HomeMy WebLinkAboutRenton Dental Arts Ltr �
Denis Law Mayor
�
City Clerk-Jason A.Seth,CMC
August 9, 2017
Mark Sandier
Benchmark Development Company
5020 1415t Ave SE
Bellevue, WA 98006
Subject: Hearing Examiner's Final Decision
RE: Renton Dental Arts—Site Plan, Parking&Street Modification
LUA-17-000289
Dear Mr. Sandler:
The City of Renton's Hearing Examiner has issued a Final Decision dated August 9, 2017.
These documents are immediately available:
• Electronically on line at the City of Renton website (www.rentonwa.gov), click on
"Site Index", then click on "Hearing Examiner's Decisions";
• To be viewed at the City Clerk's office on the 7th floor or Renton City Hall, 1055
South Grady Way, between 8 am and 4 pm. Ask for the project file by the above
project number; and
• For purchase at a copying charge of$0.15 per page. The estimated cost for the
Hearing Examiner pocuments is$1.65, plus a handling and postage cost (this cost
is subject to change if documents are added).
APPEAL DEADLINE: RMC 4-8-080 provides that the final decision of the Hearing Examiner
is subject to appeal to the Renton City Council. RMC 4-8-110(E)(14) requires appeals of
the Hearing Examiner's decision to be filed within fourteen (14) calendar days from the
date of the hearing examiner's decision. Appeals must be filed in writing together with
the required fee to the City Council, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA
98057. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the
City Clerk's Office, Renton City Hall - 7th Floor, (425) 430-6510.
1055 South Grady Way, Renton,WA 98057 • (425)430-6510/Fax (425)430-6516 • rentonwa.gov
100(G)(9). Reconsiderations must be filed in writing to the Hearing Examiner, City of
Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton,WA 98057. Additional information regarding the
reconsideration process may be obtained from the City Clerk's Office, Renton City Hall -
7th Floor, (425) 430-6510. A new fourteen (14) day appeaf period shall commence upon
the issuance of a reconsideration decision.
Feel free to contact me at (425) 430-6510 (or jseth rentonwa.�ov) with any questions
you may have on the appeal process.
Sincerely,
:��
Jason A. Seth, CMC
City Clerk
cc: Hearing Examiner
Jill Ding,Senior Planner
Jennifer Henning, Planning Director
Vanessa Dolbee,Current Planning Manager
Brianne Bannwarth, Development Engineering Manager
Craig Burnell, Building Official
Katie Buchl-Morales,Secretary, Planning Division
Julia Medzegian, City Council Liaison
Parties of Record(5)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
g BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON
9 �
10 �� Renton Dental Arts )
) FINAL DECISION
11 Site Plan, Parking and Street )
Modification )
12 �
13� LUA17-000289, ECF, SA-H, MOD, )
MOD )
14 )
15 Summary
16
The applicant has applied for site plan approval two development standard modifications for the
17 construction of a new 7,796 square foot building proposed to house a dental office at 17816 108th
Avenue SE. One modification is a request to increase the maximum number of authorized parking
1 g spaces from 39 to 49 spaces. The other modification involves providing for frontage improvements
19 consistent with the existing curb line as opposed to conforming to the street section required by City
code. The site plan and two modification applications are approved subject to conditions.
20
21 Testimony
22 Jill Ding, senior planner for City of Renton, summarized the proposaL Ms. Ding identified a couple
errors in the staff report. She noted that the building needs to be setback an additional 2 feet six inches
23 instead of the 3 feet six inches identified in the staff report to comply with front setback requirements.
In the third paragraph of the landscaping section of the staff report, the correct dimension for the
24 interior parking lot should be 9x13 feet. There was also some confusion about the dedication required
25 for 108t" street. The dedication is dependent upon the amount of construction necessary for frontage
improvements. The amount required could vary.
26
SITE PLAN - 1
1 Exhibits
2
The July 25, 2017 Staff Report Exhibits 1-14 identified at Page 2 of the staff report were admitted into
3 the record during the hearing. The following exhibits were also admitted during the hearing:
4 Exhibit 15: Staff powerpoint
5 Exhibit 16: City of Renton COR maps
Exhibitl7: Google earth aerial photographs
6
7
g FINDINGS OF FACT
9
Procedural:
10
1. Applicant. Franklin Ng, Architectural Werks, Inc., 11416 9th Avenue NE, Suite 200, Kirkland,
11 WA 98033
12 2. Hearin�. A hearing was held on the application on July 25, 2017 11:00 am in the City of
13 Renton Council Chambers.
14 3. Project Description. The applicant has applied for site plan approval for the construction of a
15 new 7,796 square foot building to house a dental office at 17816 108th Avenue SE. The applicant also
requests approval of a street and a parking modification. The parking modification is to RMC 4-4-080
�6 to increase the maximum number of authorized parking spaces from 39 to 49 spaces. The street
modification is to the frontage improvements required by RMC 4-6-60(F)(2) to construct frontage
17 improvements that remain within the existing curb line instead of complying with the street section
required by City code. The project site totals 36,927 square feet in area. Access to the site is proposed
I g via one curb cut off 108th Avenue SE. There is a 60-foot conservation easement located along the
19 eastern portion of the project site that will not be encroached by the project. An existing Wendy's
building would be removed from the project site.No critical areas are mapped on the project site.
20
4. Adequacy of Infrastructure/Public Services. The project will be served by adequate
21 infrastructure and public services as follows:
22
A. Water and Sewer Service. Water and sewer service will be provided by Soos Creek
23 Water and Sewer District.
24 B. Fire and Police. The City of Renton will provide police service and the Renton Fire
25 Authority will provide fire service. Fire and police department staff have determined that
existing facilities are adequate to serve the development in conjunction with the fire impact
26 fees and building code requirements applicable to the development.
SITE PLAN - 2
1
C. Draina�e. Public works staff have determined that the preliminary design and technical
2 drainage review submitted by the applicant are consistent with adopted city standards. The
3 drainage review was submitted as Ex. 3, the "Preliminary Drainage Plan and Technical
Information Report" (TIR), dated May 2017. The project is required to comply with
4 the 2017 Renton Surface Water Design Manual. The development is required to
provide enhanced water quality treatment prior to discharge. Project water quality
5 treatment will consist of conveyance to a Modular Wetland System preceding the
6 proposed detention system prior to connection to the existing 24-inch concrete
stormwater main located in 108th Ave SE.
7
D. Parks/Open Space. The applicant is proposing a widened pedestrian plaza with benches for
g seating between the front of the building and the sidewalk. To further enhance the
9 pedestrian environment within this plaza area, a condition of approval requires that
landscape planters be added within the plaza area.
10
11 E. Transportation and Circulation. Public works staff have determined that the preliminary
design for traffic circulation and improvements satisfies applicable city standards. The
I2 applicant submitted a traffic analysis prepared by Jake Traffic Engineering, Inc., dated
13 May 2, 2017 (Exhibit 4). Since the proposal is replacing a Wendy's, the project will
reduce trip generation of the site. Weekday peak hour AM trips would generate a
14 reduction of 81 new vehicle trips. Weekday peak hour PM trips would generate a
reduction of 50 net new vehicle trips. As detailed in the report the proposed project is
15 not expected to lower the levels of service of the surrounding intersections included in
the traffic study. The proposed development is expected to generate less than 20 net
16 new vehicle trips during the AM and PM peak hours so a Traffic Impact Analysis is not
�� required by City standards.
18
The proposed vehicular and pedestrian circulation system is safe and efficient. The
19 proposed project is proposing only one curb cut onto the project site, which should result in
minimal impacts to pedestrian circulation. To further enhance pedestrian safety, a
20 delineated pedestrian concrete sidewalk is proposed around the front, side, and rear of the
21 building with a connection to 108th Avenue SE as well as to the surface parking lot. The
interior pedestrian walkway is proposed at a width of 5-feet. In addition, a pedestrian plaza
22 is proposed on the west side of the project site between the front of the building and the
public sidewalk to be constructed along 108th Avenue SE. This plaza would have a width
23 of 15-feet between the main portion of the building and the front property line.
24
25
26
SITE PLAN - 3
1 F. Schools. As a dental care facility, it is not anticipated that the proposal will create any
increased demand for school services or facilities.
2
3 G. Refuse and Rec c�lin,g. RMC 4-4-090 sets the standard for adequate refuse and recycling
facilities. Under this standard, at a total gross building floor area of 7,796 sf, the proposed
4 development is reyuired to provide 15.6 sf of recyclable deposit area and 31.2 sf of refuse
deposit area for a total area of 46.8 sf. A total minimum of 100 sf would be required for
5 refuse and recycling deposit areas. The applicant has proposed a refuse and recyclable
6 deposit area, which would total approximately 226 sf, which exceeds the minimum 100 sf
required.
7
H. Parkin�• The City's parking standards set the standard for adequacy of parking. RMC 4-4-
g 080(F)(10)(d) requires that dental offices provide a minimum and maximum of 5 parking
9 space for every 1,000 square feet of net floor area. This results in a total of 39 spaces
reyuired for the project. The applicant has requested a modification, approved by this
10 decision,to increase the number of spaces to 49.
11
Per RMC 4-4-080F.1 l.a bicycle parking spaces are required at 10% of the number of
12 required off-street parking spaces. Based on a requirement for 39 parking spaces, 4 bicycle
13 parking spaces would be required. The applicant has not identified bicycle parking in its
application materials. Therefore, a condition of approval requires that the required bicycle
14 parking be provided in compliance with RMC 4-4-080F to the Current Planning Project
Manager at the time of Building Permit Review.
15
L Landscapin�. City staff have determined that, with recommended conditions adopted by
16 this decision, the proposal complies with the City's landscaping standards. The applicant
l� has submitted a conceptual landscape plan (Exhibit 6). The landscape plan includes an
onsite landscape strip along all street frontages. The onsite street frontage landscape strip
18 exceeds the minimum width of 10-feet. The city landscaping standards require 735 square
feet of landscaping for the parking, which his far exceeded by the proposed 2,385 sf of
19 perimeter landscaping and 7,454 sf of interior landscaping for a total of 9,839 square feet of
20 parking lot landscaping. The conditions of approval require the submission of a more
detailed landscaping plan to assure compliance with City standards regarding number and
21 type of required trees and shrubs as well as landscaping setback and minimum dimensional
requirements.
22
23 5. Adverse Impacts. There are no significant adverse impacts associated with the proposal.
24 Adequate infrastructure serves the site as determined in Finding of Fact No. 4. Impacts are more
specifically addressed as follows:
25
26 A. Aesthetics. According to the staff report, the proposal will not adversely affect
neighboring views or view corridors to shorelines and Mount Rainer. The proposed
SITE PLAN - 4
1 building is one story with a maximum height of 28 feet, it is not anticipated that the
proposed building would adversely impact views of surrounding properties.
2
3 The conditions require that all on-site surface mounted utility equipment shall be screened
from public view. The conditions of approval require that screening shall consist of
4 equipment cabinets enclosing the utility equipment, solid fencing or a wall of a height at
least as high as the equipment it screens, or a landscaped visual barrier allowing for
5 reasonable access to equipment. Equipment cabinets, fencing, and walls shall be made of
6 materials and/or colors compatible with building materials. All rooftop mechanical
eyuipment is required to be screened from public review in compliance with RMC 4-4-
7 095 with roof wells, clerestories, or parapets, walls, solid fencing, or other similar solid,
nonreflective barriers or enclosures. The submitted materials do not show the locations of
g any utility or rooftop mechanical equipment. Therefore, a condition of approval requires
9 that the applicant provide sufficient information to the Current Planning Project Manager
at the time of Building Permit review demonstrating that any ground mounted utility
10 equipment and rooftop mechanical equipment would be screened from public view. A
condition of approval also requires the applicant to screen the north side of the refuse and
11 recycling area with landscaping to fully screen it from view. The refuse/recycling area is
12 already landscaped on two other sides.
13 B• Com atp ibility. The proposed use is compatible with the scale and character of the
neighborhood. Surrounding uses are composed of commercial uses to the north,
14 south and west. Single-family use is located to the east, at the rear of the building,
but is separated by a 60-foot conservation easement and 109th Ave SE.
15
16 C. Li ng t and Ig are. The conditions of approval require the applicant to submit a lighting plan
that conforms to the requirements of RMC 4-4-075. Conformance to these standards will
17 assure that the proposal will not generate light and glare that is excessive, as the standards
prohibit light trespass and require light cut-offs.
18
19 D. Noise. Noise impacts would be minimal. As a dental office, the proposal would generate
a nominal amount of traffic, which would be the only source of noise. The proposed
Zp building would be located on the northwest corner of the project site away from the single
family, R-8 zoned, properties to the east and would be further separated from the
21 residential use by the conservation easement.
22 E. Critical Areas and Natural Features. The proposal will not adversely affect any critical
23 areas or significant natural features. This is to be eXpected since the project site has
already been developed for a Wendy's restaurant. The staff report notes there are no
24 critical areas on the project site but acknowledges the existence of a conservation
easement. It's unclear what the conservation easement protects, but at any rate the
25 proposal will not encroach into the easement.
26
SITE PLAN - 5
1 A total of I S significant trees have been identified on the project site. The City's tree
retention standards require the applicant to retain 10% of existing trees, which is two trees
2 for this project. The applicant is proposing to retain 10 trees along the eastern portion of
3 the project site within the 60-foot conservation area, which exceeds the minimum tree
retention requirements.
4
5 Co�clusions of Law
6 l. Authoritv. RMC 4-9-200(B)(2)(c) requires hearing examiner site plan review(Type III review
under RMC 4-8-080(G)) for all commercial projects that abut residential development. RMC 4-8-
7 080(G) classifies modification review as Type I review, which assigns final decision making to staff,
subject to appeal to the hearing examiner. RMC 4-8-080(C)(2) requires consolidated permits to each
g be processed under "the highest-number procedure". The site plan and modification applications are
9 consolidated. The Type III site plan review is the "highest-number procedure" and therefore must be
employed for the consolidated site plan and modification review. As outlined in RMC 4-8-080(G),
10 the hearing examiner is authorized to hold hearings and issue final decisions on Type III applications
subject to closed record appeal to the Renton City Council.
11
2. Zonin /C�omprehensive Plan Desi na�f�ons_. The subject property is within the Commercial
12 Mixed Use (CMU) Comprehensive Plan land use designation and the CA zoning classification.
13 3. Review Criteria. Site plan review standards are governed by RMC 4-9-200(E)(3). Applicable
�4 standards are quoted below in italics and applied through corresponding conclusions of law. The two
modification requests identified in Finding of Fact No. 3 are governed by RMC 4-9-250(D). Both
15 modification requests are concluded to meet all applicable review criteria for the reasons identified in
Staff Report Findings of Fact No. 18 and 19.
16
Site Plan
17
l g RMC 4-9-200(E)(3): Criteria: The Administrator or designee must find a proposed project to be in
compliance with the following.•
19
a. Compliance and Consistency: Conformance with plans,policies, regulations and approvals,
Zp including:
21 i. Corr�prehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan, its elements, goals, objectives, and
policies, especially those of the applicable land use designation; the Community Design
22 Element,• and any applicable adopted Neighborhood Plan;
23 ii. Applicable land use regulations;
24
iii. Relevant Planned Action Ordinance and Development Agreements; and
25
iu Design Regulations:Intent and guidelines of the design regulations located in RMC 4-
26 3-100.
SITE PLAN - 6
1 4. The proposal is consistent with the City's comprehensive plan and development regulations
for the reasons identified in Finding of Fact 15 and 16 of the staff report. The proposal is located
� within Design District"D" and is required to comply with the design standards specified in RMC 4-3-
3 100(E). All applicable design standards are met for the reasons identified in Finding of Fact No. 17
of the staff report. No planned action ordinance or development agreement applies to the project.
4
RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(b): Off-Site Impacts: Mitigation of impacts to surrounding properties and
5 uses, including.•
6 i. Structures: Restricting overscale structures and overconcentration of development on a
� particular portion of the site;
8 ii. Circulation:Providing desirable transitions and linkages between uses, streets,
walkways and adjacent properties;
9
iii. Loading and Storage Areas:Locating, designing and screening storage areas,
10 utilities, rooftop equip�nent, loading areas, and refuse and recyclables to minimize views
11 from surrounding properties;
I Z iu Views:Recognizing the public benefit and desirability of maintaining visual
accessibility to attractive natural features;
13
u Landscaping: Using landscaping to provide transitions between development and
�4 surrounding properties to reduce noise and glare, maintain privacy, and generally
15 enhance the appearance of the project,• and
16 vi. Lighting: Designing and/or placing exterior lighting and glazing in order to avoid
excessive brightness or glare to adjacent properties and streets.
17
5. As conditioned, the criteria quoted above are met. The proposal does not involve over-scale
1 g development or overconcentration of development. As shown in the site plan of Exhibit 5, the
19 building only takes up a little more than a quarter of the project site and will be comparable in size
to other buildings in the vicinity as shown in the aerial photograph of the staff report. The proposal
20 provides for safe and efficient transportation with separated pedestrian vvalkways linked to
surrounding sidewalks as determined in Finding of Fact No. 5 and shown in Exhibit 5. The
21 proposal does not involve any loading or storage areas except for refuge and recycling, which is
22 adequately screened as conditioned as determined in Finding of Fact No. 5(A). The proposal
provides for significantly more landscaping than required by the City's landscaping standards as
23 determined in Finding of Fact No. 4(�. This landscaping, in conjunction with the vegetation
retained in the conservation easement, provides for significant buffering to the residential uses to the
24 east and will serve to reduce noise, glare, maintain privacy and enhance appearance as required by
the criterion above. The proposal is conditioned to avoid excess brightness and glare as determined
25 in Finding of Fact No. 5(C).
26
RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(c): On-Site Impacts:Mitigation of impacts to the site, including.•
SITE PLAN -7
1 i. Structure Placement:Provisions for pYivacy and noise reduction by building placement,
spacing and orientation;
2
3 ii. Structure Scale: Consideration of the scale of proposed structures in relation to natural
characteristics, views and vistas, site amenities, sunlight,prevailing winds, and pedestrian
4 and vehicle needs;
5 iii. Natural Features:Protection of the natural landscape by retaining existing vegetation
and soils, using topography to reduce undue cutting and filling, and limiting impervious
6 surfaces; and
� iu Landsca in Use o landsca in to so ten the a earance o arkin areas, to rovide
P g� .f P g .f PP .fP g P
g shade and privacy where needed, to define and enhance open spaces, and generally to
enhance the appearance of the project. Landscaping also includes the design and
9 protection of planting areas so that they are less susceptible to damage from vehicles or
pedestrian moverraents.
10
I 1 6. The criterion quoted above are met. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5, the proposal has
been well designed to provide for privacy and noise reduction. There is nothing in the record to
12 reasonably suggest that the scale, spacing and orientation of the project could be modified to
provide for more privacy and noise reduction without unreasonably interfering with the utility of the
13 project. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5, the proposal does not create any adverse aesthetic
14 impacts and is fully compatible with adjoining uses. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 4 and
shown in Ex. 5, the proposal provides for safe and efficient vehicular and pedestrian circulation and
�5 is well integrated into adjoining vehicular and pedestrian improvements, thus providing for a well-
integrated project scale and design with vehicular and pedestrian needs. As further determined in
16 Finding of Fact No. 4 and 5, as conditioned, the landscaping for the proposal provides for better
aesthetics and helps define parking areas and open spaces. There is nothing in the record to
17 reasonably suggest that the scale of the project is incompatible with sunlight, prevailing winds or
1 g natural characteristics.
19 RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(d):Access and Circulation:Safe and efficient access and circulation for all
users, including:
20
21 i. Location and Consolidation:Providing access points on side streets or frontage streets
rather than directly onto arterial streets and consolidation of ingress and egress points on
22 the site and, when feasible, with adjacent properties;
23 ii. Internal Circulation:Promoting safety and efficiency of the internal circulation system,
including the location, design and dimensions of vehicular and pedestrian access points,
24 drives,parking, turnarounds, walkways, bikeways, and emergency access ways;
25 iii. Loadin and Delive Se aratin loadin and deliver areas om arkin and
g �1'� P S g Y .�" P g
26 pedestrian areas;
SITE PLAN - 8
1 iu Transit and Bicycles: Providing transit, carpools and bicycle facilities and access; and
2 u Pedestrians:Providing safe and attractive pedestrian connections between parking
3 areas, buildings,public sidewalks and adjacent properties.
4 7. The proposal as conditioned provides for safe and efficient access and circulation and
adequate bicycle parking as required by the criterion above for the reasons identified in Finding of
5 Fact No. 4. The proposal does not necessitate any significant loading or delivery of materials, so
no separate loading and delivery areas are necessary.
6
� RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(e): Open Space: Incorporating open spaces to serve as distinctive project
focal points and to provide adequate areas for passive and active recreation by the occupants/users
g of the site.
9 8. The proposal provides for a widened pedestrian plaza with benches for seating between the
front of the building and the sidewalk. This plaza satisfies the criterion above for a distinctive
10 project focal point for passive and active recreation. To further enhance the pedestrian environment
� � within this plaza area, a condition of approval requires that landscape planters be added within the
plaza area.
12
RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(�: Views and Public Access: When possible,providing view corridors to
13 shorelines and Mt. Rainier, and incorporating public access to shorelines.
14 9. There are no view corridors to shorelines or Mt. Rainier affected by the proposal as
15 determined in Finding of Fact No. 5(A).
16 �C 4-9-200(E)(3)(g): Natural Systems:Arranging project elements to protect existing natural
systems where applicable.
17
10. There are no natural systems at the site or that would be affected by the proposal as
1 g determined in Finding of Fact No. 5(E).
�9 RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(h): Services and Infrastructure:Making available public services and
20 facilities to accommodate the proposed use.
21 I 1. The project is served by adequate services and facilities as determined in Finding of Fact No.
4.
22
RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(i): Phasing:Including a detailed sequencing plan with development phases
23 and estimated time frames,for phased projects.
24 12. The project is not phased.
25
DECISION
26
SITE PLAN - 9
1 As conditioned below, for the reasons identified in the Conclusions of Law above, the proposed site
plan and two modifications comply with all applicable criteria and should be approved.
2
3 1. The location of the building shall be shifted back 2-feet 6-inches, to bring the main
portion of the building into compliance with the 15-foot minimum front yard setback. The
4 modulation proposed at the southwest corner of the building may project 3-feet 6-inches
into the minimum required front yard setback area. To accommodate the building
5 relocation, the dimensions of the surface parking area to the rear of the building shall be
6 reduced. The revised site plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the current
planning project manager prior to building permit issuance.
� 2. The parking area on the east side of the project site shall be required to comply with the
g structure parking stall dimensional requirements as outlined in RMC 4-4-080F.8.
3. A detailed landscape
9 plan and analysis, including, but not limited to, demonstration of compliance with the
10 following landscaping requirements shall be provided:
11 a. Shrubs are required at a minimum rate of 1 per every 20 sf of landscaped area. Up
to 50% of the shrubs may be deciduous. This analysis shall be provided to the
�2 Current Planning Project Manager for review and approval at the time of building
permit review.
13 b. Trees shall be two inches (2") in diameter at breast height (dbh) for multi-family,
14 commercial, and industrial uses. At least one tree for every six (6) parking spaces
within the lot interior shall be planted.
15 c. The interior parking lot landscaped areas shall be revised to comply with the
�6 minimum dimensional reyuirements of 9-feet by 13-feet as well as ensure that no
parking space is more than 50-feet from an interior parking lot landscaped area. A
�7 landscaped tree island shall be installed within the 10 parking spaces proposed on
1 g the eastern portion of the project site.
d. Landscaping shall be installed along the north side of the proposed refuse and
19 recycling deposit area.
20 e. Landscape planters shall be added within the plaza area between the building and
the sidewalk.
21
The detailed landscape plan and analysis shall be provided to the Current Planning
22 Project Manager at the time of Building Permit review for review and approval.
23 4. A site lighting plan shall be provided at the time of building permit review demonstrating
compliance with the standards outlined in RMC 4-4-075. The site lighting plan shall be
24 submitted to the Current Planning Project Manager for review and approval.
25 5. The applicant shall provide sufficient information to the Current Planning Project
Manager at the time of Building Permit review demonstrating that any ground mounted
26 utility equipment and rooftop mechanical equipment would be screened from public view
SITE PLAN - 10
1 pursuant to the standards specified in Finding of Fact No. 5(A) of this decision and other
2 applicable development standards.
6. A revised site plan shall be submitting showing the location of the 4 required bicycle
3 parking spaces and a bicycle parking detail, in compliance with RMC 4-4-080F, shall be
4 provided to the Current Planning Project Manager at the time of Building Permit Review.
5 DATED this 9th day of August, 2017.
6 --
� _.. .^ :� ��
� Ph� A,Ulbrechts
8
City of Renton Hearing Examiner
9
10
11 Appeal Right and Valuation Notices
12
RMC 4-8-080(G) classifies the application(s) subject to this decision as Type III applications
13 subject to closed record appeal to the City of Renton City Council. Appeals of the hearing
14 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
15 period.
16 Affected property owners may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes
notwithstanding any program of revaluation.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
SITE PLAN - 11