Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCarMax Auto Superstore, Site Plan,Variance and Modifications1 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 SITE PLAN - 1 CAO VARIANCE - 1 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON RE: CarMax Auto Superstore Site Plan, Variance and Modifications LUA15-000288 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) FINAL DECISION Summary The applicant requests site plan approval and approval of a variance and three modification applications for a 20,220 square foot CarMax Auto Superstore facility including a dealership, service building, and non-public car wash to be located at 3157 East Valley Rd. The applicant is requesting a parking modification from RMC 4-4-080 in order to exceed the maximum 48 parking stalls allowed to up to 352 parking spaces (as an interim measure) with 244 stalls upon full build-out. The applicant is requesting a lighting modification, from RMC 4-4-075, in order to increase the maximum average lighting levels of 0.9 foot-candles along the perimeter of the project boundary to 1.2 foot-candles. The applicant is also requesting a street modification, from RMC 4-6-060, in order to reduce the required dedication and improvements required along East Valley Rd and SW 41st St. Finally, the applicant is proposing a variance from RMC 4-4-100 in order to site a 40-foot high pylon sign along East Valley Rd. The site plan, modifications and variance are all approved subject to conditions. Testimony Rocale Timmons, Senior Planner, summarized the staff report. In response to examiner questions, Ms. Timmons noted that each phase of the proposal is self-contained and would satisfy all city standards even if subsequent phases were not completed. Existing street frontage improvements are consistent with adjoining improvements. The requested street modifications would not create any 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 SITE PLAN - 2 CAO VARIANCE - 2 inconsistency with street frontage on adjoining properties. The topographical justification for the sign variance is limited to visibility from SR 167 and the fact that all adjoining projects are allowed signs similar to that which would be enabled by the variance. The base of the sign will not interfere with pedestrian access. Staff is just concerned with aesthetic pedestrian scale. Amanda Steinle, applicant representative, agreed with staff’s recommendations except for Condition No. 4. The applicant would like the fence placed in the existing critical area buffer as opposed to the buffer required by new code requirements. The proposal will not encroach any further into the critical area buffer than it does today. Ms. Timmons agreed with the requested revision to Condition No. 4, stating that the old wetland buffers still apply since the applicant proposes no further encroachment into the wetland buffer. Carl Kiminki, residential neighbor, inquired whether the sign would be digital and also asked if the base of the sign would be a pyramid. Ms. Timmons clarified that City regulations would not allow a digital sign. Exhibits The staff report Exhibits 1-17 identified at page 2 of the staff report were admitted into the record during the hearing. The following exhibits were also admitted: Exhibit 18 Staff report Exhibit 19 Staff power point Exhibit 20 6/27/15 letter from applicant FINDINGS OF FACT Procedural: 1. Applicant. CarMax Superstores 2. Hearing. A hearing was held on the application on October 14, 2014. 3. Project Description. The applicant requests site plan approval and approval of variance and modification applications for a 20,220 square foot CarMax Auto Superstore facility including a dealership, service building, and non-public car wash to be located at 3157 East Valley Rd. The applicant is requesting a parking modification from RMC 4-4-080 in order to exceed the maximum 48 parking stalls allowed to up to 352 parking spaces with 244 stalls upon full build- out. The applicant is requesting a lighting modification, from RMC 4-4-075, in order to increase the maximum average lighting levels of 0.9 foot-candles along the perimeter of the project boundary to 1.2 foot-candles. The applicant is also requesting a street modification, from RMC 4-6-060, in order to reduce the required dedication and improvements required along 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 SITE PLAN - 3 CAO VARIANCE - 3 East Valley Rd and SW 41st St. Finally, the applicant is proposing a variance from RMC 4-4- 100 in order to site a 40-foot high pylon sign along East Valley Rd. The project site totals 12.28 acres in area. The site currently contains a 74,000 square foot theater facility, which is proposed for removal. There are two primary access points on East Valley Road; a secondary access point on SW 41st St; and a third access point to the west which connects the site to Lind Ave SW. An approximate 2.0 acres would be dedicated to customer and employee parking areas containing 244 parking stalls upon full build-out. The overall sales display parking area would be approximately 4.07 acres, containing 610 sales spaces upon full build-out of three proposed phases. An approximate 2.0 acres would be dedicated to customer and employee parking areas containing 244 parking stalls upon full build-out. The overall sales display parking area would be approximately 4.07 acres, containing 610 sales spaces upon full build-out. The project will be built in three phases. The primary and first phase of sales display area would contain 423 spaces, located on the east side of the property fronting onto East Valley Rd, and secured by highway guardrail and embassy-­‐‑style security gates. The Phase II Sales Lot contains 84 spaces and is located at the northwest corner of the primary sales lot. The Phase III Sales Lot contains 108 spaces and is located at the southeast corner of the property at the corner of SW 41st Street and East Valley Rd. Existing parking and landscaping islands in the southwest corner of the site (Phase III Sales Lot) are proposed to remain, for customer and employee parking, until CarMax proceeds with the Phase III sales lot. All new structures would be located central to the site. The service building would be located west of the sales building and sales display. 4. Adequacy of Infrastructure/Public Services. The project will be served by adequate/appropriate infrastructure and public services. The adequacy of infrastructure and services is more specifically addressed as follows: A. Water and Sewer Service. Sewer and water are provided by the City of Renton. Water and sewer lines already serve the project site. B. Fire and Police. The City of Renton will provide fire and police service. Fire and police department staff have determined that existing facilities are adequate to serve the development with the comment that the project include a fire apparatus road and fire lane signage (as conditioned by this decision). C. Drainage. The applicant has submitted a preliminary drainage report, Ex. 8, that staff has found to be acceptable for site plan review. A staff finding of consistency with applicable drainage standards, absent any contrary evidence, is sufficient for a finding of adequate drainage facilities.   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 SITE PLAN - 4 CAO VARIANCE - 4 The existing stormwater facilities include a detention pond, three water quality ponds, and two grass-lined swales just east and south of the wetlands. The existing site also includes a storm drainage system designed to collect stormwater at strategically placed catch basins throughout the site. The stormwater is then conveyed through underground pipes to a swale at the rear of the theater building. After traveling through one of the two swales, runoff passes through the existing stormwater detention/treatment facilities and enters the City’s stormwater system at Lind Ave SW. This system continues north for approximately 1,300 feet, before heading west approximately 450 feet to the discharge point of Springbrook Creek. The applicant proposes to utilize the existing stormwater system for conveyance, water quality, detention, and flow control systems and provide improvements to conveyance and water quality as required. A conveyance system consisting of catch basins and storm pipes is proposed to be constructed in the parking areas to collect drainage from impervious surfaces and convey runoff to the proposed water quality facilities. Additional flow control facilities are not required by City regulations, since the proposal doesn’t increase the 100-year peak flow by more than 0.1 cfs and it is not expected to significantly impact a critical area, or cause severe flooding or erosion problems. D. Parks/Open Space. City development standards do not impose any park or open space requirements for commercial uses and no legal justification is found in the administrative record. Proposed and conditioned landscaping would provide passive recreation opportunities for CarMax customers. E. Off-Site Transportation. Off site transportation facilities are adequate to serve the site. No significant off-site transportation impacts are anticipated and no off-site mitigation is necessary. The applicant submitted a Traffic Impact Analysis (“TIA”) prepared by TENW, dated April 6, 2015 (Exhibit 9). The analysis of the report, approved by staff, determined that the completed project is anticipated to generate -1,623 net new weekday daily trips, 39 net new weekday AM peak hour trips, and -124 net new weekday PM peak hour trips. The net new trip generation was calculated by subtracting the trips from the movie theater to be removed from the trips generated by the proposed CarMax. The results of the LOS analysis showed that all affected intersections would operate at acceptable levels (LOS D or better) in 2017 with or without the proposed project. However, it was noted in the TIA that existing weekday AM peak hour traffic counts were collected by All Traffic Data, Inc.; but, this information was not included in the TIA appendices. Therefore, a condition of approval requires that the TIA be revised to include the traffic counts referenced from All Traffic Data, Inc. The revised TIA shall be 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 SITE PLAN - 5 CAO VARIANCE - 5 submitted to, and approved by, the Plan Reviewer prior to engineering construction permit approval. G. Parking (vehicular and bicycle). As conditioned, the proposal provides for adequate vehicular and bicycle parking. The applicant is proposing significantly more vehicular parking spaces than allowed by City code, which is the basis of the applicant’s requested parking modification, approved by this decision. As detailed in the staff report, the City code authorizes a maximum of 48 parking spaces. Depending upon the phase of development, the applicant proposes up to 352 parking spaces, with a total of 244 stalls upon completion of the final phase of development. Since the applicant’s parking modification is approved, it is determined that the proposed parking is adequate. It is unclear if the proposal includes bicycle parking. Therefore the conditions of approval require that the applicant submit bicycle parking detail demonstrating compliance with the bicycle requirements outlined in RMC 4-4-080(F)(11)(c)for fixed structures. The bicycle parking detail shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit approval. H. Vehicular and Pedestrian Access and Internal Circulation. The proposal is served by safe and efficient pedestrian and vehicular access points and internal circulation. There are four access driveways connecting the site that are proposed to remain unchanged and are shared with neighboring commercial businesses. Two full access driveways are located along East Valley Rd, one full access driveway is located on SW 41st St, and another full access (signalized) driveway is located west of the site at the intersection of Lind Ave SW / SW 39th St. Trucks would access the site by entering the north driveway on East Valley Rd and exiting at the south driveway on East Valley Rd. Customers and employees would primarily use the southern driveway on East Valley Rd and the driveway on SW 41st St, with minor usage of the driveway on Lind Ave SW. . Internal pedestrian connections to the public sidewalk network are proposed in order to provide safe and efficient pedestrian access throughout the site and to abutting sites. However, an additional pedestrian connection should be provided from the proposed entrance across the central drive aisle to the southern portion of the site. Pedestrian crosswalks, between the front façade and the parking lot, appear to be differentiated in some areas while other areas have no striping or differentiation at all. In order to provide safe and efficient pedestrian connectivity on site staff recommends the applicant be required to provide an additional pedestrian connection from the proposed entrance across the center drive aisle to the southern portion of the site. Additionally, all designated 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 SITE PLAN - 6 CAO VARIANCE - 6 pedestrian areas shall be differentiated, in material, from drive aisles. A revised site plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval. I. Landscaping. The applicant’s preliminary landscaping plan has been found to comply with City standards by staff and in fact significantly exceeds those standards. A conceptual landscape plan was submitted with the project application and approved by staff subject to the conditions adopted by this decision. Absent evidence to the contrary, compliance with City landscaping standards and staff recommendations for additional landscaping provides for adequate landscaping. The conceptual landscape plan illustrates materials that would be used to enhance the visual character of the building and site. The planting schedule includes a variety of trees, shrubbery, groundcover, and grasses. Perimeter landscaping along East Valley Rd is proposed at a width ranging from 3 to 15 feet west of the sidewalk. SW 41st St would have a landscape strip width of approximately 10 to 15 feet. In the surface parking area, the applicant is proposing intervening landscaping on average every 12 parking stalls. Landscaping is not proposed within the sales parking areas. Within the proposed employee/customer surface parking lot, 35 square feet of landscaping per parking space would be required. Based on the proposal of 352 surface parking stalls (244 stalls after future car sales parking expansion), a minimum of 12,320 square feet of landscaping would be required within the surface parking areas (8,540 square feet would be required after future car sales parking expansion). The submitted landscape analysis indicates that a total of 12,700 square feet of landscaping would be provided interior to the site. While the proposed the parking lot landscaping would exceed the minimum landscape frontage in some areas, and the interior parking lot landscaping requirement is met, it is not the intent of City’s landscaping regulations that rigid and inflexible design standards be imposed, but rather minimum standards be set. Higher standards can be substituted as long as fencing and vegetation do not exceed height limits specified in RMC 4-4-040. Additionally, Policy CD-39 encourages quality development by supporting site plans which incorporate landscaping standards that reflect unity of design and create a distinct sense of place. There are also several guidelines and standards within Design District ‘D’ which serve to require landscaping to enhance the urban character of development. The scale of the surface parking area, while located in an industrial zone, is very large and requires a parking modification in order to exceed the maximum number of stalls. The 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 SITE PLAN - 7 CAO VARIANCE - 7 parking areas are located along heavily used primary arterials and would have a visual impact on the pedestrian environment and abutting/adjacent properties without adequate landscape buffers. Wide landscape buffers along the perimeter of the site, specifically along East Valley Rd and the northwest corner of the SW 41st/East Valley Rd intersection would serve as a visual buffer between the proposed development/large surface parking area and the smaller scale development surrounding the site and the pedestrian environment. Additionally, the location of utilities within the East Valley Rd right-of-way would preclude the planting of much needed street trees to aesthetically buffer the parking area. Given the aesthetic impacts of the proposed development on less intense neighboring properties and adjacent streets, this decision adopts a condition that the applicant be required to provide on-site landscape buffers along the perimeter of the site adjacent to SW 41st St and East Valley Rd to a minimum width of 15 feet in order to accommodate a variety of vegetation. Additionally, a minimum 1,000 square foot gateway/landscape area shall be provided at the corner of SW 41st St and East Valley Rd. All perimeter parking lot landscaping shall be revised to include the following: trees planted along the street frontage in clusters; shrubs planted at the minimum rate of one per 20 square feet of landscaped area; ground cover in sufficient quantities to provide at least 90% coverage of the landscaped area within 3 years of installation. Existing healthy mature trees which are located within perimeter landscape buffers shall be maintained to the maximum extent possible and protected during construction unless determined by an Arborist that such tree is dead, diseased, or dangerous. A revised landscape plan shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval. Underground sprinkler systems are required to be installed and maintained for all landscaped areas. The sprinkler system shall provide full water coverage of the planted areas specified on the plan. A detailed landscape plan and irrigation plan will need to be submitted and approved prior to building permit approval. J. Refuse and Recycle Enclosure. As outlined in the staff report, the proposal provides for 445 feet for a refuse and recycle area, which exceeds the 120 square feet required by City code. The proposal provides for adequate refuse and recycle. K. Recreation. There is no code requirement or other legal justification to require any recreational space for the project. The significant amount of landscaping of the proposal provides for passive recreation. 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 SITE PLAN - 8 CAO VARIANCE - 8 L. Transit and Bicycles. The record does not contain any information on the availability of transit. Given that the proposal involves the sale of automobiles, it does not appear likely that many transit users would be accessing the site, therefore no transit improvements could be required of the applicant. As to bicycle facilities, the conditions of approval require the applicant to submit a bicycle parking plan that demonstrates compliance with city bicycle parking standards. For these reasons, it is determined that the facility is served by adequate transit and bicycle facilities. 5. Adverse Impacts. There are no significant adverse impacts associated with the project. Few adverse impacts are anticipated since the proposal only serves to replace an existing area already developed for a theater and the proposed construction will only result in an increase of approximately one acre of pollution generating impervious surface at the 12 acre site. Adequate infrastructure serves the site as determined in Finding of Fact No. 4. Impacts are more specifically addressed as follows: A. Compatibility. The proposal is fully compatible with surrounding uses. The proposal is surrounded by commercial and industrial uses, including another car dealership to the north. Landscaping that exceeds code requirements is required for the perimeter of the project to buffer the excessive parking of the site. B. Lighting. The applicant has requested a modification to applicable lighting standards, approved by this decision, in order to increase authorized perimeter lighting from 0.9 candles to 1.2 candles. This amount of lighting will not adversely affect adjoining properties. Fixtures use flat lens and are downcast to reduce light spill onto adjacent properties. Additionally, all perimeter fixtures have full cut-off shields to reduce glare. The exterior lighting would be reduced after operating hours. Finally, the project site is bordered by commercial and industrial uses and would not share boundaries with any residential uses. C. Aesthetics. As conditioned, the proposal incorporate sufficient screening to prevent adverse aesthetic impacts to neighboring properties and the general public.   The applicant did not provide details for surface or roof mounted equipment and/or screening identified for such equipment. As such this decision adopts a condition that the applicant provide a detailed plan identifying the location and screening provided for surface and roof mounted equipment. The screening plan shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit approval. As identified in the landscaping discussion of Finding of Fact No. 4, perimeter landscaping exceeding code requirements is imposed by the conditions of approval in order to ensure adequate screening of the excess parking proposed by the applicant. Further, the applicant is also proposing the use of an embassy-style security gate and guardrail around the perimeter of the car sales parking area. The proposed steel guardrail, 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 SITE PLAN - 9 CAO VARIANCE - 9 along East Valley Rd, would not serve as a creative screening feature for the proposed car sales display area as required in the design district. Therefore the conditions of approval require the applicant to replace the proposed guardrail with ornamental fencing. A revised landscape plan, with alternative fencing, shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval. The applicant has submitted a bollard alternative to the guardrail which would serve to comply with the condition of approval. D. Privacy and Noise. The proposal will not create any significantly adverse noise or privacy impacts. Privacy is not anticipated to be a problem since there are no residential uses close to the proposal. Noise is also not anticipated to be significant. Existing noise within the vicinity of the subject site is primarily composed of vehicles on adjacent streets (SW 41st St and East Valley Rd). Temporary construction noise is anticipated as a result of the subject project. Based on the provided construction mitigation description the applicant has indicated that construction is anticipated to last approximately eight months and commencement of construction is to be determined. At this time, the applicant has indicated that construction work would occur during typical construction hours. Furthermore, the site is surrounded by industrial activity and/or commercial development. Therefore, the temporary noise impacts are anticipated to be minimal and limited in duration. In addition, the project would be required to comply with the City’s noise ordinance regarding construction hours. E. Natural Systems Features/Critical Areas. The only protected natural system feature/Critical Area on the project site are two Category 3 wetlands located along the western border of the project site. The proposal does not involve any encroachment into the buffers of these wetlands. Staff have no found any impacts to the wetlands at this time. However, if the proposal will affect the wetlands a condition requires a mitigation plan. The conditions of approval also require fencing along the buffers of the wetlands. F. Views. No views are disrupted by the proposal. There are no territorial views for which to maintain visual accessibility. Staff received no comments from adjacent properties regarding views.         G. Public Access. The proposal does not interfere with any public access to the shoreline. No shorelines are in the vicinity of the proposal. Conclusions of Law 1. Authority. RMC 4-9-200(B)(2) requires site plan review for all areas designated as EAV by the comprehensive plan, which applies the subject parcel. Hearing examiner review of site plans is required because the proposal involves more than 300 parking spaces and more than 10 acres of 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 SITE PLAN - 10 CAO VARIANCE - 10 development as specified in RMC 4-9-200(D)(2)(b). RMC 4-8-080(G) classifies hearing examiner site plan review as Type III permits and modifications as Type I permits. The site plan, variance application and modification requests 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 has the highest numbered review procedures, so the site plan, variance and modification requests 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 Medium Industrial (IM) and its comprehensive plan designation is Employment Area Valley (EAV). 3. Review Criteria/Adoption of Staff Report Variance and Modification Findings and Conclusions. Site plan review standards are governed by RMC 4-9-200(E)(3). Applicable criteria are quoted below in italics and applied through corresponding conclusions of law. The staff report findings of fact and conclusions of law for the three requested development standard modifications (Staff Report Finding 28, 29 and 30) and variance (Staff Report Finding 31) are adopted by this reference as if set forth in full. 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. 4. The proposal is consistent with applicable comprehensive plan policies and zoning regulations as outlined in Finding 26 and 27 of the staff report, which is adopted by this reference as if set forth in full, including the findings and conclusions. No planned action ordinance or development agreement applies to the proposal. The CA portion of the project (which contains no structures) is subject to the RMC 4-3-100 design regulations. See RMC 4-3-100(B)(1)(b). The proposal is found 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 SITE PLAN - 11 CAO VARIANCE - 11 to be consistent with these regulations for the reasons identified in Finding 32 of the staff report, adopted by this reference as if set forth in full, including findings and conclusions. 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; 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. 5. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 4 and 5, the proposal will not create any significant off- site impacts, including the impacts specifically addressed in the criteria above. 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 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 SITE PLAN - 12 CAO VARIANCE - 12 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. 6. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 4 and 5, the proposal will not create any significant on- site impacts, including those specifically addressed in the criteria above. 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. 7. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 4, the proposal provides for adequate access and circulation as required by the criterion 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. 8. The proposal provides for adequate open space as required by the criterion above as determined 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. 9. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5, no view corridors are adversely affected. No shorelines are in the vicinity for purposes of requiring public access. 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 SITE PLAN - 13 CAO VARIANCE - 13 RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(g): Natural Systems: Arranging project elements to protect existing natural systems where applicable. 10. Natural systems will not be adversely affected by the proposal as determined in Finding of Fact No. 5. RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(h): Services and Infrastructure: Making available public services and facilities to accommodate the proposed use. 11. 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. 12. The staff report and application materials contain a detailed phasing plan. DECISION The site plan, light standard modification, street standard modification, parking modification and sign variance are approved subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall comply with the one mitigation measure issued as part of the Determination of Non-Significance Mitigated, dated June 1, 2015. 2. The applicant shall be required to provide on-site landscape buffers along the perimeter of the site adjacent to SW 41st St and East Valley Rd to a minimum width of 15 feet in order to accommodate a variety of vegetation. Additionally, a minimum 1,000 square foot gateway/landscape area shall be provided at the corner of SW 41st St and East Valley Rd. All perimeter parking lot landscaping shall be revised to include the following: trees planted along the street frontage in clusters; shrubs planted at the minimum rate of one per 20 square feet of landscaped area; ground cover in sufficient quantities to provide at least 90% coverage of the landscaped area within 3 years of installation. Existing healthy mature trees which are located within perimeter landscape buffers shall be maintained to the maximum extent possible and protected during construction unless determined by an Arborist that such tree is dead, diseased, or dangerous. Underground sprinkler systems are required to be installed and maintained for all landscaped areas. The sprinkler system shall provide full water coverage of the planted areas specified on the plan. A revised landscape and irrigation plan shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval. 3. The applicant shall provide a detailed plan identifying the location and screening provided for surface and roof mounted equipment. The screening plan shall be submitted 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 SITE PLAN - 14 CAO VARIANCE - 14 to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit approval. 4. The applicant shall be required to provide wetland signage and split rail fencing plan along the existing wetland buffer to the Current Planning Project Manager prior to engineering permit approval. The construction of the split rail fencing and signage shall occur prior to Temporary Occupancy. 5. If the proposal significantly and adversely impacts critical areas as determined by staff prior to final plat approval, the applicant shall be required to submit a mitigation plan complying with RMC 4-3-050 and include baseline information for the Act III Theater Mitigation Plan (dated September 16, 1991). The mitigation plan, if necessary, shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval. 6. The applicant shall be required to submit a final sign package which indicates the approximate location of all exterior building signage. Proposed signage shall be compatible with the building’s architecture and exterior finishes and contribute to the character of the development. The base for the proposed pylon sign shall include design elements which minimize impacts on the pedestrian environment. The sign package shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit approval. 7. The applicant shall be required to replace the proposed guardrail with ornamental fencing. A revised landscape plan, with alternative fencing, shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval. The applicant has submitted a bollard alternative to the guardrail which would serve to comply with the recommended condition of approval (Exhibit 16). 8. The applicant shall be required to provide an additional pedestrian connection from the proposed entrance across the center drive aisle to the southern portion of the site. Additionally, all designated pedestrian areas shall be differentiated, in material, from drive aisles. A revised site plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval. 9. The applicant shall submit a materials board subject to the approval of the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit approval. The board shall include color and materials for the following: façade treatments, windows/frames, and columns. 10. The applicant shall provide a lighting plan that adequately provides for public safety without casting excessive glare on adjacent properties; at the time of building permit review. Pedestrian scale and downlighting shall be used in all cases to assure safe pedestrian and vehicular movement, unless alternative pedestrian scale lighting has been approved administratively or is specifically listed as exempt from provisions located in RMC 4-4-075 Lighting, Exterior On-Site. 11. The applicant shall submit bicycle parking detail demonstrating compliance with the bicycle requirements outlined in RMC 4-4-080F.11.c for fixed structures. The bicycle 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 SITE PLAN - 15 CAO VARIANCE - 15 parking detail shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit approval. 12. The applicant shall revise the TIA to include the traffic counts referenced from All Traffic Data, Inc. The revised TIA shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Plan Reviewer prior to engineering construction permit approval. 13. Fire department apparatus access roadways are required within 150 feet of all points on the building. Fire lane signage is required for the on-site roadway. DATED this 8th day of July, 2015. City of Renton Hearing Examiner Appeal Right and Valuation Notices RMC 4-8-080 provides that the final decision of the hearing examiner is subject to appeal to the Renton City Council. RMC 4-8-110(E)(14) requires appeals of the hearing examiner’s decision to be filed within fourteen (14) calendar days from the date of the hearing examiner’s decision. A request for reconsideration to the hearing examiner may also be filed within this 14 day appeal period as identified in RMC 4-8-110(E)(13) and RMC 4-8-100(G)(9). 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 – 7th floor, (425) 430- 6510. Affected property owners may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes notwithstanding any program of revaluation.