HomeMy WebLinkAboutKriner letter - Talbot Hill �
Denis Law Mayor
�
City Clerk-Jason A.Seth,CMC
March 2, 2017
Kerry Kriner
Puget Sound Energy
P.O. Box 97034 M/S PSE -09N
Bellevue, WA 98009
Subject: Hearing Examiner's Final Decision
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
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
g BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON
9
10 Talbot Hill Substation Improvements
11 Conditional Use Permit FINAL DECISION
12 LUA16-000922, ECF, SA-H, CUP-H
13
14
Summary
15
Puget Sound Energy is requesting conditional use permit and site plan review approval to rebuild a
16 portion of the Talbot Hill Substation. The applicant seeks to demolish an existing 999sf building and
17 replace it with a new 1,449sf building. The applicant will also remove substation equipment and
create a new storm drainage system. The conditional use permit is approved with conditions.
18
19 Testimo�y
20 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.
21 In response to the examiner, Ms. Weihs stated the substation was in excess of 460 feet from the
22 nearest residences and that the existing and proposed planting areas will serve as a buffer.
23 Brianne Bannwarth, Development Engineering Manager, stated the project must meet the King
County Stormwater Manual. In response to the examiner, Ms. Bannwarth stated all the potential
24 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
25 the City to set up a call number for construction related concerns.
26
CONDITIONAL USE
1
1
Kerry Kriner, Planner for PSE, stated the staff report is incorrect in describing the building
2 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
3 exempt from the IBC 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.
4
5 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.
g Ms. Kriner stated PSE objects to the City's $200,000 frontage improvement requirement and will be
9 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
10 applicant's improvements triggered the frontage improvements.
11 Exhibits
12
The February 14, 2107 Staff Report Exhibits ]-16 identified at part B of the Staff Report itself were
13 admitted into the record during the hearing. In addition, the following exhibits were admitted during
the hearing.
14
15 Exhibit 17 Staff PowerPoint
Exhibit 18 COR Maps
16 Exhibit l9 Google Maps
Exhibit 20 Landscape Narrative (December 13, 2106)
17
1 g FINDINGS OF FACT
19 Procedural:
20 l. Applicant. Puget Sound Energy.
21
2. Hearin�. The Examiner held a hearing on the subject application on February 14, 2017 at 11:00
22 am in the City of Renton Council Chambers.
23
Substantive:
24
3. Proiect Descrintion. Puget Sound Energy is requesting hearing examiner conditional use permit
25 approval and site plan approval to perform improvements at the existing Talbot Hill Substation
26 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
1
Hill Substation in order to replace aging equipment. The existing 999sf oil storage building� will be
2 demolished and replaced with a 1,440sf building. The existing 230kV substation equipment will be
removed, including steel structures and foundations. No additional transmission lines are proposed
3 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
4 involve excavation of more than 500 cubic yards of soil. The substation footprint will remain
5 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.
7
g 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
9 of the electrical equipment which is proposed for April 2018 to October 2018.
10 The project site contains moderate coalmine hazards, moderate landslide hazards, and sensitive
slopes.
11
12 The site is zoned Residential R-8 and the Comprehensive Plan designation is Residential Medium
Density (RMD).
13
The site is surrounded by single family uses in the R-8 zone on the north, east and south. To the west
14 are single-family and multi-family dwellings in the R-8 and RMF zones.
15 4. Adeauacv of Infrastructure/Public Services. The project will be served by adequate
16 infrastructure and public services as follows:
1� A. Water and Sewer Service. Neither water nor sewer service is proposed or required for the
redevelopment project.
18
19 B. Fire and Police.Police and Fire Prevention Staff indicate that sufficient resources exist to furnish
services to the proposed development.
20
21 C. Draina�e. 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
22 catch basins within the fence line. The rims of the catch basins are currently at an elevation
23 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
24 northeast sides of the substation prevent stormwater from draining away from the substation,
25 which tends to pond within the substation footprint. Runoff along the southern edge of the
26 ' The staffreport refers to the structure as a control house,however,the applicant at hearing corrected the description.
CONDITIONAL USE
3
1 substation flows into a culvert located beneath the access road which ultimately flows east
2 tawards Grant Avenue South.
3 The applicant's Preliminary Draina�e Pian and Technical Information Report (TIR) (Ex. 7)
4 demonstrates campliance with the 2009 Kin� County Surface Water Design Manual and the
201Q City of Renton Amendrnents thereto. A new storrn drainage system is proposed within the
5 fenced area. A detention pand will be installed south of the southerly substatian fence and will
6 involve excavation of mare than SQO cubic yards of soil. Drainage improvements include a new
stormwater canveyance network inside the substation which would route fEaws ta a 7S,Q04-cubic
� foat stormwater detention pond located aiang the sautheastern edge of the substation. The pond
g will discharge to a depressian an the southern side of the existing access road,where flow wauld
resume the existing drainage path towards Grand Avenue Sauth. The appiicant is exempt from
� water quality rec�uirements.
10
D. Parks/Open Space. City development standards do nat require any set-asides or mitigation for
11 parks and open space for the propased use.
12
E. Transportation. The site is bordered by Beacon Way South to the narkheast. Beacon Way South
13 is classified as a Residential Access IZoad and is located within the City af Seattle Cedar River
lq Pipetine Easement. Access to the site is provided via an existing access driveway extending to
Puget Drive Sautheast. Puget Drive Southeast is classified as a Minor Arterial street. The
15 �xisting right of way for Puget Drive Southeast is approximately l 00 feet wide and contains no
1� frontage improvements. RMC 4-6-Q60 requires half street improvements including 0.5-foot
curb, an eight-foot planting strip, an eight-foot sidewalk, street trees and storm drainage
1� improvements.A candition of approval requires installation of half street improvements to code.
1� Thaugh the applicant indicated they will request a modification of the street frantage
improvements pursuant to RMC 4-9-250.C.S.d, the applicant has not yet submitted such a
t9 request.No transpartation impact fees are applicable to this project.
Za
F. Parkin�. Adequate parking exists on site to service the substation. No changes to the existing
�� parking or driveway access are proposed.
22
5. Adverse Imaacts. As conditioned, there are no significant adverse impacts associated with the
23 project. 5pecific issues related to impacts are discussed below.
24 A. Tree Retention, As conditioned,the praposal will satisfy tree retention and landscape screening
2S requirements. The applicant subrnitted an arbarist report and landscape narrative (Ex. 8 and 20)
and a Stormwater Pond Tree Removal and Landscaping Plan (Ex. 4). A total of l 16 significant
26 trees are presently on site. The canstructian of the starmwater pand will remove a total of 69
trees.An additianal 11 trees are proposed for removal to the west of the entrance driveway along
CONDITIONAL USE
4
1
the south side of the substation. Therefore, a total of 80 trees are proposed for removal. A total
2 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
3 City's tree retention requirements.
4 The applicant has argued the 11 Douglas Firs located near the entrance drive pose a wind throw
5 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
8 further require suggested locations and species of supplemental trees to replace the existing
Douglas firs.
9
B. Landscapin�. As conditioned, no impacts from the proposed landscaping plan are anticipated.
10 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
11 properties. The proposed new stormwater detention pond will be located along the southeaster
12 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
13 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
14 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
15 locations and will contain a mix of trees and large shrubs. The existing vegetation provides
16 screening when viewed from the southeast and southwest of the site. However, as noted above
in FOF SA,the applicant proposes the removal of 11 trees south of the substation and to the west
1� 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,
18 a condition of approval will require the applicant to submit a revised tree replacement/visual
barrier plan for this area.
19
20 C. Geolosicallv 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
21 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
22 will be 5.89 acres. The net cudfill 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
23 the stab�lity of the slopes in or around the site and coalmine hazards are minimaL In the absence
24 of any contrary evidence,the examiner takes the geotechnical engineer's conclusions as verity.
25 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
26 native and planted landscaping. No adverse effects are anticipated for surrounding properties.
CONDITIONAL USE
5
� E. Traffic. The Talbot Hill substation property is accessed via an existing access driveway
2 extending from Puget Drive SE. The applicant is propasing improvements to the existing access
driveway including repaving with asphalt,widening the appraach apran,and a security gate.The
3 project will not generate a significant number of vehicles trips either during construction or
operation.No traff'tc impacts to the sarrounding area are anticipated.
4
$ F. Noise, Li�ht and Glare. The reconstructed building will have minimal lighting to pravide for
safe egress. The lighting will be directed do�vnward.Na glare or light are expected to be visible
�, from neighboring properties. The substation is over 460 feet fram the nearest residential lot,No
noise impacts to surrounding areas are anticipated.
7
8
Canclusions of Law
9
1� 1. Authoritv. Large utilities are allowed in the R-8 district as a conditional use subject to Hearing
1 1 �xaminer review(RMC 4-2-Ob0(O}).RMC 4-8-080(G)classifies conditional use applicatians as Type
III permits when Hearing Examiner review is required. Site plan review is not required in the R-8
12 zone, except optianally when site plan review tnay be used as a rneans to propose modi#icatians to
13 development standards for developments otherwise exempt from site plan review (RMC 4-9-
2Q0(B)(2)(b)). Pursuant to RMC 4-4-1Q(�")(8), site plan review is required for the praposal in order
14 to deviate from storm drainage facility landscaping standards. In the absence of the conditional use
1$ permit application, na Hearing Examiner review would be required for the site plan and it would be
classifted as a Type II permit by RMC 4-8-080(G). Both of the aforementioned permits have been
1� consolidated. RMC 4-&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 bath
permits must be processed as Type III applications, As Type III applications,RMC 4-8-080(G)grants
i� the Examiner with the authority to hold a hearing and issue a final decision on them, subject to closed
19 recard appeal to the City Council.
20 2. Zonin�/Comorehensive Plan Desi�nations. The subject property is zoned R-8, a single family
residential zone. The comprehensive plan land use designation is Residential Mediurn Density.
21
3. Review Criteria. ConditionaI use criteria are gaverned by RMC 4-9-030(C}. Site plan review
22 criteria are governed by RMC 4-9-20Q(E). All applicable criteria are quoted below in italics and
23 applied through corresponding conclusions of law.
24 Conditianal Use
�5 The Administrator or designee or the Hearing Examiner shall consider, as applicable, the following
2� factors for all applications:
CONDITIONAL USE
6
1
RMC 4-9-030(C)(1): Consistency with Plans and Regulations: The proposed use shall be
2 compatible with the general goals, objectives,policies and standards of the Comprehensive Plan, the
3 zoning regzilations and any other plans,programs, maps or ordinances of the City of Renton.
4 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
5 all applicable zoning and other development standards as outlined in Finding 17 of the Staff report,
adopted and incorparated by this reference as if set forth in full.
6
� 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
8 proposed zrse. The proposed location shall be saiited for the proposed use.
9 5. The substation is an existing utility facility on a large lot. The proposed location of the
10 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
11 footprint will remain unchanged and, as conditioned, the improvements will be fully screened from
12 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
13 is met.
14 RMC 4-9-030(C)(3): Effect on Adjacent Properties: The proposed use at the proposed location
15 shall not result in substantial or undue adverse effects on adjacent property.
16 6. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5 and as conditioned, there are no adverse impacts
1� associated with the proposal, so it will not result in substantial or undue adverse effects on adjacent
property.
18
RMC 4-9-030(C)(4): Compatibility: The proposed use shall be compatible with the scale and
19 character of the neighborhood.
20 7. The proposal is an expansion of an existing building within an existing utility use. The footprint
21 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
22 dimensional regulations and will provide landscaping on the site that will buffer the residential uses
on all sides. This criterion is satisfied.
23
24 RMC 4-9-030(C)(5): Parking:Adequate parking is, or will be made, available.
25 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.
26
CONDITIONAL USE
7
1
RMC 4-9-030(C)(6): Traffic: The use shall ensure safe movement for vehicles and pedestrians and
2 shall mitigate potential effects on the surrozinding area.
3 9. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5, the project will not have a significant impact on the
4 general traffic in the vicinity and,as conditioned,provides for adequate and safe pedestrian circulation.
The criterion is met.
5
6 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.
7
10. As stated in FOF SF, no impacts from noise, light or glare are anticipated. This criterion is
g satisfted.
9 RMC 4-9-030 C 8 : Lanclsca in Landsca in shczll be rovided in all areas not occu ied b
� )� ) P g� P g P p Y
10 buildings, paving, or critical areas. Additional landscaping may be required to bz ffer adjacent
properties from potentially adverse effects of the proposed use.
11
12 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
13 residential areas. The reconstructed building and stormwater pond will be fully screened. As
14 conditioned, this criterion is met.
15 Site Plan
16 RMC 4-9-200(E)(3): Criteria: The Administrator or designee must ftnd a proposed project to be in
corrtpliance with the following:
17
1 g a. Compliance and Consistency: Conformance with plans, policies, regxclations and approvals,
including:
19
i. Comprehensive P[an: The Comprehensive Plan, its elements, goals, objectives, and policies,
2� especially those of the applicable land use designation; the Commzinity Design Element; and any
21 applicable adopted Neighborhood Plan;
22 ii. Applicable land use regulations;
23 iii. Relevant Planned Action Ordinance and Development Agreements; and
24 iu Design Regulations:Intent and guidelines of the design regulations located in RMC 4-3-100.
25 12. As discussed in Conclusion of Law No. 4, as conditioned, the proposal is consistent with the
26 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.21(d)of the Staff Report. The Staff
CONDITIONAL USE
8
1 Repart Findings af Fact and Conclusions of Law are adopted and incorparated by reference as if set
� forth in futl.
3 RMC 4-9-200(E}(3)(b): Off-Site Impacts: Mitigation of�impacts to surro2anding propertie.s and
4 z�ses, zncludrng:
g r. Structures:Restriciing over.scale strz�ctures and overcancentration of development on a particular
�aortion of the site;
6
7 ii. Circulatian: Providing desirable transitions and linkages hetween uses, streets, walkways and
adjacent properties;
8
iii. Laading and Storage Areas: Locating, designing and screening storage crreas, utilitzes, rooftop
9 eqicipmerrt, laading areas, and refirsc�a�td recycicrbles to minimize views fi•om surrozrrzding�roperties,-
10
iv. Views: Recognizing the public benefzt crnd desirabiliry of maintaining viszral accessibilrty to
I 1 attractive natural features;
12 v. Lahdscaping: Uszng Iandscaping to provide transrtiUns between develaprnent crnd surroundirrg
13 Properties to reduce noise and glare, maintarn privacy, and generally enhance the appearance uf the
project; and
14
vi. Lightrng: Designzng and/or placing exterior lighting and glcrzing in order to avoid exce,ssive
I� hrightness ar glare to adjacent properties and streets.
�� 13, The substation facility is necessarily cancentrated on one portian af the site; however the scale
1� and bulk of the building is cornpatible with the low rise residential structures that surround the site.
As determined in Finding of Fact Na. 5, no lighting or view impacts are anticipated and landscaping
1$ is effectively used to protect adjaining praperties from noise and glare and ta maintain privacy and
enhance the appearance of the project. This criterion is satisfied.
19
20 RMC 4-9-2d0(E}(3)(e}: On-Site Iyrrpaets:Mitigatian of impacts to the site, including:
21 i. Structure Placement: Provisions for privacy and nnise reduction by building placement, ,spacing
and orientation;
22
2� ii. Structure Scate: C'vnsideration of the scale of proposed structures zn relatian to natural
chcrracteristics, views crnd vista,s, site amenities, sunlight, prevailzng wind.s, and pedestrzan and
24 vehicle needs;
2� iii. Natural Featurest Protection of'the natural landscape by retaining existing vegetation and soils,
26 usrng topography to reduce undue cuttzng and filling, arrd lzmiting impervious surfaces; and
CONDITIONAL USE
9
1
iu Landscaping: Use of land.scaping to snftc�n the appearance of parkzng areas, to provide shade
2 and privucy where needed, to define and enhance open spaces, and generally to enhance the
3 appearance of the prnject. Landscaping also includes the design and prvtection of pla�ting areus so
that th�.�y are less susceptible to dczmage from vehicles or pedestrian movements.
4
l4. As determined in Finding af Fact No. 5, the site is large with 460 feet af native vegetation
5 between the substatian and the nearest residential area. As proposed and conditianed, native and
planted landscaping has been well designed to provide for privacy and noise reduction. There is
� nothin�in the record to reasonably suggest that the scale, spacing and orientation of the praject could
� be modified to provide far more privacy and noise reduction without unreasonably interfering with
the abjectives of the facility. The scale of the facility wili not create any adverse impacts as discussed
g and is compatible with vehicle and pedestrian circulation as determined in Finding af Fact No. 5. In
addition, there is nothing in the record to reasonably suggest that the scale of the praject is
9 incompatible with sunlight, prevailing winds ar natural characteristics. The comments by Staff on
this criterion, at Finding No. 2I{fl, are adopted by this reference and incorparated as if set forth in
10 full.
1� RMC 4-9-244(E){3}(d): Aceess anrl Circutafion: Safe and efficient aeeess and circarlation far a�l
12 uset-s, ineCudrng.�
�� i.�ocution and C'onsolidation;�ravrding access points on sicle streets or frontage streets rather than
14 �'irectty onto arterial streets and consnlidation of ingress and egres.s points on the site and, when
feasihle, with adjacent properties;
15
ii. Internal Circulativn:Promating safety and efficiency of the znternal circulation system, including
�� the location, design and dimensiorrs of vehzcurar and pedestrian access points, drives, parking,
1� turnarourrds, walkways, bikeways, and emergency access ways;
I$ iii.Loadirtg ancl Delivery:Separating loading and delivery areas from perrkzrrg and pedestrian areas;
�`� iv. Transrt and Bicycles:Providing transit, carpools and bicycle facilities and access; and
20
u Pecl'estrians: Providing snfe and attractive pedestriarr connections between parking areas,
21 buildings,public szdewalks and adjacent properties.
22 15. The propasal provides for adequate access and circulation as required by the criterion abave for
2� the reasons identified in Finding of Fact No. 4(E}, 4(F}, and 5(E}.
24 RMC 4-9-200(E}(3)(e}: Open Space: Incarp�rating open spaces to serve as distinctive p�-oject
focal points and ta provide adequate areas far passive and active recreation by the accupantslusers
25 ��fthe site.
2� 1 b. No open space is required far this use
CONDITIONAL USE
10
1
2 RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(f): Views and Public Access: When possible, providing view corridors to
shorelines and Mt. Rainier, and incorporating pztblic access to shorelines.
3
4 17. There are no view corridors to shorelines or Mt. Rainier affected by the proposal.
5 RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(g): Natural Systems:Arranging project elements to protect existing natural
systems where applicable.
6
� 18. As determined in FOF 5(C),the natural systems at the site will not be adversely affected by the
proposal.
8
RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(h): Services and Infrastructure: Making available public services and
9 facilities to accommodate the proposed use.
10
19. The project is served by adequate services and facilities as determined in Finding of Fact No.
11 4.
12 RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(i): Phasing: Including a detailed sequencing plan with development phases
and estimated time frames,for phased projects.
13
14 20. The applicant has provided a detailed phasing plan as described in the staff report.This criterion
is satisfied.
15
16
DECISION
1� As conditioned below,the conditional use permit is approved.
1 g 1. The applicant shall comply with the mitigation measures issued as part of the Determination of
Non-Significance Mitigated, dated January 23, 2017.
19
2. If the 11 trees to the west of the access driveway are proposed for removal, the applicant shall
20 submit a revised tree replacement/visual barrier plan at the time of Construction Permit
21 application for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager.
22 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
23 provide further detailed explanation for why no reasonable alternative to tree removal is possible
24 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
25 specifications for replacement trees.
2( 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
� sidewalk)or shall acquire approval of a modification from the required frontage improvennents at
2 the time af Civil Construction Permit Review.
3 S. The City shall establish a call-in number for citizens to complain abaut naise or other canstruction
related issues.
4
S DATED this 28th day of February, 2017.
c� __ . . -
6 �uw,.�� �A�,�.�.�-�.
� �
Emily Terrell
g City of Rentan I Iearing Examiner
9
1 Q Appeal Right and Valuatian Notices
1� RMC 4-8-110(E}(9} provides that the finai decision of the Hearing Examiner is subject ta appeal to
the Rentan City Council. RMC 4-8-110(E}(9} requires appeals af the Hearing Examiner's decision
12 ta be filed within faurteen (14} calendar days from the date af the Hearing Examiner's decision. A
request for reconsideration to the hearing e examiner may alsa be ftled within this 14 day appeal
13 period as identified in RMC 4-8-1 l0(E)(8) and RMC 4-8-100(G){4}. A new fourteen (l4}day appeal
14 Period shall commence upon the issuance of the reconsideratian. Additional information regarding
the appeal process may be obtained from the City Clerk's Office, Renton City Ha11 —7th flaor, {425)
15 430-bS 10.
16 Affected property owners may request a change in valuatron for property tax purposes
notwithstanding any program af revaluation.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
CONDITIONAL USE
12