BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THURSTON COUNTY

Transcription

1 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Creating Solutions for Our Future Cathy Wolfe District One Sandra Romero District Two Bud Blake District Three HEARING EXAMINER BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THURSTON COUNTY In the Matter of the Application of ) ) ) SUPT NO Setina Manufacturing ) ) Setina Manufacturing ) ) For a Special Use Permit ) FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, ) AND DECISION ) SUMMARY OF DECISION The request for approval of a special use permit to enlarge an existing 44,000 square foot industrial building to 63,000 square feet with on-site parking, landscaping, and stormwater improvements is GRANTED subject to conditions. SUMMARY OF RECORD Request Setina Manufacturing (Applicant) requested approval of a special use permit to enlarge an existing 44,000 square foot industrial building to 63,000 square feet with on-site parking and landscaping improvements and construction of a stormwater system at 6631 Rixie Road SE, Olympia, Washington. 1 Hearing Date The conducted an open record public hearing on the request on January 4, Testimony At the open record public hearing, the following individuals presented testimony under oath: Tony Kantas, Associate Planner, Thurston County Resource Stewardship Department 1 Throughout the materials, the street upon which the site fronts is referred to as both Rixie Street SE and Rixie Road SE. Noting that Google Maps calls it Rixie Road SE, the Examiner used this name Lakeridge Drive SW, Olympia, Washington (360) /FAX (360)

2 Judy Setina, Applicant Steve Hatton, Applicant Representative Norman Hutson Exhibits At the open record public hearing, the following exhibits were admitted into the record: Exhibit 1 Resource Stewardship Planning & Environmental Section Report including the following attachments: Attachment A Notice of Public Hearing Attachment B Master Application, submitted on June 5, 2015 Attachment C Special Use Permit Application, submitted on June 5, 2015 Attachment D Attachment E Attachment F Attachment G Attachment H Attachment I Attachment J Narrative Summary Vicinity Map 2012 Aerial Site Plan (7 pages) Landscape Plan (2 pages) November 5, 2015 letter from the Applicant Notice of Application Attachment K Determination of Non-Significance, dated December 15, 2015 Attachment L Attachment M Attachment N Attachment O Attachment P Thurston County Public Works SEPA comment letter, dated July 22, 2015 Thurston County Public Works SUP comment letter, dated December 21, 2015 Comment letter from Thurston County Health Department, dated November 24, 2015 June 30, 2015 letter from Washington State Department of Ecology September 21, 2015 letter from Washington State Department of Ecology Setina Manufacturing SUPT, No page 2 of 14

3 Attachment Q Attachment R Attachment S June 19, 2015 comment letter from the Nisqually Indian Tribe September 5, 2015 comment from Donald Ice March 13, 2014 letter from Thurston County Resource Stewardship Department in regards to site vesting Attachment T Traffic Impact Analysis, dated May 2015 Attachment U Attachment V Geotechnical and Stormwater Investigation Report, dated May 27, 2015 Preliminary Drainage and Erosion Control Report, dated June 4, 2015 Exhibit 2 Three color photographs of site and posted notice of hearing, taken by County Staff Upon consideration of the testimony and exhibits submitted at the open record public hearing, the Hearing Examiner enters the following findings and conclusions: FINDINGS 1. The Applicant requested a special use permit to allow expansion of an existing 44,000 square foot industrial building in the Rural Residential Resource Zoning District (RRR 1/5) to 63,000 square feet. Proposed improvements include on-site parking, landscaping, and stormwater infrastructure. The site is at 6631 Rixie Road SE, Olympia, Washington. 2 Exhibit The subject property has a Rural Residential Resource Zoning District (RRR 1/5) zoning designation. The purpose of the RRR 1/5 zone is to encourage residential development that maintains the county's rural character; provides opportunities for compatible agricultural, forestry and other rural land uses; is sensitive to the site's physical characteristics; provides greater opportunities for protecting sensitive environmental areas and creating open space corridors; enables efficient road and utility systems; and does not create demands for urban level services. Thurston County Code (TCC) 20.09A.010. The primary permitted uses in the zone are agriculture, single-family and duplex residential development, home occupation, and farm housing. TCC 20.09A A legally established, isolated commercial or industrial business that provides job opportunities for rural residents that was in operation on or before July 1, 1990 may expand in the RRR 1/5 zone with special use permit approval subject to use-specific standards. TCC (23.5). 2 The legal description of the subject property is a portion of Section 6, Township 11 North, Range 1 West, WM; known as Tax Parcel No Exhibit 1. Setina Manufacturing SUPT, No page 3 of 14

4 4. The 6.32-acre subject property has been used for industrial manufacturing since the1960s, despite the adoption of residential zoning in Active industrial use of the site stopped in Since that time, its owners have taken actions that have maintained its legal nonconforming use status, including: marketing the site as industrial; payment in full of industrial property use taxes; extensive clean up of industrial contamination found on-site in 2008; and lack of non-industrial use. The Applicant, Setina Manufacturing Company, initiated purchase negotiation in 2008, but the sale was impeded by discovery of the contamination. Setina has been in the business of manufacturing law enforcement vehicle equipment in Thurston County for over 50 years. Exhibit 1; Attachment S. 5. Presently, the site is developed with the 42,224 square foot industrial building in the southwest corner, a caretaker residence near Rixie Road SE, and a septic system. It borders Rixie Road to the east, and there is a Burlington Northern railroad to the east and northeast. A 250-foot wide BPA easement crosses the site east to west on the northerly portion of the site. Topographically, the site is relatively flat with a 16- to 20-foot depression in the northern portion of the property. It is located within a Category I Aquifer Recharge Area. There is a High Groundwater Hazard Area in the northern portion of the site, extending to the west and north off-site. Exhibit 1; Attachments G and N. 6. Surrounding parcels include the Alpine Sand Gravel mine to the south and west and a vacant acre property to the north. Chambers Creek is approximately 25 to 45 feet north of the subject property; it is approximately 350 feet from proposed improvements. The Olympia urban growth area abuts the north property line of the subject property. Exhibit The RRR 1/5 zone requires a minimum lot size of five acres, maximum building height of 35 feet, and a maximum impervious surface area of 60%. The RRR 1/5 zone restricts maximum building site coverage. In the context of special uses, it defers to the maximum size established in the Special Uses chapter of the zoning code. TCC 20.09A.050. Pursuant to the use-specific development standards applicable to special uses, nonresidential nonconforming uses in the rural zones may be expanded in area by 50%. Thus, the existing 44,000 square foot building may expand to a maximum size of 66,000 square feet. TCC (23.5); Exhibit Proposed site improvements include removal of the existing industrial building and detached structure (labeled "house" on Attachment G, Sheet 2 of 7) to be replaced with its replacement with a new industrial building with a total foot print of 62,980 square feet. 3 Also proposed are paved parking and drive areas, stormwater infrastructure, an upgraded on-site septic system, connection to the City of Olympia Group A water 3 The figure 62,980 square feet is from the narrative at Attachment D. The site plat at Attachment G Sheet 1 of 7 says that new building would have a 57,500 square foot footprint and a 2,500 square foot second floor, for a total floor area of 60,000 square feet. The Examiner notes that both figures are within the maximum expansion allowed at TCC (23.5). Setina Manufacturing SUPT, No page 4 of 14

5 system 4, abandonment of an existing domestic well, landscaping, and related improvements. Proposed production processes include manufacture from raw steel, CNC machine laser cutting, router and metal forming, welding, an automated powder coating system, assembly, and shipping to customers. The finished facility would continue to use the one, existing paved site access from Rixie Road and would be enclosed by a fence with a sliding gate at the driveway entrance. Exhibit 1: Attachments B, C, D, G, N, T, and V; See Attachment G, Sheet 1 of 7; Setina Testimony. Having reviewed the preliminary plan set, Planning Staff submitted that as proposed and conditioned, the improvements would satisfy all zoning development standards, including setbacks and bulk requirements. Exhibit The new on-site septic system has been designed to serve approximately 65 employees, with a design capacity of 975 gallons per day. It would include two 1,500 gallon septic tanks and a 1,500 gallon septic pump chamber. The drainfield would contain four laterals. A reserve area is proposed to the west of the drainfield. Exhibit 1, Attachment D. 10. According to Planning Staff, the City of Olympia had agreed to provide domestic water to the expanded facility. Exhibit A total of 163 parking spaces are shown in the materials. Exhibit 1; Attachment G, Sheet 1 of 7. The off-street parking standards of the County Code require one parking space for every 500 square feet of building area. TCC (f)(ii). At approximately 63,000 square feet, the new facility would require 126 parking spaces. Exhibit 1. An Applicant representative testified that the Applicant does not intend to build all 163 spaces; the site presently contains 62% impervious surface area and must be reduced to a maximum of 60% impervious surface area to comply with RRR 1/5 zoning standards. Some parking spaces would be sacrificed to achieve this. Hatton Testimony. 12. The Thurston County zoning ordinance establishes minimum requirements for landscaping and screening between incompatible land uses in order to safeguard privacy and to protect the aesthetic assets of the community. Industrial and commercial uses are considered incompatible with residential uses and therefore they are required to provide a minimum five-foot landscaped buffer along public rights-of-way and adjacent to residential uses. When adjacent to residential uses, the buffer is required to be planted with site-obscuring trees and shrubs. TCC The record contains a landscape plan depicting a densely planted landscaped buffer along the Rixie Road frontage, the southern property line, the western property line, and along the northern boundary of the paved parking area. The northern portion of the site containing the BPA power transmission easement and remaining areas that would not be developed with paved surfaces are not proposed to be screened. The majority of the landscaped buffer is depicted as being planted either with closely placed Arborvitae or with Fraser's Photinia. Exhibit 1, Attachment H. Planning Staff submitted that the proposal would comply with the landscape requirements of TCC Exhibit 1. 4 An Applicant representative testified that the existing facilities are already served by City of Olympia water and approval would not result in any new urban utilities being extended to the site. Hatton Testimony. Setina Manufacturing SUPT, No page 5 of 14

6 13. The Applicant submitted a professionally prepared traffic impact analysis (TIA) looking at trips generated by the expanded facility. Using trip generation data from the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual, the TIA concluded that the existing industrial facility, at 44,244 square feet, generated an average of 161 weekday trips, including 31 PM peak hour trips. The new 62,980 square foot facility, with credit for the traffic from the existing use, is project to generate an additional 80 average daily vehicle trips, including 15 new PM peak hour trips on average. The TIA projected the distribution of the net new PM peak hour trips and considered their impact on the intersection most likely to be affected. Existing delays at the study intersections are mild, according to the TIA, and would continue to be mild with the project's new trips, with no study intersection falling below a level of service (LOS) B. The TIA also reviewed whether the site driveway provides adequate sight distance for safe entrances and exits; no safety concerns were identified with either the existing condition or with projected future traffic. The proposal is not anticipated to have a significant impact on the local roadway system, and no mitigation was proposed. Exhibit 1, Attachment T. 14. The Applicant commissioned a geotechnical report assessing subsurface conditions of the site to consider the feasibility and best management of stormwater on-site. Subsurface exploration revealed groundwater at depths of 16 to 17 feet. The report considered the likelihood of ground rupture, soil liquefaction, seismic compression, and lateral spreading, and also evaluated stormwater infiltration rates consistent with the County's Drainage Design and Erosion Control Manual (DDECM, 2009). The report found that the proposed use of the site was feasible from a geotechnical standpoint and opined that stormwater infiltration in the northern portion of the site would be feasible. It concluded with recommendations for earthwork, clearing, subgrade preparation, groundwater management, erosion control, wet weather work, and other considerations. Exhibit 1, Attachment U. 15. The Applicant submitted a professionally prepared preliminary drainage report. As proposed, approximately 4.89 acres of the finished site would be paved (or covered by structure), and the remaining 1.43 acres would remain in the natural condition. Stormwater runoff from paved areas of the site, excluding buildings, and landscaped areas would be collected by filter media catch basins, where water quality treatment would be provided, and discharged to infiltration facilities. Roof runoff would also be piped to infiltration trenches. The infiltration facilities would be in the northern portion of the site, at least partially within the existing 10 to 20 foot deep kettle depression. The proposed internal piped conveyance system would be sized for a 25-year, 24-hour storm event. Exhibit 1, Attachments U and V. 16. The Development Review Services section of the County's Public Works, Roads and Transportation Services Department reviewed the project for access, traffic, and stormwater requirements. County Staff accepted the Applicant's TIA and preliminary drainage report. The building and all impervious surfaces were reviewed for compliance with the Thurston County Drainage Design & Erosion Control Manual. The existing access point was found to comply with applicable Thurston County Road Standards. Setina Manufacturing SUPT, No page 6 of 14

7 Public Works Staff recommended approval with conditions. Exhibit 1; Attachment M; Saint Testimony. 17. Staff from the Environmental Health Division (EHD) of the Thurston County Public Health and Social Services Department reviewed the proposal for compliance with applicable public health standards. Noting the proposed industrial facility would not use, store, or dispose of hazardous materials on-site, EHD Staff determined that the waste water flow rate for the proposed new septic system on the 6.39-acre site would be equivalent to gallons per acre per day, which is well below the maximum allowable wastewater flow of 900 gallons per day per acre in a Category I Aquifer Recharge Area. EHD's review indicated that the proposed septic drainfields are more than 100 feet from the High Groundwater Hazard Area in the northern portion of the property and off-cite. Four wells identified on neighboring parcels are set back more than 200 feet from the shared property lines. Staff also noted that the proposed stormwater facility would satisfy applicable setbacks from the on-site septic components. EHD Staff recommended approval subject to conditions. Exhibit 1, Attachment N; Peebles Testimony. 18. The Washington State Department of Ecology (DOE) submitted comments containing general information about toxics clean up, the requirement to use clean fill, promoting recycling of reusable materials from the structures proposed for demolition, and noting the proposal may be subject to the DOE Construction Stormwater General Permit. Exhibit 1, Attachments O and P. 19. Representatives of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) conducted a site visit to review the property for the presence of Mazama pocket gopher, which was recently listed as endangered pursuant to the federal Endangered Species Act. USFWS representatives found no gophers on-site. Planning Staff and an Applicant representative both indicated that the Applicant is aware of the requirement to comply with federal law relating to endangered species. Staff recommended a condition of approval to promote Applicant/Operator awareness of and compliance with federal law. Exhibit 1; Kantas Testimony; Hatton Testimony. 20. The Nisqually Indian Tribe reviewed the proposal and indicated that the Tribe had no concerns or information regarding the property. The Tribe requested to be informed of any inadvertent discoveries of archeological resources or human remains. Exhibit 1, Attachment Q. 21. Thurston County acted as lead agency for reviewing the environmental impacts of the project pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). The County's SEPA Responsible Official issued a determination of non-significance (MDNS) on December 15, 2015 which was not challenged and became final. Exhibit 1; Exhibit 1, Attachment K; Kantas Testimony. 22. Notice of application was mailed to owners of all parcels within 500 feet of the site on September 1, One public comment was submitted on the application with concerns regarding the speed limit on Rich Road and a request for a sidewalk extension to the site. Exhibit 1, Attachment J; Exhibit 1. In review of that comment, the Public Works Setina Manufacturing SUPT, No page 7 of 14

8 Department determined as proposed and conditioned the proposal complies with the Thurston County Road standards. Exhibit 1; Saint Testimony. 23. Notice of the public hearing was mailed to owners of all parcels within 500 feet of the site on December 18, 2015, posted on-site on December 23, 2015, and published in The Olympian on December 25, Exhibit 1, Attachment A; Exhibit 2. The neighboring property owner to the north testified in support of the proposal, stating that the proposal would be a benefit to the area and an improvement over the existing condition. Hutson Testimony. 24. Planning Staff submitted that the proposal would create jobs for residents of rural Thurston County. Considering testimony at hearing and all submitted information, Staff submitted that, as proposed and conditioned, the proposal would be consistent with the Thurston County Comprehensive Plan, critical areas ordinance, health codes, the stormwater requirements, and the County zoning ordinance. Planning Staff recommended approval subject to conditions. Exhibit 1; Kantas Testimony. The Applicant waived objection to the recommended conditions of approval. Hatton Testimony. CONCLUSIONS Jurisdiction The Hearing Examiner has jurisdiction to hear and decide this special use permit application pursuant to Thurston County Code and and to Revised Code of Washington (RCW) Special Use Permit Criteria for Review The Hearing Examiner may approve an application for a special use permit only if the following general standards set forth in TCC are satisfied: A. Plans, Regulations, Laws. The proposed use at the specified location shall comply with the Thurston County Comprehensive Plan, and all applicable federal, state, regional, and Thurston County laws or plans. B. Underlying Zoning District. The proposed use shall comply with the general purposes and intent of the applicable zoning district regulations and subarea plans. Open space, lot, setback and bulk requirements shall be no less than that specified for the zoning district in which the proposed use is located unless specifically provided otherwise in this chapter. C. Location. No application for a special use shall be approved unless a specific finding is made that the proposed special use is appropriate in the location for which it is proposed. This finding shall be based on the following criteria: 1. Impact. The proposed use shall not result in substantial or undue adverse effects on adjacent property, neighborhood character, natural environment, traffic Setina Manufacturing SUPT, No page 8 of 14

9 conditions, parking, public property or facilities, or other matters affecting the public health, safety and welfare. However, if the proposed use is a public facility or utility deemed to be of overriding public benefit, and if measures are taken and conditions imposed to mitigate adverse effects to the extent reasonably possible, the permit may be granted even though said adverse effects may occur. 2. Services. The use will be adequately served by and will not impose an undue burden on any of the improvements, facilities, utilities, or services existing or planned to serve the area. Use Specific Criteria Specific standards for Nonresidential, Nonconforming use in the Rural Area (TCC (23.5)): 1. Purpose. To provide limited expansion of isolated commercial or industrial businesses, legally established on or before July 1, 1990, that may not be principally designed to serve the existing or projected rural population and nonresidential uses, but do provide job opportunities for rural residents. Such expansion shall meet all of the standards listed below. Conversion of such uses may be considered pursuant to Section This special use category applies exclusively to nonconforming uses for which a special use category does not already exist under this chapter. 2. Standards. a. Expansion is limited to a maximum of fifty percent of the existing building square footage, or use area if no structure is involved, as of July 1, 1990, provided that all of the standards below are met. b. The expansion will occur on the same lot upon which the existing use is located. c. The expansion is visually compatible with the surrounding rural area. d. Detrimental impacts to adjacent properties will not be increased or intensified. e. The expansion does not result in a formerly small operation dominating the vicinity. f. The expansion will not constitute new urban development in the rural area. g. Public services and facilities are limited to those necessary to serve the isolated nonresidential use and are provided in a manner that does not permit low-density sprawl. h. The design standards of the underlying zoning district and all other applicable regulations are met. Conclusions Based on Findings 1. With conditions mandating compliance with requirements identified by the Environmental Health, Public Works, and the Resource Stewardship Departments, the proposed use at the proposed location complies with all applicable laws and plans. Findings 8, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, and 24. Setina Manufacturing SUPT, No page 9 of 14

10 2. The proposal would comply with the minimum parcel size, building height, setbacks, and parking, landscaping/screening, and other zoning bulk development standards. Relating to the nonconforming use, the proposal conforms to the restrictions on expansion of legal nonconforming uses adopted in the County's special use provisions and is therefore allowed. In maintaining an existing legal nonconforming use and providing jobs to rural County residents, the proposal would comply with the purpose of the RRR 1/5 zoning district and special use provisions use-specific criteria. Findings 2, 3, 12, 13, and The proposed use is appropriate on the site, which has held a nonconforming legal industrial use since zoning was adopted. The proposed fencing and landscaping would screen views of the site from the public right-of-way, as well as from all surrounding parcels. The northern 1.43 acres of the site would remain in a natural condition. The record demonstrates no significant traffic impacts would result from expanding the facility. The geotechnical report and preliminary drainage plan show that infiltration of stormwater runoff from all roof and impervious surface areas is feasible and would not conflict with surrounding uses, water supplies, or critical areas. As proposed and conditioned, the on-site septic would be designed and built to comply with standards applicable to industrial uses in a critical aquifer recharge area. No hazardous materials would be used, stored, or manufactured on-site. Conditions recommended by Public Works, Environmental Health, and Resource Stewardship Staff would ensure compliance with applicable County standards, therefore avoiding adverse impacts to surrounding parcels and uses. Findings 4, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, and The expanded industrial use would be served by appropriate on-site septic and connection (potentially existing) to City of Olympia Group A community water. Only mild increases in traffic are projected. There is no evidence in the record of excess demand for or adverse effect on public services. Findings 8, 10, 14, and 24. DECISION Based on the preceding findings and conclusions, the requested special use permit to enlarge an existing 44,000 square foot industrial building to 63,000 square feet with on-site parking, landscaping, and stormwater improvements at 6631 Rixie Road SE, Olympia, Washington is GRANTED subject to the following conditions: The following Environmental Health Code related conditions shall be met prior to final occupancy approval: 1. Prior to approval and release of the non-residential building permit (BC) for construction of the new manufacturing building, the new sewage system must be approved by Environmental Health. 2. Prior to approval of final building occupancy for the new manufacturing building, the new sewage system must be installed and the record drawing and designer/engineer certification must be submitted for the new system. The sewage system record drawing must also be accepted by this office prior to final building occupancy approval. Setina Manufacturing SUPT, No page 10 of 14

11 Certification of abandonment of the original septic system must be included with the record drawing. 3. Prior to approval and release of the non-residential building permits (BC) for construction, a completed public Certificate of Water Availability (COWA) must be submitted and a determination of adequacy must be received from the Washington State Department of Health. 4. Prior to final building occupancy, connection to the City of Olympia Group A water system is required. 5. Prior to final building occupancy, the existing well on the property must be properly decommissioned by a Licensed Well Driller and a copy of the driller s report must be submitted to Environmental Health. The following Planning Code related conditions shall be met prior to final occupancy approval: 6. Prior to final occupancy of the building, the Applicant shall install all landscaping as depicted on the approved landscape plan (Attachment H). If the time of year prevents the installation of the landscaping, the Applicant shall submit a performance assurance guarantee in the amount of 150% of all plants and installation costs. In no case may the Applicant delay performance for more than six months after occupancy. 7. Outdoor lighting fixtures shall be oriented to avoid direct glare onto adjacent properties and rights-of-way while providing adequate safety. 8. All required parking shall be designed and constructed in accordance with TCC Construction activity shall be limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. to minimize associated noise. All activities onsite shall fully comply with noise limitations outlined in WAC Any noise generated by the facilities shall meet the requirements of WAC The Applicant shall remain in compliance with the Endangered Species Act. 12. The maximum impervious surface of the subject property shall be 60 percent. 13. All development on the site shall be in substantial compliance with the approved site plan. Any expansion or alteration of this use beyond that approved herein will require approval of a new or amended Special Use Permit. The following Development Review-Public Works Division Code related conditions shall be met prior to final occupancy approval: 14. The proposed roadway in concept and design shall conform to the Road Standards. Setina Manufacturing SUPT, No page 11 of 14

12 15. A construction permit shall be acquired from the Thurston County Public Works Development Review Section prior to any construction. 16. All traffic control devices shall be designed, located, manufactured, and installed in accordance with the Road Standards, Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices and applicable WSDOT Standards & Specifications. A sign and striping plan shall be incorporated into the construction drawings for the project. Please contact Thurston County Public Works Development Review Section Staff to obtain the most current Thurston County guidelines. 17. County forces may remove any traffic control device constructed within the County rightof-way not approved by this division and any liability incurred by the County due to nonconformance by the Applicant shall be transferred to the Applicant. 18. The storm water management system shall conform to the Drainage Design & Erosion Control Manual. 19. All drainage facilities outside of the County right-of-way shall remain private and be maintained by the developer, owner and/or the property owners association. 20. Storm water runoff shall be controlled through all phases of the project by facilities designed to control the quality and quantity of discharges and shall not alter nor impact any existing drainage or other properties. 21. The proposed water and sewer system shall be designed in accordance with the standards and specification of the respective utility purveyor. All water and sewer plans are subject to review and acceptance by the respective utility purveyor. 22. Proposed utility work within the Thurston County Right of Way shall conform to the Road Standards and Chapter Thurston County Code. These standards do not address specific city design requirements but rather only items such as restoration of the County right of way and traffic control. a. Placement of utilities within the County right of way will require a Franchise Agreement with Thurston County pursuant to Title TCC. This agreement shall be executed with Thurston County prior to final approval. b. Please note all utilities placed parallel to and within the pavement structure are required to rebuild a minimum of half the road, to include grinding and replacement of a minimum of 0.20 feet of asphalt concrete pavement. 23. In order to meet the requirements of the Road Standards, additional right of way may be required. Please have your legal representative or surveyor prepare a Quit Claim Deed describing the necessary right-of-way, being a strip of land which when added to the existing right of way totals 30 feet of right-of-way lying West of and abutting the Setina Manufacturing SUPT, No page 12 of 14

13 existing centerline of Rixie Road Southeast. Upon your request, Thurston County's right-of-way representative will prepare the Quit Claim Deed describing the necessary right-of-way dedication. Please contact the Thurston County Right-of-Way section at Per Thurston County Resolution 14820, traffic impact fees shall be paid prior to issuing any building permits associated with this project. 25. No work shall take place until a construction permit has been issued by Thurston County Public Works Development Review Section. 26. The proposed grading or site work shall conform to Appendix J of the International Building Code, Title of the Thurston County Code and Drainage Design & Erosion Control Manual. 27. When all construction/improvements have been completed, contact the Thurston County Public Works Development Review Section at for a final inspection. 28. This approval does not relieve the Applicant from compliance with all other local, state and/or federal approvals, permits, and/or laws necessary to conduct the development activity for which this permit is issued. Any additional permits and/or approvals shall be the responsibility of the Applicant. One permit that may be required is a Construction Stormwater Permit from the Washington State Department of Ecology. Information on when a permit is required and the application can be found at: Any additional permits and/or approvals shall be the responsibility of the Applicant. 29. Once the planning department has issued the official approval, a construction permit application shall be submitted along with a complete set of construction drawings and the final drainage and erosion control report to Thurston County Public Works Development Review Section for review and acceptance. 30. PRIOR to construction, the Applicant shall: a. Pay outstanding construction review and inspection fees* b. Receive erosion and sediment control permit c. Have the erosion and sediment control inspected and accepted d. Receive a construction permit e. Schedule a pre-construction conference with county staff. The current fee schedule can be found online at permitting/ fees/docs/roads-development-review-fees pdf or contact Ruthie Padilla with the Thurston County Public Works Development Review Section by phone at , ext. 6595, or by at padillr@co.thurston.wa.us. Setina Manufacturing SUPT, No page 13 of 14

14 31. Prior to receiving final approval from this department, the following items shall be required: a. Completion of all roads and drainage facilities. b. Final inspection and completion of all punch list items. c. Record drawings submitted for review and acceptance. The record drawings shall include street names and block numbers approved by Addressing Official. d. Receive and accept Engineer s Construction Inspection Report Form (Appendix I-C, Volume I of the Drainage Design and Erosion Control Manual). e. Receive and accept Maintenance Agreement Form (Appendix I-E, Volume I of the Drainage Design and Erosion Control Manual). f. Execute an agreement with financial security for the maintenance and operation of the drainage facilities in accordance with Thurston County Code g. Completion of required signing and striping. h. Payment of any required permitting fees. i. Complete the right-of-way dedication process. DECIDED January 19, Sharon A. Rice Setina Manufacturing SUPT, No page 14 of 14

15 THURSTON COUNTY PROCEDURE FOR RECONSIDERATION AND APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER DECISION TO THE BOARD NOTE: THERE MAY BE NO EX PARTE (ONE-SIDED) CONTACT OUTSIDE A PUBLIC HEARING WITH EITHER THE HEARING EXAMINER OR WITH THE BOARD OF THURSTON COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ON APPEALS (Thurston County Code, Section ). If you do not agree with the decision of the Hearing Examiner, there are two (2) ways to seek review of the decision. They are described in A and B below. Unless reconsidered or appealed, decisions of the Hearing Examiner become final on the 15th day after the date of the decision.* The Hearing Examiner renders decisions within five (5) working days following a Request for Reconsideration unless a longer period is mutually agreed to by the Hearing Examiner, applicant, and requester. The decision of the Hearing Examiner on an appeal of a SEPA threshold determination for a project action is final. The Hearing Examiner shall not entertain motions for reconsideration for such decisions. The decision of the Hearing Examiner regarding a SEPA threshold determination may only be appealed to Superior Court in conjunction with an appeal of the underlying action in accordance with RCW 43.21C.075 and TCC TCC (K). A. RECONSIDERATION BY THE HEARING EXAMINER (Not permitted for a decision on a SEPA threshold determination) 1. Any aggrieved person or agency that disagrees with the decision of the Examiner may request Reconsideration. All Reconsideration requests must include a legal citation and reason for the request. The Examiner shall have the discretion to either deny the motion without comment or to provide additional Findings and Conclusions based on the record. 2. Written Request for Reconsideration and the appropriate fee must be filed with the Resource Stewardship Department within ten (10) days of the written decision. The form is provided for this purpose on the opposite side of this notification. B. APPEAL TO THE BOARD OF THURSTON COUNTY COMMISSIONERS (Not permitted for a decision on a SEPA threshold determination for a project action) 1. Appeals may be filed by any aggrieved person or agency directly affected by the Examiner's decision. The form is provided for this purpose on the opposite side of this notification. 2. Written notice of Appeal and the appropriate fee must be filed with the Resource Stewardship Department within fourteen (14) days of the date of the Examiner's written decision. The form is provided for this purpose on the opposite side of this notification. 3. An Appeal filed within the specified time period will stay the effective date of the Examiner's decision until it is adjudicated by the Board of Thurston County Commissioners or is withdrawn. 4. The notice of Appeal shall concisely specify the error or issue which the Board is asked to consider on Appeal, and shall cite by reference to section, paragraph and page, the provisions of law which are alleged to have been violated. The Board need not consider issues, which are not so identified. A written memorandum that the appellant may wish considered by the Board may accompany the notice. The memorandum shall not include the presentation of new evidence and shall be based only upon facts presented to the Examiner. 5. Notices of the Appeal hearing will be mailed to all parties of record who legibly provided a mailing address. This would include all persons who (a) gave oral or written comments to the Examiner or (b) listed their name as a person wishing to receive a copy of the decision on a sign-up sheet made available during the Examiner's hearing. 6. Unless all parties of record are given notice of a trip by the Board of Thurston County Commissioners to view the subject site, no one other than County staff may accompany the Board members during the site visit. C. STANDING All Reconsideration and Appeal requests must clearly state why the appellant is an "aggrieved" party and demonstrate that standing in the Reconsideration or Appeal should be granted. D. FILING FEES AND DEADLINE If you wish to file a Request for Reconsideration or Appeal of this determination, please do so in writing on the back of this form, accompanied by a nonrefundable fee of $ for a Request for Reconsideration or $ an Appeal. Any Request for Reconsideration or Appeal must be received in the Permit Assistance Center on the second floor of Building #1 in the Thurston County Courthouse complex no later than 4:00 p.m. per the requirements specified in A2 and B2 above. Postmarks are not acceptable. If your application fee and completed application form is not timely filed, you will be unable to request Reconsideration or Appeal this determination. The deadline will not be extended. * Shoreline Permit decisions are not final until a 21-day appeal period to the state has elapsed following the date the County decision becomes final.

16 Project No. Appeal Sequence No.: Check here for: RECONSIDERATION OF HEARING EXAMINER DECISION THE APPELLANT, after review of the terms and conditions of the Hearing Examiner's decision hereby requests that the Hearing Examiner take the following information into consideration and further review under the provisions of Chapter of the Thurston County Code: Check here for: (If more space is required, please attach additional sheet.) APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER DECISION TO THE BOARD OF THURSTON COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COMES NOW on this day of 20, as an APPELLANT in the matter of a Hearing Examiner's decision rendered on, 20, by relating to THE APPELLANT, after review and consideration of the reasons given by the Hearing Examiner for his decision, does now, under the provisions of Chapter of the Thurston County Code, give written notice of APPEAL to the Board of Thurston County Commissioners of said decision and alleges the following errors in said Hearing Examiner decision: Specific section, paragraph and page of regulation allegedly interpreted erroneously by Hearing Examiner: 1. Zoning Ordinance 2. Platting and Subdivision Ordinance 3. Comprehensive Plan 4. Critical Areas Ordinance 5. Shoreline Master Program 6. Other: (If more space is required, please attach additional sheet.) AND FURTHERMORE, requests that the Board of Thurston County Commissioners, having responsibility for final review of such decisions will upon review of the record of the matters and the allegations contained in this appeal, find in favor of the appellant and reverse the Hearing Examiner decision. STANDING On a separate sheet, explain why the appellant should be considered an aggrieved party and why standing should be granted to the appellant. This is required for both Reconsiderations and Appeals. Signature required for both Reconsideration and Appeal Requests APPELLANT NAME PRINTED SIGNATURE OF APPELLANT Address Phone Please do not write below - for Staff Use Only: Fee of $ for Reconsideration or $ for Appeal. Received (check box): Initial Receipt No. Filed with the Resource Stewardship Department this day of 20. Q:\Planning\Forms\Current Appeal Forms\2014.Appeal-Recon-form.he.doc