HomeMy WebLinkAboutCedar Ridge Church Decision �
Denis Law Mayor
�
City Clerk-Jason A.Seth,CMC
January 27, 2017
Peter Harvard
Gabbert Architects Planners
20011 Ballinger Way NE, #211
Shoreline, WA 98155
Subject: Hearing Examiner's Final Decision
RE: Cedar Ridge Church Expansion (LUA-16-000128)
Dear Mr. Harvard:
Enclosed please find the Hearing Examiner's Final Decision dated January 25, 2017.
I can be reached at (425) 430-6510 or jseth@rentonwa.gov. Thank you.
Sincerely,
.���
�
Jason A. Seth, CMC
City Clerk
cc: Hearing Examiner
Jill Ding,Senior Planner
Jennifer Henning, Planning Director
Vanessa Dolbee,Current Planning Manager
Brianne Bannwarth, Development Engineering Manager
Craig Burnell, Building Official
Jennifer Cisneros,Secretary, Planning Division
Julia Medzegian,City Council Liaison
Parties of Record(4)
1055 South Grady Way,Renton,WA 98057 • (425)430-6510/Fax (425)430-6516 • rentonwa.gov
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON
9 )
�O RE: Cedar Ridge Church Expansion } FINAL DECISION
1� Canditional Uses and Variance �
)
12 )
�� LUA16-000128, ECF, CU-H, V-A }
14
Summary
1S
I� The applicant requests appraval af a conditional use permit applicatian for a praposed 12,l 80
square foot addition to the Cedar River Church located at I 141 l SE 164th Street. The applicant
17 also requests a variance to exceed the 30-foot height limit applicabie ta the R-8 district with a
maxirnum height af 40 feet and one inch, The applicatians are approved with canditions,
18
19
Testimony
20
2� Jill Ding, City of Renton Senior Planner, summarized the proposal. In response to examiner
questions, Ms. Ding noted that stormwater regulations anly vested for 180 days from the date af
22 application if no utility permit is fiied and mare than that time has elapsed so the new regulations
apply. Ms. Ding nated a traffic study had been prepared for the project. Less than 20 am/pm trips
23 �,�,y�i�e generated by the proposal so na full traffic analysis was required.
24
Vanessa Dolbee, planning manager, clarified that typical single-family hornes have the roof pitch
2S proposed by the applicant, but since the church has a much Iarger footprint additional height is
necessary to accammodate the raof pitch.
26
VARIANCE AND CONDITIONAL USE- 1
1 Russell Johnson, applicant, noted that the current eapacity of the church is I20 and the praposed
capacity is 301. Part of the purpose of the additian is to bring the building up ta ADA requirements.
2
� Marlin Gabbert, project architect, noted that the roof pitch is necessary because churches historically
have high pitched roafs, it's consistent with neighbarhood character and it prevents water pooting
4 problems. 6:12 is fairly standard for buildings af this size.
� Pat Paull, neighbor, testified he supports the expansion. He is concerned about the sauthern and
6 western borders af the property. Several years aga, the church filled the property with several
thousand cubic yards of filt and this f'tlI introduced blackberry bushes. He and an adjoining property
'7 awner had to remave several dumpsters worth of blackberry bushes. He wants to see mare dedication
and restaration of plant species as well as clean-up of the invasive blackberry bushes. When the
$ property was filled, it was not graded very well and it's difficult ta maintain with standard tools. He
� betieves there may be hazardous wastes in the fill area. He also noted there's a powerline easement
that will prevent the installation of some of the required landscaping trees.
10
In response to examiner questions, Ms. Ding noted that the sauthern portion of the property has
11 wetlands, so there will be no �lt in that area. Ms. Ding noted that she doesn't anticipate any new
12 blackberry bushes would be generated by the project 6ecause the only cleared areas wilt be for the
new asphalted parking lot, She noted that the City's critical areas regutations allow for the removal
l� af blackberries within critical areas. In response to examiner questions, she confirmed that there was
no blackberry removal required af the praposal because the applicant was eiiminating its 6uffer
14 averagir�g request. The recommendatians ofthe critical areas report no longer apply.
1 s Exhibits
16
17 Exhibits 1-19, identified at page 2 of the staff report were admitted inta the record during the
hearing. The staff's power point was admitted as Exhibit 20.
18
19 Findings of Fact
24
Procedural:
21
1. Applicant. Cedar River Church.
22
2� 2. Hearin�. A hearing was held on the applications on January 10, 2017 in the City of Renton
Council Chambers.
24
3. Proiect Description. The applicant requests approval af applications for a conditional use
2S permit and a height variance for a proposed 12,]80 square foot addition to the Cedar River Church
2� located at 11411 SE 164th Street. The proposed additian would include a 3,237-square foot
VARIANCE AND CONDITIONAL USE-2
1 basement, 6,210 square foot main floor, and 2,733 square foot balcony. The proposal would increase
2 the existing total seating capacity within the church from 120 to 301. The existing original 2,540
square foot church building would remain and would be converted to classroom and fellowship hall
3 space. The project site totals 168,630 syuare feet (3.87 acres). The proposed addition would have a
4 maximum height of 40'-1". The proposed project includes the addition of 20 parking spaces, resulting
in a total of 60 parking spaces on site. Access to the site would remain off SE 164th Street via one
5 curb cut. A sensitive slope (grade between 25 and 40 percent) and two Category 3 wetlands have been
6 identified on the project site (Wetlands A and B). Wetland A would have a standard buffer of 100 feet
and Wetland B would have a standard buffer of 75 feet.
7
4. Surroundin�Uses. Surrounding land use is composed of single-family development zoned R-
g 6 and R-8.
9
5. Adverse Imnacts. There are no significant adverse impacts associated with the project.
10 Pertinent impacts are more specifically addressed as follows:
11 A. Aesthetic. The only impact of concern would be aesthetic caused by the proposed increase in
12 height and size. However, overall aesthetic impacts may actually be improved because the
City's landscaping standards require the applicant to surround the property with partially site
13 obscuring trees that will grow to heights that exceed the proposed height of the church addition.
On-site trees will also be retained in conformance with the City's tree retention standards as
14 outlined in the staff report, providing further aesthetic buffering.
15
B. Traffic. Traffic impacts caused by the increase in capacity from 120 to 301 are found to be
16 nominal enough under City regulations to not even trigger a level of service impact analysis,
since the proposal will not increase am or pm peak hour traffic by more than 20 trips per hour.
17
1 g C. Critical Areas. A sensitive slope (grade between 25 and 40 percent) and two Category 3
wetlands have been identified on the project site (Wetlands A and B). Wetland A would have a
19 standard buffer of 100 feet and Wetland B would have a standard buffer of 75 feet. The
proposal will not encroach into the sensitive slopes, wetlands or their buffers. Originally, the
20 applicant had proposed a larger development, which necessitated buffer averaging, which is
21 addressed in the critical areas report. The applicant has since reduced the size of the
development such that no reduction in critical area buffers is necessary. The conditions of
22 approval require a revised site plan to eliminate the proposed buffer averaging.
23 D. Blackberrv Bushes. There was some concern expressed about the introduction of invasive non-
native blackberry bushes from filling activity associated with prior church development.
24 However, there is no evidence or reasonable basis to conclude that blackberry bushes would be
25 introduced by the proposed expansion as all proposed clearing will be developed with
impervious surface or landscaping. Beyond this, legally the applicant can only be required to
26
VARIANCE AND CONDITIONAL USE - 3
1 mitigate impacts of the proposed development and not any problems caused by prior
development. See Burton v. Clark County, 91 Wn. App. 505 (1998).
2
3 E. Noise, li�ht and �lare. Noise, light and glare impacts are adequately mitigated as the proposed
addition, which would house the church sanctuary, would provide better sound containment
4 than the existing structure, due to improvements made in construction materials from the time
the original church building was built. Additionally, noise, light and glare impacts would be
5 mitigated through the planting of the proposed I S-foot wide landscape buffer around the
6 perimeter of the property. Further,the proposed addition has been oriented to shield neighboring
residential structures from any noise, light and glare that may be associated with the church use.
7
g Conclusions of Law
9
1. Authoritv. RMC 4-8-080(G) provides that hearing examiner conditional use permit review
10 and variances are Type III applications. As Type III applications, RMC 4-8-080(G) grants the
11 Examiner with the authority to hold a hearing and issue a final decision, subject to closed record
appeal to the City Council.
12
13 2' Zonin�/Comorehensive Plan Desienations. The property is zoned Residential-8 (R-8). The
Comprehensive Plan designation is Residential Medium Density.
14
3. Review Criteria. Hearing examiner conditional use review is required by RMC 4-2-060(G)
15 for religious institutions. Conditional use criteria are set by RMC 4-9-030. A variance is required
16 because the proposed 40 foot one inch height exceeds the 30-foot building height set by Note 18 of
RMC 4-2-ll0(D) for the R-8 zone. Variance criteria are governed by RMC 4-9-250(B)(5).
17 Applicable criteria are quoted below in italics and applied through associated conclusions of law.
18
19 Conditionat Use
20 The Administrator or designee or the Hearing Examiner shall consider, as applicable, the following
21 factors for all applications:
22 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
23 zoning regulations and any other plans,programs, maps or ordinances of the Ciry of Renton.
24 4. Except as to compliance with the height limits subject to the variance request, the proposal is
25 consistent with the City's development regulations and comprehensive plan for the reasons identified
in Findings of Fact 14 and 15 of the staff report.
26
VARIANCE AND CONDITIONAL USE -4
1 RMC 4-9-030(C)(2): Appropriate Location: The proposed location shall not resz�lt in the
2 detrimental overconcentration of a particzrlar use within the City or within the immediate area of the
proposed use. The proposed location shall be suited for the proposed use.
3
5. The site is currently occupied by the Cedar Ridge Church. The proposal involves the
4 expansion of an existing use and not the establishment of a new use on the project site. The proposed
5 church expansion is located within an existing established single family neighborhood and would not
result in an overconcentration of a church use within this part of the City. No other churches appear to
6 be located nearby.
� RMC 4-9-030(C)(3): Effect on Adjacent Properties: The proposed use at the proposed location
g shall not result in substantial or undue adverse effects on adjacent property.
9 6. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5, as conditioned and mitigated, there are no adverse
impacts associated with the proposal, so it will not result in substantial or undue adverse effects on
10 adjacent property.
11
RMC 4-9-030(C)(4): Compatibility: The proposed use shall be compatible with the scale and
12 character of the neighborhood.
13 �, As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5, the proposal will not create any adverse aesthetic
14 impacts or any other impacts that would create compatibility problems.
15 RMC 4-9-030(C)(5): Parking:Adequate parking is, or will be made, available.
16 g. The proposal complies with the City's parking standards. Parking regulations require that
1� religious institutions provide a minimum and maximum of 1 space for every 5 seats in the main
auditorium; however, in no case shall there be less than 10 spaces. For all existing institutions
1 g enlarging the seating capacity of their auditoriums, 1 additional parking space shall be provided for
19 every 5 additional seats provided by the new construction. A minimum of 3 ADA spaces shall be
provided for parking lots with between 51 and 75 spaces. The standard stall dimensions for 90-degree
20 head in parking is 9 feet by 20 feet with a 24-foot wide aisle width. The proposal includes a total of
21 60 parking spaces, of which 56 would be standard stalls and 4 would be ADA accessible stalls. The
proposed parking would comply with the minimum/maximum stall requirements as well as the
22 minimum dimensional requirements.
23 RMC 4-9-030(C)(6): Traffic: The use shall ensure safe movement for vehicles and pedestrians and
24 shall mitigate potential effects on the surrounding area.
25 9. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5, the proposal provides for adequate off-site traffic
facilities as trip generation impacts are considered negligible under City standards. The proposal
26 includes the construction of a surface parking lot, which meets the parking standards as well as the
VARIANCE AND CONDITIONAL USE - 5
1 emergency access requirements of the Renton Fire Authority. In addition, a pedestrian sidewalk is
proposed, connecting SE 164th Street to the front of the church. A transportation concurrency
2 review was completed (Exhibit 17) and the proposal passes the City's Transportation Concurrency
3 Test.
4 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.
5
6 10. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5(E), the proposal will not create any significant noise,
light and glare impacts.
7
RMC 4-9-030(C)(8): Landscaping: Landscaping shall be provided in all areas not occupied by
g buildings, paving, or critical areas. Additional landscaping may be required to buffer adjacent
9 properties from potentially adverse effects of the proposed use.
10 11. As shown in the aerial photograph of the critical areas report, Ex. 3, the entirety of the
property is either landscaped or is developed or has critical areas. The site plans do not show any
11 change in these circumstances. The criterion is met.
12
Variance
13
RMC 4-9-250(B)(5)(a): That the applicant suffers practical difficulties and unnecessary hardship
14 and the variance is necessary because of special circumstances applicable to subject property,
including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings of the subject property, and the strict
15 application of the Zoning Code is found to deprive subject property owner of rights and privileges
16 enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity and under identical zone classification;
17 12. The special circumstances are that the applicant cannot build a two-story structure with 6:12
pitch roof as authorized for the majority of other structures in the zoning district (i.e. single-family
1 g residences) because the comparatively large size of the church results in a roof of 6:12 pitch that
19 exceeds maximum height. The criterion is met.
20 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
21 property is situated;
22 13. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5, there are no significant adverse impacts associated
23 with the proposal. As a result, the granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the
public welfare or injurious to surrounding properties as required by the criterion above.
24
25 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
26 property is situated;
VARIANCE AND CONDITIONAL USE - 6
1
14. As noted in Conclusion of Law No. 12, the height variance is only necessary to enable the
2 applicant to enjoy the same privileges as authorized for the predominant development pattern of the
3 area, i.e. two story structures with 6:12 pitch roofing. No special privilege is associated with the
request.
4 RMC 4-9-250(B)(5)(d): That the approval as determined by the Reviewing Official is a minimum
variance that will accomplish the desired purpose.
5
6 15. The requested height variance is the minimum necessary to enable a 6:12 roof pitch for a
modest sized two story church. The criterion is met.
7
g DECISION
9
All applicable permitting criteria are met as outlined in the Conclusions of Law above. As
10 conditioned below, the Conditional Use and Variance applications are all approved subject to the
following condition of approval:
11
12
1. A detailed landscape plan shall be submitted at the time of Utility Construction Permit
13 Review including:
14 a. Shrubs within the 10-foot onsite landscape strip required along SE 164th Street;
b. The required 15-foot wide landscape strip around the stormwater detention ponds.
15 The required landscape shall be located on the outside of any required fencing for
16 the stormwater ponds; and
c. Shall also demonstrate compliance with the parking lot landscaping requirements
1� outlined under RMC 4-4-070.
1 g The detailed landscape plan shall be submitted to the Current Planning Manager for
review and approval. Landscaping shall be installed prior to issuance of a Certificate of
19 Occupancy for the proposed church expansion.
20 2. A landscape analysis demonstrating compliance with the parking lot landscaping
requirements, as outlined in RMC 4-4-070, be submitted at the time of Utility
21 Construction Permit application for review and approval by the Current Planning Project
22 Manager.
3. The applicant shall either submit plans to construct the required frontage improvements
23 along SE 164t" Street (including the required 8-foot wide landscape strip between the
24 curb and sidewalk) or shall submit an application for a modification and receive approval
from the required frontage improvements at the time of Utility Construction Permit
25 Review.
26 4. A final tree retention plan shall be submitted at the time of Utility Construction Permit
application. The plan shall evaluate whether under the revised expansion proposal any
VARIANCE AND CONDITIONAL USE - 7
1 additiona] trees located on the southeastern corner of the praject site are now available for
retention. The final tree retention plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Current
2 Planning Project Manager priar ta Construction Permit issuance.
3 5. A revised site plan shall be submitted at the time of Utility Construction Permit
applicatian detnonstrating compliance with the standard wetland buffer requirements for
`� Wetlands A and $. Wetland A was identified as having a standard buffer requirement of
5 100 feet. Wetland B was identified as having a standard buffer requirement of 75 feet.
The revised site plan shall be submitted to the Current Planning Project Manager for
( review and approvai priar to Utility Construction permit issuance.
7 6. The applicant shall record a Native Growth Protectian Easement (NGPE) over onsite
wetland and/or wetland buffer areas. The easement shall be recorded prior to the issuance
g of a Certificate of Occupancy for the propased addition.
� DATED this 25th day of January, 2017.
10
� � � --�'�,--�.�-�-�-��.�.......��_�.
�n� A.oMt�nc�
12
City of Renton Hearing Exarniner
13
14
15
Appeal Right and Valuation Notices
16
RMC 4-8-0$0(G} classifies the appiication(s) subject to this decision as Type III applications
17 subject to closed record appeal to the City of Renton City Councit. Appeals of the hearing
lg exatniner°s decisian rnust be filed within fourteen (14} calendar days from the date af the decision.
A request for reconsideration to the hearing examiner may aiso be filed within this 14-day appeal
�9 period.
2Q Affected property awners may request a change in valuation far property tax purpases
2� notwithstanding any program af revaluatian.
22
23
24
2S
26
VARIANCE AND CONDITIONAL USE - 8