HomeMy WebLinkAboutEarly Childhood Learning Center, Conditional Use, Site Plan, Street Waiver and Lot Line Adjustment1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON
RE: Early Childhood Learning Center
Conditional Use, Site Plan, Street
Waiver and Lot Line Adjustment
)
)
) FINAL DECISION
)
)
)
)
LUA11-101, CU-H, SA-H, LLA )
-----------------------------)
Summary
16 The Renton School District has applied for a conditional use pennit, site plan approval, lot line
adjustment and street waiver. The conditional use permit and site plan are approved with conditions.
17 The lot line adjustment is denied without prejudice because the record contains no infonnation on
the proposed adjustment. The lot line adjustment can be processed administratively by City staff.
18
19 The conditional use and site plan applications are for a school building up to 71,645 square feet in
area. The building will be composed of 22 classrooms, associated work rooms, storage areas and
20 indoor play areas arranged in three separate wings. The building would also contain a multi-purpose
room, kitchen, conference rooms, maintenance rooms and support office. The facility would serve
21 450 students and accommodate 75 staff. An existing 38,590 square foot school building and
22 associated outbuildings will be demolished and three associated portable classrooms will be
removed. The new building will exceed the area of current school facilities by 30,164 to 33,057
23 square feet.
24
25
Testimony
Rocale Timmons, associate planner, stated the proposed building site is bordered by Index Ave NE
26 and NE 16th St in Renton's Highland Sub area. She testified that the site is approximately 7.22 acres
CONDITIONAL USE, SITE PLAN
LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT, STREET WAIVER - 1
1 and is located within the Center Village Comprehensive Plan designation (zoned R-14). She added
that the surrounding area uses include single-family residential and multi-family residential east of the
2 site. The existing use of the site is the Hillcrest Early Child Learning Center; this site would be
demolished following construction of the new facility. In regard to the construction of parking
facilities, she noted that the Applicant is proposing 93 vehicular parking stalls, 19 bus loading areas,
4 and a joint-use playground located on the southern portion of the site.
3
5 Ms. Timmons stated that the Applicant is proposing construction to begin in the spring of 2012 and
6 be completed by Fall of 2013 In regard to access to the site, the Applicant is proposing a new curb-
cut along Harrington Ave NE to reach parking (the western most curb cut), two eastern curb cuts on
7 Harrington Ave for buses, and a second bus parking and turnaround would be located along NE 16th
St, according to her. In terms of the structure, she said the height of the building would be 30 ft. and
8 the gross area would be 71645 sq. ft. She stated that the Renton School District took lead for the
9 SEPA review. On January 13,2012, according to her, a determination of non-significance mitigated
was reached which included 14 mitigation measures related to parks, traffic, fire impact fees, etc.
10 There was a 14-day appeal period which commenced on January 16 and ended on January 30; no
public or agency comments were received, she added. She testified that staff recommends a condition
of approval that the Applicant meet all 14 mitigation measures issued in the SEP A review. 11
12 According to Ms. Timmons, the Applicant is applying for site-plan review. She remarked that staff
found that the proposal is compliant with both the Comprehensive Plan Land Use policies and
Community Design policies. She added that the proposal is also compliant with all relevant zoning
regulations. In addition, she stated that the proposal is located within the Sunset Planned Action Area
and meets the criteria as outlined in ordinance 5610. In regard to on-site and off-site impacts, she
said the building structure is largely located in the western portion of the site, and vehicles and buses
are separated from pedestrian zones in order to reduce congestion and hazards. Drop-off sites are
located on-site which reduces congestion on surrounding sites, she noted. She testified that
landscaping has been well thought-out and will screen the loading areas. She further stated that
common spaces are provided for school-use during the day (marked on exhibit 2). She testified that
13
14
15
16
17
19
18 the Applicant is proposing a joint-use play area which would be shared with the North Highlands
Community Center. This facility would be located on the southern portion of the site, according to
her, and staff recommends as a condition of approval that the school district formalize a
20 memorandum of understanding which provides for cost-sharing and operation of the playground.
She commented that there are no large or attractive, natural features on the site. The increased
setbacks of the proposed building will minimize the aesthetic impacts from neighboring properties
22 with exception to the property to the east, according to her. However, she noted the Applicant is
proposing a 10ft. landscape buffer along the property line to the east to protect the aesthetics.
21
23
In regard to the building structure, Ms. Timmons testified that staff felt the Applicant has achieved a
24 reduction in the scale and bulk of the facility via building materials, articulation and modulation, and
differing roof profiles. In regard to public services, she said that staff found that there are sufficient
fire resources, and the Applicant would be required to install appropriate water and sewer lines
26 improvements in order to serve the proposal. The proposal is required to comply with the 2009 King
25
CONDITIONAL USE, SITE PLAN
LOT LINE ADmSTMENT, STREET WAIVER - 2
1
2
3
4
5
County Surface Water Management Design Manual, thus a proposal was submitted with the
application that complies with this design manual, according to her.
In regard to streets, Ms. Timmons stated that the front streets are non-arterial, residential access
streets. She added that staff has recommended, as a condition of approval, that the Applicant comply
with conditions outlined in the Street Modification issued on February 3rd. She commented that the
existing planting strip along Harrington Ave NE may remain unchanged for the project, despite not
meeting the required 8 ft. length. In regard to Index Ave, she remarked that the Modification
6 recommends leaving the existing pavement section unchanged with no new gutter section as required;
however, staff asks for an additional drive-way dedication of 4 ft. for possible future improvements.
The sidewalk is also required to be meandering in order to protect existing trees along the street,
according to her. She added that no modification was granted for NE 16th St, thus new gutter sections
and a 5 ft. sidewalk are required.
7
8
9
10
11
Ms. Timmons noted that staff also reviewed the CUP criteria for their report. She remarked that the
subject site is adjacent to residential areas on all sides with the exception of the North Highlands
Community Center; however, the learning facility is a long-standing use at this site and hasn't created
a negative impact up until this point. She testified that impacts caused by congestion and increased
12 parking on adjacent streets would be largely mitigated with the new proposed parking and loading
areas. She stated that staff expects the most significant impacts would be during the construction
period. However, according to her, the Applicant has submitted a construction mitigation plan which
provides measures to reduce construction impacts. Ms. Timmons concluded that staff is
recommending approval of the Early Childhood Development Center as it is depicted in Exhibit 2.
13
14
15
16
Upon questioning by the hearing examiner, Ms. Timmons testified that there is a small playfield
included within the design of the project (located at the north-end of the project along Harrington Ave
NE). She commented that there is also a small joint-use play area that the city and district will be
17 building together. She noted that the existing facility is located close to Index Ave (depicted in
Exhibit 9). Thus, according to her, the main reason the proposed building is being sited further back
is to accommodate the existing building during construction. She said that the new facility will be
largely located in the existing open space area. She testified that staff was unaware if there would be
a shortage of parking while both buildings were standing.
18
19
20
21
Brad Medrud, AHBL Inc. and Applicant's representative, noted that there has been a high level of
coordination required to complete this project. The Applicant has no issue with the staff report. On
22 page 6 of the report, he testified that additional information regarding recycling is requested before
the issuance of a building permit. He noted that this information has been prepared as part of the full
submittal package. On page 9 of the staff report, he acknowledged that a request is made for the
Applicant to show a 12-inch extension of water-sewer lines. He noted that the Applicant is currently
showing this extension on their plans and will submit them as part of their submittal package. In
terms of the conditions of approval, he commented that the Applicant has no issue with the SEP A
conditions. For the approved street modifications, he noted that the Applicant had submitted a
written request to the public works department and has no issue with the final decision.
23
24
25
26
CONDITIONAL USE, SITE PLAN
LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT, STREET WAIVER -3
1 In regard to the recreational facilities on site, Mr. Medrud stated that the existing structure was built
in the 1950s and has remained a school since that time. The current uses of the existing building do
2 not require the large open space in the back of the site because they mainly involve Pre-K children
3 who must be closely monitored. He testified that the open areas depicted in exhibit 2 are uncovered,
but are enclosed for recreation in order to provide a controlled space. He added that the joint-
4 playground space on 16th NE is also for recreation. The reason a larger recreational area does not
exist is because much more space was needed for parking facilities in order to accommodate changes
5 to how parents drop-off students and provide adequate safety. He said the Applicant made the effort
6 to ensure parking and drop-off occurred on the site and not the city's streets.
8
7 In regard to parking during construction, as part of the first phase of the project, Mr. Medrud testified
that a new facility will be built on the existing playfields. According to him, once the new building is
fmished, the existing building will be demolished and more parking will be added (phase 2). He
commented that the parking area that exists now (darker grey, I-shape on Exhibit 2) will remain to
support the existing facility. Some parking will be lost behind the building, but the lot that remains 9
10 will be sufficient. Additionally, the city and district are looking into off-site parking for construction
11
12
13
14
personnel.
Upon questioning by the hearing examiner, he stated that no lighting is proposed for the facility
outside of school hours. He added that the property line between the site and the housing authority is
currently a chain-link fence, and the Applicant is planning large amounts of landscape that doesn't
exist at present. He stated that he does not anticipate the recreational space to be used by the
community during off-school hours.
15 In rebuttal, Ms. Timmons noted that the Applicant would be required to make sure all lighting
16 produces no glare and would include shielding.
17 Mr. Medrud noted that lighting is dealt with in the SEP A mitigation conditions.
18
19
Exhibits
The February 23,2012 staff report Exhibits 1-9 identified at pat 2 of the staff report itself were
20 admitted into the record during the hearing. In addition, Renton Ordinance No. 5610 was·
admitted as Ex. 10.
21
22
23
24
25
26
FINDINGS OF FACT
Procedural:
1. Applicant. Renton School District.
CONDITIONAL USE, SITE PLAN
LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT, STREET WAIVER -4
1 2. Hearing. The Examiner held a hearing on the subject application on March 1, 2012 at 1:00
2
3
4
5
pm in the City of Renton Council Chambers.
3. Project Description. The Renton School District has applied for a conditional use permit, site
plan approval, lot line adjustment and street waiver. The conditional use and site plan applications
are for a school building up to 71 ,645 square feet in area. The building will be composed of 22
classrooms, associated work rooms, storage areas and indoor play areas arranged in three separate
wings. The building would also contain a multi-purpose room, kitchen, conference rooms,
6 maintenance rooms and support office. The proposal also includes the construction of an inclusive
7 playground facility in cooperation with the City of Renton that will include 20,000 square feet of the
North Highlands Community Center. The facility would serve 450 students and accommodate 75
8 staff. The facility would support the District's educational programs, including the Integrated
9 Preschool program, Head Start and Early Childhood Education and Assistance programs.
10
11
The site currently contains the Hillcrest Early Childhood Center. The one-story structure IS
approximately 38,590 square feet in area. There are also three portable classrooms on site, parking 58
parking spaces and a canopy structure. The canopy structure and building will be demolished and the
12 portables will be moved off-site. The 38,590 square foot building will not be demolished until the
13 proposed new building will be completed. The canopy building and portable classrooms will be
removed prior to completion of the new building. The new facilities represent an increase of30,164
14 to 33,057 square feet in building area over existing facilities.
15
16
The project description and the project number reference a lot combination as part of the application.
There is nothing in the administrative record that provides any information on the proposed lot
combination. There is no parcel map that identifies what lots compose the project site and no
17 information on what lots are proposed to be combined. It appears that the lot combination may be
18 used to add property from the adjoining North Highlands Community Center as described in the
19
20
21
22
23
24
MDNS for the proposed playground area, but there is no information in the record to confirm this
supposition.
Impacts of the project have been addressed in a planned action ordinance for the Sunset Area, Renton
Ordinance No. 5610. Generally, the impacts of the proposal are within the range of impacts identified
in the planned action ordinance. However, some specific impacts have not been addressed by the
planned action ordinance so the Applicant acted as lead agency in issuing an MDNS for the project,
Ex. 6.
25 4. Adequacy of lnfrastructurelPublic Services. The project will be served by adequate
infrastructure and public services as follows:
26
CONDITIONAL USE, SITE PLAN
LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT, STREET WAIVER - 5
1
2
3
4
5
A. Water and Sewer Service. The site is served by the City of Renton for all water and sewer
service. The Fire Marshall has determined that the project will have to be served by
adequate fire flow with the addition of a 12-inch water main extension extending a water
main located in NE 16th to the east to the existing water main in Kirkland Ave NE. The
Fire Marshall also determined that the project will need to be served by four fire hydrants,
an approved fire sprinkler system and a backflow device.
6 B. Fire and Police. Fire and police department staff have determined that existing facilities
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
are adequate to serve the development.
C. Drainage. City staff have determined that the conceptual drainage plan complies with the
2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual, the City's applicable stormwater
development standards. The Applicant proposes to grade the project site to drain into
catch basins, a swale and/or a rain garden. The catch basins, swale and rain gardens would
connect to an underground infiltration system that would allow water to infiltrate into the
site soils.
D. Parks/Open Space. City development standards do not require any set-asides or
mitigation for parks and open space for schools. The project does include limited
recreational space for students located in a controlled environment so that the children can
be adequately monitored and supervised. The staff report discussion on open space,
Finding 14(h) is adopted and incorporated by this reference as if set forth in fulL
E. Transportation. Off-site traffic impacts are adequately mitigated. Page 15 of the MDNS
for the project identifies that the proposal will increase traffic by 310 trips per day. The
MDNS further identifies that the Applicant will have to pay a $23,500 traffic impact fee
for system improvements necessitated by this increase in traffic. Finding of Fact No. 11
of the MDNS also determines that the increase in traffic created by the proposal will not
exceed the total trip threshold established in the planned action ordinance for the project
5. Adverse Impacts. There are no significant adverse impacts associated with the project. Few
adverse impacts are anticipated since there are no critical areas on site, the proposal is a
redevelopment of a fully developed parcel and adequate infrastructure serves the site as determined in
Finding of Fact No.4. Impacts are more specifically addressed as follows:
A. Aesthetics. According to the staff report, the proposal would not affect view corridors
to shorelines and Mount Rainer. The bulk of the facility will slightly increase but aesthetic impacts
have been off-set by increases in setbacks and landscaping and there were no public comments
expressing any concern over view impacts. As shown in Exhibit 3, landscaping is added to all areas
26 not occupied by buildings, paving, or critical areas and is used to screen loading and parking areas to
CONDITIONAL USE, SITE PLAN
LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT, STREET WAIVER - 6
1 minimize views from surrounding properties. As noted in the staff report, the landscaping is used to
provide transitions between the proposed development and surrounding properties to reduce noise
2 and glare, maintain privacy, and generally enhance the appearance of the project. Given that the mass
and scale of the building is well within the bulk and dimensional requirements of the zoning district
(impervious surface is limited to 63%, below the 85% allowed in the zone and setbacks range up to
203 feet, exceeding the maximum 10 foot applicable setbacks), aesthetic impacts have to be
considered acceptable.
3
4
5 B. Lighting. The Applicant testified that the proposal will not involve any after-hours
6 lighting and no lighting will be used for after-hours use of school recreational facilities. It is
presumed that the project will include some after-hours security lighting and staff testified that City
7 regulations require lights fixtures to direct light inwards and that light trespass is prohibited.
C. Internal Circulation. The project includes several improvements over existing
circulation to provide for traffic safety and reduce congestion, including the separation of vehicles
9 from pedestrian zones and buses. Drop off queues will be located on site to reduce congestion on
surrounding streets. More detail on internal circulation is outlined at Finding No. 14(g) of the staff
8
10 report, adopted and incorporated by this reference as if set forth in full. Sidewalks are provided from
the street to the entries and around the building in order to provide pedestrian linkages. In addition,
pedestrian sidewalks along the new public right-of-way, as well as private pedestrian connections at 11
the perimeter of the property are proposed to provide safe and efficient pedestrian access throughout
12 the site.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
D. Bicycle Stalls. The project accommodates bicycle use by including ten bicycle stalls
as required by RMC 4-4-080(F)(11).
E. Noise. The Applicant has submitted a Construction Mitigation Plan to minimize noise
impacts during construction and the City's noise regulations, Chapter 8-7 RMC, sets the legislative
standard for noise impacts and will adequately regulation noise when construction is completed.
Conclusions of Law
1. Authority. K-12 facilities are allowed in the R-14 district as a conditional use subject to
hearing examiner review. RMC 4-8-080(G) classifies conditional use applications as Type III permits
when hearing examiner review is required. RMC 4-9-200(B)(2)(a)(i) requires site plan review for all
20 development in the R-14 zones that includes K-12 educational institutions. In the absence of the
21
22
conditional use permit application, no hearing examiner review would be required for the site plan
and it would be classified as a Type II permit by RMC 4-8-080(G). RMC 4-8-080(G) classifies street
waivers and lot line adjustments as Type I permits. All four of the aforementioned permits have been
consolidated. RMC 4-8-080(C)(2) requires consolidated permits to each be processed under "the
23 highest-number procedure". The conditional use has the highest numbered review procedures, so all
24 four permits must be processed as Type III applications. As Type III applications, RMC 4-8-080(G)
25
26
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.
CONDITIONAL USE, SITE PLAN
LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT, STREET WANER -7
1
2
2. Zoning/Comprehensive Plan Designations. The subject property is zoned Residential 14
dwelling units per net acre (R-14) and the comprehensive plan land use designation is Center Village.
3 3. Review Criteria. Conditional use criteria are governed by RMC 4-9-030(D). Site plan review
standards are governed by RMC 4-9-200(E)(3). Street modifications are governed by RMC 4-9·
4 250(C)(5). All applicable criteria are quoted below in italics and applied through corresponding
5 conclusions of law.
6 Conditional Use
7 The Administrator or designee or the Hearing Examiner shall consider, as applicable, the following
8 factors for all applications:
9 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
10 zoning regulations and any other plans, programs, maps or ordinances of the City of Renton.
11 4. The proposal is consistent with Objective LU-V and Policy LU-I02 and LU-103 as quoted at
12 page 5 of the staff report because as designed and mitigated the project is designed to be compatible
with adjoining residential uses and the project includes a joint playground facility. The proposal is
consistent with all applicable zoning and other development standards as outlined in Finding 14(a)-
(d) of the staff report, adopted and incorporated by this reference as if set forth in full.
13
14
15 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
16 proposed use. The proposed location shall be suited for the proposed use.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
5. The proposal only represents a modest increase in size to the existing facility, which has
remained in place and been used as a school facility since the 1950s. The aerial photograph, Exhibit
9, does not reveal any over-concentration of school facilities in the vicinity and school facilities in
general are not overly concentrated in the City as a whole given that the schools are designed to only
serve the immediate service areas of the Renton School District. Given these factors the criterion is
met.
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 there are no adverse impacts associated with the
24 proposal, so it will not result in substantial or undue adverse effects on adjacent property.
25
26
RMC 4-9-030(C)(4): Compatibility: The proposed use shall be compatible with the scale and
character of the neighborhood.
CONDITIONAL USE, SITE PLAN
LOT LINE ADmSTMENT, STREET W AlVER - 8
1 7. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5 under the discussion of aesthetic impacts, the
proposed use is compatible with the scale and character of the neighborhood since it does not involve
2 any significant adverse aesthetic impacts and significantly exceeds setback and impervious surface
3 requirements.
4 RMC 4-9-030(C)(5): Parking: Adequate parking is, or will be made, available.
5 8. As determined in Conclusion of Law No.4, the proposal includes parking that is consistent
6 with applicable parking standards, which sets a legislative standard for adequate parking.
7 RMC 4-9-030(C)(6): Traffic: The use shall ensure safe movementfor vehicles and pedestrians and
shall mitigate potential effects on the surrounding area.
8
9 9. As determined in Finding of Fact No.5, the project includes several improvements over
existing circulation to provide for traffic safety and reduce congestion, including the separation of
10 vehicles from pedestrian zones and buses. Drop off queues will be located on site to reduce
congestion on surrounding streets. The criterion is met. 11
12 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
13
14 10. As determined in Finding of Fact No.5, noise and light impacts are adequately addressed and
mitigated. As to lighting impacts, the Applicant testified that the proposal will not involve any after-
hours lighting and no lighting will be used for after-hours use of school recreational facilities. It is 15
presumed that the project will include some after-hours security lighting and staff testified that City
16 regulations require lights to be directed inwards and that light trespass is prohibited. As to noise, the
17 Applicant has submitted a Construction Mitigation Plan to minimize noise impacts during
construction and the City's noise regulations, Chapter 8-7 RMC, sets the legislative standard for noise
impacts and will adequately regulation noise when construction is completed. 18
19
RMC 4-9-030(C)(8): Landscaping: Landscaping shall be provided in all areas not occupied by
20 buildings, paving, or critical areas. Additional landscaping may be required to buffer adjacent
21 properties from potentially adverse effects of the proposed use.
22 11. The criterion is met for the reasons discussed in Finding of Fact No. 5 under aesthetic
23
24
25
26
impacts.
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:
CONDITIONAL USE, SITE PLAN
LOT LINE ADmSTMENT, STREET WAIVER - 9
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
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
12. As discussed in Conclusion of Law No.4, the proposal is consistent with the City's
comprehensive plan and development regulations. Design regulations do not apply to the project.
The proposal is consistent with and qualifies as a Planned Action Ordinance No. 5610, as outlined at
Finding No. 14(d) of the staff report, of which the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are
adopted and incorporated by reference as if set forth in full.
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 refitse 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.
CONDITIONAL USE, SITE PLAN
LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT, STREET WAIVER -10
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
13. The school facility is necessarily concentrated on one portion of the site, but the impacts of
this concentration are negligible given the small portion of the site that is occupied by buildings and
the large setbacks and significant amount of landscaping that separates the facility from adjoining
uses. The facility could not be considered "overscale" considering the relatively small amount of
area occupied by buildings. As determined in Finding of Fact No.5, lighting and view impacts are
adequately mitigated and landscaping is effectively used to protect adjoining properties from noise
and glare and to maintain privacy and enhance the appearance of the project. The project will be
conditioned to provide for adequate screening of refuse and recyclables and to provide screening
from utilities and rooftop structures. As determined in Finding of Fact No.5, the project provides
screening of loading areas to minimize views from surrounding properties.
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. As determined in Finding of Fact No.5, landscaping has been well designed to provide for
privacy and noise reduction. There is nothing in the record to reasonably suggest that the scale,
spacing and orientation of the project could be modified to provide for more privacy and noise
reduction without unreasonably interfering with the objectives of the facility. The scale of the
facility will not create any adverse impacts as discussed and is compatible with vehicle and
pedestrian circulation as determined in Finding of Fact No.5. In addition, there is nothing in the
record to reasonably suggest that the scale of the project is incompatible with sunlight, prevailing
winds or natural characteristics. Impervious surfaces are significantly less than those authorized by
applicable zoning regulations. The comments by staff on this criterion, at Finding No. 14(:1:), are
adopted by this reference and incorporated as if set forth in full.
CONDITIONAL USE, SITE PLAN
LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT, STREET WAIVER -11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)( d): Access and Circulation: Safe and efficient access and circulation for
all users, including:
i. Location and Consolidation: Providing access points on side streets or frontage streets
rather than directly onto arterial streets and consolidation of ingress and egress points on
the site and, when feasible, with adjacent properties;
ii. Internal Circulation: Promoting safety and efficiency of the internal circulation system,
including the location, design and dimensions of vehicular and pedestrian access points,
drives, parking, turnarounds, walkways, bikeways, and emergency access ways;
iii. Loading and Delivery: Separating loading and delivery areas from parking and
pedestrian areas;
iv. Transit and Bicycles: Providing transit, carpools and bicycle facilities and access; and
v. Pedestrians: Providing safe and attractive pedestrian connections between parking
areas, buildings, public sidewalks and adjacent properties.
15. The proposal provides for adequate access and circulation as required by the criterion above
for the reasons identified in Finding of Fact No. 5(C) and(D).
RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(e): Open Space: Incorporating open spaces to serve as distinctive project
focal points and to provide adequate areas for passive and active recreation by the occupants/users
of the site.
16. The proposal provides for open space that serves as distinctive project focal points and also
provides for recreation as determined in Finding of Fact No. 4(D).
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.
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.
24 RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(h): Services and Infrastructure: Making available public services and
25
26
facilities to accommodate the proposed use.
19. The project is served by adequate services and facilities as determined in Finding of Fact No.
4.
CONDITIONAL USE, SITE PLAN
LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT, STREET WAIVER -12
1
2
RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(i): Phasing: Including a detailed sequencing plan with development phases
and estimated time frames, for phased projects.
3 20. The project is not phased.
4 Lot Line Adjustment
5 RMC 4-7-060: PRINCIPLES OF ACCEPTABILITY:
6 A lot line adjustment shall be consistent with the following principles of acceptability:
7
1. Correcting: Adjust lot lines including the elimination of a common lot line in order to correct
8 property line or setback encroachments;
9 2. Improving: Create better lot design, or improve access;
10
11
12
13
14
15
3. Conforming: Coriform to Applicable Zoning: See chapter RMC, subdivision and other code
requirements pertaining to lot design, building location, and development standards.
21. The record contains no information on whether the proposed lot line adjustment conforms to
the criteria above. No plat map or other depiction has been submitted to identify what lots are
proposed to be modified and how they are proposed to be adjusted.
Street Waiver
16 RMC 4-9-2S0(C)(S): Decision Criteriafor Waivers of Street Improvements: Reasonable
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
justification shall include but not be limited to the following:
a. Required street improvements will alter an existing wetlands or stream, or have a negative
impact on a shoreline's area.
b. Existing steep topography would make required street improvements infeasible.
c. Required street improvements would have a negative impact on other properties, such as
restricting available access.
d There are no similar improvements in the vicinity and there is little likelihood that the
improvements will be needed or required in the next ten (10) years.
e. In no case shall a waiver be granted unless it is shown that there will be no detrimental effect
on the public health, safety or welfare if the improvements are not installed, and that the
improvements are not needed for current or future development.
CONDITIONAL USE, SITE PLAN
LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT, STREET WAIVER -13
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
22. Ex.7, the staff "decisionl " on the waiver, doesn't identifY why some waivers were granted or
assess whether the waivers would be detrimental to public health, safety and welfare. The Examiner
certainly agrees with Ex. 7 on the portion of the requested waiver that was denied, i.e. that sidewalks
are most needed in proximity to schools and should not be waived. As to those waivers that the
staff "approved", they will be deemed justified since the property is already developed and it is
presumed that because of this bringing up street improvements to current standards would involve
added expense and may not be consistent with surrounding improvements. From the information in
the record it can be reasonably inferred that the waivers "approved" by staff will not create any
detrimental effect on public health, safety or welfare. For future applications, it is requested that
staff express the basis for its determination that the criteria quoted above are met so that the
Examiner has more complete information to assess compliance.
DECISION
As conditioned below, the site plan and conditional use permit are approved. The street waiver
request is approved to the extent recommended in Exhibit 7. The proposed lot line adjustment is
denied without prejudice and may be re-processed as a Type 1 application. The conditions
recommended in Section J of the staff report shall apply to the site plan and conditional use
approval with the following added conditions:
1. Staff shall determine whether the proposal shall locate, design and screen storage areas,
utilities, rooftop equipment and refuse and recyclables to minimize views from surrounding
properties. The Applicant will alter project design as found necessary by staff to meet this
condition prior to building permit approval.
2. Prior to building permit approval, the Applicant shall submit for staff approval a refuse and
recyc1ables deposit area as outlined in Finding 14(b) of the staff report.
DATED this 20th day of March, 2012.
Appeal Right and Valuation Notices
1 As noted in prior decisions, since the street waiver request is considered consolidated with the other permits of this
decision the staff's "approval" of the waiver is treated as a recommendation since the waiver must be processed as a
Type ill application and staff is required to make a recommendation as opposed to decision in Type ill applications.
CONDITIONAL USE, SITE PLAN
LOT LINE ADmSTMENT, STREET WAIVER -14
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
RMC 4-8-11O(E)(9) provides that the final decision of the hearing examiner is subject to appeal to
the Renton City Council. RMC 4-8-11 0(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-7th
floor, (425) 430-6510.
Affected property owners may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes
notwithstanding any program of revaluation.
CONDITIONAL USE, SITE PLAN
LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT, STREET WAIVER -15