HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-11-2025 - HEX Decision with Appendix - site plan LJ cup -- Fire Station1
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, CUP AND MODIFICATION
CAO VARIANCE -1
1
BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON
Phil Olbrechts, Hearing Examiner
RE: Renton Regional Fire
Authority New Fire Station
Conditional Use Permit, Site Plan
Review, SEPA Review & Street
Standards Modification
File No. LUA24-000373
FINDINGS OF FACT,
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND
FINAL DECISION
Summary
The applicant is requesting a Hearing Examiner Conditional Use Permit, Hearing Examiner Site
Plan Review and a Street Standards Modification for the construction of a new 14,314 square foot
fire station and maintenance building to be located at200 Mill Ave S. The project is 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
identifies the subjects addressed during the hearing. The transcript is provided for informational purposes
only as Appendix A.
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, CUP AND MODIFICATION
CAO VARIANCE - 2
2
EXHIBITS
Exhibits 1-19 listed on page 2 of the staff report dated February 25, 2025, were admitted into the
record during the February 25th, 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.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Procedural:
1. Applicant. Brian Harris, TCA Architecture-Planning, 6211 Roosevelt Way NE, Seattle, WA
98115 on behalf of Renton Regional Fire Authority, 18002 108th Ave SE, Renton, WA 98055.
2. Hearing. A virtual hearing was held on the subject application at 11:00 am on February 25,
2025.
Substantive:
3. Project and Site Description. The applicant is requesting a Hearing Examiner Conditional Use
Permit, Hearing Examiner Site Plan Review, Environmental (SEPA) Review, and a Street
Standards Modification for the construction of a new fire station and maintenance building. The
project site totals 151,721 square feet (3.48 acres) and is located within the Residential-4 (R-4)
dwelling unit per acre zone. A Lot Combination (LUA24-000371) is being processed under a
separate application to combine all parcels into one (1) lot and a Street Vacation request has
been submitted to vacate the existing onsite alley. The project site is located Error! Reference
source not found..
The proposed fire station would consist of three (3) drive-thru apparatus bays,
living/administrative and apparatus bay support spaces. The fire station would have a total area
of 14,314 square feet. The proposed maintenance building would consist of five (5) back-in
maintenance bays with maintenance staff area and support spaces required to service
apparatuses. The maintenance building would have a total building area of 13,282 square feet.
The proposed fire station would have a maximum height of approximately 25 feet (25’) and the
maintenance building would have a maximum height of approximately 38 feet (38’). Access to
the site is proposed via two (2) curb cuts off SE 128th St and one (1) curb cut off 158th Ave SE.
Approximately 20 surface parking stalls are proposed on the project site.
The applicant is requesting a modification from RMC 4-4-080 Parking, Loading, and Driveway
Regulations and RMC 4-6-060 Street Standards to increase the maximum driveway width
permitted along SE 128th St from 50 feet (50’) to approximately 60 feet (60’) and to design the
frontage improvements along SE 128th St (NE 4th St) to comply with the NE 4th Street Corridor
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, CUP AND MODIFICATION
CAO VARIANCE - 3
3
Improvement Plan. The frontage improvements for the NE 4th Street Corridor Improvement
Plan would consist of a 66-foot (66’) wide paved road and a ten-foot (10’) wide landscaped
sidewalk and storm drainage improvements. Dedication of approximately one foot (1’) would
be required for the street frontage.
4. Surrounding Uses.
A. North: Single-family residential, unincorporated King County.
B. East: Religious Institution, Residential Low Density (RLD) Comprehensive Plan
Designation and R-4 zone.
C. South: Single-family residential, unincorporated King County.
D. West: Single-family residential, Residential Low Density (RLD) Comprehensive Plan
Designation and R-4 zone.
5. Adverse Impacts. There are no significant adverse impacts associated with the project. A State
Environmental Policy Act Determination of Non-significance was issued for the project on
January 27, 2025. Project impacts are more specifically addressed as follows:
A. Noise, light and glare. The proposed will not create any significant noise, light or glare
impacts to the extent that they can be reasonably mitigated for the proposed type of use.
During project construction, noise levels would temporarily increase near the construction
activity due to heavy equipment use and construction materials transport. Sound levels
generated during construction would vary based on the construction phase and equipment
used. Generally, at a distance of 50 feet (50’), sound levels for various types of construction
equipment or vehicles typically vary from 76 decibels (dBA) to 89 dBA. Construction
activity is proposed on weekdays between the hours of seven o’clock (7:00) a.m. and eight
o’clock (8:00) p.m. No night work is proposed.
Ongoing noise impacts from the maintenance and operation of the fire station would be
anticipated. Safety sirens (115 dBA) from the fire trucks and other safety vehicles would be
short and infrequent and would also be a source of noise during operation of the fire station
facility. However, safety sirens are exempt from the noise ordinance. Regular traffic and
operational noise are also anticipated from incoming/departing fire apparatuses, medic, and
firefighter vehicles including operation of apparatus bay doors.
Construction related noise complaints (if any) would be discussed during weekly
construction meetings and addressed as necessary if it becomes an issue. To mitigate noise
impacts from returning and visiting apparatuses, the proposed fire station has been setback
from neighboring residences. The fire station includes an approximately 16-foot (16’)
setback from the abutting residential property line to the west and the maintenance building
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, CUP AND MODIFICATION
CAO VARIANCE - 4
4
includes an approximately 18-foot (18’) setback from the abutting west property line. In
addition, landscaping is proposed around the site perimeter. Proposed landscaping would
include a mix of trees, shrubs, and ground cover. It is anticipated that proposed landscaping
would aid as a noise buffer. The proposed on-site standby generator would be placed within
a sound attenuating enclosure.
Sources of light and glare associated with the project proposal include new overhead site
lighting and vehicle lights. Glare from fire trucks and other safety vehicles would be more
prevalent at dawn and dusk during the winter months when primary commute periods extend
beyond daylight hours. Onsite lighting would be provided for safety, security, and
wayfinding.
The following measures would be incorporated into the project design to reduce or control
light and glare impacts: lighting types would be carefully planned to reduce potential spill of
light off the project site; maximum height of on-site lighting is expected to be approximately
25 feet (25’) above lowest grade at building; plant materials for landscaping and buffer
plantings would be considered and located to effectively reduce light and glare from vehicles
maneuvering on the site; and use of sharp cutoff fixtures and the strategic locating of fixtures
such that lighting would not extend beyond site boundaries.
B. Tree Retention. The proposal complies with the City’s tree retention standards and thus
adequately mitigates impacts to trees. There are approximately 118 trees located on-site, of
which the applicant is proposing to retain a total of 31 trees (see Exhibit 14, Finding of Fact
# 8).
Of the 118 significant trees located onsite, a total of 35 trees would be required to be retained
to comply with the tree retention requirements. The applicant is proposing to retain 31 trees,
which is less than the minimum thirty percent (30%) requirement. The additional four (4)
trees proposed for removal would be assigned a tree credit total of 46. To mitigate for the 46
tree credits that would be removed, the applicant is proposing to plant an additional 28 large
species trees, which would result in the planting of 56 credits and would comply with the
tree replacement requirements (see Exhibit 14, Finding of Fact # 17).
In addition, the proposed project is required to provide the minimum required 30 tree credit
units per net acre. The project site totals 151,721 square feet or 3.48 acres and would be
required to provide a total of 90 tree credits onsite. A total of 193 tree credits would be
provided through the retention of existing trees, which would exceed the tree credit
requirements.
C. Natural Features. As identified in the staff report, the proposal will not adversely affect any
natural features.
D. Landscaping. As conditioned the proposal complies with the City’s landscaping standards
and for that reason is found to provide adequate landscaping.
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, CUP AND MODIFICATION
CAO VARIANCE - 5
5
A Conceptual Landscape Plan was included with the Conditional Use Plan Set (Exhibit 2).
With a recommended condition, staff has found the plan compliant with the City’s
landscaping standards. The submitted landscape plan did not include street trees or ground
cover within the required planting strips along the SE 128th St or 158th Ave SE street
frontages. A ten-foot (10’) wide onsite landscape strip was included along the street
frontages. A 15-foot (15’) wide landscape strip is proposed around the site perimeter to
buffer the surrounding residential and religious institution uses from the proposed fire
station. As recommended by staff, a condition of approval requires that a detailed landscape
plan be submitted at the time of Construction Permit review. The detailed landscape plan
shall include, but not be limited to, street trees and ground cover within the street tree
planting strip, and the ten-foot (10’) onsite landscape strip required along the street frontages
shall be landscaped with a mix of trees, shrubs, and ground cover.
E. Critical Areas. There are no critical areas mapped on the project site so the proposal will not
harm any critical areas. There are no wetlands, streams, or lakes mapped on or around the
project site, according to the City of Renton (COR) Mapping system. In addition, the
applicant provided a Technical Memorandum, prepared by Soundview Consultants, LLC,
dated September 1, 2022 (Exhibit 4). The Technical Memorandum concluded that there are
no wetlands on the project site. During the 14-day public comment period, comments were
received from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers stating that it seems there could be impacts
to aquatic features and that a Corps permit may be needed (Exhibit 8). Those comments were
provided to the applicant for future coordination with the Corps.
F. Compatibility/Overconcentration/Location. The proposal is compatible with surrounding
uses and does not represent an overconcentration of use.
The proposed fire station replaces the existing station located at 12923 156th Ave SE –
Renton. The form of the new fire station is scaled to reduce the building mass to integrate
into the existing neighborhood context and the maintenance building has been placed on the
site to screen the adjacent neighbors from the operational side and sunk into the ground to
reduce the mass on the south side of the building. Both buildings are modulated with textured
materials, windows, and color to reduce their scale and fit in with adjacent uses (see Exhibit
14, Finding of Fact # 19.d).
Staff have recommended further design modifications to provide for greater aesthetic
compatibility. The north façade of the proposed fire station (fronting along SE 128th St) is
primarily dominated by the three (3) apparatus bays. The apparatus bays feature industrial
looking roll up doors. In response, staff have recommended that the primary pedestrian
building entrance should be revised to be more prominent. This would help add balance to
the front building façade and reduce the visual impact of the apparatus bays. In addition, the
apparatus bays should include architectural treatment to reduce their visual impact. A
condition of approval requires that revised architectural elevations be submitted for staff
approval to add these design features.
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, CUP AND MODIFICATION
CAO VARIANCE - 6
6
Required setbacks and landscape buffers have been provided to reduce impact to adjacent
parcels. A six-foot (6’), vinyl coated, slatted chain-link fence would be provided between
adjacent parcels and the subject project to provide privacy and site security. In addition, the
height of the proposed structures would be compatible with the existing heights of the
surrounding uses.
Utilities, loading and storage areas are also screened, sized and located as required by code
to provide for aesthetic compatibility. There is a combined generator and refuse and
recyclable deposit area located to the southwest of the proposed fire station and a secondary
refuse and recyclable deposit area located to the northeast of the proposed maintenance
building. Staff have determined that the area set aside for refuse and recycling conforms to
code size requirements. The proposed service areas and generator would be screened with a
combined concrete wall, ranging in height from seven feet (7’) to eight feet and six inches
(8’ 6”), with metal panels on top. The total height of the proposed enclosure would be 11
feet (11’). A condition of approval requires that this enclosure be relocated to be not less
than within 50 feet (50’) of a residential use or located within the fire station building. The
service area associated with the maintenance building would be screened with an 11-foot
(11’) roofed metal panel enclosure. As shown on the submitted architectural elevations
within the plan set (Exhibit 2), an elevated parapet is proposed on the fire station to screen
mechanical rooftop mechanical equipment from public view. No mechanical equipment is
proposed on the roof of the maintenance building.
The applicant has established that the proposed fire station and fire department maintenance
facility will be located in an appropriate location along and near a main arterial (SE 128th
St) in the East Renton Highlands. The search for an appropriate project site began in 2021.
The proposed location was determined through the exploration of multiple sites within a
specified target response area to ensure target response times were met to service the
community, a goal of finding willing sellers to avoid a condemnation process, extensive site
analysis and available land capacity to support the operational requirements of such use. As
a public safety building, its presence, location and access to main arterials is an important
consideration to ensure operations are not impeded.
Building placement and orientation has been designed to minimize privacy and noise impacts
on abutting residential development. The proposed fire station would be located on the north
portion of the project site and the proposed maintenance would be located on the south
portion of the project site. The proposed fire station would be located close to SE 128th St,
a principal arterial street, which would help to minimize noise impacts from the fire station
on surrounding properties. The proposed maintenance building has been oriented such that
the back of the building would face the closest abutting residential property, which would
help buffer the neighboring residence from noise associated with the maintenance building.
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, CUP AND MODIFICATION
CAO VARIANCE - 7
7
Both proposed structures would have heights that would be comparable to other residential
development in the R-4 zone. The proposed Fire Station 16 building would have a maximum
building height of approximately 26 feet (26’), which is less than the maximum height limit
of 32 feet (32’) permitted in the R-4 zone. The proposed maintenance building would have
a maximum building height of approximately 37 feet (37’), which would exceed the
maximum height limit of 32 feet (32’) permitted in the R-4 zone. The staff report determined
that it is not anticipated that the proposed structures would adversely impact view, sunlight,
or prevailing winds to abutting properties.
The staff report determines that it is not anticipated that the proposed development would
adversely impact views of surrounding properties.
6. Adequacy of Infrastructure/Public Services. The project will be served by adequate
infrastructure and public services as follows:
A. Water and Sewer Service. Water service will be provided by King County Water District 90.
Sewer service is provided by the City of Renton. There is no sewer infrastructure fronting
the project site.
B. Fire and Police. The proposal will be served by adequate police and fire service. Police
service is provided by the City of Renton and Fire Service is provided by the Renton
Regional Fire Authority (RRFA).
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, Ex. 5, that demonstrated to the satisfaction of Public Works staff that the proposal
would conform to the City’s stormwater standards.
The project site has two (2) threshold discharge areas that discharge to separate drainage
basins. TDA 1 is comprised of 4.24 acres located within the project site and adjacent right-
of-way along SE 128th St, with 80,924 square feet (1.86 acres) of new plus replaced
impervious surface. Stormwater runoff from TDA 1 would be collected in a series of catch
basins and trench drains and routed via pipe conveyance systems to one (1) of two (2)
detention facilities, an SC-740 StormTech Chamber system located in the north portion of
the site and a detention vault located in the eastern area of the site. Pollution generating
surfaces would be routed to a Modular Wetland System for water quality treatment prior to
entering the detention facilities. The detained and treated discharge will discharge to the
existing ditch near the northeast corner of the site at SE 128th St.
There is no proposed stormwater detention system for TDA 2. The TIR argues that flow
control for TDA 2 is not required since the proposed improvements in TDA 2 result in less
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, CUP AND MODIFICATION
CAO VARIANCE - 8
8
than 5,000 square feet of new plus replaced impervious surface and less than three quarter
(¾) acres of new pervious surface will be added. However, the Basic Exemption’s 5,000
square feet threshold is crossed at the project level. TDA 2 may still qualify for a flow control
exemption if the applicant can demonstrate that there is no more than a 0.15-cfs difference
in the sum of developed 100‐year peak flows and the sum of historical (forested) site
conditions 100‐year peak flows. A condition of approval requires that the Applicant to
comply with flow control requirements for TDA 2.
D. Transportation. The proposal provides for adequate and appropriate transportation
improvements.
Proposed public access and apparatus response access is proposed off SE 128th St via two
(2) separate curb cuts. Maintenance building access, firefighter crew access, and apparatus
return would occur off 158th Ave SE via one (1) curb cut.
The Applicant prepared a Traffic Impact Analysis, Ex 6, to establish conformance to the
City’s level of service (LOS) standards. The TIA concluded that the proposed project would
result in eight (8) net new AM and two (2) net new PM peak hour trips for the relocated fire
station and seven (7) net new AM and seven (7) net new PM trip hour for the maintenance
facility. The TIA determined that the only intersection that would be materially affected by
the proposal is the 158th SE/SE 128th St. intersection. Table 5 of the study finds that after
construction the intersection will operate at LOS D, which is the City’s adopted level of
service.
The TIA also identifies three (3) recommended mitigation measures: Shift the speed limit
transition to extend the 35 mph condition through the site frontage; Implement the planned
two way left turn lane along SE 128th Street; and Provide warning indicators to vehicles
along SE 128th Street such as signage or an emergency signal at the northwestern driveway.
Staff has reviewed the recommended mitigation measures and has recommended a condition
adopted by this decision that requires an updated TIA be submitted to analyze the emergency
traffic control signal warrants and determine if a signal is warranted. Based on the
determination of a signal warrant analysis, the TIA shall re-assess the recommendation to
shift the speed limit transition to the eastern property boundary. T
A Transportation Concurrency Test, dated December 12, 2024 (Exhibit 11), was issued for
the proposal. It was concluded that the proposal passed the transportation concurrency test
in accordance with RMC 4-6-070D.
System wide impacts of the proposal will be addressed by the payment of traffic impact fees,
which are assessed based on proportionate impacts to the City’s street system. Those impacts
fees are assessed and collected during building permit review.
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, CUP AND MODIFICATION
CAO VARIANCE - 9
9
City staff have found that the proposal provides for safe movement of vehicles and
pedestrians. A new emergency beacon is proposed at the intersection of SE 128th St and
158th Ave SE to slow traffic and allow for safe response. The addition of sidewalks and
landscape planters will improve pedestrian safety. New drive access points along SE 128th
St are located 50 feet (50’) apart, which will comply with city driveway spacing standards.
The proposal provides for desirable transitions and linkages between uses, streets, walkways
and adjacent properties. The proposed project improvements include a fire station building
and maintenance building with a central driveway connecting access to both buildings, 158th
Ave SE to the west, and SE 128th St to the north. In addition, a pedestrian connection is
proposed between the primary pedestrian entrance and the sidewalk proposed along SE
128th St.
E. Parking. The proposal adequately accommodates necessary parking. The applicant
proposed 20 parking stalls. The City’s parking standards don’t include any set parking
rations. Consequently the City assesses parking need via a parking study. The Applicant’s
TIA, Ex. 6, assesses parking demand. Parking demand for non-fire apparatus vehicles was
observed at the existing fire station during both the AM and PM peak periods. As discussed
with staff, staffing at the existing and proposed fire station would remain unchanged with
the relocation. The parking demand of the maintenance facility was estimated per the ITE
Parking Generation Manual (6th Edition) assuming the general Light Industrial (LU #110)
land use resulting in a weekday demand of seven (7) vehicles for the maintenance building.
Including the parking demand for both the fire station per the observations of six (6) vehicles
and the demand for the maintenance facility of seven (7) vehicles, the total parking demand
would be up to thirteen (13) vehicles; therefore, the proposed on-site parking supply of
twenty (20) stalls would be adequate to accommodate the demand.
Per RMC 4-4-080F.11.a bicycle parking spaces are required at 10% of the number of
required off-street parking spaces. A Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA), prepared by Transpo
Group, dated August 2024 (Exhibit 6) was submitted with the project application materials.
The TIA included a parking demand analysis for the proposed fire station and maintenance
building. According to the TIA, the total parking demand would be up to 13 vehicles. Based
on the requirement for 13 parking spaces, a total of one (1) bicycle parking space would be
required on the project site. A condition of approval requires that a revised site plan be
provided showing the location of the required bicycle parking and a bicycle parking detail
be provided at the time of Construction Permit Review for review and approval by the
Current Planning Project Manager.
Conclusions of Law
1. Authority. The hearing examiner has final decision-making authority on the consolidated
applications subject to this decision.
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, CUP AND MODIFICATION
CAO VARIANCE - 10
10
RMC 4-8-080(G) classifies hearing examiner site plans as Type III applications, variances as
Type II applications and development standard modification as Type I applications. RMC 4-8-
080(C)(2) requires consolidated permits to each be processed under “the highest-number
procedure.” Consequently, the consolidated master site plan, preliminary plat and street
modification applications are subject to Type III review. As outlined in RMC 4-8-080(G), Type
III review is subject to hearing and final decision by the hearing examiner, subject to closed
record appeal to the City Council.
2. Zoning/Comprehensive Plan Designations/Design District. The subject site is located in the
Error! Reference source not found. Comprehensive Plan designation and the R4 zoning
designation.
3. Review Criteria/Modification Approval. Pursuant to RMC 4-2-060, City Government Facilities
are permitted within the R-4 zone subject to the approval of a Hearing Examiner Conditional
Use Permit. Pursuant to RMC 4-9-200B, Site Plan Review is required for public buildings in the
R-4 zoning classification and a means to propose modifications to development standards for
developments otherwise exempt from site plan review. Modification requests to city parking and
street standards are reviewed pursuant to RMC 4-9-250.D.2. The modification criteria of Finding
20 of the staff report are adopted by reference and the modifications identified in Finding of Fact
No. 3 approved on that basis.
Conditional Use Permit
RMC 4-9-030.D.a. 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.
4. Criterion Met. The criterion is met for the reasons identified in Finding No. 16 and 17 of the
staff report, which are adopted by this reference.
RMC 4-9-030.D.b. 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.
5. Criterion Met. The criterion is met for the reasons identified in FOF 5F.
RMC 4-9-030.D.c. Effect on Adjacent Properties:
The proposed use at the proposed location shall not result in substantial or undue adverse effects
on adjacent property.
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, CUP AND MODIFICATION
CAO VARIANCE - 11
11
6. Criterion Met. The criterion is met for the reasons identified in FOF No. 5.
RMC 4-9-030.D.d. Compatibility:
The proposed use shall be compatible with the scale and character of the neighborhood.
7. Criterion Met. The criterion is met for the reasons identified in FOF No. 5F.
RMC 4-9-030.D.e. Parking:
Adequate parking is, or will be made, available.
8. Criterion Met. The criterion is met for the reasons identified in FOF No. 5E.
RMC 4-9-030.D.f. Traffic:
The use shall ensure safe movement for vehicles and pedestrians and shall mitigate potential
effects on the surrounding area.
9. Criterion Met. The criterion is met for the reasons identified in FOF No. 5D.
RMC 4-9-030.D.g. Noise, Light and Glare:
Potential noise, light and glare impacts from the proposed use shall be evaluated and mitigated.
10. Criterion Met. The criterion is met for the reasons identified in FOF No. 5A.
RMC 4-9-030.D.h. 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. Criterion Met. The criterion is met for the reasons identified in the FOF No. 5D.
Site Plan
RMC 4-9-200.E.3.a. Comprehensive Plan Consistency:
12. Criterion met as identified in COL No. 4.
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, CUP AND MODIFICATION
CAO VARIANCE - 12
12
RMC 4-9-200.E.3.b. Zoning Compliance and Consistency:
13. Criterion met as identified in COL No. 4.
RMC 4-9-200.E.3.c. Design Regulations Compliance and Consistency:
14. Criterion Met. Not applicable, the project is not located within a design regulation overlay
and would not be subject to the residential design and open space requirements.
RMC 4-9-200.E.3.d. Planned action ordinance and Development agreement Compliance and
Consistency:
15. The proposal is not subject to a planned action ordinance or development agreement.
RMC 4-9-200.E.3.e. Off-site Impacts:
Structures: Restricting overscale structures and overconcentration of development on a
particular portion of the site.
16. Criterion Met. The criterion is met for the reasons identified in FOF No. 5F.
Circulation: Providing desirable transitions and linkages between uses, streets, walkways and
adjacent properties.
17. The criterion is met for the reasons identified in FOF No. 5D.
Utilities, 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. Locate utilities underground consistent with RMC 4-6-090.
18. Criterion Met. The criterion is met for the reasons identified in FOF No. 5F.
Views: Recognizing the public benefit and desirability of maintaining visual accessibility to
attractive natural features.
19. Criterion Met. The criterion is met for the reasons identified in FOF No. 5F.
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.
20. Criterion Met. The criterion is met for the reasons identified in FOF No. 5D.
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, CUP AND MODIFICATION
CAO VARIANCE - 13
13
Lighting: Designing and/or placing exterior lighting and glazing in order to avoid excessive
brightness or glare to adjacent properties and streets.
21. Criterion Met. The criterion is met for the reasons identified in FOF No. 5A.
RMC 4-9-200.E.3.f. On-site Impacts:
Structure Placement: Provisions for privacy and noise reduction by building placement,
spacing and orientation.
22. Criterion Met. The criterion is met for the reasons identified in FOF No. 5F.
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.
23. Criterion Met. The criterion is met for the reasons identified in FOF No. 5F.
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.
24. Criterion Met. The criterion is met. As identified in FOF No. 5 the proposal conforms to the
City’s tree retention standards. The City’s stormwater manual and zoning code has measures to limit
impervious surfaces. The topography of the project site is relatively flat, and it is not anticipated that
the development would result in undue cutting or filling onsite.
Reducing Parking Impervious Areas: Design parking areas to minimize impervious surfaces,
including but not limited to: (1) breaking up parking areas and directing stormwater flows to
multiple low impact development features such as bioretention areas; (2) locating parking near
trees to provide storm water uptake; (3) retaining or adding vegetation to parking areas; (4)
placing existing parking that exceeds maximum parking ratios in permeable pavement designed
consistent with the Surface Water Design Manual in RMC 4-6-030; and (5) using other low
impact development techniques consistent with RMC 4-6-030.
25. Criterion Met. The criterion is met. The proposed surface parking has been broken up and each
parking area is proposed to be conveniently located within close proximity to the building that it
would serve.
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.
Landscaping shall be consistent with RMC 4-4-070.
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, CUP AND MODIFICATION
CAO VARIANCE - 14
14
26. Criterion Met. The criterion is met for the reasons identified in FOF No. 5D.
RMC 4-9-200.E.3.g. Access and Circulation:
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.
27. Criterion Met. The criterion is met. As shown on the submitted site plan (Exhibit 2), the
proposed project includes three (3) access points, with two (2) along SE 128th St and one (1) via
158th Ave SE. Fire apparatus would utilize the northwestern driveway along SE 128th St as an
outbound only driveway (inbound access via the southern driveway) to ensure that the fire apparatus
can provide quicker response times to emergency calls.
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.
28. Criterion Met. The criterion is met for the reasons identified in FOF No. D.
Loading and Delivery: Separating loading and delivery areas from parking and pedestrian
areas.
29. Criterion Met. Not applicable. There are no loading and delivery areas associated with the
proposed fire station.
Transit and Bicycles: Providing transit, carpools and bicycle facilities and access.
30. Criterion Met. The criterion is met for the reasons identified in FOF No. 6E.
Pedestrians: Providing safe and attractive pedestrian connections between parking areas,
buildings, public sidewalks and adjacent properties.
31. Criterion Met. The criterion is met for the reasons identified in FOF No. 5D.
RMC 4-9-200.E.3.g: 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.
32. Criterion Met. The criterion is met. Landscaped open spaces are proposed throughout the project
site. In addition, a landscaped buffer is proposed around the site perimeter to create a visual barrier
and buffer the proposed fire station and maintenance building from the abutting residential and
religious institution uses.
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, CUP AND MODIFICATION
CAO VARIANCE - 15
15
RMC 4-9-200.E.3.i: Views and Public Access: When possible, providing view corridors to
shorelines and Mt. Rainier, and incorporating public access to shorelines.
33. Criterion Met. The proposed structure would not block view corridors to shorelines or Mt.
Rainier. The public access requirement is not applicable to the proposal.
RMC 4-9-200.E.3.j: Natural Systems: Arranging project elements to protect existing natural
systems where applicable.
34. Criterion Met. There are no critical areas or other natural systems on site
RMC 4-9-200.E.3.k: Services and Infrastructure:
35. The criterion is met for the reasons identified in FOF No. 6
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 modification request are met by
the proposal and the applications are approved as depicted in the Conceptual Plan Set
(Exhibit 2), subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall comply with the mitigation measures issued as part of the Determination
of Non-Significance Mitigated, dated January 27, 2025:
a. Construction on the project site shall comply with the recommendations of the submitted
Geotechnical Report, prepared by GeoEngineers, Inc., dated August 5, 2022, and any
future addenda.
b. The applicant’s geotechnical engineer shall submit a sealed letter stating that he/she has
reviewed the civil construction and building permit plans and in their opinion the plans
and specifications meet the intent of the report(s).
c. The applicant’s geotechnical engineer shall provide notes on the construction and building
permit plans identifying when on-site geotechnical engineer supervision of construction
events is recommended.
d. The applicant shall submit an Inadvertent Discovery Plan prepared by a qualified
professional with the civil construction permit for review and approval by the Current
Planning Project Manager prior to permit issuance.
2. The Lot Combination and alley vacation shall be completed and recorded prior to the issuance
of a temporary or final Certificate of Occupancy for the proposed fire station and maintenance
building.
3. A detailed landscape plan shall be submitted at the time of Construction Permit review. The
detailed landscape plan shall include but not be limited to: street trees and ground cover within
the street tree planting strip, and the ten-foot (10’) onsite landscape strip required along the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
SITE PLAN, CUP AND MODIFICATION
CAO VARIANCE - 16
16
street frontages shall be landscaped with a mix of trees, shrubs, and ground cover. The detailed
landscape plan shall be submitted to the Current Planning Project Manager for review and
approval.
4. A final Tree Retention and Replacement Plan shall be submitted at the time of Construction
Permit Review. The final Tree Retention and Replacement Plan shall be submitted to the
Current Planning Project Manager for review and approval.
5. The refuse and recyclables deposit area shall be relocated such that the service area would not
be located within 50 feet (50’) of a property currently occupied with a residential use or locate
the refuse and recycling within the fire station building. A revised site plan showing the new
location of the refuse and recyclables deposit area shall be submitted to the Current Planning
Project Manager at the time of Construction Permit Review for review and approval.
6. Revised architectural elevations shall be submitted at the time of building permit review for
review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager. The revised elevations shall
include a more prominent, primary pedestrian entrance and shall include architectural
treatment to the apparatus bays to reduce their visual impact.
7. The applicant shall submit a detailed lighting plan that adequately provides for public safety
without casting excessive glare on adjacent properties. Pedestrian scale and down-lighting
shall be used in all cases to assure safe pedestrian and vehicular movement. The lighting plan
shall be submitted with the construction permit application to be reviewed and approved by
the Current Planning Project Manager for review and approval prior to civil construction
permit issuance.
8. A revised site plan shall be provided showing the location of the required bicycle parking and
a bicycle parking detail be provided at the time of Construction Permit Review for review and
approval by the Current Planning Project Manager.
9. An updated TIA shall be submitted to analyze the emergency traffic control signal warrants
and determine if a signal is warranted. Based on the determination of a signal warrant analysis,
the TIA shall re-assess the recommendation to shift the speed limit transition to the eastern
property boundary. The updated TIA shall be submitted at the time of Construction Permit
application for review and approval by the Development Engineering Plan Reviewer.
10. The Applicant shall revise the Technical Information Report, Ex. 5, to conform to flow control
requirements for TDA 2 as determined by City staff.
Dated this 11th 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, CUP AND MODIFICATION
CAO VARIANCE - 17
17
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 06, 2025 - view latest version here.
Appendix A -- Renton Fire Station (Completed 03/06/25)
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 1 of 12
Appendix A
February 25, 2025, Hearing Transcript
Renton Regional Fire Authority CUP, Site Plan & Modification Analysis
File No. – LUA24-000373
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):
Okay.
(00:02):
Okay. We may have a few joining us still, but let us begin why the printer decided to talk for no reason.
Sorry if you can hear it. I did not actually order anything from my printer in the last 24 hours and if the
door behind me opens, it also is not a ghost, it's a poodle. Anyway, my name is Emily Terrell. I hope you
can hear me. I don't know when that's going to end. It is February 25th, 2025 at 11:00 AM We are here
at the city of Ranon and we are here to hold hearing on project file number PR 24 dash 0 0 0 0 8 4. It is
the Renton Regional Fire Authorities' New Fire Station number 16 and maintenance building. We will
cover that today and I'm going to give you the order of operations. The first thing I want to do is enter
exhibits into the record and see if there are any others that need to come in or if there's any objections.
After that the staff will present, then the applicant may present, and then any members of the public or
other interested parties may present. And then we can do some rounds back and forth if need be. The
applicant gets the last word because they have burden of proof in land use proceedings. So one of the
first things I wish to do is enter exhibits one through 19 on page two and also on the final page of the
staff report. Are there any objections from anyone to entering any of these exhibits into the record?
(01:43):
Jenny, are you seeing any? No.
Speaker 2 (01:46):
Okay. I am not seeing anything, but also I am sharing the screen for those that would like to see a visual.
Speaker 1 (01:51):
Okay. Are there any additional exhibits that need to be added to the record that are not covered here?
Speaker 2 (01:56):
There are. We have exhibits 20 through 22 I'd like to add, which is a staff PowerPoint for Maps link and
Google Earth Link.
Speaker 1 (02:12):
I love it when Google Earth gets into it. Okay, got it. Thank you very much. In that case, exhibits one
through 19 of the staff report and further exhibits 2021 and 22 are entered into the record. Thank you
This transcript was exported on Mar 06, 2025 - view latest version here.
Appendix A -- Renton Fire Station (Completed 03/06/25)
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 2 of 12
very much. Okay. Everyone who wishes to speak today will need to be sworn in. We do this under oath
because any decision we make here today is appealable to superior court. So this is a legal proceeding,
the quasi-judicial variety. So let's begin with who from the staff would like to speak. Just raise a hand for
me. Ms. Ding. Hi. Do you swear and affirm that your testimony today is the truth?
Speaker 3 (02:53):
I do.
Speaker 1 (02:53):
Okay. Take it away.
Speaker 3 (02:55):
All right. Thank you very much. I'm, I am going to share my screen. Here we
Speaker 4 (03:09):
Go.
Speaker 3 (03:18):
So hopefully you are seeing my PowerPoint presentation. Okay.
Speaker 5 (03:22):
Yes
Speaker 1 (03:23):
Ma'am.
Speaker 3 (03:23):
Excellent. So my name is Jill Ding. I am a senior planner here with the city of Renton. I'm here to present
the staff recommendation for the Renton Regional Fire Authority New Fire Station 16 and Maintenance
Building. Just to kind of start with a brief description of the project site and the proposal, the applicant
who in this case is the Renton Regional Fire Authority, is requesting a hearing examiner conditional use
permit, site plan review and street standards and driveway modifications to construct a new fire station
and maintenance building. The project site is located within the R four zoning classification. It is
approximately three and a half acres in size and is comprised of four parcels. There are no critical areas
mapped on site.
(04:26):
Let's see here. The proposal would include a lot combination and alley vacation. Those have been
applied for and are currently being processed under separate applications. The proposal includes a
14,000 square foot, approximately 25 foot tall fire station with three apparatus bays and approximately
13,000 square foot, 38 foot tall maintenance building with five apparatus bays. There would be
approximately 20 service parking spaces. Access to the site is proposed via two curb cuts off of
Southeast one 28th Street and via one curb cut off of 158th Avenue Southeast and a modified street
standard to comply with the Northeast fourth Street corridor improvement plan and to permit a 60 foot
wide driveway. Were also included.
This transcript was exported on Mar 06, 2025 - view latest version here.
Appendix A -- Renton Fire Station (Completed 03/06/25)
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 3 of 12
Speaker 1 (05:32):
Can I ask a question really quickly?
Speaker 3 (05:33):
Yes.
Speaker 1 (05:34):
What is the height limit in this residential zone?
Speaker 3 (05:39):
There is a maximum wall plate height limit of 32 feet. If they comply with certain conditions, they can go
up an additional six feet. So if they do a pitched roof, they can go up an additional feet up to 38 feet.
Speaker 1 (06:02):
Is that how they got to that height?
Speaker 3 (06:05):
So this is a public building, so we are allowed to determine the height through site plan review, which
they did apply for. So the maintenance building, the fire station complies with the height limits. The
maintenance building I believe is a little bit taller because the pitch of the roof does not comply with the
pitch requirements in the zoning code. But like I said, since it's a public building, they are allowed to
exceed the height limits of the zone or we are allowed to establish the height through sit e plan review.
So that is the reason that they applied for site plan review. Normally a development in the R four zone
would not trigger site plan review.
Speaker 1 (06:51):
I thought that might be the key question. Thank you.
Speaker 3 (06:54):
Yep. Let's see. There was a 14 day public comment period that began on December 18th. It ended on
January 2nd. We did receive comments from the Duwamish tribe and the US Army Corps of Engineers.
In response to those comments, the environmental review committee adopted two CIPA mitigation
measures. Staff has reviewed the request. We routed the proposal internally and we found that it was
compliant with the comprehensive plan land use policies, that it would be compliant with all relevant
zoning regulations. If all conditions of approval are complied with that, it would be compliant with the
conditional use criteria if all conditions of approval are complied with that it complied with the
modification criteria if all conditions of approval are complied with and that it complied with the site
plan review. Criteria of all conditions of approval are complied with police and fire prevention staff
reviewed the proposal and indicated that sufficient resources were present to furnish services to the
development water service would be provided by water district 90. So the applicant would need to work
with them for any permitting needed. Sewer services provided by the city of Renton sewer
improvements will be required within and around the project site. We received a drainage report
prepared by LPD engineering. The proposal includes an underwater includes underwater detention
facilities and a modular wetland system to meet surface water flow control and water quality
requirements.
This transcript was exported on Mar 06, 2025 - view latest version here.
Appendix A -- Renton Fire Station (Completed 03/06/25)
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 4 of 12
Speaker 1 (08:50):
But there's no actual wetland, there's no critical some geological things, but no, no,
Speaker 3 (08:56):
There were no critical areas that were mapped on the site. So we don't have any critical areas.
Speaker 1 (09:02):
The created wetland basically to deal with the stormwater issue.
Speaker 3 (09:05):
Right. Just to, I think it's to clean the water, clean the surface water, any pollution generating impervious
surface, we'll go through that modular wetland to kind of clean that water before it enters the detention
facility. That's my understanding.
Speaker 1 (09:21):
The wetland will not be considered a wetland in a critical area sense though.
Speaker 3 (09:24):
Exactly.
Speaker 1 (09:25):
It's basically a storm water facility that is modulating probably, yeah, it is probably just taking the fines
out.
Speaker 3 (09:33):
Exactly. That is correct.
Speaker 5 (09:35):
This is Mark Rii. Can I be sworn in?
Speaker 3 (09:38):
Not yet.
Speaker 5 (09:39):
Okay.
Speaker 1 (09:42):
You will
Speaker 3 (09:42):
Be. Yeah. Let's see. And the project would be required to comply with the city of Renton surface water
design manual. So in conclusion, staff is recommending approval of the proposed project, the Renton
This transcript was exported on Mar 06, 2025 - view latest version here.
Appendix A -- Renton Fire Station (Completed 03/06/25)
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 5 of 12
Regional Fire Authority, new Fire station 16 and maintenance building file number LUA 24 dash 0 0 0 3 7
3. As depicted in exhibit two, subject to nine conditions of approval.
Speaker 1 (10:19):
I have two more questions.
Speaker 3 (10:21):
Excellent.
Speaker 1 (10:22):
Distance to nearest residence, how do you deal with noise? I recognize fire stations good.
Speaker 3 (10:32):
Yes.
Speaker 1 (10:32):
Proximity to fire station insurance wise good. And life safety also good, but knowing, talking an issue and
if we don't get into the record now, I'd love to.
Speaker 3 (10:45):
So I did. Oops. Darn it. I've got to go through.
Speaker 1 (10:49):
I hate it when that happens.
Speaker 3 (10:50):
Nice slides again. So I did include the site plan. My recollection is there can't be around it. Yeah, so the
east side is bounded by a church. There are residences and the north is an arterial street. So there are
residences to the west and to the south. On the west side, I believe they're around approximately 18 to
20 feet. The buildings are from the property line, so they did increase the setbacks. They're also
proposing, and it is a code requirement that they would be compliant with, but they are proposing
landscape buffers around the full perimeter of the property and that the intent of that is to separate the
use visually as well as hopefully provide some noise impacts. In addition, are they screening
Speaker 1 (11:55):
Buffers? Pardon? Are they screening buffers?
Speaker 3 (11:59):
They're vegetated buffers. There's going to be of the type of buffer, there's trees. Trees and shrubs were
the primary plant species proposed. They also cited the fire station itself, which is probably going to be
generate the most noise impacts as far north as they could. So it is close to the arterial. So hopefully the
location of the fire station close to the arterial where it's already somewhat noisy also helps mitigate for
those impacts.
This transcript was exported on Mar 06, 2025 - view latest version here.
Appendix A -- Renton Fire Station (Completed 03/06/25)
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 6 of 12
Speaker 1 (12:37):
Maybe this building at least X as partial barrier to the south for noise?
Speaker 3 (12:43):
Yes. And there is a larger landscape buffer in there retaining some existing significant trees as well as
adding some more vegetation to kind of help buffer. Are there
Speaker 1 (12:55):
Significant grade differences between these properties at all?
Speaker 3 (13:01):
I think it's relatively flat out there.
Speaker 1 (13:04):
I know there's a geotech report, but that has as much to do with how the foundation is done as anything
else. But I'm just thinking in terms of fire station noise and nearby residences noting that they're not
here to talk about it for themselves. So perhaps they don't care.
Speaker 3 (13:28):
Yeah, so those were kind of the impacts that we felt had been, we felt that there had been some
consideration, I guess to those impacts. There is an existing fire station there, so this is a replacement.
So it's not necessarily a new impact. It is a relocated impact
Speaker 1 (13:52):
On this site or close?
Speaker 3 (13:54):
Not on this site close by.
Speaker 1 (13:58):
Okay, thank you. Those are my main questions as always. When we're, we're dealing with A CUP Cs
were created for this very thing. Yes. Things that fit but have impacts that must be mitigated. Correct.
And this is the definition of that?
Speaker 5 (14:19):
Yes.
Speaker 1 (14:19):
Okay, thank you very much. That case, we're going to move to the applicant, decide amongst the
applicant's team who wishes to go first? Anyone who wishes to speak today on the applicant team, we
could do a mass swearing in so that we don't have to do this every time. So if you think you might want
to speak camera's on, if you can raise a right hand. Unmute. Unmute Brian, unmute I or not. I thought
you said on mute. I was like, no, unmute. I need to be able to, that makes more sense to me. Yes, I'd
This transcript was exported on Mar 06, 2025 - view latest version here.
Appendix A -- Renton Fire Station (Completed 03/06/25)
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 7 of 12
love to hear you all. So do you swear affirm that your testimony today is the truth? Yeah, whoever
wants to speak first, go for it.
Speaker 6 (15:14):
I guess I'll just chime in first. I'm Brian Harris with TCA. There's a discussion about just mitigating
measures and noise and one of the advantages to this site is there is grade this that site slopes to the
east. So what we've done on the west side is push the station and the maintenance bay down. So it's
retained essentially to improve the buffering of that. Additionally, on the maintenance bay, what we've
done is orientate the bay doors to the east. So the building itself is really blocking any noise from that
perspective because it's deeper into the site and we were wanting to be sensitive to that. And then
furthermore, typically with the fire stations, the sirens are really directional. So as they pull out and once
they move on to the arterial, that's when the sirens typically will go on and they're always kind of
pushing away from that origination point. So those are I think some of the key things I just wanted to
mention
Speaker 1 (16:30):
That is what I wanted to make sure got it into the record. Thank you. I guess I should also ask, are the
lights shielded? So they're not going in anybody's bedroom?
Speaker 6 (16:40):
Yeah, all the lights are kind of directional and shielded. Yes. Yeah, that's
Speaker 1 (16:47):
Standard stuff. But
Speaker 6 (16:49):
Yes,
Speaker 1 (16:51):
I mean that's the whole point of A CUP. What are the impacts? How can they be mitigated so that the
neighbor's lives aren't ruined by our public services? Okay. Anything else that you would like to add, sir?
Or we can move on to other members of the applicant team? Daniel ick specifically. Looks like he'd like
to speak soon.
Speaker 6 (17:10):
Yeah, I think that's all I have for right now. Thank you.
Speaker 1 (17:13):
Alright, who else from the applicant team want to say anything or do you need to say anything?
Speaker 7 (17:18):
I'll go ahead and just speak really quickly. Just regarding building height. You had asked about that
specifically the maintenance building. We have applied for the site review as Jill noted, and just an
explanation as to why we need to hire plate height is that for maintenance of apparatus, specifically fire
This transcript was exported on Mar 06, 2025 - view latest version here.
Appendix A -- Renton Fire Station (Completed 03/06/25)
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 8 of 12
trucks, excuse me, ladder trucks. To access the engine, the engine of the firetruck, you have to tip the
cab forward and before you can tip the cab forward on a ladder truck, you have to raise the ladder. So
the district required a certain amount of clearance within the building in order to properly maintain
their apparatus. Otherwise they would have to take them outside in order to work on them. We're just
keeping them warm and dry.
Speaker 1 (18:22):
Only rains eight months out of the year. Something like that. Ma'am,
Speaker 7 (18:26):
What's your last name? Langer. L-A-N-G-R-E-H-R. Nobody gets it right on the first try.
Speaker 1 (18:37):
I probably get it right call either, but we do AI transcripts and they creatively misspell everyone's name,
even the easy ones. All right. That was very helpful. Thank you. I have in fact seen that setup. I've
worked inside city halls many times. Okay. Anything else? Or should another, would another member of
the applicant's team like to speak?
Speaker 5 (19:06):
I'll
Speaker 1 (19:06):
Go. Are we all good?
Speaker 5 (19:10):
I'll go.
Speaker 1 (19:10):
Okay.
Speaker 5 (19:11):
I'm Mark Zi, the civil engineer. Just a clarification on the term modular wetland, that is the product
name for a water quality treatment system. It comes in a concrete box and there are no wetlands on the
site.
Speaker 1 (19:30):
I knew there were no wetlands on the site. What was important to me is that we didn't accidentally
create something that we then write when it,
Speaker 5 (19:38):
In reality, that term should be capitalized. M the M and the W. So it looks like a name not, yes.
Speaker 1 (19:44):
This transcript was exported on Mar 06, 2025 - view latest version here.
Appendix A -- Renton Fire Station (Completed 03/06/25)
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 9 of 12
The last thing I want is for later redevelopment to come along and somebody go, well, are you going to
buffer the wetland?
Speaker 5 (19:50):
Right,
Speaker 1 (19:51):
Right. No, that's a water quality treatment facility. That is what that thing is as opposed to a natural
wetland with flora and fauna and such. Okay. Again, I'm, my job is to ferret out all these issues and think
about the folks who aren't here and the folks who are later going to review this and look back on it. So
those are all the questions I had, and they're certainly answered adequately and well. I don't see any
issue with this one. We have, well let's begin with, is there any member of the public here? Did anyone
show up? Would like to speak?
Speaker 2 (20:30):
There are attendee seven attendees.
Speaker 1 (20:35):
Would anyone like to speak? Now is the opportunity for members of the public to speak? Raise your
hand digitally or speak up? Hey, yeah, I want to say something.
Speaker 2 (20:44):
We do have something.
Speaker 1 (20:46):
Okay. I
Speaker 2 (20:48):
All right, Marie, go ahead,
Speaker 1 (20:50):
Marie. Okay. Okay.
Speaker 4 (20:52):
Can you hear me?
Speaker 1 (20:53):
Yes, I can hear you. I can't see you.
Speaker 4 (20:55):
I also dunno how to turn my camera on.
Speaker 1 (20:58):
This transcript was exported on Mar 06, 2025 - view latest version here.
Appendix A -- Renton Fire Station (Completed 03/06/25)
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 10 of 12
Oh, help anyone? Yeah. Is anybody just,
Speaker 4 (21:07):
It's not,
Speaker 1 (21:09):
I just said something necessary. I did hold a hearing in Blaine where a guy refused to, and this was awful.
He used a pseudonym, refused to go on camera and refused to speak out so that we couldn't tell who he
was or she was. And we did everything through the chat. So see, this is better. Yes, I had to rejoin. Hi. Do
you swear that your testimony today will be the truth?
Speaker 4 (21:35):
Yeah, I do.
Speaker 1 (21:36):
And are you representing an agency or just as a citizen? Comment,
Speaker 4 (21:41):
A citizen with Lord of Life Lutheran church.
Speaker 1 (21:44):
Okay.
Speaker 4 (21:45):
So I'm one of the neighbors,
Speaker 1 (21:46):
A neighbor. Thank you very much. And what would you like to ask the applicant? The city, me or simply
state?
Speaker 4 (21:54):
I want to ask about the geotech report and the surface water design. I believe because there is a
gradient, and like you said, it does slope to the east was concerned if there was any consideration or
help with drainage onto the backside where the preschool and the playset area is.
Speaker 1 (22:16):
So don't flood our church while making too much noise while we're having service.
Speaker 4 (22:20):
Noise is fine, bother, love it. Okay. But we've had water issues in the past because of the slope in that
area.
Speaker 1 (22:30):
This transcript was exported on Mar 06, 2025 - view latest version here.
Appendix A -- Renton Fire Station (Completed 03/06/25)
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 11 of 12
The applicant isn't required to fix existing issues. They may accidentally fix an existing issue, but they
can't exacerbate an existing issue. So,
Speaker 4 (22:38):
Okay.
Speaker 1 (22:39):
The applicant's team, I know one of you want to answer this question. Who would like to answer her
question regarding the
Speaker 5 (22:48):
Gradient that seems lined up for me. Mark. I'm the civil engineer.
(22:54):
So Marie, thanks for bringing this forward. Honestly, I had not heard of the church having groundwater
or surface water issues, so I would be glad to go out and meet you or somebody out on site so you can
show me where they are occurring. My guess is that the current project or the current lay of the land,
there's surface water that kind of drains in the easterly direction. The new system will have a complete
drainage system design, so it'll have catch basins and pipes and detention systems and so on, including a
foundation drain around the detention system. So we would expect to have less water going your way
and it all goes out to the ditch in the front. But I'd like to go and see where it is that the source is that's
coming your way because we don't want to make it any worse and ideally it would be a bit better, but
we need to know where that's coming from. So if you can, I don't know how I get in contact with you
other than I see your name, but if anybody can
Speaker 4 (24:23):
Contact information. Jenny, can I go through you to get to Mark?
Speaker 1 (24:27):
Yeah, sure. In the chat if you could figure that out. I never can to
Speaker 2 (24:33):
Camera on. Yeah, I'll just spotlight my camera if you want to take down my email address.
Speaker 4 (24:38):
Yeah, there we go. Yeah, I got it. Thank you. Gosh, Jenny,
Speaker 1 (24:43):
That's such a good thinking. That's good thinking. Okay, Maria, is there anything else that you wanted to
ask about or make any
Speaker 4 (24:52):
That is all I have. Thank you.
Speaker 1 (24:56):
This transcript was exported on Mar 06, 2025 - view latest version here.
Appendix A -- Renton Fire Station (Completed 03/06/25)
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 12 of 12
Any other member of the public who would like to ask questions or speak up getting anything there,
Jen?
Speaker 2 (25:04):
No.
Speaker 1 (25:05):
No. Okay. But this is the whole point of these meetings. The whole point of the hearing is so that the
public can know what's going on, have a conversation. It's in a situation that is not adversarial hopefully.
Okay. So it seems to me like most of my curiosity has been resolved and that neighbor issues can be so,
and I really appreciate, thank you Mark, for your willingness to speak with Marie about this and work on
these issues. If there's nothing more to add, and you certainly may as soon as I'm done talking, we have
10 business days, which usually works out to about 14 real days to render a decision on this. I can't rule
from the bench, but there aren't any big red flags that are jumping out at me at the moment. So for the
good of the order, does anybody else want to say anything else?
(26:04):
Okay, I'm going to call that now. As usual, city of Renton does thorough, excellent, easy to understand.
Staff reports, great presentations. It's been a little bit since I got to sit the bench here and I'm glad to be
back. I missed you guys. Okay. I will call that this hearing to an end and close the record and we will get
back with you with a decision as soon as one or the other of us can manage to get her done. We are
doing the 60 hour week thing and if you can hear it while we're sick. So thank you very much. Thanks for
coming today.
