HomeMy WebLinkAboutHEX_Talbot_Hill_Substation_170207March 2, 2017
Kerry Kriner
Puget Sound Energy
P.O. Box 97034 M/S PSE -09N
Bellevue, WA 98009
Subject: Hearing Examiner's Final Decision
Denis Law Mayor
City Clerk -Jason A. Seth, CMC
RE: Talbot Hill Substation Improvements (LUA-16-000922)
Dear Mr. Kriner:
Enclosed please find the Hearing Examiner's Final Decision dated February 28, 2017.
I can be reached at (425) 430-6510 or jseth@rentonwa.gov. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Jason A. Seth, CMC
City Clerk
cc: Hearing Examiner
Angelea Weihs, Associate Planner
Jennifer Henning, Planning Director
Clark Close, Senior Planner
Brianne Bannwarth, Development Engineering Manager
Craig Burnell, Building Official
Jennifer Cisneros, Secretary, Planning Division
Julia Medzegian, City Council Liaison
Parties of Record (6)
1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057 • (425) 430-6510 / Fax (425) 430-6516 • rentonwa.gov
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
BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON
Talbot Hill Substation Improvements
Conditional Use Permit
LUA16-000922, ECF, SA-H, CUP-H
FINAL DECISION
Summary
Puget Sound Energy is requesting conditional use permit and site plan review approval to rebuild a
portion of the Talbot Hill Substation. The applicant seeks to demolish an existing 999sfbuilding and
replace it with a new l ,449sf building. The applicant will also remove substation equipment and
create a new storm drainage system. The conditional use permit is approved with conditions.
Testimony
Angelea Weihs, Associate Planner, summarized the staff report and entered additional exhibits into
the record (Ex. 17-19). She noted the City had received comment from Seattle PUD regarding access.
In response to the examiner, Ms. Weihs stated the substation was in excess of 460 feet from the
nearest residences and that the existing and proposed planting areas will serve as a buffer.
Brianne Bannwarth, Development Engineering Manager, stated the project must meet t_he King
County Stormwater Manual. In response to the examiner, Ms. Bannwarth stated all the potential
impacts from the project with respect to construction are mitigated within the City's development
codes. Ms. Bannwarth stated the City would be amenable to adding a condition of approval requiring
the City to set up a call number for construction related concerns.
CONDITIONAL USE
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
Kerry Kriner, Planner for PSE, stated the staff report is incorrect in describing the building
proposed for demolition as a control house. The building is actually an oil storage building. Ms.
Kriner noted PSE had originally applied for a permit in March 2016 and was told the building was
exempt from the JBC and therefore did not require a permit. In September, the City of Renton required
an electrical permit and then reversed the need for a building permit.
In response to the examiner, Jennifer Henning, Planning Director, stated the City had not originally
known the building was taller than the maximum height for an accessory structure permitted within
the zone. They had originally understood the building was smaller and not as tall. The electrical
permit triggered the need for a building permit. The presence of a building permit triggered a
conditional use permit because of the use within the zone.
Ms. Kriner stated PSE objects to the City's $200,000 frontage improvement requirement and will be
submitting a request for a waiver. No modifications or variances are currently at issue. Ms. Kriner
stated the applicant had submitted a landscape narrative (Ex. 20). Ms. Henning stated the value of the
applicant's improvements triggered the frontage improvements.
Exhibits
The February 14, 2107 Staff Report Exhibits 1-16 identified at part B of the Staff Report itself were
admitted into the record during the hearing. In addition, the following exhibits were admitted during
the hearing.
Exhibit 17 Staff PowerPoint
Exhibit 18 COR Maps
Exhibit 19 Google Maps
Exhibit 20 Landscape Narrative (December 13, 2106)
FINDINGS OF FACT
Procedural:
I. Applicant. Puget Sound Energy.
2. Hearing. The Examiner held a hearing on the subject application on February 14, 2017 at 11 :00
am in the City of Renton Council Chambers.
Substantive:
3. Project Description. Puget Sound Energy is requesting hearing examiner conditional use permit
approval and site plan approval to perform improvements at the existing Talbot Hill Substation
located at 2400 S. Puget Dr. The site is 50.4 acres. PSE is proposing to rebuild a portion of the Talbot
CONDITIONAL USE
2
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
Hill Substation in order to replace aging equipment. The existing 999sf oil storage building 1 will be
demolished and replaced with a l ,440sf building. The existing 230k V substation equipment will be
removed, including steel structures and foundations. No additional transmission lines are proposed
with the rebuild of this project. A new storm drainage system is proposed within the fenced area. A
detention pond will be installed south of the southerly substation fence. The detention pond will
involve excavation of more than 500 cubic yards of soil. The substation footprint will remain
unchanged.
Access to the site is provided via an existing driveway extending from Puget Drive Southeast.
Additional driveway improvements are proposed to allow larger vehicle access to the substation.
The applicant proposes to construct the project in two phases. Phase one includes the civil portions
of the project. This phase is proposed for April 2017 to October 2017. Phase two includes assembly
of the electrical equipment which is proposed for April 2018 to October 2018.
The project site contains moderate coalmine hazards, moderate landslide hazards, and sensitive
slopes.
The site is zoned Residential R-8 and the Comprehensive Plan designation is Residential Medium
Density (RMD).
The site is surrounded by single family uses in the R-8 zone on the north, east and south. To the west
are single-family and multi-family dwellings in the R-8 and RMF zones.
4. Adequacy of Infrastructure/Public Services. The project will be served by adequate
infrastructure and public services as follows:
A. Water and Sewer Service. Neither water nor sewer service is proposed or required for the
redevelopment project.
B. Fire and Police. Police and Fire Prevention Staff indicate that sufficient resources exist to furnish
services to the proposed development.
C. Drainage. Runoff from the site sheet flows outward from the middle of the substation. There are
existing drainage pipes from the northeast and southeast side of the substation which are tied to
catch basins within the fence line. The rims of the catch basins are currently at an elevation
higher than the surrounding ground, which prevents them from capturing stormwater. Grade
differences between the substation slab and the surrounding ground surface along the north and
northeast sides of the substation prevent stormwater from draining away from the substation,
which tends to pond within the substation footprint. Runoff along the southern edge of the
1 The staff report refers to the structure as a control house, however, the applicant at hearing corrected the description.
CONDITIONAL USE
3
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
substation flows into a culvert located beneath the access road which ultimately flows east
towards Grant A venue South.
The applicant's Preliminary Drainage Plan and Technical Information Report (TIR) (Ex. 7)
demonstrates compliance with the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual and the
20 IO City of Renton Amendments thereto. A new storm drainage system is proposed within the
fenced area. A detention pond will be installed south of the southerly substation fence and will
involve excavation of more than 500 cubic yards of soil. Drainage improvements include a new
stormwater conveyance network inside the substation which would route flows to a 75,000-cubic
foot storm water detention pond located along the southeastern edge of the substation. The pond
will discharge to a depression on the southern side of the existing access road, where flow would
resume the existing drainage path towards Grand Avenue South. The applicant is exempt from
water quality requirements.
D. Parks/Open Space. City development standards do not require any set-asides or mitigation for
parks and open space for the proposed use.
E. Transportation. The site is bordered by Beacon Way South to the northeast. Beacon Way South
is classified as a Residential Access Road and is located within the City of Seattle Cedar River
Pipeline Easement. Access to the site is provided via an existing access driveway extending to
Puget Drive Southeast. Puget Drive Southeast is classified as a Minor Arterial street. The
existing right of way for Puget Drive Southeast is approximately I 00 feet wide and contains no
frontage improvements. RMC 4-6-060 requires half street improvements including 0.5-foot
curb, an eight-foot planting strip, an eight-foot sidewalk, street trees and storm drainage
improvements. A condition of approval requires installation of half street improvements to code.
Though the applicant indicated they will request a modification of the street frontage
improvements pursuant to RMC 4-9-250.C.5.d, the applicant has not yet submitted such a
request. No transportation impact fees are applicable to this project.
F. Parking. Adequate parking exists on site to service the substation. No changes to the existing
parking or driveway access are proposed.
5. Adverse Impacts. As conditioned, there are no significant adverse impacts associated with the
project. Specific issues related to impacts are discussed below.
A. Tree Retention. As conditioned, the proposal will satisfy tree retention and landscape screening
requirements. The applicant submitted an arborist report and landscape narrative (Ex. 8 and 20)
and a Stormwater Pond Tree Removal and Landscaping Plan (Ex. 4). A total of 116 significant
trees are presently on site. The construction of the storm water pond will remove a total of 69
trees. An additional 11 trees are proposed for removal to the west of the entrance driveway along
CONDITIONAL USE
4
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
the south side of the substation. Therefore, a total of 80 trees are proposed for removal. A total
of 36 significant trees (31 %) are proposed for retention. The City's tree retention standards
require a minimum of 30 percent tree retention. The proposal significantly complies with the
City's tree retention requirements.
The applicant has argued the 11 Douglas Firs located near the entrance drive pose a wind throw
hazard to the substation and its operations. Though the applicant intends to retain shrubs and
smaller trees in this area to serve as a landscape screen, the applicant did not provide an
explanation as to why the trees cannot be pruned or trimmed rather than completely removed. A
condition of approval will require the applicant to provide a revised arborists report detailing an
explanation as to why no reasonable alternative to tree removal is possible. The condition will
further require suggested locations and species of supplemental trees to replace the existing
Douglas firs.
B. Landscaping. As conditioned, no impacts from the proposed landscaping plan are anticipated.
The applicant submitted a tree removal and landscaping plan (Ex. 4 ). The majority of the site
will not be disturbed and existing native landscaping will continue to screen adjacent residential
properties. The proposed new stormwater detention pond will be located along the southeaster
edge of the substation. The City code requires a 15-foot landscape buffer around the stormwater
perimeter. The applicant has alternatively proposed landscape screening southwest of the
stormwater pond, immediately south of the existing driveway, and to the west of the stormwater
pond outside the perimeter fence, rather than along the entire perimeter. The applicant plans to
fill gaps in the existing natural vegetative screening between the substation and existing
residences. The proposed site obscuring landscaping buffer will be 20 feet in width in these two
locations and will contain a mix of trees and large shrubs. The existing vegetation provides
screening when viewed from the southeast and southwest of the site. However, as noted above
in FOF 5A, the applicant proposes the removal of 11 trees south of the substation and to the west
of the access drive. The applicant has not proposed additional plantings in this location. Removal
of the trees in this location could reduce the effectiveness of the landscape screening. Therefore,
a condition of approval will require the applicant to submit a revised tree replacement/visual
barrier plan for this area.
C. Geologically Hazardous Areas. Critical areas will not be adversely affected and the project will
not result in impacts to health and safety for people utilizing the site or in surrounding areas. The
applicant submitted a geotechnical report (Ex. 6). The project contains moderate coalmine and
landslide hazards with sensitive slopes within 50 feet. The extent of disturbance for the proposal
will be 5.89 acres. The net cut/fill will be 2,500-cubic yards with 11.500 cubic yards of cut and
9,000 cubic yards of fill. The geotechnical report concludes the proposal will not adversely affect
the stability of the slopes in or around the site and coalmine hazards are minimal. In the absence
of any contrary evidence, the examiner takes the geotechnical engineer's conclusions as verity.
D. Structure Scale. The proposed new structure will have a maximum building height of 19' 4" with
a 4: 12 pitched roof. The building will be obscured from view by the nearest residential area with
native and planted landscaping. No adverse effects are anticipated for surrounding properties.
CONDITIONAL USE
5
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
E. Traffic. The Talbot Hill substation property is accessed via an ex1stmg access driveway
extending from Puget Drive SE. The applicant is proposing improvements to the existing access
driveway including repaving with asphalt, widening the approach apron, and a security gate. The
project will not generate a significant number of vehicles trips either during construction or
operation. No traffic impacts to the surrounding area are anticipated.
F. Noise, Light and Glare. The reconstructed building will have minimal lighting to provide for
safe egress. The lighting will be directed downward. No glare or light are expected to be visible
from neighboring properties. The substation is over 460 feet from the nearest residential lot. No
noise impacts to surrounding areas are anticipated.
Conclusions of Law
I. Authority. Large utilities are allowed in the R-8 district as a conditional use subject to Hearing
Examiner review (RMC 4-2-060(0)). RMC 4-8-0SO(G) classifies conditional use applications as Type
III permits when Hearing Examiner review is required. Site plan review is not required in the R-8
zone, except optionally when site plan review may be used as a means to propose modifications to
development standards for developments otherwise exempt from site plan review (RMC 4-9-
200(B)(2)(b )). Pursuant to RMC 4-4-70(F)(8), site plan review is required for the proposal in order
to deviate from storm drainage facility landscaping standards. In the absence of the conditional use
permit application, no Hearing Examiner review would be required for the site plan and it would be
classified as a Type II permit by RMC 4-8-0SO(G). Both of the aforementioned permits have been
consolidated. RMC 4-8-080(C)(2) requires consolidated permits to each be processed under "the
highest-number procedure". The conditional use has the highest numbered review procedures, so both
permits must be processed as Type Ill applications. As Type III applications, RMC 4-8-0SO(G) grants
the Examiner with the authority to hold a hearing and issue a final decision on them, subject to closed
record appeal to the City Council.
2. Zoning/Comprehensive Plan Designations. The subject property is zoned R-8, a single family
residential zone. The comprehensive plan land use designation is Residential Medium Density.
3. Review Criteria. Conditional use criteria are governed by RMC 4-9-030(C). Site plan review
criteria are governed by RMC 4-9-200(£). All applicable criteria 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:
CONDITIONAL USE
6
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 I
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
RMC 4-9-0JO(C)(l ): 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. The proposal is consistent with the comprehensive plan as outlined in Finding 16 of the Staff
report, adopted and incorporated by this reference as if set forth in full. The proposal is consistent with
all applicable zoning and other development standards as outlined in Finding 17 of the Staff report,
adopted and incorporated by this reference as if set forth in full.
RMC 4-9-030(C)(2): Appropriate Location: The proposed location shall not result in the
detrimental overconcentration of a particular use within the City or within the immediate area of the
proposed use. The proposed location shall be suited for the proposed use.
5. The substation is an existing utility facility on a large lot. The proposed location of the
reconstructed and expanded building will not result in either the detrimental over-concentration of a
particular use within the City or within the immediate area of the proposed use. The substation
footprint will remain unchanged and, as conditioned, the improvements will be fully screened from
adjacent residences through thick and dense native vegetation and landscaping. As discussed in the
Staff Report, the proposed location is suitable for the proposed use. Given these factors the criterion
is met.
RMC 4-9-030(C)(3): Effect on Adjacent Properties: The proposed use at the proposed location
shall not result in substantial or undue adverse effects on adjacent property.
6. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5 and as conditioned, there are no adverse impacts
associated with the proposal, so it will not result in substantial or undue adverse effects on adjacent
property.
RMC 4-9-030(C)(4): Compatibility: The proposed use shall be compatible with the scale and
character of the neighborhood.
7. The proposal is an expansion of an existing building within an existing utility use. The footprint
of the overall substation will not change. As conditioned, the reconstructed building and stormwater
pond will be fully screened from view. The proposed use will meet all of the City's bulk and
dimensional regulations and will provide landscaping on the site that will buffer the residential uses
on all sides. This criterion is satisfied.
RMC 4-9-030(C)(5): Parking: Adequate parking is, or will be made, available.
8. No additional parking is proposed. As noted in Finding of Fact No. 4, adequate parking exists
on site to service the substation. This criterion is met.
CONDITIONAL USE
7
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
IO
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
RMC 4-9-030(C)(6): Traffic: The use shall ensure safe movement for vehicles and pedestrians and
shall mitigate potential effects on the surrounding area.
9. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5, the project will not have a significant impact on the
general traffic in the vicinity and, as conditioned, provides for adequate and safe pedestrian circulation.
The criterion is met.
RMC 4-9-030(C)(7): Noise, Light and Glare: Potential noise, light and glare impacts from the
proposed use shall be evaluated and mitigated.
I 0. As stated in FOF SF, no impacts from noise, light or glare are anticipated. This criterion is
satisfied.
RMC 4-9-030(C)(8): Landscaping: Landscaping shall be provided in all areas not occupied by
buildings, paving, or critical areas. Additional landscaping may be required to buffer adjacent
properties from potentially adverse effects of the proposed use.
11. As conditioned, the landscape complies with the City's landscape regulations. As described in
FOF 5(B), landscaping will provide a vegetative screening between the substation and adjacent
residential areas. The reconstructed building and stormwater pond will be fully screened. As
conditioned, this criterion is met.
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 Pian: 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 discussed in Conclusion of Law No. 4, as conditioned, the proposal is consistent with the
City's comprehensive plan, as well as development and design regulations. The proposal does not
qualify as a Planned Action Ordinance, as outlined at Finding No. 2 l(d) of the Staff Report. The Staff
CONDITIONAL USE
8
I
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
Report Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are adopted and incorporated by reference as if set
forth in full.
RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(b): Off-Site Impacts: Mitigation of impacts to surrounding properties and
uses, including:
i. Structures: Restricting oversea le structures and overconcentration of development on a particular
portion of the site;
ii. Circulation: Providing desirable transitions and linkages between uses, streets, walkways and
adjacent properties;
iii. Loading and Storage Areas: Locating, designing and screening storage areas, utilities, rooftop
equipment, loading areas, and refi1se 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 a,Jiacent properties and streets.
I 3. The substation facility is necessarily concentrated on one portion of the site; however the scale
and bulk of the building is compatible with the low rise residential structures that surround the site.
As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5, no lighting or view impacts are anticipated and landscaping
is effectively used to protect adjoining properties from noise and glare and to maintain privacy and
enhance the appearance of the project. This criterion is satisfied.
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
CONDITIONAL USE
9
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
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. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5, the site is large with 460 feet of native vegetation
between the substation and the nearest residential area. As proposed and conditioned, native and
planted landscaping has been well designed to provide for privacy and noise reduction. There is
nothing in the record to reasonably suggest that the scale, spacing and orientation of the project could
be modified to provide for more privacy and noise reduction without unreasonably interfering with
the objectives of the facility. The scale of the facility will not create any adverse impacts as discussed
and is compatible with vehicle and pedestrian circulation as determined in Finding of Fact No. 5. In
addition, there is nothing in the record to reasonably suggest that the scale of the project is
incompatible with sunlight, prevailing winds or natural characteristics. The comments by Staff on
this criterion, at Finding No. 21(1), are adopted by this reference and incorporated as if set forth in
full.
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 dimemions 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 adequate access and circulation as required by the criterion above for
the reasons identified in Finding of Fact No. 4(E), 4(F), and 5(E).
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 for this use
CONDITIONAL USE
IO
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
RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(t): Views and Public Access: When possible, providing view corridors to
shorelines and Mt. Rainier, and incorporating public access to shorelines.
17. There are no view corridors to shorelines or Mt. Rainier affected by the proposal.
RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(g): Natural Systems: Arranging project elements to protect existing natural
systems where applicable.
18. As determined in FOF 5(C), the natural systems at the site will not be adversely affected by the
proposal.
RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(h): Services and Infra1·tructure: Making available public services and
facilities to accommodate the proposed use.
19. The project is served by adequate services and facilities as determined in Finding of Fact No.
4.
RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(i): Phasing: Including a detailed sequencing plan with development phases
and estimated time frames, for phased projects.
20. The applicant has provided a detailed phasing plan as described in the staff report. This criterion
is satisfied.
DECISION
As conditioned below, the conditional use permit is approved.
I. The applicant shall comply with the mitigation measures issued as part of the Determination of
Non-Significance Mitigated, dated January 23, 2017.
2. If the 11 trees to the west of the access driveway are proposed for removal, the applicant shall
submit a revised tree replacement/visual barrier plan at the time of Construction Permit
application for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager.
3. The applicant shall submit a revised Arborist Report with Construction Permit application for
review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager. The revised Arborist Report shall
provide further detailed explanation for why no reasonable alternative to tree removal is possible
for the 11 trees to the west of the access driveway and shall provide suggested locations and
species of supplemental trees to be planted. The report shall include planting and maintenance
specifications for replacement trees.
4. The applicant shall either submit plans to construct the required half street improvements along
Puget Drive SE (including the required 8-foot wide landscape strip between the curb and
CONDITIONAL USE
11
I
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
sidewalk) or shall acquire approval of a modification from the required frontage improvements at
the time of Civil Construction Permit Review.
5. The City shall establish a call-in number for citizens to complain about noise or other construction
related issues.
DATED this 28th day of February, 2017.
I
Emily Terrell
City of Renton Hearing Examiner
Appeal Right and Valuation Notices
RMC 4-8-11 O(E)(9) provides that the final decision of the Hearing Examiner is subject to appeal to
the Renton City Council. RMC 4-8-1 IO(E)(9) requires appeals of the Hearing Examiner's decision
to be filed within fourteen (14) calendar days from the date of the Hearing Examiner's decision. A
request for reconsideration to the hearing e examiner may also be filed within this 14 day appeal
period as identified in RMC 4-8-1 IO(E)(8) and RMC 4-8-IOO(G)(4). A new fourteen (14) day appeal
period shall commence upon the issuance of the reconsideration. Additional information regarding
the appeal process may be obtained from the City Clerk's Office, Renton City Hall -7th floor, (425)
430-6510.
Affected property owners may request a change m valuation for property tax purposes
notwithstanding any program ofrevaluation.
r • • •
CONDITIONAL USE
12
March 2, 2017
STATE OF WASHINGTON
COUNTY OF KING
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
)
) §
)
Denis Law Mayor
City Clerk -Jason A. Seth, CMC
JASON A. SETH, City Clerk for the City of Renton, being first duly sworn on oath, deposes and
says that he is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Washington, over the
age of 21 and not a party to nor interested in this matter.
That on the 2nd day of March, 2017, at the hour of 4:30 p.m. your affiant duly mailed and
placed in the United States Post Office at Renton, King County, Washington, by first class mail
Hearing Examiner's Final Decision dated February 28, 2017, RE: Talbot Hill Substation
Improvements {LUA-16-000922)to the attached parties of record.
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE me this 2nd day of March, 2017.
1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057 , (425) 430-6510 / Fax (425) 430-6516 , rentonwa.gov