HomeMy WebLinkAboutSchroeder Decision Letter Denis Law Mayor
City Clerk-Jason A.Seth,CMC
March 29, 2019
Jamie Schroeder
CPH Consultants
11431 Willows Rd NE, 120
Redmond, WA 98052
Subject: Hearing Examiner's Final Decision—Upper Balch Pit Special Grade/Fill
Permit (LUA-18-000703)
Dear Mr. Schroeder:
Enclosed please find the Hearing Examiner's Final Decision dated March 27, 2019. Also,
this document is immediately available on our website:
• If you go to: Rentonwa.gov; "How do I"; Hearing Examiner(under Contact); "Land
Use Decisions". The Decisions are filed by year and then alphabetical order by
project name.
I can be reached at (425) 430-6510 or jseth@rentonwa.gov. Thank you.
Sincerely,
/ -:_ei'S
Jason A. Seth, CMC
City Clerk
cc: Hearing Examiner
Clark Close,Senior Planner
Jennifer Henning, Planning Director
Brianne Bannwarth, Development Engineering Manager
Craig Burnell, Building Official
Jennifer Cisneros, Planning Technician
Julia Medzegian, City Council Liaison
Parties of Record (7)
1055 South Grady Way, Renton,WA 98057 • (425)430-6510/Fax (425)430-6516 • rentonwa.gov
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON
9 )
RE:10 Upper Balch Pit ) FINAL DECISION
11 Special Grade/Fill Permit )
)
12 LUA l 8-000703, SP )
)
13 )
14
Summary
15
16 The Applicant has applied for a 10-year Special Fill and Grade Permit to import 230,000 cubic yards
of fill into an existing sand/gravel pit located at 301 Monroe Ave NE. The application is approved
17 subject to conditions.
18 There was a little disagreement amongst the parties over maintenance and repair bonding and/or other
19 mitigation that should apply to Jefferson Ave NE. If the Applicant elects to continue to use Jefferson
Ave NE as primary access to the project site, this decision requires the Applicant to either post a
20 repair/maintenance bond or acquire a special use permit prior to use.
21 Jefferson Ave NE is a private road owned by King County that has historically been used as the
22 primary truck access road to the project site. The City's recommended condition of approval requires
repair/maintenance bonding for use of road. King County requested that the Applicant be required to
23 apply for a special use permit. The City did not object to a special use permit in lieu of the bonding
requirement. As noted in Ex. 28 and 29, subsequent to the hearing the Applicant applied for a special
24 use permit with King County, reserving a prior objection to any condition requiring such an
application. In Ex. 29, King County asserts that the Applicant is free to withdraw the special use
25 permit application at any time such that use of Jefferson Ave. remains unresolved despite the filing of
26 the special use permit. However, given that Jefferson Ave. is owned by King County, it would appear
that as acknowledged by the King County representative during hearing, King County is free to
SPECIAL GRADE/FILL PERMIT - 1
1 condition use of its own road as it sees fit. This would presumably include the authority to prohibit
use of Jefferson Ave NE if the Applicant withdraws its special use permit application.
2
3 Given that the project involves up to 250 truck trips per day, it is reasonable to conclude that such
heavy truck traffic poses a threat of extraordinary damage to the primary access road to the site. For
4 this reason, the City has met its burden under nexus/proportionality requirements to impose its
recommended bonding requirement for use of Jefferson Ave NE. However, the evidence does not
5 establish the need for additional mitigation that could be attached through a special use permit,
6 especially given the fact that the City did not find it necessary to impose any additional mitigation for
use of its road, Monroe Ave, if the Applicant were to choose to use Monroe Ave instead of Jefferson
7 Ave NE as primary access for the project site. Further, it is questionable whether the decision making
assigned to the hearing examiner for this special use permit can be lawfully delegated to the decision
8 maker of the special use permit, especially since the special use permit is not required by Renton or
9 King County regulations. Finally, as noted previously, it appears that King County can require a
special use permit through its authority as owner of Jefferson Ave NE independently of any condition
10 imposed by this decision. For all these reasons, the Applicant is given the option of electing to either
post bonding for use of Jefferson Ave NE or to acquire a special use permit. Of course, nothing in the
11 condition should be construed as preventing King County from requiring a special use permit if
12 authorized to do so in the exercise of its authority as owner of Jefferson Ave NE.
13 Testimony
14
Clark Close, City of Renton Senior Planner, summarized the application. In response to examiner
15 questions, Mr. Close responded that all potential access routes to the project site would not entail any
proximity to residential areas. The transportation report required by the recommended conditions of
16 approval could be required at any time, most likely triggered by citizen complaints. The filling likely
17 would only take a couple years to complete. The application incorporates a consolidated
administrative request to modify a steep slope.
18
Nicole De Leon represented the Applicant. She noted that Ex. 19 is illustrative only and is not part of
19 the proposal. With respect to Jefferson Ave, the Applicant is using that as a point of access pursuant
20 to agreement with King County. The road is private and access by permission from King County.
The Applicant has historically used Jefferson Ave for access and is currently in negotiations with
21 King County to continue to do so, specifically working out pro rata cost shares for using the road.
Condition No. 2 in the staff report includes a bonding requirement for both Jefferson and Monroe
22 roads. The condition should be modified to only apply to Monroe since Jefferson is private. Bonding
23 for Monroe should only be required if the Applicant elects to use Monroe. Ms. De Leon submitted a
proposed revised condition regarding the bonding.
24
Leslie Drake, King County Road Services Division of King County Department of Local Services,
25 noted that King County Road Services Division has its Renton campus just to the south and west of
the project site. Jefferson is a private road that provides the access to the campus. King County is
26 concerned about the 250 daily truck trips that will be generated by the proposal and the impact it may
SPECIAL GRADE/FILL PERMIT - 2
I have on their operations. King County Roads Division would prefer that Monroe be used for primary
access. Historic use of Jefferson was established between King County's Solid Waste Division and
2 the Applicant. Solid Waste does not own Jefferson, which is a Roads Division asset. King County
3 Roads would like to see the Applicant obtain either an easement or a special use permit if it plans to
continue to use Jefferson. A special use permit would be optimal. It is what's utilized by any party
4 who wants to use a County property and would include provisions such as indemnification, insurance
and maintenance. In response to Examiner questions, Ms. Drake acknowledged that the County could
5 require the same measures through a use agreement.
6
In rebuttal, Mr. Close noted staff is in agreement with the Applicant's proposed revisions to
7 recommended bonding requirements and is also in favor of requiring a special use permit for use of
Jefferson. Vanessa Dolbee, Planning Manager, noted the City would like to see the pit filled as
8 quickly as possible. The City's preference is for use of Jefferson as opposed to Monroe. Jefferson
9 has historically proven to be free of complaints.
10 In rebuttal, Ms. De Leon noted that use of Jefferson is a private matter between King County and the
Applicant and a special use permit is not necessary for the conditions that King County needs.
11 Jefferson has been used to fill the pit since the 1980s and to the Applicant's knowledge there hasn't
12 been a single complaint about use of Jefferson. To the Applicant's knowledge King County has also
never had any complaints over the maintenance of Jefferson.
13
14 Exhibits
15 Exhibits 1-22 of the exhibits identified at Page 2 of the staff report were all admitted into the
record during the March 19, 2019 hearing. The following exhibits were also admitted during
16 the hearing:
17
Exhibit 23: Staff PowerPoint.
18 Exhibit 24: Google Aerial Maps of project site
Exhibit 25: City of Renton COR maps
19 Exhibit 26: Applicant revised bonding condition.
20 Exhibit 27: Two road use agreements for use of Jefferson Avenue.
Exhibit 28: 3/25/19 letter from Nancy Rogers to Hearing Examiner
21 Exhibit 29: 3/26/19 email from Leslie Drake to Clark Close
22
FINDINGS OF FACT
23
24 1. Applicant. Segale Properties LLC, Mike Pruett, P.O. Box 88028, Tukwila, WA 98138.
25 2. Hearing. A hearing on the application was held on March 19, 2019 in the Renton City
26 Council meeting chambers.
SPECIAL GRADE/FILL PERMIT - 3
1
2 Substantive:
3 3. Description of Proposal. The Applicant has applied for a 10-year Special Fill and Grade
Permit to import 230,000 cubic yards of fill into an existing sand/gravel pit located at 301 Monroe
4 Ae. NE. The total site area is 14.4 acres. The Upper Balch Pit has been used as an upland fill and
5 reclamation site since 1982. Prior to 1982, the site was used as a permitted sand and gravel pit
from 1962 to 1982. The subject property currently has a valid Special Fill and Grade permit
6 (LUA10-056) which allows the Upper Balch Pit to be filled to an elevation of 325 feet. The current
land use permit is set to expire on November 2, 2020. The project is proposing to continue filling
7 the pit to support an anticipated residential development where final grades would be at or near the
grades of the surrounding streets. Access to the site would continue through a gate located along
8 Jefferson Ave NE, although this decision gives some flexibility to use Monroe Ave if conditions
9 are met. The site contains 24 significant trees above 325 foot elevation. Existing trees below this
elevation would be removed as part of the existing fill and grade permit and 11 trees would be
10 retained above the proposed final grade. The pit is currently unusable and undeveloped and there
are no structures or improvements on the site other than a paved haul road and a perimeter-
11 screening fence.
12
4. Surrounding Use. The project site is surrounded by fully developed commercial and public
13 uses. To the south is a King County Road Division campus and a Renton Transfer Station. King
County Road Division facilities are also located to the west of the project site. To the east is a
14 cemetery and to the north are commercial uses, such as a McDonalds and Discount Tire store.
15 5. Adverse Impacts. As mitigated, there are no adverse impacts associated with the proposal.
16 Given that the permit is granted for a ten year period and that it is difficult to anticipate all impacts
that could change and occur over such a long period of time, this decision adopts the staff
17 recommendation for a condition requiring five year review to allow additional mitigation as
18 necessary. Current mitigation and impacts are separately addressed as follows:
19 A. Traffic. As mitigated and conditioned, the proposal will not create any significant traffic
impacts. A SEPA mitigation measure limits truck traffic to 250 trucks per day. In terms
20 of noise and congestion, this limitation appears to adequately minimize impacts. As
testified by staff, all potential truck access routes to the site would not involve any
21 proximity to residential use. Further, historic truck traffic to the site has not generated
22 any complaints even though the project site has been used as a fill site since 1982 and the
special use permit currently in effect authorizes a similar level of truck traffic, specifically
23 210 truck trips per day. Staff testified that although the Applicant has requested a ten
year permit, it is likely that the fill will be completed within two years.
24
25 The Applicant primarily enters and exits the site through a gate located along Jefferson
Ave NE, a private road owned by King County, to access the Upper Balch Pit. According
26 to the owner, the Applicant has a valid and active road maintenance agreement with King
SPECIAL GRADE/FILL PERMIT -4
1 County. The maintenance agreement contemplates improvement of the roadway at some
point in time and the Applicant and other users would contribute towards its improvement
2 based on their pro rata share of use. The Applicant anticipates to continue using Jefferson
3 Ave to finish filling of the pit. After the pit is filled, the Applicant does not anticipate
needing further access to the site via Jefferson Ave NE. However, it is possible that a
4 future developer of this site might want to use Jefferson Ave NE for temporary
construction access. This ingress and egress route via Jefferson Ave NE would allow
5 traffic to be controlled via the signal light at the intersection of Jefferson Ave and NE 3rd
6 St. An alternate route, via the creation of a new access point, could potentially be
constructed and used for ingress and egress from Monroe Ave NE. In this case, the signal
7 light at Monroe Ave NE and NE 4th St would control traffic (Exhibit 3). At this time
there are no entrances to the property off of Monroe Ave NE. A paved access road
8 leading from the fill bench to the central portion of the site is present along the southwest
9 corner of the parcel and a non-paved construction road leads to the central portion of the
site in the northwest corner of the parcel. Trucks are able to turnaround in the pit. The fill
10 bench is roughly 45 feet above the lowest site elevation and crews have placed fill
material over the entire base of the pit.
11
12 The hauling route on both Jefferson Ave NE and Monroe Ave NE is anticipated to result
in impacts to these public streets, so a condition of approval requires that a bond for road
13 maintenance be required at the City's sole discretion, as required under the previous two
land use permits for use of the project site. For the reasons and findings outlined in the
14 Summary section of this decision, adopted in full by this reference, the Applicant may
elect to acquire a special use permit in lieu of a bond if it uses Jefferson Ave NE as
15 primary access.
16
B. Water Quality. As conditioned and mitigated, the proposal will not create any
17 significant adverse impacts to water quality. The site is located within Zone 2 of the
Aquifer Protection Area. The quality of fill material is restricted by code to protect the
18 City's sole source aquifer. As indicated in the Environmental Staff Report (Exhibit 1), a
19 Fill Source Statement would be required by the City of Renton in order to screen for clean
material and inert waste. A Fill Source Statement must be certified by a Professional
20 Engineer or Geologist licensed in the State of Washington for more than 100 cubic yards
of imported fill to a project site located in Zone 2 of the Aquifer Protection Area. It is
21 required that a fill material be sampled at the fill source site and analyzed by a laboratory
22 to rule out contamination. The Applicant would be required to comply with existing City
codes and regulations as they pertain to fill material for the Aquifer Protection Zone. As a
23 SEPA mitigation measure, the Applicant would be required to provide a Fill Source
Statement free from tainted solid inert waste landfill materials or the property owner shall
24 be required to submit and comply with an Environmental Analysis, at the City's sole
25 discretion, to mitigate for adverse impacts caused to the groundwater and the aquifer
protection zone.
26
SPECIAL GRADE/FILL PERMIT- 5
1 There is an existing paved road located on-site that is used for access to the bottom of the
pit and to clean mud and debris from truck tires before entering onto City streets. Since
2 asphalt falls under the definition of Demolition Waste, it is not an allowed fill material
3 and must be removed from the pit. Under previous permits, LUA00-064 and LUA10-056,
the removal of this road was a condition of approval and that condition is required in this
4 decision as well.
5 C. Aesthetics, Noise, Dust. As conditioned, the proposal will not create any significant
6 aesthetic, noise or dust impacts. Historically, no complaints have been reported to the
City about these types of impacts for the current gravel pit operations. This is likely
7 attributable at least in part to the fact that no residential uses adjoin the project area.
Fencing, best management practices and the City's noise ordinance also help ensure that
8 the proposal will not create any significant adverse aesthetic, noise or dust impacts.
9 1. Aesthetics. There is an eight-foot tall fence around the perimeter of the project
10 site. The fence is a typical chain link fence with site-obscuring wood slats. City
staff has visited the site and the fence appears to be in fair to good condition. To
11 preserve this level of perimeter screening and safety, a condition of approval
12 requires that the Applicant maintain the existing chain link fence and wooden
slats along the perimeter of the site for the purpose of screening and safety. Any
13 broken or missing slats must be replaced and/or repaired to good condition for the
duration of the permit.
14 In the past, the Applicant investigated the possibility of providing landscaping
around the perimeter of the site. At that time, it was the conclusion of the City
15 staff that there was inadequate room between the wall of the pit and the road
16 improvements to provide an adequate landscape buffer. This condition still exists
today. Considering the surrounding uses, no additional screening or landscaping
17 beyond the existing fence and proposed saved trees is recommended.
The current condition of the site results in steep grades that fall steeply away
18 from the property lines. The existing perimeter fence provides for pedestrian
19 safety. Per the 2010 land use permit(LUA10-056) all gates were conditioned to be
locked at the end of each working day and on weekends when the site is not in use
20 of approval; the condition is also required by this decision.
Furthermore, as a part of the fill project the Applicant has proposed to remove
21 all the trees below elevation 325 MSL that have grown in the sand and gravel
22 barrow pit over the years. Pursuant to the Tree Retention Plan (Exhibit 11), 24
trees are located above the 325 foot elevation. These trees provide screening,
23 habitat, and some aesthetic value to a reclamation site. A SEPA mitigation
measure requires that all 24 significant trees above the 325 foot elevation shall
24 remain until such time as it is deemed necessary to remove the requested 13 trees
for fill purposes. Upon completing of the fill to grade permit the Applicant would
25 retain 11 of the 24 significant trees above the proposed final grade.
26
SPECIAL GRADE/FILL PERMIT - 6
1 2. Noise. The sand and gravel borrow pit, which is currently being filled in with
imported fill, is approximately fifty three feet (53') deep at the deepest portion of
2 the pit (Exhibit 8). Other areas of the pit would only require up to nine feet (9') of
3 imported fill to reach final grade. The deeper portions of the pit cannot be heard
from the surrounding area. However, over time the construction activity would
4 occur closer to the street elevation which would create more noise that may be
heard from the surrounding area. During construction, equipment operation would
5 temporarily increase noise levels in the vicinity. The Applicant will be required to
6 follow the maximum noise levels allowed during regular grading work to prevent
undue nuisance to the public. Per RMC 4-4-060.J.5, the maximum allowable
7 daytime sound pressure as measured in any residential zone shall not exceed the
allowed sound pressure levels at least ninety percent (90%) of the time between
8 the hours of seven o'clock(7:00) a.m. and eight o'clock(8:00) p.m.:
9 Maximum Grading Sound Levels Authorized by RMC 4-4-060(J)(5)
10
11 FREQUENCY BAND IN CYCLES/SECOND SOUND PRESSURE LEVEL IN DECIBELS
re.0.0002 Microbar
12 25—300 80
300—2,400 70
13 Above 2,400 60
14
15 The completed project, however, would reduce existing noise levels currently
associated with the filling and grading of the Upper Balch Pit.
16 3. Dust. The Applicant has indicated that as the pit is filled and operational actives
17 begin to occur at surface level, Best Management Practices (BMPs)would be used
so as to reduce dust and mud to a minimum (Exhibit 16). Any dust on the
18 roadway and/or fill surface area would be mitigated with water trucks or metered
fire hoses used to wet down the areas used by construction equipment. According
19 to the Applicant, dozing, digging, scraping and loading of excavated materials
20 would be done in a manner which reduces to the minimum level possible the
producing of dust and mud. In addition, a wheel-washing facility exists on-site
21 and would be utilized throughout the duration of the project and erosion control
would be required for any fill beyond the proposed elevation of 325 feet MSL.
22 Control of dust and mud would be in accordance with RMC 4-4-060.J.8, Control
of Dust and Mud and noise levels would be in accordance with RMC 4-4-060.J.5,
23 Maximum Noise Levels. Conditions of past fill and grade permits at the Upper
24 Balch Pit required a $3,000 street cleaning bond in the event the Applicant fails to
clean the streets of debris from the filling operations. This bonding requirement is
25 also imposed by this decision.
26 D. Drainage. The proposal doesn't create any significant drainage impacts. The Applicant
SPECIAL GRADE/FILL PERMIT - 7
1 submitted a Technical Information Report (TIR), prepared by CPH Consultants, dated
2 December 21, 2018 (Exhibit 12). Based on the City's flow control map, the site falls
within the Flow Control Duration Standard area matching Forested Site Conditions and is
3 within the Lower Cedar Drainage Basin. For the purposes of the Grade and Fill Permit,
no drainage review is required since the project proposes no new impervious surface and
4 all surface water currently drains into the bottom of the pit where it then infiltrates. No
runoff flows off-site. For the future residential development, the Applicant would be
5 required to demonstrate compliance with most current adopted surface water design
6 manual. As of the date of this Report, the most current manual is the 2017 Renton
Surface Water Design Manual (RSWDM).
7
8 Conclusions of Law
9
Procedural:
10
11 1. Authority of Hearing Examiner. RMC 4-9-080(F)(2) provides that the hearing examiner is
responsible for granting special permits for fill and grade and the permit is classified as a Type III
12 review by RMC 4-8-080(G). RMC 4-3-050.J.1.a.i authorizes City staff to approve steep slope
modifications to slopes created by previous resource recovery activities, which would be classified as
13 a Type II permit under RMC 4-8-080(G). Both of the aforementioned permits have been
14 consolidated. RMC 4-8-080(C)(2) requires consolidated permits to each be processed under "the
highest-number procedure." The special permit has the highest numbered review procedures, so both
15 permits must be processed as Type III applications. As Type III applications, RMC 4-8-080(G)
grants the Examiner with the authority to hold a hearing and issue a final decision on them, subject to
16 closed record appeal to the City Council.
17
Substantive:
18 2. Applicable Standards/Slope Modification Staff Findings and Conclusions Adopted. RMC 4-
19 9-080(F)(4) governs the criteria for special fill/grade permits. Pursuant to RMC 4-3-050(J)(1)(b)(ii),
the criteria for the requested slope modification is governed by RMC 4-9-250(D). The staff
20 findings and conclusions regarding application of slope modification criteria are detailed in Finding
No. 20 of the staff report, which are adopted in their entirety for the conclusion of this decision that
21 all applicable criteria are met. Applicable special fill and grade permitting criteria are quoted below
22 and applied via associated conclusions of law.
23 RMC 4-9-080(F)(4): ...To grant a special permit, the Hearing Examiner shall make a determination
that.. the proposed activity would not be unreasonably detrimental to the surrounding area. The
24 Hearing Examiner shall consider, but is not limited to, the following:
25 i. Size and location of the activity.
26 ii. Traffic volume and patterns.
SPECIAL GRADE/FILL PERMIT - 8
1 iii. Screening, landscaping,fencing and setbacks.
iv. Unsightliness, noise and dust.
2 v. Surface drainage.
3 vi. The length of time the application of an existing operation has to comply with nonsafety
provisions of this Title
4
3. Size and Location. The size and location of the requesting fill activity is highly suitable for
5 the proposal as the site does not adjoin any residential or other sensitive land uses, there are
6 no critical areas on-site except for an aquifer recharge area (which is adequately protected as
identified in Finding of Fact No. 5(B)), and the haul routes will not encroach into any
7 residential areas.
8 4. Traffic volume and patterns. The proposal is adequately mitigated and designed to avoid
9 creating any significant traffic impacts as determined in Finding of Fact No. 5(A).
10 5. Screening, landscaping, fencing and setbacks. The proposal provides for adequate screening,
landscaping, fencing and setbacks for the reasons identified in Finding of Fact No. 5(C)(1).
11
12 6. Unsightliness, noise and dust. The proposal will provide no significant unsightliness, noise
and dust impacts for the reasons identified in Finding of Fact No. 5(C).
13
7. Surface drainage. The proposal will not create any significant drainage impacts for the
14 reasons identified in Finding of Fact No. 5(D).
15 8. Length of time. The length of time of the proposal is adequately controlled by Condition No.
16 7, which requires five year review.
DECISION
17
18 As conditioned, the Special Grade and Fill application and steep slope modification request are
consistent with all applicable criteria for the reasons identified in the conclusions of law above and
19 are approved subject to the following conditions:
20 1. The Applicant shall comply with the mitigation measures issued as part of the
Determination of Non-Significance Mitigated, dated February 18, 2019.
21
2. A bond for road maintenance of Jefferson Ave NE or Monroe Ave NE, to cover the
22 proportionate share of maintenance or repairs the City finds are necessary as a result of
Segale Properties LLC's use of Jefferson Ave NE or Monroe Ave NE as a haul route for
23 fill operations at the Upper Balch Pit, may be required in the City's sole discretion. In
24 lieu of the bonding requirement if Segale uses Jefferson Ave NE, Segale can acquire
approval of a special use permit prior to use of the road.
25 3. At the time of annual grading license approval, the Applicant shall provide a renewable
26 cash bond, or other instrument acceptable to the City Attorney, in the amount of$3,000
SPECIAL GRADE/FILL PERMIT - 9
1 for the purpose of street cleaning in the event the Applicant fails to clean the streets of
2 debris from the filling operations.
4. The Applicant shall maintain the existing chain link fence and wooden slats along the
3 perimeter of the site for the purpose of screening and safety. Any broken or missing slats
4 must be replaced and/or repaired to good condition for the duration of the permit.
5. The Applicant shall ensure that all gates are locked at the end of each working day and on
5 weekends, when the site is not in use.
6 6. Prior to filling the area of paved on-site roadway, the asphalt road must be removed from
the site to an approved construction and demolition waste landfill. Documentation of
7 proper disposal shall be submitted to the Building Official within 30 days of removal.
8 7. The permit shall be valid for a maximum of 10-years; six (6) months prior to the five (5)
year anniversary, the Applicant shall ask the City to administratively review the permit
9 and existing circumstances. The City may administratively alter conditions as reasonably
10 necessary to respond to new impacts associated with the fill operation or to respond to
significant risks to public health, safety and welfare. Such conditions may include
11 limiting aspects of the permit including hours of operation, days of operation, or
otherwise curtail certain activities. The City shall not have any discretion or ability to
12 relax any conditions or lengthen the hours or days of operation. If the Applicant believes
13 such further limitations are improper they may appeal the administrative decision to the
Hearing Examiner or instead opt to apply for a new Special Permit.
14 8. The Applicant shall submit a modification request to allow regrading of any slope which
15 was created through previous mineral and natural resource recovery activities in order to
fill the sand and gravel borrow pit to street level. The modification request shall be
16 submitted and processed by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to November 2,
2020.
17 9. Night hauling shall be authorized as identified in Finding 19(b) of the staff report
18 provided that staff determines that the hauling is in conformance with the criteria
identified in Finding 19(b) and all other applicable City standards.
19
20 DATED this 27th day of March, 2019.
21
22
23 Phi A.Olbrechts
24 City of Renton Hearing Examiner
25
26
SPECIAL GRADE/FILL PERMIT - 10
Appeal Right and Valuation Notices
2
3 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
4 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
5 period.
6 Affected property owners may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes
7 notwithstanding any program of revaluation.
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
SPECIAL GRADE/FILL PERMIT - 11