Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutKing County AFIS Lab, Conditional Use, Site Plan and Street Modification1 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 CONDITIONAL USE and SITE PLAN - 1 CAO VARIANCE - 1 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON RE: King County AFIS Lab Conditional Use, Site Plan and Street Modification LUA17-000627, SA-A, CU-H, MOD ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) FINAL DECISION Summary The Applicant has applied for conditional use permit, site plan and street modification approval for the construction of 15,585 square feet of tenant improvements and a 3,065-square foot addition to an existing 74,915 square foot 3-story office building located at 900 Oaksdale Avenue SE, Renton, WA. The applications are approved subject to conditions. Testimony Jill Ding, Senior Planner for City of Renton, summarized the proposal. Exhibits The December 12, 2017 Staff Report Exhibits 1-13 identified at Page 2 of the staff report were admitted into the record during the hearing. The following exhibits were also admitted during the hearing: Exhibit 14: Staff PowerPoint Exhibit 15: City of Renton COR maps 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 CONDITIONAL USE and SITE PLAN - 2 CAO VARIANCE - 2 FINDINGS OF FACT Procedural: 1. Applicant. King County FMD – Facilities. Applicant agent Chris Carlson, Buffalo Design, 1520 Fourth Avenue, suite 400, Seattle, WA 98101. 2. Hearing. A hearing was held on the applications on December 12, 2017 in the City of Renton Council Chambers. 3. Project Description. The Applicant has applied for a conditional use permit, site plan and street modification approval for the construction of 15,585 square feet of tenant improvements and a 3,065-square foot addition to an existing 74,915 square foot 3-story office building located at 900 Oaksdale Avenue SE, Renton, WA. The tenant improvements will accommodate a relocation of the King County Regional Automated Fingerprint Identification System (AFIS) Lab and the Sheriff’s Department Photography Lab onto the project site. This project will provide tenant space to securely and safely manage, examine and process evidence. The Lab does not employ or expel hazardous materials in significant quantities. In addition to lab space, tenant improvements will provide conference rooms and facilities for training lab examiners and law enforcement personnel. A break out area, break room, and secure long term archival evidence storage is also accommodated. A single story, 3,065 square foot, addition is proposed to provide secure space for the processing of vehicles and oversized evidence that cannot be processed in the principal lab. The project site totals 214,079 square feet. The street modification application seeks to allow the existing frontage improvements to remain on Oaksdale Avenue. The Applicant is proposing to keep the existing curb to curb pavement width and the existing 0.5’ curb, 6’ planter, and 5’ sidewalk on the frontage to be consistent with the existing frontage improvements along the remaining corridor and preserve the existing mature landscape buffer along the frontage of Oakesdale Avenue SW. 4. Adequacy of Infrastructure/Public Services. The project will be served by adequate and appropriate infrastructure and public services as follows: A. Water and Sewer Service. Water and sewer service is and will be provided by the City of Renton. B. Fire and Police. The City of Renton will provide police service and the Renton Fire Authority will provide 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 CONDITIONAL USE and SITE PLAN - 3 CAO VARIANCE - 3 C. Drainage. Public works staff have determined that the preliminary design and technical drainage review submitted by the Applicant are consistent with adopted city standards. A Preliminary Drainage Plan and Technical Information Report (TIR), dated August 2017, prepared by David Evans & Associates, Inc. (Exhibit 5) was submitted with the Land Use Application. Based on the City of Renton’s flow control map, the site falls within the Peak Rate Flow Control Standard area and is within the Black River Drainage Basin. The development is subject to Full Drainage Review in accordance with the 2017 Renton County Surface Water Design Manual (RSWDM). The TIR mentions the Core requirements and special requirements. The TIR submitted with the land use application mentions that a flow control facility is not required for the project since there is not a 0.15 cfs or greater increase in the 100 year peak flow after the redevelopment. Since the redevelopment project includes more than 5,000 square feet of new plus replaced pollution generation impervious surface area, a filterra is proposed to provide enhanced water quality. The plans and TIR submitted with the construction permit should follow all requirements of the 2017 RSWDM. The City’s stormwater standards require that the improvements not increase off-site drainage volumes and velocities over pre-development standards. Since the proposal has been designed to comply with the City’s stormwater standards and Public Works staff have found the preliminary drainage plan to comply with those standards, it is determined that the proposal provides for adequate and appropriate stormwater control and mitigation. D. Parks/Open Space. There are no open space or parks requirements that apply to the proposal. The site is currently developed and includes existing mature landscaping. No new open spaces are proposed as a result of the construction of the proposed addition. Since the City has no parks or open space standards that apply to the proposal and there is nothing in the record to reasonably conclude that the proposal will create a demand for parks or open space, no additional parks or open space can be required of the proposal and none is found to be necessary. E. Transportation and Circulation. Public works staff have determined that the preliminary design for traffic circulation and improvements satisfies applicable City standards. Since the proposal is consistent with City transportation standards and is an existing building, it is found to provide for adequate and appropriate transportation facilities and mitigation. The project site was previously occupied by King County Permitting and Environmental Review Agency. A trip generation letter (Exhibit 6) was provided by Buffalo Design Inc. with the land use application that included the anticipated peak hour trips (9 trips in the AM peak and 17 trips in the PM peak) that would be generated by the proposed AFIS Lab. The proposal is not anticipated to generate the threshold of 20 new peak hour trips that 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 CONDITIONAL USE and SITE PLAN - 4 CAO VARIANCE - 4 would require a traffic study. Therefore, a Traffic Impact Analysis is not required for the project. Payment of the transportation impact fee is applicable on the construction of the development at the time of application for the building permit. The current 2017 rate for office uses is $7.29 per square foot. Traffic impact fees serve as mitigation for traffic system-wide impacts created by the proposed addition. The proposal provides for safe interior vehicular and pedestrian circulation. The Applicant has sited the addition and reconfigured the surface parking to the rear of the existing office building to ensure that safe vehicular and emergency access would be maintained around the project site. No changes are proposed to the existing pedestrian walkway which connects the main building entrance with Oakesdale Avenue SW. The proposal provides for desirable transitions and linkages between uses, streets, walkways and adjacent properties. The project site is currently developed and includes vehicular access to the adjoining properties to the north and south as well as a pedestrian connection to Oakesdale Avenue SW to the west. . F. Schools. As a government crime facility, it is not anticipated that the proposal will create any increased demand for school services or facilities. No school mitigation is necessary. Refuse and Recycling. RMC 4-4-090 sets the standard for adequate refuse and recycling facilities. Since the standard is met by the proposal as conditioned, it is found to provide for adequate and appropriate refuse and recycling facilities. RMC 4-4-090 provides that in office, educational and institutional developments, a minimum of two (2) square feet per every one thousand (1,000) square feet of building gross floor area shall be provided for recyclables deposit areas and a minimum of four (4) square feet per one thousand (1,000) square feet of building gross floor area shall be provided for refuse deposit areas. A total minimum area of one hundred (100) square feet shall be provided for recycling and refuse deposit areas. The submitted site plan materials identified one existing refuse and recyclable deposit area, totaling 130 square feet, which would be reused for the proposed project. After the construction of the proposed 3,065 square foot addition to the existing 74,915 square foot building, the existing building would have a new area of 77,980 square feet, which would require 156 square feet of recyclable deposit area and 312 square feet of refuse deposit area. A condition of approval requires that the Applicant provide a revised site plan at the time of Building Permit review showing the required refuse and recyclable deposit areas. 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 CONDITIONAL USE and SITE PLAN - 5 CAO VARIANCE - 5 G. Parking. The City’s parking standards set the standard for adequacy of parking. Since those standards are met by the proposal, it is determined that the proposal provides for adequate parking. Parking regulations require that 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 be provided for general office uses. After the construction of the addition, the existing building would have a total new square footage of 77,980 square feet and would require a minimum of 156 spaces and a maximum of 351 spaces. According to the submitted site plan, after the construction of the addition, the project site would provide 324 parking spaces, which is within the permitted range for general office buildings. Per RMC 4-4-080F.11.a, bicycle parking spaces are required for developments that exceed 4,000 square feet in size. The proposed addition is 3,065 square feet in size, therefore the bicycle parking requirements are not applicable. H. Landscaping. It is determined that the proposal provides for adequate and appropriate landscaping because the proposal complies with applicable City landscaping standards. The landscaping regulations apply to “additions to existing buildings that increase the gross square footage of the building by greater than one third” or “remodels of a structure that requires improvements equal to or greater than fifty percent (50%) of the assessed property valuation”. The proposed 3,065 square foot addition would increase the existing 74,915 square foot building by 4 percent. The proposal would also include the remodel of 15,585 square feet of the first floor, which is not expected to include improvements that would by equal to or greater than 50 percent of the assessed property valuation. Therefore, the existing project site is not required to be retrofitted to comply with the City’s current landscape regulations. The site is currently landscaped along the Oakesdale Avenue SW frontage with mature trees and lawn area and additional mature landscaping is provided within the surface parking lot. A Conceptual Landscape Plan (Exhibit 9) was submitted with the formal land use application materials. The Applicant is proposing retain and repair existing landscaped areas that may be impacted as a result of the construction of the 3,065-square foot addition. A condition of approval requires that a detailed landscape plan be submitted at the time of Building Permit review for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager. 5. Adverse Impacts. There are no significant adverse impacts associated with the proposal. Adequate infrastructure serves the site as determined in Finding of Fact No. 4. Impacts are more specifically addressed as follows: 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 CONDITIONAL USE and SITE PLAN - 6 CAO VARIANCE - 6 A. Views. The proposal will not adversely affect any views. According to the staff report, the proposal will not adversely affect neighboring views or view corridors to shorelines and Mount Rainer. Staff’s finding is consistent with the fact that the proposed addition is only one story in height and is surrounded by commercial development. No design standards apply to the project. B. Compatibility. The proposed use is compatible with the scale and character of the neighborhood. Surrounding uses are composed of office buildings and Springbrook Creek. The proposed one-story addition and the relatively low intensity of the proposed use will be entirely compatible with the surrounding commercial uses. C. Light, glare, noise and privacy. The proposal will not create any significantly adverse light, noise or glare impacts. The primary AFIS lab space would essentially be utilized as an office/clerical use. Activities in the Vehicle Inspection Facility are limited to collecting fingerprints and photographing vehicles seized as evidence. No automotive work producing noise would take place. The proposed addition will also be located to the rear of the existing 3 story building, which reduces the potential for visual or noise impacts resulting from the project proposal. Since the proposed addition is in the rear of the building and there are no residential uses nearby, the proposal does not create any significant adverse privacy impacts. D. Critical Areas and Natural Features. A flood hazard is mapped on the southwest corner of the project site and the 200-foot Springbrook Creek shoreline jurisdiction falls over the western portion of the project site. The site is within a seismic hazard. The proposal will not adversely affect or be adversely affected by these critical areas because staff and the Applicant have assured that the proposal complies with the City’s critical area regulations. As to the flood plain, according to the City’s online COR GIS mapping system, all proposed improvements would be constructed outside of the mapped 100-year flood plain. However, to ensure that the proposed addition would not be constructed within the flood plain, a condition of approval requires that the Applicant provide elevation information at the time of Building Permit review demonstrating that the footprint of the addition is located outside the floodplain. As to the seismic hazard areas, a Geotechnical Report prepared by S&EE, dated March 7, 2017 (Exhibit 4) was submitted with the project application to address the City’s regulations pertaining to development in seismic hazard areas. According to the geotechnical report (Exhibit 4) the subsurface conditions at the site include fill over native soils. The fill extends to about 5 to 6 feet below ground surface and is comprised of loose to medium dense, sand, silty sand and silt. The native soils below the fill include approximately 15.5 feet of very soft and very loose, silt, clay and silty sand. Groundwater was encountered at a depth of 6 feet 8 inches at the time of drilling. It is estimated that the depth of groundwater is affected by precipitation and may fluctuate between about 6 to 10 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 CONDITIONAL USE and SITE PLAN - 7 CAO VARIANCE - 7 feet below ground surface. Based on the liquefaction potential, the report recommends that the proposed addition be supported by concrete augercast piles. It is recommended that the piles have a minimum diameter of 16 inches with the pile tip embedded at a depth of 35 feet below ground surface. The pile spacing should be a minimum of 5 feet on center. Additional recommendations, including underground utility construction, later earth pressures on underground walls, site preparation and fill, slab-on-grade, and pavement design were also provided. No work is proposed within Springbrook Creek Shoreline Management Act jurisdiction. The only regulated natural features outside of the critical areas are trees. RMC 4-4-130 imposes tree retention standards upon new development. The project site has a total of 39 significant trees located on the project site. A total of 33 tree trees or 85 percent are proposed to be retained, which exceeds the minimum 10 percent retention requirement in the CO zone. A condition of approval requires that a final tree retention plan be submitted at the time of Building Permit review for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager. Conclusions of Law 1. Authority. RMC 4-9-200(B)(2)(a) requires site plan review for all development in the CO zone that is not SEPA exempt. RMC 4-2-060 provides that government facilities are authorized in the CO zone by hearing examiner conditional use permit. The site plan, street modification and conditional use permit applications have been consolidated. RMC 4-8-080(C)(2) requires consolidated permits to each be processed under “the highest-number procedure”. Site Plan Review (administrative) qualifies as Type II, street modifications as Type I review permits and hearing examiner conditional use permits as Type III review pursuant to RMC 4-8-080(G). The conditional use Type III review is the “highest-number procedure” and therefore must be employed for the conditional use, street modification and site plan approval. As outlined in RMC 4-8-080(G), the hearing examiner is authorized to hold hearings and issue final decisions on Type III applications subject to closed record appeal to the Renton City Council. 2. Zoning/Comprehensive Plan Designations. The subject property is within the Employment Area (EA) Comprehensive Plan land use designation and the Commercial Office (CO) zoning classification. 3. Review Criteria/Street Modification. Conditional use criteria are governed by RMC 4-9- 030(D) and site plan review standards are governed by RMC 4-9-200(E)(3). Applicable standards are quoted below in italics and applied through corresponding conclusions of law. The proposal satisfies all quoted standards as conditioned for the reasons identified in the conclusions of law. The application for street modifications as detailed in Finding of Fact No. 3 meets all applicable code criteria for the reasons outlined in Finding of Fact No. 19 of the staff report. All findings and conclusions in Finding of Fact No. 19 are adopted by reference as findings of 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 CONDITIONAL USE and SITE PLAN - 8 CAO VARIANCE - 8 Conditional Use The Administrator or designee or the Hearing Examiner shall consider, as applicable, the following factors for all applications: 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. 4. As conditioned, the proposal is consistent with all applicable comprehensive plan policies and development standards as outlined in Findings of Fact No. 15 and 16 of the staff report, adopted by this reference as if set forth in full. 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. 5. The proposed relocation of the King County AFIS Lab to the project site would not change the function of the currently existing building as a government office and facility. The previous tenant of the building was King County for their department of permitting and environmental review. The AFIS Lab would have a lower concentration of County employees than the previous tenant. The existing Type B Occupancy office building is well suited for the proposed use. The Lab primarily collects finger prints and DNA, and photographs crime scene evidence. No hazardous materials are employed in significant quantities for this work. The proposal is largely the reuse of an existing office building that was previously occupied by King County and the new use would not result in a detrimental overconcentration of other government offices and facilities within this area of the City. Further, the use is fully compatible with surrounding uses for the reasons identified in Finding of Fact No. 5. For all these reasons, the criterion is met. 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. 6. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5, as conditioned, 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 proposed use is compatible with the scale and character of the neighborhood. RMC 4-9-030(C)(5): Parking: Adequate parking is, or will be made, available. 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 CONDITIONAL USE and SITE PLAN - 9 CAO VARIANCE - 9 8. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 4, the proposal includes parking that is consistent with applicable parking standards, which sets a legislative standard for adequate parking. 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. As outlined in Finding of Fact No. 4, the proposal provides for save circulation and adequate traffic mitigation and facilities. 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 conditioned, as determined in Finding of Fact No. 5, the proposal will not result in any adverse light, noise or 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. As shown in the site plans for the proposal, Ex. 2, all undeveloped portions of the site are landscaped. Site Plan 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. 12. As concluded in Conclusion of Law No. 4 and as conditioned, the proposal is consistent with the City’s comprehensive plan and development regulations. No design standards apply. RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(b): Off-Site Impacts: Mitigation of impacts to surrounding properties and uses, including: 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 CONDITIONAL USE and SITE PLAN - 10 CAO VARIANCE - 10 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; 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. 13. As conditioned, the criteria quoted above are met. The proposed addition is relatively small and only one story in height. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 4(E), the proposal provides for desirable transitions and linkages between uses, streets, walkways and adjacent properties. As determined in Findings of Fact No. 4, proper screening and/or design location will be implemented to conceal refuse and recyclable areas and equipment since those issues are addressed by the City’s refuse and recycle design standards. No new loading areas are proposed or required of the proposal. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5, the proposal will not adversely affect any views. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 4, the proposal is consistent with the City’s landscaping standards. The proposal already has landscape buffers and these buffers, as enhanced by the Applicant’s proposed landscaping plan, will serve as adequate buffering to adjoining uses given the compatibility of those uses and absence of any significant adverse project impacts as detailed in Finding of Fact No. 5. The proposal will not create any significant light impacts, including excessive brightness or glare, for the reasons identified in Finding of Fact No. 5. 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; 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 CONDITIONAL USE and SITE PLAN - 11 CAO VARIANCE - 11 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. 14. The criterion quoted above are met. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5, the proposal will not create any significant privacy or noise impacts. The scale of the proposal, composed of a one- story addition at a site surrounded by office buildings, is entirely appropriate and compatible. Natural features are adequately protected. The project site is already almost completely developed. As outlined in Finding of Fact No. 5, the modest sized addition will comply with the City’s tree retention standards. Under these circumstances the proposal is found to protect natural features as required by the criterion quoted above. The proposal complies with the City’s landscaping standards as outlined in Finding of Fact No. 4. As conditioned, no additional landscaping is found to be necessary to meet the objectives of the criterion quoted above. 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. 15. The proposal as conditioned provides for adequate access and circulation and bicycle parking as required by the criterion above for the reasons identified in Finding of Fact No. 4. 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. 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 CONDITIONAL USE and SITE PLAN - 12 CAO VARIANCE - 12 16. The site is currently developed and includes existing mature landscaping and no new open space is proposed. Given the comparatively modest addition to the project site and lack of evidence or standards dictating the need for any additional open space, no new open space can be legally required of the project site. 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. 17. There are no view corridors to shorelines or Mt. Rainier affected by the proposal as determined in Finding of Fact No. 5. RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(g): Natural Systems: Arranging project elements to protect existing natural systems where applicable. 18. There are no natural systems at the site or that would be affected by the proposal. RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(h): Services and Infrastructure: Making available public services and facilities to accommodate the proposed use. 19. The project is served by adequate services and facilities as determined in Finding of Fact No. 4. RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(i): Phasing: Including a detailed sequencing plan with development phases and estimated time frames, for phased projects. 20. The project is not phased. DECISION As conditioned below, the site plan, street modification and conditional use permit applications as depicted in Exhibit 2 satisfy all applicable permitting criteria for the reasons identified in the findings and conclusions of this decision and are all approved. 1. A detailed landscape plan shall be submitted at the time of Building Permit application for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager. 2. A final tree retention plan shall be submitted at the time of Building Permit application for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager. 3. A revised site plan shall be submitted at the time of Building Permit review showing the required refuse and recyclable deposit areas. 4. The Applicant shall provide elevation information at the time of Building Permit application demonstrating that the new addition would be outside the 100 year flood elevation. This information shall be reviewed by the Current Planning Project Manager. DATED this 28th day of December, 2017. 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 CONDITIONAL USE and SITE PLAN - 13 CAO VARIANCE - 13 City of Renton Hearing Examiner Appeal Right and Valuation Notices As consolidated, RMC 4-8-080(G) classifies the application(s) subject to this decision as Type III applications subject to closed record appeal to the City of Renton City Council. Appeals of the hearing examiner’s decision must be filed within fourteen (14) calendar days from the date of the decision. A request for reconsideration to the hearing examiner may also be filed within this 14- day appeal period. Affected property owners may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes notwithstanding any program of revaluation.