Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutD_Living_Hope_Church_Expansion_070403OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON April 3, 2007 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION APPLICANT: CONTACT: LOCATION: SUMMARY OF REQUEST: SUMMARY OF ACTION: DEVELOPMENT SERVICES REPORT: PUBLIC HEARING: Living Hope Christian Fellowship 2201 Edmonds Avenue SE Renton, WA 98058 Durwood Smith West Coast Church Designers 3522 S 198" Street Seatac. WA 98188 Living Hope Church Expansion UJA-06-157, CU-H, SA-H, ECF 2201 Edmonds Avenue SE An Administrative SEPA Appeal was filed and heard prior to the Land Use application. Site Plan and Conditional Use approval to allow expansion of an existing church. Dev·elopment Services Recommendation: Approve. The Development Services Report was received by the Examiner on March 6, 2007. Alier reviewing the Development Services Report, examining available information on file with the application, field checking the property and surrounding area; the Examiner conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows: MINUTES The following minutes are a summary oftlte Marclt 13, 2007 hearing. The legal record is recorded on CD. The hearing opened on Tuesday, March 13, 2007. at 9:02 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the Renton City Hall. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner. Administrative SEPA Appeal: Durwood Smith, Architect, 3522 S 198"' Street, Sea tac 98188 stated that the issues of the appeal are the Traffic and Fire Mitigation fees. He understands that the Fire Mitigation fees are non-negotiable so the major concern today is centered around the Transportation Mitigation issue. The Examiner stated that generally the fees are based on the square footage of the use, the number of traffic trips generated by a particular use and the square footage or the anticipated traffic generation of the particular expanston use. Living Hope Church Expans1 . ., File No.: LUA-06-157, CU-H, SA-H, ECF April 3, 2007 Page 2 Mr. Smith stated that they had prepared statement for the transportation fee issue. The measure in question is Item 3 of Mitigation Measures stating that the applicant should pay transportation mitigation fee at the rate of $75.00 for each new average weekday trip attributable to the project. This fee must be paid prior to receiving a building permit. They contend that there is no increase in average weekday trip attributable to the project. Any increase in trips would occur during the weekends between the hours of 8:30 am and l :00 pm. Growth projections show approximately 30 additional arrivals and departures from the property on Sundays only and would reach that amount over a number of years. In addition, the planning ordinances regarding required parking allow for 30 new spaces above what exists. This increase along with existing parking would allow for 73 parking stalls, which would not support 108 weekday trips as the report indicates. The Living Hope Fellowship Church has occupied this property for approximately 40 years, currently they are operating at 56-60 attendees during weekdays. The church will not be expanding their attendance nor licensing for expansion, they do not see the need for Transportation Mitigation Fees. It was also pointed out that only one lane of Edmonds Ave fronts on the church facility and that one lane is in King County, not the City of Renton. There are no average daily increases pertaining to this project, any increase in trips on Sunday's is fairly minimal. The emphasis is based on the words "weekday daily trips". They did clarify that the report states they are adding meeting rooms and offices in the expansion. No new offices are being added with the expansion, they are only being relocated. Mark Barber called Elizabeth Higgins of Development Services. Upon questioning Ms. Higgins stated that the existing building is approximately 10,000 square feet and the proposed addition, which is a one story and portions of a 2-story structure would be an expansion of 11,865 square feet. The church currently has approximately 49 spaces for parking, a new parking area would be developed on the east side of the property, which would accommodate 28 additional spaces. The Renton Municipal Code requires one parking space for every five seats added to a sanctuary. They currently have a fellowship chapel that seats 265. The existing seating was deducted from the proposed amount for the new sanctuary and that would require 12 additional parking spaces based on additional seating. According to the plan that was submitted, the existing sanctuary, located in the southwest comer is to be converted to a social hall. The addition on the east will house the new sanctuary as well as meeting rooms, etc. They type of activities for the social hall were not specified, typically they do include youth activities, weddings and so forth. The Transportation Mitigation Fees are due prior to the issuance of Building Permit. Churches are conditional uses in all zones of the City, they are not allowed outright in any zone. This allows the City to look at the impacts of the church activities on the surrounding area. There is greater concern when the church is located in a residential zone. While some churches create noises that are bothersome, there is no anticipation that in this case, almost inevitably the amount of traffic is something that is a concern. Mr. Barber called Kayren Kittrick of Development Services. Upon questioning. Ms. Kittrick stated that the trip estimates are based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers, 7"' Edition Trip Generation Manual. The manual gives a description of what a church is and the uses that occur during the weekdays and weekends. The average number given by the manual for use in churches is 9.1111,000 square feet. This is based on every possible person that could walk in that door and go away again. Living Hope Church Expansion File No.: LUA-06-157, CU-H, SA-H, ECF April 3, 2007 Page 3 It is a matter of all trips for all daily activities, services and deliveries, garbage, postal, sales people and visitors, applicants for daycare, appointments, workers, clergy and anyone on-site daily and leave again. Workers can account for up to 4 trips per day each. This was taken from over 20 years of studies on sites throughout the United States. Single-family homes are basically a single-family home no matter how big or small it is considered to generate the same amount of traffic. However, churches, shops and any of the other uses get credit for the site that they already own, this is merely on the additional daily trips generated by the amount of space they are adding. It is considered that nobody expands unless they intend to expand their use. The City cannot assess fees after the addition is completed. Mr. Smith stated they were talking about 108 average new daily trips to this church. They are not a big church, he just does not see I 08 each day coming and going. That would be 54 trips coming and going each day, which just does not seem realistic. Ms. Kittrick stated that the average, a nationally established average, every applicant is welcome to submit a traffic report tailored to their site in specific. They will look at that, they are always open to the actual site, to real information. Chuck Morris, 22235 Sweeney Road SE, Maple Valley, 98038 stated that the Renton street that is in front of the church is 255 feet and is only one lane and only the people that would be coming to the church from the north would use that lane of traffic. Say all the people came from the north, when only maybe 15% actually do, they would come in on a Renton street but they would leave on a King County road. At the very most 25% of the comings and goings would be on a Renton City street. Bill Webster, 16306 120"' Avenue SE, Renton stated that currently the present sanctuary is used for meeting rooms, they have to take out the chairs and put up tables for these gatherings. One reason for the expansion is to alleviate this congestion and work They are not increasing the size of the congregation but are trying to get room for our existing members. The meeting rooms are m the same situation, they are very cramped, they would eventually like to enlarge the kitchen at some time in the future. Upon questioning by Mr. Barber, Mr. Webster stated that the membership has grown in the past three to five years. In 1999 there were approximately 44-46 people and now there are approximately 120 members. Mr. Smith asked Ms. Higgins what effect a traffic report would actually bear on decision making at this point in regard to the Traffic Mitigation issues? The Examiner stated that Mr. Smith and Ms. Higgins ean deal with that separately. At this point a tratlic report does not exist and so the Examiner's decision would be based on the facts currently in the record and that have been established at today's hearing. Mr. Smith further commented that 255-feet of City streets used by 15% of the people would hardly constitute the full-fledged brunt of $75 .00 per daily average increased trip. The reasonable appearance of the church in growth potentials or existing situation, 108 daily trips increase does not seem feasible. He would ask for removal of that condition. Mr. Barber stated that with regard to the transportation study, ifthere was one done by the church, the City would be willing to talk to the church with regard to that issue up to the time of the issuance of the building permit. Living Hope Church Expans, File No.: LUA-06-157, CU-H, SA-H, ECF April 3, 2007 Page 4 The RMC incorporates by reference the two resolutions of Renton City Council of adopting Traffic Mitigation fees, as well as Fire Mitigation fees, which was adopted in 1994 and set the Mitigation Fee at $75/vehicle trip. That has not been amended since that time. The addition could more than double their size, membership will grow over time and parking needs will increase. The condition should be upheld. The appeal hearing ended at 9: 5 9 am The Land Use Application hearing began at 10:00 am. The following exhibits were entered into the record: Exhibit No. l: Appeal letter for the Church Exhibit No. 3: By Reference, the Land Use Yellow File Exhibit No. 5: Copy of Excerpt from Trip Generation Manual Exhibit No. 7: Vicinitv Man/Zoning Man Exhibit No. 9: Site Plan Exhibit No. 11: Upper floor Plan Exhibit No. 13: Grading and Storm Drainage Plan Exhibit No. 15: Building Elevations Exhibit No. 17: Aerial Photograph with a close-up view of the property Exhibit No. 2: Letter from the Church as to why the Transportation Fee should not be imposed. Exhibit No. 4: Aerial photograph showing uses around the church. Exhibit No. 6: Project file containing the application, reports, staff comments, and other material pertinent to the review of the project. Exhibit No. 8: Context Man Exhibit No. l O: Main Floor Plan Exhibit No. 12: Site Topography and Tree Cutting Plan Exhibit No. 14: Neighborhood Detail Map Exhibit No. 16: Aerial PhotoITTanh Exhibit No. 18: Appeal File and Transcript (by reference) The hearing opened with a presentation of the staff report by Elizabeth Higgins, Senior Planner, Development Services, City of Renton, 1055 S Grady Way, Renton, Washington 98055. The project today is the expansion of the Living Hope Christian Fellowship Church located at 2201 Edmonds Avenue SE. The Site Plan review is required for a project of this size, adding the number of parking spaces and the size of the addition. Because of the Conditional Use approval from the Hearing Examiner that bumps the Site Plan review to the Hearing Examiner as well. The project is located within an R-8 zone and religious uses are conditional uses in all zones within the City. The project is located in SE Renton on Edmonds Avenue and a King County Street, SE 161 '' Street. It abuts King County on two sides. The street to the south is a right-of-way for a utility access for an adjacent property. Living Hope Church Expansion File No.: LUA-06-157, CU-H, SA-H, ECF April 3, 2007 Page 5 The church is located on the east side of an extremely large piece of property, over 4 acres in size. It has residential on the north part, there is a church directly to the south and the area is well buffered from the residential uses. The Seattle Utility District property abuts the property to the west, that is the property that is accessed by ! 60'h (161 "). There is another utility easement and gas line along the north side of the property. The original church was built in 1966 and has had subsequent additions over the years, approximately 60 families are served by a licensed daycare center on the premises. The proposed project would consist of2-story addition to the north fayade of the existing building. The addition would have a foyer, a 327-seat sanctuary, three meeting rooms, enclosed storage area and various other rooms on the main floor. The second level would haw meeting spaces, there seem to be no additional offices they arc just being moved. The building would continue to have access from Edmonds Avenue SE, which connects to Puget Drive to the north and is classified as a minor arterial. New landscaping would be required where the new parking area is to be built and around the building. Any disturbed areas would have to be landscaped. The treed areas to the west would be undisturbed, there will be a new fire access connecting from the west of the existing parking lot around with a hammerhead turnaround and the new parking area would be located adjacent to the fire access on the west side of the existing building. The addition meets all setback requirements for the zone and all parking requirements. The Environmental Review Committee issued a Dctcm1ination of Non-Significance -Mitigated with 4 mitigation measures. One appeal was filed by the applicant. The project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element, Zoning Code and Development Standards. The proposed location is suited for the proposed use. There are no new additional accessory uses proposed. A detailed landscape plan should be suhm,tted prior to issuance of the building permit. Bill Webster stated that paragraph 11 of the public improvements states that the proposed use and location shall be adequately served by and not impose an undue burden on any public improvements, etc. Ile referred to this because of the increase in daily trips, there is plenty of access to the church and there would be no need for improvements or additional services that the City would have to require for additional traffic. The Examiner inquired about the top of page 9 of the staff report in respect to a "non-residential sewer use certification" being required for the proposed huilding remodel. Ms. Higgins stated that they received a letter dated January 2, 2007 from the King County Wastewater Treatment Division, they had received notification of the project and sent a letter stating the because of the increase in the number of rest rooms in the facility, they would need to apply for a certification that King County had the ability to provide the service. The property is served by the City of Renton but the wastewater goes from the City of Renton to King County and so that is why this is being required. Kayren Kittrick, Development Services stated that this connection with King County is brand new. There have been some difficulties in the past and this is to insure that everything is correct and in place. This type of letter will now be attached to every project. This is cons1stcnt with our Letter of Availability. Mr. Webster stated that Soos Creek is the supplier for water and sewer, not the City of Renton. Living Hope Church Expans, •. File No.: LUA-06-157, CU-H, SA-H, ECF April 3, 2007 Page 6 The Examiner called for further testimony regarding this project. There was no one else wishing to speak, and no further comments from staff. The hearing closed at 10:24 a.m. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATION Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following: ADMINISTRATIVE SEP A APPEAL: FINDINGS: I. The appellant, Living Hope Christian Church by Rev. Doug Mullins and Bill Webster, filed an appeal of a decision by the Environmental Review Committee (ERC). The appeal was filed in a timely manner. 2. The Living Hope Church has proposed to expand its church with a two-story, 11,865 square foot addition to its existing church. 3. The church is located at 220 I Edmonds Avenue Southeast. The church is located on the northwest comer of the intersection of Edmonds Avenue and SE 161" Street (King County designation) The church is located just inside the City's boundary and is surrounded by unincorporated King County on the east and south. 4. The expansion would add a new sanctuary, meeting rooms, multipurpose room and some accessory space. The new sanctuary would seat 327 parishioners. The existing chapel seats 265 people. 5. Services appear to be on weekends between the hours of 8:30 am and I :00 pm. 6. The proposed expansion is subject to both Site Plan and Conditional Use Permit reviews and these triggered environmental review. 7. The ERC (Environmental Review Committee), the City's responsible official reviewed the proposal. After review, the ERC imposed mitigation measures on the proposed plans in a process known as a Determination of Non-Significance -Mitigated (DNSM). 8. The appellant objected to two of those conditions. It objected to Conditions 3 and 4, which state: (3) The applicant shall pay the applicable Transportation Mitigation Fee at the rate of$75.00 for each new average weekday trip attributable to the project. The Transportation Mitigation Fee is due prior to the issuance of a building permit. (4) The applicant shall pay the Fire Mitigation Fee equal to $0.52 per gross square foot of the expansion area. The Fire Mitigation Fee shall be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit. 9. On the issue of the Transportation Mitigation Fee the appellants argue that the proposal would not generate traffic during normal hours, projects only 30 new arrivals, currently 50 to 60 weekday attendees, and that the proposal's impact on Renton streets is very limited since it sits right at the City- County boundary and many of its members come from the south using county roads and not City corridors. The appellants estimated that no more than 15% of its members use City streets. They noted that they are expanding to simplify use of the current space and provide less cramped quarters for members. Living Hope Church Expansion File No.: LUA-06-157, CU-H, SA-H, ECF April 3, 2007 Page 7 I 0. The appellants indicated that they had been led to believe that they could not challenge the Fire Mitigation Fee. This office would like to make it clear that the appellants may appeal any condition imposed by the ERC. The appeal process pennits a challenge of most administrative and environmental decisions. But while appeals may be taken to challenge those decisions it does not mean that all such decisions or in this case, fees, are negotiable. The difference in allowing an appeal and negotiating a result may be legally subtle but it remains nonetheless. I I. The church did indicate that membership has grown from approximately 44 to 46 to approximately 120 members since I 999. 12. The City argued that the proposed complex only requires an additional 12 parking stalls but that the applicant proposes 28 stalls. They note that the church will be doubling its square footage and would expect membership to grow accordingly. The conversion of the existing sanctuary to a social hall could accommodate additional youth activities and events such as weddings. The City based its traffic generation numbers on the Institute of Traffic Engineers 7th Edition Trip Generation Manual. That manual defines churches and the events that occur on weekdays and weekends. That manual indicates that 9.1 I trips are generated for each 1,000 square feet. The numbers are not based solely on parishioners. It includes anyone who might visit the church including delivery persons, postal employees, sales people, garbage services, and general visitors. It was noted that workers can generate up to four (4) trips each. The Manual's results arc based on 20 years of study throughout the United States. The numbers are based on the addition to the church and not the existing complex. The numbers are also based on the fact that expansions are generally done to accommodate additional attendees. In addition, the City cannot asses fees after the fact. The City noted that an applicant could submit data showing unique factors that would be taken into account. No studies were provided. 13. There was little discussion of the Fire Mitigation Fee. The City indicated that the fees were adopted by resolution (as was the Transportation Mitigation Fee), which were incorporated by reference into the Renton Municipal Code. CONCLUSIONS: I. The decision of the governmental agency acting as the responsible official is entitled to substantial weight. Therefore, the determination of the Environmental Review Committee (ERC), the city's responsible official, is entitled to be maintained unless the appellant clearly demonstrates that the determination was in error. 2. The Determination of Non-Significance in this case is entitled to substantial weight and will not be reversed or modified unless it can be found that the decision is "clearly erroneous." (Hayden v. Port Townsend, 93 Wn 2nd 870, 880; 1980). The court in citing Norway Hill Preservation and Protection Association v. King County Council, 87 Wn 2d 267,274; 1976, stated: "A finding is 'clearly erroneous' when although there is evidence to supp011 it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed." Therefore, the determination of the ERC including conditions it found necessary to mitigate the impacts of the development on City services and facilities will not be modified or reversed if it can meet the above test. For reasons enumerated below, the decision of the ERC is affirmed. 3. The clearly erroneous test has generally been applied when an action results in a DNS since the test is less demanding on the appellant. The reason is that SEPA requires a thorough examination of the Living Hope Church Expans . File No.: LUA-06-157, CU-H, SA-H, ECF April 3, 2007 Page 8 environmental consequences of an action. The courts have, therefore, made it easier to reverse a DNS. A second test, the "arbitrary and capricious" test is generally applied when a determination of significance (DS) is issued. In this second test an appellant would have to show that the decision clearly flies in the face ofreason since a DS is more protective of the environment since it results in the preparation of a full disclosure document, an Environmental Impact Statement. 4. An action is determined to have a significant adverse impact on the quality of the environment if more than a moderate impact on the quality of the environment is a reasonable probability. (Norway, at 278). Since the Court spoke in Norway, WAC 197-11-794 has been adopted, it defines "significant" as follows: Significant. (I) "Significant" as used in SEPA means a reasonable likelihood of more than a moderate adverse impact on environmental quality. (2) Significance involves context and intensity ... Intensity depends on the magnitude and duration of an impact.. .. The severity of the impact should be weighed along with the likelihood of its occurrence. An impact may be significant if its chance of occurrence is not great, but the resulting environmental impact would be severe if it occurred. 5. Also redefined since the Norway decision was the term "probable." Probable. "Probable" means likely or reasonably likely to occur, ... Probable is used to distinguish likely impacts from those that merely have a possibility of occurring, but are remote or speculative. (WAC 197-11-782). 6. Impacts also include reasonably related and foreseeable direct and indirect impacts including short-term and long-term effects. (WAC I 97-l l-060(4)(c)). Impacts include those effects resulting from growth caused by a proposal, as well as the likelihood that the present proposal will serve as precedent for future actions. (WAC 197-l l-060(4)(d)). In the current case, the church has proposed an expansion that will double its size. It will provide a larger sanctuary sitting more people and will provide a social hall in the old sanctuary. There are definitely possible long-term effects from this expanded facility on both City roads and on Fire Services. 7. The appellant confuses the parking space requirements complement proposed, approximately 73, to the number of vehicle trips projected, approximately I 08. Parking stalls are predicated on the presumed maximum number of cars that might be at the complex at any one time. The seating in the sanctuary, along with ancillary services on the site dictates the parking complement for any proposed use. Vehicles trips are based on the number of trips a particular use might generate over the course of a day - that is errands, deliveries, postal visits, sales people, employee comings and goings which includes coming to work, leaving work, running personal errands, going to lunch. Vehicle trips may be related to the parking component but also includes these other trip generation factors. 8. While the church membership may now predominantly live south of the church that does not confine other visitors. Trips such as errands, employee trips, deliveries are not necessarily governed by where the church's membership may be living at this time. Residence can be a fluid factor as can be membership numbers. The reason for the current land use review, in part, is because the church proposes doubling the size of its current facility and enlarging its sanctuary. It is not hard to imagine that the church anticipated growing its membership and with increased membership there will probably be increased traffic. In addition, the appellant did not submit any traffic reports showing the distribution Living Hope Church Expansion File No.: LUA-06-157, CU-H, SA-H, ECF April 3, 2007 Page 9 of trips. The only information in the record is merely testimony that members generally live outside of the City. Presumably the church is expand,ng to accommodate new members and does not restrict its membership based on residency. Similarly, deliveries, garbage pickup and emergency services are not confined to county roads and City streets may be used for access to the site. 9. The City has adopted a Fire Mitigation Fee based on the square footage of non-residential facilities. The applicant proposes increasing the size of its facilities. This would increase the demand for both fire fighting and emergency medical response. l 0. The reviewing body should not substitute its Judgment for that of the original body with expertise in the matter, unless the reviewing body has the firm conviction that a mistake has been made. This office was not left with a firm conviction that the ERC made a mistake. No traffic report was submitted and reliance on an accepted, nationally recognized manual appears reasonable. The applicant did not prO\~de any evidence that while members may currently reside south and outside of the City, that they will not be using City Streets, including the one that provides access directly to the site. There was no evidence that the other trips generated by the church would not be using City roads. There was no evidence that the Fire Mitigation Fee was not based on anticipated impacts to the Fire Department. 11. The appealing party has a burden that was not met in the instant case. The decision of the ERC must be affirmed. DECISION: The decision of the ERC is affirmed. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT: FINDINGS: 1. The applicant, Durwood Smith for Living Hope Christian Fellowship, filed a request for a Site Plan and Conditional Use Permit. 2. The yellow file containing the staff rep011, the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) documentation and other pertinent materials was entered mto the record as Exhibit #1. 3. The Environmental Review Committee (ERC), the City's responsible official issued a Determination of Non-Significance -Mitigated (DNS-M). The applicant filed an appeal of two conditions imposed by the ERC. That hearing was consolidated with the hearing for these two permits. The decision of the ERC was affirmed in a separate decision by the Hearing Examiner. 4. The subject proposal was reviewed by all departments with an interest in the matter. 5. The subject site is located at 2201 Edmonds Avenue Southeast. The church is located on the northwest comer of the intersection of Edmonds Avenue and SE 161 Street (King County designation) The church is located just inside the City's bounda1y and ,s su1Tounded by unincorporated King County on the east and south. 6. The map element of the Comprehensive Plan designates the area in which the subject site is located as suitable for the development of single-family uses. but does not mandate such development without Living Hope Church Expans1 . File No.: LUA-06-157, CU-H, SA-H, ECF April 3, 2007 Page 10 consideration of other policies of the Plan. Churches are permitted in areas designated for single-family uses subject to some limitations. 7. The subject site is currently zoned R-8 (Single Family -8 dwelling units/acre). 8. The subject site was annexed to the City with the adoption of Ordinance 1871 enacted in March 1961. 9. The subject site is a rectangular parcel approximately 4.41 acres or 192,313 square feet. The parcel is 620 feet deep (east to west) by 300 feet wide. I 0. The site is relatively level dropping slightly in the northeast comer. J l. There are no sensitive areas on the site. The site is mostly wooded in its western half with the church located in a cleared area on the eastern half of the subject site. 12. A gas utility line runs along the north boundary of the site and separates the church from single-family homes located to its north. 13. The Living Hope Church has proposed to expand its church with a two-story, 11,865 square foot addition to its existing church. 14. The expansion would add a new sanctuary, meeting rooms, multipurpose room and some accessory space. The new sanctuary would seat 327 parishioners. The existing chapel seats 265 people. 15. There have been a number of prior expansions to the existing church that added classrooms to the facility. 16. The addition will be along the current north facade. There will be a mezzanine addition on the upper, partial second story. 17, Other spaces in the church will be renovated and additional parking will be developed for 28 stalls. Staff has noted that the proposed space, including the new sanctuary would only require 12 additional parking spaces. An access roadway will provide emergency circulation to the western end of the complex. This will require the removal of approximately 16 larger trees. 18. Another church is located immediately south of the subject site. Cascade Elementary School is located east of the subject site across Edmonds. CONCLUSIONS: Conditional Use Permit I. The applicant for a Conditional Use Permit must demonstrate that the use is in the public interest, will not impair the health, safety or welfare of the general public and is in compliance with the criteria found in Section 4-31-36 (C), which provides in part that: a. The proposal generally conforms with the Comprehensive Plan; b. There is a general community need for the proposed use at the proposed location; Living Hope Church Expansion File No.: LUA-06-157, CU-H, SA-H, ECF April 3, 2007 Page 11 c. There will be no undue impacts on adjacent property; d. The proposed use is compatible in scale with the adjacent residential uses, if any; e. Parking, unless otherwise permitted, will not occur in the required yards; f. Traffic and pedestrian circulation will be safe and adequate for the proposed project; g. Noise, light and glare will not cause an adverse affect on neighboring property; h. Landscaping shall be sufficient to buffer the use from rights-of-way and neighboring property where appropriate; and 1. Adequate public services are avatlahle to serve the proposal. The requested conditional use appears justified. 2. Churches are permitted in areas designated by the comprehensive plan for single family uses. 3. The R-8 Zone permits churches subject to conditional use permit review and site plan review. Compliance with the Building Code will he determined when an application is submitted. 4. This office generally does make a determination of whether there is community need for a church or denomination to locate in an area. There arc other criteria to decide whether the church is compatible with the community. 5. The church is on a large lot. There have been no complaints by neighbors. Other larger facilities including another church and a public school are across from the subject site to the east and south. The expansion would be reasonably setback on all sides from adjacent development including a utility corridor separating it from single-family uses to its north. 6. The two-story addition is still relatively low scale and should not adversely affect adjacent uses. 7. The larger lot has ample room for the proposed expansion and expanded parking area. 8. The parking lot will gain access where it had m the past. The applicant will be paying a mitigation fee to offset its impacts on the neighboring roads. 9. Construction noise will probably be the most intrnsive aspect of the church and its expansion and that should be short-lived. 10. The site will retain its landscaping in the main. Trees in the large forested area will for the most part be maintained although some will be removed to allow for emergency fire access to the rear or western portion of the complex. All landscaping will have to comply with code. 11. The site will have access to sewer, water and storm systems surrounding the site. It will have to obtain all necessary permits. Living Hope Church Expans1 File No.: LUA-06-157, CU-H, SA-H, ECF April 3, 2007 Page 12 Site Plan 12. The site plan ordinance provides a number of specific criteria for reviewing a site plan. Those criteria are generally represented in part by the following enumeration: a. Conformance with the Comprehensive Plan; b. Conformance with the Building and Zoning Codes; c. Mitigation of impacts on surrounding properties and uses; d. Mitigation of the impacts of the proposal on the subject site itself; e. Conservation of property values; f. Provision for safe and efficient vehicle and pedestrian circulation; g. Provision of adequate light and air; h. Adequacy of public services to accommodate the proposed use; The proposed use satisfies these and other particulars of the ordinance. 13. Many of the Site Plan criteria mirror those reviewed for the Conditional Use Permit. The proposal is compatible with the comprehensive plan and meets or will meet the standards of the Zoning and Building Code. 14. The use will be setback from adjacent uses and will not move closer to the street. There is adequate separation on the north due to the utility corridor in that location. 15. The proposed expansion is modest, up to a partial two-story addition that should not appear out of scale with surrounding single-family uses or the school and neighboring church. 16. The redevelopment of the site and the expansion will not adversely affect property values. Again, construction noise is anticipated but other noise and light and glare should not affect the site or neighboring site. 17. The applicant will be extending a roadway to provide emergency fire protection to the rear of the church and the parking lot and access are standard. 18. It is anticipated that existing utilities can serve the subject site and the proposed expansion. 19. In conclusion, the proposed expansion appears to be a reasonable addition to the Church and community but no enlargements of existing facilities occur without some impacts to the community including impacts that require environmental mitigation. DECISION: The Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan are approved subject to the following conditions: Living Hope Church Expansion File No.: LUA-06-157, CU-H, SA-H, ECF April 3, 2007 Page 13 I. The applicant shall comply with all requirements of the Determination of Non-Significance -Mitigated that was issued by the Environmental Review Committee on January 3, 2007. 2. A landscape plan shall be submitted, meeting the standards ofRMC 4-4-070, "Landscaping." Submittal ofa final landscape plan shall be required prior to issuance of building permit. ORDERED THIS 3'" day of April 2007. TRANSMITTED THIS 3'" day of April 2007 to the parties of record: Elizabeth Higgins 1055 S Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Kayren Kittrick Development Services Renton, WA 98055 Bill Webster 16306 l 20'h Avenue SE Renton, WA Living Hope Christian Fellowship 220 I Edmonds Avenue SE Renton, WA 98058 Mark Barber Assistant City Attorney City of Renton Rev. Doug Mullins Living Hope Christian Church 220 I Edmonds Ave SE Renton, WA 98058 TRANSMITTED THIS 3"' day of April 2007 to the following: Mayor Kathy Keolker Larry Rude, Fire Durwood Smith West Coast Church Designers 3522 S 198th Street Seatac, WA 98188 Chuck Morris 22235 Sweeney Road SE Maple Valley, WA 98038 Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer Julia Medzegian, Council Liaison Gregg Zimmerman, PBPW Administrator Alex Pietsch, Economic Development Jennifer Henning, Development Services Stacy Tucker, Development Services King County Journal Larry Meckling, Building Official Planning Commission Transportation Division Ctilities Division Neil Watts, Development Services Janet Conklin, Development Services Pursuant to Title N, Chapter 8, Section IOOGof the City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m., April 17, 2007. Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the Examiner is ambiguous or based on erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact, error in judgment, or the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing may make a written request for a review by the Examiner within fom1een ( 14) days from the date of the Examiner's decision. This request shall set forth the specific ambiguities or errors discovered by such appellant, and the Examiner may, after review of the record, take further action as he deems proper. Living Hope Church Expan" File No.: LUA-06-157, CU-H, SA-H, ECF April 3, 2007 Page 14 An appeal to the City Council is governed by Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 110, which requires that such appeal be filed with the City Clerk, accompanying a filing fee of$75.00 and meeting other specified requirements. Copies of this ordinance are available for inspection or purchase in the Finance Department, first floor of City Hall. An appeal mnst be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m., April 17, 2007. If the Examiner's Recommendation or Decision contains the requirement for Restrictive Covenants, the executed Covenants will be required prior to approval by City Council or final processing of the file. You may contact this office for information on formatting covenants. The Appearance of Fairness Doctrine provides that no ex parte (private one-on-one) communications may occur concerning pending land use decisions. This means that parties to a land use decision may not communicate in private with any decision-maker concerning the proposal. Decision-makers in the land use process include both the Hearing Examiner and members of the City Council. All communications concerning the proposal must be made in public. This public communication permits all interested parties to know the contents of the communication and would allow them to openly rebut the evidence. Any violation of this doctrine would result in the invalidation of the request by the Court. The Doctrine applies not only to the initial public hearing but to all Requests for Reconsideration as well as Appeals to the City Council. Project Location: 2201 S. 198th St., Renton, WA. 98188 S 18th RM-F u et Dr. RM-F . , C. ·SE 16 .... ~ .. -····· . IR-8 N \ RM-F 1·-·----· \ ( I i tt I I I: 11 Ii