HomeMy WebLinkAboutResidence Inn by Marriott, Master Site Plan, Site Plan, Vairance and ModificationCITY OF RENTON
AUG 0 4 2015
RECEIVED
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON
9
10
RE: Residence Inn by Marriott
FINAL DECISION
11 Master Site Plan, Site Plan,Variance )
and Modification
12
13 LUA15-000280, ECF, SA-M, MOD, )
14 VAR
15 Summary
16
17 The applicant is requesting Master Site Plan Review, Site Plan Review, two Variances, and two
Modifications in order to construct a 146-guest room hotel and structured parking area at 1100
18 Lake Washington Blvd N. The applications are approved subject to conditions.
19
20 Testimony
Staff Testimony
21
Clark Close, City of Renton Associate Planner, summarized the staff report. The examiner22inquiredastowhynoreasonableuseremainsifthevariancesweren't granted. Mr. Close
23 responded that the variances are necessary to accommodate a fire turn around and parking
garage. The examiner asked if a smaller hotel would avoid the slope encroachment.
24
Vanessa Dolbee, Current Planning Manager, responded that the hotel balances scale with the
25 adjoining hotel by pushing the hotel back from the street frontage and that is one of the causes for
26 the need of the variance request. Staff would rather grant the variance then have the hotel built
closer to the street.
SITE PLAN
VARIANCE,MODIFICATION- 1
1
2 Applicant Testimony
3 Kurt Jensen, applicant's architect, testified that the applicant has an issue with Condition No. 4.
The City wants an annual report and a restrictive covenant.
4
Michael Mahoney, the applicant's representative, noted that from a business perspective the
5 required covenant would create a hardship by creating a cloud on the tile by leaving uncertainty
6 as to future compliance. He noted that the geotechnical review has found no slope stability
issues.
7
Ray Coglas, project geotech, testified that borings, aerial photographs and other data have been
8 collected and that he was able to conclude that the geology is very competent, very dense glacial
9 till that has no susceptibility to instability. He has been required to do annual inspections on rare
occasions by other jurisdictions, but that is usually only required for slopes that have historically
10 been prone to landslides. The subject site has no such history. There is high certainty that the
slopes will not have stability problems.
11
12
Staff Rebuttal
13 Clark Close testified that the City is willing to remove the requirement for a covenant but still
wants an annual report.
14
Vanessa Dolbee noted the City's request for annual report is a new condition the City will be
15 asking. It is a result of both the Oso slide and of a review of slopes by the City that identified
16 several unstable slopes.
17 Applicant Rebuttal
18 The applicant noted they have done a much more detailed slope stability review than the slope
19 survey conducted by the City and there is no history of slope instability or indication that it will
be unstable in the future.
20
21
Exhibits
22 Exhibits 1-29, identified at page 2 of the Staff Report and page 3 of the Environmental Review
Committee report, were admitted into the record during the hearing. The following exhibits were
23 also admitted during the hearing:
24
Exhibit 30 Staff Report
25 Exhibit 31 City of Renton core maps located on City's website
26
SITE PLAN
VARIANCE, MODIFICATION-2
I Findings of Fact
2 Procedural:
3
1. Applicant. The Applicant is Western International.
4
2. Hearing. The Examiner held a hearing on the subject application on July 14, 2015 in the City
5 of Renton Council Chambers at 11:00 am.
6 3. Project Description. The applicant is requesting Master Site Plan Review, Site Plan Review,
7 two Variances, and two Modifications in order to construct a 146-guest room hotel and structured
parking area. The subject property is located on the east side of Lake Washington Blvd N just north of
8
Houser Way N at 1100 Lake Washington Blvd N, directly west of I-405. Access is proposed via a
9 single curb cut on Lake Washington Blvd N.
10 The project site totals 124,691sf(2.86 acres). The proposed 124,330sf hotel would be five stories in
11 height. A total of 147 parking stalls would be provided in a two-level parking garage and parking
deck near the northern portion of the site. The site is located within the Urban Center North—2 (UC-
12 N2) zone and Design District `C'. The majority of the site is currently undeveloped. There is a soft
13 surface pedestrian trail from NE Park Dr. to Lake Washington Blvd N.
14 The site contains critical and sensitive slopes and Moderate to High Landslide and High Erosion
hazards, all located on the eastern portion of the site. The critical slopes represent 26.3% of the
15 subject site (32,788sf). The applicant is proposing to retain 13 of the 59 inventoried trees within the
16 1.17 developable acres of the site.
17 The applicant proposes to remove 17,800cy of material from the site and bring in 1,OOOcy of
18
structural fill. Impervious cover will be 39%of the site.
19 The applicant has proposed to construct a patio along Lake Washington Boulevard North. This will
serve as a focal point for the development and create a visually prominent entry. The main entrance
20 for the hotel is marked with a prominent wooden entry trellis.
21 The applicant proposes to use less of a development envelope than allowed by the zone (Ex. 7 and 8),
22 to provide step backs along the north property line and reduce the scale and bulk of the building
through use of differing materials on the building facade and varying the window sizes.
23
24 Approximately 70% of the street fagade, along Lake Washington Blvd N and visible to the public, is
comprised of transparent windows and/or doors at the ground level podium. The storefront windows
25 would be transparent from about six inches (6") up to 10' above the ground. The store front theme is
26
wrapped around the south elevation to provide additional transparent windows and/or doors visible to
SITE PLAN
VARIANCE, MODIFICATION- 3
I the public. A large portion of the remaining ground floor facade would be screened with.plants to
2 grow or climb vertically along wall trellises.
3 The applicant has proposed a pitched asphalt shingle roof that has been broken up into different
components with the use of varying heights and multiple feature roof elements that project above the
4 main roof line. The applicant is not proposing roof mounted equipment and/or screening for such
5 equipment. The loading and service area are located behind the building away from the street and any
public pedestrian-oriented functions.
6
The applicant is requesting Modification for right-of-way improvements (RMC 4-6-060) along the7
south property for a distance of approximately 100 feet and a reduction in the parking ratio that would
8 exclude parking for the employees(RMC 4-4-080).
9 The applicant is requesting a Variance from RMC 4-3-050 in order to construct within the critical
10 slopes onsite and from RMC 4-2-120E in order to exceed the maximum front yard setback of five
feet. The applicant proposes to encroach on the critical area by 3,115sf.
11
Staff received multiple public comments via letter and telephone (Ex. 27). Most comments related to
12 traffic impacts in the area from this project and other proposed projects. The neighboring Hampton
13 Inn and Suites provided a letter of support.
14 The Environmental Review Committee issued a Determination of Non-Significance - Mitigated
15 (DNS-M) for the Residence Inn by Marriott (Exhibit 23) on June 8, 2015 containing four mitigation
measures. No appeals on the threshold determination were filed.
16
4. Adequacy of Infrastructure/Public Services. The project will be served by adequate
17 infrastructure and public services as follows:
18 A. Water and Sewer Service. The City of Renton will provide both sewer and water to the
19 project. There is an existing 12-inch water main located within Lake Washington Blvd N
refer to City project plans no. W-0327 & W-2131). The static water pressure is about 120
20
psi at ground elevation of 40 feet. There is an existing 8-inch sewer main in Lake
21 Washington Blvd N.
22
B. Fire and Police. The project site will be served by the City of Renton fire and police
23 departments. Police and Fire Prevention staff indicated that sufficient resources exist to
24
furnish services to the proposed development if the applicant provides Code-required
improvements and fees.
25
26
C. Drainage. The applicant proposes a drainage plan that has met preliminary staff approval
and is conceptually consistent with the City's drainage standards. The applicant is
SITE PLAN
VARIANCE, MODIFICATION-4
I proposing an enclosed water quality feature known as a modular wetland system (MWS)
2 which meets the Enhanced Basic Water Quality Requirements of the KCSWM and has
General Use Level Designations (GULD) approval from the Department of Ecology for
3 Enhanced Water Quality (Ex. 17). Runoff from the new impervious areas will be routed
4 through a detention vault and then in to a modular wetland water quality system before
discharging into the City's conveyance system along Lake Washington Blvd N. Paving
5 and trench restoration will comply with the City's Trench Restoration and Overlay
6 Requirements. City staff have determined that the drainage plan complies with the new
City of Renton Amendments to the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual.
7 More detailed staff review and approval will occur during construction review.
8
D. Parks/Open Space. The applicant will be required to pay park impact fees, which are
9 designed to fund the demand for park and open space facilities generated by residential
10 development.
I1 The applicant has proposed an outdoor pedestrian patio located off of Lake Washington
12 Blvd N. which serves to provide an active public space between the building and the right-
of-way. Outdoor steps, located around the middle portion of the landscaped outdoor patio
13
space, provides for connection from the public sidewalk to the building entrances. A total
14 of 3,500 square feet of passive and active open spaces is provided on the site and is of
15
sufficient size for hotel patrons and the public. Pedestrian-oriented spaces and/or
walkways are located around the west, south and east elevations.
16
17
E. Off-Site Transportation. Off-site transportation facilities are adequate to serve the site.
Traffic impacts are adequately mitigated by the proposal. Level of service standards will
18 not be reduced below adopted levels for the proposal and traffic impact fees will be
19 assessed to pay for proportionate share transportation system impacts.
20 The applicant submitted a Traffic Impact Analysis (Ex. 13). Staff note there are several
21 proposed developments in the project vicinity which together will reduce the level of
service (LOS) at the intersection of Lake Washington Boulevard North and Houser Way at
22 the entrance to Gene Coulon Park. The proposal itself will not significantly reduce the
23 intersection LOS, even under the circumstance wherein the traffic from the Southport
Development is included at conservatively high traffic volumes. The proposed
24 development by itself is not expected to impact the LOS at this intersection. No other
25 nearby intersection service levels will see an increase of more than 5% in PM peak hour
26
volumes and therefore no further analysis is required for other nearby intersections.
SITE PLAN
VARIANCE, MODIFICATION- 5
I Despite the anticipated lack of project level impacts from this project on the Lake
2 Washington Boulevard North and Houser Way intersection, the City's Environmental
Review Committee imposed a SEPA mitigation measure requiring the applicant to pay a
3 pro-rated share of the traffic signal and roadway improvements costs for the intersection,
4 which is currently being constructed by SECO Development. The proposed project is
required to pay its pro-rata share based on the ratio of the number of trips added by the
5 project to the number of future baseline trips at the Southport/Gene Coulon Park
6 Entrance/Lake Washington Boulevard N. intersection. The applicant anticipates the
proposed development will account for approximately 3.0%of PM Peak hour trips.
7
8 F. Pte. The RMC requires a total of 163 parking spaces (one per guest room and one for
every three employees). The applicant and staff have agreed to a proposed parking
9 modification to allow for 147 parking spaces. The proposed 147 spaces represent roughly
10 a 10% reduction from the minimum number of parking spaces required per RMC
4.4.080.10.d. The number of parking spaces proposed is higher than demand calculated by
11 the average ITE parking demand and high occupancy rate. The proposed parking supply
12 will meet the I room to 1 parking space(1:1) supply required(Ex. 13).
13
G. Bicycle Stalls. No bicycle stalls were proposed. Per RMC 4-4-080(F)(11) the number of
14 bicycle parking spaces shall be 10% of the number of required off-street parking spaces.
15
Based on the proposal which requires 163 vehicle parking stalls, 16 bicycle parking stalls
are required to be provided. A condition of approval requires the applicant to submit a
16 revised site plan depicting bicycle parking in conformance with RMC44-080F.11.
17
H. Vehicular Access and Internal Circulation. The proposal is served by safe and efficient
18 vehicular access points and internal circulation. The proposal provides for a single curb
19 cut on Lake Washington Boulevard N at the south end of the site. Parking will be
accomplished under building parking and a parking garage from the single entry point off
20 the street in order to reduce conflicts. Service elements are located within the building to
21 reduce conflicts with parking and pedestrian circulation.
22 I. Pedestrian Circulation. The proposal is served by safe and efficient pedestrian circulation.
23 There are existing pedestrian and bicycle facilities in the subject vicinity including bike
lanes on both sides of Lake Washington Blvd N and existing contiguous sidewalk to the
24 north of the project(Ex. 13). The applicant will construct sidewalks along the site frontage
25 connecting to the existing sidewalk system to the north. There is a lack of pedestrian
facilities between the site and the intersection of Lake Washington Blvd N at the Gene
26 Coulon Park entrance/Houser Way intersection. A condition of approval will require the
SITE PLAN
VARIANCE, MODIFICATION-6
I applicant to tie pedestrian improvements into the intersection improvements recently
2 completed at Lake Washington Blvd N and Coulon Beach Park/Houser Way N.
3 The City's transportation corridor plan for Lake Washington Blvd N. includes frontage
4
improvements. The applicant has requested a modification to the location of the required
frontage improvements. The requested modification places the street frontage
5 improvements along Lake Washington Blvd N. instead of along the west property line of
6 the south parcel, which is not contiguous with the road. The improvements would extend
the right-of-way improvements along Lake Washington Blvd N. from the end of the north
7 lot to the railroad tracks, west of the south lot, for a distance of approximately 100 feet.
8 This area in front of the south lot is currently used to access overflow staff parking from
Gene Coulon Memorial Park. The applicant is not proposing an access point along this
9 portion of Lake Washington Blvd N. A condition of approval will require the applicant to
10 submit a revised road improvement plan depicting a 24-foot wide driveway approach
between the railroad tracks and the southwest property line of parcel no. 334450-0006
11 along Lake Washington Blvd N(Ex. 26)to preserve the overflow parking access.
12
J. Landscaping. The applicant submitted a proposed landscaping plan that substantially
13 meets the code requirements (Ex. 5). The plan specifies the vegetation proposed for use on
14 site, as well as in planters in common areas and the proposed green screens separating
patios on the upper floors. No landscaping was proposed on the second floor patio area
15 beyond the stairwell. A condition of approval will require the applicant to submit a
16 detailed landscaping plan depicting similar screening along the north elevation second
floor patio area consistent with the landscaping proposed along the west elevation second
17
floor patio area to achieve a significant landscaped roof patio screen between the two
18 adjacent hotels. A condition of approval will require the applicant to provide either
additional landscaping within the public right-of-way or wall treatments to minimize the19
impact of the cast-in-place concrete retaining wall at the southwest corner of the site.
20
21
M. Refuse Enclosure. A minimum area of 296.9sf of recycle area and 593.8sf of refuse area
are required for the project. The proposal meets the required refuse and recyclable deposit
22 areas by providing 890sf area dedicated to refuse and recycle(Ex. 9). The trash area would
23 be located at the southeast corner of the building at the ground level and enclosed with
self-closing wood doors.
24
25 N. Recreation and Common Open Spaces. The building is over 30,OOOsf and therefore a
pedestrian oriented space is required. As noted above, the applicant proposes a patio along
26 the street frontage. There will be a total of 3,500sf of passive and active open space on site
SITE PLAN
VARIANCE, MODIFICATION- 7
I which will accommodate both hotel patrons and the public. Landscaping along the edge of
2 the plaza will soften the sidewalk and complement the entry plaza.
3 5. Adverse Impacts. There are no significant adverse impacts associated with the project. Few
4 adverse impacts are anticipated. Adequate infrastructure serves the site as determined in Finding of
Fact No. 4. All other adverse impacts discernible from the record are also fully mitigated. Impacts
5 are more specifically addressed as follows:
6 A. Compatibility. The proposal is compatible with surrounding uses. It is one of three proposed
hotels on one side of the street with a major regional park on the other. It backs up to I-405.
There are live/work units nearby. As noted in the staff report Ex. 30 , theapplicant hasp (
8 proposed to step back the building and provide adequate facade treatment and materials in
order to reduce the impact on this neighboring use.
9
B. Lighting. The applicant has provided plans for pedestrian-scale lighting which will ensure
10 adequate public safety can be achieved without casting excessive glare on adjacent properties
11 Ex. 29). However, the lighting plan did not provide technical specifications regarding the
foot-candle levels. A condition of approval will require the applicant to provide a lighting plan
12 with stated foot-candles levels for review prior to building permit approval.
13 C. Aesthetics. As proposed and conditioned, the proposal incorporates sufficient building facade
14 modifications, roof screening, landscaping, and pedestrian oriented spaces (See FOF No. 3)to
prevent adverse aesthetic impacts to neighboring properties and the general public.
15
D. Privacy and Noise. The proposal will not create any significantly adverse noise or privacy
16 impacts. As noted above in FOF No. 5(A), the building is compatible with surrounding uses
1 and is not expected to generate significant noise. The upper guestroom tower of the building
along the north elevation vertically steps back from the north property line 10 to 13 feet for
18 additional privacy between the two hotels. Increased privacy and noise reduction would be
gained through landscaping along the north property line and additional second floor patio
19 area landscaping in-front of the guestroom tower. Most of the noise impacts would occur
during the construction phase of the project. The applicant has submitted a Construction
20 Mitigation Plan that provides measures to reduce construction impacts such as noise, control
21 of dust, traffic controls, etc. (Ex. 15). In addition, the project would be required to comply
with the City's noise ordinance regarding construction hours.
22
E. Views. No views are disrupted by the proposal, including views of Mount Rainier or the
23 shoreline. There are no territorial views in the vicinity.
24
F. Public Access. The proposal does not interfere with any public access to the shoreline. No
25 shorelines are in the vicinity of the proposal.
26
SITE PLAN
VARIANCE,MODIFICATION- 8
I G. Reduced Frontage Setbacks. The UC-N2 zone has a maximum front yard setback of five feet.
The proposed building would have a 22 ft. front setback. There is an existing 15 ft wide utility2easementrunningalongthestreetfrontagethatprohibitsthebuildingfrommeetingthefive
3 foot front yard setback. The City requested the applicant set back the building an additional
seven feet beyond the utility easement. A 22 foot setback would allow for construction of a
4 pedestrian plaza which would provide an open space and recreational amenity. Other
buildings in the vicinity have similar setbacks and open space amenities. Granting the setback
5 allows for compatible development with surrounding sites but does not constitute a granting
6 of special privilege.
7 H. Critical Areas. The only critical areas on site are steep slopes. There are 32,788sf of critical
slopes on the site. The applicant is proposing to encroach into 3,115sf of the critical slopes.
8 The applicant provided a geotechnical report (Ex. 10 and 14) which demonstrated no signs of
9 recent large scale erosion or slope stability issues on the subject site. There were signs of steep
reliefs, all of which proved stable. Subsurface soils demonstrate strength. The City does not
10 anticipate any detriment to the public welfare or safety provided the building's structural
foundations are constructed according to the proposed plan. The plan will likely result in
11 increased safety at the site. As noted above in FOF 5A,the proposed building is situated as far
12 forward as possible while still failing to encroach on the existing utility easement and provide
for a functional pedestrian amenity. The proposed setback is the minimum amount necessary
13 to meet the objectives of the UC-N2 zone while protecting the critical slopes. A condition of
approval will require the applicant to submit a revised Geotechnical report prior to
14 engineering permit approval noting corrected impacts to steeps slopes and any changes in
15
recommendations accordingly.
16 Staff has also requested a condition requiring an annual geotechnical monitoring report
prepared by a qualified geotechnical consulting firm. The report would be a reconnaissance-
17 level geologic hazard and risk evaluation of the steep slopes on the designated critical areas of
this property. Staff's objective for the evaluation is to assess annual slope conditions and
18 advise the owner on areas of elevated risk for impacts to property or conditions that present
19 life and safety concerns. Staff further requested the applicant record a restrictive covenant
running with the land and applicable to the owner and all heirs and assigns. The applicant
20 argued the slopes are stable with no history of instability and therefore an annual report is
unnecessary. Staff determined that in the wake of the massive Oso landslide, it is in the public
21 interest to monitor slope activity to prevent future injury to the public. In light of the elevated
22 and sometimes unpredictable risk associated with steep slopes, a condition of approval will
require annual geotechnical monitoring reports, but it will not require a restrictive covenant.
23 No other properties in the subject's vicinity are required to provide such covenants.
24
Conclusions of Law
25
26
SITE PLAN
VARIANCE,MODIFICATION-9
1 1. Authori1y. Master Site Plan Approvals, Site Plan Review and Variances associated with
2 Hearing Examiner Review are each Type III decisions determined by the hearing examiner (RMC 4-
8-080(G)). The site plan, variance and modification applications of this proposal have been
3 consolidated. RMC 4-8-080(C)(2) requires consolidated permits to each be processed under "the
4 highest-number procedure". The site plan and variance applications have the highest numbered
review procedures, so all four applications must be processed as Type III applications. As Type III
5 applications, RMC 4-8-080(G) grants the Examiner with the authority to hold a hearing and issue a
6 final decision on them, subject to closed record appeal to the City Council.
7 2. Zoning/Comprehensive Plan Designations. The property is zoned Urban Center North — 2
8 (
LTC-N2). The Comprehensive Plan designation is Urban Center North.
9
3. Review Criteria. Master Site Plan Review and Site Plan Review are required in the UC-N2
zone (RMC 4-9-200(B)(1) and RMC 4-9-200(B)(2)(a)). Master Site Plan and Site Plan Reviews are
10 governed by RMC 4-9-200(E)(3). Variance approval is governed by RMC 4-9-250(B)(5).
11
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.
12
Site Plan
13
14
RMC 4-9-200(E)(3): Criteria: The Administrator or designee must find a proposed project to be in
compliance with the following:
15
a. Compliance and Consistency: Conformance with plans,policies, regulations and approvals,
16 including:
17 i. Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan, its elements, goals, objectives, and
18 policies, especially those of the applicable land use designation; the Community Design
Element; and any applicable adopted Neighborhood Plan;
19
ii. Applicable land use regulations;
20
21
iii. Relevant Planned Action Ordinance and Development Agreements; and
22 iv. Design Regulations:Intent and guidelines of the design regulations located in RMC 4-
3-100.
23
4.The proposal is consistent with applicable comprehensive plan policies, City of Renton
24 zoning regulations and design guidelines as outlined in Findings 18, 19, 24, and 25 of the staff report,
25 which is adopted by this reference as if set forth in full, including the findings and conclusions.
26
SITE PLAN
VARIANCE,MODIFICATION- 10
1
2 RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(b): Off-Site Impacts:Mitigation of impacts to surrounding properties and
3 uses, including:
4 i. Structures:Restricting overscale structures and overconcentration of development on a
particular portion of the site;
5
ii. Circulation:Providing desirable transitions and linkages between uses, streets,
6
walkways and adjacent properties;
7
iii. Loading and Storage Areas:Locating, designing and screening storage areas,
8 utilities, rooftop equipment, loading areas, and refuse and recyclables to minimize views
9 from surrounding properties;
10 iv. Views:Recognizing the public benefit and desirability of maintaining visual
accessibility to attractive natural features;
11
12 v. Landscaping: Using landscaping to provide transitions between development and
surrounding properties to reduce noise and glare, maintain privacy, and generally
13 enhance the appearance of the project; and
14 vi. Lighting:Designing and/or placing exterior lighting and glazing in order to avoid
15 excessive brightness or glare to adjacent properties and streets.
16 5. As noted above in Finding of Fact No. 3, the building has been designed to reduce the
apparent bulk and provide visual interest through the use of varied materials and modification of the
17 facade. The building uses less of the site than would otherwise be required by code and places
parking in a structured garage. The building is placed to reduce the impact on on-site critical slopes18whileprovidingforapedestrianplazaandotherurbanamenitiesalongtheproperty's frontage. As
19 noted in Fining of Fact No. 4(H and I), the proposal involves a single curb cut on Lake Washington
Boulevard North while also providing frontage improvements to match the existing curb line. The
20 pedestrian plaza will enhance the pedestrian experience. As noted in Finding of Fact Nos. 3 and 4,
loading and storage areas, refuse collection and roof equipment will be screened and will not
21 interfere with pedestrian circulation or parking. There are not significant views from this property.
22 As noted in Finding of Fact No. 4(J), landscaping will be provided on the critical slopes, around the
building, in the pedestrian plaza and on the frontage. As noted in Finding of Fact No. 5, lighting will
23 be designed to avoid glare on to adjacent properties or streets while providing safe illumination for
site users.
24
25 RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(c): On-Site Impacts:Mitigation of impacts to the site, including:
26
SITE PLAN
VARIANCE, MODIFICATION- 11
1
2 i. Structure Placement:Provisions for privacy and noise reduction by building placement,
3 spacing and orientation;
4 ii. Structure Scale: Consideration of the scale ofproposed structures in relation to natural
characteristics, views and vistas, site amenities, sunlight,prevailing winds, and pedestrian
5 and vehicle needs;
6
iii. Natural Features:Protection of the natural landscape by retaining existing vegetation
7 and soils, using topography to reduce undue cutting andfilling, and limiting impervious
8
surfaces; and
9 iv. Landscaping: Use of landscaping to soften the appearance ofparking areas, to provide
shade and privacy where needed, to define and enhance open spaces, and generally to
10 enhance the appearance of the project. Landscaping also includes the design and
11 protection ofplanting areas so that they are less susceptible to damage from vehicles or
pedestrian movements.
12
6. As noted in the Staff Report (Ex. 30), the building steps back from the north property line to
13 provide a transition to the live/work area to the north. The building setback and orientation will
provide privacy to guests. Once operational, no noise impacts are anticipated. The proposed
14 building is smaller in scale than what is allowable under the code and is designed to reduce the
15 visual bulk of the building through varied materials and facade modulation. The pedestrian patio
will be visually appealing from the property's frontage. The proposal does impact the on-site steep
16 slopes, but the impact is the least feasible to allow development of the site. Adequate landscaping in
the pedestrian patio and frontage is proposed. Parking will be structured.
17
18
RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(d):Access and Circulation:Safe and efficient access and circulation for
all users, including:
19 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 on20
the site and, when feasible, with adjacent properties;
21
ii. Internal Circulation:Promoting safety and efficiency of the internal circulation system,
22 including the location, design and dimensions of vehicular and pedestrian access points,
23 drives,parking, turnarounds, walkways, bikeways, and emergency access ways;
24 iii. Loading and Delivery:Separating loading and delivery areas from parking and
pedestrian areas;
25
26 iv. Transit and Bicycles:Providing transit, carpools and bicycle facilities and access; and
SITE PLAN
VARIANCE, MODIFICATION - 12
1
2 v Pedestrians:Providing safe and attractive pedestrian connections between parking
3
areas, buildings,public sidewalks and adjacent properties.
4 7. The proposal provides for adequate access and circulation as required by the criterion above
for the reasons identified in Finding of Fact No. 4(F-I).
5
RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(e): Open Space: Incorporating open spaces to serve as distinctive project
6 focal points and to provide adequate areas for passive and active recreation by the occupants/users
7 of the site.
8 8. The proposal provides for common open space that serves as a distinctive project focal point
and also provides for passive recreation as determined in Finding of Fact Nos. 3 and4(N). A primary
9 feature of the proposal is a pedestrian patio.
10
RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(f): Views and Public Access: When possible,providing view corridors to
11 shorelines and Mt. Rainier, and incorporating public access to shorelines.
12 9. The proposal would not impair view corridors to shorelines or Mt. Rainier as determined in
13 Finding of Fact No. 5. The proposal is not in proximity to any shoreline.
14 RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(g): Natural Systems:Arranging project elements to protect existing natural
15
systems where applicable.
16 10. As noted in Finding of Fact No. 5, the proposal will be located to a minor extent within a
steep slope critical area, but the record demonstrates that the encroachment will not create any
17 adverse public safety impact. As conditioned, the project provides for adequate public safety and
18 welfare. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 4, the drainage system will allow the project to
discharge into natural drainage courses via the City's existing storm drainage system.
19
RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(h): Services and Infrastructure:Making available public services and
20 facilities to accommodate the proposed use.
21
11. The project is served by adequate services and facilities as determined in Finding of Fact No.
22 4(A and B).
23 RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(i): Phasing:Including a detailed sequencing plan with development phases
24
and estimated timeframes,for phased projects.
25 12. The project is not phased.
26
SITE PLAN
VARIANCE, MODIFICATION- 13
I Urban Design Regulations
2 RMC 4-3-100(E)(1)(1)Building Location and Orientation:
3 1. The availability of natural light (both direct and reflected) and direct sun exposure to
4 nearby buildings and open space (except parking areas) shall be considered when siting
structures.
5
2. Buildings shall be oriented to the street with clear connections to the sidewalk.
6
3. The front entry of a building shall be oriented to the street or a landscaped pedestrian-
only courtyard.
8 4. Buildings with residential uses located at the street level shall be set back from the
9 sidewalk a minimum of ten feet (10) and feature substantial landscaping between the
sidewalk and the building or have the ground floor residential uses raised above street
10 level for residents privacy.
11 13. The proposed structure is located in the only location on the site that is feasible for
12 development given the constraints of the critical areas and existing utility easement. The building
will feature a pedestrian patio accessible from the frontage sidewalk. As conditioned, this criterion is
13 satisfied.
14 RMC 4-3-100(E)(1)(2)Building Entries:
15 1. A primary entrance of each building shall be:
16 a. located on the facade facing a street, shall be prominent, visible from the street,
17 connected by a walkway to the public sidewalk, and include human-scale elements.
18 b. made visibly prominent by incorporating architectural features such as a facade
overhang, trellis, large entry doors, and/or ornamental lighting.
19
2. Building entries from a street shall be clearly marked with canopies, architectural
20 elements, ornamental lighting, or landscaping and include weather protection at least
21
four and one-halffeet wide. Buildings that are taller than thirty feet (30) in height shall
also ensure that the weather protection is proportional to the distance above ground level.
22
4. Features such as entries, lobbies, and display windows shall be oriented to a street or
23 pedestrian-oriented space; otherwise, screening or decorative features should be
24
incorporated.
25
14. As noted in Finding of Fact No. 3, the primary entrances to the hotel (both pedestrian and
vehicular) are located along Lake Washington Blvd N. The locations of the entrances are located as
26 far north as possible from the existing railroad crossing to maximize safety. The proposed outdoor
SITE PLAN
VARIANCE, MODIFICATION- 14
I patio area, along Lake Washington Blvd N, serves as a focal point for the development and allows
space for social interaction. Through design elements and significant landscaping, a visually2prominententryalongLakeWashingtonBlvdNwouldbecreated.
3
The main entrance for the hotel is marked with a prominent wooden entry trellis near the northwest
4 corner of the building. As noted in FOF No. 3, as conditioned, these criteria are satisfied.
5 RMC 4-3-100(E)(1)(3) Transition to Surrounding Development:
6 1. At least one of the following design elements shall be considered to promote a transition to
7 surrounding uses:
8 a)Building proportions, including step-backs on upper levels;
9 b)Building articulation to divide a larger architectural element into smaller increments; or
10 c) Roof lines, roofpitches, and roof shapes designed to reduce apparent bulk and transition
with existing development.
11
Additionally, the Administrator of the Department of Community and Economic Development or12designeemayrequireincreasedsetbacksatthesideorrearofabuildinginordertoreducethebulk
13 and scale of larger buildings and/or so that sunlight reaches adjacent and/or abutting yards.
14 15. As conditioned and described in Findings of Fact No. 3,this criterion is satisfied.
15 RMC 4-3-100(E)(1)(4) Service Element Location and Design:
16 1. Service elements shall be located and designed to minimize the impacts on the pedestrian
17
environment and adjacent uses. Service elements shall be concentrated and located where
they are accessible to service vehicles and convenient for tenant use.
18
16. As noted in Findings of Fact No. 4(M), the proposed refuse and recycle deposit areas are
19 located within the proposed structure and will not impact parking. No impacts to the pedestrian
environment or adjacent uses are anticipated.
20
21
RMC 4-3-100(E)(2)(2) Structured Parking Garages:
22
1. Parking structures shall provide space for ground floor commercial uses along street
frontages at a minimum of seventy five percent(75%) of the building frontage width.
23
17. This criterion is satisfied as the entire use is commercial in nature.
24
RMC 4-3-100(E)(2)(3)Vehicular Access:
25
1. Access to parking lots and garages shall be from alleys, when available. If not available,
26 access shall occur at side streets.
SITE PLAN
VARIANCE,MODIFICATION- 15
1 2. The number of driveways and curb cuts shall be minimized, so that pedestrian circulation
2 along the sidewalk is minimally impeded.
3
18. As noted in Finding of Fact No. 3 and 4(H), all access is from a single curb cut. This criterion
is satisfied.
4
RMC 4-3-100(E)(3)(1)Pedestrian Circulation:
5
1. A pedestrian circulation system of pathways that are clearly delineated and connect
6 buildings, open space, and parking areas with the sidewalk system and abutting properties
7
shall be provided.
8 a. Pathways shall be located so that there are clear sight lines, to increase safety.
9 b. Pathways shall be an all-weather or permeable walking surface, unless the applicant can
demonstrate that the proposed surface is appropriate for the anticipated number of users
10 and complementary to the design of the development.
11 19. As noted above in Finding of Fact No. 4(1), pedestrian circulation to and throughout the site
12 will be enhanced by the pedestrian patio and the placement of parking in a structured underground
garage. As conditioned,this criterion is satisfied.
13
RMC 4-3-100(E)(3)(3)Pedestrian Circulation:
14
1. Sidewalks and pathways along the facades of buildings shall be of sufficient width to
15 accommodate anticipated numbers of users. Specifically:
16 a. Sidewalks and pathways along the facades of mixed use and retail buildings one hundred
17 100) or more feet in width (measured along the facade) shall provide sidewalks at least
twelve feet (12) in width. The pathway shall include an eightfoot (8) minimum
18 unobstructed walking surface.
19 b. Interior pathways shall be provided and shall vary in width to establish a hierarchy. The
widths shall be based on the intended number of users; to be no smaller than five feet (5)
20 and no greater than twelve feet(12).
21
20. The proposed hotel use is neither mixed use nor retail in nature. As proposed, this criterion is
22 met.
23 RMC 4-3-100(E)(4)Recreation Areas and Common Open Space:
24 2. All buildings and developments with over thirty thousand (30,000) square feet of
25 nonresidential uses (excludes parking garage floorplate areas) shall provide pedestrian-
oriented space.
26
SITE PLAN
VARIANCE,MODIFICATION- 16
1 a. The pedestrian-oriented space shall be provided according to the following formula:
2
1%of the site area + 1%of the gross building area, at minimum.
3
b. The pedestrian-oriented space shall include all of the following:
4 i. Visual and pedestrian access (including barrier free access) to the abutting
structures from the public right-of-way or a nonvehicular courtyard; and
5
ii. Paved walking surfaces of either concrete or approved unit paving; and
6
iii. On-site or building-mounted lighting providing at least four (4)foot-candles
7 average) on the ground; and
8
iv. At least three (3) lineal feet of seating area (bench, ledge, etc) or one
9 individual seat per sixty(60)square feet ofplaza area or open space.
10 c. The following areas shall not count as pedestrian-oriented space.
11 i. The minimum required walkway. However, where walkways are widened or
enhanced beyond minimum requirements, the area may count as pedestrian-
12 oriented space if the Administrator determines such space meets the definition
13 ofpedestrian-oriented space.
14 21. As noted in Finding of Fact No. 3 and 4 above, the applicant is proposing a pedestrian patio
adjacent to the project frontage and accessible from the street. The patio meets the size, access and
15 materials requirements. Other urban amenities are proposed. As conditioned, these criteria are
16
satisfied.
17 RMC 4-3-100(E)(5)(1)Building Character and Massing:
18 1. All building facades shall include modulation or articulation at intervals of no more than
fortyfeet(40).
19
2. Modulations shall be a minimum of two feet (2) deep, sixteen feet (I 6) in height, and eight
20 feet(8) in width.
21 3. Buildings greater than one hundred sixty feet (160) in length shall provide a variety of
22 modulations and articulations to reduce the apparent bulk and scale of the facade; or provide
an additional special feature such as a clock tower, courtyard,fountain, or public gathering
23 area.
24 22. As noted in Finding of Fact 4(N and O), and as proposed and conditioned, these criteria are
25
satisfied.
26
SITE PLAN
VARIANCE,MODIFICATION- 17
I RMC 4-3-100(E)(5)(2) Ground-Level Details:
2 1. Human-scaled elements such as a lighting fixture, trellis, or other landscape feature shall be
3 provided along the facade's groundfloor.
4 2. On any facade visible to the public, transparent windows and/or doors are required to
comprise at least 50 percent of the portion of the ground floor facade that is between 4 feet
5 and 8 feet above ground(as measured on the true elevation).
6 3. Upper portions of building facades shall have clear windows with visibility into and out of the
7 building. However, screening may be applied to provide shade and energy efficiency. The
minimum amount of light transmittance for windows shall be 50 percent.
8
4. Display windows shall be designed for frequent change of merchandise, rather than
9 permanent displays.
10 5. Where windows or storefronts occur, they must principally contain clear glazing.
11 6. Tinted and dark glass, highly reflective (mirror-type)glass and film are prohibited.
12 23. As noted in Finding of Fact No. 4 above, human-scaled elements such as lighting fixtures or
13 other landscape features are proposed. However, the elements are not apparent on the provided
elevations (Ex. 4). Additional human scale elements are needed in order to reinforce a pedestrian
14 oriented development and enhance the commercial portion of the project at the street front.
15 RMC 4-3-100(E)(5)(3) Building Roof Lines: Buildings shall use at least one of the following
16 elements to create varied and interesting roofprofiles:
17 a. Extended parapets;
18 b. Feature elements projecting above parapets;
19 c. Projected cornices;
20 d. Pitched or sloped roofs
21 e. Buildings containing predominantly residential uses shall have pitched roofs with a minimum
22 slope of one to four (1:4) and shall have dormers or interesting roofforms that break up the
massiveness of an uninterrupted sloping roof.
23
24. The applicant has proposed a pitched asphalt shingle roof that has been broken up into
24 different components with the use of varying heights and multiple feature roof elements that project
above the main roof line.
25
26
SITE PLAN
VARIANCE, MODIFICATION- 18
I RMC 4-3-100(E)(5)(4)Building Materials:
2 1. All sides of buildings visible from a street, pathway, parking area, or open space shall be
3 finished on all sides with the same building materials, detailing, and color scheme, or if
different, with materials of the same quality.
4
2. All buildings shall use material variations such as colors, brick or metal banding,patterns or
5 textural changes.
6 3. Materials shall be durable, high quality, and consistent with more traditional urban
7 development, such as brick, integrally colored concrete masonry, pre-finished metal, stone,
steel, glass and cast-in-place concrete.
8
25. The applicant has proposed a building exterior with varied colors, textures, and profiles. This
9 criterion is satisfied.
10 RMC 4-3-100(E)(6) Signage:
11 1. Entry signs shall be limited to the name of the larger development.
12 2. Corporate logos and signs shall be sized appropriately for their location.
13
3. In mixed use and multi-use buildings, signage shall be coordinated with the overall building
14 design.
15 4. Freestanding ground-related monument signs, with the exception ofprimary entry signs, shall
16
be limited to five feet(S) above finished grade, including support structure.
17
5. Freestanding signs shall include decorative landscaping (ground cover and/or shrubs) to
provide seasonal interest in the area surrounding the sign. Alternately, signage may
18 incorporate stone, brick, or other decorative materials as approved by the Director.
19 6. All of the following are prohibited:
20 a. Pole signs;
21 b. Roof signs; and
22
c. Back-lit signs with letters or graphics on a plastic sheet (can signs or illuminated cabinet
23 signs). Exceptions: Back-lit logo signs less than ten (10) square feet are permitted as area
signs with only the individual letters back-lit (see illustration, subsection G8 of this
24 Section).
25 26. As described in Finding of Fact No. 5, the applicant provided a conceptual sign package (Ex.
26
28). The final sign package will be reviewed by the Current Planning Project Manager at the time of
building permit review. This criterion is satisfied.
SITE PLAN
VARIANCE, MODIFICATION- 19
I RMC 4-3-100(E)(7)Lighting:
2 1. Pedestrian-scale lighting shall be provided at primary and secondary building entrances.
3 Examples include sconces on building facades, awnings with down-lighting and decorative
street lighting.
4
3. Accent lighting shall also be provided on building facades (such as sconces) and/or to
5 illuminate other key elements of the site such as gateways, specimen trees, other significant
6
landscaping, water features, and/or artwork.
7
4. 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
8 specifically listed as exempt from provisions located in RMC 4-4-075, Lighting, Exterior On-
Site (i.e., signage, governmental flags, temporary holiday or decorative lighting, right-of-way-
9 lighting, etc).
10 27. As noted in Findings of Fact No. 5, building lighting will be utilized to complement the
11 architecture of the building. The applicant has provided plans for pedestrian-scale lighting which
will ensure adequate public safety can be achieved without casting excessive glare on adjacent
12 properties (Ex. 29). Staff requested further information about the lighting to assess the effect of
13 glare. A condition of approval will require the applicant to provide a lighting plan with stated foot-
candles levels for review prior to building permit approval.
14
Setback Variance
15
16
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,
17 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
18 enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity and under identical zone classification;
19 28 As noted above in Finding of Fact No. 5(G), the maximum front setback in the UC-N2 zone is
20 five feet. The proposed building would have a 22 ft front setback. A five foot setback is impossible
in the subject's case because of an existing 15 ft electrical utility easement. The proposal minimizes,
21 to the extent possible, impacts to the protected slopes on the northeastern portion of the site by
pushing the building as far forward as possible and placing parking in an underground structure. The
22 proposed building setback is also in keeping with surrounding development patterns for building
23 massing. The criterion is met due to both the critical areas in the rear of the property and the existing
easement along the frontage.
24
RMC 4-9-250(B)(5)(b): That the granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the
25 public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and zone in which subject
26 property is situated;
SITE PLAN
VARIANCE,MODIFICATION-20
1 29. As noted above in Conclusion of Law No. 28, the proposed setback is similar to other
buildings and sites within the subject's vicinity. The greater setback also facilitates placement of a2pedestrianpatioalongthesubject's frontage, an urban amenity. The public welfare will be improved
3 by construction of the new plaza as facilitated by the increased setback. As determined in Finding of
Fact No. 5, no significant adverse impacts will be created by the proposal. In the absence of any
4 significant impacts and the likely improvement in public welfare, the impacts of the variance will not
be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the
5
vicinity and zone.
6
RMC 4-9-250(B)(5)(c): That approval shall not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent
7 with the limitation upon uses of other properties in the vicinity and zone in which the subject
property is situated;
8
9
30. Many of the buildings adjacent to the subject have similar setbacks due to the utility
easement. There is no special privilege.
10
RMC 4-9-250(B)(5)(d): That the approval as determined by the Reviewing Official is a minimum
11 variance that will accomplish the desired purpose.
12
31. The requested variance is the minimum necessary while still allowing the construction of the
13 public patio.
14 Critical Areas Variance
15 RMC 4-9-250(B)(5)(a): That the applicant suffers practical difficulties and unnecessary hardship
16 and the variance is necessary because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property,
including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings of the subject property, and the strict
17 application of the Zoning Code is found to deprive subject property owner of rights and privileges
18
enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity and under identical zone classification;
19
32. Development of the subject property is limited by the steep slopes on site, a topographical
constraint. The applicant has minimized to the greatest extent feasible the impact to the slopes by
20 placing the building as far to the front of the site as possible while accommodating a staff request to
build away from the front yard and providing structured parking. The impact to the slopes is the
21 minimum necessary to allow for development of the subject site that is consistent with similar hotel
22 development rights in surrounding properties.
23 RMC 4-9-250(B)(5)(b): That 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
24 property is situated;
25 33. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5(H), no significant adverse impacts will be created by
26 the proposal. The applicant's geotechnical engineer has adequately demonstrated the slopes are
SITE PLAN
VARIANCE,MODIFICATION-21
I stable and will remain so post-construction. As conditioned, the slope impact will not result in any
adverse impacts to the public health or safety. In the absence of any significant impacts, the impacts2ofthevariancewillnotbemateriallydetrimentaltothepublicwelfareorinjurioustopropertyor
3 improvements in the vicinity and zone.
4 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
5 property is situated;
6
34. The applicant only proposes to build a hotel of similar size to other hotels in the vicinity. No
7 special privilege is involved.
8 RMC 4-9-250(B)(5)(d): That the approval as determined by the Reviewing Official is a minimum
9
variance that will accomplish the desired purpose.
10 35. Staff requested that the applicant expand the front yard setback in order to reduce the aesthetic
scale impacts of the building. The requested variance is the minimum necessary to accommodate the11
expanded front yard setback requested by staff while also enabling a reasonably sized hotel. The
12 criterion is met.
13 Street Modification
14 RMC 4-9-250(D)(2): Whenever there are practical difficulties involved in carrying out the
15 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,
16 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
17 modification:
18
a. Substantially implements the policy direction of the policies and objectives of the
19 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element and the Community Design Element and the
proposed modification is the minimum adjustment necessary to implement these policies and
20 objectives;
21 b. Will meet the objectives and safety, function, appearance, environmental protection and
maintainability intended by the Code requirements, based upon sound engineering judgment;
22 c. Will not be injurious to other property(ies) in the vicinity;
d. Conforms to the intent and purpose of the Code;
23 e. Can be shown to be justified and required for the use and situation intended; and
24
f. Will not create adverse impacts to other property(ies) in the vicinity.
25 36. The criterion above are met for the requested modification to RMC 4-6-060 for the reasons
identified in Finding of Fact No. 4(I). The requested modification places the street frontage
26 improvements along Lake Washington Blvd N. instead of along the west property line of the south
SITE PLAN
VARIANCE, MODIFICATION-22
I parcel, which is not contiguous with the road. This area in front of the south lot is currently used to
access overflow staff parking from Gene Coulon Memorial Park. The applicant is not proposing an2
access point along this portion of Lake Washington Blvd N. A condition of approval will require the
3 applicant to submit a revised road improvement plan depicting a 24-foot wide driveway approach
between the railroad tracks and the southwest property line of parcel no. 334450-0006 along Lake
4 Washington Blvd N (Ex. 26) to preserve the overflow parking access. No adverse impacts are
5
anticipated from the proposed modification.
6 Parking Modification
7 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
8 provided he/she shall first find that a specific reason makes the strict letter of this Code impractical,
9 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
10 modification:
11 a. Substantially implements the policy direction of the policies and objectives of the
12 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element and the Community Design Element and the
proposed modification is the minimum adjustment necessary to implement these policies and
13 objectives;
b. Will meet the objectives and safety, function, appearance, environmental protection and
14 maintainability intended by the Code requirements, based upon sound engineeringjudgment;
c. Will not be injurious to other property(ies) in the vicinity;
15 d. Conforms to the intent and purpose of the Code;
16 e. Can be shown to be justified and required for the use and situation intended; and
f. Will not create adverse impacts to other property(ies) in the vicinity.
17
37. The criterion above are met for the requested modification to RMC 4-6-060 for the reasons
18 identified in Finding of Fact No. 4(F). Though the RMC requires 163 parking spaces, the applicant
19 has reasonably proved that 147 spaces are more than adequate to meet expected demand. Both the
applicant and the City testified to the adequacy of the reduced number of spaces. Though there is a
20 regional parking shortage, the reduced number of spaces is not anticipated to create adverse impacts
to other properties in the vicinity as the proposed parking will more than meet the demand created by
21 the project.
22
DECISION
23
All applicable permitting criteria are met as outlined in the Conclusions of Law above. As
24 conditioned below, the Site Plan, Parking Modification, Street Modification, Setback Variance,
25 Critical Area Variance are approved subject to the following conditions:
26
SITE PLAN
VARIANCE, MODIFICATION-23
1 1. The applicant shall comply with the four (4) mitigation measures issued as part of the
2
Determination of Non-Significance Mitigated, dated June 12, 2015.
a. The applicant shall comply with all design recommendations included within the
3 Geotechnical Report, as prepared by Earth Solutions Northwest LLC (ESNW),
4
updated April 21,2015 or an updated report submitted at a later date.
b. The applicant shall be required to provide, to the Current Planning Project Manager,
5 a replanting plan of the south and southeast portions of the site ("hillside") that
6 includes identifying disturbances to the existing native vegetation prior to
construction permit approval.
7 c. A prorated share of the traffic signal and roadway improvement costs (currently
8 being constructed by SECO Development) shall be collected from the proposed
project based upon the ratio of number of trips that will be added by the project to the
9 number of future baseline trips at the Southport/Gene Coulon Park entrance/Lake
Washington Blvd N Intersection. Should SECO establish a street and utility
10 Latecomers Agreement, these funds could be used to reimburse the cost of these
11 roadway improvements in the amount established by such an agreement. The fee will
be based on (new PM peak hour trips) / (total PM peak hour trips) x (cost of new
12 signal and improvements). The fee shall be paid prior to final occupancy.
13
d. The applicant shall create a public outreach plan in coordination with the City of
Renton to communicate with road users, the general public, area residences and
14 businesses, and appropriate public entities about project information; road conditions
in the work zone area; and the safety and mobility effects of the work zone. The
15 public outreach plan shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning
16 Project Manager prior to engineering permit approval.
2. The applicant shall complete a lot combination prior to building permit issuance.
17
3. A revised Geotechnical report shall be submitted to the Plan Reviewer prior to engineering
18 permit approval, noting corrected impacts to steeps slopes and any changes in
recommendations accordingly.
19
4. The property owner shall retain a qualified geotechnical consulting firm to perform, on an
20 annual basis, a reconnaissance-level geologic hazard and risk evaluation of the steep slopes
on the designated critical areas of this property. The objective of the evaluation is to assess
21 current slope conditions and advise the owner on areas of elevated risk for impacts to
22 property or conditions that present life and safety concerns. The consulting firm shall
provide an annual report to the property owner summarizing observations, conclusions and
23 recommendations in regard to the evaluation. Copies of the reports shall be made available
to the City of Renton upon request. The Current Planning Manager may temporarily or
24 permanently waive the annual report requirement when the reports are no longer necessary to
25
protect public safety.
5. The applicant shall submit a revised road improvement plan depicting a 24-foot wide
26 driveway approach between the railroad tracks and the southwest property line of parcel no.
SITE PLAN
VARIANCE,MODIFICATION-24
1 334450-0006 along Lake Washington Blvd N. The road improvements shall tie into the
recently completed intersection improvements at Lake Washington Blvd N and Coulon
2 Beach Park/Houser Way N. The revised road improvement plan shall be submitted to, and
3 approved by,the Plan Reviewer prior to construction permit approval.
4
6. The applicant shall be required to submit a detailed landscaping plan depicting similar
screening along the north elevation second floor patio area that is consistent with the
5 landscaping proposed along the west elevation second floor patio area to achieve a
significant landscaped roof patio screen between the two hotels. The landscaping plan shall
6 be submitted to, and approved by,the Current Planning Project Manager prior to engineering
7
permit approval.
7. The applicant shall be required to submit a sign package which indicates the location of the
8 monument sign. The monument sign shall be compatible with the building's architecture and
exterior finishes and contributes to the character of the development. The final sign package
9 shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to
10 building permit approval.
11
8. The applicant shall provide a lighting plan with foot-candles levels that adequately provide
for public safety without casting excessive glare on adjacent properties. The final lighting
12 plan shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to
building permit approval.
13 9. The applicant shall be required to add 16 bicycle parking spaces onsite. Bicycle parking shall
14 be provided for secure extended use and shall protect the entire bicycle and its components
and accessories from theft and weather. Acceptable examples include bike lockers, bike
15 check-in systems, in-building parking, and limited access fenced areas with weather
protection. A final bicycle parking analysis and bicycle parking plan demonstrating
16 compliance with the bicycle requirements outlined in RMC 4-4-080F.I I shall be submitted
17 to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit approval.
10. The applicant shall be required to submit a sample material of the finished cast-in-place
18 concrete retaining wall representing the reveals, score joints and sandblasted treatment. The
19 cast-in-place concrete, used to create the retaining wall in the front yard setback, shall be
screened with landscaping and berming to shield at least fifty percent(50%) of the wall. The
20 wall shall not exceed a height that would necessitate pedestrian safety railing. The retaining
wall shall be designed to be used as a pedestrian seating wall from the outdoor patio area. A
21 retaining wall detail with materials and treatments shall be submitted to, and approved by,
22 the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit approval.
11. The applicant shall retain the location of the guestroom HVAC units, along the sides of the
23 building modulation/columns, in order to reduce visibility from the street. No individual
24 HVAC unit shall be relocated to be under the window mounts that face the public realm.
12. The applicant shall consult with the City of Renton Community Services Department to
25 provide additional landscaping within the public right-of-way and/or wall treatments that
26 would minimize the impact of the cast-in-place concrete retaining wall from Lake
SITE PLAN
VARIANCE, MODIFICATION-25
I Washington Blvd N. The additional landscaping or wall treatments shall be submitted to,
2 and approved by,the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit approval.
3 DATED this 2nd day of August,2015.
4
5 I'll) ol€recht z
6
City of Renton Hearing Examiner
7
8
9 Appeal Right and Valuation Notices
10
RMC 4-8-110(E)(9)provides that the final decision of the hearing examiner is subject to appeal to
11 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
12 request for reconsideration to the hearing a examiner may also be filed within this 14 day appeal
13
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
14 regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the City Clerk's Office, Renton City Hall — 7th
floor, (425)430-6510.
15
Affected property owners may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes16
notwithstanding any program of revaluation.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
SITE PLAN
VARIANCE,MODIFICATION- 26