HomeMy WebLinkAboutHEX Decision - with Appendix - RSD parking facility1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
SITE PLAN, VARIANCE AND CONDITIONAL USE
CAO VARIANCE - 1
1
BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON
Phil Olbrechts, Hearing Examiner
RE: Renton School District
Transportation Expansion
Site Plan Review, Conditional Use,
and Variance
File No. LUA24-000376
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS
OF LAW AND
Summary
The applicant is requesting Hearing Examiner Site Plan Review, Conditional Use, and Variance
approval to expand the Renton School District’s parking lot located at 444 and 450 Park Ave N
(APNs 7224000675 and 7224000676). The Conditional Use Permit is required as the proposed
use qualifies as a government facility, which is conditionally permitted in the CA zone with a
public hearing. The application includes a Variance Request to allow for the installation of an
eight-foot (8’) tall security fence with a reduced setback of 10.5 feet (10.5’) along Park Ave N.
The proposed fencing would provide a higher level of security for district vehicles while
maximizing parking and landscaping capacity. The applications are approved subject to
conditions.
ORAL TESTIMONY
A computer-generated transcript of the hearing has been prepared to provide an overview of the hearing
testimony. The transcript is not intended to provide a precisely accurate rendition of testimony but generally
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
SITE PLAN, VARIANCE AND CONDITIONAL USE
CAO VARIANCE - 2
2
identifies the subjects addressed during the hearing. The transcript is provided for informational purposes
only as Appendix A.
EXHIBITS
Exhibits 1-19 listed on page 2 of the staff report dated February 18, 2025, were admitted into the
record during the February 18th, 2025, public hearing. During the hearing additional items were
entered into the record. The City Staff PowerPoint presentation was entered as Exhibit 20. City
of Renton Maps from the city website were entered as Exhibit 21. The Google Earth aerial view
of the subject site was entered as Exhibit 22. The Renton School District SEPA Determination
with mitigation measures requested by the Duwamish Tribe was entered as Exhibit 23.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Procedural:
1. Applicant. Allison Conley, AHBL Inc., 1200 6th Ave, Suite 1620, Seattle, WA 98101
representing the Renton School District.
2. Hearing. A virtual hearing was held on the subject application at 11:00 am on February 18,
2025.
Substantive:
3. Project and Site Description. The applicant is requesting Hearing Examiner Site Plan Review,
Conditional Use, and Variance approval to expand the Renton School District’s parking lot by
the addition of 44 parkin stalls located at 444 and 450 Park Ave N (APNs 7224000675 and
7224000676). The project would include approximately 15,714 square feet of new impervious
surface within the parking lot expansion area. This is part of the larger Transportation Building
and Fleet Maintenance Facility, which totals approximately 5.2 acres, or the full city block
bounded by N 5th St, Garden Ave N, N 4th St, and Park Ave N.
The application includes a Variance Request to allow for the installation of an eight-foot (8’) tall
security fence with a reduced setback of 10.5 feet (10.5’) along Park Ave N. The proposed
fencing would provide a higher level of security for district vehicles while maximizing parking
and landscaping capacity.
Three (3) significant trees would be removed due to construction and 16 trees are to be planted.
The city’s mapping system has identified the subject property is within a High Seismic Hazard
Area and the Downtown Wellhead Protection Area Zone 2. The applicant submitted a SEPA
Environmental Checklist, SEPA Determination of Non-significance (DNS), Limited
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
SITE PLAN, VARIANCE AND CONDITIONAL USE
CAO VARIANCE - 3
3
Geotechnical Engineering Study, Technical Information Report, and a Cultural Resource
Assessment.
4. Surrounding Uses.
a. North: Vacant Office Building; Commercial Mixed Use (CA) Comprehensive Plan
Designation; Urban Center 2 (UC-2) zone.
b. East: RSD Transportation Building and Fleet Maintenance Facility; Commercial Mixed
Use (CMU) and Employment Area (EA) Comprehensive Plan Designations; Commercial
Arterial (CA) and Light Industrial (IL) zones.
c. South: RSD Transportation Building and Fleet Maintenance Facility; Commercial Mixed
Use (CMU) Comprehensive Plan Designation; Commercial Arterial (CA) zone.
d. West: Apartment and Single Family; Commercial Mixed Use (CMU) Comprehensive Plan
Designation; Commercial Arterial (CA) zone.
5. Adverse Impacts. There are no significant adverse impacts associated with the project. Project
impacts are more specifically addressed as follows:
A. Structure Placement and Scale. The primary orientation of the site remains towards Park Ave
N and N 5th St, with the proposed parking lot expansion designed to support the operational
needs of the Renton School District’s transportation facility. The project does not introduce
new structures that would impact the privacy of adjacent properties. The proposed perimeter
landscaping along Park Ave N and N 5th St would help mitigate potential visual and noise
impacts from the expanded parking area (Exhibit 4).
B. Views. Due to the site’s location in a developed commercial area, no significant view
corridors exist within or adjacent to the project site. The proposed parking lot expansion and
security fencing would not impact existing sightlines, and no changes to building height or
massing are proposed.
C. Noise, light and glare. The proposed parking lot expansion project would include additional
lighting for security and visibility. Noise from the site is expected to be minimal, with
primary activity occurring during standard operational hours. If all conditions of approval
are met, no noise, light or glare impacts are anticipated to affect this proposal. A condition
of approval, that the applicant submit a lighting plan that demonstrates compliance with
Renton Municipal Code (RMC) 4-4-075 and provides enough light for safety and security
but does not create excessive light impacts on neighboring properties. The final lighting plan
shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to civil
construction permit issuance.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
SITE PLAN, VARIANCE AND CONDITIONAL USE
CAO VARIANCE - 4
4
D. Screening. No new surface-mounted or roof-mounted equipment would be installed as part
of the project. The applicant has proposed the installation of an eight-foot (8') tall security
fence constructed of galvanized steel and coated with a corrosion protection product and
powder-coated black paint around the parking lot perimeter, which is approximately 465 feet
(465’). The proposed security fence would provide additional screening for district vehicles
(Exhibits 4, 15, and 17). The project also includes perimeter landscaping along Park Ave N
and N 5th St (Exhibit 4), which would enhance visual screening. If the applicant proposes
the installation of any new surface-mounted equipment, screening details would be required
to be submitted at the time of building permit application to ensure compliance with the
screening standards.
E. Tree Retention. The applicant has proposed the removal of three (3) existing significant
trees and the planting of 16 new trees as part of the required perimeter and interior
landscaping improvements (Exhibit 4). The tree removal and replanting proposal complies
with the tree retention and replacement requirements of RMC 4-4-130. If any additional tree
removal is proposed as part of an updated landscape plan, an updated tree retention and tree
credit worksheet would be required to be submitted at the time of civil construction permit
application to ensure compliance with the tree retention standards for the CA zone.
F. Natural Features. The proposal will not adversely affect any natural features. The site is
located in a developed commercial and industrial area with limited natural features. The
proposed parking lot expansion and associated improvements would occur at or slightly
above grade and would not significantly impact any existing views in the immediate vicinity.
The project includes landscaping enhancements along Park Ave N and N 5th St, which would
improve the visual character of the site while maintaining compatibility with the surrounding
area.
G. Landscaping. The proposed landscaping improvements include a 10-foot (10’) wide
landscaped buffer along Park Ave N and N 5th St, incorporating new tree plantings and
groundcover to enhance the site’s appearance and provide a visual buffer between the
parking lot/security fence and the public right-of-way (Exhibit 4). In addition, the project
also includes a 1,200 square foot pedestrian plaza at the corner of Park Ave N and N 5th St,
incorporating additional landscaping to enhance the pedestrian experience. The applicant has
proposed the removal of three (3) existing trees and the planting of 16 new trees, which
would further improve site aesthetics and contribute to the urban tree canopy. The 10-foot
(10’) on-site landscaped area, pedestrian plaza, and interior landscaping islands would be
planted with a variety of trees, shrubs, and ground cover. A final landscape plan would be
reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit
issuance.
H. Critical Areas. The proposal will not create significant adverse impacts to critical areas.
The subject site is located in an area with a known High Seismic Hazard Area. As such,
the applicant submitted a Limited Geotechnical Engineering Study, prepared by
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
SITE PLAN, VARIANCE AND CONDITIONAL USE
CAO VARIANCE - 5
5
Associated Earth Sciences Incorporated, dated October 4, 2024 (Exhibit 7) with the
application. The project would include approximately 15,714 square feet of new
impervious surface within the parking lot expansion area. The report includes multiple
construction recommendations for site preparation and stormwater infiltration,
including but not limited to, site preparation and pavement recommendations.
Additionally, according to COR Maps, the property is located within the Downtown
Wellhead Protection Zone 2. Open facilities and open conveyance systems may require a
liner in accordance with the 2022 Renton Surface Water Design Manual. Any revisions or
updates to the storm drainage system onsite or nearby would be required to meet the Zone 2
Aquifer Protection Area(s) (APA) regulations. Fill is anticipated to be brought on the site
and therefore any offsite fill materials shall be from a verifiable source in order to ensure it
is clear of contaminants. The city’s grading and excavation regulations require that when
imported fill is in excess of 50 cubic yards within a Wellhead Protection Zone, a source
statement certified by a qualified professional be provided or confirmation that the fill was
obtained from a WSDOT approved source.
I. Compatibility/Overconcentration. The proposal is compatible with surrounding uses and
does not represent an overconcentration of use.
The proposed expansion of the Renton School District’s parking lot for school bus storage
and staff parking would not result in an overconcentration of similar uses. The proposed
project is part of the existing Transportation and Fleet Maintenance Facility and is
appropriately located within a commercial and light industrial area that supports vehicle
storage and fleet management operations (Exhibits 2 and 5).
6. Adequacy of Infrastructure/Public Services. The project will be served by adequate
infrastructure and public services as follows:
A. Water and Sewer Service. The proposal will be served by adequate water and sewer. Water
and sewer service will be provided by the City of Renton. The development would be subject
to applicable water system development charges (SDCs) and meter installation fees based
on the number and size of the meters for domestic uses. The development would be subject
to fees for water connections, cut and caps, and purity tests. Since the development is
proposing an irrigation meter and not domestic services, system development charges are
not applicable. Fees would be charged based on the Current Fee Schedule rate at the time of
construction permit issuance.
B. Fire and Police. The proposal will be served by adequate police and fire service. Police and
Fire Prevention staff indicated that sufficient resources exist to furnish services to the
proposed development if the Applicant provides Code required improvements and fees.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
SITE PLAN, VARIANCE AND CONDITIONAL USE
CAO VARIANCE - 6
6
C. Drainage. The proposal provides for adequate and appropriate drainage control. The
proposal is subject to the 2022 City of Renton Surface Water Design Manual. The Manual
generally requires that the proposal not generate off-site flows that exceed pre-developed
forested conditions of the project site. The applicant submitted a Technical Information
Report, prepared by Jacobson Consulting Engineers, dated October 18, 2024 (Exhibit 6) with
the application. Site improvements would result in more than 5,000 square feet of new plus
replaced impervious surface and is subject to Full Drainage Review in accordance with the
2022 Renton Surface Water Design Manual (RSWDM). The TIR addressed the nine (9)
required minimum requirements and six (6) special requirements for Full Drainage Review.
Based on the city’s flow control map, the site falls within the Peak Rate Flow Control
Standard area matching Existing Conditions and is within the Lower Cedar River Drainage
Basin. As a result, the applicant is required to provide enhanced basic water quality
treatment. The applicant has proposed a Modular Wetland water quality treatment facility to
provide enhanced water quality treatment. Staff generally concurs with the preliminary
stormwater mitigation strategies with the exception of the BMP analysis and feasibility
selection criteria (Exhibit 19). The civil construction plans and the final TIR would be
reviewed for conformance to the core and special requirements during the civil construction
permit review process.
D. Parks/Open Space. No open space is required under City regulations for this type of proposal
and none is necessary since the proposal doesn’t create demand for open space use.
E. Transportation. The proposal provides for adequate and appropriate transportation facilities.
Access to the site would be maintained via the existing parking lots (Exhibit 5). Since the
project consists of parking lot improvements and no new building construction or additions
valued at over $175,000, no street frontage improvements or right-of-way dedication are
required. The applicant has proposed the removal of three (3) older curb cuts along Park Ave
N, which would be replaced with a curb, gutter, and sidewalk to enhance pedestrian safety.
Detailed engineering and conformance review would occur during the civil construction
permit review process.
Vehicular connections to adjacent properties are not proposed or necessary, as the
surrounding uses primarily consist of school district operations, fleet maintenance, and
commercial properties. The parking lot expansion is designed to optimize internal circulation
for district staff and fleet vehicles while maintaining safe and efficient access to public
roadways. Pedestrian connections to adjacent properties are provided via the public sidewalk
along Park Ave N and N 5th St.
The proposal has passed the City’s Traffic Concurrency Test per RMC 4-6-070D (Exhibit
13), which is based upon a test of the citywide Transportation Plan and consideration of
growth levels included in the LOS-tested Transportation Plan.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
SITE PLAN, VARIANCE AND CONDITIONAL USE
CAO VARIANCE - 7
7
The expansion does not trigger the need for loading and delivery areas. The proposed
expansion of the Renton School District’s Administration and Transportation Facility does
not involve regular commercial deliveries or large-scale freight operations. The parking lot
would primarily be used for fleet vehicle storage and staff parking.
F. Transit and Bicycles. The proposal provides for adequate and appropriate transit and bicycle
facilities.
The site is expected to primarily serve Renton School District staff and fleet operations, with
most employees arriving by vehicle. However, multiple King County Metro bus stops are
located nearby along Park Ave N and N 4th St, providing access to public transit within a
short walking distance of the site. Additionally, the site is within proximity to planned transit
improvements that would enhance connectivity to public transportation.
Based on the minimum number of vehicle parking spaces required for the parking lot
expansion, the applicant is required to provide a minimum of four (4) bicycle parking spaces.
Bicycle parking should be located near the front entrance and positioned to ensure
accessibility without obstruction from vehicles. The submitted documents did not include
information or specifications for the required bicycle parking spaces, and therefore,
compliance with the bicycle parking standards in RMC 4-4-080F.11 could not be
determined. As a condition of approval, the applicant shall provide details of the proposed
off-street (interior or exterior) bicycle parking for at least four (4) spaces in accordance with
RMC 4-4-080F.11.
G. Parking. Based on the parking requirement to provide a minimum of 2.0 parking spaces per
1,000 square feet of net floor area and a maximum of 4.5 parking spaces per 1,000 square
feet of net floor area, the 7,340 square foot office/administration building would require
between 15 and 33 parking spaces. The 9,420 square foot service garage would be required
to provide a minimum and maximum of 24 parking spaces based on the vehicle service and
repair (large and small vehicles) requirement to provide 2.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet of
net floor area. RMC does not provide a minimum or maximum parking requirement for fleet
vehicle storage. The most similar use based upon staff experience would be outdoor storage
area with a minimum and maximum of 0.5 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of area. The
fleet storage area for district vehicles, including school buses, is approximately 2.25 acres,
which would allow for an additional 49 parking spaces at the facility. A total of 88-106
spaces would be required on the project site. The applicant has proposed a total of 98 spaces,
which falls within the required parking range for these three (3) uses.
7. Special Circumstances. Special circumstances justify the need for the Applicant’s fence height
variance. The location of the project site in a high crime area justifies the variance. All of the design
standards applicable to the project combined with the limited space of the project site don’t leave
sufficient room to meet the objectives of the proposed use while also enabling adequate fenced security.
Pushing the fence back to 15 feet (15’), as required by RMC 4-4-040E.2.a, would result in the loss of
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
SITE PLAN, VARIANCE AND CONDITIONAL USE
CAO VARIANCE - 8
8
an entire row of parking and would therefore not meet the needs of the school district for adequate
parking for the facility. Permitting staff concur that the subject site, located in the Community Center
Planning Area, warrants enhanced security measures to protect district vehicles from theft and
vandalism. The proposed use generally requires that vehicles and property be secured to prevent damage
and/or future code enforcement cases.
Conclusions of Law
1. Authority. The hearing examiner has final decision-making authority on the consolidated
applications subject to this decision.
A hearing examiner conditional use permit is required for the proposal because it qualifies
as part of an “other government facility” that triggers hearing examiner conditional use
permit review under RMC Table 4-2-060. RMC 4-8-080(G) classifies hearing examiner
conditional uses as Type III applications The associated variance and conditional use
permit appear to qualify as Type I or II uses, but are consolidated with the conditional use
permit application to be processed as Type III applications per RMC 4-8-080(C)(2).
2. Zoning/Comprehensive Plan Designations/Design District. The project site has a zoning
designation of Commercial Arterial (CA) and is within the Urban Design District D overlay. The
Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation is Commercial Mixed Use (CMU).
3. Review Criteria. Pursuant to RMC 4-9-200B, Site Plan Review is required for development in
the Commercial Arterial (CA) zoning classification when it is not exempt from Environmental
(SEPA) Review. Site Plan criteria are governed by RMC 4-9-200E.3, variance criteria are
governed by RMC 4-9-250(B)(6) and conditional use criteria by 4-9-030(D)1-8. All applicable
site plan, variance and conditional use permit criteria are quoted below in italics and applied via
associated conclusions of law.
Site Plan
RMC 4-9-200(E)(2). Level of Detail:
a. Master Plans: For master plan applications, the Administrator will evaluate compliance
with the review criteria at a level of detail appropriate for master plans. Master plans will
be evaluated for general compliance with the criteria and to ensure that nothing in the
master plan will preclude development of a site plan in full compliance with the criteria.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
SITE PLAN, VARIANCE AND CONDITIONAL USE
CAO VARIANCE - 9
9
b. Site Plans: For site plan applications, the Administrator will analyze the plan in detail
and evaluate compliance with the specific requirements discussed below. (Ord. 5676, 12-3-
2012)
4. The staff report and this Decision analyze the proposal in detail as required by the criterion
above for site plan applications.
RMC 4-9-200(E)(3): Criteria: The Administrator or designee must find a proposed project to be in
compliance with the following:
a. Compliance and Consistency: Conformance with plans, policies, regulations and approvals,
including:
i. Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan, its elements, goals, objectives, and policies,
especially those of the applicable land use designation; the Community Design Element; and any
applicable adopted Neighborhood Plan;
ii. Applicable land use regulations;
iii. Relevant Planned Action Ordinance and Development Agreements; and
iv. Design Regulations: Intent and guidelines of the design regulations located in RMC 4-3-100.
5. The criterion is met. The proposal is consistent with the comprehensive plan as outlined in
Finding No. 151 of the staff report. The proposal is consistent with the zoning code as outlined in
Finding No. 16 of the staff report. The project site is located within Design District ‘D’. However,
the design standards are not applicable because no buildings are proposed. No planned action
ordinance has been identified as applicable to the proposal.
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;
1 References to findings in the staff report are designed by “Finding No. _____.” References to findings from this
recommendation are “FOF No. _____.”
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
SITE PLAN, VARIANCE AND CONDITIONAL USE
CAO VARIANCE - 10
10
iii. Loading and Storage Areas: Locating, designing and screening storage areas, utilities, rooftop
equipment, loading areas, and refuse and recyclables to minimize views from surrounding properties;
iv. Views: Recognizing the public benefit and desirability of maintaining visual accessibility to
attractive natural features;
v. Landscaping: Using landscaping to provide transitions between development and surrounding
properties to reduce noise and glare, maintain privacy, and generally enhance the appearance of the
project; and
vi. Lighting: Designing and/or placing exterior lighting and glazing in order to avoid excessive
brightness or glare to adjacent properties and streets.
6. The criterion is met. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5 and 6, no off-site impacts are
significantly adverse. Specifically, not buildings are proposed so criteria applicable to structures
don’t apply. The proposal doesn’t include any loading areas or create the need for any. Circulation
is adequate as the added parking conforms to the City’s parking circulation standards as verified by
staff. Landscaping, views and lighting Circulation and loading areas conform to the criteria for the
reasons identified in FOF 5(A), (B) and (C).
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.
7. The criterion is met. As determined in FOF No. 5 and 6, no on-site impacts are significantly
adverse. Structure placement and scale are not at issue because no buildings or other above ground
structures are proposed beyond fencing an light poles. Extensive landscaping is required of the
project as described in FOF No. 5(G) and this landscaping will serve to provide shade and privacy,
define open spaces and generally improve upon aesthetics as required by the criterion quoted above.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
SITE PLAN, VARIANCE AND CONDITIONAL USE
CAO VARIANCE - 11
11
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.
8. The criterion is met. As outlined in FOF No. 6(E), street access would not be changed or
affected by the proposal. The proposal will provide for safe and efficient internal circulation and
pedestrian connections as determined in FOF No. 6(E). The proposal doesn’t necessitate any loading
and delivery areas as outlined in FOF No. 6(E). The proposal will be served by adequate transit and
bicycle facilities as determined in FOF No. 6(F).
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.
9. As conditioned, the proposal satisfies the criterion quoted above for the reasons identified in
FOF 6(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.
10. The criterion is met. As determined in FOF No. 5B, there are no significant views for which
to maintain visual accessibility. There are also no shorelines in proximity to the project site.
RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(g): Natural Systems: Arranging project elements to protect existing natural
systems where applicable.
11. The criterion is met for the reasons identified in FOF No. 5(E), (G) and (H).
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
SITE PLAN, VARIANCE AND CONDITIONAL USE
CAO VARIANCE - 12
12
RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(h): Services and Infrastructure: Making available public services and
facilities to accommodate the proposed use.
12. The criterion is met. The project is served by adequate services and facilities as determined in
FOF No. 6.
RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(i): Phasing: Including a detailed sequencing plan with development phases
and estimated time frames, for phased projects.
13. The project does not involve any phasing.
Variance
RMC 4-9-250(B)(5)(a): That the Applicant suffers practical difficulties and unnecessary hardship and
the variance is necessary because of special circumstances applicable to subject property, including
size, shape, topography, location or surroundings of the subject property, and the strict application of
the Zoning Code is found to deprive subject property owner of rights and privileges enjoyed by other
property owners in the vicinity and under identical zone classification;
14. The criterion is met due to the special circumstances of the project site as determined in FOF No. 7.
Strictly imposing RMC 4-2-120A would deprive the Applicant of rights and privileges enjoyed by
others because the unique site conditions identified in FOF No. 7 would prevent the applicant from
installing necessary security measures while at the same time having sufficient room to conduct its
operations.
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
property is situated;
15. The criterion is met. As noted in the staff report, The proposed security fence, combined with
landscaping buffers along Park Ave N, would maintain visual appeal and provide security without
negatively affecting adjacent properties. Given the commercial character of surrounding properties, a
black chain link fence is found aesthetically compatible with surrounding use especially given the
commercial aesthetics already in place from the existing use.
RMC 4-9-250(B)(5)(c): That approval shall not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with
the limitation upon uses of other properties in the vicinity and zone in which the subject property is
situated;
16. The criterion is met. There is no special privilege as the variance is necessary to enable the
Applicant to accommodate necessary parking in a secure manner, a privilege enjoyed by all other
developers.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
SITE PLAN, VARIANCE AND CONDITIONAL USE
CAO VARIANCE - 13
13
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.
17. The criterion is met. The applicant has minimized the request by maintaining compliance with the
required 15-foot (15’) setback along N 5th St while only requesting a reduced setback of four and one-half
feet (4.5’) along approximately 143.5 linear feet (143.5’) along Park Ave N (Exhibits 4 and 17). The reduced
fence setback allows for the necessary parking and circulation space necessary while maintaining a
landscape buffer between the fence and the public sidewalk. The fence height of eight feet (8’) tall is the
minimum necessary to deter unauthorized access and vandalism while remaining consistent with other
security fencing in the area.
Conditional Use Permit
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 zoning
regulations and any other plans, programs, maps or ordinances of the City of Renton.
18. The criterion is met as identified in COL No. 5 above.
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 proposed use.
The proposed location shall be suited for the proposed use.
19. The criterion is met for the reasons identified in FOF 5I.
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.
20. 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
adjacent property.
RMC 4-9-030(C)(4): Compatibility: The proposed use shall be compatible with the scale and
character of the neighborhood.
7. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5, the proposal will not create any adverse aesthetic
impacts or any other impacts that would create compatibility problems.
RMC 4-9-030(C)(5): Parking: Adequate parking is, or will be made, available.
8. The criterion is met for the reasons identified in FOF 6G.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
SITE PLAN, VARIANCE AND CONDITIONAL USE
CAO VARIANCE - 14
14
RMC 4-9-030(C)(6): Traffic: The use shall ensure safe movement for vehicles and pedestrians and
shall mitigate potential effects on the surrounding area.
9. The criterion is met for the reasons identified in FOF 6E.
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.
10. As determined in FOF 5C, the proposal will not create any significant noise, light and glare
impacts.
RMC 4-9-030(C)(8): Landscaping: Landscaping shall be provided in all areas not occupied by
buildings, paving, or critical areas. Additional landscaping may be required to buffer adjacent
properties from potentially adverse effects of the proposed use.
11. The criterion is met as determined in FOF 5G.
DECISION
For the reasons identified in the Conclusions of Law, above, all applicable review criteria for the
Applicant’s site plan, conditional use permit and variance are met by the proposal and the applications
are approved as depicted in the Site Plan (Exhibit 2), subject to the following conditions of approval:
1. The applicant shall provide details of the proposed off-street (interior or exterior) bicycle
parking for at least four (4) spaces in accordance with RMC 4-4-080F.11. A bicycle parking
detail shall be provided at the time of civil construction permit to the Current Planning
Project Manager for review and approval prior to civil construction permit issuance.
2. The applicant shall submit a lighting plan that demonstrates compliance with Renton
Municipal Code (RMC) 4-4-075 and provides enough light for safety and security but does
not create excessive light impacts on neighboring properties. The final lighting plan shall
be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to civil
construction permit issuance.
3. Prior to final approval, the applicant shall provide documentation demonstrating compliance
with Washington Administrative Code (WAC) Section 51-50-0429, ensuring that a
minimum of five (5) parking spaces are EV Charging Ready, infrastructure for five (5)
additional future EV chargers is installed, and one (1) accessible parking space includes EV
Charging Ready infrastructure.
Dated this 4th day of March 2025.
______________________________
Phil Olbrechts,
City of Renton Hearing Examiner
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
SITE PLAN, VARIANCE AND CONDITIONAL USE
CAO VARIANCE - 15
15
Appeal Right and Valuation Notices
RMC 4-8-080(G) classifies the application(s) subject to this decision as Type III application(s) subject
to appeal to King County Superior Court as governed by the Washington State Land Use Petition Act
(LUPA), Chapter 36.70C RCW. LUPA appeals must be filed and served within 21 days of the issuance
of this decision as governed by LUPA.
Affected property owners may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes notwithstanding
any program of revaluation.
This transcript was exported on Mar 03, 2025 - view latest version here.
Appendix A -- RSD Parking Lot 2 (Completed 03/03/25)
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 1 of 9
Appendix A
February 18, 2025, Hearing Transcript
Renton School District Transportation Expansion Variance, Conditional Use Permit and Site
Plan Approval
File No. – LUA24-000376
Note: This is a computer-generated transcript provided for informational purposes only. The reader
should not take this document as 100% accurate or take offense at errors created by the limitations of
the programming in transcribing speech. A recording of the hearing is available from the City should
anyone need an accurate rendition of the hearing testimony.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Progress.
Speaker 2 (00:04):
Alright, good morning everyone. For the record, it is February 18th, 2025 and 11:00 AM at Phil Albergs
Hearing examiner for the city of Renton today. Holding hearing on application for hearing examiner site
plan review conditional use, permanent of variance application to expand the Renton school district's
parking lot. The hearing format will be able to start off with a presentation from staff and who's going to
be our lead staff today.
Speaker 3 (00:38):
That will be Nicole.
Speaker 2 (00:39):
Oh, okay. Great. Ms. Perry, welcome on. Yes,
Speaker 4 (00:42):
Good morning.
Speaker 2 (00:43):
Great.
Speaker 4 (00:46):
My audio,
Speaker 2 (00:48):
Oh, it's working now.
Speaker 4 (00:50):
This transcript was exported on Mar 03, 2025 - view latest version here.
Appendix A -- RSD Parking Lot 2 (Completed 03/03/25)
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 2 of 9
I'm with that.
Speaker 2 (00:51):
Okay. After Ms. Perry's presentation, then we'll move on to applicant comments representing the school
district. Then after that public, if there are any public comments, then back to Ms. Perry to answer any
questions that were raised. The applicant then gets final word. I get 10 business days to issue a final
decision. And Ms. Cisneros, do you want to share the exhibit list at this point? Alright. By state law, I'm
only allowed to consider evidence, put in the record, I'm not allowed to talk to staff or the applicant or
anybody about the project. All the information I've had so far is the staff report put together by Ms.
Perry and the exhibits that support her recommendations and findings. And Ms. Cisneros is showing
what those documents are composed of that back up the staff report, there's the site plan, landscape
plans, neighborhood plan or detail map, the plan set that outlines how the building dimensions, that
kind of thing.
(01:44):
Technical information report, which is drainage, do technical, it's in a seismic hazard area. Cultural
resources assessment, and also environmental review to determine if an environmental impact
statement was necessary. None was found here. And let's see, we've got some construction mitigation,
traffic concurrency, assessing whether essentially the project meets the city's congestion standards. And
then we have written materials from the applicant that addressing the permitting criteria and advisory
notes from city staff, the specialists of the city who determined whether the project meets the different
codes that apply to the project. And Mr. Ros, I believe there's always a few more after that list. Yes.
Moving on, we've got the staff PowerPoint as Exhibit 20 City of Rent Maps and located the website
which show aerial photographs of the project, site zoning, critical area maps, that kind of thing. And
then finally, Google Earth, also showing aerial photographs. At this point, just want to ask if anyone has
any objections to entry these documents or needs to see them? If you do, just click on the virtual raise
hand button at the bottom of your screen, not seeing any taker. So I'll go ahead and admit, I think it's
exhibits one through 22. Is it Mr. Cisneros Total?
Speaker 3 (03:01):
Yes, correct.
Speaker 2 (03:01):
Okay. Alright, so those are admitted. Ms. Perry, let me swear in. Just raise your right hand. Do you swear
affirm to tell the truth, nothing but the truth in this proceeding?
Speaker 1 (03:09):
Yes.
Speaker 2 (03:10):
Okay, great. Go ahead.
Speaker 1 (03:12):
Okay. Go ahead and share.
Speaker 3 (03:23):
This transcript was exported on Mar 03, 2025 - view latest version here.
Appendix A -- RSD Parking Lot 2 (Completed 03/03/25)
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 3 of 9
Sorry, taking just a second.
Speaker 1 (03:25):
Okay.
Speaker 3 (03:58):
It can be a little tricky. Let me know if you need some support.
Speaker 4 (04:00):
Yeah, actually it would be nice. I was just looking at that because it's a little different than teams. I want
to just do the presentation, not the entire screen. Let's,
Speaker 1 (04:30):
Okay.
Speaker 4 (04:33):
Yeah, I'm having trouble with the sharing.
Speaker 3 (04:37):
Okay. Pull it up and let me see if I can maybe start those. Just let me know when to click. Okay.
Speaker 4 (04:58):
Okay. Just a second. I actually could you exit out of that and there's an updated version.
Speaker 1 (05:12):
Oh, I see there.
Speaker 4 (05:13):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (05:18):
Thank you. Just a second.
Speaker 3 (05:24):
It opens up two screens so you don't have to click on the one that doesn't have the notes. It's like two
windows.
Speaker 1 (05:30):
Okay, let's try it.
Speaker 4 (05:46):
I'm so sorry. Okay, so it should be the updated one in the drive. If you,
This transcript was exported on Mar 03, 2025 - view latest version here.
Appendix A -- RSD Parking Lot 2 (Completed 03/03/25)
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 4 of 9
Speaker 1 (05:57):
Let's see. Reopening it just, hopefully this works. Yeah, just lemme know.
Speaker 4 (06:17):
Okay. Thank you for your patience, everybody.
Speaker 1 (06:21):
Okay?
Speaker 4 (06:32):
Yeah, Jenny, I just am trying to put it in presenter mode instead of sharing my entire screen.
Speaker 3 (06:46):
If you just send it into laser page, I can, oh, I think you have it. Go up to the top. There's a different
screen that pulls up that's like a dark screen. Okay. If you one, I can share it. Is it the one that's in laser
page though?
Speaker 4 (07:07):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (07:07):
Okay.
Speaker 4 (07:08):
Yeah. The only issue is presenter mode. I have notes that I was going to read from.
Speaker 3 (07:19):
You might just keep it open as I share the screen. I'll get your presentation up. Okay.
Speaker 1 (07:32):
Thank you. You're welcome. Okay, here we go.
Speaker 3 (07:45):
Okay, now mine's loading. Okay,
Speaker 4 (07:50):
Here we go. Alright, so good morning. My name is Nicole Perry and I'm an associate planner with the
city of Renton. Today I'll be presenting the Renton School District transportation expansion project case
number LUA 2 4 0 0 0 3 7 6. Next slide. Alright, thank you. The project site is located at 4 4 4 and 4 5 0
Park Avenue North, covering approximately 0.45 acres. It is zoned commercial arterial with an urban
design district D overlay and designated as commercial mixed use in the comprehensive plan.
Additionally, the site falls within a high seismic hazard area and wellhead protection areas at oh two.
This project expands the rents and school district's parking lot to support its transportation and fleet
This transcript was exported on Mar 03, 2025 - view latest version here.
Appendix A -- RSD Parking Lot 2 (Completed 03/03/25)
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 5 of 9
maintenance facility. It adds 44 new parking stalls, including one a D, a stall, and 12 designated for fleet.
The plan also includes security upgrades with an eight foot fence site improvements such as a 1200
square foot public plaza and enhanced landscaping access will be from Park Avenue North and North
fifth Street. And the applicant is requesting site plan review, a conditional use permit, and a variance for
the fence setback. Next slide. I have attached here a site plan that shows the proposed layout. You can
see the parking configuration, access points and key site improvements. This plan illustrates how the
expansion integrates within the existing facility while maintaining efficient site circulation. Next slide.
(09:39):
Again, this project is located within the city center planning area and falls under the commercial arterial
zoning district with an urban District D overlay. The comprehensive plan designates this area as
commercial mixed use. Surrounding zoning includes commercial arterial to the east, south, and west
with urban center two zoning to the north government facilities such as this transportation expansion
are allowed in the CA zone with hearing examiner approval. Next slide. As for critical areas, this is again
located within a high seismic hazard area, meaning the development must meet additional geotechnical
and structural requirements to ensure safety and stability. The project has undergone appropriate
review to comply with these regulations. Next slide. The site is also located within a wellhead protection
area zone two, which is designated to safeguard groundwater resources. This designation ensures that
any development on the site follows best practices for stormwater management and pollution
prevention. Next slide.
(10:49):
Primary access to the site will be through the connected lots via Park Avenue North and North fifth
Street. The new surface parking lot will include 44 stalls with 5,743 square feet of new landscaping,
including a 1200 square foot pedestrian plaza and 16 new trees. According to the submitted traffic
impact analysis, the project will not result in any significant traffic impacts. Next slide. The conditional
use permit analysis confirms that this project meets all requirements. It complies with the
comprehensive plan and zoning regulations is appropriate, located in a commercial and light industrial
area, and does not create an over concentration of similar uses. The impact on adjacent properties is
minimal with landscaping designed to mitigate visual effects. The project is compatible with the mixed
use character of the neighborhood, provides adequate parking for staff and fleet and includes
pedestrian safety improvements. Additionally, noise and lighting impacts are minimal and limited to
operational hours.
(11:57):
Landscaping enhancements include a 10 foot buffer and 16 new trees with a detailed plan required for
approval. Next slide. And for the reasonable use variance, the applicant is requesting a variance to allow
an eight foot security fence along Park Avenue North, exceeding the maximum height limit and to
reduce the required 15 foot setback to 10 and a half feet due to site constraints, strict zoning
requirements would limit parking and security similar facilities, half comparable fencing, ensuring
consistency. The proposed fence and landscaping will maintain visual appeal and have no negative
impact on adjacent properties. And this request does not grant any special privilege as nearby industrial
and commercial properties have similar security measures. Additionally, the variance is the minimum
necessary as a setback along North Fifth Street remains at 15 feet and the eight foot fence is the lowest
height needed for security purposes. Next slide. The site plan highlights the areas related to the variance
request. The proposed eight foot security fence along the Park Avenue North shown here requires a
variance due to exceeding the height limit and the reduced 10 and a half foot setback. The fence along
North fifth Street is compliant and does not require a variance. This layout allows for improved security
while maintaining necessary parking and landscaping buffers.
This transcript was exported on Mar 03, 2025 - view latest version here.
Appendix A -- RSD Parking Lot 2 (Completed 03/03/25)
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 6 of 9
(13:33):
As for environmental review, the Renting School District is the lead agency for this project. The CIPA
process began with a checklist issued on October 7th, 2024, followed by a comment, a determination of
non significance was issued on December 16th, 2024 with no appeals filed. Required mitigation
measures include cultural resource protection, native vegetation for new plantings and compliance with
contaminated soil regulations. No public or agency comments were received during the review process.
(14:07):
Okay. Next slide. Staff recommends approval for the site plan review, conditional use permit and
variance subject to conditions. These conditions ensure compliance with zoning regulations,
environmental protections, and operational standards. The key conditions include compliance with
approved plans and zoning policies, maintaining a 10 foot landscape buffer with the 16 new trees,
ensuring the eight foot security fence follows the approved 10 and a half foot setback, obtaining any
required stormwater permits and managing contaminated soil for the WAC 1 7 3 3 50, implementing any
inadvertent discovery plan for cultural resources and limiting lighting to operational hours and ensuring
noise control. These conditions will help mitigate any potential impacts, maintain compatibility with the
surrounding area, ensure the project meets all regulatory requirements. And that concludes my
presentation. I'm happy to answer any questions at this time.
Speaker 2 (15:10):
No, it looks pretty good. Thank you Ms. Perry. Alright, let's move on to applicant. Do we have an
applicant representative here today? Don't have to say anything actually. Oh,
Speaker 3 (15:21):
Lisa Klein
Speaker 5 (15:22):
Will be
Speaker 3 (15:23):
Speaking on behalf of the project.
Speaker 2 (15:25):
Okay.
Speaker 3 (15:25):
I don't know if she needs to be promoted to a panelist or I'll do that. Thank you. Thank you so much.
Speaker 1 (15:45):
There she is.
Speaker 5 (15:51):
Okay, there I am.
Speaker 2 (15:52):
This transcript was exported on Mar 03, 2025 - view latest version here.
Appendix A -- RSD Parking Lot 2 (Completed 03/03/25)
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 7 of 9
Okay. Ms. Klein, let you swear in. Just raise your right hand. Do you swear affirm and tell the truth
nothing but the truth in this proceeding?
Speaker 5 (15:58):
I do.
Speaker 2 (15:58):
Okay, great. Go ahead.
Speaker 5 (16:00):
Thank you. Yes, Mr. Ner, Lisa Klein with a HBL representing Renton School District today. There are other
representatives that are here from our team, which includes the district representatives themselves, as
well as the civil engineers on the project. And they, in case you have any questions, we have reviewed
the staff report and we are good with the staff report. Don't have any corrections to that. Couple of
things about the PowerPoint though that were noticed this morning. And just to get the record correct,
they're very minor, but one has to do with slide number two, which was the vicinity map. That's not the
project's vicinity, but I think the record accurately shows the correct vicinity map. Also, just so that you
know, we, for the district when doing the CPA process, we did receive a comment letter from the
Duwamish tribe, and we referenced that comment in the CPA determination itself. And so there's a
couple of the mitigation measures that are in there were requested directly from the Duran tribe, so
don't know if you want a copy of that letter for the record or not. But that process has been completed
and the appeal prior has expired.
Speaker 2 (17:35):
Okay. Yeah, let's get that in as Exhibit 23. I take it, no objections out there. If you do just raise your
virtual hand. So takings, we'll put that in as 23. A couple of quick questions. Ms. Kle, on the variance,
that's always one of the more difficult parts of a project the staff report suggested in terms of special
circumstances with the location, the staff report suggested this was possibly a high crime area. Is that
something you or someone on your team could comment on? I mean, has there been a history of theft
or problems at the project side or the surrounding project side? Any information like that that might
help bolster that finding?
Speaker 5 (18:15):
It's my understanding that there's a lot of valuable equipment that are in the transportation lot and that
there has been some, whether it's thefts or vandalism to the lie. But I know that the district
representatives would have more information on that.
Speaker 2 (18:38):
Okay. All right. Yeah. And Matthew, oh, sorry.
Speaker 5 (18:42):
I was going to say Matthew Fel Meyer might be able to speak on that.
Speaker 2 (18:48):
This transcript was exported on Mar 03, 2025 - view latest version here.
Appendix A -- RSD Parking Lot 2 (Completed 03/03/25)
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 8 of 9
Okay. Ms. Fel Meyer, let me swear in real quick. Just raise your right hand. Do you swear affirm to tell
the truth, nothing but the truth in this proceeding?
Speaker 6 (18:55):
I do.
Speaker 2 (18:55):
Okay, great. Go ahead.
Speaker 6 (18:59):
More during the catalytic converter theft era, we've had several break-ins to the transportation parking
lot where we had catalytic murders stolen out of both our fleet vehicles and our buses. We've also just
had people breaking into that lot and hanging out between the buses and doing illegal activity. So yes, it
has occurred multiple times in the last five years that I can recall that we've had things occur in that
transportation parking lot, especially with the high barrier that a bus creates from visibility for people
driving by lot of privacy is available in that area.
Speaker 2 (19:35):
Okay, great. Yeah, that's very helpful. Thank you Mr. Feldmar. And then Ms. Klein, one other question,
and maybe if you've got your architect on board here today, just what would be the consequences of
having to place the fence behind the setback? I don't recall. It's 10 or 15 feet or something. I mean, how
would that limit the objectives of the proposal if you had to do that?
Speaker 5 (19:58):
We included an explanation of that in our justification that we submitted, and essentially if we were to
comply with that setback for that eight foot 10 fence, we would not have sufficient area. We would lose
one hole row of parking. And then the result of that would be that there just wouldn't be adequate
parking to achieve the district's objectives.
Speaker 2 (20:27):
Okay. Okay. Alright. Yeah, sounds great. Alright, let's move on then to, oh, sorry,
Speaker 5 (20:34):
One other clarification. Sure. In Ms. Perry's presentation, she had the conditions on the last page and I
was comparing those with the staff report and I'm not sure if those are the same. As with the staff
report, there were three in the staff report on page
Speaker 4 (21:00):
28. Those were summarized conditions, not word for work. So they are, they're said differently than,
yeah, the actual report, I try to condense it. Each power, each bullet point isn't for each condition, that's
just a compilation of the information. Okay. That helps clarify anything.
Speaker 2 (21:34):
This transcript was exported on Mar 03, 2025 - view latest version here.
Appendix A -- RSD Parking Lot 2 (Completed 03/03/25)
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 9 of 9
Okay. I'll certainly go by the recommended conditions and the staff report for the actual worry and the
decision. So, alright. Anything else, Ms. Klein?
Speaker 5 (21:44):
No,
Speaker 2 (21:44):
That
Speaker 5 (21:44):
Was it from our part, unless you have any questions for us?
Speaker 2 (21:47):
Nope. Nope. Pretty straightforward. Let's move on to public comments, if any. At this point, I just want
to invite anyone who wants to say anything about this project, neighbors, people in the city, anybody
who has something they want to share, just click on the virtual hand at the bottom of your screen and
not seeing any takers. Mr. Cisneros, are you seeing anyone who wants to say anything?
Speaker 1 (22:08):
No.
Speaker 2 (22:08):
Okay. All right. Back to Ms. Perry. Any final comments before we wrap up the hearing today?
Speaker 4 (22:13):
Nope. No final comments. You
Speaker 2 (22:15):
Okay? All right. I guess then I can go ahead and close the hearing and it looks pretty straightforward. I
mean, I'll take a close look at the variance request, but I think it pretty strong case to meet the criteria,
so I shouldn't have too much trouble getting that approval done. And we'll get that in the next couple of
weeks out to everybody. So thanks all for participating today. We're adjourned and have a great rest of
the day.
