a_y ___ R_e-nt-o-n,-W-a-s-hi-n-gt-on_9_80_5_7 ______ ~ @ This paper contains 50% recycled material, 30% post consumer AHEAD OF THE CURVE 5.) The modification will enhance the pedestrian environment on the abutting and/or adjacent streets and/or pathways. Section 4-4-080Fd allows the Development Services Division to grant modifications for individual cases provided that the modification meets the following criteria (pursuant to RMC 4-9-250D2): 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 proposed modification is the minimum adjustment necessary to implement thes.e policies and objectives; b. Will meet the objectives and safety, function, appearance, environmental protection and maintainability intended by the Code requirements, based upon sound engineering judgment; c. Will not be injurious to other property(s) in the vicinity; d. Conform to the intent and purpose of the Code; e. Can be shown to be justified and required for the use and situation intended; and f. Will not create adverse impacts to other property(s) in the vicinity. Analysis RMC 4-3-IOOL Modification of Minimum Standards (Urban Design Regulations) Criteria 1.) The project as a whole meets the intent of the minimum standards and guidelines in subsections E, F, G, H, I, J, and K of the design regulations; The Landing development as a whole complies with the intent of the minimum standards and guidelines of the design regulations as discussed in the Administrative Site Plan Decision issued August 17, 2006. 2.) The requested modification meets the intent of the applicable design standard; The requested modification meets the intent of the signage standard through the provision of signage that is of appropriate scale for the project and contributes to the character of The Landing. The proposed roof sign is comprised of the Regal logo and is integral to the tower design and adds a beneficial architectural element to the south fa9ade of the theater. 3.) The modification will not have a detrimental effect on nearby properties and the City as a whole; The requested modification for a sign protruding above the roofline would not have a detrimental effect on neighboring properties or the City as the proposed sign is not larger enough to cause significant shading of adjacent properties or adversely impact views to Lake Washington of surrounding properties. I 4.) The deviation manifests high qnality design; and · The proposed sign add an architectural element to the theater building and adds visual interest to The Landing development. If the proposed sign were removed from the fayade, the tower feature would not serve its design intent of providing an architectural landmark of the theater. 5.) The modification will enhance the pedestrian environment on the abutting and/or adjacent streets and/or pathways. The propose roof sign would enhance the pedestrian environment by providing an architectural landmark that adds visual interest to Th.e Landing development. RMC 4-9-2500 Modification Procedures Criteria I.) Substantially implements the policy direction of the policies and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element and the Community Design Element and the proposed modification is the minimum adjustment necessary to implement these policies and objectives. The proposed roof sign would implement to policy direction of the policies and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. The sign is designed as an integral part of the tower feature located on the south fa9ade of the cinema building and is an architectural feature that would add visual interest to The Landing development. 2.) Will meet the objectives an.d safety, function, appearance, environmental protection and maintainability intended by the Code requirements, based upon sound engineering judgment. The proposed sign would comply with the intent of the design regulations as previously discussed above under Modification of Minimum Standards (Urban Design Regulations). 3.) Will not be injurious to other property(s) in the vicinity. The proposed sign would not be injurious to other properties in the vicinity as it would not result in excessive shading of surrounding properties, nor would it adversely impact views of surrounding properties to Lake Washington as previously discussed above. 4.) Conform to the intent and purpose of the Code. See previous discussion above under Modification of Minimum Standards (Urban Design Regulations). 5.) Can be shown to be justified and required for the use and situation intended. The proposed roof sign provides a beneficial architectural element to the south favade of the theater and adds visual interest to The Landing development, which is the intent of the Urban Design Regulations. ( 6.) Will not create adverse impacts to other property(s) in the vicinity. See previous discussion. Decision It appears that the requested modification to the Urban Design Regulations to permit the proposed roof sign complies with the modification criteria. The proposed sign is comprised of the Regal logo, which would extend above the roofline of the tower located on the south fa9ade of the theater adjacent to the box office. The requested modification is hereby approved. This decision to approve the proposed revisions .as a minor modification is subject to a fourteen (14) day appeal period from the date of this letter. Any appeals of the administrative decision must be filed with the City of Renton Hearing Examiner by 5:00 pm, October 6, 2007. If you have questions regarding this correspondence, feel free to contact Jill Ding at ( 425) 430-7219. Sincerely, Neil Watts Development Services Director Cc Jill Ding File September 13, 2007 Jill K. Ding Senior Planner, City of Renton 1055 S Grady Way Renton, Washington 98055 j .ding@ci.renton. wa. us Ph: (425) 430-7219 Fx: ( 425) 430-7300 DEVELOPMENTrf),AoiNING CITY O>' ~, ... ,,,, SEP \ 7 2007 RECEIVED Re: Modification to 4-3-100 Urban Design Regulations, Section J. Signage: Part 1 cii:Prohibited Roof signs for the proposed Regal Cinemas Stadium 14 Theatre Building The Landing-Renton, Washington Ms. Ding, DD·/\ 1590 south coast hwy. suite 18 laguna beach, ca 9 2 6 5 1 P • 949 .494 • 8093 F • 949 .494 • 2772 professional architectural corporation Please review and accept this request to modify 4-3-100 Urban Design Regulations, Section J. Signage, Part I cii regarding the prohibited use of roof signs. The requested sign for review and approval is the Regal logo sign mounted above the tower on the south elevation adjacent to the box office area. BBA has indicated in the following Urban Design Regulation excerpts justification responses specific to the Theatre Building compliance with the intent of the Urban Design Regulations as noted in bold type. If you have any questions, please contact Binh Dang, Project Manager at BBA or myself. Thank you for the opportunity and your consideration of the proposed Urban Design Regulation modification in regards to the proposed Renton Regal Cinemas Stadium 14 Theatre Building at the Landing project. C.C.: Binh Dang, Project Manager, BB Architects Inc. Ron Reid, Regal Entertainment Group, Inc. Cooper Black, Harvest Partners Bill Barton, Callison I 4-3-100 I. BUILDING ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN: Intent: To encourage building design that is unique and urban in character, comfortable on a human scale, and uses appropriate building materials that are suitable for the Pacific Northwest climate. To discourage franchise retail architecture. J.SIGNAGE: Intent: To provide a means of identifying and advertising businesses: provide directional assistance; encourage signs that are both clear and of appropriate scale for the project; encourage quality signage that contributes to the character of the Urban Center and the Center Village; and create color and interest. 1. Minimum Standards for Districts 'C' and 'D': a. Signage shall be an integral part of the design approach to the building. b. Corporate logos and signs shall be sized appropriately for their location. c. Prohibited signs include (see illustration, subsection J3a of this Section): i. Pole signs; ii. Roof signs; iii. Back-lit signs with letters or graphics on a plastic sheet (can signs or illuminated cabinet signs). Exceptions: Back-lit logo signs less than ten (10) square feet are permitted as are signs with only the individual letters back-lit. d. In mixed use and multi-use buildings, signage shall be coordinated with the overall building design. L. MODIFICATION OF MINIMUM STANDARDS: 1. The Reviewing Official shall have the authority to modify the minimum standards of the design regulations, subject to the provisions of RMC 4-9-2500, Modification Procedures, and the following requirements: a. The project as a whole meets the intent of the minimum standards and guidelines in subsections E, F, G, H, I, J, and K of the design regulations; b. The requested modification meets the intent of the applicable design standard; c. The modification will not have a detrimental effect on nearby properties and the City as a whole; d. The deviation manifests high quality design; and e. The modification will enhance the pedestrian environment on the abutting and/or adjacent streets and/or pathways. 2. Exceptions for Districts 'A' and 18': Modifications to the requirements in subsections E2a and E3a of this Section are limited to the following circumstances: a. When the building is oriented to an interior courtyard, and the courtyard has a prominent entry and walkway connecting directly to the public sidewalk; or b. When a building includes an architectural feature that connects the building entry to the public sidewalk; or c. In complex:es with several buildings, when the building is oriented to an internal integrated walkway system with prominent connections to the public sidewatk(s). (Ord. 5124, 2-7-2005; Ord. 5286, 5-14-2007) BBA Narrative Modification Response: Although the Regal logo sign is located above the tower roof, the logo is integral to the tower design and adds a beneficial architectural element to the facade. The logo sign satisfies the requirements stated in 4-3-lOOL. Modifications of Minimum Standards, part 1 and 2; The logo and tower feature 'will not have a detrimental effect on nearby properties and the City as a whole,' 'manifests high quality design,' 'will enhance the pedestrian environment on the abutting and/or adjacent streets and/or pathways,' and acts as 'an architectural feature that connects the building entry to the public sidewalk.' Without the Regal logo, the tower will not serve its design intent of providing an architectural landmark for the theatre building and acting as visual interest for the surrounding development. 2 4-9-250 VARIANCES, WAIVERS, MODIFICATIONS, AND ALTERNATES: D. MODIFICATION PROCEDURES: 1. Application Time and Decision Authority: Modification from standards, either in whole or in part, shall be subject to review and decision by the Planning/Building/Public Works Department upon submittal in writing of jurisdiction for such modification. (Amd. Ord. 4777. 4-19-1999) 2. Decision Criteria: Whenever there are practical difficulties involved in carrying out the provisions of this Title, the Department Administrator may grant modifications for individual cases provided he/she shall first find that a specific reason makes the strict letter of this Code impractical, that the intent and purpose of the 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 modification: 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 proposed modification is the minimum adjustment necessary to implement these policies and objectives: b. Will meet the objectives and safety, function, appearance, environmental protection and maintainability intended by the Code requirements, based upon sound engineering judgment; c. Will not be injurious to other property(ies) in the vicinity; d. Conforms to the intent and purpose of the Code; e. Can be shown to be justified and required for the use and situation intended; and f. Will not create adverse impacts to other property(ies) in the vicinity. (Ord. 4517, 5-8-1995; Ord. 5100, 11-1-2004) 3. Additional Decision Criteria Only for Center Office Residential 3 (COR 3) Zone: For a modification to special upper story setback standards in the COR 3 Zone, RMC 4-2-1206, the Department shall rely on the recommendations contained within the Report on Design Criteria for Modifications prepared by the Economic Development, Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Administrator or designee as the basis for approval or denial of the request. In addition to the criteria in subsection D2 of this Section, the request for modification in the COR 3 Zone requirements for upper story setbacks shall meet all of the following criteria; a. In comparison to the standard upper story setbacks, the proposed building design will achieve the same or better results in terms of solar access to the public shoreline trails/open space and publicly accessible plazas; the building will allow access to sunlight along the public trail/open space system and plazas abutting the shoreline during daytime and seasonal periods projected for peak utilization by pedestrians. b. The building will create a step in perceived height, bulk and scale in comparison to buildings surrounding the subject building. (Amd. Ord. 4802.10-25-1999; Ord. 5100.11-1-2004; Ord. 5137, 4-25-2005) BBA Narrative Modification Response: According to the design criteria stated in 4-9-2500 Modification Procedures, the Regal logo is 'justified and required for the use and situation intended' as stated previously in BBA's narrative modification response to 4-3-lOOL. Modifications of Minimum Standards. End of Summary Report 3 = kjj;~]" ~' ';''.11_i&wpi:,:---~ ,,4,:;'"··:·:",-,:_,_-, ~seep_""': -gcccc-c _, ' 'J 7 ;: ' ~cc ,,="' Y -::-::-~ -~---~-=-=--=--- R::OUEST "10DIF·:":.,AT CN TO l)RBAN DES16h RE6ULAT ON 4-3-ICOL-J-IC,ii TO ALLOV'I THE REGAL !..060 SIGN TO BE HOUNT!';;D ABOVE TC~E;R E;_EHENT AS 0""10~, ,• , Tyson Boiko Red Robin 6312 S Fiddlers Green Circle, ste 200N Greenwood Village, CO 80111 LLJAc<c-c14 CITY JF RENTON Planning/Building/Public Works Department Gregg Zimmerman P.E., Administrator SUBJECT: RED ROBIN AT THE LANDING (BUILDING 205) REQUEST FOR MINOR AMMENDMENT OF APPROVED SITE PLAN (FILE NO. LUA06· 071, SA·A) Dear Mr. Boiko, I am in receipt of your letter and attachments dated August 22, 2007 wherein you request approval of revisions to the approved Site Plan for The Landing. Red Robin is located on the southeast corner of the intersection of Logan Avenue N and N 1 O'h Street. As the information you submitted discloses, two minor adjustments to the approved site plan are proposed. The requested revisions are summarized below: 1) Reduce the building square footage on site from 8,000 square feet to 6,100 square feet (a 1,900 square foot decrease in area}; and 2) Changes to the elevations of Building 205 as described in greater detail below. Renton Municipal Code Section 4-9-2001, allows minor adjustments to an approved site plan, provided: 1. The adjustment does not involve more than a ten percent (10%) increase in area or scale of the development in the approved site plan; or 2. The adjustment does not have a significantly greater impact on the environment and facilities than the approved plan; or 3. The adjustment does not change the boundaries of the originally approved plan. Analysis of Request The site plan amendments requested and as shown in your August 22, 2007 submittals have been compared to the Site Plan as approved by the Development Services Division Director on August 17, 2006. The proposed change in square footage for Building 205 would result in a 1,900 square foot decrease in the size of the buildings proposed on the project site and would result in a 0.3 percent decrease in the area of The Landing development (1,900 square feet/ 558,406 square feet of total project area including all site plan amendments approved to date= 0.3 percent decrease). The proposed additional area would result in a total area of 556,506 square feet for The Landing. The proposed decrease in area would not result in more than a 1 O percent increase in area or scale of the development. The proposal would not have a greater impact on the environment and facilities, nor wou~ the boundaries of the originally approved site plan. n ____ -~ 1055 South Grady Way -Renton, Washington 98057 R E N T Q N @ This paper contains 50% recycled material, 30% post consumer AHE!\Tl OF THF. CURVE August 23, 2007 Page 2 The north elevation was revised to square up the northwest corner of the building and move the entrance from the northwest corner to the center of the fac;:ade. The curved roofline located on the west side of the building was removed and a curve was added to the center of the north fac;:ade over the main building entrance. The amount of glazing and the modulation on the east, south, and west facades has been reduced, however additional building articulation has been added to the east and west facades. The proposed changes to the building·facades would not result in a 10 percent increase in the area or scale of the development, would not result in a greater impact on the environment and facilities, and would not change the boundaries of the originally approved site plan. The project site is zoned Urban Center -North 1 (UC-N 1 ), and is also subject to District C of the Urban Center Design Regulations. All applicable setback, lot coverage, and landscaping standards would be achieved. Decision Based on staff's analysis, I have determined the proposed revisions are within the parameters defined by the Renton Municipal Code. This determination will be final unless a written appeal of this administrative determination -accompanied by the required $75.00 filing fee -is filed with the City's Hearing Examiner within 14 days of the date of this decision. Should you have any questions regarding this determination or the requirements discussed in this letter, please contact Jill Ding, Senior Planner, at (425) 430-7219. Sincerely, Neil Watts, Director Development Services Division cc: LUA-06-071, SA-A Jill Ding Parties of Record Red Robin site plan amend.doc 8/22/07 Ms. Jill Ding: Senior Planner City of Renton: Subject: Amendment to Approved Site Plan# LUA06-71 Ms. Ding: LUAO~·ol/ Red Robin would like to formally apply to amend the approved plan for building# 205 of The Landing development in Renton, WA. Red Robin is proposing building a 6100 sq ft (GFA) full service restaurant where building 205 on the approved plan is located. For your referencing I have included (3) copies of the following drawings, civil cover, site and landscaping plans, architectural site and building elevations. In accordance with the criteria for "Minor Adjustments to an Approved Site Development Plan" of the zoning code (sec 4-9-2001) our request does not violate the 3 specified requirements. 1. Red Robin's building is actually smaller then the approved 6.5k sq ft approved building 2. Usage of the pad for a restaurant remains the same, therefore no additional impact on the environment is expected 3. The lease (or lot) area is unchanged from the approved plan Once you've had time to review the enclosed plans if you have any questions or need us to provide further details of this proposal please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you very much for your assistance and we look forward to your response. Sincerely, \) ----------~v Tyson oiko Development Manager Red Robin International Inc. CC: file 6312 5. Fiddlers Green Circle Ste. 200N• Greenwood Village, Co. 80111 (303) 846-6089, (303) 846-6110fax, tboiko@redrobin.com red robin.com l ! i I ( ' l ! l I l I I ! t ; I )~l:i .r' I _::!_""' •: - ) -1/,S/~E""\ (\ \, ,,/ ~_f "1 1) _ .• ,.: -·i.1 'I I •, \ \ \\ ".:-· ' I r ' \\ )_!___ l -I I ,-.,-Y/)_l ;-.:t-+-'-,_...,.. " /)~~r-- VICINITY MAP C N1ACT INFORMATION ·-"'' --f'. ·~:-::;~·,·--· I ;:;;;:,:r,,;~c. ---- __ .....,.,..,..,_ ... , """"'"'n"'-""'"' "-··---.. '"'"""""' .,,,~.- """""'""'""""''"'""' ""'"'"'"~"'"'"'-'' WN,.,,.,.,.._...,,_.~ I _,.,.,,_,., __ _ I 'i!!.ifJ'!ii!f(,;;: •• -~"-"'"" "'"""'oc,"""'"·"''""""' '"''""'_"""_' I $:f:ti:= ~ '--;--,~-_. _""-,_,,,. ..... -., I """"""""""'""""·' .-rc.i· ... --"""' '"""'"''""~ooe ~"'"""'"""'""-~ __ ,,,,., ---- '""""'""',.,;.",:""""'" "'"-''"'""" '""'""'_,....,.,_,.,. ':,._,""",,..''':t/f;;,"" uu~= ""'"''"'"""'" "'"'""""""""""' .,,,.-..,._ .... _,,ro,,'«V '""'''''"""'"""""~ . ·-·-·-······· I:!,"'"'"' .. -----· . """''"""'"'"''"""''"' _ .. ....,.,.,..,..,,, ~,.,,,,.,~,,,--~,,... "'"""'""~-="""' ~--""'"'"'" """"~-~'""' """''"""-'"'""~"'" ~·-~ . '] ~=-~± .!!" ""' """"'"''''"'--"'- """ "I'~ \'VJ-ll'lll'<G "'.'"-..;ii "'"ol'\ · c.1,'i or · ll-\l\} l :i l\)1)1 c~\\J~o 6312 FIDDLER'S GREEN CIRCLE GREENWOOD VILLAGE, COLORADO 80111 PHONE: (303) 846-6000 FAX: (303) 846-6110 LOGAN AVENUE RENTON, WASHINGTON CSD PROJECT NUMBER: RRB-0705 JULY 16, 2007 SHEET INDEX C-1.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS C-2.0 SITE PLAN C-3.0 ADA ACCESS/B/UTY PLAN C-4.0 GRADING, STORMWA TER & EROSION CONTROL PLAN C-5.0 UTILITY PLAN C-6.0 DETAILS C-7.0 LANDSCAPE PLAN SITE DATA TABLE "''""""''..,..,,.""""" --~ .... ,=.-,,,,,,. ... ... ,._,,..~,- j ~i~;,~ ,~,, '""""'"''""''""""' ~-c.,,,.,.,.,...,, ~ 1·--· ----------=."".. "'" ' I.::______ I~---------- 1· --·--•· I ::;;==--- ,;;,,,,.,.,,,o.......,_,,.__, """'"''~H•<>> .. "·"'~'w"u"""' ----------- r:<>SrJNG CONOlnONS SY...,OlS . ·=--"'· • ill ,,,.,,.., ........ ~ ...... IO "'"""'""''"''AAOVr • ~ "' 0 ' = ~ <e '"""'''"" ... '"''"""' -<>,-o,r.-,.,""'""' -•----·'-'"'"' GRADING & rnos,cw 00"'"°' SYMSOI.S ... ........ [' ::·1----.. ""~""' __ rn.,. ii<il* ~~=:;~".,!·-, -~-~~;;.~- 0 =~-== -~---.~~----·~ :;:, --~ .. ~ llllllllil ---·- D -- sm, • um.•rv SYMBOI.S Li..h __ _c:l__.l::_ t. -.. ~, i_==: ""'""" ii:,,, __ ... ,.,., ____ _ --------::~'='-- . ---· g --~,a--.. ~·"""""-·- [] --~ [i -·--~.,~ ",_.,,,_..,., ICEI_..M_. fa ~ COMMERCIAL ,~ SITE DESIGN """""''""""'"'"""..,"--'"'"" ,..,..,,, ·""''·""-"-"" ~·"~'-"~ o,,-.. ..,,c,,,,,,c,""'°"'"""".,,,,... .. "-'"" ..... _"""'' .... "'~""' -"'"""""""""''"""''·"'"""""·"'""'"-"""""""' ...... " !Jt1 CR! l0\100R ROW IW el<.,H, '0Rlll UJI(~ I'!,\ '/11"! l~IYI 114!Hlll, r,.,,;. [91YI MS,)MI .......... l~ITlDl51GN.COM !'!d l ! 11'1 ! I! HI 1111 , I ! I ! !i[! i !Ji~ ~ ! ' ~ ~ ,J! !I ,q ' j ~~ ij ji ' Ii" !" ' ! ,. l ~' §. ;e ~ ' i !~ tU (' i • q1 " !ll ~~ I $, ' ' ;;: ~ -~ii ~q~ " e ~,:a~ I ~ t ~ ' i ~ "' m q ' .. '! 11111 '!!" ' > 11, !h~ ' ~ -~~! ! i: i I > !" ! il!!!l.l!, 1, ii !I ~ ,.~~ I ; H~ ~ I l ~ .~i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ p~~l!{~S 1 ! ~ ' ' j' i'' ! .~f:>t'•~ "~~! j ,;l ' ' ! !!! 1: '!ii :, " ! ! ~~~ ! i ~ i 1 ' ' , !~ i 'I ----! ~~. I• l i ! I Rl:::D ROBIN GOURMET BURGERS f--=i;;;:'",~"'"";,7:c~:::=cc=c::_ ______________ -----1 _,,_,,, 10-:~, .,,, SITE PLAN (PROTOTYPE 2007-AJ "faRM/T /S>;Uc O!l--(1>-0T ·, ''! I!- \_ ,11·w ' I I I ~ i I; ! I I 11 ! fl ! 'I I ~1T . ' ! I·' 1.•I• . I ' : I ~ ?1 ~ I ' i . ' ' 1-'~"~"'~:"-:~"'::"'";"'E P::c:c.N---,e-RO_r_o_nc_eE-,-"°-,_-AJ-------~-1 ,·-D. ··;, ,,,, RED ROBIN GOURMET BURGERS - ptRl,#/T ISSUE(l8--l)Hll lll i g ij 5 z I ,-,----- • • N ' i: $ r 11 Pl ~ I I 'z '; g f Si . m 0 [>[>[>[>[>l>~j 1.1= ' -0 y ---@ I ~ . G --G z 0 ~ i' :a m < :,; 0 z RED ROBIN GOURMET BURGERS i"'C CF LOGAN ~VE ~N~ NE P~~~ D~ • !l.DCS. 201 fECIT01S WA EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS PERMIT ISSUE 8-9-07 . :=;-W '1 I I 80 ---0 ---0 ---0 -0 -G -0 -0 --G -0 G ® G) ® ~ rn ;2 > ~i z 'l rn Si 8 I I w --G ---0 ---0 --G --G -{0 ---0 ---0 ---© ---0 -0 :8 -0 I l J I,~) ---0 -(CJ a:,cHIPMAN ADAMS RED ROSIN GOURMET BURGERS - a:J~~~~!:.S L'"'.:;;'_':li::_L~~:_"_''_"_"_'_'"_''_'~_-_"'_~_M _________ I O ' ' I ;-:,:=::::;~ I , 1e"_X1"ER'll10,,R'°EL'_'EV':'A:'11o'_N_s _____________ c___c__ __ ~ . . ~ERMIT ISSUE 8-9--07 :~«: O~ Kathy Keolker, Mayor ~)N·rO' --.....;....,,:,:ugust 16, 2007 William Barton, Associate Callison Architecture, Inc. 1420 Fifth Avenue #2400 Seattle, WA 98101-2343 CITY > RENTON Planning/Building/Public Works Department Gregg Zimmerman P.E., Administrator SUBJECT: THE LANDING UPDATE G (BUILDING 401) REQUEST FOR MINOR AMMENDMENT OF APPROVED SITE PLAN (FILE NO. J Jf'1'! SA-A) Dear Mr. Barton, I am in receipt of your letter and attachments dated July 16, 2007 wherein you request approval of revisions to the approved Site Plan for The Landing. The proposed revisions are limited to Building 401 that was previously amended under Update A (approved March 13, 2007). As the information you submitted discloses, one minor adjustment to the approved site plan is proposed. The requested revisions are summarized below: 1) Changes to the north building elevation as described in greater detail below. Renton Municipal Code Section 4-9-2001, allows minor adjustments to an approved site plan, provided: 1. The adjustment does not involve more than a ten percent (10%) increase in area or scale of the development in the approved site plan; or 2. The adjustment does not have a significantly greater impact on the environment and facilities than the approved plan; or 3. The adjustment does not change the boundaries of the originally approved plan. Analysis of Request The site plan amendment requested and as shown in your July 16, 2007 submittal has been compared to the Site Plan as approved by the Development Services Division Director on August 17, 2006 and the previous amendment approved March 13, 2007. The store entrance, building materials, canopy, and trellises on the north building elevation have been revised. Th_e store entrance has been revised to include more glass display windows, the canopy has been removed due to a change in building modulation that resulted in a building overhang supported by columns that would provide weather protection to patrons of the store. The materials have been revised from grey stucco to burnt orange and beige stucco on the top half of the fa99de and grey concrete masonry units (emu) on the bottom half of the fa,;:ade. The number of trellises proposed has been reduced from 4 to 2. In addition, the proposed trellises are shorter than the currently approved ones. -------l-0-55_S_o_u_th_Gra ___ d_y_W_ay---R-e-nt_o_n,-W-as-h-in-gt-on_9_80_5_7 ______ ~ @ This paper contains 5.0% recycled material, 30% post consumer AHEAD OF THE CURVE August 16, 200; Page 2 The proposed changes to the building facades would not result in a 10 percent increase in the area or scale of the development, would not result in a greater impact on the environment and facilities, and would not change the boundaries of the originally approved site plan. The project site is zoned Urban Center -North 1 (UC-N 1 ), and is also subject to District C of the Urban Center Design Regulations. All applicable setback, lot coverage, and landscaping standards would be achieved. Decision Based on staff's analysis, I have determined the proposed revisions are within the parameters defined by the Renton Municipal Code. Therefore, the proposed amendments to the site plan are approved subject to the following condition.: 1. Prior to the issuance of the final building permit for The Landing, 3 full size copies and 1 8 Y, x 11 inch PMT of a final site plan, building elevations, and landscape plan for the Landing shall be submitted to the Development Services Division project manager. This determination will be final unless a written appeal of this administrative determination -accompanied by the required $75.00 filing fee -is filed with the City's Hearing Examiner within 14 days of the date of this decision. Shau.Id you have any questions regarding this determination or the requirements discussed in this letter, please contact Jill Ding, Senior Pl.anner, at (425) 430-7219. . Neil Watts, Director Development Services Division cc: LUA-06-071 , SA-A Jennifer Henning Jill Ding Parties of Record • THE LANDING C A L L I S O N 7.16.2007 ."vfINOR ADJUSTMENT TO APPROVED SITE PLAN REVIEW DATED JULY 21'\ 2006 CODE DISCUSSION 4-9-200 SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW: I. MINOR ADJUSTMENTS TO AN APPROVED SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN: Minor modifications may be permitted by administrative determination. To be considered a minor modification, the amendment must not: 1. Involve more than a ten percent (10%) increase in area or scale of the development in the approved site development plan; or The area and scale of the development has not increased more than 10%. 2. Have a significantly greater impact on the environment and facilities than the approved plan; or The impact on the environment and facilities has not significantly increased. 3. Change the boundaries of the originally approved plan. (Ord. 4802, 10-25-1999; Amd. Ord. 4954, 2-11-2002; Ord 5028, 11-24-2003) The project boundaries have not changed. DESCRIPTION OF CHANGES The change described in this update is limited to the area known as "Quadrant B" (also known as Zone Two) and applies specifically to building 401. No other buildings are included in this update and any changes to them have been, or will be, addressed in other "Minor Adjustment" submittals. The design of the building has been changed to accommodate the requirements of a major, retail tenant. The design includes colors and materials that are in use on the rest of the project. Since the initial submittal of "Update G" a tower has been added, steel accent bands removed and the sizes of the two, metal trellises with climbing vegetation have been increased. Overall, the new design will fit into the overall character of the Landing and the design intent and quality of the approved SPR of July 21, 2006 is still maintained in these changes. CALLISON ARCHITECTURE, INC. 1420 FIFTH AVENUE lt2400 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101-2343 -T 206 623 4646 F 206 623 4625 www.callison com . I\\ ..--.:-... \J t~ _,._ , + ~ + ~ ..II , CITY IF RENTON City Clerk Bonnie I. Walton 1Y,~~~y o ·x. "\ii o;R~' ;j ~ -~ Kathy Kcolker, Mayor ~'>Neto,,,------------------------- July 13, 2007 Jerome L. Hillis Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson, PS 500 Galland Building 1221 Second Avenue Seattle, WA 9810 I Re: Harvest Partners Appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision dated 5/22/2007, regarding The Landing Site Plan application, 1002 Park Ave. N., (File No. LUA-06-071, SA-A) Dear Appellant: At the regular Council meeting of July 9, 2007, the Renton City Council took action on the referenced appeal by adopting the recommendation of the Planning and Development Committee vacating the Decisions of the Hearing Examiner dated May 22, 2007, and June 12, 2007, and dismissing the appeals related to the Site Plan approval. Enclosed is copy of the Planning and Development Committee report as adopted. Unless an appeal of the decision of the City Council is filed with King County Superior Court as indicated in Renton Municipal Code, the decision of the City Council is final. If I can provide further information, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Bonnie l. Walton City Clerk Enclosure cc: Mayor Kathy Keolker Council President Toni Nelson Larry Warren, City Attorney Jennifer Henning, Principal Planner Parties of Record ( 4) -l-05_5_S_o_u_th_G_r-ad_y_W_a_y ___ R_e_nl_o_n,-W-as-hi-ng_t_on_9_80_5_7_--( 4-2-5)_4_3-0--6-51_0_/_F_A_X_(_42_5_) _43-0--6-5_1_6 ~ @ This papercontams 50% recycled rnatenal. 30% post consurilt!I :\ HEAD OF THE CURVE Zanetta Fontes Warren Barber & Fontes, PS PO Box 626 Renton, WA 98057 Peter Buck Buck & Gordon LLP 2025 First Ave., Suite 500 Seattle, WA 98121 Ross Radley 3316 Fuhrman Ave. E. Seattle, WA 98102 Brad Nicholson 2811 Dayton Ave. Renton, WA 98056 ' ~ CITY >F RENTON Planning/Building/Public Works Department Gregg Zimmerman P.E., Administrator o~"~Y o.-;, ~ ~ ; Kathy Keolker, Mayor <i'N,rOr----------------------------- uly 9, 2007 William Barton, Associate Callison Architecture, Inc. 1420 Fifth Avenue #2400 Seattle, WA 98101-2343 SUBJECT: THE LANDING UPDATE H (BUILDINGS 302-308, AND 311) REQUEST FOR MINOR AMMENDMENT OF APPROVED SITE PLAN (FILE NO. LUA06-071, SA-A) Dear Mr. Barton, I am in receipt of your letter and attachments dated June 22, 2007 wherein you request approval of revisions to the approved Site Plan for The Landing. The proposed revisions are in response to previously approved revisions to the size and shape of the parking· garage and cinema (updates B and E dated March 19 and April 25). Building 311 is a new building and contains restrooms and management offices and would be located between the cinema and the parking garage. As the information you submitted discloses, four minor adjustments to the approved site plan are proposed. The requested revisions are summarized below: 1) Increase in the building square footage on site from a total of 45,400 square feet to 46,666 square feet (a 1,266 square foot increase in area); 2) Revision to the Landscape Plan, which now include a landscaped plaza at the northeast corner _of the site, a revision to the water feature between Buildings 309 and 310 from an in-ground interactive water feature to a water table with seat walls and lighting strips, and the addition of a fireplace to the southeast corner of Building 307 with paving "radiating" from the fireplace; 3) Revision to the proposed gateway sign from a sign attached to the northeast corner of the cinema to a monument sign located in the proposed plaza area on the northeast corner of the site just south of the intersection of Park Avenue N and Logan Avenue N; and 4) Changes to the elevations of Buildings 302-308 as described in greater detail below. Renton Municipal Code Section 4-9-2001, allows minor adjustments to an approved site plan, provided: 1. The adjustment does not involve more than a ten percent (10%) increase in area or scale of the development in the approved site plan; or 2. The adjustment does not have a significantly greater impact on the environment and facilities than the approved plan; or 3. The adjustment does not change the boundaries of the originally approved plan. -------l-0-55_S_o_u_th-G-'r-ad_y_W-ay---R-e-nt_o_n,-W-a-s-hi-n-gt-on_9_80_5_7 ______ ~ @ This paper contains 50'% recycled material, 30% post consumer AHEAD OF THE CURVE July 9, 2007 Page 2 Analysis of Request The site plan amendments requested and as shown in your June 22, 2007 submittals have been compared to the Site Plan as approved by the Development Services Division Director on August 17, 2006. The proposed change in square footage for Buildings 302-308 and the addition of Building 311 would result in a 1,266 square foot increase in the size of the buildings proposed on the project site and would result in a 0.2 percent increase in the area of The Landing development (1,266 square feet/ 557,140 square feet of total project area including all site plan amendments approved to date = 0.2 percent increase). The proposed additional area would result in a total area of 558,406 square feet for The Landing. The proposed increase in area would not result in more than a 1 O percent increase in area or scale of the development. The proposal would not have a greater impact on the environment and facilities, nor would it change the boundaries of the originally approved site plan The proposed changes to the landscape plan include the addition of a new plaza at the northeast corner of the site (at the intersection of Logan Avenue NE and Park Avenue NE), which would include scored paving, landscaping, and seat walls and would function as a gateway to the project site. In addition, changes are proposed to the water feature located between Buildings 309 and 310. The original water feature was an in-ground interactive water feature. The proposed water feature would be a water table with seat walls and lighting strips. Finally, the southeast corner of Building 307 was revised to include a fireplace with a scored paving pattern "radiating'' from the fireplace. The proposed changes to the landscape plan would not result in more than a 1 O percent increase in area or scale of the development. The proposal would not have a greater impact on the environment and facilities, nor would it change the boundaries of the originally approved site plan. The proposed changes to the signage include the revision of the approved gateway sign from a sign attached to the northeast corner of Building 300 (cinema) to a monument "half circle" sign within the new plaza area. The square footage of the proposed sign would decrease from 200 total square feet to 24.5 square feet. The proposed decrease in area of the sign would not result in more than a 1 O percent increase in area or scale of the development. The proposal would not have a greater impact on the environment and facilities, nor would it change the boundaries of the originally approved site plan. The proposed changes to the building facades are described as follows below: The west side of the south elevation of Building 302 would be broken up with additional vertical modulation and the materials used would be changed from brick to stucco and lapped metal siding. The east side of the south elevation changed from concrete panel to concrete fiber board with a change in the roof line to include a 4-foot overhang. The elevations of Building 303 were revised to replace an angular diagonal wall with a curved wall, and additional vertical modulation was added along the roof line. The proposed materials were revised from solid brick along the entire fa9ade to 1 /3 of the fa9ade being concrete fiber board, 1/3 being corrugated metal siding, and 1/3 brick. In addition the canopies were broken up into smaller sections and a canvas awning was added over the central display windows. liinding updateH site plan amend.doc July 9, 2007 Page 3 The elevations of Building 304 were revised to add additional vertical modulation on the southwest portion of the building, and the materials proposed were revised from concrete masonry units (emu) to a combination of brick, emu, and corrugated metal siding. The elevations of Building 305 were revised to include additional vertical modulation along the roof line and the building materials were revised from concrete fiber board and brick to lapped metal siding, brick, corrugated metal, and emu. The elevations of Building 306 were revised due to the reduction in square footage of the building due to right-of-way, utility improvements, and changes in the shape of Building 300 (cinema). The vertical modulation was reduced as a result in the reduction of square footage and the awning along the southeast corner of the building changed from a metal awning to a canvas awning. The elevations of Building 307 were revised.to add a fireplace at the southeast corner of the building, the south fa,;:ade of the building was expanded to the east and the building materials proposed include stucco, lapped metal siding, and a painted steel member for the fireplace chimney. The elevations of Building 308 were revised to break up the previous 2 large expanses of display windows along the south fa,;:ade with metal canopy materials. Previously the large display windows were fairly equal in size, the proposal would enlarge the length of the windows on the east half of the f1a,;:ade and decrease the length of the windows on the west half of the fa,;:ade, although.the total area of display windows does not appear to have changed, just redistributed. The materi1als proposed for this building have been changed from emu to concrete fiber board and corrugated metal siding. The proposed new Building 311 would have window on the north and west elevations and the materials proposed along all facades of the building are emu. This building is located between the parking garage and the cinema and would contain restrooms and management offices for the development. The proposed changes to the building facades would not result in a 10 percent increase in the area or scale of the development, would not result in a greater impact on the environment and facilities, and would not change the boundaries of the originally approved site plan. The project site is zoned Urban Center -North 1 (UC-N1 ), and is also subject to District C of the Urban Center Design Regulations. All applicable setback, lot coverage, and landscaping standards would be achieved. Decision Based on staff's analysis, I have determined the proposed revisions are within the parameters defined by the Renton Municipal Code. Therefore, the proposed amendments to the site plan are approved subject to the following condition: 1. Prior to the issuance of the final building permit for The Landing, 3 full size copies and 1 8 Y, x 11 inch PMT of a final site plan, building elevations, and landing updateH site plan amend.doc July 9, 2007 Page 4 landscape plan for the Landing shall be submitted to the Development Services Division project manager. This determination will be final unless a written appeal of this administrative determination -accompanied by the required $75.00 filing fee -is filed with the City's Hearing Examiner within 14 days of the date of this decision. Should you have any questions regarding this determination or the requirements discussed in this letter, please contact Jill Ding, Senior Planner, at (425) 430-7219. Sincerely, rV t~/i; tu i1ti Neil Watts, Director Development Services Division cc: LUA-06-071, SA-A Jennifer Henning Jill Ding Parties of Record landmg updateH site plan amend.doc , July 9, 2007 • Appeal: The Landing, Harvest Partners, SA-06-071 I Renton City Council Minutes Council find that the Hearing Examiner made errors of fact and law by conditioning the minor modification on the planting of trees. Page 240 To that end, the Committee recommended that the Hearing Examiner's decision be affirmed as to the minor modification but modified by adding three findings of fact as follows: I l. Increasing the building's height to a full 115 feet would only create a 3 percent increase. At I l 3 feet, the likely end result, the overall site massing would only increase by 1.5 percent. The change in elevation would be unnoticeable from the appellant's home, which is three-quarters of a mile away on Mercer Island. 12. Requiring the applicants to plant evergreen trees along the lakeshore fa<;ade of the building would be nearly impossible in that there are emergency fire access lanes along that area. Furthermore, there are structural and utility- based issues which would need to be completely overhauled and re- assessed in order to comply with this condition. 13. The Seahawks moved the facility back from the shoreline to preserve the view from the Misty Cove condominiums. The planting of trees shoreward of the facility would do much greater harm to the adjacent view of the Misty Cove residents than it would benefit Mercer Island residents. The Committee further recommended that conclusions 5, 6, and 7 be stricken and replaced with the following conclusions, and the decision be modified to grant the minor modification without condition. 5. However, since the change in elevation would be indistinguishable from appellants' property, and otherwise meets all the requisite criteria of City Code Section 4-9-200!, there is no basis to condition the minor modification. 6. Because the ERC did not condition the project when it was greater in elevation than the current elevation with the minor modification and the Hearing Examiner did not condition the original site plan approval, there appears to be no authority to impose conditions on this minor modification. MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY PALMER, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. Planning and Development Committee Vice Chair Clawson presented a report regarding the appeal by Harvest Partners regarding The Landing site plan (SA- 06-071 ). The Committee met on 7/5/2007 to consider the appeal brought by the applicant, Harvest Partners of the decision of the Hearing Examiner dated 5/22/2007. This matter stems from an appeal by Brad Nicholson and Alliance for South End (appellants) of the site plan approval for The Landing. The Hearing Examiner heard the appeal and rendered a decision on 5/22/2007. The Hearing Examiner's decision affim1ed the Development Services Director's approval of the site plan for The Landing project in most respects but reversed the Director's approval of certain specific elements in the The Landing site plan. The City of Renton filed a request for clarification. On 6/5/2007, appellants and Harvest Partners filed separate requests to reconsider with the Hearing Examiner. On 6/6/2007, consistent with a settlement between appellants and Harvest Partners, appellants, through their attorney, withdrew appellant's request for reconsideration and they notified the Hearing Examiner that they did not oppose July 9, 2007 ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT AUDIENCE COMMENT Citizen Comment: Sarthurak - Benson Hill Communities Annexation, S 200th St & 128th Ave SE Renton City Council Minutes Page 241 the request for reconsideration submitted by Harvest Partners. Thereafter, the Hearing Examiner, on 6/12/2007, issued his reconsideration and his clarification. In his reconsideration, the Hearing Examiner upheld his earlier decision, which had denied several modifications previously granted by Development Services Director Neil Watts. In addition to the oral presentations at the Committee meeting, the Committee reviewed the file, including the Hearing Examiner's decisions, the letter submitted by the Hearing Examiner dated 7/3/2007, the motions and briefs therein, as well as the written submissions by the parties to the Committee. The Committee also reviewed appellants' withdrawal of their request for reconsideration and their statement of support for applicant Harvest Partners' request for reconsideration, filed pursuant to the settlement agreement reached by the parties. Finally, the Committee considered the submission by Peter Buck, attorney for appellants, dated 6/27/2007, which made it clear that the settlement by the parties was intended to be a resolution of all appeals, including the site plan appeal. The documentation submitted to the Hearing Examiner was not as clear as Mr. Buck's correspondence of6/27/2007. In light of the evidence, the Committee finds that the decision of 5/22/2007 was not a final order. Further, the Committee finds that the Hearing Examiner did not understand and could not have understood the breadth of the settlement entered into by the parties. The Committee finds the Hearing Examiner no longer had a case or controversy before him. At that point the appeal was moot. The Committee finds itself in the same situation. The Committee recommended that the City Council vacate the decisions of the Hearing Examiner, dated 5/22/2007 and 6/12/2007, and dismiss the appeals related to the site plan approval. MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY PALMER, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. Chief Administrative Officer Covington reviewed a written administrative report summarizing the City's recent progress towards goals and work programs adopted as part of its business plan for 2007 and beyond. Items noted included: * Residents are invited to help shape the future of the Renton Public Library by completing a questionnaire about library services by July 21. The survey is part of the City's Library Master Plan process. * BNSF Railway Company opened construction bids for four railroad bridge replacement projects in Renton: the Cedar River Bridge, the Rainier Ave. Bridge, the Shattuck Ave. Bridge, and the Hardie Ave. Bridge. The first project-Rainier Ave. Bridge-will begin August 1 I. As a result, Rainier Ave. will be closed August 11 through August 15 between S. 3rd St. and S. 7th St. Linda Sarthurak, 17504 155th Ave. SE, Renton, 98058, noted the City's preliminary costs associated with the Benson Hill Communities Annexation and the funding made available from King County and the State via Senate Bill 6686 (authorizing a local sales and use tax that is credited against the State sales and use tax). She questioned whether the funding via Senate Bill 6686 can be used for initial purchases of equipment. Chief Administrative Officer Covington confirmed that the funding can be used for capital purchases. APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL l PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE COMMITTEE REPORT Date ?-9-~tJ07 1 July 9, 2007 Appeal by Harvest Partners Regarding The Landing Site Plan File No. LUA-06-071, SA-A (Referred July 2, 2007) The Planning and Development Committee (the "Committee") met on July 5, 2007 to consider the appeal brought by the Applicant, Harvest Partners of the Decision of the Hearing Examiner dated May 22, 2007. This matter stems from an appeal by Brad Nicholson and ASE (Appellants) of the Site Plan Approval for The Landing. The Hearing Examiner heard the appeal and rendered a Decision on May 22, 2007. The Hearing Examiner's Decision affirmed the Development Services Director's approval of the Site Plan for The Landing project in most respects but reversed the Director's approval of certain specific elements in The Landing Site Plan. The City of Renton filed a Request for Clarification. On June 5, 2007, Appellants and Harvest Partners filed separate Requests to Reconsider with the Hearing Examiner. On June 6, 2007, consistent with a Settlement between Appellants and Harvest Partners, Appellants, through their attorney, withdrew Appellant's Request for Reconsideration and they notified the Hearing Examiner that they did not oppose the Request for Reconsideration submitted by Harvest Partners. Thereafter, the Hearing Examiner, on June 12, 2007, issued his Reconsideration and his Clarification. In his Reconsideration, the Hearing Examiner upheld his earlier Decision, which had denied several modifications previously granted by Director Neil Watts. In addition to the oral presentations at the committee meeting, the Committee reviewed the file, including the Hearing Examiner's Decisions, the letter submitted by the Hearing Examiner dated July 3, 2007, the motions and briefs therein, as well as the written submissions by the parties to the Committee. The Committee also reviewed Appellants' Withdrawal of their Request for Reconsideration and their statement of support for Applicant Harvest Partners' Request for Reconsideration, filed pursuant to the Settlement agreement reached by the parties. Finally, the Committee considered the submission by Peter Buck, attorney for Appellants, dated June 27, 2007, which made it clear that the Settlement by the parties was intended to be a resolution of all appeals, including the Site Plan appeal. The documentation submitted to the Hearing Examiner was not as clear as Mr. Buck's correspondence of June 27, 2007. Pagelo/2 . In light of the evidence, the Committee finds that the Decision of May 22, 2007 was not a final order. Further, the Committee finds that the Hearing Examiner did not understand and could not have understood the breadth of the Settlement entered into by the parties. The Committee finds the Hearing Examiner no longer had a case or controversy before him. At that point the appeal was moot. The Committee finds itself in the same situation. The Committee recommends that the City Council vacate the Decisions of the Hearing Examiner, dated May 22, 2007, and June 12, 2007, and DISMISS the appeals related to the Site Plan Approval. · Terri Briere, Chair Dan Clawson,'kC'liiiF C: Larry Warren Alex Pietsch Neil Watts Jennifer Henning F rt.ti /<'.au-+ MllY.. (J,r~ 2iM.fll.t:(Mt/l'> Page 2 of2 ' Kathy Keolker, Mayor July 9, 2007 Jerome L. Hillis Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson 1221 2nd Ave., Suite 500 Seattle, WA 98101 CITY •F RENTON City Clerk Bonnie I. Walton RE: Refund of Appeal Fee -The Landing Site Plan, File LUA-06-071, SA-A Dear Mr. Hillis: Enclosed herewith is your check number 097752, dated June 25, 2007, in the amount of $75. This check was received in this office June 26th as an appeal fee with your Supplemental Notice of Appeal filing for The Landing Site Plan appeal. It was thereafter determined the appeal fee was not required for submission of the Supplement document. If I can provide further information, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Bonnie I. Walton City Clerk bw Enclosure -l-05_5_S_o_u_th_G_r-ad_y_\_Va_y ___ R_e_nt-on-.-W-a-s-hi-ng-,t-on-98_0_5_7_--(4_2_5)_4_3_0--6-51_0_/_F_A_X_(-42_5_)-43-0--6-5_1_6 ~ @ This paper contains 50% recycled material, 30% post consumer AHEAl> O.F THE CURVE S.:JJY Jf Rl:'N rr , . . . "'· __ PPEAL TO RENTON CITY COUN 1 -.~ OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION/RECOMMENDATION •1Jr\J ,~ " ,,_-JO'! ~-• • • I fJ ! I . t<EC~iVcO APPLICATION NAl'vffi The Landing -Site Plan FILE NO. LifAII~&1-2!5'f'$ 1fli'tA}.$' The undersigned interested party hereby files its Notice of Appeal from the decision or recomrnfr:d%tio~fih~ Land Use Hearing Examiner, dated June 12 , 20_Ql_. I. IDENTIFICATION OF PARTY APPELLANT: REPRESENTATIVE (IF ANY): Name: _ ___;H,sac.r-"v_,,e,,_s.ht_P,::.,ascrects,n;,ec,r3s,__ _____ _ Name: Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson Address: 8214 Westchester Drive Address: 1221 2nd Avenue, Suite 500 Dallas TX 75225 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone Number: ___________ _ Email:---------------- Phone Number: (206) 623-1745 Email:---------------- 2. SPECIFICATION OF ERRORS (Attach additional sheets, if necessary) Set forth below are the specific errors or law or fact upon which this appeal is based: Finding of Fact: (Please designate number as denoted in the Examiner's Report) (See attached Supplemental Notice of Appeal) No. Error:------------------------------- Correction:----------------------------- Conclusions: No. Error:------------------------------- Correction:----------------------------- Other: No. Error:------------------------------- Correction:----------------------------- 3. SUMMARY OF ACTION REQUESTED The City Council is requested to grant the following relief: (Attach explanation, if desired) (See attached Supplemental Notice of Appeal) Reverse the decision or recommendation and grant the following relief: Moclify the decision or recommendation as follows: Remand to the Examiner for further consideration as follows: Other: . . I I /) :__, d-.lt-t\ Jx'?· Jerome L. Hillis 6/26/07 Appe!laht!Representative Signature Type/Printed Name Date NOT~ Please refer to Title IV, Chapter 8, of the Renton Municipal Code, and Section 4-8-I IOF, for specific appeal procedures. ~" (C. G.-~,1 ,t,.1,,. . .,,.,,.,,,,, c.4 11 .H Hv 1\)t:'.1 1 i,J,.'fr'>, D,·v <:,.'..I,·'> j>,_. _ Fv--t"'cA l<(·~.._J{-;1.-tt--,--t I f-/r""'c'·~--,.~j t-Y~L,..H{',-= ..- "~y 0. (!~~· :e, CIT1 OF RENTON t~ + ..ii + Hearing Examiner Fred J. Kaufman ~ -~ Kathy Keo Iker, Mayor ~'N°fO July 3, 2007 Renton City Council Renton City Hall 1055 S Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 Re: Appeal of the Landing's Site Plan (LUA-06-071, SA-A) Dear Council Members: A review of the record reveals that the appellant did not withdraw the appeal of the Site Plan when the settlement was reached. The appellants did withdraw their appeals regarding Building Permits for some of the buildings on the site covered by the Site Plan. The standing of the parties to appeal the Building Permits was still in contention when the Building Permit appeals were withdrawn. The fact that there was no clear withdrawal of the appeal meant that there was still an intact decision on what aspects of the Site Plan did or did not comply with Code -more particularly- were there "practical difficulties", a necessary circumstance, in complying with the various regulations? In addition, there was also a pending request to clarify the decision from the City Attorney. That request was not withdrawn. This office was not left with any clear agreement of the parties. This office believed and probably still believes that the matter was still open and that an answer was required. Therefore, this office issued its letter of June 12, 2007, wherein this office explains why it found as it did and clarified one or two issues. This office hopes this letter helps to clarify the issues in this matter. Sincerely, Fred Kaufman Hearing Examiner ----,-0-55_S_o_u_th_G_r-ad_y_W-ay ___ R_e_n_to_n_, W-as-h-in_gt_o_n_9_8_05_5_--(-42_5_)_43-0--6-S_l_S ____ -~ @ This paper contains 50% recycled material. 30% post consumer .-\HEAD OF THl:. CCRVE ' July 2, 2007 Monday, 7 p.m. CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL OF COUNCILMEMBERS CITY STAFF IN ATTENDANCE ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT CONSENT AGENDA Council Meeting Minutes of 6/25/2007 Appointment: Planning Commission Appointment: Library Board Appeal: The Landing, Harvest Partners, SA-06-071 Appeal: Seahawks Headquarters & Training Facility, Football Northwest, SA-06-073 RENTON CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting MINUTES Council Chambers Renton City Hall Mayor Kathy Keolker called the meeting of the Renton City Council to order and led the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag. TONI NELSON, Council President; DAN CLAWSON; DENIS LAW; TERRI BRIERE; MARCIE PALMER; DON PERSSON; RANDY CORMAN. KA THY KEOLKER, Mayor; JAY COVINGTON, Chief Administrative Officer; ZANE TT A FONTES, Assistant City Attorney; BONNIE WAL TON, City Clerk; SUZANNE DALE ESTEY, Economic Development Director; LESLIE BETLACH, Parks Director; MARTY WINE, Assistant CAO; CHIEF I. DAVID DANIELS and DEPUTY CHIEF CHUCK DUFFY, Fire Department; COMMANDER DA YID LEIBMAN, Police Department. Chief Administrative Officer Covington reviewed a written administrative report summarizing the City's recent progress towards goals and work programs adopted as part of its business plan for 2007 and beyond. Items noted included: <if Celebrate the nation's independence at Revo225's Fabulous Fourth of July at Gene Coulon Memorial Beach Park. <if Picnic Pizzazz, a Kid's Entertainment Series at Kiwanis Park, kicks off July 12 with Castro the Magician. Items on the consent agenda are adopted by one motion which follows the listing. At the request ofCouncilmember Persson, item 5.k. was removed for separate consideration. Approval of Council meeting minutes of6/25/2007. Council concur. Mayor Keolker reappointed Robert Bonner, Jr., 1507 Jones Ave. NE, Renton, 98056, to the Planning Commission for a three-year term expiring 6/30/20 I 0. Council concur. Mayor Keolker appointed Tyler Morse, 2625B Jones Ave. NE, Renton, 98056, to the Library Board (youth representative) for a two-year term expiring 7/1/2009. Refer to Community Services Committee. City Clerk reported appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision regarding The Landing site plan application (SA-06-071); appeal filed on 6/5/2007 by Harvest Partners, 8214 Westchester Dr., #650, Dallas, TX, 75225, represented by Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson, accompanied by required fee. Refer to Planning and Development Committee. City Clerk reported appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision regarding the Seahawks Headquarters and Training Facility site plan application (SA-06-073) by Football Northwest LLC, 505 5th Ave. S., #900, Seattle, 98104, represented by Roger A. Pearce of Foster Pepper PLLC, accompanied by required fee. Refer to Planning and Development Committee. CI OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA -.LL ' I Al#: Submitting Data: For Agenda of: 7/2/2007 Dept/Div/Board .. AJLS/City Clerk Staff Contact. ..... Bonnie I. Walton Agenda Status Consent .............. Subject: Public Hearing .. Appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision dated 5/22/2007 Correspondence .. regarding The Landing Site Plan application. (File No. Ordinance ............. LUA-06-071, SA-A) Resolution ............ Old Business ........ Exhibits: New Business ....... A. Appeal Supplement -Harvest Partners (6/26/2007) Study Sessions ...... B. City Clerk's letter (6/22/2007) Information ......... C. Hearing Examiner's Decision (6/12/2007) D. Appeal -Harvest Partners (6/5/2007) E. Request for Reconsideration -Nicholson (6/5/2007) F. Hearing Examiner's Report & Decision (5/22/2007) Recommended Action: Approvals: Refer to Planning and Development Committee. Legal Dept. ....... . Finance Dept. .... . Other .............. . Fiscal Impact: N/ A Expenditure Required .. . Transfer/ Amendment. ..... . Amount Budgeted ...... . Total Project Budget Revenue Generated ........ . City Share Total Project.. SUMMARY OF ACTION: Appeal of the Hearing Examiner's decision on The Landing Site Plan application was filed on 6/5/2007 by Harvest Partners, represented by Hillis, Clark, Martin & Peterson, P.S. accompanied by the required $75 fee. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Council to take action on The Landing Site Plan application appeal. cc: Jennifer Henning Larry Warren Rentonnet/agnbill/ bh X 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 l l 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 \ CITY OF RENTON JUN 2 6 2007 RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFF!CE r. <f:o f w1 ·r-s BEFORE THE RENTON CITY COUNCIL In the Matter of the Appeal of LUA-06-071, SA-A Brad Nicholson re: SUPPLEMENT AL NOTICE OF APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION The Director's Administrative Site Plan Approval. L OVERVIEW While appeals were still pending before the Renton Hearing Examiner regarding Applicant Harvest Partners' Site Plan for The Landing, the parties to the appeals reached a settlement of all claims. Accordingly, Appellants Alliance for the South End ("ASE") and Brad Nicholson withdrew their Request for Reconsideration of the Examiner's Site Plan decision, and stated their support for Applicant's position regarding the Sile Plan. Upon Appellants' withdrawal of their opposition to the Site Plan, all pending decisions should have been withdra>w11. However, despite the settlement, the Examiner did not withdraw his initial decision on the Site Plan, but instead issued a second decision on the merits. All parties arc in agreement as to the Site Plan for The Landing, and all appeals have been dismissed or withdrawn. There is no longer a case or controversy, and the matter is moot. The decisions of the Hearing Examiner should therefore be withdrawn and vacated. II. INTRODUCTION Applicant Harvest Partners hereby files this Supplemental Notice of Appeal of the Hearing Examiner's Decision regarding Applicant's Site Plan for The Landing. This Supplemental Notice of Appeal is intended to supplement and be consolidated with Applicant's June 5, 2007 appeal filed with the Renton City Council. For the reasons stated herein and in Applicant's June 5, 2007 appeal, Applicant respectfully requests that the Renton Supplemental Notice of Appeal of Hearing Examiner's Decision -Page I of8 CC. '-c~ry tV,,__..-,~,..., C,fy 1f{y Ned w,, ff; be ,1 ;:; / c.,:::, D, ,e ct"c_r./" r-,-ec( k<vf,01-,,,, ,-ft"c"-''''5 [:xe,1uuv:/ HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON, P.S. 500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Ave Seattle WA 98101-2925 206.623.1745; fax 206.623. 7789 J City Council withdraw and vacate the decisions of the Hearing Examiner as set forth below. 2 In the alternative, because the decisions of the Hearing Examiner represent substantial errors 3 in fact or law, Applicant respectfully requests that the Renton City Council reverse the 4 decisions of the Hearing Examiner as set forth below. 5 III. STATEMENT OF FACTS 6 On May 22, 2007, following a hearing on the merits, the Renton Hearing Examiner r 7 issued a decision regarding Applicant Harvest Partners' Site Plan for The Landing project (the 8 "Site Plan Decision"). In nearly all respects, the Site Plan Decision affirmed the Director's 9 approval of The Landing Site Plan, and modifications thereto. However, the Examiner 1 o reversed the Director's approval of certain specific elements of The Landing Site Plan, 11 finding that there were not "practical difficulties" permitting such elements. 12 On May 31, 2007, the City filed a Request for Clarification regarding two issues in the 13 Site Plan Decision. The City's Request for Clarification sought to clarify: (I) whether the 14 Examiner's Site Plan Decision was intended to require a primary entrance on the west side of 15 Building 102; and (2) whether the Examiner's Site Plan Decision was intended to require 16 removal of the parking area in the northeast corner of Quadrant C, along North I 0th Street.1 17 On June 5, 2007, Applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration with the Hearing 18 Examiner, requesting that the Examiner reconsider those portions of the Site Plan Decision 19 requiring modifications to the Site Plan. On the same date, Applicant filed its Notice of 20 Appeal of Hearing Examiner's Decision with the Renton City Council. On June 5, 2007, 21 Appellants Alliance for the South End ("ASE") and Brad Nicholson also filed a Request for 22 Reconsideration with the Hearing Examiner. 23 Subsequent to the filing of Applicant's and Appellants' Requests for Reconsideration, 24 Applicant and Appellants resolved this matter through a settlement, memorialized in a 25 Settlement Agreement and Release dated for reference purposes June 5, 2007. Accordingly, 26 on June 6, 2007, Appellants withdrew their Request for Reconsideration of the Examiner's 27 28 1 For reference purposes, a copy of the current Site Plan for The Landing is attached hereto as EXHIBIT A. Supplemental Notice of Appeal of Hearing Examiner's Decision -Page 2 of 8 HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON, P.S. 500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Ave Seattle WA 98101-2925 206.6231745; fax 206 623.7789 Site Plan Decision. Furthermore, Appellants stated that they did not oppose Applicant's 2 Request for Reconsideration. A copy of Appellants' withdrawal is attached hereto as 3 EXHIBIT B. 4 On June 12, 2007, the Examiner issued a decision regarding Applicant's Request for 5 Reconsideration, as well as the City's Request for Clarification (the "Reconsideration 6 Decision"). A copy of the Reconsideration Decision is attached hereto as EXHIBIT C. 7 Although the Examiner's Reconsideration Decision acknowledged that a settlement between 8 the parties had occurred, the Examiner did not withdraw his previous decision, but rather 9 proceeded to render a decision on the merits. First, the Reconsideration Decision clarified IO that a primary entrance on the west side of Building I 02 was not required. Reconsideration 11 Decision, at I. The Reconsideration Decision also stated that although the parking areas 12 south of North 10th Street in Quadrant C were permitted, the parking stalls located south of 13 North 10th Street in Quadrant B were not permitted. Id. Finally, the Examiner's 14 Reconsideration Decision denied Applicant's Request for Reconsideration, upholding the 15 original Site Plan Decision. Id, at 3. 16 As set forth below, because the parties had reached a settlement and had dismissed or 17 withdrawn all pending appeals while Applicant's Request for Reconsideration was still 18 pending, there was no longer a justiciable case or controversy, and the matter became moot. 19 Therefore, the Examiner's Site Plan Decision and the Examiner's Reconsideration Decision 20 should be withdrawn and vacated. In the alternative, as set forth in Applicant's June 5, 2007 21 appeal and Applicant's Request for Reconsideration, which documents are incorporated 22 herein by this reference, and as presented below, the Site Plan Decision and the 23 Reconsideration Decision contain substantial errors in fact or law, and those portions of the 24 decisions requiring modifications to the Site Plan should be reversed. 25 26 27 28 Supplemental Notice of Appeal of Hearin}; Examiner's Decision -Page 3 of 8 HILLIS Cl.ARK MARTIN & PETERSON, P.S. 500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Ave Seaitle WA 98101-2925 206.623.1745; fax 206.623.7789 IV. ARGUMENT 2 A. The Settlement between the Parties Rendered the Appeals Moot. 3 An administrative appeal invokes the exercise of quasi-judicial power. The exercise 4 of judicial power requires a justiciable case or controversy. 2 Before jurisdiction can be 5 asserted, therefore, the hearing body must determine whether the case is moot. 3 A case is 6 moot where the hearing body can no longer provide effective relief. 4 A settlement involving 7 all parties and all claims renders an action moot. 5 This also applies when a case is settled ' 8 pending appeal.6 When only moot questions arc involved, no case or controversy exists, and a 9 case should be dismissed. 7 10 Here, while Applicant's Request for Reconsideration of the Examiner's Site Plan 11 Decision was still pending, the parties reached a settlement of all claims. Appellants thereby 12 withdrew their Request for Reconsideration, and stated their support for Applicant's Request 13 for Reconsideration. As soon as the parties had entered into the settlement agreement, and 14 Appellants had withdrawn all appeals or Requests for Reconsideration related to The Landing, 15 a justiciable case or controversy no longer existed in this matter, and the matter became moot. 16 Because this matter was moot, the Examiner's Site Plan Decision and Reconsideration 17 Decision are without effect, and should be vacated and withdra\\n. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 B. The Examiner's Issuance of the Reconsideration Decision Despite the Settlement Represents a Substantial Error in Fact or Law. The absence of a justiciable case or controversy following the settlement between the parties provides sufficient basis for the Council to withdraw and vacate the Examiner's 2 U.S. Const. Art. III, § 2. 3 See, e.g., Tosco Corp. v. Hodel, 804 F.2d 590,591 (10th Cir. 1986). 4 See, e.g., In re Marriage of Horner, 151 Wn.2d 884 (2004); see also Tosco, 804 F.2d at 591 ("[C]ourts are without power to decide questions that cannot affect the rights oflitigants in the case before them."). 5 Tosco, 804 F.2d at 592, cited by Villas at Harbour Pointe Owners Ass 'n v. Mutual of Enumclaw Ins. Co., 137 Wn.App. 751, 761 n.13 (2007). 6 Id. 1 Snohomish County v. State Shorelines Hearings Bd., I 08 Wn.App. 78 l, 787 (200 !). Supplemental Notice of Appeal of Hearing Examiner's Decision -Page 4 of 8 HrLLJS CLARK MARTrN & PETERSON, P.S. 500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Ave Seattle WA 98101-2925 206.623.1745; fax 206.623.7789 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 ]6 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 decisions in this matter. In the alternative, the Council should reverse the decisions of the Examiner because they contain substantial errors in fact or law. First, the Examiner's Reconsideration Decision contains substantial errors in fact. The Reconsideration Decision acknowledged that the parties had reached a settlement: Since these various requests were received it appears that the parties have reached a settlement of some of their appeal issues. The appellants no longer oppose the applicant's request for reconsideration and appellants have withdrawn their request for reconsideration. Reconsideration Decision, at I. The Examiner again discussed the settlement at the conclusion of the Reconsideration Decision: Id, at 3. In conclusion, this ol1ice congratulates the parties for reaching an amicable solution to the issues that separated them but where the appeal was not fully withdrawn in certain particulars, the decision is herein clarified or upheld. It is unclear from the language of the Examiner's Reconsideration Decision whether the full extent of the settlement between the parties was understood. The Examiner's statement "where the appeal was not fully withdrawn in certain particulars ... " suggests that perhaps the Examiner believed that even with the settlement between the parties, Appellants still maintained certain portions of their appeals. However, this is not the case. The parties have fully settled all issues in this matter, and all pending appeals have been dismissed with prejudice. Because the Examiner had already issued his Site Plan Decision at the time of the settlement, in order for Appellants to nullify their original appeal of Applicant's Site Plan the appropriate action was for Appellants to withdraw their Request for Reconsideration of the Examiner's Site Plan Decision, which they did. Indeed, not only did Appellants withdraw their Request for Reconsideration from further review, they specifically stated their support for Applicant's Request for Reconsideration, thus signifying their support for Applicant's request that the Site Plan be restored to its original form. Therefore, to the extent the Examiner failed to withdraw his Site Plan Decision due to a misperception regarding the full extent of the settlement and Appellants' withdrawal of their appeals, this represents a substantial error in fact, and should be reversed. Supplemental Notice ofAppea/ of Hearing Examiner's Decision -Page 5 of 8 HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON, P.S. 500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Ave Seattle WA 98101-2925 206.623.1745; fax 206.623.7789 In addition, the Examiner's issuance of the Reconsideration Decision, despite the 2 settlement of the parties, represents a substantial error in law. As discussed above, a 3 settlement of all claims between the parties renders an action moot as there is no longer a 4 justiciable case or controversy.8 Upon Appellants' withdrawal of their Request for 5 Reconsideration, therefore, the correct action of the Examiner should have been to withdraw 6 or vacate the Site Plan Decision, thereby restoring the Site Plan to its original form. However, 7 the Examiner instead proceeded to issue the Reconsideration Decision despite the settlement, 8 not only reaffirming the Site Plan Decision but also requiring additional changes to the Site 9 Plan that were never requested by Appellants in their appeals.9 In so doing, the Examiner's JO actions exceeded the scope of his authority and jurisdiction, and therefore represented a 11 substantial error in law. 12 C. The Examiner's Decisions Contain Substantial Errors in Fact. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1. The parking lots south of North 10th Street in Quadrant B are permitted by the Renton Municipal Code, and were never contested by Appellants. The Examiner's Site Plan Decision stated: "The Director's decision is modified and this office will deny the requested modification for ... the parking lots along N 10th Street." Site Plan Decision, at 22. The City's Request for Clarification sought to clarify whether this modification denial related to the parking lot located south of North 10th Street in Quadrant C. As the City suggested, this appeared to be the case as the Quadrant C parking lot was the only parking lot "along N 10th Street." However, the Examiner's Reconsideration Decision came to a different conclusion: This office believes that the stipulation governed any parking east of Park Avenue along North 10th Street. This office was referring to the Parking lots south of North 10th Street west of Park Avenue. Referring to Site Plan Review Update "A" (Page 3 Illustration) the parking in question would be parking stalls located between: 8 Tosco, 804 F.2d at 592. 'See Part IV.C. l, below. Supplemental Notice of Appeal of Hearing Examiner's Decision -Page 6 of8 HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON, P.S. 500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Ave Seattle WA 98101-2925 206.623.1745; fax 206.623.7789 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 27 28 Buildings 205 and 202 Buildings 202 and 201 Buildings 200 and 204 Reconsideration Decision, at I. Applicant agrees with the Examiner's conclusion that the parking area located south of North 10th Street in Quadrant C was covered by the stipulation between the parties. However, to the extent the Examiner's Reconsideration Decision requires the removal of any parking lots or stalls at the north end of Quadrant !_3_, the Reconsideration Decision contains a substantial error in fact. Examination of the Sile Plan for The Landing demonstrates that there are no parking stalls "along North I 0th Street" in Quadrant B. See EXHIBIT A. Indeed, because there were no parking lots located along North 10th Street in Quadrant B, Applicant never requested, nor did the Director ever grant, a modification to any particular code requirements to permit the parking in this area of Quadrant B. The Examiner's ''denial of the modification" for these particular parking lots, when no modification was ever required or granted, is therefore without basis. Moreover, Appellants themselves never even claimed that the parking south of North 10th Street in Quadrant B presented a violation of the Renton Municipal Code. A copy of Appellants' exhibit depicting all of the alleged code violations, previously admitted as Exhibit 8 at the Site Plan hearing before the Examiner, is attached hereto as EXHIBIT D. Those particular parking areas noted by the Examiner in his Reconsideration Decision contain no symbols indicating alleged violations of the Renton Municipal Code. The parking areas south of North 10th Street in Quadrant B comply with the Renton Municipal Code, were never the subject of a modification, and were never the subject of an appeal by Appellants. Accordingly, the Examiner's required removal of these parking areas represents a substantial error in fact, and should be reversed. 2. The Director properly granted modifications to specific Site Plan criteria. The Examiner's Site Plan Decision and the Examiner's Reconsideration Decision also contain substantial errors in fact by failing to uphold the Director's modifications for certain portions of The Landing. Applicant hereby incorporates the arguments presented in Supplemental Notice a/Appeal of Hearing Examiner's Decision -Page 7 of8 HILi.iS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSOI\, P.S. 500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Ave Seallle WA 98101-2925 206.623. 1745; fax 206.623.7789 Applicant's Request for Reconsideration, dated June 5, 2007.10 As presented therein, the 2 Director properly approved the modifications related to the primary entrance of Building 400, 3 and the parking areas located along Park Avenue North in Quadrants B and C. In those 4 particular instances, numerous practical difficulties rendered strict application of the Renton 5 Municipal Code impractical. Furthermore, the current Site Plan for The Landing is consistent 6 with the overall intent and purpose of the Renton Municipal Code design standards, the 7 Comprehensive Plan and the Conceptual Plan. Accordingly, the Examiner's reversal of g specific modification approvals by the Director represents a substantial error in fact, and 9 should be reversed. 10 V. CONCLUSION 11 For the reasons set forth herein and in Applicant's Request for Reconsideration, 12 Applicant respectfully requests that the Renton City Council withdraw and vacate the 13 Examiner's Site Plan Decision and Reconsideration Decision or, in the alternative, reverse 14 those portions of the decisions requiring modifications to the Site Plan for The Landing. 15 Proposed Orders are attached. 16 DATED this .2 6 day of June, 2007. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 #355656 18449-004 7mfc0 I !.doc 6/26/07 HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON, P.S. rome . H1 · , T. an Durkan, WSBA # 11805 aren D. Breckenridge, WSBA #36666 Attorneys for Applicant Harvest Partners 10 A copy of Applicant's Request for Reconsideration was previously submitted to the Renton City Council as Exhibit A to Applicant's June 5, 2007 Notice of Appeal of Hearing Examiner's Decision. Supplemental Notice ofAppea/ of Hearing Examiner's Decision -Page 8 of8 HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON, P.S. 500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Ave Seattle WA 98101-2925 206.623.1745; fax 206.623.7789 Exhibit A ,_J l Exhibit B Buc:k~ Gordon LLP I\Hornq'~ al Law VIA FACSIMILE Ms. Bonnie Walton City Clerk City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 June 6, 2007 2025 First Avenue, Suite 500 Seattle, WA 98121-3140 206.382.9540 206-626-0675 Fax www.buckgordon.com Re: WITHDRAWAL OF APPELLANTS' REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF EXAMINER'S FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATION Dear Ms. Walton: Pursuant to RMC 4-8-110.C(S), we submit the following on behalf of appellants Brad Nicholson and Alliance for South End (ASE) via facsimile transmittal: • WITHDRAWAL OF APPELLANTS' REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF EXAMINER'S FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATION This document is filed in the Matter of the Appeals of ASE and Brad Nicholson regarding The Director's Administrative Site Plan Approval and The Director's Administrative Interpretation/Policy Decision. Copies of this letter and the above referenced document will also be faxed to the Hearing Examiner and all counsel of record. Cc: Fred Kauffman, Hearing Examiner Counsel of Record Y:\WPIASE\Site Plan Appeal\1060607.doc 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER OF THE CITY OF RENTON In the Matter of the Appeals of Alliance for South End (ASE) and Brad Nicholson re: The Director's Administrative Site Plan Approval ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) _______________ ) LUA-06-071, SA-A WITHDRAWAL OF APPELLANTS' REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF EXAMINER'S FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATION Appellants Alliance for the South End ("ASE") and Brad Nicolson hereby withdraw their above titled Request for Reconsideration, filed on June 5, 2007. Fmiher, Appellants do not oppose the Request for Reconsideration filed by Applicant Harvest Partners on June 5, 2007. WITHDRAWAL OF APPELLANTS' REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION -I Y:\WP\ASE\SlTE PLAN APPEAL\P- 060607. WITII DRAW AL RECONSIDERATION .DOC Buck 0 Gord on LLP 2025 Fir51 A11enue, Suite 500 Seattle, WA 98121-3140 (206) 382-9540 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 IJ: Dated this {[j day of June, 2007. BUCK &G By:-,--,-,~-/-;.~~~~:;;::{~=' Peter L. Bue , S A #05060 Attorneys for Alliance for the South End and Brad Nicholson WITHDRAW AL OF APPELLANTS' REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION -2 Buck 0 Gord on LLP Y:\WP\J\SEISITE PLAN APPEAL\P- 060607. WITII DRAW AL.RECONSIDERATION .DOC 2025 First Avenue, Suite 500 Seattle, WA 98121-3140 (206) 382-9540 Exhibit C June 12, 2007 DECISION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER ON MATTERS OF THE APPEALS OF ASE AND BRAD NICHOLSON REGARDING THE DIRECTOR'S ADMINISTRATIVE SITE PLAN APPROVAL AND THE DIRECTOR'S ADMINISTRATIVE INTERPRETATION/POLICY DECISION ON BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION APPROVALS This office has received a variety of requests regarding this matter. This office has received a Request for Clarification from the City. It also has received two Requests for Reconsideration -one from the Harvest Partners, the underlying applicant and one from the appellants. Since these various requests were received it appears that the parties have reached a settlement of some of their appeal issues. The appellants no longer oppose the applicant's request for reconsideration and appellants have withdravm their request for reconsideration. City's Request for Clarification The City sought clarification for two issues. The decision this office made denied the modifications for parking lots along North 10th Street and for relief from having to provide a primary entrance along Park Avenue North. The City seeks to clarify what was meant by these denials. Parking along North 10th Street This office believes that the stipulation governed any parking east of Park Avenue along North 10th Street. This office was referring to the Parking lots south of North 10th Street west of Park Avenue. Referring to Site Plan Review Update "A" (Page 3 Illustration) the parking in question would be parking stalls located between: Buildings 205 and 202 Buildings 202 and 201 Buildings 200 and 204 Primary Entrances along Park Avenue North The second issue was whether Building 102 (again, refer to Site Plan Update A, Page 3 illustration) required a primary entrance along Park Avenue. The response is twofold. This office intended this denial to apply solely to Building 400, west of Park. First, this office believed that the stipulation governed all design aspects of Quadrant C except the tier of Parking along the eastern edge of Park in the location of Building 102. Second, if the stipulation did not govern this aspect of Building 102, then "practical difficulties" would allow a modification to be granted for this "primary entrance" modification. The stipulation allows the placement of a truck delivery driveway between the Park Avenue fa9ade of Building 102 and Park Avenue. The mixing of pedestrians and heavy truck traffic at a primary entrance in this location would create an unsafe situation. Granting a modification would not otherwise affect public health, safety or welfare nor would it injure the general public or other properties in the area. Approving a modification implements the comprehensive plan by allowing the development of the 38-acre site with urban scale uses and generally conforms to the purposes of the Code to allow primary entrances when practical but otherwise allow a modification when it would be impractical or unsafe to require a primary entrance in a particular location. Hearing Examiner Decisio Th'e Landing Appeals June 12, 2007 Page 2 Applicant's Request for Reconsideration The applicant seeks reconsideration where the Hearing Examiner denied three modifications that had originally been approved by the Director. The Examiner required a primary entrance in the Park Avenue North facade of Building 400, denying a modification that would have eliminated that requirement. The Examiner removed a tier of parking east of Park in the vicinity of Building 102 denying a modification that would have allowed parking in that location. The Examiner required the applicant to abide by the limitation that not more than 60 feet of parking be located north of Building 400, again, denying a modification that would have allowed parking in those locations. Primary Entrance for Building 400 along Park Avenue North The applicant argues that there are practical difficulties in providing an entrance for Building 400 along Park Avenue and suggests that since there are industrial uses south of this area that there is little pedestrian traffic. This does not appear to be a practical difficulty but would be a self-fulfilling prophecy. Ifno pedestrian entrance is provided in this location there would be little to encourage new pedestrians to walk along Park in this location, killing the supposed "pedestrian-oriented" aspect of Park in this location. Next the applicant argues that theft could or would occur if there was a second entrance on Park Avenue since controlled access to one point would be lost. This is a design consideration and this office believes that urban design features override this issue. Urban design does bring with it certain levels of potential criminality but that apparently has not stopped many urban stores or even malls from having more than one entrance and possibly co-equal, if not primary entrances. Downtown Seattle has any number of retailers with comer stores or block-wide stores with multiple entrances lo encourage pedestrians. Even mall stores such as Macy's at Northgate and Southcenter, Bed, Bath and Beyond at Southcenter and Nordstrom's have more than one entrance. The fact that the applicant has created its own internal pedestrian path does not make providing the one required by code difficult. The underlying record does not demonstrate any practical difficulties, just design choices of the applicant. There is no reason to modify the original decision. Parking east of Park A venue North Parking west of Park Avenue North (more than 60 feet) The applicant has not provided any reason to modify the denial of parking along either side of Park Avenue North. For the same reason, a primary entrance is not appropriate for Building I 02, the truck delivery driveway location and parking for passenger vehicles is not appropriate in this location -it would provide unsafe pedestrian movements from cars to the shopping experience. The fact that the applicant may be providing landscaping or even additional landscaping in other areas of the site or even along this street does not create any practical difficulty that necessitates a modification to allow parking where it is otherwise not permitted. Landscape strips between the parking and the sidewalks do not negate the code requirements for this urban, pedestrian-oriented street to not have parking along the corridor. There clearly was no ambiguity in what was intended since the applicant sought modifications for these unambiguous code provisions. Finally, the applicant's desire for additional parking does not create practical difficulties with regard to parking. The site provides acres of open parking. Code provides a range of parking for particular uses. Urban-scale development, traffic congestion, air pollution all demand that pedestrian-oriented development not cater particularly to the automobile driver. Hearing Examiner Decisio The Landing Appeals June 12, 2007 Page 3 Parking along North I 0th west of Park Since the clarification sought by the City may have unexpectedly caught the applicant by surprise, this office will add that its arguments against the parking along Park Avenue North apply equally to the parking proposed along the south side of North 10th Street between the buildings noted above. North 10th, like Park Avenue is intended to be a pedestrian oriented street. There is no practical difficulty in meeting the design criteria or code standards along this portion of North 10th west of Park. As the original decision noted, if the reduction of parking hampers the development of the site due to other code standards, the applicant may reduce the number of buildings or provide additional structured parking elsewhere on the subject site. In conclusion, this office agrees with the applicant (Page 7 of Applicant's Request) that the Examiner recognized there are challenges to designing an URBAN shopping center but disagrees that there are all of the challenges suggested by the applicant. The City's comprehensive plan is not seeking, in the applicant's words, "a large retail center" (a la Northgate or Southcenter) but an urban center, which encourages PEDESTRIAN-ORIENTED experiences. The are no practical difficulties in providing an entrance for Building 400 along Park Avenue or abiding by Code that restricts parking along Park Avenue North. In conclusion, this office congratulates the parties for reaching an amicable solution to the issues that separated them but where the appeal was not fully withdrawn in certain particulars, the decision is herein clarified or upheld. If this office can provide any additional assistance please feel free to write. This decision can be appealed to the City Council by paying the appropriate fee and filing an appeal in writing by June 26, 2007. ORDERED THIS 12th day of June 2007. FRED J. KA MAN HEARJNG EXAMINER TRANSMITTED THIS 12th day of June 2007 to the parties ofrecord: Zanetta Fontes Warren Barber & Fontes, P.S. PO Box 626 Renton, WA 98057 Ross Radley 3316 Fuhrman Ave E Seattle, WA 98102 Peter Buck Buck & Gordon LLP 2025 First Ave, Suite 500 Seattle, WA 98121 Brad Nicholson 2811 Dayton Avenue Renton, WA 98056 Jerome L. Hillis Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson, P.S. 500 Galland Building 1221 Second A venue Seattle, WA 98101 Hearing Examiner Decisio Tlie Landing Appeals June 12, 2007 Page 4 TRANSMITTED THIS 12'h day of June 2007 to the following: Mayor Kathy Keolker Jay Covington, CAO Julia Medzegian, Council Liaison Gregg Zimmerman, PBPW Administrator Alex Pietsch, Economic Development Jennifer Henning, Development Services Stacy Tucker, Development Services Renton Reporter Stan Engler, Fire Larry Meckling, Building Official Planning Commission Transportation Division Utilities Division Neil Watts, Development Services Janet Conklin, Development Services Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Section IOOGofthe City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m., June 26, 2007. Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the Examiner is ambiguous or based on erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact, error in judgment, or the discovery of new evidence, which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing, may make a written request for a review by the Examiner within fourteen (14) days from the date of the Examiner's decision. This request shall set forth the specific ambiguities or errors discovered by such appellant, and the Examiner may, after review of the record, take further action as be deems proper. An appeal to the City Council is governed by Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 110, which requires that such appeal be filed with the City Clerk, accompanying a filing fee of $75.00 and meeting other specified requirements. Copies of this ordinance are available for inspection or purchase in the Finance Department, first floor of City Hall. An appeal must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m., June 26, 2007. If the Examiner's Recommendation or Decision contains the requirement for Restrictive Covenants, the executed Covenants will be required prior to approval by City Council or final processing of the file. You may contact this office for information on formatting covenants. The Appearance of Fairness Doctrine provides that no ex parte (private one-on-one) communications may occur concerning pending land use decisions. This means that parties to a land use decision may not communicate in private with any decision-maker concerning the proposal. Decision-makers in the land use process include both the Hearing Examiner and members of the City Council. All communications concerning the proposal must be made in public. This public communication permits all interested parties to know the contents of the communication and would allow them to openly rebut the evidence. Any violation of this doctrine would result in the invalidation of the request by the Court. Hearing Examiner Decisio The Landing Appeals June 12, 2007 Page 5 The Doctrine applies not only to the initial public hearing but to all Requests for Reconsideration as well as Appeals to the City Council. Exhibit D VIOLATIONS IN MODIFIED SITE PLAN* • C:'f.{;( .'.C · · µ an<: ii·--·g oetwee .... , ou icin;1s & srree1 ·''f'f~~; I RMC 4-3-100.F.1.b.i: Street frontage. * RMC 4-3-100.F.4.b: Surface parking driveways. * RMC 4-3-100.E.3.b Primary entrance * RMC 4-3-100.E.2.b: Adjacent to sidewalk. * RMC 4-2-120. E. Truck loading areas • RMC 4-3-100.F.1.b.i Parking on rear or side of building. 11 l r,;r;i@.:J 4.61( 7K "°' I ~' ... ,. ro., flfllSS •• _,,, + RMC 4-2-120.E: Setbacks. -........ ~------r-- 75' 140' • FULL SITE PLAN from modification submittal dated March 2, 2007 (approved March 13, 2007) / \ \ \<\- \ \ \ \ \\ \\ J \ ~g· k ,~oo· ol 1,0 ~~ \ " 126.l\lC \ \ r I ~ ~ [PROPOSAL 2: REVERSE) PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE COMMITTEE REPORT July 9, 2007 Appeals by Alliance for South End (ASE) and Brad Nicholson File No. LUA-06-071, SA-A Re: Director's administrative Site Plan approval Referred to Planning & Development Committee on July 2, 2007 CITY Of R.FN ION JUN 2 6 /11 f77 This appeal came before the Planning and Development Committee (the "Committee") on July 5, 2007. The Committee reviewed the decision of the Hearing Examiner dated May 22, 2007, which decision affirmed the Director's approval of the Site Plan for The Landing project but reversed the Director's approval of certain specific elements in The Landing Site Plan. The Committee also reviewed the decision of the Hearing Examiner dated June 12, 2007, which denied Applicant's Request for Reconsideration and responded to the City's Request for Clarification. The Committee reviewed the file, including the briefs therein. The Committee also reviewed Appellants' Withdrawal of their Request for Reconsideration and Appellants' statement of support for Applicant Harvest Partners' Request for Reconsideration, filed pursuant to a settlement agreement reached by the parties. Finding that substantial errors in fact or law exist in the record, the Committee recommends that the Council reverse those portions of the decisions requiring modifications to the Site Plan for The Landing. The Committee further recommends that the Council adopt the attached Findings and Conclusions. Terri Briere, Chair Dan Clawson, Vice Chair Marcie Palmer, Member cc: Neil Watts Jennifer Henning Lawrence J. \1/arren FINDINGS 1. On August 17, 2006, the City of Renton Department of Planning, Building and Public Works issued a decision approving the Site Plan for The Landing, an approximately 572,700-square foot commercial/retail development to be constructed on a 38.22-acre site within the Urban Center-North I (UC-NJ) zone in Renton, Washington (the "Director's Site Plan Approval"). 1 The City had previously approved the master plan for The Landing project, and determined that The Landing project was consistent with the adopted Planned Action Ordinance. 2. On August 31, 2006, "Alliance for South End" ("ASE"), a Washington nonprofit corporation, and Brad Nicholson ("Appellants") filed appeals of the Director's Site Plan Approval.2 3. On February 22, 2007, following a hearing on standing and other jurisdictional issues, the Hearing Examiner issued a decision dismissing ASE's appeal of the Director's Site Plan Approval for Jack of standing. 3 ASE did not appeal this decision. 4. On May 22, 2007, following a hearing on the merits, the Renton Hearing Examiner issued a decision regarding Mr. Nicholson's appeal of the Director's Site Plan Approval (the "Examiner's Site Plan Decision").4 In nearly all respects, the Examiner's Site Plan Decision affirmed the Director's Site Plan Approval, and modifications thereto. However, the Examiner reversed the Director's approval of certain specific elements of The Landing Site Plan, finding that there were not "practical difficulties" permitting such elements. 5. In particular, the Examiner's Site Plan Decision required the following specific changes to the current Site Plan for The Landing: ( 1) installation of an additional or alternative entrance on the east side of Building 400, fronting Park Avenue North;; (2) removal of parking stalls located between Building 102 and Park Avenue North, in the southwest 1 See Director's Site Plan Approval, attached as Exhibit A to Notice of Appeal of Administrative Site Plan Approval, dated August 31, 2006. 2 See Notice of Appeal of Administrative Site Plan Approval, dated August 31, 2006. On the same date as this appeal, ASE and Mr. Nicholson also appealed an Interpretation/Policy Decision made by the City of Renton. On February 22, 2007, the Hearing Examiner dismissed those appeals for lack of jurisdiction. Neither ASE nor Mr. Nicholson appealed this dismissal. 3 See Decision of the Hearing Examiner on Matters of Standing and Jurisdiction brought by Attorneys for Alliance for South End (ASE) and Brad Nicholson, an Individual, dated February 22, 2007, at 6. 4 See Office of the Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation on The Landing Site Plan Hearing on Merits, dated May 22, 2007. 5 Id, at 22. comer of Quadrant C;6 and (3) removal of all but 60 feet of parking stalls located north of Building 400 and west of Park Avenue North.7 6. On May 31, 2007, the City filed a Request for Clarification regarding two issues in the Examiner's Site Plan Decision.8 The City's Request for Clarification sought to clarify: (I) whether the Examiner's Site Plan Decision was intended to require a primary entrance on the west side of Building 102; and (2) whether the Examiner's Site Plan Decision was intended to require removal of the parking area in the northeast comer of Quadrant C, along North I 0th Street. 7. On June 5, 2007, Applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration with the Hearing Examiner, requesting that the Examiner reconsider those portions of the Examiner's Site Plan Decision requiring modifications to the Site Plan.9 Also on June 5, 2007, Appellants filed a Request for Reconsideration with the Hearing Examiner, alleging various errors in the Examiner's Site Plan Decision. 10 8. Subsequent to the filing of Applicant's and Appellants' Requests for Reconsideration, and while the Requests for Reconsideration ,vere still pending, Applicant and Appellants resolved this matter through a settlement, memorialized in a Settlement Agreement and Release dated for reference purposes June 5, 2007. Accordingly, on June 6, 2007, Appellants withdrew their Request for Reconsideration of the Examiner's Site Plan Decision, and stated their support for Applicant's Request for Reconsidcration.11 9. On June 12, 2007, the Examiner issued a decision regarding Applicant's Request for Reconsideration, as well as the City's Request for Clarification (the "Examiner's Reconsideration Decision").12 I 0. The Examiner's Reconsideration Decision clarified that a primary entrance on the west side of Building 102 was not required.13 The Examiner's Reconsideration Decision also stated that although the parking areas south of North I 0th Street in Quadrant C were permitted, the parking stalls located south of North I 0th Street in Quadrant B were not 6 Id. ) ld. 'See City of Renton's Request for Clarification, dated May 31, 2007. 9 See Applicant's Request for Reconsideration, dated June 5, 2007. 10 See Appellants 1 Request for Reconsideration of Examiner's Findings, Conclusions & Recommendation, dated June 5, 2007. 11 See Withdrawal of Appellants' Request for Reconsideration of Examiner's Findings, Conclusions & Recommendation, dated June 6, 2007, and accompanying cover letter, attached as Exhibit B to Supplemental Notice of Appeal of Hearing Examiner's Decision, dated June 26, 2007. 12 See Decision of the Hearing Examiner on Matters of the Appeals of ASE and Brad Nicholson Regarding the Director's Administrative Site Plan Approval and the Director's Administrative Interpretation/Policy Decision on Building Permit Application Approvals, dated June 12, 2007. 11 Id, at 1. permitted.14 Finally, the Examiner's Reconsideration Decision denied Applicant's Request for Reconsideration, upholding the Examiner's Site Plan Decision.15 11. According to the Site Plan for The Landing, there are no parking stalls or parking lots located "along North 10th Street" in Quadrant B. 16 12. Appellants never claimed that the parking south of North 10th Street in Quadrant B presented a violation of the Renton Municipal Code.17 13. Numerous practical difficulties make the installation of an east-facing entrance on Building 400 impractical at this time, including the orientation of the building toward the pedestrian walkway to the north, security and loss prevention issues posed by requiring two entrances, and the numerous pedestrian-oriented elements already built into the design of Building 400. 18 14. Numerous practical difficulties exist in designing a large urban retail center of The Landing's scale and magnitude that can incorporate sufficient pedestrian-oriented elements and yet also provide adequate parking within permissible proximity of the retail tenants.19 Where practical difficulties required that parking be located along Park Avenue North, the Site Plan for The Landing incorporates extensive landscaping and pedestrian-oriented elements, providing a large buffer and significant screening between Park Avenue North and the parking areas on either side.20 CONCLUSIONS From these Findings, the Committee adopts the following Conclusions: 1. For the Examiner to exercise quasi-judicial power, there must be a justiciable case or controversy. 21 2. Before the Examiner can assume jurisdiction, therefore, the Examiner must determine whether the case is moot.22 A case is moot where the hearing body can no longer provide effective relief. 23 14 Id. 15 Id, at 2-3. 16 See Site Plan for The Landing, attached as Exhibit A to Supplemental Notice of Appeal of Hearing Examiner's Decision, dated June 25, 2007 17 See Appellants' exhibit depicting alleged code violations, attached as Exhibit D to Supplemental Notice of Appeal of Hearing Examiner's Decision, dated June 26, 2007. 18 See Applicant's Request for Reconsideration, dated June 5, 2007. 19 Id. 20 Id. 21 U.S. Const. Art. III,§ 2. 22 See, e.g., Tosco Corp. v. Hodel, 804 F.2d 590,591 (10th Cir. 1986). 3. A settlement involving all parties and all claims renders an action moot.24 This also applies when a case is settled pending appeal.25 4. When only moot questions are involved, no case or controversy exists, and a case should be dismissed. 26 5. Upon settlement between the parties and withdrawal of Appellant's Request for Reconsideration, a justiciable case or controversy no longer existed in this matter. The action is moot. 6. Because this matter is moot, the Examiner's issuance of the Reconsideration Decision, despite the settlement of the parties, exceeded the scope of his authority and jurisdiction, and therefore represents a substantial error in law. 7. The parking areas south of North 10th Street in Quadrant B comply with the Renton Municipal Code, were never the subject of a modification, and were never the subject of an appeal by Appellants. Accordingly, the Examiner's Reconsideration Decision requiring removal of these parking areas represents a substantial error in fact, and should be reversed as to those portions of the decision. 8. Because practical difficulties rendered strict application of the Renton Municipal Code impractical, the Director properly approved the modifications related to the primary entrance of Building 400 and the parking areas located along Park Avenue North in Quadrants Band C. By failing to uphold these modifications, the Examiner's Site Plan Decision and the Examiner's Reconsideration Decision contain substantial errors in fact, and should be reversed as to those portions of the decisions. 9. With the reversal of those portions of the Examiner's Site Plan Decision and the Examiner's Request for Reconsideration that represented substantial errors in fact or law, the Landing Site Plan shall be subject to the Director's original Site Plan Approval, and subsequent modifications thereto. I 0. To the extent not inconsistent with the Council's Findings and Conclusions herein, the Council adopts the remaining findings and conclusions set forth in the Examiner's Site Plan Decision. 23 See, e.g., In re Marriage of Horner, 151 Wn.2d 884 (2004); see a/so Tosco, 804 F.2d at 59 l ("(C]ourts are without power to decide questions that cannot affect the rights of litigants in the case before them."). 24 Tosco, 804 F.2d at 592, cited by Villas at Harbour Pointe 0 1,rners Ass 'n v. Mutual of Enumclaw Ins. Co., 137 WnApp. 751,761 n.13 (2007). 2s Id. 26 Snohomish County v. State Shorelines Hearings Ed., I 08 Wn.App. 781, 787 (200 I). [PROPOSAL 1: WITHDRAW AND V ACA'l'E] PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE COMMITTEE REPORT July 9, 2007 Appeals by Alliance for South End (ASE) and Brad Nicholson File No. LUA-06-071, SA-A Re: Director's administrative Site Plan approval Referred to Planning and Development Committee on July 2, 2007 CITY OF RENTON JUN 2 6 2007 RECEl\1£D CITY Cl ERK'S OFFICE ? ; vo f'r'"' 15 This appeal came before the Planning and Development Committee (the "Committee") on July 5, 2007. The Committee reviewed the decision of the Hearing Examiner dated May 22, 2007, which decision affirmed the Director's approval of the Site Plan for The Landing project but reversed the Director's approval of certain specific elements in The Landing Site Plan. The Committee also reviewed the decision of the Hearing Examiner dated June 12, 2007, which denied Applicant's Request for Reconsideration and responded to the City's Request for Clarification. The Committee reviewed the file, including the briefs therein. The Committee also reviewed Appellants' Withdrawal of their Request for Reconsideration and Appellants' statement of support for Applicant Harvest Partners' Request for Reconsideration, filed pursuant to a settlement agreement reached by the parties. In light of the settlement reached by all parties and Appellants' Withdrawal of their Request for Reconsideration, the Committee recommends that the Council withdraw and vacate the decisions of the Hearing Examiner. The Committee further recommends that the Council adopt the attached Findings and Conclusions. Terri Briere, Chair Dan Clawson, Vice Chair Marcie Palmer, Member cc: Neil Watts Jennifer Henning Lawrence J. Warren FINDINGS I. On August 17, 2006, the City of Renton Department of Planning, Building and Puhlic Works issued a decision approving the Site Plan for The Landing, an approximately 572,700-square foot commercial/retail development to be constructed on a 38.22-acre site within the Urban Center-North I (UC-Nl) zone in Renton, Washington (the "Director's Site Plan Approval").1 The City had previously approved the master plan for The Landing project, and determined that The Landing project was consistent with the adopted Planned Action Ordinance. 2. On August 31, 2006, "Alliance for South End" ("ASE"), a Washington nonprofit corporation, and Brad Nicholson ("Appellants") filed appeals of the Director's Site Plan J\ pproval. 2 3. On February 22, 2007, following a hearing on standing and other jurisdictional issues, the Hearing Examiner issued a decision dismissing ASE's appeal of the Director's Site Plan Approval for lack of standing. 3 ASE did not appeal this decision. 4. On May 22, 2007, following a hearing on the merits, the Renton Hearing Examiner issued a decision regarding Mr. Nicholson's appeal of the Director's Site Plan Approval (the "Examiner's Site Plan Decision").4 In nearly all respects, the Examiner's Site Plan Decision af1irmed the Director's Site Plan Approval, and modifications thereto. However, the Examiner reversed the Director's approval of certain specific elements of The Landing Site Plan, finding that there were not "practical difficulties" permitting such elements. 5. On May 31, 2007, the City filed a Request for Clarification regarding two issues in the Examiner's Site Plan Decision.5 6. On June 5, 2007, Applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration with the Hearing Examiner, requesting that the Examiner reconsider those portions of the Examiner's Site Plan Decision requiring modifications to the Site Plan.6 Also on Jw1e 5, 2007, Appellants 'See Director's Site Plan Approval, attached as Exhibit A to Notice of Appeal of Administrative Site Plan Approval, dated August 31, 2006. 2 See Notice of Appeal of Administrative Site Plan Approval, dated August 31, 2006. On the same date as this appeal, ASE and Mr. Nicholson also appealed an Interpretation/Policy Decision made by the City of Renton. On February 22, 2007, the Hearing Examiner dismissed those appeals for lack of jurisdiction. Neither ASE nor Mr. Nicholson appealed this dismissal. 3 See Decision of the Hearing Examiner on Matters of Standing and Jurisdiction brought by Attorneys for Alliance for South End (ASE) and Brad Nicholson, an Individual, dated February 22, 2007, at 6. 4 See Office of the Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation on The Landing Site Plan Hearing on Merits, dated May 22, 2007. 5 See City of Renton' s Request for Clarification, dated May 31, 2007. 5 See Applicant's Request for Reconsideration, dated June 5, 2007. filed a Request for Reconsideration with the Hearing Examiner, alleging various errors in the Examiner's Site Plan Decision.7 7. Subsequent to the filing of Applicant's and Appellants' Requests for Reconsideration, and while the Requests for Reconsideration were still pending, Applicant and Appellants resolved this matter through a settlement, memorialized in a Settlement Agreement and Release dated for reference purposes June 5, 2007. Accordingly, on June 6, 2007, Appellants withdrew their Request for Reconsideration of the Examiner's Site Plan Decision, and stated their support for Applicant's Request for Reconsideration.8 8. On June 12, 2007, the Examiner issued a decision regarding Applicant's Request for Reconsideration, as well as the City's Request for Clarification (the "Examiner's Reconsideration Decision"). 9 CONCLUSIONS From these Findings, the Committee adopts the following Conclusions: I. For the Examiner to exercise quasi-judicial power, there must be a justiciable case or controversy.10 2. Before the Examiner can assume jurisdiction, therefore, the Examiner must determine whether the case is moot. 11 A case is moot where the hearing body can no longer provide effective relief. 12 3. A settlement involving all parties and all claims renders an action moot.13 This also applies when a case is settled pending appeal. 14 7 See Appellants' Request for Reconsideration of Examiner's Findings, Conclusions & Recommendation, dated June 5, 2007. 8 See Withdrawal of Appellants' Request for Reconsideration of Examiner's Findings, Conclusions & Recommendation, dated June 6, 2007, and accompanying cover letter, attached as Exhibit B to Supplemental Notice of Appeal of Hearing Examiner's Decision, dated June 26, 2007. 9 See Decision of the Hearing Examiner on Matters of the Appeals of ASE and Brad Nicholson Regarding the Director's Administrative Site Plan Approval and the Director's Administrative Interpretation/Policy Decision on Building Permit Application Approvals, dated June 12, 2007. 10 U.S. Const. Att. III,§ 2. 11 See, e.g., Tosco Corp. v. Hodel, 804 F.2d 590,591 (10th Cir. 1986). 12 See, e.g., In re Marriage of Horner, 15 l Wn.2d 884 (2004); see also Tosco, 804 F.2d at 59 l ("[C]ourts are without power to decide questions that cannot affect the rights of litigants in the case before them."). 13 Tosco, 804 F.2d at 592, cited by Villas al Harbour Pointe Owners Ass 'n v. Mutual of Enumclaw Ins. Co., 13 7 Wn.App. 75 l, 76 I n.13 (2007). i, Id. 4. When only moot questions arc involved, no case or controversy exists, and a case should be dismissed.15 5. Upon settlement between the parties and withdrawal of Appellant's Request for Reconsideration, a justiciable case or controversy no longer existed in this matter. The action is moot. 6. Because this matter is moot, the Examiner's Site Plan Decision and the Examiner's Reconsideration Decision are without effect and should be withdravm and vacated. 7. With the withdrawal and vacating of the Examiner's Site Plan Decision and the Examiner's Reconsideration Decision, the Landing Site Plan shall be subject to the Director's original Site Plan Approval, and subsequent modifications thereto. 15 Snohomish County v. State Shorelines Hearings Bd, 108 Wn.App. 781, 787 (2001). 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 27 28 CITY OF RENTON JUN 2 6 /007 ECE!VED CITY lu;;RK'S OFFICE '3 ·, iO f r11 ~ BEFORE THE RENTON CITY COUNCIL In the Matter of the Appeal of Brad Nicholson re: The Director's Administrative Site Plan Approval. No. LUA-06-071, SA-A CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Ju L. Park, am a legal assistant for the law firm of Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson, P.S., 500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101. I hereby certify that on the 26th day of June 2007, I caused to be delivered via legal messenger a true and correct copy of (1) Supplemental Notice of Appeal of Hearing Examiner's Decision; and (2) this Certificate of Service to the following: Fred Kaufman, Hearing Examiner City of Renton I 055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Lawrence J. Warren Zanetta Fontes Warren Barber & Fontes, P.S. 100 South Second Street Renton, WA 98057 Ross Radley Law Offices of Ross Radley, Inc. P.S. 3316 Fuhrman Ave. East, Suite 250 Seattle, WA 98102 Certificate a/Service -Page I of2 Renton City Council c/o Office of the Clerk City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Peter L. Buck Buck & Gordon, LLP 2025 First Avenue, Suite 500 Seattle, WA 98121-3140 HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON, P.S. 500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Ave Seattle WA 98101-2925 206.623.1745; fax 206.623.7789 2 3 4 s 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -<'- DATED this 2 (,, day of June, 2007. #356249 18449-00-J. 7mvt0] 1.doc 6/25/07 Certificate o/Service -Page 2 of 2 HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON, P.S. c::_::_::7 ~. y~ ---- Ju L. Park Legal Assistant lo Karen D. Breckenridge HILLIS CLARK MARTlN & PETERSON, P.S. 500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Ave Seattle WA 98101-2925 206.623.1745; fax 206.623.7789 ·~y ~~: CITY IF RENTON • City Clerk Bonnie I. Walton ,~, Kathy Keolkcr, Mayor ~N~O·:..-~~~~~~~~---~~~~~~~~~~~~--- June 22, 2007 APPEAL FILED BY: Harvest Partners, represented by Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson, P.S. RE: Appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision dated 5/22/2007 regarding The Landing Site Plan application, 1002 Park Ave. N. (File No. LUA0 06-071, SA-A) To Parties of Record: Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Renton City Code of Ordinances, written appeal of the hearing examiner's decision on the Nicholson appeal of the Director's Administrative Site Plan Approval has been filed with the City Clerk. In accordance with Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-11 OF, the City Clerk shall notify all parties of record of tlie receipt of the appeal. Other parties of record may submit letters limited to support of their positions within ten (10) days of the date of mailing of the notification of the filing of the appeal. The deadline for submission of additional letters is 5:00 pm, July 2, 2007. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the written appeal and other pertinent documents will be reviewed by the Council's Planning and Development Committee at 3:00 p.m. on Thursday, July 5, 2007, in the Council Chambers, 7th Floor of Renton City Hall, I 055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA, 98057. The recommendation of the Committee will be presented for consideration by the full Council at a subsequent Council meeting. Attached are a copy of the appeal and a copy of the Renton Municipal Code regarding appeals of Hearing Examiner decisions or recommendations. Please note that the City Council will be considering the merits.of the appeal based upon the written record previously established. Unless a showing can be made that additional evidence could .not reasonably have been available at the prior hearing held by the Hearing Examiner, no further evidence or testimony on this matter will be accepted by the City CounciL For additional information or assistance, please feel free to call me at 425-430-6502. Sincerely, Bonnie I. Walton City Clerk Attachments cc: Council Liaison -,-o-55_S_o_u_th_G_r-ad-,-. \-/./-ay ___ R_e_n-to_n_, W-as-h-in-gt_o_n_9_80_5_7---(4_2_5_) 4_3_0_-6_5_!0_/_F_AX_(_4_25_)_4-30---65-l_6_ ~ @ This paper contains 50% recycled material, 30% post consumer AHEAD OF THE CURVE Gitv of Renton Municipal C. Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 110-Appe· 4-8-11 OC4 The notice of appeal shall be accompanied by a fee in accordance with Rlv1C 4-1-170, the fee schedule of the City. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-82) 4-8-11 OF: Appeals to City Council Procedures I. Time fur Appeal: Unless a specific section or State law providing for review of decision of the Examiner requires review thereof by the Superior Court or any other body, any interested patty aggrieved by the Examiner's written decision or recommendation may submit a notice of appeal to the City Council, upon a form furnished by the City Clerk, within fourteen ( 14) calendar days from the date of the Examiner's written report. 2. Notice to Parties of Record: Within five (5) days of receipt of the notice of appeal, the City Clerk shall notify all parties of record of the receipt of the appeal. 3. Opportunity to Pro,icle Comments: Otber parties of record may submit letters in support of their positions within ten (10) days of the dates of mailing of the notification of the filing of the notice of appeal. 4. Transmittal of Record to Council: Thereupon the Clerk shall forward lo the members of the City Council all of the pertinent documents, mcluding the written decision or recommendation, findings and conclusions contained in the Examiner's report, tbe notice of appeal, and additional letters submitted by the pa1iies. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-1982) 5. Council Review Procedures: No public hearing shall be held by the City Council. No new or additional evidence or testimony shall be acccptccl by the City Council unless a showing is made by the party offering the evidence that the evidence could not reasonably have been available at the time of the hearing before the Examiner. If the Council deterrnincs that additional evidence is required, the Council shall remand the matter to the Examiner for reconsideration and receipt of additional evidence. The cost of transcription of the hearing record shall be borne by the applicant. In the absence of an entry upon the record of an order by the City Council authorizing new or additional evidence or testimony, and a rcrnand to the Hearing Examiner for receipt of such evidence or testimony, it shall be presumed that no new or additional evidence or testimony has been accepted by the City Council, and that the record before the City Council is identical to the hearing record before the Hearing Examiner. (Ord. 4389, l-25-1991) 6. Council Evaluation Criteria: The consideration by the City Council shall be based solely upon the record, the Hearing Examiner's report, the notice of appeal and additional submissions by parties. 7. Findings and Conclusions Required: If, upon appeal of a decision of the Hearing Examiner on an application submitted pursuant to RMC 4-1-0SOFI, and after examination of the record, the Council determines that a substantial error in fact or law exists in the record, it may remand the proceeding to Examiner for reconsideration, or modify, or reverse the decision of the Examiner accordingly. 8. Council Action: If, upon appeal from a recommendation of the Hearing Examiner upon an application submitted pursuant to RMC 4-l-050F2 and f3, and after examination of the record, the Council determines that a substantial error in fact or law exists in the record, or that a recommendation of the Hearing Examiner should be disregarded or modified, the City Council may remand the proceeding to the Examiner for reconsideration, or enter its own decision upon the application. 9. Decision Documentation: In any event, the decision of the City Council shall be in writing and shall specify any modified or amended findings and conclusions other than those set forth in the report of the Hearing Examiner. Each material finding shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. The burden of proof shall rest with the appellant. (Ord 3658, 9-13-1982) 10. Council Action Final: The action of the Council approving, modifying or rejecting a decision of the Examiner shall be final and conclusive, unless appealed within the time frames established under subsection GS of this Section. (On!. 4660, 3-17-1997) June 12, 2007 DECISION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER ON MATTERS OF THE APPEALS OF ASE AND BRAD NICHOLSON REGARDING THE DIRECTOR'S ADMINISTRATIVE SITE PLAN APPROVAL AND THE DIRECTOR'S ADMINISTRATIVE INTERPRETATION/POLICY DECISION ON BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION APPROVALS This office has received a variety of requests regarding this matter. This office has received a Request for Clarification from the City. It also has received two Requests for Reconsideration -one from the Harvest Partners, the underlying applicant and one from the appellants. Since these various requests were received it appears that the parties have reached a settlement of some of their appeal issues. The appellants no longer oppose the applicant's request for reconsideration and appellants have withdrawn their request for reconsideration. City's Request for Clarification The City sought clarification for two issues. The decision this office made denied the modifications for parking lots along North 10th Street and for relief from having lo provide a primary entrance along Park Avenue North. The City seeks to clarify what was meant by these denials. Parking along North 10th Street This office believes that the stipulation governed any parking east of Park Avenue along North 10th Street. This office was referring to the Parking lots south of North 10th Street west of Park A venue. Referring to Site Plan Review Update "A" (Page 3 Illustration) the parking in question would be parking stalls located between: Buildings 205 and 202 Buildings 202 and 20 I Buildings 200 and 204 Primary Entrances along Park Avenue North The second issue was whether Building 102 (again, refer to Site Plan Update A, Page 3 illustration) required a primary entrance along Park Avenue. The response is twofold. This office intended this denial to apply solely to Building 400, west of Park. First, this office believed that the stipulation governed all design aspects of Quadrant C except the tier of Parking along the eastern edge of Park in the location of Building 102. Second, if the stipulation did not govern this aspect of Building 102, then "practical difficulties" would allow a modification to be granted for this "primary entrance" modification. The stipulation allows the placement of a truck delivery driveway between the Park Avenue fa9ade of Building 102 and Park Avenue. The mixing of pedestrians and heavy truck traffic at a primary entrance in this location would create an unsafe situation. Granting a modification would not otherwise affect public health, safety or welfare nor would it injure the general public or other properties in the area. Approving a modification implements the comprehensive plan by allowing the development of the 38-acre site with urban scale uses and generally conforms to the purposes of the Code to allow primary entrances when practical but otherwise allow a modification when it would be impractical or unsafe to require a primary entrance in a particular location. Hearing Examiner Decisic The Landing Appeals June 12, 2007 Page 2 Applicant's Request for Reconsideration The applicant seeks reconsideration where the Hearing Examiner denied three modifications that had originally been approved by the Director. The Examiner required a primary entrance in the Park Avenue North facade of Building 400, denying a modification that would have eliminated that requirement. The Examiner removed a tier of parking east of Park in the vicinity of Building I 02 denying a modification that would have allowed parking in that location. The Examiner required the applicant to abide by the limitation that not more than 60 feet of parking be located north of Building 400, again, denying a modification that would have allmvcd parking in those locations. Primary Entrance for Building 400 along Park Avenue North The applicant argues that there are practical difficulties in providing an entrance for Building 400 along Park Avenue and suggests that since there are industrial uses south of this area that there is little pedestrian traffic. This does not appear to be a practical difficulty but would be a self-fulfilling prophecy. If no pedestrian entrance is provided in this location there would be little to encourage new pedestrians to walk along Park in this location, killing the supposed "pedestrian-oriented" aspect of Park in this location. Next the applicant argues that theft could or would occur if there was a second entrance on Park Avenue since controlled access to one point would be lost. This is a design consideration and this office believes that urban design features override this issue. Urban design does bring with it certain levels of potential criminality but that apparently has not stopped many urban stores or even malls from having more than one entrance and possibly co-equal, if not primary entrances. Downtown Seattle has any number of retailers with comer stores or block-wide stores with multiple entrances to encourage pedestrians. Even mall stores such as Macy's at Northgate and Southcenter, Bed, Bath and Beyond at Southcenter and Nordstrom's have more than one entrance. The fact that the applicant has created its own internal pedestrian path does not make providing the one required by code difficult. The underlying record does not demonstrate any practical difficulties, just design choices of the applicant. There is no reason to modify the original decision. Parking cast of Park Avenue Nmth Parking west of Park Avenue North (more than 60 feet) The applicant has not provided any reason to modify the denial of parking along either side of Park Avenue North. For the same reason, a primary entrance is not appropriate for Building I 02, the truck delivery driveway location and parking for passenger vehicles is not appropriate in this location -it would provide unsafe pedestrian movements from cars to the shopping experience. The fact that the applicant may be providing landscaping or even additional landscaping in other areas of the site or even along this street does not create any practical difficulty that necessitates a modification to allow parking where it is otherwise not permitted. Landscape strips between the parking and the sidewalks do not negate the code requirements for this urban, pedestrian-oriented street to not have parking along the corridor. There clearly was no ambiguity in what was intended since the applicant sought modifications for these unambiguous code provisions. Finally, the applicant's desire for additional parking does not create practical difficulties with regard to parking. The site provides acres of open parking. Code provides a range of parking for particular uses. Urban-scale development, traffic congestion, air pollution all demand that pedestrian-oriented development not cater particularly to the automobile driver. Hearing Examiner Decisi, The Landing Appeals June 12, 2007 Page 3 Parking along North I 0th west of Park Since the clarification sought by the City may have unexpectedly caught the applicant by surprise, this office will add that its arguments against the parking along Park Avenue North apply equally to the parking proposed along the south side of North 10th Street between the buildings noted above. North 10th, like Park Avenue is intended to be a pedestrian oriented street. There is no practical difficulty in meeting the design criteria or code standards along this portion of North 10th west of Park. As the original decision noted, if the reduction of parking hampers the development of the site due to other code standards, the applicant may reduce the number of buildings or provide additional structured parking elsewhere on the subject site. In conclusion, this office agrees with the applicant (Page 7 of Applicant's Request) that the Examiner recognized there are challenges to designing an URBAN shopping center but disagrees that there are all of the challenges suggested by the applicant. The City's comprehensive plan is not seeking, in the applicant's words, "a large retail center" (a la Northgate or Southcenter) but an urban center, which encourages PEDESTRIAN-ORIENTED experiences. The are no practical difficulties in providing an entrance for Building 400 along Park Avenue or abiding by Code that restricts parking along Park Avenue North. In conclusion, this office congratulates the parties for reaching an amicable solution to the issues that separated them but where the appeal was not fully withdrawn in certain particulars, the decision is herein clarified or upheld. If this office can provide any additional assistance please feel free to write. This decision can be appealed to the City Council by paying the appropriate fee and filing an appeal in writing by June 26, 2007. ORDERED THIS 12th day of June 2007. -CJ~ ~i ,cNJ;~ FREDI.KA MAN f HEARING EXAMINER TRANSMITTED THIS 12'h day of June 2007 to the parties ofrecord: Zanella Fontes Warren Barber & Fontes, P.S. PO Box 626 Renton, WA 98057 Ross Radley 3316 Fuhrman Ave E Seattle, WA 98102 Peter Buck Buck & Gordon LLP 2025 First Ave, Suite 500 Seattle, WA 98121 Brad Nicholson 2811 Dayton Avenue Renton, WA 98056 Jerome L. Hillis Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson, P.S. 500 Galland Building 1221 Second Avenue Seattle, WA 98101 Hearing Examiner Decisi, The Landing Appeals June 12, 2007 Page 4 TRANSMITTED THIS l 2'h day of June 2007 to the following: Mayor Kathy Keolker Jay Covington, CAO Julia Medzegian, Council Liaison Gregg Zimmerman, PBPW Administrator Alex Pietsch, Economic Development Jennifer Henning, Development Services Stacy Tucker, Development Services Renton Reporter Stan Engler, Fire Larry Meckling, Building Official Planning Commission Transportation Division Utilities Division Neil Watts, Development Services Janet Conklin, Development Services Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Section lOOGofthe City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m., June 26, 2007. Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the Examiner is ambiguous or based on erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact, error in judgment, or the discovery of new evidence, which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing, may make a written request for a review by the Examiner within fourteen (14) days from the date of the Examiner's decision. This request shall set forth the specific ambiguities or errors discovered by such appellant, and the Examiner may, after review of the record, take further action as he deems proper. An appeal to the City Council is governed by Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 110, which requires that such appeal be filed with the City Clerk, accompanying a filing fee of$75.00 and meeting other specified requirements. Copies of this ordinance arc available for inspection or purchase in the Finance Department, first floor of City Hall. An appeal must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m., June 26, 2007. If the Examiner's Recommendation or Decision contains the requirement for Restrictive Covenants, the executed Covenants will be required prior to approval by City Council or final processing of the file. You may contact this office for information on formatting covenants. The Appearance of Fairness Doctrine provides that no ex parte (private one-on-one) communications may occur concerning pending land use decisions. This means that parties to a land use decision may not communicate in private with any decision-maker concerning the proposal. Decision-makers in the land use process include both the Hearing Examiner and members of the City Council. All communications concerning the proposal must be made in public. This public communication permits all interested parties to know the contents of the communication and would allow them to openly rebut the evidence. Any violation of this doctrine would result in the invalidation of the request by the Court. Hearing Examiner Decisio The Landing Appeals June 12, 2007 Page 5 The Doctrine applies not only to the initial public hearing but to all Requests for Reconsideration as well as Appeals to the City Council. CITY OF RENTON APPEAL TO RENTON CITY COUNCIL 'JUN O 5 2007 OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION/RECOMMENDATION RECEIVED CITY CLERK'$ OfflCE , APPLICATION NAME The Landing -Master Site Plan FILE NO. LUA-06-071, SA-A .. The undersigned interested party hereby files its Notice of Appeal from the decision or recommendation of the 1;/0 fp,,11 May 22 07 Land Use Hearing Examiner, dated , 20 __ . 1. IDENTIFICATION OF PARTY APPELLANT: REPRESENTATIVE (IF ANY): Name: ---"'Ha,,_r"-y'-'e'-'s,_,t__..Psaa~r--'t.un,a,er._s,,__ _____ _ Name: Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson Address: 8214 Westchester Drive, 11650 Address: 1221 2nd Avenue, Suite 500 Ballas, TX 75225 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone Number:------------PhoneNumber: (206) 623-1745 Email:---------------Email: ______________ _ 2. SPECIFICATION OF ERRORS (Attach additional sheets, if necessary) Set forth below are the specific errors or law or fact upon which this appeal is based: (See attached Notice Finding of Fact: (Please designate number as denoted in the Examiner's Report) of Appeal) No. Error:------------------------------- Correction:---------------------------- Conclusions: No. Error:------------------------------- Correction: ___ _ Other: No. Error:------------------------------- Correction:---------------------------- 3. SUMMARY OF ACTION REQUESTED The City Council is requested to grant the following relief: (Attach explanation, if desired) (See Attached Notice Reverse the decision or recommendation and grant the following relief: Modify the decision or recommendation as follows: Remand to the Examiner for further consideration as follows: Other: Type/Printed Name of Appeal) 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 27 28 BEFORE THE RENTON CITY COUNCIL In the Matter of the Appeal of Brad Nicholson re: The Director's Administrative Site Plan Approval. LUA-06-071, SA-A NOTICE OF APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION I. INTRODUCTION Applicant Harvest Partners hereby files this Notice of Appeal of the Hearing Examiner's Decision regarding Applicant Harvest Partners' Site Plan for The Landing, and requests a stay of this appeal pending the outcome of Applicant's Request for Reconsideration to the Hearing Examiner. II. STATEMENT OF FACTS On May 22, 2007, following a hearing on the merits, the Renton Hearing Examiner issued a decision regarding Applicant Harvest Partners' Site Plan for The Landing project (the "Decision"). In nearly all respects, the Decision affirmed the Director's approval of The Landing Site Plan, and modifications thereto. However, the Examiner reversed the Director's approval of certain specific elements of The Landing Site Plan, finding that there was not sufficient evidence of"practical difficulties" permitting such elements. On June 5, 2007, Applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration with the Hearing Examiner, requesting that the Examiner reconsider those portions of the Decision requiring modifications to the Site Plan. A copy of Applicant's Request for Reconsideration is attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference. Notice of Appeal of Hearing Examiner's Decision -Page I of 2 HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON, P.S. 500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Ave Seattle WA 98101-2925 206.623.1745; fax 206.623.7789 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 IO 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Ill. REQUEST FOR STAY Upon issuance of a decision by the Hearing Examiner, the Renton Municipal Code permits interested persons to file Requests for Reconsideration to the Examiner within fourteen days of the decision. RMC 4-8-100.G.4. The Renton Municipal Code also permits interested parties aggrieved by the Examiner's decision to file appeals to the Renton City Council, also within fourteen days of the Examiner's decision. RMC 4-8-110.E.8. There is no provision in the Renton Municipal Code stating that the deadline for appeals to City Council is tolled while a Request for Reconsideration is pending. Therefore, Applicant is filing this Notice of Appeal simultaneously with its Request for Reconsideration in order to comply with the fourteen-day deadlines for each. However, in light of the fact that the Decision remains under review of the Examiner pursuant to the Request for Reconsideration, Applicant respectfully requests that all action on this appeal be stayed pending the outcome of the Request for Reconsideration. Depending upon the outcome of the Request for Reconsideration, Applicant may wish to withdraw this appeal entirely, tile a new appeal of the Examiner's decision on the Request for Reconsideration, or rest upon the arguments already made in the Request for Reconsideration and incorporated herein. <fl-- DATED this J day of June, 2007. #354953 18449-004 71.,10l!.doc 6/05/07 Notice of Appeal of Hearing Examiner's Decision -Page 2 o/2 IIILLIS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON, P.S. illis, WSBA # 1704 Durkan, WSBA #11805 Karen D. Breckenridge, WSBA #36666 Attorneys for Applicant Harvest Partners HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON, P.S. 500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Ave Seattle WA 98101-2925 206.623.1745; fax 206.623.7789 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 IO 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER OF THE CITY OF RENTON In the Matter of the Appeal of Brad Nicholson re: The Director's Administrative Site Plan Approval. LUA-06-071, SA-A APPLICANT'S REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION I. INTRODUCTION Applicant Harvest Partners brings this Request for Reconsideration pursuant to Renton Municipal Code (RMC) 4-8-100.0(4). Applicant respectfully requests that the Examiner reconsider specific portions of the decision, and modify the decision accordingly. II. STATEMENT OF FACTS On May 22, 2007, following a hearing on the merits, the Renton Hearing Examiner issued a decision regarding Applicant Harvest Partners' Site Plan for The Landing project (the "Decision"). In nearly all respects, the Decision affirmed the Director's approval of The Landing Site Plan, and modifications thereto. However, the Examiner reversed the Director's approval of certain specific elements of The Landing Site Plan, finding that there was not sufficient evidence of "practical difficulties" permitting such elements. In particular, the Decision requires the following specific changes to the current Site Plan for The Landing 1: 1 The City of Renton has filed a Request for Clarification with the Examiner, to clarify that the Decision 26 did not also require the installation ofa primary entrance facing Park Avenue North on Building 102, nor did it require removal of parking stalls at the north end of Quadrant C along 10th Avenue North. Applicant hereby 27 joins in the City's Request for Clarification. Furthermore, should the Examiner determine that the Decision did require a Building I 02 entrance facing Park Avenue North, or the removal of parking along I 0th Avenue North, 28 Applicant hereby requests reconsideration of those changes to the Site Plan and incorporates by this reference the arguments presented by the City in the Request for Clarification. Applicant 's Request for Reconsideration -Page I of 8 HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON, P.S. 500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Ave Seatlle WA 98101-2925 206.623.1745; fax 206.623.7789 • Installation of an additional or alternative entrance on the cast side of 2 Building 400, fronting Park Avenue North. See Decision, p. 22, at 3 paragraph 3 of "Decision" section. 4 5 6 7 • Removal of parking stalls located between Building 102 and Park A venue North, in the southwest comer of Quadrant C. See Decision, p. 22, at paragraph 2 of "Decision" section. • Removal of all but 60 feet of parking stalls located north of Building 400 and 8 west of Park Avenue North. See Decision, p. 21, paragraph 8; see also 9 Decision, p. 22, at paragraph 2 of "Decision" section. 1 o As presented below, the Examiner's Decision as to these specific elements, and the 11 Examiner's finding that there were not practical difficulties requiring such elements in the 12 Site Plan, reOect an error in fact or judgment and therefore require reconsideration pursuant to 13 RMC 4-8-100.0(4). 14 15 A. III. ARGUMENT Additional Entrance to Building 400 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 In the "Findings" section of the Decision, the Examiner states the following: Similarly, this office can find no practical difficulty in providing a front entrance along Park A venue. While an entrance along a fayade where other shops or buildings have their entrance would be a nice design feature for an interrelated shopping complex, unless this office has missed some limiting aspect of the applicant's plans, there is no practical difficulty in providing another entrance along the pedestrian-oriented street, that is, Park Avenue ... Not every shop is obviously amenable to having multiple entrances but an inviting pedestrian presence is supposed to be a feature of this complex and the complex should not tum its "back" on Park Avenue. Decision, p. 18, paragraph 45. The Examiner's Decision therefore appears to require an additional or alternative entrance on the east side of Building 400, facing Park Avenue North. See Decision, p. 22, at paragraph 3 of "Decision" section. However, numerous practical difficulties make the installation of a primary entrance in this location inappropriate in this context. Applicant's Request for Reconsideration -Page 2 o/8 HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON, P.S. 500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Ave Seattle WA 98101-2925 206.623.1745; fax 206.623.7789 First, given the existing industrial uses on the property to the south of The Landing 2 site, there is currently very little, if any, pedestrian traffic along Park Avenue North. At such 3 time as the property to the south is redeveloped with retail uses, and as additional infill along 4 Park Avenue North is completed, the pedestrian traffic along Park Avenue North will increase 5 substantially. Until that time, however, having a second primary entrance in a large retail 6 store such as that planned for Building 400, without significant pedestrian traffic to use the 7 second entrance, would likely pose serious security and loss prevention issues. The retail 8 store would be unable to locate its single point of sale with the entrance/exit, thus increasing 9 the risk of stolen merchandise. Where two entrances are required, the store's ability to control 1 o the flow of merchandise would be compromised. In addition to the security issues, having 11 two entrances could lead to confusion to the customer and a significant loss of functionality 12 within the store, as valuable shelf, storage, and display space would be lost to the second 13 entrance area. 14 Due to the practical difficulties with having two entrances to Building 400, Applicant, 15 in consultation with the City, designed Building 400 with its primary entrance facing north, 16 toward the pedestrian walk and the customer parking. This design was consistent with the 17 City's vision presented in the Comprehensive Plan, as well as the Conceptual Plan for the site. 18 As the Examiner noted in the Decision, the Comprehensive Plan recognized that the 19 redevelopment of District One would be phased over a 30-year period. Decision, p. 16, 20 paragraph 40. Recognizing that the surrounding industrial uses would make it difficult to 21 achieve urban intensities upfront, both the Comprehensive Plan and the Conceptual Plan 22 called for the incorporation of pedestrian-oriented features within the development to aid the 23 transition to an urban mixed-use district. Id. The Conceptual Plan depicted a pedestrian 24 connector, running in an east to west direction and connecting the buildings along the south 25 side of Quadrants Band C. Decision, p. 13, paragraph 29. Applicant's design for The 26 Landing incorporates this key pedestrian corridor, and the building entrances for all of the 27 buildings, including Building 400, were therefore designed to front the pedestrian walk. 28 Applicant ·s Request for Reconsideration -Page 3 of 8 HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON, P.S. 500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Ave Seattle WA 98101-2925 206.623. 1745; fax 206.623.7789 As the Examiner acknowledged, the north-facing entrance on Building 400 presents a 2 nice design feature for an interrelated shopping complex. Decision, p. 18, paragraph 45. 3 Were the entrance of Building 400 to face east rather than north, customers attempting to 4 walk from store to store in Quadrant B would be required to walk east for the entire width of 5 Building 400, then south for a distance, before reaching the entrance. The orientation of 6 Building 400' s entrance toward the heart of The Landing site and the pedestrian walk 7 therefore presents the most practical, pedestrian-oriented design at this time, is consistent with 8 the City's vision in the Conceptual Plan and Comprehensive Plan, and enhances rather than 9 hinders the overall cohesiveness and pedestrian friendliness of The Landing project. IO In addition, Applicant has incorporated several elements into its design to 11 accommodate the eventual transition of Park Avenue North into a vibrant, pedestrian-friendly 12 street. First, the materials and details used for the east fa9ade of Building 400 will be the 13 same materials and details as used on the north side of the building, so there is no reduction in 14 quality or appearance. See "Update A" plans for Building 400, admitted as Exhibit 5 in the J 5 Site Plan hearing. In addition, Applicant's Site Plan includes a wide sidewalk between Park 16 Avenue North and Building 400. Id. Over ten feet oflandscaping is provided between 17 Building 400 and the sidewalk, and additional landscaping with street trees is provided 18 between the sidewalk and Park Avenue North. Id. With these pedestrian-oriented elements 19 incorporated into the current design for Building 400, Building 400 and its surrounding 20 landscaping will present an attractive, inviting addition to the streetscape of Park Avenue 21 North. Furthermore, if and when the long-term vision of pedestrian traffic along Park Avenue 22 North comes lo fruition, such that market conditions create a demand and desire for a second 23 entrance, Building 400 has been designed to incorporate an exit-only door facing Park 24 Avenue North. Id. At that time, the exit could be converted into an entrance and the store 25 reconfigured to accommodate pedestrian traffic from Park Avenue North. 26 Given the numerous pedestrian-oriented elements already built into the design of 27 Building 400, and since the primary pedestrian flow is along the pedestrian walkway on the 28 north side of the building, the Examiner's requirement for a second entrance along Park Applicant's Request for Reconsideration -Page 4 o/8 HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON, P.S. 500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Ave Seattle WA 98101-2925 206.623.1745; fax 206.623.7789 Avenue North does not enhance the pedestrian oriented nature of the project. Furthermore, 2 the requirement of a second entrance is unsafe and impractical at this time, thus hindering 3 rather than bolstering the opportunity for a successful retail marketplace. Applicant therefore 4 respectfully requests that the Examiner's Decision be modified to remove the requirement of a 5 primary entrance on the east side of Building 400. 6 B. Removal of Parking Along Park Avenue North 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 The Examiner's Decision also requires the removal of two specific parking areas in The Landing Site Plan -the parking area between Building I 02 and Park Avenue North, and all but 60 feet of the strip of parking west of Park Avenue North and north of Building 400. Decision, p. 22, at paragraph 2 of "Decision" section. In discussing the parking area between Building 102 and Park A venue North, the Examiner noted: The parking stalls located on the east side of Park, adjacent to the roadway serving the proposed Target store, raise some issues ... There is no reason that makes compliance with code impractical. Landscaping can be provided to screen the access drive and the additional parking. Decision, p. 18, paragraph 44. In discussing the parking area north of Building 400 and west of Park Avenue North, the Examiner stated: This office cannot find any practical difficulties on limiting the curb area along Park north of Building 400 to 'not more than 60 feet' occupied by parking or vehicular access. The parking certainly can be moved or removed and replaced by landscaping. Decision, p. 21, paragraph 8. As detailed below, the Examiner's requirement for landscaping between Park Avenue North and the parking areas has already been addressed in the existing Site Plan for The Landing. Furthermore, the design and location of these parking areas were driven by practical considerations, including market demands and the objective of a successful retail center. The Examiner's discussion of each of these parking areas states that these parking stalls could be replaced by landscaping. However, there are already significant landscaping and pedestrian-oriented elements incorporated into the design, serving as a large buffer and providing adequate screening between Park Avenue North and the subject parking areas. Applicant's Request for Reconsideration -Page 5 o/8 HILLIS CLARK MAR_TJN & PETERSON, P. S. 500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Ave Seattle WA 98101-2925 206.623.1745; fax 206.623. 7789 Both of the subject parking areas are separated from the street by several pedestrian-oriented 2 amenities:(]) a row oflandscaping measuring at least nine feet and up to eighteen feet in 3 width,2 all resting atop a landscape berm measuring at least two feet in height; (2) a pedestrian 4 sidewalk with enhanced paving, measuring approximately ten feet in width; and (3) a second 5 row oflandscaping with street trees directly adjacent to Park Avenue North. In total, this 6 landscaping/sidewalk/landscaping buffer measures over 19 feet in the area west of Park 7 Avenue North, and over 28 feet in the area between Park Avenue North and Building 102. 8 For the Examiner's convenience, and to better visualize the significant separation of the 9 parking areas from the street, a copy of the original landscape plan depicting the landscaping Io and sidewalks between Park Avenue North and the parking areas is attached hereto as 11 Exmnrr A. 3 12 The landscaping and sidewalks along Park Avenue North already exceed Renton 13 Municipal Code requirements and provide an inviting pedestrian connection for pedestrians 14 traveling north or south along Park Avenue. The additional landscaping required by the 15 Examiner's Decision, and the resulting loss of parking, will not positively influence the look 16 or function of the development, and will instead have an overall negative effect upon the 17 success of the retail center. 18 Interestingly, given the existing landscaping and pedestrian-oriented features between 19 the parking lot north of Building 400 and Park Avenue North, Applicant was likely not even 20 required to obtain a modification from the Director for this area. The Renton Municipal Code 21 states that on pedestrian-oriented streets, "No more than sixty feet (60') of the street frontage 22 measured parallel to the curb shall be occupied by off-street parking and vehicular access." 23 RMC 4-3-100.F.l.b.i. Here, in no place is the street frontage along the west side of Park 24 25 26 27 28 2 The landscaping planned for the area directly east of the parking area north of Building 400 is approximately nine feet wide from parking area to sidewalk. The landscaping planned for the area directly west of the parking area between Building 102 and Park Avenue North is at least eighteen feet wide from parking area to sidewalk. See Landscape Plan, attached hereto as Exhibit A; see also "Update A" landscape plans, admitted as Exhibit 5 in the Site Plan hearing. 3 This exhibit is provided for illustrative purposes. Specific dimensions may have changed since this Site Plan was submitted. See, e.g., "Update A" landscape plans, admitted as Exhibit 5 in the Site Plan hearing. Applicant's Request for Reconsideration -Page 6 of 8 HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & PEHRSON, P.S. 500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Ave Seattle WA 98101-2925 206.623.1745; fax 206.623.7789 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 27 28 Avenue North "occupied by" off-street parking. Rather, the street frontage is "occupied by" the adjacent landscaping and sidewalk, measuring approximately 20 feet in width. Recognizing, however, that the Renton Municipal Code might be deemed ambiguous in terms of what "occupied by" meant, Applicant requested and received a modification from the Director to permit the parking area north of 400. To the extent a modification was required for this parking area, and for the parking area between Building I 02 and Park Avenue North, and in light of the extensive screening and landscaping already provided to ensure a large buffer between the parking areas and the street, the Director's approval of these modifications was appropriate. Furthermore, the Director's modifications were also proper given the practical difficulties of compliance with the code while still providing a sufficient number of stalls in adequate proximity to the retail tenants. As is the case with the development of any retail center of this size and magnitude, Applicant's design for The Landing is and must be in large part driven by what the market demands. This ability to attract tenants is particularly important where, as here, the site is formerly unoccupied and is still surrounded by primarily industrial uses. The specific numbers of stalls provided for the tenants' use, as well as the proximity of those stalls to the buildings themselves, are often key considerations for prospective tenants before they commit to a site. The Examiner has acknowledged that a project of this scale and magnitude is certain to require some modifications: It would be or is too easy to shoot objections at a 38-acre project and find that it may not comport with every guideline found in Code. The fact that a 38-acre site may not fit every guideline or minimum standard was why the Director was apparently given the power to review modification requests and grant those requests if in the overall scheme of things, the development accomplished the City's goals for this area-redevelopment at an urban scale of substantially underutilized property ... It may not be possible to meet every objective in a time span of two to three years on an area of this size and one still subject to neighboring heavy industrial uses. Decision, p. 17, paragraph 41. As the Examiner appears to recognize, Applicant was presented with the challenge of designing a large retail center to conform to the City's long- Applicant 's Request for Reconsideration -Page 7 of 8 HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON, P.S. 500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Ave Seattle WA 98101-2925 206.623.1745; fax 206.623.7789 term vision and guidelines, and yet still incorporate appropriate design elements to attract 2 tenants for this initial phase. An example of Applicant's and the City's attempt to straddle 3 these sometimes conflicting demands exists with the subject parking areas. In order to attract 4 prominent, established tenants to the site, Applicant sought to provide a design that 5 incorporated pedestrian-oriented elements, and also accommodated the parking needs of the 6 incoming tenants. Recognizing that the parking demands of the tenants required parking 7 stalls near to Park Avenue North until such time as structured parking can be incorporated in 8 these areas, Applicant designed extensive landscaping and pedestrian-oriented elements 9 adjacent to Park A venue North to ensure that the parking was appropriately screened and that 1 o the pedestrian-oriented nature of the development was not compromised. 11 The Examiner's Decision requiring removal of these shared parking stalls fails lo 12 recognize that Applicant's design already provides an appropriate amount ofpedestrian- 13 oriented elements and screening along Park Avenue North. Moreover, the Examiner's 14 Decision will have a significant impact on the success of the tenants in the nearby areas and 15 will negatively impact Applicant's ability to lease these spaces. 16 For these reasons, Applicant respectfully requests that the Examiner's Decision be 17 modified to strike the required removal of the parking stalls between Building l 02 and Park 18 A venue North, and the parking stalls west of Park Avenue North and north of Building 400. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 IV. CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth herein, Applicant requests modification of the Examiner's Decision to reverse the Examiner's denial of the Director's approval of Site Plan modifications. DATED this May of June, 2007. #354789 18449-004 71'9011.doc 6/05/07 Applicant's Request for Reconsideration -Page 8 o/8 HIL~1-S .. ARK MARTIN & P)"· ON, P.S. B~ _ .~ v~ ,Vero¢ L. Hillis, SBA # 1704 l:f:Ryan Durkan, WSBA # 11805 Karen D. Breckenridge, WSBA #36666 Attorneys for Applicant Harvest Partners HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON, P.S. 500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Ave Seattle WA 98101-2925 206.623.1745; fax 206.623.7789 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 IO 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ,ilJN Q 5 2007 RECEIVED l'ly,,.,, ("I Cf -"' ' ' •<dK'S 0FFICF y;rc /'ii, y;.- BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER OF THE CITY OF RENTON In the Matter of the Appeal of Brad Nicholson re: The Director's Administrative Site Plan Approval. LUA-06-071, SA-A APPLICANT'S REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION I. INTRODUCTION Applicant Harvest Partners brings this Request for Reconsideration pursuant to Renton Municipal Code (RMC) 4-8-100.0(4). Applicant respectfully requests that the Examiner reconsider specific portions of the decision, and modify the decision accordingly. II. STATEMENT OF FACTS On May 22, 2007, following a hearing on the merits, the Renton Hearing Examiner issued a decision regarding Applicant Harvest Partners' Site Plan for The Landing project (the "Decision"). In nearly all respects, the Decision affirmed the Director's approval of The Landing Site Plan, and modifications thereto. However, the Examiner reversed the Director's approval of certain specific elements of The Landing Site Plan, finding that there was not sufficient evidence of"practical difficulties" permitting such elements. In particular, the Decision requires the following specific changes to the current Site Plan for The Landing 1: 1 The City of Renton has filed a Request for Clarification with the Examiner, to clarify that the Decision 26 did not also require the installation ofa primacy entrance facing Park Avenue North on Building 102, nor did it require removal of parking stalls at the north end of Quadrant C along 10th Avenue North. Applicant hereby 27 joins in the City's Request for Clarification. Furthermore, should the Examiner determine that the Decision did require a Building I 02 entrance facing Park Avenue North, or the removal of parking along I 0th Avenue North, 28 Applicant hereby requests reconsideration of those changes to the Site Plan and incorporates by this reference the arguments presented by the City in the Request for Clarification. Applicant's Request for Reconsideration -Page 1 of 8 QR I GIN k L 1-flLLIS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON, P.S. 500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Ave Seattle WA 98101 -2925 206.623.1745; fax 206.623.7789 • Installation of an additional or alternative entrance on the east side of 2 Building 400, fronting Park Avenue North. See Decision, p. 22, at 3 paragraph 3 of "Decision" section. 4 5 6 7 • Removal of parking stalls located between Building I 02 and Park A venue North, in the southwest comer of Quadrant C. See Decision, p. 22, at paragraph 2 of "Decision" section. • Removal of all but 60 feet of parking stalls located north of Building 400 and 8 west of Park Avenue North. See Decision, p. 21, paragraph 8; see also 9 Decision, p. 22, at paragraph 2 of"Decision" section. 10 As presented below, the Examiner's Decision as to these specific elements, and the 11 Examiner's finding that there were not practical difficulties requiring such elements in the 12 Site Plan, reflect an error in fact or judgment and therefore require reconsideration pursuant to 13 RMC 4-8-JOO.G(4). 14 15 A. III. ARGUMENT Additional Entrance to Building 400 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 In the "Findings" section of the Decision, the Examiner states the following: Similarly, this office can find no practical difficulty in providing a front entrance along Park Avenue. While an entrance along a fa9ade where other shops or buildings have their entrance would be a nice design feature for an interrelated shopping complex, unless this office has missed some limiting aspect of the applicant's plans, there is no practical difficulty in providing another entrance along the pedestrian-oriented street, that is, Park Avenue ... Not every shop is obviously amenable to having multiple entrances but an inviting pedestrian presence is supposed to be a feature of this complex and the complex should not tum its "back" on Park Avenue. Decision, p. 18, paragraph 45. The Examiner's Decision therefore appears to require an additional or alternative entrance on the east side of Building 400, facing Park Avenue North. See Decision, p. 22, at paragraph 3 of "Decision" section. However, numerous practical difficulties make the installation of a primary entrance in this location inappropriate in this context. Applicant's Request for Reconsideration -Page 2 of 8 HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON, P.S. 500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Ave Seattle WA 98101-2925 206.623.1745; fax 206.623.7789 First, given the existing industrial uses on the property to the south of The Landing 2 site, there is currently very little, if any, pedestrian traffic along Park Avenue North. At such 3 time as the property to the south is redeveloped with retail uses, and as additional infill along 4 Park Avenue North is completed, the pedestrian traffic along Park Avenue North will increase 5 substantially. Until that time, however, having a second primary entrance in a large retail 6 store such as that planned for Building 400, without significant pedestrian traffic to use the 7 second entrance, would likely pose serious security and loss prevention issues. The retail 8 store would be unable to locate its single point of sale with the entrance/exit, thus increasing 9 the risk of stolen merchandise. Where two entrances are required, the store's ability to control JO the flow of merchandise would be compromised. In addition to the security issues, having 11 two entrances could lead to confusion to the customer and a significant loss of functionality 12 within the store, as valuable shelf, storage, and display space would be lost to the second 13 entrance area. 14 Due to the practical difficulties with having two entrances to Building 400, Applicant, 15 in consultation with the City, designed Building 400 with its primary entrance facing north, 16 toward the pedestrian walk and the customer parking. This design was consistent with the 17 City's vision presented in the Comprehensive Plan, as well as the Conceptual Plan for the site. 18 As the Examiner noted in the Decision, the Comprehensive Plan recognized that the 19 redevelopment of District One would be phased over a 30-year period. Decision, p. 16, 20 paragraph 40. Recognizing that the surrounding industrial uses would make it difficult to 21 achieve urban intensities upfront, both the Comprehensive Plan and the Conceptual Plan 22 called for the incorporation of pedestrian-oriented features within the development to aid the 23 transition to an urban mixed-use district. Id. The Conceptual Plan depicted a pedestrian 24 connector, running in an east to west direction and connecting the buildings along the south 25 side of Quadrants Band C. Decision, p. 13, paragraph 29. Applicant's design for The 26 Landing incorporates this key pedestrian corridor, and the building entrances for all of the 27 buildings, including Building 400, were therefore designed to front the pedestrian walk. 28 Applicant's Request for Reconsideration -Page 3 of 8 HILLIS CI.ARK MARTIN & PETERSON, P.S. 500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Ave Seattle WA 98101-2925 206.623.1745; fax 206.623. 7789 As the Examiner acknowledged, the north-facing entrance on Building 400 presents a 2 nice design feature for an interrelated shopping complex. Decision, p. 18, paragraph 45. 3 Were the entrance of Building 400 to face east rather than north, customers attempting to 4 walk from store to store in Quadrant B would be required to walk east for the entire width of 5 Building 400, then south for a distance, before reaching the entrance. The orientation of 6 Building 400's entrance toward the heart of The Landing site and the pedestrian walk 7 therefore presents the most practical, pedestrian-oriented design at this time, is consistent with g the City's vision in the Conceptual Plan and Comprehensive Plan, and enhances rather than 9 hinders the overall cohesiveness and pedestrian friendliness of The Landing project. 1 o In addition, Applicant has incorporated several elements into its design to 11 accommodate the eventual transition of Park Avenue North into a vibrant, pedestrian-friendly 12 street. First, the materials and details used for the east fas:ade of Building 400 will be the 13 same materials and details as used on the north side of the building, so there is no reduction in 14 quality or appearance. See "Update A" plans for Building 400, admitted as Exhibit 5 in the 15 Site Plan hearing. ln addition, Applicant's Site Plan includes a wide sidewalk between Park l 6 Avenue North and Building 400. Id. Over ten feet oflandscaping is provided between l 7 Building 400 and the sidewalk, and additional landscaping with street trees is provided 18 between the sidewalk and Park Avenue North. Id. With these pedestrian-oriented elements 19 incorporated into the current design for Building 400, Building 400 and its surrounding 20 landscaping will present an attractive, inviting addition to the streetscape of Park Avenue 21 North. Furthermore, if and when the long-term vision of pedestrian traffic along Park Avenue 22 North comes to fruition, such that market conditions create a demand and desire for a second 23 entrance, Building 400 has been designed to incorporate an exit-only door facing Park 24 Avenue North. Id. At that time, the exit could be converted into an entrance and the store 25 reconfigured to accommodate pedestrian traffic from Park Avenue North. 26 Given the numerous pedestrian-oriented elements already built into the design of 27 Building 400, and since the primary pedestrian flow is along the pedestrian walkway on the 28 north side of the building, the Examiner's requirement for a second entrance along Park Applicant's Request for Reconsideration -Page 4 of 8 HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON, P .S. 500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Ave Seattle WA 98101-2925 206.623.1745; fax 206.623.7789 Avenue North does not enhance the pedestrian oriented nature of the project. Furthermore, 2 the requirement of a second entrance is unsafe and impractical at this time, thus hindering 3 rather than bolstering the opportunity for a successful retail marketplace. Applicant therefore 4 respectfully requests that the Examiner's Decision be modified to remove the requirement of a 5 primary entrance on the east side of Building 400. 6 B. Removal of Parking Along Park Avenue North 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 The Examiner's Decision also requires the removal of two specific parking areas in The Landing Site Plan -the parking area between Building 102 and Park Avenue North, and all but 60 feet of the strip of parking west of Park Avenue North and north of Building 400. Decision, p. 22, at paragraph 2 of "Decision" section. In discussing the parking area between Building 102 and Park Avenue North, the Examiner noted: The parking stalls located on the east side of Park, adjacent to the roadway serving the proposed Target store, raise some issues ... There is no reason that makes compliance with code impractical. Landscaping can be provided to screen the access drive and the additional parking. Decision, p. 18, paragraph 44. In discussing the parking area north of Building 400 and west of Park Avenue North, the Examiner stated: This office cannot find any practical difficulties on limiting the curb area along Park north of Building 400 to 'not more than 60 feet' occupied by parking or vehicular access. The parking certainly can be moved or removed and replaced by landscaping. Decision, p. 21, paragraph 8. As detailed below, the Examiner's requirement for landscaping between Park Avenue North and the parking areas has already been addressed in the existing Site Plan for The Landing. Furthermore, the design and location of these parking areas were driven by practical considerations, including market demands and the objective of a successful retail center. The Examiner's discussion of each of these parking areas states that these parking stalls could be replaced by landscaping. However, there are already significant landscaping and pedestrian-oriented elements incorporated into the design, serving as a large buffer and providing adequate screening between Park Avenue North and the subject parking areas. Applicant's Request for Reconsideration -Page 5 of 8 HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON, P.S. 500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Ave Seattle WA 98101-2925 206.623.1745; fax 206.623.7789 Both of the subject parking areas are separated from the street by several pedestrian-oriented 2 amenities: (I) a row of landscaping measuring at least nine feet and up to eighteen feet in 3 width,2 all resting atop a landscape berm measuring at least two feet in height; (2) a pedestrian 4 sidewalk with enhanced paving, measuring approximately ten feet in width; and (3) a second 5 row of landscaping with street trees directly adjacent to Park Avenue North. In total, this 6 landscaping/sidewalk/landscaping buffer measures over 19 feet in the area west of Park 7 Avenue North, and over 28 feet in the area between Park Avenue North and Building I 02. 8 For the Examiner's convenience, and to better visualize the significant separation of the 9 parking areas from the street, a copy of the original landscape plan depicting the landscaping lo and sidewalks between Park Avenue North and the parking areas is attached hereto as 11 EXHIBIT A.3 12 The landscaping and sidewalks along Park Avenue North already exceed Renton 13 Municipal Code requirements and provide an inviting pedestrian connection for pedestrians 14 traveling north or south along Park Avenue. The additional landscaping required by the 15 Examiner's Decision, and the resulting loss of parking, will not positively influence the look l 6 or function of the development, and will instead have an overall negative effect upon the 17 success of the retail center. 18 Interestingly, given the existing landscaping and pedestrian-oriented features between I 9 the parking lot north of Building 400 and Park Avenue North, Applicant was likely not even 20 required to obtain a modification from the Director for this area. The Renton Municipal Code 21 states that on pedestrian-oriented streets, "No more than sixty feet (60') of the street frontage 22 measured parallel to the curb shall be occupied by off-street parking and vehicular access." 23 RMC 4-3-100.F.1.b.i. Here, in no place is the street frontage along the west side of Park 24 25 26 27 28 2 The landscaping planned for the area directly east of the parking area north of Building 400 is approximately nine feet wide from parking area to sidewalk. The landscaping planned for the area directly west of the parking area between Building 102 and Park Avenue North is at least eighteen feet wide from parking area to sidewalk. See Landscape Plan, attached hereto as Exhibit A; see also "Update A" landscape plans, admitted as Exhibit 5 in the Site Plan hearing. 3 This exhibit is provided for illustrative purposes. Specific dimensions may have changed since this Site Plan was submitted. See, e.g., "Update A" landscape plans, admitted as Exhibit 5 in the Site Plan hearing. Applicant's Request for Reconsideration -Page 6 o/8 HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON, P.S. 500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Ave Seattle WA 98101-2925 206.623.1745; fax 206.623.7789 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 27 28 A venue North "occupied by" off-street parking. Rather, the street frontage is "occupied by" the adjacent landscaping and sidewalk, measuring approximately 20 feet in width. Recognizing, however, that the Renton Municipal Code might be deemed ambiguous in terms of what "occupied by" meant, Applicant requested and received a modification from the Director to permit the parking area north of 400. To the extent a modification was required for this parking area, and for the parking area between Building I 02 and Park Avenue North, and in light of the extensive screening and landscaping already provided to ensure a large buffer between the parking areas and the street, the Director's approval of these modifications was appropriate. Furthermore, the Director's modifications were also proper given the practical difficulties of compliance with the code while still providing a sufficient number of stalls in adequate proximity to the retail tenants. As is the case with the development of any retail center of this size and magnitude, Applicant's design for The Landing is and must be in large part driven by what the market demands. This ability to attract tenants is particularly important where, as here, the site is formerly unoccupied and is still surrounded by primarily industrial uses. The specific numbers of stalls provided for the tenants' use, as well as the proximity of those stalls to the buildings themselves, are often key considerations for prospective tenants before they commit to a site. The Examiner has acknowledged that a project of this scale and magnitude is certain to require some modifications: It would be or is too easy to shoot objections at a 38-acre project and find that it may not comport with every guideline found in Code. The fact that a 38-acre site may not fit every guideline or minimum standard was why the Director was apparently given the power to review modification requests and grant those requests if in the overall scheme of things, the development accomplished the City's goals for this area -redevelopment at an urban scale of substantially underutilized property ... It may not be possible to meet every objective in a time span of two to three years on an area of this size and one still subject to neighboring heavy industrial uses. Decision, p. 17, paragraph 41. As the Examiner appears to recognize, Applicant was presented with the challenge of designing a large retail center to conform to the City's long- Applicant's Request for Reconsideration -Page 7 of 8 HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON, P.S. 500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Ave Seattle WA 98101-2925 206.623.1745; fax 206.623.7789 term vision and guidelines, and yet still incorporate appropriate design elements to attract 2 tenants for this initial phase. An example of Applicant's and the City's attempt to straddle 3 these sometimes conflicting demands exists with the subject parking areas. In order to attract 4 prominent, established tenants to the site, Applicant sought to provide a design that 5 incorporated pedestrian-oriented elements, and also accommodated the parking needs of the 6 incoming tenants. Recognizing that the parking demands of the tenants required parking 7 stalls near to Park Avenue North until such time as structured parking can be incorporated in g these areas, Applicant designed extensive landscaping and pedestrian-oriented elements 9 adjacent to Park Avenue North to ensure that the parking was appropriately screened and that 1 o the pedestrian-oriented nature of the development was not compromised. 11 The Examiner's Decision requiring removal of these shared parking stalls fails to 12 recognize that Applicant's design already provides an appropriate amount ofpedestrian- 13 oriented elements and screening along Park Avenue North. Moreover, the Examiner's 14 Decision will have a significant impact on the success of the tenants in the nearby areas and 15 will negatively impact Applicant's ability to lease these spaces. 16 For these reasons, Applicant respectfully requests that the Examiner's Decision be 17 modified to strike the required removal of the parking stalls between Building 102 and Park 18 Avenue North, and the parking stalls west of Park Avenue North and north of Building 400. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 IV. CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth herein, Applicant requests modification of the Examiner's Decision to reverse the Examiner's denial of the Director's approval of Site Plan modifications. DATED this May of June, 2007. #354789 18449-004 7lr901Ldoc 6/05/07 Applicant's Request for Reconsideration -Page 8 o/8 HILLIS ON,P.S. B -~ rome' L. Hillis, SBA # 1704 / l'f:'Ryan Durkan, WSBA #11805 Karen D. Breckenridge, WSBA #36666 Attorneys for Applicant Harvest Partners HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON, P.S. 500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Ave Seattle WA 98101-2925 206.623.1745; fax 206.623.7789 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 27 28 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER OF THE CITY OF RENTON In the Matier of the Appeal of Brad Nicholson re: The Director's Administrative Site Plan Approval. No.LUA-06-071, SA-A CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Gina C. Pan, am a legal assistant for the law firm of Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson, P.S., 500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101. I hereby certify that on the 5th day of June 2007, I caused to be delivered via legal messenger a true and correct copy of(]) Notice of Appeal of Hearing Examiner's Decision; (2) Applicant's Request/or Reconsideration; and (3) this Certificate of Service to the following: Mr. Fred Kaufman, Hearing Examiner City of Renton I 055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Lawrence J. Warren Zanetla Fontes Warren Barber & Fontes, P.S. I 00 South Second Street Renton, WA 98057 Ross Radley Law Offices of Ross Radley, Inc. P.S. 3316 Fuhrman Ave. East, Suite 250 Seattle, WA 98102 Certificate a/Service -Page I of 2 Office of the Clerk City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Peter L. Buck Buck & Gordon, LLP 2025 First Avenue, Suite 500 Seattle, WA 98121-3140 HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON, P.S. ORIGINAL 500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Ave Seattle WA 98101-2925 206.623.1745; fax 206.623.7789 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 IO 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DATED this _'::S_)_n~_day of June, 2007. #354995 18449-004 71wz011.doc 6/05/07 Certificate of Service -Page 2 of 2 HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON, P.S. Gina C. Pan Legal Assistant to T. Ryan Durkan HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON, P.S. 500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Ave Sealtle WA 98101-2925 206.623.1745; fax 206.623.7789 May 22, 2007 Minutes APPELLANT: OFFICE OF THli: HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON The Landing Site Plan Hearing on Merits File No.: LUA 06-071, SA-A PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the Development Services Report, examining available information on file with the application, field checking the property and surrounding area; the Examiner conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows: MINUTES The following minutes are a summary of the march 27, 2007 hearing. The legal record is recorded on CD. The hearing opened on Tuesday, March 27, 2007, at 9:02 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the Renton City Hall. Parties wishing to testify were affim1ed by the Examiner. The following exhibits were entered into the record: ----------------- Exhibit No. 1: Yellow appeal file containing the Exhibit No. 2: All documents that predate this appeal original documents. ------- Exhibit No. 3: Binder with 20 tabs from Zanella Exhibit No. 4: July 21, 2006 site plan review package Fontes with associated stipulations -- Exhibit No. 5: Updates A, B, C, and D that have been Exhibit No. 6: Summary of Updates to the Site Plan, referred to and the pariies have agreed to all of them. when they were submitted and when they were approved Exhibit No. 7: Sections of the Renton Comprehensive Exhibit No. 8: Violations in the Modified Site Plan Plan, District I. Exhibit No. 9: Exhibit D to Settlement Agreement Exhibit No. 10: Lakeshore Landing Planned Action (Tab 20 in Binder) dated l l/8/20Q.lll. - Exhibit No. 11: City of Renton Co '1 fl.,.__.", A • 0 "··,.ibit No. 12: Page 79 of Exhibit 4 f~ Exhibit No. 13: Packet from Harvest Partners The Landing Site Plan Hearing, erils File No.: LUA-06-071, SA-A May 22, 2007 Page 2 Zanetta Fontes, Attorney for the City of Renton stated that they had presented two stipulations and a binder of stipulated documents as Exhibits. Additionally they had agreed amongst themselves that they are not likely to call witnesses, they did want to make sure that Mr. Watts was available in case the Examiner had any questions of him dunng the course of the hearing. In that light, Mr. Buck on behalf of Mr. Nicholson has indicated that he may also call a witness, it might be best to swear m those witnesses now and save time later. The Examiner slated that yesterday an appeal of an update came in and it was stipulated that it be joined with today's matter since it is an update of the site plan and is subject to this administrative appeal hearing. Ms. Fontes agreed that there has been a stipulation that would indicate that the updates arc being rolled into this hearing for judicial economy. However, it appears that Mr. Nicholson has submitted his appeal on that update in an effort to preserve that appeal. The Examiner further commented that the appeal was filed on behalf of Mr. Nicholson and ASE. ASE had been dismissed on the site plan but they still may appeal the modification, they may not be able to appeal the first site plan but can appeal the second site plan. He was not ready to grant them standing based on this stipulation. Mr. 8uck stated that the site plan appeal was filed in late August or early September, since that time there have been four modifications applied for and granted to that initial site plan. The last two of those were in March of 2007. It is appropriate for the modifications to be before the Exammer so that he has the current site plan before him. One of the four should be appealed and the changes should be before the Examiner. With regard to parties there 1s an ASE, members arc in control, the citizens are the directors. It 1s fine with them that the respondents can object to standing, it may not he overly relevant. ML_l:lilli, stated that he agrees with what has been said, for the record, they do want to renew the motion to dismiss the appeals based upon the lack of standing of ASE and Mr. Nicholson. They would rely on their pnor briefs and arguments and not submit any ne\v material \Vith regard to that. Secondly, he received a 45-pagc bncfycster<lay from Mr. Buck's office, they would like to have an opportunity to respond to that and would request that they have IO days in which to do so. Ms. Fontes agreed with respect to reserving the right to object to ASE standing on the new appeal, they would join and ask for the opportunity to do a post-hearing brief. Mr. Buc1> stated that he had no objection to post-hearing briefs, which would possibly wrap mto the fact that the Examiner would need and want more time. They would want to file a brief on issues raised today that have not been heard previously. Mr. Hillis suggested that there be an agreement on briefing. He further stated that they have stipulated to the authenticity of the exhibits that have been presented, they have not stipulated to their relevancy. They have also stipulated that they would not call witnesses but would make Mr. Watts available to answer any questions that the Examiner might have, a third stipulation was that Update A, which they have appealed as of Friday, is being combined with this appeal today. Mr. Buck stated that one of the exhibits they wanted to stipulate to today was the application for the Master Plan. He would like to see before the end of this hearing today that the City would identify what exactly was the Master Plan application, they would like that to be pa11 of the record. The Landing Site Plan Hearing o erits File No.: LUA-06-071, SA-A May 22, 2007 Page 3 Ms. Fontes stated that staff has gone through the records, they have tagged things, however she was not sure if that was the most efficient way to define what was part of the Master Plan application or if it should be copied for all parties. It can be taken care of today. Mr. Buck stated that a pre-hearing brief was presented today to the parties that discussed the issues that seem most important. There appears to be a disconnect between what the City of Renton wanted to do with this project and the project that Harvest Partners wants to do. The City and Boeing sought a certain kind of development, that plan is still in place. There is a development agreement, there is a conceptual plan, there is a comprehensive plan and development regulations. There has not been a public hearing that would change any of those strategies. Then in 2006, the Landing Development came to Harvest and Harvest had in mind a project that certainly made sense to them, but it does not fit the previous strategies and plans and those plans do not fit this situation. At some point changes could have been made to the development agreements, the conceptual plan, the comprehensive plan and the development regulations, but the City has not done that. Renton' s code, Section 4-9-200.E I b, requires that there must be conformance with existing land use regulations for a site plan to be approved. One of the broader sections has to do with urban design regulations, Section 4-3-100. In order to get site plan approval there has to be explicit conformance to the intent and mandatory elements of the design guidelines. The brief presented today shows the deviation between the regulations and what Harvest wants to build. He further discussed the issues of parking between buildings and public streets, which the regulations say cannot be done. Building 102 shows two rows of parking to the west of the building. That should not be allowed according to the regulations. Building 400 just across the street; the original plan showed the building narrower and with parking next to the street, that has since heen changed and shows that a building can be built up to the street just as it is required. Moving buildings could cause gaps, modifications can be seen on the other side of Park, Buildings 406 and 407 have a gap, that is not a Daw that the developer cannot fix. There are numerous examples in their brief where disconnects can be seen between code sections and what is being presented today. Buildings located on designated pedestrian streets should be located adjacent to the sidewalk. No more than 60 feet of street frontage should be parking along a pedestrian designated street. In the area north of Building 400 there is more than 60 feet; N IO"' Street, west of Park combined with the area around Building 400 totals more than 60 feet. The main issue that Mr. Nicholson is most concerned about is Buildings IO 1 and I 02 and the area to the west. In Quadrant C there is no challenge on the extent of parking on the cast side of Park or the south side of 1 O'h. The parking on the west side of Park between Buildings 203 and 400 is being challenged as well as along N 1 O"' Street. Building 400 should face Park Avenue with an entrance on that side. The parking north of that building should be removed or reduced to less than 60 feet. Building 102 should be moved to the sidewalk and eliminate all parking. They are alleging no violations as to treatment of buildings, rather they are talking about buildings fronting on pedestrian streets, no parking between buildings and pedestrian oriented streets, no more than 60 feet of entrances or parking accumulatively along pedestrian oriented streets. There seems to be no soft exceptions to these issues. There are no objections to the parking to the east of Park Avenue that lies north of Building 102. They do object to the parking to the west of Building I 02, and object to the main entrance facing north rather than onto the street. There are some objections to setbacks of Buildings JOI and 102 from North 8'h Street (Code 4-2-120.E) and the truck loading areas to the south of Buildings 101 and I 02. The ,Land mg Site Plan Hearing File No.: LUA-06-071, SA-A May 22, 2007 Page 4 ,1erits Quadrant A has a truck loading area off of Logan Avenue (Code 4-2-120.E) between Buildings 300 and 30 !that should not be there. Quadrant B and C has truck loading violations as well, along N 8"' Street. In Quadrant B some additional setbacks, code says that setbacks shall be five feet in this zone and the setbacks with the latest modification at Buildings 406 and 403 appear lo have increased. In addition, west of Building 404 there is a setback greater than five feet. Along the south side ofN IO'" there is surface parking violations (Code 4-3-IOO.F4b). Referring lo Exhibit D under Tab 20 in the notebook, there is a crosshatch area that has been excluded from the settlement, it appears some of the hatches did not copy to the row of parking on Park Avenue. There are similar extensions of hash lines in the boxes, they are drawn in the same angle as the ones on the building. An original needs to be found and clarified as to what was actually stipulated. The conceptual plan (Tab 1 in Bmder) does not seem to have a provision in the code that applies to this zone that states, in an overall site plan as this, the Director can make what modifications he wants to make. There are modification procedures and criteria that apply to minor adjustments. The Examiner stated that he had a letter from Mr. llillis that cited that code provision. Mr. Buck continued that Mr. Green would address the conceptual plan. Duncan Green of Buck and Gordon, stated that they will get an onginal copy and sec where the crosshatch areas actually are, second, they will look at the code and compare the code violations, assuming that these are code violations, and anything that is within the crosshatched area that is a code violation, they are requesting remedy on. If it is outside the crosshatched area they are not asking for anything. There arc requirements in site plan reYiew regulations that state site plans must be consistent with the conceptual plan that has been approved by City Council. Some of the violations seem to be limited to small areas of the site plan, if looked at in the context of the conceptual plan and all of the public process that happened, these violations add up to a lot. They depart drastically from what was adopted, approved and sold to the public. There are two key sources of authority that require site plans to be consistent with the approved conceptual plan, first RMC 4-9-200.E3a states that the plan must conform to the approved conceptual plan required by the development agreement for the subarea in question. Second the 2003 Development Agreement for the subarea between Boeing and the City of Renton, which is Tab 3 in the binder, provides that Renton will evaluate all subsequent pem1it applications within the sub-districts based on consistency with the approved conceptual plan. The October 18, 2004 Committee of the Whole report (Tab 7 in binder) the last page under this tab, the last sentence was read into the record. The current site plans appear to be inconsistent with the conceptual plan in a number of ways, First it is not consistent with the urban guidelines, this is where the importance of the urban guidelines in this district come into light. There is an October 14, 2004 memorandum (Tab 6 in the binder) "Center Oak pledges to design its project consistent with the revised urban center guidelines that arc currently before you and anticipated to be adopted shortly." By adopting this plan, the City Council will provide Center Oak with a set of parameters within which it can develop its project while maintaining a high minimum level of development and insuring high quality design. The Landing does not do that. Another public document that confirms that the urban design guidelines were emphasized in the public process 1s a public information handout dated November 8, 2004, titled Lakeshore Landing Planned Action (Tah 6 in binder). The Landing Site Plan Hearing, lerits File No.: LUA-06-071, SA-A May 22, 2007 Page 5 The Examiner stated that a conceptual plan or concept is not a blueprint to put up a building, it's a vision statement of what they would like to see in that area. It does not show placement of each building and where all parking spots would be, it's a concept but not perfect. It may not work when actually put in place. Mr. Green agreed with the Examiner, there is the conceptual plan with not a lot of detail, then you have a master plan with more detail and the site plan that has yet more detail. Each one has to be consistent with the previous one. There is some flexibility between the conceptual plan and the site plan. This project is not consistent with the spirit of the conceptual plan. However, pedestrian oriented streets, this was emphasized in the development agreement, in the comprehensive plan, in the development regulations and when the Landing came in, that requirement was ignored. Requirements triggered by pedestrian oriented streets were not triggered; in fact the City has stated that there are no pedestrian oriented streets. Park Avenue is fronted by more than 60 feet of parking and there are large format retailers and lots of parkmg. The Landing does not have the diverse mix or uses that the conceptual plan talked about, instead there are no mixed uses or residential in the northeastern quadrant by itself, no mixed use in this site plan, it appears to be purely retail. The site plan exceeds the big box retail that's talked about in the conceptual plan. There should have been a detailed consistency analysis performed to make sure that site plan was consistent with the conceptual plan. The Examiner asked for a clarification of"big box retail", it appears to be Target, Wal-Mart but is it the downtown Nordstrom store? Mr. Green stated that there are categories, up to 50,000 is large formal, 50,000-10,000 ts medium and then down to small format. Big box. would be in the 50,000+ zone. The conceptual plan stated that 20% of the retail would be in small-scale format (less than 10,000 square feet), looking at the proposed site plan it appears that there is a significantly smaller amount of the small-scale retail. The Examiner stated again that this is a conceptual plan, if the percentages were different docs that make 1t violate the plan as a concept? Mr. Green stated it may not require invalidation of the whole site plan, the math should have been done. The conceptual plan talked about 2,646 direct jobs and 622 indirectjobs and now they are saying about 350 employees would work on the site. The director should have to go back and do the homework. Jeny Hillis, representing Harvest Partners, stated the appellants have claimed that the site plan approval conflicts with various land use regulations, the City ofRenton's code, and that the site plan approval needs lo be put in its proper context. The site plan is not the end of the road, it is the initial development scheme of the site. This process will occur over a number of years. This site plan is an initial development plan, not a final development. The comprehensive plan for the City of Renton anticipates development of this area over a number of years. The 2003 concept plan also articulated this vision for the site. He read a portion of that document (Tab 1 of the binder). The idea was that this would be developed over a long period of time, recognizing that that is what the comprehensive plan for the City required. He then showed the Center Oaks conceptual plan (Exhibit 10) this plan refers to final retail build outs. Potential tenants may include a large format retailer, a specialty grocery market, a movie theater and a mix of high quality The Landing Sile Plan Hearing l .1erits File No.: LUA-06-071, SA-A May 22, 2007 Page 6 national, regional and local specialty tenants and restaurants. On the map he pointed out setbacks along Park. There are no stores up to the street and this is the plan that Mr. Green would like the Landing to comply with literally. A concept plan is just that a concept plan. The Director concluded in the site plan decision that the overall concept of the Landing as now proposed meets the concept plan in terms of the overall intent of that concept plan, which was to create a retail center on this site. There is no mention of offices in this first stage, no mention of those kinds of uses, but a big mention of the fact that the initial planning is going to he different than the final development plan might be, all consistent with the City of Renton code. Nowhere is there a requirement that states that the original development plan for the site must meet all the planning goals for the area .. What they do require is that the plan be set up in such a way that over the long-term the goals of the comprehensive plan will be met. The comprehensive plan for the Urban Center North is divided into several categories, the introduction, the overall comprehensive plan for centers, Urban Center North land use designation, and the vision for District 1, which this site is part of. The comprehensive plan is a broad statement of community goals, objectives and policies that direct the orderly development of the site. It is anticipated that national retailers will locate lo the site. He continued reading what the Urban Centers, both North and Dom1t0\rn, intentions and long range plans were designed to include. The Urban Center North land use designation slates UCN policies will prov,de a blueprint for the transition ofland over the next thirty years. LU-271 talks about the Urban Center as a whole and support uses that sustain minimum set employee levels. LU-284 allows phasing plans for mixed-use projects, LU-285 considers placement of parking areas in initial development plans to facilitate later in-fill plans and higher density. There is a snpply of under-utilized land north of NE 8°', which creates a redevelopment opportunity for a first phase development in District One. However, the industrial character of the surrounding development properties both within District Two lo the west and the preliminary industrial area to the east will make it difficult lo achieve true urban intensities in District One at the beginning of this transit10n. The overall viswn for the District contemplates much more than a series of low-rise structures and large parking lots. It is important that this initial development facilitates later stages of investment as the neighborhood matures and property values increase. The vision allows for early stages of open parking lots but they should be handled 111 such a way as to allow for infill to occur over a period of time. There was a vision and that was that this was going to be a difficult area to develop, but it was going to be an area that the City saw developing over thirty years and they wanted to make sure that the imtial development plan was done in such a way that future development could occur lo further meet the goals of the comprehensive plan. The Director's decision finds that the site plan does meet the overall intent of the comprehensive plan. No urban plan can occur overnight, an initial layout has to anticipate future development. The Director's plan for this site was that the anticipation for future development be considered while planning this project. On the original site plan, in the north area along Park it is fully developed, the blank area on the east side of Park is a residential area, which is not part of this application. There is a cinema and entertainment to the north. The area along the north side of what will become 10th is fully developed for the initial plan. The Director was concerned about having all the retail on the north and wanted it spread out, which is what happened. The emphasis was then on the southern end, with the intent to create a pedestrian environment, which is not easy to do given the site. A major walkway was proposed through the site along the southern end, which would allow the retail uses to abut that. The advantage is having the big parking lots to the north, which allows for future infill so that future retail can also be along that pedestrian corridor. There is a pedestrian link that runs through the middle of the site as well, there is another pedestrian link that goes from Quadrant A dom1 through Quadrant The Landing Site Plan Hearing c erits File No.: LUA-06-071, SA-A May 22, 2007 Page 7 D to 81h The area in Quadrant D to the right of the pedestrian link is an open market place for outdoor events, which are described in the plan. The urban development scheme is heading dov.n Park, eventually infill opportunities are provided along Park to fulfill that part of the vision. The concept plan shows an even greater pedestrian atmosphere along Park in the initial stages than ever was shown in the concept plans. The issue was raised regarding small shops, in the development summary there is far more than 20% of the reta_il area that are small shops as opposed to the anchors and junior anchors. The initial stages of the development were looked at with the potential for better infill and build out. Harvest Partners submitted a chart showing that approximately 125,000 square feet of additional development can occur on this property over the next 20 years. This site plan does meet the criteria that are required for a site plan in this code. (RMC 4-9-200.E) Under this section is states that creativity and innovation should not be discouraged and that is precisely what has been going on with the applicant and the development of this plan. The appellant asserts that there are several aspects of the plan that conflict with existing land use regulations. The code anticipates that a site plan may have conflicts with specific design and development regulations. The code provides that the Director can allow modification of design regulations pursuant to RMC 4-3-1 OO(L) and that the Director has authority to modify development standards pursuant to RMC 4-8-070(C) 10. The following are violations that were submitted by the appellant: (1) Parking between buildings and streets, the parking between Building 102 and Park Avenue has been stipulated to, but it is vague at this time. The parking north of the Target store is off the table at this point. Parking west of Building I 02, the Director granted a modification (p.10, Site Plan Review). The alley driveway 1s vested, between Building 102 and Park, it is not going to be moved. (2) The code requires no more than 60' of street frontage along a pedestrian oriented street. There is more than 60 feet of frontage along the west side of Park. Again, the Director granted a modification for this requirement. Between Building 400 and Building 203 there is a parking lot immediately adjacent to Park, which is an infill area. Parking areas have been consolidated for future infill along with ingress/egress from the property. (3) Parking, driveways and pedestrian oriented streets, the Director granted a modification from this requirement (Site Plan Decision, pgs. 12 and 13) Parking areas are located mid block and consolidated to allow future infill. Consolidation of parking areas also allows for consolidation of access points providing access to the central area rather than requiring multiple access points. The Director wanted to limit access to Logan because Logan is a high visibility street, so where does that leave access from Quadrant B? Obviously, those accesses will have to be along I 0th and Park Ave. The access has been limited from Quadrant B onto Park and three accesses off of 10th. ( 4) To have another entrance on Park at this time would be impractical, this is not pedestrian heavy at this time. To change the entrance of Building 400 to face Park makes no sense in the overall development scheme and so the Director granted a modification. (Page 4 of update). Building 102 in Qnadrant C does not allow for the entrance to be moved to Park, the driveway was vested. The Director granted a modification from that requirement. (Site Plan Decision, pg. I 0) Creating a gap between these buildings would disturb the pedestrian atmosphere that was being created. (5) Truckload areas are generally located along 8th and one along Logan. The site plan shows that the area of the loading docks is totally screened, that is what the code requires and what the Director found. (Original site plan, pg. 14) (6) Setbacks of five feet along a street. The purpose of this requirement was to emphasize urban character and maximize pedestrian activity and minimize automobile use within the district. The Director granted a modification (update A pgs. 3 and 4) due to the walkway just north of these buildings makes this a pedestrian corridor. There is a walkway through the site consistent with what the plan requires. The Director is not required by code to make specific findings for each modification. The Director's decision articulates the criteria for granting a modification, the reason why the modifications on this site made sense and The Landing Site Plan Hearing c ierits , File No.: LUA-06-071, SA-A May 22, 2007 Page 8 concludes that this relevant criterion has been met. The cases cited by appellants required specific findings of fact and did not deal with administrative determinations similar to these in the Renton code. The appellant has the burden to show that the criteria have not been met and the Director's decision is erroneous. In rendering his decision, the code directs the Director to consider the overall intent of the minimum standards and guide lines and to encourage creative design and alternatives in order to achieve the purpose of the design regulations. That has been done in this case. It was requested that the Director's decision to approve the site plan with modifications be upheld. ZaneJta Fontes provided three handouts of code provision, a discrete page out of Exhibit 4 (page 79) was marked Exhibit 12, and a packet of information from Harvest Paitners that was marked as Exhibit 13. As briefed in the appeals for the master plan, planned actions are very unique, the planning is clone up front in the hopes that once the SEPA has been done and cerrain guidelines have been articulated and approved by the City, that creative developers would take advantage of the fact that much of the work has already been done. The fact that this is a planned action will dictate some of the processes about the lack of which the appellant complains. One of Mr. Nicholson's complaints is that there was no public hearing. (Page 9-62, 3'd page in Zanetta's handout) Regarding Renton Code 4-9-200.Dl, the second sentence ofsuh a where it states, "that when a master plan is approved, subsequent site plans submitted for future phases may be submitted and approved administratively without a public hearing." The master plan had been approved pnor to the site plan in this case and so no hearing was required. A heanng before a I !earing Examiner is not required if pub he hearings have been held where public comments were solicited on the proposed plan action ordinance; 1f the Environmental Impact Statement for the planned action reviewed preliminary conceptual plans which provided the public and decision makers with sufficient detail regardmg the scale of improvements, the quantity of the vanous types of spaces lo be provided, the use to which the structures would be put and the bulk and general form of the improvements. Mr. Nicholson further says that the ERC needed to make a dctcnnination and relying on code provision 4-9- 200.G9, it seems that the appellant has overlooked an appropriate section, sub8. Section 8 states that a consistency reVIew should be conducted, and it was, by the zoning administrator for proposals submitted under the authority of an adopted planned action ordinance. The question of the Hearing Examiner's authority, Code provision 4-8-110.E, A and C states that any administrative decisions may be appealed lo the Hearing Examiner, and further states that the Examiner shall have all the powers of the office from whom the appeal is taken insofar as the decision on the particular appeal is concerned. The Examiner has the power to remand as well as to do what the Examiner thinks needs to be done, ifhe feels that changes need to be made. Regarding findings, Mr. Green stated that a finding had to be made on each and every point, there is nothing in the code that requires that, there is nothing that requires a written finding made by the Director. The Director did find that there was compliance with the code or he would not have granted the modifications in the first place. The code further states that when applying the provisions of Title 4 the requirements shall be liberally construed in favor of the governing body. Moving on to the parking areas of Quadrant Band the buildings to the south, there is a pedestrian walkway. The median strip on Park, going east to west from Quadrant B to Quadrant C there is a median strip where the pedestrian walkway would cut across Park. That median strip was called for in the concept plan in Exhibit 10. The pedestrian walkway continues eastward in front of Buildings 102, 101 and the Target Building (Building 100). The pedestrian walkway requirement has been met. The Landing Site Plan Hearing c erits File No.: LUA-06-071, SA-A May 22, 2007 Page 9 The screening plan as it relates to the east side of the south end, there is ample screening of trees along the south border of the parcel that is on N 8"' Street. The code does not say that it must be a fence or sight obscuring fence, it just calls for screening and there is screening. The screening continues on along N 8'" Street. There is considerable landscaping along Park as well, from 8'h all the way up to Logan including that area where there is parking frontage between Building 203 and 400 on the west side of Park. Building 102 located at the northeast comer of Park and 8"', argument was made regarding moving this building over, there is however, a driveway just northwest of Building 102 and trucks must come in or go out from that location to make a one-way through on this drive in order to travel between 8"' and Park. There has to be enough room for the truck to pass. The question is, is what is before the Examiner reasonable, was what the Director did reasonable, was it substantial error to grant the modifications considering the practicalities facing the applicant. The applicant needs to prove that it was substantial error. It was not. The purpose statement says that the overall mix and intensity of uses within the Urban Center North Zones will develop over time, consequently decisions made in early phases of redevelopment will need to take into consideration the potential for further infill and intensification of uses, that is what the Director did. The Distnct is intended to attract new retail, office and technology related uses that co-exist with airplane manufactunng in the short nm, but provide a standard of development that stimulates further investment and transition of uses in the longer term. Everything contemplates a long-term development. It docs not have to be done overnight. Planned actions allow the planning to be up front. In the Comprehensive Plan words such as "maintaining zoning", "supportmg uses" and the like, those are in the present tense, not future tense. The policy is to maintain the zoning so that it would create capacity for employment. There do not need to he obstacles for good creative development, this is an excellent development, it is consistent with the conceptual plan and planned action ordinance. The Lakeshore Landmg has better pictures that have helped in terms of what was contemplated by the City and those arc the types of development that are going into this plan. It was asked that the Examiner not remand this matter but uphold the decision of the Director. Mr. Buck stated that Ms. Fontes said the test for the Director was whether this was reasonable, that is not the test. The test is whether it is lawful, not reasonable. It is suggested that it is not reasonable for Buildings 403,404, etc., to require loading docks to be on the street, that may be, but that is what the City of Renton codes say. The Council adopted the laws and the Examiner should not be invited to decide that the Council was \\TOng. Harvest Partners seem to have gotten it wrong, it doesn't matter how expensive it would be to change something, if it is wrong, they need to make the changes. In the area close to Building 102, the only thing that is missing is an agreement by Council as to what Exhibit D actually had. Did it include the areas in red along the edges of the property, or not. There is an exhibit that was attached to a settlement agreement, they will find out what it is and it will be given to the Examiner. The Examiner stated that neither side could stipulate to ignore an Ordinance. Until the Exhibit is produced and looked at, nothing can be done. Mr. Buck stated that on Exhibit D it states that the cross hatching is not intended to preclude the installation of curb, sidewalk or landscaping of those areas. A copy of that exhibit will be given to the Examiner. Ms. Fontes stated that ( 4-2-120.E) page 2-130.3 of the City Code says that parking, docking and loading areas for truck traffic shall be ofl~street and screened from view of abutting public streets. The Landing Site Plan Hearing File No.: LUA-06-071, SA-A May 22, 2007 Page 10 1erits The Examiner called for further testimony regarding this project. There was no one else wishing to speak, and no further comments from staff. The hearing closed at 2: 19 pm. FINDINGS. CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATION Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: 1. The appellant, Brad Nicholson, hereinafter appellant, filed an mitial appeal of an administrative decision approving a Site Plan for a project called The Landing. The applicant for The Landing is Harvest Partners (heremafter Harvest). The appellant also filed an appeal of a proposed and approved change to the Site Plan. The parties agreed to consolidate the two appeals. (See below for ASE's standing on the second appeal) 2. The appeal was filed in a timely manner. The person filing the appeal lives in the City of Renton and commutes past the subject site and uses public facilities and bodies of water near the subject site inclmling Lake Washington. 3. The subject site is approximately 38.22 acres. The total building area will be 572,700 square feet. The property is bounded generally by N 8th Street on the south, Logan Avenue Non the west and north, North 10th Street on the north and Garden Avenue Non the east. Park Avenue N runs through the site from south to north while N 10th Street nms through the site east to west, west of Park, and bounds the site on the north cast of Park. 4. The Staff Report dated August 17, 2006, was incorporated by reference and adopted by this decis10n. Where tl11s office differs from the staff report, Findings and Conclusions will spell out those differences. 5. The Planned Action Ordinance was approved by the City Council after a public hearing was opened on November 8, 2004. 6. A Master Plan was approved on the subject site under a separate file (LUAOS-136) dated May 19, 2006. It was found consistent with the Planned Action Ordinance dated November 15, 2004 where the Planned Action determination was dated May 12, 2006. 7. Code specifically pem1its administrative approval of Site Plan proposals that had a public hearing and public comment for a Planned Action Ordinance and an EIS had sufficient infonnation regarding the scale, types of spaces, uses and general form of the improvements. (Section 4-9-200.D. l .a). The appellant's objection that the onginal public hearing was not timely enough is not supported by CoJe. Administrative review is allowed when there was an original public hearing. The public hearing and published Boeing EIS satisfy the criteria listed for "exemption" from additional public hearings. It appears that the intent of the process was to eliminate duplicative reviews and provide some level of confidence that once an approval was granted, project proponents would not be required to jump through successive hoops and potentially changing standards or even political cycles or politicians. 8. The original site plan was submitted on July 21, 2006 and approved by the City on August 17, 2006 111 the aforementioned Staff Report. 9. The applicant subsequently requested approval of four (4) changes or updates as they are now called. The Landing Site Plan Hearing c erits File No.: LUA-06-071, SA-A May 22, 2007 Page 11 I 0. The Landing project site is located within District C of the Urban Center Design Overlay. The overall intent of the district is to consider individual merit and consider the minimum design standards while encouraging creative design alternatives. 11. The applicant received approval of an Administrative Site Plan for the construction of an approximately 572,700 square foot commercial/retail development with a 12-screen cinema. The proposed development would be constructed on the 38.22-acre site located within the Urban Center -North 1 (UC-NI) zoning designation. Proposed site improvements would consist of the various buildings, parking features, landscaping, utilities and stormwatcr. Special design standards apply for the zoning. The structures are proposed to range in height from approximately 30 to 45 feet. The parking provided would be a mix of structured and surface parking. A four level parking garage is proposed that would provide 675 parking stalls. There would be 1,955 surface parking stalls. 12. The applicant has subsequently submitted a series of four (4) updates or changes to the approved Site Plan. The updates have been labeled alphabetically, A, B, C and D. For purposes of this appeal, the parties agreed to stipulate that the current Site Plan proposal reflects the original site plan as amended or "updated" by these submissions while only the first two updates had been formally appealed. The stipulations were intended to have an administrative review of the proposal as it now stands. I 3. Update A was submitted on December 29, 2006 and was approved by the City on March 13, 2007. It resulted in a reconfiguration and change in building design to the 400 sencs of buildings and particularly the fact that Building 400 now abuts Park Avenue rather than having it setback from Park. The update also connects Entertainment Boulevard to North 8th Street via a pedestrian walkway. 14. Update B was submitted on March 13, 2007 and was approved by the City on March 19, 2007. It resulted in revisions to Buildmg 30 I, a parking garage build mg. I 5. Update C was submitted on February 5, 2007 and was approved by the City on February 8 and I 5, 2007. It resulted in an increase in the size of Building 201 (formerly 104) and a decrease in size in Building 203 (formerly 108) and changes to parking and service areas around Buildings 201, 203 and 202 (fom1erly Building 105). 16. Update D was submitted on February 13, 2007 and was approved by the City on March 7, 2007. It resulted in an increase in size for Building l 02 (formerly Building 202) and change in facade and entries to Buildings 102 and 101 (formerly Building 201). 17. The Site Plan at this review (after the Updates) contains more than a dozen structures. Some of the structures contain separately numbered buildings attached to one another spread over three quadrants. The fourth quadrant in the northeast comer of the area is not part of the current review process. 18. Quadrant A is at the northwest comer of the site bounded by Logan Avenue on the west and north and by Park and N 10th on the east and south respectively. Its main components are a 14-screen cinema and parking garage located along Logan. There are other attached and detached retail buildings south of those buildings. The parking garage and cinema are oriented such that the fronts of the buildings would face Entertainment Boulevard an internal street that is generally south of and parallels Logan Avenue. 19. Quadrant Bis in the southwest comer, south of Quadrant A. Quadrant Bis bounded by Logan on the west, N I 0th on the north, Park on the east and N 8th on the south. It will have a series of retail buildings generally fronting along N 10th, a large interior surface parking lot and a series of buildings arrayed between an east-west pedestrian walkway (north of the buildings) and N 8th street (south of the The Landing Site Plan Hearing o ___ 1erits File No.: LUA-06-071, SA-A May 22, 2007 Page 12 buildings). This southern tier of buildings will be oriented to the north and the internal pedestrian walkway. 20. Quadrant C is located in the southeast corner of the site. It is bounded by Park on the west, N 10th on the north, Garden on the east and 8th on the south. This quadrant contains retail buildings at its northwest corner (Park and N 10th) and a larger retail complex aligned along the south of the site, near and adjacent to N 8th Street. Quadrant C, the future home of a Target Store, is subject to a separate stipulation by the parties and other than parking located adjacent to Park at its extreme southwest corner is not part of this appeal due to the stipulation. 21. Quadrant A is mostly structures including the cinema, parking garage and smaller buildings and is divided by an internal east-west street The applicant seems to have taken a design approach to create a ring of development around a central surface parking lot in Quadrant B with buildings' access from pedestrian paths along the south and north. The pedestrian-centric nature of the design does create issues with vehicle access to the site or sub-sites within the complex. Quadrant C is east of Park and has a major anchor in the Target Store. The parties have stipulated to a number of issues regarding Quadrant C and the Target complex leaving the only appeal issue for Quadrant C, the parking located immediately east of Park and west of the service road or driveway. 22. Issues similar to the Quadrant B parking Jot arise with providing loading docks or bays for the various retail or other businesses in the complex. Forcing large delivery trucks into the midst of passenger vehicles is not always satisfying in terms of circulation and safety. The applicant has placed the loading docks at the perimeter of the site near Logan (between the parking garage and cinema) and along N 8th (between Park and Logan) and that resulted in building facades being moved away from the street or sidewalks in some locations. The plans show landscaping m these areas to screen the loading areas from the streets. 23. The applicant sought modifications that would allow loading docks near the street at the Logan location and also loading docks along N 8th while also moving building facades along N 8th to be setback further from the street than permitted_ 24. Staff found on Page 19 of the Staff Report that the proposed site plan results in an urban design concept through the provision of pedestrian-oriented spaces, pedestrian pathways and links to sidewalks around the site. The project is internally consistent with similar facade treatments, building materials and pavement links. There are coordinated design elements including container plantings, seat walls, tree grates, awning and benches. 25. The appellant suggested that the proposal does not meet the comprehensive plan's employment objectives of 50 employees per gross acre whereas the subiect proposal would create approximately 350 jobs or 8/acre_ The comprehensive plan's objectives are predicated on build-out The center of the site could be developed with offices and the overall density of employment could change. Urban areas of downtown Seattle, Bellevue and even do"ntown Renton are a mix of scale and therefore, density. The infill anticipated over the next 30 years may increase the employment opportunities. 26. The comprehensive plan at Page JX-42/43 of the Plan states: "Urban Center North Land Use Designation Purpose Statement: The purpose of the UC-N is to redevelop industrial land for new office, residential, and commercial uses al a sufficient scale to implement the Urban Centers criteria adopted in the Countywide Planning Policies. This portion of the Urban Center The Landing Site Plan Hearing, erits File No.: LUA-06-071, SA-A May 22, 2007 Page 13 is anticipated to attract large-scale redevelopment greater than that in the Urban Center-Downtown, due to large areas of land available for redevelopment. In addition, new development is expected to include a wider group of uses including remaining industrial activities, new research and development facilities, laboratories, retail integrated into pedestrian-oriented shopping districts, and a range of urban- scalc, mixed-use residential, office and commercial uses. The combined uses will generate significant tax income for the City and provide jobs to balance the capacity for the more than 5,000 additional households in the Urban Center. Development is expected to complement the Urban Center-Downtown. UC-N policies will provide a blueprint for the transition of land over the next 30 years into this dvnamic~urban mixed-use district." And at Page JX-43: "Policy LU-271. Support uses that sustain minimum Urban Center employment levels of 50 employees per gross acre and residential levels of 15 households per gross acre within the entire Urban Center." 27. Those provisions do not apply solely to the Landing site or immediate vicinity but include the Urban Center, which is the entire downtown Renton area and not just the urban center NORTH locale. This office does not believe that the appellant has demonstrated that this office should second guess the timing, phasing, market forces and City's determination about this proposal. The appellant has not shovm that the current plan is unreasonable in terms of a 30-year time line. There are many goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan and not all of them are attainable immediately. The comprehensive plan also acknowledges that redevelopment of the site is and will be constrained somewhat by the industrial character of surrounding development. This office agrees with the statement in Mr. Radley's Post Hearing Brief at Page 3: "it is certainly true no site plan can be consistent with every policy and principle of early large planning efforts ... " 28. Referencing that brief further, this office does not agree with the second part of that sentence "when there have been as many modifications as there have been in the Landing Site Plan, it is legitimate to examine exactly how inconsistent the site plan is from previous planning efforts." The project is very large and the number of modifications does not seem extreme when considering the size and scale of the proposal. It includes approximately 23 retail or commercial spaces. It is spread out on 38.22 acres. It includes a parking structure with 675 stalls, and 1,955 surface parking stalls. It spans or crosses four (4) city streets. Some of the modifications address similar issues or design details such as placing parking between the building and pedestrian streets or a building exceeding the minimum setback. So two modifications actually apply to one facet of the design. 29. The appellant complains that the site plan does not correspond with the approved conceptual plan. The appellant strenuously argues that the current, what some might term, "concrete proposal" is not a true, laborious, carbon copy of the original concept plan or conceptual proposal. The objection is misplaced. The definition of a "concept" is that it is an abstract or generic idea. A conceptual plan is not a blue print. The conceptual plan is not a detailed proposal but provides a framework or basis for more concrete decision making. The site plan mirrors the conceptual plan in a number of particulars. The parking is located in the interior of the site, buildings, in the main, front the street or streets, there is an east-west pedestrian connector immediately north of the tier of buildings along N 8th Street and there is a north-south pedestrian connector in both the conceptual and site plans. "Jbe concrete proposal, that is the current Site Plan, does in fact flesh out the concepts. But it may even deviate in some manner from the concept. As noted, the concept is not a precise plan. Both the conceptual and the concrete show the The Landing Site Plan Hearing 1erits File No.: LUA-06-071, SA-A May 22, 2007 Page 14 property bisected east and west by Park Avenue and north and south by 10th Street. Both conceptual and concrete show tiers of buildings alongside Park Avenue but also driveways, parking lots and large interior parking lots. Both concept and concrete show an east to west pedestrian passage north of the southern tier of buildings and both show a similar pedestrian passage running south to north in the western portion of the site. 30. There are no minimum front, side yard, side yard along street or rear yard setbacks required by code. There is a maximum 5-foot front yard and side yard along street setback. This maximum setback is intended to draw buildings up toward the sidewalk and provide a pedestrian-oriented experience. The Director detennined in an earlier administrative decision that while the UC-NI Zone did not allow these setbacks to be increased by Site Plan review, other zones did allow such alteration and, therefore, for consistency, Site Plan alteration was appropriate and would be permitted. In the cuITent review the Director found that the maximum setback could be increased and approved an mcrease. Smee the Director has authority to approve a range of modifications, it is not necessary to use this authority to approve proposed modifications. 31. The Director also has the ability to grant modifications from the mmimum standards. That ability could be used in the cuITent case and will be employed by this office where appropriate. There is a practical difficulty m providing loading docks that either do not interfere with pedestrian areas or possibly create a complicated mix of passenger vehicles and larger delivery trucks. Therefore, increasing the distance between the sidewalk/street and buildings where loading docks are provided along N 8th Street and possibly Logan is appropnate and reasonable. Staff noted that these areas are landscaped and the Site Plan (Pages 78/79 of site plan) shows landscaping 1s mtended in these areas and staff required supplementation (Page 14 of staff report). 32. Logan Avenue is considered a high visibility street and access to it has been limited to mamtam 1ts arterial funct10ns and gateway aspect This had led the applicant to place driveways along N IO'h, which 1s a pedestrian oriented street The minimum design standards "prohibit drivnvays" along pedestrian oriented streets. 33. Originally, the buildings located both east and west of the southern end of Park Avenue N would have a parking area with two rows of parking located between the buildings and the sidewalk. An update removed the parking along the west side of Park and moved that building closer to the street. A stipulation regarding Quadrant C removes from review most of the issues raised by the appellant for that Quadrant but one tier of parking immediately east of Park and west of an access driveway is still subject to the appeal. 34. The appellant noted that the building located northeast of the intersection of 8th and Logan does not front on the street and is setback too much. Logan is a curving street at this location and the facade 1s straight which creates the additional setback. There does not appear to be any practical difficulty and it appears that either landscaping or a modest change in the facade could be used to fill in this location. Curving the building might not create the most practical building internally but it is not difficult to accomplish. But if landscaping is permitted the applicant can either provide landscaping in this area or change the facade. 35. The appellant suggests that a public hearing is required on the Site Plan since there arc "unresolved concerns" but the code language is more exacting refeITing to them as "significant unresolved concerns." (emphasis supplied). This office has no doubt that the appellant Mr. Nicholson has unresolved concerns. There may even be others who have unresolved concerns. In a project of this scale there are possibly quite a few unresolved concerns by any number of people. Those concerns have The Landing Site Plan Hearing o erits File No.: LUA-06-071, SA-A May 22, 2007 Page l 5 to be significant. Some peoples' concerns may remain unresolved. That does neither tarnish the overall proposal nor mean it is subject to a public hearing. The ERC makes that decision and not any appellant or "concernee!" There are probably a number of concerns about this project that never will be resolved. Few land use decisions make everyone happy and unconcerned. 36. Access would be primarily from N 1 O"' Street or Park Avenue N. Access onto Logan Avenue N has been minimized due to its classification as a High Visibility Street. The modification would allow N 10th to have driveways along a pedestrian-oriented street. 37. As noted the Director can allow modifications from the Title (4-9-250.D.2) as well as the minimum standards (4-3-100.L). In none of the cases would approval of the modification have a detrimental impact on other properties or the general public. The modifications allow driveways on pedestrian- oriented streets, facades to be setback from the street to accommodate loading docks and more than 60 feet of interruptions to the pedestrian-oriented streetscape. None of these modifications would adversely affect other property and they are not going to have an overall public detriment. The modifications are all modest -allowing driveways to enter interior parking lots even if they occasionally cross pedestrian-oriented streets is not inherently dangerous. The curvmg, feature-rich N I 0th Street will calm traffic flow making turning movements less problematic. Moving building facades off the street to accommodate landscaped-screened loading docks is also not inherently harmful. The modifications are not allowing taller buildings, which might create shadow or shading effects making pedestrian-oriented streets less hospitable. The deviations (modifications) have been designed into the project and the entire project appears to demonstrate high quality design. Again, N 1 O'" has curves, a rotary, paving details and landscaping all intended to create a coherent design and f.19ade treatment. Allowing the driveways permits the applicant to emphasize the interior pedestrian paths and avoids cutting those with vehicle access. 38. Staff has stated that N 10th Street and Park Avenue N are pedestrian-oriented streets. They note that the buildings fronting on N I 0th Street between Logan Avenue N and Park Avenue N, and the north portion of Park Avenue N (buildings 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108,109,302,303,304, and 306) would have pedestrian-oriented facades and would contam pedestrian-oriented retail and service uses. The sidewalk widths along N 10th Street vary, but are no less than 12 feet. Entry canopies and building mounted weather protection are proposed and would also add to the pedestrian friendly environment. (Building numbers may have been changed since the original report). Staff notes further that the building along the west side of Park Avenue N has been reconfigured to provide retail store fronts facing Park Avenue N. A minimum of 10 feet of landscaping is proposed where the surface parking area would abut a public right-of-way. (Page 11 staff report) 39. The staff report states: "The driveway access to the proposed surface parking lots would be off of N 10th Street, Park Avenue N, Logan Avenue N, N 8th Street, and Garden Avenue N. The intent of prohibiting driveway access to surface parking lots was to maintain a contiguous, uninterrupted sidewalk by minimizing, consolidating, or eliminating access off of pedestrian-oriented streets. The location of the surface parking lots at mid block and the consolidation of the surface parking areas to allow for further structured parking and retail development requires that some access to the parking lot be provided off of pedestrian-oriented streets (N 10th between Logan Avenue N and Park Avenue N) and Park Avenue N. The consolidation of the surface parking areas also allows for consolidation of the access points to the parking lot as access is provided to a central area as opposed to several decentralized parking lots that would each require access. Due to the consolidation of the surface parking areas, which would facilitate the future construction of structured parking and retail development, into the center of the project site and tlie consolidation of access points to the parking area staff concurs that driveway access to the proposed surface parking lots is unavoidable." With those The Landing Site Plan Hearing , 1erits File No.: LUA-06-071, SA-A May 22, 2007 Page 16 considerations, staff recommended approval of a modification to the vehicular access requirements lo permit the proposed driveway access points onto pedestnan-oriented streets. 40. The comprehensive plan has a number of objectives for redeveloping the area where the proposal is located. Those policies recognize the surrounding industrial uses will limit development potential for a while and also that redevelopment may be phased and may occur over an approximately 30-year time frame: "The current supply of underutilized land north of N. 8'" Street creates an immediate redevelopment opportunity for a first phase of development in District One. l lowever, the industnal character of the surrounding developed properties, both within District Two to the west and the Employment Area- Industrial area to the east, will make it difficult to achieve true urban intensities in Distnct One at the beginning of this transition. The overall Vision for the District contemplates much more than a series oflow-rise structures with large parking lots. Therefore, it is important that this initial development facilitates later stages of investment as the neighborhood matures and properly values increase. It is also cntical that the early-stage vision for District One sets the stage for high-quality redevelopment in Distnct Two." "Vision -District One The changes in District One will he dramatic, as surface parking lots and existing large-scale industrial buildings are replaced by retail, flex tech, and office uses. Imtial development may be characterized by large-format, low-rise buildings surrounding internal surface parking lots and bordered by a strong pedeshian- oriented spine along Park Avenue. As the Urban Center-North evolves, the buildings of District One may be remodeled and/or replaced with taller, higher density structures. Parking structures may also be built in future phases as infill projects that further the urbanizatwn of the Distnct. Two initial patterns of development arc anticipated within the District: one, creating a destination retail shopping distnct; and the other, resulting in a more diverse mixed-use, urban scale office and technical center with supporting commercial retail uses. It is hoped that over time these patterns will blend to become a cohesive mixed-use distnct. In its first phases of development, District One hosts for the region a new form of retail center. Absent are the physical constraints of a covered mall. Although parking initially may be handled in surface lots, their configuration, juxtaposed with smaller building units, eliminates the expanse of paving that makes other retail shopping areas unappealing to pedestrians. Building facades, of one or two stories, are positioned adjacent to sidewalks and landscaped promenades. Destination retail uses that draw from a sub-regional or regional market blend with small, specialty stores in an integrated shopping environment to support other businesses in the area. While large-format ("big-box") retail stores anchor development, they do not stand-alone. Rather, they are architecturally and functionally connected to the smaller shops and stores in integrated shopping centers." (Page IX-46) The Landing Site Plan Hearing o erits File No.: LUA-06-071, SA-A May 22, 2007 Page 17 In other words, any proposal including the current proposal is not envisioned as the total end product. There has to be a start to redeveloping the area and any initial project might not fulfil] all the objectives at this time. The overa11 proposal is certainly compatible with most of the aims of the City as envisioned in its comprehensive plan. 41. As a whole, the project appears to work and the modifications requested and approved appear geared toward allowing current development to veer from the strict guidelines and they are GUIDELINES, so that the initial development can occur now while not thwarting redevelopment or new development of the interior spaces with structured parking or more compact urban design features. It would be or is too easy to shoot objections at a 3 8-acre project and find that it may not comport with every guideline found in Code. The fact that a 38-acre site may not fit every guideline or minimum standard was why the Director was apparently given the power to review modification requests and grant those requests if in the overall scheme of things, the development accomplished the City's goals for this area - redevelopment at an urban scale of substantia11y underutilized property but recognizing that the City's goals for this area may not be entirely fruitful this year or next year and not within even the first decade. The redevelopment and build-out of this area was projected to take a few decades. Parking lots and interior open spaces are eventually anticipated to be developed. The journey is expected to take a while and code writers and the City Council even expected a few missteps might be found in its ordinances, providing a flexible method of allowing modifications to those regulations. The project as a whole is compatible with the overall obiectives, goals and policies of the comprehensive plan. It leads to redevelopment of this area with a well-designed, coherent project that allows internal growth opportunities for redevelopment over the next 30 years. It adds retail and commercial uses, it creates pedestrian oriented corridors, it will be linked to residential components and it allows the continued function of the Boe mg and Paccar industrial uses. The comprehensive plan compatibility is more than adequately discussed on Pages 3 and 4 of the staff report (August 17, 2006). There is a laundry list of policies and while the proposal might miss some aspects it meets others. The open center of the site, now dedicated to parkmg can be redeveloped over the 30-year time span suggested by the City's objectives. Similarly, employment can be expanded with redevelopment. It may not be possible to meet every objective in a time span of two to three years on an area of this size and one still subject to neighboring heavy industrial uses. 42. The appellant objected to the large interior parking lots: "This is because the Applicant designed a project that prioritized large, allegedly "convenient" parking lots over the "pedestrian-orients streets" that are mandated by the Renton Comprehensive Plan, approved Conceptual Plans, and development regulations in the Renton Municipal Code (RMC or "Code"). (Buck, Page 2 Post-Hearing Reply Brief). The appellant may comp lam of large, convenient parking lots but code does not prohibit them. What code prohibits are parking or lots between buildings and streets or too much frontage taken up by parking. The examples shown in the Code show larger, interior parking lots. The Conceptual Plan that the appellants allege the current Site Plan does not follow also showed larger interior parking lots. The real questions are not whether the lots are too large but whether some parking is in the wrong location, were modifications granted by the Director authorized by Code and were they appropriately reviewed, reasons demonstrated and granted? 43. The appellant suggests that the applicant created their own hardship by designing a project that does not conform to regulations. Hardship is not the standard for a modification. The modification criteria are not as demanding as those for a variance. There does not need to be a hardship and there is no concern about creating undue precedent as there are for reviewing a variance. None of the remaining criteria are as compelling as those required to grant a variance. Note the use of the terms or phrases "practical difficulties" and "impractical" in the modification criteria. Something impractical can justify a modification. The Director was not dealing with a "variance" where the applicant has to show undue The Landing Site Plan Hearing File No.: LUA-06-071, SA-A May 22, 2007 Page 18 1erits hardship that deprives the applicant ofreasonable use. Given an over 10 acre block, access needs to be provided in more than one location or else there would be practical difficulties for access. Loading docks need to be located somewhere on site and not impractically interfere with general pedestrian traffic or passenger vehicles. The Director used the appropriate standard in allowing modifications to access along N IO'" and loading docks along Logan and N 8'". 44. Quadrant C provides only limited appeal issues. The parties have allowed through stipulation the building to be setback from Park. The parking stalls located on the east side of Park, adjacent to the roadway serving the proposed Target store, raise some issues. Is there some physical limitation or "practical difficulty" that requires parking when the guidelines do not allow it? There is no reason that makes compliance with code impractical. Landscaping can be provided to screen the access drive and the additional parking. This office has to find that while it may be "wasted" space that can boost the parking complement of the proposal, there is no practical difficulty in omitting that parking. It can be given over to landscaping, seating, decorative art or a combination of those uses. No pracllcal difficulty requires a modification to allow parking in this area where none is pennitted. 45. Similarly, this office can find no practical difficulty in providing a front entrance along Park Avenue. While an entrance along a facade where other shops or bmldmgs have their entrance would be a nice design feature for an interrelated shopping complex, unless this office has missed some limiting aspect of the applicant's plans, there is no practical difficulty in providing another entrance along the pedestrian-oriented street, that is, Park Avenne. It is a design feature or detail that allows entrances to he oriented toward the interior of this complex. How pedestrian oriented WIil Park be if the facade facing Park is closed, routing pedestrians either far to the north or far to the south and then around to the west to gain access to a pedesh·ian oriented urban, shopping complex. Not every shop is obviously amenable to having multiple entrances but an inviting pedestrian presence is suppose to be a feature of this complex and the complex should not tum its "hack" on Park Avenue. 46. There appear to be two standards that apply to pedestrian oriented streets. Section 4-3-l00.f.4.b.1i indicates that surface parking driveways arc prohibited on pedestrian-oriented streets while 4-3- 100.F. l .b.i.a suggests no more than 60 feet can serve vehicular access. In any event, the Director had to weigh the tradeoffs of interruptmg Logan Avenue with vehicular access or N I 0th with vehicular access. The Quadrant C block is large, at least IO acres, and contains a large interior parking lot. The interior parking lots can provide redevelopment potential as suggested by the comprehensive plan. The interior parking can also potentially house structured parking and that is permitted to have access along pedestrian-oriented streets. Providing access to the interior parking on this large Quadrant and not have access along either Park or N 10th presents practical difficulties. The modification will allow development of a well-designed complex that provides pedestrian-oriented internal walkways that connect to pedestrian-oriented streets. In a perfect world there may be other methods of developing this site and the appellant may prefer some other design features but that does not show that the current design is inappropriate under the comprehensive plan. The small rotary, curving street and pedestrian crossings ofN I 0th Street should convey to drivers that pedestrians prevail and should be safe. A modification that allows the access along N I 0th Street will not injure or create adverse impacts to other property. It conforms to the intent of the Code to redevelop this area with high quality development and to encourage pedestrians and a few driveways will not offset those benefits. On a complex that faces the public on all sides, the project does its best to meet the requirements for parking to be on the "side and/or rear of a building" as required hy Code. Further justification is that the driveways along N l 0th will also limit impacts to Logan, a high visibility street. In other words, the modification to allow access to the surface parking from pedestrian oriented streets is appropriate and was appropriately approved. Allowing access along a pedestrian-oriented street and allowing more than 60 feet does not appear to create any mjury to other properties. It will not create any unsafe conditions although it will The Landing Site Plan Hearing c erits File No.: LUA-06-071, SA-A May 22, 2007 Page 19 require more pedestrian vigilance. It allows the eventual redevelopment of the interior areas in compliance with the comprehensive plan's 30-year time frame. Notice, also, that the Code does appear to permit parking garages to have driveways along a pedestrian-oriented street. Therefore, it would not be that much of a stretch to allow surface lots access across such a street if there were practical difficulties in achieving a well-designed project while sparing Logan Avenue and Park Avenue from driveway intersections. And it would be no less safe than access to a parking garage. 47. The decision criteria for both a Site Plan and Modification use the tenns "finding" and "find." Those terms are not as rigorous as those required by the Hearing Examiner language found in Code. In addition, notice the language in the next sentence "These criteria also provide a frame of reference ... but are not intended to discourage creativity and innovation." On occasion, when explaining land use law to laymen, this office has tried explaining that in many (most) areas of the law one docs not ask a question such as whether something is "appropriate" or does it "discourage creativity. " Or "Does this plat meet the public use and interest or is it APPROPRIATE?" Rarely in the law does one make value judgments such as those examples. The language quoted above seems particnlarly clear -that the 11 criteria ... are not intended to discourage creativity and innovation." 48. Notice the much more specific reqmrements in the language governing Hearing Examiner decisions and Council action. "[F]indings from the record and conclusions" as opposed to the less rigorous "find" or "findings" asked of planners who arc not asked to provide judicial or quasi-judicial decisions. It would appear that the Director and other planning professionals exercise professional judgment when reviewing applications but are not held to a judicial standard in producing an analysis and decision on a proposal. The Director's narrative discussion found in the staffrepmt rs sufficient. The Director's decision has in most areas sufficient information and recitation of facts about a project and its impacts lo comport with the "find[ings]" specified by Code. 49. This office has not been convinced by any of the evidence or testimony that ASE should be granted standing in this matter for the appeal of the update that was combined with the initial appeal of the Landing Site Plan. The previous decision on ASE 's standing on the initial appeal remains applicable to this second appeal. 50. Attached to the back of this report are the Code Sectrons that apply to various portions of this decision. CONCLUSIONS: I. The appellant has the burden of demonstrating that the decision of the City Official was either in error, or was otherwise contrary to law or constitutional provisions, or was arbitrary and capricious (Section 4- 8-11 O(E)(7)(b ). The appellant has demonstrated that the action of the City should be modified and affirmed as indicated below. 2. Arbitrary and capricious action has been defined as willful and unreasoning action in disregard of the facts and circumstances. A decision, when exercised honestly and upon due consideration of the facts and circumstances, is not arbitrary or capricious (Northern Pacific Transport Co. v Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission, 69 Wn. 2d 472, 478 (1966). 3. An action is likewise clearly erroneous when, although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing body, on the entire evidence, is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. (Ancheta v Daly, 77 Wn. 2d 255,259 (1969). An appellate body should not necessarily substitute its judgment for the underlying agency with expertise in a matter unless appropriate. In this case, this office will exercise authority that gives it the powers of the underlying body to overturn, The Landing Site Plan Hearing, ierits File No.: LUA-06-071, SA-A May 22, 2007 Page 20 modify and supplement the staff report. This office does not believe a remand is necessary as in most particulars the staff report and Director's decision is more than adequate but the appellant has demonstrated that the Director erred in granting some of the requested modifications. 4. The appellant urges that the matter be remanded to the Director and staff Is a remand the only optiou or even necessary in this case? Or is there sufficient information in the record for the examiner to either agree that the Director made the correct decision or decisions or rectify an error? This office believes that the record, the files, applications, reviews and reports contained in the record would allow this office to avoid a remand. A remand would be appropriate if there were grievous errors or omissions in the underlying decision. This office does not find grievous errors that reqmre substantial additional fact finding by the City. The errors that were made can be rectified by denying modifications for parking along Park and N 10th Street and supplementing the staff report as was done in the above Findings. 5. This office can review the project and correct some of the errors, supplement the findings in others and affirm other parts of the decision without a remand. This office retains the authority of the "office from whom the appeal is taken." ( 4-8-110 .E. l .c.) 6. \Vhile there have been challenges about whether the proposal is compatible with the comprehensive plan, whether it comports with the Conceptual Plan and the Master Plan, whether a public hearing was required and whether the Director appropriately reviewed and approved the various modifications, those issues can be resolved without a need to remand the matter or matters for further review. First, this office as noted finds that the overall Site Plan is compatible with the objectives, goals and policies of the comprehensive plan. The Director did not err and the appellant has failed to demonstrate that the decisions on those matters were clearly erroneous. As noted, there arc a large number of objecllves and the proposal complies with many of them as shown in the original staff report. The goals are also not necessarily attainable immediately but the comprehensive plan provided a long-range view of Renton and 30 years provides additional opportunities for additional employment and more dense development. 7. Code does not require endless or repeated or even one additional public hearing when one was held. There was a public hearing on the Planned Action Ordinance. The Planned Action was found appropriate al that time and the proposal continued to evolve in a manner that reflects the premises of the both the Planned Action and the Conceptual Plan. There was no determination that there were "substantially unresolved" issues and those that may be unacceptable to the appellant do not appear to be substantial. The appellant certainly did not show any clearly erroneous decisions that cannot be rectified in this review and that demand a remand. None of the issues involved go to the heart of the injuries that the appellant used to show standing. There were no traffic-related issues nor any stom1 water or water pollution issues that would Jeopardize regional waters. The modifications objected to do not address either of those issues. 8. This office has to conclude that the Director did not reach the correct decision on some of the modifications requested since there does not appear to be evidence that "practical difficulties" precluded complying with Code. In those cases, this office will simply deny the modifications since this office has the power of the official whose decision is being challenged. There is no need to remand these matters for any further review. The modifications that allow parking east of Park at the southwest comer of Quadrant C and west of Park (north of Building 400) and along Logan are denied. There do not appear to be any "practical difficulties" in providing a "primary entrance" along Park Avenue, the facing street. This complex should not tum its back on the pedestrian oriented street since there should not be a "back" on a pedestrian oriented street. While the applicant has created an internal pedestrian orientation for much of this complex, it sits adjacent to Park Avenue and should welcome pedestrians who happen to be walking along Park. There do not appear to be any practical difficulties in providing the primary The Landing Site Plan Hearing l erits File No.: LUA-06-071, SA-A May 22, 2007 Page 21 entrance or even, possibly, co-equal entrance. It is merely a design decision. The modification should have been denied. This office will, therefore, exercise its authority under code and deny the modification. The modification for the building in the southeast comer of Quadrant B is denied and the building shall have a primary entrance along Park. The modification that would allow the building located in the southwest comer of Quadrant B to exceed the maximum setback is demed. This office cannot find any practical difficulties on limiting the curb area along Park north of Building 400 to "not more than 60 feet" occupied by parking or vehicular access. The parking certainly can be moved or removed and replaced by landscaping. The potential infill development would not be hampered by landscaping or seating in this area. Landscaping can be replaced by new structures. 9. In other areas such as whether formal findings are required, whether a public hearing was required and whether the Director has the authority to approve modifications in the Urban Design Regulations Overlay District (4-9-250) and the minimum standards of the design regulations (4-3-100.L) the appellant has not demonstrated that the Director made errors. The narrative form of the staff report appears to meet the standards of Code and the Director has the authority under various provisions to modify both the provisions of the general Title as well as the Minimum Standards if appropriate. 10. The nature of the Director's report does not fail because formal findings were not included. The Director's report provides reference to code sections, history of the project, zoning and comprehensive plan designations, background information and a discussion of the proposal and how it meets various code provisions. The Code contains different language specifying the requirements for a report from the City Council and Hearing Examiner decisions than it does for those of the Development Services reports. As has been noted, there arc different review standards when the Council and Examiner issue quasi-judicial decisions than there are for Staff Reports or those made by the Director. The Director is not making judicial decisions but providing a readable report that shows how a project complies with a variety of code provisions, also providing details about treatment materials and trim details, somcltme.s detailing landscaping species, paving matenals, and similar information. It does need to show how certain proposals such as modifications comply with code but it does not need lo follow any particular form. The report provides sufficient details and the appellant has not demonstrated error. 11. A Public hearing was not required. There was the public hearing and other prerequisites required to allow Administrative review. While those hearings may have been a couple of years ago, the entire Planned Action Ordinance and Master Plan process is intended to give developers and neighbors some assurances that there will not be endless reviews and re-reviews of proposals. There needs to be some finality so that people can make economic commitments and expect that "monkey wrenches" will not be tossed into the mix a year or two down the line on larger scale projects such as this one. As noted, there may be some unresolved issues in the appellant's mind and even the minds of other persons but those are not necessarily significant and they may never be resolved to those persons' satisfaction. That does not mean more public hearings are required. 12. The comprehensive plan compatibility is more than adequately discussed on Pages 3 and 4 of the staff report (August 17, 2006). There is a laundry list of policies and while the proposal might miss some aspects, it meets most others. The open center of the site, now dedicated to parking can be redeveloped over the 30-year time span suggested by the City's objectives. Employment can be expanded with redevelopment. It may not be possible to meet every objective in a time span of two to three years on an area of this size and one still subject to neighboring heavy industrial uses. 13. The phasing and 30 year timeframe does not require immediate fruition of employment goals. No contractual requirements or covenants are needed. Frankly, 30 years is a long time. Thinking back 30 years, 1970 or so, few would have predicted that this land would be for sale by Boeing, Boeing would The Landing Site Plan Hearing , :erits File No.: LUA-06-071, SA-A May 22, 2007 Page 22 be retreating to the lake and Boeing might cease most of its Renton operations. The project meets many of the comprehensive plan's objectives and goals. It is probably not an easy process redeveloping 38 acres and doing it all in one, rather expensive, "fell-swoop." 14. The loading docks have to be somewhere for a complex of this size and it would appear reasonable to place them along a street that does not promote pedestrian access. It certainly is better than in the midst of the complex where they would not only introduce larger trucks to a passenger car environment but also introduce trucks and loading docks to the pedestrian oriented south tier of shops and buildings. The Director mentioned the smooth flow of pedestrians along the south portion of Quadrant B in his review. 15. There arc practical difficulties gaining access to the interior parking lots that serve the north, west and south buildings of this large 38-acre complex. So access along N 10th Street appears reasonable given the fact that Logan is a heavily traveled arterial. It is also a high visibility street where access to parking lots should be limited so that there are fewer turning movements to interfere with artenal flow. In addition, the block is large and access to the parking from the north helps drivers get to and from the complex from more than just one surrounding street. The street is well landscaped, contains decorative paving, a roundabout and other features to enhance the 10th corridor. The street ties the north and south quadrants together. It does not detract from neighboring uses, presents a coherent plan and allows the development of this site in a manner compatible with the comprehensive plan. The additional frontage given to driveways or parking is not detrimental to the overall plan. 16. In conclusion, while the appellant has shown not all of the modifications were enttrely appropnate, denying them will not substantially alter the Site !'Ian, and, frankly, approving them would not significantly detract from the overall plan either. It is just that under code, there did not seem to be practical difficulties that would have allowed them. The other approved modifications, also, quite frankly, do not appear to detract in any way from what appears to be a coherent, well-designed initial plan for redeveloping 3 8 fallow acres. The Director, possibly supplemented by the additional findings in this report, appropriately justified them and approved them as the Director found that the proposed Site Plan complies with the comprehensive plan, the Planned Action Ordinance, the Conceptual Plan and the Master Plan. Would it be possible to redesign the project-clearly. Might there even be ways to make it better -maybe. Are changes necessary to the overall plan -no. DECISION: The decision affirmed in part and reversed in part. The Director's decision is modified and this office will deny the requested modification for the parking lots on the east side of Park Avenue North that was not covered by the parties' stipulation for Quadrant C, the parking lot on the west side of Park and the parking lots along N 1 O"' Street. Landscaping, street furniture or other uses compatible with the Design Standards may be installed in the place of the proposed parking. The Director's decision is modified and this office will deny the requested modification that would remove the requirement that a primary entrance be located on the pedestrian oriented street. The Director's decision is modified and this office will deny the requested modification that would allow the building at the southwest corner of Quadrant B to exceed the maximum setback. The Director's decision is modified and this office will deny the requested modification that would allow the parking to exceed more than 60 feet of curb length. The Landing Site Plan Hearing File No.: LUA-06-071, SA-A May 22, 2007 Page 23 [erits • If the loss of parking affects the parking complement of the overall Site Plan, the applicant as code permits, may increase the height of the parking structure, remove a retail component or coordinate with the City other methods to provide sufficient parking as required by Code. The Director's decision is modified as indicated in the above conclusions wherein this decision supplements or supplants the Director's decision for the remaining modifications that were requested. In all other particulars, the Director's decisions are affirmed and the appeal is denied. ORDERED THIS 22"' day of May 2007. TRANSMITTED THIS 22"' day of May 2007 to the parties of record: Jill Ding 1055 S Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Duncan Green Buck & Gordon 2025 First Ave., Ste. 500 Seattle, WA 98121 Ross Radley Attorney at Law 3316 Fuhrman Ave E Seattle, WA 98102 Zanetta Fontes Assistant City Attorney City of Renton Jerome L. Hillis Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson, P .S. 500 Galland Building 1221 Second Avenue Seattle, WA 98121 Brad Nicholson 2811 Dayton Avenue Renton, WA 98056 TRANSMITTED THIS 22"' day of May 2007 to the following: Mayor Kathy Keolker Stan Engler, Fire Peter Buck Buck & Gordon 2025 First Ave., Ste. 500 Seattle, WA 98121 Karen Breckenridge Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson, P.S. 500 Galland Building 1221 Second Avenue Seattle, WA 98121 Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer Julia Medzegian, Council Liaison Larry Warren, City Attorney Larry Meckling, Building Official Planning Commission Transportation Division Gregg Zimmerman, PBPW Administrator Alex Pietsch, Economic Development Jennifer Henning, Development Services Stacy Tucker, Development Services Utilities Division Neil Watts, Development Services Janet Conklin, Development Services King County Journal ' The.Landing Sile Plan Hearing F;le No.: LUA-06-071, SA-A May 22, 2007 Page 24 1crits Pursuant to Title JV, Chapter 8, Section IOOGofthe City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m .. June 5, 2007. Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the Examiner is ambiguous or based on erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact, error in judgment, or the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing may make a written request for a review by the Examiner within fourteen (14) days from the date of the Examiner's decision. This request shall set forth the specific ambiguities or errors discovered by such appellant, and the Examiner may, after review of the record, take furrher action as he deems proper. An appeal to the City Council is governed by Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 110, which requ!fes that such appeal be filed with the City Clerk, accompanying a filing fee of $75 .00 and meeting other specified requirements. Copies of this ordinance are available for inspection or purchase in the Finance Department, first floor of City Hall. An appeal must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m., .June 5, 2007. If the Examiner's Recommendation or Decision contains the requirement for Restrictive Covenants, the executed Covenants will be required prior to approval by Citv Council or final processing of the file. You may contact this office for information on formatting covenants. The Appearance of Fairness Doctrine provides that no ex pa11e (private one-on-one) communications may occur concerning pending land use decisions. This means that parties to a land use decision may not communicate in private with any decision-maker concerning the proposal. Decision-makers in the land use process include both the Hearing Examiner and members of the City Council. All communications concerning the proposal must be made in public. This public communication permits all interested parties to know the contents of the conununication and would allow them to openly rebut the evidence. Any violation of this doctrine would result in the invalidation of the request by the Cou11. The Doctrine applies not only to the initial public hearing but to all Requests for Reconsideration as well as Appeals to the City Council. The Landing Site Plan Hearing File No.: LUA-06-071, SA-A May 22, 2007 Page 25 lerits CODE PROVISIONS The following Code Sections apply to various portions of this decision. This office has emphasized with a double-underline the particular text in a section that is applicable to the decision. Design Criteria Code Provisions 4-3-100.E.3.b 3. Building Entries: Intent: To make building entrances convenient to locate and easy to access, and ensure that building entries further the pedestrian nature of the fronting sidewalk and the urban character of the district. b. Minimum Standards for District 'C': • 1. On pedestrian-oriented streets, the primary entrance of each building shall be located on the facade facing the street. 4-3-100.E. l.b.ii.a (a) High Visibility Street. A highly visible arterial street that warrants special design treatment lo improve its appearance and maintain its transportation function. 4-3-100.F.4.b b. Minimum Standards for District 'C': 1. Parkmg garage:ulillll b~ accessed atthnear of buildings or from non-pedestrian, oriented streets when available. n. Surface parking driveways arc prohibited on pedestrian-orienkd streets. 111. Parking lot entrances, driveways, and other vehicular access points on high visibility streets shall be restricted to one entrance and exit lane per five hundred (500) linear feet as measured horizontally along the street. f PARKING AND VEHICULAR ACCESS: Intent: To provide safe, convenient access to the Urban Center; incorporate various modes of transportation, including public mass transit, in order to reduce traffic volumes and other impacts from vehicles; ensure sufficient parking is provided, while encouraging creativity in reducing the impacts of parking areas; allow an active pedestrian environment by maintaining contiguous street frontages, without parking lot siting along sidewalks and building facades; minimize the visual impact of parking lots; and use access streets and parking to maintain an urban edge to the district. 1. Location of Parking: Intent: To maintain active pedestrian environments along streets by placing parking lots primarily in back of buildings. Parking along street 4-3-100.E.2.b 2. Building Location and Orientation: Intent: To ensure visibility of businesses; establish active, lively uses along sidewalks and pedestrian pathways; organize buildings in such a way that pedestrian use of the district is facilitated; encourage siting of structures so that natural light and solar access are available to other structures and open space; , The J"andmg Site !'Ian Hearing · Pi'Jc No.: LUA-06-071, SA-A May 22, 2007 Page 26 1crits enhance the visual character and definition of streets within the district; provide an approp1iate transition between buildings, parking areas, and other land uses and the street; and increase privacy for residential uses located near the street. b. Minimum Standards for District 'C': 1. Buildings on designated pedestrian-oriented streets shall feature "pedestrian-oriented facades" and clear connections to the sidewalk (see illustration, RMC 4-3-1 OOE7a). Such buildings shall be located adjacent to the sidewalk, except where pedestrian- oriented space is located between the building and the sidewalk. Parking between the building and pedestrian-oriented streets is prohibited. 11. Buildings fronting on pedestrian-oriented streets shall contain pedestrian-oriented uses. 111. Nonresidential buildings may be located directly adjacent to any street as long as they feature a pedestrian-oriented facade. 1v. Buildings containing street-level residential uses and single-purpose residential buildings shall be set back from the sidewalk a minimum of ten feet ( l O'J and feature substantial landscaping between the sidewalk and the building (see illustration, RMC 4- 3-l OOE7b). v. If bmldmgs do not feature pedestnan-oriented facades they shall have substantial landscaping between the sidewalk and building. Such landscapmg shall be at least ten feet (10') in width as measured from the sidewalk (sec illustration, RMC 4-3-IOOE7c). c. Guidclmes Applicable to District ·c: 1. Siting ofa strncture should take into consideralion the continued availability of natural light (both direct and reflected) and direct sun exposure to nearby buddings and open space (except parking areas). 11. Ground floor residential uses located near the street should be raised above street level for residents' privacy. b. Minimum Standards for District 'C': 1. On Designated Pedestrian-Oriented Streets: (a) Parking shall be at the side and/or rear of a building, with the exception of on-street parallel parking. No more than sixty feet (60') of the street frontage measured parallel to the curb shall be occupied by off-street parking and vehicular access. 11. All parking lots located between a building and street or visible from a street shall feature landscaping between the sidewalk and building; see RMC 4-4-0SOF, Parking Lot Design Standards. 4-3-lOOURBAN DESIGN REGULATIONS: A PURPOSE: The purpose of this Section is to: 1. Establish design review regulations in accordance with policies established in the Land Use and Community Design Elements of the Renton Comprehensive Plan in order to: a. Maintain and protect property values; b. Enhance the general appearance of the City; c. Encourage creativity in building and site design; d. Achieve predictability, balanced with flexibility; and e. Consider the individual merits of proposals. The Landing Site Plan Hearing , File No.: LUA-06-071, SA-A May 22, 2007 Page 27 erits .. 4. Create design standards and guidelines specific to the Urban Center -North (District "C') that ensure design quality of structures and site development that implements the City of Renton's Comprehensive Plan Vision for its Urban Center -North. This Vision is of an urban environment that concentrates uses in a "grid pattern" of streets and blocks. The Vision is of a vibrant, economically vital neighborhood that encourages use throughout by pedestrians. 5. Create design standards and guidelines applicable to the use of"big-box retail" as defined in RMC 4-11- 180, Definitions. 6. Establish two categories ofregulations: (a) "minimum standards" that must be met, and (b) "guidelines" that, while not mandatory, arc considered by the Development Services Director in determining if the proposed action meets the intent of the design guidelines. In the Urban Center Design Overlay area, specific minimum standards and guidelines may apply to all three districts, or certain districts only (Districts 'A', 'B', or 'C'), as indicated herein. (Ord. 5029, 11-24-03; Ord. 5124, 2-7-2005) Criteria for Site Plan Review 4-9-200.E "E DECISION CRITERIA FOR SITE PLAN AND MASTER PLANS: The Reviewing Official shall review and act upon plans based upon a finding that the proposal meets Comprehensive Plan obJect1ves and policies and the criteria in this subsection and in subsection F of this Section, as applicable. These criteria also pro,ide a frame of reference for the applicant in developing a site, but are not intended to discourage creativity and innovation." Criteria for Hearing Examiner, Council and Planning Decisions 4-8-100,G: "I. Standard Decision Time and Notification Procedure: Unless the time is extended pursuant to this Section, withm fourteen (14) days of the conclusion of a hearing, or the date set for submission of additional information pursuant to this Chapter, the Examiner silall render a written decision,including finding_s from the record and conclusions therefrom, and shall transmit a copy of such decision by regular mail, postage prepaid, to the applicant and other parties of record in the case requesting notice of the decision. The person mailing the decision, together with the supporting documents, shall prepare an affidavit of mailing, in standard form, and fhe affidavit shall become a part of the record of the proceedings. In the case of applications requiring City Council approval, the Examiner shall file his decision with the City Council members individually at the expiration of the appeal period for the decision." "K. COUNCIL ACTION: I. Council Actiot1~Requires Minutes and Findings of Fact: Any application requiring action by fhe City Council shall be evidenced by minute entry unless otherwise required by law. When taking any such final action, the Council shall make and enter findings of fact from the record and conclusions therefrom which support its action.'1 4-9-200.E. l .b "The Reviewing Offiqal shall review and act upon plans based upon a finding that the proposal meets t~he Comprehensive Plan objectives and policies and the criteria in this subsection and subsection F of this Section, as applicable. These criteria also provide a frame of reference for the applicant in developing a site, but are not intended to discourage creativity and innovation." The.Landing Site Plan Hearing 1erits ~' ,·ile No.: LUA-06-071, SA-A May 22, 2007 Page 28 4-9-200.E "In rendering a decision, the Director will consider proposals on the basis of individual merit, will consider the overall intent of the of the minimum standards and guidelines, and encourage creative design alternatives in order to achieve the purposes of the design regulations." Hearmg Examiner Authority 4-8-110. "E. APPEALS TO EXAMINER OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS AND ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATIONS: (Amd. Ord. 4827, 1-24-2000) l. Applicability and Authority: c. Authority: To that e_nd, theExam1ner_shall have all of the__))owers of the office from whom the -"!)])('al is taken insofar as the decision on the particular issucjs concerned," Criteria for Modifications from Code 4-9-250 VARIANCES, WAIVERS, MODIFICATIONS, AND ALTERNATES: A PURPOSES: 3. Modifications: To modify a Code requirement when there arc prai;tical difficulties involved in carrying out the provisions of this Title when a special individual reason makes the strict letter of this Code impractic_al. (Ord. 4346, 3-9-1992) D MODIFICATION PROCEDURES: 1. Applica!Jon Time and Decision Authority: Modification from standards, either in whole or in pa11, shall be subject to review and decision by the Planning/Building/Public Works Depar!J11ent upon submittal in writing of jurisdiction for such modification. (Amd. Ord. 4 777, 4-19-1999) 2. Decision Criteria: Whenever there are pra_c,tical difficulties involved in carrying out the provisions of this Title, the Department Administrator may grant modifications for individual cases provided he/she shall first find that a specific reason makes the strict letter of this Code impractical, that the intent and purpose of the 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 modification: a. Substantially implements the policy direction of the policies and objectives uf the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element and the Community Design Element and the proposed modification is the minimum adjustment necessary to implement these policies and objectives; b. Will meet the objectives and safety, function, appearance, environmental protection and maintainability intended by the Code requirements, based upon sound engineering Judgment; c. Will not be injurious to other propcrty(ies) in the vicinity; d. Conforms to the intent and purpose of the Code; e. Can be shown to be justified and required for the use and situation intended; and f Will not create adverse impacts to other property(ies) in the vicinity. (Ord. 4517, 5-8-1995; Ord. 5100, 11-1-2004) The Landing Site Plan Hearing File No.: LUA-06-071, SA-A May 22, 2007 Page 29 4-9-250.0(2) lerits • "2. Decision Criteria: Whenever there are practical diffic_ulties involved in carrying out the p!:QYfilons of ' . this Title, the Department Administrator may grant modifications for individual cases provided he/she shall first find that a specific reason makes the strict letter of this Code impractical, that the intent and purpose of the governing land use designation of the Comprehensive Plan is met and that the modification is in confonnity with the intent and purpose of this Code, and that such modification:" Criteria for Modifications from Minimum Standards Modifications 4-8-070.C. l 0. vi C PLANNJNG/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS ADMINISTRATOR OR DESIGNEE: Authority: The Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator or his/her designee shall review and act on the following: 10. Modifications: "also 4-3-100.L v1. Mod1ficatlons_to development standards in the Center Village Residential Bonus District and the Urban Desi_gi1 Regulation Overlay Di~; L. MODIFICATION OF M!NlMUM STANDARDS: I. The Director of the Development Services Division shall have the authority to modit:i-; the miniJJJUl)l st;mdards of the design regu_lations, subject to the provisions of RMC 4-9-2500, Modification Procedures, and the following requirements: a. The project as a whole meets the intent of the mi01mum standards and guidelines in subsections E, F, G, H, I, J, and K of the design regulations; b. The requested modification meets the intent of the applicable design standard; c. The modification will not have a detrimental effect on nearby properties and the City as a whole; d. The deviation manifests high quality design; and e. The modification will enhance the pedestrian environment on the abutting and/or adjacent streets and/or pathways. 2. Exceptions for Districts A and B: Modifications to the requirements in subsections E2a and E3a of this Section are limited to the following circumstances: a. When the building is oriented to an interior courtyard, and the courtyard has a prominent entry and walkway connecting directly to the public sidewalk; or b. When a building includes an architectural feature that connects the building entry to the public sidewalk; or c. In complexes with several buildings, when the building is oriented to an internal integrated walkway system with prominent connections to the public sidewalk(s). (Ord. 5124, 2-7-2005) Criteria for Public Hearings on Site Plans Public hearing required: The ~anding Site Plan Hearing :erits , !'Ile No.: LUA-06-071, SA-A May 22, 2007 Page 30 D CRITERlA TO DETERMINE IF PUBLIC HEARING REQUIRED: In all cases, the public hearing for Master Plan or Site Plan Review should be conducted concurrently with any other required hearing, such as rezone or subdivision, if the details of the development arc sufficiently defined to permit adequate review. A public hearing before the Hearing Examiner shall be required in the following cases: I. Master Plans: a. All Master Plans proposed or required per subsection B of this Section, Master Plan Review, Applicability. Where a Master Plan is approved, subsequent Site Plans submitted for future nh_ascs_may be submitted and anproved admin1strativejy~,v1thoutl!J)ublic hearing. b. Exception for Planned Actions: A hearing before theHearing E_xami.ner is not re_guired if both of the following criteria are met: 1. One o_r m0republic hearings were held where public co~IJJment w_as soiicitec!.QUJhe [ll;ill)OSed Planned Action Ordinance, and 11. The ~nvironmental _i!miact statement for the .. planned act10nreviewed prd1m111iill( rnnceptual plan~ for the site which provided the public and decision-makers with sutricient detail regarding the scale of the proposed improvements, the quantity of the vanous types of spaces to be provided, the use to which the structure Wlll be put, and the bulk and general form of the improvements. "2. Site Plan Review: a. Significant Environmental Concerns Remain: The Environmental Rt;v_1~--~Y C:-9J11mi1t.~e clet~I1_1111es that based on departmental comments or public mput there are ~grnfic_apt lJlllJ'_sciliTILc!d!lf_Cms that are raised by the proposal; or b. l .arge Project Scale: The proposed project is more than: 1. One hundred (100) semi-attached or attached residential urnts; or 11. One hundred thousand (100,000) square feet of gross floor area (nonresidential) in the IL or CO Zones or other zones in the Employment Arca Valley (EA V) land use designation (see EAV Map in R!v1C 4-2-0SOB); or 111. Twenty five thousand (25,000) square feet of gross floor area (nonresidential) in the CN, CD, CA, CV, or CO Zones outside the Employment Area Valley (EAV) land use designation (see EAV Map in RMC 4-2-0SOB); or 1v. Four (4) stories or sixty feet (60') in height; or v. Three hundred (300) parking stalls; or v1. Ten (10) acres in size of project area. c. Commercial or industrial property lies adjacent to or abutting the RC, R-1, R-4, R-8 and R-10 Zones. (Ord. 4551, 9-18-1995; Ord. 4 773, 3-22-1999; Ord. 4802, 10-25-1999; Amd. Ord. 4963, 5-13-2002; Ord. 5028, 11-24-2003 )" s /-\ -o& -o 71 Buc:k~ Gordon LLP ,\1101 11t-,·,, di I .1'•· 'IJL i·\) ,_nn; .J -·-{ ........ RENTON Cily CouNcil ~k June 27, 2007 r 2025 Ficsf: Avect'UC'. S,1itc :JC() Seatt!e. \A.//\ 98121-3140 206-382-954[1 20(1-676-0{J75 ~.:ix wwvi.:Juck.:,:crccn. :o'T CITY OF RENTON JUL O 3 2007 RECEIVED OTY Ol.EAK'~ OFFICE Planning and Development Committee City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Re: Planning and Development Committee Hearing on Harvest Partners' Appeal of Hearing Examiner's Site Plan Decision Dear Committee Members: As counsel for Alliance for South End (ASE), Brad Nicholson and Westfield, I received notice of the July 5, 2007, hearing before the Renton City Council's Planning and Development Committee regarding Harvest Partners' appeal of the Hearing Examiner's decision on The Landing Site Plan. Because the parties have settled all differences in this matter, I will not be in attendance at the hearing on July 5. The settlement, entered into by the parties on June 5, 2007, was a global settlement, meaning it settled all appeals pertaining to The Landing. Therefore, all appeals before the Renton Hearing Examiner, all appeals before the Renton City Council, and all appeals before the King County Superior Court were subsequently withdrawn by ASE and Mr. Nicholson. In light of this global settlement, ASE and Mr. Nicholson do not oppose The Landing Site Plan as approved by the Director of Development Services. cc: Ms. Zanetta Fontes Mr. Jerry Hillis Mr. Ross Radley !J.. • . i June 26, 2007 APPEAL FILED BY: CIT~F RENTON Harvest Partners, represented by Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson, P.S. RE: Appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision dated 5/22/2007 regarding The Landing Site Plan application, 1002 Park Ave. N. (File No. LUA-06-071, SA-A) To Interested Parties: The Renton City Council's Planning & Development Committee will meet to deliberate the above- referenced items on the following date: Thursday, July 5, 2007 *2:00 p.m.* (Please note: The Committee will be listening to two appeals on this date. This appeal will be the second one heard. The meeting begins at 2:00 pm and, as such, you should be prepared to begin at 2:00 pm even though your portion of the meeting may begin later) 7th Floor/Council Chambers City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, Washington This Council Committee meeting is open to the public, but it is not a public hearing. It is a working session of the Planning & Development Committee. No new testimony or evidence will be taken. However, the parties are expected to attend and be prepared to explain why the Council Committee should uphold or overturn the decision of the Hearing Examiner. If you have questions regarding these meetings, please phone Julia Medzegian, Council Liaison, at 425-430-6555. Terri Briere, Chair Planning & Development Committee Renton City Council -----10_5_5_S_ou-th_G_ra_dy-W-ay-. R-e-n-to_n_, -W-as-h-in_gt_o_n_9_8_05-5---(4_2_5_) -43-0--6-5-01 ____ ~ @ This paper oontains 50% recycled material, 30% post consumer AHl:.AD OF TH.E CURVE Rob King Harvest Partners 20503 88th Ave. W. Edmonds, WA 98026 Jerome L. Hillis Hillis, Clark, Martin & Peterson 500 Galland Building 1221 Second Ave. Seattle, WA 98101 Thomas & Doris Taylor 163 83 48th Drive Bellevue, WA 98006 Duncan Green Buck & Gordon, LLP 2025 Firest Ave., Ste. #500 Seattle, WA 98121 .Nicole Hernandez W&H Pacific 3350 Monte Villa Pkwy Bothell, WA 98021 Claudia M. Newman Bricklin, Newman & Dold, LLP 1001 Fourth Ave., Ste. #3303 Seattle, WA 98154 Stephen Kropp 430 Pelly Ave. N. Renton, WA 98057 Karen Breckenridge Hillis, Clark, Marlin & Peterson 500 Galland Building 1221 Second Ave. Seattle, WA 98121 Transweslem Harvest Lakeshore, LLC 8214 Westchester Drive, Ste. #650 Dallas, TX 75225 Peter Buck Buck & Gordon, LLP 2025 First Ave., Ste. #500 Seattle, WA 98121 Laura Cook 14102 SE 278th St. Kent, WA 98042 Ross Radley Attorney At Law 3316 Fuhrman Ave. E. Seattle, WA 98102 HCMP WUt~ 2 6 10DI REC~lllt'D HI u 11 CLARK M,\1111,~ & PLllR\ON !ah' 11//ict,• CIT" Cl .FR!<.'S r,~t::I(.,-' 3; 40 f',"1 I> Bonnie Walton, City Clerk City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 June 26, 2007 Re: The Landing: Site Plan Appeal Dear Ms, Walton: Via Hand Delivery Enclosed please find Applicant Harvest Partners' Supplemental Notice of Appeal of Hearing Examiner's Decision, regarding the Hearing Examiner's decisions on Applicant Harvest Partners' Site Plan for The Landing project This Supplemental Notice of Appeal is intended to supplement and be consolidated with Applicant's June 5, 2007 appeal previously filed with the Renton City CounciL In case a separate appeal fee is required, also enclosed please find a check for the $75,00 appeal fee, We understand that this appeal will be reviewed by the Renton City Council's Planning and Development Committee on Thursday, July 5, 2007, Accordingly, we arc also enclosing proposed Orders, Findings and Conclusions for the Committee's review, If you have any questions regarding any of the enclosed documents, please do not hesitate to call me, Very truly yours, Jj,, / / . ') JLH/jlp E-Mail: JLH@hcmp,com Enclosures #356310 18449-004 7mx$0l!.doc SOU Galland Bu,ldiny 1221 Second Avenue Seattle, Washington .......... TIT MERITAS fl..'.'/ Fl 0.,\1S l\':1R! ll';'1lll: 98101-2925 phone 206,623.1745 fax 206.623.7789 www.hcmp.com A PP.Of ESSIONIIL SERVICE CORPORATION ·• 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 C:l!Y Or RENTON JUN .~ 6 2007 c<!cCtclV!:O CIY'( C:1.fRK'5 ';ff1c:1 r 'fo f' "1 >'> BEFORE THE RENTON CITY COUNCIL In the Matter of the Appeal of Brad Nicholson re: The Director's Administrative Site Plan ApprovaL LUA-06-071, SA-A SUPPLEMENTAL NOTICE OF APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION I. OVERVIEW While appeals were still pending before the Renton Hearing Examiner regarding Applicant Harvest Partners' Site Plan for The Landing, the parties to the appeals reached a settlement of all claims. Accordingly, Appellants Alliance for the South End ("ASE") and Brad Nicholson withdrew their Request for Reconsideration of the Examiner's Site Plan decision, and stated their support for Applicant's position regarding the Site Plan. Upon Appellants' withdrawal of their opposition to the Site Plan, all pending decisions should have been withdrawn. However, despite the settlement, the Examiner did not withdraw his initial decision on the Site Plan, but instead issued a second decision on the merits. All parties are in agreement as to the Site Plan for The Landing, and all appeals have been dismissed or withdrawn. There is no longer a case or controversy, and the matter is moot. The decisions of the Hearing Examiner should therefore be withdrawn and vacated. II. INTRODUCTION Applicant Harvest Partners hereby files this Supplemental Notice of Appeal of the Hearing Examiner's Decision regarding Applicant's Site Plan for The Landing. This Supplemental Notice of Appeal is intended to supplement and be consolidated with Applicant's June 5, 2007 appeal filed with the Renton City Council. For the reasons stated herein and in Applicant's June 5, 2007 appeal, Applicant respectfully requests that the Renton Supplemental Notice of Appeal of Hearing Examiner's Decision -Page I of8 i._ ·• ~/1; /,', ,_ 1/~,··; HILLfS CLARK MARTIN & PFTERSON, P.S. 500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Ave Seattle WA 98101-2925 206.623.1745; fax 206.623.7789 City Council withdraw and vacate the decisions of the Hearing Examiner as set forth below. 2 In the alternative, because the decisions of the Hearing Examiner represent substantial errors 3 in fact or law, Applicant respectfully requests that the Renton City Council reverse the 4 decisions of the Hearing Examiner as set forth below. 5 III. STATEMENT OF FACTS 6 On May 22, 2007, following a hearing on the merits, the Renton Hearing Examiner 7 issued a decision regarding Applicant Harvest Partners' Site Plan for The Landing project (the s "Site Plan Decision"). In nearly all respects, the Site Plan Decision affirmed the Director's 9 approval of The Landing Site Plan, and modifications thereto. However, the Examiner Jo reversed the Director's approval of certain specific elements of The Landing Site Plan, 11 finding that there were not "practical difficulties" permitting such elements. 12 On May 31, 2007, the City filed a Request for Clarification regarding two issues in the 13 Site Plan Decision. The City's Request for Clarification sought to clarify: (I) whether the 14 Examiner's Site Plan Decision was intended to require a primary entrance on the west side of 1s Building 102; and (2) whether the Examiner's Site Plan Decision was intended to require 16 removal of the parking area in the northeast comer of Quadrant C, along North 10th Street. 1 17 On June 5, 2007, Applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration with the Hearing 18 Examiner, requesting that the Examiner reconsider those portions of the Site Plan Decision 19 requiring modifications to the Site Plan. On the same date, Applicant filed its Notice of 20 Appeal of Hearing Examiner's Decision with the Renton City Council. On June 5, 2007, 21 Appellants Alliance for the South End ("ASE") and Brad Nicholson also filed a Request for 22 Reconsideration with the Hearing Examiner. 23 Subsequent to the filing of Applicant's and Appellants' Requests for Reconsideration, 24 Applicant and Appellants resolved this matter through a settlement, memorialized in a 25 Settlement Agreement and Release dated for reference purposes June 5, 2007. Accordingly, 26 on June 6, 2007, Appellants withdrew their Request for Reconsideration of the Examiner's 27 28 1 For reference purposes, a copy of the current Site Plan for The Landing is attached hereto as EXIIIDIT A. Supplemental Notice of Appeal of Hearing Examiner's Decision -Page 2 o/8 HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON, P.S. 500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Ave Seattle WA 98101-2925 206.623.1745; fax 206.623. 7789 Site Plan Decision. Furthermore, Appellants stated that they did not oppose Applicant's 2 Request for Reconsideration. A copy of Appellants' withdrawal is attached hereto as 3 EXl!IBIT B. 4 On June 12, 2007, the Examiner issued a decision regarding Applicant's Request for 5 Reconsideration, as well as the City's Request for Clarification (the "Reconsideration 6 Decision"). A copy of the Reconsideration Decision is attached hereto as EXHIBIT C. 7 Although the Examiner's Reconsideration Decision acknowledged that a settlement between 8 the parties had occurred, the Examiner did not withdraw his previous decision, but rather 9 proceeded to render a decision on the merits. First, the Reconsideration Decision clarified 1 o that a primary entrance on the west side of Building 102 was not required. Reconsideration 11 Decision, at 1. The Reconsideration Decision also stated that although the parking areas 12 south ofNorth 10th Street in Quadrant C were permitted, the parking stalls located south of 13 North 10th Street in Quadrant B were not permitted. Id. Finally, the Examiner's 14 Reconsideration Decision denied Applicant's Request for Reconsideration, upholding the 15 original Site Plan Decision. Id, at 3. 16 As set forth below, because the parties had reached a settlement and had dismissed or 17 withdrawn all pending appeals while Applicant's Request for Reconsideration was still 18 pending, there was no longer a justiciable case or controversy, and the matter became moot. 19 Therefore, the Examiner's Site Plan Decision and the Examiner's Reconsideration Decision 20 should be withdrawn and vacated. In the alternative, as set forth in Applicant's June 5, 2007 21 appeal and Applicant's Request for Reconsideration, which documents are incorporated 22 herein by this reference, and as presented below, the Site Plan Decision and the 23 Reconsideration Decision contain substantial errors in fact or law, and those portions of the 24 decisions requiring modifications to the Site Plan should be reversed. 25 26 27 28 Supplemental Notice of Appeal of Hearing Examiner's Decision -Page 3 of 8 HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON, P.S. 500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Ave Seattle WA 98101-2925 206.623.1745; fax 206.623. 7789 IV. ARGUMENT 2 A. The Settlement between the Parties Rendered the Appeals Moot. 3 An administrative appeal invokes the exercise of quasi-judicial power. The exercise 4 of judicial power requires a justiciable case or controversy. 2 Before jurisdiction can be 5 asserted, therefore, the hearing body must determine whether the case is moot. 3 A case is 6 moot where the hearing body can no longer provide effective relief.4 A settlement involving 7 all parties and all claims renders an action moot. 5 This also applies when a case is settled 8 pending appeal. 6 When only moot questions are involved, no case or controversy exists, and a 9 case should be dismissed. 7 10 Here, while Applicant's Request for Reconsideration of the Examiner's Site Plan 11 Decision was still pending, the parties reached a settlement of all claims. Appellants thereby 12 withdrew their Request for Reconsideration, and stated their support for Applicant's Request 13 for Reconsideration. As soon as the parties had entered into the settlement agreement, and 14 Appellants had withdrawn all appeals or Requests for Reconsideration related to The Landing, 15 a justiciable case or controversy no longer existed in this matter, and the matter became moot. 16 Because this matter was moot, the Examiner's Site Plan Decision and Reconsideration 17 Decision are without effect, and should be vacated and withdrawn. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 B. The Examiner's Issuance of the Reconsideration Decision Despite the Settlement Represents a Substantial Error in Fact or Law. The absence of a justiciable case or controversy following the settlement between the parties provides sufficient basis for the Council to withdraw and vacate the Examiner's 2 U.S. Const. Art. lll, § 2. 3 See, e.g., Tosco Corp. v. Hodel, 804 F.2d 590,591 (10th Cir. 1986). 4 See, e.g., In re Marriage of Horner, 151 Wn.2d 884 (2004); see also Tosco, 804 F.2d at 591 ("[C]ourts are without power to decide questions that cannot affect the rights of litigants in the case before them."). 5 Tosco, 804 F.2d at 592, cited by Villas at Harbour !'ointe Owners Ass 'n v. Mutual of Enumclaw Ins. Co., 137 Wn.App. 751, 761 n.13 (2007). 6 Id. 1 Snohomish County v. State Shorelines Hearings Bd., 108 Wn.App. 781, 787 (2001). Supplemental Notice of Appeal of Hearing Examiner's Decision -Page 4 of 8 Hli.LIS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON, P.S. 500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Ave Seattle WA 98101-2925 206.623.1745; fax 206.623. 7789 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 27 28 decisions in this matter. In the alternative, the Council should reverse the decisions of the Examiner because they contain substantial errors in fact or law. First, the Examiner's Reconsideration Decision contains substantial errors in fact. The Reconsideration Decision acknowledged that the parties had reached a settlement: Since these various requests were received it appears that the parties have reached a settlement of some of their appeal issues. The appellants no longer oppose the applicant's request for reconsideration and appellants have withdrawn their request for reconsideration. Reconsideration Decision, at I. The Examiner again discussed the settlement at the conclusion of the Reconsideration Decision: Id, at 3. In conclusion, this office congratulates the parties for reaching an amicable solution to the issues that separated them but where the appeal was not fully withdrawn in certain particulars, the decision is herein clarified or upheld. It is unclear from the language of the Examiner's Reconsideration Decision whether the full extent of the settlement between the parties was understood. The Examiner's statement "where the appeal was not fully withdrawn in certain particulars ... " suggests that perhaps the Examiner believed that even with the settlement between the parties, Appellants still maintained certain portions of their appeals. However, this is not the case. The parties have fully settled all issues in this matter, and all pending appeals have been dismissed with prejudice. Because the Examiner had already issued his Site Plan Decision at the time of the settlement, in order for Appellants to nullify their original appeal of Applicant's Site Plan the appropriate action was for Appellants to withdraw their Request for Reconsideration of the Examiner's Site Plan Decision, which they did. Indeed, not only did Appellants withdraw their Request for Reconsideration from further review, they specifically stated their support for Applicant's Request for Reconsideration, thus signifying their support for Applicant's request that the Site Plan be restored to its original form. Therefore, to the extent the Examiner failed to withdraw his Site Plan Decision due to a misperception regarding the full extent of the settlement and Appellants' withdrawal of their appeals, this represents a substantial error in fact, and should be reversed. Supplemental Notice of Appeal of Hearing Examiner's Decision -Page 5 of 8 HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON, P.S. 500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Ave Seattle WA 98101-2925 206.6231745; fax 206.623.7789 In addition, the Examiner's issuance of the Reconsideration Decision, despite the 2 settlement of the parties, represents a substantial error in law. As discussed above, a 3 settlement of all claims between the parties renders an action moot as there is no longer a 4 justiciable case or controversy.8 Upon Appellants' withdrawal of their Request for 5 Reconsideration, therefore, the correct action of the Examiner should have been to withdraw 6 or vacate the Site Plan Decision, thereby restoring the Site Plan to its original form. However, 7 the Examiner instead proceeded to issue the Reconsideration Decision despite the settlement, 8 not only reaffirming the Site Plan Decision but also requiring additional changes to the Site 9 Plan that were never requested by Appellants in their appeals.9 In so doing, the Examiner's 10 actions exceeded the scope of his authority and jurisdiction, and therefore represented a l l substantial error in law. 12 c. The Examiner's Decisions Contain Substantial Errors in Fact. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1. The parking lots south of North 10th Street in Quadrant B are permitted by the Renton Municipal Code, and were never contested by Appellants. The Examiner's Site Plan Decision stated: 'The Director's decision is modified and this office will deny the requested modification for ... the parking lots along N 10th Street." Site Plan Decision, at 22. The City's Request for Clarification sought to clarify whether this modification denial related to the parking lot located south of North 10th Street in Quadrant C. As the City suggested, this appeared to be the case as the Quadrant C parking lot was the only parking lot "along N 10'h Street." However, the Examiner's Reconsideration Decision came to a different conclusion: This office believes that the stipulation governed any parking east of Park Avenue along North 10th Street. This office was referring to the Parking lots south of North 10th Street west of Park Avenue. Referring to Site Plan Review Update "A" (Page 3 Illustration) the parking in question would be parking stalls located between: 8 Tosco, 804 F.2d at 592. 9 See Part IV.C. I, below. Supplemental Notice of Appeal of Hearing Examiner's Decision -Page 6 of8 IIJLLIS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON, P.S. 500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Ave Seattle WA 98101-2925 206.623.1745; fax 206.623.7789 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Buildings 205 and 202 Buildings 202 and 201 Buildings 200 and 204 Reconsideration Decision, at I. Applicant agrees with the Examiner's conclusion that the parking area located south of North I 0th Street in Quadrant C was covered by the stipulation between the parties. I lowever, to the extent the Examiner's Reconsideration Decision requires the removal of any parking lots or stalls at the north end of Quadrant fl, the Reconsideration Decision contains a substantial error in fact. Examination of the Site Plan for The Landing demonstrates that there are no parking stalls "along North I 0th Street" in Quadrant B. See EXHTBIT A. Indeed, because there were no parking lots located along North 10th Street in Quadrant B, Applicant never requested, nor did the Director ever grant, a modification to any particular code requirements to permit the parking in this area of Quadrant B. The Examiner's "denial of the modification" for these particular parking lots, when no modification was ever required or granted, is therefore without basis. Moreover, Appellants themselves never even claimed that the parking south of North 10th Street in Quadrant B presented a violation of the Renton Municipal Code. A copy of Appellants' exhibit depicting all of the alleged code violations, previously admitted as Exhibit 8 at the Site Plan hearing before the Examiner, is attached hereto as EXHTBIT D. Those particular parking areas noted by the Examiner in his Reconsideration Decision contain no symbols indicating alleged violations of the Renton Municipal Code. The parking areas south of North 10th Street in Quadrant B comply with the Renton Municipal Code, were never the subject of a modification, and were never the subject of an appeal by Appellants. Accordingly, the Examiner's required removal of these parking areas represents a substantial error in fact, and should be reversed. 2. The Director properly granted modifications to specific Site Plan criteria. 26 The Examiner's Site Plan Decision and the Examiner's Reconsideration Decision also 27 contain substantial errors in fact by failing to uphold the Director's modifications for certain 28 portions of The Landing. Applicant hereby incorporates the arguments presented in Supplemental Notice of Appeal of Hearing Examiner's Decision -Page 7 of 8 HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & PcTERSON, P.S. 500 Galland Buildlng, 1221 Second Ave Seattle WA 98101-2925 206.623.1745; fax 206.623.7789 Applicant's Request for Reconsideration, dated June 5, 2007.10 As presented therein, the 2 Director properly approved the modifications related to the primary entrance of Building 400, 3 and the parking areas located along Park Avenue North in Quadrants Band C. In those 4 particular instances, numerous practical difficulties rendered strict application of the Renton 5 Municipal Code impractical. Furthermore, the current Site Plan for The Landing is consistent 6 with the overall intent and purpose of the Renton Municipal Code design standards, the 7 Comprehensive Plan and the Conceptual Plan. Accordingly, the Examiner's reversal of g specific modification approvals by the Director represents a substantial error in fact, and 9 should be reversed. 10 V. CONCLUSION 11 For the reasons set forth herein and in Applicant's Request for Reconsideration, 12 Applicant respectfully requests that the Renton City Council withdraw and vacate the 13 Examiner's Site Plan Decision and Reconsideration Decision or, in the alternative, reverse 14 those portions of the decisions requiring modifications to the Site Plan for The Landing. 15 Proposed Orders are attached. 16 DATED this ;,. l day of June, 2007. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 #355656 18449-004 7mfo0 I !.doc 6/26/07 HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON, P.S. rome1L. Hi , SBA # 1704 T. y:in Durkan, WSBA #11805 aren D. Breckenridge, WSBA #36666 Attorneys for Applicant Harvest Partners 10 A copy of Applicant's Request for Reconsideration was previously submitted to the Renton City Council as Exhibit A to Applicant's June 5, 2007 Notice of Appeal of Hearing Examiner's Decision. Supplemental Notice ofAppeal of Hearing Examiner's Decision -Page 8 of 8 HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON, P.S. 500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Ave Seattle WA 98101-2925 206.623.1745; fax 206.623.7789 Exhibit A , ___ _,) Exhibit B Buck~ Gordon LLP J\llnrn,.·y~ al L,11Y VIA FACSIMILE Ms. Bonnie Walton City Clerk City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 June 6, 2007 2025 First Avenue, Suite 500 Seattle, WA 98121-3140 206-382-9540 206-626-0675 Fax www.buckgordon. wr n Re: WITHDRAWAL OF APPELLANTS' REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF EXAMINER'S FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATION Dear Ms. Walton: Pursuant to RMC 4-8-11 O.C(S), we submit the following on behalf of appellants Brad Nicholson and Alliance for South End (ASE) via facsimile transmittal: • WITHDRAWAL OF APPELLANTS' REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF EXAMINER'S FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATION This document is filed in the Matter of the Appeals of ASE and Brad Nicholson regarding The Director's Administrative Site Plan Approval and The Director's Administrative Interpretation/Policy Decision. Copies of this letter and the above referenced document will also be faxed to the Hearing Examiner and all counsel of record. Cc: Fred Kauffman, Hearing Examiner Counsel of Record Y:\WP\ASE\Site Plan Appeal\1060607.doc urs,~ 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 I l 12 13 14 15 ]6 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 BEFORE Tl-IE HEARING EXAMINER OF THE CITY OF RENTON In lhe Mauer of the Appeals of Alliance for South End (ASE) and Brad Nicholson re: The Director's Administrative Sile Plan Approval ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) _______________ ) LUA-06-071, SA-A WITHDRAW AL OF APPELLANTS' REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF EXAMINER'S FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATION Appellants Alliance for the South End ("ASE") and Brad Nicolson hereby withdraw their above titled Request for Reconsideration, filed on June 5, 2007. Further, Appellants do not oppose the Request for Reconsideration filed by Applicant Harvest Partners on June 5, 2007. WITHDRAW AL OF APPELLANTS' REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION -I Y:\WP\ASE\SITE PLAN APPEAL\P- 060607. WITHDRAW ALRECONSIDERA TION.DOC Buck@Gordon LLP 2025 Fir~t Avenue, Suite 500 Seattle, WA98121·3140 (206) 382-95<\0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 fr Dated this (cj day of June, 2007. BUCK &G WITHDRAWAL OF APPELLANTS' REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION -2 Y:\WP\ASE\SITE PLAN APPEAL\P- 060607 .WITI-JDRA W AL.RECONSIDERATION. DOC Buck@Gordon LLP 2025 Flr5t Avenue, Suite Sao Sea1tle, WA 98121·3140 (206) 382-95•10 Exhibit C June 12, 2007 DECISION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER ON MATTERS OF THE APPEALS OF ASE AND BRAD NICHOLSON REGARDING THE DIRECTOR'S ADMINISTRATIVE SITE PLAN APPROVAL AND THE DIRECTOR'S ADMINISTRATIVE INTERPRETATION/POLICY DECISION ON BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION APPROVALS This office has received a variety of requests regarding this matter. This office has received a Request for Clarification from the City. It also has received two Requests for Reconsideration -one from the Harvest Partners, the underlying applicant and one from the appellants. Since these various requests were received it appears that the parties have reached a settlement of some of their appeal issues. The appellants no longer oppose the applicant's request for reconsideration and appellants have withdrawn their request for reconsideration. City's Request for Clarification The City sought clarification for two issues. The decision this office made denied the modifications for parking Jots along North I 0th Street and for relief from having to provide a primary entrance along Park Avenue North. The City seeks to clarify what was meant by these denials. Parking along North I 0th Street This office believes that the stipulation governed any parking east of Park Avenue along North 10th Street. This office was referring to the Parking lots south of North 10th Street west of Park Avenue. Referring to Site Plan Review Update "A" (Page 3 Illustration) the parking in question would be parking stalls located between: Buildings 205 and 202 Buildings 202 and 20 I Buildings 200 and 204 Primary Entrances along Park Avenue North The second issue was whether Building 102 (again, refer to Site Plan Update A, Page 3 illustration) required a primary entrance along Park Avenue. The response is twofold. This office intended this denial to apply solely to Building 400, west of Park. First, this office believed that the stipulation governed all design aspects of Quadrant C except the tier of Parking along the eastern edge of Park in the location of Building 102. Second, if the stipulation did not govern this aspect of Building 102, then "practical difficulties" would allow a modification to be granted for this "primary entrance" modification. The stipulation allows the placement of a truck delivery driveway between the Park Avenue fa9ade of Building I 02 and Park Avenue. The mixing of pedestrians and heavy truck traffic at a primary entrance in this location would create an unsafe situation. Granting a modification would not otherwise affect public health, safety or welfare nor would it injure the general public or other properties in the area. Approving a modification implements the comprehensive plan by allowing the development of the 38-acre site with urban scale uses and generally conforms to the purposes of the Code to allow primary entrances when practical but otherwise allow a modification when it would be impractical or unsafe to require a primary entrance in a particular location. Hearing Examiner Decisio1 The Landing Appeals June 12, 2007 Page 2 Applicant's Request for Reconsideration The applicant seeks reconsideration where the Hearing Examiner denied three modifications that had originally been approved by the Director. The Examiner required a primary entrance in the Park Avenue North facade of Building 400, denying a modification that would have eliminated that requirement. The Examiner removed a tier of parking east of Park in the vicinity of Building 102 denying a modification that would have allowed parking in that location. The Examiner required the applicant to abide by the limitation that not more than 60 feet of parking be located north of Building 400, again, denying a modification that would have allowed parking in those locations. Primary Entrance for Building 400 along Park Avenue North The applicant argues that there are practical difficulties in providing an entrance for Building 400 along Park Avenue and suggests that since there are industrial uses south of this area that there is little pedestrian traffic. This does not appear to be a practical difficulty but would be a self-fulfilling prophecy. Ifno pedestrian entrance is provided in this location there would be little to encourage new pedestrians to walk along Park in this location, killing the supposed "pedestrian-oriented" aspect of Park in this location. Next the applicant argues that theft could or would occur if there was a second entrance on Park Avenue since controlled access to one point would be lost. This is a design consideration and this office believes that urban design features override this issue. Urban design does bring with it certain levels of potential criminality but that apparently has not stopped many urban stores or even malls from having more than one entrance and possibly co-equal, if not primary entrances. Downtown Seattle has any number of retailers with comer stores or block-wide stores with multiple entrances to encourage pedestrians. Even mall stores such as Macy's at Northgate and Southcenter, Bed, Bath and Beyond at Southcenter and Nordstrom's have more than one entrance. The fact that the applicant has created its own internal pedestrian path does not make providing the one required by code difficult. The underlying record does not demonstrate any practical difficulties,just design choices of the applicant. There is no reason to modify the original decision. Parking east of Park Avenue North Parking west of Park Avenue North (more than 60 feet) The applicant has not provided any reason to modify the denial of parking along either side of Park Avenue North. For the same reason, a primary entrance is not appropriate for Building 102, the truck delivery driveway location and parking for passenger vehicles is not appropriate in this location -it would provide unsafe pedestrian movements from cars to the shopping experience. The fact that the applicant may be providing landscaping or even additional landscaping in other areas of the site or even along this street does not create any practical difficulty that necessitates a modification to allow parking where it is otherwise not permitted. Landscape strips between the parking and the sidewalks do not negate the code requirements for this urban, pedestrian-oriented street to not have parking along the corridor. There clearly was no ambiguity in what was intended since the applicant sought modifications for these unambiguous code provisions. Finally, the applicant's desire for additional parking does not create practical difficulties with regard to parking. The site provides acres of open parking. Code provides a range of parking for particular uses. Urban-scale development, traffic congestion, air pollution all demand that pedestrian-oriented development not cater particularly to the automobile driver. Hearing Examiner Decisi The Landing Appeals June 12, 2007 Page 3 Parking along North 10th west of Park Since the clarification sought by the City may have unexpectedly caught the applicant by surprise, this office will add that its arguments against the parking along Park Avenue North apply equally to the parking proposed along the south side of North 10th Street between the buildings noted above. North 10th, like Park Avenue is intended to be a pedestrian oriented street. There is no practical difficulty in meeting the design criteria or code standards along this portion of North 10th west of Park. As the original decision noted, if the reduction of parking hampers the development of the site due to other code standards, the applicant may reduce the number of buildings or provide additional structured parking elsewhere on the subject site. In conclusion, this office agrees with the applicant (Page 7 of Applicant's Request) that the Examiner recognized there are challenges to designing an URBAN shopping center but disagrees that there are all of the challenges suggested by the applicant. The City's comprehensive plan is not seeking, in the applicant's words, "a large retail center" (a la Northgate or Southcenter) but an urban center, which encourages PEDESTRIAN-ORIENTED experiences. The are no practical difficulties in providing an entrance for Building 400 along Park Avenue or abiding by Code that restricts parking along Park A venue North. In conclusion, this office congratulates the parties for reaching an amicable solution to the issues that separated them but where the appeal was not fully withdrawn in certain particulars, the decision is herein clarified or upheld. If this office can provide any additional assistance please feel free to write. This decision can be appealed to the City Council by paying the appropriate fee and filing an appeal in writing by June 26, 2007. ORDERED THIS 12th day of June 2007. FRED J. KA MAN i HEARING EXAMilwR TRANSMITTED THIS 12th day of June 2007 to the parties of record: Zanetta Fontes Warren Barber & Fontes, P.S. PO Box 626 Renton, WA 98057 Ross Radley 3316 Fuhrman Ave E Seattle, WA 98102 Peter Buck Buck & Gordon LLP 2025 First Ave, Suite 500 Seattle, WA 98121 Brad Nicholson 2811 Dayton Avenue Renton, WA 98056 Jerome L. Hillis Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson, P .S. 500 Galland Building 1221 Second Avenue Seattle, WA 98101 Hearing Examiner Decisio The Landing Appeals June 12, 2007 Page4 TRANSMITTED THIS 12 1 h day of June 2007 to the following: Mayor Kathy Keolker Jay Covington, CAO Julia Medzegian, Council Liaison Gregg Zimmerman, PBPW Administrator Alex Pietsch, Economic Development Jennifer Henning, Development Services Stacy Tucker, Development Services Renton Reporter Stan Engler, Fire Larry Meckling, Building Official Planning Commission Transportation Division Utilities Division Neil Watts, Development Services Janet Conklin, Development Services Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Section !OOGofthe City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m., June 26, 2007. Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the Examiner is ambiguous or based on erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact, error in judgment, or the discovery of new evidence, which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing, may make a written request for a review by the Examiner within fourteen (14) days from the date of the Examiner's decision. This request shall set forth the specific ambiguities or errors discovered by such appellant, and the Examiner may, after review of the record, take further action as he deems proper. An appeal to the City Council is governed by Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 110, which requires that such appeal be filed with the City Clerk, accompanying a filing fee of$75.00 and meeting other specified requirements. Copies of this ordinance are available for inspection or purchase in the Finance Department, first floor of City Hall. An appeal must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m., June 26, 2007. If the Examiner's Recommendation or Decision contains the requirement for Restrictive Covenants, the executed Covenants will be required prior to approval by City Council or final processing of the file. You may contact this office for information on formatting covenants. The Appearance of Fairness Doctrine provides that no ex parte (private one-on-one) communications may occur concerning pending land use decisions. This means that parties to a land use decision may not communicate in private with any decision-maker concerning the proposal. Decision-makers in the land use process include both the Hearing Examiner and members of the City Council. All communications concerning the proposal must be made in public. This public communication permits all interested parties to know the contents of the communication and would allow them to openly rebut the evidence. Any violation of this doctrine would result in the invalidation of the request by the Court. Hearing Examiner Decisi, The Landing Appeals June 12, 2007 Page 5 The Doctrine applies not only to the initial public hearing but to all Requests for Reconsideration as well as Appeals to the City Council. Exhibit D VIOLATIONS IN MODIFIED SITE PLAN* I RMC 4-3-100.F1.b.1 Street frontage * RMC 4-3-100.F 4.b Surface parking driveways. * p,.,u· . ,,, .... i'.-'.' I!'' :--1 · ~;t ':. : j: ', '.: * RMC 4-3-100 E.2 b AdJacent to sidewalk ..... i:)i'J\," "II( . ,\. \ , , 'I'-::·c~Cl! ._.:i:·e:~.<.:.. • RMC 4-3-100.F.1.b.i: Parking on rear or side of building. j RMC 4-2-120.E T Setbacks. 140' • FULL SITE PLAN from modification submittal dated March 2, 2007 (approved March 13, 2007) / \ \ ., 126.81( I, ( ii '"---- [PROPOSAL 2: REVERSE] PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE COMMITTEE REPORT July 9, 2007 Appeals by Alliance for South End (ASE) and Brad Nicholson File No. LUA-06-071, SA-A Re: Director's administrative Site Plan approval Referred to Planning & Development Committee on July 2, 2007 I ' ·,1· 'I ,:; "' ' ~~7 Ju:, ,_:.i ,J This appeal came before the Planning and Development Committee (the "Committee") on July 5, 2007. The Committee reviewed the decision of the Hearing Examiner dated May 22, 2007, which decision affirmed the Director's approval of the Site Plan for The Landing project but reversed the Director's approval of certain specific elements in The Landing Site Plan. The Committee also reviewed the decision of the Hearing Examiner dated June 12, 2007, which denied Applicant's Request for Reconsideration and responded to the City's Request for Clarification. The Committee reviewed the file, including the briefs therein. The Committee also reviewed Appellants' Withdrawal of their Request for Reconsideration and Appellants' statement of support for Applicant Harvest Partners' Request for Reconsideration, filed pursuant to a settlement agreement reached by the parties. Finding that substantial errors in fact or law exist in the record, the Committee recommends that the Council reverse those portions of the decisions requiring modifications to the Site Plan for The Landing. The Committee further recommends that the Council adopt the attached Findings and Conclusions. Terri Briere, Chair Dan Clawson, Vice Chair Marcie Palmer, Member cc: Neil Watts Jennifer Henning Lawrence J. Warren FINDINGS I. On August 17, 2006, the City of Renton Department of Planning, Building and Public Works issued a decision approving the Site Plan for The Landing, an approximately 572, 700-square foot commercial/retail development to be constructed on a 38.22-acre site within the Urban Center-North I (UC-NI) zone in Renton, Washington (the "Director's Site Plan Approval"). 1 The City had previously approved the master plan for The Landing project, and determined that The Landing project was consistent with the adopted Planned Action Ordinance. 2. On August 31, 2006, "Alliance for South End" ("ASE"), a Washington nonprofit corporation, and Brad Nicholson ("Appellants") filed appeals of the Director's Site Plan Approval.2 3. On February 22, 2007, following a hearing on standing and other jurisdictional issues, the Hearing Examiner issued a decision dismissing ASE's appeal of the Director's Site Plan Approval for lack of standing. 3 ASE did not appeal this decision. 4. On May 22, 2007, following a hearing on the merits, the Renton Hearing Examiner issued a decision regarding Mr. Nicholson's appeal of the Director's Site Plan Approval (the "Examiner's Site Plan Decision").4 In nearly all respects, the Examiner's Site Plan Decision affirmed the Director's Site Plan Approval, and modifications thereto. However, the Examiner reversed the Director's approval of certain specific elements of The Landing Site Plan, finding that there were not "practical difficulties" permitting such elements. 5. In particular, the Examiner's Site Plan Decision required the following specific changes to the current Site Plan for The Landing: (I) installation of an additional or alternative entrance on the east side of Building 400, fronting Park Avenue North;5 (2) removal of parking stalls located between Building 102 and Park Avenue North, in the southwest 1 See Director's Site Plan Approval, attached as Exhibit A to Notice of Appeal of Administrative Site Plan Approval, dated August 31. 2006. 2 See Notice of Appeal of Administrative Site Plan Approval, dated August 31, 2006. On the same date as this appeal. ASE and Mr. Nicholson also appealed an Interpretation/Policy Decision made by the City of Renton. On February 22, 2007, the Hearing Examiner dismissed those appeals for lack of jurisdiction. Neither ASE nor Mr. Nicholson appealed this dismissal. 3 See Decision of the Hearing Examiner on Matters of Standing and Jurisdiction brought by Attorneys for Alliance for South End (ASE) and Brad Nicholson, an Individual, dated February 22, 2007, at 6. 4 See Office of the Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation on The Landing Site Plan Hearing on Merits, dated May 22, 2007. 5 Id, at 22. corner of Quadrant c;6 and (3) removal of all but 60 feet of parking stalls located north of Building 400 and west of Park Avenue North.7 6. On May 31, 2007, the City filed a Request for Clarification regarding two issues in the Examiner's Site Plan Decision.8 The City's Request for Clarification sought to clarify: (1) whether the Examiner's Site Plan Decision was intended to require a primary entrance on the west side of Building 102; and (2) whether the Examiner's Site Plan Decision was intended to require removal of the parking area in the northeast comer of Quadrant C, along North 10th Street. 7. On June 5, 2007, Applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration with the Hearing Examiner, requesting that the Examiner reconsider those portions of the Examiner's Site Plan Decision requiring modifications to the Site Plan.9 Also on June 5, 2007, Appellants filed a Request for Reconsideration with the Hearing Examiner, alleging various errors in the Examiner's Site Plan Decision.10 8. Subsequent to the filing of Applicant's and Appellants' Requests for Reconsideration, and while the Requests for Reconsideration were still pending, Applicant and Appellants resolved this matter through a settlement, memorialized in a Settlement Agreement and Release dated for reference purposes June 5, 2007. Accordingly, on June 6, 2007, Appellants withdrew their Request for Reconsideration of the Examiner's Site Plan Decision, and stated their support for Applicant's Request for Reconsideration.11 9. On June 12, 2007, the Examiner issued a decision regarding Applicant's Request for Reconsideration, as well as the City's Request for Clarification (the "Examiner's Reconsideration Decision"). 12 I 0. The Examiner's Reconsideration Decision clarified that a primary entrance on the west side of Building I 02 was not required. u The Examiner's Reconsideration Decision also stated that although the parking areas south of North 10th Street in Quadrant C were permitted, the parking stalls located south of North 10th Street in Quadrant B were not 'Id. ' Id.. 8 See City of Renton' s Request for Clarification, dated May 3 I, 2007. 9 See Applicant's Request for Reconsideration, dated June 5, 2007. 10 See Appellants 1 Request for Reconsideration of Examiner's Findings, Conclusions & Recommendation, dated June 5, 2007. 11 See Withdrawal of Appellants' Request for Reconsideration of Examiner's Findings, Conclusions & Recommendation, dated June 6, 2007, and accompanying cover letter, attached as Exhibit B to Supplemental Notice of Appeal of Hearing Examiner's Decision, dated June 26, 2007. 12 See Decision of the Hearing Examiner on Matters of the Appeals of ASE and Brad Nicholson Regarding the Director's Administrative Site Plan Approval and the Director's Administrative Interpretation/Policy Decision on Building Permit Application Approvals, dated June 12, 2007. " Id, at I. permitted.14 Finally, the Examiner's Reconsideration Decision denied Applicant's Request for Reconsideration, upholding the Examiner's Site Plan Decision.15 11. According to the Site Plan for The Landing, there are no parking stalls or parking lots located "along North 10th Street" in Quadrant 8.16 12. Appellants never claimed that the parking south of North 10th Street in Quadrant 8 presented a violation of the Renton Municipal Code.17 13. Numerous practical difficulties make the installation ofan east-facing entrance on Building 400 impractical at this time, including the orientation of the building toward the pedestrian walkway to the north, security and loss prevention issues posed by requiring two entrances, and the numerous pedestrian-oriented elements already built into the design of Building 400.18 14. Numerous practical difficulties exist in designing a large urban retail center of The Landing's scale and magnitude that can incorporate sufficient pedestrian-oriented elements and yet also provide adequate parking within permissible proximity of the retail tenants.19 Where practical difficulties required that parking be located along Park Avenue North, the Site Plan for The Landing incorporates extensive landscaping and pedestrian-oriented elements, providing a large buffer and significant screening between Park Avenue North and the parking areas on either side. 20 CONCLUSIONS From these Findings, the Committee adopts the following Conclusions: I. For the Examiner to exercise quasi-judicial power, there must be a justiciable case or controversy.21 2. Before the Examiner can assume jurisdiction, therefore, the Examiner must determine whether the case is moot. 22 A case is moot where the hearing body can no longer provide effective relief.23 14 Id. 15 Id, at 2-3. 16 See Site Plan for The Landing, attached as Exhibit A to Supplemental Notice of Appeal of Hearing Examiner's Decision, dated June 25, 2007 17 See Appellants' exhibit depicting alleged code violations, attached as Exhibit D to Supplemental Notice of Appeal of Hearing Examiner's Decision, dated June 26, 2007. 18 See Applicant's Request for Reconsideration, dated June 5, 2007. 19 Id. ,o Id. 21 U.S. Const. Art. Ill,§ 2. 22 See, e.g., Tosco Corp. v. Hodel, 804 F.2d 590,591 (10th Cir. 1986). 3. A settlement involving all parties and all claims renders an action moot.24 This also applies when a case is settled pending appeal.25 4. When only moot questions are involved, no case or controversy exists, and a case should be dismissed. 26 5. Upon settlement between the parties and withdrawal of Appellant's Request for Reconsideration, a justiciable case or controversy no longer existed in this matter. The action is moot. 6. Because this matter is moot, the Examiner's issuance of the Reconsideration Decision, despite the settlement of the parties, exceeded the scope of his authority and jurisdiction, and therefore represents a substantial error in law. 7. The parking areas south of North 10th Street in Quadrant B comply with the Renton Municipal Code, were never the subject of a modification, and were never the subject of an appeal by Appellants. Accordingly, the Examiner's Reconsideration Decision requiring removal of these parking areas represents a substantial error in fact, and should be reversed as to those portions of the decision. 8. Because practical difficulties rendered strict application of the Renton Municipal Code impractical, the Director properly approved the modifications related to the primary entrance of Building 400 and the parking areas located along Park Avenue North in Quadrants Band C. By failing to uphold these modifications, the Examiner's Site Plan Decision and the Examiner's Reconsideration Decision contain substantial errors in fact, and should be reversed as to those portions of the decisions. 9. With the reversal of those portions of the Examiner's Site Plan Decision and the Examiner's Request for Reconsideration that represented substantial errors in fact or law, the Landing Site Plan shall be subject to the Director's original Site Plan Approval, and subsequent modifications thereto. 10. To the extent not inconsistent with the Council's Findings and Conclusions herein, the Council adopts the remaining findings and conclusions set forth in the Examiner's Site Plan Decision. 23 See. e.g., In re Marriage of Horner, 151 Wn.2d 884 (2004); see also Tosco, 804 F.2d at 591 ("[C]ourts are without power to decide questions that cannot affect the rights of litigants in the case before them."). 24 Tosco, 804 F.2d at 592, cited by Villas at Harbour Pointe Owners Ass 'n v. Mutual of Enumclaw Ins. Co., 13 7 Wn.App. 751, 761 n.13 (2007). 25 Id. 26 Snohomish County v. State Shorelines Hearings Ed., I 08 Wn.App. 781, 787 (200 I). [PROPOSAL 1: WITHDRAW AND VACATE] PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE COMMITTEE REPORT July 9, 2007 Appeals by Alliance for South End (ASE) and Brad Nicholson File No. LUA-06-071, SA-A Re: Director's administrative Site Plan approval Referred to Planning and Development Committee on July 2, 2007 (:iTY 0F kENlON JU\{ i & 7007 This appeal came before the Planning and Development Committee (the "Committee") on July 5, 2007. The Committee reviewed the decision of the Hearing Examiner dated May 22, 2007, which decision affirmed the Director's approval of the Site Plan for The Landing project but reversed the Director's approval of certain specific elements in The Landing Site Plan. The Committee also reviewed the decision of the Hearing Examiner dated June 12, 2007, which denied Applicant's Request for Reconsideration and responded to the City's Request for Clarification. The Committee reviewed the file, including the briefs therein. The Committee also reviewed Appellants' Withdrawal of their Request for Reconsideration and Appellants' statement of support for Applicant Harvest Partners' Request for Reconsideration, filed pursuant to a settlement agreement reached by the parties. In light of the settlement reached by all parties and Appellants' Withdrawal of their Request for Reconsideration, the Committee recommends that the Council withdraw and vacate the decisions of the Hearing Examiner. The Committee further recommends that the Council adopt the attached Findings and Conclusions. Terri Briere, Chair Dan Clawson, Vice Chair Marcie Palmer, Member cc: Neil Watts Jennifer Henning Lawrence J, Warren FINDINGS 1. On August 17, 2006, the City of Renton Department of Planning, Building and Public Works issued a decision approving the Site Plan for The Landing, an approximately 572,700-square foot commercial/retail development to be constructed on a 38.22-acrc site within the Urban Center-North I (UC-NI) zone in Renton, Washington (the "Director's Site Plan Approval").1 The City had previously approved the master plan for The Landing project, and determined that The Landing project was consistent with the adopted Planned Action Ordinance. 2. On August 31, 2006, "Alliance for South End" ("ASE"), a Washington nonprofit corporation, and Brad Nicholson ("Appellants") filed appeals of the Director's Site Plan Approval.2 3. On February 22, 2007, following a hearing on standing and other jurisdictional issues, the Hearing Examiner issued a decision dismissing ASE's appeal of the Director's Site Plan Approval for Jack of standing. 3 ASE did not appeal this decision. 4. On May 22, 2007, following a hearing on the merits, the Renton Hearing Examiner issued a decision regarding Mr. Nicholson's appeal of the Director's Site Plan Approval (the "Examiner's Site Plan Decision").4 In nearly all respects, the Examiner's Site Plan Decision affirmed the Director's Site Plan Approval, and modifications thereto. However, the Examiner reversed the Director's approval of certain specific elements of The Landing Site Plan, finding that there were not "practical difficulties" permitting such clements. 5. On May 31, 2007, the City filed a Request for Clarification regarding two issues in the Examiner's Site Plan Decision.5 6. On June 5, 2007, Applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration with the Hearing Examiner, requesting that the Examiner reconsider those portions of the Examiner's Site Plan Decision requiring modifications to the Site Plan.6 Also on June 5, 2007, Appellants 1 See Director's Site Plan Approval, attached as Exhibit A to Notice of Appeal of Administrative Site Plan Approval, dated August 31, 2006. 2 See Notice of Appeal of Administrative Site Plan Approval, dated August 31, 2006. On the same date as this appeal, ASE and Mr. Nicholson also appealed an Interpretation/Policy Decision made by the City of Renton. On February 22, 2007, the Hearing Examiner dismissed those appeals for lack of jurisdiction. Neither ASE nor Mr. Nicholson appealed this dismissal. 1 See Decision of the Hearing Examiner on Matters of Standing and Jurisdiction brought by Attorneys for Alliance for South End (ASE) and Brad Nicholson, an Individual, dated February 22, 2007, at 6. 4 See Ofllce of the Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation on The Landing Site Plan Hearing on Merits, dated May 22, 2007. 5 See City of Renton's Request for Clarification, dated May 31, 2007. 6 See Applicant's Request for Reconsideration, dated June 5, 2007. filed a Request for Reconsideration with the Hearing Examiner, alleging various errors in the Examiner's Site Plan Decision.7 7. Subsequent to the filing of Applicant's and Appellants' Requests for Reconsideration, and while the Requests for Reconsideration were still pending, Applicant and Appellants resolved this matter through a settlement, memorialized in a Settlement Agreement and Release dated for reference purposes June 5, 2007. Accordingly, on June 6, 2007, Appellants withdrew their Request for Reconsideration of the Examiner's Site Plan Decision, and stated their support for Applicant's Request for Reconsideration. 8 8. On June 12, 2007, the Examiner issued a decision regarding Applicant's Request for Reconsideration, as well as the City's Request for Clarification (the "Examiner's Reconsideration Decision"). 9 CONCLUSIONS From these Findings, the Committee adopts the following Conclusions: 1. For the Examiner to exercise quasi-judicial power, there must be a justiciable case or controversy.10 2. Before the Examiner can assume jurisdiction, therefore, the Examiner must determine whether the case is moot. 11 A case is moot where the hearing body can no longer provide effective relief.12 3. A settlement involving all parties and all claims renders an action moot.13 This also applies when a case is settled pending appeal.14 7 See Appellants' Request for Reconsideration of Examiner's Findings, Conclusions & Recommendation, dated June 5, 2007. "See Withdrawal of Appellants' Request for Reconsideration of Examiner's Findings, Conclusions & Recommendation, dated June 6, 2007, and accompanying cover letter, attached as Exhibit B to Supplemental Notice of Appeal of Hearing Examiner's Decision, dated June 26, 2007. 9 See Decision of the Hearing Examiner on Matters of the Appeals of ASE and Brad Nicholson Regarding the Director's Administrative Site Plan Approval and the Director's Administrative Interpretation/Policy Decision on Building Permit Application Approvals, dated June 12, 2007. 10 U.S. Const. Art. lll, § 2. 11 See, e.g., Tosco Corp. v. Hodel, 804 F.2d 590,591 (10th Cir. 1986). 12 See, e.g., In re Marriage of Horner, 15 l Wn.2d 884 (2004): see also Tosco, 804 F.2d at 591 ("[C]ourts are without power to decide questions that cannot affect the rights of litigants in the case before them."). 13 Tosco, 804 F.2d at 592, cited by Villas al Harbour Pointe Owners Ass 'n v. Mutual of Enumclaw Ins. Co., 137 Wn.App. 751,761 n.13 (2007). i, Id. ' 4. When only moot questions are involved, no case or controversy exists, and a case should be dismissed. 15 5. Upon settlement between the parties and withdrawal of Appellant's Request for Reconsideration, a justiciable case or controversy no longer existed in this matter. The action is moot. 6. Because this matter is moot, the Examiner's Site Plan Decision and the Examiner's Reconsideration Decision are without effect and should be withdrawn and vacated. 7. With the withdrawal and vacating of the Examiner's Site Plan Decision and the Examiner's Reconsideration Decision, the Landing Site Plan shall be subject to the Director's original Site Plan Approval, and subsequent modifications thereto. "Snohomish County v. State Shorelines Hearings Bd., 108 Wn.App. 781, 787 (2001). 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 IO 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ~iTY ,)f i<,FN l'lN BEFORE THE RENTON CITY COUNCIL In the Matter of the Appeal of Brad Nicholson re: The Director's Administrative Site Plan Approval. No. LUA-06-071, SA-A CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Ju L. Park, am a legal assistant for the law firm of Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson, P.S., 500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101. I hereby certify that on the 26 1 h day of June 2007, I caused to be delivered via legal messenger a true and correct copy of (1) Supplemental Notice of Appeal of Hearing Examiner's Decision; and (2) this Certificate of Service to the following: Fred Kaufman, Hearing Examiner City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Lawrence l Warren Zanetta Fontes Warren Barber & Fontes, P.S. 100 South Second Street Renton, WA 98057 Ross Radley Law Offices of Ross Radley, Inc. P.S. 3316 Fuhrman Ave. East, Suite 250 Seattle, WA 98102 Certificate of Service -Page 1 of 2 Renton City Council c/o Office of the Clerk City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Peter L. Buck Buck & Gordon, LLP 2025 First Avenue, Suite 500 Seattle, WA 98121-3140 1-!tLLJS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON, P, S. 500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Ave Seattle WA 98101-2925 206.623.1745; fax 206.623.7789 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 27 28 -ti.._ DA TED this :2 (,, day of June, 2007. #356249 18449-004 7mvt0 J !.doc 6/25/07 Certificate of Service -Page 2 o/2 HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON, P.S. Ju L. Park Legal Assistant to Karen D. Breckenridge HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON, P.S. 500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Ave Seattle WA 98101-2925 206.623.1745; fax 206.623.7789 June 22, 2007 CERTIFICATE OF MAILING STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) § COUNTY OF KING ) BONNIE I. WAL TON, City Clerk for the City of Renton, being first duly sworn on oath, deposes and says that she is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Washington, over the age of 2 I and not a party to nor interested in this matter. That on the 22nd day of June, 2007, at the hour of 5:00 p.m. your affiant duly mailed and placed in the United States Post Office at Renton, King County, Washington, by first class mail to all parties of record, notice of appeal filed by Harvest Partners, represented by Hillis, Clark, Martin & Peterson, P.S. of the Hearing Examiner's decision regarding The Landing Site Plan application. (File No. LUA-06-071, SA-A) Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE me this 22nd day of June, 2007. L tary Public in and for the State of ashington, residing in Renton CITY Kathy Keolker, Mayor June 22, 2007 •F RENTON City Clerk Bonnie I. Walton APPEAL FILED BY: Harvest Partners, represented by Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson, P.S. RE: Appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision dated 5/22/2007 regarding The Landing Site Plan application, 1002 Park Ave. N. (File No. LUA-06-071, SA-A) To Parties of Record: Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Renton City Code of Ordinances, written appeal of the hearing examiner's decision on the Nicholson appeal of the Director's Administrative Site Plan Approval has been filed with the City Clerk. In accordance with Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-11 OF, the City Clerk shall notify all parties of record of the receipt of the appeal. Other parties of record may submit letters limited to support of their positions within ten (10) days of the date of mailing of the notification of the filing of the appeal. The deadline for submission of additional letters is 5:00 pm, July 2, 2007. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the written appeal and other pertinent documents will be reviewed by the Council's Planning and Development Committee at 3:00 p.m. on Thursday, July 5, 2007, in the Council Chambers, 7th Floor of Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA, 98057. The recommendation of the Committee will be presented for consideration by the full Council at a subsequent Council meeting. Attached are a copy of the appeal and a copy of the Renton Municipal Code regarding appeals of Hearing Examiner decisions or recommendations. Please note that the City Council will be considering the merits of the appeal based upon the written record previously established. Unless a showing can be made that additional evidence could not reasonably have been available at the prior hearing held by the Hearing Examiner, no further evidence or testimony on this matter will be accepted by the City Council. For additional information or assistance, please feel free to call me at 425-430-6502. Sincerely, Bonnie I. Walton City Clerk Attachments cc: Council Liaison -.-0-55_S_o_u_th_G_r-ad_y_W-ay---R-e-nt_o_n.-W-as-h,-.n-gto_n_9_80_5_7_--(4-2-5)_4_3_0--6-5-IO_/_F_AX_(_4_25_)_4-30---65_1_6 ~ @ This paper =nlains 50% recycled material. 30% post consumer AHEAD OF TIIE CURVE City of Renton Municipal Co,,.: Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 110 cc Appea,a 4-8-11 OC4 The notice of appeal shall be accompanied by a fee in accordance with RMC 4-1-170, the fee schedule of the City. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-82) 4-8-11 OF: Appeals to City Council -Procedures l. Time for Appeal: Unless a specific section or State Jaw providing for review of decision of the Examiner requires review thereof by the Superior Court or any other body, any interested party aggrieved by the Examiner's written decision or recommendation may submit a notice of appeal to the City Council, upon a form furnished by the City Clerk, within fourteen ( 14) calendar days from the date of the Examiner's written report. 2. Notice to Parties of Record: Within five (5) days of receipt of the notice of appeal, the City Clerk shall notify all parties of record of the receipt of the appeal. 3. Opportunity to Provide Comments: Other parties of record may submit letters in support of their positions within ten ( l 0) days of the dates of mailing of the notification or the filing of the notice of appeal. 4. Transmittal of Record to Council: Thereupon the Clerk shall forward to the members of the City Council all of the pertinent documents, including the written decision or recommendation, findings and conclusions contained in the Examiner's report, the notice or appeal, and additional letters submitted by the parties. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-1982) 5. Council Review Procedures: No public hearing shall be held by the City Council. No new or additional evidence or testimony shall be accepted by the City Council unless a showing is made by the party offering the evidence that the evidence could not reasonably have been available at the time of the hearing before the Examiner. lfthe Council determines that additional evidence is required, the Council shall remand the matter to the Examiner for reconsideration and receipt of additional evidence. The cost of transcription of the hearing record shall be borne by the applicant. In the absence of an entry upon the record of an order by the City Council authorizing new or additional evidence or testimony, and a remand to the Hearing Examiner for receipt of such evidence or testimony, it shall be presumed that no new or additional evidence or testimony has been accepted by the City Council, and that the record before the City Council is identical to the hearing record before the Hearing Examiner. (Ord. 4389, 1-25-1993) 6. Council Evaluation Criteria: The consideration by the City Council shall be based solely upon the record, the Hearing Examiner's report, the notice of appeal and additional submissions by parties. 7. Findings and Conclusions Required: If, upon appeal ofa decision ofthe Hearing Examiner on an application submitted pursuant to RMC 4-1-0SOF l, and after examination of the record, the Council determines that a substantial error in fact or law exists in the record, it may remand the proceeding to Examiner for reconsideration, or modify, or reverse the decision of the Examiner accordingly. 8. Council Action: !( upon appeal from a recommendation of the Hearing Examiner upon an application submitted pursuant to RMC 4-l-050F2 and F3, and after examination of the record, the Council detem1ines that a substantial error in fact or law exists in the record, or that a recommendation of the Hearing Examiner should be disregarded or modified, the City Council may remand the proceeding to the Examiner for reconsideration, or enter its own decision upon the application. 9. Decision Documentation: In any event, the decision of the City Council shall be in writing and shall specify any modified or amended findings and conclusions other than those set forth in the report of the Hearing Examiner. Each material finding shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. The burden of proof shall rest with the appellant. (Ord 3658, 9-13-1982) 10. Council Action Final: The action of the Council approving, modifying or rejecting a decision of the Examiner shall be final and conclusive, unless appealed within the time frames established under subsection G5 of this Section. (Ord. 4660, 3-17-1997) Rob King Harvest Partners 20503 88th Ave. W. Edmonds, WA 98026 Jerome L. Hillis Hillis, Clark, Martin & Peterson 500 Galland Building 1221 Second Ave. Seattle, WA 98101 Thomas & Doris Taylor 16383 48th Drive Bellevue, WA 98006 Duncan Green Buck & Gordon, LLP 2025 Firest Ave., Ste. #500 Seattle, WA 98121 Nicole Hernandez W&H Pacific 3350 Monte Villa Pkwy Bothell, WA 98021 Claudia M. Newman Bricklin, Newman & Dold, LLP 1001 Fourth Ave., Ste. #3303 Seattle, WA 98154 Stephen Kropp 430 Pelly Ave. N. Renton, WA 98057 Karen Breckenridge Hillis, Clark, Martin & Peterson 500 Galland Building 1221 Second Ave. Seattle, WA 98121 Transwcstcm Harvest Lakeshorc, LLC 8214 Westchester Drive, Ste. #650 Dallas, TX 75225 Peter Buck Buck & Gordon, LLP 2025 First Ave., Ste. #500 Seattle, WA 98121 Laura Cook 14102 SE 278th St. Kent, WA 98042 Ross Radley Attorney At Law 3316 Fuhrman Ave. E. Seattle, WA 98102 • ) June 12, 2007 DECISION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER ON MATTERS OF THE APPEALS OF ASE AND BRAD NICHOLSON REGARDING THE DIRECTOR'S ADMINISTRATIVE SITE PLAN APPROVAL AND THE DIRECTOR'S ADMINISTRATIVE INTERPRETATION/POLICY DECISION ON BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION APPROVALS This office has received a variety of requests regarding this matter. This office has received a Request for Clarification from the City. It also has received two Requests for Reconsideration -one from the Harvest Partners, the underlying applicant and one from the appellants. Since these various requests were received it appears that the parties have reached a settlement of some of their appeal issues. The appellants no longer oppose the applicant's request for reconsideration and appellants have withdrawn their request for reconsideration. City's Request for Clarification The City sought clarification for two issues. The decision this office made denied the modifications for parking lots along North 10th Street and for relief from having to provide a primary entrance along Park Avenue North. The City seeks to clarify what was meant by these denials. Parking along North 10th Street This office believes that the stipulation governed any parking east of Park Avenue along North 10th Street. This office was referring to the Parking lots south of North 10th Street west of Park Avenue. Referring to Site Plan Review Update "A" (Page 3 Illustration) the parking in question would be parking stalls located between: Buildings 205 and 202 Buildings 202 and 20 I Buildings 200 and 204 Primary Entrances along Park Avenue North The second issue was whether Building 102 (again, refer to Site Plan Update A, Page 3 illustration) required a primary entrance along Park Avenue. The response is twofold. This office intended this denial to apply solely to Building 400, west of Park. First, this office believed that the stipulation governed all design aspects of Quadrant C except the tier of Parking along the eastern edge of Park in the location of Building 102. Second, if the stipulation did not govern this aspect of Building 102, then "practical difficulties" would allow a modification to be granted for this "primary entrance" modification. The stipulation allows the placement of a truck delivery driveway between the Park Avenue fa9ade of Building 102 and Park Avenue. The mixing of pedestrians and heavy truck traffic at a primary entrance in this location would create an unsafe situation. Granting a modification would not otherwise affect public health, safety or welfare nor would it injure the general public or other properties in the area. Approving a modification implements the comprehensive plan by allowing the development of the 38-acre site with urban scale uses and generally conforms to the purposes of the Code to allow primary entrances when practical but otherwise allow a modification when it would be impractical or unsafe to require a primary entrance in a particular location. Hearing Examiner Decisio .. The Landing Appeals June 12, 2007 Page2 Applicant's Request for Reconsideration The applicant seeks reconsideration where the Hearing Examiner denied three modifications that had originally been approved by the Director. The Examiner required a primary entrance in the Park A venue North facade of Building 400, denying a modification that would have eliminated that requirement. The Examiner removed a tier of parking east of Park in the vicinity of Building 102 denying a modification that would have allowed parking in that location. The Examiner required the applicant to abide by the limitation that not more than 60 feet of parking be located north of Building 400, again, denying a modification that would have allowed parking in those locations. Primary Entrance for Building 400 along Park Avenue North The applicant argues that there are practical difficulties in providing an entrance for Building 400 along Park Avenue and suggests that since there are industrial uses south of this area that there is little pedestrian traffic. This does not appear to be a practical difficulty but would be a self-fulfilling prophecy. If no pedestrian entrance is provided in this location there would be little to encourage new pedestrians to walk along Park in this location, killing the supposed "pedestrian-oriented" aspect of Park in this location. Next the applicant argues that theft could or would occur if there was a second entrance on Park Avenue since controlled access to one point would be lost. This is a design consideration and this office believes that urban design features override this issue. Urban design does bring with it certain levels of potential criminality but that apparently has not stopped many urban stores or even malls from having more than one entrance and possibly co-equal, if not primary entrances. Downtown Seattle has any number of retailers with corner stores or block-wide stores with multiple entrances to encourage pedestrians. Even mall stores such as Macy's at Northgate and Southcenter, Bed, Bath and Beyond at Southcenter and Nordstrom's have more than one entrance. The fact that the applicant has created its own internal pedestrian path does not make providing the one required by code difficult. The underlying record does not demonstrate any practical difficulties, just design choices of the applicant. There is no reason to modify the original decision. Parking east of Park Avenue North Parking west of Park Avenue North (more than 60 feet) The applicant has not provided any reason to modify the denial of parking along either side of Park A venue North. For the same reason, a primary entrance is not appropriate for Building 102, the truck delivery driveway location and parking for passenger vehicles is not appropriate in this location -it would provide unsafe pedestrian movements from cars to the shopping experience. The fact that the applicant may be providing landscaping or even additional landscaping in other areas of the site or even along this street does not create any practical difficulty that necessitates a modification to allow parking where it is otherwise not permitted. Landscape strips between the parking and the sidewalks do not negate the code requirements for this urban, pedestrian-oriented street to not have parking along the corridor. There clearly was no ambiguity in what was intended since the applicant sought modifications for these unambiguous code provisions. Finally, the applicant's desire for additional parking does not create practical difficulties with regard to parking. The site provides acres of open parking. Code provides a range of parking for particular uses. Urban-scale development, traffic congestion, air pollution all demand that pedestrian-oriented development not cater particularly to the automobile driver. .. I \ ·Hearing Examiner Decision The Landing Appeals June 12, 2007 Page 3 Parking along North 10th west of Park Since the clarification sought by the City may have unexpectedly caught the applicant by surprise, this office will add that its arguments against the parking along Park Avenue North apply equally to the parking proposed along the south side of North 10th Street between the buildings noted above. North 10th, like Park Avenue is intended to be a pedestrian oriented street. There is no practical difficulty in meeting the design criteria or code standards along this portion of North I 0th west of Park. As the original decision noted, if the reduction of parking hampers the development of the site due to other code standards, the applicant may reduce the number of buildings or provide additional structured parking elsewhere on the subject site. In conclusion, this office agrees with the applicant (Page 7 of Applicant's Request) that the Examiner recognized there are challenges to designing an URBAN shopping center but disagrees that there are all of the challenges suggested by the applicant. The City's comprehensive plan is not seeking, in the applicant's words, "a large retail center" (a la Northgate or Southcenter) but an urban center, which encourages PEDESTRIAN-ORIENTED experiences. The are no practical difficulties in providing an entrance for Building 400 along Park Avenue or abiding by Code that restricts parking along Park Avenue North. In conclusion, this office congratulates the parties for reaching an amicable solution to the issues that separated them but where the appeal was not fully withdrawn in certain particulars, the decision is herein clarified or upheld. If this office can provide any additional assistance please feel free to write. This decision can be appealed to the City Council by paying the appropriate fee and filing an appeal in writing by June 26, 2007. ORDERED THIS lz'h day of June 2007. FRED J. KA MAN HEARING EXAMINER TRANSMITTED THIS 12th day of June 2007 to the parties of record: Zanella Fontes Warren Barber & Fontes, P.S. PO Box 626 Renton, WA 98057 Ross Radley 3316 Fuhrman Ave E Seattle, WA 98102 Peter Buck Buck & Gordon LLP 2025 First Ave, Suite 500 Seattle, WA 98121 Brad Nicholson 2811 Dayton A venue Renton, WA 98056 Jerome L. Hillis Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson, P.S. 500 Galland Building 1221 Second A venue Seattle, WA 9810 I Hearing Examiner Decisio .. The Landing Appeals June 12, 2007 Page4 TRANSMITTED THIS 121h day of June 2007 to the following: Mayor Kathy Keolker Jay Covington, CAO Julia Medzegian, Council Liaison Gregg Zimmerman, PBPW Administrator Alex Pietsch, Economic Development Jennifer Henning, Development Services Stacy Tucker, Development Services Renton Reporter Stan Engler, Fire Larry Meckling, Building Official Planning Commission Transportation Division Utilities Division Neil Watts, Development Services Janet Conklin, Development Services Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Section lOOGofthe City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m., June 26, 2007. Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the Examiner is ambiguous or based on erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact, error in judgment, or the discovery of new evidence, which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing, may make a written request for a review by the Examiner within fourteen (14) days from the date of the Examiner's decision. This request shall set forth the specific ambiguities or errors discovered by such appellant, and the Examiner may, after review of the record, take further action as he deems proper. An appeal to the City Council is governed by Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 110, which requires that such appeal be filed with the City Clerk, accompanying a filing fee of$75.00 and meeting other specified requirements. Copies of this ordinance are available for inspection or purchase in the Finance Department, first floor of City Hall. An appeal must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m., June 26, 2007. If the Examiner's Recommendation or Decision contains the requirement for Restrictive Covenants, the executed Covenants will be required prior to approval by City Council or final processing of the file. You may contact this office for information on formatting covenants. The Appearance of Fairness Doctrine provides that no ex parte (private one-on-one) communications may occur concerning pending land use decisions. This means that parties to a land use decision may not communicate in private with any decision-maker concerning the proposal. Decision-makers in the land use process include both the Hearing Examiner and members of the City Council. All communications concerning the proposal must be made in public. This public communication permits all interested parties to know the contents of the communication and would allow them to openly rebut the evidence. Any violation of this doctrine would result in the invalidation of the request by the Court. •Hearing Examiner Decisior, The Landing Appeals June 12, 2007 Page 5 The Doctrine applies not only to the initial public hearing but to all Requests for Reconsideration as well as Appeals to the City Council. CITY Of RENTON APPEAL TO RENTON CITY COUNCIL 'JUN O 5 ?007 OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION/RECOMMENDATION RECEiVED CITY c1 ERK'S occ1c1c APPLICATION NAME The Landing -Master Site Plan FILE NO. LUA-06-071, SA-A. The undersigned interested party hereby files its Notice of Appeal from the decision or recommendation of the {!O f(-3.vtf May 22 07 Land Use Hearing Examiner, dated , 20 __ . l. IDENTIFICATION OF PARTY APPELLANT: REPRESENTATIVE (IF ANY): Name: __ H~a~r~vueclsLJt~P~a~r~t=n=e~rs~------Name: Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson Address: 8214 Westchester Drive, //650 Address: 1221 2nd Avenue, Suite 500 Dallas, TX 75225 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone Number: ___________ _ Email:--------------- Phone Number: (206) 623-1745 Email:-------------- 2. SPECIFICATION OF ERRORS (Attach additional sheets, if necessary) Set forth below are the specific errors or law or fact upon which this appeal is based: Finding of Fact: (Please designate number as denoted in the Examiner's Report) (See attached Notice of Appeal) No. Error:------------------------------- Correction:---------------------------- Conclusions: No. Error:------------------------------- Correction:-------------------------- Other: No. Error:------------------------------- Correction:---------------------------- 3. SUMMARY OF ACTION REQUESTED The City Council is requested to grant the following relief: (Attach explanation, if desired) (See Attached Notice Reverse the decision or recommendation and grant the following relief: Modify the decision or recommendation as follows: Remand to the Examiner for further consideration as follows: Other: Type/Printed Name of Appeal) NOTE: Please refer to Title IV, Chapter 8, of th. e. Ren.ton M~~ Code, and Section 4-8-11 OF, for specific appeal procedures. CC, C,c.Ary i,,/v4,e,r1 (,fy ,1/ly _ le_,,, UHf Gf NAL Ne, I V c, tfr , r;:,, "' 5 .,r s b,. "' Freel CE.,,,-/-·~ .. (,r.. r1, /i-Cc--,/,,,...5 c~.X.4N//,;.-d°__..... 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 27 28 BEFORE THE RENTON CITY COUNCIL In the Matter of the Appeal of Brad Nicholson re: The Director's Administrative Site Plan Approval. LUA-06-071, SA-A NOTICE OF APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION I. INTRODUCTION Applicant Harvest Partners hereby files this Notice of Appeal of the Hearing Examiner's Decision regarding Applicant Harvest Partners' Site Plan for The Landing, and requests a stay of this appeal pending the outcome of Applicant's Request for Reconsideration to the Hearing Examiner. II. STATEMENT OF FACTS On May 22, 2007, following a hearing on the merits, the Renton Hearing Examiner issued a decision regarding Applicant Harvest Partners' Site Plan for The Landing project (the "Decision"). In nearly all respects, the Decision affirmed the Director's approval of The Landing Site Plan, and modifications thereto. However, the Examiner reversed the Director's approval of certain specific elements of The Landing Site Plan, finding that there was not sufficient evidence of"practical difficulties" permitting such elements. On June 5, 2007, Applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration with the Hearing Examiner, requesting that the Examiner reconsider those portions of the Decision requiring modifications to the Site Plan. A copy of Applicant's Request for Reconsideration is attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference. Notice of Appeal of Hearing Examiner's Decision -Page 1 of2 HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON, P.S. 500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Ave Seattle WA 98101-2925 206.623.1745; fax 206.623.7789 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 27 28 III. REQUEST FOR STAY Upon issuance of a decision by the Hearing Examiner, the Renton Municipal Code permits interested persons to file Requests for Reconsideration to the Examiner within fourteen days of the decision. RMC 4-8-100.G.4. The Renton Municipal Code also permits interested parties aggrieved by the Examiner's decision to file appeals to the Renton City Council, also within fourteen days of the Examiner's decision. RMC 4-8-110.E.8. There is no provision in the Renton Municipal Code stating that the deadline for appeals to City Council is tolled while a Request for Reconsideration is pending. Therefore, Applicant is filing this Notice of Appeal simultaneously with its Request for Reconsideration in order to comply with the fourteen-day deadlines for each. However, in light of the fact that the Decision remains under review of the Examiner pursuant to the Request for Reconsideration, Applicant respectfully requests that all action on this appeal be stayed pending the outcome of the Request for Reconsideration. Depending upon the outcome of the Request for Reconsideration, Applicant may v,ish to withdraw this appeal entirely, file a new appeal of the Examiner's decision on the Request for Reconsideration, or rest upon the arguments already made in the Request for Reconsideration and incorporated herein. DATED this ') /-'1--day of June, 2007. HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON, P.S. ,-\ ! ,1/l ~4=~0G~) Jerpme L/Hillis, WSBA #1704 T ~Durkan, WSBA # 11805 #354953 18449-004 7Jvt0 I I.doc 6/05/07 Notice of Appeal of Hearing Examiner's Decision -Page 2 of 2 Karen D. Breckenridge, WSBA #36666 Attorneys for Applicant Harvest Partners HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON, P.S. 500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Ave Seattle WA 98101-2925 206.623.1745; fax 206.623. 7789 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 I l 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER OF THE CITY OF RENTON In the Matter of the Appeal of Brad Nicholson re: The Director's Administrative Site Plan Approval. LUA-06-071, SA-A APPLICANT'S REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION I. INTRODUCTION Applicant Harvest Partners brings this Request for Reconsideration pursuant to Renton Municipal Code (RMC) 4-8-100.G(4). Applicant respectfully requests that the Examiner reconsider specific portions of the decision, and modify the decision accordingly. II. STATEMENT OF FACTS On May 22, 2007, following a hearing on the merits, the Renton Hearing Examiner issued a decision regarding Applicant Harvest Partners' Site Plan for The Landing project (the "Decision"). In nearly all respects, the Decision affirmed the Director's approval of The Landing Site Plan, and modifications thereto. However, the Examiner reversed the Director's approval of certain specific elements of The Landing Site Plan, finding that there was not sufficient evidence of "practical difficulties" permitting such elements. In particular, the Decision requires the following specific changes to the current Site Plan for The Landing 1: 1 The City of Renton has filed a Request for Clarification with the Examiner, to clarify that the Decision 26 did not also require the installation ofa primary entrance facing Park Avenue North on Building 102, nor did it require removal of parking stalls at the north end of Quadrant C along 10th Avenue North. Applicant hereby 27 joins in the City's Request for Clarification. Furthermore, should the Examiner determine that the Decision did require a Building 102 entrance facing Park Avenue North, or the removal of parking along 10th Avenue North, 28 Applicant hereby requests reconsideration of those changes to the Site Plan and incorporates by this reference the arguments presented by the City in the Request for Clarification. Applicant's Request for Reconsideration -Page 1 of 8 HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON, P.S. 500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Ave Seattle WA 98101-2925 206.623.1745; fax 206.623.7789 • Installation of an additional or alternative entrance on the east side of 2 Building 400, fronting Park Avenue North. See Decision, p. 22, at 3 paragraph 3 of "Decision" section. 4 5 6 7 • Removal of parking stalls located between Building I 02 and Park Avenue North, in the southwest corner of Quadrant C. See Decision, p. 22, at paragraph 2 of "Decision" section. • Removal of all but 60 feet of parking stalls located north of Building 400 and 8 west of Park Avenue North. See Decision, p. 21, paragraph 8; see also 9 Decision, p. 22, at paragraph 2 of "Decision" section. 10 As presented below, the Examiner's Decision as to these specific elements, and the 11 Examiner's finding that there were not practical difficulties requiring such elements in the 12 Site Plan, reflect an error in fact or judgment and therefore require reconsideration pursuant to 13 RMC 4-8-IOO.G(4). 14 15 A. 16 III. ARGUMENT Additional Entrance to Building 400 In the "Findings" section of the Decision, the Examiner states the following: 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Similarly, this office can find no practical difficulty in providing a front entrance along Park Avenue. While an entrance along a fa9ade where other shops or buildings have their entrance would be a nice design feature for an interrelated shopping complex, unless this office has missed some limiting aspect of the applicant's plans, there is no practical difficulty in providing another entrance along the pedestrian-oriented street, that is, Park Avenue ... Not every shop is obviously amenable to having multiple entrances but an inviting pedestrian presence is supposed to be a feature of this complex and the complex should not turn its "back" on Park Avenue. Decision, p. 18, paragraph 45. The Examiner's Decision therefore appears to require an additional or alternative entrance on the east side of Building 400, facing Park Avenue North. See Decision, p. 22, at paragraph 3 of "Decision" section. However, numerous practical difficulties make the installation of a primary entrance in this location inappropriate in this context. Applicant's Request for Reconsideration -Page 2 of 8 HILLIS CLARK MARTJN & PETERSON, P .S. 500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Ave Seattle WA 96101-2925 206.623.1745; fax 206.623.7769 First, given the existing industrial uses on the property to the south of The Landing 2 site, there is currently very little, if any, pedestrian traffic along Park Avenue North. At such 3 time as the property to the south is redeveloped with retail uses, and as additional infill along 4 Park Avenue North is completed, the pedestrian traffic along Park Avenue North will increase 5 substantially. Until that time, however, having a second primary entrance in a large retail 6 store such as that planned for Building 400, without significant pedestrian traffic to use the 7 second entrance, would likely pose serious security and loss prevention issues. The retail 8 store would be unable to locate its single point of sale with the entrance/exit, thus increasing 9 the risk of stolen merchandise. Where two entrances are required, the store's ability to control 10 the flow of merchandise would be compromised. In addition to the security issues, having J 1 two entrances could lead to confusion to the customer and a significant loss of functionality J 2 within the store, as valuable shelf, storage, and display space would be lost to the second J 3 entrance area. J 4 Due to the practical difficulties with having two entrances to Building 400, Applicant, J 5 in consultation with the City, designed Building 400 with its primary entrance facing north, 16 toward the pedestrian walk and the customer parking. This design was consistent with the 17 City's vision presented in the Comprehensive Plan, as well as the Conceptual Plan for the site. 18 As the Examiner noted in the Decision, the Comprehensive Plan recognized that the 19 redevelopment of District One would be phased over a 30-year period. Decision, p. 16, 20 paragraph 40. Recognizing that the surrounding industrial uses would make it difficult to 21 achieve urban intensities upfront, both the Comprehensive Plan and the Conceptual Plan 22 called for the incorporation of pedestrian-oriented features within the development to aid the 23 transition to an urban mixed-use district. Id. The Conceptual Plan depicted a pedestrian 24 connector, running in an east to west direction and connecting the buildings along the south 25 side of Quadrants Band C. Decision, p. 13, paragraph 29. Applicant's design for The 26 Landing incorporates this key pedestrian corridor, and the building entrances for all of the 27 buildings, including Building 400, were therefore designed to front the pedestrian walk. 28 Applicant's Request for Reconsideration -Page 3 o/8 HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON, P.S. 500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Ave Seattle WA 98101-2925 206.623.1745; fax 206.623.7789 As the Examiner acknowledged, the north-facing entrance on Building 400 presents a 2 nice design feature for an interrelated shopping complex. Decision, p. 18, paragraph 45. 3 Were the entrance of Building 400 to face east rather than north, customers attempting to 4 walk from store to store in Quadrant B would be required to walk east for the entire width of 5 Building 400, then south for a distance, before reaching the entrance. The orientation of 6 Building 400' s entrance toward the heart of The Landing site and the pedestrian walk 7 therefore presents the most practical, pedestrian-oriented design at this time, is consistent with 8 the City's vision in the Conceptual Plan and Comprehensive Plan, and enhances rather than 9 hinders the overall cohesiveness and pedestrian friendliness of The Landing project. 1 o In addition, Applicant has incorporated several elements into its design to 11 accommodate the eventual transition of Park Avenue North into a vibrant, pedestrian-friendly 12 street. First, the materials and details used for the east fas:ade of Building 400 will be the 13 same materials and details as used on the north side of the building, so there is no reduction in 14 quality or appearance. See "Update A" plans for Building 400, admitted as Exhibit 5 in the 1 s Site Plan hearing. In addition, Applicant's Site Plan includes a wide sidewalk between Park 16 Avenue North and Building 400. Id. Over ten feet of landscaping is provided between 17 Building 400 and the sidewalk, and additional landscaping with street trees is provided 18 between the sidewalk and Park Avenue North. Id. With these pedestrian-oriented elements 19 incorporated into the current design for Building 400, Building 400 and its surrounding 20 landscaping will present an attractive, inviting addition to the streetscape of Park Avenue 21 North. Furthermore, if and when the long-term vision of pedestrian traffic along Park Avenue 22 North comes to fruition, such that market conditions create a demand and desire for a second 23 entrance, Building 400 has been designed to incorporate an exit-only door facing Park 24 Avenue North. Id. At that time, the exit could be converted into an entrance and the store 25 reconfigured to accommodate pedestrian traffic from Park Avenue North. 26 Given the numerous pedestrian-oriented elements already built into the design of 27 Building 400, and since the primary pedestrian flow is along the pedestrian walkway on the 28 north side of the building, the Examiner's requirement for a second entrance along Park Applicant's Request for Reconsideration -Page 4 of 8 HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON, P. S. 500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Ave Seattle WA 98101-2925 206.623.1745; fax 206.623. 7789 Avenue North does not enhance the pedestrian oriented nature of the project. Furthermore, 2 the requirement of a second entrance is unsafe and impractical at this time, thus hindering 3 rather than bolstering the opportunity for a successful retail marketplace. Applicant therefore 4 respectfully requests that the Examiner's Decision be modified to remove the requirement of a 5 primary entrance on the east side of Building 400. 6 B. Removal of Parking Along Park Avenue North 7 8 9 IO 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 The Examiner's Decision also requires the removal of two specific parking areas in The Landing Site Plan -the parking area between Building 102 and Park Avenue North, and all but 60 feet of the strip of parking west of Park Avenue North and north of Building 400. Decision, p. 22, at paragraph 2 of "Decision" section. In discussing the parking area between Building 102 and Park Avenue North, the Examiner noted: The parking stalls located on the east side of Park, adjacent to the roadway serving the proposed Target store, raise some issues ... There is no reason that makes compliance with code impractical. Landscaping can be provided to screen the access drive and the additional parking. Decision, p. 18, paragraph 44. In discussing the parking area north of Building 400 and west of Park Avenue North, the Examiner stated: This office cannot find any practical difficulties on limiting the curb area along Park north of Building 400 to 'not more than 60 feet' occupied by parking or vehicular access. The parking certainly can be moved or removed and replaced by landscaping. Decision, p. 21, paragraph 8. As detailed below, the Examiner's requirement for landscaping between Park Avenue North and the parking areas has already been addressed in the existing Site Plan for The Landing. Furthermore, the design and location of these parking areas were driven by practical considerations, including market demands and the objective of a successful retail center. The Examiner's discussion of each of these parking areas states that these parking stalls could be replaced by landscaping. However, there are already significant landscaping and pedestrian-oriented elements incorporated into the design, serving as a large buffer and providing adequate screening between Park Avenue North and the subject parking areas. Applicant's Request for Reconsideration -Page 5 of 8 HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON, P.S. 500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Ave Seattle WA 98101-2925 206.623.1745; fax 206.623. 7789 Both of the subject parking areas are separated from the street by several pedestrian-oriented 2 amenities: (1) a row of landscaping measuring at least nine feet and up to eighteen feet in 3 width, 2 all resting atop a landscape berm measuring at least two feet in height; (2) a pedestrian 4 sidewalk with enhanced paving, measuring approximately ten feet in width; and (3) a second 5 row of landscaping with street trees directly adjacent to Park Avenue North. In total, this 6 landscaping/sidewalk/landscaping buffer measures over 19 feet in the area west of Park 7 Avenue North, and over 28 feet in the area between Park Avenue North and Building 102. 8 For the Examiner's convenience, and to better visualize the significant separation of the 9 parking areas from the street, a copy of the original landscape plan depicting the landscaping 1 o and sidewalks between Park Avenue North and the parking areas is attached hereto as 11 EXHIBIT A. 3 12 The landscaping and sidewalks along Park Avenue North already exceed Renton 13 Municipal Code requirements and provide an inviting pedestrian connection for pedestrians 14 traveling north or south along Park Avenue. The additional landscaping required by the 15 Examiner's Decision, and the resulting loss of parking, will not positively influence the look 16 or function of the development, and will instead have an overall negative effect upon the 17 success of the retail center. 18 Interestingly, given the existing landscaping and pedestrian-oriented features between 19 the parking lot north of Building 400 and Park Avenue North, Applicant was likely not even 20 required to obtain a modification from the Director for this area. The Renton Municipal Code 21 states that on pedestrian-oriented streets, "No more than sixty feet (60') of the street frontage 22 measured parallel to the curb shall be occupied by off-street parking and vehicular access." 23 RMC 4-3-100.F.l.b.i. Here, in no place is the street frontage along the west side of Park 24 25 26 27 28 2 The landscaping planned for the area directly east of the parking area north of Building 400 is approximately nine feet wide from parking area to sidewalk. The landscaping planned for the area directly west of the parking area between Building 102 and Park Avenue North is at least eighteen feet wide from parking area to sidewalk. See Landscape Plan, attached hereto as Exhibit A; see also "Update A" landscape plans, admitted as Exhibit 5 in the Site Plan hearing. 3 This exhibit is provided for illustrative purposes. Specific dimensions may have changed since this Site Plan was submitted. See, e.g., "Update A" landscape plans, admitted as Exhibit 5 in the Site Plan hearing. Applicant's Request for Reconsideration -Page 6 of8 HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON, P.S. 500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Ave Seattle WA 98101-2925 206.623. 1745; fax 206.623.7789 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 27 28 Avenue North "occupied by" off-street parking. Rather, the street frontage is "occupied by" the adjacent landscaping and sidewalk, measuring approximately 20 feet in width. Recognizing, however, that the Renton Municipal Code might be deemed ambiguous in terms of what "occupied by" meant, Applicant requested and received a modification from the Director to permit the parking area north of 400. To the extent a modification was required for this parking area, and for the parking area between Building 102 and Park Avenue North, and in light of the extensive screening and landscaping already provided to ensure a large buffer between the parking areas and the street, the Director's approval of these modifications was appropriate. Furthermore, the Director's modifications were also proper given the practical difficulties of compliance with the code while still providing a sufficient number of stalls in adequate proximity to the retail tenants. As is the case with the development of any retail center of this size and magnitude, Applicant's design for The Landing is and must be in large part driven by what the market demands. This ability to attract tenants is particularly important where, as here, the site is formerly unoccupied and is still surrounded by primarily industrial uses. The specific numbers of stalls provided for the tenants' use, as well as the proximity of those stalls to the buildings themselves, are often key considerations for prospective tenants before they commit to a site. The Examiner has acknowledged that a project of this scale and magnitude is certain to require some modifications: It would be or is too easy to shoot objections at a 38-acre project and find that it may not comport with every guideline found in Code. The fact that a 38-acre site may not fit every guideline or minimum standard was why the Director was apparently given the power to review modification requests and grant those requests if in the overall scheme of things, the development accomplished the City's goals for this area -redevelopment at an urban scale of substantially underutilized property ... It may not be possible to meet every objective in a time span of two to three years on an area of this size and one still subject to neighboring heavy industrial uses. Decision, p. 17, paragraph 41. As the Examiner appears to recognize, Applicant was presented with the challenge of designing a large retail center to conform to the City's long- Applicant's Request for Reconsideration -Page 7 of 8 HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON, P.S. 500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Ave Seattle WA 98101-2925 206.623.1745; fax 206.623. 7789 term vision and guidelines, and yet still incorporate appropriate design elements to attract 2 tenants for this initial phase. An example of Applicant's and the City's attempt to straddle 3 these sometimes conflicting demands exists with the subject parking areas. In order to attract 4 prominent, established tenants to the site, Applicant sought to provide a design that 5 incorporated pedestrian-oriented elements, and also accommodated the parking needs of the 6 incoming tenants. Recognizing that the parking demands of the tenants required parking 7 stalls near to Park Avenue North until such time as structured parking can be incorporated in 8 these areas, Applicant designed extensive landscaping and pedestrian-oriented elements 9 adjacent to Park Avenue North to ensure that the parking was appropriately screened and that 1 o the pedestrian-oriented nature of the development was not compromised. 11 The Examiner's Decision requiring removal of these shared parking stalls fails to 12 recognize that Applicant's design already provides an appropriate amount ofpedestrian- 13 oriented elements and screening along Park Avenue North. Moreover, the Examiner's 14 Decision will have a significant impact on the success of the tenants in the nearby areas and 15 will negatively impact Applicant's ability to lease these spaces. 16 For these reasons, Applicant respectfully requests that the Examiner's Decision be 17 modified to strike the required removal of the parking stalls between Building I 02 and Park 18 Avenue North, and the parking stalls west of Park Avenue North and north of Building 400. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 IV. CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth herein, Applicant requests modification of the Examiner's Decision to reverse the Examiner's denial of the Director's approval of Site Plan modifications. DATED this 1-1'day of June, 2007. #354789 18449-004 71r90!Ldoc 6/05/07 Applicant's Request for Reconsideration -Page 8 of 8 HIL:}~ .. ARK MARTIN~ P )~ON, P.S. B'h:/), . :v':) ,f'ernmt: L. Hillis, SBA # 1704 lY.Ryan Durkan, WSBA #11805 Karen D. Breckenridge, WSBA #36666 Attorneys for Applicant Harvest Partners HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON, P.S. 500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Ave Seattle WA 98101-2925 206.623.1745; fax 206.623.7789 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 I I 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 crrr OF RENTON JUN O 5 2007 RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFIC~ 1 ;ro f .i1 K,. BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER OF THE CITY OF RENTON In the Matter of the Appeal of Brad Nicholson re: The Director's Administrative Site Plan Approval. LUA-06-071, SA-A APPLICANT'S REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION I. INTRODUCTION Applicant Harvest Partners brings this Request for Reconsideration pursuant to Renton Municipal Code (RMC) 4-8-100.0(4). Applicant respectfully requests that the Examiner reconsider specific portions of the decision, and modify the decision accordingly. II. STATEMENT OF FACTS On May 22, 2007, following a hearing on the merits, the Renton Hearing Examiner issued a decision regarding Applicant Harvest Partners' Site Plan for The Landing project (the "Decision"). In nearly all respects, the Decision affirmed the Director's approval of The Landing Site Plan, and modifications thereto. However, the Examiner reversed the Director's approval of certain specific elements of The Landing Site Plan, finding that there was not sufficient evidence of "practical difficulties" permitting such elements. In particular, the Decision requires the following specific changes to the current Site Plan for The Landing 1: 1 The City of Renton has filed a Request for Clarification with the Examiner, to clarify that the Decision 26 did not also require the installation of a primacy entrance facing Park Avenue North on Building I 02, nor did it require removal of parking stalls at the north end of Quadrant C along 10th Avenue North. Applicant hereby 27 joins in the City's Request for Clarification. Furthermore, should the Examiner determine that the Decision did require a Building 102 entrance facing Park Avenue North, or the removal of parking along 10th Avenue North, 28 Applicant hereby requests reconsideration of those changes to the Site Plan and incorporates by this reference the arguments presented by the City in the Request for Clarification. Applicant's Request for Reconsideration -Page I of8 QR I GI NA L HILL IS CLARK MAR TIN & PETERSON, P.S. 500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Ave Seattle WA 98101-2925 206.623.1745; fax 206.623.7789 • Installation of an additional or alternative entrance on the east side of 2 Building 400, fronting Park Avenue North. See Decision, p. 22, at 3 paragraph 3 of "Decision" section. 4 5 6 7 • Removal of parking stalls located between Building I 02 and Park Avenue North, in the southwest comer of Quadrant C. See Decision, p. 22, at paragraph 2 of "Decision" section. • Removal of all but 60 feet of parking stalls located north of Building 400 and s west of Park Avenue North. See Decision, p. 21, paragraph 8; see also 9 Decision, p. 22, at paragraph 2 of"Decision" section. 10 As presented below, the Examiner's Decision as to these specific elements, and the 11 Examiner's finding that there were not practical difficulties requiring such elements in the 12 Site Plan, reflect an error in fact or judgment and therefore require reconsideration pursuant to 13 RMC 4-8-100.0(4). 14 15 A. III. ARGUMENT Additional Entrance to Building 400 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 In the "Findings" section of the Decision, the Examiner states the following: Similarly, this office can find no practical difficulty in providing a front entrance along Park Avenue. While an entrance along a fayade where other shops or buildings have their entrance would be a nice design feature for an interrelated shopping complex, unless this office has missed some limiting aspect of the applicant's plans, there is no practical difficulty in providing another entrance along the pedestrian-oriented street, that is, Park Avenue ... Not every shop is obviously amenable to having multiple entrances but an inviting pedestrian presence is supposed to be a feature of this complex and the complex should not tum its "back" on Park Avenue. Decision, p. 18, paragraph 45. The Examiner's Decision therefore appears to require an additional or alternative entrance on the east side of Building 400, facing Park Avenue North. See Decision, p. 22, at paragraph 3 of "Decision" section. However, numerous practical difficulties make the installation of a primary entrance in this location inappropriate in this context. Applicant's Request for Reconsideration -Page 2 of 8 HILLIS Ct.ARK MARTIN & PETERSON, P.S. 500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Ave Seattle WA 98101-2925 206.623.1745; tax 206.623.7789 ' First, given the existing industrial uses on the property to the south of The Landing 2 site, there is currently very little, if any, pedestrian traffic along Park Avenue North. At such 3 time as the property to the south is redeveloped with retail uses, and as additional infill along 4 Park Avenue North is completed, the pedestrian traffic along Park Avenue North will increase 5 substantially. Until that time, however, having a second primary entrance in a large retail 6 store such as that planned for Building 400, without significant pedestrian traffic to use the 7 second entrance, would likely pose serious security and loss prevention issues. The retail 8 store would be unable to locate its single point of sale with the entrance/exit, thus increasing 9 the risk of stolen merchandise. Where two entrances are required, the store's ability to control 1 o the flow of merchandise would be compromised. In addition to the security issues, having 11 two entrances could lead to confusion to the customer and a significant loss of functionality 12 within the store, as valuable shelf, storage, and display space would be lost to the second 13 entrance area. 14 Due to the practical difficulties with having two entrances to Building 400, Applicant, 15 in consultation with the City, designed Building 400 with its primary entrance facing north, 16 toward the pedestrian walk and the customer parking. This design was consistent with the 17 City's vision presented in the Comprehensive Plan, as well as the Conceptual Plan for the site. 18 As the Examiner noted in the Decision, the Comprehensive Plan recognized that the J 9 redevelopment of District One would be phased over a 30-year period. Decision, p. 16, 20 paragraph 40. Recognizing that the surrounding industrial uses would make it difficult to 21 achieve urban intensities upfront, both the Comprehensive Plan and the Conceptual Plan 22 called for the incorporation of pedestrian-oriented features within the development to aid the 23 transition to an urban mixed-use district. Id. The Conceptual Plan depicted a pedestrian 24 connector, running in an east to west direction and connecting the buildings along the south 25 side of Quadrants B and C. Decision, p. 13, paragraph 29. Applicant's design for The 26 Landing incorporates this key pedestrian corridor, and the building entrances for all of the 27 buildings, including Building 400, were therefore designed to front the pedestrian walk. 28 Applicant's Request for Reconsideration -Page 3 of 8 HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON, P.S. 500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Ave Seattle WA 98101-2925 206.623.1745; fax 206.623.7789 As the Examiner acknowledged, the north-facing entrance on Building 400 presents a 2 nice design feature for an interrelated shopping complex. Decision, p. 18, paragraph 45. 3 Were the entrance of Building 400 to face east rather than north, customers attempting to 4 walk from store to store in Quadrant B would be required to walk east for the entire width of 5 Building 400, then south for a distance, before reaching the entrance. The orientation of 6 Building 400's entrance toward the heart of The Landing site and the pedestrian walk 7 therefore presents the most practical, pedestrian-oriented design at this time, is consistent with 8 the City's vision in the Conceptual Plan and Comprehensive Plan, and enhances rather than 9 hinders the overall cohesiveness and pedestrian friendliness of The Landing project. Io In addition, Applicant has incorporated several elements into its design to 11 accommodate the eventual transition of Park Avenue North into a vibrant, pedestrian-friendly 12 street. First, the materials and details used for the east fa9ade of Building 400 will be the 13 same materials and details as used on the north side of the building, so there is no reduction in 14 quality or appearance. See "Update A" plans for Building 400, admitted as Exhibit 5 in the 15 Site Plan hearing. In addition, Applicant's Site Plan includes a wide sidewalk between Park 16 Avenue North and Building 400. Id. Over ten feet of landscaping is provided between 17 Building 400 and the sidewalk, and additional landscaping with street trees is provided 18 between the sidewalk and Park Avenue North. Id. With these pedestrian-oriented elements 19 incorporated into the current design for Building 400, Building 400 and its surrounding 20 landscaping will present an attractive, inviting addition to the streetscape of Park Avenue 21 North. Furthermore, if and when the long-term vision of pedestrian traffic along Park Avenue 22 North comes to fruition, such that market conditions create a demand and desire for a second 23 entrance, Building 400 has been designed to incorporate an exit-only door facing Park 24 Avenue North. Id. At that time, the exit could be converted into an entrance and the store 25 reconfigured to accommodate pedestrian traffic from Park Avenue North. 26 Given the numerous pedestrian-oriented elements already built into the design of 27 Building 400, and since the primary pedestrian flow is along the pedestrian walkway on the 28 north side of the building, the Examiner's requirement for a second entrance along Park Applicant's Request for Reconsideration -Page 4 of8 HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON, P.S. 500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Ave Seattle WA 98101-2925 206.623.1745; fax 206.623.7789 ' Avenue North does not enhance the pedestrian oriented nature of the project. Furthermore, 2 the requirement of a second entrance is unsafe and impractical at this time, thus hindering 3 rather than bolstering the opportunity for a successful retail marketplace. Applicant therefore 4 respectfully requests that the Examiner's Decision be modified to remove the requirement of a s primary entrance on the east side of Building 400. 6 B. Removal of Parking Along Park Avenue North 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 The Examiner's Decision also requires the removal of two specific parking areas in The Landing Site Plan -the parking area between Building 102 and Park Avenue North, and all but 60 feet of the strip of parking west of Park Avenue North and north of Building 400. Decision, p. 22, at paragraph 2 of "Decision" section. In discussing the parking area between Building 102 and Park Avenue North, the Examiner noted: The parking stalls located on the east side of Park, adjacent to the roadway serving the proposed Target store, raise some issues ... There is no reason that makes compliance with code impractical. Landscaping can be provided to screen the access drive and the additional parking. Decision, p. 18, paragraph 44. In discussing the parking area north of Building 400 and west of Park A venue North, the Examiner stated: This office cannot find any practical difficulties on limiting the curb area along Park north of Building 400 to 'not more than 60 feet' occupied by parking or vehicular access. The parking certainly can be moved or removed and replaced by landscaping. Decision, p. 21, paragraph 8. As detailed below, the Examiner's requirement for landscaping between Park Avenue North and the parking areas has already been addressed in the existing Site Plan for The Landing. Furthermore, the design and location of these parking areas were driven by practical considerations, including market demands and the objective of a successful retail center. The Examiner's discussion of each of these parking areas states that these parking stalls could be replaced by landscaping. However, there are already significant landscaping and pedestrian-oriented elements incorporated into the design, serving as a large buffer and providing adequate screening between Park Avenue North and the subject parking areas. Applicant's Request for Reconsideration -Page 5 o/8 HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON, P.S. 500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Ave Seattle WA 98101-2925 206.623.1745; fax 206.623.7789 Both of the subject parking areas are separated from the street by several pedestrian-oriented 2 amenities: (1) a row of landscaping measuring at least nine feet and up to eighteen feet in 3 width, 2 all resting atop a landscape berm measuring at least two feet in height; (2) a pedestrian 4 sidewalk with enhanced paving, measuring approximately ten feet in width; and (3) a second 5 row of landscaping with street trees directly adjacent to Park Avenue North. In total, this 6 landscaping/sidewalk/landscaping buffer measures over 19 feet in the area west of Park 7 Avenue North, and over 28 feet in the area between Park Avenue North and Building 102. 8 For the Examiner's convenience, and to better visualize the significant separation of the 9 parking areas from the street, a copy of the original landscape plan depicting the landscaping 1 o and sidewalks between Park Avenue North and the parking areas is attached hereto as 11 EXHIBIT A.3 12 The landscaping and sidewalks along Park Avenue North already exceed Renton 13 Municipal Code requirements and provide an inviting pedestrian connection for pedestrians 14 traveling north or south along Park Avenue. The additional landscaping required by the 15 Examiner's Decision, and the resulting loss of parking, will not positively influence the look J 6 or function of the development, and will instead have an overall negative effect upon the 17 success of the retail center. 18 Interestingly, given the existing landscaping and pedestrian-oriented features between 19 the parking lot north of Building 400 and Park Avenue North, Applicant was likely not even 20 required to obtain a modification from the Director for this area. The Renton Municipal Code 21 states that on pedestrian-oriented streets, "No more than sixty feet (60') of the street frontage 22 measured parallel to the curb shall be occupied by off-street parking and vehicular access." 23 RMC 4-3-100.F.l.b.i. Here, in no place is the street frontage along the west side of Park 24 25 26 27 28 2 The landscaping planned for the area directly east of the parking area north of Building 400 is approximately nine feet wide from parking area to sidewalk. The landscaping planned for the area directly west of the parking area between Building 102 and Park Avenue North is at least eighteen feet wide from parking area to sidewalk. See Landscape Plan, attached hereto as Exhibit A; see also "Update A" landscape plans, admitted as Exhibit 5 in the Site Plan hearing. 3 This exhibit is provided for illustrative purposes. Specific dimensions may have changed since this Site Plan was submitted. See, e.g., "Update A" landscape plans, admitted as Exhibit 5 in the Site Plan hearing. Applicant's Request for Reconsideration -Page 6 o/8 HILLIS CLARK MAR TIN & PETERSON, P.S. 500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Ave Seattle WA 98101-2925 206.623.1745; fax 206.623.7789 • , 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 27 28 Avenue North "occupied by" off-street parking. Rather, the street frontage is "occupied by" the adjacent landscaping and sidewalk, measuring approximately 20 feet in width. Recognizing, however, that the Renton Municipal Code might be deemed ambiguous in terms of what "occupied by" meant, Applicant requested and received a modification from the Director to permit the parking area north of 400. To the extent a modification was required for this parking area, and for the parking area between Building I 02 and Park A venue North, and in light of the extensive screening and landscaping already provided to ensure a large buffer between the parking areas and the street, the Director's approval of these modifications was appropriate. Furthermore, the Director's modifications were also proper given the practical difficulties of compliance with the code while still providing a sufficient number of stalls in adequate proximity to the retail tenants. As is the case with the development of any retail center of this size and magnitude, Applicant's design for The Landing is and must be in large part driven by what the market demands. This ability to attract tenants is particularly important where, as here, the site is formerly unoccupied and is still surrounded by primarily industrial uses. The specific numbers of stalls provided for the tenants' use, as well as the proximity of those stalls to the buildings themselves, are often key considerations for prospective tenants before they commit to a site. The Examiner has acknowledged that a project of this scale and magnitude is certain to require some modifications: It would be or is too easy to shoot objections at a 38-acre project and find that it may not comport with every guideline found in Code. The fact that a 38-acre site may not fit every guideline or minimum standard was why the Director was apparently given the power to review modification requests and grant those requests if in the overall scheme of things, the development accomplished the City's goals for this area-redevelopment at an urban scale of substantially underutilized property ... It may not be possible to meet every objective in a time span of two to three years on an area of this size and one still subject to neighboring heavy industrial uses. Decision, p. 17, paragraph 41. As the Examiner appears to recognize, Applicant was presented with the challenge of designing a large retail center to conform to the City's long- Applicant's Request for Reconsideration -Page 7 o/8 HILLIS CLARK MAR TIN & PETERSON, P.S. 500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Ave Seattle WA 98101-2925 206.623.1745; tax 206.623.7789 term vision and guidelines, and yet still incorporate appropriate design elements to attract 2 tenants for this initial phase. An example of Applicant's and the City's attempt to straddle 3 these sometimes conflicting demands exists with the subject parking areas. In order to attract 4 prominent, established tenants to the site, Applicant sought to provide a design that s incorporated pedestrian-oriented elements, and also accommodated the parking needs of the 6 incoming tenants. Recognizing that the parking demands of the tenants required parking 7 stalls near to Park Avenue North until such time as structured parking can be incorporated in 8 these areas, Applicant designed extensive landscaping and pedestrian-oriented elements 9 adjacent to Park Avenue North to ensure that the parking was appropriately screened and that 10 the pedestrian-oriented nature of the development was not compromised. 11 The Examiner's Decision requiring removal of these shared parking stalls fails to 12 recognize that Applicant's design already provides an appropriate amount ofpedestrian- 13 oriented elements and screening along Park Avenue North. Moreover, the Examiner's 14 Decision will have a significant impact on the success of the tenants in the nearby areas and 15 will negatively impact Applicant's ability to lease these spaces. 16 For these reasons, Applicant respectfully requests that the Examiner's Decision be 17 modified to strike the required removal of the parking stalls between Building 102 and Park 18 Avenue North, and the parking stalls west of Park Avenue North and north of Building 400. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 IV. CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth herein, Applicant requests modification of the Examiner's Decision to reverse the Examiner's denial of the Director's approval of Site Plan modifications. DATED this May of June, 2007. #354789 18449-004 7lr90l'.doc 6/05/07 Applicant's Request for Reconsideration -Page 8 of8 HILLIS ARK MARTIN & P ON, P.S. Bf:/~ ':) erom6 L. Hillis, SBA #1704 Cf-:'Ryan Durkan, WSBA # 11805 Karen D. Breckenridge, WSBA #36666 Attorneys for Applicant Harvest Partners HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON, P.S. 500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Ave Seatlle WA 98101-2925 206.623.1745; fax 206.623.7789 \ .. 0 8 ~I " ! § '! ; ~ ffl ~ ' I ij "' i ffl ~ !!! 6 1, a i I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER OF THE CITY OF RENTON In the Matter of the Appeal of Brad Nicholson re: The Director's Administrative Site Plan Approval. No.LUA-06-071, SA-A CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Gina C. Pan, am a legal assistant for the law firm of Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson, P.S., 500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101. I hereby certify that on the 5th day of June 2007, I caused to be delivered via legal messenger a true and correct copy of (1) Notice of Appeal of Hearing Examiner's Decision; (2) Applicant's Request for Reconsideration; and (3) this Certificate of Service to the following: Mr. Fred Kaufman, Hearing Examiner City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Lawrence J. Warren Zanetta F antes Warren Barber & Fontes, P.S. 100 South Second Street Renton, WA 98057 Ross Radley Law Offices of Ross Radley, Inc. P.S. 3316 Fuhrman Ave. East, Suite 250 Seattle, WA 98102 Certificate of Service -Page I o/2 Office of the Clerk City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Peter L. Buck Buck & Gordon, LLP 2025 First Avenue, Suite 500 Seattle, WA 98121-3140 HILLIS Ci.ARK MARTIN & PETERSON, P.S. ORIGINAL 500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Ave Sealtle WA 98101-2925 206.623.1745; fax 206.623.7789 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 27 28 DATED this _'5_~-h~-day of June, 2007. #354995 18449-004 7lwzOJl.doc 6/05/07 Certificate of Service -Page 2 of 2 HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON, P.S. Gina C. Pan Legal Assistant to T. Ryan Durkan HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON, P.S. 500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Ave Seattle WA 98101-2925 206.623.1745; fax 206.623. 7789 ' ' Minutes APPELLANT: OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON The Landing Site Plan Hearing on Merits File No.: LUA 06-071, SA-A May 22, 2007 PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the Development Services Report, examining available information on file with the application, field checking the property and surrounding area; the Examiner conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows: MINUTES The following minutes are a summary of the march 27, 2007 hearing. The legal record is recorded on CD. The hearing opened on Tuesday, March 27, 2007, at 9:02 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the Renton City Hall. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner. The following exhibits were entered into the record: -- Exhibit No. 1: Yellow appeal file containing the Exhibit No. 2: All documents that predate this appeal original documents. -- Exhibit No. 3: Binder with 20 tabs from Zanctta Exhibit No. 4: July 21, 2006 site plan review package Fontes with associated stipulations Exhibit No. 5: Updates A, B, C, and D that have been Exhibit No. 6: Summary of Updates to the Site Plan, referred to and the parties have agreed lo all of them. when they were submitted and when they were approved Exhibit No. 7: Sections of the Renton Comprehensive Exhibit No. 8: Violations in the Modified Site Plan Plan, District I. Exhibit No. 9: Exhibit D to Settlement Agreement Exhibit No. 10: Lakeshore Landing Planned Action (Tab 20 m Binder) dated I I/ 8/2 on.a Exhihit No. 11: City of Renton ConC~jl'.Hal r '• -• • O · -P-·'-ibit No. 12: Page 79 of Exhibit 4 fly_,,._____. - Exhihit No. 13: Packet from Harvest Partners The Landing Site Plan Hearing o,. ,.1erits File No.: LUA-06-071, SA-A May 22, 2007 Page 2 Zanella Fontes, Attorney for the City of Renton stated that they had presented two stipulations and a binder of stipulated documents as Exhibits. Additionally they had agreed amongst themselves that they are not likely to call witnesses, they did want to make sure that Mr. Watts was available in case the Examiner had any questions of him during the course of the hearing. In that light, Mr. Buck on behalf of Mr. Nicholson has indicated that he may also call a witness, it might be best to swear in those witnesses now and save time later. The Examiner stated that yesterday an appeal of an update came in and it was stipulated that it be joined with today's matter since it is an update of the site plan and is subject to this administrative appeal hearing. Ms. Fontes agreed that there has been a stipulation that would indicate that the updates are being rolled into this hearing for judicial economy. However, it appears that Mr. Nicholson has submitted his appeal on that update in an effort to preserve that appeal. The Examiner further commented that the appeal was filed on behalf of Mr. Nicholson and ASE. ASE had been dismissed on the site plan but they still may appeal the modification, they may not be able to appeal the first site plan but can appeal the second site plan. He was not ready to grant them standing based on this stipulation. Mr. Buck stated that the site plan appeal was filed in late August or early September, since that time there have been four modifications applied for and granted to that initial site plan. The last two of those were in March of 2007. It is appropriate for the modifications to be before the Examiner so that he has the current site plan before him. One of the four should be appealed and the changes should be before the Examiner. With regard to parties there is an ASE , members are in control, the citizens are the directors. It is fine with them that the respondents can object to standing, it may not be overly relevant. Mr. Hillis stated that he agrees with what has been said, for the record, they do want to renew the motion to dismiss the appeals based upon the lack of standing of ASE and Mr. Nicholson. They would rely on their prior briefs and arguments and not submit any new material with regard to that. Secondly, he received a 45-page brief yesterday from Mr. Buck's office, they would like to have an opportunity to respond to that and would request that they have 10 days in which to do so. Ms. Fontes agreed with respect to reserving the right to object to ASE standing on the new appeal, they would join and ask for the opportunity to do a post-hearing brief. Mr. Buck stated that he had no objection to post-hearing briefs, which would possibly wrap into the fact that the Examiner would need and want more time. They would want to file a brief on issues raised today that have not been heard previously. Mr. Hillis suggested that there be an agreement on briefing. He further stated that they have stipulated to the authenticity of the exhibits that have been presented, they have not stipulated to their relevancy. They have also stipulated that they would not call witnesses but would make Mr. Watts available to answer any questions that the Examiner might have, a third stipulation was that Update A, which they have appealed as of Friday, is being combined with this appeal today. Mr. Buck stated that one of the exhibits they wanted to stipulate to today was the application for the Master Plan. He would like to see before the end of this hearing today that the City would identify what exactly was the Master Plan application, they would like that to be part of the record. ·The Landing Site Plan Hearing o .1erits File No.: LUA-06-071, SA-A May 22, 2007 Page 3 Ms. Fontes stated that staff has gone through the records, they have tagged things, however she was not sure if that was the most efficient way to define what was part of the Master Plan application or if it should be copied for all parties. It can be taken care of today. Mr. Buck stated that a pre-hearing brief was presented today to the parties that discussed the issues that seem most important. There appears to be a disconnect between what the City of Renton wanted to do with this project and the project that Harvest Partners wants to do. The City and Boeing sought a certain kind of development, that plan is still in place. There is a development agreement, there is a conceptual plan, there is a comprehensive plan and development regulations. There has not been a public hearing that would change any of those strategics. Then in 2006, the Landing Development came to Harvest and Harvest had in mind a project that certainly made sense to them, but it docs not fit the previous strategies and plans and those plans do not fit this situation. At some point changes could have been made to the development agreements, the conceptual plan, the comprehensive plan and the development regulations, but the City has not done that. Renton's code, Section 4-9-200.E I b, requires that there must be conformance with existing land use regulations for a site plan to be approved. One of the broader sections has to do with urban design regulations, Section 4-3-100. In order to get site plan approval there has to be explicit conformance to the intent and mandatory elements of the design guidelines. The brief presented today shows the deviation between the regulations and what Harvest wants to build. He further discussed the issues of parking between buildings and public streets, which the regulations say cannot be done. Building 102 shows two rows of parking to the west of the building. That should not be allowed according to the regulations. Building 400 Just across the street; the original plan showed the building narrower and with parking next to the street, that has since been changed and shows that a building can be built up to the street just as it is required. Moving buildings could cause gaps, modifications can be seen on the other side of Park, Buildings 406 and 407 have a gap, that is not a flaw that the developer cannot fix. There are numerous examples in their brief where disconnects can be seen between code sections and what is being presented today. Buildings located on designated pedestrian streets should be located adJaccnt to the sidewalk. No more than 60 feet of street frontage should be parking along a pedestrian designated street. In the area north of Building 400 there is more than 60 feet; N IO"' Street, west of Park combined with the area around Building 400 totals more than 60 feet. The main issue that Mr. Nicholson is most concerned about is Buildings 101 and l 02 and the area to the west. In Quadrant C there is no challenge on the extent of parking on the east side of Park or the south side of lO'h. The parking on the west side of Park between Buildings 203 and 400 is being challenged as well as along N 1 O'" Street. Building 400 should face Park Avenue with an entrance on that side. The parking north of that building should be removed or reduced to less than 60 feet. Building 102 should be moved to the sidewalk and eliminate all parking. They are alleging no violations as to treatment of buildings, rather they are talking about buildings fronting on pedestrian streets, no parking between buildings and pedestrian oriented streets, no more than 60 feel of entrances or parking accumulatively along pedestrian oriented streets. There seems to be no soft exceptions to these issues. There are no objections to the parking to the east of Park Avenue that lies north of Building 102. They do object to the parking to the west of Building 102, and object to the main entrance facing north rather than onto the street. There are some objections to setbacks of Buildings 101 and 102 from North 81 h Street (Code 4-2-120.E) and the truck loading areas to the south of Buildings 101 and 102. The Landing Site Plan Hearing on 1'1erits File No.: LUA-06-071, SA-A May 22, 2007 Page 4 Quadrant A has a truck loading area off of Logan Avenue (Code 4-2-120.E) between Buildings 300 and 30 !that should not be there. Quadrant B and Chas truck loading violations as well, along N 8th Street. In Quadrant B some additional setbacks, code says that setbacks shall be five feet in this zone and the setbacks with the latest modification at Buildings 406 and 403 appear to have increased. In addition, west of Building 404 there is a setback greater than five feet. Along the south side ofN lO'h there is surface parking violations (Code 4-3-IOO.F4b). Referring to Exhibit D under Tab 20 in the notebook, there is a crosshatch area that has been excluded from the settlement, it appears some of the hatches did not copy to the row of parking on Park Avenue. There are similar extensions of hash lines in the boxes, they are drawn in the same angle as the ones on the building. An original needs to be found and clarified as to what was actually stipulated. The conceptual plan (Tab I in Binder) does not seem to have a provision in the code that applies to this zone that states, in an overall site plan as this, the Director can make what modifications he wants to make. There are modification procedures and criteria that apply to minor adjustments. The Examiner stated that he had a letter from Mr. Hillis that cited that code provision. Mr. Buck continued that Mr. Green would address the conceptual plan. Duncan Green of Buck and Gordon, stated that they will get an original copy and see where the crosshatch areas actually are, second, they will look at the code and compare the code violations, assuming that these are code violations, and anything that is within the crosshatched area that is a code violation, they are requesting remedy on. If it is outside the crosshatched area they are not asking for anything. There are requirements in site plan review regulations that state site plans must be consistent with the conceptual plan that has been approved by City Council. Some of the violations seem to be limited to small areas of the site plan, if looked at in the context of the conceptual plan and all of the public process that happened, these violations add up to a lot. They depart drastically from what was adopted, approved and sold to the public. There are two key sources of authority that require site plans to be consistent with the approved conceptual plan, first RMC 4-9-200.E3a states that the plan must conform to the approved conceptual plan required by the development agreement for the subarea in question. Second the 2003 Development Agreement for the subarea between Boeing and the City of Renton, which is Tab 3 in the binder, provides that Renton will evaluate all subsequent permit applications within the sub-districts based on consistency with the approved conceptual plan. The October 18, 2004 Committee of the Whole report (Tab 7 in binder) the last page under this tab, the last sentence was read into the record. The current site plans appear to be inconsistent with the conceptual plan in a number of ways. First it is not consistent with the urban guidelines, this is where the importance of the urban guidelines in this district come into light. There is an October 14, 2004 memorandum (Tab 6 in the binder) "Center Oak pledges to design its project consistent with the revised urban center guidelines that are currently before you and anticipated to be adopted shortly." By adopting this plan, the City Council will provide Center Oak with a set of parameters within which it can develop its project while maintaining a high minimum level of development and insuring high quality design. The Landing does not do that. Another public document that confirms that the urban design guidelines were emphasized in the public process is a public information handout dated November 8, 2004, titled Lakeshore Landing Planned Action (Tab 6 in binder). ·The Landing Site Plan Hearing o .. derits File No.: LUA-06-071, SA-A May 22, 2007 Page 5 The Examiner stated that a conceptual plan or concept is not a blueprint to put up a building, it's a vision statement of what they would like to see in that area. It does not show placement of each building and where all parking spots would be, it's a concept but not perfect. It may not work when actually put in place. Mr. Green agreed with the Examiner, there is the conceptual plan with not a lot of detail, then you have a master plan with more detail and the site plan that has yet more detail. Each one has to be consistent with the previous one. There is some flexibility between the conceptual plan and the site plan. This project is not consistent with the spirit of the conceptual plan. However, pedestrian oriented streets, this was emphasized in the development agreement, in the comprehensive plan, in the development regulations and when the Landing came in, that requirement was ignored. Requirements triggered by pedestrian oriented streets were not triggered; in fact the City has stated that there arc no pedestrian oriented streets. Park Avenue is fronted by more than 60 feet of parking and there are large format retailers and lots of parking. The Landing does not have the diverse mix or uses that the conceptual plan talked about, instead there are no mixed uses or residential in the northeastern quadrant by itself, no mixed use in this site plan, it appears to be purely retail. The site plan exceeds the big box retail that's talked about in the conceptual plan. There should have been a detailed consistency analysis performed to make sure that site plan was consistent with the conceptual plan. The Examiner asked for a clarification of "big box retail", it appears to be Target, Wal-Mart but is it the downtown Nordstrom store? Mr. Green stated that there are categories, up to 50,000 is large format, 50,000-10,000 is medium and then down to small format. Big box would be in the 50,000+ zone. The conceptual plan stated that 20% of the retail would be in small-scale format (less than 10,000 square feet), looking at the proposed site plan it appears that there is a significantly smaller amount of the small-scale retail. The Examiner stated again that this is a conceptual plan, if the percentages were different does that make it violate the plan as a concept? Mr. Green stated it may not require invalidation of the whole site plan, the math should have been done. The conceptual plan talked about 2,646 direct jobs and 622 indirect jobs and now they arc saying about 350 employees would work on the site. The director should have to go back and do the homework. Jerrv Hillis, representing Harvest Partners, stated the appellants have claimed that the site plan approval conflicts with various land use regulations, the City ofRenton's code, and that the site plan approval needs to be put in its proper context. The site plan is not the end of the road, it is the initial development scheme of the site. This process will occur over a number of years. This site plan is an initial development plan, not a final development. The comprehensive plan for the City of Renton anticipates development of this area over a number of years. The 2003 concept plan also articulated this vision for the site. He read a portion of that document (Tab 1 of the binder). The idea was that this would be developed over a long period of time, recognizing that that is what the comprehensive plan for the City required. He then showed the Center Oaks conceptual plan (Exhibit 10) this plan refers to final retail build outs. Potential tenants may include a large format retailer, a specialty grocery market, a movie theater and a mix of high quality The Landing Site Plan Hearing on Merits File No.: LUA-06-071, SA-A May 22, 2007 Page 6 national, regional and local specialty tenants and restaurants. On the map he pointed out setbacks along Park. There are no stores up to the street and this is the plan that Mr. Green would like the Landing to comply with literally. A concept plan is just that a concept plan. The Director concluded in the site plan decision that the overall concept of the Landing as now proposed meets the concept plan in terms of the overall intent of that concept plan, which was to create a retail center on this site. There is no mention of offices in this first stage, no mention of those kinds of uses, but a big mention of the fact that the initial planning is going to be different than the final development plan might be, all consistent with the City of Renton code. Nowhere is there a requirement that states that the original development plan for the site must meet all the planning goals for the area. What they do require is that the plan be set up in such a way that over the long-term the goals of the comprehensive plan will be met. The comprehensive plan for the Urban Center North is divided into several categories, the introduction, the overall comprehensive plan for centers, Urban Center North land use designation, and the vision for District I, which this site is part of. The comprehensive plan is a broad statement of community goals, objectives and policies that direct the orderly development of the site. It is anticipated that national retailers will locate to the site. He continued reading what the Urban Centers, both North and Downtown, intentions and long range plans were designed to include. The Urban Center North land use designation states UCN policies will provide a blueprint for the transition of land over the next thirty years. LU-271 talks about the Urban Center as a whole and support uses that sustain minimum set employee levels. LU-284 allows phasing plans for mixed-use projects, LU-285 considers placement of parking areas in initial development plans to facilitate later in-fill plans and higher density. There is a supply of under-utilized land north of NE 8ili, which creates a redevelopment opportunity for a first phase development in District One. However, the industrial character of the surrounding development properties both within District Two to the west and the preliminary industrial area to the cast will make it difficult to achieve true urban intensities in District One at the beginning of this transition. The overall vision for the District contemplates much more than a series of low-rise structures and large parking lots. It is important that this initial development facilitates later stages of investment as the neighborhood matures and property values increase. The vision allows for early stages of open parking lots but they should be handled in such a way as to allow for infill to occur over a period of time. There was a vision and that was that this was going to be a difficult area to develop, but it was going to be an area that the City saw developing over thirty years and they wanted to make sure that the initial development plan was done in such a way that future development could occur to further meet the goals of the comprehensive plan. The Director's decision finds that the site plan does meet the overall intent of the comprehensive plan. No urban plan can occur overnight, an initial layout has to anticipate future development. The Director's plan for this site was that the anticipation for future development be considered while planning this project. On the original site plan, in the north area along Park it is fully developed, the blank area on the east side of Park is a residential area, which is not part of this application. There is a cinema and entertainment to the north. The area along the north side of what will become Io"' is fully developed for the initial plan. The Director was concerned about having all the retail on the north and wanted it spread out, which is what happened. The emphasis was then on the southern end, with the intent to create a pedestrian environment, which is not easy to do given the site. A major walkway was proposed through the site along the southern end, which would allow the retail uses to abut that. The advantage is having the big parking lots to the north, which allows for future infill so that future retail can also be along that pedestrian corridor. There is a pedestrian link that runs through the middle of the site as well, there is another pedestrian link that goes from Quadrant A down through Quadrant The Landing Site Plan Hearing o .... !erits File No.: LUA-06-071, SA-A May 22, 2007 Page 7 D to 8'". The area in Quadrant D to the right of the pedestrian link is an open market place for outdoor events, which are described in the plan. The urban development scheme is heading down Park, eventually infill opportunities are provided along Park to fulfill that part of the vision. The concept plan shows an even greater pedestrian atmosphere along Park in the initial stages than ever was shown in the concept plans. The issue was raised regarding small shops, in the development summary there is far more than 20% of the retail area that are small shops as opposed to the anchors and junior anchors. The initial stages of the development were looked at with the potential for better infill and huild out. Harvest Partners submitted a chart showing that approximately 125,000 square feet of additional development can occur on this property over the next 20 years. This site plan does meet the criteria that are required for a site plan in this code. (RMC 4-9-200.E) Under this section is states that creativity and innovation should not be discouraged and that is precisely what has been going on with the applicant and the development of this plan. The appellant asserts that there are several aspects of the plan that conflict with existing land use regulations. The code anticipates that a site plan may have conflicts with specific design and development regulations. The code provides that the Director can allow modification of design regulations pursuant to RMC 4-3-l OO(L) and that the Director has authority to modify development standards pursuant to RMC 4-8-070(C) I 0. The following are violations that were submitted by the appellant: (1) Parking between buildings and streets, the parking between Building 102 and Park Avenue has been stipulated to, but it is vague at this time. The parking north of the Target store is off the table at this point. Parking west of Building 102, the Director granted a modification {p.10, Site Plan Review). The alley driveway is vested, between Building 102 and Park, it is not going to be moved. (2) The code requires no more than 60' of street frontage along a pedestrian oriented street. There is more than 60 feet of frontage along the west side of Park. Again, the Director b'Tanted a modification for this requirement. Between Building 400 and Building 203 there is a parking lot immediately adjacent to Park, which is an infill area. Parking areas have been consolidated for foture infill along with ingress/egress from the property. (3) Parking, driveways and pedestrian oriented streets, the Director granted a modification from this requirement (Site Plan Decision, pgs. 12 and 13) Parking areas are located mid block and consolidated to allow future infill. Consolidation of parking areas also allows for consolidation of access points providing access to the central area rather than requiring multiple access points. The Director wanted to limit access to Logan because Logan is a high visibility street, so where does that leave access from Quadrant B? Obviously, those accesses will have to be along 1 O'" and Park Ave. The access has been limited from Quadrant B onto Park and three accesses off of 10th. (4) To have another entrance on Park at this time would be impractical, this is not pedestrian heavy at this time. To change the entrance of Building 400 to face Park makes no sense in the overall development scheme and so the Director granted a modification. (Page 4 of update). Building 102 in Quadrant C does not allow for the entrance to be moved to Park, the driveway was vested. The Director granted a modification from that requirement. (Site Plan Decision, pg. 10) Creating a gap between these buildings would disturb the pedestrian atmosphere that was being created. (5) Truckload areas are generally located along 8'" and one along Logan. The site plan shows that the area of the loading docks is totally screened, that is what the code requires and what the Director found. (Original site plan, pg. 14) (6) Setbacks of five feet along a street. The purpose of this requirement was to emphasize urban character and maximize pedestrian activity and minimize automobile use within the district. The Director granted a modification (update A pgs. 3 and 4) due to the walkway just north of these buildings makes this a pedestrian corridor. There is a walkway through the site consistent with what the plan requires. The Director is not required by code to make specific findings for each modification. The Director's decision articulates the criteria for granting a modification, the reason why the modifications on this site made sense and The Landing Site Plan Hearing on 1vlerits File No.: LUA-06-071, SA-A May 22, 2007 Page 8 concludes that this relevant criterion has been met. The cases cited by appellants required specific findings of fact and did not deal with administrative determinations similar to these in the Renton code. The appellant has the burden to show that the criteria have not been met and the Director's decision is erroneous. In rendering his decision, the code directs the Director to consider the overall intent of the minimum standards and guide lines and to encourage creative design and alternatives in order to achieve the purpose of the design regulations. That has been done in this case. It was requested that the Director's decision to approve the site plan with modifications be upheld. Zanella Fontes provided three handouts of code provision, a discrete page out of Exhibit 4 (page 79) was marked Exhibit 12, and a packet of information from Harvest Partners that was marked as Exhibit 13. As briefed in the appeals for the master plan, planned actions are very unique, the planning is done up front in the hopes that once the SEPA has been done and certain guidelines have been articulated and approved by the City, that creative developers would take advantage of the fact that much of the work has already been done. The fact that this is a planned action will dictate some of the processes about the lack of which the appellant complains. One of Mr. Nicholson's complaints is that there was no public hearing. (Page 9-62, 3'd page in Zanella 's handout) Regarding Renton Code 4-9-200.Dl, the second sentence of sub a where it states, "that when a master plan is approved, subsequent site plans submitted for future phases may be submitted and approved administratively without a public hearing." The master plan had been approved prior to the site plan in this case and so no hearing was required. A hearing before a Hearing Examiner is not required if public hearings have been held where public comments were solicited on the proposed plan action ordinance; if the Environmental Impact Statement for the planned action reviewed preliminary conceptual plans which provided the public and decision makers with sufficient detail regarding the scale of improvements, the quantity of the various types of spaces to be provided, the use to which the structures would be put and the bulk and general form of the improvements. Mr. Nicholson further says that the ERC needed to make a determination and relying on code provision 4-9- 200.G9, it seems that the appellant has overlooked an appropriate section, sub8. Section 8 states that a consistency review should be conducted, and it was, by the zoning administrator for proposals submitted under the authority of an adopted planned action ordinance. The question of the Hearing Examiner's authority, Code provision 4-8-11 O.E, A and C states that any administrative decisions may be appealed to the Hearing Examiner, and further states that the Examiner shall have all the powers of the office from whom the appeal is taken insofar as the decision on the particular appeal is concerned. The Examiner has the power to remand as well as to do what the Examiner thinks needs to be done, ifhe feels that changes need to be made. Regarding findings, Mr. Green stated that a finding had to be made on each and every point, there is nothing in the code that requires that, there is nothing that requires a written finding made by the Director. The Director did find that there was compliance with the code or he would not have granted the modifications in the first place. The code further states that when applying the provisions of Title 4 the requirements shall be liberally construed in favor of the governing body. Moving on to the parking areas of Quadrant B and the buildings to the south, there is a pedestrian walkway. The median strip on Park, going east to west from Quadrant B to Quadrant C there is a median strip where the pedestrian walkway would cut across Park. That median strip was called for in the concept plan in Exhibit 10. The pedestrian walkway continues eastward in front of Buildings 102, 101 and the Target Building (Building 100). The pedestrian walkway requirement has been met. The Landing Site Plan Hearing o .. "1erits File No.: LUA-06-071, SA-A May 22, 2007 Page 9 The screening plan as it relates to the east side of the south end, there is ample screening of trees along the south border of the parcel that is on N 8th Street. The code does not say that it must be a fence or sight obscuring fence, it just calls for screening and there is screening. The screening continues on along N 8'h Street. There is considerable landscaping along Park as well, from 8th all the way up to Logan including that area where there is parking frontage between Building 203 and 400 on the west side of Park Building I 02 located at the northeast corner of Park and 8th, argument was made regarding moving this building over, there is however, a driveway just northwest of Building 102 and trucks must come in or go out from that location to make a one-way through on this drive in order to travel between 8th and Park There has to be enough room for the truck to pass. The question is, is what is before the Examiner reasonable, was what the Director did reasonable, was it substantial error to grant the modifications considering the practicalities facing the applicant. The applicant needs to prove that it was substantial error. It was not. The purpose statement says that the overall mix and intensity of uses within the Urban Center North Zones will develop over time, consequently decisions made in early phases of redevelopment will need to take into consideration the potential for further infill and intensification of uses, that is what the Director did. The District is intended to attract new retail, office and technology related uses that co-exist with airplane manufacturing in the short run, but provide a standard of development that stimulates further investment and transition of uses in the longer term. Everything contemplates a long-term development. It does not have to be done overnight. Planned actions allow the planning to be up front. In the Comprehensive Plan words such as "maintaining zoning", "supporting uses" and the like, those are in the present tense, not future tense. The policy is to maintain the zoning so that it would create capacity for employment. There do not need to be obstacles for good creative development, this is an excellent development, it is consistent with the conceptual plan and planned action ordinance. The Lakeshore Landing has better pictures that have helped in terms of what was contemplated by the City and those are the types of development that are going into this plan. It was asked that the Examiner not remand this matter but uphold the decision of the Director. Mr. Buck stated that Ms. Fontes said the test for the Director was whether this was reasonable, that is not the test. The test is whether it is lawful, not reasonable. It is suggested that it is not reasonable for Buildings 403, 404, etc., to require loading docks to be on the street, that may be, but that is what the City of Renton codes say. The Council adopted the laws and the Examiner should not be invited to decide that the Council was wrong. Harvest Partners seem to have gotten it wrong, it doesn't matter how expensive it would be to change something, if it is wrong, they need to make the changes. In the area close to Building I 02, the only thing that is missing is an agreement by Council as to what Exhibit D actually had. Did it include the areas in red along the edges of the property, or not. There is an exhibit that was attached to a settlement agreement, they will find out what it is and it will be given to the Examiner. The Examiner stated that neither side could stipulate to ignore an Ordinance. Until the Exhibit is produced and looked at, nothing can be done. Mr. Buck stated that on Exhibit D it states that the cross hatching is not intended to preclude the installation of curb, sidewalk or landscaping of those areas. A copy of that exhibit will be given to the Examiner. Ms. Fontes stated that ( 4-2-120.E) page 2-130.3 of the City Code says that parking, docking and loading areas for truck traffic shall be off-street and screened from view of abutting public streets. The Landing Site Plan Hearing on ,v1erits File No.: LUA-06-071, SA-A May 22, 2007 Page 10 The Examiner called for further testimony regarding this project. There was no one else wishing to speak, and no further comments from staff. The hearing closed at 2: 19 pm. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATION Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: I. The appellant, Brad Nicholson, hereinafter appellant, filed an initial appeal of an administrative decision approving a Site Plan for a project called The Landing. The applicant for The Landing is Harvest Partners (hereinafter Harvest). The appellant also filed an appeal of a proposed and approved change to the Site Plan. The parties agreed to consolidate the two appeals. (See below for ASE's standing on the second appeal) 2. The appeal was filed in a timely manner. The person filing the appeal lives in the City of Renton and commutes past the subject site and uses public facilities and bodies of water near the subject site including Lake Washington. 3. The subject site is approximately 38.22 acres. The total building area will be 572,700 square feet. The property is bounded generally by N 8th Street on the south, Logan Avenue Non the west and north, North I 0th Street on the north and Garden Avenue Non the east. Park Avenue N runs through the site from south to north while N 10th Street runs through the site east to west, west of Park, and bounds the site on the north east of Park. 4. The Staff Report dated August 17, 2006, was incorporated by reference and adopted by this decision. Where this office differs from the staff report, Findings and Conclusions will spell out those differences. 5. The Planned Action Ordinance was approved by the City Council after a public hearing was opened on November 8, 2004. 6. A Master Plan was approved on the subject site under a separate file (LUAOS-136) dated May 19, 2006. It was found consistent with the Planned Action Ordinance dated November 15, 2004 where the Planned Action determination was dated May 12, 2006. 7. Code specifically permits administrative approval of Site Plan proposals that had a public hearing and public comment for a Planned Action Ordinance and an EIS had sufficient information regarding the scale, types of spaces, uses and general form of the improvements. (Section 4-9-200.D. l .a). The appellant's objection that the original public hearing was not timely enough is not supported by Code. Administrative review is allowed when there was an original public hearing. The public hearing and published Boeing EIS satisfy the criteria listed for "exemption" from additional public hearings. It appears that the intent of the process was to eliminate duplicative reviews and provide some level of confidence that once an approval was granted, project proponents would not be required to jump through successive hoops and potentially changing standards or even political cycles or politicians. 8. The original site plan was submitted on July 21, 2006 and approved by the City on August 17, 2006 in the aforementioned Staff Report. 9. The applicant subsequently requested approval of four (4) changes or updates as they are now called. The Landing Site Plan Hearing o., Aerits File No.: LUA-06-071, SA-A May 22, 2007 Page 11 10. The Landing project site is located within District C of the Urban Center Design Overlay. The overall intent of the district is to consider individual merit and consider the minimum design standards while encouraging creative design alternatives. 11. The applicant received approval of an Administrative Site Plan for the construction of an approximately 572,700 square foot commercial/retail development with a 12-screen cinema. The proposed development would be constructed on the 38.22-acre site located within the Urban Center -North I (UC-NI) zoning designation. Proposed site improvements would consist of the various buildings, parking features, landscaping, utilities and stormwater. Special design standards apply for the zoning. The structures are proposed to range in height from approximately 30 to 45 feet. The parking provided would be a mix of structured and surface parking. A four level parking garage is proposed that would provide 675 parking stalls. There would be 1,955 surface parking stalls. 12. The applicant has subsequently submitted a senes of four (4) updates or changes to the approved Site Plan. The updates have been labeled alphabetically, A, B, C and D. For purposes of this appeal, the parties agreed to stipulate that the current Site Plan proposal reflects the original site plan as amended or "updated" by these submissions while only the first two updates had been formally appealed. The stipulations were intended to have an administrative review of the proposal as it now stands. 13. Update A was submitted on December 29, 2006 and was approved by the City on March 13, 2007. It resulted in a reconfiguration and change in building dcsi!,'11 to the 400 series of buildings and particularly the fact that Building 400 now abuts Park Avenue rather than having it setback from Park. The update also connects Entertainment Boulevard to North 8th Street via a pedestrian walkway. 14. Update B was submitted on March 13, 2007 and was approved by the City on March 19, 2007. It resulted in revisions to Building 30 I. a parking garage building. 15. Update C was submitted on February 5, 2007 and was approved by the City on February 8 and 15, 2007. It resulted in an increase in the size of Building 201 (formerly 104) and a decrease in size in Building 203 (formerly 108) and changes to parking and service areas around Buildings 201,203 and 202 (formerly Building 105). 16. Update D was submitted on February 13, 2007 and was approved by the City on March 7, 2007. It resulted in an increase in size for Building I 02 (formerly Building 202) and change in facade and entries to Buildings 102 and 101 (formerly Building 201). 17. The Site Plan at this review (after the Updates) contains more than a dozen structures. Some of the structures contain separately numbered buildings attached to one another spread over three quadrants. The fourth quadrant in the northeast comer of the area is not part of the current review process. 18. Quadrant A is at the northwest comer of the site bounded by Logan Avenue on the west and north and by Park and N 10th on the east and south respectively. Its main components are a 14-sereen cinema and parking garage located along Logan. There are other attached and detached retail buildings south of those buildings. The parking garage and cinema are oriented such that the fronts of the buildings would face Entertainment Boulevard an internal street that is generally south of and parallels Logan Avenue. 19. Quadrant Bis in the southwest comer, south of Quadrant A. Quadrant Bis bounded by Logan on the west, N I 0th on the north, Park on the cast and N 8th on the south. It will have a series ofretail buildings generally fronting along N 10th, a large interior surface parking lot and a series of buildings arrayed between an east-west pedestrian walkway (north of the buildings) and N 8th street (south of the The Landing Site Plan Hearing on JV!erits File No.: LUA-06-071, SA-A May 22, 2007 Page 12 buildings). This southern tier of buildings will be oriented to the north and the internal pedestrian walkway. 20. Quadrant C is located in the southeast comer of the site. It is bounded by Park on the west, N 10th on the north, Garden on the east and 8th on the south. This quadrant contains retail buildings at its northwest comer (Park and N 10th) and a larger retail complex aligned along the south of the site, near and adjacent to N 8th Street. Quadrant C, the future home of a Target Store, is subject to a separate stipulation by the parties and other than parking located adjacent to Park at its extreme southwest comer is not part of this appeal due to the stipulation. 21. Quadrant A is mostly structures including the cinema, parking garage and smaller buildings and is divided by an internal east-west street. The applicant seems to have taken a design approach to create a ring of development around a central surface parking lot in Quadrant B with buildings' access from pedestrian paths along the south and north. The pedestrian-centric nature of the design does create issues with vehicle access to the site or sub-sites within the complex. Quadrant C is east of Park and has a major anchor in the Target Store. The parties have stipulated to a number of issues regarding Quadrant C and the Target complex leaving the only appeal issue for Quadrant C, the parking located immediately east of Park and west of the service road or driveway. 22. Issues similar to the Quadrant B parking lot arise with providing loading docks or bays for the various retail or other businesses in the complex. Forcing large delivery trucks into the midst of passenger vehicles is not always satisfying in terms of circulation and safety. The applicant has placed the loading docks at the perimeter of the site near Logan (between the parking garage and cinema) and along N 8th (between Park and Logan) and that resulted in building facades being moved away from the street or sidewalks in some locations. The plans show landscaping in these areas to screen the loading areas from the streets. 23. The applicant sought modifications that would allow loading docks near the street at the Logan location and also loading docks along N 8th while also moving building facades along N 8th to be sethack further from the street than permitted. 24. Staff found on Page 19 of the Staff Report that the proposed site plan results in an urban design concept through the provision of pedestrian-oriented spaces, pedestrian pathways and Jinks to sidewalks around the site. The project is internally consistent with similar facade treatments, building materials and pavement links. There are coordinated design elements including container plantings, seat walls, tree grates, awning and benches. 25. The appellant suggested that the proposal does not meet the comprehensive plan's employment objectives of 50 employees per gross acre whereas the subject proposal would create approximately 350 jobs or 8/acre. The comprehensive plan's objectives are predicated on build-out. The center of the site could be developed with offices and the overall density of employment could change. Urban areas of downtown Seattle, Bellevue and even downtown Renton are a mix of scale and therefore, density. The infill anticipated over the next 30 years may increase the employment opportunities. 26. The comprehensive plan at Page IX-42/43 of the Plan states: "Urban Center North Land Use Designation Purpose Statement: The purpose of the UC-N is to redevelop industrial land for new office, residential, and commercial uses at a sufficient scale to implement the Urban Centers criteria adopted in the Countywide Planning Policies. This portion of the Urban Center The Landing Site Plan Hearing on ,.1erits File No.: LUA-06-071, SA-A May 22, 2007 Page 13 is anticipated to attract large-scale redevelopment greater than that in the Urban Center-Downtown, due to large areas of land available for redevelopment. In addition, new development is expected to include a wider group of uses including remaining industrial activities, new research and development facilities, laboratories, retail integrated into pedestrian-oriented shopping districts, and a range of urban- scale, mixed-use residential, office and commercial uses. The combined uses will generate significant tax income for the City and provide jobs to balance the capacity for the more than 5,000 additional households in the Urban Center. Development is expected to complement the Urban Center-Downtown. UC-N policies will provide a blueprint for the transition of land over the next 30 vears into this dynamic, urban mixed-use district." And at Page IX-43: "Policy LU-271. Support uses that sustain minimum Urban Center employment levels of 50 employees per gross acre and residential levels of 15 households per gross acre within the entire Urban Center." 27. Those provisions do not apply solely to the Landing site or immediate vicinity but include the Urban Center, which is the entire downtov.n Renton area and not just the urban center NORTH locale. This office does not believe that the appellant has demonstrated that this office should second guess the timing, phasing, market forces and City's determination about this proposal. The appellant has not shown that the current plan is umeasonable in terms of a 30-year time line. There arc many goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan and not all of them are attainable immediately. The comprehensive plan also acknowledges that redevelopment of the site is and will be constrained somewhat by the industrial character of surrounding development. This office agrees with the statement in Mr. Radley's Post Hearing Brief at Page 3: "it is certainly true no site plan can be consistent with every policy and principle of early large planning efforts ... " 28. Referencing that brief further, this office does not agree with the second part of that sentence "when there have been as many modifications as there have been in the Landing Site Plan, it is legitimate to examine exactly how inconsistent the site plan is from previous planning efforts." The project is very large and the number of modifications does not seem extreme when considering the size and scale of the proposal. It includes approximately 23 retail or commercial spaces. It is spread out on 38.22 acres. It includes a parking structure with 675 stalls, and 1,955 surface parking stalls. It spans or crosses four ( 4) city streets. Some of the modifications address similar issues or design details such as placing parking between the building and pedestrian streets or a building exceeding the minimum setback. So two modifications actually apply to one facet of the design. 29. The appellant complains that the site plan does not correspond with the approved conceptual plan. The appellant strenuously argues that the current, what some might term, "concrete proposal'' is not a trne, laborious, carbon copy of the original concept plan or conceptual proposal. The objection is misplaced. The definition of a "concept" is that it is an abstract or generic idea. A conceptual plan is not a blue print. The conceptual plan is not a detailed proposal but provides a framework or basis for more concrete decision making. The site plan mirrors the conceptual plan in a number of particulars. The parking is located in the interior of the site, buildings, in the main, front the street or streets, there is an east-west pedestrian connector immediately north of the tier of buildings along N 8th Street and there is a north-south pedestrian connector in both the conceptual and site plans. The concrete proposal, that is the current Site Plan, does in fact flesh out the concepts. But it may even deviate in some manner from the concept. As noted, the concept is not a precise plan. Both the conceptual and the concrete show the The Landing Site Plan Hearing Ou ,.1erits File No.: LUA-06-071, SA-A May 22, 2007 Page 14 property bisected east and west by Park Avenue and north and south by 10th Street. Both conceptual and concrete show tiers of buildings alongside Park Avenue but also driveways, parking lots and large interior parking lots. Both concept and concrete show an east to west pedestrian passage north of the southern tier of buildings and both show a similar pedestrian passage running south to north in the western portion of the site. 30. There are no minimum front, side yard, side yard along street or rear yard setbacks required by code. There is a maximum 5-foot front yard and side yard along street setback. This maximum setback is intended to draw buildings up toward the sidewalk and provide a pedestrian-oriented experience. The Director determined in an earlier administrative decision that while the UC-NI Zone did not allow these setbacks to be increased by Site Plan review, other zones did allow such alteration and, therefore, for consistency, Site Plan alteration was appropriate and would be permitted. In the current review the Director found that the maximum setback could be increased and approved an increase. Since the Director has authority to approve a range of modifications, it is not necessary to use this authority to approve proposed modifications. 31. The Director also has the ability to grant modifications from the minimum standards. That ability could be used in the current case and will be employed by this office where appropriate. There is a practical difficulty in providing loading docks that either do not interfere with pedestrian areas or possibly create a complicated mix of passenger vehicles and larger delivery trucks. Therefore, increasing the distance between the sidewalk/street and buildings where loading docks are provided along N 8th Street and possibly Logan is appropriate and reasonable. Staff noted that these areas are landscaped and the Site Plan (Pages 78/79 of site plan) shows landscaping is intended in these areas and staff required supplementation (Page 14 of staff report). 32. Logan Avenue is considered a high visibility street and access to it has been limited to maintain its arterial functions and gateway aspect. This had led the applicant to place driveways along N 1 O'", which is a pedestrian oriented street. The minimum design standards "prohibit driveways" along pedestnan oriented streets. 33. Originally, the buildings located both east and west of the southern end of Park Avenue N would have a parking area with two rows of parking located between the buildings and the sidewalk. An update removed the parking along the west side of Park and moved that building closer to the street. A stipulation regarding Quadrant C removes from review most of the issues raised by the appellant for that Quadrant but one tier of parking immediately east of Park and west of an access driveway is still subject to the appeal. 34. The appellant noted that the building located northeast of the intersection of 8th and Logan does not front on the street and is setback too much. Logan is a curving street at this location and the facade is straight which creates the additional setback. There does not appear to be any practical difficulty and it appears that either landscaping or a modest change in the facade could be used to fill in this location. Curving the building might not create the most practical building internally but it is not difficult to accomplish. But if landscaping is permitted the applicant can either provide landscaping in this area or change the facade. 35. The appellant suggests that a public hearing is required on the Site Plan since there are "unresolved concerns" but the code language is more exacting referring to them as "significant unresolved concerns." (emphasis supplied). This office has no doubt that the appellant Mr. Nicholson has unresolved concerns. There may even be others who have unresolved concerns. In a project of this scale there are possibly quite a few unresolved concerns by any number of people. Those concerns have The Landing Site Plan Hearing on 1'1erits File No.: LUA-06-071, SA-A May 22, 2007 Page 15 to be significant. Some peoples' concerns may remain unresolved. That does neither tarnish the overall proposal nor mean it is subject to a public hearing. The ERC makes that decision and not any appellant or "concemee!" There are probably a number of concerns about this project that never will be resolved. Few land use decisions make everyone happy and unconcerned. 36. Access would be primarily from N JO"' Street or Park Avenue N. Access onto Logan Avenue N has been minimized due to its classification as a High Visibility Street. The modification would allow N 1 O"' to have driveways along a pedestrian-oriented street. 37. As noted the Director can allow modifications from the Title (4-9-250.D.2) as well as the minimum standards (4-3-100.L). In none of the cases would approval of the modification have a detrimental impact on other properties or the general public. The modifications allow driveways on pedestrian- oriented streets, facades to be setback from the street to accommodate loading docks and more than 60 feet of interruptions to the pedestrian-oriented streetscape. None of these modifications would adversely affect other property and they are not going to have an overall public detriment. The modifications are all modest -allowing driveways to enter interior parking lots even if they occasionally cross pedestrian-oriented streets is not inherently dangerous. The curving, feature-rich N 1 O" Street will calm traffic flow making turning movements less problematic. Moving building facades off the street to accommodate landscaped-screened loading docks is also not inherently harmful. The modifications are not allowing taller buildings, which might create shadow or shading effects making pedestrian-oriented streets less hospitable. The deviations (modifications) have been designed into the project and the entire project appears to demonstrate high quality design. Again, N !O'h has curves, a rotary, paving details and landscaping all intended to create a coherent design and fa,ade treatment. Allowing the driveways permits the applicant to emphasize the interior pedestrian paths and avoids cutting those with vehicle access. 38. Staff has stated that N 10th Street and Park Avenue N are pedestrian-oriented streets. They note that the buildings fronting on N I 0th Street between Logan Avenue N and Park Avenue N, and the north portion of Park Avenue N (buildings I 00, 101, l 02, l 03, 104, 105, 106, I 07, I 08, 109, 302, 303, 304, and 306) would have pedestrian-oriented facades and would contain pedestrian-oriented retail and service uses. The sidewalk widths along N 10th Street vary, but are no less than 12 feet. Entry canopies and building mounted weather protection are proposed and would also add to the pedestrian friendly environment. (Building numbers may have been changed since the original report). Staff notes further that the building along the west side of Park Avenue N has been reconfigured to provide retail store fronts facing Park Avenue N. A minimum of l O feet oflandseaping is proposed where the surface parking area would abut a public right-of-way. (Page 11 staff report) 39. The staff report states: "The driveway access to the proposed surface parking lots would be offofN 10th Street, Park Avenue N, Logan Avenue N, N 8th Street, and Garden Avenue N. The intent of prohibiting driveway access to surface parking lots was to maintain a contiguous, uninterrupted sidewalk by minimizing, consolidating, or eliminating access off of pedestrian-oriented streets. The location of the surface parking lots at mid block and the consolidation of the surface parking areas to allow for further structured parking and retail development requires that some access to the parking lot be provided off of pedestrian-oriented streets (N 10th between Logan Avenue N and Park Avenue N) and Park Avenue N. The consolidation of the surface parking areas also allows for consolidation of the access points to the parking lot as access is provided to a central area as opposed to several decentralized parking lots that would each require access. Due to the consolidation of the surface parking areas, which would facilitate the future constrnction of structured parking and retail development, into the center of the project site and the consolidation of access points to the parking area staff concurs that driveway access to the proposed surface parking lots is unavoidable." With those The Landing Site Plan Hearing on JV!erits File No.: LUA-06-071, SA-A May 22, 2007 Page 16 considerations, staff reconnnended approval of a modification to the vehicular access requirements to permit the proposed driveway access points onto pedestrian-oriented streets. 40. The comprehensive plan has a number of objectives for redeveloping the area where the proposal is located. Those policies recognize the surrounding industrial uses will limit development potential for a while and also that redevelopment may be phased and may occur over an approximately 30-year time frame: "The current supply of underutilized land north ofN. 8'" Street creates an immediate redevelopment opportunity for a first phase of development in District One. However, the industrial character of the surrounding developed properties, both within District Two to the west and the Employment Area- Industrial area to the east, will make it difficult to achieve true urban intensities in District One at the begirming of this transition. The overall Vision for the District contemplates much more than a series oflow-rise structures with large parking lots. Therefore, it is important that this initial development facilitates later stages of investment as the neighborhood matures and property values increase. It is also critical that the early-stage vision for District One sets the stage for high-quality redevelopment in District Two." "Vision -District One The changes in District One will be dramatic, as surface parking lots and existing large-scale industrial buildings are replaced by retail, flex tech, and office uses. Initial development may be characterized by large-format, low-rise buildings surrounding internal surface parking lots and bordered by a strong pedestrian- oriented spine along Park Avenue. As the Urban Center-North evolves, the buildings of District One may be remodeled and/or replaced with taller, higher density structures. Parking structures may also be built in future phases as infill projects that further the urbanization of the District. Two initial patterns of development arc anticipated within the District: one, creating a destination retail shopping district; and the other, resulting in a more diverse mixed-use, urban scale office and technical center with supporting commercial retail uses. It is hoped that over time these patterns will blend to become a cohesive mixed-use district. In its first phases of development, District One hosts for the region a new form of retail center. Absent are the physical constraints of a covered mall. Although parking initially may be handled in surface lots, their configuration,juxtaposed with smaller building units, eliminates the expanse of paving that makes other retail shopping areas unappealing to pedestrians. Building facades, of one or two stories, are positioned adjacent to sidewalks and landscaped promenades. Destination retail uses that draw from a sub-regional or regional market blend with small, specialty stores in an integrated shopping environment to support other businesses in the area. While large-format ("big-box") retail stores anchor development, they do not stand-alone. Rather, they are architecturally and functionally connected to the smaller shops and stores in integrated shopping centers." (Page IX-46) The Landing Site Plan Hearing on ,Aerits File No.: LUA-06-071, SA-A May 22, 2007 Page 17 In other words, any proposal including the current proposal is not envisioned as the total end product. There has to be a start to redeveloping the area and any initial project might not fulfill all the objectives at this time. The overall proposal is certainly compatible with most of the aims of the City as envisioned in its comprehensive plan. 41. As a whole, the project appears to work and the modifications requested and approved appear geared toward allowing current development to veer from the strict guidelines and they are GUIDELINES, so that the initial development can occur now while not thwarting redevelopment or new development of the interior spaces with structured parking or more compact urban design features. It would be or is too easy to shoot objections at a 3 8-acre project and find that it may not comport with every guideline found in Code. The fact that a 38-acre site may not fit every guideline or minimum standard was why the Director was apparently given the power to review modification requests and grant those requests if in the overall scheme of things, the development accomplished the City's goals for this area - redevelopment at an urban scale of substantially underutilized property but recognizing that the City's goals for this area may not be entirely fruitful this year or next year and not within even the first decade. The redevelopment and build-out of this area was projected to take a few decades. Parking lots and interior open spaces are eventually anticipated to be developed. The journey is expected to take a while and code writers and the City Council even expected a few missteps might be found in its ordinances, providing a flexible method of allowing modifications to those regulations. The project as a whole is compatible with the overall objectives, goals and policies of the comprehensive plan. It leads to redevelopment of this area with a well-designed, coherent project that allows internal growth opportunities for redevelopment over the next 30 years. It adds retail and commercial uses, it creates pedestrian oriented corridors, it will be linked to residential components and it allows the contmued function of the Boeing and Paccar industrial uses. The comprehensive plan compatibility is more than adequately discussed on Pages 3 and 4 of the staff report (August 17, 2006). There is a laundry list of policies and while the proposal might miss some aspects it meets others. The open center of the site, now dedicated to parking can be redeveloped over the 30-year time span suggested by the City's objectives. Similarly, employment can be expanded with redevelopment. It may not be possible to meet every objective in a time span of two to three years on an area of this size and one still subject to neighboring heavy industrial uses. 42. The appellant objected to the large interior parking lots: "This is because the Applicant designed a project that prioritized large, allegedly "convenient" parking lots over the "pedestrian-orients streets" that are mandated by the Renton Comprehensive Plan, approved Conceptual Plans, and development regulations in the Renton Municipal Code (RMC or "Code"). (Buck, Page 2 Post-Hearing Reply Brief). The appellant may complain of large, convenient parking lots but code does not prohibit them. What code prohibits are parking or lots between buildings and streets or too much frontage taken up by parking. The examples shown in the Code show larger, interior parking lots. The Conceptual Plan that the appellants allege the current Site Plan does not follow also showed larger interior parking lots. The real questions are not whether the lots are too large but whether some parking is in the wrong location, were modifications granted by the Director authorized by Code and were they appropriately reviewed, reasons demonstrated and granted? 43. The appellant suggests that the applicant created their own hardship by designing a project that does not conform to regulations. Hardship is not the standard for a modification. The modification criteria are not as demanding as those for a variance. There does not need to be a hardship and there is no concern about creating undue precedent as there are for reviewing a variance. None of the remaining criteria are as compelling as those required to grant a variance. Note the use of the terms or phrases "practical difficulties" and "impractical" in the modification criteria. Something impractical can justify a modification. The Director was not dealing with a "variance" where the applicant has to show undue The Landing Site Plan Hearing on tv!erits File No.: LUA-06-071, SA-A May 22, 2007 Page 18 hardship that deprives the applicant of reasonable use. Given an over 10 acre block, access needs to be provided in more than one location or else there would be practical difficulties for access. Loading docks need to be located somewhere on site and not impractically interfere with general pedestrian traffic or passenger vehicles. The Director used the appropriate standard in allowing modifications to access along N lO'h and loading docks along Logan and N 8"'. 44. Quadrant C provides only limited appeal issues. The parties have allowed through stipulation the building to be setback from Park. The parking stalls located on the east side of Park, adjacent to the roadway serving the proposed Target store, raise some issues. Is there some physical limitation or "practical difficulty" that requires parking when the guidelines do not allow it? There is no reason that makes compliance with code impractical. Landscaping can be provided to screen the access drive and the additional parking. This office has to find that while it may be "wasted" space that can boost the parking complement of the proposal, there is no practical difficulty in omitting that parking. It can be given over to landscaping, seating, decorative art or a combination of those uses. No practical difficulty requires a modification to allow parking in this area where none is permitted. 45. Similarly, this office can find no practical difficulty in providing a front entrance along Park Avenue. While an entrance along a facade where other shops or buildings have their entrance would be a nice design feature for an interrelated shopping complex, unless this office has missed some limiting aspect of the applicant's plans, there is no practical difficulty in providing another entrance along the pedestrian-oriented street, that is, Park Avenue. It is a design feature or detail that allows entrances to be oriented toward the interior of this complex. How pedestrian oriented will Park be if the facade facing Park is closed, routing pedestrians either far to the north or far to the south and then around to the west to gain access to a pedestrian oriented urban, shopping complex. Not every shop is obviously amenable to having multiple entrances but an inviting pedestrian presence is suppose to be a feature of this complex and the complex should not tum its "back" on Park Avenue. 46. There appear to be two standards that apply to pedestrian oriented streets. Section 4-3-100.F.4.b.ii indicates that surface parking driveways are prohibited on pedestrian-oriented streets while 4-3- 100.F. l .b.i.a suggests no more than 60 feet can serve vehicular access. In any event, the Director had to weigh the tradeoffs of interrupting Logan Avenue with vehicular access or N 10th with vehicular access. The Quadrant C block is large, at least 10 acres, and contains a large interior parking lot. The interior parking lots can provide redevelopment potential as suggested by the comprehensive plan. The interior parking can also potentially house structured parking and that is permitted to have access along pedestrian-oriented streets. Providing access to the interior parking on this large Quadrant and not have access along either Park or N 10th presents practical difficulties. The modification will allow development of a well-designed complex that provides pedestrian-oriented internal walkways that connect to pedestrian-oriented streets. In a perfect world there may be other methods of developing this site and the appellant may prefer some other design features but that does not show that the current design is inappropriate under the comprehensive plan. The small rotary, curving street and pedestrian crossings ofN 10th Street should convey to drivers that pedestrians prevail and should be safe. A modification that allows the access along N 10th Street will not injure or create adverse impacts to other property. It conforms to the intent of the Code to redevelop this area with high quality development and to encourage pedestrians and a few driveways will not offset those benefits. On a complex that faces the public on all sides, the project does its best to meet the requirements for parking to be on the "side and/or rear of a building" as required by Code. Further justification is that the driveways along N 10th will also limit impacts to Logan, a high visibility street. In other words, the modification to allow access to the surface parking from pedestrian oriented streets is appropriate and was appropriately approved. Allowing access along a pedestrian-oriented street and allowing more than 60 feet does not appear to create any injury to other properties. It will not create any unsafe conditions although it will The Landing Site Plan Hearing o _ . _erits File No.: LUA-06-071, SA-A May 22, 2007 Page 19 require more pedestrian vigilance. It allows the eventual redevelopment of the interior areas in compliance with the comprehensive plan's 30-year time frame. Notice, also, that the Code does appear to permit parking garages to have driveways along a pedestrian-oriented street. Therefore, it would not be that much of a stretch to allow surface lots access across such a street if there were practical difficulties in achieving a well-designed project while sparing Logan Avenue and Park Avenue from driveway intersections. And it would be no less safe than access to a parking garage. 47. The decision criteria for both a Site Plan and Modification use the terms "finding" and "find." Those terms are not as rigorous as those required by the Hearing Examiner language found in Code. In addition, notice the language in the next sentence "These criteria also provide a frame of reference ... but are not intended to discourage creativity and innovation." On occasion, when explaining land use law to laymen, this office has tried explaining that in many (most) areas of the law one does not ask a question such as whether something is "appropriate" or does it "discourage creativity. " Or "Does this plat meet the public use and interest or is it APPROPRIATE?" Rarely in the law does one make value judgments such as those examples. The language quoted above seems particularly clear -that the "criteria ... are not intended to discourage creativity and innovation." 48. Notice the much more specific requirements in the language governing Hearing Examiner decisions and Council action. "[F]indings from the record and conclusions" as opposed to the less rigorous "find" or "findings" asked of planners who are not asked to provide judicial or quasi-judicial decisions_ It would appear that the Director and other planning professionals exercise professional judgment when reviewing applications but are not held to a judicial standard in producing an analysis and decision on a proposal. The Director's narrative discussion found in the staff report is sufficient. The Director's decision has in most areas sufficient information and recitation of facts about a project and its impacts to comport with the "find[ings]" specified by Code. 49. This office has not been convinced by any of the evidence or testimony that ASE should be granted standing in this matter for the appeal of the update that was combined with the initial appeal of the Landing Site Plan. The previous decision on ASE 's standing on the initial appeal remains applicable to this second appeal. 50. Attached to the back of this report are the Code Sections that apply to various portions of this decision. CONCLUSIONS: 1. The appellant has the burden of demonstrating that the decision of the City Official was either in error, or was otherwise contrary to law or constitutional provisions, or was arbitrary and capricious (Section 4- 8-11 O(E)(7)(b ). The appellant has demonstrated that the action of the City should be modified and affirmed as indicated below. 2. Arbitrary and capricious action has been defined as willful and unreasoning action in disregard of the facts and circumstances. A decision, when exercised honestly and upon due consideration of the facts and circumstances, is not arbitrary or capricious (Northern Pacific Transport Co. v Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission, 69 Wn. 2d 472,478 (1966). 3. An action is likewise clearly erroneous when, although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing body, on the entire evidence, is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. (Ancheta v Daly, 77 Wn. 2d 255, 259 (1969). An appellate body should not necessarily substitute its judgment for the underlying agency with expertise in a matter unless appropriate. In this case, this ofilce will exercise authority that gives it the powers of the underlying body to overturn, The Landing Site Plan Hearing on JV!erits File No.: LUA-06-071, SA-A May 22, 2007 Page 20 modify and supplement the staff report. This office does not believe a remand is necessary as in most particulars the staff report and Director's decision is more than adequate but the appellant has demonstrated that the Director erred in granting some of the requested modifications. 4. The appellant urges that the matter be remanded to the Director and staff. Is a remand the only option or even necessary in this case? Or is there sufficient information in the record for the examiner to either agree that the Director made the correct decision or decisions or rectify an error? This office believes that the record, the files, applications, reviews and reports contained in the record would allow this office to avoid a remand. A remand would be appropriate if there were grievous errors or omissions in the underlying decision. This office does not find grievous errors that require substantial additional fact finding by the City. The errors that were made can be rectified by denying modifications for parking along Park and N I 0th Street and supplementing the staff report as was done in the above Findings. 5. This office can review the project and correct some of the errors, supplement the findings in others and affirm other parts of the decision without a remand. This office retains the authority of the "office from whom the appeal is taken." (4-8-110.E. l.c.) 6. While there have been challenges about whether the proposal is compatible with the comprehensive plan, whether it comports with the Conceptual Plan and the Master Plan, whether a public hearing was required and whether the Director appropriately reviewed and approved the various modifications, those issues can be resolved without a need to remand the matter or matters for further review. First, this office as noted finds that the overall Site Plan is compatible with the objectives, goals and policies of the comprehensive plan. The Director did not err and the appellant has failed to demonstrate that the decisions on those matters were clearly erroneous. As noted, there are a large number of objectives and the proposal complies with many of them as shown in the original staff report. The goals are also not necessarily attainable immediately but the comprehensive plan provided a long-range view of Renton and 30 years provides additional opportunities for additional employment and more dense development. 7. Code does not require endless or repeated or even one additional public hearing when one was held. There was a public hearing on the Planned Action Ordinance. The Planned Action was found appropriate at that time and the proposal continued to evolve in a manner that reflects the premises of the both the Planned Action and the Conceptual Plan. There was no determination that there were "substantially unresolved" issues and those that may be unacceptable to the appellant do not appear to be substantial. The appellant certainly did not show any clearly erroneous decisions that cannot be rectified in this review and that demand a remand. None of the issues involved go to the heart of the injuries that the appellant used to show standing. There were no traffic-related issues nor any storm water or water pollution issues that would jeopardize regional waters. The modifications objected to do not address either of those issues. 8. This office has to conclude that the Director did not reach the correct decision on some of the modifications requested since there does not appear to be evidence that "practical difficulties" precluded complying with Code. In those cases, this office will simply deny the modifications since this office has the power of the official whose decision is being challenged. There is no need to remand these matters for any further review. The modifications that allow parking east of Park at the southwest comer of Quadrant C and west of Park (north of Building 400) and along Logan are denied. There do not appear to be any "practical difficulties" in providing a "primary entrance" along Park Avenue, the facing street. This complex should not turn its back on the pedestrian oriented street since there should not be a "back" on a pedestrian oriented street. While the applicant has created an internal pedestrian orientation for much of this complex, it sits adjacent to Park Avenue and should welcome pedestrians who happen to be walking along Park. There do not appear to be any practical difficulties in providing the primary The Landing Site Plan Hearing o .. ,.1erits File No.: LUA-06-071, SA-A May 22, 2007 Page 21 entrance or even, possibly, co-equal entrance. It is merely a design decision. The modification should have been denied. This office will, therefore, exercise its authority under code and deny the modification. The modification for the building in the southeast comer of Quadrant B is denied and the building shall have a primary entrance along Park. The modification that would allow the building located in the southwest comer of Quadrant B to exceed the maximum setback is denied. This office cannot find any practical difficulties on limiting the curb area along Park north of Building 400 to "not more than 60 feet" occupied by parking or vehicular access. The parking certainly can be moved or removed and replaced by landscaping. The potential infill development would not be hampered by landscaping or seating in this area. Landscaping can be replaced by new structures. 9. In other areas such as whether formal findings are required, whether a public hearing was required and whether the Director has the authority to approve modifications in the Urban Design Regulations Overlay District (4-9-250) and the minimum standards of the design regulations (4-3-100.L) the appellant has not demonstrated that the Director made errors. The narrative form of the staff report appears to meet the standards of Code and the Director has the authority under various provisions to modify both the provisions of the general Title as well as the Minimum Standards if appropriate. 10. The nature of the Director's report does not fail because formal findings were not included. The Director's report provides reference to code sections, history of the project, zoning and comprehensive plan designations, background information and a discussion of the proposal and how it meets various code provisions. The Code contains different language specifying the requirements for a report from the City Council and Hearing Examiner decisions than it does for those of the Development Services reports. As has been noted, there are different review standards when the Council and Examiner issue quasi-judicial decisions than there are for Staff Reports or those made by the Director. The Director is not making judicial decisions but providing a readable report that shows how a project complies with a variety of code provisions, also providing details about treatment materials and trim details, sometimes detailing landscaping species, paving materials, and similar information. It does need to show how certain proposals such as modifications comply with code but it does not need to follow any particular form. The report provides sufficient details and the appellant has not demonstrated error. 11. A Public hearing was not required. There was the public hearing and other prerequisites required to allow Administrative review. While those hearings may have been a couple of years ago, the entire Planned Action Ordinance and Master Plan process is intended to give developers and neighbors some assurances that there will not be endless reviews and re-reviews of proposals. There needs to be some finality so that people can make economic commitments and expect that "monkey wrenches" will not be tossed into the mix a year or two down the line on larger scale projects such as this one. As noted, there may be some unresolved issues in the appellant's mind and even the minds of other persons but those are not necessarily significant and they may never be rcsol vcd to those persons' satisfaction. That docs not mean more public hearings are required. 12. The comprehensive plan compatibility is more than adequately discussed on Pages 3 and 4 of the staff report (August 17, 2006). There is a laundry list of policies and while the proposal might miss some aspects, it meets most others. The open center of the site, now dedicated to parking can be redeveloped over the 30-year time span suggested by the City's objectives. Employment can be expanded with redevelopment. It may not be possible to meet every objective in a time span of two to three years on an area of this size and one still subject to neighboring heavy industrial uses. 13. The phasing and 30 year t1meframe does not require immediate fruit10n of employment goals. No contractual requirements or covenants are needed. Frankly, 30 years is a long time. Thinking back 30 years, 1970 or so, few would have predicted that this land would be for sale by Boeing, Boeing would The Landing Site Plan Hearing on 1v!erits File No.: LUA-06-071, SA-A May 22, 2007 Page 22 be retreating to the lake and Boeing might cease most of its Renton operations. The project meets many of the comprehensive plan's objectives and goals. It is probably not an easy process redeveloping 38 acres and doing it all in one, rather expensive, "fell-swoop." 14. The loading docks have to be somewhere for a complex of this size and it would appear reasonable to place them along a street that does not promote pedestrian access. It certainly is better than in the midst of the complex where they would not only introduce larger trucks to a passenger car environment but also introduce trucks and loading docks to the pedestrian oriented south tier of shops and buildings. The Director mentioned the smooth flow of pedestrians along the south portion of Quadrant B in his review. 15. There are practical difficulties gaining access to the interior parking lots that serve the north, west and south buildings of this large 38-acre complex. So access along N 10th Street appears reasonable given the fact that Logan is a heavily traveled arterial. It is also a high visibility street where access to parking lots should be limited so that there are fewer turning movements to interfere with arterial flow. In addition, the block is large and access to the parking from the north helps drivers get to and from the complex from more than just one surrounding street. The street is well landscaped, contains decorative paving, a roundabout and other features to enhance the I 0th corridor. The street ties the north and south quadrants together. It does not detract from neighboring uses, presents a coherent plan and allows the development of this site in a manner compatible with the comprehensive plan. The additional frontage given to driveways or parking is not detrimental to the overall plan. 16. In conclusion, while the appellant has shown not all of the modifications were entirely appropriate, denying them will not substantially alter the Site Plan, and, frankly, approving them would not significantly detract from the overall plan either. It is just that under code, there did not seem to be practical difficulties that would have allowed them. The other approved modifications, also, quite frankly, do not appear to detract in any way from what appears to be a coherent, well-designed initial plan for redeveloping 38 fallow acres. The Director, possibly supplemented by the additional findings in this report, appropriately justified them and approved them as the Director found that the proposed Site Plan complies with the comprehensive plan, the Planned Action Ordinance, the Conceptual Plan and the Master Plan. Would it be possible to redesign the project -clearly. Might there even be ways to make it better -maybe. Are changes necessary to the overall plan -no. DECISION: The decision affirmed in part and reversed in part. The Director's decision is modified and this office will deny the requested modification for the parking lots on the east side of Park Avenue North that was not covered by the parties' stipulation for Quadrant C, the parking lot on the west side of Park and the parking lots along N 10th Street. Landscaping, street furniture or other uses compatible with the Design Standards may be installed in the place of the proposed parking. The Director's decision is modified and this office will deny the requested modification that would remove the requirement that a primary entrance be located on the pedestrian oriented street. The Director's decision is modified and this office will deny the requested modification that would allow the building at the southwest corner of Quadrant B to exceed the maximum setback. The Director's decision is modified and this office will deny the requested modification that would allow the parking to exceed more than 60 feet of curb length. ·The Landing Site Plan Hearing Oh ,Jerits File No.: LUA-06-071, SA-A May 22, 2007 Page 23 If the loss of parking affects the parking complement of the overall Site Plan, the applicant as code permits, may increase the height of the parking structure, remove a retail component or coordinate with the City other methods to provide sufficient parking as required by Code. The Director's decision is modified as indicated in the above conclusions wherein this decision supplements or supplants the Director's decision for the remaining modifications that were requested. In all other particulars, the Director's decisions are affirmed and the appeal is denied. ORDERED THIS 22"J day of May 2007. TRANSMITTED THIS 22"d day of May 2007 to the parties of record: Jill Ding 1055 S Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Duncan Green Buck & Gordon 2025 First Ave., Ste. 500 Seattle, WA 98121 Ross Radley Attorney at Law 3316 Fuhrman Ave E Seattle, WA 98102 Zanctta Fontes Assistant City Attorney City of Renton Jerome L. Hillis Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson, P.S. 500 Galland Building 1221 Second Avenue Seattle, WA 98121 Brad Nicholson 2811 Dayton Avenue Renton, WA 98056 TRANSMITTED THIS 22"d day of May 2007 to the following: Mayor Kathy Keolker Stan Engler, Fire Peter Buck Buck & Gordon 2025 First Ave., Ste. 500 Seattle, WA 98121 Karen Breckenridge Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson, P.S. 500 Galland Building 1221 Second A venue Seattle, WA 98121 Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer Julia Mcdzegian, Council Liaison Larry Warren, City Attorney Larry Meckling, Building Official Planning Commission Transportation Division Gregg Zimmerman, PBPW Administrator Alex Pietsch, Economic Development Jennifer Hennmg, Development Services Stacy Tucker, Development Services Utilities Division Neil Watts, Development Services Janet Conklin, Development Services King County Journal The Landing Site Plan Hearing on 1vlerits File No.: LUA-06-071, SA-A May 22, 2007 Page 24 Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Section IOOGofthe City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m., Jnne 5, 2007. Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the Examiner is ambiguous or based on erroneous procedure, errors oflaw or fact, error in judgment, or the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing may make a written request for a review by the Examiner within fourteen (14) days from the date of the Examiner's decision. This request shall set forth the specific ambiguities or errors discovered by such appellant, and the Examiner may, after review of the record, take further action as he deems proper. An appeal to the City Council is governed by Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 110, which requires that such appeal be filed with the City Clerk, accompanying a filing fee of $75 .00 and meeting other specified requirements. Copies of this ordinance are available for inspection or purchase in the Finance Department, first floor of City Hall. An appeal must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m., June 5, 2007. If the Examiner's Recommendation or Decision contains the requirement for Restrictive Covenants, the executed Covenants will be required prior to approval by City Council or final processing of the file. You may contact this office for information on formatting covenants. The Appearance of Fairness Doctrine provides that no ex parte (private one-on-one) communications may occur concerning pending land use decisions. This means that parties to a land use decision may not communicate in private with any decision-maker concerning the proposal. Decision-makers in the land use process include both the Hearing Examiner and members of the City Council. All communications concerning the proposal must be made in public. This public communication permits all interested parties to know the contents of the communication and would allow them to openly rebut the evidence. Any violation of this doctrine would result in the invalidation of the request by the Court. The Doctrine applies not only to the initial public hearing but to all Requests for Reconsideration as well as Appeals to the City Council. ·The Landing Site Plan Hearing on ,"1erits File No.: LUA-06-071, SA-A May 22, 2007 Page 25 CODE PROVISIONS The following Code Sections apply to various portions of this decision. This office has emphasized with a double-underline the particular text in a section that is applicable to the decision. Design Criteria Code Provisions 4-3-100.E.3.b 3. Building Entnes: Intent: To make building entrances convenient to locate and easy to access, and ensure that building entries further the pedestrian nature of the fronting sidewalk and the urban character of the district. b. Minimum Standards for Distnct · C': 1. On pedestrian-oriented streets, the primary entrance of each building shall be located on the facade facing the street. 4-3-100.E. l .b.ii.a (a) High Visibility Street. A highly visible arterial street that warrants special design treatment to improve its appearance and maintain its transportation function. 4-3-100.F.4.b b. Minimum Standards for District 'C': 1. Parkinggarages shall be acc~ssed at the r_ear ofbuildmgs or from non-pedestrian- ori,nted streets wh,n available. 11. Surface parking driveways are prohibited on pedestrian-oriented streets. 111. Parking lot entrances, driveways, and other vehicular access points on high visibility streets shall be restricted to one entrance and exit lane per five hundred (500) linear feet as measured horizontally along the street. F PAR.KING AND VEHICULAR ACCESS: Intent: To provide safe, convenient access to the Urban Center; incorporate various modes of transportation, including public mass transit, in order to reduce traffic volumes and other impacts from vehicles; ensure sufficient parking is provided, while encouraging creativity in reducing the impacts of parking areas; allow an active pedestrian environment by maintaining contiguous street frontages, without parking lot siting along sidewalks and building facades; minimize the visual impact of parking lots; and use access streets and parking to maintain an urban edge to the district. 1. Location of Parking: Intent: To maintain active pedestrian environments along streets by placing parking lots primarily in back of buildings. Parking along street 4-3-100.E.2.b 2. Building Location and Orientation: Intent: To ensure visibility of businesses; establish active, lively uses along sidewalks and pedestrian pathways; organize buildings in such a way that pedestrian use of the district is facilitated; encourage siting of structures so that natural light and solar access are available to other structures and open space; The Landing Site Plan Hearing on Merits File No.: LUA-06-071, SA-A May 22, 2007 Page 26 enhance the visual character and definition of streets within the district; provide an appropriate transition between buildings, parking areas, and other land uses and the street; and increase privacy for residential uses located near the street. b. Minimum Standards for District 'C': 1. Buildings on designated pedestrian-oriented streets shall feature "pedestrian-oriented facades" and clear connections to the sidewalk (see illustration, RMC 4-3-IOOE7a). Such buildings shall be located adjacent to the sidewalk, except where pedestrian- oriented space is located between the building and the sidewalk. Parking between the building and pedestrian-oriented streets is prohibited. 11. Buildings fronting on pedestrian-oriented streets shall contain pedestrian-oriented uses. 111. Nonresidential buildings may be located directly adjacent to any street as long as they feature a pedestrian-oriented facade. 1v. Buildings containing street-level residential uses and single-purpose residential buildings shall be set back from the sidewalk a minimum often feet (10') and feature substantial landscaping between the sidewalk and the building (see illustration, RMC 4- 3-100E7b). v. If buildings do not feature pedestrian-oriented facades they shall have substantial landscaping between the sidewalk and building. Such landscaping shall be at least ten feet (10') in width as measured from the sidewalk (see illustration, RMC 4-3-100E7c). c. Guidelines Applicable to District 'C': 1. Siting of a structure should take into consideration the continued availability of natural light (both direct and reflected) and direct sun exposure to nearby buildings and open space (except parking areas). 11. Ground floor residential uses located near the street should be raised above street level for residents' privacy. b. Minimum Standards for District 'C': 1. On Designated Pedestrian-Oriented Streets: (a) Parking shall be at the side and/or rear of a building, with the exception of on-street parallel parking. No more than sixty feet (60') of the street frontage measured parallel to the curb shall be occupied by off-street parking and vehicular access. 11. All parking lots located between a building and street or visible from a street shall feature landscaping between the sidewalk and building; see RMC 4-4-0SOF, Parking Lot Design Standards. 4-3-!00URBAN DESIGN REGULATIONS: A PURPOSE: The purpose of this Section is to: 1. Establish design review regulations in accordance with policies established in the Land Use and Community Design Elements of the Renton Comprehensive Plan in order to: a. Maintain and protect property values; b. Enhance the general appearance of the City; c. Encourage creativity in building and site design; d. Achieve predictability, balanced with flexibility; and e. Consider the individual merits of proposals. ·The Landing Site Plan Hearing on 1v!erits File No.: LUA-06-071, SA-A May 22, 2007 Page 27 4. Create design standards and guidelines specific to the Urban Center -North (District 'C') that ensure design quality of structures and site development that implements the City of Renton's Comprehensive Plan Vision for its Urban Center -North. This Vision is of an urban environment that concentrates uses in a "grid pattern" of streets and blocks. The Vision is of a vibrant, economically vital neighborhood that encourages use throughout by pedestrians. 5. Create design standards and guidelines applicable to the use of"big-box retail" as defined in RMC 4-11- 180, Definitions. 6. Establish two categories of regulations: (a) "minimum standards" that must be met, and (b) "guidelines" that, while not mandatory, are considered by the Development Services Director in determining if the proposed action meets the intent of the design guidelines. In the Urban Center Design Overlay area, specific minimum standards and guidelines may apply to all three districts, or certain districts only (Districts 'A', 'B', or 'C'), as indicated herein. (Ord. 5029, 11-24-03; Ord. 5124, 2-7-2005) Criteria for Site Plan Review 4-9-200.E "E DECISION CRITERIA FOR SITE PLAN AND MASTER PLANS: The Reviewing Official shall review and act upon plans based upon a finding that the proposal meets Comprehensive Plan objectives and policies and the criteria in this subsection and in subsection F of this Section, as applicable. These criteria also provide a frame of reference for the applicant in developing a site, but arc not intended to discourage creali vity and innovation." Criteria for Hearing Examiner, Council and Planning Decisions 4-8-100.G: "1. Standard Decision Time and Notification Procedure: Unless the time 1s extended pursuant to this Section, within fourteen ( 14) days of the conclusion of a hearing, or the date set for submission of additional information pursuant to this Chapter, the Examiner shall render a \Hitten decision, including findingWom the record and conclusions therefrom, and shall transmit a copy of such decision by regular mail, postage prepaid, to the applicant and other parties of record in the case requesting notice of the decision. The person mailing the decision, together with the supporting documents, shall prepare an affidavit of mailing, in standard form, and the affidavit shall become a part of the record of the proceedings. ln the case of applications requiring City Council approval, the Examiner shall file his decision with the City Council members individually at the expiration of the appeal period for the decision." "K. COUNCIL ACTION: I. Council Action Requires Minutes and Findings of Fact: Any application requiring action by the City Council shall be evidenced by minute entry unless otherwise required by law. When taking any such final action, the Council shall make and enter findings of fact from the record and conclusions therefrom which support its action.'1 4-9-200.E. I .b "The Reviewing Official shall review and act upon plans based upon a finding thatth, proposal meets the Comwehensive~Plan ob1ectives and policies and the criteria in this subsection and subsection F of this Section, as applicable. These criteria also provide a frame of reference for the applicant in developing a site, but are not intended to discourage creativity and innovation." The Landing Site Plan Hearing on Merits File No.: LUA-06-071, SA-A May 22, 2007 Page 28 4-9-200.E "In rendering a decision, the Director will consider proposals on the basis of individual merit, will consider the overall intent of the of the minimum standards and guidelines, and encourage creative design alternatives in order to achieve the purposes of the design regulations." Hearing Examiner Authority 4-8-110. "E. APPEALS TO EXAMINER OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS AND ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATIONS: (Amd. Ord. 4827, 1-24-2000) I. Applicability and Authority: c. Authority-To that end, the Exarniner. sllall have all of the powers of the office from whom the appeal is taken insofar as the decision on the particular issue is concemed," Criteria for Modifications from Code 4-9-250 VARIANCES, WAIVERS, MODIFICATIONS, AND AL TERNA TES: A PURPOSES: 3. Modifications: To modify a Code requirement when there are practical difficulties involved in carrying out the provisions of this Title when a special individual reason makes the strict letter of this Code impractical. (Ord. 4346, 3-9-1992) D MODIFICATION PROCEDURES: I. Application Time and Decision Authority: Modification from standards, either in whole or in part, shall be subject to review and decision by the Planning/Building/Public Works Department upon submittal in writing of jurisdiction for such modification. (Amd. Ord. 4777, 4-19-1999) 2. Decision Criteria: Whenever there are practical difficulties involved in carrying out the provisions of this Title, the Department Administrator may grant modifications for individual cases provided he/she shall first find that a specific reason makes the strict letter of this Code impractical, that the intent and purpose of the 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 modification: 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 proposed modification is the minimum adjustment necessary to implement these policies and objectives; b. Will meet the objectives and safety, function, appearance, environmental protection and maintainability intended by the Code requirements, based upon sound engineering judgment; c. Will not be injurious to other property(ies) in the vicinity; d. Conforms to the intent and purpose of the Code; e. Can be shown to be justified and required for the use and situation intended; and f. Will not create adverse impacts to other property(ies) in the vicinity. (Ord. 4517, 5-8-1995; Ord. 5100, 11-1-2004) ·The Landing Site Plan Hearing o ... Aerits File No.: LUA-06-071, SA-A May 22, 2007 Page 29 4-9-250.D(2) "2. Decision Criteria: Whenever there are practical difficultiesjnvolved in carrying out the movisions of this Title, the Department Administrator may grant modifications for individual cases provided he/she shall first find that a specific reason makes the strict letter of this Code impractical, that the intent and purpose of the 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 modification:" Criteria for Modifications from Minimum Standards Modifications 4-8-070.C. l O.vi C PLANNlNG/BUILDlNG/PUBLIC WORKS ADMINISTRATOR OR DESIGNEE: Authority: The Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator or his/her designee shall review and act on the following: 10. Modifications: "also 4-3-100.L v1. Modifications to development standards in the Center Village Residential Bonus District and the Urban Design Regulation Overla:,, District; L. MODIFICATION OF MINIMUM STANDARDS: I. The Director of the Development Services Division shall have the authority to modify the minimum standards of the design re~ulaJions, subject to the provisions of RMC 4-9-250D, Modification Procedures, and the following requirements: a. The project as a whole meets the intent of the minimum standards and guidelines in subsections E, F, G, H, I, J, and K of the design regulations; b. The requested modification meets the intent of the applicable design standard; c. The modification will not have a detrimental effect on nearby properties and the City as a whole; d. The deviation manifests high quality design; and e. The modification will enhance the pedestrian environment on the abutting and/or adjacent streets and/or pathways. 2. Exceptions for Districts A and B: Modifications to the requirements in subsections E2a and E3a of this Section are limited to the following circumstances: a. When the building is oriented to an interior courtyard, and the courtyard has a prominent entry and walkway connecting directly to the public sidewalk; or b. When a building includes an architectural feature that connects the building entry to the public sidewalk; or c. In complexes with several buildings, when the building is oriented to an internal integrated walkway system with prominent connections to the public sidewalk(s). (Ord. 5124, 2-7-2005) Criteria for Public Hearings on Site Plans Public hearing required: The Landing Site Plan Hearing on Merits File No.: LUA-06-071, SA-A May 22, 2007 Page 30 D CRITERIA TO DETERMINE IF PUBLIC HEARING REQUIRED: In all cases, the public hearing for Master Plan or Site Plan Review should be conducted concurrently with any other required hearing, such as rezone or subdivision, if the details of the development are sufficiently defined to permit adequate review. A public hearing before the Hearing Examiner shall be required in the following cases: I. Master Plans: a. All Master Plans proposed or required per subsection B of this Section, Master Plan Review, Applicability. Where a Master Plan is apw:oved, subsequent Site Plans submitted for future phases may be submitted and approved administratively without a public hearing. b. Exception for Planned Actions: A heari!lg before the Hearing Examiner is not reguired if both of the following criteria are met: 1. One or more public. hearings were held where_public comment wa~solicited on the proposed Planned Acnon Ordinance, and 11. The environmental impact statement for the planned action reviewed prehminary concel)tual__plans for the site which provided the public and decision-makers with sufficient detail regarding the scale of the proposed improvements, the quantity of the various types of spaces to be provided, the use to which the structure will be put, and the bulk and general form of the improvements. "2. Site Plan Review: a. Significant Environmental Concerns Remain: The Environmental Review Committee i;lctcrmjrlt:§ that based on departmental comments or public input there are significant unresolved concerns that are raised by the proposal; or b. Large Project Scale: The proposed project is more than: 1. One hundred ( I 00) semi-attached or attached residential units; or ,1. One hundred thousand (100,000) square feet of gross floor area (nonresidential) in the IL or CO Zones or other zones in the Employment Area Valley (EA V) land use designation (see EAV Map in RMC 4-2-0SOB); or 111. Twenty five thousand (25,000) square feet of gross floor area (nonresidential) in the CN, CD, CA, CV, or CO Zones outside the Employment Area Valley (EAV) land use designation (see EA V Map in RMC 4-2-0SOB); or 1v. Four (4) stories or sixty feet (60') in height; or v. Three hundred (300) parking stalls; or vi. Ten (10) acres in size of project area. c. Commercial or industrial property lies adjacent to or abutting the RC, R-1, R-4, R-8 and R-10 Zones. (Ord. 4551, 9-18-1995; Ord. 4773, 3-22-1999; Ord. 4802, 10-25-1999; Amd. Ord. 4963, 5-13-2002; Ord. 5028, 11-24-2003)" D Cash 9('Check No. Description: CITY OF RENTON City Clerk Division 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 425-430-6510 97)92? &/f'o/ lo D Copy Fee ~ Appeal Fee 0;vr?Ctl Funds Received From: Name J/c111 P Address '500 (:,t4L.U1-rJ "5'./fL-DJ,1) b City/Zip I l Z,. / X Cu-v, ti rir/f Receipt N ~ 0882 Date lR/sjzoa7 D Notary Service D ________ _ of: LvA-O/a-a7/, S""1-A , dir:r 5 Ir-r s il1: d o-ri I Amount$ -,, /S'. Ob Se0 file; wr1 °J Y/ D(-Z °' c) I 1 I 2 1 7 13 1 4 I I I • • City Clerk's Office Distribution List Appeal, The Landing Site Plan LUA-06-071, SA-A June 22, 2007 Renton Reporter City Attorney Larry Warren City Council * Julia MedzeQjan EDNSP/Economic Development Alex Pietsch Rebecca Lind Fire Dent/Fire Prevention I. David Daniels Planning Commission Judith Subia Parties of Record** ( see attached list) PBPW/ Administration Gre2:2: Zimmerman PBPW/Development Services Neil Watts Jennifer Henning Stacy Tucker Jill Din2: PBPW /Transportation Services Peter Hahn PBPW /Utilities & Tech Services LvsHomsbv LUA-06-071 • *City Clerk's Letter & POR List only Aooea l 6/5/2007 Uncontested Facts in Nicholson Declaration First Nicholson Declaration • Nicholson participated in discussions regarding the formation of ASE and encouraged that approach, which resulted in its incorporation. ,i 6. • Nicholson is contributing funds to ASE. ,i 7. • ASE's director has made a practice of consulting members and has memorialized this historic practice by adopting the following policy: o The members shall be consulted by the director(s) in advance of all major decisions concerning appeals or litigation, including whether or not to appeal, whether to dismiss appeals, whether to settle, etc. The corporation shall carry out the directions of the members. ,i 9. • All of ASE's members were consulted in advance of ASE's decision to appeal the Director's decisions in this case. ,i 11. All who responded were in favor of filing the appeals. ,i 7. • Nicholson personally knows other members of ASE, Renton residents who are similarly situated and aggrieved by the Director's decisions in this case. All were duly elected as members long before the appeals of these decisions were filed. ,i 7. • Nicholson has been elected to the offices of Vice President and Secretary of ASE and keeps corporate records for ASE. ,i 8. • The corporate purpose of ASE is to advance its members' interest in the environment, land use planning, and governmental fiscal integrity of the City of Renton. ,i 9. • ASE has also amended its bylaws to formalize its members' control over the direction of the corporation. ASE's members exercise such control by expressing their views in consultations with the board of directors in advance of all major decisions concerning appeals, litigation or settlement of claims, as required by ASE's bylaws, and by voting on matters set forth in ASE's bylaws, including but not limited to the election of directors and any increases or decreases in the number of directors, pursuant to RCW 24.03.100; the removal of directors at any time with or without cause or notice, pursuant to RCW 24.03.103; all amendments to ASE's bylaws, pursuant to RCW 24.03.070; and all amendments to ASE's Articles of Incorporation, pursuant to RCW 24.03.165(1). ir 10. • Nicholson and others ASE members have observed great anger, retaliation, and intimidation in Renton City Hall toward people who oppose The Landing and the Mayor's wishes in general. Being able to shield the identities of members is important. ,i 12. • Requirements for Appeal Notices RENTON MUNICIPAL CODE 4-8-110.C(3)-(4): 3. Required Form for and Content of Appeals: Any appeal shall be filed in writing. The written notice of appeal shall fully, clearly and thoroughly specify the substantial error(s) in fact or law which exist in the record of the proceedings from which the appellant seeks relief. (Ord. 4353, 6-1-1992) 4. Filing of Appeal and Fee: The notice of appeal shall be accompanied by a fee in accordance with RMC 4-1-170, the fee schedule of the City. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-1982) AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING ST A TE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss. County of King ) Nancy Thompson being first duly sworn, upon oath, deposes and states: That on the 22"d day of May 2007, affiant deposited via the United States Mail a sealed envelope(s) containing a decision or recommendation with postage prepaid, addressed to the parties of record in the below entitled application or petition. Signature: SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this LZJ day of _ _,!~{~';(~;?,,_!_· __ , 2007. Application, Petition or Case No.: The Landing Site Plan Hearing on Merits LUA 06-071, SA-A The Decision or Recommendation contains a complete list of the Parties of Record. ' . 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ,;rry OF RENTON rA1W 2 2 2007 RECEIVED CITV Cl ERK'S ')FC'CE' j .! i '-i (11 /\~ ,ii°\_· I 1 !. <r, •r, BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER OF THE CITY OF RENTON In the Matter of the Appeals of Alliance for South End (ASE) and Brad Nicholson re: Building Permit Approvals for Buildings 101, 102 and 200, B060540, B060688 APPLICANT'S REPLY TO ASE AND NICHOLSON RESPONSE TO MOTIONS TO DISMISS ASE AND NICHOLSON APPEALS FROM THE LANDING BUILDING PERMIT APPROVALS I. INTRODUCTION 13 Applicant Harvest Partners brings this Reply to Appellants' responses to Applicant's 14 and City's motions to dismiss Appellants' building permit appeals for The Landing project. 1 s Because Appellants have failed to provide sufficient evidence to establish that Mr. Nicholson 16 and ASE have standing to bring these appeals, and because the Examiner lacks jurisdiction to 17 hear the claims made by Appellants in these appeals, Applicant respectfully requests that the 18 Examiner dismiss Appellants' appeals of the Building Permit Approvals. 19 II. STATEMENT OF FACTS 20 On November 28, 2006, the City of Renton issued a decision approving building 21 permits for Buildings 101 and 102, Buildings 10 I and l 02 are located in the southeast 22 quadrant of The Landing project. On February 27, 2007, the City of Renton issued a decision 23 approving a building permit for Building 200, Building 200 is located in the north central 24 portion of the southwest quadrant of The Landing project. The City's approvals of the 25 building permits for Buildings 101, 102 and 200 in The Landing are collectively referred to 26 herein as the "Building Permit Approvals." 27 28 Applicant's Reply-Page I o/8 .JHIGINAL 1-IILI.IS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON, P,S, 500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Ave Seatlle WA 98101-2925 206,623.1745; fax 206.623.7789 Additional facts relevant to this Reply are set forth in Applicant's Motions to Dismiss 2 ASE and Nicholson Appeals from The Landing Building Permit Approvals for Lack of 3 Standing, which motions are incorporated herein by this reference. 4 5 A. 6 Ill. ARGUMENT 1 Mr. Nicholson Lacks Standing I. Mr. Nicholson's alleged injuries do not arise from the Building Permit Approvals. 7 8 9 JO 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 To establish standing, the appellant bears the burden of demonstrating that "he or she will be specifically and perceptibly harmed by the proposed action." RMC 4-8-l 10.E(3)(b); RMC 4-11-010. In these appeals, the only actions subject to challenge are the City's Building Permit Approvals. The basis for Mr. Nicholson's standing, therefore, must arise from the Building Permit Approvals, not from prior City approvals of the master plan or site plan for The Landing. Despite the Examiner's specific request for briefing on this issue at the pre-hearing conference, and despite extensive briefing filed by Mr. Nicholson and ASE in their Responses, Appellants have nevertheless failed to establish that Mr. Nicholson suffers any injury in fact arising directly from the Building Permit Approvals. Instead, Appellants attempt to rest Mr. Nicholson's standing upon claims of injury arising solely from prior approvals, such as alleged harm from violations of development standards related to maximum setbacks (an issue raised in the site plan appeals), or alleged harm from the inappropriate presence of suburban-style development (an issue raised in the master plan and site plan appeals). See Declaration of Brad Nicholson, at 2. Perhaps recognizing their inability to assert any direct injury from the Building Permit Approvals themselves, Appellants try to bolster their position with citations to other cases in which appellants were deemed to have standing for purposes of challenging building permit appeals. Appellants' Response, at 13. However, the facts of those cases only magnify the 1 ln addition to the arguments presented herein, Applicant incorporates by this reference the arguments 28 made on behalf of the City of Renton in the City of Renton 's Reply to Appellants' Response to Applicant's and City's Motions to Dismiss Building Permit Appeals, dated May 22, 2007. Applicant's Reply-Page 2 o/8 HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON, P.S. 500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Ave Seattle WA 98101-2925 206.623.1745; fax 206.623.7789 deficiency of Appellants' standing claims in the current appeals. For example, the Asche 2 decision involved a challenge to a building permit approval based upon an injury arising 3 directly from the building itself-specifically, that the building's height exceeded the 4 maximum allowable height under the zoning ordinance. Asche v. Bloomquist, 132 Wn.App. 5 784 (2006). 6 Unlike the facts in Asche, however, Appellants' Response lacks any allegation of 7 direct injury from the buildings themselves. Indeed, Appellants' appeals appear to focus on 8 everything but the approved buildings, such as the location of the buildings relative to the 9 streets, or the presence of surface parking driveways near the buildings. Appellants point to 1 o no specific criteria, in the Renton Municipal Code or the International Building Code, 11 requiring consideration of such extraneous items prior to approval of a building permit. To 12 the contrary, such site elements should be, and have been, considered at earlier stages of 13 development review, including the master plan and site plan stages. Any claims based upon 14 these supposed injuries reflect improper collateral attacks on prior City approvals and, as 15 discussed below, are not properly before the Examiner in the present appeals. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2. Alleged procedural injuries are an insufficient basis for standing. Appellants also attempt to show direct harm from the Building Permit Approvals by asserting certain "procedural injuries," such as failure to hold hearings before the Examiner prior to the Building Permit Approvals. See, e.g., Appellants' Response, at 12. Even if these were valid claims (which they are not), loss of an alleged procedural entitlement, by itself'. does not constitute sufficient injury in fact to support standing to sue. Allan v. Univ. a/Wash., 140 Wn.2d 323, 332-33, 997 P.2d 360 (2000) ("Absent a concrete interest, injury-in-fact standing ... is not conferred upon [a plaintiff] merely on the basis of an asserted failure on the part of the agency to follow procedural requirements"). As the Supreme Court has determined, there must be a specific, direct injury beyond the alleged procedural harm to establish standing: We do not hold that an individual cannot enforce procedural rights; he assuredly can, so long as the procedures in question are designed to protect Applicant's Reply -Page 3 of 8 HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON, P.S. 500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Ave Seattle WA 98101-2925 206.623.1745; fax 206.623.7789 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 27 28 some threatened concrete interest of his that is the ultimate basis of his standing. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555,573 n.8 (1992). As discussed above, Appellants fail to establish any specific, concrete injuries in fact to Mr. Nicholson. Their claims of procedural injury are therefore insufficient to grant standing. 3. Mr. Nicholson cannot use this forum to raise issues arising from prior approvals. Washington courts prohibit appellants from using appeals of land use decisions to collaterally challenge prior approvals. See, e.g., Habitat Watch v. Skagit County, 155 Wn.2d 397, 120 P.3d 56 (2005). The only approvals at issue in these appeals are the Building Permit Approvals. Therefore, Mr. Nicholson's appeals of the Building Permit Approvals must be limited to the validity of these approvals. Mr. Nicholson cannot in these appeals collaterally challenge the site plan or master plan approvals, nor can his standing for these appeals be based upon injuries arising out of those previous decisions. As discussed above, examination of Mr. Nicholson's supposed "injuries" reveals that none of the injuries arises from the Building Permit Approval. Instead, each of the purported injuries relates back to prior approvals for The Landing, including the master plan and site plan approvals. By attempting to establish standing with claims of injury arising from prior approvals, Mr. Nicholson engages in a collateral attack on the prior City decisions. Such a collateral attack is not permitted. Despite Appellants' claims that they are not engaging in collateral attacks on prior approvals, various sections of Appellants' Response make their true intent perfectly clear: By filing these appeals of the Building Permit Approvals, Nicholson and other members of ASE are seeking to vindicate their interests in the enforcement of maximum setbacks, pedestrian friendly design regulations, and adequate Site Plan and environmental review for the benefit of their community. Appellants' Response, at 10-11. Notably, all of these interests Mr. Nicholson seeks to "vindicate" were issues raised in earlier appeals. Again in the next sentence, Appellants indicate their intent to attack the already-completed environmental review process via these appeals: "each structure that is built using approvals piggy-backed on the City's flawed and outdated environmental analysis will contribute incrementally to unmitigated stormwater and Applicant's Reply -Page 4 of 8 HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON, P.S. 500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Ave Seattle WA 98101-2925 206.623.1745; fax 206.623.7789 traffic impacts." Appellants' Response, at 11. As evidenced by this language, Appellants' 2 primary intent in filing these appeals appears to be an attempt to get "another bite at the 3 apple" of prior approvals, including the environmental review, the master plan approval, and 4 the site plan approval. s Rather than openly admit to their use of the City's appeal process to collaterally attack 6 prior approvals, however, Appellants instead attempt to inject additional criteria into the 7 City's building permit review process. For example, Appellants point to sections of the 8 Renton Municipal Code relating to the City's review of site plan applications, suggesting "an 9 intent by City Council to subject building permits to continuing review for compliance with 1 o the Site Plan itself as well as particular Code requirements governing site design." 11 Appellants' Response, at 9 (emphasis added). This is a mischaracterization of the Renton 12 Municipal Code. The specific code criteria governing site design are applicable to review of 13 master plans and site plans, not building permit applications.2 Appellants' suggestion that 14 these same code requirements must be individually applied again in the City's review of 15 building permit applications -their so-called "redundant review"3 -has no basis in the 16 Renton Municipal Code. Once a master plan and site plan have been approved, as here, those 17 criteria have been met. Prior to approving the building permit application, the City need not 18 step through each and every element of the site plan criteria yet again. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4. Standing for one appeal does not necessarily result in standing in a separate appeal Finally, Appellants suggest that because Mr. Nicholson was found to have standing in prior appeals, he must therefore be granted standing in this appeal. Appellants' Response, at 8 ("Just as Nicholson has standing to appeal the Site Plan due to harms from nonconformities and impacts associated with The Landing, he necessarily has standing to appeal building permit decisions ... "); Appellants' Response, at 14 ("The Hearing Examiner has already held that these allegations of harm give Bran [sic] Nicholson standing"). This 2 The Renton Municipal Code makes this very clear, stating: "Site Development plan review is divided into two types: Master Plan and Site Plan." RMC 4-9-200.A (emphasis added). 3 Appellants' Response, at 22. Applicant's Reply -Page 5 of 8 HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON, P.S. 500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Ave Seattle WA 98101-2925 206.623. 1745: fax 206.623. 7789 assertion has no support in the Renton Municipal Code or under Washington or federal 2 standing jurisprudence. To the contrary, courts have consistently held that standing must be 3 established as to each and every claim. See, e.g., DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuna, 126 S. Ct. 4 1854, 186 7 (2006) ("The standing inquiry requires careful judicial examination of a 5 complaint's allegations to ascertain whether the particular plaintiff is entitled to an 6 adjudication of the particular claims asserted."). Appellants' reliance upon prior decisions 7 granting Mr. Nicholson standing is therefore improper and irrelevant for purposes of these 8 appeals. 9 To establish standing for these appeals, Appellants must demonstrate that Mr. 1 o Nicholson has suffered or will suffer specific harm arising from the Building Permit 11 Approvals. Rather than assert any direct harm from the buildings permits, however, 12 Appellants attempt to rely upon claims of alleged procedural injuries, collateral attacks on 13 prior approvals, and Mr. Nicholson's standing in prior appeals. Appellants have failed to 14 meet their burden to establish Mr. Nicholson's standing. 15 B. 16 ASE Lacks Standing ], ASE fails to demonstrate that it has a member with standing. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 To establish associational standing, the association bears the burden of establishing that it has a member with standing to bring the appeals. Mr. Nicholson is the only named member of ASE. As discussed above, because Mr. Nicholson has not established an injury in fact arising out of the Building Permit Approvals, Mr. Nicholson lacks standing to bring these appeals. Without a member with standing, ASE lacks associational standing to bring these appeals. 2. ASE's December Bylaws reflected insufficient control by its members. In addition to ASE' s inability to show that it has a member with standing, ASE lacked associational standing to appeal the Building Permit Approval of Buildings IO I and I 02. As detailed in prior briefing by Applicant, the Examiner has dismissed all of ASE's prior appeals for lack of standing. At the time of ASE's December appeal of the building permit approval for Buildings 101 and 102, ASE's Bylaws and other corporate documents still reflected an Applicant's Reply -Page 6 of 8 HtL!.lS CLARK MARTlN & PETERSON, P.S. 500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Ave Seattle WA 98101-2925 206.623.1745; fax 206 623.7789 organization in which its member, Mr. Nicholson, had no meaningful control over the 2 association. As a mere bystander to the appeals, Mr. Nicholson was not being represented by 3 ASE, and ASE lacked associational standing. 4 C. The Examiner's Jurisdiction is Limited 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 At the pre-hearing conference, the Examiner requested briefing on the issue of whether the Examiner has jurisdiction to hear these appeals. Applicant acknowledges that the Renton Municipal Code specifically provides for appeals of building permit approvals, and that situations can therefore exist in which the Examiner has jurisdiction to hear appeals of building permit approvals. In this case, however, the appeals are not properly before the Examiner for several reasons. First, the Renton Municipal Code limits the Examiner's authority on appeal: "the Examiner shall have all of the powers of the office from whom the appeal is taken insofar as the decision on the particular issue is concerned." RMC 4-8-1 lO(E)(l)(c). In this case, where the approval of the building permits was a ministerial decision by the Development Services Division, the Examiner's authority on review is narrowly limited to whether that ministerial decision was proper. Appellants' requests of the Examiner to apply extraneous code provisions and abstract criteria to the building permit review process are beyond the jurisdiction and authority of the Examiner. Second, to the extent that these appeals are in fact attempts by Appellants to revisit or collaterally attack prior approvals, such claims are beyond the jurisdiction of the Examiner. Finally, these appeals are not properly before the Examiner if the appellants lack standing to bring the appeals. As discussed above, ASE and Mr. Nicholson lack standing to appeal the Building Permit Approvals. While it is possible in certain cases for the Examiner to have jurisdiction over building permit appeals, this is not such a case. Because the Examiner lacks authority to grant Appellants' requested relief, and because Appellants lack standing to bring these appeals, the appeals must be dismissed. Applicant's Reply -Page 7 of S Hll.l.lS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON, P.S. 500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Ave Seattle WA 98101-2925 206.623.1745; fax 206.623.7789 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 27 28 IV. CONCLUSION The parties to an appeal must have standing as to the particular claims asserted in their appeal. Mr. Nicholson presents no evidence of particularized harm arising out of the Building Permit Approvals, attempting to rely instead upon alleged procedural injuries and collateral attacks of prior approvals. Because Mr. Nicholson has not established that he has standing to bring these appeals, his appeals must be dismissed. ASE has the burden to demonstrate its associational standing. Because ASE has not demonstrated that it has a member with standing, ASE has failed its burden. Furthermore, ASE's corporate documents at the time of its appeal of the approvals for Buildings 101 and 102 demonstrated no material change in the status of its members since the Examiner's previous dismissals of ASE' s appeals. ASE has failed to carry its burden to demonstrate associational standing, and its appeal must be dismissed. Finally, to the extent Appellants raise issues beyond the scope of the building permit review process, these exceed the scope of the Examiner's authority and the Examiner lacks jurisdiction to hear these appeals. For the reasons set forth herein, the appeals of ASE and Mr. Nicholson from the City ofRenton's Building Permit Approvals should be DISMISSED. DATED this fJd____ day of May, 2007. #353374 18449-004 7knyOlt doc 5/21/07 Applicant's Reply -Page 8 of 8 HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON, P.S. By·_J_~Ld~~~~~~~- Jerome L. Hill's, WSBA #1704 T. Ryan Durkan, WSBA #11805 Karen D. Breckenridge, WSI3A #36666 Attorneys for Applicant Harvest Partners HILLJS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON, P.S. 500 Ga!land Building, 1221 Second Ave Seattle WA 98101-2925 206.623.1745; fax 206.623.7789 • 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 CITY OF RENTO~, M1W 2 .2 2007 ,-. . RECEIVED ,,Jl V CLERK'S 0FC1Ci:; BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER OF THE CITY OF RENTON In the Matter of the Appeal of Alliance for South End (ASE) and Brad Nicholson re: The Director's Administrative Site Plan ApprovaL No.B060540 B060688 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 12 I, Gina C Pan, am a legal assistant for the law firm of Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson, 13 P.S., 500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101. I hereby certify that 14 on the 22nd day of May 2007, I caused to be delivered via legal messenger a true and correct 15 copy of Applicant's Reply to ASE and Nicholson Response to Motions to Dismiss ASE and 16 Nicholson Appeals From The Landing Permit Approvals; and this Certificate of Service to 17 the following: 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Mr. Fred Kaufman, Hearing Examiner City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Lawrence J. Warren Zanella Fontes Warren Barber & Fontes, P.S. I 00 South Second Street Renton, WA 98057 Certificate of Service -Page I o/2 Office of the Clerk City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Peter L. Buck Buck & Gordon, LLP 2025 First Avenue, Suite 500 Seattle, WA 98121-3140 HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON, P.S. ORIGINAL 500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Ave Seatlle WA 98101-2925 206.623.1745; fax 206.623.7789 .. 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 27 28 Ross Radley Law Offices of Ross Radley, Inc. P.S. 3316 Fuhrman Ave. East, Suite 250 Seattle, WA 98102 J DATEDthis z2., dayofMay,2007. #345401 18449-004 7#$h01!.doc 5/22/07 Certificate a/Service -Page 2 of 2 HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON, P.S. Gina C. Pan Legal Assistant to T. Ryan Durkan HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON, P.S. 500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Ave Seattle WA 98101-2925 206.623.1745; fax 206.623.7789 Minutes APPELLANT: OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON The Landing Site Plan Hearing on Merits File No.: LUA 06-071, SA-A May 22, 2007 PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the Development Services Report, examining available information on file with the application, field checking the property and surrounding area; the Examiner conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows: MINUTES The following minutes are a summary of the march 27, 2007 hearing. The legal record is recorded on CD. The hearing opened on Tuesday, March 27, 2007, at 9:02 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the Renton City Hall. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner. The following exhibits were entered into the record: Exhibit No. 1: Yellow appeal file containing the Exhibit No. 2: All documents that predate this appeal original documents. Exhibit No. 3: Binder with 20 tabs from Zanella Exhibit No. 4: July 21, 2006 site plan review package Fontes with associated stipulations Exhibit No. 5: Updates A, B, C, and D that have been Exhibit No. 6: Summary of Updates to the Site Plan, referred to and the parties have agreed to all of them. when they were submitted and when they were approved Exhibit No. 7: Sections of the Renton Comprehensive Exhibit No. 8: Violations in the Modified Site Plan Plan, District 1. .. Exhibit No. 9: Exhibit D to Settlement Agreement Exhibit No. 10: Lakeshore Landing Planned Action (Tab 20 in Binder) dated I 1/8/2007 Exhibit No. 11: City of Renton Conceptual Exhibit No. 12: Page 79 of Exhibit 4 Exhibit No. 13: Packet from Harvest Partners The Landing Site Plan Hearing on M~ ... s File No.: LUA-06-071, SA-A May 22, 2007 Page 2 Zanetta Fontes, Attorney for the City of Renton stated that they had presented two stipulations and a binder of stipulated documents as Exhibits. Additionally they had agreed amongst themselves that they are not likely to call witnesses, they did want to make sure that Mr. Watts was available in case the Examiner had any questions of him during the course of the hearing. 1n that light, Mr. Buck on behalf of Mr. Nicholson has indicated that he may also call a witness, it might be best to swear in those witnesses now and save time later. The Examiner stated that yesterday an appeal of an update came in and it was stipulated that it be joined with today's matter since it is an update of the site plan and is subject to this administrative appeal hearing. Ms. Fontes agreed that there has been a stipulation that would indicate that the updates are being rolled into this hearing for judicial economy. However, it appears that Mr. Nicholson has submitted his appeal on that update in an effort to preserve that appeal. The Examiner further commented that the appeal was filed on behalf of Mr. Nicholson and ASE. ASE had been dismissed on the site plan but they still may appeal the modification, they may not be able to appeal the first site plan but can appeal the second site plan. He was not ready to grant them standing based on this stipulation. Mr. Buck stated that the site plan appeal was filed in late August or early September, since that time there have been four modifications applied for and granted to that initial site plan. The last two of those were in March of 2007. It is appropriate for the modifications to be before the Examiner so that he has the current site plan before him. One of the four should be appealed and the changes should be before the Examiner. With regard to parties there is an ASE, members are in control, the citizens are the directors. It is fine with them that the respondents can object to standing, it may not be overly relevant. Mr. Hillis stated that he agrees with what has been said, for the record, they do want to renew the motion to dismiss the appeals based upon the lack of standing of ASE and Mr. Nicholson. They would rely on their prior briefs and arguments and not submit any new material with regard to that. Secondly, he received a 45-page brief yesterday from Mr. Buck's office, they would like to have an opportunity to respond to that and would request that they have 10 days in which to do so. Ms. Fontes agreed with respect to reserving the right to object to ASE standing on the new appeal, they would join and ask for the opportunity to do a post-hearing brief. Mr. Buck stated that he had no objection to post-hearing briefs, which would possibly wrap into the fact that the Examiner would need and want more time. They would want to file a brief on issues raised today that have not been heard previously. Mr. Hillis suggested that there be an agreement on briefing. He further stated that they have stipulated to the authenticity of the exhibits that have been presented, they have not stipulated to their relevancy. They have also stipulated that they would not call witnesses but would make Mr. Watts available to answer any questions that the Examiner might have, a third stipulation was that Update A, which they have appealed as of Friday, is being combined with this appeal today. Mr. Buck stated that one of the exhibits they wanted to stipulate to today was the application for the Master Plan. He would like to see before the end of this hearing today that the City would identify what exactly was the Master Plan application, they would like that to be part of the record. The Landing Site Plan uearing on Merits File No.: LUA-06-071, SA-A May 22, 2007 Page 3 Ms. Fontes stated that staff has gone through the records, they have tagged things, however she was not sure if that was the most efficient way to define what was part of the Master Plan application or if it should be copied for all parties. It can be taken care of today. Mr. Buck stated that a pre-hearing brief was presented today to the parties that discussed the issues that seem most important. There appears to be a disconnect between what the City of Renton wanted to do with this project and the project that Harvest Partners wants to do. The City and Boeing sought a certain kind of development, that plan is still in place. There is a development agreement, there is a conceptual plan, there is a comprehensive plan and development regulations. There has not been a public hearing that would change any of those strategies. Then in 2006, the Landing Development came to Harvest and Harvest had in mind a project that certainly made sense to them, but it does not fit the previous strategies and plans and those plans do not fit this situation. At some point changes could have been made to the development agreements, the conceptual plan, the comprehensive plan and the development regulations, but the City has not done that. Renton's code, Section 4-9-200.E 1 b, requires that there must be conformance with existing land use regulations for a site plan to be approved. One of the broader sections has to do with urban design regulations, Section 4-3-100. In order to get site plan approval there has to be explicit conformance to the intent and mandatory elements of the design guidelines. The brief presented today shows the deviation between the regulations and what Harvest wants to build. He further discussed the issues of parking between buildings and public streets, which the regulations say cannot be done. Building 102 shows two rows of parking to the west of the building. That should not be allowed according to the regulations. Building 400 just across the street; the original plan showed the building narrower and with parking next to the street, that has since been changed and shows that a building can be built up to the street just as it is required. Moving buildings could cause gaps, modifications can be seen on the other side of Park, Buildings 406 and 407 have a gap, that is not a flaw that the developer cannot fix. There are numerous examples in their brief where disconnects can be seen between code sections and what is being presented today. Buildings located on designated pedestrian streets should be located adjacent to the sidewalk. No more than 60 feet of street frontage should be parking along a pedestrian designated street. In the area north of Building 400 there is more than 60 feet; N 1 O'h Street, west of Park combined with the area around Building 400 totals more than 60 feet. The main issue that Mr. Nicholson is most concerned about is Buildings 101 and 102 and the area to the west. In Quadrant C there is no challenge on the extent of parking on the east side of Park or the south side of lO'h. The parking on the west side of Park between Buildings 203 and 400 is being challenged as well as along N IO'" Street. Building 400 should face Park Avenue with an entrance on that side. The parking north of that building should be removed or reduced to less than 60 feet. Building 102 should be moved to the sidewalk and eliminate all parking. They are alleging no violations as to treatment of buildings, rather they are talking about buildings fronting on pedestrian streets, no parking between buildings and pedestrian oriented streets, no more than 60 feet of entrances or parking accumulatively along pedestrian oriented streets. There seems to he no soft exceptions to these issues. There are no objections to the parking to the east of Park Avenue that lies north of Building 102. They do object to the parking to the west of Building 102, and object to the main entrance facing north rather than onto the street. There are some objections to setbacks of Buildings 101 and 102 from North S'h Street (Code 4-2-120.E) and the truck loading areas to the south of Buildings 101 and 102. The Landing Site Plan Hearing on Me, ,ts File No.: LUA-06-071, SA-A May 22, 2007 Page 4 Quadrant A has a truck loading area off of Logan Avenue (Code 4-2-120.E) between Buildings 300 and 30\that should not be there. Quadrant B and Chas truck loading violations as well, along N 81 " Street. In Quadrant B some additional setbacks, code says that setbacks shall be five feet in this zone and the setbacks with the latest modification at Buildings 406 and 403 appear to have increased. In addition, west of Building 404 there is a setback greater than five feet. Along the south side ofN 10 1 " there is surface parking violations (Code 4-3-IOO.F4b). Referring to Exhibit D under Tab 20 in the notebook, there is a crosshatch area that has been excluded from the settlement, it appears some of the hatches did not copy to the row of parking on Park Avenue. There are similar extensions of hash lines in the boxes, they are drawn in the same angle as the ones on the building. An original needs to be found and clarified as to what was actually stipulated. The conceptual plan (Tab I in Binder) does not seem to have a provision in the code that applies to this zone that states, in an overall site plan as this, the Director can make what modifications he wants to make. There are modification procedures and criteria that apply to minor adjustments. The Examiner stated that he had a Jetter from Mr. Hillis that cited that code provision. Mr. Buck continued that Mr. Green would address the conceptual plan. Duncan Green of Buck and Gordon, stated that they will get an original copy and see where the crosshatch areas actually are, second, they will look at the code and compare the code violations, assuming that these are code violations, and anything that is within the crosshatched area that is a code violation, they are requesting remedy on. If it is outside the crosshatched area they are not asking for anything. There are requirements in site plan review regulations that state site plans must be consistent with the conceptual plan that has been approved by City Council. Some of the violations seem to be limited to small areas of the site plan, iflooked at in the context of the conceptual plan and all of the public process that happened, these violations add up to a lot. They depart drastically from what was adopted, approved and sold to the public. There are two key sources of authority that require site plans to be consistent with the approved conceptual plan, first RMC 4-9-200.E3a states that the plan must conform to the approved conceptual plan required by the development agreement for the subarea in question. Second the 2003 Development Agreement for the subarca between Boeing and the City of Renton, which is Tab 3 in the binder, provides that Renton will evaluate all subsequent permit applications within the sub-districts based on consistency with the approved conceptual plan. The October 18, 2004 Committee of the Whole report (Tab 7 in binder) the last page under this tab, the last sentence was read into the record. The current site plans appear to be inconsistent with the conceptual plan in a number of ways. First it is not consistent with the urban guidelines, this is where the importance of the urban guidelines in this district come into light. There is an October 14, 2004 memorandum (Tab 6 in the binder) "Center Oak pledges to design its project consistent with the revised urban center guidelines that are currently before you and anticipated to be adopted shortly." By adopting this plan, the City Council will provide Center Oak with a set of parameters within which it can develop its project while maintaining a high minimum level of development and insuring high quality design. The Landing does not do that. Another public document that confirms that the urban design guidelines were emphasized in the public process is a public information handout dated November 8, 2004, titled Lakeshore Landing Planned Action (Tab 6 in binder). The Landing Site Plan utaring on Merits File No.: LUA-06-071, SA-A May 22, 2007 Page 5 The Examiner stated that a conceptual plan or concept is not a blueprint to put up a building, it's a vision statement of what they would like to sec in that area. It does not show placement of each building and where all parking spots would be, it's a concept but not perfect. It may not work when actually put in place. Mr. Green agreed with the Examiner, there is the conceptual plan with not a lot of detail, then you have a master plan with more detail and the site plan that has yet more detail. Each one has to be consistent with the previous one. There is some flexibility between the conceptual plan and the site plan. This project is not consistent with the spirit of the conceptual plan. However, pedestrian oriented streets, this was emphasized in the development agreement, in the comprehensive plan, in the development regulations and when the Landing came in, that requirement was ignored. Requirements triggered by pedestrian oriented streets were not triggered; in fact the City has stated that there are no pedestrian oriented streets. Park Avenue is fronted by more than 60 feet of parking and there are large format retailers and lots of parking. The Landing does not have the diverse mix or uses that the conceptual plan talked about, instead there are no mixed uses or residential in the northeastern quadrant by itself, no mixed use in this site plan, it appears to be purely retail. The site plan exceeds the big box retail that's talked about in the conceptual plan. There should have been a detailed consistency analysis performed to make sure that site plan was consistent with the conceptual plan. Tbe Examiner asked for a clarification of"big box retail", it appears to be Target, Wal-Mart but is it the downtown Nordstrom store? Mr. Green stated that there arc categories, up to 50,000 is large format, 50,000-10,000 is medium and then down to small format. Big box would be in the 50,000+ zone. The conceptual plan stated that 20% of the retail would be in small-scale format (less than 10,000 square feet), looking at the proposed site plan it appears that there is a significantly smaller amount of the small-scale retail. The Examiner stated again that this is a conceptual plan, if the percentages were different does that make it violate the plan as a concept? Mr. Green stated it may not require invalidation of the whole site plan, the math should have been done. The conceptual plan talked about 2,646 direct jobs and 622 indirect jobs and now they are saying about 350 employees would work on the site. The director should have to go back and do the homework. Jerry Hillis, representing Harvest Partners, stated the appellants have claimed that the site plan approval conflicts with various land use regulations, the City ofRenton's code, and tbat the site plan approval needs to be put in its proper context. The site plan is not the end of the road, it is the initial development scheme of the site. This process will occur over a number of years. This site plan is an initial development plan, not a final development. The comprehensive plan for the City of Renton anticipates development of this area over a number of years. The 2003 concept plan also articulated this vision for the site. He read a portion of that document (Tab 1 of the binder). The idea was that this would be developed over a long period of time, recognizing that that is what the comprehensive plan for the City required. He then showed the Center Oaks conceptual plan (Exhibit 10) this plan refers to final retail build outs. Potential tenants may include a large format retailer, a specialty grocery market, a movie theater and a mix of high quality The Landing Site Plan Hearing on Ments File No.: LUA-06-071, SA-A May 22, 2007 Page 6 national, regional and local specialty tenants and restaurants. On the map he pointed out setbacks along Park. There are no stores up to the street and this is the plan that Mr. Green would like the Landing to comply with literally. A concept plan is just that a concept plan. The Director concluded in the site plan decision that the overall concept of the Landing as now proposed meets the concept plan in terms of the overall intent of that concept plan, which was to create a retail center on this site. There is no mention of offices in this first stage, no mention of those kinds of uses, but a big mention of the fact that the initial planning is going to be different than the final development plan might be, all consistent with the City of Renton code. Nowhere is there a requirement that states that the original development plan for the site must meet all the planning goals for the area. What they do require is that the plan be set up in such a way that over the long-term the goals of the comprehensive plan will be met. The comprehensive plan for the Urban Center North is divided into several categories, the introduction, the overall comprehensive plan for centers, Urban Center North land use designation, and the vision for District 1, which this site is part of. The comprehensive plan is a broad statement of community goals, objectives and policies that direct the orderly development of the site. It is anticipated that national retailers will locate to the site. He continued reading what the Urban Centers, both North and Downtown, intentions and long range plans were designed to include. The Urban Center North land use designation states UCN policies will provide a blueprint for the transition of land over the next thirty years. LU-271 talks about the Urban Center as a whole and support uses that sustain minimum set employee levels. LU-284 allows phasing plans for mixed-use projects, LU-285 considers placement of parking areas in initial development plans to facilitate later in-fill plans and higher density. There is a supply of under-utilized land north of NE 8'", which creates a redevelopment opportunity for a first phase development in District One. However, the industrial character of the surrounding development properties both within District Two to the west and the preliminary industrial area to the east will make it difficult to achieve true urban intensities in District One at the beginning of this transition. The overall vision for the District contemplates much more than a series of low-rise structures and large parking lots. It is important that this initial development facilitates later stages of investment as the neighborhood matures and property values increase. The vision allows for early stages of open parking lots but they should be handled in such a way as to allow for infill to occur over a period of time. There was a vision and that was that this was going to be a difficult area to develop, but it was going to be an area that the City saw developing over thirty years and they wanted to make sure that the initial development plan was done in such a way that future development could occur to further meet the goals of the comprehensive plan. The Director's decision finds that the site plan does meet the overall intent of the comprehensive plan. No urban plan can occur overnight, an initial layout has to anticipate future development. The Director's plan for this site was that the anticipation for future development be considered while planning this project. On the original site plan, in the north area along Park it is fully developed, the blank area on the east side of Park is a residential area, which is not part of this application. There is a cinema and entertainment to the north. The area along the north side of what will become 1 o"' is fully developed for the initial plan. The Director was concerned about having all the retail on the north and wanted it spread out, which is what happened. The emphasis was then on the southern end, with the intent to create a pedestrian environment, which is not easy to do given the site. A major walkway was proposed through the site along the southern end, which would allow the retail uses to abut that. The advantage is having the big parking lots to the north, which allows for future infill so that future retail can also be along that pedestrian corridor. There is a pedestrian link that runs through the middle of the site as well, there is another pedestrian link that goes from Quadrant A down through Quadrant The Landing Site Plan hearing on Merits File No.: LUA-06-071, SA-A May 22, 2007 Page 7 D to 8"'. The area in Quadrant D to the right of the pedestrian link is an open market place for outdoor events, which arc described in the plan. The urban development scheme is heading down Park, eventually infill opportunities are provided along Park to fulfill that part of the vision. The concept plan shows an even greater pedestrian atmosphere along Park in the initial stages than ever was shown in the concept plans. The issue was raised regarding small shops, in the development summary there is far more than 20% of the retail area that are small shops as opposed to the anchors and junior anchors. The initial stages of the development were looked at with the potential for better infill and build out. Harvest Partners submitted a chart showing that approximately 125,000 square feet of additional development can occur on this property over the next 20 years. This site plan does meet the criteria that are required for a site plan in this code. (RMC 4-9-200.E) Under this section is states that creativity and innovation should not be discouraged and that is precisely what has been going on with the applicant and the development of this plan. The appellant asserts that there are several aspects of the plan that conflict with existing land use regulations. The code anticipates that a site plan may have conflicts with specific design and development regulations. The code provides that the Director can allow modification of design regulations pursuant to RMC 4-3-IOO(L) and that the Director has authority to modify development standards pursuant to RMC 4-8-070(C) 10. The following are violations that were submitted by the appellant: (1) Parking between buildings and streets, the parking between Building 102 and Park Avenue has been stipulated to, but it is vague at this time. The parking north of the Target store is off the table at this point. Parking west of Building I 02, the Director granted a modification (p.10, Site Plan Review). The alley driveway is vested, between Building 102 and Park, it is not going to be moved. (2) The code requires no more than 60' of street frontage along a pedestrian oriented street. There is more than 60 feet of frontage along the west side of Park. Again, the Director granted a modification for this requirement. Between Building 400 and Building 203 there is a parking lot immediately adjacent to Park, which is an infill area. Parking areas have been consolidated for future infill along with ingress/egress from the property. (3) Parking, driveways and pedestrian oriented streets, the Director granted a modification from this requirement (Site Plan Decision, pgs. 12 and 13) Parking areas are located mid block and consolidated to allow future infill. Consolidation of parking areas also allows for consolidation of access points providing access to the central area rather than requiring multiple access points. The Director wanted to limit access to Logan because Logan is a high visibility street, so where does that leave access from Quadrant B? Obviously, those accesses will have to be along 10th and Park Ave. The access has been limited from Quadrant B onto Park and three accesses off of JO"'. (4) To have another entrance on Park at this time would be impractical, this is not pedestrian heavy at this time. To change the entrance of Building 400 to face Park makes no sense in the overall development scheme and so the Director granted a modification. (Page 4 of update). Building 102 in Quadrant C does not allow for the entrance to be moved to Park, the driveway was vested. The Director granted a modification from that requirement. (Site Plan Decision, pg. 10) Creating a gap between these buildings would disturb the pedestrian atmosphere that was being created. (5) Truckload areas are generally located along 8th and one along Logan. The site plan shows that the area of the loading docks is totally screened, that is what the code requires and what the Director found. (Original site plan, pg. 14) (6) Setbacks of five feet along a street. The purpose of this requirement was to emphasize urban character and maximize pedestrian activity and minimize automobile use within the district. The Director granted a modification (update A pgs. 3 and 4) due to the walkway just north of these buildings makes this a pedestrian corridor. There is a walkway through the site consistent with what the plan requires. The Director is not required by code to make specific findings for each modification. The Director's decision articulates the criteria for granting a modification, the reason why the modifications on this site made sense and The Landing Site Plan Hearing on Me, its File No.: LUA-06-071, SA-A May 22, 2007 Page 8 concludes that this relevant criterion has been met. The cases cited by appellants required specific findings of fact and did not deal with administrative determinations similar to these in the Renton code. The appellant has the burden to show that the criteria have not been met and the Director's decision is erroneous. In rendering his decision, the code directs the Director to consider the overall intent of the minimum standards and guide lines and to encourage creative design and alternatives in order to achieve the purpose of the design regulations. That has been done in this case. It was requested that the Director's decision to approve the site plan with modifications be upheld. Zanetta Fontes provided three handouts of code provision, a discrete page out of Exhibit 4 (page 79) was marked Exhibit 12, and a packet of information from Harvest Partners that was marked as Exhibit 13. As briefed in the appeals for the master plan, planned actions are very unique, the planning is done up front in the hopes that once the SEPA has been done and certain guidelines have been articulated and approved by the City, that creative developers would take advantage of the fact that much of the work has already been done. The fact that this is a planned action will dictate some of the processes about the lack of which the appellant complains. One of Mr. Nicholson's complaints is that there was no public hearing. (Page 9-62, 3"' page in Zanetta's handout) Regarding Renton Code 4-9-200.D!, the second sentence of sub a where it states, "that when a master plan is approved, subsequent site plans submitted for future phases may be submitted and approved administratively without a public hearing." The master plan had been approved prior to the site plan in this case and so no hearing was required. A hearing before a Hearing Examiner is not required if public hearings have been held where public comments were solicited on the proposed plan action ordinance; if the Environmental Impact Statement for the planned action reviewed preliminary conceptual plans which provided the public and decision makers with sufficient detail regarding the scale of improvements, the quantity of the various types of spaces to be provided, the use to which the structures would be put and the bulk and general form of the improvements. Mr. Nicholson further says that the ERC needed to make a determination and relying on code provision 4-9- 200.G9, it seems that the appellant has overlooked an appropriate section, sub8. Section 8 states that a consistency review should be conducted, and it was, by the zoning administrator for proposals submitted under the authority of an adopted planned action ordinance. The question of the Hearing Examiner's authority, Code provision 4-8-110.E, A and C states that any administrative decisions may be appealed to the Hearing Examiner, and further states that the Examiner shall have all the powers of the office from whom the appeal is taken insofar as the decision on the particular appeal is concerned. The Examiner has the power to remand as well as to do what the Examiner thinks needs to be done, if he feels that changes need to be made. Regarding findings, Mr. Green stated that a finding had to be made on each and every point, there is nothing in the code that requires that, there is nothing that requires a written finding made by the Director. The Director did find that there was compliance with the code or he would not have granted the modifications in the first place. The code further states that when applying the provisions of Title 4 the requirements shall be liberally construed in favor of the governing body. Moving on to the parking areas of Quadrant B and the buildings to the south, there is a pedestrian walkway. The median strip on Park, going east to west from Quadrant B to Quadrant C there is a median strip where the pedestrian walkway would cut across Park. That median strip was called for in the concept plan in Exhibit 10. The pedestrian walkway continues eastward in front of Buildings 102, 101 and the Target Building (Building I 00). The pedestrian walkway requirement has been met. The Landing Site Plan nearing on Merits File No.: LUA-06-071, SA-A May 22, 2007 Page 9 The screening plan as it relates to the east side of the south end, there is ample screening of trees along the south border of the parcel that is on N 8"' Street. The code does not say that it must be a fence or sight obscuring fence, it just calls for screening and there is screening. The screening continues on along N 8th Street. There is considerable landscaping along Park as well, from 8"' all the way up to Logan including that area where there is parking frontage between Building 203 and 400 on the west side of Park. Building 102 located at the northeast comer of Park and 8th, argument was made regarding moving this building over, there is however, a driveway just northwest of Building I 02 and trucks must come in or go out from that location to make a one-way through on this drive in order to travel between 8th and Park. There has to be enough room for the truck to pass. The question is, is what is before the Examiner reasonable, was what the Director did reasonable, was it substantial error to grant the modifications considering the practicalities facing the applicant. The applicant needs to prove that it was substantial error. It was not. The purpose statement says that the overall mix and intensity of uses within the Urban Center North Zones will develop over time, consequently decisions made in early phases of redevelopment will need to take into consideration the potential for further infill and intensification of uses, that is what the Director did. The District is intended to attract new retail, office and technology related uses that co-exist with airplane manufacturing in the short run, but provide a standard of development that stimulates further investment and transition of uses in the longer term. Everything contemplates a long-term development. It does not have to be done overnight. Planned actions allow the planning to be up front. In the Comprehensive Plan words such as "maintaining zoning", "supporting uses" and the like, those are in the present tense, not future tense. The policy is to maintain the zoning so that it would create capacity for employment. There do not need to be obstacles for good creative development, this is an excellent development, it is consistent with the conceptual plan and planned action ordinance. The Lakeshore Landing has better pictures that have helped in terms of what was contemplated by the City and those are the types of development that are going into this plan. It was asked that the Examiner not remand this matter but uphold the decision of the Director. Mr. Buck stated that Ms. Fontes said the test for the Director was whether this was reasonable, that is not the test. The test is whether it is lawful, not reasonable. It is suggested that it is not reasonable for Buildings 403,404, etc., to require loading docks to be on the street, that may be, but that is what the City of Renton codes say. The Council adopted the laws and the Examiner should not be invited to decide that the Council was wrong. Harvest Partners seem to have gotten it wrong, it doesn't matter how expensive it would be to change something, if it is wrong, they need to make the changes. In the area close to Building 102, the only thing that is missing is an agreement by Council as to what Exhibit D actually had. Did it include the areas in red along the edges of the property, or not. There is an exhibit that was attached to a settlement agreement, they will find out what it is and it will be given to the Examiner. The Examiner stated that neither side could stipulate to ignore an Ordinance. Until the Exhibit is produced and looked at, nothing can be done. Mr. Buck stated that on Exhibit D it states that the cross hatching is not intended to preclude the installation of curb, sidewalk or landscaping of those areas. A copy of that exhibit will be given to the Examiner. Ms. Fontes stated that (4-2-120.E) page 2-130.3 of the City Code says that parking, docking and loading areas for truck traffic shall be off-street and screened from view of abutting public streets. The Landing Site Plan Hearing on Me,its File No.: LUA-06-071, SA-A May 22, 2007 Page 10 The Examiner called for further testimony regarding this project. There was no one else wishing to speak, and no further comments from staff. The hearing closed at 2: 19 pm. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATION Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: I. The appellant, Brad Nicholson, hereinafter appellant, filed an initial appeal of an administrative decision approving a Site Plan for a project called The Landing. The applicant for The Landing is Harvest Partners (hereinafter Harvest). The appellant also filed an appeal of a proposed and approved change to the Site Plan. The parties agreed to consolidate the two appeals. (See below for ASE's standing on the second appeal) 2. The appeal was filed in a timely manner. The person filing the appeal lives in the City of Renton and commutes past the subject site and uses public facilities and bodies of water near the subject site including Lake Washington. 3. The subject site is approximately 38.22 acres. The total building area will be 572,700 square feet. The property is bounded generally by N 8th Street on the south, Logan Avenue Non the west and north, North 10th Street on the north and Garden Avenue Non the east. Park Avenue N runs through the site from south to north while N 10th Street runs through the site east to west, west of Park, and bounds the site on the north east of Park. 4. The Staff Report dated August 17, 2006, was incorporated by reference and adopted by this decision. Where this office differs from the staff report, Findings and Conclusions will spell out those differences. 5. The Planned Action Ordinance was approved by the City Council after a public hearing was opened on November 8, 2004. 6. A Master Plan was approved on the subject site under a separate file (LUAOS-136) dated May 19, 2006. It was found consistent with the Planned Action Ordinance dated November 15, 2004 where the Planned Action determination was dated May 12, 2006. 7. Code specifically permits administrative approval of Site Plan proposals that had a public hearing and public comment for a Planned Action Ordinance and an EIS had sufficient information regarding the scale, types of spaces, uses and general form of the improvements. (Section 4-9-200.D. l .a). The appellant's objection that the original public hearing was not timely enough is not supported by Code. Administrative review is allowed when there was an original public hearing. The public hearing and published Boeing EIS satisfy the criteria listed for "exemption" from additional public hearings. It appears that the intent of the process was to eliminate duplicative reviews and provide some level of confidence that once an approval was granted, project proponents would not be required to jump through successive hoops and potentially changing standards or even political cycles or politicians. 8. The original site plan was submitted on July 21, 2006 and approved by the City on August 17, 2006 in the aforementioned Staff Report. 9. The applicant subsequently requested approval of four (4) changes or updates as they are now called. The Landing Site Plan hearing on Merits File No.: LUA-06-071, SA-A May 22, 2007 Page 11 I 0. The Landing project site is located within District C of the Urban Center Design Overlay. The overall intent of the district is to consider individual merit and consider the minimum design standards while encouraging creative design alternatives. 11. The applicant received approval of an Administrative Site Plan for the construction of an approximately 572,700 square foot commercial/retail development with a 12-screen cinema. The proposed development would be constructed on the 3 8.22-acre site located within the Urban Center -North I (UC-NI) zoning designation. Proposed site improvements would consist of the various buildings, parking features, landscaping, utilities and stormwater. Special design standards apply for the zoning. The structures are proposed to range in height from approximately 30 to 45 feet. The parking provided would be a mix of structured and surface parking. A four level parking garage is proposed that would provide 675 parking stalls. There would be 1,955 surface parking stalls. 12. The applicant has subsequently submitted a series of four ( 4) updates or changes to the approved Site Plan. The updates have been labeled alphabetically, A, B, C and D. For purposes of this appeal, the parties agreed to stipulate that the current Site Plan proposal reflects the original site plan as amended or "updated" by these submissions while only the first two updates had been formally appealed. The stipulations were intended to have an administrative review of the proposal as it now stands. 13. Update A was submitted on December 29, 2006 and was approved by the City on March 13, 2007. It resulted in a reconfiguration and change in building design to the 400 series of buildings and particularly the fact that Building 400 now abuts Park Avenue rather than having it setback from Park. The update also connects Entertainment Boulevard to North 8th Street via a pedestrian walkway. 14. Update B was submitted on March 13, 2007 and was approved by the City on March 19, 2007. It resulted in revisions to Building 301, a parking garage building. 15. Update C was submitted on February 5, 2007 and was approved by the City on February 8 and 15, 2007. It resulted in an increase in the size of Building 201 (formerly 104) and a decrease in size in Building 203 (formerly 108) and changes to parking and service areas around Buildings 201, 203 and 202 (formerly Building I 05). 16. Update D was submitted on February 13, 2007 and was approved by the City on March 7, 2007. rt resulted in an increase in size for Building 102 (formerly Building 202) and change in facade and entries to Buildings 102 and 101 (formerly Building 201). 17. The Site Plan at this review (after the Updates) contains more than a dozen structures. Some of the structures contain separately numbered buildings attached to one another spread over three quadrants. The fourth quadrant in the northeast comer of the area is not part of the current review process. 18. Quadrant A is at the northwest comer of the site bounded by Logan Avenue on the west and north and by Park and N 10th on the east and south respectively. Its main components are a 14-screen cinema and parking garage located along Logan. There are other attached and detached retail buildings south of those buildings. The parking garage and cinema are oriented such that the fronts of the buildings would face Entertainment Boulevard an internal street that is generally south of and parallels Logan Avenue. 19. Quadrant B is in the southwest comer, south of Quadrant A. Quadrant B is bounded by Logan on the west, N 10th on the north, Park on the east and N 8th on the south. It will have a series of retail buildings generally fronting along N 10th, a large interior surface parking lot and a series of buildings arrayed between an east-west pedestrian walkway (north of the buildings) and N 8th street (south of the The Landing Site Plan Hearing on Me, ,ts File No.: LUA-06-071, SA-A May 22, 2007 Page 12 buildings). This southern tier of buildings will be oriented to the north and the internal pedestrian walkway. 20. Quadrant C is located in the southeast comer of the site. It is bounded by Park on the west, N 10th on the north, Garden on the east and 8th on the south. This quadrant contains retail buildings at its northwest comer (Park and N I 0th) and a larger retail complex aligned along the south of the site, near and adjacent to N 8th Street. Quadrant C, the future home of a Target Store, is subject to a separate stipulation by the parties and other than parking located adjacent to Park at its extreme southwest comer is not part of this appeal due to the stipulation. 21. Quadrant A is mostly structures including the cinema, parking garage and smaller buildings and is divided by an internal east-west street. The applicant seems to have taken a design approach to create a ring of development around a central surface parking lot in Quadrant B with buildings' access from pedestrian paths along the south and north. The pedestrian-centric nature of the design does create issues with vehicle access to the site or sub-sites within the complex. Quadrant C is east of Park and has a major anchor in the Target Store. The parties have stipulated to a number of issues regarding Quadrant C and the Target complex leaving the only appeal issue for Quadrant C, the parking located immediately east of Park and west of the service road or driveway. 22. Issues similar to the Quadrant B parking lot arise with providing loading docks or bays for the various retail or other businesses in the complex. Forcing large delivery trucks into the midst of passenger vehicles is not always satisfying in terms of circulation and safety. The applicant has placed the loading docks at the perimeter of the site near Logan (between the parking garage and cinema) and along N 8th (between Park and Logan) and that resulted in building facades being moved away from the street or sidewalks in some locations. The plans show landscaping in these areas to screen the loading areas from the streets. 23. The applicant sought modifications that would allow loading docks near the street at the Logan location and also loading docks along N 8th while also moving building facades along N 8th to be setback further from the street than permitted. 24. Staff found on Page 19 of the Staff Report that the proposed site plan results in an urban design concept through the provision of pedestrian-oriented spaces, pedestrian pathways and links to sidewalks around the site. The project is internally consistent with similar facade treatments, building materials and pavement links. There are coordinated design elements including container plantings, seat walls, tree grates, awning and benches. 25. The appellant suggested that the proposal does not meet the comprehensive plan's employment objectives of 50 employees per gross acre whereas the subject proposal would create approximately 350 jobs or 8/acre. The comprehensive plan's objectives are predicated on build-out. The center of the site could be developed with offices and the overall density of employment could change. Urban areas of downtown Seattle, Bellevue and even downtown Renton are a mix of scale and therefore, density. The infill anticipated over the next 30 years may increase the employment opportunities. 26. The comprehensive plan at Page IX-42/43 of the Plan states: "Urban Center North Land Use Designation Purpose Statement: The purpose of the UC-N is to redevelop industrial land for new office, residential, and commercial uses at a sufficient scale to implement the Urban Centers criteria adopted in the Countywide Planning Policies. This portion of the Urban Center The Landing Site Plan hearing on Merits File No.: LUA-06-071, SA-A May 22, 2007 Page 13 is anticipated to attract large-scale redevelopment greater than that in the Urban Center-Downtown, due to large areas of land available for redevelopment. In addition, new development is expected to include a wider group of uses including remaining industrial activities, new research and development facilities, laboratories, retail integrated into pedestrian-oriented shopping districts, and a range ofurban- scalc, mixed-use residential, office and commercial uses. The combined uses will generate significant tax income for the City and provide jobs to balance the capacity for the more than 5,000 additional households in the Urban Center. Development is expected to complement the Urban Center-Downtown. UC-N policies will provide a blueprint for the transition ofland over the next 30 years into this dynamic, urban mixed-use district." And at Page IX-43: "Policy LU-271. Support uses that sustain minimum Urban Center employment levels of 50 employees per gross acre and residential levels of 15 households per gross acre within the entire Urban Center." 27. Those provisions do not apply solely to the Landing site or immediate vicinity but include the Urban Center, which is the entire downtown Renton area and not just the urhan center NORTH locale. This office does not believe that the appellant has demonstrated that this office should second guess the timing, phasing, market forces and City's determination about this proposal. The appellant has not shown that the current plan is unreasonable in terms of a 30-year time line. There are many goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan and not all of them are attainable immediately. The comprehensive plan also acknowledges that redevelopment of the site is and will be constrained somewhat by the industrial character of surrounding development. This office agrees with the statement in Mr. Radley's Post Hearing Brief at Page 3: "it is certainly true no site plan can be consistent with every policy and principle of early large planning efforts ... " 28. Referencing that brief further, this office does not agree with the second part of that sentence "when there have been as many modifications as there have been in the Landing Site Plan, it is legitimate to examine exactly how inconsistent the site plan is from previous planning efforts." The project is very large and the number of modifications does not seem extreme when considering the size and scale of the proposal. It includes approximately 23 retail or commercial spaces. It is spread out on 38.22 acres. It includes a parking structure with 675 stalls, and 1,955 surface parking stalls. It spans or crosses four (4) city streets. Some of the modifications address similar issues or design details such as placing parking between the building and pedestrian streets or a building exceeding the minimum setback. So two modifications actually apply to one facet of the design. 29. The appellant complains that the site plan does not correspond with the approved conceptual plan. The appellant strenuously argues that the current, what some might term, "concrete proposal" is not a true, laborious, carbon copy of the original concept plan or conceptual proposal. The objection is misplaced. The definition of a "concept" is that it is an abstract or generic idea. A conceptual plan is not a blue print. The conceptual plan is not a detailed proposal but provides a framework or basis for more concrete decision making. The site plan mirrors the conceptual plan in a number of particulars. The parking is located in the interior of the site, buildings, in the main, front the street or streets, there is an east-west pedestrian connector immediately north of the tier of buildings along N 8th Street and there is a north-south pedestrian connector in both the conceptual and site plans. The concrete proposal, that is the current Site Plan, does in fact flesh out the concepts. But it may even deviate in some manner from the concept. As noted, the concept is not a precise plan. Both the conceptual and the concrete show the The Landing Site Plan Hearing on !\.~ .. ts File No.: LUA-06-071, SA-A May 22, 2007 Page 14 property bisected east and west by Park A venue and north and south by I 0th Street. Both conceptual and concrete show tiers of buildings alongside Park Avenue but also driveways, parking lots and large interior parking lots. Both concept and concrete show an east to west pedestrian passage north of the southern tier of buildings and both show a similar pedestrian passage running south to north in the western portion of the site. 30. There are no minimum front, side yard, side yard along street or rear yard setbacks required by code. There is a maximum 5-foot front yard and side yard along street setback. This maximum setback is intended to draw buildings up toward the sidewalk and provide a pedestrian-oriented experience. The Director determined in an earlier administrative decision that while the UC-Nl Zone did not allow these setbacks to be increased by Site Plan review, other zones did allow such alteration and, therefore, for consistency, Site Plan alteration was appropriate and would be permitted. In the current review the Director found that the maximum setback could be increased and approved an increase. Since the Director has authority to approve a range of modifications, it is not necessary to use this authority to approve proposed modifications. 31. The Director also has the ability to grant modifications from the minimum standards. That ability could be used in the current case and will be employed by this office where appropriate. There is a practical difficulty in providing loading docks that either do not interfere with pedestrian areas or possibly create a complicated mix of passenger vehicles and larger delivery trucks. Therefore, increasing the distance between the sidewalk/street and buildings where loading docks are provided along N 8th Street and possibly Logan is appropriate and reasonable. Staff noted that these areas are landscaped and the Site Plan (Pages 78/79 of site plan) shows landscaping is intended in these areas and staff required supplementation (Page 14 of staff report). 32. Logan Avenue is considered a high visibility street and access to it has been limited to maintain its arterial functions and gateway aspect. This had led the applicant to place driveways along N Io"', which is a pedestrian oriented street. The minimum design standards "prohibit driveways" along pedestrian oriented streets. 33. Originally, the buildings located both east and west of the southern end of Park Avenue N would have a parking area with two rows of parking located between the buildings and the sidewalk. An update removed the parking along the west side of Park and moved that building closer to the street. A stipulation regarding Quadrant C removes from review most of the issues raised by the appellant for that Quadrant but one tier of parking immediately east of Park and west of an access driveway is still subject to the appeal. 34. The appellant noted that the building located northeast of the intersection of 8th and Logan does not front on the street and is setback too much. Logan is a curving street at this location and the facade is straight which creates the additional setback. There does not appear to be any practical difficulty and it appears that either landscaping or a modest change in the facade could be used to fill in this location. Curving the building might not create the most practical building internally but it is not difficult to accomplish. But iflandscaping is permitted the applicant can either provide landscaping in this area or change the facade. 35. The appellant suggests that a public hearing is required on the Site Plan since there are "unresolved concerns" but the code language is more exacting referring to them as "significant unresolved concerns." (emphasis supplied). This office has no doubt that the appellant Mr. Nicholson has unresolved concerns. There may even be others who have unresolved concerns. In a project of this scale there are possibly quite a few unresolved concerns by any number of people. Those concerns have The Landing Site Plan ntaring on Merits File No.: LUA-06-071, SA-A May 22, 2007 Page 15 to be significant. Some peoples' concerns may remain unresolved. That does neither tarnish the overall proposal nor mean it is subject to a public hearing. The ERC makes that decision and not any appellant or "concemee!" There are probably a number of concerns about this project that never will be resolved. Few land use decisions make everyone happy and unconcerned. 36. Access would be primarily from N !O'h Street or Park Avenue N. Access onto Logan Avenue N has been minimized due to its classification as a High Visibility Street. The modification would allow N I 0th to have driveways along a pedestrian-oriented street. 37. As noted the Director can allow modifications from the Title (4-9-250.D.2) as well as the minimum standards (4-3-100.L). In none of the cases would approval of the modification have a detrimental impact on other properties or the general public. The modifications allow driveways on pedestrian- oriented streets, facades to be setback from the street to accommodate loading docks and more than 60 feet of interruptions to the pedestrian-oriented streetscape. None of these modifications would adversely affect other property and they are not going to have an overall public detriment. The modifications are all modest -allowing driveways to enter interior parking lots even if they occasionally cross pedestrian-oriented streets is not inherently dangerous. The curving, feature-rich N 10th Street will calm traffic flow making turning movements less problematic. Moving building facades off the street to accommodate landscaped-screened loading docks is also not inherently harmful. The modifications are not allowing taller buildings, which might create shadow or shading effects making pedestrian-oriented streets less hospitable. The deviations (modifications) have been designed into the project and the entire project appears to demonstrate high quality design. Again, N IO'" has curves, a rotary, paving details and landscaping all intended to create a coherent design and fa9ade treatment. Allowing the driveways permits the applicant to emphasize the interior pedestrian paths and avoids cutting those with vehicle access. 38. Staff has stated that N 10th Street and Park Avenue N are pedestrian-oriented streets. They note that the buildings fronting on N 10th Street between Logan Avenue N and Park Avenue N, and the north portion of Park Avenue N (buildings 100, IOI, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108,109,302,303,304, and 306) would have pedestrian-oriented facades and would contain pedestrian-oriented retail and service uses. The sidewalk widths along N I 0th Street vary, but are no less than 12 feet. Entry canopies and building mounted weather protection are proposed and would also add to the pedestrian friendly environment. (Building numbers may have been changed since the original report). Staff notes further that the building along the west side of Park Avenue N has been reconfigured to provide retail store fronts facing Park Avenue N. A minimum of IO feet of landscaping is proposed where the surface parking area would abut a public right-of-way. (Page 11 staff report) 39. The staff report states: "The driveway access to the proposed surface parking lots would be off ofN 10th Street, Park Avenue N, Logan Avenue N, N 8th Street, and Garden Avenue N. The intent of prohibiting driveway access to surface parking lots was to maintain a contiguous, uninterrupted sidewalk by minimizing, consolidating, or eliminating access off of pedestrian-oriented streets. The location of the surface parking lots at mid block and the consolidation of the surface parking areas to allow for further structured parking and retail development requires that some access to the parking lot be provided off of pedestrian-oriented streets (N 10th between Logan Avenue N and Park Avenue N) and Park Avenue N. The consolidation of the surface parking areas also allows for consolidation of the access points to the parking lot as access is provided to a central area as opposed to several decentralized parking lots that would each require access. Due to the consolidation of the surface parking areas, which would facilitate the future construction of structured parking and retail development, into the center of the project site and the consolidation of access points to the parking area staff concurs that driveway access to the proposed surface parking lots is unavoidable." With those The Landing Site Plan Hearing on Ments File No.: LUA-06-071, SA-A May 22, 2007 Page 16 considerations, staff recommended approval of a modification to the vehicular access requirements to permit the proposed driveway access points onto pedestrian-oriented streets. 40. The comprehensive plan has a number of objectives for redeveloping the area where the proposal is located. Those policies recognize the surrounding industrial uses will limit development potential for a while and also that redevelopment may be phased and may occur over an approximately 30-year time frame: "The current supply of underutilized land north ofN. 8th Street creates an immediate redevelopment opportunity for a first phase of development in District One. However, the industrial character of the surrounding developed properties, both within District Two to the west and the Employment Area- Industrial area to the east, will make it difficult to achieve true urban intensities in District One at the beginning of this transition. The overall Vision for the District contemplates much more than a series oflow-rise structures with large parking lots. Therefore, it is important that this initial development facilitates later stages of investment as the neighborhood matures and property values increase. It is also critical that the early-stage vision for District One sets the stage for high-quality redevelopment in District Two." "Vision -District One The changes in District One will be dramatic, as surface parking lots and existing large-scale industrial buildings are replaced by retail, flex tech, and office uses. Initial development may be characterized by large-format, low-rise buildings surrounding internal surface parking lots and bordered by a strong pedestrian- oriented spine along Park Avenue. As the Urban Center-North evolves, the buildings of District One may be remodeled and/or replaced with taller, higher density structures. Parking structures may also be built in future phases as infill projects that further the urbanization of the District. Two initial patterns of development are anticipated within the District: one, creating a destination retail shopping district; and the other, resulting in a more diverse mixed-use, urban scale office and technical center with supporting commercial retail uses. It is hoped that over time these patterns will blend to become a cohesive mixed-use district. In its first phases of development, District One hosts for the region a new form of retail center. Absent are the physical constraints of a covered mall. Although parking initially may be handled in surface lots, their configuration, juxtaposed with smaller building units, eliminates the expanse of paving that makes other retail shopping areas unappealing to pedestrians. Building facades, of one or two stories, are positioned adjacent to sidewalks and landscaped promenades. Destination retail uses that draw from a sub-regional or regional market blend with small, specialty stores in an integrated shopping environment to support other businesses in the area. While large-format ("big-box") retail stores anchor development, they do not stand-alone. Rather, they are architecturally and functionally connected to the smaller shops and stores in integrated shopping centers." (Page IX-46) The Landing Site Plan hearing on Merits File No.: LUA-06-071, SA-A May 22, 2007 Page 17 In other words, any proposal including the current proposal is not envisioned as the total end product. There has to be a start to redeveloping the area and any initial project might not fulfill all the objectives at this time. The overall proposal is certainly compatible with most of the aims of the City as envisioned in its comprehensive plan. 41. As a whole, the project appears to work and the modifications requested and approved appear geared toward allowing current development to veer from the strict guidelines and they are GUIDELINES, so that the initial development can occur now while not thwarting redevelopment or new development of the interior spaces with structured parking or more compact urban design features. It would be or is too easy to shoot objections at a 38-acre project and find that it may not comport with every guideline found in Code. The fact that a 38-acre site may not fit every guideline or minimum standard was why the Director was apparently given the power to review modification requests and grant those requests if in the overall scheme of things, the development accomplished the City's goals for this area - redevelopment at an urban scale of substantially underutilized property but recognizing that the City's goals for this area may not be entirely fruitful this year or next year and not within even the first decade. The redevelopment and build-out of this area was projected to take a few decades. Parking lots and interior open spaces are eventually anticipated to be developed. The journey is expected to take a while and code writers and the City Council even expected a few missteps might be found in its ordinances, providing a flexible method of allowing modifications to those regulations. The project as a whole is compatible with the overall objectives, goals and policies of the comprehensive plan. It leads to redevelopment of this area with a well-designed, coherent project that allows internal growth opportunities for redevelopment over the next 30 years. It adds retail and commercial uses, it creates pedestrian oriented corridors, it will be linked to residential components and it allows the continued function of the Boeing and Paccar industrial uses. The comprehensive plan compatibility is more than adequately discussed on Pages 3 and 4 of the staff report {August 17, 2006). There is a laundry list of policies and while the proposal might miss some aspects it meets others. The open center of the site, now dedicated to parking can be redeveloped over the 30-year time span suggested by the City's objectives. Similarly, employment can be expanded with redevelopment. It may not be possible to meet every objective in a time span of two to three years on an area of this size and one still subject to neighboring heavy industrial uses. 42. The appellant objected to the large interior parking lots: "This is because the Applicant designed a project that prioritized large, allegedly "convenient" parking lots over the "pedestrian-orients streets" that are mandated by the Renton Comprehensive Plan, approved Conceptual Plans, and development regulations in the Renton Municipal Code (RMC or "Code"). (Buck, Page 2 Post-Hearing Reply Briel). The appellant may complain oflargc, convenient parking lots but code does not prohibit them. What code prohibits are parking or lots between buildings and streets or too much frontage taken up by parking. The examples shown in the Code show larger, interior parking lots. The Conceptual Plan that the appellants allege the current Site Plan does not follow also showed larger interior parking lots. The real questions are not whether the lots are too large but whether some parking is in the wrong location, were modifications granted by the Director authorized by Code and were they appropriately reviewed, reasons demonstrated and granted? 43. The appellant suggests that the applicant created their own hardship by designing a project that does not conform to regulations. Hardship is not the standard for a modification. The modification criteria are not as demanding as those for a variance. There does not need to be a hardship and there is no concern about creating undue precedent as there are for reviewing a variance. None of the remaining criteria are as compelling as those required to grant a variance. Note the use of the terms or phrases "practical difficulties" and "impractical" in the modification criteria. Something impractical can justify a modification. The Director was not dealing with a "variance" where the applicant has to show undue The Landing Site Plan Hearing on Me,its File No.: LUA-06-071, SA-A May 22, 2007 Page 18 hardship that deprives the applicant of reasonable use. Given an over 10 acre block, access needs to be provided in more than one location or else there would be practical difficulties for access. Loading docks need to be located somewhere on site and not impractically interfere with general pedestrian traffic or passenger vehicles. The Director used the appropriate standard in allowing modifications to access along N I 0th and loading docks along Logan and N 8th. 44. Quadrant C provides only limited appeal issues. The parties have allowed through stipulation the building to be setback from Park. The parking stalls located on the east side of Park, adjacent to the roadway serving the proposed Target store, raise some issues. Is there some physical limitation or "practical difficulty" that requires parking when the guidelines do not allow it? There is no reason that makes compliance with code impractical. Landscaping can be provided to screen the access drive and the additional parking. This office has to find that while it may be "wasted" space that can boost the parking complement of the proposal, there is no practical difficulty in omitting that parking. It can be given over to landscaping, seating, decorative art or a combination of those uses. No practical difficulty requires a modification to allow parking in this area where none is permitted. 45. Similarly, this office can find no practical difficulty in providing a front entrance along Park Avenue. While an entrance along a facade where other shops or buildings have their entrance would be a nice design feature for an interrelated shopping complex, unless this office has missed some limiting aspect of the applicant's plans, there is no practical difficulty in providing another entrance along the pedestrian-oriented street, that is, Park Avenue. It is a design feature or detail that allows entrances to be oriented toward the interior of this complex. How pedestrian oriented will Park be if the facade facing Park is closed, routing pedestrians either far to the north or far to the south and then around to the west to gain access to a pedestrian oriented urban, shopping complex. Not every shop is obviously amenable to having multiple entrances but an inviting pedestrian presence is suppose to be a feature of this complex and the complex should not tum its "back" on Park Avenue. 46. There appear to be two standards that apply to pedestrian oriented streets. Section 4-3-100.F.4.b.ii indicates that surface parking driveways are prohibited on pedestrian-oriented streets while 4-3- 100.F. l .b.i.a suggests no more than 60 feet can serve vehicular access. In any event, the Director had to weigh the tradeoffs of interrupting Logan Avenue with vehicular access or N I 0th with vehicular access. The Quadrant C block is large, at least 10 acres, and contains a large interior parking lot. The interior parking lots can provide redevelopment potential as suggested by the comprehensive plan. The interior parking can also potentially house structured parking and that is permitted to have access along pedestrian-oriented streets. Providing access to the interior parking on this large Quadrant and not have access along either Park or N I 0th presents practical difficulties. The modification will allow development of a well-designed complex that provides pedestrian-oriented internal walkways that connect to pedestrian-oriented streets. In a perfect world there may be other methods of developing this site and the appellant may prefer some other design features but that does not show that the current design is inappropriate under the comprehensive plan. The small rotary, curving street and pedestrian crossings ofN I 0th Street should convey to drivers that pedestrians prevail and should be safe. A modification that allows the access along N 10th Street will not injure or create adverse impacts to other property. It conforms to the intent of the Code to redevelop this area with high quality development and to encourage pedestrians and a few driveways will not offset those benefits. On a complex that faces the public on all sides, the project does its best to meet the requirements for parking to be on the "side and/or rear ofa building" as required by Code. Further justification is that the driveways along N 10th will also limit impacts to Logan, a high visibility street. In other words, the modification to allow access to the surface parking from pedestrian oriented streets is appropriate and was appropriately approved. Allowing access along a pedestrian-oriented street and allowing more than 60 feet does not appear to create any injury to other properties. It will not create any unsafe conditions although it will The Landing Site Plan hearing on Merits File No.: LUA-06-071, SA-A May 22, 2007 Page 19 require more pedestrian vigilance. It allows the eventual redevelopment of the interior areas in compliance with the comprehensive plan's 30-year time frame. Notice, also, that the Code does appear to permit parking garages to have driveways along a pedestrian-oriented street. Therefore, it would not be that much of a stretch to allow surface lots access across such a street if there were practical difficulties in achieving a well-designed project while sparing Logan Avenue and Park Avenue from driveway intersections. And it would be no less safe than access to a parking garage. 47. The decision criteria for both a Site Plan and Modification use the terms "finding" and "find." Those terms are not as rigorous as those required by the Hearing Examiner language found in Code. In addition, notice the language in the next sentence "These criteria also provide a frame of reference ... but are not intended to discourage creativity and innovation." On occasion, when explaining land use law to laymen, this office has tried explaining that in many (most) areas of the law one does not ask a question such as whether something is "appropriate" or does it "discourage creativity. " Or "Does this plat meet the public use and interest or is it APPROPRlA TE?" Rarely in the law does one make value judgments such as those examples. The language quoted above seems particularly clear -that the "criteria ... are not intended to discourage creativity and innovation." 48. Notice the much more specific requirements in the language governing Hearing Examiner decisions and Council action. "[F]indings from the record and conclusions" as opposed to the less rigorous "find" or "findings" asked of planners who are not asked to provide judicial or quasi-judicial decisions. It would appear that the Director and other planning professionals exercise professional judgment when reviewing applications but are not held to a judicial standard in producing an analysis and decision on a proposal. The Director's narrative discussion found in the staff report is sufficient. The Director's decision has in most areas sufficient information and recitation of facts about a project and its impacts to comport with the "find[ings]" specified by Code. 49. This office has not been convinced by any of the evidence or testimony that ASE should be granted standing in this matter for the appeal of the update that was combined with the initial appeal of the Landing Site Plan. The previous decision on ASE 's standing on the initial appeal remains applicable to this second appeal. 50. Attached to the back of this report are the Code Sections that apply to various portions of this decision. CONCLUSIONS: 1. The appellant has the burden of demonstrating that the decision of the City Official was either in error, or was otherwise contrary to law or constitutional provisions, or was arbitrary and capricious (Section 4- 8-1 l O(E)(7)(b). The appellant has demonstrated that the action of the City should be modified and affirmed as indicated below. 2. Arbitrary and capricious action has been defined as willful and unreasoning action in disregard of the facts and circumstances. A decision, when exercised honestly and upon due consideration of the facts and circumstances, is not arbitrary or capricious (Northern Pacific Transport Co. v Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission, 69 Wn. 2d 472,478 (1966). 3. An action is likewise clearly erroneous when, although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing body, on the entire evidence, is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. (Ancheta v Daly, 77 Wn. 2d 255,259 (1969). An appellate body should not necessarily substitute its judgment for the underlying agency with expertise in a matter unless appropriate. In this case, this office will exercise authority that gives it the powers of the underlying body to overturn, The Landing Site Plan Hearing on Mews File No.: LUA-06-071, SA-A May 22, 2007 Page 20 modify and supplement the staff report. This office does not believe a remand is necessary as in most particulars the staff report and Director's decision is more than adequate but the appellant has demonstrated that the Director erred in granting some of the requested modifications. 4. The appellant urges that the matter be remanded to the Director and staff. Is a remand the only option or even necessary in this case? Or is there sufficient information in the record for the examiner to either agree that the Director made the correct decision or decisions or rectify an error? This office believes that the record, the files, applications, reviews and reports contained in the record would allow this office to avoid a remand. A remand would be appropriate if there were grievous errors or omissions in the underlying decision. This office does not find grievous errors that require substantial additional fact finding by the City. The errors that were made can be rectified by denying modifications for parking along Park and N 10th Street and supplementing the staff report as was done in the above Findings. 5. This office can review the project and correct some of the errors, supplement the findings in others and affirm other parts of the decision without a remand. This office retains the authority of the "office from whom the appeal is taken." ( 4-8-110.E. l.c.) 6. While there have been challenges about whether the proposal is compatible with the comprehensive plan, whether it comports with the Conceptual Plan and the Master Plan, whether a public hearing was required and whether the Director appropriately reviewed and approved the various modifications, those issues can be resolved without a need to remand the matter or matters for further review. First, this office as noted finds that the overall Site Plan is compatible with the objectives, goals and policies of the comprehensive plan. The Director did not err and the appellant has failed to demonstrate that the decisions on those matters were clearly erroneous. As noted, there are a large number of objectives and the proposal complies with many of them as shown in the original staff report. The goals are also not necessarily attainable immediately but the comprehensive plan provided a long-range view of Renton and 30 years provides additional opportunities for additional employment and more dense development. 7. Code does not require endless or repeated or even one additional public hearing when one was held. There was a public hearing on the Planned Action Ordinance. The Planned Action was found appropriate at that time and the proposal continued to evolve in a manner that reflects the premises of the both the Planned Action and the Conceptual Plan. There was no determination that there were "substantially unresolved" issues and those that may be unacceptable to the appellant do not appear to be substantial. The appellant certainly did not show any clearly erroneous decisions that cannot be rectified in this review and that demand a remand. None of the issues involved go to the heart of the injuries that the appellant used to show standing. There were no traffic-related issues nor any storm water or water pollution issues that would jeopardize regional waters. The modifications objected to do not address either of those issues. 8. This office has to conclude that the Director did not reach the correct decision on some of the modifications requested since there does not appear to be evidence that "practical difficulties" precluded complying with Code. In those cases, this office will simply deny the modifications since this office has the power of the official whose decision is being challenged. There is no need to remand these matters for any further review. The modifications that allow parking east of Park at the southwest corner of Quadrant C and west of Park (north of Building 400) and along Logan are denied. There do not appear to be any "practical difficulties" in providing a "primary entrance" along Park Avenue, the facing street. This complex should not tum its back on the pedestrian oriented street since there should not be a "back" on a pedestrian oriented street. While the applicant has created an internal pedestrian orientation for much of this complex, it sits adjacent to Park Avenue and should welcome pedestrians who happen to be walking along Park. There do not appear to be any practical difficulties in providing the primary The Landing Site Plan hearing on Merits File No.: LUA-06-071, SA-A May 22, 2007 Page 21 entrance or even, possibly, co-equal entrance. It is merely a design decision. The modification should have been denied. This office will, therefore, exercise its authority under code and deny the modification. The modification for the building in the southeast comer of Quadrant B is denied and the building shall have a primary entrance along Park. The modification that would allow the building located in the southwest corner of Quadrant B to exceed the maximum setback is denied. This office cannot find any practical difficulties on limiting the curb area along Park north of Building 400 to "not more than 60 feet" occupied by parking or vehicular access. The parking certainly can be moved or removed and replaced by landscaping. The potential infill development would not be hampered by landscaping or seating in this area. Landscaping can be replaced by new structures. 9. In other areas such as whether formal findings arc required, whether a public hearing was required and whether the Director has the authority to approve modifications in the Urban Design Regulations Overlay District (4-9-250) and the minimum standards of the design regulations (4-3-100.L) the appellant has not demonstrated that the Director made errors. The narrative form of the staff report appears to meet the standards of Code and the Director has the authority under various provisions to modify both the provisions of the general Title as well as the Minimum Standards if appropriate. 10. The nature of the Director's report does not fail because formal findings were not included. The Director's report provides reference to code sections, history of the project, zoning and comprehensive plan designations, background information and a discussion of the proposal and how it meets various code provisions. The Code contains different language specifying the requirements for a report from the City Council and Hearing Examiner decisions than it does for those of the Development Services reports. As has been noted, there are different review standards when the Council and Examiner issue quasi-judicial decisions than there are for Staff Reports or those made by the Director. The Director is not making judicial decisions but providing a readable report that shows how a project complies with a variety of code provisions, also providing details about treatment materials and trim details, sometimes detailing landscaping species, paving materials, and similar information. It does need to show how certain proposals such as modifications comply with code but it does not need to follow any particular form. The report provides sufficient details and the appellant has not demonstrated error. 11. A Public hearing was not required. There was the public hearing and other prerequisites required to allow Administrative review. While those hearings may have been a couple of years ago, the entire Planned Action Ordinance and Master Plan process is intended to give developers and neighbors some assurances that there will not be endless reviews and re-reviews of proposals. There needs to be some finality so that people can make economic commitments and expect that "monkey wrenches" will not be tossed into the mix a year or two down the line on larger scale projects such as this one. As noted, there may be some unresolved issues in the appellant's mind and even the minds of other persons but those are not necessarily significant and they may never be resolved to those persons' satisfaction. That does not mean more public hearings are required. 12. The comprehensive plan compatibility is more than adequately discussed on Pages 3 and 4 of the staff report (August 17, 2006). There is a laundry list of policies and while the proposal might miss some aspects, it meets most others. The open center of the site, now dedicated to parking can be redeveloped over the 30-year time span suggested by the City's objectives. Employment can be expanded with redevelopment. It may not be possible to meet every objective in a time span of two to three years on an area of this size and one still subject to neighboring heavy industrial uses. 13. The phasing and 30 year timeframe does not require immediate fruition of employment goals. No contractual requirements or covenants are needed. Frankly, 30 years is a long time. Thinking back 30 years, 1970 or so, few would have predicted that this land would be for sale by Boeing, Boeing would The Landing Site Plan Hearing on 11, _____ s File No.: LUA-06-071, SA-A May 22, 2007 Page 22 be retreating to the lake and Boeing might cease most of its Renton operations. The project meets many of the comprehensive plan's objectives and goals. It is probably not an easy process redeveloping 38 acres and doing it all in one, rather expensive, "fell-swoop." 14. The loading docks have to be somewhere for a complex of this size and it would appear reasonable to place them along a street that does not promote pedestrian access. It certainly is better than in the midst of the complex where they would not only introduce larger trucks to a passenger car environment but also introduce trucks and loading docks to the pedestrian oriented south tier of shops and buildings. The Director mentioned the smooth flow of pedestrians along the south portion of Quadrant B in his review. 15. There are practical difficulties gaining access to the interior parking lots that serve the north, west and south buildings of this large 38-acre complex. So access along N 10th Street appears reasonable given the fact that Logan is a heavily traveled arterial. It is also a high visibility street where access to parking lots should be limited so that there are fewer turning movements to interfere with arterial flow. In addition, the block is large and access to the parking from the north helps drivers get to and from the complex from more than just one surrounding street. The street is well landscaped, contains decorative paving, a roundabout and other features to enhance the I 0th corridor. The street ties the north and south quadrants together. It does not detract from neighboring uses, presents a coherent plan and allows the development of this site in a manner compatible with the comprehensive plan. The additional frontage given to driveways or parking is not detrimental to the overall plan. I 6. In conclusion, while the appellant has shown not all of the modifications were entirely appropriate, denying them will not substantially alter the Site Plan, and, frankly, approving them would not significantly detract from the overall plan either. It is just that under code, there did not seem to be practical difficulties that would have allowed them. The other approved modifications, also, quite frankly, do not appear to detract in any way from what appears to be a coherent, well-designed initial plan for redeveloping 38 fallow acres. The Director, possibly supplemented by the additional findings in this report, appropriately justified them and approved them as the Director found that the proposed Site Plan complies with the comprehensive plan, the Planned Action Ordinance, the Conceptual Plan and the Master Plan. Would it be possible to redesign the project -clearly. Might there even be ways to make it better -maybe. Are changes necessary to the overall plan -no. DECISION: The decision affirmed in part and reversed in part. The Director's decision is modified and this office will deny the requested modification for the parking lots on the east side of Park Avenue North that was not covered by the parties' stipulation for Quadrant C, the parking lot on the west side of Park and the parking lots along N I 0th Street. Landscaping, street furniture or other uses compatible with the Design Standards may be installed in the place of the proposed parking. The Director's decision is modified and this office will deny the requested modification that would remove the requirement that a primary entrance be located on the pedestrian oriented street. The Director's decision is modified and this office will deny the requested modification that would allow the building at the southwest comer of Quadrant B to exceed the maximum setback. The Director's decision is modified and this office will deny the requested modification that would allow the parking to exceed more than 60 feet of curb length. The Landing Site Plan •• -aring on Merits File No.: LUA-06-071, SA-A May 22, 2007 Page 23 If the loss of parking affects the parking complement of the overall Site Plan, the applicant as code permits, may increase the height of the parking structure, remove a retail component or coordinate with the City other methods to provide sufficient parking as required by Code. The Director's decision is modified as indicated in the above conclusions wherein this decision supplements or supplants the Director's decision for the remaining modifications that were requested. In all other particulars, the Director's decisions are affirmed and the appeal is denied. ORDERED THIS 22"' day of May 2007. HEARING A TRANSMITTED THIS 22"' day of May 2007 to the parties ofrccord: Jill Ding 1055 S Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Duncan Green Buck & Gordon 2025 First Ave., Ste. 500 Seattle, WA 98121 Ross Radley Attorney at Law 3316 Fuhrman Ave E Seattle, WA 98102 Zanetta Fontes Assistant City Attorney City of Renton Jerome L. Hillis Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson, P.S. 500 Galland Building 1221 Second A venue Seattle, WA 98121 Brad Nicholson 2811 Dayton Avenue Renton, WA 98056 TRANSMITTED THIS zznct day of May 2007 to the following: Mayor Kathy Keolker Stan Engler, Fire Peter Buck Buck & Gordon 2025 First Ave., Ste. 500 Seattle, WA 98121 Karen Breckenridge Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson, P.S. 500 Galland Building 1221 Second Avenue Seattle, WA 98121 Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer Julia Medzegian, Council Liaison Larry Warren, City Attorney Larry Meckling, Building Official Planning Commission Transportation Division Gregg Zimmerman, PBPW Administrator Alex Pietsch, Economic Development Jennifer Henning, Development Services Stacy Tucker, Development Services Utilities Division Neil Watts, Development Services Janet Conklin, Development Services King County Journal The Landing Site Plan Hearing on Me,1ts File No.: LUA-06-071, SA-A May 22, 2007 Page 24 Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Section IOOGofthe City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m., June S, 2007. Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the Examiner is ambiguous or based on erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact, error in judgment, or the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing may make a written request for a review by the Examiner within fourteen (14) days from the date of the Examiner's decision. This request shall set forth the specific ambiguities or errors discovered by such appellant, and the Examiner may, after review of the record, take further action as he deems proper. An appeal to the City Council is governed by Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 110, which requires that such appeal be filed with the City Clerk, accompanying a filing fee of$75.00 and meeting other specified requirements. Copies of this ordinance are available for inspection or purchase in the Finance Department, first floor of City Hall. An appeal must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m., June 5, 2007. If the Examiner's Recommendation or Decision contains the requirement for Restrictive Covenants, the executed Covenants will be required prior to approval by City Council or final processing of the file. You may contact this office for information on formatting covenants. The Appearance of Fairness Doctrine provides that no ex parte (private one-on-one) communications may occur concerning pending land use decisions. This means that parties to a land use decision may not communicate in private with any decision-maker concerning the proposal. Decision-makers in the land use process include both the Hearing Examiner and members of the City Council. All communications concerning the proposal must be made in public. This public communication permits all interested parties to know the contents of the communication and would allow them to openly rebut the evidence. Any violation of this doctrine would result in the invalidation of the request by the Court. The Doctrine applies not only to the initial public hearing but to all Requests for Reconsideration as well as Appeals to the City Council. The Landing Site Plan hearing on Merits File No.: LUA-06-071, SA-A May 22, 2007 Page 25 CODE PROVISIONS The following Code Sections apply to various portions of this decision. This office has emphasized with a d_ouble-underline the particular text in a section that is applicable to the decision. Design Criteria Code Provisions 4-3-100.E.3.b 3. Building Entries: Intent: To make building entrances convenient to locate and easy to access, and ensure that building entries further the pedestrian nature of the fronting sidewalk and the urban character of the district. b. Minimum Standards for District 'C': 1. On pedestrian-oriented streets, the primary entrance of each building shall be located on the facade facing the street. 4-3-100.E. l .b.ii.a (a) High Visibility Street. A highly visible arterial street that warrants special design treatment to improve its appearance and maintain its transportation function. 4-3-100.F.4.b b. Minimum Standards for District 'C': 1. Parking garages shall be accessed at the rear of buildings or from non-pedestrian- oriented streets when available. 11. Surface parking driveways are prohibited on pedestrian-oriented streets. 111. Parking lot entrances, driveways, and other vehicular access points on high visibility streets shall be restricted to one entrance and exit lane per five hundred (500) linear feet as measured horizontally along the street. F PARKING AND VEHICULAR ACCESS: Intent: To provide safe, convenient access to the Urban Center; incorporate various modes of transportation, including public mass transit, in order to reduce traffic volumes and other impacts from vehicles; ensure sufficient parking is provided, while encouraging creativity in reducing the impacts of parking areas; allow an active pedestrian environment by maintaining contiguous street frontages, without parking lot siting along sidewalks and building facades; minimize the visual impact of parking lots; and use access streets and parking to maintain an urban edge to the district. 1. Location of Parking: Intent: To maintain active pedestrian environments along streets by placing parking lots primarily in hack of buildings. Parking along street 4-3-100.E.2.b 2. Building Location and Orientation: Intent: To ensure visibility of businesses; establish active, lively uses along sidewalks and pedestrian pathways; organize buildings in such a way that pedestrian use of the district is facilitated; encourage siting of structures so that natural light and solar access are available to other structures and open space; The Landing Site Plan Hearing on Ments File No.: LUA-06-071, SA-A May 22, 2007 Page 26 enhance the visual character and definition of streets within the district; provide an appropriate transition between buildings, parking areas, and other land uses and the street; and increase privacy for residential uses located near the street. b. Minimum Standards for District 'C': 1. Buildings on designated pedestrian-oriented streets shall feature "pedestrian-oriented facades" and clear connections to the sidewalk (see illustration, RMC 4-3-100E7a). Such buildings shall be located adjacent to the sidewalk, except where pedestrian- oriented space is located between the building and the sidewalk. Parking between the building and pedestrian-oriented streets is prohibited. 11. Buildings fronting on pedestrian-oriented streets shall contain pedestrian-oriented uses. m. Nonresidential buildings may be located directly adjacent to any street as long as they feature a pedestrian-oriented facade. 1v. Buildings containing street-level residential uses and single-purpose residential buildings shall be set back from the sidewalk a minimum of ten feet ( 1 O') and feature substantial landscaping between the sidewalk and the building (see illustration, RMC 4- 3-100E7b). v. If buildings do not feature pedestrian-oriented facades they shall have substantial landscaping between the sidewalk and building. Such landscaping shall be at least ten feet (10') in width as measured from the sidewalk (see illustration, RMC 4-3-lOOE7c). c. Guidelines Applicable to District 'C': 1. Siting of a structure should take into consideration the continued availability of natural light (both direct and reflected) and direct sun exposure to nearby buildings and open space (except parking areas). 11. Ground floor residential uses located near the street should be raised above street level for residents' privacy. b. Minimum Standards for District 'C': 1. On Designated Pedestrian-Oriented Streets: (a) Parking shall be at the side and/or rear of a building, with the exception of on-street parallel parking. No more than sixty feet (60') of the street frontage measured parallel to the curb shall be occupied by off-street parking and vehicular access. 11. All parking lots located between a building and street or visible from a street shall feature landscaping between the sidewalk and building; see RMC 4-4-080F, Parking Lot Design Standards. 4-3-lOOURBAN DESIGN REGULATIONS: A PURPOSE: The purpose of this Section is to: 1. Establish design review regulations in accordance with policies established in the Land Use and Community Design Elements of the Renton Comprehensive Plan in order to: a. Maintain and protect property values; b. Enhance the general appearance of the City; c. Encourage creativity in building and site design; d. Achieve predictability, balanced with flexibility; and e. Consider the individual merits of proposals. The Landing Site Plan hearing on Merits File No.: LUA-06-071, SA-A May 22, 2007 Page 27 4. Create design standards and guidelines specific to the Urhan Center -North (District 'C') that ensure design quality of structures and site development that implements the City ofRenton's Comprehensive Plan Vision for its Urban Center -North. This Vision is of an urban environment that concentrates uses in a "grid pattern" of streets and blocks. The Vision is of a vibrant, economically vital neighborhood that encourages use throughout by pedestrians. 5. Create design standards and guidelines applicable to the use of "big-box retail" as defined in RMC 4-11- 180, Definitions. 6. Establish two categories of regulations: (a) "minimum standards" that must be met, and (b) "guidelines" that, while not mandatory, are considered by the Development Services Director in determining if the proposed action meets the intent of the design guidelines. In the Urban Center Design Overlay area, specific minimum standards and guidelines may apply to all three districts, or certain districts only (Districts 'A', 'B', or 'C'), as indicated herein. (Ord. 5029, 11-24-03; Ord. 5124, 2-7-2005) Criteria for Site Plan Review 4-9-200.E "E DECISION CRITERIA FOR SITE PLAN AND MASTER PLANS: The Reviewing Official shall review and act upon plans hased upon a finding that the proposal meets Comprehensive Plan ohjectives and policies and the criteria in this subsection and in subsection F of this Section, as applicable. These criteria also provide a frame ofreference for the applicant in developing a site, but are not intended to discourage creativity and innovation." Criteria for Hearing Examiner, Council and Planning Decisions 4-8-100.G: "I. Standard Decision Time and Notification Procedure: Unless the time is extended pursuant to this Section, within fourteen (14) days of the conclusion of a hearing, or the date set for submission of additional information pursuant to this Chapter, the Examiner shall render a written decision. including findings from the_record and conclusions therefrom, and shall transmit a copy of such decision by regular mail, postage prepaid, to the applicant and other parties of record in the case requesting notice of the decision. The person mailing the decision, together with the supporting documents, shall prepare an affidavit of mailing, in standard form, and the affidavit shall become a part of the record of the proceedings. In the case of applications requiring City Council approval, the Examiner shall file his decision with the City Council members individually at the expiration of the appeal period for the decision." "K. COUNCIL ACTION: I. Council Action Requires Minutes and Findings of Fact: Any application requiring action by the City Council shall be evidenced by minute entry unless otherwise required by law. When taking any such final action, the Council shall make and enter findinj;Lof fact from the record and con_clusions therefrom which support its action." 4-9-200.E. l .b "The Reviewing Official shall review and act upon plans based upon a finding that the propo.fil!l meets the Comprehensive Plan objectives and policies and the criteria in this subsection and subsection F of this Section, as applicable. These criteria also provide a frame of reference for the applicant in developing a site, but are not intended to discourage creativity and innovation." The Landing Site Plan Hearing on Ments File No.: LUA-06-071, SA-A May 22, 2007 Page 28 4-9-200.E "In rendering a decision, the Director will consider proposals on the basis of individual merit, will consider the overall intent of the of the minimum standards and guidelines, and encourage creative design alternatives in order to achieve the purposes of the design regulations." Hearing Examiner Authority 4-8-110. "E. APPEALS TO EXAMINER OF ADMINISTRATNE DECISIONS AND ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATIONS: (Amd. Ord. 4827, 1-24-2000) I. Applicability and Authority: c. Authority: To that end, the Examiner sh;tll have all of the powers of the office from ">V}lqn1Jhe. appe~l is taken insofar as the de;;\;is.ion on the particular issue is cqncem!!d " Criteria for Modifications from Code 4-9-250 VARIANCES, W ANERS, MODIFICATIONS, AND AL TERNA TES: A PURPOSES: 3. Modifications: To modify a Code requirement when there are practical difficulties involved in carrying out the provisions of this Title when a special individual reason makes the strict letter of this Code imn_gctical. (Ord. 4346, 3-9-1992) D MODIFICATION PROCEDURES: I. Application Time and Decision Authority: Modification from standards, either in whole or in part, shall be subject to review and decision by the Planning/Building/Public Works Department upon submittal in writing of jurisdiction for such modification. (Amd. Ord. 4777, 4-19-1999) 2. Decision Criteria: Whenever there are practical difficulties involved in carrying out the provisions of this Title, the Department Administrator may grant modifications for individual cases provided he/she shall first find that a specific reason makes the strict letter of this Code impractical, that the intent and purpose of the 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 modification: 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 proposed modification is the minimum adjustment necessary to implement these policies and objectives; b. Will meet the objectives and safety, function, appearance, environmental protection and maintainability intended by the Code requirements, based upon sound engineering judgment; c. Will not be injurious to other property(ies) in the vicinity; d. Conforms to the intent and purpose of the Code; e. Can be shown to be justified and required for the use and situation intended; and f. Will not create adverse impacts to other property(ies) in the vicinity. (Ord. 4517, 5-8-1995; Ord. 5100, 11-1-2004) The Landing Site Plan Hearing on Merits File No.: LUA-06-071, SA-A May 22, 2007 Page 29 4-9-250.0(2) "2. Decision Criteria: Whenever there are practical difficultietinvglvedin carrying out the provisions of this Title, the Department Administrator may grant modifications for individual cases provided he/she shall first find that a specific reason makes the strict letter of this Code impractical, that the intent and purpose of the 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 modification:" Criteria for Modifications from Minimum Standards Modifications 4-8-070.C.1 O.vi C PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS ADMINISTRATOR OR DESIGNEE: Authority: The Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator or his/her designee shall review and act on the following: IO. Modifications: "also 4-3-100.L vi. Modifications to development standards in the Center Village Residential Bonus District and the Urban Design Regulation Overlay District; L. MODIFICATION OF MINIMUM STANDARDS: I. The Director of the Development Semces Division shall have the authority to modify the minimum standards of the_design regulations, subject to the provisions of RMC 4-9-250D, Modification Procedures, and the following requirements: a. The project as a whole meets the intent of the minimum standards and guidelines in subsections E, F, G, H, I, J, and K of the design regulations; b. The requested modification meets the intent of the applicable design standard; c. The modification will not have a detrimental effect on nearby properties and the City as a whole; d. The deviation manifests high quality design; and e. The modification will enhance the pedestrian environment on the abutting and/or adjacent streets and/or pathways. 2. Exceptions for Districts A and B: Modifications to the requirements in subsections E2a and E3a of this Section arc limited to the following circumstances: a. When the building is oriented to an interior courtyard, and the courtyard has a prominent entry and walkway connecting directly to the public sidewalk; or b. When a building includes an architectural feature that connects the building entry to the public sidewalk; or c. In complexes with several buildings, when the building is oriented to an internal integrated walkway system with prominent connections to the public sidewalk(s). (Ord. 5124, 2-7-2005) Criteria for Public Hearings on Site Plans Public hearing required: The Landing Site Plan Hearing on Ments File No.: LUA-06-071, SA-A May 22, 2007 Page 30 D CRITERIA TO DETERMINE IF PUBLIC HEARING REQUIRED: In all cases, the public hearing for Master Plan or Site Plan Review should be conducted concurrently with any other required hearing, such as rezone or subdivision, if the details of the development are sufficiently defined to permit adequate review. A public hearing before the Hearing Examiner shall be required in the following cases: I. Master Plans: a. All Master Plans proposed or required per subsection B of this Section, Master Plan Review, Applicability. Where a Master Plan is approved, subsequent Site Plans submitted f9r future phases may be submitted and approved administratively without a public hearing. b. Exception for Planned Actions: A hearing before the Hearing Examiner is not required if both of the following criteria are met: 1. Qne or more public heari!l&§ were held where mmliccomment was solicit,;,d .. on1he proposed Planned Action Ordinance, and 11. The environ.mental il])Uact statement for the planned actimueviewed preliminary co11ceptllill plans for the site which provided the public and decision-makers with sufficient detail regarding the scale of the proposed improvements, the quantity of the various types of spaces to be provided, the use to which the structure will be put, and the bulk and general form of the improvements. "2. Site Plan Review: a. Significant Environmental Concerns Remain: The EnvironmentaUleyjew Committee d~terrnines that based on departmental comments or public input there are significant u=sclved concerns that are raised by the proposal; or b. Large Project Scale: The proposed project is more than: 1. One hundred ( 100) semi-attached or attached residential units; or 11. One hundred thousand (100,000) square feet of gross floor area (nomesidential) in the IL or CO Zones or other zones in the Employment Area Valley (EA V) land use designation (see EAV Map in RMC 4-2-080B); or 111. Twenty five thousand (25,000) square feet of gross floor area (nomesidential) in the CN, CD, CA, CV, or CO Zones outside the Employment Area Valley (EAV) land use designation (see EAV Map in RMC 4-2-080B); or 1v. Four (4) stories or sixty feet (60') in height; or v. Three hundred (300) parking stalls; or vi. Ten (10) acres in size of project area. c. Commercial or industrial property lies adjacent to or abutting the RC, R-1, R-4, R-8 and R-lO Zones. (Ord. 4551, 9-18-1995; Ord. 4773, 3-22-1999; Ord. 4802, 10-25-1999; Amd. Ord. 4963, 5-13-2002; Ord. 5028, 11-24-2003)" 05117107 10:40 FAX 206 626 0675 BUCI( & GORDON LLP 141001 Buck0 GordonLLP 2025 First Aveni.JI:.', Suite 500 Ssanle. WA 98121-3140 206-382-9540 206-626-0675 Fax wwv1.b1,Jr.;:kgordan.c:om FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL May 17, 2007 To: Company: City of Renton City of Renton Mr. Fred Kaufman Ms. Bonnie Walton Mr. Lawrence J. Warren/Ms. Zanetta Fontes Warren, Barber, & Fontes Mr. Jerome Hillis/Ms. T. Ryan Durkan Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson From: Duncan Greene Regarding: Alliance of South End/Crty of Renton We are transmitting the following: Comments: Letter Telephone: (425) 235-2500 (425) 430-6510 (425) 255-8678 (206) 623-17 45 Fax: (425) 430-6523 (425) 430-6516 (425) 255-5474 (206) 623-7789 Number of Pages: 2 If you did not receive all ca pies, or if any are not legible, please call at (206) 382-9540 THIS FACSIMILE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY TO WHOM IT IS ADDRESSED AND MAY CONTAIN CONFIDENTIAL. PRIVllEGED INFORMATION. IF THE READER OF THIS COVER PAGE IS NOT THE ADDRESSEE, PUEASE BE ADVISED THAT ANY DISSEMINATION, DISTWBUTlON OR COPYING OF THIS FACSIMILE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU RECEIVE THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR. PLEASE CALl IMMEDIATELY AT 1206] 382-9540 AND RETURN THIS FACSIMILE TO BUCK & GORDON AT THE ABOVE ADDRESS BY MNL. THANK YOU. Y:\WP-.AS~FAX TO ALL PARTIES.LMO.DOC l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 5. The parties have all agreed that the uncertainty attendant to the outstanding Hearing Examiner's Decision may create a good environment for settlement discussions. 6. Therefore, the parties have all agreed that the Hearing Examiner should hold his Decision in the appeal of the Site Plan Approval (Landing II) until close of business on Wednesday, May 16, 2007. Dated this 9'h day of May, 2007. BUCK & GORDON, LLP B : Peter L. Buck, WSBA # 5060 ttomeys for ASE and Brad Nicholson HILLIS, CLARK, MARTIN, & PETERSON, PS .J« r'-r<j f/,1/,'s '"1 ' ",..ft:::·d p,r wrW n:, .. H #.,,ri2,j,;._, By: erome L. Hillis, WSBA # 1704 omeys for Harvest Partners, Inc. STIPULATION BY THE PARTIES RE: DELAY IN DECISION Page -2 LAW OFFICE OF ROSS RADLEY WARREN, BARBER, & FONTES, P S By: anetta L. Fontes, WSBA # 9604 '-:.l"'wmeys for the city of Renton WARREN BARllER. & FONTE,, P .S. PD. BOX 626, R£NTON., WA 98057 KXJ SO. SECOND S1R.E£T Pl L (425) 255-8678 FAX (425) 255-5474 05117107 10:41 FAX 206 626 0675 Buck~ Gordon LLP Attorneys. .:!t L.21\N VJA FACSIMILE1 Mr. Fred Kaufman Hearing Examiner City of Renton 1 055 South Grady Way, 7th Floor Renton, WA 98055 BUCK & GORD01' LLP May 17, 2007 Re: Expiration of Stipulation Delaying Decision in Site Plan Appeal LUA 06-071, SA-A Dear Mr. Kaufman: 141002 2025 Fir!:: AvetYJe, Suite 500 Seattle. WA 93121-3140 206-382-9S40 206-626-0675 Fax v1ww.b1..ickgordon.com We are writing on behalf of appellants Brad Nicholson and Alliance for South End (ASE). The Stipulation delaying a decision in appellants' Site Plan Appeal expired yesterday. At the same time, settlement discussions were concluded without agreement. Therefore, we respectfully request that a decision in the Site Plan Appeal be issued ;,s soon as possible. Very truly yours, cc: Parties of Record 1 Pursuant to RMC 4-8-11 O.C(S). Y:\WP\ASE\SITE; Pl.AN APPEAJ...\L0316o7.KAU!!~N.D0C 05111107 10: 23 FAX 206 626 0675 BUCK & GORDON LLP Ii!] 001/002 -----------· ----------- Buc::k~ GordonLLP 2025 First Avenue, Suite 500 Seattle. WA 98121-3140 206-382-9540 206-626-0675 Fa, www.buckgordon.com FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL May 17, 2007 To: Company: City of Renton City of Renton Mr. Fred Kaufman Ms. Bonnie Walton Mr. Lawrence J. Warren/Ms. Zanetta Fontes Warren, Barber, & Fontes Mr. Jerome Hillis/Ms. T_ Ryan Durkan Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson From: Duncan Greene Regarding: Alliance of South End/City of Renton We are transmitting the following: Comments: Letter Telephone: (425) 235-2500 (425) 430-6510 (425) 255-86 78 (206) 623-17 45 Fax: (425) 235-2513 (425) 430-6516 (425) 255-54 7 4 (206) 623-7789 Number of Pages: 2 If you did not receive all copies, or if any are not legible, please call at (206) 382-9540 THIS FACSIMILE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY TO WHOM IT IS ADDRESSED AND MAY CONTAIN CONFIDENTIAL. PRIVILEGED INFORMATION. IF THE READER OF THIS COVER PAGE IS NOT THE ADDRESSEE, PLEASE BE ADVISED THAT ANY DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION OR COPYING OF THIS FACSIMILE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU RECEIVE THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE CALL IMMEDIATELY AT (206) 382-9540 AND RETIJRN THIS FACSIMILE TO BUCK & GORDON AT THE ABOVE ADDRESS BY MAIL. THANK YOU. Y:\WP\A.SE.\FAX TO AU. PARTIES.LMO.DOC 05117107 10:23 FAX 206 626 0675 BUCK & GORDON LLP ·--·--------------·------. Buck~ Gordon LLP Attornc-y5-;ll Law VIA FAC51MILE1 Mr. Fred Kaufman Hearing Examiner City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way, 7th Floor Renton, WA 98055 May 17, 2007 Re: Expiration of Stipulation Delaying Decision in Site Plan Appeal LUA 06-071, SA-A Dear Mr. Kaufman: 14) 0021002 2025 Firs,: Avenue_. Suite 500 Seanle, WA 96121-3140 206-382-9540 206-626-0675 Fax v,.rww.buck~ordor .com We are writing on behalf of appellants Brad Nicholson and Alliance for South End (ASE). The Stipulation delaying a decision in appellants' Site Plan Appeal expired yesterday. At the same time, settlement discussions were concluded without agreement. Therefore, we respectfully request that a decision in the Site Plan Appeal be issued as soon as possible. Very truly yours, cc: Parties of Record 1 Pursuant to RMC 4-8-110.C(S). V.\WPIASE\SrTE PL/IN APPE.Al\l.031607.KAUFMAN.DDC" --- Fred Kaufman -Re: Stipulation ·- From: To: Subject: Fred Kaufman Zanella Fontes Re: Stipulation All correspondence with this office regarding pending land use applications must be part of the public record. Your email and this response will be placed in the official file. Please refrain from replying to this email as that would generate another series of printouts and replies. »> "Zanella Fontes" <zlfontes@seanet.com> 05/09/07 4:25 PM »> Mr. Hearing Examiner. Attached is a stipulation from the parties regarding a delay in your decision on the Site Plan appeal. I will file the original late this afternoon or tomorrow morning. Zanella CC: Duncan Greene; Jerry Hillis; Larry Warren; Peter Buck; Rradley@mindspring.com Page 1 Fred Kaufman -Stipulation From: To: Date: Subject: "Zanella Fontes" <zlfontes@seanet.com> "Fred Kaufman (E-mail)" <fkaufman@ci.renton.wa.us> 5/9/2007 4:25: 12 PM Stipulation Mr. Hearing Examiner. Attached is a stipulation from the parties regarding a delay in your decision on the Site Plan appeal. I will file the original late this afternoon or tomorrow morning. Zanella CC: "Jerry Hillis" <jlh@hcmp.com>, "Peter Buck" <PBuck@BUCKGORDON.COM>, "Duncan Greene" <dgreene@BUCKGORDON.COM>, <Rradley@mindspring.com>, "Larry Warren" <ljwarren@seanet.com> Page 1 Fred Kaufman -TEXT.htm ·-- i ' Mr. Hearing Examiner. Attached is a stipulation from the parties regarding a delay in your decision on the Site Plan appeal. I will file the original late this afternoon or tomorrow morning. Zanetta Page 1 I __ __J Fred Kaufman -PDF stipulation re -' -'a')'_in decision:pdf __ 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 IO 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 2S BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER OF THE CITY OF RENTON LUA 06-071. SA-A In the Matter of the Appeals of Alliance for South End (ASE) and Brad Nicholson re: STIPULATION BY THE PARTIES RE: The Director's Administrative Site Plan Approval DELAY IN DECISION Come now the parties, by and through their respective attorneys, Peter L. Buck, for ASE and Brad Nicholson, Ross Radley for Brad Nicholson, Jerome L. Hillis for Harvest Partners, and Zanetta L. Fontes for the city of Renton and STIPULATE as follows: I. On March 27, 2007, the parties appeared before the Hearing Examiner for a hearing on the merits of ASE and Nicholson's Appeal of the Site Plan Approval for The Landing (Landing II). 2. The Hearing Examiner's Decision has not been issued to date. 3. The parties are using this time to conduct settJement negotiations. 4. The parties have all agreed that there is some risk that the Hearing Examiner's Decision could be adverse to their respective positions. STIPULATION BY THE PARTIES RE: DELAY IN DECISION Page -I W/\RRIJ',l MRBEJl & fONI~ P..S. PO. BOX6Ui, ~ WA93057 lOOSO.Si:CO'OSlRITT PH.('4-25; ?55-8678 F,\)((425) ~7-1 Page 1 Fred Kaufman -PDF stipulation re · 18)'_i0. decision pdf ________ _ 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 27 28 5. The panies have all agreed that the uncertainty attendant to the outstanding Hearing Examiner's Decision may create a good environment for settlement discussions. 6. Therefore, the parties have all agreed that the Hearing Examiner should hold his Decision in the appeal of the Site Plan Approval (Landing II) until close of business on Wednesday, May 16, 2007. Dated this 9"' day of May, 2007. BUCK & GORDON, LLP B . Peter L. Buck, WSBA # 5060 Uomeys for ASE and Brad Nicholson STIPULATlON BY TIIE PARTIES RE: DELAY IN DECISION Page -2 LAW OFFICE OF ROSS RADLEY 1""-,,._rJ,.,J -.,,., ti.~ 11.,,-,-.,_1-,,;. By: oss Radley, WSBA # 4972 mey for Brad Nicholson WARREN, BARBER, & FONTES, P.S WA.RRfN BI\R.BBl & FONlE:\ PS P.O.IIOX 614 ~ WI\ 98057 n:, SO.!iU:O-Om.a:T PH (il:5) 25511671 FM(,US} l:55547* Page 2 ------··--- ! Fred Ka_uf111~n -_PDF !>lipulatio_ri_re "-lay in_~ecisionjldf __ ----Page 3 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 27 28 CITY OF RENTON MAY O 9 2007 RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER OF THE CITY OF RENTON In the Matter of the Appeals of Alliance for South End (ASE) and Brad Nicholson re: The Director's Administrative Site Plan Approval LUA 06-071, SA-A STIPULATION BY Tiffi PARTIES RE DELAY IN DECISION Come now the parties, by and through their respective attorneys, Peter L. Buck, for ASE and Brad Nicholson, Ross Radley for Brad Nicholson, Jerome L. Hillis for Harvest Partners, and Zanetta L. Fontes for the city of Renton and STIPULATE as follows: I. On March 27, 2007, the parties appeared before the Hearing Examiner for a hearing on the merits of ASE and Nicholson's Appeal of the Site Plan Approval for The Landing (Landing TI). 2. The Hearing Examiner's Decision has not been issued to date. 3. The parties are using this time to conduct settlement negotiations. 4. The parties have all agreed that there is some risk that the Hearing Examiner's Decision could be adverse to their respective positions. STIPULATION BY THE PARTIES RE: DELAY IN DECISION Page -1 WARREN BARBER & RJNTES, P.S. PD.BOX626.. RfNTON, W"' 98057 100 SO. SECOND STR.EET Pl I. (425) 255-8678 FAX (42')) 2S5-5F4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER OF THE CITY OF RENTON In the Matter of the Appeals of Alliance for South End (ASE) re: The Director's Administrative Decision Designating The Landing Master Plan Application a Planned Action The Director's Master Site Plan Approval ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ~--------------) Alliance for South End (ASE) and Brad Nicholson re: ) ) ) ) The Director's Administrative Site Plan Approval) and Interpretation/Policy Decision ) _______________) NO. LUA-05-136, SA-A, SM CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that, on May 8, 2007, I caused to be served the foregoing APPELLANTS' RESPONSE TO APPLICANT'S AND CITY'S MOTIONS TO DISMISS BL'ILDING PERMIT APPEALS and this CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by hand delivery to: Ms. Bonnie Walton, City Clerk Mr. Jerome Hillis 21 City of Renton Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson 1221 Second Avenue, Suite 500 Seattle, WA 98101-2925 1055 South Grady Way, 7th Floor 22 Renton, WA 98055 23 24 25 26 D D IBl D Via Facsimile Via Email Via Hand Delivery Via U.S. Mail CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE -1 D D IBl D Y:\WPIASEISITE PLAN APPEAL\CERTIFJCATE OF SERVICE.2007.DOC Via Facsimile Via Email Via Hand Delivery Via U.S. Mail Buck@' Gordon LLP 2025 ;:11st AvEcnue, Suite :>00 Sea'.tie. WA 98121 (206) 382-954C ' 1 Ms. Ryan Durkan Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson 2 1221 Second Avenue, Suite 500 Seattle, WA 98101-2925 3 4 5 6 D D l&l d Via Facsimile Via Email Via Hand Delivery Via U.S. Mail Ms. Zanetta Fontes 7 Renton City Attorney Warren, Barber, & Fontes 8 100 S. Second Street Renton, WA 98057 D D l&l d Via Facsimile Via Email Via Hand Delivery Via U.S. Mail Mr. Lawrence J. Warren Renton City Attorney Warren, Barber, & Fontes 100 S. Second Street Renton, WA 98057 D D l&l D Via Facsimile Via Email Via Hand Delivery Via U.S. Mail Mr. Fred Kaufman, Hrg Examiner (c/o Ms. Bonnie Walton, City Clerk) City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way, 7th Floor Renton, WA 98055 D D l&l D Via Facsimile Via Email Via Hand Delivery Via U.S. Mail 9 10 11 12 Subscribed to under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington this 8'h day 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 of May, 2007 in Seattle, Washington. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE -2 Y:\WP\ASE\SITE PLAN APPEAUCERTIFICATE OF SERVICE.2007.DOC Lynrie M. Overlie Buck~ Gordon LLP 2025 ;:ir:,t Ave:.ue, Suite 500 Sea-:.tle, ·0,Jp._ 9812' (206) 382-9540 ,'\~'\'Y rJ~, '-' .. u ~ + -+ 1,~ < Kathy Keolker, Mayor !:\'{'\'0 CITY •F RENTON Planning/Building/Public Works Department Gregg Zimmerman P ,E,, Administrator ay 1, 2007 William Barton, Associate Callison Architecture, Inc. 1420 Fifth Avenue #2400 Seattle, WA 98101-2343 SUBJECT: THE LANDING UPDATE F REQUEST FOR MINOR MODIFICATION OF APPROVED SITE PLAN SA-A) Dear Mr. Barton, I am in receipt of your letter and attachments dated April 27, 2007 wherein you request revisions to the approved Site Plan for Buildings 404, and 405-407 of The Landing. These buildings are located north of N 81 h Street, east of Logan Avenue N and west of Park Avenue N. As your letter discloses, the following minor adjustment to the approved site plan are proposed: 1) Following the submittal of the original site plan in July 2006, the applicant learned that a large electrical vault is located on the southwestern corner of the project site, in the area originally designated for Building 404, The electrical vault is currently in use, serving adjacent properties. Under the terms of an easement relating to this electrical vault, the vault cannot be relocated, nor can structures be erected above the vault. Due to this preexisting utility location and easement restrictions, Buildings 404, 405, and 407 have been moved 12 feet to the east and the area of Building 406 has been reduced by 800 square feet. The area directly east of Logan Avenue, formerly occupied by Building 404, will be landscaped. Renton Municipal Code Section 4-9-2001, allows minor adjustments to an approved site plan, provided: 1. The adjustment does not involve more than a ten percent (10%) increase in area or scale of the development in the approved site plan; or 2. The adjustment does not have a significantly greater impact on the environment and facilities than the approved plan; or 3. The adjustment does not change the boundaries of the originally approved plan. Furthermore, you also requested the following code modifications: 1) Modification to exceed the UC-N1 5-foot maximum setback requirement; Renton Municipal Code Section 4-9-250D permits modifications to code requirements provided the following criteria are met: Decision Criteria: Whenever there are practical difficulties involved in carrying out the provisions of this Title, the Department Administrator may grant modifications for individual cases provided he/she shall first find that a specific reason makes the strict letter of this Code impractical, that the~ 1055 South Grady Way-Renton, Washington 98057 R E N T O N AllLAD tl~ Tf!F Cl:RV}. y April 30, 2007 Page 2 and purpose of the 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 modification: 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 proposed modification is the minimum adjustment necessa,y to implement these policies and objectives; b. Will meet the objectives and safety, function, appearance, environmental protection and maintainability intended by the Code requirements, based upon sound engineering judgment; c. Will not be injurious to other property(ies) in the vicinity; d. Conforms to the intent and purpose of the Code; e. Can be shown to be justified and required for the use and situation intended; and f. Will not create adverse impacts to other property(ies) in the vicinity. Analysis of Request Site Plan Minor Amendments The site plan minor amendments requested and as shown in your April 27, 2007 submittals have been compared to the Site Plan as approved by the Development Services Division Director on August 17, 2006. The proposed amendment would reduce the square footage of the landing by 800 square feet and would result in a total gross floor area of 565,914 square feet for The Landing (when considering all of the revisions that have been applied for an approved up to this point). The proposed changes would result in less than a 1 percent total reduction of the gross floor area and therefore would not result in more than a 10 percent increase in area or scale of the development. The proposal would not have a greater impact on the environment and facilities, nor would it change the boundaries of the originally approved site plan. The project site is zoned Urban Center -North 1 (UC-N1 ), and is also subject to District C of the Urban Center Design Regulations. All applicable setback, lot coverage, and landscaping standards would be achieved. April 30, 2007 Page 3 Code Modification The proposed modification to exceed the 5-foot maximum setback requirements applies to Building 404 and was previously approved under the original Site Plan. The purpose of the maximum setback requirement is to require the fronts and sides of buildings to be located close to the sidewalk, fostering a pedestrian-oriented environment. The original Site Plan decision determined that the Landing development incorporated several pedestrian-oriented elements, which resulted in the development as a whole being a pedestrian-oriented project and implemented the intent of the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element and Community Design Element for the Urban Center North District, and implemented the intent of the Urban Center -North 1 (UC-N1) zoning designation and Urban Center Design Regulations. The increased setback would not be injurious to surrounding properties or uses and it is required as an existing easement prohibits any building above it. Therefore, the proposed modification to further increase the maximum 5-foot setback requirement is approved. The revised site plan is in keeping with the conclusions reached in the original decision regarding the pedestrian-oriented nature of the development. In addition, the proposed modification complies with the modification criteria outlined in RMC 4-9-250D. Decision Based on staff's analysis, I have determined the proposed revisions are within the parameters defined by the Renton Municipal Code and that the proposed modifications comply with the modification criteria outlined in RMC 4-9-250D. Therefore, the proposed minor amendment to the site plan and the requested modification are approved subject to the following condition: 1. Prior to the issuance of the final building permit for The Landing, three full size copies and one 8 Y, x 11 inch PMT of a final site plan, building elevations, and landscape plan for the Landing shall be submitted to the Development Services Division project manager. This determination will be final unless a written appeal of this administrative determination -accompanied by the required $75.00 filing fee -is filed with the City's Hearing Examiner within 14 days of the date of this decision. Should you have any questions regarding this determination or the requirements discussed in this letter, please contact Jill Ding, Senior Planner. at (425) 430-7219. Sincerely, A)JIJ)iit; Neil Watts, Director Development Services Division cc: LUA-06-071, SA-A Jennifer Henning Jill Ding Parties of Record ' • I CITY '---'F RENTON 0""~'~R~ u + + Planning/Building/PublicWorks Department j ~ 2: Kathy Keolker, Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P,E,, Administrator ~N'fO'r--;.....__....;.. _________________ _ pril 25, 2007 William Barton, Associate Callison Architecture, Inc, 1420 Fifth Avenue #2400 Seattle, WA 98101-2343 SUBJECT: THE LANDING UPDATE E (CINEMA) REQUEST FOR MINOR AMMENDMENT OF APPROVED SITE PLAN (FILE NO. Fl I.I .t: SA-A) Dear Mr. Barton, I am in receipt of your letter and attachments dated April 11, 2007 wherein you request approval of revisions to the approved Site Plan for the cinema (Building 300) of The Landing. The parking garage is located south of Logan Avenue NE, west of Park Avenue N, and north of N 101h Street. As your letter discloses, two minor adjustments to the approved site plan are proposed. The requested revisions are summarized below: 1) Increase in the size of Building 300 from 54,000 square feet to 63,574 square feet (a 9,574 square foot increase in area); and 2) Revision to the building elevations including relocation of the main entrance, revisions to the rooflines, changes to the building modulation, addition of secondary building entries, and changes to the lighting proposed on the building; Renton Municipal Code Section 4-9-2001, allows minor adjustments to an approved site plan, provided: 1. The adjustment does not involve more than a ten percent (10%) increase in area or scale of the development in the approved site plan; or 2. The adjustment does not have a significantly greater impact on the environment andfacilities than the approved plan; or 3. The adjustment does not change the boundaries of the originally approved plan. Analysis of Request The site plan amendments requested and as shown in your April 11, 2007 submittals have been compared to the Site Plan as approved by the Development Services Division Director on August 17, 2006. The proposed change in square footage for Building 300 would result in a 9,574 square foot increase in the size of the cinema and would result in a 1. 7 percent increase in the area of The Landing development (9,574 square feet/ 557,140 square feet of total project area including all site plan amendments approved to date= 1.7 percent increase). The proposed additional area would result in a total area of 566,714 square feet for The Landing. The proposed increase in area would not result in more than a 10 percent increase in area or scale of the development. The proposal would not have a -------,-0-55_S_o_u_th_G_r-ad_y_W-ay---R-e-nt_o_n,-W-a-s-hi-n-gt-on_9_80_5_7-----~ ~ ,.,... AIIEAD OF TIIE Cl'RVF April 25, 2007 Page 2 greater impact on the environment and facilities, nor would it change the boundaries of the originally approved site plan. The proposed changes to the building facades would include a relocation of the off-set main entrance to the center of the on the south elevation, changes to the roofline on all of the elevations, changes to the building modulation and articulation on all of the facades, the addition of secondary building entrances on the north, east, and west facades, and the addition of sconce lighting on the north, east, and west building elevations. The proposed changes to the building facades would correspond to the increase in area of the cinema and would not result in a 10 percent increase in the area or scale of the development, would not result in a greater impact on the environment and facilities, and would not change the boundaries of the originally approved site plan. The project site is zoned Urban Center -North 1 (UC-N1 ), and is also subject to District C of the Urban Center Design Regulations. All applicable setback, lot coverage, and landscaping standards would be achieved. Decision Based on staff's analysis, I have determined the proposed revisions are within the parameters defined by the Renton Municipal Code. Therefore, the proposed amendments to the site plan are approved subject to the following condition: 1. Prior to the issuance of the final building permit for The Landing, 3 full size copies and 1 8 Y, x 11 inch PMT of a final site plan, building elevations, and landscape plan for the Landing shall be submitted to the Development Services Division project manager. This determination will be final unless a written appeal of this administrative determination -accompanied by the required $75.00 filing fee -is filed with the City's Hearing Examiner within 14 days of the date of this decision. Should you have any questions regarding this determination or the requirements discussed in this letter, please contact Jill Ding, Senior Planner, at (425) 430-7219. Sincerely, Neil Watts, Director Development Services Division cc: LUA-06-071, SA-A Jennifer Henning Jill Ding Parties of Record landing updateE cinema site plan amend.doc • THE LANDIN(; CALLISON 4.11.2007 MINOR ADJUSTMENT TO APPROVED SITE PL\N REVIEW DATED JULY 21 '', 2006 CODE DISCUSSION 4-9-200 SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW: I. MINOR ADJUSTMENTS TO AN APPROVED SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN: Minor modifications may be permitted by administrative determination. To be considered a minor modification, the amendment must not: 1. Involve more than a ten percent (10%) increase in area or scale of the development in the approved site development plan; or The area and scale of the development has not increased more than 10%. 2. Have a significantly greater impact on the environment and facilities than the approved plan; or The impact on the environment and facilities has not significantly increased. 3. Change the boundaries of the originaffy approved plan. (Ord. 4802, 10-25-1999; Amd. Ord. 4954, 2-11-2002; Ord. 5028, 11-24-2003) The project boundaries have not changed. DESCRIPTION OF CHANGES The change described in this update is limited to the area known as "Quadrant A" (also known as Zone Three) and applies specifically to building 300. No other buildings are included in this update and any changes to them have been, or will be, addressed in other "Minor Adjustment" submittals. The footprint and exterior design of the cinema have changed. The design intent and quality of the approved SPR of July 21", 2006 is still maintained in these changes. Please refer to the attached letter from BBA for a more detailed description. Included in this update are revised site plans as well as new elevations of the cinema. CALLISON ARCHITECTURE, INC. 1420 FlrTH AVENUE ~?400 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101·2343 -T 206 623 4646 F 206 623 4625 www.caltison.com ' 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 CITY OF RENTON /\PR l '7 2007 RECEIVED c;1TV Cl EPK'S OfSICE BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER OF THE CITY OF RENTON In the Matter of the Appeals of Alliance for South End (ASE) re: The Director's Administrative Decision Designating The Landing Master Plan Application a Planned Action The Director's Master Site Plan Approval ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) _______________ ) Alliance for South End (ASE) and Brad Nicholson re: ) ) ) ) The Director's Administrative Site Plan Approval) and Interpretation/Policy Decision ) _________________ ) NO. LUA-05-136, SA-A, SM CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that, on April 17, 2007, I caused to be served the foregoing APPELLANTS' POST-HEARING REPLY BRIEF and this CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by hand delivery to: Ms. Bonnie Walton, City Clerk City of Renton I 055 South Grady Way, 7th Floor Renton, WA 98055 D D !El D Via Facsimile Via Email Via Hand Delivery Via U.S. Mail CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE -1 Mr. Jerome Hillis Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson 1221 Second Avenue, Suite 500 Seattle, WA 98 l O 1-2925 D D !El D Via Facsimile Via Email Via Hand Delivery Via U.S. Mail Buck@ Gordon LLP Yc\WP\ASE\SITE PLAN APPEAUCERTIFICATE Of SERVICE.2007.00C 202:i First Avenue, Suit<2 500 $,2;,ttle. WA 98121 (206) 332-954:::: 1 Ms. Ryan Durkan Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson 2 1221 Second Avenue, Suite 500 Seattle, WA 9810 l-2925 3 4 5 6 D D lig D Via Facsimile Via Email Via Hand Delivery Via U.S. Mail Ms. Zanetta Fontes 7 Renton City Attorney Warren, Barber, & Fontes 8 100 S. Second Street Renton, WA 98057 D D 00 D Via Facsimile Via Email Via Hand Delivery Via U.S. Mail • Mr. Lawrence J. Warren Renton City Attorney Warren, Barber, & Fontes 100 S. Second Street Renton, WA 98057 D D lig D Via Facsimile Via Email Via Hand Delivery Via U.S. Mail Mr. Fred Kaufman, Hrg Examiner (c/o Ms. Bonnie Walton, City Clerk) City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way, 7th Floor Renton, WA 98055 D D 00 D Via Facsimile Via Email Via Hand Delivery Via U.S. Mail 9 10 11 12 Subscribed to under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington this 171 h 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 day of April, 2007 in Seattle, Washington. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE -2 ViWP\ASE\SITE PLAN APPEAL\CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE.2007 .OOC Lynne M. Overlie Buck {?3 Gordon LLP 2025 )irst Avenue, Suite 500 Sea:t,e, WA 98121 (206) 382-9540 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 CITY OF RENTON I\PR 1 7 2007 RECEIVED CJTV CI..ERK'S OC,'!C~ BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER OF THE CITY or RENTON In the Matter of the Appeal of 9 Brad Nicholson re: ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) IO The Director's Administrative Site Plan Approval No. LUA-06-071, SA-A APPELLANTS' POST-HEARING REPLY BRIEF 1 1 And the Appeals of Brad Nicholson and 12 Alliance for the South End (ASE) re: 13 The Director's "Update A" Modification Approval 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I. INTRODUCTION For the reasons set forth in this Post-Hearing Reply Brief, Appellants Brad Nicholson and Alliance for South End (ASE)1 respectfully request that the Hearing Examiner remand the Director's approval of the Site Plan for The Landing dated August 17. 2006 (the "Site Plan Approval", Exhibit 3, tab 19),' along with the "Update A" Modification Approval dated March 13, 2007 ("Update A," Exhibit 5). 1 Appellant ASE was dismissed from Appellants' appeal of the Site Plan Approval. However, ASE has not been dismissed from the appeal of"Update A," which was consolidated with the Site Plan appeal by stipulation of the parties. Appellant Nicholson asserts all claims and arguments that ASE may be precluded from asserting in the Site Plan appeal. 2 All numbered exhibits referenced herein were admitted by the Examiner at the March 27, 2007 hearing. Exhibit 3 is a tabbed notebook of documents which the parties stipulated to be authentic. APPELLANTS' POST-HEARING REPLY BRIEF -1 Buck0 Gordon LLP Y \\,\'l''ASF.\SJTE PLAN APl'EAL\POSTl!l:AIU:'-JG HRl!cFS'skEPLY TO POST !IEJ\R!NG EIRILT 041707 f'JNAL DOC 20~'.5 First /wer·ue, Suite S00 Seat:ie, WA 98121·3140 (2C6) 352·9540 ORIGINAL 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 II. ARGUMENT The Hearing Examiner is now in a position analogous to that of a trial court whose findings and conclusions may be reviewed on appeal -first. in a closed-record appeal to the Renton City Council, and then to Superior Court. See RMC 4-8-110.F(S)-(6), 4-8- 11 O.G. Washington courts apply a two-step analytic approach in reviewing such cases. First, the courts look for clearly stated findings of fact that articulate how code requirements arc allegedly met. Second, courts look for evidence in the record that supports such findings. The Site Plan Approval and Update A lack both the findings and record support necessary to sustain the Director's decisions. This is because the Applicant designed a project that prioritized large, allegedly "convenient" parking lots over the "pedestrian- oriented streets" that are mandated by the Renton Comprehensive Plan, approved Conceptual Plans, and development regulations in the Renton Municipal Code (RMC or "Code"). The record demonstrates that the Site Plan fails to comply with development standards such as 5-foot maximum setbacks and numerous design regulations applicable to pedestrian-oriented streets. Indeed, the Applicant concedes that several requirements have not been met.3 The record also shows that the Site Plan and Update A fail to meet code-required approval criteria for deviations from standards and regulations, such as the criterion that "a specific reason makes the strict letter of this Code impractical." See RMC 4-9-250.0(2). Appellants recognize that the Examiner believes his office may have the authority to remedy defects in the Director's decision pursuant to RMC 4-8-100.E( I )(c) ("To that end, the Examiner shall have all of the powers of the office from whom the appeal is taken 3 See Applicant's Post-Hearing Brief at p. 9 ("In each instance that there was a deviation in the Site Plan from the Renton Municipal Code requirements, the Director granted modifications to permit those deviations"). APPELLANTS' POST-HEARING REPLY BRIEF -2 Buck~ Gordon LLP Y \Wl'\ASE',Sl'rl·. PLA:--J .\PPEAl.'J'OS l'Hf.AKJ!\G l'lR!EFS1REPL Y TO POST I !EARING DRIEf 041707 n:,.iAL DOC 2025 First /:weriue, Suite 500 Seattle. WA 9s121.3;4c {206) 382-9540 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 insofar as the decision on the particular issue is concerned"). Assuming this is correct, it is hoped that the Examiner will recognize that the necessary findings cannot be made in this case. Even if detailed findings are made by the Examiner on each of the contested points, there are no facts in the record to support such findings. The Applicant's square peg Site Plan simply does not fit into the round hole carved out by the City Council through its approval of the Comprehensive Plan, Conceptual Plans for this site, and detailed development regulations for the Urban Center- North district. The Applicant's and City's argument that the round hole is large enough to accommodate a square peg, if accepted, would deprive approved plans and regulations of all meaning. A. Remand Is Necessary Because Neither the Findings Nor the Record Support the Decision. Under state and local law, the Hearing Examiner's decision in these appeals must include written findings of fact and conclusions oflaw that are supported by substantial evidence in the record. See RCW 35A.63. l 70(3); RMC 4-8-100.G(l ). Where findings and conclusions are not adequate to determine the basis for a decision, or the decision is not supported by the record, it must be remanded or reversed. Weyerhaeuser v. Pierce County, 124 Wn.2d 26,873 P.2d 498 (1994); St. Clair v. Skagit County, 43 Wn.App. 122, 128-29, 715 P.2d 165 (1986). 1. Findings and record support are required under state law. The City of Renton has adopted a hearing examiner system under RCW 35A.63. l 70, which authorizes the City Council to "vest in a hearing examiner the power to hear and decide those issues it believes should be reviewed and decided by a hearing examiner," including "[a]ppeals of administrative decisions or determinations." RCW 35A.63.170(1). APPELLANTS' POST-HEARING REPLY BRIEF -3 Buck c, Gordon LLP Y·\WP\ASE\S!T[ PLA)'; APPEAL'J'OSTHEARING BRIEFS\REl'LY ro POST HEARING BRIEF 041707 Fl>IAL DO( 2C2:> l-'1°5\ Avenue, Suite 500 Seattle, WA 98~ 21-3140 (206) 382·95110 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 RCW 351\.63.170(3) provides as follows: Each final decision of a hearing examiner shall be in writing and shall include findings and conclusions, based on the record, to support the decision. Such findings and conclusions shall also set forth the manner in which the decision would carry out and conform to the city's comprehensive plan and the city's development regulations. 2. Findings and record support are required under the Renton Municipal Code. Several provisions of the RMC also require findings and conclusions that are supported by the record. See, e.g., RMC 4-8-100.G(l) (" ... the Examiner shall render a written decision, including findings from the record and conclusions therefrom"); RMC 4- 8-11 O.F(9) ("Each material finding shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record"). The Site Plan Development Review regulations require findings that the Site Plan meets detailed review criteria. RMC 4-9-200.E ("The Reviewing Official shall review and act upon plans based upon a finding that the proposal meets Comprehensive Plan objectives and policies and the criteria in this subsection and in subsection F of this Section, as applicable"); RMC 4-9-200.F ("Approval of plans subject to these criteria requires the additional finding that the project complies with the intent and policies of the Land Use and Community Design Element of the Comprehensive Plan"). The RMC sections authorizing "modifications" to certain development regulations also require detailed findings. RMC 4-9-250.0(2) (providing that "the Department Administrator may grant modifications for individual cases provided he/she shall first find" that numerous critiera are met) (emphasis added); see also RMC 4-3-100.L(l). APPELLANTS' POST-HEARING REPLY BRIEF -4 Buck@Gordon LLP Y.\\VP,,\SE\SITE PLAN Al'PEAL'J'US"I HCA.RING HRIEFS\REPLY TO POST IIEARING BRIEF 0~ 1707 FINAL DOC 2025 F1r~t Aven..ie, Su te 500 Seattle, WA 98121-3140 (206) 382-9540 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 3. Findings must reveal the basis for the Director's decisions. To uphold the Site Plan Approval, the Examiner must make findings on each criterion in the RMC for approval of the Site Plan, and for each modification to code requirements. These findings must be detailed enough to reveal the basis for the Examiner's decision: "Findings of fact by an administrative agency are subject to the same requirement as are findings of fact drawn by a trial court." The purpose of findings of fact is to ensure that the decisionmaker "has dealt fully and properly with all the issues in the case before he [ or she] decides it and so that the parties involved" and the appellate court "may be fully informed as to the bases of his [ or her] decision when it is made." Statements of the positions of the parties, and a summary of the evidence presented, with findings which consist of general conclusions drawn from an "indefinite, uncertain, undeterminative narration of general conditions and events", are not adequate. Weyerhaeuser, 124 Wn.2d at 35-36 (quoting State ex rel. Bohon v. Department of Pub. Serv., 6 Wn.2d 676, 694-95, 108 P2d 663 ( 1940)). In Weyerhaeuser, the Washington Supreme Court upheld a superior court decision invalidating a conditional use permit for a sanitary landfill project because, among other reasons, the hearing examiner's findings of fact, conclusions of law, and decision were inadequate as a matter of law. 124 Wn.2d at 28. The trial court held that the hearing examiner's decision "did not set forth findings of fact, but instead recited conclusory statements and conclusions of law which do not establish the bases for the decision or the process by which the examiner resolved disputed facts." Id. at 35. The Supreme Court agreed, holding that "[t]he bulk of the hearing examiner's decision documents consists of APPELLANTS' POST-HEARING REPLY BRIEF -5 Buck 0 Gordon ccp y \WP\ASE\S[TE PLA,"l APPEAL"YOS !Hl-:ARl?\G FlRIEFS\REPL Y TO POST HEARING BRIEF 041707 FINAL.DOC 2025 First Avenue, SJite 500 Sec1ttle, WA 98121-314::l (206) 382-9540 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 • summarizing evidence presented, without any guidance as to how issues involving disputed evidence were resolved by the hearing examiner." Id. at 36. The Court concluded that "[t]he findings and conclusions are clearly inadequate to determine the basis for the hearing examiner's decision upholding the adequacy of the EIS." Id. The Court of Appeals reached the same conclusion in St. Clair v. Skagil Counly, supra. There, the Skagit County Board of Adjustment granted a variance from a code- required minimum lot width of 75 feet but failed to enter findings of fact sufficient to support its decision. St. Clair, 43 Wn.App. at 123-25. The Court found that "[a]n alleged finding which concludes that granting the variance would not be adverse to the public health, safety, and general welfare is conclusory and does not meet the requirement of findings of fact on the specific grounds on which variances can be granted." Id. at 129 (emphasis added). See also Boeing Co. v. Gelman, 102 Wn.App. 862, 10 P.3d 475 (2000); Andrew v. King Counly, 21 Wn.App. 566, 568, 586 P.2d 509 (1978). The purpose of providing findings that articulate the reasons for the Director's decisions is not only to allow meaningful judicial review. Had the Director properly applied the criteria for modifications to Code requirements and approval of the Site Plan, he might have reached a different decision: The proper disposition in this case must be remand. Such remand is not solely for the purpose of redrafting findings and conclusions to facilitate our review and reinforce the Board's decision. The Board may deem it desirable, in applying the (appropriate) criteria ... , to conduct further hearings or to even reach a different result. Andrew, 21 Wn.App. at 576 (quoting Salsbery v. District of Columbia Ed. of Zoning Adjustment, 318 A.2d 894, 896 (D.C.Cir.1974)). APPELLANTS' POST-HEARING REPLY BRIEF -6 Buckt;;i Gordon LLP Y \WP\.f\SE\SJT[ PLAJ\ APPEA!.'J'OSTHEARl1'G BRIEI-S\llEf'LY TO POST HEARING BRIEf 041707 FIJ\AL DOC 7'.:·25 First Avenue, Suite 500 Seattle, WA 98121-3140 (206) 382-9540 l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 4. The Applicant's and City's arguments ignore the plain language of the Renton Municipal Code and Washington case law. The Applicant and City contend that findings are not required. The Applicant argues that "the term 'find' is clearly used to suggest that each of the criteria must be met, not that a 'finding' is required." 4 The City asserts that because the Director "concluded .. . that the seven modifications requested comply with the criteria in RMC 4-3-lOOL and 4- 9-250D," the Examiner should make an "inference ... that he drew that conclusion after having found that to be the case. "5 The City's and Applicant's arguments are contrary to the plain language of the RMC and Washington case law emphasizing the importance of findings that articulate a rational basis for the decision. The repeated references to findings in the RMC, including the requirement that the Director "shall first find" that code modification criteria are met before approving a modification, are unambiguous. Even if the Examiner determines that the Director was not required to make detailed findings, there can be no doubt that the Examiner must do so now or, if there is no record support for such findings, must remand the decision. See RCW 35A.63.170(3); RMC 4-8-l 00.G(l). Confusingly, the Applicant argues that Nicholson's use of the word "found" in his prchcaring brief somehow supports a reading of the RMC that docs not require written findings for each criterion. See Applicant's Post-Hearing Brief at p. 16, citing Appellant's Prehearing Brief at p. 32. Contrary to the Applicant's assertion, Nicholson was in fact "suggesting with this term that the Director 'made a finding' on this topic" [approval 4 Applicant's Post-Hearing Brief at p. 16. 5 Renton's Post-Hearing Brief at p. 2. APPELLANTS' POST-HEARING REPLY BRIEF -7 Bucki'::1 Gordon LLP Y 1WP\ASE\S!T[ PLAS APPE.'\L'J'OSTHEARING BRIEFS\REPLY 10 1'0'.:>T HEAIONG HRJEF 041707 Fl"<AL DOC. 2025 First A\'eriue, Suite 500 Seattle, WA 98121-3140 (206) 382-9540 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 JO l l 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 criteria in the Lowe's Setback Decision]. See Applicant's Post-Hearing Brief at p. 16. Indeed, the Director made a finding, but that finding was inadequate because it did not address most of the approval criteria outlined in the Lowe's Setback Decision. See Appellant's Prehearing Brief at pp. 32-33. 5. The record cannot support findings by the Examiner. The record in this case does not support the Director's decisions. The Site Plan Approval lacks findings on a number of critical issues, including compliance with land use regulations, Comprehensive Plan policies, and Conceptual Plans approved for this site. In particular, the Site Plan Approval lacks key findings necessary to support the Director's approval of modifications to development standards and design regulations, including findings that "a specific reason makes the strict letter of this Code impractical"; that "the modification is in conformity with the intent and purpose of this Code"; that the modification is "the minimum adjustment necessary" to implement Comprehensive Plan policies and objectives; and that the modification "[cjan be shown to be justified and required for the use and situation intended." See RMC 4-9-250.0(2). These required findings are also strikingly absent from the Director's discussion of after-the-fact code modifications approved in Update A. To the extent that the Examiner has the authority to correct the Director's findings or make new findings, the record contains no evidence that could support such findings. 6 u It is unclear whether the Director or the Examiner is the ultimate factfinder when site plans are administratively approved and modified by the Director under RMC 4-8-070.C(l9) and appealed to the Examiner under RMC 4-8-070.H( 1 )(a). What is clear, however, is that the Examiner's decision must now APPELLANTS' POST-HEARING REPLY BRIEF -8 Buck~ Gordon ccp y '.WP\.I\SE'.SI Ir. Pl.AN APPEALIPOSTHEARING ERlffS\REPL Y TO POST HEARl~G BRIEF 041707 FINAL DOC 2025 F;rst Avenue, Sui'te 500 Seat:le, WA 98121-3140 (206) 382-9540 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Instead, the Director has relied on recitations of the Applicant's preferences and conclusory statements that find no support in the record. Because the Director's decisions are devoid of code-required findings and evidentiary support for the Site Plan Approval and Update A, the Site Plan should be remanded to the Director with instructions to provide a record and findings that are adequate for review by the Hearing Examiner and other appellate bodies. B. Deference to the Director Does Not Remedy Inadequacy of Findings or Lack of Record Support. The Applicant and City have argued that the Site Plan Approval must be given "substantial weight," suggesting that the Examiner should simply defer to the Director's findings and conclusions. 7 However, the Examiner cannot defer to the Director when findings are inadequate or there is no evidence to support findings: A finding of fact made without evidence in the record to support it, and an order based upon such finding, is arbitrary ... [l]ffindings are not based upon the evidence, the presumption of their correctness does not remedy the deficiency or absence of evidence to sustain them. State ex rel. Tidewater-Shaver Barge Lines v. Kuykendall, 42 Wn.2d 885,891,259 P.2d 838 (1953). Moreover, deference to the Director is inappropriate because the Site Plan Approval and Update A are in conflict with Renton Codes, as discussed below. See Department of Labor and Industries of Washington v. Granger, No. 78139-7, slip op. at~ 20, 153 P.3d 839, 2007 WL 611257 at *5 (declining to defer to agency's interpretation due to conflict with statute, despite "substantial weight" normally given). include written findings and conclusions that are supported by the record. See RCW 35A.63. l 70(3); see also RMC 4-8-100.G(l) and RMC 4-8-11 O.F(9). 7 Applicant's Post-Hearing Brief at pp. 3-4; City's Post-Hearing Ilriefat p. 3 (citing RMC 4-8-IOO.E(7)). APPELLANTS' POST-HEARING REPLY BRIEF -9 Buck~ Gordon LLP Y \WP\ASE\SITE l'L,',N APPEAL"J'OSTHEARJ>..;G BRIEFS'REl'L Y TO POST HloAIUNG !HUE~ 041707 ~JN;\L DOC 2025 First Avenue, s~ite 500 Seattle, WA 98121-314:J (206) 382-9540 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 IO 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 C. A Public Hearing is Required Due to Large Project Scale and to Address Unresolved Concerns. The Applicant and City rely on RMC 4-9-200.D(! )(a) for the argument that a public hearing was not required because a Master Plan for The Landing has already been approved. This reading of RMC 4-9-200.D(l )( a) presumes the existence of qualifying language that docs not exist in the Code. The RMC provides that a public hearing "shall be required" if the site plan exceeds thresholds for large project scale or if the Environmental Review Committee determines that the site plan raises significant unresolved concerns.' See RMC 4-9-200.D, RMC 4-9-200.0(2). This requirement is unqualified. The Code does not, for example, state that a hearing "shall be required, except as otherwise provided." The Applicant and City argue that a public hearing was not required due to the exception in RMC 4-9-200.D(! )(a): "Where a Master Plan is approved, subsequent Site Plans submitted for future phases may be submitted and approved administratively without a public hearing." Any reliance on this exception is misplaced. The exception in RMC 4-9-200.D(l )(a) applies only when a public hearing was previously held for Master Plan approval. Here, there was no public hearing during review of The Landing's Master Plan, so a public hearing is required during Site Plan review. The Applicant's and City's literal reading would allow avoidance of any public hearing. This reading is contrary to the intent of RMC 4-9-200.D and rules of statutory construction.' The Applicant's and City's position would also allow approval of a Master Plan and Site Plan for a project which the public has never seen. The City has not received 8 lly failing to offer any response to Appellants' arguments that the Site Plan Approval fails to ensure mitigation of transportation impacts (by performing a concurrency determination, as required by RMC 4-6- 070) and fails to ensure mitigation ofstormwater impacts (by making an unqualified commitment to 2001 Ecology storm water standards), the Applicant and City concede that there are significant unresolved concerns raised by the Site Plan. See Appellant's Prehearing Brief at pp. 45-47. '1 See Appellant's Prehearing Brief at pp. 41-45. APPELLANTS' POST-HEARING REPLY BRIEF -1 o Buck Ci Gord on LLP Y \Wl'\AS!s\SIH. l'LA~ Al'PEAL'.l'OSTHF.ARJJ\G BR!EFS\REPL Y TO POST ll[ARING DRJEI' 011707 Fl;'JAL DOC 2025 F1r~t Ave:.ue, Suite 500 Seattle, WA 98121-3'140 (206) 382-9540 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 • public comment on the development of this site at a public hearing since November 8, 2004. At that hearing, a "Public Information Handout" for the Lakeshore Landing Planned Action was distributed which stated that the project "will be designed to Urban Center North (UCN) Development Standards as envisioned by the Development Agreement" and "will also be required to meet new Urban Center Design Guidelines." See Exhibit 10. Now staff has approved a project which the Applicant admits does not comply with these development standards and design guidelines. The public should be given an opportunity to review and comment on the numerous deviations from the City's development standards and design guidelines now being proposed by the Applicant. For these reasons, a public hearing must be held to address significant unresolved concerns about The Landing and numerous proposed departures from the RMC in such a large-scale project.10 D. The Landing Site Plan is Inconsistent with the Renton Comprehensive Plan. The Applicant and City contend that the Site Plan is consistent with the Renton Comprehensive Plan because it "represents the first stage" in a transition of surplus Boeing property into a mixed use development. 11 There is no support in the record for this position. There are assertions by the Applicant that the Site Plan was "designed to allow 10 The City's suggestion that Brad Nicholson should have presented testimony at the appeal hearing on March 27 is disingenuous and mischaracterizes the record. See Renton's Post-Hearing Brief at p. 2, n. 1. As the City is aware, the March 27 1 h hearing was not a public hearing. To expedite the appeal hearing, the parties agreed and stipulated to limit testimony at the hearing. Mr. Nicholson's choice, on advice of counsel, to rely on the City's record (and lack thereof) in the appeal hearing is entirely consistent with his desire to present testimony at a public hearing about the nonconformities and impacts associated with The Landing. The City also falsely states that Nicholson's declarations did not address issues raised at the appeal hearing, such as illegal setbacks. To the contrary, Mr. Nicholson submitted a signed and sworn declaration, dated January 26, 2007, that discussed these very issues. See Second Nicholson Declaration, filed with Appellant's Response to Motions to Dismiss. For example, in that declaration Nicholson states, "I am aggrieved by the City's denial ofmy rights to such a community due to the fact that this decision attempts to administratively eliminate the protection of maximum setbacks designed to implement an urban village concept." Id at ,-r 4 (emphasis added). 11 Applicant's Post-Hearing Brief at p. 5. APPELLANTS' POST-HEARING REPLY BRIEF -11 Buck@ Gordon LLP Y \Wl'\ASE\SITE l'LAN Al'PEAL'J'OS I HEARING BRIHS\REPLY TO POS"I H~,AlllNG Htlll:F D41707 FINAL DOC 2025 Fir$t Avenue, s_.ite 500 Sr,attlc, WA 98121-314:J {206) 382-9540 for future infill and increased densities over time," but there is no evidence to support 2 these assertions. 12 3 For example, the Applicant contends that "by consolidating surface parking lots 4 toward the center of the southern quadrants of the Site Plan, the Site Plan will allow for 5 additional buildings or structured parking over time."13 However, there is no evidence, 6 requirement or even a promise by the Applicant that infill will occur in any of The 7 Landing's parking lots. The Director failed to consider whether conditions, such as 8 economic development initiatives by the Applicant or CC&Rs to ensure that the next 9 phase of development advances Comprehensive Plan policies, should be imposed to IO promote future infill. If the infill fails to materialize, the City will be left with a shopping 11 center with a large parking lot -not a dense urban village that serves as an employment 12 center. 13 Similarly, there is no evidence for a finding that the Site Plan will "support uses 14 that sustain minimum Urban Center employment levels of 50 employees per gross acre .. 15 . within the entire Urban Center."14 It is undisputed that the SEPA checklist for The 16 Landing estimates only 3 50 employees (8 employees per acre) would work on the site. 17 Without evidence of a plan for future infill, the Examiner cannot presume that this will 18 occur. 19 The Applicant and City also fail to address the pedestrian-oriented design 20 principles embodied in Comprehensive Plan policies. For example, Renton has adopted 21 policies for this District to "[ o lrient buildings to the streets to emphasize urban character, 22 maximize pedestrian activity and minimize automobile use within the District" and to 23 24 25 12 See Applicant's Post-Hearing Brief at pp. 4-5. 11 Id. at p. 5. 14 See Comprehensive Plan Policy LU-271, Exhibit 7, p. IX-44. APPELLANTS' POST-HEARING REPLY BRIEF -12 Bucke Gordon LLP Y \WP\ASE\S!TL.: PLA'.'! APPEAL\POSTl!EARJJ\"G BRJEFS'JlEPL Y TO POST HEARING BRJEF 041707 FINAL DOC 2025 First Avenue, Suite 500 Seattle, WA 98121-3140 (206) 382-9540 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 "[d]iscourage parking lots between structures and street right-of-way."" There is no excuse for delayed implementation of these policies. They can be given immediate effect by requiring the Applicant to redesign The Landing in a manner that: properly orients buildings to the street to emphasize urban character; maximizes pedestrian activity and minimizes automobile use; and discourages parking lots between buildings and streets. E. The Landing Site Plan is Inconsistent with Conceptual Plans. The Applicant argues that the Site Plan is consistent with adopted Conceptual Plans, relying almost exclusively on visual comparisons of site plan graphics for the Lakeshore Landing Conceptual Plan, the Boeing Conceptual Plan, and the Site Plan for The Landing.16 These comparisons lack any support in the record. As a threshold matter, the graphic shown on page 6 of the Applicant's Post- Hearing Brief is not part of the Lakeshore Landing Conceptual Plan that was approved by City Council. That graphic, dated October 22, 2004, appears in the "Public Information Handout" that was distributed at the November 8, 2004 public hearing regarding the Lakeshore Landing Planned Action. See Exhibit 10. However, the graphic docs not appear in the "letter and associated materials that will serve as Center Oak Properties' revised Conceptual Plan submittal," which are attached to a memorandum from Alex Pietsch to the City Council dated October 14, 2004. See Exhibit 3, tab 6. In fact, the graphic appears to have been generated on October 22, 2004, several days after the City Council approved the Lakeshore Landing Conceptual Plan on October 18, 2004. See Exhibit 3, tab 7, pp. 360-361. By fixating on graphics of questionable relevancy, the Applicant's arguments also ignore most of'the text of the approved Conceptual Plans. For example, the Applicant and 15 Comprehensive Plan Policies LU-288 and LU-287, Exhibit 7, p. IX-45. "See Applicant's Post-Hearing Brief at pp. 5-7. APPELLANTS' POST-HEARING REPLY BRIEF-13 Buck@Gordon LLP y \\.VP\ASF\SITF. PL,\N APPEAL,POSTl!EAR.l:S:G BRIEFS°'REPLY TO POST HEARING BRIEF 041707 FINAL.DOC 2025 Fir5t Avenue, Suite 5C0 Seattle, WA 98121-3148 (206) 382-9S40 the Director have consistently ignored sections of the Lakeshore Landing Conceptual Plan 2 discussing projected economic benefits to Renton, including the creation of2,646 direct 3 jobs on site "[a]t full absorption of the above 800,000 square feet of retail space," and the 4 income and tax revenue that would be generated by these jobs. See Exhibit 3, tab 6, pp. 3- 5 7. Notably, the Conceptual Plan does not project that 2,646 jobs will be created over a 30- 6 year horizon. Rather, it estimates that those jobs will appear at full absorption of the short- 7 term square footage of 800,000 square feet. As discussed above, The Landing is estimated 8 to generate only 350 jobs. Comprehensive Plan policies are not advanced by a Site Plan 9 that starts the City with a substantial employment deficit vis-a-vis adopted policies and IO Conceptual Plan estimates. The Director should have analyzed whether the economic 11 benefits generated by The Landing are consistent with those promised in the Lakeshore 12 Landing Conceptual Plan. 13 Extensive deviations from Urban Design Guidelines (discussed below) further 14 demonstrate the Site Plan's inconsistency with the Conceptual Plans. The Lakeshore 15 Landing Conceptual Plan incorporates a letter from Center Oak Properties, LLC pledging 16 to design its project consistent with the Urban Design Guidelines "regardless of scale." 17 See Exhibit 3, tab 6, p. 2. See also Exhibit 3, tab 6, p. I ("Center Oak pledges to design its 18 project consistent with the revised Urban Center Design Guidelines that are currently 19 before you and anticipated to be adopted shortly"). Because this promise was not upheld, 20 the Site Plan is inconsistent with the Conceptual Plan. 21 In particular, the Applicant's disregard for pedestrian-oriented streets in designing 22 The Landing is reflected in a Site Plan that does not conform to the approved Conceptual 23 Plans. The Boeing Conceptual Plan placed great emphasis on the development of 24 pedestrian-oriented streets such as Park Avenue: "Key to successful development of the 25 property is the reconfiguration and improvement of Park Avenue as a critical pedestrian- APPELLANTS' POST-HEARING REPLY BRIEF -14 Bucke Gordon LLP Y \WP\ASE\SITE PLAN APPEAL\POSTHF.ARI:-lG BRIHS\REPL Y TO POST HEARING HKJEF 041707 f,JNAL DOC 2025 Fir5t Avenue, S·Jite 500 Seattle, WA 98121-3140 (206) 382-954[) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 oriented street in the project." See Exhibit 3, tab 1, p. 6. In designing The Landing, the Applicant ignored requirements in the Urban Design Regulations for pedestrian-oriented streets. In response to Appellants' appeals, both the Applicant and City at first argued that there are no pedestrian-oriented streets in the Site Plan. Apparently conceding that Park Avenue is a pedestrian-oriented street, they now argue that code modifications can remedy the lack of required pedestrian-oriented amenities on Park Avenue. The Director has attempted to make Code modifications, which are discussed below, but he did not modify the Conceptual Plan's pledge to design the project "consistent with the revised Urban Center Design Guidelines" or its emphasis on pedestrian-oriented streets. These requirements were nat modified, and they cannot be met by the Site Plan. The Site Plan should be remanded to the Director for a thorough analysis of consistency with the approved Conceptual Plans. F. The Landing Site Plan is Inconsistent with Renton's Land Use Regulations. I. "Creativity and innovation" do not excuse code violations. The Applicant argues that the Site Plan's nonconformities are excused by language in the RMC that encourages "creative design alternatives in order to achieve the purposes of the design regulations."" This language does not mean that development regulations and design standards need not be followed. The Applicant fails to demonstrate how the Site Plan's deviations from the RMC are "creative design alternatives" that would "achieve the purposes of the design regulations." See RMC 4-3-100.D. As discussed herein, the code modifications requested by the Applicant and approved by the Director are contrary to the purposes of the design regulations. 25 17 Applicant's Post-Hearing Brief at p. 8 (citing RMC 4-9-200.E and RMC 4-3-100.D). APPELLANTS' POST-HEARING REPLY BRIEF-15 Bucke Gordon LLP Y '.WP\ASE\SITE PLAt\' Al'PEAL\POSTHEARING BR!EFS\REPL Y TO POST l!EARJ:-.!G BRIEF 041707 FII\AL DOC 2025 F1'.st Avenue, Suite 500 Seattle, WA 98121-3140 (206) 382-9540 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 2. The Director exceeded his authority to grant modifications to development standards and design regulations. The Applicant's and City's arguments suggest that the Director has virtually unlimited authority to modify development standards and design regulations. To the contrary, the Director's authority is constrained by the modification criteria in RMC 4-9- 250 and 4-3-100.L. Before approving a code modification, the Director must find that each applicable criterion has been met. As presented in Section Il.F.3 infra, the Director exceeded his authority by consistently ignoring the majority of these modification criteria, relying instead on the Applicant's unsupported contentions and preferences. The Director also exceeded his authority by purporting to approve after-the-fact code modifications in Update A. While RMC 4-9-200.l authorizes "Minor Adjustments to an Approved Site Development Plan" (adjustments to the site plan itself), the Director is not authorized to make after-the-fact modifications to code requirements. The Applicant's and City's expansive reading of the Director's modification authority under RMC 4-9- 250.D is contrary to the purpose of that section and would allow abuse of the Director's authority. The stated purpose of RMC 4-9-250.D is to "modify a Code requirement when there are practical difficulties involved in carrying out the provisions of this Title when a special individual reason makes the strict letter of this Code impractical" -not to modify a Code requirement after violations are raised in an appeal. See RMC 4-9-250.A(3) (emphasis added). As the Examiner observed at the March 27th hearing, the "entire project could have been designed differently" from the outset in a way that does not violate Code requirements. Instead, the Applicant created its own hardship by designing a project that lacks conformity with Renton's adopted plans and regulations. By allowing after-the-fact code modifications, the Applicant's and City's reading of RMC 4-9-250.D would encourage applicants to design projects according to their own preferences rather than in APPELLANTS' POST-HEARING REPLY BRIEF -16 Buck~ Gordon LLP Y·\WP\i\SE\SITE PLAN APPEAL''1'0STHEA1l1NG BRIEfS'REl'LY rD POST HF.ARING FlRIF.F 041707 FINAL DOC 2025 F1r:-.t Aver1ue, S .. 11te sc,o Seattle, WA 98121-3148 (206) 382-9540 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 conformity with the Code, and then to simply request code modifications (based on self- created hardships) if necessary due to appeals or other challenges. It would also allow the Director to avoid any confrontation oflegitimate appeal issues. If codes can be "modified" at any time, they can never be enforced, except at the whim of the applicant and Director. 3. The Director's findings and the record do not support modifications to RMC requirements. The Applicant and City argue that deviations from the RMC are excused by code modifications approved by the Director in the original Site Plan Approval and in Update A. These modifications arc not supported by the Director's findings or the record. The Director may grant modifications to development standards and design regulations only after a finding that the requested modifications meet each of the criteria in RMC 4-9-250 and/or 4-3-100.L. The code modifications approved in the Director's Site Plan Approval and in Update A arc not supported by such findings, nor is there evidence in the record to support findings. For the Examiner's convenience, Appellants have prepared a table, attached hereto as Exhibit A, that summarizes their responses to the Director's findings/conclusions for modifications to development standards and design regulations. The following discussion briefly describes a pattern of inadequate and olten conflicting findings by the Director, in both the Site Plan Approval and in Update A, regarding code modifications requested by the Applicant. • The Director consistently failed to make findings for the criteria listed in RMC 4- 9-250.0(2) and 4-3-100.L(l), including required findings that "a specific reason makes the strict letter of this Code impractical"; that "the proposed modification is the minimum adjustment necessary to implement [Comprehensive Plan] policies and objectives; that the modification "l c]onforms to the intent and purpose of the Code"; and that the modification "[ c ]an be shown to be justified and required for the use and situation intended." See RMC 4-9-250.D(2) (emphasis added). APPELLANTS' POST-HEARING REPLY BRIEF -17 Buck6' Gordon LLP Y \WP\ASE\SITE PLA)'; APPEAL'J'OSTHEARING BR!EFS\REPLY lO POST HF.AKING 8KIEF 041707 Fl"I/\L DO\. 2::;25 Fiest Averiue, Suite ::.UO Seattle, WA 98121-3140 (206) 382-9540 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 • The inadequacy of most of the Director's findings regarding code violations alleged by Appellants is illustrated by comparing these findings with his detailed discussion of modification criterion when he granted modifications from parking standards, which Appellants have not challenged. See Site Plan Approval, Exhibit 3, tab 19, at pp. 6-7 (quoting and discussing each criterion in RMC 4-9-250.0(2)). It is unclear why the Director followed the correct procedure for findings in this single instance while ignoring the modification criteria in all other cases. Perhaps it is because there is no evidence in the record that would support such findings. • The Director repeatedly lumped all criteria into a single, oversimplified concept such as "pedestrian-oriented elements" (ignoring pedestrian-oriented streets) and made conclusory statements about whether the project as a whole (not the modification itself) met the intent of the Code. See, e.g., Site Plan Approval at p. 10 ("The proposed development would comply with the intent of the design regulations through the creation of a retail development with pedestrian-oriented elements"); compare RMC 4-9-250.0(2) (requiring "that such modification ... d. Conforms to the intent and purpose of the Code"). • By granting modifications in the Site Plan Approval and Update A, the Director has approved the Applicant's choice to disregard requirements for pedestrian- oriented streets by prioritizing "convenient" parking lots over pedestrian amenities. See, e.g., Applicant's Post-Hearing Brief at p. 10 ("[T]he central location of the parking areas results in convenient access to retail uses"). This is contrary to the emphasis on pedestrian-oriented streets that is evident in the RMC, the Conceptual Plan, and the Comprehensive Plan. The intent to create pedestrian- oriented streets is not met by the Applicant's provision of parking lots with a few pedestrian pathways. • The Director's reasoning is inconsistent. He found that "[i]f the buildings were required to abut the sidewalk along Park Avenue N, a large gap would be created between buildings, which would not be beneficial to pedestrians walking within the development." See Site Plan Approval at p. 10. In Update A, the Applicant requested and the Director approved the creation of such a gap on the other side of Park Avenue. The current site plan (attached as Exhibit A to Applicant's Post- Hearing brief) shows a gap between buildings 406 and 407, which was created when the Applicant removed a parking lot located between buildings in that quadrant and Park Avenue -apparently in response to Appellants' appeals." 18 The Applicant continues to rely on this "gap" rationale, citing it at least three times as a reason why pedestrian-oriented design regulations should be ignored. See Applicant's Post-Hearing Briefat pp. 10, 12, 17. APPELLANTS' POST-HEARING REPLY BRIEF -1 s Bucke Gordon LLP y ',WP\ASIO\SrrE PL.",~ APPEAL'.POSTHEARIJ\G llRIEFS\R[PLY TO POST HEARING BRIEF 041707 Fl:-.JAL DOC 2025 First Ave'"Jue, Suite ~00 ::,eattle, \/VA 98121-31<10 (206) 382-9540 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 The record does not support the modifications granted by the Director. The Site Plan Approval and Update A should be remanded to the Director with instructions to draft findings for code modifications that address each applicable criterion in RMC 4-9- 250.0(2) and 4-3-100.L(l ). 4. Appellants have met their burden by demonstrating that the modification criteria lack any support in the record. Appellants have shown that the Site Plan does not comply with several provisions of the RMC. Appellants have also shown that the Director repeatedly failed to make findings for modifications to code requirements, and that the record lacks evidence to support such findings. Appellants have therefore met their burden of proof by showing that a number of material findings are absent, or are not supported by substantial evidence in the record. See RMC 4-8-100.G(l); see also RCW 35A.63.170(3). III. CONCLUSION For the reasons presented herein, Appellants respectfully request that the Examiner remand the Site Plan Approval and Update A to the Director, with instructions to issue a new decision that is supported by findings of fact and substantial evidence in the record. DATED this ~day of April, 2007. APPELLANTS' POST-HEARING BUCK & GORDON LLP ~ ld7aie By(i ~i-zc;H-, Pet r L. Buck, WSBA #05060 Attorneys for Brad Nicholson and Alliance for the South End REPLY BRIEF -19 Bucke, Gordon LLP Y \Wl'\ASE\SITE PLA:-.l APPEAL\POSTHEARING BRJEfS\REPLY TO POST HEARING BRIEF D41707 FINAL DOC 2025 First /wenue, Suite 500 Seat:le, WA 98121-3140 (206) 382-9540 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 JO II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 10 21 22 23 24 CITY OF RENTON APR l O 2007 RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE /j; !(., f' ,n. BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER OF THE CITY OF RENTON In the Matter of the Appeals of ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Alliance for the South End (ASE) and Brad Nicholson re: No. LUA-06-071, SA-A STIPULATION The Director's Administrative Plan Approval And The Director's Administrative Interpretation/ Policy Decision _______________ ) IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the parties hereto, by and through their counsel of record, that: I. 2. The page attached to this Stipulation, which is labeld as "Exhibit D -THE VESTED DEVELOPMENTS," is a correct copy of Exhibit D to the settlement agreement entered into between the parties on approximately December 6, 2006 and sent to the Hearing Examiner with a stipulation of about that date. The parties have communicated by email today and agree that the "Vested Developments" do not include the parldng rows immediately west of and immediately south of what is labeled on Exhibit D as Building I 02, but do include the curb, drive aisles, sidewalks, landscaping, etc., directly west of and directly south of Building I 02. 25 /Ill Buck© Gordon LLP ~ fi1101 Avenue-, Su he SOO STIPULATION-J s..,u.. WA 9'121·J1<0 CIDOCIJMENJS AND !lETTlr.'OS;l 't"NNF,t.OCAL S£Tllflf0!,'\Tl:Ml'ORA!. ~· INTERNET PILl:S OU..11'ST1NJLAT1®~~,~0 ' . 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 15 Dated this 301h day of March, 2007. CITY OF RENTON ' -------, . ;:,, /('-__ / J tv By: ,,_,.,_--,:_/)'--- 2'/lnetta L. Fontes, WSBA #9604 .. n, ,n,,tssistant City Attorney ,~ & GORDON LLP By: . -~P""e"'te,-,r~L'""'. ~-.1-u\.t~""B;<iA'r-'i#S'""""'O,.----------"----- Attorneys for Petitioners Brad Nicholson and Alliance for South End ("ASE) HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON Buck@GordonLLP 2Cl2S F..stAvenue. 5ui1e 500 STIPULATION-2 s.a••~ WA 9' 121-mo C:\bOClJ...amiANOS!TTtNQ~'YWNE'LOCALSETTMi5\Tn!l'OlAJ.\'ffffEIUilETHLES·OU..n>&flPUL\~..,;J,{1<10 r (); 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 27 CITY OF RENTON i\PR 10 2007 RECEIVED . CITY CLERK'S OFFICE 1 .l)ef ,ve ,,,c/ 6y li3c, 1 G,c ,· it' r IO'.<(<; <},,1 J 5 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER OF THE CITY OF RENTON In the Matter of the Appeal of Brad Nicholson re: The Director's Administrative Site Plan Approval. LUA-06-071, SA-A APPLICANT'S POST-HEARING BRIEF I. INTRODUCTION On March 27, 2007, a hearing regarding the Site Plan for Applicant Harvest Partners' The Landing was held before the City of Renton Hearing Examiner. This Post-Hearing Brief is intended to supplement the arguments presented by Applicant at the March 27 hearing. For the reasons presented herein, Applicant respectfully requests that the Examiner affirm the City's approval of The Landing Site Plan. II. STATEMENT OF FACTS A. Concept Plans Adopted for The Landing Site. In December 2003, the City of Renton and The Boeing Company entered into a Development Agreement for redevelopment of a portion of the Boeing facilities on what is now The Landing site. See EXHIBIT 3, 1 tab 3. As part of the Development Agreement between the City and The Boeing Company, the City Council adopted and approved Boeing's Conceptual Urban Retail Plan, dated November 17, 2003, for redevelopment of the Urban Center-North area (the "Boeing Concept Plan"). See EXHIBIT 3, tab I. The Boeing Concept 1 All numbered Exhibits referenced in this Post-Hearing Brief are those exhibits admitted by the Examiner 28 at the March 27, 2007 hearing. Applicant's Post-Hearing Brief-Page CQPY HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON, P.S. 500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Ave Seattle WA 98101-2925 206.623.1745; fax 206.623.7789 Plan envisioned an urban retail center with a mix oflarge-format "destination" retailers, mid- 2 sized retail anchors, small shop spaces, and parking structures, office, and residential 3 components. 4 On October 18, 2004, the City Council approved a first amendment to the s Boeing Concept Plan, in order to permit a wider range of future retail development. See 6 EXHIBIT 3, tab 7. This amendment was done when the site was being considered for a project 7 to be developed by Center Oak Properties, LLC, commonly referred to as the "Lakeshore 8 Landing" project. Center Oak submitted a conceptual plan depicting the concept for the 9 Lakeshore Landing project (the "Lakeshore Landing Concept Plan"). See EXHIBIT I 0. The to Lakeshore Landing Concept Plan did not replace the Boeing Concept Plan, but rather was an 1 I amendment to the Boeing Concept Plan, requested to expand the options for increased retail 12 development. The Boeing Concept Plan and the Lakeshore Landing Concept Plan are 13 collectively referred to herein as the "Concept Plans." 14 B. Mr. Nicholson Appeals the Director's Site Plan Approval. 15 On August 17, 2006, the City of Renton Department of Planning, Building and Public 16 Works issued a decision approving the Site Plan for The Landing, including approximately 17 572,700-square feet of commercial and retail development to be constructed on a 38.22-acre 18 site within the Urban Center-North I (UC-NI) zone (the "Site Plan Approval"). See 19 EXHIBIT 3, tab 19. 20 On August 31, 2006, Appellant Brad Nicholson and Alliance for Southend (ASE), a 21 Washington nonprofit corporation, filed appeals of the Site Plan Approval. Applicant moved 22 to dismiss the appeals for lack of standing. Following oral arguments on the motions, on 23 February 22, 2007, the Examiner dismissed ASE's appeal of the Site Plan Approval for lack 24 of standing. 25 C. Parties Stipulate as to Certain "Vested Developments." 26 On December 11, 2006, counsel for Appellant signed a stipulation acknowledging that 27 his appeal of the Site Plan Approval would not pertain to and would have no effect upon 28 Applicant's Post-Hearing Brief-Page 2 of 19 HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON, P.S. 500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Ave Seattle WA 98101-2925 206.623.1745; fax 206.623.7789 certain portions of Quadrant C in The Landing.2 Quadrant C, the southeast quadrant of The 2 Landing project, will include a Target store and its associated roads, driveways, access ways, 3 utilities, street improvements, drive aisles, parking and loading. The parties filed a stipulation 4 with the Examiner pertaining to these "Vested Developments." See EXHIBIT 3, tab 20. In 5 order to clarify the intent and effect of the December 11, 2006 stipulation, the parties have 6 further stipulated that the drive aisle, sidewalks, landscaping, and curbs located between Park 7 Avenue North and Building 102, and between North 10th Street and Buildings 101 and 102, 8 are also part of the "Vested Developments." See Stipulation, dated March 30, 2007, attached 9 hereto as EXHIBIT B. 10 D. Site Plan Updates. 11 Since its initial submittal of the Site Plan in July 2006, Applicant has submitted 12 several updates and minor amendments to the Site Plan. These Site Plan updates, commonly 13 referred to as "Update A," "Update B," "Update C," and "Update D," relate to such topics as 14 minor adjustments to building configurations and size, or clarification of building fayade 15 materials. See EXHIBIT 5, containing the submittal packages for Updates A-D and the City's 16 approval of each. Of particular relevance to this hearing is "Update A," which related to the 17 reconfiguration of certain buildings in the southern portion of Quadrant B, and which 18 included a request for clarification as to certain modifications related to the Site Plan. The 19 City granted approval of Update A on March 13, 2007. See EXHIBIT 5, Letter from Neil 20 Watts to William Barton regarding "The Landing Update A Request for Minor Modification 21 of Approved Site Plan," dated March 13, 2007 (the "Update A Approval"). 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 III. ARGUMENT A. The Director's Site Plan Approval Must Be Given Substantial Weight. The Renton Municipal Code establishes the standard of review for the Examiner's review of administrative decisions such as the Site Plan approval: "The Hearing Examiner 2 For the Examiner's convenience, a current Site Plan for The Landing is attached hereto as EXHIBIT A. Applicant's Post-Hearing Brief -Page 3 of 19 HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON, P.S. 500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Ave Seattle WA 98101-2925 206.623.1745; fax 206.623.7789 shall give substantial weight to any discretionary decision of the City rendered pursuant to 2 this Chapter/Title." RMC 4-8-110.E.7 (emphasis added). As the appellant, Mr. Nicholson 3 has the burden of proof to demonstrate that the Director's Site Plan Approval was in error. As 4 presented below, Appellant has failed to meet his burdenO to support any of his allegations s regarding The Landing Site Plan. 6 B. A Public Hearing Was Not Required. 7 Appellant argues that the Site Plan Approval was improper because a public hearing 8 was not held on The Landing Site Plan. However, according to the Renton Municipal Code, a 9 public hearing on a site plan is not required when a master plan has already been approved: 1 o "Where a Master Plan is approved, subsequent Site Plans submitted for future phases may be 11 submitted and approved administratively without a public hearing." RMC 4-9-200.D. l .a. 12 Here, the City approved The Landing Master Plan in May 2006. Therefore, a public hearing 13 was not required prior to the Site Plan Approval. Furthermore, because a public hearing was 14 not required, administrative approval of the Site Plan, rather than approval by the Examiner, 15 was proper. Id.; see also RMC 4-9-200.G. 12. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 C. The Landing Site Plan is Consistent with the Renton Comprehensive Plan. The City ofRenton's vision for the transition of surplus Boeing land into a vibrant mixed-use development is manifested in its Comprehensive Plan. Numerous provisions in the Comprehensive Plan recognize that this transition cannot happen overnight, but rather will occur over a thirty-year horizon. For example, the Purpose Statement for the Urban Center- North (UC-N) area, of which The Landing is a part, states: "UC-N policies will provide a blueprint for the transition of land over the next 30 years into this dynamic, urban mixed-use district." See EXHIBJT 7, p. IX-44 (emphasis added). In accordance with the City's long-term objectives, the Comprehensive Plan suggests that initial stages of development be constructed in a way that facilitates the City's eventual goals for buildout of the Urban Center-North: The current supply of underutilized land north ofN. 8th Street creates an immediate redevelopment opportunity for a first phase of development in Applicant's Post-Hearing Brief-Page 4 of 19 HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON, P.S. 500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Ave Seattle WA 98101-2925 206.623.1745; fax 206.623.7789 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 27 28 District One. However, the industrial character of the surrounding developed properties, both within District Two to the west and the Employment Area- Industrial area to the east, will make it difficult to achieve true urban intensities in District One at the beginning of this transition. The overall Vision for the District contemplates much more than a series of low-rise structures with large parking lots. Therefore, it is important that this initial development facilitates later stages of investment as the neighborhood matures and property values increase. It is also critical that the early-stage vision for District One sets the stage for high-quality redevelopment in District Two. See EXHIBIT 7, p. !X-47. The Landing Site Plan represents the first stage in this transition. In keeping with the Comprehensive Plan objectives, the Site Plan was specifically designed as required by the City to allow for future infill and increased densities over time. For example, by consolidating surface parking lots toward the center of the southern quadrants of the Site Plan, the Site Plan will allow for additional buildings or structured parking over time. Appellant alleges that the Site Plan is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan, but fails to produce any evidence to support this claim. To the contrary, the Site Plan directly adheres to the stated policies and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan, and represents a significant first step in what is to be a 30-year transition in the City ofRenton's Urban Center- North zone. As the Director determined, the Site Plan conforms to the Comprehensive Plan. See Site Plan Approval, EXHIBIT 3, tab 19, at p. 21. D. The Landing Site Plan is Consistent with the Concept Plans. Appellant argues that the Site Plan is inconsistent with the Concept Plans that have been approved for The Landing site. Again, this argument is without merit. First, as the Examiner noted at the March 27 hearing, conceptual planning represents the first planning stage in Renton's tiered development planning process, with each subsequent stage requiring additional refinement and detail. Whereas the site planning stage requires the applicant to present the detailed arrangement of structures on the site, including setbacks, landscaping, lighting, etc., the conceptual planning stage is intended to present the general concepts for the site, such as the range of potential uses and the potential locations for these uses. For the Site Plan to be "consistent" with the Concept Plans, therefore, does not Applicant's Post-Hearing Brief-Page 5 of 19 HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON, P.S. 500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Ave Seattle WA 98101-2925 206.623.1745; fax 206.623. 7789 mean that every component of The Landing Site Plan must be exactly the same as every 2 component in the Concept Plans. Rather, just as the conceptual plan presents a general J concept for the development of the site, consistency with the conceptual plan requires a 4 general conformity to the spirit and intent of these concepts. 5 Interestingly, even though The Landing Site Plan need not match up exactly with the 6 Concept Plans in order to be found "consistent," a comparison of the Site Plan with the 7 Concept Plans reveals that the Site Plan in fact includes many of the same elements of the 8 Concept Plans. The Lakeshore Landing Concept Plan, as approved by the City Council in 9 October 2004, is reproduced below3: 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ) i I I • ! i l!:,l: 1..-... ~~~~,c=s~~.__. ~-· -· -. i I l LAKESHQRF LANDING Remon,-V/ashm.£;fon 800 K PLAN 24 As depicted above, the Lakeshore Landing Concept Plan includes multiple surface 25 parking areas, some of which are consolidated in the center of the quadrants, just as in the Site 26 Plan. While some areas of the site in the Lakeshore Landing Concept Plan are fully 27 28 3 See also the Lakeshore Landing Concept Plan at EXHIBIT 10. Applicant's Post-Hearing Brief-Page 6 of 19 HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON, P.S. 500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Ave Seattle WA 98101-2925 206.623.1745; fax 206.623.7789 developed, other areas include space for increased density over time. Parking areas are found 2 adjacent to streets, including pedestrian-oriented streets, in the Lakeshore Landing Concept 3 Plan, perhaps to a greater degree than in the Site Plan. The range of uses in both plans varies 4 from small size retail to large, "big box" retail tenants. Like the Site Plan, the Lakeshore 5 Landing Concept Plan includes a network of pedestrian through-block connections traversing 6 the site. Finally, just as the Site Plan has certain buildings set back from North 8th Street in 7 order to locate all of the buildings along the internal pedestrian walkway, the Lakeshore g Landing Concept Plan, as approved by the Renton City Council, also includes multiple 9 locations where buildings are set back from the streets, including North 8th Street, in excess 10 of the maximum setback requirements. 11 The Site Plan is also consistent with the Boeing Concept Plan. The Boeing Concept 12 Plan's diagram suggests possible areas for development on the site, reflecting a mix of sizes 13 and uses. See EXHIBIT 3, tab 1. Again, the actual placement of structures in The Landing Site 14 Plan has many similarities to the general placement of uses in the Boeing Concept Plan, with 15 structures spread out around the site and parking areas located in between the structures to 16 allow for future infill. Furthermore, like the Renton Comprehensive Plan, the Boeing 17 Concept Plan also contemplated that the transition of the Urban Center North zone would 18 occur over a thirty-year horizon: "The City's vision plans for the transition of the area over a 19 30-year horizon and anticipates that redevelopment will need to address the potential for 20 future infill to allow areas to further grow to urban densities." See EXHIBIT 3, tab I, at p. 6. 21 Given the concept-level nature of conceptual plans, and given the likeness of The 22 Landing Site Plan to the Concept Plans, the Site Plan is indeed "consistent" with the Concept 23 Plans. Appellant's arguments to the contrary are not supported by any evidence. 24 E. 25 The Landing Site Plan is Consistent with Renton's Land Use Regulations. I. The Renton Code provides for design flexibility and innovation. 26 The Renton Municipal Code establishes certain criteria for the Director's review of 27 site plan submittals, including a requirement that the site plan conform to "existing land use 28 Applicant's Post-Hearing Brief-Page 7 of 19 HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON, P.S. 500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Ave Seattle WA 98101-2925 206.623.1745; fax 206.623.7789 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 27 28 regulations." RMC 4-9-200.E.1.b. In reviewing the site plan for compliance with these criteria, however, the Renton Municipal Code acknowledges that certain flexibility with the criteria must be permitted in order to allow for creative design: The Reviewing Official shall review and act upon plans based upon a finding that the proposal meets Comprehensive Plan objectives and policies and the criteria in this subsection and in subsection F of this Section, as applicable. These criteria also provide a frame ofreference for the applicant in developing a site, but are not intended to discourage creativity and innovation. RMC 4-9-200.E. This acknowledgement that the criteria must be flexible enough to permit innovative design is echoed in the Renton Municipal Code's design regulations: In rendering a decision, the Director will consider proposals on the basis of individual merit, will consider the overall intent of the minimum standards and guidelines, and encourage creative design alternatives in order to achieve the purposes of the design regulations. RMC 4-3-100.D. As these provisions demonstrate, the City encourages creative design alternatives and flexibility in the site planning process, rather than prohibiting any deviation from the Renton Municipal Code's criteria. Accordingly, the Renton Municipal Code establishes a mechanism for the Director to grant modifications to the site plan criteria where necessitated by the design. The Director's authority to permit such modifications is discussed below. 2. The Director has the authority to grant modifications to development standards and design regulations. The Renton Municipal Code expressly authorizes the Director to grant modifications to development standards in the Urban Design Regulation Overlay District, and to grant modifications to the minimum standards of the Urban Overlay District design regulations. According to RMC 4-8-070.C.1 O.vi, the Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator or his/her designee may make modifications to development standards in the Urban Design Regulation Overlay District, as long as certain criteria are met pursuant to RMC 4-9-250. The Landing, as part of the Urban Center -North zone, is located in the City's designated "Urban Center Design Overlay District." RMC 4-3-100.B. l. The Applicant's Post-Hearing Brief-Page 8 of 19 HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON, P. S. 500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Ave Sealtle WA 98101-2925 206.623.1745; fax 206.623.7789 "development standards" at issue in this case include the maximum setback requirements. 2 RMC 4-2-120E ("Development Standards for Commercial Zoning Designations"). Therefore, 3 under the Renton Municipal Code, the Director did not exceed his authority in approving 4 modifications to the maximum setbacks for The Landing in the Site Plan Approval. 5 In addition, pursuant to RMC 4-3-100.L, the Director of Development Services has the 6 authority to modify the minimum standards of the design regulations, subject to the criteria of 7 RMC 4-9-250 and RMC 4-3-100.L. Therefore, under the Renton Municipal Code, the 8 Director did not exceed his authority in approving modifications to the design regulations for 9 The Landing in the Site Plan Approval. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 3. Where the Site Plan design required deviations from the Renton Municipal Code requirements, the Director granted modifications. Appellant alleges various violations of the Renton Municipal Code. However, Appellant's arguments repeatedly fail to acknowledge the authority granted to the Director to modify particular design regulations or development standards in the Renton Municipal Code. In each instance that there was a deviation in the Site Plan from the Renton Municipal Code requirements, the Director granted modifications to permit those deviations. The following sections briefly respond to each of the alleged violations of the land use regulations. a. Parking between buildings and pedestrian-oriented streets. RMC 4-3-200.E.2.b prohibits parking between buildings and pedestrian-oriented streets. Appellant alleges that this requirement was violated with the presence of two parking areas between buildings and pedestrian-oriented streets in Quadrant C of the Site Plan.4 The Director granted a modification to this requirement in the Site Plan Approval. See Site Plan Approval, EXHlBIT 3, tab 19, at p. 10. As the Director explains in the Site Plan Approval, the intent of this requirement was to facilitate the design of a retail development with pedestrian- oriented elements. The Landing Site Plan incorporates numerous pedestrian-oriented 27 4 See EXHIBIT 8. As noted at the March 27 hearing, the parking area originally located on the west side of Park Avenue North, between Park Avenue North and building 407, has now been removed, and the new 28 Building 400 abuts Park Avenue North. See "Update A" Site Plan, dated March 2, 2007, at EXHIBIT 5. Applicant's Post-Hearing Brief -Page 9 of 19 HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON, P.S. 500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Ave Seattle WA 98101-2925 206.623.1745; fax 206.623. 7789 elements, including an innovative "pedestrian walk" similar to that in the Lakeshore Landing 2 Concept Plan approved by the City Council, located just north of the southern-most buildings 3 and running in an east-west direction across the entire site. Were Building 102 (formerly 4 identified as Building 202) required to abut Park Avenue North, this would have resulted in a 5 large gap between this building and the other buildings, thus disrupting the flow of pedestrian 6 traffic along the pedestrian walk. 7 Furthermore, as counsel for Appellant acknowledged at the March 27 hearing, g pursuant to the Stipulation entered into between the parties on December 11, 2006, no relief is 9 possible for Appellant regarding the parking area located between North 10th Street and the 1 o buildings at the southern end of Quadrant C, as this parking area is part of the "Vested 11 Developments." See EXHIBIT 3, tab 20. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 b. Maximum 60 feet of pedestrian-oriented street frontage occupied by parking. Pursuant to RMC 4-3-100.F.1.b.i.a, no more than 60 feet of pedestrian-oriented street frontage is to be occupied by off-street parking. Appellant cites certain violations of this requirement, confined to two areas along Park Avenue North, and one area along North I 0th Street. See EXHIBIT 8. The Director granted a modification to this requirement in the Update A Approval. See EXHIBIT 5, Update A Approval, at p. 4. As set forth in the Update A Approval and the Site Plan Approval, the consolidation of surface parking lots in the center of the site was specifically intended to allow for increased density and future infill over time, as envisioned in the Renton Comprehensive Plan. See, e.g., Site Plan Approval, EXHIBIT 3, tab 19, at p. 11 ("The surface parking areas have been consolidated towards the center of the project site to allow for future infill development and parking structures."). In addition, the central location of the parking areas results in convenient access to the retail uses at both ends of the development. Id, at p. 8. Also, as the Director notes in the Site Plan Approval, where surface parking areas are located adjacent to streets, a minimum of 10 feet of landscaping is proposed. Id, at p. 11. Applicant's Post-Hearing Brief-Page JO of 19 HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON, P.S. 500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Ave Seattle WA 98101-2925 206.623.1745; fax 206.623.7789 Finally, pursuant to the Stipulation entered into between the parties on December 11, 2 2006, no relief is possible for Appellant regarding the alleged violation along North I 0th 3 Street, and the alleged violation along the east side of Park Avenue North, as these implicate 4 the "Vested Developments." See EXHIBIT 3, tab 20. The parties have stipulated that the drive 5 aisle, sidewalks, landscaping, and curbs located between Park Avenue North and Building 6 102 are also part of the "Vested Developments." See Stipulation, dated March 30, 2007, 7 attached hereto as EXHIBIT B. 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 C. Surface parking driveways on pedestrian-oriented streets. RMC 4-3-100.F.4.b prohibits surface parking driveways on pedestrian-oriented streets. Appellant alleges violations of this requirement in Quadrants B and C of the Site Plan. See EXHIBIT 8. The Director granted a modification to this requirement in the Site Plan Approval. See Site Plan Approval, EXHIBIT 3, tab 19, at pp. 12-13. As the Director explained, consolidation of the parking areas mid-block results in a reduced number of necessary access points, rather than requiring multiple access points to numerous decentralized lots. Id, at p. 12. Furthermore, the consolidation of the parking areas mid-block allows for further structured parking and retail infill to be incorporated in the future. Id. The Director's findings are consistent with the Renton Comprehensive Plan's objective of promoting future infill and increased density on the site, as well as the design regulation requiring that surface parking lots be "designed to facilitate future structured parking and/or other infill development." RMC 4-3-100.F.l.b.iii. Finally, pursuant to the Stipulation entered into between the parties on December 11, 2006, no relief is possible for Appellant regarding the surface parking driveways located on the north and west sides of Quadrant C, as these implicate the "Vested Developments." See EXHIBIT 3, tab 20. d. Primary building entrances oriented toward pedestrian-oriented streets. 27 The design regulations state that buildings abutting pedestrian-oriented streets must 28 have their primary entrances located on the fa9ade facing the street. Appellant has alleged Applicant's Post-Hearing Brief-Page lJ of 19 HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON, P.S. 500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Ave Seattle WA 98101-2925 206.623.1745; fax 206.623.7789 that Building 102 (located in the southwest corner of Quadrant C) and Building 400 (located 2 in the southeast corner of Quadrant B) violate this requirement. See EXHIBIT 8. 3 The Director granted a modification to this requirement. See EXHIBIT 5, Update A 4 Approval, at p. 4. As addressed in the Update A Approval and the Site Plan Approval, The 5 Landing Site Plan utilized innovative design to create a network of pedestrian walkways 6 throughout the site. One of these pedestrian walkways is located just north of those buildings 7 in the southern portion of Quadrants Band C, and runs in an east-west direction across the 8 entire site. The orientation of all of the buildings in this area toward the pedestrian walk 9 heightens the pedestrian environment. Were the Director to require that the entrances of Io Buildings 102 and 400 be oriented toward Park Avenue North, rather than toward the 1 J pedestrian walk, this would be inconsistent with the site design as a whole, and would disrupt 12 the flow of pedestrian traffic. 13 14 15 16 17 J 8 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 e. Buildings on pedestrian-oriented streets located adjacent to the sidewalk. RMC 4-3-200.E.2.b requires that buildings on pedestrian-oriented streets be located adjacent to the sidewalk. Appellant alleges that this requirement is violated by Building I 02 (located in the southwest corner of Quadrant C). See EXHIBIT 8.5 The Director granted a modification to this requirement in the Site Plan Approval. See Site Plan Approval, EXHIBIT 3, tab 19, at p. 10. As the Director explained, the intent of this requirement was to facilitate the design of a retail development with pedestrian-oriented elements. The Landing Site Plan incorporates numerous pedestrian-oriented elements, including the innovative pedestrian walk running across Quadrants B and C. Were Building I 02 required to abut Park Avenue North, this would have resulted in a large gap between this building and the other buildings, thus disrupting the flow of pedestrian traffic along the pedestrian walk. 27 5 As noted at the March 27 hearing, the parking area originally located on the west side of Park Avenue North, between Park Avenue North and building 407, has now been removed, and the new Building 400 abuts 28 Park Avenue North. See "Update A" Site Plan, dated March 2, 2007, at EXHIBIT 5. Applicant's Post-Hearing Brief-Page I 2 of 19 HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON, P.S. 500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Ave Seattle WA 98101-2925 206.623.1745; fax 206.623.7789 Furthermore, pursuant to the Stipulation entered into between the parties on December 2 11, 2006, no relief is possible for Appellant regarding this alleged violation. See EXHIBIT 3, 3 tab 20. The parties have clarified that the "Vested Developments" include the drive aisle, 4 sidewalks, landscaping, and curbs located between Park Avenue North and Building I 02. 5 See Stipulation, dated March 30, 2007, attached hereto as EXHIBIT B. 6 f Screening.for docking and loading areas for truck traffic. 7 The development standards for the UC-NI zone require that parking, docking and 8 loading areas for truck traffic be screened from view of abutting public streets. RMC 4-2- 9 120.E. Appellant alleges that numerous docking and loading areas are unscreened. See 10 EXHIBIT 8. I I The Site Plan does not violate this development standard. As set forth in the Site Plan 12 Approval, the truck docking and loading areas along North 8th Street are proposed to be 13 landscaped to provide screening from the street. See Site Plan Approval, EXHIBIT 3, tab 19, at 14 p. 14. The landscaping throughout the site is also depicted on the Site Plan itself. See e.g., 15 EXHIBIT 4, at pp. I 0, 79. Appellant has failed to provide any evidence to support his claim 16 that the Site Plan violates this development standard. To the contrary, as evidenced by the 17 Site Plan Approval and by the Site Plan itself, this requirement has been met, and there is no 18 violation of this development standard. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 g. Parking lots at side or rear of buildings on pedestrian-oriented streets. Renton's design regulations include a provision requiring that parking along pedestrian-oriented streets shall be at the side and/or rear of the buildings. Appellant alleges that this requirement is violated by the large surface parking lot in Quadrant C. See EXHIBIT 8. The Director granted a modification to this requirement in the Site Plan Approval. See Site Plan Approval, EXHIBIT 3, tab 19, at pp. 11-12. As the Director notes, the consolidation of surface parking areas allows for future infill development and additional structured parking. Id. Furthermore, the Site Plan complies with the intent of the parking Applicant's Post-Hearing Brief-Page 13 of 19 HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON, P.S. 500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Ave Seattle WA 98101-2925 206.623.1745; fax 206.623.7789 location requirements, as an "active pedestrian environment" is created along the streets and 2 throughout the site. Id. 3 Finally, as counsel for Appellant acknowledged at the March 27 hearing, pursuant to 4 the Stipulation entered into between the parties on December 11, 2006, no relief is possible 5 for Appellant regarding this alleged violation, as this parking area is part of the "Vested 6 Developments." See EXHIBIT 3, tab 20. 7 h. Maximum setback of five feet for front and side yards along a street. 8 The Renton development standards establish a maximum setback of five feet along 9 front and side yards in the UC-NI zone. RMC 4-2-120.E. Appellant alleges certain 1 O violations of this development standard in the southern portions of Quadrants B and C. 11 See EXHIBIT 8. 12 As set forth in the Site Plan Approval, the Director approved the proposed setbacks in 13 the Site Plan pursuant to the Director's July 17, 2006 Interpretation/Policy Decision, by which 14 the Director determined that setbacks may be altered administratively through the Site Plan 15 Review Process. See Site Plan Approval, EXHIBIT 3, tab 19, at p. 5. 16 In addition to the Director's authority to permit the proposed setbacks pursuant to the I 7 Interpretation/Policy Decision, the Director also has express authority to grant modifications 18 to development standards in the Urban Design Overlay District, as discussed above. 19 Accordingly, the Director granted a modification to the setback requirements. See EXHIBIT 5, 20 Update A Approval, at pp. 3-4. As noted by the Director in the Site Plan Approval and the 21 Update A Approval, the intent of the setback requirements is to foster a pedestrian-oriented 22 development. The Landing Site Plan incorporates numerous pedestrian-oriented elements 23 within and around the development, such as the pedestrian walk running across Quadrants B 24 and C, along the north side of the southern-most buildings. In order to facilitate this 25 pedestrian-oriented environment, all of the buildings located along North 8th Street are 26 configured to abut the pedestrian walk, just as depicted in the Lakeshore Landing Concept 27 28 Applicant's Post-Hearing Brief-Page 14 of 19 HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON, P.S. 500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Ave Seattle WA 98101-2925 206.623.1745; fax 206.623.7789 Plan. Were the buildings required instead to abut North 8th Street, this would disrupt the 2 pedestrian experience along the walkway. 3 Furthermore, pursuant to the Stipulation entered into between the parties on 4 December 11, 2006, no relief is possible for Appellant for those building setbacks located in 5 the western and southern portion of Quadrant C. See EXHIBIT 3, tab 20. The parties have 6 clarified that the "Vested Developments" include the drive aisle, sidewalks, landscaping, and 7 curbs located between Park Avenue North and Building 102, and between North 8th Street 8 and Buildings 101 and 102. See Stipulation, dated March 30, 2007, attached hereto as 9 EXHIBIT B. 10 i. Pedestrian through-block connection. I I Appellant's prehearing brief also alleges that the Site Plan fails to incorporate any 12 "through-block connections" for pedestrians, as suggested in RMC 4-3-100.G.2.c. l of 13 Renton's design regulations. See Appellant's Prehearing Brief, dated March 23, 2007, at 12. 14 The prehearing brief includes an illustration from the Renton Municipal Code, depicting an 15 example of how a through-block connection for pedestrians might be designed. 16 The Landing Site Plan does not violate this design regulation. To the contrary, as 17 noted numerous times in the Site Plan Approval, the Site Plan includes an entire network of 18 pedestrian pathways to connect the various retail districts and parking areas. See, e.g., Site 19 Plan Approval, EXHIBIT 3, tab 19, at p. 5. Remarkably, one of these through-block 20 connections for pedestrians is located in the exact location of the illustration included in 2 I Appellant's prehearing brief. As discussed above, this particular pedestrian walk runs in an 22 east-west direction across Quadrants B and C, connecting pedestrians to the retail stores 23 located at the southern portion of the site. This pedestrian walk is just one of many through- 24 block connections in the Site Plan, and the Site Plan is clearly in compliance with this design 25 regulation. 26 27 28 Applicant's Post-Hearing Brief-Page 15 of I 9 HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON, P.S. 500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Ave Seattle WA 98101-2925 206.623.1745; fax 206.623. 7789 4. Appellant has the burden of demonstrating that the modification criteria were not mel 2 As discussed above, the Director has the authority to grant modifications to Renton's 3 development standards and design regulations, and did so for certain requirements related to 4 The Landing Site Plan. While Appellant acknowledges the Director's authority to grant 5 modifications, however, he attempts to invalidate the modifications by arguing that the 6 Director "failed to make the code-required findings necessary for such changes." See 7 Appellant's Prehearing Brief, at 36. This argument has no merit for several reasons. 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 a. No Renton Municipal Code requirement for specific findings. The Renton Municipal Code does not require the Director to specifically list the findings for each of the modification criteria in his modification approvals. Appellant appears to base his argument upon the language ofRMC 4-9-250.D.2, which permits the Director to grant modifications and states that" ... he/she shall first find that [the criteria are met]". Appellant attempts to redefine the term "find" to result in a requirement that the Director specifically list each finding for each of the modification criteria. However, the term "find" is clearly used to suggest that each of the criteria must be met, not that a "finding" is required. This is also consistent with the language regarding the modification criteria for design regulations in RMC 4-3-100.L where again, there is no requirement that the Director list specific findings for the criteria: "The Director of the Development Services Division shall have the authority to modify the minimum standards of the design regulations, subject to the provisions ofRMC 4-9-250D, Modification Procedures, and the following requirements ... ". Indeed, this standard use of the term "find" is even used by Appellant in his prehearing brief when discussing the Director's approval of the setbacks modifications: "Instead of addressing these criteria, the Director found as follows ... " Appellant's Prehearing Brief, at 32 (emphasis added). Clearly Appellant is not suggesting with this term that the Director "made a finding" on this topic. Instead, Appellant's use of the term "find" is exactly as it was used in the Renton Municipal Code. Applicant's Post-Hearing Brief-Page 16 of 19 HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON, P.S. 500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Ave Seattle WA 98101-2925 206.623.1745; fax 206.623.7789 As the Director's decisions make clear, the Director did find that the modification 2 criteria were met for the Site Plan. See, e.g., Site Plan Approval, EXHIBIT 3, tab 19, at p. 22; 3 see also EXHIBIT 5, Update A Approval, at pp. 3-4. No specific findings were required, and 4 Appellant has failed to demonstrate otherwise. 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 b. Substantial weight must be given to the Director's determination that the modification criteria were met. The Director's modifications are discretionary decisions, to which the Examiner must give substantial weight. RMC 4-8-110.E.7. As appellant, Mr. Nicholson bears the burden to demonstrate that the modification criteria were not met with The Landing Site Plan. Appellant has failed to do so. To the contrary, reading the Director's Site Plan Approval and the Update A Approval in their entirety, the decisions support the Director's discretionary determination that the modification criteria were met. In reviewing the Director's decisions, it is important to again note the context in which this project arises. As discussed above, the Landing represents the first stage of mixed-use development in an area previously occupied only by industrial uses. Until The Landing is constructed, "pedestrian-oriented" elements simply do not exist in this area. In reviewing the Site Plan, the Director therefore had the task of balancing the City's goals and visions for a pedestrian-oriented, vibrant, mixed-use retail center, with the reality of what currently exists at the site. In order to ensure that the transformation of this area could be carried out successfully, certain modifications to the land use regulations were necessary for this initial stage of development. For example, RMC 4-9-250.D permits modifications when strict application of the Renton Municipal Code would be impractical. As discussed at the March 27 hearing, given the overall Site Plan and its emphasis on creating a pedestrian-oriented environment, strict application of certain code requirements would have been impractical for particular portions of the site. For example, the Director found that requiring Building 102 to abut Park Avenue North would create a large gap between Building 102 and the adjacent building, and would Applicant's Post-Hearing Brief-Page 17 of 19 HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON, P.S. 500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Ave Seattle WA 98101-2925 206.623.1745; fax 206.623.7789 not be beneficial to pedestrians walking within the development. See Site Plan Approval, 2 EXHIBIT 3, tab 19, at p. I 0. 3 The modification criteria also require that the intent and purpose of the 4 Comprehensive Plan are met, and the modification substantially implements the policies and s objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. As discussed above, the Site Plan Approval includes 6 an extensive discussion of how the Site Plan conforms to the intent and purpose ofRenton's 7 Comprehensive Plan. See Site Plan Approval, EXHIBIT 3, tab 19, at pp. 3-4. 8 Moreover, the modification criteria for design regulations require that the project as a 9 whole meets the intent of the minimum standards and design guidelines in Renton's design 10 regulations. RMC 4-3-100.L. In the Site Plan Approval, the Director found: 'The proposed 11 development would comply with the intent of the design regulations through the creation of a 12 retail development with pedestrian-oriented elements." See Site Plan Approval, EXHIBIT 3, 13 tabl9,atp.10. 14 There are numerous other examples of how the Director addressed the modification 1 s criteria throughout the Site Plan Approval and the Update A Approval. Overall, the 16 Director's decisions reflect his careful examination of the project as a whole to determine that I 7 the modification criteria were met and the modifications were proper. It is Appellant's burden 18 to demonstrate how the criteria were not met. Appellant has failed to do so and where, as 19 here, the Director has made discretionary decisions related to specific modifications in the 20 Site Plan, substantial weight is to be granted to the Director's decision. 21 F. A Remand of The Landing Site Plan is Improper. 22 The Landing Site Plan conforms to the Renton Comprehensive Plan, is consistent with 23 the Concept Plans, and conforms to Renton's land use regulations. Where the Site Plan 24 deviates from the requirements of the land use regulations due to practical difficulties, the 25 Director has the discretion to grant modifications to these requirements, and did grant 26 modifications in every instance. Substantial weight is to be given to these discretionary 27 decisions of the Director, and Appellant has failed to show how the modifications were 28 Applicant's Post-Hearing Brief-Page 18 of 19 HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON, P.S. 500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Ave Seattle WA 98101-2925 206.623.1745; fax 206.623.7789 improper. Moreover, the Renton Municipal Code expressly grants the Examiner the authority 2 of the underlying body: "the Examiner shall have all of the powers of the office from whom 3 the appeal is taken insofar as the decision on the particular issue is concerned." RMC 4-8- 4 11 O.E. l .c. For all of these reasons, a remand of the Site Plan is unnecessary and improper. 5 Furthermore, any required change to the Site Plan must be supported by proof that the 6 Director's decision was improper. Parties may disagree with particular elements of the Site 7 Plan design, and may prefer that the Site Plan be adjusted to meet their own objectives for the 8 site. However, the Examiner must grant substantial deference to the Director and his staff in 9 their approval of the current Site Plan. 10 IV. CONCLUSION 11 For the reasons presented at the March 27 hearing and set forth herein, Applicant 12 hereby requests that the Director's Site Plan Approval for The Landing be AFFIRMED. 13 DATED this f-fL day of April, 2007. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 #350712 18449-004 7$m0011.doc HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON, P.S. By ~e,Qk'.; ,Jerome L. Hillis. WSBA # 1704 ' / , \LRyan Durkan, WSBA # 11805 Karen D. Breckenridge, WSBA #36666 Attorneys for Applicant Harvest Partners Applicant's Post-Hearing Brief-Page 19 of 19 HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON, P.S. 500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Ave Seattle WA 98101-2925 206.623.1745; fax 206.623.7789 A 6XHl81T_ APR-09-2007 11:37 Warren Barber & Fontes 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 JS 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER OF THE CITY OF RENTON Jn the Matter of the Appcal9 of Alliance for the South End (ASE) and Brad Nicholson re: The Din:curr's Administrative Plan Approvnl And The Diiectn,'s Administrative Interpretation/ Policy Decision ) ) l ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. LUA-06-071. SA-A STIPULATION _______________ ] IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the parties hereto, by and through thcircaunsel ofreconl, that: /Ill !. The page attached to this Stipulation, which is Jabeld as ~Exhibit D -THE VESTED DEVELOPMENTS," is a correct copy of Exhibit D to the settlement agreement entcrad into between the parties on approximately December 6, 2006 and sent to the Hearing Bxlllnlller with a stipulation of about that date. 2. The parties have communicated by emnil today end agree that th.e "Vested Developm!lnts" do not include the puking rows immediately west of and iJJU11ediately south of what is \;ibelcd on Exhibit D as Building I 02, but do include the cum, drive aisles, sidewelke, landscaping, etc.., directly west of and directly south of Building 102. Buck® Gordon aLP ~ Fi1111 Men111,, Slll'I• SC0 STil'lJ"LATION-1 s..u1 •• WA9'121,1140 C\OGCJNEN'l'SANbSl:"tflt.Ull'OCN!"<UX.u.~'vOOBNETPQ.a!;&J,..-»SlJIVl.A~PltJ~O 6XHIBIT_B_ P.02/03 APR-09-2007 11:37 Warren Barber & Fontes P.03/03 Dated this 30'h day ofMan:h, 2007. CllY OF RENTON 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 / ;< S--07 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Jg 20 21 22 2J 24 25 By: etec u Attorneys for Petitlo=s Brad Nichalson and Alliance for South End ("ASE) HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON Buck@Gordon Lt.I' 3IZS Rm,._,_, sYit• SiJO STIPULA'rION-2 s..m~w..,••121-iuo ~~~noft\l..OC.,\L~Pi::a.MY1NT.Ebi£1RLltS'Ol.DJ',ffll'Ul.4~i11U1'10 TOTAL P.03 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER OF THE CITY OF RENTON 1 1 In the Matter of the Appeal of Alliance for South End (ASE) and Brad Nicholson re: The Director's Administrative Site Plan Approval. No. LUA-06-071, SA-A CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 12 I, Gina C. Pan, am a legal assistant for the law firm of Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson, 13 P.S., 500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101. I hereby certify that 14 on the 9th day of April 2007, I caused to be delivered via legal messenger by April 10, 2007, 15 a true and correct copy of (1) Applicant's Post-Hearing Brief; and (2) this Certificate of 16 Service to the following: 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Mr. Fred Kaufman, Hearing Examiner City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Warren Barber & Fontes, P.S. I 00 South Second Street Renton, WA 98057 Brad Nicholson c/o Peter L. Buck Buck & Gordon, LLP 2025 First Avenue, Suite 500 Seattle, WA 98121-3140 Certificate of Service -Page 1 of 2 Office of the Clerk City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Peter L. Buck Buck & Gordon, LLP 2025 First Avenue, Suite 500 Seattle, WA 98121-3140 Ross Radley Law Offices of Ross Radley, Inc. P.S. 3316 Fuhrman Ave. East, Suite 250 Seattle, WA 98102 COPY HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON, P.S. 500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Ave Seattle WA 98101-2925 206.623.1745; fax 206.623.7789 \ 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 27 28 DA TED this C\-f\,\, day of April, 2007. #345401 18449-004 7#$h01Ldoc 4/09/07 Certificate of Service -Page 2 of 2 HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON, P.S. Gina C. Pan Legal Assistant to T. Ryan Durkan HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON, P.S. 500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Ave Seattle WA 98101-2925 206.623. 1745; fax 206.623. 7789 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 CITY OF RENTON 1\PR l O 2007 RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE /J; !l· ;. rn, BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER OF THE CITY OF RENTON In the Matter of the Appeals of Alliance for South End (ASE) and Brad Nicholson re: NO. LUA-06-071-SA-A CITY OF RENTON'S POST-HEARING BRIEF The Director's Administrative Site Plan 12 Approval 13 14 The City is sensitive to the fact that the Hearing Examiner is fully familiar with this 15 project and this appeal, having heard motions on the appeal of the designation of this 1 6 project as a Planned Action, appeal of the approval of the Master Site Plan (Landing 1), 17 appeal of the Director's Administrative Policy Interpretation, and this appeal of the Site 18 Plan approval (Landing 11). Therefore, Renton will attempt to be brief and will approach 19 20 21 this post-hearing brief in bullet form. • Remand is not necessary. RMC 4-8-l lOE(l)(c) says that the Hearing 22 Examiner has the same authority as the Director. If the Hearing Examiner is of the opinion 23 there needs to be some change in the Site Plan, he has the authority to order it. 24 • The provisions of Title IV are to be liberally construed in the City's favor . 25 RMC 4-1-080. Therefore, the Director's authority to make modifications should not be 26 27 28 narrowly applied; rather, it should be liberally construed. RENTON'S POST-HEARING BRJEF · 1 r·. ' W\RREN BARllER 6 !FONTES, P.S. A TTOR(';EYS /\T LAW 100 W\JTH S1'C01'.IJ s·11u,n • POSI Ol'FlCE BOX 6U:, RF:NTO~, WASH!NC;TON 98057 PHONE (42:;1 2;<;.A,673 • FAX (425) 255.';474 • 1 2 • There is no code requirement that findings made by the Director must be in writing or that there needs to be a recitation of findings for each element giving rise to a 3 11 modification. Arguments to the contrary should be ignored as having no basis in the code. 5 Rather, the Director did conclude on p. 22 of his decision that the seven modifications 6 requested comply with the criteria in RMC 4-3-1 OOL and 4-9-250D. The reasonable 7 inference is that he drew that conclusion after having found that to be the case. 8 • The Director is authorized to make modifications: RMC 4-3-1 OOL 9 authorizes the modification to design regulations and, more specifically, 4-8-070C(lO)(vi) 10 11 authorizes modifications in the Urban Design Overlay District. 12 • There was no need for a public hearing regarding the Site Plan.' RMC 4-9- 13 200D(I) provides that site plans following an approved Master Plan do not require a public 1 II hearing. Those are the circumstances here. 15 16 17 Further, there is an exception from the public hearing requirement when the site plan relates to a Planned Action. RMC 4-9-200D(l )(b ). The exception applies where there was a hearing on the Planned Action ( and there was) and where there was an EIS that 18 1 9 provided sufficient detail regarding the scale of the development, the quantity and types of 2 O spaces, the kind of uses, and the bulk and general form of the development. As argued by 21 Renton and Harvest Partners in the briefing in Landing I, these exceptions were met 22 2 3 1 Interestingly, when given the chance to have a public hearing and provide testimony, Brad Nicholson did not avail himself of the opportunity. Mr. Nicholson did not testify at the hearing before the Hearing 211 Examiner on March 27, 2007. Mr. Nicholson's only "testimony" was by way of declarations in response to motions to dismiss his appeal for Jack of standing. (He did not sign the Notice of Appeal, so the allegations 25 made in that document have not been attested to by him.) In those declarations he did not complain about how he is harmed by those things raised in U1c hearing: setbacks of buildings, screening of the loading docks, 2 6 parking between buildings and the streets, parking frontage along Park A venue, and driveways opening on Palk Ave. N. and N. JO"' St. In fact, in his declarations, he complained that he would be impacted in his use 2 7 of Lake Washington, commuting through the Landing site after completion, and stormwatcr runoff affecting the quality of the Cedar River, Johns Creek, and Lake Washington. There has been no testimony from Mr. 2 8 Nicholson regarding how his fears would become reality. RENTON'S POST-HEARING BRIEF -2 WARREN BARBER & FONTES, P.S. ATTORf',;EYS AT LAW I 00 SOUTH Sl:COND STREET • POST OFFICE BOX !i26 RENTO:sl, WASHINUlON 98057 PHONF. (4251 l55·A67tl • FAX (HS) ZS5-S474 1 Renton incorporates by this reference the City's and the Applicant's briefing in the appeal 2 of the designation of The Landing as a Planned Action and the appeal of the Master Site 3 11 Plan approval. 5 • Renton asks the Examiner to look at the project as a whole. It is likely that 6 in any given project, especially one of this size with as many components, there are a few 7 areas where the site plan cannot be a perfect fit for every Comp Plan policy or 8 development regulation. 2 However, when looking at the project as a whole, the Examiner 9 cannot escape the conclusion that this project is, indeed, consistent with the conceptual 10 plan, and the Planned Action Ordinance. It is within the scenarios studied in the FEIS for 1 1 1 2 the original Boeing Conceptual Plan; it has the same components as the Lakeshore 13 Landing Conceptual Plan (Exhibit IO in the hearing). Appellant has focused on a few 111 areas about which to complain. The Director, on the other hand, must look at the site plan 15 as a whole. Renton asks the Examiner to do the same. 16 17 • RMC4-8-l lOE(7)(a) requires that the decision of the Director be given substantial weight by the Hearing Examiner. Further, the Appellant bears the burden of 18 persuading the Examiner that there has been a "substantial error." RMC 4-8-11 OC. 19 20 Appellant has not met that burden, in light of the substantial weight that must be given to 21 the Director's decision. 22 23 211 25 26 27 28 • Finally, Renton incorporates the arguments made in the Applicant's Post- Hearing Brief 2 Tiris is one of the reasons the Director is given authority to approve modifications. RENTON'S POST-HEARING BRIEF -3 WARREN BARBER & FONTES, P.S. ATTORNEYS AT LAW l~Xl SOL'TH SECOND STREET • POST OFFICE BOX 626 RE.!'. TON, WA:',IUSGTON 98057 PHONF {•H'i) 2'i5·M7A • FAX (4l'il 2'i'i·'i4}4 1 2 3 CONCLUSION The decision of the Director, approving the Site Plan for The Landing, should be affirmed. The appeal should be dismissed. q 5 6 1 8 9 10 11 12 13 1q 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 2q 25 26 27 28 DATED this 101 h day of April, 2007. RENTON'S POST-HEARING BRIEF -4 WARREN BARBER & FONTES, PS L. Fontes, WSBA #9604 cys for City of Renton WARREN BARBER f, FONTES, l'.S. ATTORNEYS AT LAW HX' SOUTH SH'Ol'sf> STRH:.T • PO~T 01-HC!o BOX 6Z6 RENTO:,.J, WASHINC;TON 98057 l'll{)Nlc (4251 255.A67R • FAX {42S) 2,s.,;,+7~ April 2, 2007 Jill K. Ding Senior Planner, City of Renton 1055 S Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 jding@ci. renton. wa. us Ph: (425) 430-7219 Fx: ( 425) 430-7300 Re: Letter of Explanation for the proposed Regal Cinemas Stadium 14 Theatre Building The Landing -Renton, Washington Ms Ding, DD·/\ 1590 south coos! hwy. suite 18 l a g u n o be o c h, c a 9 2 6 5 P • 949 • 494 • 8093 F • 949 • 494 • 2772 professionol orchite:tv(al c.orpo a! on Please find the enclosed Site Plan, Floor plans, Exterior elevations for your review, comment and approval for the proposed Regal Cinemas Stadium 14 motion picture multiplex located at The Landing a new entertainment/retail complex located in Renton, WA. The architectural design of the proposed Theatre building prepared by BBA incorporates the initial city approved concept design direction provided to REG and BBA by Harvest Partners, Developer and Bill Barton of Callison, the project Architects. BBA has prepared on Regal Entertainment Group's behalf a multi screen theatre entertainment building that puts forward the requirements and standards established by Regal Entertainment Group while incorporating the Building Architectural Design zoning criteria intent developed for this project located in the community of Renton. It is our intent to fully comply with the design criteria established by the city of Renton, Callison and Harvest Partners and we standby to facilitate the approval of the project on behalf of Regal Entertainment Group. At this time this submittal does not include landscape and hardscape design drawings for city review. These elements of the design arc in progress and will be submitted by Callison under a separate submittal/review process. The proposed theatre building design anticipates landscape elements to be consistent with the previously approved concept design previously submitted by Callison and Harvest Partners. BBA has indicated in the following Design Standards Intent excerpts summary responses specific to the Theatre Building compliance with the intent of the Design Standards as noted in bold type. If your have any questions please contact Binh Dang, Project Manager for BBA or myself. Thank you for the opportunity and your consideration of the proposed Renton Regal Cinemas Stadium 14 Theatre Building at the Landing project. Respcctfi.Jlly Submitted, ~gdl Charles Bell, Architect BBArchitects, Inc I. BUILDING ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN: Intent: To encourage building design that is unique and urban in character, comfortable on a human scale, and uses appropriate building materials that are suitable for the Pacific Northwest climate. To discourage franchise retail architecture. 1. Building Character and Massing: Intent: To ensure that buildings are not bland and visually appear to be at a human scale; and ensure that all sides of a building, that can be seen by the public, are visually interesting. a. Minimum Standard for District 'A': All building facades shall include modulation or articulation at intervals of no more than forty feet (40'). d. Guidelines Applicable to Districts 'A' and 'B': i. Building facades should be modulated and/or articulated with architectural elements to reduce the apparent size of new buildings, break up long blank walls, add visual interest, and enhance the character of the neighborhood. ii. Articulation, modulation, and their intervals should create a sense of scale important to residential buildings. iii. A variety of modulations and articulations should be employed to add visual interest and to reduce the bulk and scale of large projects. e. Guidelines Applicable to District 'A': Building modulations should be a minimum of two feet (2') in depth and four feet (4') in width. BBA narrative compliance response: This requirement is met largely by the Theatre multiplex building occupancy type which lends itself to providing varying scale of the building mass by virtue of the varying size of the auditoriums. The North Elevation facing Logan Street provides varying roof parapet wall heights, masonry, metal siding, and trellis wall treatments. This fagade features a modulated building massing with varying street setbacks that are further proportioned utilizing multi block and corrugated metal siding wall treatments. Because of the scale and massing afforded by the theatre building type the proposed theatre building modulations are greater that the specified required minimum dimensions of 2 feet in depth and 4 feet in width. 2 2. Ground-Level Details: Intent: To ensure that buildings are visually interesting and reinforce the intended human-scale character of the pedestrian environment; and ensure that all sides of a building within near or distant public view have visual interest. a. Minimum Standards for All Districts: i. Untreated blank walls visible from public streets. sidewalks, or interior pedestrian pathways are prohibited. A wall (including building facades and retaining walls) is considered a blank wall if: (a) It is a ground floor wall or portion of a ground floor wall over six feet (6') in height, has a horizontal length greater than fifteen feet (15'), and does not include a window, door, building modulation or other architectural detailing; or (b) Any portion of a ground floor wall having a surface area of four hundred (400) square feet or greater and does not include a window, door, building modulation or other architectural detailing. ii. Where blank walls are required or unavoidable, blank walls shall be treated with one or more of the following (see illustration, subsection 15d of this Section): (a) A planting bed at least five feet (5') in width containing trees, shrubs, evergreen ground cover, or vines adjacent to the blank wall; (b) Trellis or other vine supports with evergreen climbing vines; (c) Architectural detailing such as reveals, contrasting materials, or other special detailing that meets the intent of this standard; (d) Artwork, such as bas-relief sculpture, mural, or similar; or (e) Seating area with special paving and seasonal planting. iii. Treatment of blank walls shall be proportional to the wall. iv. Provide human-scaled elements such as a lighting fixture, trellis, or other landscape feature along the facade's ground floor. v. Facades on designated pedestrian-oriented streets shall have at least seventy-five percent (75%) of the linear frontage of the ground floor facade (as measured on a true elevation facing the designated pedestrian-oriented street) comprised of transparent windows and/or doors. vi. Other facade window requirements include the following: (a) Building facades must have clear windows with visibility into and out of the building. However, screening may be applied to provide shade and energy efficiency. The minimum amount of light transmittance for windows shall be fifty percent (50%). (b) Display windows shall be designed for frequent change of merchandise, rather than permanent displays. (c) Where windows or storefronts occur, they must principally contain clear glazing. 3 (d) Tinted and dark glass, highly reflective (mirror-type) glass and film are prohibited. BBA narrative compliance response to item 2 Ground-Level Details above: The walls visible from the public streets have been proportioned utilizing the design elements described in item 1. Building Character and Massing above. All theatre building elevations exposed between the adjacent retail building on 3 sides of the proposed theatre building include multi colored concrete block, varying wall parapet heights and roof trellis extension above the roof line. Accent lighting fixtures illuminate the exterior wall features. Hards cape and landscape adjacent to the theatre building are proposed under a separate submittal by the Developer to further enhance the low wall treatments. The lobby entrance elevation is glazed with clear anodized aluminum storefront and tempered glazing with a 0.44 shading coefficient with a U- factor of 0.67 low E glass. b. Guidelines Applicable to Districts 'A' and 'C': i. The primary building entrance should be made visibly prominent by incorporating a minimum of one of the following architectural features from each category listed (see illustration, subsection 15e of this Section): (a) Facade Features: (1) Recess; (2) Overhang; (3) Canopy; (4) Trellis; (5) Portico; (6) Porch; (7) Clerestory. (b) Doorway Features: (1) Transom windows; (2) Glass windows fianking door; (3) Large entry doors; (4) Ornamental lighting; (5) Lighted displays. 4 (c) Detail Features: (1) Decorative entry paving; (2) Ornamental building name and address; (3) Planted containers; (4) Street furniture (benches, etc.). ii. Artwork or building ornamentation (such as mosaics, murals, grillwork, sculptures, relief, etc.) should be used to provide ground-level detail. iii. Elevated or terraced planting beds between the walkway and long building walls are encouraged. BBA narrative compliance response to Primary Entrance Guidelines above: The primary Lobby entrance on the South elevations utilized a low Box Office canopy for protection of patrons while providing shade to the 8'-0" tall entrance doors and transom glazing. Above the canopy the glazing is recessed between a series of painted metal trusses clad with perforated metal siding. The Box Office canopy provides down lighting in the soffit and a shelf to uplight the entrance fa1,ade featuring neon accented trellis, metal trusses, perforated screen and tower "Regal" signage. Poster cases, neon lighting and patterned concrete block materials of the fa1,ade provide the appropriate entertainment building ornamentation. 3. Building Roof Lines: Intent: To ensure that roof forms provide distinctive profiles and interest consistent with an urban project and contribute to the visual continuity of the district. a. Minimum Standards for Districts 'A' and 'C': Buildings shall use at least one of the following elements to create varied and interesting roof profiles (see illustration, subsection 151 of this Section): i. Extended parapets; ii. Feature elements projecting above parapets; iii. Projected cornices; iv. Pitched or sloped roofs. (a) Locate and screen roof-mounted mechanical equipment so that the equipment is not visible within one hundred fifty feet (150') of the structure when viewed from ground level. 5 (b) Screening features shall blend with the architectural character of the building, consistent with RMC 4-4-095E, Roof-Top Equipment. (c) Match color of roof-mounted mechanical equipment to color of exposed portions of the roof to minimize visual impacts when equipment is visible from higher elevations. BBA narrative compliance response to Item 3. Building Roof Lines: The proposed theatre building design utilizes extended parapets at a variety of heights and painted metal trellis feature elements projection above the parapets on each elevation. 4. Building Materials: Intent: To ensure high standards of quality and effective maintenance over time; encourage the use of materials that reduce the visual bulk of large buildings; and encourage the use of materials that add visual interest to the neighborhood. a. Minimum Standards for all Districts: i. 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 different, with materials of the same quality. ii. Materials, individually or in combination, shall have an attractive texture, pattern, and quality of detailing for all visible facades. iii. Materials shall be durable, high quality, and reasonably maintained. b. Minimum Standards for Districts 'A' and 'C': Buildings shall employ material variations such as colors. brick or metal banding, patterns, or textural changes. c. Guidelines Applicable to all Districts: i. Building materials should be attractive, durable, and consistent with more traditional urban development. Appropriate examples would include brick, integrally colored concrete masonry, pre-finished metal, stone, steel, glass, and cast-in-place concrete. ii. Concrete walls should be enhanced by texturing, reveals, snap-tie patterns, coloring with a concrete coating or admixture, or by incorporating embossed or sculpted surfaces, mosaics, or artwork. iii. Concrete block walls should be enhanced with integral color, textured blocks and colored mortar, decorative bond pattern and/or incorporate other masonry materials. iv. Stucco and similar troweled finishes should be used in combination with other more highly textured finishes or accents. They should not be used at the base of buildings between the finished floor elevation and four feet (4') above. 6 BBA narrative compliance response to Item 4 Building Materials above: All proposed materials including anti graffiti treated concrete block walls and painted metal treatments have been utilized consistently around the perimeter of the building to provide a high standard of finish and quality. The use of these materials have been scaled and proportioned to respond to the adjacent street scenes and proposed adjacent retail buildings. The masonry concrete block, metal wall parapet siding, painted metal trellis and metal perforated screens have been combined to provide a rhythm of varied material and textural changes. The masonry concrete block walls are integrally colored using custom colored mortar joints. The metal siding panels and perforated screen elements are pre-finished using Kynar factory applied paint supported by painted metal trusses and columns. End of Summary Report 7 Buc::k6' Gordon LLP VIA HAND DELIVERY Ms. Bonnie Walton City Clerk City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 March 23, 2007 Re: Procedures for Hearing Examiner Filings Dear Ms. Walton: 2:J2S First f\','Snl.P, S1;;t,:o SCi'.") Secittle. \VA 92171-?;,1(; 2]6-382-9540 2:J6-626-06 / S Fax v,vvv1. buckgo 0 d::m .Gir11 Thank you for your letter of March 15, 2007, in which you stated that there is no need to submit an extra copy of documents filed in proceedings before the Hearing Examiner. We understand that the normal procedure is to file documents only with the City Clerk, who then date-and time-stamps the documents for distribution to the appropriate official(s). However, under the circumstances present in the appeals filed on behalf of our clients, we will continue to file a separate copy for the Hearing Examiner. At a recent prehearing conference before the Hearing Examiner, it was suggested that it was somehow the fault of this office that the building permit appeal filed on December 11, 2006, was not transmitted to the Examiner for some time after it was filed. Therefore, to protect our reputation, we feel we need proof that our appeals have been timely filed with copies to both the Clerk and the Examiner. My hope is that the heat is getting turned down in this matter and that we will all soon be proceeding in a more simple manner. Cc: Fred Kauffman, Hearing Examiner Counsel of Record Y:\wplaselsite plan appeal\1032307 .doc Buck~ Gordon LLP VIA HAND DELIVERY Ms. Bonnie Walton City Clerk City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 March 23, 2007 Re: Appellant's Prehearing Brief Dear Ms. Walton: We submit the following on behalf of appellant Brad Nicholson: • Appellant's Prehearing Brief 202) f-irst Aven,1e, Su ':e 5(JC SeattlP, \VA 98121-3140 2C6-332-9540 206 626-067S Fax. '.t!WW.bLc<gordon .LJrTI This brief is filed in the Matter of the Appeal of Brad Nicholson regarding The Director's Administrative Site Plan Approval. Copies of this letter and the above referenced documents will also be sent to the Hearing Examiner and all counsel of record. Cc: Fred Kauffman, Hearing Examiner Counsel of Record Y:\WP\ASE\Site Plan Appeal\Preheanng Brief\1032307 .doc Buc:k~ Gordon LLP . .'.ltH,rnt,v~ al L1\\ VIA HAND DELIVERY Ms. Bonnie Walton City Clerk City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 March 23, 2007 Re: Notice of Appeal of Site Plan Modification Approval Dear Ms. Walton: 2]25 First A\,fl',U';', Suite s-:io 206-382-7::.4C 206-626-0675 Fux \/NNJ CL..1ckgordcn '. CT We hereby file the following appeal notice on behalf of appellants Brad Nicholson and Alliance for South End (ASE): • Notice of Appeal of Site Plan Modification Approval dated March 13, 2007. Pursuant to RMC 4-8-110.C(4), this notice of appeal is accompanied by a $75 fee. The parties in the Matter of the Appeal of Brad Nicholson regarding The Director's Administrative Site Plan Approval ("Site Plan Appeal") have agreed and stipulated to consolidate this appeal with the hearing on the Site Plan Appeal set for March 27 and 29, 2007. Of course, this stipulation is subject to approval by the Hearing Examiner. Copies of this letter and the above referenced documents will also be delivered to the Hearing Examiner and all counsel of record. Cc: Fred Kauffman, Hearing Examiner Counsel of Record Y:\ W?\ASE\Modification Appeal\1032307. doc Ve Pete Bu(k0 Gordon LLP VIA HAND DELIVERY Ms. Bonnie Walton City Clerk City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 March 23, 2007 Re: Notice of Appeal of Site Plan Modification Approval Dear Ms. Walton: 70.?S l1rs-L\·ff:I(;, ::;,.l!P. 5'.Y) Se:1de, \/'v'/1 98' 21-314(1 2C6-382-9~4C 206-676-0675 l,;x CITY OF RENTON MAR 2 3 2007 RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE /·,,, r·. . .. ' ,A· I ,/ 1,:· I / /·/ ,,111 ,,::,:, .,1 /;!<,' (£«,·rt/ We hereby file the following appeal notice on behalf of appellants Brad Nicholson and Alliance for South End (ASE): • Notice of Appeal of Site Plan Modification Approval dated March 13, 2007. Pursuant to RMC 4-8-11 O.C(4), this notice of appeal is accompanied by a $75 fee. The parties in the Matter of the Appeal of Brad Nicholson regarding The Director's Administrative Site Plan Approval ("Site Plan Appeal") have agreed and stipulated to consolidate this appeal with the hearing on the Site Plan Appeal set for March 27 and 29, 2007. Of course, this stipulation is subject to approval by the Hearing Examiner. Copies of this letter and the above referenced documents will also be delivered to the Hearing Examiner and all counsel of record. Cc: Fred Kauffman, Hearing Examiner Counsel of Record Y:\ WP\ASE\Modification Appeal\1032307 .doc Ver l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 CITY OF RENTON MAR 2 3 2007 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER OF THE CITY OF RENTON In the Matter of the Appeals of ) ) Alliance for South End (ASE) and ) Brad Nicholson re: ) ) The Building Permit Application Approval for ) Building 200 ) _______________ ) LUA-06-071, SA-A NOTICE OF APPEAL OF SITE PLAN MODIFICATION APPROVAL I. INTRODUCTION The Alliance for South End (ASE) and Brad Nicholson (collectively "Appellants") hereby file this Notice of Appeal of the Site Plan Modification Approval issued by the Director of the City's Development Services Division on March 13, 2007 ("Modification Approval," Exhibit A). The Modification Approval was based on substantial errors in law and/or fact, including violations of RMC 4-9-200 ("Site Development Plan Review" regulations"), RMC 4-3-100 ("Urban Design Regulations"), RMC 4-2-120.E 23 ("Development Standards for Commercial Zoning Designations"), RMC 4-9-250 24 25 NOTICE OF APPEAL OF SITE PLAN MODIFICATION APPROVAL -1 Y:\WP\ASEIMODIFICATION APPEAL\NOTICE OF APPEAL OF SITE PLA:-; MODIFICATION APPROVAL 032307.DOC OR! Bucke Gordon LLP 2025 First Ave:iue, Suite 500 Seanie, WA 98121-3':40 (206: 382-9540 1 ("Variances, Waivers, Modifications, and Alternatives"), and RMC 4-3-100.L 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ("Modification of Minimum Standards" in the Urban Design Regulations). II. TIMELINESS This appeal is filed pursuant to RMC 4-9-200.N, which references RMC 4-8- 11 O.E, specifying a 14-day appeal period for administrative decisions. III. STANDING A. ASE Standing Appellant ASE is a Washington nonprofit corporation established to advance its members' interests in Renton's environment, land use planning, and governmental and fiscal integrity. ASE's membership is made up of Renton citizens who are directly impacted by The Landing project in their daily activities. ASE's members have absolute control over the direction of the corporation. ASE's Amended Bylaws provide that "[t]he Members shall control the direction of the corporation to the extent permitted by law" and that "[i]t is the intention of the corporation and its Members that its actions be directed, to the extent permitted by law, by the Members' actions at membership meetings and by the Members' input in all consultations with directors." Members also control the corporation by voting on matters set forth in ASE's bylaws, including but not limited to the election of directors and any increases or decreases in the number of directors; the removal of directors at any time with or without cause or notice; the election of Members and termination of membership; all amendments to ASE's bylaws; and all amendments to ASE's Articles of Incorporation, pursuant to RCW 24.03.165(1 ). All but one of AS E's members are also directors of the corporation. NOTICE OF APPEAL OF SITE PLAN MODIFICATION APPROVAL -2 Y:\WPIASE\MODIFICATION APPEALINOTICE OF APPEAL OF SITE PLAN MODIFICATION APPROVAL 032307.DOC Buck !l!l Gordon LLP 2025 First AveGue, Suite 500 Seattle, WA 98121-3140 (206) 382-9540 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 Brad Nicholson has been elected to the office of President, and members also occupy the positions of First Vice President and Second Vice President. ASE has standing to file this appeal because i) the interests of ASE's members are within the zone of interest to be protected or regulated by the regulations at issue; and ii) ASE's members have suffered and will suffer injury in fact, including but not limited to the following: • ASE has one or more members that frequently drive the roads surrounding the proposed project, who will be impacted by the increases in traffic associated with this project and by the congestion that will degrade the roadway system. • ASE has one or more members who enjoy Lake Washington and the natural environment thereof, including water quality and fish habitat, who fish in the waters immediately impacted by runoff from the project, and who will be impacted by the degradation to water quality and harm to fish habitat associated with the project's water runoff and the use of outdated stormwater standards. • ASE has one or more members who are residents of Renton with an active interest in the integrity of City of Renton's land use and environmental review processes, who have actively participated in past land use decisions associated with redevelopment of this property, who seek to ensure that the City abides by its policies and procedures and conducts all project reviews in an open, proper and ethical manner, and who are negatively impacted by the improper processing in connection with this project. Due to the City's failure to follow its own procedures, ASE's members were unable to introduce evidence regarding project impacts such as traffic and stormwater, which directly injure them. • ASE has one or more members who wish to have their community planned and development consistent with the provisions of Renton's development regulations and the Renton Comprehensive Plan, and are injured by the City's denial of their rights to such a community due to the fact that The Landing is not consistent with the regulations and the Comprehensive Plan. • ASE has one or more members actively involved in earlier City of Renton proceedings for this project who did not challenge previous decisions because they relied on City promises of future environmental processing, promises which the City has refused to honor. NOTICE OF APPEAL OF SITE PLAN MODIFICATION APPROVAL -3 Y:\ WP\ASE•MODIFICA TION APPEAL\NOTICE OF APPEAL OF SITE PLAN MODIFICATION APPROVAL 032307.DOC Bucke Gordon LLP 2025 First Avenue. Sl,ite 500 Seattle, WA 98121-3140 (206) 382-9540 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 As we have disclosed before, this firm also represents WEA Southcenter LLC, the owner of Westfield Southcenter. WEA Southcenter LLC continues to be our client in other matters and contributes some funds to this appeal by ASE. We wish to reiterate, however, that WEA Southcenter LLC is not a member of ASE. ASE's standing in this case has nothing to do with WEA Southcenter LLC. Rather, ASE's standing is established by the standing of its members, all Renton citizens who control ASE's activities. B. Nicholson Standing Appellant Brad Nicholson is a lifelong resident of the City of Renton and member of ASE who lives near The Landing site, owns property near the site, commutes through the site, and uses Gene Coulon Park and the waters of Lake Washington adjoining the site. Nicholson has standing to file this appeal because i) his interests are within the zone of interest to be protected or regulated by the regulations at issue; and ii) he has suffered and will suffer injury in fact, including but not limited to the following: • As a result of the unanalyzed and unmitigated traffic and stormwater impacts caused by the project, Nicholson will suffer harm from increased traffic, delays, and risk in traveling along the roads he depends upon to commute and travel generally in the community; and from decreased water quality in Lake Washington, the Cedar River, and Johns Creek, and harm to Chinook salmon and other salmonids that use these water bodies. • Nicholson also has a longstanding interest in the land usc decisions of the City of Renton and has participated extensively in public hearings and proceedings regarding The Landing site. As a result of the City's illegal processing of the Building Permit Application for Building 200, the City's failure to hold a public hearing on the Director's decisions approving The Landing project, and the Director's illegal designation of The Landing Master Site Plan as a "Planned NOTICE OF APPEAL OF SITE PLAN MODIFICATION APPROVAL -4 Y::.WPIASEIMODIFICA TION APPEAL\NOTICE OF APPEAL OF SITE PLAN MODIFICATION APPROVAL 032307.DOC Buck Gordon LLP 2025 First Avenue, Suite 500 Seattle, WA 98121-3140 (206) 382-9540 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Action," Nicholson is already suffering harm from an inability to participate and voice objections to the City Hearing Examiner and the City Council.1 IV. GROUNDS FOR APPEAL A. The Modification Approval Violated RMC 4-9-200 ("Site Development Plan Review" Regulations). The Modification Approval failed to comply with RMC 4-9-200, for reasons that include but are not limited to the following: 1. RMC 4-9-200.1 Does Not Authorize After-the-Fact Code Modifications. The Modification Approval relies on RMC 4-9-200.1 to approve not only adjustments to the approved Site Plan but also modifications to certain code requirements applicable to the Site Plan. However, RMC 4-9-200.I does not authorize the Director to make such after-the-fact modifications. RMC 4-9-200.l provides as follows: I. MINOR ADJUSTMENTS TO AN APPROVED SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN: Minor modifications may be permitted by administrative determination. To be considered a minor modification, the amendment must not: 1. Involve more than a ten percent (10%) increase in area or scale of the development in the approved site development plan; or 2. Have a significantly greater impact on the environment and facilities than the approved plan; or 3. Change the boundaries of the originally approved plan. 25 ' In addition, as a member of ASE, Nicholson is injured in the manner set forth in section Ill.A above. NOTICE OF APPEAL OF SITE PLAN MODIFICATION APPROVAL -5 Y:\WP\ASE'MODIFICATION APPEAL\NOTICE OF APPEAL OF SITE PLAN MODIFICATION APPROVAL 032307.DOC Buck~ Gordon LLP 2025 First Avenue, Sui~e 500 Seattle, WA 9B12L3140 {206) 382-9540 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 While the Director may make "minor adjustments to an approved site development plan," he does not have authority to modify code requirements applicable to an approved Site Plan. See RMC 4-9-200.1 (emphasis added). The Director's use of RMC 4-9-200.I to approve after-the-fact code modifications was erroneous. 2. The Modification Approval Usurped the Hearing Examiner's Authority. The Hearing Examiner is the appropriate official to make any necessary adjustments to the Site Plan for The Landing, just as the Examiner was the appropriate official to review and take action on the original Site Plan. 2 RMC 4-9-200.G(13)(c provides that, for projects subject to Hearing Examiner review, the Examiner "shall have the power to place reasonable conditions on or modify a site development plan in order to satisfy the general purposes of this Section and to achieve consistency with the review criteria." The Director erred by continuing to take action on a Site Plan that is properly reviewed by the Examiner, not the Director. B. The Modification Approval Violated RMC 4-3-100 ("Urban Design Regulations"). In the Modification Approval, the Director concedes that certain elements of the Site Plan do not comply with RMC 4-3-100, the City's Urban Design Regulations. For example, the Modification Approval states as follows: 2 As Appellants have argued in previous appeals, the Director's review and approval of the original Site Plan illegally bypassed the public hearing before the Hearing Examiner, which is required by RMC 4-9-200.D because the project exceeds the thresholds for "Large Project Scale" in RMC 4-9-200.D(2)(b). A public hearing is also required because there are significant unresolved concerns about the proposal. RMC 4-9- 200.D(2)(a). Because a public hearing was required, the Hearing Examiner was the appropriate official to take action on this project, not the Director. RMC 4-9-200.G(l2). NOTICE OF APPEAL OF SITE PLAN MODIFICATION APPROVAL -6 Y\WP\ASE\MODIFICA TION APPEAL\NOTICE OF AF PEAL OF SITE PLAN MODIFICATION APPR0VAL032307.D0C Buck (,;!I Gordon LLP 2025 Fir5t Avenue, Suite 50'.J Secttle, WA 98121-3'40 (206) 382-9540 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 The parking and vehicular requirements on designated pedestrian-oriented streets of the Urban Design Regulations specify that no more than 60 feet of the pedestrian-oriented street frontage measured parallel to the curb be occupied by off-street parking and vehicular access. The portion of the surface parking lot located north of Building 400 occupies more than 60 feet along Park Avenue N (a designated pedestrian-oriented street). Modification Approval at p. 4. This section of the Modification Approval presumably is a reference to RMC 4-3-100.F(l )(b) of the Urban Design Regulations, which provides as follows: i. On Designated Pedestrian-Oriented Streets: (a) Parking shall be at the side and/or rear of a building, with the exception of on-street parallel parking. No more than sixty feet (60') of the street frontage measured parallel to the curb shall be occupied by off-street parking and vehicular access. The Director erred by approving modifications that fail to comply with this and other provisions found in RMC 4-3-100. C. The Modification Approval Violated RMC 4-2-120.E ("Development Standards for Commercial Zoning Designations"). The Director also concedes that certain elements of the Site Plan do not comply with RMC 4-2-120.E, Development Standards for Commercial Zoning Designations. For example, the Modification Approval states that "the proposed modification to exceed the 5-foot maximum setback requirement applies to Buildings 400-408." Modification Approval at p. 3. This appears to be a reference to RMC 4-2-120.E, which provides for a maximum setback of 5 feet for all development within the Urban Center -North I zone. NOTICE OF APPEAL OF SITE PLAN MODIFICATION APPROVAL -7 Y:\ WP\ASE\MODIFICATION APPEAL\NOTICE OF APPEAL OF SITE PLAN MODIFICATION APPROVAL 032307.DOC Buck (;'I Gordon LLP 2025 First .A.venue, Suite 500 Seattie, WA 98 '. 21-3140 (206) 382-9540 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 The Director erred by approving modifications that fail to comp! y with this and other provisions found in 4-2-120.E. D. The Modification Approval Violated RMC 4-9-250 ("Variances, Waivers, Modifications, and Alternatives"). RMC 4-9-250.D(2) provides the following decision criteria for modifications to code requirements: Decision Criteria: Whenever there are practical difficulties involved in carrying out the provisions of this Title, the Department Administrator may grant modifications for individual cases provided he/she shall first find that a specific reason makes the strict letter of this Code impractical, that the intent and purpose of the 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 modification: 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 proposed modification is the minimum adjustment necessary to implement these policies and objectives; b. Will meet the objectives and safety, function, appearance, environmental protection and maintainability intended by the Code requirements, based upon sound engineering judgment; c. Will not be injurious to other property(ies) in the vicinity; d. Conforms to the intent and purpose of the Code; e. Can be shown to be justified and required for the use and situation intended; and NOTICE OF APPEAL OF SITE PLAN MODIFICATION APPROVAL -8 Y:\WPIASEIMODIFICA TION APPEAL\NOTICE OF APPEAL OF SITE PLAN MODIFICATION APPROVAL 032307.DOC Buck~ Gordon LLP 2025 First /\verue, Suite 500 Seattle, WA 78121-3140 (206) 382-9540 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 f'. Will not create adverse impacts to other property(ies) in the vicinity. RMC 4-9-250.0(2) ( emphasis added). This explicitly provision requires the Director to make specific findings regarding each of these criteria before granting a modification. The Modification Approval failed to comply with RMC 4-9-250.0(2). In his discussion of code modifications in the Modification Approval, the Director failed to make specific findings for any of these criteria. Moreover, several of these criteria could not possibly be met by the proposed modifications. For example, the proposed modification must be "the minimum adjustment necessary," which cannot be met by the Director's purported modification of the 5-foot maximum setback requirement to allow setbacks of 90 or more feet. See RMC 4-9- 250.D(2)(a). The Director's failure to make findings for each of the criteria m RMC 4-9- 250.0(2) was erroneous. The Director also erred by concluding that the proposed modifications met the criteria in RMC 4-9-250.D. E. The Modification Approval Violated RMC 4-3-100.L ("Modification of Minimum Standards" in Urban Design Regulations). RMC 4-3-100.L(l) provides as follows: The Director of the Development Services Division shall have the authority to modify the minimum standards of the design regulations, subject to the provisions of RMC 4-9- 2500, Modification Procedures, and the following reguirements: NOTICE OF APPEAL OF SITE PLAN MODIFICATION APPROVAL -9 Y:\WP\ASE\MODIFICA TION APPEAL\NOTICE OF APPEAL OF SITE PLAN M0DIF1CATIO~ AP PROV AL 032307.DOC Buck #J!, Gordon LLP 2025 First Avenue, Suite 500 Seattle, WA 98121,3140 t206) 382· 9540 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 a. The project as a whole meets the intent of the minimum standards and guidelines in subsections E, F, G, H, I, J, and K of the design regulations; b. The requested modification meets the intent of the applicable design standard; c. The modification will not have a detrimental effect on nearby properties and the City as a whole; d. The deviation manifests high quality design; and e. The modification will enhance the pedestrian environment on the abutting and/or adjacent streets and/or pathways. RMC 4-3-100.L(t) (emphasis added). Thus, proposed modifications to mm1mum standards in the Urban Design Regulations (RMC 4-3-100) must satisfy the criteria in both RMC 4-9-250.D and RMC 4-3-100.L(l ). The Modification Approval failed to comply with RMC 4-3-100.L(l). In his discussion of modifications to Urban Design Regulations in the Modification Approval, the Director failed to make specific findings for any of the criteria in RMC 4-9-250.D or RMC 4-3-100.L(l). Here again, several criteria cannot be met by the proposed modifications. For example, the proposed modification must meet "the intent of the applicable design standard." RMC 4-3-100.L(l)(b). This criterion cannot be met by the proposal to allow more than 60 feet of pedestrian-oriented street frontage along Park Avenue to be occupied by a surface parking lot, contrary to RMC 4-3-100.F. l(b)(i). The stated purpose of this design regulation is to "allow an active pedestrian environment by maintaining contiguous NOTICE OF APPEAL OF SITE PLAN MODIFICATION APPROVAL-JO Y:\WP\ASE'•MODIFICA TION APPEALINOTICE OF APPEAL OF SITE PLAN MODIFICATION APPROVAL 032307.DOC Buck~ Gordon LLP 2025 F:rst Avenue, Suite 500 Seattle, WA 98121-314C: (206) 382-9540 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 street frontages, without parking lot siting along sidewalks and building facades; minimize the visual impact of parking lots; and use access streets and parking to maintain an urban edge to the district. RMC 4-3-100.F. A proposal to allow parking lot siting along sidewalks could not reasonably be found consistent with a purpose to "allow an active pedestrian environment ... without parking lot siting along sidewalks and building facades." The Director's failure to make findings for each of the criteria in RMC 4-3- 100.L(l) was erroneous. The Director also erred by concluding that the proposed modifications met the criteria in RMC 4-3-100.L(l ). V. CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above, Appellants respectfully request that the Hearing Examiner remand the M~cation Approval for further proceedings. Dated this 'haay of March, 2007. BUCK&G B y:_c:---::---1:\---c:t-±:-::"--'=-c::-'""'-""--:----~ Peter L. Buck, Attorneys for Alliance for the South End and Brad Nicholson NOTICE OF APPEAL OF SITE PLAN MODIFICATION APPROVAL -11 Y:\WPIASEIMODIFICATION APPEAL\NOTICE OF APPEAL OF SITE PLAN MODIFICATION APPROVAL 032307.DOC Buckr;;iGordon LLP 2C25 First Avenue, Sui~e 500 Seattle, WA 98121 ·3140 (206) 382·9540 CI 1-Y vF RENTON Planning/Building/PublicWorks Department Gregg Zimmerman P.E., Administrator William Barton, Associate Callison Architecture, Inc. 1420 Fifth Avenue #2400 Seattle, WA 98101-2343 SUBJECT: THE LANDl~G UPDATE A REQUEST FOR MINOR MODIFICATION OF APPROVED SITE PLAN (FILE NO. LUA06-071, SA-A) Dear Mr. Barton, I am in receipt of your letter and attachments ;fated March 2, 2007 wherein you request revisions to the approved Site Plan for Buildings 400-408 of The Landing. These buildings are located north of N 81 h Street, east of Logan Avenue N and west of Park Avenue N. As your letter discloses, the following minor adjustments to the approved site plan are proposed: 1) Reconfiguration of the Buildings 400-407 and the addition of Building 408; 2) An increase in the gross square footage of Buildings 400-402 by 42,900 square feet and a decrease in the gross square footage of Buildings 403, and 405-407 by 16,300 square feet; 3) The original COflnection of Entertainment Blvd between Buildings 403 and 406 to N a•h Street has been replaced with a 20-foot wide pedestrian connection between Buildings 406 and 407; 4) The Parking area located between Park Avenue N and Building 407 (now Building 400) has been removed; and 5) The number of stalls proposed within the surface parking lot abutting N a'" Street south of Buildings 402-405 has increased. Renton Municipal Code Section 4-9-2001, allows minor adjustments to an approved site plan, provided: 1. The adjustment does not involve more than a ten percent (10%) increase in area or scale of the development in the approved site plan; or 2. The adjustment does not have a significantly greater impact on the environment and facilities than the approved plan; or t .,1..' I. ,j .· 3. The adjustment does not change the boundaries 'of the originally approve~ pl§n. ' ) Furthermore, you also requested the following code modifications: 1) Modification to reduce the UC-N1 5-foot maximum setback requirement; ,; ?Qrn L. l) I EXHIBIT A . ~ 1055 South Grddy Way -Renton, Washington 98057 _______ R E. N T O N r.-,. 0, .·' :_, Cf TH l:. CL' RV F. ; . March 13, 2007 Page 2 2) Modification to the Parking and Vehicular Access requirements along Designated Pedestrian-Oriented Streets of the Urban Center Design Regulations; and 3) Modification to the Site Design and Building Location, Building Entries requirements of the Urban Center Design Regulations. Renton Municipal Code Section 4-9-250D permits modifications to code requirements provided the following criteria are met: Decision Criteria: Whenever there are practical difficulties involved in carrying out the provisions of t/Jis Title, the Department Administrator may grant modifications for individual cases provided he/she shall first find tnat a specific reason makes the strict letter of this Code impractical, that the intent and purpose of the governing land use designation of the Comprehensive Plan is met and t/Jat the modification is in conformity with the intent and purpose of this Code, and that such modification: 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 proposed modification is the minimum adjustment necessary to implement these policies and objectives; b. Will meet the objectives and safety, function, appearance, environmental protection and maintainability intended by the Code requirements, based upon sound engineering judgment; ' c. Will not be injurious to other property(ies) in the vicinity; d. Conforms to the intent and purpose of the Code; e. Can be shown to be justified and required for the use and situation intended; and f Will not create adverse impacts to other property(ies) in the vicinity. In addition, pursuant to RMC 4-3-100.L, the Director of Development Services has the authority to modify minimum standards of the design regulations, subject to the criteria of RMC 4-9-250D listed above, and the following requirements: landing upd1te A site plan mrn.lrevised.doc March 13, 2007 Page 3 a. The project as a whole meets the intent of the minimum standards and guidelines in subsections E, F, G, H, I, J, and K of the design regulations; b. The requested modification meets the intent of the applicable design standard; c. The modification will not have a detrimental effect on nearby properties and the City as a whole; d. The deviation manifests high quality design; and e. The modification will enhance the pedestrian environment on the abutting and/or adjacent streets and/or pathways. Analysis of Request Site Plan Minor Amendments The site plan minor amendments requested and as shown in your March 2, 2007 submittals have been compared to the Site Plan as approved by the Development Services Division Director on August 17, 2006. The proposed square footages would result in a gross floor area of 555,600 square feet for The Landing (when considering all of the revisions that have been applied for an approved up to this point), which results in a total reduction of 17,100 square feet from the original 572,700 gross square footage. The proposed changes would result in a 3 percent total reduction of the gross floor area and therefore would not result in more than a 10 percent increase in area or scale of the development. The proposal would not have a greater impact on the environment and facilities, nor would it change the boundaries of the originally approved site plan. The proposed changes to the parking area layout would result in the addition of 40 parking stalls to the 2,630 originally proposed. The proposal would result in a 2 percent increase in parking stalls and therefore would not result in a 1 O percent increase in the area or scale of the development, would no result in a greater impact on the environment and facilities, and would not change the boundaries of the originally approved site plan. The project site is zoned Urban Center -North 1 (UC-N1 ), and is also subject to District C of the Urban Center Design Regulations. All applicable setback, lot coverage, and landscaping standards would be achieved. Code Modifications The proposed modification to exceed the 5-foot maximum setback requirements applies to Buildings 400-408. The purpose of the maximum setback requirement is to require the fronts and sides of buildings to be located close to the sidewalk, fostering a pedestrian-oriented environment. The original Site Plan decision determined that the landing update A site plan modrevised.doc March 13, 2007 Page4 Landing development incorporated several pedestrian-oriented elements, which resulted in the development as a whole being a pedestrian-oriented project. Therefore, the proposed modification to the maximum 5-foot setback requirements was approved. The proposed reconfiguration of the buildings located along the north side of N 81 h Street includes a 20-foot wide pedestrian connection between Buildings 406 and 407 to N 81 h Street is in keeping with the conclusions reached in the original decision regarding the pedestrian-oriented nature of the development. In addition, the proposed modification complies with the modification criteria outlined in RMC 4-9-2500. The parking and vehicular requirements on designated pedestrian-oriented streets of the Urban Design Regulations specify that no more than 60 feet of the pedestrian- oriented street frontage measured parallel to the curb be occupied by off-street parking and vehicular access. The portion of the surface parking lot located north of Building 400 occupies more than 60 feet along Park Avenue N (a designated pedestrian-oriented street). The original Site Plan decision approved more than 60 feet of surface parking along Park Avenue N due to the desire to consolidate surface parking, which would allow for future infill on the surface parking areas. The proposed minor amendments reduce the amount of surface parking fronting on Park Avenue N and would in keeping with the Director's original Site Plan Approval and comply with the modification criteria outlined in RMC 4-3-100L and RMC 4-9-2500. The requirements for building entries in the Urban Design Regulations specify that the primary entrance of each building shall be located on the fai;:ade facing the pedestrian- oriented street. The proposed reconfiguration of Buildings 400-407 results in the site of Building 400 abutting Park Avenue N (a designated pedestrian-oriented street) and the primary entrance facing to the north. To remain in keeping with the pedestrian-oriented design of The Landing, the applicant contends that it is preferable to allow the primary entrance of Building 400 to be located on the north fai;:ade towards the surface parking area, which is consistent with the entrances of Buildings 401-407 that abut Building 400. In addition, the applicant contends that requiring the primary entrance of Building 400 to be located along the Park Avenue N frontage would result in a disruption of the pedestrian flow as the primary entrance of this building would not be consistent with the location of the primary entrance of the abutting buildings. The proposed modification complies with the modification criteria outlined in RMC 4-3-1 OOL and RMC 4-9-2500. Decision Based on staff's analysis, I have determined the proposed revisions are within the parameters defined by the Renton Municipal Code and that the proposed modifications comply with the modification criteria outlined in RMC 4-3-100L and 4-9-2500. Therefore, the proposed minor amendments to the site plan and the requested modifications are approved subject to the following condition: 1. Prior to the issuance of the final building permit for The Landing, three full size copies and one 8 Y, x 11 inch PMT of a final site plan, building elevations, and landscape plan for the Landing shall be submitted to the Development Services Division project manager. This determination will be final unless a written appeal of this administrative determination -accompanied by the required $75.00 filing fee -is filed with the City's Hearing Examiner within 14 days of the date of this decision. landing update A site plan rnodrcvised.doc March 13, 2007 Page 5 Should you have any questions regarding this determination or the requirements discussed in this letter, please contact Jill Ding, Senior Planner, at (425) 430-7219. Sincerely, ;Va)r {U1;it; Neil Watts, Director Development Services Division cc: LUA-06-071, SA-A Jennifer Henning Jill Ding Parties of Record landing update A site plan modrevised.doc 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 CITY OF RENTON MAR 2 3 2007 RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE 5 3-'., p,1,1 IS J;c1,v,.~.c1 Ly hjc.·r C,;,,1,e/ BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER OF THE CITY OF RENTON In the Matter of the Appeals of Alliance for South End (ASE) re: The Director's Administrative Decision Designating The Landing Master Plan Application a Planned Action The Director's Master Site Plan Approval ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ----------------~) Alliance for South End (ASE) and Brad Nicholson re: ) ) ) ) The Director's Administrative Site Plan Approval) and Interpretation/Policy Decision ) _________________ ) NO. LUA-05-136, SA-A, SM CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that, on March 23, 2007, I caused to be served the foregoing APPELLANT'S PREHEARING BRIEF, NOTICE OF APPEAL OF SITE PLAN MODIFICATION APPROVAL and the following letters: 1. March 23, 2007 letter to Ms. Bonnie Walter re "Procedures for Hearing Examiner Filings"; 2. March 23, 2007 letter to Ms. Bonnie Walton re "Notice of Appeal of Site Plan Modification Approval" and Buck & Gordon LLP Check for $75.00; and 3. March 23, 2007 letter to Ms. Bonnie Walter re "Appellant's Prehearing Brief' and this CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by hand delivery to: /Ill ORIGINAL CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE-1 Y,IWPIASE\SITE PLAN APPEAL\CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE.2007.DOC Bucke, Gordon LLP 2025 Fi1·st Avenue, Suite 500 Se-attle, 't/'JA 98'.21 (206) 382-9540 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 Ms. Bonnie Walton, City Clerk City of Renton I 055 South Grady Way, 7th Floor Renton, WA 98055 D Via Facsimile D Via Email ~ Via Hand Delivery D Via U.S. Mail Ms. Ryan Durkan Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson 1221 Second Avenue, Suite 500 Seattle, WA 98101-2925 D Via Facsimile D Via Email lg) Via Hand Delivery D Via U.S. Mail Ms. Zanella Fontes Renton City Attorney Warren, Barber, & Fontes I 00 S. Second Street Renton, WA 98057 D Via Facsimile D Via Email ~ Via Hand Delivery D Via U.S. Mail Mr. Jerome Hillis Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson 1221 Second Avenue, Suite 500 Seattle, WA 98101-2925 D Via Facsimile D Via Email ~ Via Hand Delivery D Via U.S. Mail Mr. Lawrence J. Warren Renton City Attorney Warren, Barber, & Fontes JOOS. Second Street Renton, WA 98057 D Via Facsimile D Via Email IE! Via Hand Delivery D Via U.S. Mail Mr. Fred Kaufman, Hrg Examiner (c/o Ms. Bonnie Walton, City Clerk) City of Renton I 055 South Grady Way, 7th Floor Renton, WA 98055 D Via Facsimile D Via Email IE) Via Hand Delivery D Via U.S. Mail Subscribed to under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington this 23'ct day of March, 2007 in Seattle, Washington. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE -2 Y:\WPIASE\SITE PLAN APPEAL\CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE.2007.DOC Lynne M. Overlie Buck f,l! Gordon LLP 2025 First Avenue, Sci'.:e 500 Seattle, WA 98121 '.206) 382-9540 CITY OF RENTON City Clerk Division 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 425-430-6510 D Cash ... L8: Check No. '.l 1 ·.; \ I Description: /t'--, I ' 1•( j' ' I I / Funds Received From: D Copy Fee D Appeal Fee Name ,,, ( :; ,-,· ; ' ; I.) i.-'---· Address Z{ ~ l City/Zip \(i , , I / ·, .,."l ,;"' . !frr 1v1r ·1 'I Receipt N ~ 0807 D Notary Service D __________ _ ; '1,: //. L.,.-,"/ I . ..._...-\V l. 7c)o " March 7, 2007 Mark Hower, Associate Callison Architecture, Inc. 1420 Fifth Avenue #2400 Seattle, WA 98101-2343 CITY 4 __ c' RENTON Planning/Building/Public Works Department Gregg Zimmerman P.E., Administrator SUBJECT: THE LANDING UPDATE D (BUILDINGS 201 & 202), REQUEST FOR MINOR MODIFICATION OF APPROVED SITE PLAN (FILE NO. LUA06- 071, SA-A) Dear Mr. Hower, I am in receipt of your letter and attachments dated February 13, 2007 wherein you request revisions to the approved Site Plan for Buildings 201, and 202 of The Landing. These buildings are located east of Park Avenue N and north of N 81 h Street. The building numbering has been revised as follows: Building 201 is now identified as Building 101, and Building 202 is now identified as Building 102. As your letter discloses, minor adjustments to the building facades and Building 102 has increased in area from 20,700 square feet to 21,000 square feet. No adjustments to the parking layout or landscaping are proposed. Renton Municipal Code Section 4-9-2001, allows minor adjustments to an approved site plan, provided: 1. The adjustment does not involve more than a ten percent (10%) increase in area or scale of the development in the approved site plan; or 2. The adjustment does not have a significantly greater impact on the environment and facilities than the approved plan; or 3. The adjustment does not change the boundaries of the originally approved plan. Analysis of Request The site plan modifications requested and as shown in your February 13, 2007 submittals have been compared to the Site Plan as approved by the Development Services Division Director on August 17, 2006. The proposed elevation changes and changes in square footage Buildings 101 and 102 wotlld result in a gross floor area of 529,000 square feet for The Landing, which is a 3,000 square foot addition. The proposed changes would not result in more than a 10 percent increase in area or scale of the development. The proposal would not have a greater impact on the environment and facilities, nor would it change the boundaries of the originally approved site plan. ~ RENTON 1055 South Grady Way -Renton, Washington 98057 "" AHEAD OF THF. CURVE March 7, 2007 Page 2 The project site is zoned Urban Center -North 1 (UC-N1 ), and is also subject to District C of the Urban Center Design Regulations. All applicable setback, lot coverage, and landscaping standards would be a·chieved. Decision Based on staff's analysis, I have determined the proposed revisions are within the parameters defined by the Renton Municipal Code. Therefore, the proposed modifications to the site plan are approved subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to the issuance of the final building permit for The Landing, 3 full size copies and 1 8 Y, x 11 inch PMT of a final site plan, building elevations, and landscape plan for the Landing shall be submitted to the Development Services Division project manager. 2. The applicant is advised that all code requirements and conditions of the site plan approval are still applicable to the development of the site. The applicant should also understand that Environmental SEPA Review and Site Plan Review may be required for future modifications to the site plan. This determination will be final unless a written appeal of this administrative determination -accompanied by the required $75.00 filing fee -is filed with the City's Hearing Examiner within 14 days of the date of this decision. Should you have any questions regarding this determination or the requirements discussed in this letter, please contact Jill Ding, Senior Planner, at (425) 430-7219. Sincerely, ~-eJ7 tu ;;tq Neil Watts, Director Development Services Division cc: LUA-06-071, SA-A Jennifer Henning Jill Ding Parties of Record landing site plan modBldgs 20) 202.doc THEL\NDING CALLISON 3.2.2007 MINOR ADJUST~fENT TO i\PPROVED SITE PLAN REVIEW DATED JULY 21 'T, 2006 CODE DISCUSSION 4-9-200 SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW: I. MINOR ADJUSTMENTS TO AN APPROVED SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN: Minor modifications may be permitted by administrative determination. To be considered a minor modification, the amendment must not: 1. Involve more than a ten percent (10%) increase in area or scale of the development in the approved site development plan; or The area and scale of the development has not increased more than 10%. 2. Have a significantly greater impact on the environment and facilities than the approved plan; or The impact on the environment and facilities has not significantly increased. 3. Change the boundaries of the originally approved plan. (Ord. 4802, 10-25-1999; Amd. Ord. 4954, 2-11-2002; Ord. 5028, 11-24-2003) The project boundaries have not changed. DESCRIPTION OF CHANGES The change described in this update is limited to the area known as "Quadrant B" (also known as Zone Two). The most significant changes are to the buildings numbered in the 400's. "Entertainment Boulevard" no longer connects to 81h Street except though a pedestrian only connection. Building 407 has changed shape and been relocated between 405 and 406 and building 400 been moved as close to Park Avenue as permissible by code. The building design of the 400 series has changed, but still conforms to the overall character of the development. Included in this update are revised site, landscape and lighting plans as well as new elevations of the 400 series buildings. CALLISON ARCHITECTURE, INC. 1420 FIFTH AVENUE ij2400 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101-2343 -T 206 623 4646 F 206 623 4625 www callison com