HomeMy WebLinkAbout190702 LUA19-000090 Parks Response
LUA19-000090, PR19-000190 King County Response to Staff Report Comments dated 6/25/2019
pg. 1
Parks and Recreation Division
Department of Natural Resources and Parks
King Street Center, KSC-NR-0700
201 South Jackson Street
Seattle, WA 98104-3855
206-477-4527 Fax 206-588-8011
TTY Relay: 711
TO: Hearing Examiner Olbrechts, City of Renton
Clark H. Close, Senior Planner, City of Renton
FROM: Brenda Bradford, Capital Project Manager IV
PROJECT: King County Parks - Renton Shop
SUBJECT: City of Renton Conditional Use Permit LUA19-000090 Response to
City of Renton Response issued June 25, 2019
DATE: July 2, 2019
Mr. Examiner,
At the Hearing on June 18, 2019 the County provided a response to the Staff Report issued for
the above referenced land use permit. The public hearing was left open until June 25, 2019 to
provide time for the City of Renton (City) to review and provide a response to the County’s public
testimony on behalf of the project. The City of Renton issued its response on June 25, 2019. The
County requested, and was granted, that the public hearing be held open until July 2, 2019 to
allow for the County to review and respond.
The County asks that the Hearing Examiner enter into the record the County’s response to
memorandum issued June 25, 2019 included below with corresponding attachments.
Due to the approaching holiday and staff limited ability to respond, the County requests
on behalf of both parties that the City have time to review the County response and that
the County be able to respond to subsequent responses. At this time it seems prudent to
ask for the hearing to remain open until Tuesday July 8, 2019 at 5 p.m.
1) County response to Staff response comment #1
A. The County agrees with the City that the bike lockers provide the required extended secure
bike storage for up to eight (8) bikes.
2) County response to Staff response comment #2
A. The County agrees with the City that condition #2 be revised to match the language
proposed by the City below:
LUA19-000090, PR19-000190 King County Response to Staff Report Comments dated 6/25/2019
pg. 2
3) County response to Staff response comment #3
A. The City of Renton has recommended condition #8 be added per below and the County
takes no exception:
B. The City of Renton recommends the following modification to condition #7 per below and
the County takes no exception:
C. The City of Renton recommends the following modification to condition #7 per below.
The County recommends that the language on the fence condition be revised to the
following: A black ornamental metal fence to be installed along the north property
line on the eastern edge of the site. At the transition to the yard, a sight obscuring
black security fence to be installed on the north property line. The County shall
submit proposed fence options to the Senior Planner for final approval.
The reasons for this request are below:
1. Yard area fencing was chosen based upon security concerns (people climbing over),
cost efficiency, and the ability for the Operations group to maintain and repair
damage.
2. The County has the following concerns with ornamental fencing in the yard area.
i. The impact to yard security due to a fence type that is easier to climb.
ii. The high security options on ornamental fence types do not have the same
aesthetic as the 6 foot version and are unlikely to generate the aesthetic that the
City or the County desires. To meet the security requirements the County would
likely need to use ornamental fence with heavy duty sharp spikes, semi-rounded
tops with spikes, or fully bended tops.
iii. Public perception that the fence is an inappropriate use of tax payer dollars given
that the County’s other yards are chain link, and the City of Renton’s
maintenance yard down the road on 3rd is chain link with barb wire.
iv. The fully sight obscuring landscape screening is likely to make the north property
line more attractive for intrusion, especially given the unoccupied status of the
building on the lot to the north.
3. There are several high security meshes and non-climbing types of fences on the
market which include tighter weave chain link, mini-mesh, expanded metal, etc.
LUA19-000090, PR19-000190 King County Response to Staff Report Comments dated 6/25/2019
pg. 3
which do not require barb wire on top, are visually more attractive than heavy duty
spikes and arches, more cost effective, and which offer higher degree of screening
than can be obtained with ornamental fencing. (See Attachment A)
D. The City of Renton recommends the following modification to condition #7 per below.
As mentioned in the City memorandum, the code requires either a ten foot (10’) fully sight
obscured landscaped visual barrier or a fifteen foot (15’) partially sight obscured visual
barrier. The recommended condition is asking for the greatest width and the highest
degree of visual screening.
The relationship between the buildings, yard, drive aisles and parking areas are the result
of several rounds of site plan analysis, turning analysis, and functional requirements.
Parks’ Operations conducted a mock-up using the revised dimensions, laying out the
parking, drive aisle, building wall locations, etc. assuming Storage Building C was five feet
(5’) closer (See Attachment B). As a result of the mock-up the County determined
that shifting the Storage Building C results in:
1. The inability to park vehicles longer than twenty-one and a half feet (21.5’) at Shop
Building B (affects approximately 50% of the vehicles.)
2. Safety concerns when two way traffic is underway or when a vehicle must maneuver
past a vehicle parked near Storage Building C to load or unload stored items.
3. Increased likelihood that Storage Building C could be hit by delivery trucks damaging
roof eave too close to the driving aisle.
4. Unsafe crew maneuvering around vehicles when two way traffic is underway, unsafe
loading/unloading from Storage Building C due to not enough room to maneuver
between drive aisle and side of vehicle, or maneuvering around fronts of vehicles
parked at Shop B while other vehicles are in the drive aisle.
5. Increased likelihood of vehicle damage such as equipment on the front and rear
being hit by traffic on the aisle, vehicles hitting other extra wide mirrors, etc.
The County proposes to meet the intent of the request for additional landscape
screening by staggering the buildings, providing more buffer where we are
functionally able to do so, and requesting the ten foot (10’) minimum only at areas
where there is not enough room between Building B and Building C. Further design
is required to verify and finalize but the intent can be seen visually on Attachment C.
Location Description Min
Setback
Landscape
Screening
Reason
Northwest
side of site
Building E 14.5 feet
to +/- 15.1
feet
Fully sight
obscuring
landscape
screen.
Building E is perpendicular to the
rest of the buildings, but not
parallel to the property line.
Critical alignment between drive
aisles dictates how far this
LUA19-000090, PR19-000190 King County Response to Staff Report Comments dated 6/25/2019
pg. 4
building can set back compared to
D. Approximately half of the north
wall will have greater than 15 feet
of setback.
North
center/west
side of site
Between
Building D
and E
15 feet Fully sight
obscuring
landscape
screen.
Meets City recommendation.
Additional screen wall between
buildings may be added at 6 feet
tall if deemed necessary.
North center
side of site
Building D 12.5 feet Fully sight
obscuring
landscape
screen.
Critical alignment between
drive aisles dictates how far
this building can set back
compared to C.
Cannot push the drive aisle out
five feet at this location due to
impact on parking at Shop B.
North center
side of site
Between
Building C
and D
15 feet Fully sight
obscuring
landscape
screen.
Meets City recommendation.
Additional screen wall between
buildings may be added at 6 feet
tall if deemed necessary.
North
center/east
side of site
Enclosed
and covered
Storage
Building C
10 feet Fully sight
obscuring
landscape
screen.
Critical width required between
C, drive aisle, parking and B.
Moving 5 feet south would
require entire site to be
regraded, the shop to be moved
south, and areas of parking and
yard to move south.
North east
side of site
Parking east
of Storage
Building C
15 feet
Fully sight
obscuring
landscape
screen
Meets City recommendation. The
rest of the buffer between 15 feet
and the parking lot to be partial
sight obscuring.
E. Due to the above concerns, the County recommends that the condition be revised to
indicate: The applicant, after dividing the Storage Building C into three buildings,
shall have Building E on the northwest corner, Building D in the center north, and
Building C in the east north portion of the yard. The applicant shall provide:
1. A minimum fourteen and a half foot (14.5’) of fully sight obscuring landscape
screening at the NW corner of building E.
2. A minimum of twelve and a half feet (12.5’) of fully sight obscuring landscape
screening at the NW corner of building D.
3. A minimum of ten feet (10’) of fully sight obscuring landscape screening at
building C.
4. A minimum of fifteen feet (15’) of fully sight obscuring landscape screening at
other locations along the north property line, subject to allowable landscaping
LUA19-000090, PR19-000190 King County Response to Staff Report Comments dated 6/25/2019
pg. 5
at locations of easement and utility crossing. The applicant shall provide a
revised Landscape plan and a revised Composite Site Plan to be reviewed and
approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to civil construction
permit issuance.
4) County response to Staff response comment #4
A. The County thanks the City of Renton for its granting of the civil permit for 3 years and
agrees to provide an estimated construction schedule with Building permit intake.
CC: Project File, Deena Hall, Jennifer Kim, Capital Project Managers
Frank Overton, Capital Projects Managing Supervisor
Kathryn Terry, Interim Division Director
Nick Halverson, Parks Operations Section Manager
Bing Subelbia, Assistant Parks Operations Manager
Christopher Walling, Kyle Killian, Karissa Kawamoto HDR Architecture, Engineering
LUA19-000090, PR19-000190 King County Response to Staff Report Comments dated 6/25/2019
pg. 6
Attachment A – Fencing
Security Fence
No climb chain link – mesh with 1” or smaller spacing instead of standard 2”
Does not require barb wire at the top
Scale comparison standard chain link vs non-climb or mini-mesh.
Security fence
No climb mesh
LUA19-000090, PR19-000190 King County Response to Staff Report Comments dated 6/25/2019
pg. 7
Attachment B – Moving Storage Building C – Operations Mock-up
A. Operations conducted a mock-up using the revised dimensions assuming the building was
five feet (5’) closer.
· The drive aisle is twenty-four feet (24’) wide. The vehicles traveling in and out of the
yard are much wider and longer than standard personal vehicles.
· Wood palette on right simulates Storage Building C wall.
· Orange cones on right simulate bollards.
· Truck parked on right simulates truck parked to access Storage Building C.
· Trucks parked on left simulate trucks parked at Shop Building B.
Safety concern with:
1) Vehicle overhanging into the drive aisle. With cones/winches etc. mounted to
bumper, the likelihood of vehicle damage by vehicle in the drive aisle increases
significantly.
LUA19-000090, PR19-000190 King County Response to Staff Report Comments dated 6/25/2019
pg. 8
Safety concern with:
1) Vehicle mirror damage.
2) Ability to back a vehicle in to Shop B with no buffer between the stall and the drive
aisle.
3) Unsafe condition for driver on the right to get back into vehicle or if
strapping/loading/unloading from the side.
Safety concern with:
1) Vehicle overhanging into the drive aisle preventing crew member from coming
around the front until the vehicle passes.
Attachment C - LUA19-000090, PR19-000190 King County 07/02/2019 Response to Staff Report Comments dated 6/25/2019