HomeMy WebLinkAboutKC AFIS Lab �
Denis Law Mayor
�
City Clerk-Jason A.Seth,CMC
December 29, 2017
Chris Carlson
Buffalo Design
1520 Fourth Avenue, Suite 400
Seattle, Washington 98101
Subject: Hearing Examiner's Final Decision
RE: King County AFIS Lab (LUA-17-000627)
Dear Mr. Carlson:
Enclosed please find the Hearing Examiner's Final Decision dated December 28, 2017.This
document is immediately available:
• Electronically online at the City of Renton City Clerk Division website at
www.rentanwa.�ov/cityclerk. Click the "Hearing Examiner Decisions" link on the
right side of the screen located under the section titled, "Helpful Links." The
Hearing Examiner Decisions are filed by year and then alphabetical order by
project name.
I can be reached at (425)430-6510 or jseth@rentonwa.gov. Thank you.
Sincerely,
1
• ,�
Jason A. Seth, CMC
City Clerk
cc: Hearing Examiner
Jill Ding,Senior Planner
Jennifer Henning, Planning Director
Brianne Bannwarth, Development Engineering Manager
Craig Burnell, Building Official
Katie Buchl-Morales,Secretary, Planning Division
Julia Medzegian,City Council Liaison
Parties of Record(1)
1055 South Grady Way, Renton,WA 98057 • (425)430-6510/Fax (425)430-6516 • rentonwa.gov
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
g BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON
9 �
10 �� King County AFIS Lab )
) FINAL DECISION
11 Conditional Use, Site Plan and Street )
Modification )
12 �
13 LUA 17-000627, SA-A, CU-H, MOD )
)
14 )
15 Summary
16
The Applicant has applied for conditional use permit, site plan and street modification approval for
17 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.
1 g The applications are approved subject to conditions.
19
Testimony
20
Jill Ding, Senior Planner for City of Renton, summarized the proposal.
21
22 Exhibits
23 The December 12, 2017 Staff Report Exhibits 1-13 identified at Page 2 of the staff report were
24 admitted into the record during the hearing. The following exhibits were also admitted during the
hearing:
25
Exhibit 14: Staff PowerPoint
26 Exhibit 15: City of Renton COR maps
CONDITIONAL USE and SITE PLAN - 1
1 �
2 FINDINGS OF FACT
3
Procedural:
4
1. Applicant. King County FMD — Facilities. Applicant agent Chris Carlson, Buffalo Design,
5 1520 Fourth Avenue, suite 400, Seattle, WA 98101.
6 2. Hearin�. A hearing was held on the applications on December 12, 2017 in the City of Renton
� Council Chambers.
g 3. Project Description. The Applicant has applied for a conditional use permit, site plan and
9 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
10 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
11 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
12 materials in significant quantities. In addition to lab space, tenant improvements will provide
13 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
14 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
15 square feet.
16
The street modification application seeks to allow the existing frontage improvements to remain on
1� 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
1 g frontage improvements along the remaining corridor and preserve the existing mature landscape
19 buffer along the frontage of Oakesdale Avenue SW.
20 4. Adequacv of Infrastructure/Public Services. The project will be served by adequate and
appropriate infrastructure and public services as follows:
21
22 A. Water and Sewer Service. Water and sewer service is and will be provided by the City
of Renton.
23
B. Fire and Police. The City of Renton will provide police service and the Renton Fire
24 Authority will provide fire service. Police and Fire Prevention staff indicated that
25 sufficient resources exist to furnish services to the proposed development if the Applicant
provides Code required improvements and fees.
26
CONDITIONAL USE and SITE PLAN -2
1 C. Draina�e. Public works staff have determined that the preliminary design and technical
2 drainage review submitted by the Applicant are consistent with adopted city standards.
3 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
4 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
5 development is subject to Full Drainage Review in accordance with the 2017 Renton
6 County Surface Water Design Manual (RSWDM). The TIR mentions the Core
requirements and special requirements. The TIR submitted with the land use application
7 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.
8
9 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
10 water quality. The plans and TIR submitted with the construction permit should follow all
requirements of the 2017 RSWDM.
11
12 The City's stormwater standards reyuire that the improvements not increase off-site
drainage volumes and velocities over pre-development standards. Since the proposal has
13 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
14 that the proposal provides for adequate and appropriate stormwater control and mitigation.
15 D. Parks/O ep n Space. There are no open space or parks requirements that apply to the
16 proposal. T'he 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.
17 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
1 g parks or open space, no additional parks or open space can be required of the proposal and
19 none is found to be necessary.
20 E. Transportation and Circulation. Public works staff have determined that the preliminary
design for traffic circulation and improvements satisfies applicable City standards. Since
21 the proposal is consistent with City transportation standards and is an existing building, it
22 is found to provide for adequate and appropriate transportation facilities and mitigation.
23 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.
24 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.
25 The proposal is not anticipated to generate the threshold of 20 new peak hour trips that
26
CONDITIONAL USE and SITE PLAN - 3
1 would require a traffic study. Therefore, a Traffic Impact Analysis is not required for the
2 project.
3 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
4 office uses is $7.29 per square foot. Traffic impact fees serve as mitigation for traffic
system-wide impacts created by the proposed addition.
5
6 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
'7 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
g walkway which connects the main building entrance with Oakesdale Avenue SW.
9 The proposal provides for desirable transitions and linkages between uses, streets,
10 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
11 connection to Oakesdale Avenue SW to the west.
12 F. Schools. As a government crime facility, it is not anticipated that the proposal will create
13 any increased demand for school services or facilities.No school mitigation is necessary.
14 Refuse and Recyclin�. 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
15 for adequate and appropriate refuse and recycling facilities.
16
RMC 4-4-090 provides that in office, educational and institutional developments, a
17 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)
1 g square feet per one thousand (1,000) square feet of building gross floor area shall be
19 provided for refuse deposit areas. A total minimum area of one hundred (100) syuare feet
shall be provided for recycling and refuse deposit areas.
20
The submitted site plan materials identified one existing refuse and recyclable deposit
21 area, totaling 130 square feet, which would be reused for the proposed project. After the
22 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
23 require 156 syuare 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
24 time of Building Permit review showing the reyuired refuse and recyclable deposit areas.
25
26
CONDITIONAL USE and SITE PLAN -4
1 G. Parkin�• The City's parking standards set the standard for adequacy of parking. Since
2 those standards are met by the proposal, it is determined that the proposal provides for
adeyuate parking.
3
Parking regulations require that a minimum of 2.0 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of
4 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
5 building would have a total new square footage of 77,980 square feet and would require a
6 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
7 spaces, which is within the permitted range for general office buildings.
g Per RMC 4-4-080F.1 l.a, bicycle parking spaces are required for developments that eXceed
9 4,000 square feet in size. The proposed addition is 3,065 square feet in size, therefore the
bicycle parking requirements are not applicable.
10
11 H. Landscaping. It is determined that the proposal provides for adequate and appropriate
12 landscaping because the proposal complies with applicable City landscaping standards.
13 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
14 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
15 �4,915 square foot building by 4 percent. The proposal would also include the remodel of
16 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,
17 the existing project site is not required to be retrofitted to comply with the City's current
landscape regulations.
18
19 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
20 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
21 areas that may be impacted as a result of the construction of the 3,065-square foot
22 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
23 Project Manager.
24 5. Adverse Impacts. There are no significant adverse impacts associated with the proposal.
25 Adequate infrastructure serves the site as determined in Finding of Fact No. 4. Impacts are more
specifically addressed as follows:
26
CONDITIONAL USE and SITE PLAN - 5
1 A. Views. The proposal will not adversely affect any views. According to the staff report,
2 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
3 only one story in height and is surrounded by commercial development. No design
standards apply to the project.
4
B. Compatibility. The proposed use is compatible with the scale and character of the
5 neighborhood. Surrounding uses are composed of office buildings and Springbrook
6 Creek. The proposed one-story addition and the relatively low intensity of the proposed
use will be entirely compatible with the surrounding commercial uses.
7
C. Light,_�lare, noise and privacy. The proposal will not create any significantly adverse
g light, noise or glare impacts. The primary AFIS lab space would essentially be utilized as
9 an office/clerical use. Activities in the Vehicle Inspection Facility are limited to collecting
fingerprints and photographing vehicles seized as evidence. No automotive work
10 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
11 resulting from the project proposal. Since the proposed addition is in the rear of the
12 building and there are no residential uses nearby, the proposal does not create any
significant adverse privacy impacts.
13
D. Critical Areas and Natural Features. A flood hazard is mapped on the southwest corner
14 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
15 not adversely affect or be adversely affected by these critical areas because staff and the
16 Applicant have assured that the proposal complies with the City's critical area regulations.
17 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.
1 g However, to ensure that the proposed addition would not be constructed within the flood
19 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
20 located outside the floodplain.
21 As to the seismic hazard areas, a Geotechnical Report prepared by S&EE, dated March 7,
22 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
23 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
24 to medium dense, sand, silty sand and silt. The native soils below the fill include
25 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
26 depth of groundwater is affected by precipitation and may fluctuate between about 6 to 10
CONDITIONAL USE and SITE PLAN - 6
� feet below ground surface. Based on the liyuefaction potential, the report recommends
that the proposed addition be supported by concrete augercast piles. It is recommended
2 that the piles have a minimum diameter of 16 inches with the pile tip embedded at a depth
3 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
4 earth pressures on underground walls, site preparation and fill, slab-on-grade, and
pavement design were also provided.
5
6 No work is proposed within Springbrook Creek Shoreline Management Act jurisdiction.
7 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
g significant trees located on the project site. A total of 33 tree trees or 85 percent are
9 proposed to be retained, which eacceeds the minimum 10 percent retention requirement in
the CO zone. A condition of approval requires that a final tree retention plan be submitted
10 at the time of Building Permit review for review and approval by the Current Planning
Project Manager.
ll
12 Conclusions of Law
13
1. Authoritv. RMC 4-9-200(B)(2)(a) requires site plan review for all development in the CO
14 zone that is not SEPA exempt. RMC 4-2-060 provides that government facilities are authorized in the
15 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) reyuires
16 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
1� examiner conditional use permits as Type III review pursuant to RMC 4-8-080(G). The conditional
18 use Type IIl 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
19 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.
20
2. Zonin�/Comprehensive Plan Desi nations. The subject property is within the Employment
21 Area (EA) Comprehensive Plan land use designation and the Commercial Office (CO) zoning
classification.
22
3. Review Criteria/Street Modification. Conditional use criteria are governed by RMC 4-9-
23 030(D) and site plan review standards are governed by RMC 4-9-200(E)(3). Applicable standards are
24 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
25 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
26 conclusions in Finding of Fact No. 19 are adopted by reference as findings of this decision.
CONDITIONAL USE and SITE PLAN - 7
1 Conditional Use
2 The Administrator or designee or the Hearing Examiner shall consider, as applicable, the following
3 factors for all applications:
4 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
5 zoning regulations and any other plans,programs, maps or ordinances of the Ciry of Renton.
6 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.
8
RMC 4-9-030(C)(2): Appropriate Location: The proposed location shall not result in the
9 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.
10
11 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
12 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
13 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
14 employed in significant yuantities for this work. The proposal is largely the reuse of an existing
15 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.
16 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.
17
1 g 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.
19
6. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5, as conditioned, there are no adverse impacts
20 associated with the proposal, so it will not result in substantial or undue adverse effects on adjacent
property.
21
RMC 4-9-030(C)(4): Compatibility: The proposed use shall be compatible with the scale and
22 character of the neighborhood.
23 7. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5, the proposed use is compatible with the scale and
24 character of the neighborhood.
25 RMC 4-9-030(C)(5): Parking:Adequate parking is, or will be made, available.
26
CONDITIONAL USE and SITE PLAN - 8
1 8. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 4, the proposal includes parking that is consistent with
2 applicable parking standards, which sets a legislative standard for adequate parking.
3 RMC 4-9-030(C)(6): Traffrc: The use shall ensure safe movement for vehicles and pedestrians and
shall mitigate potential effects on the surrounding area.
4
9. As outlined in Finding of Fact No. 4, the proposal provides for save circulation and adequate
5 traffic mitigation and facilities.
6 RMC 4-9-030(C)(7): Noise, Light and Glare: Potential noise, light and glare impacts fi•om the
� proposed use shall be evaluated and mitigated.
g 10. As conditioned, as determined in Finding of Fact No. 5, the proposal will not result in any
adverse light, noise or glare impacts.
9
RMC 4-9-030(C)(8): Landscaping: Landscaping shall be provided in all areas not occupied by
10 buildings, paving, or critical areas. Additional landscaping may be required to buffer adjacent
11 properties fi•om potentially adverse effects of the proposed use.
12 11. As shown in the site plans for the proposal, Ex. 2, all undeveloped portions of the site are
landscaped.
13
Site Plan
14
RMC 4-9-200(E)(3): Criteria: The Administrator or designee must find a proposed project to be in
15 compliance with the following.•
16 a. Compliance and Consistency: Conformance with plans,policies, regulations and approvals,
1� including.•
1 g i. Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan, its elements, goals, objectives, and
policies, especially those of the applicable land use designation; the Community Design
19 Element; and any applicable adopted Neighborhood Plan;
�� ii. Applicable land use regulations;
21 iii. Relevant Planned Action Ordinance and Development Agreements; and
22
iv Design Regulations: Intent and guidelines of the design regulations located in RMC 4-
23 3-100.
24 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.
25
26 RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(b): Off-Site Impacts: Mitigation of impacts to surrounding properties and
uses, including:
CONDITIONAL USE and SITE PLAN - 9
1 i. Structures: Restricting overscale structures and overconcentration of development on a
particular portion of the site;
2
3 ii. Cireulation: Providing desirable transitions and linkages between uses, streets,
walkways and adjacent properties;
4
iii. Loading and Storage Areas: Locating, designing and screening storage areas,
5 utilities, rooftop equipment, loading areas, and refuse and recyclables to minimize views
from surrounding properties;
6
� iv. Views: Recognizing the public benefit and desirability of maintaining visual
accessibility to attractive natural features;
8
u Landscaping: Using landscaping to provide transitions between developrraent and
9 surrounding properties to reduce noise and glare, maintain privacy, and generally
enhance the appearance of the project; and
10
vi. Lighting: Designing and/or placing exterior lighting and glazing in order to avoid
11 excessive brightness or glare to adjacent properties and streets.
12
13. As conditioned, the criteria quoted above are met. The proposed addition is relatively small
13 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
14 determined in Findings of Fact No. 4, proper screening and/or design location will be implemented
15 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.
16 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
17 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
18 compatibility of those uses and absence of any significant adverse project impacts as detailed in
19 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.
20
RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(c): On-Site Irrtpacts:Mitigation of impacts to the site, including:
21
22 i. Structure Plaeement: Provisions for privacy and noise reduction by building placement,
spacing and orientation;
23
ii. Structure Scale: Consideration of the scale of proposed structures in relation to natural
24 characteristics, views and vistas, site amenities, sunlight,prevailing winds, and pedestrian
and vehicle needs;
25
26
CONDITIONAL USE and SITE PLAN- 10
1 iii. Natural Features: Protection of the natural landscape by retaining existing vegetation
2 and soils, using topography to reduce undue cutting and filling, and limiting impervious
surfaces; and
3
iv Landscaping: Use of landscaping to soften the appearance of parking areas, to provide
4 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
5 protection of planting areas so that they are less susceptible to damage from vehicles or
6 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-
g 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.
9 As outlined in Finding of Fact No. 5, the modest sized addition will comply with the City's tree
10 retention standards. Under these circumstances the proposal is found to protect natural features as
reyuired by the criterion quoted above. The proposal complies with the City's landscaping
11 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.
12
13 RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(d): Access and Circulation: Safe and efficient access and circulation for all
users, including.•
14
i. Location and Consolidation: Providing access points on side streets or frontage streets
15 rather than directly onto arterial streets and consolidation of ingress and egress points on
the site and, when feasible, with adjacent properties;
16
1� ii. Internal Circulation:Promoting safety and e�ciency of the internal circulation system,
including the location, design and dimensions of vehicular and pedestrian access points,
1 g drives,parking, turnarounds, walkways, bikeways, and emergency access ways;
19 iii. Loading and Delivery: Separating loading and delivery areas from parking and
pedestrian areas;
20
21 iv. Transit and Bicycles:Providing transit, carpools and bicycle facilities and access; and
22 v. Pedestrians: Providing safe and attractive pedestrian connections between parking
areas, buildings,public sidewalks and adjacent properties.
23
15. The proposal as conditioned provides for adequate access and circulation and bicycle parking
24 as required by the criterion above for the reasons identified in Finding of Fact No. 4.
25 RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(e): Open Space: Incorporating open spaces to serve as distinctive project
26 focal points and to provide adequate areas for passive and active recreation by the occupants/users
of the site.
CONDITIONAL USE and SITE PLAN - 11
1 16. The site is currently developed and includes existing mature landscaping and no new open
2 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
3 required of the project site.
4 RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(t): i�iews and Public Access: When possible, providing view corridors to
shorelines and Mt. Rainier, and incorporating public access to shorelines.
5
6 17. There are no view corridors to shorelines or Mt. Rainier affected by the proposal as
determined in Finding of Fact No. 5.
7
RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(g): Natural Systems:Arranging project elements to protect existing natural
8 systems where applicable.
9 18. There are no natural systems at the site or that would be affected by the proposal.
10 �C 4-9-200(E)(3)(h): Services and Infrastructure: Making available public services and
11 .facilities to accomrnodate the proposed use.
12 19. The project is served by adequate services and facilities as determined in Finding of Fact No.
4.
13
RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(i): Phasing: Including a detailed sequencing plan with development phases
14 and estimated time frames,for phased projects.
15 20. The project is not phased.
16
DECISION
17
As conditioned below, the site plan, street modification and conditional use permit applications as
1 g depicted in Exhibit 2 satisfy all applicable permitting criteria for the reasons identified in the findings
19 and conclusions of this decision and are all approved.
2p 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.
21 2. A final tree retention plan shall be submitted at the time of Building Permit application for
22 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
23 required refuse and recyclable deposit areas.
4. The Applicant shall provide elevation information at the time of Building Permit application
24 demonstrating that the new addition would be outside the 100 year flood elevation. This
25 information shall be reviewed by the Current Planning Project Manager.
26 DATED this 28th day of December, 2017.
CONDITIONAL USE and SITE PLAN - 12
1
2 �..� �---�'�-� c::'��.....-�..�
3
�t����
q. City of Renton Hearing Examiner
5
6
7
Appeal Right and Valuation Notices
8
9 As consolidated, RMC 4-8-080(G) classifies the application(s) subject to this decision as Type III
10 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
11 decision. A request for reconsideration to the hearing examiner may also be filed within this 14-
day appeal period.
12
Affected property owners may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes
13 notwithstanding any program of revaluation.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
CONDITIONAL USE and SITE PLAN - 13