HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-23-2024 - HEX Decision - Rainier Dog Resort & Spa- LUA-24-0000931
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: Rainier Dog Resort and Spa
Conditional Use and Site Plan
PR24-000018
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
FINDINGS OF FACT,
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND
FINAL DECISION
Summary
The Applicant requests approvals of hearing examiner site plan and conditional use permit review for a
boarding and day care facility for dogs to be located at 900 S Grady Way. The applications are approved
subject to conditions.
Testimony
A computer-generated transcript of the hearing has been prepared to provide an overview of the hearing
testimony. The transcript is provided for informational purposes only as Appendix A.
Exhibits
Exhibits 1-27 as shown on the “Exhibits” list presented during the July 9, 2024 hearing were entered
into the record during the hearing.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Procedural:
1. Applicant. Owen Keeper, Lance Mueller and Associates Architects, 140 Lakeside Ave,
Suite 310, Seattle, WA 98122.
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
2. Hearing. A virtual hearing was held on the applications on July 9, 2024, at 11 am, Zoom ID No.
946 7233 4580.
3. Project Description. The Applicant requests approvals of hearing examiner site plan and
conditional use permit review for a boarding and day care facility for dogs to be located at 900 S Grady
Way.
There is an existing 7,290sf building on the 6,000sf site with three existing access points (two on S.
Grady Way and one on Williams Avenue. The site has an existing chain link fence, landscaping and 13
parking stalls. Access is not proposed to be revised, though the Williams Avenue curb cut will be gated.
Interior improvements, with no exterior work on the building, are proposed. The existing gravel area of
the property is proposed to be enclosed with fencing and associated on-site landscaping between the
fence and right-of-way. The parking will remain unchanged though a new ADA accessible pedestrian
path will be created to link the entrance of the building to the existing sidewalks on Grady Way.
Additional landscaping will be provided while the site’s sole significant tree will be preserved. The hours
of operation are proposed to be 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. with outdoor sessions between 10 a.m. and 4 p.m.
4. Adequacy of Infrastructure/Public Services. The project will be served by adequate and
appropriate infrastructure and public services. Infrastructure and public services are more directly
addressed as follows:
A. Water and Sewer Service. The project is located within the City’s water and sewer service
areas. The Applicant will be extending water and sewer from existing mains to the proposal.
B. Fire and Police. The City of Renton will provide police service. Renton Regional Fire
Authority will provide fire service. Police and Fire Prevention staff indicated that sufficient
resources exist to furnish services to the proposed development with the improvements and
fire impact fees required of the project.
C. Drainage. As conditioned, the proposal provides for adequate and appropriate drainage
facilities since its proposed stormwater controls have been found by City staff to conform
to the City’s stormwater regulations. The applicant submitted a Preliminary Hydrogeologic
Assessment, dated February 6, 2024 (Exhibit 12) and authored by Earth Solutions NW,
LLC. Based on the City’s flow control map, the site falls within the Peak Rate Flow Control
Standard area matching Existing Conditions and is within the Black River Drainage Basin.
Since the development is proposing only interior improvements with minor modification
to the site like striping, minor walkway improvements, removal of existing gravel surfaces
and fencing, the development is not subject to Drainage Review in accordance with the
2022 Renton Surface Water Design Manual (RWSDM). There are no proposed grading or
modifications to site soils and the project scope is limited to converting some hardscape
areas to landscape. Therefore, the report concluded there is no increased risk of adverse
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
impacts to the local groundwater quality resulting from the project. The City will require
the applicant to demonstrate compliance with erosion control measures and construction
stormwater pollution prevention measures during the building permit process and outside
work. The applicant will be required to submit a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
(SWPPP). A Construction Stormwater General Permit from the Department of Ecology is
not required since grading and clearing of the site does not exceed one (1) acre.
City staff were concerned the external restroom areas for the dogs might pose a drainage
issue if untreated runoff from dog feces were allowed into the storm system. Therefore, the
City has proposed, and this decision imposes, a condition of approval requiring any runoff,
wash-down water, or waste from any animal pen, kennel, containment, or exercise area
either inside or outside the building to be collected and disposed of in the sanitary sewer
after straining of solids and hair. This waste shall not be allowed to enter the stormwater
drainage or surface water disposal system; strained solids and hair shall be properly
disposed of as solid waste.
D. Parks/Open Space. The proposal does not require the provision of any parks or open space
because there is no residential component.
E. Transportation and Circulation. The proposal is served by adequate and appropriate
transportation facilities.
The applicant provided a Trip Generation Memo authored by TENW and dated April 19,
2024 (Ex. 13). A Traffic Impact Analysis is required when a project proposal results in 20
new a.m. or p.m. peak hour trips. Trips in this case are both the new trips generated by the
proposed use and those trips in relation to the prior use of the project site. The site
generated traffic volumes were calculated using data from the Institute of Transportation
Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition, (2021).
The Trip Generation Memo determined vehicle traffic generated from the proposed
development did not exceed 20 new vehicle trips per hour in either the a.m. or p.m. peak
periods with credit given due to the site being occupied by a business within the last three
years prior to this application. Based on the calculations provided, the proposed
development would average a decrease of 133 new daily vehicle trips for dog
daycare/boarding facility (LUC 565) versus the prior use - Health/Fitness Club (LUC 492).
Weekday peak hour a.m. trips would generate an increase of 13 new vehicle trips, with six
vehicles leaving and seven vehicles entering the site. Weekday peak hour p.m. trips would
generate a decrease of two new vehicle trips with three fewer vehicles entering and one
vehicle exiting the site.
The calculation of impact fees is similarly modified by the prior use of the project site. The
prior use was vacated less than three years ago at the time of this decision and therefore
the applicant may benefit from the prior use’s impact fees. However, that vacancy
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
exemption may not apply by the time of the building permit issuance if that occurs after
September 2021 (RMC 4-1-190G4) (Ex. 14). The impact fee will be reviewed at time of
building permit application. Increased traffic created by the development would be
mitigated by payment of transportation impact fees. Currently this fee is assessed at
$8,031.94 per net new p.m. peak hour person vehicle trip. This fee increases each year, and
the applicable fee is paid at the time of building permit issuance.
Access is proposed via two existing driveway access points from S Grady Way. No
changes to the existing access are proposed, though the applicant will provide accessible
pedestrian access from the existing sidewalk on S. Grady Way to the front of the building.
An existing driveway access point on Williams Ave. S will be retained but with gated
access. The Williams Avenue access is not intended for general access. City staff have also
determined in the staff report that the proposed circulation system provides for desirable
transitions and linkages between uses, streets, walkways and adjacent properties.
The project fronts upon S Grady Way to the south/southeast, Williams Ave S to the west
and Wells Ave S to the east. Williams Ave S and Wells Ave S are classified as minor
arterials with S Grady Way classified as a primary arterial. Frontage improvements with
dedication are not expected as the project is not expected to exceed the $175,000 threshold
to trigger said requirements.
F. Schools. The proposal does not require the provision of adequate and appropriate school
facilities because there is no residential component.
G. Refuse and Recycling. As conditioned, the proposal complies with applicable refuse and
recycling regulations and thus provides for adequate and appropriate facilities to address
solid waste impacts.
RMC 4-4-090E4 requires a minimum of 3sf per 1,000sf of building gross floor area
shall be provided for recyclables deposit areas. A minimum of 4sf per 1,000sf of
building gross floor area shall be provided for refuse deposit areas. A total minimum
area of 100sf shall be provided for refuse and recyclables deposit areas.
At a gross building square footage of 7,290sf, the minimum requirement is 21.87sf for
recyclables and 72.9sf for refuse, for a total of 94.77sf. As this is less than the minimum
code required space, the project will be required to meet the minimum of 100sf of
combined refuse and recycling space. The applicant proposes 135.5sf (Ex. 23). The area
will be enclosed by a 6-foot-tall sight blocking fence located 15-feet from the Williams
Ave S ROW and approximately 102-feet from the nearest residentially zoned lot (536
Williams Ave S). The proposed gate opening is 16-feet in width with no overhead
weather protection. Overhead weather protection is not needed because, according to
the Customer Service Agreement, the two 96-gallon commercial trash carts will be
covered and have their own weather protection (Ex. 24). However, the agreement was
not signed by Republic Services. A condition of approval will require the applicant to
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
provide a completed agreement with the building permit. The agreement will identify
what type of refuse and recycling containers will be used and be signed by all applicable
parties. If the type of container to be used are not weather-proofed, then a roof over the
storage area shall be provided. The design will be reviewed for approval by the Current
Planning Project Manager prior to building permit approval.
H. Parking. The proposal provides for adequate and appropriate parking because the proposed
parking complies with the City’s parking standards.
The 6,000sf site is currently developed with a 7,290sf gross square foot building and a 13-
stall, paved surface parking lot. No exterior changes to the building or parking are
proposed, therefore RMC 4-4-080 does not apply. Parking requirements within the CD
zone for this use is a maximum of one stall per 1,000sf of net floor area, with no minimum
requirement. The building has a net floor area of 7,290sf for a maximum of seven stalls.
The site has 13 existing stalls in an existing paved surface parking lot. Based on the traffic
study there would be fewer daily trips than the previous use. As such, the project has more
stalls than would otherwise be permitted. Staff feels the existing configuration and amount
of parking is adequate. No changes to the existing parking lot are proposed or required.
I. Landscaping and Fencing. As conditioned, the proposal provides for adequate and
appropriate landscaping and fencing by conforming to the City’s landscaping standards.
The applicant is proposing an 8’ tall fence (Ex. 10). The fence would enclose an existing
exterior mostly gravel area and would be used for exterior play and bathroom areas for the
dogs. Fencing with sound paneling is proposed along the northern boundaries of the
enclosure with the remainder being vinyl fencing. Fencing in this northern area will follow
the general location of existing unpermitted chain link fencing including a small portion
which appears to be off site. Other portions of the fence would be parallel with the right-
of-way of S Grady Way and Williams Ave S. In these areas, the fencing would be set back
15’ from the right-of-way.
As proposed the fencing meets standards within RMC 4-4-040, Fences, Hedges and
Retaining Walls. Additional mitigation measures have been approved through the DNS-M
which are not being currently shown on the applicant’s design but would still meet
development standards. No further conditions are needed through the design regulations.
Vegetation is proposed within this 15-foot-wide strip. Additional vegetation is proposed
between the existing building and Williams Ave S. Of note, vegetation is not proposed
along the shared property line with 536 Williams Ave S as required by CD zoning
requirements.
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 preliminary planting plan was not provided although the site plan does identify the
location of proposed plantings. Without vegetation, the new 8-foot-tall solid fences, and
by extension the existing building façade facing Williams Ave S, would become large,
long, blank walls running for approximately 92’ on the S Grady Way side and
approximately 217’ on the Williams Ave S side. The Duwamish Tribe (Ex. 6) strongly
recommending that only native vegetation be used to enhance native avian life and native
pollinators as well as to mitigate seasonal urban flooding. Additionally, overhead electrical
lines run along the property’s frontage along both S Grady Way and Williams Ave S. To
avoid conflict with overhead lines, small maturing trees are most appropriate in these areas.
A condition of approval will require the applicant to submit a detailed landscaping plan
prepared by a landscape architect registered in the State of Washington with the civil
construction permit application showing newly planted vegetation within the identified
landscaping strips along S Grady Way and Williams Ave S and include along the boundary
with 536 Williams Ave S.
The planting plan must demonstrate that the landscaping strips along S Grady Way and
Williams Ave S will be planted with trees, bushes and ground cover to meet the City
landscaping requirements of RMC 4-9-200.B and RMC 4-9-200.E.3.
The City’s landscaping regulations of RMC 4-4-070 do not apply because the
improvements do not meet the minimum required 50% of the assessed property valuation
threshold to trigger the code (Ex. 3). The refuse and recycling area will be shielded from
the public view by landscaping and fencing.
J. Transit and Bicycle. The proposal complies with City bicycle parking requirements and
thus provides for adequate bicycle facilities. Transit is also easily accessible.
The closest transit stop is located on the south side of S Grady Way adjacent to the project.
Access is provided via public sidewalk; a user would need to cross S Grady Way at the
intersection of S Grady Way and Williams Ave S. The closest transit stop on the north side
of S Grady Way is located just to the west of the Talbot Rd S and S Grady Way intersection
approximately 900’ to the west of the project site.
Bicycle facilities are not required as part of the project, however, due to the nature of the
use, staff finds it unlikely that clients would be using bicycles to drop off and pick up their
dogs.
5. Adverse Impacts. As conditioned, there are no significant adverse impacts associated with the
proposal. On June 2, 3034, the City issued a Mitigated Determination of Non-significance (MDNS) for
the project. 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- 7
CAO VARIANCE - 7
A. Views. No impacts to views are anticipated. The applicant is not proposing expansion or
external improvements to the existing building. As such, views would not change from the
existing condition. The public access requirement is not applicable to the proposal.
B. Compatibility. As conditioned, the proposal is compatible with surrounding uses.
The proposed use will be compatible with surrounding uses in that the applicant will occupy
an existing building with minimal exterior changes proposed. New fencing and landscaping
as well as a new pedestrian path should increase compatibility over the existing
circumstance by increased screening for the existing adjacent single-family residences.
Surrounding properties are mixed use. The subject building height, at less than 23 feet, is
similar to the surrounding single-family homes. Also in the area is the newer Watershed
Apartments project, which is six stories and is within 20 feet of the right of way. To the
south is Home Depot which is a typical big box retailer with expansive surface parking.
Additionally, City Hall, with its multi-story building, surface parking and structured
parking is adjacent to the project on the south side of S Grady Way. A condition of approval
to increase compatibility requires the applicant to submit a surface mounted utility plan that
includes cross-section details with the civil construction permit application. The applicant
must work with franchise utilities to ensure, as practical, utility boxes do not obstruct or
displace pedestrian areas. The plan will provide and identify screening measures consistent
with the overall design of the development. The surface mounted utility plan will be
reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to civil construction
permit approval.
C. Light, glare, noise and privacy. As conditioned and mitigated, the proposal will not create
any significant adverse light, noise or glare impacts and will not impact privacy.
1. Light and Glare. As conditioned, no lighting impacts are anticipated. The
applicant will be occupying an existing building with minimal exterior
improvements. The applicant did not submit a lighting plan. A condition of
approval will require the applicant to submit a lighting plan with the building
permit identifying all proposed exterior lighting improvements. Code compliant
lighting must be pedestrian scaled with downlighting. Light may not be cast
beyond the boundaries of the property. The lighting plan will be reviewed and
approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit
issuance.
2. Noise. As conditioned and mitigated, no adverse impacts from noise are
anticipated. The business anticipates serving up to 50 dogs simultaneously with
the potential for up to 10 dogs being outside at any given time during the business
hours. The City received a comment letter expressing concerns over the potential
noise impacts to adjacent residential homes (Ex. 8). The City provided several
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
mitigation measures with respect to noise in the SEPA MDNS. Specifically, the
facility must keep windows closed at all times and minimize the times doors are
open; the project is required to comply with the recommendations of the Noise
Study (Ex. 4); and the applicant’s consultant must review the project’s
construction and building permit plans to verify compliance with the acoustic
report. The acoustical consultant must submit a sealed letter stating they have
reviewed the construction and building permit plans and in their opinion the plans
and specifications meet the intent of the report. Measures to reduce noise within
the applicant’s noise report include construction of noise barriers on the north,
west, east and south side of the outdoor play/bathroom area, limit the outdoor area
available to dogs and ensure that dogs are not within 15 feet of 536 Williams Ave
S and 541 Wells Ave S. These measures should reduce or eliminate the impact of
noise on adjacent residences.
3. Privacy. No new construction is proposed. The existing building, at less than 23’
high, is similar in height to adjacent single-family residences (Ex. 15). The
building itself will not increase impacts on privacy. An existing chain link fence
is being replaced with a solid, eight-foot-tall fence with intervening landscaping.
The resultant project will increase, rather than decrease, privacy for abutting
residential uses.
D. Critical Areas. The project site is located in a high seismic area and a wellhead protection
area. The proposal is found to adequately avoid impacts to these critical areas since it
conforms to the City’s critical area regulations as provided in further detail below.
i. Seismic Hazard. Though the project is located within a High Seismic Hazard Areas,
no exterior changes to the existing building are proposed. Exterior improvements
include removal of existing unpermitted chain link fencing to be replaced with new
fencing and a 15-foot landscaping strip between the fencing and the property line along
S Grady Way and Williams Ave S, and construction of a trash/recycling enclosure at
an existing concrete pad on the north side of the existing building (Ex. 3). Per the site
plan a new ADA accessible pathway would be constructed through an existing
vegetated area in the southwest portion of the property connecting the existing on-site
pedestrian pathway with the sidewalk in the ROW of S Grady Way. Ground disturbance
will be limited to removal/installation of fencing, removal of asphalt for new
landscaping, planting of vegetation and construction of the pedestrian pathway.
Calculations for fill and grade were not provided, but staff expects it to be minimal as
the amount of ground disturbance would be minimal. Needed mitigation could be
conditioned through the civil construction permit.
With regards to the existing structure, expansion and/or exterior improvements are not
proposed. Interior improvements, to include demolition of some interior walls,
construction of new interior walls, cosmetic enhancements such as wall and floor
finishes and reconfiguration of the existing two restrooms for ADA compliance and
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
improved accessibility is proposed. Because the building is existing and exterior
changes are minimal, the applicant was not required to provide a geotechnical report.
ii. Wellhead Protection Area. The project area is within the Downtown Wellhead
Protection Area Zone 2. The project does not include a prohibited facility as outlined
in RMC 4-3-050, Critical Area Regulations. Per the SEPA Environmental Checklist
(Ex. 11), no groundwater would be withdrawn, and no waste material would be
discharged into the ground. Due to the concern about animal waste in the wellhead
protection area, the applicant provided a Hydrogeological Assessment, prepared by
Scott S. Riegel of Earth Solutions NW, LLC, dated February 6, 2024 (Ex. 12). Per the
author’s assessment no adverse impacts to the local groundwater would occur. Based
on the limited scope of the project and no significant change in use, no additional
prohibitions or requirements would be required above those outlined in Zone 2 code
sections of RMC 4-3-050, Critical Area Regulations. Erosion control measures, if
needed, can be conditioned through the civil construction permit.
6. Tree Retention. Beyond the City’s critical area regulations, the only regulations requiring
protection of vegetation are the City’s tree retention standards. As conditioned, the proposal meets the
City’s tree retention standards and thus is found to adequately protect and retain site trees.
The City’s tree retention standards (RMC 4-4-130) require the retention of 30% of trees in a commercial
development. Tree retention credits apply at a minimum rate of 30 credits per net acre. One 24-inch 24”
coniferous tree is located in the southwest corner of the lot and is proposed to be retained. The lot size
is 0.88 acre, so a minimum of 26 tree credits (0.88 acres x 30 tree credits/acre = 26.4 tree credits, rounded
down to 26) are required. The retained tree is worth nine credits. An additional 17 tree credits are
required. Though a conceptual landscape plan was not provided, the proposed site plan shows the
location of proposed plantings. A condition of approval will require the applicant to submit a detailed
landscape plan with the civil construction permit identifying how the project will meet the tree credit
standards. The detailed landscape plan will be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project
Manager prior to civil construction permit approval.
Conclusions of Law
1. Authority. The conditional use permit and site plan applications require hearing examiner review
and final approval.
The proposed uses are a pet day care center and a kennel. In the CD Zone, both uses require
Administrative Conditional Use approval (RMC 4-2-060). However, the Site Plan requires approval by
the Hearing Examiner because it is a commercially zoned project adjacent to or abutting residentially
zoned property (RMC 4-9-200.D.2.c). RMC 4-8-080(C)(2) requires consolidated permits to be
collectively processed under “the highest-number procedure.” The Type III review is the “highest-
number procedure” for the permit applications identified above and therefore must be employed for the
conditional use and site plan applications. 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.
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
2. Zoning/Design District/Comprehensive Plan Designations. The subject property is zoned Center
Downtown (CD) within Urban Design District A. Its comprehensive plan land use designation is
Commercial Mixed Use (CMU).
3. Review Criteria. Conditional use criteria are governed by RMC 4-9-030(D). Site Plan criteria
are governed by RMC 4-9-200.E.3. All applicable review criteria for the conditional use and site plan
applications are quoted below in italics and applied through corresponding conclusions of law.
CONDITIONAL USE
The Administrator or designee or the Hearing Examiner shall consider, as applicable, the following
factors for all applications:
RMC 4-9-030(D)(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, including those of Design District A, as outlined in Findings No. 16-21 of the
staff report, adopted by this reference as if set forth in full.
RMC 4-9-030(D)(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. For the reasons identified in Finding of Fact No. 4 and 5, the proposal as conditioned is
compatible with surrounding uses, will be served by adequate infrastructure and will not create
significant adverse impacts to adjoining properties. For these reasons the proposed location is suited
for the proposed use.
Staff found with respect to the Design District Guidelines, the project is not applicable to the review
standards of the building location and orientation because the building exterior has no proposed
changes and does not contain residential or office use components. Similarly, the building entries,
transition to surrounding development, building architectural design and lighting requirements were
not applicable because this is an existing structure that is not proposed to change. Recreational areas
are not required.
With respect to service element location and design, the refuse and recycling collection area would be
located on an existing concrete slab on the north side of the existing building. Per the provided refuse
enclosure detail, the collection area would be enclosed with a 6-foot-tall fence and gate. One portion
of the fence would also double as part of the proposed fence enclosure located on the west side of the
property. This fence is proposed to be set back 15 feet from the Williams Ave S ROW with on-site
vegetation between the ROW and the fence. Further, the location is not within the customer permitted
areas of the use, but as it is located adjacent to the building would be convenient for the tenant. The
containers would be placed at the curb on Williams Ave S by the tenant for pickup by Republic
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
Services, so accessibility to service vehicles would not be an issue as proposed. Impacts to pedestrians
and other abutting uses are minimized because of the location and screening. However, the current
design does not include self-closing doors. Therefore, a condition of approval will require the applicant
to submit a revised refuse and recycling plan with the building permit application which includes a
detail sheet of the self-closing door/gate mechanism. A further condition of approval will require the
applicant to submit a revised refuse and recycling plan with the building permit application which
includes a detail sheet of the materials used to construct the enclosure. Masonry, ornamental metal or
wood or some combination of the three shall be used. Both elements of the revised plan will be
reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit issuance.
As noted above the existing parking and vehicular access from S. Grady Way will not change. A new
accessible pedestrian route is proposed from the existing sidewalk on S. Grady Way to the entrance to
the building. The route is relatively straight except for the turn it makes to head towards the sidewalk
when coming from the building. Based on the site plan and aerial images from the City of Renton
(COR) Maps system, curbing and/or wheel stops are not consistent along the entirety of the length of
the route abutting the surface parking. It is reasonable to believe that this would cause an issue in the
future with vehicles parking within the pedestrian route and blocking the route for pedestrians and/or
blocking sight lines. As such, a condition of approval will require the applicant to provide a revised
site plan submitted with the civil permit showing wheel stops in each parking stall to prevent vehicle
protrusion within the pedestrian pathway. Wheel stops shall be two feet from the end of the stall for
head in parking. Additionally, a condition of approval that the applicant provide a revised site plan
with the civil permit providing a different material and/or texture for the pedestrian pathway than the
existing surface parking area to provide ease of identification of the vehicular versus pedestrian areas.
The plan will be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to civil permit
issuance.
RMC 4-9-030(D)(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 significant adverse impacts
associated with the proposal, so it will not result in substantial or undue adverse effects on adjacent
property.
RMC 4-9-030(D)(4): Compatibility: The proposed use shall be compatible with the scale and
character of the neighborhood.
7. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5B, the proposed use is compatible with the scale and
character of the neighborhood.
RMC 4-9-030(D)(5): Parking: Adequate parking is, or will be made, available.
8. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 4H, the site is served by adequate parking.
RMC 4-9-030(D)(6): Traffic: The use shall ensure safe movement for vehicles and pedestrians and
shall mitigate potential effects on the surrounding area.
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
9. As outlined in Finding of Fact No. 4E, the proposal provides for safe circulation and adequate
traffic mitigation and facilities.
RMC 4-9-030(D)(7): Noise, Light and Glare: Potential noise, light and glare impacts from the
proposed use shall be evaluated and mitigated.
10. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5C, the proposal as conditioned will not result in any
adverse light, noise or glare impacts.
RMC 4-9-030(D)(8): Landscaping: Landscaping shall be provided in all areas not occupied by
buildings, paving, or critical areas. Additional landscaping may be required to buffer adjacent
properties from potentially adverse effects of the proposed use.
11. The criterion is met. As conditioned, the project will comply with the City’s landscaping
requirements. (See Finding of Fact No. 4I).
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, the proposal is consistent with the City’s
comprehensive plan, development regulations and design standards.
RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(b): Off-Site Impacts: Mitigation of impacts to surrounding properties and uses,
including:
i. Structures: Restricting overscale structures and overconcentration of development on a
particular portion of the site;
ii. Circulation: Providing desirable transitions and linkages between uses, streets, walkways and
adjacent properties;
1
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
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. As outlined in Finding of Fact No. 4E, the
proposal provides for desirable transitions and linkages between uses, streets, walkways and adjacent
properties. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 4G, the proposal complies with the City’s refuse and
recycling standards. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5A, the proposal will not adversely affect
any views. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 4I, the proposal is consistent with the City’s
landscaping standards. The proposal will not create any significant light impacts, including excessive
brightness or glare, for the reasons identified in Finding of Fact No. 5C. A condition of approval
requires screening of rooftop equipment and utilities. Loading and delivery is accomplished via the
front door off S. Grady Way as customers drop off and pick up their dogs.
RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(c): On-Site Impacts: Mitigation of impacts to the site, including:
i. Structure Placement: Provisions for privacy and noise reduction by building placement,
spacing and orientation;
ii. Structure Scale: Consideration of the scale of proposed structures in relation to natural
characteristics, views and vistas, site amenities, sunlight, prevailing winds, and pedestrian and
vehicle needs;
iii. Natural Features: Protection of the natural landscape by retaining existing vegetation and
soils, using topography to reduce undue cutting and filling, and limiting impervious surfaces;
and
iv. Landscaping: Use of landscaping to soften the appearance of parking areas, to provide shade
and privacy where needed, to define and enhance open spaces, and generally to enhance the
appearance of the project. Landscaping also includes the design and protection of planting areas
so that they are less susceptible to damage from vehicles or pedestrian movements.
14. The criteria quoted above are met. Privacy impacts are adequately addressed as identified in
Finding of Fact No. 4I and 5C. Due to compliance with the City’s critical areas ordinance with respect
to geologically hazardous areas and wellhead protection areas, there are no natural features adversely
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- 14
CAO VARIANCE - 14
affected by the proposal. The scale of the structure is adequately mitigated through the extensive design
standards of Design District A, as partially addressed in Finding of Fact No. 4I and 5B and discussed
at length in the staff report.
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 provides for safe and efficient access and vehicular and pedestrian circulation as
required by the criterion above for the reasons identified in Finding of Fact No. 4E. Transit and bicycle
facilities are available as determined in Finding of Fact No. 4J. The loading and delivery area occurs at
the front entrance as customers drop off and pick up their dogs.
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.
16. No open space is required as described in Finding of Fact No. 4D.
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. The applicant is not proposing expansion or external improvements to the existing building. As
such, views would not change from the existing condition. The public access requirement is not
applicable to the proposal.
RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(g): Natural Systems: Arranging project elements to protect existing natural
systems where applicable.
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- 15
CAO VARIANCE - 15
18. The City’s critical area regulations identify and adequately protect all natural systems of
significance. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5D, the project protects all affected critical areas
as required by the critical area regulations.
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. There is no phasing plan proposed.
DECISION
The site plan and conditional use meet all applicable review criteria for the reasons identified in the
Conclusions of Law of this decision and are approved, 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 June 3, 2024.
2. The applicant shall complete a boundary survey drafted by a Washington licensed surveyor
of 900 S Grady Way. A copy of the survey shall be submitted with the civil construction
permit for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager.
3. The applicant shall submit a landscape plan with the civil construction permit identifying how
the project will meet the tree credit standards. The plan shall be reviewed and approved by
the Current Planning Project Manager prior to civil construction permit approval.
4. The applicant shall submit a separate detailed plan set identifying the location and screening
provided for all rooftop utility/mechanical equipment with the building permit application.
The plan shall include detail sheets that provide cross section details and identify proposed
rooftop screening that is integral and complementary to the architecture of the building. The
plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to
building permit approval.
5. The applicant shall submit a surface mounted utility plan that includes cross-section details
with the civil construction permit application. The applicant shall work with franchise utilities
to ensure, as practical, utility boxes do not obstruct or displace pedestrian areas. The plan shall
provide and identify screening measures consistent with the overall design of the
development. The surface mounted utility plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Current
Planning Project Manager prior to civil construction permit approval.
6. The applicant shall provide a completed agreement with the building permit. The agreement
shall identify what type of refuse and recycling containers will be used and be signed by all
applicable parties. If the type of container to be used are not weather-proofed, then a roof over
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- 16
CAO VARIANCE - 16
the storage area shall be provided. The design shall be reviewed and approved by the Current
Planning Project Manager prior to building permit approval.
7. The applicant shall submit a revised refuse and recycling plan with the building permit
application which includes a detail sheet of the self-closing door/gate mechanism. The revised
plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to
building permit issuance.
8. The applicant shall submit a revised refuse and recycling plan with the building permit
application which includes a detail sheet of the materials used to construct the enclosure.
Masonry, ornamental metal or wood or some combination of the three (3) shall be used. The
revised plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior
to building permit issuance.
9. The applicant shall provide a revised site plan submitted with the civil permit showing wheel
stops in each parking stall to prevent vehicle protrusion within the pedestrian pathway. Wheel
stops shall be two feet (2’) from the end of the stall for head in parking. The plan shall be
reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to civil permit
issuance.
10. The applicant shall provide a revised site plan with the civil permit providing a different
material and/or texture for the pedestrian pathway than the existing surface parking area. The
plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to civil
permit issuance.
11. The applicant shall submit a detailed landscaping plan prepared by a landscape architect
registered in the State of Washington with the civil construction permit application showing
newly planted vegetation within the identified landscaping strips along S Grady Way and
Williams Ave S and include along the boundary with 536 Williams Ave S. The landscaping
strips along S Grady Way and Williams Ave S shall be planted with trees, bushes and ground
cover. Trees shall be small sized maturing trees with a minimum mature height of 10 feet
(10’) and planted 30 feet (30’) apart on center. Bushes shall be planted at a rate of four (4)
shrubs per five (5) linear feet; bushes shall have a mature size from three feet (3’) to six feet
(6’) tall. Minimum size at planting shall be two or three (2 or 3) gallon pot or balled and
burlapped equivalent. Ground cover shall be planted at a rate of 18 ground cover plants per
five (5) linear feet of landscaping strip. The landscaping strip abutting 536 Williams Ave S
shall be planted with trees, bushes and ground cover. Trees shall be large sized maturing trees
planted 50 feet (50’) apart on center. Bushes and ground cover shall be planted at the same
rate and size as the strips along S Grady Way and Williams Ave S. Plantings shall be native
coniferous species unless otherwise approved by the Current Planning Project Manager. A
permanent built-in irrigation system with automatic controller shall be installed, used and
maintained in working order. The plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Current
Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit issuance.
12. The applicant shall submit a lighting plan with the building permit identifying all proposed
exterior lighting improvements. Lighting shall be pedestrian scaled with downlighting. Light
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- 17
CAO VARIANCE - 17
shall not be cast beyond the boundaries of the property. The plan shall be reviewed and
approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit issuance.
13. At the time of building permit review, the applicant shall provide a copy of the Business
License application identifying the maximum number of dogs to be sheltered. Prior to final
occupancy the applicant shall provide a copy of the approved Business License to the Current
Planning Project Manager.
14. Any indoor or outdoor areas used for animal containment or exercise shall be maintained by
removing animal waste on a daily basis for proper disposal as solid waste. Any runoff, wash-
down water, or waste from any animal pen, kennel, containment, or exercise area shall be
collected and disposed of in the sanitary sewer after straining of solids and hair and shall not
be allowed to enter the stormwater drainage or surface water disposal system; strained solids
and hair shall be properly disposed of as solid waste.
15. The applicant shall provide a copy of their permit from the Seattle-King County Health
Department with the submittal documents for the building permit application. The permit shall
be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to tenant occupancy.
DATED this 23rd day of July, 2024.
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
July 9 Renton Dog Facility (Completed 07/23/24)
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 1 of 12
Appendix A
July 9, 2024 Hearing Transcript
Rainier Dog Resort and Spa -- PR24-000018
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 at
the City of Renton Community and Economic Development Department should anyone need an
accurate rendition of the hearing testimony.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
A recording in progress.
Examiner Olbrechts: (00:02):
Perfect. Okay, for the record, it's July 9th, 2024, 11:00 AM I'm Phil Rex, hearing examiner for the City of
Renton. This morning we are holding a hearing on an application for the Rainier Dog Resort and Spa file
number PR 24 dash 0 0 0 1 8. This involves a request for approval of conditional use permit site plan
review, and there's also CIPA determination involved in that application as well. The hearing format will
be, we'll start off with a presentation from staff and who's that going to be? Is that going to be Mr. Van
Gordon today?
Speaker 1 (00:38):
Yes, that'll be me.
Examiner Olbrechts: (00:39):
Okay, great. Alright, nice to see you again after Mr. Van Gordon is done, then we'll move on to applicant
comments if they want not required, but if the applicant wants to add anything, they'll have a chance.
After Mr. Van Gordon has completed his presentation, then we'll move on to the purpose of today's
hearing, which is to hear from the neighbors and other members of the public. That will be anyone
who's attending virtually and we'll make sure you understand how to get involved once we get to that
portion of the hearing. It basically just involves hitting the raise hand button at the bottom of your
screen and then you'll be called upon to speak after public comments. We'll move back to Mr. Van
Gordon to answer any questions that were raised and it also gives staff an opportunity to complete the
record with any information they find necessary for a well-informed decision.
(01:25):
Then after staff's done, the applicant gets final word. Again, that's fully optional, but just keep that in
mind. Applicant's, you don't need to feel like you have to answer questions or interject during the
hearing because you will get final word and once that final word is given, I have 10 business days, which
is a couple weeks to issue a final decision. So by state law I'm only allowed to consider evidence that's
put into the record today. That's composed of the testimony provided during this hearing as well as any
exhibits that I authorized to be admitted into the record. Mr. Van Gordon has put together a pretty
extensive list of documentation he wants considered and Mr. Cisneros is just putting that up on the
July 9 Renton Dog Facility (Completed 07/23/24)
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 2 of 12
screen. And let's see, we got Mr. Cisneros. I'm going to take a crack at summarizing these documents.
We got the environmental review committee report.
(02:12):
That's the committee that determines if an environmental impact statement is necessary or any kind of
environmental mitigation is necessary. Got the site plan in there, the project narrative, a noise report
that was prepared for this project. That's an important document that we're going to be looking at.
Transportation review was done, tribal comments were submitted and responded to by the city. Let's
see here. It's getting a little small for my bad eyes and then we have a fence detail. Thanks Jenny.
Appreciate that. A hydrological assessment, trip generation reports and we got the lease and some
elevations, floor pants and advisory notes. Are those all the exhibits? Jenny? Is that one through 17?
Speaker 1 (02:55):
Correct. There was also,
Examiner Olbrechts: (02:58):
Oh there we go. Yeah, ones that the staff always likes to add.
Speaker 1 (03:01):
This is the environmental review and this is the hearing.
Examiner Olbrechts: (03:03):
Oh, okay. Alright. Let's see here. We also had the staff reports, some public notices that were involved
or rather notice what's on hold notices, sorry, the determination that no environmental impact is
necessary called determination of nons significance, applicant response letter, refuse enclosure detail
and republic services agreement. And then this Cisneros of course, we also got the standard three that
are added at the end staff PowerPoint that of written maps, which is available at the city's website,
giving you aerial views and zoning maps and so forth of the project site and Google Earth. Also some of
those aerial views. So at this point I just want to ask if anyone has any objection or needs to see any of
these documents that I just described that were shown on the exhibit list. If you do object, just click on
the raise hand button at the bottom of your screen, not seeing any takers there. So I'll go ahead and
admit one through 24 I believe. Was that right? Mrs. Ros? I think
Speaker 1 (04:03):
27.
Examiner Olbrechts: (04:04):
Oh 27 1 through 27. Okay. Those are all admitted.
Speaker 1 (04:08):
We have the applicant actually with Canada.
Examiner Olbrechts: (04:10):
Okay, sure. Yeah. Mr. Ke.
July 9 Renton Dog Facility (Completed 07/23/24)
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 3 of 12
Speaker 1 (04:15):
Yes. So yeah, I have only the exhibits up to 24. I haven't seen anything after
Examiner Olbrechts: (04:21):
24. Oh, okay. Yeah, those are documents available at the city's website. It just shows the maps the city
has on its website that depict the site location, the staff PowerPoint, which Mr. Van Gordon is going to
show us now. And then Google Earth would just be aerial photograph of the project site. That's it. Okay,
Speaker 1 (04:40):
Perfect. Just wanted you okay to make sure I didn't release
Examiner Olbrechts: (04:42):
Anything. No, nothing special there. Okay. Alright. Mr Van Gordon, let me swear in, just raise your right
hand. You swear affirm to tell the truth, nothing but the truth in this proceeding. Yes. Okay, great. Go
ahead.
Speaker 1 (04:55):
Alright, I'm going to give me a minute here. If it gets things set up, just share my screen. Okay. Okay, let's
see here. Folks should be seeing my PowerPoint presentation here. Okay. Alright. Just a minute. Lemme
get back to where I need to be here. Oh shoot. Okay, hang on. Sorry. Just All right, let's try this again.
Sorry about this. Sorry, I just have some technical, that's good. Okay. All roommate, move some stuff
around here. Okay. Alright. Okay. My name is Andrew Van Gordon. I'm an associate planner with the
city of Renton and I'm going to be making a presentation today on the Rainier Dog Resort and Spa.
(06:37):
So as the examiner said, the applicant's requesting a hearing examiner, conditional use permit and a
hearing examiner's site plan review. This is for the benefit of a kennel and a pet daycare at 900 South
Grady. Way of note, the reason why we are having a hearing examiner, excuse me, public hearing said
an administrative decision is because as part of site plan review, if the project, if a commercial or
industrial project is adjacent to or budding residentially zoned property, it does require a public hearing.
So 5 36 William have Williams North just to the north there, excuse me, Williams South just to the north
is within the R 14 zone abuts the property project site and across Williams a south to the west are a
couple of other adjacent R 14 properties. So the project site though is zoned centered down to
commercial downtown CD zone urban design District A. There is the sites a group with a currently
vacant structure, which used to be a martial arts studio. There's a gravel lot, just gravel area to the north
of the building, a surface parking lot to the south of the building and some vegetation in the southwest
portion of the property at the intersection of Williams and South and South Grady Wade.
(08:01):
So this is the proposed site plan. As I said, the project would include kennels and pet daycare. All the
kennels are going to be located inside, inside the building outside within the gravel area would be two
play areas and a bathroom area. There would also be indoor play areas as well. Within the building, the
applicant has stated that there would be no more than 50 dogs at any one time at the facility with no
more than 10 dogs being outside at any one time. So the applicant proposes to retain access from South
Grady Way. There's two driveway access points that both access into the existing surface parking lot.
They're not proposing to alter the parking lot. Additionally, the project is not expected to meet
minimum financial thresholds for external work to require frontage improvements.
July 9 Renton Dog Facility (Completed 07/23/24)
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 4 of 12
(08:57):
Landscaping is being provided in the green areas that you can see there. I'll speak to more specifics
about that in a little bit, but it is associated, the landscaping is associated with fencing, which is
proposed to be eight feet tall, setback 15 feet from the right of way and would enclose that gravel area.
The applicant's also proposing to install some additional vegetation between the building and Williams
Ave South. Additionally, there would also be a new accessible pathway that will connect the front door.
There's front entrance to the sidewalk within the right way of South Grady Lake.
(09:41):
So there was a 14th day public comment period which commenced on March 11th. The project was
placed on hold April 4th and taken off hold May 2nd. We received one public comment related to
concern about potential noise issues impacting the surrounding neighborhood. We also received a
comment from the Duwamish tribe regarding preservation of cultural resources and using native
vegetation. So at sip, a determination of non-significant mitigated or otherwise known as a deep, excuse
me, DNSM was issued by the I committee on June 3rd with four mitigation measures and an appeal
deadline of June 17th. No appeals were filed very briefly. The mitigation measures were related to
keeping windows in ENC doors closed except for specific instances to limit noise, interior noise escaping,
complying with recommendations of the noise study, having the acoustical consultant review the
project's construction and building permit plans, verify compliance with their report and an inadvertent
discoveries plan if ground disturbance cuts below the asphalt and or fail into the native soils.
(10:56):
So the proposal is consistent with the relevant comprehensive plan. Land use policies, I spoke to this a
little bit earlier, both uses both the kennel and the pet daycare use required administrative condition
use permits, but we're here for the hearing because of the site plan review requirements, we found
proposals compliant with relevant zoning and design regulations and conditions of approval are
complied with. The project site is located within a high sizeism andic hazard area along with wellhead
protection area zone two. We did not require a geotechnical report at this time. The applicant's
proposal exterior wise is very minimal, pretty much limited to the fencing, the landscaping, and the new
pathway interior is going to be things like moving walls around upgrading the bathrooms, fixtures,
materials, those types of things. So we determined that if a geotech requirements are needed, those can
be conditioned at the time of the construction of the building permit stage because of the high,
relatively high water table in this area along with the animal waste that would be outside or just in
general for the project, the applicant did provide a hydrogeological assessment. The author of that
found that there would be no adverse impacts to the local groundwater and that no additional
prohibition or require mitigation requirements would be needed above those outlined in the city's
critical area code for a zone two.
(12:34):
Police and fire indicated that there's sufficient resources for the project. Water and sewer service would
be provided by the city of Brenton. There are some improvements that would be required. One of the
big ones is that the applicant would need to correct, would connect, excuse me, any kind of direct floor
drains to the sanitary sewer system, not to the outdoor storm drainage system to prevent animal waste
and solids from going into our stormwaters instead of the sewer system. So site plan review again, we
found a compatible with the comprehensive plan zoning, design regulations, landscaping. The applicant
provided landscaping between the fencing and the right of way. Staff has also recommended a condition
that there be additional vegetation between 5 36 Williams and the fence. There is a zoning requirement
related to having vegetated setbacks when that type of situation occurs. That vegetation is not present
currently.
July 9 Renton Dog Facility (Completed 07/23/24)
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 5 of 12
(13:41):
We did include a recommended condition that would require ground cover bushes and trees for the
landscaping small trees along South Grady Way and Williams Ave as there's the overhead power lines
and large trees along the boundary with 5 36 William Ave. Plantings would need to be native coniferous
unless otherwise approved and would need to have permanent built-in irrigation system. The applicant
did provide us, like I said, the site plan showing where they proposed to put landscaping, but we didn't
have a conceptual vegetation plan. Like I said, no exterior modifications to the existing structure.
Applicant's proposing to maintain the existing parking area and access points, so they would access off
of South Grady way. There is an access point off of Williams Avenue South, but the applicant is
proposing to gate that office that would end up being part of the outdoor play and bathroom area and
would not be used for general use.
(14:40):
They would use that potentially for, not potentially, but would use that area for wheeling the records
and recycling bins out to the curb for Republic Services to pick up. There's also the a accessible
pedestrian pathway. There's recommended conditions for additional protection for pedestrians such as
curbing wheel stops, differing materials to differentiate between pedestrian areas and vehicle areas.
Fewer than 20 new AM or PM trips were found to be there. This has a little bit of a caveat in that the
previous use vacated the location September, 2021. Applicants are able to deduct trips from a previous
use for up to three years. So that three year threshold is coming up soon, later this year. And as I said
earlier, the meeting utility service allowances and requirements, again initial use permit compatible, we
did not find that no other dog kennel or pet daycare uses. We found that there are no other of those
uses within the area.
(15:49):
There was the noise mitigation measures as part of the DNSM. The acoustic study found that the
outdoor noise could exceed allowed limits. So as part of the mitigation they recommended fencing
acoustic materials as part of the fencing and placing fencing 15 feet from property lines to the north
compatible in scale and character. The existing, there's no external expansion of the structure is
proposed. It's I believe a 23 feet to the highest point, which is relatively similar to existing detached
Williams in the area. But then you also have a process went to the west, you've got the multi-story
watershed project to the east. You've got city of hall, which is eight, nine stories, surface parking lot,
structured parking lot. And then to the south you've got Bump depot, which is a pretty standard big box
with surface parking in between it and the road. No revisions to parking.
(16:48):
They've got 13 existing parking stalls. That's more than would be permitted with the current regulations
based on the traffic study. There's overall going to be fewer daily trips. So we don't have concerns with
the existing parking being able to handle the load there. Like I said, new landscaping is going to be
installed. We don't have any, there's no known animal complaints for this site. They're proposing hours
of operation to be 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM outdoor play. It'd be 10:00 AM to 4:00 PM Like I said, they're
proposing no more than 50 dogs maximum based on the net floor area for animal supervision, they've
got about 4,800 square feet that would allow them up to over 300 dogs. Well below what the code
allows for them, they actually will need a business license that shows the number of dogs that they are
going to have in there and they're going to need a permit from the Seattle King Health Department. So
in conclusion, staff recommends approval of the Rainier Dog Resort and SPA project subject to the 15
recommended conditions of approval. Are there any Yep, yep. Yeah,
Examiner Olbrechts: (18:04):
July 9 Renton Dog Facility (Completed 07/23/24)
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 6 of 12
Yeah, few. So you mentioned hours of operation. Does that mean that the dogs aren't going to be
boarded overnight or does that just mean that that's when they're going to be open for business for
people bringing their dogs in and out?
Speaker 1 (18:17):
Dogs will be boarded overnight. The hours of operation would be for picking up, dropping off those
Examiner Olbrechts: (18:22):
Pet take care of those things. Yeah. And well, I'm glad that a Noyce study was done. I would think that
the biggest potential issue of concern, of course would be noisey for that number of dogs, even fifties,
quite a few. Although I was kind of wondering, I mean the Noyce study is based on a maximum number
of dogs in each area of the project site. Is there anything in the conditions that limit the dogs to those
numbers that are assumed in the noise study? It says like 10 dogs max in the holding area, 10 outside
and the outside area and X number in the kennels and so forth.
Speaker 1 (19:03):
We did not include any kind of conditions or anything associated with that, with the decision. It seems
kind from our end that that would be very difficult to enforce that without conducting regular
inspections or something like that, which seems overly burdensome at this time.
Examiner Olbrechts: (19:30):
Okay. And then what about, was any consideration given to monitoring? I mean, I guess the answer to
that is you have your noise standards in the neighbors could in the sense take readings, but it's not
uncommon, at least of course in the wetland context to require some monitoring. Seems like maybe
some kind of a noise monitoring plan for this facility might be of use.
Speaker 1 (19:54):
We don't have anything, but you are correct that our noise code does allow for neighbors to make to
call it in and then there are requirements associated with doing a noise study associated that there
could be a noise study done associated with that. But we don't have specific conditions about noise
monitoring
Examiner Olbrechts: (20:16):
Associated
Speaker 1 (20:17):
With this project.
Examiner Olbrechts: (20:18):
And I think was there any reference in any of the reports about similar facilities and the kind of noise
they generate? Has the city had any experience with facilities of this size before?
Speaker 1 (20:30):
I'm not aware that we have no.
July 9 Renton Dog Facility (Completed 07/23/24)
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 7 of 12
Examiner Olbrechts: (20:31):
Okay. Okay. Okay, great. Alright, thanks Mr. Van Gordon. Well let's move it on to the applicant's.
Applicant's. You want to say anything at this point? Don't have to, but now's your chance. Mr. Keeper,
did you want to add anything?
Speaker 1 (20:45):
No, Andrew said everything that needed to be said and actually he did it better than I would have done
it.
Examiner Olbrechts: (20:51):
Okay. Alright. Sounds like we're covered then. Okay. Let's move on to public comments at this point.
And at this point if anyone wants to add anything, just go ahead and raise your virtual hand. And I mean
Mr. Van Gordon mentioned that there had been a written letter of concern provided and I did read that
one of course, and that is what led to the noise study. So there's good results that came from that
already. Looks like Judy wants to say something. So Judy, let me swear you in. So raise your right hand.
Do you swear affirm to tell the truth, nothing but the truth in this proceeding? Yes. Okay. And could you
say your last name and how to spell it for the record?
Speaker 1 (21:30):
Yeah, my last name is fam, PHAM.
Examiner Olbrechts: (21:33):
Okay, great. Go ahead.
Speaker 1 (21:35):
Thank you. Yeah, so my name is Judy. I am a resident here on Williams Avenue. I've lived in the South
Brenton neighborhood for a couple of years now. I actually rented here before becoming a homeowner
and actually live a couple feet from this proposed site. So I just wanted to say in South Brenton, many of
us work non-standard jobs outside of rent of bike. Some are retired, some of us like me work from
home. And so there's residents at all hours of the day. And I take a lot of pride and value enhancing the
quality of our neighborhood because obviously it's both my private residence as well as my workplace.
And I think we've all been living pretty harmoniously together in this mixed income mixed housing
neighborhood without infringing on each other's right to peace and quiet. And so I think we fostered a
really good community of mutual respect and belonging and I hope this environment continues.
(22:26):
So as you guys know, the proposed opening of a dog boarding and daycare facility does pose valid
considerance to not only just the single family homeowners, but hundreds of residents that live within a
one block radius, including the newly open watershed apartments which houses a couple of units. I
mean, I don't know, like 45 units. And I think all of us are part of the vital social fabric that makes this
neighborhood really diverse and attractive to live in. And so I'm glad that my concerns around the
elevated noise that such a business inevitably brings was looked at. Our population is already vulnerable
to noise pollution from existing planes, trains, freeways, and even other nearby commercial businesses.
And I'm a big proponent of mom and pop shops. I grew up, my parents had a small business and so I
would want nothing more than to see this responsible development of this area and I really would not
want to see the slot go empty.
July 9 Renton Dog Facility (Completed 07/23/24)
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 8 of 12
(23:26):
I personally am not convinced that this is the type of business that is the best candidate for this very
specific location because there are plenty of suitable vacant commercial and industrial zones that don't
order any residential wellings that would put a neighborhood's wellbeing and mental health at risk. But I
hope that Mr. Keeper, if you are able to run this operation, I know you're highly capable of running a
tight, quiet and clean facility, but yeah, I know that you were relocating from another city and I'm sure
you don't want to be uprooted again. And so I just wanted to make it clear that I have concerns, but I am
looking forward to the city and making sure that we are monitoring that noise and listening to our
residents who live here. And ultimately I think it is important for me to do my due diligence because I
live here. Yeah. So thank you for hearing my comments. I think the one other thing I wanted to point out
is I would like to understand more about the trash collection if it happens to be on Williams Avenue. The
reason why I ask about this is because the watershed, apartment residence park along that same strip,
that same street where it border this proposed site. And I'm just curious how the trash collection will
actually pick up if there are cars impeding the right of way. So thank you.
Examiner Olbrechts: (24:48):
Okay, thank you Ms. Mann for your comments. Alright, anyone else out there? Member of the public
wants to add anything at this point? Now is your chance. We got a couple takers there. So next we'll
take Sam. Sam let you swear in. Just raise your right hand. Do you swear affirm tell the truth, nothing
but the truth in this proceeding? Oh, it looks like he muted himself. Can you hear? Oh, now I can hear
you. Can you hear me? Yeah. And what's your name for the record? Sam, last name, sorry, my
Speaker 1 (25:14):
Name is Sam, last name is O and let's just spelled OH.
Examiner Olbrechts: (25:18):
Okay, great. Go ahead Mr O.
Speaker 1 (25:21):
Yeah, I just wanted to add that I'm a new homeowner on South Williams Avenue, so within 300 feet of
the proposed land use. And I saw the acoustic study and some of the recommendations to mitigate the
noise. Just wanted to confirm that those mitigations will be taken. They're not just recommendations,
but the city has some way of enforcing those mitigations. And then after that, yeah, just wanted to
recommend the inclusion of some sort of sound monitoring. So over time, I just don't know how it
works, I guess because I'm a pretty new homeowner, so I don't know how that would work if let's say
they do their best to mitigate the sound, but for whatever reason it still impacts us from time to time.
How would the city, I guess, take feedback and how would they find a way to resolve that issue? And
that was pretty much all I wanted to say. Just wanted to advocate for some point of monitoring.
Examiner Olbrechts: (26:27):
Great, thanks for your comments Mr. O And Mr. Van Gordon will answer your questions when it's his
turn to speak again. So let's move on to I did you want to say something? Am I pronouncing that
correctly? ai?
Speaker 1 (26:41):
July 9 Renton Dog Facility (Completed 07/23/24)
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 9 of 12
Yes, you're pronouncing it
Examiner Olbrechts: (26:42):
Correctly. Okay. Aye. Let me swear in. Do you swear affirm tell the truth, nothing but the truth in this
proceeding?
Speaker 1 (26:48):
I do.
Examiner Olbrechts: (26:48):
Okay. And is that your surname or first name?
Speaker 1 (26:52):
That's my first name. My last name is Mahoney, M-A-H-O-N-E-Y.
Examiner Olbrechts: (26:56):
Okay, great. Go ahead.
Speaker 1 (26:59):
Just to sort of springboard off of Sam's concerns, Sam is actually my next door neighbor on William z. I
was wondering if you would be providing us with a phone number for neighbors to use, should there be
any noise concerns and noise problems? That's one thing. And the other thing was when I was looking at
the site map, I appreciate the changes that were made in the wall surrounding the outside play area. I
have a question though. I couldn't tell from the map. I'm sorry. Not very good at reading those things,
the same map, but does it enclose not just the property line but the entire play area? Because in doing
some research on noise complaints for doggy daycares, I understand that a lot of times the dogs in the
play areas will bark when neighbors are walking their dogs past the area. So I'm wondering if the entire
play area will be enclosed by this eight feet tall noise barrier.
Examiner Olbrechts: (28:20):
Okay. And like I said,
Speaker 1 (28:22):
So that the dogs will not see neighborhood dogs walking by.
Examiner Olbrechts: (28:27):
Okay. Okay. I'll have Mr. Van Gordon answer that as well. Mr. Van Gordon, maybe you could put the site
plan up when it's your turn to speak and kind of point out where the fence is going to be located. That'd
be really helpful. So, alright. Anyone else out there want to say anything? Okay, I think we got
everybody. So back to Mr. Van Gordon had a few questions to answer there about enforcement and
location of the fence.
Speaker 1 (28:50):
July 9 Renton Dog Facility (Completed 07/23/24)
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 10 of 12
Sure, yes. Thank you. So let me, okay, I'm going to go through the questions here. As they were given
trash, so trash will be picked up, the applicant provided documentation from Republic Services that
they're going to use 96 gallon, I believe it's going to be two or 3 96 gallon rolling, basically Rollie bins.
And those will be rolled out by the property by the business owner out to Williams at South on their
pickup date. So it'll be similar to how residential is done, where the bins will go out to the street, truck
will come by, they'll pick 'em up and then they'll take the bins in.
Examiner Olbrechts: (29:31):
So what happens if there are cars parked where the pickup location is? I mean is there a no parking area
there, do you know? Or
Speaker 1 (29:39):
There is according to, yeah, there is. On their site plan, they are showing there are no parking signs
along there. So if folks are parking there in a no parking area, they're not supposed to be there anyway.
Examiner Olbrechts: (29:50):
Yeah, and I would imagine Republic is probably pretty aggressive about contacting the police if people
are violating the parking. Okay. Alright, go ahead.
Speaker 1 (29:58):
Yeah, let's see. How will mitigation be enforced? So the items like the fencing items, those will be
reviewed through the building permit stage, civil construction phase. And before they're going to be
able to get their occupancy, they would have to show that those items have been built to the specs that
are required. Items like the mitigation items like keeping the doors and windows closed as much as
possible. That's going to be something that we would need basically eyes on the business kind of thing.
If we see or somebody else sees that they're leaving the doors open all day, windows open all day,
barking is getting too loud, it's coming out of the building, those types of things, we would rely on our
neighbors there to potentially called code enforcement. And that leads into the next question of phone
number provided for alerting the city to potential issues. That is going to be our code enforcement. I
don't have the number offhand, offhand, specifically, but folks can reach out to us and ask for that
number. And then let me bring up the site plan here to show the locations of the fencing.
(31:31):
So the applicant is, it is going to be a little hard to tell here, but let me try to outline it here a bit. So the
applicant is showing that the fencing is going to go, is going to go along down through here, hit the
building and then back along the north side, hit the property of line back along this way, come down and
then come down Wells app down to where entrance to that northern driveway is a little bit up here, and
then connect back to the building and then the mitigation measures. The acoustic study has these
fences to the north here, pushed back 15 feet. The fences will be with their, they are required to have
acoustic material in there. They will be a solid material so that the dogs, you won't be able to see
through them. And then there will also be additionally that vegetative screening between the right of
way the streets and the fencing and from that north side of the fencing.
(32:48):
So there's a bit of a buffer there as well. Hitting back to the, real quickly, back to the phone numbers,
code enforcement, I just got an update here. Code enforcement number is we got 4, 2, 5, 4, 3, 0 7, 3, 7
3. Ren response is also a good resource to let things let us know about potential issues that are going on
July 9 Renton Dog Facility (Completed 07/23/24)
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 11 of 12
and out there. And so if we get those, we get that to us, we can start taking a look into the project and
seeing what potentially is going on and what may or may not need to be done. But there is an
opportunity in the future through our noise ordinances to potentially revise the mitigation if something
does come up in the future.
Examiner Olbrechts: (33:38):
How many code enforcement officers does the city have right now? Do you know?
Speaker 1 (33:43):
I want to say
Examiner Olbrechts: (33:45):
Four. Oh wow. Okay. Yeah, so the neighbors know, the city does have a pretty active code enforcement
division. I've held several hearings over the last few years for rent non code enforcement violations.
They have the authority, I don't recall what the latest monetary penalties are, but it's at least a hundred
dollars per day per violation. So a business that's noncompliant that, for example, if this business were
to leave its windows open every day and would just ignore city request to shut them down, they could
end up paying thousands of dollars a month in penalties. And in the worst case, the business could be
shut down as a nuisance if it really got out of hand. So the city does have some enforcement tools that
it's disposable. I see. We have, I is back on, I did you have another question or something? Ms.
Mahoney. Oh, okay. Yeah, I thought she, maybe she's just, her raised hand has just been left up there or
something. So, well let's move back on to the applicant. Mr. Keeper, did you have any final comments
before we wrap this up today?
Speaker 1 (34:58):
I just wanted to say thank you for Judy. Sam, hi for the comments and just to make sure Judy, no, I'm the
architect of the project. Sam and Kelly are the owners of this facility and that is our scope for going
through all of these steps to make sure the neighbors are happy and we provide the service that is
needed. And we do make sure everybody else is happy. We understand that there are concerns and
questions. So we'll do our best to get everything resolved. Like with this acoustical study, just want to
provide a good service for the neighborhood considering that there is no touching in the surrounding
area. So our scope is to provide something good for the neighborhood, not to do something bad, but to
make problems around. So any concerns or questions, I'm more than welcome. You should have my
information and I'll forward your questions to the owners anytime needed. Just let us know and we're
here to help and work. We have everybody that's ground.
Examiner Olbrechts: (36:13):
Okay, thank you Mr. Keeper. With that, I will go ahead and close the hearing and I really appreciate the
fact that a noise study has been done for this proposal. Okay. I did you have a question or something?
Speaker 1 (36:28):
I am sorry. I was just wondering if you could repeat that phone number. I only got the air code
Examiner Olbrechts: (36:33):
Two five. Okay. Alright. Mr. Van Gordon.
July 9 Renton Dog Facility (Completed 07/23/24)
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 12 of 12
Speaker 1 (36:36):
Yeah. Yes. Area code 4 2 5 4 3 0 7 3 7 3 7 3 7 3. Thank you.
Examiner Olbrechts: (36:46):
Okay. Yeah, and if any of you lose the phone number, you just call City Hall and ask for code
enforcement and they'll direct you there. As I was saying, I was really glad to see that a noise study was
done for this project. I've pulled hearings for 35 cities and counties and a lot of times that added effort
isn't done and a lot of that may be attributable to Ms. FM's letter. So I think she did a great service for
her neighborhood and I'm glad that staff jumped on that and required it. And it looks like it's going to be
a pretty effective means of minimizing noise impacts. I mean, I am a dog owner myself. I lived in a
neighborhood of five acre lots and my neighbors hated me. I had two great Pyrenees and a great day,
and so I can't imagine having 50 dogs next door.
(37:32):
So obviously I think that's something we have to be really careful about. And I'll take a close look at the
noise study, see if monitoring may be is necessary. As I said, the city does have its own noise standards
in place. These are noise standards that the Washington State Department of Ecology is recommended
as kind of being livable levels of noise that can be objectively measured with noise monitoring devices. I
mean, so noise is a problem. You neighbors, you can get those noise monitors that are fairly inexpensive
price to show code enforcement staff there's a problem. And I think code enforcement has the gear to
look into that as well. So even if monitoring isn't required, I think that the noise standards in place serve
as a pretty good substitute in any event. So beyond that, again, appreciate the efforts that the applicant
has put to try to mitigate that major concern. And it may very well be enough. I will get my decision out
in the next 10 business days. And if any of you have not, let me ask Jenny, do you have the email
addresses of the people who participated today, or do they need to supply that to you to get a copy of
the decision?
Speaker 1 (38:48):
I don't have all of them, but I do have a
Examiner Olbrechts: (38:49):
Pew. Okay. Yeah, if you haven't submitted your email address to Mr. Cisneros, go ahead. If you want a
copy of the decision, it'll have all the conditions of approval involved. And Mr. Cisneros is at Jay
cisneros@renwa.gov. So with that, we're adjourned for today. Everyone have a great day and we're
done.
Speaker 1 (39:09):
Thank you.