Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSunset Mixed-Use, Conditional Use and Site Plan1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 CONDITIONAL USE and SITE PLAN - 1 CAO VARIANCE - 1 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON RE: Sunset Mixed-Use Conditional Use and Site Plan LUA17-000594, SA-A, CU-H ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) FINAL DECISION Summary The Applicant has applied for conditional use permit and site plan approval for the construction of a 54,260 square foot mixed use 60-foot high building located 1409 Monroe Avenue NE. The applications are approved subject to conditions. The traffic and parking concerns raised by neighbors are addressed at Findings of Fact 4(E) and (G), located at pages 4 and 7, respectively, of this decision. Testimony Note: The following is a summary of testimony provided for the convenience of the reader only and should not be construed as containing any findings of fact or conclusions of law. The focus upon or exclusion of any particular testimony or hearing evidence in this summary is not reflective of the priority or probative content of any particular hearing evidence and no assurance is made as to accuracy. The findings and conclusions that serve as the basis for this permitting decision commence at page 3 of this decision. Jill Ding, Senior Planner for City of Renton, summarized the proposal. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 CONDITIONAL USE and SITE PLAN - 2 CAO VARIANCE - 2 Patricia Johnson, neighbor, complimented staff for the dissemination of information on the project. Ms. Johnson read a letter given to her to read at the hearing from David Doyle (sp?) and Glenda Johnson, who wrote they were concerned about public safety due to insufficient parking and poor access. The proposed parking is less than one space per dwelling unit and the dwelling units could each have more than one car, which will create on-street parking demand for Monroe Avenue. The access to the project requires several turning movements that are not regulated by traffic lights and have poor sight lines. A second letter from another resident noted that the resident enjoys the quiet nature of the neighborhood and the proposal will ruin the residential atmosphere. The access points to the project site are in close proximity to the Solstice senior living facility. Solstice has 111 apartments. The proposed entrance on Sunset is located across from a multi-use area across the street. There are numerous commercial establishments in this multi-use area, such as a supermarket, Goodwill and restaurants. There have been many fender-benders in this area, a lot of which are not reported because they occur on private property. Commerce and activity have increased significantly in the last four years. Ms. Johnson also identified two traffic “clogs” that have plagued residents. Ralph Evans, neighbor, stated his major concern is traffic. He’s concerned about the possible lack of communication between the economic development department and the water department. There’s a major change going on with the water tower on NE 12th. Road work will be done on NE 12th from the tower down to Edmonds Ave, which will cross Sunset. One of the water tanks will be demolished and another one added. Trees will be removed and dirt and concrete hauled to the site. There needs to be traffic coordination between the water tower project and the proposal. He’s talked to City staff about putting a traffic light at Monroe and Sunset and that’s not a priority. If the water project and the proposal happen at the same time it will be a traffic disaster. Traffic impacts should be considered as a whole taking into account other projects. Rebecca Alder, neighbor, stated she liked the idea of additional housing. She had concerns over the entrance and exit onto Sunset. One space per dwelling unit isn’t enough since lots of people have two cars and on-street parking is at a minimum on Monroe already. Ms. Alder noted that as you travel west on Sunset to its intersection with Monroe there’s a huge hill She wanted to kno w if the hill was going to be removed to provide for safer site distance at the project access point. Ms. Alder noted it was her understanding there was going to be a cistern and she supported that project feature. Robert Zyrele [sp?] noted he’s a retired police officer and has lived in the area for several years. He also believes a traffic light is necessary at the intersection of Monroe and Sunset. People speed through that intersection and there have been several accidents from people taking left turns. You put more traffic and more people coming in and out and you have a deadly intersection. Ann Fowler, plan reviewer for City of Renton Public Works, is responsible for reviewing proposed traffic improvements in permit review. She noted that the applicant submitted a traffic study prepared by a traffic engineer that was reviewed by the Public Works department. The study addressed site distance for the access points to the project in a 35-mph zone. Under such conditions 390 feet of site distance is required under AASHTO (American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials) standards . The Sunset Boulevard entrance has 400 feet of site distance. There’s a two-way 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 CONDITIONAL USE and SITE PLAN - 3 CAO VARIANCE - 3 left turn lane on Sunset Boulevard that enables left turns into the project site. The project doesn’t create a need for a traffic light at the Monroe/Sunset intersection but Ms. Fowler will convey the concerns of the residents to the Public Works Administrator. On-street parking won’t be allowed along the project frontage on Monroe Street so on-street parking would not create any site distance problems for the Monroe Access to the site. Construction traffic will be reviewed by Public Works and the traffic from the water tower will be coordinated with the construction traffic created by the project during review of civil construction permits. As necessary, the projects would be coordinated by requiring different routes and/or times for construction traffic. Neighbors can call Public Works if they still see construction traffic problems. Jill Ding noted that the City has maximum and minimum parking standards. The applicant is required to provide 46-78 spaces. The applicant is proposing the minimum 46 spaces. Exhibits The May 8, 2018 Staff Report Exhibits 1-13 identified at Page 2 of the staff report were admitted into the record during the hearing. The following exhibits were also admitted during the hearing: Exhibit 14: Staff PowerPoint Exhibit 15: City of Renton COR maps Exhibit 16: Google Earth aerial of project vicinity FINDINGS OF FACT Procedural: 1. Applicant. The Applicant is Sunset Premier, 8151 SE 48th Street, Mercer Island, WA 98040 2. Hearing. A hearing was held on the applications on May 8, 2018 in the City of Renton Council Chambers. 3. Project Description. The Applicant has applied for conditional use permit and site plan approval for the construction of a 54,260 square foot mixed use building located 1409 Monroe Avenue NE. The proposed building would include 35 apartment units over approximately 4,720 square feet of office/retail space as well as two levels of parking. The proposed building would include a total of 45 parking spaces and would have a height of 60 feet and 5 stories. A Conditional Use Permit is required to exceed the maximum height of 45 feet when abutting a property zoned R- 10. The project site is triangular in shape and totals 22,662 square feet in area and is located within the CV (Center Village) zone and Urban Design District D. The lower level parking garage would be accessed off of NE Sunset Blvd and the upper level parking garage would be accessed off of Monroe Avenue NE. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 CONDITIONAL USE and SITE PLAN - 4 CAO VARIANCE - 4 4. Adequacy of Infrastructure/Public Services. The project will be served by adequate and appropriate infrastructure and public services as follows: A. Water and Sewer Service. Water and sewer service will be provided by the City of Renton. B. Fire and Police. The City of Renton will provide police service and the Renton Fire Authority will provide fire service. C. Drainage. Public works staff have determined that the preliminary design and technical drainage review submitted by the Applicant are consistent with adopted city standards. As compliant with City standards, adequate provision is made for drainage. A Preliminary Drainage Plan and Technical Information Report (TIR), dated August 21 2017 (Exhibit 6) was submitted with the Land Use Application. The amount of impervious surfaces existing on the project site currently totals 5,207 square feet. The project site is located within the East Lake Washington drainage basin and the topography currently slopes from southeast to northwest. Runoff from the site currently sheet flows northwest towards NE Sunset Blvd. As a result of project construction, runoff would be routed to an on-site detention vault with overflows discharging to the public storm drain system within NE Sunset Blvd. The project is exempt from water quality as the project would not result in the construction of 5,000 square feet of pollution generating impervious surfaces. Project construction will be required to comply with the 2016 City of Renton Surface Water Design Manual. D. Parks/Open Space. As outlined at p. 20-21 of the staff report, the project is subject to design guidelines under RMC 4-3-100( E) that requires 50 square feet of open space per dwelling unit. Based on the proposal for 35 dwelling units, the project would be required to provide 350 square feet of common open space within the proposed development. To meet the common open space requirement, the applicant is proposing a public plaza with seating and a water feature at the northeast corner of the project site. In addition, the applicant is proposing common recreational areas inside the building including an exercise room on the third floor, a game room on the fourth floor, and a movie room on the fifth floor. A 1,000 square-foot roof top deck is proposed for residents to take advantage of the views. The proposed common open space and recreational areas exceed the minimum 350 square-foot requirement. E. Transportation and Circulation. Public works staff have determined that the preliminary design for traffic circulation and improvements satisfies applicable City standards. Since the proposal is consistent with City transportation standards, it is found to provide for adequate and appropriate transportation facilities and mitigation. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 CONDITIONAL USE and SITE PLAN - 5 CAO VARIANCE - 5 A major concern of neighbors was site distance and safety at the project access points to Sunset Boulevard and Monroe Avenue. As testified by City staff, the access point meets site distance requirements set by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Separation of the two access points from intersections is also regulated by detailed Public Works standards that Public Works staff have found to be met by the proposal. The Applicants also had a traffic study prepared by a traffic engineer that was reviewed and approved by Public Works staff. The traffic study also determined the access points to “operate well” with the proposed site distance. Understandably, the neighbors did not hire a traffic engineer to dispute the findings of the City and applicant experts who assessed traffic safety and compliance with City street standards. However, in the absence of any compelling evidence that the expert conclusions of the City/Applicant are in error, the preponderance of evidence in the record establishes that the proposal provides for safe access to the Sunset and Monroe streets. Concerns were also raised at the hearing about cumulative construction impacts caused by construction traffic from the proposal in conjunction with a nearby water tower project and associated road improvements. As testified by staff, during civil plan review the Applicant will be required to submit a construction traffic plan to staff, who will review the plan to ensure that construction traffic patterns are coordinated with other projects occurring at the same time, including the water tower project. The routes and times of construction traffic will be modified as necessary by staff to ensure that the neighbors are not significantly affected by cumulative adverse construction traffic impacts. Concerns were also raised about the Monroe/Sunset intersection and the lack of a traffic light at the intersection. The Applicant can only be legally required to pay for its proportionate share of any necessary improvements to intersections. As discussed in the Applicant’s traffic study, the proposal does not generate enough traffic to trigger any review of impacts to affected intersections. Under the City’s traffic standards, this means that the proposal is not considered to generate enough traffic to require intersection improvements. Beyond specific improvements to the Monroe/Sunset intersection, the Applicant will be required to pay traffic impact fees that are designed to compensate for its proportionate share impacts to the City’s traffic system as a whole. These monies will be used to fund projects found necessary by the City to maintain adopted level of service standards. The current transportation impact fee applicable to apartment uses would be $2,112.64 per dwelling unit. The current transportation impact fee for a shopping center is $13.29 per square foot of building. Credit is provided for the three (3) existing single- family residences ($5,430.85 per dwelling unit). The transportation impact fee increases each year and the applicable fee is paid at the time of building permit issuance. The proposal provides for desirable transitions and linkages between uses, streets, walkways and adjacent properties. The proposed development would provide vehicular access to Monroe Ave NE and NE Sunset Blvd from a structured parking garage and pedestrian connections to the public sidewalks within NE Sunset Blvd and Monroe Ave 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 CONDITIONAL USE and SITE PLAN - 6 CAO VARIANCE - 6 NE. The applicant has proposed pedestrian walkways and plaza areas along the project site’s NE Sunset Blvd and Monroe Ave NE street frontages that staff have found to be safe for pedestrian circulation. All building entries would have a direct connection to the public sidewalk. All walkways would be paved and comprised of an all-weather walking surface. F. Schools. It is anticipated that the Renton School District can accommodate any additional students generated by this proposal at the following schools: Honey Dew Elementary, Risdon Middle School and Hazen High School. Students attending Honey Dew Elementary would walk to school along the following route: east along the existing sidewalks along NE Sunset Blvd and south along the existing sidewalks along Union Ave NE. Students attending Risdon Middle School would be bussed to school and would walk 0.76 miles to the existing stop located at Monroe Ave NE and NE 7th Street, along the following route: south along Monroe Ave NE to NE 12th Street where they would walk west and cross the street to Monroe Ave NE and walk along the existing sidewalk on the west side of the street to the bus stop at NE 7th Street. Students attending Hazen High School would be bussed to school and would walk 0.26 miles to the existing stop at NE 12th Street and Olympia Ave NE along the following route: south along Monroe Ave NE to NE 12th Street and then east along NE 12th Street to the bus stop located at Olympia Ave NE. A School Impact Fee, based on new residential dwelling units, will be required in order to mitigate the proposal’s potential impacts to the Renton School District. The fee is payable to the City as specified by the Renton Municipal Code. Currently the fee is assessed at $1,448 per dwelling unit. G. Refuse and Recycling. RMC 4-4-090 sets the standard for adequate refuse and recycling facilities. Since the standard is met by the proposal as conditioned, it is found to provide for adequate and appropriate refuse and recycling facilities. The project as a whole would require a total minimum area of 357.5 or 358 square feet of refuse and recyclable deposit areas (157.5 + 100 + 100=357.5 sq. ft.). The total amount is based upon differing requirements for the different types of uses involved in the site. Based on the proposal for 35 dwelling units, the proposal would require a minimum of 52.5 square feet of recyclable deposit areas and 105 square feet of refuse deposit areas for a total minimum of 157.5 square feet. Based on the proposal for 2,480 square feet of office use, a total of 5 square feet of recyclable deposit areas would be required and 10 square feet of refuse deposit areas would be required for a total of 15 square feet. The requirement for 15 square feet is less than the 100 square-foot minimum requirement; therefore, a total minimum area of 100 square feet of refuse and recyclable deposit areas shall be provided for the office use. Based on the proposal for 2,520 square feet of retail uses, a total of 12.6 square feet would be required for recyclable deposit areas and 25.2 square feet of refuse deposit areas would be required for a total minimum area of 38 square feet. The requirement of 38 square feet of refuse and recyclable deposit areas is less 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 CONDITIONAL USE and SITE PLAN - 7 CAO VARIANCE - 7 than the minimum 100 square foot requirement; therefore, a total minimum of 100 square feet of refuse and recyclable deposit areas would be required for the retail use. The applicant has proposed a combined refuse and recyclable deposit area totaling 138 square feet within the 15-foot (15’) required landscaped buffer area to the south of the proposed building. The proposal for 138 square feet is less than the 358 square feet minimum requirement. In addition, the location within the 15-foot (15’) landscaped rear yard setback area would be within 50 feet (50’) of an abutting residentially zoned property. Therefore, a condition of approval requires that a total minimum area of 358 square feet of refuse and recyclable deposit areas be provided on the project site or a modification to the size of refuse and recycling area is applied for and approved, and that the refuse and recyclable area be relocated outside of the required 15-foot (15’) landscaped rear yard setback. H. Parking. Several neighbors testified that they believed the amount of parking proposed by the applicant is inadequate. The City’s parking standards set the standard for adequacy of parking. Since those standards are met by the proposal, it is determined that the proposal provides for adequate and appropriate parking. More than the minimum parking required by City standards can sometimes be required under the City’s conditional use criteria if something unique about a proposal creates a greater need for parking than anticipated by the City Council in the adoption of its parking standards, but no such unique conditions are apparent for this proposal. The applicant is proposing 35 dwelling units, which under City parking standards would require between 35 and 61 spaces; 2,520 square feet of retail space, which would require a minimum and a maximum of 6 spaces; and 2,480 square feet of office space, which would require between 5 spaces and 11 spaces. Based on the uses and square footages proposed, the proposal would be required to provide between 46 and 78 spaces. The submitted materials indicate that a total of 46 spaces would be provided within the structured parking area in the building, which meets the minimum number of spaces required. Two additional parking spaces are proposed along the driveway between the front of the building and NE Sunset Blvd. Parking is not permitted between the front of the building and the street, therefore a condition of approval requires that the two proposed parking spaces between the building and NE Sunset Blvd be removed and be replaced with landscaping. The applicant has proposed standard spaces that measure 8 feet 3 inches by 15 feet (8.25’x15’) and compact spaces that measure 7 feet 6 inches by 12 feet (7.5’x12’). The standard spaces would need to be increased in width by 1 inch (1”) to meet the City’s parking requirements. A condition of approval requires that the proposed standard parking spaces be increased in width by 1 inch (1”) to meet the City’s minimum requirement of 8 feet 4 inches (8.33’) in width or a parking modification is applied for and approved to reduce the size of the stalls. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 CONDITIONAL USE and SITE PLAN - 8 CAO VARIANCE - 8 Per RMC 4-4-080F.11 bicycle parking spaces are required at 10% of the number of required off-street parking spaces. One-half bicycle parking space shall be provided for each residential dwelling unit. Based on the proposal for 4,720 square feet of office/retail uses, the project would be required to provide 4.7 or 5 bicycle parking spaces. Based on the proposal for 35 dwelling units, the proposal would be required to provide 18 bicycle parking spaces for the residential units. This would result in a total of 23 required bicycle parking spaces on the project site. A condition of approval requires that 23 bicycle parking spaces be provided on the project site in accordance with RMC 4-4-080F.11. I. Landscaping. It is determined that the proposal provides for adequate and appropriate landscaping because the proposal complies with applicable City landscaping standards. The applicant submitted a Conceptual Landscape Plan (Exhibit 10) with the project application materials. The submitted landscape plan includes landscaping between the building and public sidewalk and also includes required street trees between the curb and sidewalk within the public right-of-way. In addition, landscaping is proposed within the 15-foot (15’) wide setback between the proposed building and abutting residentially zoned property to the south. As outlined at Page 6-7 of the staff report, staff have recommended some changes to some of the plantings proposed by the Applicant and these recommendations have been adopted as a condition of approval by this decision. 5. Adverse Impacts. There are no significant adverse impacts associated with the proposal. Adequate infrastructure serves the site as determined in Finding of Fact No. 4. Impacts are more specifically addressed as follows: A. Views. The proposed building is substantially taller than existing single-family residences in the neighborhood to the south. However, there do not appear to be any view corridors, including views of shorelines or Mt. Rainier, that would be obstructed by the construction of the proposed mixed-use building. B. Compatibility. The proposed use is compatible with the scale and character of the neighborhood. Surrounding uses are composed of single-family homes, a retirement facility and a shopping center. The mixed uses involved with the proposal are consistent with the mixed uses surrounding the development. The one area of concern regarding aesthetic compatibility is height, due to the proximity of single-family residences. The project site is zoned CV, which allows attached residential dwelling units in mixed-use structures and office/retail uses as outright permitted uses. A 45-foot (45’) maximum height limit is required for CV zoned properties that abut residentially zoned properties. A conditional use permit is required to exceed the 45-foot (45’) maximum height limit. The applicant has submitted elevation information (Exhibit 13) demonstrating that most of the building along the Monroe Ave NE frontage, where the project site abuts the residentially zoned properties, would meet the 45-foot (45’) maximum height limit. The building has been designed such that the taller portions 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 CONDITIONAL USE and SITE PLAN - 9 CAO VARIANCE - 9 of the building would front on NE Sunset Blvd, which faces other commercially zoned properties. As mitigated by the orientation of the building, it is determined that the building is compatible with adjoining single-family development. C. Light, glare, noise and privacy. The proposal will not create any significant adverse light, noise or glare impacts. As previously discussed, the majority of the building that would face the surrounding residential neighborhood would comply with the maximum 45-foot (45’) height limit; therefore, the proposal to exceed the maximum 45-foot (45’) height limit for small portions of the building that would largely front on NE Sunset Blvd is not anticipated to significantly adversely result in noise, light, privacy and glare impacts on the surrounding residential uses. The conditions of approval also require that the applicant submit a lighting plan to City staff for approval. The lighting plan is conditioned to minimize light trespass onto adjoining residential properties. D. Critical Areas and Natural Features. A Wellhead Protection Area, Zone 2 and Sensitive Slopes (slopes with grades between 25 and 40 percent (25-40%)) are mapped on the project site. The Applicant has complied with City standards regarding the wellhead protection area and sensitive slopes so impacts are found to be adequately mitigated. The Applicant has also protected the natural landscape by integrating the project design into existing topography instead of substantially altering it. Pursuant to City wellhead protection regulations, if any fill is brought onto the project site, a fill source statement will be required. Pursuant to the City’s sensitive slope regulations, the Applicant submitted Geotechnical Report prepared by Ages Engineering, LLC, dated January 25, 2017 (Exhibit 4). The topography of the project site slopes to the northwest at inclinations ranging from 5 to 20 percent. The steepest slopes are on the northwestern portion of the site adjacent to NE Sunset Blvd. The lower portions of the slopes adjacent to NE Sunset Blvd appear to be the result of grading for NE Sunset Blvd. Site vegetation consists of grass lawn, landscape shrubs and trees, and a few medium-sized evergreen and deciduous trees. The geotechnical report concludes that development of the site is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint. The proposed development can be supported on conventional spread footings bearing on the existing native organic-free soils observed on the site or on structural fill placed above these native soils. Floor slabs and pavements can be similarly supported. The topography of the site will be largely maintained, as the project proposal would take advantage of the existing site topography with regards to building placement. Where the existing topography is lower, along NE Sunset Blvd, structured parking and commercial space would be developed at a lower elevation to support the upper building levels. Existing vegetation is adequately protected as a natural feature via the City’s tree retention standards. There are thirteen (13) existing trees that would be considered significant under 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 CONDITIONAL USE and SITE PLAN - 10 CAO VARIANCE - 10 the City’s tree retention standards on the project site. Based on the required retention rate of 10 percent (10%), one (1) tree would be required for retention. The applicant is not proposing to retain any trees. The one (1) required tree to be retained would be required to be replaced with 12 inches (12”) of replacement trees, or a minimum of 6 2-inch (2”) trees, or a minimum of 6 feet (6’) in height for evergreen trees. The applicant is proposing to install 42 trees within the onsite landscaped areas around the project perimeter. The proposed trees are identified as having heights ranging from 8 to 14 feet, which would meet the City’s tree replacement requirements. A condition of approval requires that a final tree retention and replacement plan be submitted at the time of Construction Permit review for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager. Conclusions of Law 1. Authority. Hearing Examiner Site Plan review (Type III review) is required by RMC 4-9- 200(D)(c) because the proposal involves commercial development next to residentially zoned property. An administrative conditional use permit (Type II review) is required by RMC 4-2- 120(C)(16) because the proposal exceeds 45 feet adjacent to residentially zoned property. RMC 4-8- 080(C)(2) requires consolidated permits to each be processed under “the highest-number procedure”. The Type III review is the “highest-number procedure” and therefore must be employed for the conditional use and site plan approval. As outlined in RMC 4-8-080(G), the hearing examiner is authorized to hold hearings and issue final decisions on Type III applications subject to closed record appeal to the Renton City Council. 2. Zoning/Comprehensive Plan Designations. The subject property is within the Commercial Mixed Use (CMU) Comprehensive Plan land use designation and the Center Village (CV) zoning classification. 3. Review Criteria/Street Modification. Conditional use criteria are governed by RMC 4-9- 030(D) and site plan review standards are governed by RMC 4-9-200(E)(3). Applicable standards are quoted below in italics and applied through corresponding conclusions of law. The proposal satisfies all quoted standards as conditioned for the reasons identified in the conclusions of law. Conditional Use The Administrator or designee or the Hearing Examiner shall consider, as applicable, the following factors for all applications: RMC 4-9-030(C)(1): Consistency with Plans and Regulations: The proposed use shall be compatible with the general goals, objectives, policies and standards of the Comprehensive Plan, the zoning regulations and any other plans, programs, maps or ordinances of the City of Renton. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 CONDITIONAL USE and SITE PLAN - 11 CAO VARIANCE - 11 4. As conditioned, the proposal is consistent with all applicable comprehensive plan policies and development standards as outlined in Findings No. 14-17 of the staff report, adopted by this reference as if set forth in full. RMC 4-9-030(C)(2): Appropriate Location: The proposed location shall not result in the detrimental overconcentration of a particular use within the City or within the immediate area of the proposed use. The proposed location shall be suited for the proposed use. 5. For the reasons identified in Finding of Fact No. 4 and 5, the proposal is compatible with surrounding uses, will be served by adequate infrastructure and will not create significant adverse impacts to adjoining properties. For these reasons the proposed location is suited for the proposed use. There is no evidence in the record of any overconcentrated mixed use developments in the vicinity nor is it readily apparently how any concentration of authorized mixed-use development would reach “detrimental” levels. RMC 4-9-030(C)(3): Effect on Adjacent Properties: The proposed use at the proposed location shall not result in substantial or undue adverse effects on adjacent property. 6. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5, as conditioned, there are no significant adverse impacts associated with the proposal, so it will not result in substantial or undue adverse effects on adjacent property. RMC 4-9-030(C)(4): Compatibility: The proposed use shall be compatible with the scale and character of the neighborhood. 7. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5, the proposed use is compatible with the scale and character of the neighborhood. RMC 4-9-030(C)(5): Parking: Adequate parking is, or will be made, available. 8. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 4, the proposal includes parking that is consistent with applicable parking standards, which sets a legislative standard for adequate parking. RMC 4-9-030(C)(6): Traffic: The use shall ensure safe movement for vehicles and pedestrians and shall mitigate potential effects on the surrounding area. 9. As outlined in Finding of Fact No. 4, the proposal provides for safe circulation and adequate traffic mitigation and facilities. RMC 4-9-030(C)(7): Noise, Light and Glare: Potential noise, light and glare impacts from the proposed use shall be evaluated and mitigated. 10. As conditioned, as determined in Finding of Fact No. 5, the proposal will not result in any adverse light, noise or glare impacts. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 CONDITIONAL USE and SITE PLAN - 12 CAO VARIANCE - 12 RMC 4-9-030(C)(8): Landscaping: Landscaping shall be provided in all areas not occupied by buildings, paving, or critical areas. Additional landscaping may be required to buffer adjacent properties from potentially adverse effects of the proposed use. 11. As shown in the site plans for the proposal, all undeveloped portions of the site are landscaped. Site Plan RMC 4-9-200(E)(3): Criteria: The Administrator or designee must find a proposed project to be in compliance with the following: a. Compliance and Consistency: Conformance with plans, policies, regulations and approvals, including: i. Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan, its elements, goals, objectives, and policies, especially those of the applicable land use designation; the Community Design Element; and any applicable adopted Neighborhood Plan; ii. Applicable land use regulations; iii. Relevant Planned Action Ordinance and Development Agreements; and iv. Design Regulations: Intent and guidelines of the design regulations located in RMC 4- 3-100. 12. As concluded in Conclusion of Law No. 4 and as conditioned, the proposal is consistent with the City’s comprehensive plan, development regulations and design standards. RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(b): Off-Site Impacts: Mitigation of impacts to surrounding properties and uses, including: i. Structures: Restricting overscale structures and overconcentration of development on a particular portion of the site; ii. Circulation: Providing desirable transitions and linkages between uses, streets, walkways and adjacent properties; iii. Loading and Storage Areas: Locating, designing and screening storage areas, utilities, rooftop equipment, loading areas, and refuse and recyclables to minimize views from surrounding properties; iv. Views: Recognizing the public benefit and desirability of maintaining visual accessibility to attractive natural features; 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 CONDITIONAL USE and SITE PLAN - 13 CAO VARIANCE - 13 v. Landscaping: Using landscaping to provide transitions between development and surrounding properties to reduce noise and glare, maintain privacy, and generally enhance the appearance of the project; and vi. Lighting: Designing and/or placing exterior lighting and glazing in order to avoid excessive brightness or glare to adjacent properties and streets. 13. As conditioned, the criteria quoted above are met. As outlined in Finding of Fact No. 4(E), the proposal provides for desirable transitions and linkages between uses, streets, walkways and adjacent properties. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 4, proper screening and/or design location will be implemented to conceal refuse and recyclable areas and equipment since those issues are addressed by the City’s refuse and recycle design standards. No new loading areas are proposed or required of the proposal. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5, the proposal will not adversely affect any views. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 4, the proposal is consistent with the City’s landscaping standards, which includes perimeter landscaping to provide buffering to adjacent uses. The proposal will not create any significant light impacts, including excessive brightness or glare, for the reasons identified in Finding of Fact No. 5. RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(c): On-Site Impacts: Mitigation of impacts to the site, including: i. Structure Placement: Provisions for privacy and noise reduction by building placement, spacing and orientation; ii. Structure Scale: Consideration of the scale of proposed structures in relation to natural characteristics, views and vistas, site amenities, sunlight, prevailing winds, and pedestrian and vehicle needs; iii. Natural Features: Protection of the natural landscape by retaining existing vegetation and soils, using topography to reduce undue cutting and filling, and limiting impervious surfaces; and iv. Landscaping: Use of landscaping to soften the appearance of parking areas, to provide shade and privacy where needed, to define and enhance open spaces, and generally to enhance the appearance of the project. Landscaping also includes the design and protection of planting areas so that they are less susceptible to damage from vehicles or pedestrian movements. 14. The criterion quoted above are met. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5, the proposal will not create any significant privacy or noise impacts. The scale of the proposal, composed of a one- story addition at a site surrounded by office buildings, is entirely appropriate and compatible. Natural features are adequately protected. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5(D), natural features (topography, trees and critical areas) are adequately protected. The proposal complies with the City’s landscaping standards as outlined in Finding of Fact No. 4. As conditioned, no additional landscaping is found to be necessary to meet the objectives of the criterion quoted above. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 CONDITIONAL USE and SITE PLAN - 14 CAO VARIANCE - 14 RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(d): Access and Circulation: Safe and efficient access and circulation for all users, including: i. Location and Consolidation: Providing access points on side streets or frontage streets rather than directly onto arterial streets and consolidation of ingress and egress points on the site and, when feasible, with adjacent properties; ii. Internal Circulation: Promoting safety and efficiency of the internal circulation system, including the location, design and dimensions of vehicular and pedestrian access points, drives, parking, turnarounds, walkways, bikeways, and emergency access ways; iii. Loading and Delivery: Separating loading and delivery areas from parking and pedestrian areas; iv. Transit and Bicycles: Providing transit, carpools and bicycle facilities and access; and v. Pedestrians: Providing safe and attractive pedestrian connections between parking areas, buildings, public sidewalks and adjacent properties. 15. The proposal as conditioned provides for adequate access and circulation and bicycle parking as required by the criterion above for the reasons identified in Finding of Fact No. 4. No loading areas are proposed. RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(e): Open Space: Incorporating open spaces to serve as distinctive project focal points and to provide adequate areas for passive and active recreation by the occupants/users of the site. 16. The site provides for open space that meets the criterion above for the reasons identified in Finding of Fact No. 4. RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(f): Views and Public Access: When possible, providing view corridors to shorelines and Mt. Rainier, and incorporating public access to shorelines. 17. There are no view corridors to shorelines or Mt. Rainier affected by the proposal as determined in Finding of Fact No. 5. RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(g): Natural Systems: Arranging project elements to protect existing natural systems where applicable. 18. There are no natural systems at the site or that would be affected by the proposal. RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(h): Services and Infrastructure: Making available public services and facilities to accommodate the proposed use. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 CONDITIONAL USE and SITE PLAN - 15 CAO VARIANCE - 15 19. The project is served by adequate services and facilities as determined in Finding of Fact No. 4. RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(i): Phasing: Including a detailed sequencing plan with development phases and estimated time frames, for phased projects. 20. The project is not phased. DECISION As conditioned below, the site plan and conditional use permit applications meet all applicable permit criteria for the reasons identified in the conclusions of law. The project is subject to the following conditions of approval: 1. A detailed landscape plan, addressing the comments provided from Community Service and meeting the requirements of RMC 4-8-120D.12, shall be submitted at the time of Construction Permit review for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager. 2. A final tree retention and replacement plan shall be submitted at the time of Construction Permit review for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager. 3. The two proposed parking spaces between the building and NE Sunset Blvd shall be removed and be replaced with landscaping or plaza space. 4. The proposed standard structured parking spaces shall be increased in width by 1 inch (1”) to meet the City’s minimum requirement of 8 feet 4 inches (8.33’) in width, or a parking modification shall be applied for and approved for a reduction in the size of the parking stalls. 5. A total minimum area of 358 square feet of refuse and recyclable deposit areas shall be provided on the project site, or a refuse and recycling modification shall be applied for and approved for a reduction in the size of required area. In addition, the refuse and recyclable area shall be relocated outside of the required 15-foot (15’) landscaped rear yard setback. 6. Weather protection, measuring a minimum of 4 feet 6 inches (4.5’) wide, shall be provided over all building entries. 7. A trash enclosure detail shall be provided at the time of Construction Permit review for review and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager. The trash enclosure detail shall demonstrate that the trash enclosure would be enclosed on all sides, include the roof, have self-closing doors, and shall be comprised of masonry, ornamental metal or wood or some combination of the three. 8. Architectural detailing shall be added to the structured parking that would be visible along Monroe Ave NE. Appropriate details may include, but are not limited to: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 CONDITIONAL USE and SITE PLAN - 16 CAO VARIANCE - 16 ornamental grillwork (other than vertical bars); decorative artwork; display windows; brick, tile, or stone; pre-cast decorative panels; and vine covered trellis. A revised architectural elevation showing the additional enhancements to the structured parking shall be submitted to the Current Planning Project Manager for review and approval at the time of Building Permit review. 9. The applicant shall include permeable pavement materials for pedestrian walkways where feasible, consistent with the Surface Water Design Manual. 10. Details and specifications for the water feature and site furniture shall be provided at the time of Building Permit review for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager. 11. Overhead weather protection in the form of awnings, marquees, canopies, or building overhangs shall be provided along 75 percent (75%) of the length of the building facade facing a street or the maximum amount necessary to demonstrate compliance with the guidelines. The minimum width should be 4 feet 6 inches (4.5’) and the height should be between 8 and 15 feet (8-15’) above ground level. Compliance with this requirement would be verified at the time of Building Permit review by the Current Planning Project Manager. 12. Revised elevations shall be submitted at the time of Building Permit review demonstrating that 50 percent (50%) of the ground floor facade between 4 and 8 feet (4- 8’) in height be comprised of transparent windows and/or doors. The revised elevations shall be submitted to the Current Planning Project Manager for review and approval. 13. A materials board including material samples and colors coded to the building elevations shall be provided at the time of Building Permit Review for review and approval by the Current Planning Manager. 14. The concrete columns proposed along the building facades shall be removed, unless the applicant can demonstrate that these columns are necessary for structural purposes and there is no other feasible way to build the building without the columns. 15. If concrete is used for walls and/or columns, the concrete shall be enhanced by techniques such as texturing, reveals, and/or coloring with a concrete coating or admixture. Treatment of any concrete walls and/or columns proposed shall be included on the materials board submitted as part of the Building Permit Review. 16. A lighting plan and light fixture details shall be submitted at the time of Building Permit review for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager. The lighting plan shall minimize light spillage onto adjoining residential properties in addition to establishing conformance with all applicable light standards. 17. A total of 23 bicycle parking spaces shall be provided on the project site in accordance with RMC 4-4-080F.11. The location of bicycle parking and bicycle parking details shall be provided at the time of Building Permit review to the Current Planning Project Manager for review and approval. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 CONDITIONAL USE and SITE PLAN - 17 CAO VARIANCE - 17 18. Details of proposed human-scaled elements such as lighting fixtures, landscape features, seating, a water feature, and trellises shall be provided for review and approval by the current planning project manager at the time of building permit application DATED this 25th day of May, 2018. City of Renton Hearing Examiner Appeal Right and Valuation Notices As consolidated, RMC 4-8-080(G) classifies the application(s) subject to this decision as Type III applications subject to closed record appeal to the City of Renton City Council. Appeals of the hearing examiner’s decision must be filed within fourteen (14) calendar days from the date of the decision. A request for reconsideration to the hearing examiner may also be filed within this 14- day appeal period. Affected property owners may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes notwithstanding any program of revaluation.