HomeMy WebLinkAbout20230314_Zoning Review Response-S&S.pdf
March 14, 2023
City of Renton
Attn: Alex Morganroth
Development of Community and Economic Development
1055 S. Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057
RE: 1905 Raymond Ave SW (APN 2423049115), / Project No. PR21-000051 /
Land Use File No. LUA21-000233, A-SA, SME, ECF
Dear Reviewer:
We are in receipt of your review comments for the above-reference project, to which we provide the following
responses. Your comments for standards found in noncompliance have been reiterated below with
corresponding responses for each. Please review these responses, along with revised drawings at your earliest
opportunity so we may obtain the permits necessary to begin construction.
NOTE: The majority of the plan review comments are ‘for reference’ in nature. The responses below, address
the plan comments that require design team response and/or drawing updates to be issued.
Comments on Drawings:
1) Refuse and Recycling: In manufacturing and other nonresidential developments, a minimum of (3) square
feet per one thousand (1,000) square feet of building gross floor area shall be provided for recyclables
deposit areas and a minimum of six (6) square feet per 1,000 square feet of building gross floor area shall be
provided for refuse deposit areas. A total minimum area of 100 square feet shall be provided for recycling
and refuse deposit areas.
Based on the total gross floor area of the existing structure, approximately 129,105 square feet, 1,162
square feet of refuse and recycle area is required to be provided. The applicant did not provide information
with the application regarding size or location of an existing or proposed refuse recycling area. Therefore,
staff recommends, as a condition of approval, the applicant shall submit a revised site plan with the building
permit application that identifies a refusal and recyclable enclosure compliant with the size requirements in
RMC 4-4-090E.3 or obtain modification approval to reduce the minimum size requirements. The revised site
plan or modification shall be reviewed and approved by the current Planning Project Manager prior to
issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
Response: This facility utilizes (2) two separate trash compactors (auger & compactor) for refuse
and recycling. Both units are located and identified on Sheet AS0.0. Compactor details are listed
as below:
1. Fully enclosed CRAMALOT 40-cubic yard container connected to Komar Auger/grinder and is intended
for heavy duty Recycling.
2. The heavy-duty CRAMALOT 40-cubic yard Compactor is intended for refuse waste and trash.
Page 2 of 4
These units have a total allocated area of 80 cubic yards, which exceeds the capacity of traditional
dumpsters that would be provided within the required 1,162 SF space.
It is our position that the current design/operation exceeds the requirement and is in compliance.
2) Bicycle Parking: The number of bicycle parking spaces shall be equal to ten percent (10%) of the number of
required off-street vehicle parking spaces.
Based on the minimum number of vehicle spaces required for the use, 99 spaces, the applicant is
required to provide a minimum of 10 bicycle parking spaces (10% of 99 = 9.9 spaces). The bicycle parking
spaces should be located close to the front entrance and positioned in a manner that does not allow a
vehicle to block access for a user. The applicant proposed the installation of a bicycle rack at the front (east
facade) of the existing building behind the international sidewalk (Exhibit 2), however the exact number of
spaces was not indicated. In addition, the submitted documents did not provide any specifications for the
proposed bicycle spaces and therefore compliance with the bicycle parking standards in RMC 4-4-080F.11b
could not be determined. Therefore, staff recommends, as a condition of approval, the applicant shall
provide details of the proposed off-street bicycle parking that complies with the bicycle parking to be
reviewed and approved by the current planning project prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
Response: The current site has provided (7) 2-space bicycle racks allowing for (14) fourteen
bicycle parking spaces. This is graphically indicated on sheet AS0.0, and exceeds the required bike
parking spaces.
3) Fences and Retaining Walls: A maximum of eight feet (8’) anywhere on the lot provided the fence, retaining
wall or hedge does not stand in or in front of any required landscaping or pose a traffic vision hazard. There
shall be a minimum three-foot (3’) landscaped set back at the base of retaining walls abutting public rights-
of-way.
The applicant has proposed one (1) new fence to separate the loading area from the employee parking
area. The height of the fence was not indicated. If the fence requires a building permit (7’ height or
greater), compliance with the fence standards would be verified at the time of building permit review.
Response: This fence has been eliminated from the project and is currently not installed.
Reference to the fence has been removed from the documents.
4) Loading and Storage: Locating, designing, and screening storage areas, utilities, rooftop equipment, loading
areas, and refuse and recyclable to minimize views from surrounding properties.
The applicant did not propose a trash and recycling enclosure on the site. Therefore, staff recommended
a condition of approval under FOF 16: IL Zone development Standards and Analysis, Refuse and
Recycling, that the applicant submit plans for the trash and recycling enclosure for review and approval
by the current Planning Project Manager prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
Response: See response above for description of trash compactors and auger being utilized on
site.
Page 3 of 4
5) 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.
The applicant has proposed three (3) distinct sections of the parking lo including an area for employee
parking near the southwest former of the site, flex loading paces for the contract drivers along the north
and east sides of the site, and truck loading area near the northwest corner of the site. All traffic would
enter the site via the single access point on the east side of the site, a bridge over Spring Brook Creek
that connects to the public ROW via an easement across the adjacent site Once on the site, employees
would drive south along the interval looped road until reaching the employee parking area. The contract
driver would drive their personal vehicles either north or south after entering the site in order to access
one of the 70 flex spots, where they will load up their vehicles and exit the site the same way they
entered. Semi-trucks delivering goods would enter the site, turn right (north), and drive around the
internal looped road to reach the loading dock area at the rear (west) of the site. While some overlap in
the drive aisles between the various vehicles would occur, the parking and loading areas are separated
and not anticipated to create significant circulation challenges. However, in order to ensure the contract
drivers, Truck delivery drivers, and full time employees entering and existing the site are aware of the
expected circulation pattern, staff recommends as a condition of approval, the applicant shall prepare
traffic management plan that includes recommendations for signage, literature for employee and
delivery drivers regarding proper circulation on the site, and additional parking lot striping to guide
vehicles on the site. The plan shall be submitted to the current planning project manager for review and
approval prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy.
Response: Additional site signage and striping drawings have been provided for reference and
review. Drawings indicate directional signage for truck drivers as well as employees and contract
flex drivers.
6) Loading and Delivery: Separating loading and delivery areas from parking and pedestrian areas.
See above under ‘Internal Circulation’.
Response: *Copied from above* Additional site signage and striping drawings have been provided
for reference and review. Drawings indicate directional signage for truck drivers as well as
employees and contract flex drivers.
7) Transit and Bicycles: Providing Transit, carpools and bicycle facilities and access.
Due to the auto-centric mature of the use, staff expects the majority of employees to drive the site.
However, multiple king county metro bus stops are located on Lind Ave SW to the east of the site and
would allow relatively easy access to the site via public transit. Bicycle parking space or rack would
ensure that facilities are available if an employee chooses to bike to the site.
Response: See response above for a description of bicycle parking spaces. 14 spaces have been
provided.
Page 4 of 4
8) Special Flood Hazard Area: A flood hazard area pursuant to the FEMA Floor Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) is
located on the subject site. The Hazard area on the site, a Special Flood Zone AE (base flood elevation
undetermined), is classified as a 100-year floor plain. No new structures are proposed in the 100-year flood
plain. However, the installation of new parking stalls and the removal of the sport court are both located in
the floor plan area (exhibit 2). Critical area studies to evaluate the effects of adding and removing
impervious surface in the floor hazard area have not been submitted with the project materials. Therefore,
staff recommends as a condition of approval, the applicant shall provide the appropriate flood hazard data to
demonstrate that the proposed improvement in the floor plain do not increase the flood risk for area and
result in no net rise in floodwaters.
Response: Attached is an email chain from May 2021 between Architect, Brady Harding and City
engineer, Scott Warlick. City Engineer had determined that site work would meet the definition of
maintenance and would not require a drainage control plan nor a drainage report.
Given this, it is our assertion that the minimal site improvements would not negatively affect the
flooding in this area (no additional flood hazard nor net rise in floodwaters) as there is not an
increase in impervious surface.
9) The applicant shall comply with the mitigation measures require as part of the mitigated determination of
non-significance issued by the Renton Environmental Review Committee on April 5, 2022 (exhibit 15):
Response: Mitigation measures acknowledged and are currently under construction via direct
contract with Amazon (no involvement with Brady Harding, Architect). Timelines for mitigation
measures have been updated per Feb 6, 2023 letter issued by City of Renton.
We greatly appreciate your partnership through your prompt review of these responses and for working with us to
make the Permit available as soon as possible, so construction may begin on this project.
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Respectfully,
Brady Harding
Architect
3601 Rigby Road – Suite 300
Miamisburg, OH 45342
(937) 435-8584