HomeMy WebLinkAboutRenton Center Senior Living, Conditional Use, Site Plan, Variance and Modification1
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
NEDEREMM
APR 7 1
RECEIVED
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON
RE: Renton Center Senior Living
FINAL DECISION
Conditional Use, Site Plan, Variance and)
Modification
LUA13-001726, SA -H, ECF, VAR, )
MOD
The applicant has applied for site plan approval and an associated parking variance and street design
standard modification for the construction of a 5 -story mixed-use building containing 219 senior living
apartment units and 4,536 square feet of commercial space located adjacent to the Fred Meyer shopping
center located at 625 Renton Center Way. The applications are approved subject to conditions.
Testimony
Rocalle Timmons summarized the staff report. She noted that all the parking for the facility is subject to
shared parking with the other commercial uses adjoining the site. Staff concluded that there is so much
excess shared parking that the parking standards for the facility are met. Also, the parking adjacent to
the facility is far removed from the other commercial uses such that it would be rarely used by the
commercial uses. Ms. Timmons also confirmed that easements in the parking area would not make it
possible to build an adjoining garage. Ms. Timmons also noted that it may be possible that an aquifer
recharge area is located at the project site, but this would not result in any need for additional mitigation
at this stage of review.
SITE PLAN
VARIANCE, MODIFICATION - 1
2
.19
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
►U11
21
22
23
24
25
26
Glenn Amster, attorney for applicants, testified that the proposal is for low income senior house, seniors
with less than 60% of mean annual income. He noted that the project parcel is part of the entire Fred
Meyer shopping center and that most residents will not have cars. He noted that he didn't get the staff
report until the preceding Thursday or Friday and that he hadn't the opportunity to work out concerns
over some conditions with staff. The applicant would like a modification to Condition 2, which requires
a thousand square feet for trash area collection. The applicant will be using trash compactors, which will
reduce trash bulk by 30-40%. The residents are also low income citizens and not high volume
consumers. Condition 3 can be read to require a 10 foot setback on the eastern side of the northern
fagade, which would result in the elimination of building area because of the presence of a fire lane. This
would result in the loss of some residential units. He requested that Condition 3 not be interpreted to
include the eastern side of the north fagade. The applicant asks that Condition 4 be deleted. Requiring
direct pedestrian access by each residential unit would create security and privacy problems. As
proposed, the units are fenced off from the adjoining street frontages. Conditions 6,7 and 8 make
references to "high quality" and brick etc., which could result a substantial increase in cost. This could
result in costs that are 3-8 times what the planned materials would cost.
Ms. Timmons noted that for the refuse condition modification, staff would support the request. The
examiner noted that since the refuse modification had not been advertised for the hearing that he would
authorize staff to process the request administratively if consistent with the project review criteria. She
confirmed that Condition 3 was intended to only apply to the eastern side of the northern facade. Staff
would support the deletion of Condition 4. Ms. Timmons noted that the connectivity requirement comes
from the design standards and that the code only requires that the intent of the design standards need to be
satisfied, thus providing flexibility in application. She noted that the proposal includes pedestrian
connections to all numerous common entrances to the building, providing the connectivity contemplated
by the design standards. As to Conditions 6, 7 and 8, the design standards are very explicit about use of
"high quality" materials. RMC 4-3-100, for example, makes several explicit references to high quality
materials and examples are provided. The code only provides examples and staff has the flexibility to
authorize other high quality materials.
Mr. Amster stated that it appears that staff will read Conditions 6-8 in a flexible manner. He is
comfortable that the applicant will be able to propose materials that staff will find adequate.
Greg Guillen, project architect, noted that as to opportunities for senior living in Renton there are 110
units in Evergreen Place, 55 in Auburn Independent Living, Emeritus has 105 units, GenCare 118 units,
Merrell Gardens 159 units, Spencer Court 73 units — the only low income units and Chateau and Valley
Center at 44 units for a total of 604 units with only 73 affordable units in Renton.
Exhibits 1-14, 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 15 Amster memo dated March 25, 2014.
Exhibit 16 Staff power point presentation
SITE PLAN
VARIANCE, MODIFICATION - 2
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
Exhibit 17
Exhibit 18
Brochure depicting construction materials
Photographs of other projects
Procedural:
1. Applicant. Renton School District.
2. Hearing. A hearing was held on the subject application on March 25, 2014 in the City of
Renton City Council Chambers.
3. Project Description. The applicant has applied for site plan approval and an associated parking
variance and street design standard modification for the construction of a 5 -story mixed-use building
containing 219 senior living apartment units and 4,536 square feet of commercial space located adjacent
to the Fred Meyer shopping center located at 625 Renton Center Way.
The mixed-use structure would have an average height of 52 feet and 11 inches. The vacant 3.67 acre
site is located on the east side of Hardie Ave SW at the BNSF railway, just north of SW 7th St. Primary
vehicular access to the site would be provided from curb cuts along Rainier Ave S, through the Fred
Meyer parking area to the west of the proposed structure. Secondary access would be provided from an
existing curb cut along Hardie Ave SW. A street modification, from RMC 4-6-060, is being requested in
order to eliminate the requirement for street parking on Hardie Ave SW. A total of 132 parking spaces
would be provided in a surface parking lot to the west of the structure. Per RMC 4-2-120A parking for
residential units is required to be enclosed within the same building as the unit it serves. As a result, the
applicant is requesting a variance in order to locate the proposed parking within the surface parking lot.
There appear to be no critical areas located on site except for potentially an aquifer recharge area.
4. Adequacy of Infrastructure/Public Services. The project will be served by adequate
infrastructure and public services as follows:
A. Water and Sewer Service. The City of Renton will provide both sewer and water to the
project. There is existing 12 -inch diameter water main on the frontage of Hardie Ave SW.
The project proposes the extension of 12 -inch diameter water main through the site to connect
with the existing water main located within the site. A 15 -foot wide utility easement is
proposed to be given to the City. The project proposes the removal of existing water main
located towards the south of the site. The removal of this water main should take place only
after the completion and operation of new relocation of water main. A partial release of
easement for the portion of water main under the proposed building is required. Therefore, a
condition of approval requires the applicant to submit a recorded release of easement for the
SITE PLAN
VARIANCE, MODIFICATION - 3
I portion of water main under the proposed building permit. The release of easement shall be
2 submitted to the Current Planning Plan Reviewer prior to construction permit approval.
3 The project plans did not include the existing 8 -inch diameter sewer line (50242) and the
existing easement located towards the south of the site. The building will have to be resized
4 and/or relocated to not encroach on City utilities and easements. The conditions of approval
5 require the applicant to resize and/or relocate the proposed structure to avoid encroachment
6 into the existing sewer main easement on the southern portion of the site.
7 B. Fire and Police. The project site will be served by the City of Renton fire and police
departments. Fire and police department staff have determined that existing facilities are
8 adequate to serve the development. The applicant will be required to pay fire impact fees.
9
C. Drainage. A conceptual drainage plan and report stamped by a PE was submitted with the
10 formal application (Exhibit 11). City staff have determined that the drainage plan complies
11 with vested City of Renton Amendments to the 2009 King County Surface Water Design
Manual. Proposed impervious surface area will be actually less than existing impervious
12 surface area and the site is already served with storm drainage facilities. However, the
13 project does trigger water quality treatment requirements. The project includes a commercial
14 space and multi -family development, therefore enhanced basic water quality is applicable.
15 The conceptual drainage plan disclosed existing flooding problems on Hardie Ave SW at the
BNSF railroad underpass due to insufficient downstream capacity to convey the runoff from
16 the highly urbanized upstream basin are, of which the subject proposal is located. The City's
17 Surface Water utility CIP includes a project to improve conveyance capacity to reduce
flooding problems at the Hardie Ave SW and BNSF railroad location. The first phase of the
18 project includes the installation of a 60 -inch storm conveyance system for an outfall at
19 Naches Ave SW and Lind Ave SW (LUA13-000800). Therefore, no additional downstream
capacity improvements are needed in order to accommodate the proposed development.
20
21 D. Parks/Open Space. The applicant will be required to pay park impact fees, which are
designed to fund the demand for park and open space facilities generated by residential
22 development.
23
The applicant is proposing a total of 14,707 square feet of courtyards which exceeds the 50
24 square/unit requirement. All units are also proposed to either have a ground floor patio or a
25 private deck for the upper story units. There is also a large public deck located on the 3d
floor over the social room that opens off the game room. The applicant has incorporated an
26 entry plaza located on the east side of the structure near the primary entrance. The applicant
SITE PLAN
VARIANCE, MODIFICATION - 4
1 is proposing pedestrian seating throughout the site. This pedestrian plazas and courtyards
2 serve as a distinctive focal point. The plaza and courtyard space is proposed to incorporate
hardscape and landscaping to allow for passive recreation activities.
3
4 E. Transportation. Traffic impacts are adequately mitigated by the proposal. Level of service
standards will not be reduced below adopted levels for the proposal and traffic impact fees
5 will be assessed to pay for proportionate share transportation system impacts. A street
frontage dedication for Hardie Avenue will be waived as unnecessary through the
6 modification process.
7
8 A traffic study prepared by Gibson Traffic Consultants, dated December 2013, was
submitted with the site plan application and has been reviewed (Exhibit 14). The analysis is
9 acceptable as submitted. The subject development is proposing to take access via two
10 existing locations; the signalized intersection of Rainier Ave S at S 4th Place and the stop -
controlled intersection of Hardie Ave SW and SW 5ffi Place. The traffic report included level
11 of service analysis for the intersections of Rainier Ave S and S 4th Place and Hardie Ave SW
12 at 5th Place SW. The analysis indicates that the proposed development would add less than
three seconds of delay at the study intersections and would not change the Levels of Service
13 (B and D respectively).
14
Hardie Ave SW is a collector street with an existing right-of-way width of 60 feet. As per
15 complete streets, a right of way width of 83 feet is required on Hardie Ave SW which would
16 require a dedication of approximately 11.5 feet. However, the applicant has submitted a
street modification request in order to eliminate the need for dedication. There is no need for
17 a parking lane on Hardie Ave SW and the existing curb could continue to be used as the
18 character of the road has been established without the use of parking. The applicant is
providing landscaping and sidewalk within the right of way. The requested modification
19 meets the objective and safety of the code requirements. A street cross section without
20 parking would not be injurious to surrounding property owners and can be shown to be
justified for the situation intended. Therefore, staff is in support of the requested
21 modification.
22
23 F. Parking. The proposal provides for adequate parking. RMC 4-4-080 requires 66 parking
24 spaces for the facility. The applicant proposes a total of 132 spaces within a surface parking
area to the east of the structure (93 standard stalls, 28 compact stalls, and 11 ADA stalls).
25 The spaces are subject to joint use with the other commercial uses of the Fred Meyer parking
26 lot, but staff testified that even with this limitation there are ample parking spaces at the
SITE PLAN
VARIANCE, MODIFICATION - 5
1
2
3
4
67
M
VA
8
9
10
11
12
13
IE!
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
PA
23
24
25
26
project site that should meet the limited parking demand created by the proposal. Further, the
parking along the project is far removed from the other commercial uses of the shopping
center so that it is unlikely that the spaces would be used for any of the existing commercial
uses of the center.
G. Bicycle Stalls. The proposal provides for adequate bicycle stalls. Per RMC 4-4-080(F)(11)
the number of bicycle parking spaces shall be 10% of the number of required off-street
parking spaces. Based on the proposal which requires 66 vehicle parking stalls, 7 bicycle
parking stalls are required to be provided. The applicant is proposing bicycle parking stalls
on site. However, it is unclear the number of bicycle parking stalls that would be provided. A
condition of approval requires the applicant to submit a revised site plan depicting bicycle
parking in conformance with RMC4-4-080(F)(11).
H. Vehicular Access and Internal Circulation. The proposal provides for safe and well
integrated access and internal circulation. The subject development is proposing to take
access via two existing locations; the signalized intersection of Rainier Ave S at S 4th Place
and the stop -controlled intersection of Hardie Ave SW and SW 5th Place. The proposal
promotes safe and efficient circulation through the shared access points.
I. Pedestrian Circulation. The applicant is proposing a pedestrian circulation system
throughout the project site which connects all opens space and parking areas and provides
good access to the commercial spaces. The main pedestrian walkway which fronts onto the
commercial spaces are proposed to be 12 feet wide and all other interior pathways are
proposed to be 5 feet wide. The applicant has achieved safe and attractive pedestrian
connections throughout the site.
J. Landscaping. As conditioned, the proposal provides for adequate landscaping. A conceptual
landscape plan was submitted with the project application. The landscape plan includes a
planting plan which contains several different tree and shrub species but does not provide
specific detail for the number or types of trees as well as the number and spacing of shrubs. A
condition of approval requires the applicant to submit a detailed landscape plan to the
Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval complying with
RMC 4-4-070.
The applicant has proposed landscaping along the frontage of the site (Hardie Ave SW)
exceeding the 10 -foot landscape requirement with an intervening pedestrian walkway. The
applicant has also thoughtfully incorporated landscaping on site in order to create active and
SITE PLAN
VARIANCE, MODIFICATION - 6
I passive recreation opportunities as well as to separate parking and drive aisles into smaller
2 areas.
3 M. Refuse Enclosure. The applicant does not meet the area requirements for a refuse enclosure.
At hearing the applicant requested a modification to the refuse standard on the basis that it
4 will be offering trash compaction, thereby eliminating the need for a significant amount of
5 refuse space. The conditions of approval will authorize the applicant to apply for an
6 administrative modification or comply with the refuse standards.
7 5. Adverse Impacts. There are no significant adverse impacts associated with the project. Few
adverse impacts are anticipated since the only critical area on site is an aquifer protection area, the
8 proposal will be built upon a paved parking lot surrounded by commercial and multi -family use, and
adequate infrastructure serves the site as determined in Finding of Fact No. 4. Impacts are more
9 specifically addressed as follows:
10
A. Compatibility. The proposal is fully compatible with surrounding land uses. Adjoining
I 1 uses to the north and east are commercial, railroad tracks to the south and multi -family to the west. The
City's extensive design and landscaping standards assure aesthetic compatibility with the multi -family to
12 the west and serve as an improvement over the existing parking lot.
13 B. Lighting. As conditioned, there are no significant light or glare impacts associated with
14 the proposal. The applicant is proposing lighting under the canopy at the building entry and decorative
street lighting surrounding the site. However, a lighting plan was not provided with the application;
15 therefore the conditions of approval require a lighting plan that complies with the Design District
standards. The lighting plan shall adequately provide for public safety without casting excessive glare on
16 adjacent properties.
17 C. Privacy and Noise. Noise impacts are adequately mitigated. It is anticipated that most of
is the noise impacts would occur during the construction phase of the project. The applicant has submitted
a Construction Mitigation Plan that provides measures to reduce construction impacts such as noise,
19 control of dust, traffic controls, etc. In addition, the project would be required to comply with the City's
noise ordinance regarding construction hours.
20
The building has a primary orientation to the east for the commercial space. The residential
21 space has been oriented to Hardie Ave SW which currently serves as a multi -family residential access
22 street to existing structures to the west. The open space and courtyard areas have been thoughtfully
located on the southern portion of the side which is border by the BNSF railway that experience little
23 traffic and affords privacy to these areas.
24 D. Views. There are no significant view impacts associated with the proposal. There are
existing multi -family uses to the west have the benefit of territorial views to the east. However, the units
25 within the existing residential structures are oriented so that windows mostly face the north and south and
in large part the units don't enjoy the views to the east. The proposed structure would not block view
26 corridors to shorelines or Mt. Rainier.
SITE PLAN
VARIANCE, MODIFICATION - 7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
IN
M
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
E. Screening. As designed and conditioned, aesthetically adverse features .of the proposal
area adequately screened from adjoining uses. All mechanical units and refuse and recyclable areas are
proposed to be located within the building and would not be visible from the public.
6. Necessity of Enclosed Parking Variance. The applicants need a variance to enclosed parking
requirements because there is no place they can practically enclose parking within the proposed
building. The geotechnical report, Ex. 10, concludes that the water level is just a few feet below the
ground surface so no excavations deep enough for an underground parking garage can be made.
Parking cannot be enclosed to the side because of surrounding parking and utility easements. The only
remaining place for parking would be at ground level of the building, which would eliminate the
possibility for ground floor pedestrian access for the residential and commercial uses.
Conclusions of Law
1. Authority. RMC 4-9-200(B)(2) requires site plan review for all development in the CA zone.
RMC 4-8-080(D)(2) requires a public hearing before the hearing examiner for any site plan review of
projects involving more than 100 attached residential units. RMC 4-8-080(G) classifies hearing
examiner site plan review and variances as Type III permits and modifications as Type I permits. The
site plan, variance and modification applications of this proposal have been consolidated. RMC 4-8-
080(C)(2) requires consolidated permits to each be processed under "the highest -number procedure".
The site plan and variance applications have the highest numbered review procedures, so all three
applications must be processed as Type III applications. As Type III applications, RMC 4-8-080(G)
grants the Examiner with the authority to hold a hearing and issue a final decision on them, subject to
closed record appeal to the City Council.
2. Zoning/Comprehensive Plan Designations. The subject property is zoned Commercial Arterial
(CA) and the comprehensive plan land use designation is Commercial Corridor (CC).
3. Review Criteria. Site plan review standards are governed by RMC 4-9-200(E)(3). Variance
criteria are governed by RMC 4-9-250(B)(5). Modifications are governed by RMC 4-9-250(D)(2). All
applicable criteria are quoted below in italics and applied through corresponding conclusions of law.
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:
SITE PLAN
VARIANCE, MODIFICATION - 8
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
L 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. The proposal is consistent with applicable comprehensive plan policies, zoning regulations and
design guidelines as outlined in Findings 18(a) -(d) of the staff report, which is adopted by this reference
as if set forth in full, including the findings, conclusions and determination that reduction of front and
side yard setbacks to zero feet meets applicable criteria. The conclusions on refuse and recyclables are
qualified with authorization for the applicant to seek approval of an administrative modification to RMC
4-4-090 in order to allow for reduced refuse/recyclable area due to the use of trash compaction facilities.
One important zoning requirement that wasn't addressed in the staff report is note P18 to the zoning use
table, RMC 4-2-060. The zoning use table allows attached dwelling units in the CA zone provided the
requirements of P 18 are met. P 18 provides as follows:
Only permitted within a structure containing commercial uses on the ground floor.
Commercial space must be reserved on the ground floor at a minimum of thirty feet (30) in
depth along any street frontage. Residential uses shall not be located on the ground floor,
except for residential entry features unless determined through the site plan review process
that a particular building has no street frontage.
The proposal includes numerous ground level residential units along all sides of the building except for
the eastern fagade. In order to avoid the ground floor residential restriction of P18, the building must be
considered to have no street frontage. This is a debatable proposition given the buildings proximity to
Hardie Avenue. For purposes of this decision, it will be concluded that the building has no street
frontage because the building's commercial uses are appropriately oriented towards distant Rainier
Avenue, for the reasons detailed at p. 21 of the staff report. This is a dangerous position to take, since it
opens the door for developers to circumvent the ground floor restrictions of P 18 by manipulating
building orientation and design. Such a precedent could work to subvert an important purpose of the CA
zone, which is to provide for "enhanced pedestrian orientation" in commercial development.
Nonetheless, it is fairly clear from the record that Hardie Avenue does not serve as a commercial corridor
that would provide convenient pedestrian access to commercial uses. The meaning of"street frontage" is
left open by this decision for further deliberation in future hearings where the parties have a better
opportunity to address the issue.
RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(b): Off -Site Impacts: Mitigation of impacts to surrounding properties and
uses, including:
SITE PLAN
VARIANCE, MODIFICATION - 9
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
L 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;
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. The criterion quoted above are met. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5, the proposal is
compatible with surrounding uses. The building scale is completely in character with the numerous
commercial and multi -family buildings that surround it, and the City's design regulation assure
sufficient modulation and other design features that break up the scale of the building as well. As
identified in the Finding of Fact No. 5, all undesirable architectural features are screened from view and
there are no adverse view impacts associated with the proposal. As shown in the preliminary
landscaping plan, the building will be shielded on all sides except for the eastern commercial facade
with landscaping, which will serve to hide the building and parking from view as well as provide
privacy for building residents (especially along the western side). The conditions of approval will
require the submission and staff approval of a lighting plan that will prevent excessive brightness and
glare from adversely affecting adjoining properties.
RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(c): On -Site Impacts: Mitigation of impacts to the site, including:
L Structure Placement: Provisions for privacy and noise reduction by building placement,
spacing and orientation;
ii. Structure Scale: Consideration of the scale ofproposed 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
SITE PLAN
VARIANCE, MODIFICATION - 10
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
ON
23
24
25
26
and protection ofplanting areas so that they are less susceptible to damage from vehicles
or pedestrian movements.
14. The criteria quoted above are met. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5, the proposal is
compatible with surrounding uses and no views of natural features are significantly compromised. As
determined in Finding of Fact No. 4 the proposal will include adequate landscaping. The residential
units are oriented as far from the commercial uses of the project site as possible, thus enhancing both
privacy and aesthetic compatibility. The building will have two courtyards that are heavily landscaped
in order to afford residents a secluded park -like setting in the middle of a heavily asphalted commercial
area. Since the project area is mostly comprised of a parking lot, there is not much vegetation that can
be removed. The site does contain 43 trees, The applicant will retain two of these trees as discussed at
p. 21 of the staff report and required by RMC 4-4-130. Compliance with the City's specific tree
retention standards is construed as compliance with the broader vegetation requirements of the criteria
quoted above to the extent they apply to trees. As determined in the preceding Conclusion of Law, the
landscaping proposed and required of the proposal will assure privacy and enhance compatibility with
surrounding uses.
RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(d): Access and Circulation: Safe and efficient access and circulation for
all users, including:
L 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 criteria quoted above are met. The proposal doesn't provide any new access point onto an
arterial street and uses existing access points from Rainier Avenue. Access is well integrated with the
numerous other commercial uses in the Fred Meyer shopping center. The proposal includes a safe and
efficient internal circulation system, including pedestrian facilities, for the reasons identified in Finding
of Fact No. 4. There are no loading and delivery areas proposed for the commercial uses of the project.
As determined in Finding of Fact No. 4, the proposal will provide bicycle parking spaces in
conformance with RMC4-4-080F.11. The administrative record does not have information on transit
SITE PLAN
VARIANCE, MODIFICATION - 11
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
facilities so the conditions of approval will require staff to verify compliance with the transit
requirements of the criterion quoted above.
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 criterion quoted above is met for the reasons identified in the open space section of 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. The proposal would not impair view corridors to shorelines or Mt. Rainier as determined in
Finding of Fact No. 5. The proposal is not in proximity to any shoreline.
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.
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 timeframes, for phased projects.
20. The project is not phased.
Variance
RMC 4-9-250(B)(5)(a): That the applicant suffers practical difficulties and unnecessary hardship
and the variance is necessary because of special circumstances applicable to subject property,
including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings of the subject property, and the strict
application of the Zoning Code is found to deprive subject property owner of rights and privileges
enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity and under identical zone classification;
21. The criterion is met due to the presence of a shallow aquifer and easement restrictions as
determined in Finding of Fact No. 6.
SITE PLAN
VARIANCE, MODIFICATION - 12
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
C 4-9-250(B)(5)(b): Tliat the granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the
public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and zone in which subject
property is situated;
22. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5, no significant adverse impacts will be created by the
proposal. The exterior parking authorized by the requested variance should specifically not result in any
adverse impacts given the extensive outdoor parking already present at the site. In the absence of any
significant impacts, the impacts of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or
injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and zone.
RMC 4-9-250(B)(5)(c): That approval shall not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent
with the limitation upon uses of other properties in the vicinity and zone in which the subject property
is situated;
23. All of the other uses in the shopping center use outdoor parking. There is no special privilege.
RMC 4-9-250(B)(5)(d): That the approval as determined by the Reviewing Oficial is a minimum
variance that will accomplish the desired purpose.
24. No indoor parking is feasible for the proposal. The requested variance is the minimum
necessary.
Modifications
RMC 4-9-250(D)(2): 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 otherproperty(ies) in the vicinity.
25. The criterion above are met for the requested modification to RMC 4-6-060 for the reasons
identified in Finding of Fact No. 4(E). Requiring a dedication to accommodate the on street parking
SITE PLAN
VARIANCE, MODIFICATION - 13
1
2
3
4
9
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
required by RMC 4-6-060 would result in the reduction of affordable housing units given the
constraints of the site and staff have determined that on -street parking is not necessary given the ample
parking on-site and the historical absence of street parking on Hardie in the project vicinity.
All applicable permitting criteria are met as outlined in the Conclusions of Law above. As conditioned
below, the site plan, variance and waiver are approved. Site plan approval is subject to the following
conditions:
1. The applicant shall comply with the six mitigation measures issued as part of the
Determination of Non -Significance Mitigated, dated March 22, 2010.
2. The applicant shall be required to submit to the Current Planning Project Manager sizing
and location detail for the refuse and recyclable deposit area prior to building permit
approval. Additionally, the applicant would be required to demonstrate how refuse and
recyclables would be picked up and where it would be located on pick-up day to the
satisfaction of the Current Planning Project Manager. The applicant may request a
modification of the refuse/recyclable area requirements from staff.
3. The applicant shall be required to submit a revised landscaping plan depicting 10 -feet of
landscaping between the sidewalk and building on the western portion of the northern fagade
which includes substantial landscaping. The revised landscape plan shall be submitted to
and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit approval.
4. The applicant shall revise the site plan to depict a differentiation in materials for all
pedestrian connections within parking areas and/or drive aisles on site. The revised site plan
shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to
building permit approval.
5. The applicant shall submit revised elevations depicting added architectural detailing
elements including lighting fixtures, contrasting materials, or special detailing along the
northern and western facades. The revised elevations shall be submitted to and approved by
the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit approval.
6. The applicant shall submit revised elevations depicting the use of the same materials finished
on all sides of the building as well as additional changes in materials and not just color or
direction of siding. The revised elevations shall be submitted to and approved by the Current
Planning Project Manager prior to building permit approval. The applicant may also want to
consider the use of the brick, integrally colored concrete masonry, or a similar high quality
material, to ground the entire building for a height appropriate to the scale of the structure.
7. The applicant shall submit a materials board subject to the approval of the Current Planning
Project Manager prior to building permit approval. Acceptable materials include a
combination of brick, integrally colored concrete masonry, pre -finished metal, stone, steel,
glass, cast -in-place concrete, or other high quality material.
SITE PLAN
VARIANCE, MODIFICATION - 14
2
91
4
5
6
7
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
OR
8. The applicant shall be required to provide a lighting plan that adequately provides for public
safety without casting excessive glare on adjacent properties at the time of building permit
review. The lighting plan shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning
Project Manager prior to building permit approval.
9. The applicant shall submit a revised site plan depicting bicycle parking in conformance with
RMC 4-4-080F.11. The revised site plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Current
Planning Project Manager prior to building permit approval.
10. The applicant shall be required to submit a recorded release of easement for the portion of
water main under the proposed building permit. The release of easement shall be submitted
to the Current Planning Plan Reviewer prior to construction permit approval.
11. The applicant shall be required to resize and/or relocate the proposed structure to avoid
encroachment into the existing sewer main easement on the southern portion of the site. The
revised site plan shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Plan Reviewer prior to
construction permit approval.
12. The applicant shall be required to record the necessary covenants or declarations of restrictions
on the property to ensure that no children will reside in the development. The recorded
documents shall be submitted to by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building
permit approval.
13. If not done so already, staff shall verify whether the proposal can be made to contribute to
transit facilities as consistent with the intent of RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(d)(iv) and condition the
project accordingly.
DATED this 7t' day of April, 2014.
City of Renton Hearing Examiner
Appeal Right and Valuation Notices
RMC 4-8-110(E)(9) provides that the final decision of the hearing examiner is subject to appeal to the
Renton City Council. RMC 4-8-110(E)(9) requires appeals of the hearing examiner's decision to be
filed within fourteen (14) calendar days from the date of the hearing examiner's decision. A request
for reconsideration to the hearing e examiner may also be filed within this 14 day appeal period as
identified in RMC 4-8-110(E)(8) and RMC 4-8-100(G)(4). A new fourteen (14) day appeal period
shall commence upon the issuance of the reconsideration. Additional information regarding the appeal
process may be obtained from the City Clerk's Office, Renton City Hall — 7t' floor, (425) 430-6510.
SITE PLAN
VARIANCE, MODIFICATION - 15
I Affected property owners may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes notwithstanding
2 any program of revaluation.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
SITE PLAN
VARIANCE, MODIFICATION - 16