No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLUA87-016 Reports NORTH RENTON TRANSPORTATION STUDY --A FIVE-YEAR SCENARIO Renton, Washington September, 1987 CITY OF RENTON !nee } NORTH RENTON TRANSPORTATION STUDY A FIVE YEAR SCENARIO A Voluntary Study Funded by E & H Properties at the request of City of Renton Environmental Review Committee September 21, 1987 Prepared By: William E. Popp Associates 1309 114th Avenue S.E. , Suite 301 Bellevue, Washington 98004 and The TRANSPO Group, Inc. 14715 Bell-Red Road, Suite 100 Bellevue, Washington 98007 SECTION INTRODUCTION Introduction: This report presents a synthesis of two analysis of traffic mitigation for proposed development in the North Renton area. The first approach is project specific and analyzes improvements required on site and in the immediate vicinity of the proposed projects. The second approach studies area-wide traffic impacts resulting from land use changes projected over the next five years. The five year forecast period was chosen because within this time period known projects and other probable projects can be discussed with a reasonable degree of accuracy. This scenario analyzes proposed projects within the context of other probable land use changes, presents one feasible area-wide traffic network alternative, and makes recommendations about other area-wide traffic improvements which merit further study. Proposed Projects Two proposed projects are analyzed in this study: 1) the Garden Plaza Office Project, a six-story 245,850 square foot building with a four-story parking structure housing 1,023 parking spaces, and 2) the Park Plaza Office Project, a seven-story, 181, 277 square foot building with a five-story parking structure for 1178 stalls. Plus 107 surface parking spaces immediately adjacent to the office building. Garden Plaza is located between Park Avenue North and Garden Avenue North between North 5th and 6th Streets. The Park Plaza office building is located on the west side of Park Avenue North, approximately 350 feet north of North 6th street. The parking structure is located, on the east side of Park Avenue North, approximately 350 feet north of North 6th Street. Probable Projects The probable projects expected to occur over the next five year period include: 1) 445,000 square feet of research and development space within the existing Boeing complex, and on the PACCAR site; 2) 120,000 square feet of light industrial space along Houser Way north of N. 8th Street; 3) 440,000 square feet of additional office space north of North 6th Street between Wells and Garden Avenues; and 4) a small amount of retail expansion along Sunset Avenue and Bronson Way. Purpose of the Study The purpose of the study is to identify the traffic impacts which could occur as a result of the two proposed projects, and the five year development scenario. In addition to the impacts on the arterial system, the potential traffic impacts on neighborhood streets are addressed. Specific project mitigation and area-wide mitigation is suggested. Study Area Description The study area includes that portion of North Renton between the Cedar River on the south and west, Interstate 405 on the east, and Lake Washington and May Creek on the north. The 5 year analysis focuses on the area south of Gene Coulon Park. Limitations of the Study This study does not include an analysis of long-range area- wide land use changes or traffic problems which could occur over the next twenty years. It also does not test various alternative roadway alignments as part of an effort to identify a new arterial network. The study does not recommend an area-wide traffic mitigation program fee structure and mitigation area boundary. The mitigation program recommended in this report is limited to roadway improvements directly attributed to the proposed projects' site specific impacts and the projects' proportional share of needed off-site improvements. Relationship to Future Studies The long-range phase of the North Renton Transportation Study is proceeding concurrently with the present study. In order to implement a traffic mitigation program which relates to a longer range, area-wide land use forecast for this study area, the City anticipates initiating a six-month comprehensive land use plan review process. (2) Two alternative land use and traffic scenarios addressing the probable and worst case twenty-year projections are already identified by the City. Analysis of the traffic implications of these scenarios is ready to begin. The scope of work for this project includes testing alternative traffic networks, and proposing a specific mitigation program to improve both neighborhood streets and the arterial network. Renton's Environmental Ordinance and the State Environmental Policy Act require the City to consider all impacts (including those likely to arise or exist over the lifetime of a proposal) including short-term and long-term effects. SEPA allows agencies such as the City to phase the environmental review of a project based upon the issues which are ready for decisions if the phasing is appropriate for the project. Based upon a phased environmental review, phased mitigation is appropriate. The current study addresses the first five years of probable development in the North Renton study area and proposes mitigation appropriate to the development expected during that period. However, one conclusion of this study is that developers in the study area will also need to participate in the later phases of the mitigation program through bonding requirements imposed on specific projects during plan approval. (3) SECTION II PARK PLAZA & GARDEN PLAZA PROJECTS SUMMARY OF TRAFFIC IMPACTS AND MITIGATION Section II PARK PLAZA AND GARDEN PLAZA PROJECTS SUMMARY OF TRAFFIC IMPACTS AND MITIGATION RECAP OF PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS Building Garden Park Combined Characteristic Plaza Plaza Total Gross Floor Area 245,850 181,280 427,130 Net Usable Area 213,370 153,970 367,340 Est. Employee Load 1,060 740 1,800 A Parking Required 1,067 701 1,768 Parking Supply 1,023 1,285 2,308 B Traffic Generation: Avg. Weekday Trips 3,050 2,250 5,300 PM Peak Hour Trips 670 490 1,160 C A. 1,350 of the employees will be transferred from nearby "10-85" building, II Renton Place building, and 500 Park building. B. Includes 260 spaces to accommodate parking needs for 500 Park building. C. May not coincide with current 3:30 to 4:30 pm peak hour for North Renton area. PROJECT TRAFFIC IMPACTS o Park and Garden Plaza` Plazas combined will generate about 5,300 vehicle trips per day, of which 1160 could occur during the PM Peak Hour. o Project traffic access patterns are estimated as follows: - 25% north to I-405, Lk. Wash Blvd, and NE Renton - 10% east to Maple Valley Road via N. 3rd & 4th Streets - 25% south to Bronson Way via Park and Garden Avenues - 40% west to Airport Way via 3rd, 4th, and 6th Streets o About 50% of the project traffic will penetrate the North Renton residential area on Park and Garden Avenues, and on North 3rd and 4th Streets. About 23% will penetrate the residential area south of N. 3rd Street via Park and Garden Avenues. (4) o Proportional traffic increases at selected arterial street location in the North Renton area are as follows: Street Segment PM Peak Hour Traffic Existing Project %increase N.Park Dr west of I-405 2,930 230 +8% Park & Garden Avenues: South of N. 8th Street 2,825 285 +10% North of N. 4th Street 2,390 620 +26% South of N. 3rd Street 1,175 265 +23% N. 3rd & N. 4th Streets: West of Park Avenue 2,775 230 +8% East of Garden Avenue 2,550 125 +5% o A key measure of project traffic impacts on the vicinity street system is "level of service" (LOS) . LOS is a qualitative measure of traffic congestion. LOS C is desirable; LOS D is acceptable; LOS E represents capacity; LOS F represents serious congestion. o Level of service today, and in the future with full development and occupancy of Park and Garden Plazas, is summarized on Table 1. Level of service with Park and Garden Plazas is shown for three future conditions: - Lake Wash Blvd / Park/Garden - Garden Avenue / N. 3rd Street - Garden .Avenue / N. 6th Street - Garden Avenue / N. 8th Street - ,N. 3rd Street / Sunset (5) TABLE 1 LEVELS OF SERVICE AT KEY INTERSECTIONS -- PM PEAK HOUR ' EXISTING STREET SYSTEM RECOMMENDED EXISTING STREET SYSTEM WITH REQUIRED MITIGATION PARK/GARDEN COUPLET Intersection Current W/Projects Mitigation Measure*** LOS LOS Park Avenue at: Bronson Way B B B B N. 3rd Street B C - C B N. 4th Street B C C A N. 6th Street C D 5-Lane Park (4, 5) D C N. 8th Street C C/D Realign Signal (7) C/D B/C N. 10th Street C , C C A L. Wash/Garden F F Limit Use (2) ** B/C "A" Garden Avenue at: Bronson Way E* E* E* C N. 3rd Street B E Rechannelize B B N. 4th Street B C C A N. 6th Street D* E* Signalize (3) B A N. 8th West C* D* Signalize (8) A B N. 8th East D* D* Signalize (8) A B N. 10th Street N/A N/A N/A B Logan Avenue at: Airport Way B C C C N. 3rd Street A B B B N. 4th Street B C C C N. 6th Street C D ; D D N. 3rd at Sunset E F "5-Year" Study F F 1 * Unsignalized intersection; LOS is for worst approach leg. ** Revise intersection operation to restrict north and south approaches to right turns only. *** See "Mitigation" section for more complete description of mitigating measures. The Park/Garden Couplet is discussed on page 8 . MITIGATION Based upon the above identified traffic impacts associated with the Park Plaza and the Garden Plaza projects proposals, the City Environmental Committee has recommended the following street and intersection improvement measures as conditions of development: 1. Participation in a future North Renton Benefit Assessment District to contribute "per trip generated" fees totalling $1,107,900, less credits for improvements identified in the North Renton Traffic Study that have been directly funded by the projects applicant. 2. Up grade the Garden Avenue / Lake Washington Boulevard intersection to achieve level of service D operation. (Note: This intersection already operates at LOS F, and it may be physically impossible to achieve LOS D without constricting a grade separation of some sort. ) 3. Install new signalization at intersection of N. 6th Street and garden Avenue North. _ 4. Expand Park Avenue to 5 lanes from N. 5th Street to the north property line of Park Plaza. (This condition may be eliminated by the alternative implementation of a Park/Garden Avenues one-way couplet. ) 5. Re construct the existing signal at N. 6th Street and Park Avenue. 6. Improve and channelize N. 5th street to 3-lane operation between Park and Garden Avenue. 7. Realign the existing signal at the intersection of North 8th Street and Park Avenue. 8. Contribute a fair share of the cost of signalizing the east and west intersection of Garden Avenue with N. 8th Street. 9. Dedicate 10 feet of right-of-way along North 6th Street between Park and Garden Avenues to allow for future widening to five lanes. (7) 10. Construct all site access drives with a minimum width of 30 feet. 11. Provide "kiss-ride pull out" lanes 70 feet long and 12 feet wide on Park Avenue along face of Park Plaza, and along N. 6th street along face of Garden Plaza. 12. Provide a Traffic Systems Management Program at each project to reduce vehicle trips. A number of additional conditions were imposed by the Committee relating to pedestrian circulation, of the environment. PARR / GARDEN ONE-WAY COUPLET During the course of traffic studies for the Park and Garden Plaza projects, a Park/Garden one-way street plan concept was recommended by both consultants for City consideration as a more long-range mitigation alternative for the North Renton area. The concept is illustrated on Figure 1. The concept proposes the conversion of Park Avenue to one-way south bound traffic flow from Lake Washington Boulevard to Bronson Way, with options to shorten the one-way operation north from either N. 3rd or 6th Streets to Lake Washington Boulevard. Garden Avenue would be converted to one-way north bound operation from Bronson Way to a convergence with Park Avenue in the vicinity of Lake Washington Boulevard also with an option to begin one-way operation from N. 3rd Street. A new 3-lane alignment of Garden Avenue between N. 6th and N. 8th Streets would be desirable as illustrated on Figure 1. A comparison of the levels of service at key intersections under existing conditions, with required mitigation, and with the implementation of the one-way couplet is presented in Table 1. To totally eliminate the existing "bottleneck" intersection at Lake Washington Boulevard / Park/Garden, an easterly extension of N. 10th would be necessary from Park Avenue to Garden Avenue, and then north-easterly to the Houser Way undercrossing of N. Park Drive. Another option is to terminate the one-way street operation at N. 6th Street, using N. 6th Street as a strong cross- connection between the Logan Avenue and Park/Garden corridors. The Park/Garden one-way street couplet concept is being further evaluated as part of the North Renton Assessment District Traffic Study . Some preliminary traffic evaluations and cost estimates are presented in Section III below. (8) „ . Z •%. . —,, esC I . NE PARK AA e tit % . ,•............................... - , c 0- „,....:, •....... ••••••.• ................... .0-7 :•:•:•:•:•:•:.:•:•:•:•: ..................„:„.„.:.............„:,....,......„...,„„,..,......... ..................... , ....... . .. ....................... .......................... ... ........................................................................... .......................:............. , ..................... ........................................ „. ................,.......,.......„. (....................... .............. k......................... .............................. ......... ........ . ............................ ........ . ............ . ........................... ...................::::::..........:::::..............,....„.................... ••••••• •-•••••••••••• • •••••• 0 411111111111”.41114\\ •f.a. ....... .............................................................................. .... .......... ...............:.:........-....:.:..•.....-.-.....-..-.......... ..................... ................................ ,.....,......................„............,......../....: ...... ...... ............,..... ................ .... .................•........ .... - •••• •••• -•-......••-....•.•.•.•••••• •••.............. ................ ................... ................... soinii II 1.S.ST . = • CD . i • .........."... . ...... -2. Ell .:.:.:.-.• g..= 4 w :•:•:•:.:ii::Ki:iii:i [lit 4ARK :2 t:t I E:1 •----•••-••.-.---••••••... rpi iliZA,.e., `2 / = 2 X 6 ST go,,,,, ----••-•-•..-•••••••-................... itil LWitily PAC-CAR ....... . . . . V.M5NOWN ...,.... . iiiii-•.:•:.. ::::::::::Kff.•:, q,pc7P 1:1F:MI . • - • 1S14 .:...........: witill ":**/ •-•"'..?.? w.,,..i....,,.... . -.1111..K..... ovo ' ...5:-..1......"..-.i..-:....-..!......-....................-....-.........•........:.!..........::....-..................i........................... ............................................................. ........................... ........... .02.••-•"-.f: :..:*:;:;.:::: 1 S =•-"4") 1#1t . ; ‘ I4T E9 ..*--- r, -...- .-.. ar 1 1 t t AIRPORT WY w ...._ E.T 4..... :7; :..., Y WA 0 EXISTING SIGNAL El NEW SIGNAL .-. •-• — NEW STREET LINK No. o S 2 ST F LAmE5 —70 , .. S 3 ST NORTH Figure I PROPOSED PARK/GARDEN 7k3 TRANSPO PARK PLAZA ONE—WAY COUPLET g.r-cykip 1 SECTION III FIVE-YEAR DEVELOPMENT SCENARIO Existing Street System The study area' s major east-west corridor consists of North 3rd and North 4th Streets which are one-way arterials extending from Logan Avenue on the west to Sunset Boulevard and I-405 on the east. The study area' s central north- south corridor consists of Park Avenue and Garden Avenue which are 2-way arterials extending from Lake Washington Boulevard on the north to Bronson Way on the south. Perimeter arterials consist of Sunset Boulevard on the east, Bronson Way on the south and Logan Avenue on the west. Figure 2 depicts the existing street system and existing traffic features including on-street parking zones. Figure 3 depicts existing PM peak hour volumes. The PM peak hour volume is the peak one hour volume which occurs during the PM peak period. The PM peak period can extend for several hours. Existing streets with residential abutting uses and residential zoning are identified in Table 2 along with functional classification, existing PM peak hour traffic volumes, and estimated degree of impact from existing through traffic. The table also includes an evaluation of the effectiveness of proposed neighborhood traffic mitigation programs. Functional classification is . established by the City' s annually adopted Arterial Streets Plan. Future Land Use Assumption and Trip Generation The 5-year development scenario assumed projects are shown on Figure 4 . Estimated trip generation associated with these projects is given in Table 3 below. The trip generation rate. data is from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) 1984 Trip Generation Report. Modal split (share to transit and carpools) are thise contained- in the ITE data which is derived from suburban office locations with very low transit and carpool use. With the north section HOV lanes now operational on I-405 and an extension planned to I-5, there may be a significant increase in modal split in the future which would assist in reducing impacts . r Trips passing through the study area (neither an origin or destination end in the study area) are substantial and on 1 Olt in Legend xL NO. OF LANES Q SIGNALIZED 0 %/. PARKING PERMITTED 4L 4L e4L N 5th ST u� Z W 4L W W t4L Y Z CCW leO d • N 6th ST L 5L 0 4L 3L 6L N \\ \"\ W i>". N 5th ST °�'�-�'`% /1". W D. it IC 4L 0 • N 4 th ST ,' ` 0 i.:.' . *\®4 L\ 31. 2L N 3rd q 6L �' S. M 3L /1 \ 2L111\ . NIP 2L 4L s /111/141:4' W W t ;4 a W • 3 0Q` No, i 44 EXISTING TRAFFIC FEATURES j FIGURE'. WM E POPP ASSOCIATES O 0 1n o o' 1., m d o O = , .r .aqs Ord . LEGEND ~� xx - existing pm peak hour traffic H h J v n 0 O O M r' N • 25 rro A (v0 3Z5 z-70 roo azs • zzo O 11 n elN in st_ in .! . rJi% h to 0 0 ri 235- 5'92 91c0 245 b j/ o `a n� rh In gI a p 1170 rv5 rtuo I125 (01,05- h G D 0 0 0 0 6) 4 47o vi O p W t ^, O 0 ' o t2t>0 leis ram gees ins 94e) � NinQ h 0 V 4 4'y r43n/. 0 0 N O ,.N V' N N 41 /.\,.................. N 2145 s9 o a :� ,tom q M • N "�5 �� rm` j •A d' .. W ^ N0 / e y 4 . ``f EXISTING VOLUMES / / WM E POPP ASSOCIATES FIGURE 3. y Table 2 Streets in Residential Zones Existing Effect of PM Peak Hour Impact of Neighborhood Functional Traffic Through Mitigation Street Classification Volumes(1 ) Traffic(2) Program(3) Burnett -Ave N. Local Access 100 - 150 Moderate Fair Williams Ave N. Minor Arterial 250 - 450 Moderate Very Good Wells Ave N. Minor Arterial 150 - 225 Moderate Very Good Pelly Ave N. Local Access 100 - 150 Light Good Garden Ave N. , S. of 4th Minor Arterial 290 - 550 Moderate None Factory Ave N. Collector Arterial 350 - 450 Moderate None N. 3rd Street Principal Arterial 1300 - 1890 Heavy Fair N. 4th Street Principal Arterial 670 - 1250 Heavy Fair N. 5th St. , W. of Park Ave Local Access less than 100 Very Light Good N. 6th St. , W. of Pelly Ave Principal Arterial 1200 - 1350 Heavy Negative N. 1st Street Local Access less than 100 Light None N. 2nd Street Local Access less than 100 None None (1 ) Estimated based on limited count data (2) Subjective estimate (3) Subjective Evaluation of the effectiveness of proposed neighborhood traffic mitigation on neighborhood streets . See mitigation. 91 120,000 light industrial 145,000 research & development 1 300,000 260,000 362,000 research. & development office office / j/ 245,850 office 1750 , .i1 5-YEAR DEVELOPMENT SCENARIO WM E POPP ASSOCIATES F1GURE4. Table 3 North Renton Trip Generation Known Development Proposals PM PEAK HQUR VOLUME LAND USE ; Traffic ; AWDT ; AWDT ; 2 WAY ; Zone ; rate ; ; PM PEAK ; IN ; OUT rate vol ; % vol ; % vol 300,000 SQ.FT. ; 40 ; 5. 3 ; 1590 ; 0. 9 270 ; 10.0 27 ; 90 .0 243 Research & Development ; 245, 850 SQ. FT. `; 31 ; 10. 9 ; 2680 ; 2.03 499 ; 19. 7 98 ; 80. 3 401 Office 1 I 1 I 1 1 145,000 SQ. FT. ; 36 ; 5. 3 ; 769 ; 0 . 9 131 1 10.0 13 ; 90 .0 118 Research & Development 1 i1 I 1 I I 1 I 1 I I I I 260,000 SQ. FT. 37 ; 10. 9 ; 2834 ; 2. 03 528 ; 19. 7 104 ; 80. 3 424 Office I 1 1 1 362,000 SQ. FT. 38 ; 10 . 9 3946 ; 2. 03 740 ; 19. 7 145 80 . 3 594 Office 1 1 1 1 1' 1 1 i 1 1 I 120,000 SQ. FT. ; 41 5. 46 ; 655 ; 1 . 18 141 ; 19. 7 28 ; 80. 3 113 Light Industrial ; 1 1 i 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 1, 750 SQ. FT. 4 ; 40 . 7 ; 71 1 2. 29 4 ; 42. 4 2 ; 57. 6 2 Retail 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 1 TOTAL ; 12, 545 : ` 2313 ; 418 ; 1895 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 I (1 , 434 , 600 SQF) i 1 1 i i the order of 70% of total study area traffic based on PSCOG travel patterns . Due to the travel constraints on the study area' s eastern border (Maple Valley interchange, N. 3rd Street at Sunset, and on the I-405 mainline) , future growth in through traffic has been assumed to remain constant for this analysis scenario thus giving priority for available capacity to study area traffic growth. Trip Distribution and Assignment Trip interchanges between the internal study area and major external areas were developed from the PSCOG year 2000 data. Figure 5 depicts the proposed developments' traffic assignment to the internal street system for the one-way couplet concept. Projects plus background traffic is depicted on Figure 6 . 5-Year Development Scenario Impacts o The assumed 5-year development scenario generates some 12, 500 vehicle trips per day of which 2300 could occur during the PM peak hour. The PM peak hour volume is roughly double the combined Park Plaza - Garden Plaza volume. o Percentage increases in traffic volume at principal access points to the study area are as follows : N. Park Avenue West of I-405 + 20% N. 3rd Street West of Sunset Blvd + 34% Logan Avenue at the Cedar River + 14% Bronson Way West of Sunset Blvd + 2% Bronson Way at the Cedar River + 11% o Some minor volume increases on neighborhood streets could be expected on Williams, Wells, Pelly and Garden Avenues and a large volume increase on N. 6th Street (+ 42%) . Significant increases are estimated for N. 3rd and N. 4th Streets east of Garden Avenue (+ 22%) . As mentioned previously, the most common measure of traffic impacts is "level-of-service" (LOS) . LOS is a qualitative measure of traffic congestion - LOS C is desireable; LOS D is acceptable; LOS E represents capacity; LOS F represents serious congestion. Table 4 denotes level-of-service 2 N R S PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TRIP ASSIGNMENT Q With One-Way Couplet a �� O 05 O d' I xx - Project Traffic iA 0 s \ , r 0` in O 4 c' 4 201 2155 33 l� 43 0/8 . V% ' 'fiAr o r CO 0 / LIB /O VA Fl 14! 513° 215 o o m N 59 Ioo . fl w. m1 0 0 0 m. 1.353 Id19 Q ' 2s 497- 114 rov 39 t ` r .0 � , FIGURES. WM E POPP ASSOCIATES , c o t d \\Ir BACKGROUND PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC 103 • With One-Way Couplet 0 4 i� XXX PM Peak Hour Traffic PM Peak Hour O Level-of-Service j, cgl v ' 311 10 133 I 2 3 41( CQ y / N � \ 7G3 , x/ 0 0 .% m N o@ • o e J .'0 0c 0 12 9 'l81 0 0 D Oil13oy to .00la ► 2w5 ab . 2L37 P- /8yq S. O 4401° 0 t?) 0 e FIGURE 6. WM E POPP ASSOCIATES estimates for selected intersections for conditions with and without the proposed one-way couplet. Table 4 5-Year Development Scenario Intersection PM Peak Hour Level-of-Service With and Without Mitigation Existing Network With One-Way Intersection w/o Mitigation Couplet Airport Way/Logan Avenue C C Bronson/1st Ave/Park Ave B B Lk Wa/Park Ave/Garden Ave F A ( 1) N. 3rd St/Sunset Blvd F F D (2) D (2) N. 3rd St/Avenue D D N. 3rd St/Garden Avenue E C N. 4th St/Logan Avenue D D N. 4th St/Garden Avenue C A N. 4th St/Park Avenue C D N. 6th St/Logan Avenue D D N. 6th St/Park Avenue F C Sunset Blvd/SR 169 E E (1 ) With extensive street revision including N. 10th extension to Houser Way (2) With the programmed additional lane in each direction added to the intersection east leg (N 3rd St) and extensive rechannelization and signal rephasing. o As may be noted from Table 4, the existing network without _improvement results in LOS E at N. 3rd/Garden Avenue and Sunset Blvd/SR 169 and LOS F at N. 6th St/Park Avenue, Lake Washington Blvd/Park Ave/Garden Ave, and at N. 3rd Street/Sunset Blvd. One Proposed Mitigation Scenario - See Figure 7 for Depiction of Improvements As may be noted in Table 4 , the one-way couplet proposal provides acceptab7.e LOS at all intersections save N. 3rd St/Sunset Blvd which is mitigated above. 3 1 LEGEND '■■■■■■■■■■ - Street Capacity Improvements - Neighborhood street mitigation OA P - Existing Signal O - Signal new or modified = '' i O - Traffic Circle or diverter . 4 • -. v i 0 i'i' i t \ il: . ID 0 / 0 ---,--44---1,,,e , :;: ., ..-,' i t ' -•,:-.-.4...-4--,-.-„-..i rf-.- -_.e:_; Ato ..,, ,,, Ar , .4' A : t .._ SUGGESTED IMPROVEMENT PLAN 1988-1993 WM E POPP ASSOCIATES FIGURE 7. • o The suggested improvement plan consists of the one- way couplet concept extending to Bronson Way from Lake Washington Blvd. However, extension of the one- way couplet to Bronson Way results in some increase in projects' traffic impacts on Garden south of N. 3rd Street. o The one-way couplet concept includes new signals at Garden Avenue/-N. 6th Street, - N. 8th Street, - N. 10th Street extended. It also includes a connection through the existing PACCAR site to continuously align Garden Avenue and an extension of N. 10th Street through the Boeing parking lot over to Houser Way, and most importantly removal of the signal and all conflicting moves at the Lake Washington Blvd/Park Ave/Garden Ave intersection with rechannelization of Garden to 3 lanes turning onto Park with a 200 foot minimum radius. o Widening the east leg of the Sunset Blvd. /N. 3rd St. intersection from 5 lanes to 7 lanes is required for adequate level-of-service. _This is a critical need for study area traffic service. o A two-way bike lane is suggested on Park Avenue down to N. 5th Street as the surplus capacity exists as a result of the one-way couplet concept and the route would apparently fill in a much needed link in the bicycle plan. This proposal may require review under the longer range plan. Other suggested improvements to mitigate impacts of through traffic on streets along residentially zoned areas include: o Reducing N. 4th Street from 4 lanes to 3 lanes and adding parking on one side is suggested to insulate residents from direct traffic impacts . This may also serve to increase drivers' awareness of the street environment. o Conversion of N. 4th and N. 5th Streets to 2-way operation with a connection to Sunset Blvd from N. 4th Street should be considered in the long range study. o Reinstating parking on N. 3rd Street in the present no-parking area should also serve to protect residents on the north side of N. 3rd Street. 4 o Conversion of Williams and Wells Avenues to 2-way operation with traffic diverters (traffic circles or like measure vis-a-vis Seattle' s -program) on all north-south residential streets between Logan Avenue and Park Avenue and N. 4th and N. 6th Streets. Alternative methods to reduce traffic impacts include traffic demand reduction through the following: o Shifting of the building peak dischargetime since projects' PM peak hours are assumed to coincide with the street peak which occurs between 3 : 30 and 4 : 30 PM. If the buildings were to have the more normal 4 : 00 to 5 : 00 PM peak hours significantly lower peak LOS traffic impacts would result. o Increased HOV use through aggressive implementation of various programs and suggestions by Metro including car/van pool formation assistance along with preferential parking for car/van pools, transit pass subsidy, subscriber bus service, reduced parking requirements. o Exploration of higher capital cost options including ' an HOV access to I-405 via a connection from N. 4th Street to Sunset with a southbound on-ramp to I-405. This should be addressed in the long range study. Other area wide improvement requirements indicated which merit special attention in the long range study include additional I-405 general purpose vehicle lane capacity through Renton and special analysis of the N. 3rd Street - Maple Valley Road - Sunset Boulevard interchange improvement possibilities with I-405 . Capital Cost Estimate Preliminary sketch level cost estimates for the suggested improvement plan are presented in Table 5 for purposes of perspective. The largest single element is the Lake Washington Boulevard upgrade from Park Avenue to I-405 which is essentially an aesthetic and bike safety enhancement project . For this reason and the inordinate project expense, a, proportional share cost based on traffic contribution is assigned to the cost estimate total. Other project total costs are included in entirety. The resulting total is $2, 831 , 000 . 5 Table 5 - Preliminary Cost Estimate for One Way Couplet on Park & Garden Avenues And Other External Improvements New 3L road w/ CG, SW, Illumination, RR gates: 2650 ' $858 , 000 * Intersection improvements : Houser, Lake Washington Blvd CG, Drainage, Illumination, Widening, RR gate $300 , 000 Modify Lake Washington Blvd/Garden/Park Intersection Remove signals, rechannelize w/200' radius on 3 lane curve $150 , 000 * Re-mark streets to 3 lane one-way pattern $ 20 ,000 Widen N. 3rd under I-405 to 7 lanes (w/ WSDQT) $250 , 000 Signal modifications at 7 intersections $105 , 000 New Signals at: 6th/Garden, 8th/Garden, 10th/Garden $255 , 000 Traffic circle diverters (6) - $ 60 , 000 Lake Washington Blvd upgrade (Park to I-405) $6, 250 , 000 at 13% proportional share $833 , 000 • TOTAL COST ESTIMATE . . . . $2, 831 , 000 * Does not include right-of-way cost T T I Supplemental Report on PARK/GARDEN AVENUES ONE-WAY STREET COUPLET October 8, 1987 Prepared for: E & H Properties and City of Renton Prepared by: The TRANSPO Group, Inc. 14715 Bel-Red Road, Suite 100 Bellevue, WA 98007 J TABLE OF CONTENTS Page CONCEPT DESCRIPTION 1 OPTIONS 1 ADVANTAGE OF ONE-WAY FLOW CONCEPT 4 EVALUATION OF OPTIONS 8 Overview 8 Option A 9 Option B 11 Option C 13 Comparison of Traffic Volumes 13 IMPLEMENTATION OF COST ESTIMATES 14 LIST OF FIGURES 1. Park/Garden One-Way Couplet -- PM Peak Hour Traffic With Park Plaza and Garden Plaza 2 2. Proposed Park/Garden One-Way Couplet -- Option A: Terminate at N 6th Street 3 3. Proposed Park/Garden One-Way Couplet -- Option B: Terminate at N 4th Street 5 4. Proposed Park/Garden One-Way Couplet -- Option C: Terminate at Bronson Way 6 5. Park/Garden One-Way Couplet South End Terminus Geometry at Bronson Way 7 6. Park/Garden Couplet - Option B: PM Peak Hour Traffic Estimates 12 LIST OF TABLES 1. Levels of Service at Key Intersections -- PM Peak Hour 10 2. PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Under Different Park/Garden Avenue Operating Options 14 TG: 87244.00 CONCEPT DESCRIPTION During the course of traffic studies for the Park and Garden Plaza pro- jects, a Park Avenue/Garden Avenue one-way street plan concept was devised as an alternate means of mitigating not only the Park and Garden Plazas traffic impacts, but also the impacts of longer-range land development impacts in the North Renton area. The concept was adopted for further consideration of the longer-range transportation solutions for the North Renton area in the "North Renton Transportation Study". The concept and its options are illustrated on Figures 1 through 5. It proposes the conversion of Park Avenue to one-way southbound traffic flow from Lake Washington Boulevard to an optional southern terminus point. Garden Avenue would be converted to one-way northbound traffic flow. The Garden Avenue "dog-leg" at N 8th Street would be remedied by constructing a new three-lane alignment of Garden Avenue between N 6th and N 8th Streets through the Pac-Car property. The new alignment would follow a path that already generally exists between storage yards and former building operations. The proposed concept would totally eliminate the existing "bottleneck" intersection of Lake Washington Boulevard/Park/Garden Avenues, as illustrated in Figure 1. To facilitate this intersection elimination and the one-way flow concept, a new four-lane extension of N 10th Street from Park to Garden Avenues is strongly recommended, as illustrated on Figure 1. Traffic connection between Lake Washington Boulevard and the downtown Renton and North Renton areas would be accommodated by Houser Way and N 8th Street. An optional extension of N 10th Street'from Garden Avenue to Houser Way would restore the accessibility between Lake Washington Boulevard (LWB) and the North Renton area that is lost by elimination of the LWB/Garden intersection. This is an option for the City and its residents to choose. OPTIONS Option A The Option A minimal couplet scheme is illustrated on Figure 2. Park Avenue would provide four southbound lanes southwest of Lake Washington Boulevard, plus an auxiliary right-turn lane on the approach to N 10th Street (all within -1- • . . . , . . . . 1 4 ,.. 16s. A 4/(„va% . 0. ... ... ./. -.IR !lam• . �i �i 15� ".......7 oz zz /// // .0 p; ii /1 • • • . . •/ II CITY .• .•'\ 9 do 1//i,/ 1► OPTION t ///// 11 '1 o -445 • ��:Ir/Ili l►t120 •' _\�, 6ap� 66O - 7O- 1 i i r104-i iP —��, '�; o 111 N10STi' ,‘ • - • - - - 1: 111 I \\`• : i LOS III I I \1` LOS • A 11 ; \ --- -� l r i i 1 1 �-+ `• ., ra B III 0 it I 0'. III • \:. W, III : t\` II1 1 \1\ x III a¢6.. 1I1 1 ;i;1 Itl � ••' • III 111 N III W �1� o III Los i r I I 1 r--- . �1: B III , 11 11I --- - Ji : ZN 11 o iII N8ST 11: 20 .0) 3-4.- -K 730 -4350 200J/I I 1 Nk--115 -4 400 — _ - - _ _ 190 k- - -- 100-V 1 I i rr710 1501. f-(260)- Th r► 22010- 111 • a :i III III m 111 II / 111 I' `-1 r III ... A III . .. NORTH PARK PLAZA PARK/GARDEN ONE-WAY COUPLET `1!1 GARDEN PLAZA PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC WIITHg.reSI PARK PLAZA AND GARDEN PLAZA -2- ... .... aia ig •.'• IN :..i'.::: ::.::::::.a. 47 .,,. c• V !- lih.. ................. .............................. ................. .............. ‘ . NEPAagla ........... ...... ................ ................................ ...................... A ............................................................ .... ....... ..................... .......................................... .... ....... .... ...... ........... •........„.,.•.....•....•. ? hy •:•:•:...•..:••••.•.•.•••••• ..... ..'.:::....1:1:.:...'...i.:::...:::**:...:**•"•...i.•:::....:.:...*:•:•••••:'••••••••••••••••••••• friti . ••1 i.... . . .... ..•..•.... .......,.............. .:.:.:.:....:.....••- . • a -........••••••••••••.......... io``• •• r •.:.1112211 ...:11m.... 7............ -:::1;i1M1 c, 0 0 if ;GAS §ililinggiEiEiiiinp g::::',.,..:.:•:•:::::::: .'.::.:?....1:.::,•.:.4:....,..ii.::.'......:':::::I.:::::.:...:i.•.:.:*:-::',.::.::::.........i...:::...:..:i i....: '...-...'...::..:::::.::I::.g...:_ii i.....i::...::::: 1100116 II I ST 0 Id ..e i • 09 ; 1111:11111111 1111:7 lini Fra: i t IV az, •c ::??:•:•:*::::?:::::::: ,...:K**:::::: — 4;2 t eft -..::::. 2E az k,:::::::::•.::::::-:::::::::: ., ruZA au / A 4:1 - .., aTi -,- ' • ' -' / V ,_. ._ .• , ::Int::. 5 .. -•- .""-•- PAC-CAll I ..— .t)41/11 II 6 ST•e--4 •••••••:: E . 'al :11. 1 at . • ' 'la,. •••:'.:.••.. •:;•e.:• . ....* • ••• • •• ••• ........,......... •'..•''• ......-. ........ ........ ............ .......... .......... a... ...,..... ........ .......... 1 g 0:::.• .......... ........ )ill / i. .-...•:-....-....-...:::. 1) 4 IN 4 STit)0 A • so .''.., . flit Vit%S1 lai I" , AIRPORT rf a•- a.' c w . AP k.-t:I se' /t 0 EXISTING SIGNAL 0 NEW SIGNAL ..• NEW STREET LINK S2ST 4 411( A f 0 N t3ST . , . . 1 I NORTH --.— .... Figure 2 r5S1 I PARK PLAZA PROPOSED PARK/GARDEN ITRANSPO ONE-WAY COUPLET c.rou• GARDEN PLAZA OPTION A: TERMINATE AT N. 6TH STREET -3- TG: 87244.00 existing pavement). South of N 10th Street, all four existing lanes would be converted to southbound traffic flow. At N 6th Street, two of the four lanes would flow into N 6th Street with an improved turning radius -- one lane would be designed for "free-flow", unstopped by the signal . Between N 6th and N 4th Streets, Park Avenue would operate with two lanes southbound, one lane northbound, and one lane dedicated to left-turn move- ments. South of N 4th Street, Park Avenue would operate as it does today. Garden Avenue would also operate as it does today south of N 3rd Street to provide a south-to-east left-turn lane on the north approach. • Option B Option B would continue the Park Avenue/Garden Avenue one-way couplet to N 4th Street (see Figure 3) . Two of the four southbound lanes on Park Avenue would "drop" to N 4th Street. South of N 4th Street, Park and Garden Avenues would operate as they do today. Option C Under Option C, the Park and Garden Avenues one-way operations would be carried south to Bronson Way, as illustrated on Figure 4. South of N 3rd Street, Park and Garden Avenues would operate as they do today in terms of number of thru traffic lanes. However, the two lanes on each street would operate in the same direction (one-way) to increase the efficiency of street operations. A more detailed illustration of the Park Avenue/Garden Avenue/ Bronson Way configurations under Option C are shown on Figure 5. A signal may be desired at the Bronson Way and Garden Avenue intersection. ADVANTAGE OF ONE-WAY FLOW CONCEPT One-way street operations can increase the traffic carrying capacity of Park and Garden Avenues by 50 percent or more. One-way operation eliminates the traffic delays, lane blockages, and safety hazards associated with left- turning vehicles. Signal systems can operate more efficiently since they will not require more than two or three signal phases, and the signals can be -4- ' . , . . .. 44 .... :,- Ilt .........................................................,:..........f......................?: .:..,.....::::..:.:::.....:::::::::.;...:.:....:...*..:.i..:........?.:::::;::::....;:i..:.:::::'..:..... ...—--.............................. '::,:1:..::.:*::::.:::':.;..:-':.":."-,..*...1...:1:.*:,::.::•:.:e:...;..:*.:...;":.:2E..:'....::..f..:.':..... t NEPARX DR IF 4, A, % Ili ••••............,......•• ••• • ••-••-..... . ...............................•...•.•.•....„.„..•:•....• .........:„.. 1.':':!.:g.::.:E';..E:!:::•...,:**4:.:§:§:. ‘‘/W ,-•I . .../.:.::...:. ..........................„.-- .......... ....................... .,................. .......................... ............... ........ ...... . ........ . -.: ... finn ::1.i1M1 . o ................... ..................... ............................,......„. *e.*:::-.:•••••••••••••-....:::;:l.:.•••••••:••••••••••••••••••••••::::::;;-:::::::;...•••••:-.:::::.:::::::::•:::;. Jinnipiai; -i:•;i;ii.:fii,:.• \\ . ... .. ..................................•.... ... . , .................................. ..........-.....„...........„ ............................ ..................... :...................................... ....... ...... . ................... ................................ .......................... ..,................................. ............ ..,..........,..,..-...-:::::....-..-,.....-• ••••••••••....... ••••••-••••••••••••••••,- • • ••••• •••••••••••••••••••• . ...............•••••••••.......................... .......................... ........................., ......................... .... . ..--..i.•••• ...................,...............„.,„ ........................... -........-------- .-------- siiiiii ...... Ma ST .., 1::::.........i....:•..:....:......!.......................:............!..................:....:......................;:............:::::::: : ' •:::::::: 0 0 . i ..f....i: t t L............ 4 t = ,:.:.:.:.:.:.:,...:.:•:.:.: .,4 nAzA . i ,::::: ci ttl wall i ts- \ L. .. 'L.......4 t`i . A • PAC-CAS N 6 ST ........:.;:....:... 94-a..._-___ _.__,..P '...*:..:I1-....41 ............... ...............----.. . ........... Ta.minkAl :::...5. --f.--,10 .......,..............:.............:;:..:...... // ...... . Er.,m...:I•ifl,:i.,7.. • " ..„......„... .-.,.. 1: -..,-:?, 5:::::k.:.:.;.::•;'::..I.P., i 4 IN 4 sT, 2311 to .., Pk i tt --.- 04-- -0 01 1 AIRPORT VT W W CC W .;/ 0 EXISTING SIGNAL iV 0 NEW SIGNAL S 2 ST — — —— NEW STREET LINK 4 0 -If ri N S 3 ST it,- _____________ Ai 0 ' a i I 1 NORTH Figure 3 PARK PLAZA PROPOSED PARK/GARDEN 'Mg GARDEN PLAZA ONE-WAY COUPLET TRANSPO rou 1 OPTION B: TERMINATE AT N. 4TH STREET ® r -5- , .. . EA 1 i PARK DR e.c:4\110 • . .. ....... • - %# - . : .'.1..7...7. ( 0 o * ..... o 0 11.16 0 .A . ......•............................................. ................,.......... ._,„...•.......................... BOEING NUT . . I >. 2C :•:.:-;:•:•:.:•:.!•:.:•:•:.: CO PLAZA g2 i 2 . C ,,, • % .. . . . PAC-CAR.... MU i Fi.................... N6ST 9ragaP 1 g.:•.,:,111: .2•:..T.:.. ..... .......„•••.............„. •••-••-• - •.•--................,........... ............ It") - - ........,.:,.,..- ....„.„,. .:„..:. .....„..:: ......... ko-1 / ......... ........ ............... -..1.,.:.....,.......,::::.:•......,:-......:....,...::.....:„ •- •-• • • •. . .iso-Ism .......„....,..„..:„.„......„..... )11i t 1 ..i„;.:0: ,,,,,"•••,,,,,,1:: ::.::::„.::....:....:..... .. .. , vani,,,,,.„ 4 N 4 ST n e ic o--- .. li• ilL. t t ... • ; 1 t t 0 . = w . AIRPORT WY >.- --c -c k.:* *A ff 0.41.- 0 EXISTING SIGNAL 0 NEW SIGNAL -- NEW STREET LINK S2ST N 44 CD -41- :4 S3ST A NORTH Figure 4 PARK PLAZA PROPOSED PARK/GARDEN 7Nfa arRANSPO iiiitiiIEN PLAZA ONE—WAY COUPLET trovp OPTION C: TERMINATE AT BRONSON WAY -6- I I \ K itI I J I I I. I I I. I I. I J I I - 1• I I I • I ILI I " I I I I I I I II II I - . - I I- 7 - - ) o Y II i o 0 III I II I - II I II I II I I I I - I I I I II II • II - II - _ I I M�<<ST III 1111111' Vre II ro I I I III I Figure 5 IPARK PLAZA PARK/GARDEN ONE-WAY COUPLET TRANSPO GARDEN PLAZA SOUTH END TERMINUS GEOMETRY group I AT BRONSON WAY -7- TG: 87244.00 coordinated to provide progressive traffic flow. The most significant advan- tages of the Park Avenue/Garden Avenue one-way concept are: • Total elimination of the Lake Washington Boulevard/Park Avenue/Garden Avenue intersection -- the capacity "bottleneck" for traffic access to the North Renton area. • Elimination of any need to expand Park or Garden Avenues in terms of number of lanes. The Park Avenue/Garden Avenue one-way couplet will not, per se, cause higher traffic volumes in and through the North Renton area. However, by increasing the operating efficiency of the existing street system to maintain City and community goals to minimize congestion, the arterial street system may be more attractive for thru traffic use. There is a perception in the community that one-way streets will increase traffic speeds. Traffic speeds can be controlled by signal timing for a controlled traffic progression at predetermined speeds. Traffic will seem to move faster, but that is a perception brought about by one-way flow in reduc- ing traffic congestion and delay. EVALUATION OF OPTIONS Overview The principal and minor arterial system in the North Renton area is high- lighted by the wider line widths on Figures 2, 3, and 4. These arterial streets include Logan, Park and Garden Avenues; Bronson Way; 3rd, 4th, 6th and 8th Streets. By definition, .these street are designated to accommodate the vicinity and city-wide traffic mobility needs of the City. If these arterial streets are operationally maintained to accommodate traffic demands at a good level of service, there would be no need for arterial traffic to spillover onto the local streets. The Park Avenue/Garden Avenue one-way couplet would help assure good operating conditions on the arterial street system. -8- TG: 87244.00 Table 1 illustrates calculated levels of service at key arterial inter- sections throughout the North Renton area. It shows existing conditions and future conditions for three cases: 1. Existing street system with no improvements. 2. Existing street system plus improvements required as a condition of Park and Garden Plazas development. 3. With implementation of the Park Avenue/Garden Avenue one-way couplet as an alternate form of area-wide traffic mitigation. Note that the one-way couplet (under Option C) would result in better levels of service at all intersections along Park Avenue and at most inter- sections along Garden Avenue, as compared to Case 2 which includes an expan- sion of Park Avenue to five lanes. Option A Option A would terminate the Park Avenue/Garden Avenue one-way couplet operation at N 6th Street with a focus to divert thru traffic south of N 6th Street from Park and Garden Avenues to Logan Avenue. One of the two northbound lanes would be converted to a two-way left-turn lane to facilitate access to/from parking facilities. South of N 4th Street, Park and Garden Avenues would continue to operate as they do today. The effects of Option A are summarized as follows: • Option A would achieve the primary objectives of the one-way couplet concept: eliminate the LWB/Park/Garden bottleneck, and improve corridor capacity where traffic volumes are the highest. • It could result in a 20 to 25 percent traffic reduction on Park and Garden Avenues. • However, the traffic shift to Logan Avenue may cause its intersec- tions at N 4th and N 6th Streets to drop to LOS E or F conditions, thereby somewhat negating its attractiveness as a diversion route. • Option A would not eliminate the need to maintain Park and Garden Avenues as arterial streets, nor would it reduce the number of traffic lanes needed to accommodate the remaining traffic volumes. -9- Table 1 Levels of Service at Key Intersections -- PM Peak Hour EXISTING STREET SYSTEM PARK/GARDEN EXISTING STREET SYSTEM WITH REQUIRED MITIGATION COUPLET Option C Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Intersection Current W/Projects Mitigation Measure LOS LOS Park Avenue at: Bronson Way B C C B N 3rd Street B C C B N 4th Street B C C A N 6th Street C D Five-lane Park (4,5) D C N 8th Street C C/D Realign Signal (7) C/D B/C N 10th Street C C C A Lake Washington/Garden Avenue F F Limit Use (2)** B/C "A" Garden Avenue at: Bronson Way E* E* E* C 7 N 3rd Street B E Rechannelize B B N 4th Street B C C A N 6th Street D* E* Signalize (3) B A N 8th Street W C* D* Signalize (8) A B N 8th Street E D* D* Signalize (8) A B N 10th Street N/A N/A N/A B Logan Avenue at: Airport Way B C C C N 3rd Street A B B B N 4th Street B C C C N 6th Street C D D • D N 3rd Sreet at Sunset Avenue E F "Five-year" Study F F * Unsignalized intersection; LOS is for worst approach leg. ** Revise intersection operation to restrict north and south approaches to right turns only. TG: 87244.00 • A traffic signal would be needed at the intersection of Garden Avenue and Bronson Way. • Levels of service at Park Avenue intersections south of N 6th Street would be better than those shown for Case 2 on Table 1, but not as good as those shown for Case 3. Option B Option B would carry one-way operation on Park and Garden Avenues south to N 4th Street, and transition between N 3rd and N 4th Streets into existing two-way operation south of N 3rd Street. Of the four southbound lanes on Park Avenue north of N 6th Street, one lane could 'drop' to N 6th Street as a free right-turn lane to encourage traffic diversion to Logan Avenue. Between N 6th and N 4th Streets, one of the existing four traffic lanes could be dedicated to parking use. One of the three remaining lanes would "drop' to N 4th Street westbound, and another would 'drop' to N 3rd Street eastbound. The single existing southbound lane on Park Avenue south of N 3rd Street would be heavily loaded during the PM peak hour. PM peak hour traffic estimates on the Option B plan with full development of Park and Garden Plazas are illustrated on Figure 6. They illustrate the logic for the 'drop' lanes along Park Avenue. The traffic effects of Option 8 are summarized as follows: • All of the previously noted effects of Option A apply also to Option 8; however, traffic diversion to Logan Avenue between N 6th and.N 4th Street may be slightly less than under Option A. • Option B provides a more logical and less confusing transition point between one-way and two-way flow operations on Park and Garden Avenues., • Traffic operations at the Park and Garden intersections with N 3rd and 4th Streets would be acceptable, but slightly worse than under Option A. • South of N 3rd Street, future traffic on Garden Avenue would be less than it carries today; however, traffic on Park Avenue southbound would be heavier. A parking restriction on the southbound curb lane may need to be considered during the PM peak hour. -11- A • 0 u-, Nib # eu i W .... .'"c• o NE PARK DR ... .. Ss rtiliiii,„1::,.:..,:,,.;.:1:iiiiilik\\\-40, iiiiiii.... NUT 1 = 1 i --........." ... •-•"•••••" ••• _. 1 ••• CD &U ..0 6.9 EC3 r g*.=1, i, • gl ..9 F...:-.;:,.::...:x:,.,..:.::...::..:.:.:.:.: ..I . , '..."6' e.:1, e "...‘ ' • • • ' PAC-CAR laWANO:. 780 ..,,,,e111:7 y II 6 S e, •- )41111 ............ ,............. ‘-t1PW'su5—."--24.- i4-3 10 -g . -,. • Tr -. ............••".•..••............ ............ .......... .......... ...... . ................ ......... ........ i a__I . -..T.....:.:..:'. cli II - •••• 1 •:'.. .. ... .... ... •- •••. 1270 .) ili,:, T lz ....,........-...-.,.. ..... 700 0 i 4 C 114ST. - ... ift .. ........... a , . .. . .. . . . ... . . .. c°21 )C? ttr9 17" 12060 Q =POET WT au •••• a- 2. 5 ti 0 EXISTING SIGNAL 0 NEW SIGNAL S 2 ST .- NEW STREET LINK 44 * 411 fi N 3 3 ST 30, 0 • )11- 3 A I I NORTH Figure 6 PARK PLAZA PARK/GARDEN COUPLET - OPTION B Thig GARDEN PLAZA PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC ESTIMATES TRANSPO @Tour) -12- TG: 87244.00 • Option C Option C extends the Park Avenue/Garden Avenue one-way flow operation all the way to Bronson Way. South of N 4th Street, it uses the same number of traffic lanes on Park and Garden Avenues that are utilized today. However, since both lanes on Park Avenue would serve the heavy southbound traffic flow, there is no possibility of needing to preempt a parking lane for PM peak hour southbound traffic use. The added effects of Option C as compared to Options A and B follow. • Substantially improves level of service at Park and Garden Avenues intersections with N 3rd and N 4th Streets and Bronson Way by remov- ing several turning movements at each intersection and simplifying signal phasing. • Causes more shift of traffic from Park Avenue to Garden Avenue south of N 4th Street than under Options A and B. • Causes more circuitous access patterns for residents and businesses along Park and Garden Avenues, but improves access safety and sub- stantially reduces access delays. • Proper timing and coordination of traffic signals can control traffic speeds. • May eliminate the need to install a signal at the Garden Avenue/ Bronson Way intersection. Suboption: Operate Park Avenue as one-way southbound to Bronson Way, but leave Garden Avenue in its current two-way operation between N 4th Street and Bronson Way. Install a signal at the Garden Avenue/Bronson Way intersection. Traffic volumes on Garden Avenue would not necessitate one-way operation south of N 4th Street. Comparison of Traffic Volumes Traffic volumes on selected arterial street segments in the residential vicinity of North Renton are compared in Table 2. These comparisons reflect PM peak hour traffic conditions after full development and occupancy of Park and Garden Plazas. • -13- TG: 87244.00 Table 2 PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Under Different Park/Garden Avenue Operating Options Current Park/Garden Avenues One-Way Flow Street' Segment Lane Use Option A Option B Option C North of N 4th Street: Logan Avenue 2,000 2,650 2,300 2,200 Park Avenue 1,800 1,850 2,100 2,200 Garden Avenue 1,300 620 720 720 Between N 3rd and N 4th Streets: Logan Avenue 3,600 3,950 3,550 3,450 Park Avenue 1,240 1,250 1,500 1,580 Garden Avenue 830 550 650 680 South of N 3rd Street: Logan Avenue 4,950 5,300 4,900 4,800 Park Avenue 1,020 1,000 1,200 1,150 Garden Avenue 480 350 400 550 IMPLEMENTATION OF COST ESTIMATES Preliminary cost estimates have been prepared for implementation of the Park Avenue/Garden Avenue one-way couplet options using the King County planning estimate model . A more extensive preliminary engineering study is recommended before a more reliable cost estimate can be prepared. Estimated Cost in $1,000s(1) Improvement Element Option A Option B Option C N 10th Extension - Park to Garden $ 230 $ 230 $ 230 N 10th Extension - Garden to Houser(2) 570 570 570 New Garden Alignment - N 6th to N 8th 680 680 680 Modify LWB/Park/Garden Intersection(3) 150 150 150 Houser/LWB Intersection Improvements(2) 100 100 100 New Garden Signals at 6th, 8th, 10th(3) 255 255 255 New Signal at Garden/Bronson(3) 85 85 Optional Modify Existing Signals at $15 each 45 75 120 Remark and Sign for One-way Operation 25 40 50 Total Estimated Costs $2,140 $2,185 $2,155 Notes: (1) ROW costs assume $4.00/sf (2) Optional ; to be determined by City. (3) Needed whether or not Park and Garden Avenues are converted to one-way operation. -14- TG: 87244.00 The vast majority of improvement costs occur form N 6th Street northward and are common to all options. Additional street conversion costs for Options B and C would be only $50,000-$100,000 more than implementing Option A only. -15- R-(DIG - sA -on -81 cm! MATO Vt_ri,tk! n-1) " - • rfl t,--j-j FEB 1 7 1987 DUILDING/ZONiNG DEPT. E & H PROPERTIES GARDEN PLAZA III REZONE • SITE PLAN _ 43; February 17, 1987 • .at **P THE BLAYLOCK COMPANY specialists in land-use procedures February 17, 1987 Mr. Don Erickson, Zoning Administrator City of Renton Building and Zoning Department 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, Washington 98055 RE: E & H PROPERTIES/ GARDEN PLAZA Dear Mr. Erickson: - E & H Properties has retained The Blaylock Company to present the necessary land use applications and supporting arguments to the City of Renton to allow the construction of approximately a 212,000 square foot office building along with a two and three story parking garage on property located between Garden Avenue North and Park Avenue North and between North 5th and 6th Streets. Presently a three story (58,000 square foot) office building adjoins the subject site to the west. The proposed parking garage would provide the required parking, necessary to support both the proposed and existing office structures. The development review process before the City of Renton for the total project is composed of the following three components: 1. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Evaluation of environmental impacts associated with the physical construction of the office building after obtaining the necessary zoning. 2. REZONE REQUEST The request to rezone 3.3 acres from L-1, Light Industrial to B 1, Business Use. 3. SITE PLAN REVIEW The site design review of the construction of a six story 212,000 square foot office building over a two—story parking garage along with a three story parking garage containing 1210 parking spaces on a 3.62 acre site. Approximately .32 acres of the subject site is presently zoned B 1, Business Use. 10 717 NE Fourth Street, Suite 9 • Bellevue,Washington 98004 • (206)455-1550 The applicant specifically includes in the application the following on and off site provisions to address both environmental and design issues: 1. Participation in the improvement of the intersection Garden Avenue North and Lake Washington Boulevard in the amount of $ 10,000.00 to be paid at the time of building permit issuance. [This represents over twice the applicant's proportionate share of 2.2% of the total traffic volume.] 2. Participation in the signalization of the intersection of Garden Avenue North and North 6th Street in the amount of $20,000.00 to be paid at the time of building permit issuance. [This represents approximately 20% of the estimated $100,000.00 cost, while the project's traffic impact is measured at 18.3% of the total traffic volume.] 3. Plaza and landscaped outdoor areas have been included into . the site design to link the building with the parking garage and the public access areas. 4. Roof top landscaping on the parking garage to soften the aesthetic impact of the parking surface. 5. Increase size of on-site landscaping to provide immediate buffering of the scale of the buildings from the public sidewalks and adjacent streets. The reductions of the site plans has not been included in the application. We would prefer submitting them after the environmental decision , but prior to the preparation of the staff report to allow staff comments and environmental decisions to be incorporated into the presentation drawing for the public hearing. The following pages contain the justification for the rezone request and site plan approval. If you have any questions please contact me directly. Sincerely, � n Roger J. Blaylock REZONING JUSTIFICATION The applicant's request to rezone 3.3 acres (143,836 square feet) complies with the three rezoning criteria established under Section 4-3014. In addition, we will prove to the Hearing Examiner that it is timely to rezone the property and that the "public interest" is being served at the same time that the "public health, safety and welfare" is being preserved in the discussion of the following three criteria: 1. The subject site has not been considered in a previous area-wide rezone or land use analysis; or The rezone area was generally considered as part of the Central Renton Plan, adopted in March of 1983. The Goals and Policies did not specifically address the Boeing Commercial Airplane Complex nor were those areas immediately adjacent to the manufacturing plant addressed. The primary planning effort focused on the preservation of the residential neighborhoods. Therefore, the evidence shows that the site has not been specifically considered since at least 1965. 2. The subject site is potentially designated for the new classification per the Comprehensive Plan; or The proposal does not comply specifically with the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map designation of Heavy Industrial for the subject site. The Comprehensive Plan map element is an indication of what might be an appropriate land use for the subject site, but it must be analyzed in the context of the Goals and Policies of the Comprehensive Plan. The objective of the balance between the two elements of the Comprehensive Plan is to assure that the "public interest" is being served at the same time that the "public health, safety and welfare" is being preserved. The "public interest" for this area is embodied in the Industrial Areas Objective on page 18 [Compendium], which states: "Viable industrial areas should be created and/or maintained and declining facilities revitalized". This area is the focus of the Boeing Commercial Airplane Company. The Boeing Company by the sheer scale of its manufacturing and engineering operations not only dominates, but directs the economic climate of the City of Renton. • The second part of the equation is that "the public health, safety and welfare is being preserved". The proposed office complex instead of a manufacturing operation offers the practical elimination of any concerns of the proper management of hazardous wastes and manufacturing processes by-products. An office is a clean, environmental sound land use that generally has only one negative environmental impact: traffic. The traffic study, prepared by William Popp and Associates, for Garden Plaza shows that there is presently enough capacity in the street circulation system to maintain levels of Service D+ except at the intersection of Garden and Lake Washington Boulevard. This intersection is currently operating at a level F with an existing Volume to Capacity Ratio of 1.03. This ratio only occurs for a short period of time as a result of the release of a large number of employees at the end of the work day from the Boeing Complex. The traffic generated from the project will increase the V/C Ratio to 1.06. The applicant's impact, measured as a total of the Volume to Capacity Ratio, is approximately 2.8 per cent. Based on total peak hour traffic volume, the increase is 2.2 per cent. The applicant has recognized the critical nature of the operation of this intersection and has voluntarily agreed to fund over twice times his proportionate share to encourage other property owners in the vicinity to fund the total necessary improvements. 3. There has been a material and substantial change in the area in which the subject site is located since the last rezoning of the property or area. The neighborhood character has significantly changed as a result of both private and public improvements. The Boeing Company improved a 5.2 acre parking lot to the north of the subject site. Garden Avenue North adjacent to the site on the east was improved through a local improvement district that included not only the street surface, but extensive landscaping and water line improvements. The subject property was included in the L.I.D. assessment area. The 600 6th Avenue Building, which is the central purchasing center for the Boeing Commercial Airplane Company, sets a new trend for mid-rise office buildings. The old Skyway Towing site, which occupied more than 50% of the subject site, has been removed. The most dramatic visual modification of the area was achieved with the construction of the 5th and Park Building in 1979. The proposal will be the third such building in the area. SITE PLAN REVIEW Section 4-738(D) establishes a series of general and specific criteria to evaluate the appropriateness of a proposed site plan. The most effective method of addressing the complexity of the design is to divide the project into its physical components. The following list begins with the major facets of the proposal then proceeds to smaller design features. OFFICE BUILDING o The new building will contain 212,000 gross square feet. o The office building is actually seven stories in height over a subterranean parking garage. o The first floor of the office building will be occupied by a parking garage and the main lobby and service access. o The building will face on North 6th Street. The primary formal pedestrian access will be located midway between Park Avenue North and Garden Avenue North, while secondary access will be directly from the parking garage. o Urban landscaping will focus on the main plaza and the roof top access from the parking garage. The landscaping is designed to be at a personal scale. The bermed area will be planted with grass to provided friendly employee passive recreation areas during the summer months. o The delivery and loading areas are located on the plaza/ parking level on the south side of the elevator core. o There will not be major pedestrian conflicts with motor vehicles from the parking areas to the building. o The building is designed to blend with the reflective glass exterior of the 5th and Park Building. The angles and facets of the architecture of the building breakdown the building's massing at the corners. The introduction of painted parapet and soffit panels serve to define the form and visually ties to the parking structure. PARKING GARAGE o The parking garage is three stories with approximately 1200 parking stalls. o The lower two levels of the parking structure will be extended beneath the new office structure connecting directly to the elevator core. o A landscaped berm along Garden Avenue North and the south property line serves to buffer the parking garage from the public right of way and create a streetscape that is sensitive to the pedestrian users. 5TH AND PARK BUILDING o No structural modification will occur to the building. o The existing on-site parking will be modified to allow access to the new parking garage. SITE PLAN CRITERIA 1. General Criteria: (a) Conformance with the Comprehensive Plan, its elements and policies; The proposal complies with the environmental, economic, urban design, industrial, utilities, and community facilities' goals of the, Comprehensive Plan. The commercial and residential goals do not generally apply. The proposal is in specific conformance because it is helping revitalize the industrial and commercial area that is adjacent to the 75-year-old PacCar plant and the expanding Boeing complex. (VI.A. , Compendium page 18). The proposed use and design provides a use buffer between the heavy manufacturing operations and the residential areas south of North 4th Street and south and west of North 6th Street and Pelly Avenue North respectively. The proposal increases the concentration of workers in an area that was designed and constructed with (1) easy and immediate access to I-405., (2) larger utilities including water mains, sanitary sewers and storm sewers, and (3) arterial streets capable of handling the large peak hour traffic volumes. This concentration also encourages a more efficient use of mass transit. Presently 6 transit routes operate adjacent to the site. (b) Conformance with existing land use regulations; The proposal would comply with all setback and landscaping requirements of the proposed B-1, Business use zoning classification. Twenty (20) foot landscaped setbacks are proposed between the office building and the public right-of- way, while ten (10) foot landscaped setbacks would be provided adjacent to the parking garage. All provisions of the parking and loading ordinance are met. (c) Mitigation of impacts to surrounding properties and uses; Eight specific criteria were established to safe-guard and assure mitigation of impacts on surrounding properties. The building's size, bulk, height, intensity, and site layout is in scale with the neighborhood and the spirit of both the zoning classification and the comprehensive plan. The size of buildings in both the Boeing and PacCar manufacturing complexes dwarf the proposal in bulk and size. The building's pedestrian entrance is focused toward the plaza on the north side of the building and towards the existing industrial complex to the north. Sidewalks provide pedestrian access along the public rights of ways link the plaza with existing transit stations. The principal pedestrian crossing at Park Avenue North and North 6th Street is presently signalized. The access to the parking garage is from Garden Avenue North, Park Avenue North and North 5th Street. The traffic study states that 51% of the peak hour traffic will access onto Garden Avenue North. Garden Avenue North presently has more design capacity than Park Avenue North. The placement of the parking garage on the south side of the office building and on the east side of the existing 5th and Park Avenue Building reduces the visual impact of the parking garage on the neighborhood. Glare resulting from the reflective glass on the office building is also mitigated by the placement of the parking garage. The surrounding of the parking areas by buildings and heavy landscaping mitigates the impact of noise, light and glare upon any of adjacent parcels. The existing residential areas will be totally screened from any impacts of noise, light or glare. (d) Mitigation of impacts of the proposed site plan to the site; The site layout is more complex because both pedestrian and vehicular circulation and access to the site is not the typical two-dimensional approach. The introduction of a parking garage introduces a third dimension. A parking garage provides not only covered parking, but it provides the following advantages: o shorter distance for pedestrians to access the building, o less expansive paved areas for storm water run off, o less visual impact from both the street and residential areas on the nearby hills, o higher and better use of property thus discouraging urban sprawl and the extension of expensive public services. o the ability to provide controlled security if necessary. The parking garage's multiple accesses for both pedestrians and vehicles diffuses the concentration of employees entering or leaving the building. This gives a more open, less crowded feeling to the complex. The "urban landscaping" along with large formal plaza on the north side of the building creates a "people scale" for the building. In addition, the architect has included numerous pedestrian seating alcoves dispersed around the site and a large trellised entrance plaza on the roof of the parking garage. This not only breaks up the mass of the roof area, but provides enjoyable passive recreational areas at lunchtime. The site has no natural amenities. The site is flat, as it has been used as a commercial and industrial site for the last 50 plus years. Public utilities and services were to a point of needing major renovation, which occurred with the Garden Avenue L.I.D. The only natural amenity of the site is sunlight, which has been utilized by the placement of the building in an east—west orientation. No residential or commercial views or vista will be negatively impacted. In fact the style of the building will create a more aesthetically pleasing view from the residential areas located on the surrounding hills. (e) Conservation of area—wide property values; The commercial property values will increase as a result of the type of use and the quality of the proposed development. The exact impact on the residential property values in the neighborhoods to the south and west is unknown. However, the change from an automobile repair and impound yard should increase the neighborhoods aesthetic value. (f) Safety and efficiency of vehicle and pedestrian circulations The design separation of vehicle and pedestrian circulation increases the safety and efficiency of both systems on site. The redevelopment of practically the entire block allows the combining of potentially 14 access points into four. The site design's most positive safety and efficiency aspect is that it not only encourages, but focuses primary access to Garden Avenue North, which has the recently improved design capacities to handle the traffic volumes. Internally, the service area has be separated from the majority of the pedestrian entrances into the building. Existing transit service is available in all directions only 250 feet from the main northern entrance to the building. Signage on the site will be substantially reduced from the existing situation. Only a sign identifying the name of the office building will be utilized under the provisions of the sign code. The existing pole signs will be removed. (g) Provision of adequate light and air; The building has been designed with two main plazas and numerous scattered pedestrian seating areas to provide adequate light and air to the employees. The building faces north and south. Many of the office will have southern sunlight streaming into them year round. (h) Mitigation of noise, odors and other harmful or unhealthy conditions; No odors or unhealthy conditions are anticipated as a result of the proposal. Noise, light and glare are mitigated by the placement of the office building and parking structure on the site. (i) Availability of public services and facilities to accommodate the proposed use; Public utilities including domestic water, sanitary sewers, and storm sewers have been recently upgraded to handle the development in Garden Avenue North. Traffic improvements will be necessary at the intersections of Garden Avenue North and North 6th Street and Garden Avenue North and Lake Washington Boulevard. The applicant has agreed to participate in both projects. (j) Prevention of neighborhood deterioration and blight. The project proposal will actually turn around the continued decline of the commercial and industrial area surrounding PacCar. The expansion of Boeing and its associated office buildings will stabilize the commercial value of the property in the general area. CONCLUSION The site plan as presented meets not only the intent but the specifics of the review criteria. We would request that the application for site approval be approved by the Hearing Examiner and that the request for rezone from L-1, Light Industrial to B-1, Business Use be recommended for approval to the City Council. ECF: LU: K-OI(0-8-1 SA- 011-8,-1 CITY OF RENTON ENVIROMENTAL CHECKLIST Purpose of Checklist: The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), chapter 43.21C RCW, requires all governmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An environmental impact statement (EIS) must be prepared for all proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help you and the agency identify impacts from your proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be done) and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required. Instructions for Applicants: This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Governmental agencies use this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant, requiring the preparation of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise information known, or give the best description that you can. You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In most cases, you should be able to answer the questions from you own observations or project plans without the need to hire experts. If you really do not know the answer, or if a question does not apply to your proposal, write "do not know" or "does not apply." Complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later. Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline,, and landmark designations. Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems, the governmental agencies can assist you. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impacts. Use of Checklist for Nonproject Proposals: (Please Type or Print Legibly) Complete this checklist for nonproject proposals, even though questions may be answered "does not apply." IN ADDITION, complete the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTION (part D). For nonproject actions (actions involving decisions on policies, plans and programs), the references in the checklist to the words "project," "applicant," and "property or site" should be read as "proposal," "proposer," and "affected geographic area," respectively. 2 CITY OF RENTON A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: GARDEN PLAZA OFFICE DEVELOPMENT 2. Name of applicant: E & H PROPERTIES 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: APPLICANT Eugene Horbach E & H Properties P.O. Box 598 Bellevue, Washington 98009 Telephone: 454-5959 CONTACT PERSON: Roger Blaylock The Blaylock Company 10717 N.E. 4th Street, Suite 9 Bellevue, Washington 98004 Telephone: 455-1550 4. Date checklist prepared: FEBRUARY 17, 1987 5. Agency requesting Checklist: CITY OF RENTON 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable: Construction would begin as soon as the building permits are issued anticipated to be in June 1987. Construction completed in March 1988. 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. NO 3 CITY OF RENTON 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. SEE ATTACHED TRAFFIC STUDY 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. NO 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. REZONE ELECTRICAL PERMIT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW MECHANICAL PERMIT BUILDING PERMIT ELEVATOR PERMIT DEMOLITION PERMIT 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. The application includes both a request to rezone 3.3 acres (143,836 square feet) from L-1, Light Industrial to B-1, Business Use and a site plan request to allow the construction of an office building containing approximately 212,000 square feet along with a parking garage containing approximately 1,200 stalls. The actual construction will be a 7 story building over a subterranean parking level. The first floor of the building will be utilized as a parking level and plaza entrance. The lower two levels of the three story parking structure will be extended beneath the 6 floors of office. This floors would connect directly to the elevator core. An existing 58,000 square foot office building occupies the adjacent 1.21 acres site. These could be functionally combined into one operation, but they could operate independently sharing the same parking garage. Of the total square footage of the new building approximately 185,400 square feet is defined as "gross building area" for the purpose of calculating require parking. 4 CITY OF RENTON 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. The property is bounded on the north by North 6th Street, on the west by Park Avenue North, on the east by Garden Avenue North, and on the south by North 5th Street. The entire block except for the 17,425 square feet located in the southeast corner will be part of the development complex. B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. EARTH a. General description of the site (circle one): 4 + rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other. b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? The site is perfectly flat. c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farm land. The subject site is underlain by approximately 8 to 10 feet of loose granular soil composed of silty sands and sandy silts. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. NO e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. Approximately 20,000 cubic yards of material will have to be excavated from the site to construct the parking garage. 5 CITY OF RENTON f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. NO g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? Ninety per cent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: NONE 2. AIR a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e. dust, automobile odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. Air pollution will result from the emission of additional 950 automobiles occupying parking spaces for the new office building. Presently there are approximately 250 automobiles being driven by users of the 5th & Park Building. b. Are there any off-site sources of emission? NO c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: NONE - 3. WATER a. Surface 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. NO 6 CITY OF RENTON 2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. NO 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. NONE 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. NO 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100—year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. NO 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. NO b. Ground: 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities, if known. NO 2) Describe waste materials that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals.. ; agricultural; etc.) Describe the general size of the system the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. NONE 7 CITY OF RENTON c. Water Runoff (including storm water): 1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. There will be storm water runoff. On—site storm water retention will be provide according to City Code. The storm water will then be released into storm sewers adjacent to the subject site. Storm water flows will not increase since the site has previously been covered with impervious surfaces. On—site design controls will include oil water separators constructed to City standards. The volume of pollutants will be 400 percent less than a similar complex that would have all of the parking exposed to the weather. Over 80 per cent of the parking is covered in the proposal. 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. NO d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground and runoff water impacts, if any: The development will include storm water retention and pollution control devices that comply with City standards. 4. Plants a. Check or circle type of vegetation found on the site: NO VEGETATION IS FOUND ON THE SITE. THE AREA HAS BEEN USED INTENSIVELY FOR OVER THE LAST 50 YEARS. deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other evergreen tree: fir, cedar pine, other shrubs _morass pasture crop or grain wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bulrush, skunk cabbage, other water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? NONE 8 CITY OF RENTON c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. NONE d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any. Ornamental landscaping and street trees will be utilized to compliment existing landscaping themes along city streets. 5. Animals a. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: Birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other NONE Mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other NONE Fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other NONE b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. NONE c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain: YES, There exists a north-south migration route along Lake Washington and the subject site is located at the south end of the Lake. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: Increasing the on-site vegetation as proposed will increase both the feeding and habitat areas for the birds. 6. Energy and Natural Resources a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed projects energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. The building will utilize natural gas for heating. Electricity will be used for lighting and building services. No manufacturing will be conducted in the building. 9 CITY OF RENTON b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe: Maybe, during the winter, the building would cast a shadow that would shade a four story building if the building was built to the minimum 20 foot setback on the north side of North 6th Street. In the summertime, the shadow would only shade the public right of way for North 6th Street. If a future building on the north side of North 6th Street had double loaded parking along the street then the proposed Garden Plaza Building would cast a shadow 5 feet high during low sun in the winter. c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: Reflective glass combined with an energy management system controlling the basic mechanical equipment. 7. Environmental Health a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. NO 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. Normal personal emergency services for office workers. 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: NONE 10 CITY OF RENTON b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? Industrial noise is generated both from the testing of commercial airplanes and manufacturing on the PacCar site. PacCar has substantially reduced their operations and it does not appear to be a significant problem. The airport where the testing of jet engines is conducted is over 3,000 feet to the west. 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. Construction on the project may have extended hours to meet deadlines. Construction that generates noise levels above 45 d.b. will be prohibited by City code between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: NONE ARE ANTICIPATED 8. Land and Shoreline Use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? Presently 67+% of the site is vacant. The old Skyway Towing operation used to occupy approximately 53% of the central portion of the subject site. All of the old industrial buildings were removed 3 years ago. The present Skyway Towing operation occupies 51,730 square feet (32.8% of the site). Immediately adjacent to the subject site on the west is the 5th and Park Building occupying 1.21 acres of the entire block. The proposal is to integrate the operation of this existing building with the new proposed structure. The parking garage will supply the required parking to both office buildings. The southeast corner of the block is occupied by Renton Boiler Works. The firm conducts light industrial activities on a 17,425 square foot lot. 11 CITY OF RENTON b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. Not within the last 50 years. c. Describe any structures on the site. The only structure on the site is a concrete tilt-up building located in the northeast corner adjacent to the intersection of Garden Avenue North and North 6th Street. This building was constructed by Puget Power for local utility service. d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? YES, the concrete building in the northeast corner. e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? L-1, Light Industrial — 3.3 acres B-1, Business Use — 3.62 acres f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? Light Industrial — approximately 3.3 acres Commercial — approximately 0.32 acres g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? NOT APPLICABLE h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. NO i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? New Building — approx. 900 to 1,000 office workers. Existing Building — approx. 250 to 300 office workers. Total — approx. 1,150 1,300 office workers. j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? NONE k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: 12 CITY OF RENTON NOT APPLICABLE 1. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: NONE 9. Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing? NOT APPLICABLE b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing? NONE c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: NONE 10. Aesthetics a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? Eighty (80) feet plus a 15 foot penthouse structure. The exterior material will be reflective glass with a painted parapet wall tieing in with the painted parking structure. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? NONE c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: NONE 13 CITY OF RENTON 11. Light and Glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? Glare produced from sunlight reflecting off of the exterior of the building. b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? NO. There maybe glare from the south side of the building on to both Garden Avenue North and Park Avenue North. However, both the height of the adjoining parking garage and the landscaping will generally mitigate the impacts. c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? NONE d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: NONE 12. Recreation a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? NONE b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. NONE c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: The site plan provides numerous passive recreational pedestrian siting area. 13. Historic and Cultural Preservation 14 CITY OF RENTON a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe: NO b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. NOT APPLICABLE c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: NOT APPLICABLE 14. Transportation (A TRAFFIC STUDY HAS BEEN PREPARED AND IS ATTACHED AS EXHIBIT "A") a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. NORTH 5TH STREET — SOUTHERN BOUNDARY NORTH 6TH STREET — NORTHERN BOUNDARY GARDEN AVENUE NORTH -- EASTERN BOUNDARY PARK AVENUE NORTH — WESTERN BOUNDARY Access will be onto North 5th Street, Garden Avenue North, and Park Avenue North. b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? YES c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? The total project will have approximately 1,200 parking spaces. d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). No new streets will be required to be constructed. There 15 CITY OF RENTON will need to be improvements made at the intersections of Garden Avenue North/North 6th Street and Garden Avenue North/ Lake Washington Boulevard. The applicant proposes financial participation in the improvement of those intersections in the following amounts: Lake Washington $10,000.00 North 6th Street $20,000.00 e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. NO f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. New Building app. 2,608 vehicle trips Existing Building app. 713 vehicle trips Total app. 3,321 vehicle trips g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: Transportation impacts will occur primarily to the physical street system. Transit is available immediately adjacent to the subject site. 15. Public Services a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. Generally not. Increases would be expected to occur for emergency services such as police and fire protection. Schools and health care should not be impacted. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any: NONE 16 CITY OF RENTON 16. Utilities a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other. b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. All of the major utilities are presently available adjacent to the site. Water and sewer lines were upgraded in Garden Avenue North as part of the L.I.D. improvements. C. SIGNATURE I, the undersigned, state that to the best of my knowledge the above information is true and complete. It is understood that the lead agency may withdraw any declaration of non—significance that it might issue in reliance upon this checklist should there be any willful misrepresentation or willful lack of full disclosure on my part. l , n Proponent:. � � (,��1 Name Printed: Roger J. Blaylock 17 CITY OF RENTON • • C c",;:iNTOZt • ••, "\.-- (,, \v.7 • Ls u L , t1 • ' JUL2 • P,UILDING/ZONING DEPT. • _„„ • ' - • " • - • . • • • • 4 Prepared for: E&H Properties Prepared by: The TRANSPO Group, Inc. 14715 Bel-Red Road, Suite 100 Bellevue, Washington 98007 • TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR PARK PLAZA BUILDING A RENTON, WASHINGTON June 29, 1987 The TRANSPO Grow / TRANSPO - se Transportation Planning & Traffic Engineering Consultants Grove June 29, 1987 Mr. Eugene Horback E & H Properties 827 - 108th NE P.O. Box 598 Bellevue, WA 98009 SUBJECT: PARK PLAZA TRAFFIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT Dear Mr. Horback: Per your request, The TRANSPO Group, Inc. has carried out a traffic impact assessment for your proposed Park Plaza Building A office development pro- posal . The accompanying report summarizes the analysis and its findings. The analysis includes adjusted traffic impacts of the Garden Plaza office proposal that was evaluated previously in a report dated February 18, 1987 by William E. Popp Associates. This current report is intended to supplement the environmental checklist recently submitted for Park Plaza. It should also be included with the Garden Plaza application file to cover the traffic implications of that adjusted project proposal. Three intersections have been identified by this analysis which will drop below acceptable level of service standards by such time that both projects are completed and fully occupied in 1989: • North 3rd at Garden Avenue • North 6th at Garden Avenue • Park Avenue/Garden Avenue/Lake Washington Boulevard intersection. Mitigation is outlined herein for the first two intersections. The third may not be mitigated due to recent City polices restricting commuter traffic use of Lake Washington Boulevard. If Park Plaza employees were assigned working hours between 8:00 AM and 5:00 PM, no intersections would exceed the peak traffic levels which now occur between 3:30 and 4:30 PM. We trust that the accompanying report will provide the City of Renton with sufficient traffic impact information to facilitate its review of the Park Plaza and Graden Plaza projects. If further information is needed by the City, please let me know and we will respond as quickly as possible. Sincerely, The TRANSPO Group, Inc. Sri IL)31424-Stite--- 0 ames W. MacIsaac, P.E. Principal Engineer JWM/dkg The TRANSPO Group, Inc. • 14715 Bel-Red Road, Suite 100, Bellevue, Washington 98007-3940 • ('06)6-31-3881 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR PARK PLAZA BUILDING A Renton, Washington Prepared for: E&H Properties June 29, 1987 Prepared by: The TRANSPO Group, Inc. 14715 Bel-Red Road, Suite 100 Bellevue, Washington 98007 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1 Office Building 1 Parking Facilities 1 Regional Access - 4 Study Area 4 EXISTING CONDITIONS 5 Street System 5 Traffic Volumes 5 Level of Service 8 Accidents 9 Public Transit/HOV 10 FUTURE CONDITIONS WITHOUT PROJECT 11 Background Traffic Forecasts 11 Garden Plaza Revised Impacts 11 1989 Traffic Without Park Plaza 14 Planned and Programmed Improvements 14 PARK PLAZA TRAFFIC IMPACTS 17 Project Summary 17 Traffic Generation and Distribution 17 Cumulative Traffic and Level of Service 19 Driveway Traffic Operations 22 MITIGATION 25 Intersection Improvements 25 Working Hours 26 Transit and HOV 26 LIST OF FIGURES Page 1. Site Location 2 2. Site Plan 3 3. Physical Inventory 6 4. Existing (1986) Traffic Volumes 7 5. Revised Garden Plaza Traffic PM Peak Hour • 13 6. 1989 Traffic Without Park Plaza -- PM Peak Hour 15 7. 1989 Park Plaza Traffic -- PM Peak Hour 18 8. 1989 Traffic with Park Plaza PM Peak Hour 20 9. Park Plaza Access Traffic - PM Peak Hour 22 LIST OF TABLES 1. Existing and Future Intersection Levels of Service 19 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Office Building E & H Properties proposes to construct a seven-story office building and associated parking facilities on a site straddling Park Avenue North north of North 6th Street in Renton. Figures 1 and 2 illustrate the site location and preliminary site development plan, respectively. The seven-story office building will provide a total of 181,227 square feet of gross building area. At full occupancy, it could house up to 700 employees. The building is expected to be leased by the Boeing Company. Many of its employees may be simply transferred from adjacent Boeing facilities in Renton. However, as a worst case assumption for traffic analysis purposes, it is assumed that all building employees will be new commuters to the North Renton area. Parking Facilities The building will be supported by 110 surface parking spaces immediately surrounding the building. These spaces may be reserved for high occupancy employee vehicles (HOVs), short-term visitor parking, and parking for manager- ial persons. A four-level parking structure with approximately 1,000 parking spaces will be provided east of Park Avenue for employee parking. It will be connected to the office building by a covered pedestrian overpass of Park Avenue. Approximately 600 of these spaces are needed to satisfy the balance of Park Plaza employee parking needs. About 350 spaces will serve the revised Garden Plaza office complex to the south, and up to 50 spaces are available as extras for either building. The surface parking spaces will be served by two access drives from Park Avenue. The parking structure will be served by one access each from Park and Garden Avenues (see Figure 2). -1- ' COLEMAN N z �TH ST PZZ _., w PaNT A L a m� 28TH PL �yn Bcl .ey.,y v.:r: • �>< St NORTH, \IN 28TH ST ----_I------------ -- --Z -� -- CT I N 26TH ST .....,.N • a .y -:Q . I . • f2<TH� STs uNE 2lSH Washington gr 9 : $� z o a 2 ,� 5 Cr • CAP TA-,R �sr • I' I 9/. NE 20TH ST ��L e0 SST 4 c, u ,� I s W �t,Fk, vt 66. T~y �/F ::::o ri a _its?. t O — y. 4• 9 ---------I f --- i 6TA' z it li (, rQ0 ` 0 OA.O 80AT LAUNCH .,� F PO 6ENf COULON 'ail.... . l•- z 1 MEMORIAL Z 't1/S t • •Q EACH PARK :.y. z Z o e• .i" --. 'Et, oR t 5 NIL •C• M. C% i �> O �per- I ��..�i p jJ • Q y <'S it27H� ` '"`:%'' = NE 12TH ST • Q - �Q S 113TH NM - ®_ \ _ 3 o.z SII4TH� Sra : ' ST I a. .• O CC • S 115TH rn ST 1 a• ©115TH , aOEING15TN $T Li 5 115T� Pl Or. y © 115TH , rn` BOAT LAUNCH \ 1 /< °° 116TH © ST .n >I' 1 ' \ a a 1 ./INTH AV 5.'. 1 BOEING _ •=0 ST 0 Y' R .J S//6•T,y, _i 117THN ST FSS MEM �• y1 .. 1• .� RENTON /,— ovco -Q �, i7�h =qm _ 118TH_•® $T > :^-S 11 H P- PMrF1— I•/ r"TN..: —�='BRYN a 119TH .: l Z < z v O *wawa I I 9 I p z .s �s ^a i, CO > x I N 8TH z h w 120TH.:PARK ST a I I.•.'.• y y� a e�12. .;.,:_ 9L 12 :: s .- 121ST-• CO m • _ST : .n ..E z ,22ND sTm • , :. PROJECT 4 -:5 g S 22NS� Ul STTH• ^ z 7TH '.• `'a•-'• .'•+°D S 123RD ST mt� ST ..,, • MOTHERS yt ySKVWAY: Si . .•q.l I i �o A • C PARK �= ::;:,;_:: 4 y i (I fQaiD)S 123RD PL , 9 • • 1 > SITE Q :;- .Atry HS • i24TN $T I� < rn • :: N 6TH' ST ¢ a I y ~ a > 'I.,J '0,j Y I z `•,en on`. ip f i'.,girj \, i . - 4H.: t Fs UB °Y ^^<II s ,. Co >ST I I :'- < 129TH>ST 1�. r5 , i I ! m� ''�F _ SA` Is - � TH � o ` + . s •� ;. t Nlf g ! ! R S,• �•••> hCi = 0. i a 129T 9 NW x R.PL a • 1V/' Q�j al z Z a MAR1D j 0 I �� 'O NM 3RD = g. t4. i <� G z ii 3P.Da II k ( co �. O y a z 1 GSTON Cu RO tD �t 30 H ST ST <W Nw ST i • • m >c c p BR•,KS L it I f -` 9` _; .F N w. PL?_ :'.AIRPORT.::•.WY ::: s /si S c < m ST S 131ST R W ^ �, �, 5 TILLICUM 57 •^ eir q a 5T o z o T S 13/ND ST +to 2ID i ST pFi' rs �a • / z ftr S PAR (SITE) C s x l d E-E�� S •^TOBIN•^ 5T< �O f 1p 41 �a� S I 4 Cw =I <5 VICTORIA ST Q O\ ��sN:• 1mr, 5 134TN 134TN v ol, C ^ MCiDRI� wl > v I •n y: c ..$ I35TN L_ w ST jt < o a E!:� "/l;::� >S 2ND aRENTON J > ..A ���►'� .V:..:: S Sr N n �> '^ -� N.S. a > S°LID.e • . \ 4 NE \lyj' S R. S„ ,N = �L'1_ > S i2ND S la _�°��y '':'_� °°c I '- P .,vL NS D PIA-1 <`Sa'" F ` Mr`e'M / CFI AR R r •n TH 5T .I_3 t. L .>►a,._/1D_ _„Is �g�y..<�.= V-:// —, ---~� ,V ` �� H M W TON —S�A 3R U .n ..coN —� -u + r ' �i--- -ar-` '� of Rp - < ID -Av. o PL P i '�� - e, , �_ PL g .�.❖ S 3R au a a N b ST �� LINGTO I Z W SW ITH I z NSE? RENYOM. S 4TH 5 ® '. a '� 5T 9 3 O SU H"OPP/NG •ITl < -\ .r1.. . STko P. �� •CFnI E ♦ P1- SfL� a > \ EARL_ GT ;° _ N ••P)(s • .S �z% NOV©STH 2 ® z°F9 CP _ Reproduced with permission granted by THOMAS BROS.MAPS. ,, pL i c ru s••$••0• _ a• .j g NOy > This map is copyrighted by THOMAS BROS.MAPS. "' o -' v ♦••.•� ( F- •'- z > tt iS unlawful to copy,or reproduce ail or any part thereof. R`,•~• L— + G �1 S 6TH = r,ST Q <� 5 6TH 5T whether br personal use or resale.without permission. �1 —._ ~4' J . sin ST 0\z Figure 1 The PARK PLAZA SITE LOCATION5PO •• Grovel • • • -2- • 1— i�=i 1'. I II I I III I I 0IIIII1 I ' � • — _ Ia - ,---= = ._,__,~__= JJII � I � � I � IIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIJI I. 1— I— r_1 —� IIIIIIIIIIIIiI ( (( (fIII � : :. I I— — _ I • ' lJJI 1 — (, L — II I ,. . . f ll I I I 1 I IcW JEL < I — ll' n(nelp � II-- I I 1 3. - PARKING STRUCTURE • • o ; � _ .� — lJ1IIlII _ III III _ z — o I I -- • I f II 1 1 L 4411� r I I I � 0 F I I = PARCEL TWO =� k• �T,- ' �1— H-v"-1 ,[_=1 I I I I L L1_I _ I I PARCEL ONE — PROJECT TI Z — STATISTICS W M R _ `:e�. `=, A I --.T era. ury,Tp.n TIT�L R I I Fd1uRE Pa2K-I NG I •: ►-' 5'fR�1UFE I ^— �� tin f qn 9101.1 y tz.I w4Kl i II II L'_al ecr.roskars_ _ i°sr„Y I i F rµF ur•MP.DIM 00•T..1..,a'.f.. O 0 I °• I I , s L_i r-' I I LEGAL DESCRIPTION n. �;t,„,, Cs,T..'^' V i IV rrr.w rrdiP6 9 a ~---------------- —.� I Mm Pt I I �f L(R>TII'WM.\ ,...x...,. Q El PARCEFOUR PARCEL THREE I r-".."..'.ji.t.p'G . '""r'n::: a ' rc cn cuLei 0 IV- L-----_------._--�\ Z rHq.v.,mr naL,u.n.,nr<. ,.awr®.:" W ! 1 Ile el sald ou0.1 iiiii ea Ma Om true 1•111 el▪heal... 74" IwµY^-..w. ywr VICINITY MAP cc ra•ru crn�E rlriU xrk-E I a 16u1I.(�Iw1(� I I PII I LP11•ICl I ri":1.::my.';Fir. ' i'�"' ... .Ir vs. are.w• .3 11.. - ; B,\ ,'i,..�.r.<,-,�u�a.,�W'� 1 LI ( SITE I A� •' p eleing.se meted watIS f•eleartee Se.II.of the CIO or I .. 2 _I: Ill '0'Lr, •-f__• --itri 1 _. •• • .. . 1 .. _..,..1•61^I Ora, . 3' I N. eth ST Ial=.1.11.I.VIN.,.."4:g7:.14"..""'"-""L"" El lopeas MI.we.Pr thereof. ULM that armlice A = SITE PLAN i0 28 80 100 12 I Regional Access Figure 1 illustrates the I-405 freeway and the major arterial routes serving the project vicinity. Site access from I-405 north will be via the Park Avenue interchange and Park Avenue. Lake Washington Boulevard may become an alternate for some of this traffic. The SR 900 corridor will serve project access from Northeast Renton, Newcastle and Issaquah; it also feeds into Park Avenue at this I-405 interchange. Sunset Boulevard provides an alternate route to the site from Northeast Renton via the North 3rd/4th Street one-way couplet. Site access from Maple Valley and the North Soos Creek Plateau areas will approach via Maple Valley Highway (SR 169) and its I-405 undercrossing. That traffic together with traffic approaching from the southwest on I-405 will choose alternate access paths via Sunset Boulevard and the North 3rd/4th couplet, and Bronson Way and Garden/Park Avenues. Traffic from the Valley Freeway corridor will choose between using I-405 for site approach, or an access path via Rainier Avenue and a number of op- tions leading to Park Avenue. Traffic from northwest of Renton will tend to approach via Airport Way, Logan Avenue, and North 3rd/4th and North 6th Streets. Study Area These diverse access patterns and options cause project traffic to distri- bute over a multitude of arterial routes. These patterns tend to converge on the Park and Garden Avenue corridor. Hence, the primary traffic impact area was selected as Park and Garden Avenues from North 3rd Street north to Lake Washington Boulevard and the I-405/Park Avenue interchange. The detailed traffic analysis focuses on Park and Garden Avenues and their intersections within this study area. -4- EXISTING CONDITIONS Street System The existing street system serving the project vicinity is illustrated and described on Figure 3. Park Avenue North is classified as a principal arte- rial between Bronson Way and I-405. It is a four-lane street expanding to six lanes from Lake Washington Boulevard to I-405. Garden Avenue is a minor arterial street with two and three traffic lanes between Bronson Way and North 8th Street. It has a one-block jog east at North 8th Street, and has four lanes between North 8th and its intersection with Park Avenue at Lake Washington Boulevard. North 8th Street has four lanes, but serves only a limited area between Park Avenue and Houser Way. North 6th Street is a four-lane minor arterial serving as an east-west connector of Riverside Drive, Logan Avenue, Park Avenue and Garden Avenue. North 3rd and 4th Streets serve as a one-way minor arterial couplet between Logan Avenue and Sunset Boulevard. North 4th provides four lanes westbound, and North 3rd provides three to four lanes eastbound. East of Sunset, North 3rd becomes a two-way arterial street carry- ing traffic under 1-405 into the Northeast Renton area. Intersection approach lane configurations and traffic control devices are also illustrated on Figure 3. Most signals have two-phase operations. Traffic Volumes Existing traffic volumes within the study area are illustrated on Figure 4. The twenty-four (24) hour volumes are based upon 1982-85 counts assembled by William E. Popp Associates and adjusted to reflect 1986 average weekday traf- fic (AWDT) estimates. The PM peak hour counts were collected by the City of Renton at the intersections of Park and 3rd and 4th in 1985, by Popp at eight intersections in October 1986, and by TRANSPO at the intersections of Park at North 8th and "North 10th." The detailed turning movement counts are avail- able from TRANSPO. In all locations, the PM peak hour occurred between 3:30 and 4:30 PM. : By inspection of the PM peak hour volumes, it can be seen that the maximum demand points on Park and Garden Avenues occur at the north ends of these routes, feeding office and industrial traffic from the North Renton area to -5- LEGEND - m ' TRANSIT STOP Z •0 SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION ��! r 11111,11q . ElSTOP CONTROLLED INTERSECTION �� 30 SPEED LIMIT =' I' 40 INTERSECTION APPROACH ��� LANE GEOMETRY f� • BOEING ACCESS- '` ... f 4, 4 2p, oF# y s NORTH 4 LANES J,�► 9:F co SIDEWALK BOTH SIDES / d 9*f NORTH SIDEWALK COVERED - 30 2p'PLUS J L I I f� ALL-WALK 7 , • N6ST 0 • 11f PARK PLAZA 4 LANES MARKED PAVEMENT A r� ' -4 / A 43' WIDE 3' SIDEWALKS BOTH SIDES N 6 ST11/ 31�--.M:) 13 I i UNMARKED PAVEMENT I i r _1 35' WIDE —'� 3 LANES 3' SIDEWALK GARDEN PLAZA W TITIZETURN LANE BOTH SIDES a 4' SIDEWALK ON /� n� s� o 4 Ex WEST SIDE �t+ s HSST 0cm 11/ 2 LANES O IV O SIDEWALK BOTH SIDES 39' WIDE ONE-WAY WESTBOUND 4 LANES J ON-STREET PARKING N 4 ST \...--- J1 1 r �-- , f 2p' 7 4 LANES 45' WIDE a�V 'Ai SIDEWALK BOTH SIDES 3 LANES m. ONE-WAY EASTBOUND me mc a- PARKING ON SOUTH SIDE I ..2..... c(2a / , N3STc. i� ..=c l Mr � 1 V Figure 3 ITND PARK PLAZA PHYSICAL INVENTORY nANSRO Gro'up • -6- - Iriq LEGEND m' (12,300) 24-HOUR 2-WAY 4.! VOLUME (WHERE AVAILABLE) �.� <123 PM PEAK HOUR > `68p 456> COUNTS (3:30-4:30PM) "'.,s`'s ZpSp-r. OLEVEL OF SERVICE ' 0 ABOEING ACCESS <50 NORTH - 540> C'y9 SOS A oEy yo O . N. 9` G�� o r " F# 9� f O � � A CO � m 0 � 1- ..y ..r CS,r r N a ST <20 <125 <80 <480 <325 • • 185> 95> nos- 415> 220> IAA mA Co) � � r -- r (15.200) • . o a in A N 6 ST I <235 r <65 <55 9651' A. 265s 195> .. c) oA r r = (10,200) all el W p 7_, ccN 5 ST A <35 r <35 c V 35> 55> 0 inA '^ A a � �, (11,o0or--� � - r N 4 ST .41340 <960 <620 <665 111 (11,700) A (6200) A -- 0 < 0 Cl a. r = r W °' (820o) _ C d ItUl A A a o N3ST V 1 1680> 1575> 1660> 1885> A � " a- N a, 0 (6200) Y r Figure 4 th PARK PLAZA - TRANSPO EXISTING (1986) TRAFFIC VOLUMES Grow) -7- Lake Washington Boulevard, I-405 and Northeast Renton. North (homeward) outbound traffic is over 75 percent of the PM peak hour total . Less than 20 percent of the northbound traffic on these two streets originates from south of North 3rd Street. Another 15 to 20 percent is picked up from North 3rd and North 6th Street, the Boeing access road in the vicinity of North 10th, and the office and industrial uses along the Park/Garden corridor. In the southbound direction, it appears that the large majority of traffic that feeds into Park Avenue from Lake Washington Boulevard and I-405 flows south through the study area, using North 6th, North 4th and Bronson Way to gain access to residential areas in West and Northwest Renton. In addition, Park and Garden Avenues pick up large quantities of outbound traffic from the study area with these same westerly destinations. The southbound maximum traffic load points for both Park and Garden Avenues occur on their north approaches to North 4th Street. Westbound traffic on North 4th Street reaches it highest levels west of Park Avenue, with about 40 percent of this traffic coming from Sunset Boulevard, and the majority picked up from Garden and Park Avenues. Eastbound traffic on North 3rd Street reaches a peak volume level east of Garden Avenue. About 70 percent of its traffic during the PM peak hour originates somewhere west of Park Avenue; the Park/Garden corridors contribute about 30 percent at its peak load point. Level of Service Level of service (LOS) is a measure of traffic flow quality ranging from A -- high quality with minimum delay, to F -- overcapacity, considerable delay. Level of service as it relates to intersection capacity is generally equated as follows: LOS % Capacity Delay A Less than 60% Minimal B 60-70% Noticeable C 70-80% Acceptable D 80-90% Tolerable E 90-100% Intolerable for extended periods F Demand exceeds capacity; severe congestion and delay. -8 Existing PM peak hour levels of service (LOS) are illustrated on Figure 4. Level of service was calculated using methodology described in the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual . Peak hour traffic conditions for most of the study area are currently acceptable or tolerable (LOS D or better). The most signi- ficant exception is at the intersection of Park Avenue/Garden Avenue/Lake Washington Boulevard. Demand exceeds capacity of this intersection for up to one hour of time during the PM peak period. It is the capacity restraint point in the North Renton access system. The City recently installed a number of four-way STOPs along Lake Washington Boulevard through the Kennydale area. This has caused a signi- ficant reduction of left-turning traffic from Park to Lake Washington Boulevard, and about a 10 percent reduction of eastbound traffic approaching this intersection on Park Avenue during the peak period. Accidents Accident history for study area intersections, obtained from the City of Renton is summarized as follows: Number of Accidents Intersection 1984 1985 1986 Avg. North 3rd/Garden 3 3 6 3 North 3rd/Park 13 17 12 14* North 4th/Garden 1 2 2 2 North 4th/Park 8 16 13 12* North 5th/Park 1 2 1 1 North 6th/Park 3 5 3 4 North 6th/Garden 0 1 4 2 North 8th/Garden(west) 0 1 1 1 Park/Garden/LWB 1 0 1 1 * High accident locations. Two intersections stand out as high accident locations -- Park Avenue at North 3rd and at North 4th Streets. In 1985 William E. Popp Associates con- ducted an analysis of operating conditions at these two intersections and recommended improvements. Those improvements are described in the next section. -9- Public Transit/HOV Public transportation is provided by the Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle (Metro). Seven routes pass by the project site on Park Avenue: Route # Service Origin - Destination 107 Daily Renton Highlands Seattle 108 Peak Periods Renton Highlands Seattle 109 Peak Periods Renton Highlands Seattle 240 Daily Bellevue Seattle 241 Peak Periods Kenmore Southcenter 247 Peak Periods Redmond Kent Boeing 340 Daily Aurora Village Burien These routes interconnect with many other routes, providing a good "coverage" for many dparts of the region. The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) has recently completed the addition of high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes for exclusive use of transit, carpools, and vanpools on I-405 between the Sunset interchange and I-90. These lanes are poorly utilized by carpools and vanpools at this time. However, they are expected to be much more highly utilized in the future as I- 405 corridor traffic demands continue to grow. -10- FUTURE CONDITIONS WITHOUT PROJECT Background Traffic Forecasts According to the Traffic Impact Analysis for Garden Plaza Office Development (William E. Popp Associates, February 1987), traffic volumes in the study area have been increasing at an average rate of 1.2 percent per year since 1982. This represents a period of "stable prosperity" for the Boeing Company and other major businesses in the North Renton area. Boeing is cur- rently in a moderate growth phase. This growth is being accommodated by moving service employment out of the plant buildings into new peripheral office buildings, and converting plant facilities to expanded production. Garden Plaza and Park Plaza are two such peripheral office projects. For the short term between 1986 and 1989, when the Park and Garden Plaza projects are expected to be completed and occupied, it appears reasonable to assume the 1982-86 growth rates for background traffic. By adding these office projects' traffic to the continued recent past growth rate, it is very likely that vicinity traffic increases will be reasonably approximated. Hence, the 1986-87 PM peak hour traffic counts shown on Figure 4 were increas- ed by about 4 percent to create a base estimate of 1989 traffic volumes. Garden Plaza Revised Impacts The Garden Plaza proposal by E & H Properties has been revised since its "Traffic Impact Analysis" prepared by William E. Popp Associates dated February 18, 1987. The proposed revisions are as follows: • Increase office building floor area from 212,000 gross square feet (gsf) to 239,000 gsf; increase parking requirements by 135 spaces. • Reduce "on-site" parking from 1,200 spaces to 988 spaces. • Provide 347 parking spaces for Garden Plaza use in the Park Plaza parking structure to offset the 212-space on-site reduction and 135- space demand increase. -11- The effects of these changes on Garden Plaza traffic generation are as follows: Original Revised Net Project Project Change Office Gross Floor Area _ 212,000 239,000 +27,000 Avg. Weekday Traffic: 24-Hour (@ 12.3/1,000 gsf) 2,608 2,938 +330 PM peak hour (@ ?2% of 24-hr) 573 646 +73 In/Out 97/476 110/536 +13/+60 Transfer to Park Plaza*: 24-Hour volume -700 PM peak hour -170 In/Out 0/-170 * About one-third of employee day shift commute trips. The Garden Plaza office floor area increase will result in a net traffic increase on the vicinity street system of 330 vehicle trips per day and 73 PM peak hour trips (over the impacts reported in the "Popp Report"). The shift of about one-third of the Garden Plaza employee parking supply to the Park Plaza parking structure will result in a transfer of about 700 employee related trips from the Garden Plaza site to the Park Plaza site. This translates into a shift of 170 outbound trips during the PM peak hour. All PM peak hour inbound trips will remain focused upon the Garden Plaza parking facilities. Figure 5 illustrates the revised PM peak hour traffic distribution of Garden Plaza generated trips. Traffic operations at the Garden Plaza access drives will be improved over the LOS results reported on page 9 of the "Popp Report" due to the shift of trips to Park Plaza. Traffic operations at the intersection of North 6th Street and Garden Avenue will improve to LOS D, as compared to LOS E reported in the "Popp Report" (page 18). All other inter- sections will remain about the same in impacted level of service. -12- . Is �1► 11114 A. . , - N-0 Q NORTH `Z.,y0 0+ 6 .r., lq . _ '✓ iR f! (79 0 16 • BOEING ACCESS. i e• V 'oar F P y d f A 3• 0 2 o+ r 93 26.j NEST 127 34> 26 0 110 - 60r- PARK PLAZA . A 0 26 17 ' 60) r A N B ST A <91 <13 <13 17 V 181.- 0> 13- 2��6 18-41 0 18 GARDEN PLAZA W A ' 17 8 i 24 A NSST 0�22 3� V 140 20 6o r A A 17 10 N 4 ST <134 106<J 39 <28 t 28<J <10 54 129 • •• . V r 2 y A 129 17 A r 21 12 A17 N 3 ST 27> ,�' .,.....49 O,..,.1 V: V0 49> A 80 5r4 12 r Figure 5 PARK PLAZA REVISED:GARDEN PLAZA TRAFFIC TRANSRO PM PEAK HOUR I Greup -13- 1989 Traffic Without Park Plaza The revised Garden Plaza traffic impacts were added to the 1989 background traffic forecasts to derive a 1989 baseline condition against which to compare Park Plaza traffic impacts. This baseline traffic for the PM peak hour is summarized on Figure 6. Again, detailed turning movement estimates are avail- able from TRANSPO, if desired. Shown also on Figure 6 are the calculated levels of service at each Inter- section in the study area for the 1989 PM peak hour condition with Garden Plaza fully developed and occupied, but without Park Plaza. Level of service is calculated using the methodology outlined in the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual . By comparing Figures 4 and 6, it can be observed that four intersections will deteriorate in level of service as a combined result of background traf- fic growth and Garden Plaza traffic impacts. However, all but two will oper- ate at an acceptable LOS D or better. Traffic demands at the intersection of Park Avenue/Garden Avenue/Lake Washington Boulevard (which is at LOS F today) would increase by 7 percent over existing conditions. The need to improve this intersection will continue to increase. The intersection of North 3rd and Garden Avenue will decrease from LOS D to LOS E. It can be mitigated by restricting some parking on the Garden Avenue approaches to allow provision of a south-to-east left-turn lane on the north approach. Planned and Programmed Improvements The following improvements are currently included in the City of Renton "Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program" (TIP) , or proposed for inclusion in the TIP. • TIP #4 - Park Avenue North from Bronson Way to Lake Washington Boulevard: Subgrade improvements, pavement overlay and channeliza- tion. Scheduled for 1987 and 1988 with an estimated cost of $560,000. • TIP #13 - Park Avenue/Garden Avenue/Lake Washington Boulevard inter- section: Roadway widening, resurfacing, channelization, and signal modification. Provide left-turn option from eastbound thru lane -14- ca NORTH �A . lq V. ..:Its `11200 - 0 iP r 11�' *f ti ,re°Qo o BOEING ACCESS <665s + s �f4 q o O 9OFyb V Fy �e9 .0- •4 . • O A A CO �A Iti PI � ti ' V N SST <20 <130 < —3 •90 525 40 190> A 100> 125> 625s 265> o 'n a' A a V' r O c, A A 0 0 � In N 6 ST 1 <340 r .<80 <70 r A/o A 1020> 275> 200> A C. f[f an N Is. .ti C I, N 41 r A GARDEN PLAZA . st o R N ^ W -1 cc N 5 ST ill <45 <60 35> 80> A A Onfn ti 0 ti of .... r V N 4 ST <1525 A <1020 <1085 A <700 p O 1 r r x a W t t C Z t CO d A no of0 .••f Yf ..y N � N3ST r 'n . 1760> w 1625> r >1720> A 2000 ars Aink 0 in *INCLUDES REVISED GARDEN 0 ^ cs7 CM PLAZA TRAFFIC VOLUMES r IN Figure 6 Ma PARK PLAZA 1989 TRAFFIC WITHOUT PARK PLAZA* SPO PM PEAK HOUR Crovp • -15- on Park Avenue to Lake Washington Boulevard. Joint project between the City of Renton and the Boeing Company, scheduled for 1987-88 at an estimated cost of $266,000. • North 3rd/Park Avenue and North 4th/Park Avenue: Change signal displays, improve signing, rechannelize, modify progression patterns on North 3rd and Park Avenue, and modify peak hour cycle times. These improvements were recommended by a "Traffic Operations Study" conducted by William E. Popp Associates in 1985 in response to the high accident experienced at these intersections, and are to be implemented during 1987. These improvements should remedy the current and projected traffic operat- ing problems identified above. -16- PARK PLAZA TRAFFIC IMPACTS Project Sunmary The proposed Park Plaza office development proposal is to construct a new seven-story office building and associated parking facilities as described and illustrated above. The building could contain up to 181,200 square-feet of gross floor area. On-site surface parking and an adjacent parking structure would provide an estimated requirement of 701 parking spaces to serve the Park Plaza development. The structure would also provide supplemental parking for Garden Plaza employees as described and assessed above. The following assessment i,s for Park Plaza traffic impacts only. However, the assessment of traffic impacts at the site access points also includes the traffic volumes related to Garden Plaza employees who will share the parking structure. Traffic Generation and Distribution Traffic generation for the Park Plaza project is estimated as follows: Site Garage Total Office floor area 181,200 gsf Average Weekday Traffic: Trip Generation Rate 12.3 trips/1000 gsf Trips In plus Out 660 1,570 2,230 PM Peak Hour Trips: Trip Generation Rate 22% of AWDT Trips In/Out 20/40 60/370 80/410 The PM peak hour Park Plaza traffic distribution and net impacts on the vicinity street system is illustrated on Figure 7. Traffic distribution patterns are based upon the findings of the "Popp Report" for Garden Plaza traffic. Traffic access patterns from the southwest on I-405 were modified slightly. Overall the "Popp distribution" was verified as correct and reason- able. -17- co LEGEND r,�A !moo - 0PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION 4 637+3% OF PROJECT TRAFFIC V3 re, +6% PERCENTAGE IMPACT 15R OF PROJECT TRAFFIC 4 C 38 6 A. BOEIN6 ACCESS r +2% NORTH c99�F,Qo d 0 10+`.• +4% e . y f • 0A— - r +3% +6% 40 + \io..J N8ST +6% 20> • A ' 60 V "" PARK PLAZA 10 10 30 60 <20 • 5 it*-5 t150 • <25 1) 40> 1� "30 35> 220> 15 120 160 '300 A o A N 6 ST -470 +6% r <30 r 11/ ls> +8% +13% 40 o o A =A r r = W G S N 5 ST +7% A `/ +13% s A M LO A — en +7% r r N4ST .44_11t1o0 <40 <5 +6% +7% A A= W r 7p... c. c. 20 50 5 A > A 55> ® U, s < s r +6% r +11% Figure 7 PARK PLAZA 1989 PARK PLAZA TRAFFIC 1RANSE I PM PEAK HOUR Gro\Jr -18- Shown also on Figure 7 are the percentages of project traffic increases on street links and intersections. At intersections, these represent the percent increases of total entering traffic volumes. Typical daily traffic volume fluctuations are + 3 percent. Percentage impacts in excess of 3 percent are considered significant. Cumulative Traffic and Level of Service The combined total of estimated 1989 PM peak hour project and non-project traffic is summarized on Figure 8, together with calculated levels of service. Intersection levels of service and volume/capacity (V/C) ratios are summarized on Table 1 for comparison of existing and future conditions. Table 1 Existing and Future Intersection Levels of Service* 1986 Existing 1989 W/O Project 1989 W/ Project LOS V/C LOS V/C LOS V/C North 3rd/Garden Avenue D 0.81 E 0.95 F 1.03 North 3rd/Park. Avenue B 0.59 B 0.65 B 0.75 North 4th/Garden Avenue B 0.55 B 0.65 6 0.70 North 4th/Park Avenue B 0.56 B 0.63 B 0.70 North 5th/Park Avenue B *** C/D *** C/D *** North 6th/Garden Avenue A/D *** . A/D *** A/E *** North 6th/Park Avenue C 0.66 C 0.72 D 0.85 North 8th/Garden Avenue (E) B/D *** C/D *** C/D *** North 8th/Garden Avenue (W) A/C *** A/D *** A/D *** North 8th/Park Avenue** C 0.49 C 0.51 C/D 0.53 Boeing Access/Park Avenue C 0.73 C 0.76 C 0.79 Park/Garden/Lake Wash Blvd F 1.01 F 1.07 F 1.10 * The 1985 Highway Capacity Manual methods calculate LOS on the basis of delay time, not volume/capacity ratio. The V/C ratios are provided for those who still prefer to judge intersection operating conditions on that basis. The calculated LOS and V/C ratios reflect conditions during the peak 15-minute periods of the PM peak hour. ** The LOS at 8th and Park appears significantly lower than implied by the V/C ratio due to the "all walk" pedestrian phase. *** The first LOS letter represents major turning movements at these unsignal= ized intersections; the second LOS letter represents a minor movement. -19- 2 O \J LOOANAVE H i . PC • NJa = WOMN s at . en • a. al-i N cos ...I • I 212 O _ m • y rl c2 I 1 „,„ .,„. • . H- • mC.,VI4 Co 1.71 0 • •A AW 0 •- A rCD �' O N co O A �--I -4825 `r �' -4980265�'U v 1320 <1135 .412351215> 1260> �e 785 A • e<950 <1545 1100>500> 540 s°A A`'�f wtsy c. BY<580• t565• 545> o a3l 490> N,1 A r= C 440> 575> PARK AVE IIAN r ytiti '‘CD ao o A • oss • A iv • S oO 'v r o > A If 4.fl -4485<915A<900525> o, 1011 <700 -4675 <1135 230> 370> co w • • if 4n<195<360125> 165> GARDEN AVE II395135>125> ® AO ioc © A 00°r i'llir:44 . 0 Ln .111 A • . 50�� The Park Plaza project will cause some deterioration in operating condi- tions at all study area intersections, as can be noted by comparing V/C ratios between "1989 W/O Project" versus "1989 W/ Project." According to vehicle delay criteria established by the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual methodology, four (4) intersections will experience a change in computed level of service: • North 3rd/Garden Avenue - from LOS E to LOS F (requires mitigation) • North 6th/Garden Avenue - from LOS D to LOS E for east to north left- turn ,movement; all other movements LOS A • North 6th/Park Avenue - from LOS C to LOS D (acceptable) • North 8th/Park Avenue - from LOS C to borderline LOS D (acceptable). In addition, the project will increase traffic demand through the inter- - section of Park Avenue/Garden Avenue/Lake Washington Boulevard by 2 to 3 percent. This intersection is currently operating at LOS F. Driveway Traffic Operations Park Plaza access is illustrated in detail on Figure 9, together with the 1989 PM peak hour cumulative traffic estimates in the driveway vicinities. The parking structure will be served by two accesses along Park Avenue and one access on Garden Avenue. The surface parking surrounding the building will have two access points off Park Avenue. Because of the signal control on Park Avenue at North 6th and North 8th, there is no meaningful technique for evaluating levels of service at the Park Avenue access points. Unsignalized intersection analysis techniques assume random traffic flow. The signal operations cause traffic on Park Avenue to flow in "platoons", with large gaps between platoons. From observations of current traffic flow on Park Avenue, it appears that sufficient two-way gap opportunities exist such that exiting traffic flows from Park Plaza can be adequately processed. Traffic flow on Garden Avenue is more random in nature. The operation's analysis of the Garden Avenue garage access indicates that the right-turn exiting traffic movement will experience LOS B; the left-turn exit will exper- ience LOS B to D, depending upon how much the exiting vehicles take advantage of the center turn lane for refuge upon merging with northbound traffic flow. The Garden Avenue garage exit should provide separate left and right-turn egress lanes. Two exit lanes would also be desirable at the northerly Park Avenue garage exit to optimize exiting traffic flow. -21- i . A 0, O 0, o r Ai I I **THESE TWO DRIVEWAYS SHOULD <5 EITHER BE ALIGNED WITH EACH 10 OTHER, OR NORTH-TO-WEST LEFT P5 ** NO TURN SHOULD BE PROHIBITED. 15 , — — — - - — — — —— > I5iii„imd „„&.;„„ „„„.:,.„„„K„M„„„„„M„„aMMWMW:' "mil , 60 A I I 5 - :.:::d Cs ars v n ni x 111 ]: • SURFACE = I I PARK PLAZA M. > < PARKING c :>:>>: PARKING STRUCTURE ffigi AROUND be o A I<'~'` 1000 SPACES " 10 BUILDING s .. <: ,.>` 1.4) Q r W <25 W P: 130 m. ` _A Q . I 160 -1 c s 1 « 1 I I 'tag: co 1. "`i. 15 :` >:I I I k:: >::::i::s:. 10 t 15 M 130 154iiill 120 30 - A 1? 15 I 1 0 v 1 r 15 30 . I I A in r 1 I A *INCLUDES 170 EXITING NORTH VEHICLES ASSOCIATED WITH GARDEN PLAZA Figure 9 11-,k PARK PLAZA PARK PLAZA ACCESS TRAFFIC* • TflANSPO PM PEAK HOUR 0 07p -22- MITIGATION Intersection Improvements Two intersections have been found to operate at LOS E or F without Park Plaza: • North 3rd at Garden Avenue • Park Avenue/Garden Avenue/Lake Washington Boulevard. The combined impacts of the Park and Garden Plaza projects will also cause the east-to-north left-turn movement at North 6th and Garden Avenue to drop to LOS E (STOP-controlled movement). Mitigation once planned for the Park Avenue/Garden Avenue/Lake Washington Boulevard intersection was to provide an added left-turn option to Lake Washington Boulevard from the left-hand eastbound thru lane. That would also require expansion of the approach of Lake Washington Boulevard. However, the City has recently imposed several restrictions along Lake Washington Boulevard to discourage its use by commuter traffic as an alternative to I-405. These policy actions have reduced the demand for this left-turn movement, increase the eastbound thru movement, and decreased total eastbound traffic on the Park Avenue approach by 10 percent. The Park Avenue/Garden Avenue/Lake Washington Boulevard intersection now appears to be "maxed out" geometrically. LOS F may be. unmitigatable at this intersection. Further increases in traffic demand will cause a change in traffic patterns and a spreading of the peak demand period. Park Plaza would increase the peak hour traffic demand at this inter- section by 2.5 percent. The intersection of North 6th and Garden Avenue could be improved to mitigate the east-to-north left-turn LOS problem by converting the center • turning lane on the north approach to a northbound receiving shelter and merge lane for this traffic movement. The intersection may eventually require signalization. Park Plaza would increase peak hour traffic through this intersection by 13 percent. Garden Avenue at North 3rd Street has only one lane in each direction plus parking on both sides. To mitigate the anticipated LOS F conditions, the north approach should be modified to add a center left-turn lane. This would improve the 1989 PM peak hour LOS from F to C/D. Park Plaza would increase traffic through this intersection by 4 percent. -23- Working Hours The vicinity peak hour occurs between 3:30 and 4:30 PM. Between 4:30 and 5:30 PM the vicinity traffic volumes are 25 percent lower. The impact analyses above assume that the Park and Garden Plaza projects would have the same working peaks as now prevail in the vicinity. If Park and Garden Plaza employees were to work between 8:00 AM and 5:00 PM, their traffic impacts may result in no deterioration of current PM peak hour levels of service. However, the period of time at peak levels would be extended by 15 to 30 minutes. Transit and HOY The management of Park and Garden Plazas should work with Metro Transit's transportation coordination division to increase commuting by transit, carpool and vanpool modes. Some portion of the surface parking adjacent to the office buildings could be reserved for carpools and vanpools only prior to 9:00 AM. Those spaces not used after 9:00 AM would revert to short-term visitor park- ing. -24- yi NORTH RENTON TRANSPORTATION STUDY --A FIVE-YEAR SCENARIO Renton, Washington September, 1987 CITY OF RENTON ncm cams OFFICE NORTH RENTON TRANSPORTATION STUDY A FIVE YEAR SCENARIO A Voluntary Study Funded by E & H Properties at the request of City of Renton Environmental Review Committee September 21, 1987 Prepared By: William E. Popp Associates 1309 114th Avenue S.E. , Suite 301 Bellevue, Washington 98004 and The TRANSPO Group, Inc. 14715 Bell-Red Road, Suite 100 Bellevue, Washington 98007 SECTION INTRODUCTION Introduction: This report presents a synthesis of two analysis of traffic mitigation for proposed development in the North Renton area. The first approach is project specific and analyzes improvements required on site and in the immediate vicinity of the proposed projects. The second approach studies area-wide traffic impacts resulting from land use changes projected over the next five years. The five year forecast period was chosen because within this time period known projects and other probable projects can be discussed with a reasonable degree of accuracy. This scenario analyzes proposed projects within the context of other probable land use changes, presents one feasible area-wide traffic network alternative, and makes recommendations about other area-wide traffic improvements which merit further study. Proposed Projects Two proposed projects are analyzed in this study: 1) the Garden Plaza Office Project, a six-story 245,850 square foot building with a four-story parking structure housing 1,023 parking spaces, and 2) the Park Plaza Office Project, a seven-story, 181,277 square foot building with a five-story parking structure for 1178 stalls. Plus 107 surface parking spaces immediately adjacent to the office building. • Garden Plaza is located between Park Avenue North and Garden Avenue North between North 5th and 6th Streets. The Park Plaza office building is located on the west side of Park Avenue North, approximately 350 feet north of North 6th street. The parking structure is located on the east side of Park Avenue North, approximately 350 feet north of North 6th Street. Probable Projects The probable projects expected to occur over the next five year period include: 1) 445,000 square feet of research and development space within the existing Boeing complex, and on the PACCAR site; 2) 120,000 square feet of light industrial space along Houser Way north of N. 8th Street; • 3) 440,000 square feet of additional office space north of North 6th Street between Wells and Garden Avenues; and 4) a small amount of retail expansion along Sunset Avenue and Bronson Way. Purpose of the Study The purpose of the study is to identify the traffic impacts which could occur as a result of the two proposed projects, and the five year development scenario. In addition to the impacts on the arterial system, the potential traffic impacts on neighborhood streets are addressed. Specific project mitigation and area-wide mitigation is suggested. Study Area Description The study area includes that portion of North Renton between the Cedar River on the south and west, Interstate 405 on the east, and Lake Washington and May Creek on the north. The 5 year analysis focuses on the area south of Gene Coulon Park. Limitations of the Study This study does not include an analysis of long-range area- wide land use changes or traffic problems which could occur over the next twenty years. It also does not test various alternative roadway alignments as part of an effort to identify a new arterial network. The study does not recommend an area-wide traffic mitigation program fee structure and mitigation area boundary. The mitigation program recommended in this report is limited to roadway improvements directly attributed to the proposed projects' site specific impacts and the projects' proportional share of needed off-site improvements. Relationship to Future Studies The long-range phase of the North Renton Transportation Study is proceeding concurrently with the present study. In order to implement a traffic mitigation program which relates to a longer range, area-wide land use forecast for this study area, the .City anticipates initiating a six-month comprehensive land use plan review process. • (2) Two alternative land use and traffic scenarios addressing the probable and worst case twenty-year projections are already identified by the City. Analysis of the traffic implications of these scenarios is ready to begin. The scope of work for this project includes testing alternative traffic networks, and proposing a specific mitigation program to improve both neighborhood streets and the arterial network. Renton's Environmental Ordinance and the State Environmental Policy Act require the City to consider all impacts (including those likely to arise or exist over the lifetime of a proposal) including short-term and long-term effects. SEPA allows agencies such as the City to phase the environmental review of a project based upon the issues which are ready for decisions if the phasing is appropriate for the project. Based upon a phased environmental review, phased mitigation is appropriate. The current study addresses the first five years of probable development in the North Renton study area and proposes mitigation appropriate to the development expected during that period. However, one conclusion of this study is that developers in the study area will also need to participate in the later phases of the mitigation program through bonding requirements imposed on specific projects during plan approval. (3) SECTION II PARK PLAZA & GARDEN PLAZA PROJECTS SUMMARY OF TRAFFIC IMPACTS AND MITIGATION Section II PARK PLAZA AND GARDEN PLAZA PROJECTS SUMMARY OF TRAFFIC IMPACTS AND MITIGATION RECAP OF PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS Building Garden Park Combined Characteristic Plaza Plaza Total Gross Floor Area 245,850 181,280 427,130 Net Usable Area 213,370 153,970 367,340 Est. Employee Load 1,060 740 1,800 A Parking Required 1,067 701 1,768 Parking Supply 1,023 1,285 2,308 B Traffic Generation: Avg. Weekday Trips 3,050 2,250 5,300 PM Peak Hour Trips 670 490 1,160 C A. 1,350 of the employees will be transferred from nearby "10-85" building, II Renton Place building, and 500 Park building. B. Includes 260 spaces to accommodate parking needs for 500 Park building. C. May not coincide with current 3:30 to 4:30 pm peak hour for North Renton area. PROJECT TRAFFIC IMPACTS o Park and Garden Plaza- Plazas combined will generate about 5,300 vehicle trips per day, of which 1160 could occur during the PM Peak Hour. o Project traffic access patterns are estimated as follows: - 25% north to I-405, Lk. Wash Blvd, and NE Renton - 10% east to Maple Valley Road via N. 3rd & 4th Streets - 25% south to Bronson Way via Park and Garden Avenues - 40% west to Airport Way via 3rd, 4th, and 6th Streets o About 50% of the project traffic will penetrate the North Renton residential area on Park and Garden Avenues, and on North 3rd and 4th Streets. About 23% will penetrate the residential area south of N. 3rd Street via Park and Garden Avenues. (4) o Proportional traffic increases at selected arterial street location in the North Renton area are as follows: Street Segment PM Peak Hour Traffic Existing Project %increase N.Park Dr west of I-405 2,930 230 +8% Park & Garden Avenues: South of N. 8th Street 2,825 285 +10% North of N. 4th Street 2,390 620 +26% South of N. 3rd Street 1,175 265 +23% N. 3rd & N. 4th Streets: West of Park Avenue 2,775 230 +8% East of Garden Avenue 2,550 125 +5% o A key measure of project traffic impacts on the vicinity street system is "level of service" (LOS) . LOS is a qualitative measure of traffic congestion. LOS C is desirable; LOS D is acceptable; LOS E represents capacity; LOS F represents serious congestion. o Level of service today, and in the future with full development and occupancy of Park and Garden Plazas, is summarized on Table 1. Level of service with Park and Garden Plazas is shown for three future conditions: - Lake Wash Blvd / Park/Garden - Garden Avenue / N. 3rd Street - Garden Avenue / N. 6th Street - Garden Avenue / N. 8th Street - ,N. 3rd Street / Stinset (5) TABLE 1 LEVELS OF SERVICE AT KEY INTERSECTIONS -- PM PEAK HOUR EXISTING STREET SYSTEM RECOMMENDED EXISTING STREET SYSTEM WITH REQUIRED MITIGATION PARK/GARDEN ' COUPLET Intersection Current W/Projects Mitigation Measure*** LOS LOS Park Avenue at: Bronson Way 11 B B B N. 3rd Street B C - C B N. 4th Street B C C A N. 6th Street C D 5-Lane Park (4,5) D C N. 8th Street C C/D Realign Signal (7) C/D B/C N. 10th Street C C C A L. Wash/Garden F F Limit Use (2) ** B/C "A" Garden Avenue at: Bronson Way E* E* E* C N. 3rd Street B E Rechannelize B B N. 4th Street B C C A N. 6th Street D* E* Signalize (3) B A N. 8th West C* D* Signalize (8) A B N. 8th East D* D* Signalize (8) A B N. 10th Street N/A N/A N/A B Logan Avenue at: Airport Way B C C C N. 3rd Street A B B B N. 4th Street B C C C N. 6th Street C D D D N. 3rd at Sunset E F "5-Year" Study F F 4 * Unsignalized intersection; LOS is for worst approach leg. ** Revise intersection operation to restrict north and south approaches to right turns only. *** See "Mitigation" section for more complete description of mitigating measures. The Park/Garden Couplet is discussed on page 8 . MITIGATION Based upon the above identified traffic impacts associated with the Park Plaza and the Garden Plaza projects proposals, the City Environmental Committee has recommended the following street and intersection improvement measures as conditions of development: 1. Participation in a future North Renton Benefit Assessment District to contribute "per trip generated" fees totalling $1,107,900, less credits for improvements identified in the North Renton Traffic Study that have been directly funded by the projects applicant. 2. Up grade the Garden Avenue / Lake Washington Boulevard intersection to achieve level of service D operation. (Note: This intersection already operates at LOS F, and it may be physically impossible to achieve LOS D without constricting a grade separation of some sort. ) 3. Install new signalization at intersection of N. 6th Street and garden Avenue North. _ 4. Expand Park Avenue to 5 lanes from N. 5th Street to the north property line of Park Plaza. (This condition may be eliminated by the alternative implementation of a Park/Garden Avenues one-way couplet. ) 5. Re construct the existing signal at N. 6th Street and Park Avenue. 6. Improve and channelize N. 5th street to 3-lane operation between Park and Garden Avenue. 7. Realign the existing signal at the intersection of North 8th Street and Park Avenue. 8. Contribute a fair share of the cost of signalizing the east and west intersection of Garden Avenue with N. 8th Street. 9. Dedicate 10 feet of right-of-way along North 6th Street between Park and Garden Avenues to allow for future widening to five lanes. (7) 10. Construct all site access drives with a minimum width of 30 feet. 11. Provide "kiss-ride pull out" lanes 70 feet long and 12 feet wide on Park Avenue along face of Park Plaza, and along N. 6th street along face of Garden Plaza. 12. Provide a Traffic Systems Management Program at each project to reduce vehicle trips. A number of additional conditions were imposed by the Committee relating to pedestrian circulation, of the environment. PARR / GARDEN ONE-WAY COUPLET During the course of traffic studies for the Park and Garden Plaza projects, a Park/Garden one-way street plan concept was recommended by both consultants for City consideration as a more long-range mitigation alternative for the North Renton area. The concept is illustrated on Figure 1. The concept proposes the conversion of Park Avenue to one-way south bound traffic flow from Lake Washington Boulevard to Bronson Way, with options to shorten the one-way operation north from either N. 3rd or 6th Streets to Lake Washington Boulevard. Garden Avenue would be converted to one-way north bound operation from Bronson Way to a convergence with Park Avenue in the vicinity of Lake Washington Boulevard also with an option to begin one-way operation from N. 3rd Street. A new 3-lane alignment of Garden Avenue between N. 6th and N. 8th Streets would be desirable as illustrated on Figure 1. A comparison of the levels of service at key intersections under existing conditions, with required mitigation, and with the implementation of the one-way couplet is presented in Table 1. To totally eliminate the existing "bottleneck" intersection at Lake Washington Boulevard / Park/Garden, an easterly extension of N. 10th would be necessary from Park Avenue to Garden Avenue, and then north-easterly to the Houser Way undercrossing of N. Park Drive. Another option is to terminate the one-way street operation at N. 6th Street, using N. 6th Street as a strong cross- connection between the Logan Avenue and Park/Garden corridors. The Park/Garden one-way street couplet concept is being further evaluated as part of the North Renton Assessment District Traffic Study . Some preliminary traffic evaluations and cost estimates are presented in Section III below. (8) . ,• . . • ............................ :"..7 \III ,7.4 • .................... ...................... ,........................,,,,, .:...:........................:....:::•......:...:..:::......................::::::::...1........:...•....:.1..1.;::....... „.....................................................................................:....... Ate (..C7 t • NE PARK DR . •-............................,......... . ................... tit 1 .................... i .2 .........................................•.•.•.„.:„.„. ........../...............:::::::::•0::: .14:1,:•:/://:•."....... • 4111f/ .1#° . k. ‘4, ..• •- ..... '•••••••. ::::•*:4"••:•:••'" ..,,./ ........... iim:::.:::::::::. Iiiiiiiii•i IIIM:.... [I o o es tv, ...... ...... . .....................„. o ........ .................. ...... ............................... ....... ..•.....f......-.......-:.....-..........-.......................•.......•:................:.....•.....:-........*:.....•.:.....,;.:.....•.•.........................:::....... .....•..•-••••—• • .. 1,:gc4P: 1 ei.::::::::•. • \\ .4. :....:..........•.•.............................. ....... ........ . ....................... ... .................... .....................,. ...... ........ .............................. ................ ....... .................................. •••••••••••••••••••••• ...... .. ........... ......... ••••••• ••••••. ••••••••••••-••-• .............. ...... .... . ............ ............ ........................, ....................... ...... ......................... ..„............., • ..:::::..:::;:..:::::::::::::::::::::.......,-;;;;::::::: .::::....,........„...............: ......................... .............. .•:131 1,N 6••• '•••.•:•••• :::::::::::::::::5::::::;:::::11.:::.•.:i NEST w II II x i .............. ............... .............. ............... .............. = ::::::::::::::::::::::*:::: w :••:-:•:•:•:-:•:•:,..:.:•:•:•: 111/ ...a , ... El7-:...1.::. ARK f.' ( iii it ,... ..:. ''' ... ... ...... ,., Affil rqg 'fill • z- .., e. = 4=,m = u, - fr'....)...- e L.:Zzi tlizrZeLl i PACAR V•g•*:•:.es .:::":.*:.:.:.:.0.1 / ..11:1 MOST IN • • '4**••' 1. ) • ........ ........... PERT5 • • . ......,. ... ..... ....... . ........... ............. ...................z......:...................., ......... .... ... ... .... ........ ........ ... .. ........ . . .... ....,..... ......,. .........„ ......„, •••••••••......„.• ........ kq''':WAZA.1 ........... ......... / ............ ..........„ .. ,.. ....... .. .. .... ori N.. .. '......1...:••••......:".....:::......:."......................................"....... . . ...f:-....:.. ... .....'".•:-..-•••ta K 4 sT=-*): it e / -.— ...-- 6.4° "... ',asT 1,... LI,. 1 I t t ' 01 AIRPORT WY .. W Z.. ..- 3 ... = ,= w 15, Y 0 i 0 EXISTING SIGNAL 0 NEW SIGNAL S 2 sT —_ ._— NEW STREET LINK 41( 0 -411( No. OF LANES —I. S3ST s*-- .....,...._____________ -Ow 0 10 3 . A NORTH Figure -1 PARK PLAZA PROPOSED PARK/GARDEN The ONE—WAY COUPLET 11RANSPO @rove 1 SECTION III FIVE-YEAR DEVELOPMENT SCENARIO Existing Street System The study area' s major east-west corridor consists of North 3rd and North 4th Streets which are one-way arterials extending from Logan Avenue on the west to Sunset Boulevard and I-405 on the east. The study area' s central north- south corridor consists of Park Avenue and Garden Avenue which are 2-way arterials extending from Lake Washington Boulevard on the north to Bronson Way on the south. Perimeter arterials consist of Sunset Boulevard on the east, Bronson Way on the south and Logan Avenue on the west. Figure 2 depicts the existing street system and existing traffic features including on-street parking zones. Figure 3 depicts existing PM peak hour volumes. The PM peak hour volume is the peak one hour volume which occurs during the PM peak period. The PM peak period can extend for several hours . Existing streets with residential abutting uses and residential zoning are identified in Table 2 along with functional classification, existing PM peak hour traffic volumes, and estimated degree of impact from existing through traffic. The table also includes an evaluation of the effectiveness of proposed neighborhood traffic mitigation programs . Functional classification is established by the City' s annually adopted Arterial Streets Plan. Future Land Use Assumption and Trip Generation The 5-year development scenario assumed projects are shown on Figure 4 . Estimated trip generation associated with these projects is given in Table 3 below. The trip generation rate data is from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) 1984 Trip Generation Report. Modal split (share to transit and carpools) are thise contained. in the ITE data which is derived from suburban office locations with very low transit and carpool use. With the north section HOV lanes now operational on I-405 and an extension planned to I-5, there may be a significant increase in modal split in the future which would assist in reducing impacts. i Trips passing through the study area (neither an origin or destination end in the study area) are substantial and on 1 /P tiPti ilirLegend xL NO. OF LANES 0 SIGNALIZED CO \ %/, PARKING PERMITTED 4L 4L h. © 4L N •th ST u� i z w 4L 2. Id 4L x• W O d C El M 6th ST Cr. 5L 04L 3L 6L k \ t / / W N 5 th ST `f, i� '-' �j�f > t 4L o W lit N 4th ST (, ,` • 4 .\414 _ 33 2L iir. N 3rd �N ‘ ,� BL , �� 3L 1, „111. ir 2L 2L '� )\%...„... vir/ re �, V J J W 'y • EXISTING TRAFFIC FEATURES WM E POPP ASSOCIATES FIGURE2 I): ► . 0 n o III u• 4 O O r .r II 1 LEGEND 1 xx - existing pm peak hour traffic a I^ g h , cow / �i inIn N • 25 ` IID . t1.c 1 325 \ 270 000 *ZS L20 O l^ ll• N h t N j j jin / it h In O �n tr.' j//2 S� by 235 92 91.0 2.45 g rl 0 j 0 8 C O p P & o n o R r�I I 4 o O 2 h T0 ILS IWO 1175 LAU'S P 0 0 ' O p D 129p t5 LS n.I.D ieC5 1(o4o5 4 • n Q O N P h M p 4'47'S / Ni .- S^' Ifl0 tp4 ,r Z14"3 1'7Lp ' pp D O .. * leoO it tl O q el S In In a K?0 OW M N s - d' T w N In AV 6 ry" ,' ot:".• EXISTING VOLUMES T,. WM E POPP ASSOCIATES FIGURES Table 2 Streets in Residential Zones Existing Effect of PM Peak Hour Impact of Neighborhood Functional Traffic Through Mitigation Street Classification Volumes( 1 ) Traffic(2) Program(3) Burnett Ave N. Local Access 100 - 150 Moderate Fair Williams Ave N. Minor Arterial 250 - 450 Moderate Very Good Wells Ave N. Minor Arterial 150 - 225 Moderate Very Good Pelly Ave N. Local Access 100 - 150 Light Good Garden Ave N. , S. of 4th Minor Arterial 290 - 550 Moderate None Factory Ave N. Collector Arterial 350 - 450 Moderate None N. 3rd Street Principal Arterial 1300 - 1890 Heavy Fair N. 4th Street Principal Arterial 670 - 1250 Heavy Fair N. 5th St. , W. of Park Ave Local Access less than 100 Very Light Good N. 6th St. , W. of Pelly Ave Principal Arterial 1200 - 1350 Heavy Negative N. 1st Street Local Access less than 100 Light None N. 2nd Street Local Access less than 100 None None (1 ) Estimated based on limited count data (2) Subjective estimate (3) Subjective Evaluation of the effectiveness of proposed neighborhood traffic mitigation on neighborhood streets. See mitigation. . 120,003 light industrial , 145,000 research & development 330,000 260,000 362,000 research & develo ment office office 7,,' 245,850 T 1,750 1 — j/. 5-YEAR DEVELOPMENT SCENARIO WM E POPP ASSOCIATES FIGURE4. Table 3 North Renton Trip Generation Known Development Proposals 1 , PM PEAK HQUR VOLUME LAND USE : Traffic: AWDT ; AWDT ; 2 WAY ; Zone ; rate 1 ; PM PEAK I IN ; OUT rate vol ; % vol ; % vol 300,000 SQ. FT. ; 40 ; 5. 3 ; 1590 ; 0. 9 270 ; 10.0 27 ; 90.0 243 Research & Development ; 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 I I I I 245, 850 SQ. FT. .A 31 1 10. 9 ; 2680 ; 2.03 499 ; 19. 7 98 ; 80. 3 401 Office ... 1 1 1 I I ' I I I I I I I I I I 145,000 SQ. FT. ; 36 ; 5. 3 ; 769 0 . 9 131 ; 10.0 13 : 90 .0 118 Research & Development ; ; i , 1 1 260,000 SQ. FT. : 37 ; 10. 9 ; 2834 ; 2.03 528 ; 19. 7 104 180. 3 424 Office 1 I i 1 1 1 362,000 SQ. FT. ; 38 1 10 . 9 ; 3946 ; 2.03 740 1 19. 7 145 ; 80. 3 594 Office 1 1 1 I' 1 1 120,000 SQ. FT. 1 41 ; 5. 46 1 655 ; 1 . 18 141 119. 7 28 ; 80. 3 113 Light Industrial ; I I I 1 I I I I I 1 , 750 SQ. FT. ; 4 ; 40. 7 ; 71 1 2. 29 4 ; 42.4 2 ; 57 . 6 2 Retail 1 1 I 1 1 , 1 1 1 ! 1 1 TOTAL 112, 545 ; 2313 ; 418 ; 1895 1 1 1 1 (1 , 434 , 600 SQF) 1 1 1 1 1 : I the order of 70% of total study area traffic based on PSCOG travel patterns . Due to the travel constraints on the study area' s eastern border (Maple Valley interchange, N. 3rd Street at Sunset, and on the I-405 mainline) , future growth in through traffic has been assumed to remain constant for this analysis scenario thus giving priority for available capacity to study area traffic growth. Trip Distribution and Assignment Trip interchanges between the internal study area and major external areas were developed from the PSCOG year 2000 data. Figure 5 depicts the proposed developments' traffic assignment to the internal street system for the one-way couplet concept. Projects plus background traffic is depicted on Figure 6. 5-Year Development Scenario Impacts o The assumed 5-year development scenario generates some 12, 500 vehicle trips per day of which 2300 could occur during the PM peak hour. The PM peak hour volume is roughly double the combined Park Plaza - Garden Plaza volume. o Percentage increases in traffic volume at principal access points to the study area are as follows : N. Park Avenue West of I-405 + 20% N. 3rd Street West of Sunset Blvd + 34% Logan Avenue at the Cedar River + 14% Bronson Way West of Sunset Blvd + 2% Bronson Way at the Cedar River + 11% o Some minor volume increases on neighborhood streets- could be expected on Williams, Wells, Pelly and Garden Avenues and a large volume increase on N. 6th Street (+ 42%) . Significant increases are estimated for N. 3rd and N. 4th Streets east of Garden Avenue (+ 22%) . As mentioned previously, the most common measure of traffic impacts is "level-of-service" (LOS) . LOS is a qualitative measure of traffid' congestion - LOS C is desireable; LOS D is acceptable; LOS E represents capacity; LOS F represents serious congestion. Table 4 denotes level-of-service 2 • N1 c ' 5 o PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TRIP ASSIGNMENT Sr) '%\ With One-Way Couplet /o 5 '� ,O O 1 1 xx - Project Traffic • i e4 �1 , \ r O a AcY' A O i c� y ' 4 2D1 285 �3 Li i Ff4 ' 1Q nl � r o r P 14 an ,Bo d 215 k. A °' n a 0 m i o d Pi if IP o io � w. w 0 0 0 Q 14 453 I459 tin b 2. 4VZ - N4 ro9 ` 0 * iO ® ,4 N ,45s e/6 FIGURE 5. WM E POPP ASSOCIATES , * c c t / o ) \\\ . ./ BACKGROUND PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC yc3 With One-Way Couplet 0 4 I #• ..• XXX PM Peak Hour Traffic ' PM Peak Hour 1/4‘7\\\_\_\_\\\ O Level-of-Service yr , io 0 311 10 /33 J 2 3 I j - / N Z33 0 O‘ c. ,44,) .P o V .. J 0 o p Q /229 ?8I „12 O O D 0 24//N3 .. o . op v Ai 2637 Ii& /4) /8y9 .- V11\ 0 ° PI/A op . / FIGURE 6. WM E POPP ASSOCIATES estimates for selected intersections for conditions with and without the proposed one-way couplet. Table 4 5-Year Development Scenario Intersection PM Peak Hour Level-of-Service With and Without Mitigation Existing Network With One-Way Intersection w/o Mitigation Couplet Airport Way/Logan Avenue C C Bronson/1st Ave/Park Ave B B Lk Wa/Park Ave/Garden Ave F A ( 1 ) N. 3rd St/Sunset Blvd F F D (2) D (2) N. 3rd St/Avenue D D N. 3rd St/Garden Avenue E C N. 4th St/Logan Avenue D D N. 4th St/Garden Avenue C A N. 4th St/Park Avenue C D N. 6th St/Logan Avenue D D N. 6th St/Park Avenue F C Sunset Blvd/SR 169 E E (1 ) With extensive street revision including N. 10th extension to Houser Way (2) With the programmed additional lane in each direction added to the intersection east leg (N 3rd St) and extensive rechannelization and signal rephasing. o As may be noted from Table 4, the existing network without .improvement results in LOS E at N. 3rd/Garden Avenue and Sunset Blvd/SR 169 and LOS F at N. 6th St/Park Avenue, Lake Washington Blvd/Park Ave/Garden Ave, and at N. 3rd Street/Sunset Blvd. One Proposed Mitigation Scenario - See Figure 7 for Depiction of Improvements As may be noted in Table 4 , the one-way couplet proposal provides acceptable LOS at all intersections save N. 3rd St/Sunset Blvd which is mitigated above. 3 . - I LEGEND ' 'u. ■u. - Street Capacity Improvements Neighborhood street mitigation gtA - Existing Signal O - Signal new or modified . 11111 O • ' - Traffic Circle or diverter �. a) t_. + 1 0 ` �) 4 <> ,-- 0.-.,-,4-. ,..-_,,..."• : .,4r.- .. + t \ `` ♦ �4 _ t .. ,41) SUGGESTED IMPROVEMENT PLAN . 1988-1993 WM E POPP ASSOCIATES FIGURE 7. o The suggested improvement plan consists of the one- way couplet concept extending to Bronson Way from Lake Washington Blvd. However, extension of the one- way couplet to Bronson Way results in some increase in projects' traffic impacts on Garden south of N. 3rd Street. o The one-way couplet concept includes new signals at Garden Avenue/-N. 6th Street, - N. 8th Street, - N. 10th Street extended. It also includes a connection through the existing PACCAR site to continuously align Garden Avenue and an extension of N. 10th Street through the Boeing parking lot over to Houser Way, and most importantly removal of the signal and all conflicting moves at the Lake Washington Blvd/Park Ave/Garden Ave intersection with rechannelization of Garden to 3 lanes turning onto Park with a 200 foot minimum radius. o Widening the east leg of the Sunset Blvd. /N. 3rd St. intersection from 5 lanes to 7 lanes is required for adequate level-of-service. _This is a critical need for study area traffic service. o A two-way bike lane is suggested on Park Avenue down to N. 5th Street as the surplus capacity exists as a result of the one-way couplet concept and the route would apparently fill in a much needed link in the bicycle plan. This proposal may require review under the longer range plan. Other suggested improvements to mitigate impacts of through traffic on streets along residentially zoned areas include: o Reducing N. 4th Street from 4 lanes to 3 lanes and adding parking on one side is suggested to insulate residents from direct traffic impacts. This may also serve to increase drivers' awareness of the street environment. o Conversion of N. 4th and N. 5th Streets to 2-way operation with a connection to Sunset Blvd from N. 4th Street should be considered in the long range study. o Reinstating 'parking on N. 3rd Street in the present no-parking area should also serve to protect residents on the north side of N. 3rd Street. 4 o Conversion of Williams and Wells Avenues to 2-way operation with traffic diverters (traffic circles or like measure vis-a-vis Seattle' s program) on all north-south residential streets between Logan Avenue and Park Avenue and N. 4th and N. 6th Streets. Alternative methods to reduce traffic impacts include traffic demand reduction through the following: o Shifting of the building peak discharge time since projects' PM peak hours are assumed to coincide with the street peak which occurs between 3: 30 and 4 : 30 PM. If the buildings were to have the more normal 4 : 00 to 5:00 PM peak hours significantly lower peak LOS traffic impacts would result. o Increased HOV use through aggressive implementation of various programs and suggestions by Metro including car/van pool formation assistance along with preferential parking for car/van pools, transit pass subsidy, subscriber bus service, reduced parking requirements. o Exploration of higher capital cost options including an HOV access to I-405 via a connection from N. 4th Street to Sunset with a southbound on-ramp to I-405. This should be addressed in the long range study. Other area wide improvement requirements indicated which merit special attention in the long range study include additional I-405 general purpose vehicle lane capacity through Renton and special analysis of the N. 3rd Street - Maple Valley Road - Sunset Boulevard interchange improvement possibilities with I-405. Capital Cost Estimate Preliminary sketch level cost estimates for the suggested improvement plan are presented in Table 5 for purposes of perspective. The largest single element is the Lake Washington Boulevard upgrade from Park Avenue to I-405 which is essentially an aesthetic and bike safety enhancement project. For this reason and the inordinate project expense, a, proportional share cost based on traffic contribution is assigned to the cost estimate total. Other project total costs are included in entirety. The resulting total is $2, 831 ,000 . 5 i Table 5 Preliminary Cost Estimate for One Way Couplet on Park & Garden Avenues And Other External Improvements New 3L road w/ CG, SW, Illumination, RR gates: 2650' $858 , 000 * Intersection improvements: Houser, Lake Washington Blvd CG, Drainage, Illumination, Widening, RR gate $300 ,000 Modify Lake Washington Blvd/Garden/Park Intersection Remove signals, rechannelize w/200' radius on 3 lane curve $150 , 000 * Re-mark streets to 3 lane one-way pattern $ 20 ,000 Widen N. 3rd under I-405 to 7 lanes (w/ WSDOT) $250 , 000 Signal modifications at 7 intersections $105 , 000 New Signals at: 6th/Garden, 8th/Garden, 10th/Garden $255 , 000 Traffic circle diverters (6) - $ 60 , 000 Lake Washington Blvd upgrade (Park to I-405) $6, 250,000 at 13% proportional share $833, 000 • TOTAL COST ESTIMATE . . . .$2, 831 , 000 * Does not include right-of-way cost (� -O{b -Kt SA -On-8-1 act=-Ot3-��( William E. Popp Associates Transportation Consultants (206) 454-6692 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR GARDEN PLAZA OFFICE DEVELOPMENT DATE: FEBRUARY 18, 1987 eg) CLIENT: E & H PROPERTIES , 1E FEB 19 iggy E3UILDING/ZONING DEPT. Seattle Trust Building • Suite 302 • 10655 N.E. 4th Street • Bellevue, Washington 98004 STABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. Introduction I II. Existing Conditions 1 . A. Surrounding Street System 1 B. Traffic Volumes 2 C. Level-of-Service 3 D. Accidents 4 E. Transit 5 III. Future Conditions and Impacts 6 A. Planned and Programmed Improvements 7 B. Project Trip Generation and Distribution 7 C. Future Background Traffic Volumes 8 D. Future Level-of-Service 8 IV. Mitigation Measures V. Summary FIGURES 1. Vicinity Map 2. Physical' Inventory 3. Existing Traffic Volumes 4. Regional Trip Distribution 5. Project Trip Distribution 6. Future Background with Project 7. Driveway Volumes TABLES 1. Existing LOS 2. Accidents 3. Transit Routes 4. Trip Generation 5. Future LOS 6. Driveway LOS r I. INTRODUCTION This report provides an assessment of the potential traffic impacts associated with the proposed Garden Plaza office development, located between Garden Avenue North and Park Avenue North on North 6th Street in the City of Renton, within the Boeing Field/PACCAR industrial area. A vicinity map is provided in Figure 1. This impact analysis is structured to conform to City of Renton guidelines for traffic impact analysis studies. The scope of the study was developed in consultation with the Traffic Engineer for the City of Renton. The proposed office development consists of approximately 212,000 gross square feet with approximately 1,200 parking stalls to be provided. Currently, located on a portion of the site is a 58,000- square-foot office structure with about 50 existing parking stalls. The proposed office development will combine the existing parking with proposed development to produce the total of 1,200 stalls. The total of office square footage will be approximately 270,000; however, this report's analysis is confined to the trips to be generated by the new office development only. The site is served by a local and regional distribution arterial and freeway network that serves the automobile user, as well as transit. The following intersections affected by the proposed development are included in the subject analysis: North 3rd, North 4th, North 6th, North 8th, and Garden Avenue; and North 3rd, North 4th, North 5th, North 6th, and Park Avenue, and Garden and Lake Washington Boulevard. - 1 - • • J 1 I/■f/ III/1 s L. • ' io"iM./r I t II M P` 'Pt "WC."�++ BEACH I I KENNYDALE N41"IMOrt ;� I�■/�m{F G �t I jq�fA/I„L7.. r�,7 MT sr Q s ''�• 11^ •ilW' 15 P��`� I i Av�+N , N W- TN STPON ' a i -0© � � �fT`ol .3 ¢ I Lake i ' �- ` �• <� �'n z 5'D PI RIM it.,,,,,, rYT"> 40 �, I n Fr, ■ 9S S`I .n I y flT" ' FOLK Allic.,� •{' YI .rs > • It z14 •s �'=a6 ; Q Washzn , ton A r /•' a s7 RTAN© •IOieOv�►,�PV� .�. - - I .,• E _ 'xr�� I vi... •^ sr NT ��1��y '� NNT'Cq ,' F� �Lw , f T s I• sCBESIDNST .A p:•'.. / Ef '-"+ 1wf LAUNCH" s S RANCOR >� i ��[�]� � fir. iio'M •q0 �r(COusOw :': N N ■1 4 f F• 'r-1• . 1�YEtEC40�1 'TN 5 € :.D Vr ' �G t� :1!:r • 10 - K7 A2E n l STS KO. A i. I .. 41I�N� ��I 1 k G -I ike� �������� � I :�.x�v r o _ if:_ FOU AIN ST f 1 1 '�%; ` fY4,i"r.;,, � ` �b+N _1 f tIl•. AIN yiM1'� `I.:.ru ` f"- R b IITN. STe �� I � ��..���� T� < .� J� MTh � '•- ©115TN ST 1 i, fifth . Ini4 �' 1 ■ s1 Eilitirs ©1. siNl/N , Ij.!f 'b1 , _ —KrA-- 4,N 14 .L.■ .1' ® Ir' u - k I• ♦ ,r1N PE w z M Elm S 120ywp;Zp'p J. .. .. :,, ' I`h .STy \`\ s I RT,. > :I,/DS7 S IIai a (S'.p�; y PO Ttr ,11DID E I � •'\�i • 1,41, .taf \ '' �41• ■' I"; r a = _ •��'^-v...... "� i g ri• 123 o PL Z P C •:r A NI �, ,� �� � h5 '12,rN I ST rN 1i . , )1411il ,, ‘N,, , 4 ‘Terfr 'r 1 s s N jjN 4i6N Pe.MAR tv = s 4111111.41 FI nTN�e <1 _ cad 1 IN.1 N �� sT ., sr 11■ ' 4 z T g `- O i I\ �C si► I s I� m���ll � ,, ] LT• .� �'.AIRPORT''.•.•. . - N t . -. , :,. 4.4 • stj i`"�\S, •11/R 5 I 135// (.,iihi 1 kTilU:,7 r� �1 •la��p!), ,\ ,,+^tit �+� ,p 0f @,� Tvi6' mil, svltf�au./i ; \\1E "• , `* ♦ �'�.: � ,4, M,r s /* e qe •-. N ro':''r9�y 1 " tit s 1 0 ` <Ci 4 i�' 1:1!6 I 31f.t' el Wilda_ter..."4..'-' •a•:. Golf':•..,•�>\qo 'en I �1, ' g -' 4 .;■.IW: 34 ' Gourie `v�BL' I , ,,,i t ire 'rbdrvX••© ©pi N'[c < • '" -i ' ': .:;;' . • RIVER ' : EARL GT 8. r•.••,,so • p , , '.----7P .\ 1r _ C OS ;4•.c,...': fi:�t <� � � o� � a ��� �i.ta] "_ s Is n:."iiiii�iiititte:cionii[;�;?' I s ,t+ ' S`�: N57 :. \ t ii:e ,:vim 1f rr+` . _ 1 "+ 1 S • CO 1 , R. ��. Y ...A.,.....,...:.. • I /C/!_/I . MI/I F�6 aPE 4 WM E POPP ASSOCIATES II. EXISTING CONDITIONS A. Surrounding Street System Park Avenue North is classified as a Principal Arterial north of Bronson Avenue, extends north and south, and borders the site on the west. North of North 8th Street, Park Avenue becomes Lake Washington Boulevard. Park Avenue extends south and terminates at its intersection with Bronson Way. Average weekday volumes on Park Avenue north of North 6th Street are at 15,200, and 8,200 between North 3rd and North 4th. Garden Avenue extends north to south, designated as a minor arterial , and borders the site on the east. Garden Avenue terminates at its intersection with Bronson Way south of the site, and extends north to its intersection with Lake Washington Boulevard. Volumes on Garden Avenue at North 6th Street are approximately 4,200, average weekday volume. North 6th Street is designated as a Principal Arterial , and extends east to west between Garden Avenue and Riverside Drive. North 6th Street borders the site on the north, and serves large Boeing parking lots to the west of the site location. North 3rd is classified as a minor arterial , and extends east and west as an eastbound one-way arterial . North 3rd originates at Logan Avenue South and extends east to under SR 405 and becomes Northeast 3rd Street, as a two-way arterial , connecting with Northeast 4th Street. North 3rd Avenue's average weekday volumes, west of Park is approximately 12,000. North 4th Street extends east and west between Logan Avenue and Sunset Boulevard as a one-way arterial , westbound. North 4th Street is designated as a minor arterial . Volumes on North 4th east of Park Avenue is 6,200 AWT. The remaining streets within the site vicinity are unclassified and serve as collectors to the major arterial network. - 2 - A physical inventory map depicts intersection controls, transit stop locations, lane widths, speed limits, and is presented in Figure 4. B. Traffic Volumes Average weekday volumes were obtained from the City of Renton for the years 1982 and. 1985. A comparative analysis was made to determine average growth rates between 1982 and 1985. It was determined that some arterials within the vicinity reflected an increase and some indicated a decline in volumes. It was concluded that the overall annual growth rate for the area arterials was 1.2 percent. This method was considered acceptable for determining a reasonable growth rate for the area. However, as an accurate indicator of current AWT's, 1982 Volumes are considered too historical . Therefore, only 1985 AWT's are represented in Figure 4. P.M. peak-hour counts for eight of the effected intersections were conducted by this consultant on October 20, 22, 23, 27, and 28, 1986 P.M. peak-hour counts for North 3rd/North 4th and Park Avenue were conducted by the City of Renton in January and February of 1985, and factored consistent with the annual growth rate. Figure 4 presents 1985 AWT volumes and P.M. peak-hour turn movement volumes for the e fected streets and intersections. C. Ser 'c-Level- f o vi e Level-of-service (LOS) is a term defined by transportation and traffic engineers as qualitative measure of operational conditions within a traffic stream and the perception of these features by motorists and/or passengers. Several factors compromise this definition including speed, travel time or delays, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions, comfort and convenience, and safety. There are six levels of service that are given letter designations, from A to F, with "A" being the - 3 - ,.. �o G� �9 4 4 lanes �~ - walks both sides .**** 7:::ss ....., 4 north sidewalk covered 4 lanes wide N s 8th marked pavement l 43' wide "k 3' sidewalks both sides N a • N 6th ST• • uunn.uunuIuuhs• ■ . unmarked pavement : i��� e 's E 3 lanes ' • 35 sidewalks a' € W a center turn lane 35 wide both sides !um 4' sidewalk on S— Mumma westside N Sth 8T s •-s 4 lanes oneway westbound ■ N 4th ST O 0 ■ 2 lanes 4 lanes 39' wide 45' wide - W sidewalks on sidewalks d ¢ both sides both sides ® on street parking ■ N 3rd ST 0 0 ■ TRANSIT STOP SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION 4 lanes ® oneway eastbound f S STOP CONTROLLED INTERSECTION 0 SPEED LIMIT .0y1.5'/64L /i/YeZ/ro1ef' FiG!/'PE 3 WM E POPP ASSOCIATES Fir DA° ,3�7B 0t ;ill. ����II yn 2.91) Trt �p 1; 1ta ?�9 9 L v� t B/ 4419 li r N /s0� tila, 8 th -3. 1.2.57: 414 4 %I.., 421 I1 /s-"' Z Z r R + trl /.Y► ,la�l 0 0 0 �r H / „,- H- 51 v h .iiuutnn issam uu N 8th S ,) /92 ,`yD 4 :M i C r^� ~may /OZ00 '—������K = W� A FI147S , i O > E r' > /r� t� Q Q C p uuuuP �� 4 /� �^ �3L • E rQ �� • N 5th ST 32, 14. D. Novo al, 4 „..____L , / IcF. Its N"4- �593 020 0) T��V r N 4th ST'//,700) 4 % a 4 s "�fili v �r� WO)......4 Y¢141 • W Z� 71 , C �7; arjt� a ` S N 3rd ST IS7.2 LEGE�t/O a1I 3n (XXX) - AT .-(‘200) K/ xxx - PM PEA,e e//SrivC TA'A'T/7 YDCUMES f7Gvef . .,,f. WM E POPP ASSOCIATES best, or minimum delay conditions, and "F" being the worst or failure with maximum delay conditions. LOS "C" or "D" is ! generally considered desirable, while LOS "E" represents operating conditions at or near capacity with difficulty in ' maneuver operations. The results of level-of-service calculations for existing peak conditions are presented in Table 1. Calculations for signalized intersections are based on the Webster Method and reflect the use of optimum cycles, while unsignalized intersections are calculated by the Transportation Research Board Special Report Method 209. The following Table 1 presents existing level-of-service conditions at the effected intersection. TABLE 1 EXISTING PM PEAK HOUR LEVEL-OF-SERVICE Intersection LOS RC* V/C** N. 3rd/Garden D .81 N. 3rd/Park B .69 N. 4th/Garden C .75 N. 4th/Park C .80 N. 5th/Park . B 362 N. 6th/Park C- .79 N. 6th/Garden C- 225 N. 8th/Garden (east) A 814 N. 8th/Garden (west) C . 262 Garden/Lake Washington Boulevard F 1.03 * RC = Reserve Capacity for least efficient movement. ** V/'C = Volume to Capacity ratio As can be noted from the above table, all intersections are operating well within acceptable levels-of-service, with the notable exception of Garden Avenue and Lake Washington Boulevard. Level-of-service problems at that intersection are due primarily - 4 - to high volume, P.M. peak exiting traffic from Boeing, and is currently being considered by Renton for analysis and improvement (See III, Future Conditions A.) D. Accidents Accident data was obtained from the City of Renton and is • presented below in Table 2. TABLE 2 ACCIDENT HISTORY Intersection 1984 1985 1986* N. 3rd/Garden 3 3 4 N. 3rd/Park 13 17 5 N. 4th/Garden 1 2 1 N. 4th/Park 8 16 7 N. 5th/Park 1 2 0 N. 6th/Park 3 5 1 N. 6th/Garden 0 1 3 N. 8th/Garden (west) 0 1 0 Garden/Lake Washington Boulevard 1 0 0 * First 6 months of 1986. As can be seen from the above table, North 3rd and Park Avenue, and North 4th and Park Avenue are experiencing a higher than normal rate of accidents. In 1985, this consultant conducted an extensive analysis of the operating conditions at these two intersections. Several operational improvements were recommended as a result of the analysis. These recommended improvements are described in this report in Section III, A. , Planned and Pro- grammed Improvements. It is anticipated that, when implemented, conditions at these two intersections will improve. E. Transit Public transportation to the area is provided by the Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle (METRO). A number of routes serve the - 5 - Renton/Boeing/PACCAR area to and from destinations throughout the region. The following regional routes pass the site along Park Avenue North. TABLE 3 TRANSIT ROUTES ORIGIN AND DESTINATION Route # Availability Origin Destination Daily 107 Daily Renton Highlands Seattle Pk Hr 108 Peak Hour Renton Highlands Seattle Pk Hr Reverse 109 Reverse Pk Hr Renton Highlands Seattle Daily 240 Daily Bellevue Seattle Pk Hr 241 Peak Hour Kenmore Southcenter Pk Hr 247 Peak Hour Redmond Kent Boeing Daily 340 Daily Aurora Village Burien III. FUTURE CONDITIONS AND IMPACTS A. Planned and Programmed Improvements The City of Renton Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) was consulted to determine what future improvements are scheduled for the project vicinity. TIP #4 - Park Avenue North - Bronson Way North to Garden Avenue North (Lake Washington Boulevard). The City plans to provide subgrade improvements, street overlay, to pave shoulders and channelization. Improvements are scheduled for 1986, 1987, and 1988, with $560,000. assigned to the project. '144-A TIP #13 - Lake Washington Boulevard/Park Avenue North/Garden Avenue intersection. This intersection improvement is a joint project between Boeing and the City of Renton. The project includes: roadway widening, resurfacing, channelization, and jsignal modification. These planned improvements are scheduled for 1986, 1987, 1988, with $266,000 assigned to the project. Additional improvements scheduled but not listed as part of the TIP are the safety modification scheduled for the intersection of - 6 - North 3rd and Park Avenue, and North 4th and Park Avenue. As a result of a "Traffic Operations Study" to determine the factors contributing to the high number of accidents at the two intersections, the following improvements were recommended and are scheduled for implementation by March, 1987; change signal display, improve signing, relocate controller on North 4th Street/Park Avenue North, rechannelization, modification of progression patterns on North 3rd and Park Avenue North, modify peak-hour cycle times. B. Project Trip Generation and Distribution Trip Generation Trip generation data for the Garden Plaza office development was obtained from the Institute of Transportation Engineers' "Trip Generation Report", Third Edition for office development. Trip generation rates for the proposal are presented below in Table 4. TABLE 4 TRIP GENERATION PM Peak-Hour Volume 2-Way In Out Land Use AWT Rate AWT % Vol % Vol % Vol 212,000 G.S.F. Office 12.3 2,608 2.2 573 17% 97 83% 476 Trip Distribution Trips generated by the proposed development were distributed to the local and regional arterial network utilizing a 1985 vehicle trip compression obtained from Puget Sound Council of Governments (PSCOG) . This method traces home based work trips to various employment and commercial centers by TAZ's (transportation - 7 - analysis zones) throughout the region and is considered to provide the most reliable available data base for trip distribution estimation. Figure 5 provides a regional overview of trip allocation by percent to the various population areas from Renton (TAZ #4) . Figure 6 depicts the project's local trip assignment. C. Future Background Traffic Q Growth factor for the area of the proposed office development was ��0-(- determined by utilizing average weekday traffic volumes from 1982 .r and 1985 to determine the'area growth rate for that period. It Z) -Q ' was determined that a 1.2 percent annual growth factor should betk- r--- I-, applied for each year to 1989, the anticipated "lease out" �,/l� �� period, to allow for future background traffic growth. V 3 D. Future Level-of-Service Future level-of-service analysis were performed to determine the project and future background traffic's impacts to operating conditions of each of the effected intersections. The results of these analyses are presented below in Table 5. Traffic volumes used for these analyses are presented in Figure 7. TABLE 5 FUTURE LEVEL-OF-SERVICE Existing Future Intersection LOS V/C* RC** LOS V/C RC N. 3rd/Garden D .81 D .86 N. 3rd/Park B .69 C .76 N. 4th/Garden C .75 D+ .81 N. 4th/Park C .74 C .77 N. 5th/Park B 362 D- 102 N. 6th/Park C- .79 D .82 N. 6th/Garden C- 225 E 22 N. 8th/Garden (east) A 814 A 709 N. 8th/Garden (west) C 262 D+ 180 Garden/Lake Washington Boulevard F 1.03 F 1.06 * V/C = Volume to Capacity Ratio ** RC = Reserve Capacity of least efficient movement o O Newcastle 1% Bear Creek 4% Nay Valley 0% Bellevue 4% E. Sammemish 3% • Newport Hill 1% intrazone 8% Snohomish 2% Somerset 1% 12% 12% r14-.......... ® * 7 , 411:2) il 01( 11 • � A O Ililli . • : : : •• O ■ D O r3/4---------- I / May Valley 2% Enumclaw 2% O �~ " Soos Creek 5% ftr000f C 9% West Seattle 8% Seattle N 6% z intrazone 18% • Pierce Co. 4% Fedreral Nay 6% 42% *.,ee ../.....wwe........41. , 0 Soos e► 13% , (/D/I/HL r Pierce Co.0 3% Fedreral Way 6% intrazone 3% /� 25% TR/P D/57 '/5UT/Oit/ , I ® , .w�,. F/GaeF 6 WM E POPP ASSOCIATES q 0 \• 1 \ y0 y3 Gdi 9 d ' \ IV N S th 30 a Z m N H I I co �\ ,_ „AL �.1: ,L+ N 8th ST IErtmfluuuuuuuhuuuuh1 4' S `u Must E > I W 4 1 g > i run" 4 0 . miarellosii N 5th ST ®. Lkt ..� L � ___I N 4th ST I k 1 tt3 bC ' Z tc W a 0 ti 0 9 .� P,��✓ECT N 3rd ST a`h ,: 1'14 Te/, D/ST•P/BUT/ON /0 to 0 WM E POPP ASSOCIATES 1 • ' i �— 98 97 6 \ . 90/_..0 /63/-► 4 7 `°N�' ►\ N -. 32 t F 30i/ t �o G 307 , 00 ZSG—4. 9 4 (150 tk-- , Ai 1 I t-7 2y G03'�► p N /L� S� dth 27g3t 4 ►�� � .� - i1 L br---.x5 z z j t L ,ry39 1 s --011 /yam ) t r a y � � t � /9-14 ,.! h ' \ nl Zy NNE 1 �f L N 6th S Lelz f■....ut...............7 V n �5, YN 1,u.uIS n C 4 f\ p W .� 1 _ > ) 1 ir Sb J. !molosi 4 /.99--� t tJ. ...n..� A.Da N 6th - 33" t'1 ,� -~ N I tA r QG/- °t , foo) "fr ,�Zr1.°::":"--*"...0 t`p1 J -1 a 1.3 1 r 5' `� N 4th ST�3y00 'y oY 3io� tea W M \ /yyd I �v a Q 1 ` p, 1 N � ' Zeal- /D N 3 rd ST /goy Zai� 1 / ,rs OxA) - -(7300) -A tr ) Aivr "Avower PLUS /yyyy-N a�, xxx - AMOEA,t' WM E POPP ASSOCIATES 1 '‘ N. Oil sl. J1 Zo ��►4 ® 3 d 34, 0 1S JS gt k • 3 . JL iS% J 6-3 N Sri/S7: k_3 ly 04U/17�S F/GU.PE - S WM E POPP ASSOCIATES As can be noted from the above table, most effected intersections would, with this proposed development, continue to operate at acceptable levels-of-service, with the exceptions of Garden and Lake Washington Boulevard, which has an existing LOS F, and 6th and Garden, which degrades to LOS E with project. Currently, the City of Renton is planning an engineering study and design aimed at modifying the Garden/Park/Lake Washington Boulevard intersection. (See III A. TIP #13) Level-of-service analyses were performed at the five proposed access points to the office development. These access points are proposed to be located as follows: two on Garden Avenue, two on Park Avenue, and one on North 5th (see Figure 2, Site Plan) . The following Table 6 provides the results of the driveway access point analysis. TABLE 6 DRIVEWAY LEVEL-OF-SERVICE % of Total Exiting. Intersection Future LOS RC PM Peak Trips Northern Driveway @ Garden Avenue (A) D+ 178 36% Southern Driveway @ Garden Avenue (B) C+ 294 15% Driveway @ North 5th Street (C) . A 487 15% Driveway @ Park Avenue (D) D- 129 34% IV. MITIGATION Mitigation of the LOS deficiency at the Garden/Park/Lake Washington Boulevard intersection has been anticipated by the City in the TIP. The TIP project anticipates conversion of the inside eastbound through lane on Park into an option left-turn lane, along with the corollary widening of Lake Washington Boulevard for the necessary distance to • allow the two lanes of left-turning traffic to accelerate, then - 9 - comfortably merge into a single lane. Also required for mitigation and of more benefit to level-of-service is conversion of the northbound right turn, from Garden to Park into a single island- protected free right-turn lane. This latter recommendation could be implemented at almost any time, as the cost and effort should be minor. This right-turn modification substantially mitigates the direct impacts- of the Garden Plaza project.. One other requirement-- the bus stop on Park to the east of Garden should be eliminated or moved to a location on the west to allow the free right turn to function safely. To our knowledge there. is very little use of that bus stop. It is important to note that the Park/Lake Washington/Garden intersection has an abnormally high 15-minute PM peak period which results in an artificially high peak 1-hour analysis volume condition (20% higher than the actual hourly volume) . The extrapolation of the 15-minute observed peak to a 1-hour analysis peak is required by the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual . This, in effect, amounts to planning and designing for the 15-minute peak which is a de-facto policy statement that could stand jurisdictional review. Be that as it may, one non-capital way to significantly improve LOS at this intersection is to simply revise some of Boeing's staggered shift times. To do so would of course require a special analysis, presumably by Boeing, to identify the appropriate groups and their shift stagger time modifications. It is considered advisable to pursue this action immediately to determine its potential effectiveness in eliminating the need for the left-turn modification on Park discussed above. The proposed development's traffic contribution to the two problem intersections is 2.3% to the Park/Garden/Lake Washington Boulevard intersection, and 15.2% to Sixth and Garden intersection. • The applicant has taken note of the various local , state, and federal funds available for transportation improvements in the City of Renton, and anticipates that the Park/Lake Washington Boulevard/Garden intersection improvement would be given equal consideration with - 10 - projects in other areas of the City of Renton when prioritizing these public funds. Other mitigation considerations for the Garden Plaza development consist of working with Metro Transit and Commuter Pool to promote transit ridership, carpools, van pools, staggered work hours and flex time through the variety of technical assistance programs which they offer. V. SUMMARY In summary, the existing and future traffic conditions in the site vicinity of the proposed office development of Garden Plaza have been analyzed, and it has been found that: Ten intersections in thevicinitywouldimpacted,o be by the proposed development and these intersections are currently operating at acceptable levels-of-service (LOS D or better) , with the exception of Garden Avenue/Lake Washington Boulevard. Level-of-service problems at that intersection are currently the subject of preliminary analysis by the City of Renton. { The proposed office project will add 476 outbound and 97 inbound P.M. peak-hour trips to the surrounding arterial network. These peak-hour trips have been assigned to the local and regional arterial network based upon a home-based work trip distribution pattern from PSCOG model data. Future level-of-service analyses were performed at the affected intersection following the addition of the new office generated traffic volumes to the existing traffic volumes factored up for the horizon year condition. The level-of-service analyses performed reveals that, even with the additional trips generated by the proposed office development most of the affected intersections would continue to operate within acceptable peak-period levels. However, Park/Garden Avenue/Lake Washington Boulevard would continue at LOS F with an increased volume to - 11 - capacity ratio and Garden Avenue/North .6th would decline from LOS C- with a reserve capacity of 225 to LOS E, with reserve capacity at 22. The remaining intersections impacted by the project should operate within acceptable PM peak-hour standards. The Park/Garden/Lake Washington Boulevard intersection operations could be significantly improved with modifications to Boeing's shift stagger. times. This action may preclude widening Lake Washington Boulevard as part of the TIP actions discussed above under IV. Mitigation. Mitigation of direct impacts of the proposed development could be accomplished by channelization of Garden to provide an island- protected, right-turn lane at the intersection of Park/Lake Washington Boulevard/Garden, and by implementation of a left-turn acceleration lane conversion, or alternatively, signalization at the intersection of 6th/Garden. The development's traffic contribution to these two intersections is 2.3% and 15.2% respectively. Other mitigation considerations consist of working with Metro Transit and Commuter Pool to promote transit ridership, carpools, van pools, staggered work hours and flex time through the variety of technical assistance programs which they offer. - 12 - 94//S) 7 czrr e L.s eK C PROJECT DESCRIPTION E & H Properties has applied for the rezoning of 3.3 acres of property located between North 5th and 6th Streets on the west side of Garden Avenue North from L-1, Light Industrial to B-1, Business Use to allow the construction of an office building. SITE & BUILDING SPECIFICATIONS FOR GARDEN PLAZA ZONING Proposed L-1 to B-1 LOT AREA 156,709 SF LOT COVERAGE 72% LANDSCAPED 15, 920 SF AREA (22%) (10%) IMPERVIOUS 140,789 SF SURFACE (90%) GROSS FLOOR 245, 850 SF AREA GROSS FLOOR FOR REQUIRED 211,658 SF PARKING REQ. PARKING 1,058 NUMBER OF 7 STORIES The Garden Plaza Office complex combines two office structures and one parking garage on a 4.9 acre site. There will be a total of 306, 423 square feet of office space along with 1,023 parking spaces in a four story parking garage. September 21, 1987 C Project Description Page 2 SPECIAL FEATURES (1) A 4 Story Parking Garage is proposed on-site containing 1,023 parking spaces. The 4th floor was added at the encouragement of the ERC to provide as much of the required parking on-site as possible. (2) 305 parking spaces are provided off-site in the five story Park Plaza parking structure located approximately 350 feet to the north. (3) An indoor active recreation area will be constructed on the first level including a locker room with showers. (4) Four passive pedestrian seating areas have been included on the site plan. In addition to the areas at (1) the north entrance to the main building and (2) on the roof of the parking garage adjacent to the skybridge, a (3) seating alcove has been added at ground level on the east side of the 5th and Park Building and (4) at the main western entrances to the 5th and Park Building. (5) A drop off lane has been constructed adjacent to the main entrance on the north side of the building. (6) The at-grade surface parking currently serving the 5th and Park Building has been removed and replaced with a pedestrian plaza. ._ 1•E 1 • dN p .. i•AzA rL., ,\ YC f wa .... ..1 1 1 E&H Properties Renton, Washington �� II • Ir1„•,.`,Jailat uall��—p 9 ,,I It,1■vrluu �' il: t \�; -�_ i!IL/'!- �lflll II i / M...III ,I i110O\i� " lllit�` , .� � J10� ,;' Ilp 11 II iGiR: �* - 1 Y d 1' / '711 I 'It 'MCI •.\ ./ 1 .. 4<.•r+s N lap. •Ail' I�r =/. i '11Pd I I. . � 0uPI F ;v;. .... n; ' r. ►'"111)� ��! 'rl�1 1Ei•fl) all' 31t C ;,r•� --� ■ I ter! •�- ?At�n 11111 • R. 4 1 _ I� 1- I. 'Wc \r su R'• . �.AII i,11I1i Ip 1 rill• ,u.Lrlb I 5" 1 ir �\1� g } � i 1p .� 1= tlY ► r adI Yc r '! 1 iJ\ ti I`_a6 i -,'UM?" j ♦ �' -�� /•I I^' /W.,' 1 7 511�:iIMPOl i it .II ,Ili Y.I...+r l+ \ �,11— —=�� _ ` I� 'L; allinili • ' I . ----------------- - •-•- •.-..."6111111. 1111.- II. 11. ;"...- -'--'7411--• i 1 i i .,,,,., • ti f v Mi AREA MAP- VIC MAP • t PRO ECT NARRATIVE SITE BtA DNG STA l a l its _ 1 1 1:.1•• yullW rrlW ltS wR wl.aYa wb. wllol w 1 r �. �� •• W . 1rrIY1 WWI WM o-1 W.1 • I I p �1 • 10.111V ...m.Y IN..a Y —w 0T01a101Y1 __— • I I j t E t or..., 4. n1r..—u..r...—ruVit ra.rluar ;w.w 1rb N.uMv Mal 11..1v WWI s,r.YIN.1 f _.`I::'r" I WW1 o.,..Y WWI 1r.a Y WWI Nr.m Y 0.I 4��/ • 4.10r - ! f?� J i j! 1 w• .....I otr.io.11.non toolly.te .. ma ..i.1.Nr larr.ar awaaval1iab:ic rl "1 1ter err e.,.11 rlr.• N•fell•Iran.1 I.1•w.r.—wN w INr.•r ft.w.4%.19M- P.WI With\ _----iinniiiiimiriLii mow .v.ly foe LIM 9r1I aW.w^ JAM flaw M.. ll1 y-f rove..,.. .I r r l N.r w IIfY�r'lu b•1'1 Y W Y - = I -w I 11 1.w curator:- weer or .br1r. E. 11, - 11H I HIIIIIIH �IH►► n Iw rensuM ...r Y Y -- I �. .rr`1 o��._r wr..rl lu...rl rr..a ..a .Ir.r r.. /lR.r1.(agyrlY4-WSW I1y..W ltrly ' ' =ra.w !31 W W. I,vN.11 w- r�•IFT YI'Y 1I _ IN! I H I l I I I I I 11 I 1 I C r f I I W _... i , � � w.�.ww:.: •••rn....rl ....I..II u..u.fW . r r.,ar v - - .YN r.1..Y Y b.W Y • I I =77- ' 8 r1 II --.-�-_ raYwG.ID hLLIRI PAINING STRUCTY111•1-.- -. .,, �_ . 1 1 LEGAL DESCRIPTION .War. V.V.Y R.I.Y 1. y 1:I! I I I I!!J till 1,U I I i n l �•�,` - 2 .a1., Y [il f- 1.o..l.: � .II_:. - .t. r..Y Y•T V r.r1 Y + •t �a • !Will!I I I I It i `r-_N_a. __wr I.fa•rt.. „.r1Y asbx H - - � IIJIr 'I �I ;I I IIIII I11I I [!. '1�m.n _ r_NwW ....r.f. .I r...r.w.IUYY m.rrYw'rv ^ I OIR�O r I Hly--�I . F.1i1 1.fi I1I t1III1}I.I i7 ▪ ..rrr._ rrlr wlNl u •Nara.wl 1 t id ••••• •.r as.Owns. • .......0110.W`urr r MAW.. .IY..rw. •b mliri ii• r"Yii I ♦ i I.._I .-_ = 1 I p t �Y _ N.11or.r allrnN Wlulr aY.rlorlYWY...v t • f(! .._.r r.�......1.,.w�.. mIr Y r a '. `�_-fir-w/ I i _::ter::.: . 11..I.,..1Y.1.,:.Ya�".:,'��f..,1...Yn. I / .. �._� —`.. .J`1 Pt' qy .�.mow=, -..r — 'i 1 -- 1 L ; °` _ LL. _ -, • Win. r $ Rio - --- --- -wwl.YlatYiltl - --- _._ • .I O ...., . -� a ZONE TMiIl SITE PLAN• i;.1 • - -- . u • ”.1‘ '=-• THE BLAYLOCK COMPANY Y.J specialists in land-use procedures September 21, 1987 Renton City Council City of Renton 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, Washington 98055 RE: E & H Properties Rezone/Garden Plaza/R-016-87 Hearing Examiner Conclusions Dear Council Members: The Hearing Examiner has presented an extremely unorthodox and precedent making recommendation to the City Council concerning the . pending rezone request by E & H Properties to rezone 3.3 acres of property from L-1, Light Industrial to B-1, Business Use. The recommendation states: (` 1. The City Council should delay action on the request pending the outcome of the North Renton Traffic Study. 2. The Council may want to consider remanding the matter back to the ERC for the preparation of supplemental environmental information regarding the other issues raised herein. The following analysis of each of the Hearing Examiner's conclusions presents arguments and facts, which the Examiner emphasizes in his report, supporting the approval of the requested rezone. This analysis also supports amended findings and conclusions supporting the rezone which are included herewith. CONCLUSION 1 The Hearing Examiner has stated "The requested classification is premature pending the City of Renton Traffic study, and should not be approved at this time. " The key to the final decision is what the Hearing Examiner has not said. He has not denied the rezone request based upon the three ordinance criteria stated in Section 4-3010. In fact he added the statement "and should not be approved at this time" clearly suggesting the rezone is appropriate IF the City of Renton Traffic study is available for the City Council to make a decision. 10717 NE Fourth Street,Suite 9 • Bellevue,Washington 98004 • (206)455-1550 September 21, 1987 Page 2 The North Renton Transportation Study - A Five Year Scenario has been completed. It identifies the traffic impacts associated specifically with both the Garden and Park Plaza Office complexes and other projected development projects anticipated during the next 5 years. The study provides the basis for the City to continue its comprehensive planning effort. CONCLUSION 2 The Hearing Examiner raises three issues concerning comprehensive planning and suggests that they would appear to be deserving more study. The applicant contends that all of these three issues have been specifically studied by both the Planning Commission and the Hearing Examiner as well as the City Council and recent solid decisions have been reached. 1. "the loss of supportive low key Light Industrial services or at least land suitable for such uses" 2. "the general availability of suitable land for B-i and L-1 uses" The City Council has twice established policy direction specifically addressing Light Industrial uses in the City. Central Area plan in 1983 -- the Council reconfirmed that light industrial uses that either were independent or supportive of the adjacent heavy industrial uses were not appropriate on the subject site. Green River Valley Rezone in 1986 -- the Council eliminated over 95% of all of the remaining light industrial zones in the entire city. Light industrial uses can now only develop in the Manufacturing Park zone or on isolated parcels of L-1 scattered throughout the city. The City Council has developed and is implementing a clear policy to up-grade not only the quality of light industrial uses, but the general atmosphere and public perception of industrial areas within the city. C C September 21, 1987 Page '3: 3. "and the obvious traffic implication of converting low traffic generating Light Industrial uses and property to high traffic generating business and commercial uses" In 1986, the City Council set a precedent of allowing the increase in intensity of development and its associated traffic impacts in the general area. Mother's Park, kitty-corner from the subject site, was rezoned to B-1 Business Use from a low intensity recreational use. The decision was based upon information presented in an environmental checklist and upon the previously prepared EIS that was conducted as part of the comprehensive planning effort in 1983 for the Central Area. Neither physical circumstances nor established City policies have changed since that time. Even though the fact of the Council action concerning Mother's Park was presented in both the application justification and testimony before the Examiner, the established policy is never mentioned by the Hearing Examiner. The Hearing Examiner deferred the final decision to the wisdom of the City Council since he did not recommended referring the entire matter back to himself after the area wide traffic information was available. CONCLUSION 3 The Hearing Examiner elaborates on the issue of what uses are allowed in a B-1, Business Use zone. He continues and states that "plans change and. simply because the applicant has identified or even submitted plans for an office building does not commit the property to that outcome" . However, the Hearing Examiner's secretary's minutes state "He (Roger Blaylock) stipulated the applicant would commit to the Garden Plaza Building as being 245, 850 sq. ft. in restrictive covenants as long as any modification by the Examiner or City Council for recreational facilities, etc. would be in excess of that space. " (Page 2) . One might conclude that limiting the size does not limit use. However, the specific reference to "the Garden Plaza Building" as submitted in plans on February 17, 1987 (revised July 2, 1987) for an office building should not have suggested to the Hearing Examiner that E & H Properties intend to build a 245,850 square foot Mac Donalds Drive-In. September 21, 1987 Page 4 Even if all of this information was not available to the Hearing Examiner as he appears to contend, he has the ability to condition any recommendation or decision to eliminate uses that he believes would not be compatible on the site. The Hearing Examiner did not utilize his authority to recommend a restriction of use, while the applicant was not only clearly willing to so limit the size of the development, but also the specific use as formally presented in the site plan application. CONCLUSION 4 The City Council has adopted at least two comprehensive plan amendments that eliminate the Light Industrial designation for the subject site. The issue has been thoroughly discussed and apparently resolved to the satisfaction of the City Council. In fact the Planning Commission is just recently recommended the elimination of several more isolated L-1 zones. It is not clear to us how the L-1 zone is a transitional buffer between B-1 and H-1. I would seem that would be the same as saying that R-1 is a transition between the R-2 and the R-3 zones. Basically, the H-1 zone has unlimited height potential while the B-1 zone can be developed to 95 feet and in between we would have an L-1 zone with the maximum height of 50 feet. Actually the L-1 use would be an intrusion. Office buildings of unlimited size are and possibly could be in the future intermingled with the manufacturing operation. Both the staff and Hearing Examiner are concerned with the propane tank situation. E & H Properties has consulted directly with the Boeing Company, the prospective purchaser of the propane tanks, and Pac Car the present owner. E & H Properties believe it is an extremely important issue and intends to aggressively pursue a solution. CONCLUSION 5 The transition from light industrial to heavy industrial and commercial uses was clearly planned as part of the Comprehensive Plan. During that time of transition there may be awkward situations created but it should be recognized that in any transition awkward situations exist. September 21, 1987 Page 5 CONCLUSION 6 The unanswered questions that the Hearing Examiner raised have been addressed by the SEPA process or will be addressed as part of the site plan review. The ERC on the day after the public hearing on the rezone issued a Mitigated - Declaration of Non-Significance with 23 conditions. It should be remembered that the City Council created a two level development review system to address situations where rezoning would appear to vest the development rights of the property owner. CONCLUSION 7 The Hearing Examiner's argument focuses on the fact that he does not have a "contract" rezone before him. Even though it may not have been termed that, the applicant's willingness to agree to specific development condition appears to create the grounds for such agreement. In any case, the Hearing Examiner has the ability to create a contract rezone by placing conditions and covenants upon any rezone recommendation to the City Council. CONCLUSION 8 We have not suggested that there should be only one level of review. Zoning is very important because it establishes the uses that will be considered in the site plan review. Rezoning should not be ignored, but the ability to limit and condition the zoning should also not be ignored. We agree that the public and the decisionmakers need all the information which can be accumulated prior to making an almost irrevocable decision, while at the same time the process should be timely. This rezone request was submitted on February 17, 1987. This request took 5 1/2 months to get to public hearing, while public hearing for Mother's Park occurred only 23 days after it was submitted. C September 21, 1987 Page 6 CONCLUSION 9 Again the City has created a two specific levels in the planning process in addition to the environmental review process of SEPA. These processes are implementing tools. Rezoning and site planning will only become reactive, if the underlying goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan are not clearly and constant upheld. The true "absence of planning" is when the Comprehensive Plan is not periodically re-evaluated to determine the desires of the community. CONCLUSION 10 The examiner has recommended to the City Council that they wait for the additional information before vesting the subject property to B-1 zoning. The traffic study identified as the North Renton Transportation Study -- A Five Year Scenario analyzing the traffic C impacts of the proposed Garden and Park Plaza Office Complexes and known development is available to the City Council to make their decision. This study is the base that the comprehensive planning effort can now be added on to. The study will provide the measuring tool for evaluating how the Comprehensive Plan should or could be changed in the future. CONCLUSION 11 The Hearing Examiner requests that the City not utilize the existing ordinances and plans that they have at their disposal in the form of the Central Area Comprehensive Plan and wait for comprehensive effort to be completed. He is suggesting that both parties can utilize the additional time. The city to establish a plan in methodology for dealing with traffic in the area and the applicant to complete a site plan design. o The city has adopted a program which will allow the implementation of required environmental mitigation that improves the actual level of service a critical intersections beyond that required by SEPA. E & H Properties will be resolving critical area wide traffic situations that should be directly addressed by the City or community as a whole. September 21, 1987 Page 7 o A complete site plan application has been on file with the City of Renton since the first of July. The recent changes submitted reflect the specific requirements imposed by the ERC under SEPA and do not reflect the changes in the scope of the project. CONCLUSION 12 The traffic information available to the City Council clearly addresses the impacts, solutions and a methodology to implement the traffic mitigation program for the specific office projects. This information has been accepted by the City's Traffic Engineer. CONCLUSION 13 The Hearing Examiner raises an universal problem of growth for any industry, company or governmental agency. As the need for employees increase, the space to house those employees is always behind the need. The result is over crowding. Very few organizations have the luxury of space. The City of Renton certainly does not today with 29 employees crowded into the approximately 3,400 square feet of space on the third floor. This represents 8.5 employees per 1,000 square feet. The reverse argument can be promoted. If space is not made available through this project, then the Boeing Company will begin overcrowding in existing facilities as a result of a critical shortage of operating space. CONCLUSION 14 Since the North Renton Transportation Study -- A Five Year Scenario is completed, the applicant can imagine no reason for the City Council not to proceed with the land use process. However, E & H Properties believes that any delay to provide traffic data for speculative Comprehensive Plan scenarios is beyond the scope of SEPA. The Comprehensive Planning processes involves a much deeper involvement of thecan be accomplished within the next 30 days and forcing that involvement would only compromise either the applicant or the public and the delay is truly not worthy of consideration by the City Council. C September 21, 1987 Page 8 CONCLUSION 15 The Hearing Examiner statement of believe of inadequacy of the environmental review is clearly not within his preview. the evidence shows that even at the most critical traffic impact point the projects combined represent a 7 per cent increase in traffic volumes. Is this a "more than moderate impact on the quality of the environment"? The ERC has exercised their authority by imposing 2 conditions on the rezone and 23 conditions on the site plan. Neither Mitigated - Declaration of Non-Significance was appealed. The Hearing Examiner only has judicial authority if an environmental decision is appealed. Even though the City prepared an EIS on Gene Coulon Park, it did not prepare one for the (1) rezoning of Mothers ' Park, (2) the modification of traffic on Lake Washington Boulevard, or (3) the proposed Environmentally Sensitive Areas Ordinance which affects over 20% of the total land area of the City. C CONCLUSION 16 The Hearing Examiner is striking out at policy issues that the City Council has previously made. Are neither the Comprehensive Land Use or Comprehensive Park Plans adequate? o Is the sale of Mothers' Park no longer appropriate because there is too much recreational demand in the immediate area? o Is the decision to improve the image of industrial areas no longer appropriate? The Hearing Examiner confused not only the issues, but the responsibilities of comprehensive planning with the applicant's burden of proof in the pending rezone application and the design issues of the site plan applications. C. September 21, 1987 Page 9 CONCLUSION 17 In Conclusion 17, the Examiner argues that SEPA requires delay to see the traffic report and gather more information. However, the ERC has already considered this matter twice, concluding both times that an environmental impact statement was not required. There was no appeal of either decision. Once the threshold decision is made, it is "final and binding" (WAC 197-11-390 (1) ) , unless it is withdrawn by the Environmental Review Committee. Accordingly, the Examiner cannot exercise independent authority over these determinations absent a SEPA appeal. The matter of the nature of the proposal and its indirect impacts or precedential nature were all considered by the ERC in reaching its determination that no EIS was required. CONCLUSION 18 The Hearing Examiner was impatient to await the presentation of information as prescribed in the dual land use process of zoning and site planning. The environmental issues have been addressed. The Hearing Examiner will have the opportunity to address specific design issues during the site planning process. All of the Hearing Examiner's conclusions were based upon his belief that there was either inadequate information and policies. The facts are now available to the City Council. o There are traffic measures that will not only mitigate the impacts, but improve the existing traffic situation. o There is a mechanism established by the ERC to allow implementation of the necessary traffic improvements. The rezone request is appropriate and should be granted by the City Council. Sincerely, Ro ei J. ylock FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION E&H REZONE APPLICATION - FILE NO. 016-87 1-10. (As found in the decision of the Hearing Examiner) 11. Several traffic reports have been prepared for this proposal and others in the area. A study for the specific traffic impacts of the Garden Plaza project was prepared, as well as a separate report for the adjacent Park Plaza project. In addition, a more comprehensive study, the "North Renton Benefit Assessment District Traffic Study" was prepared in September, 1987 assessing current traffic levels and projections for proposed developments in the area. The later study satisfies the mitigation measure in the Mitigated Declaration of Non-Significance that "the applicant participate in the North Renton Traffic Study. 12 . The applicant proposes to construct a 245 ,850 square foot, seven story office building on the site with a four story, 1023 space parking garage next door. 13. According to ITE, a building of this size will generate 12 .3 total trips per day/1000 gross square feet. Thus the theoretical traffic generation from this building will be 3024 trips per day. This figure may not accurately reflect total new trips to the area because a substantial portion of the building will be used by Boeing employees transferred from other facilities in the immediate area. I -1- 14 . The traffic studies completed indicate that the applicant 's project will add traffic to existing streets and intersections around the project. Some of these intersections already have poor levels of service, including the Park/Garden/Lake Washington Boulevard (PGLW) intersection with a level of service F. The applicants project will add less than 10% to the P.M. peak of this intersection. 15. Pursuant to City Ordinance, development at this location requires site plan approval under Section 4-738 of the Zoning Code. The applicant has also filed an application for site plan approval which has been considered by the City Staff. They gave it a Mitigated DNS but providing for 23 conditions including specific traffic mitigation. These conditions, attached hereto, include requirements to reconstruct adjacent intersections and reconfigure streets. In addition, the conditions require a contribution of nearly $1.1 million dollars into the future North Renton Benefit Assessment District. Further, applicant is required to upgrade the PGLW intersection, presently at Level of Service (LOS) F, to LOS D. The applicant has committed to the improvements and conditions specified in the Mitigated DNS for the site plan approval . -2- II . REVISED CONCLUSIONS 1 . The proponent of a rezone must demonstrate that the request is in the public interest, that it will not impair the public health, safety and welfare and in addition, complies with at least one of the criteria found in Section 4-3010, which provides in part that: a. The subject site has not been considered in a previous area-wide rezone or land use analysis; or b. The subject site is potentially designated for the new classification per the Comprehensive Plan; or c. There has been a material and substantial change in the area in which the subject site is located since the last rezoning of the property or area. 2 . The last land use analysis of this are occurred in the adoption of the Central Renton Plan through Ordinance 3712 (March 9, 1983) . In the Plan, this area was designated heavy industrial. There is nothing found in the adoption of the Central Renton Plan, or the environmental impact statement prepared for it, that indicated that this property was "specifically considered" for any particular zone. Accordingly, the rezone meets the first criteria for rezones specified under the code, re that the property appears"not to have been specifically considered at the time of the last area land use analysis and area zoning." -3- fi 3 . The area is currently zoned L-1, a transitional zone under the Renton code. However, the L-1 zone in this area is a long, narrow zone and which can create strip-type development. One of the key elements of the comprehensive plan is to discourage this type of development. The proposed rezone will allow a consolidation of two narrow zones - B-1 along Park and L-1 along Garden. In addition, the L-1 zone does allow commercial office uses, but they are restricted to 25 ,000 square feet or less . Further, a number of the service uses permitted in the B-1 zone are also permitted in the L-1 zone. See Zoning Code Sections 4-712 (B) (1) (b) and 4-711 (B) (1) (c) . Because of these factors, and because of the fact that B-1 zoning is immediately adjoining, the rezone proposal meets the second criteria for a rezone, that the property is "potentially classified for the proposed zone." Possible conflicts between this use and the H-1 zone across Garden can be resolved through the site plan review process. 4 . Since the last land use analysis of the area, there have been several significant and material changes in circumstances in the area. The Mother 's park property, at 6th and Park was rezoned for business use (B-1 ) in 1986. A new mid-use office building has been built at 600 - 6th Avenue, less than a block from the subject property. Boeing has improved a parking lot to the north of the site. These changes, including an ( expansion of Boeing operations, indicate the natural changes in -4- use for the area is to become a supporting office area for adjoining manufacturing uses . This expansion of support services tends to concentrate these uses in an area near the uses served which results in efficiencies for both the public and private intersects. According the subject rezone meets the rezone criteria that circumstances affecting the subject property have changed since the last land use analysis. 5. In his decision, the Hearing Examiner was concerned that the applicant 's proposals to mitigate certain environmental impacts were not sufficiently defined and committed to constitute adequate mitigation. However since the public hearing on the rezone proposal, a specific site plan has been reviewed to the City. The site plan has been reviewed by the • ERC which gave it a mitigated DNS with 23 specific conditions . In these circumstances, it is appropriate, and consistent with the zoning code, to allow the site plan process to proceed to consider the specific aspects of the proposal. This has already occurred through staff and ERC review and will continue in public hearing on the site plan scheduled for September 29 . If a party to the site plan process is dissatisfied with the results of the Hearing Examiners decision, on the site plan, a appeal is available to the City Council which will make an appropriate determination. I -5- 6 . The ERC placed two conditions on the rezone proposal to receive a mitigated DNS, both of which have been satisfied. First, the ERC required that "the applicant participate in the North Renton Traffic Study." The applicant has hired both the Transpo Group and William E. Popp Associates, both qualified traffic engineers to prepare a traffic study. This study is now substantially complete and has been reviewed by the council . Secondly, the ERC proposed that "sufficient recreational and office user amenities be provided both on site and off-site to address the lack of such facilities in the area." The applicant has made available a large recreational space in the plans for the project. The specific use of the area will be worked out in the site plan process and well as in C subsequent configuration of the building by Boeing for its employees. 7. Planning department staff also proposed that "ERC mitigation measures be complied with prior to the issuance of any occupancy permits for the proposed office building." We concur with this condition and make it a condition of our rezone approval . 8. Further staff required that applicant "work with Paccar to either relocate or underground two 15,000 gallon above grade liquid propane tanks located approximately 150 feet east of the site." Such efforts are underway and the applicant is directed to continue them. -6- 9. The Hearing Examiner in his decision recommended that this council "may want to consider remanding the matter back to the ERC for the preparation of supplemental environmental information. . . ." We believe that such remand is inappropriate. The ERC has considered this matter twice, as to the rezone and as to site plan approval . On both occasions, the ERC determined that the proposal had no significant environment impact and neither decision was appealed to the Hearing Examiner. Our review of the record here reveals no facts not previously considered which would indicate a remand is necessary for yet a third review of the project. 10. The other hearing examiner recommendation was that the "City council should delay action on the request pending the outcome of the North Renton Traffic Study." That study is now largely complete and has been reviewed by the Council. The study reveals that while the subject proposal will add to local traffic, those impacts are not so great that the proposal should be denied or its size reduced. Those impacts identified are primarily to local intersections in the vicinity of the project. The ERC has identified several substantial mitigation measures which will improve the impacts in the area. Major among these are the provisions for contribution to the future North Renton Traffic Benefit in the total amount of over $1.1 million, when combined with contributions from the Park Plaza -7- t project. Further, applicant has agreed to upgrade the critical intersection in the area, that of Park/Garden/Lake Washington Boulevard to LOS D. The applicant has also agreed to upgrade intersections and streets in the immediate vicinity of the project. These measures will substantially eliminate adverse traffic impacts . Our decision to approve the rezone is contingent upon the applicant complying with these conditions . 11 . In sum, the proposed rezone will support and enhance adjoining manufacturing areas, the continuation of which is a key element of the comprehensive plan. It will remove the potential for harmful strip development and is a continuation of land use trends in the area. The rezone is in the public interest and has, as mitigated, minimal environmental impact. III . DECISION The rezone request of E & H Properties to rezone the subject property is hereby granted on the condition that the applicant comply with conditions required through the site plan approval process and continue to work to remove or underground the adjacent propane tanks prior to occupancy. -8- CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF CERTAIN PROPERTIES WITHIN THE CITY OF RENTON FROM LIGHT INDUSTRIAL CLASSIFICATION DISTRICT (L-1 ) TO BUSINESS (B-1 ) (R-016-87 E&H PROPERTIES) WHEREAS under Chapter 7, Title IV (Building Regulations) of Ordinance No. 1628 known as the "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton" , as amended and the maps and reports adopted in conjunction therewith, the property hereinbelow described has heretofore been zoned as Light Industrial Classification District (L-1 ) ; and WHEREAS a proper petition for change of zone classification of said property has been filed with the C - Building and Zoning Department on or about February 17, 1987 which petition was duly referred to the Hearing Examiner for investigation, study and public hearing, and a public hearing having been held thereon on or about August 4, 1987, and said matter having been duly considered by the Hearing Examiner and said zoning request being in conformity with the City' s Comprehensive Plan, as amended, and the City Council having duly considered all matters relevant thereto, and all parties having been heard appearing in support thereof or in opposition thereto, NOW THEREFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: • SECTION I : The following described property in the City of Renton is hereby rezoned to Business District (B-1 ) as hereinbelow specified; subject to the findings, conclusions and decision dated September , 1987; the Building and Zoning Director is hereby authorized and directed to change the maps of the Zoning Ordinance, as amended, to evidence said rezoning, to-wit : See Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof as if fully set forth herein. ( Said property being located between Park Avenue North and Garden Avenue North between North 5th and North 6th Streets) SECTION II: This Ordinance shall be effective upon its passage, approval and five days after its publication. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this day of September , 1987. C Maxine E. Motor, City Clerk APPROVED this day of September, 1987. Barbara Shinpoch, Mayor Approved as to form: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Date of Publication: PARR PLAZA AND GARDEN PLAZA SUMMARY OF TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS AND MITIGATION SEPTEMBER 18, 1987 Prepared for: E & H Properties, and City of Renton Prepared by: The TRANSPO Group, Inc. 14715 Bel-Red Road, Suite 100 Bellevue, WA 98007 TABLE OF1CONTENTS DESCRIPTION OF AVAILABLE REPORTS 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS 3 EMPLOYEE LOAD, PARKING AND TRAFFIC GENERATION 8 Employee Load Parking Traffic Generation ' I PROJECT TRAFFIC IMPACTS 11 existing Conditions Traffic Impacts of Park and Garden Plazas I + MITIGATION ! 17 PARK/GARDEN ONE-WAY COUPLET 18 . I ;I J DESCRIPTION OF AVAILABLE REPORTS Transportation studies for the Park and Garden Plaza office projects were initiated in January, 1987. Four reports have been subsequently issued to the City. They are identified as follows: 1. Traffic Impact Analysis for Garden Plaza Office Development, prepared for E & H Properties by William E. Popp Associates, February 18, 1987. 2. Traffic Impact Analysis for Park Plaza Building A, prepared for E & H Properties by the TRANSPO Group, Inc. , June 29, 1987. 3. Park and Garden Plazas - Supplemental Traffic Studies, prepared for E & H Properties and the City of Renton by the TRANSPO Group, Inc. , August 12, 1987. C 4. Park and Garden Plaza -- Summary of Transportation impacts and Mitigation, prepared for E & H properties and the city of Renton by the TRANSPO Group, Inc. , September 18, 1987. A brief description of the purpose and contents of these reports is provided below. A summary of the Garden Plaza and Park Plaza project proposals, traffic impacts and mitigation follows. It is cautioned that the data supplied in some of the earlier reports has been updated since their publication. This summary report presents the most current information available on all subjects covered by the earlier reports. REPORT #1 - GARDEN PLAZA • In January, 1987, William E. Popp Associates was retained by E & H Properties to evaluate the traffic impacts and mitigation needs for the Garden Plaza office project proposal. This report documents the results of that study. /a ) REPORT # 2 - PARK PLAZA The TRANSPO Group was retained by E & H Properties in June of 1987 to prepare a similar traffic study and report for the Park Plaza project. That report provided updated and expanded information on existing traffic conditions in the Park/Garden Avenue corridor. It provided an update of traffic impacts for Garden Plaza, which had increased in anticipated floor area since Report #1 was completed. The report went on to describe estimates of additional traffic generation and distribution associated with the Park Plaza office project proposal; and provided a summary of recommended mitigation. I { REPORT #3 -PARK AND GARDEN PLAZA After review of Reports 1 and 2 by City staff, staff created a list of a number of issues that warranted further analysis and discussion. These includediexpansion of Park Avenue to provide a center turning lane, mitigation of the traffic "bottleneck" at the Park/Garden/Lake Washington Boulevard intersection, mitigation of traffic operations at the N. 8th Street/Garden Avenue "jog", and several site specific issues related to Park Plaza. In evaluating the vicinity road issues, a new concept for a Park/Garden Avenue one-way street couplet was developed. After its initial review, City staff felt the concept was deserving of further evaluations. Additional analysis is being included as part of the North Renton Benefit Assessment district Transportation study (by William E. Popp Associates) . REPORT #4 - Resummary of Park and Garden Plaza Transportation Impacts and Mitigation This report was prepared to provide an updated summary of traffic analysis results for the Park Plaza and Garden Plaza projects. That summary is provided as the balance of this report. • (2) PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS E & H Properties has set forth two specific office project developments known as "Garden Plaza" and "Park Plaza" . The locations of these proposals are shown on Figure 1. The Garden Plaza project proposes construction of a multi- story office building and supporting parking structure on a site generally bounded by Park and Garden Avenues N„ N. 5th Street and N. 6th Street in the North Renton area (See Figures 2A and 2B) . The office building will be situated on the north portion of the site fronting along N. 6th Street, and it will have a gross floor area of 245,850 square feet. Its 1023-space multi-level parking structure will be situated on the east-central portion of the block, with access provided at two locations along Garden Avenue, one location along Park Avenue, and one location along N. 5th Street. The N. 5th Street access will not preempt existing access and service facilities for the Custom Cabinets business operation on the southeast corner of the block. The Park Plaza project will be a seven-story office building (I , and supporting parking structure. The office building will be located west of and adjacent to Park Avenue on the northerly portion of a site formerly known as Mothers' Park (See Figure 3) . It will provide 181,280 square feet of gross floor area. It will be supported by a parking structure directly across Park Avenue and spanning from Park to Garden Avenues. The parking structure will provide 1178 parking spaces, and will be connected to the office building by an enclosed skybridge over Park Avenue. An additional 107 surface parking spaces will be provided along the north, south and west sides of the office building. (3) 1 . ...• I CRITICAL aa ge .* ..4\110 POINT 4 I j NE PARK DR .,.. — ' ,.-• :116.0111.:::.:... •..................: , c, * 03 1 .........../.......V.;.;...y..."4:..:././../..,.. •••.'"'...•••••••••• Kin iiiii Ca ....."....,................•••••••••••••••••••••• , Ifterio :1 ...................... ..... ...„ 'A .:...:.......:....::.......i..................:..............:.............:....:...............i...........:......................;....i.i.i.............i.....................:............,...........:........•....:........i...::......•....i......i...:.i....•....t.j.....l....:.......i....IIII:.::•. IC\ 1 jil i i i i i I i i i i.i i i i i!i i i i i i 1 i i i i i i g a gg, ..< I................,,,.., .....................,..,,... ........................................",..... ..................1.1•.',IA.::......i. ••••••••••••••••••••••• 1... ... .. „... . ......................... .............„ :I :::i i i i•••.••.••.••.••:.••.••*•.:i:::.••i.•• i:..•.:.i.••..•;.•••i i.••: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::M:::::i*::::::: •.2•••••••••••••• 1 • BOENI6 N B ST liu , ® = • . i i . .... . ,.... .1.- PARE Li ...f..... ...c ..,............ 1:;...Ifil r...",„. , ..c.- , 6.- . i E w ••='--- all ........:11.AC-CAR raang.g NUT :::.:.:•,..... %TAP 0,. :1. Ig,i... ) • . .................. ....... pg, ., ...„,•••:„ „,,,,,,,,,........ -••••••..........•........ hut" ................. .................. •••••••••.. ••• •••••- ......... .......... 6,•, :::::. il ,...„,.,...... ..............: ................,... ............ ........ ............ ,,...,j :, 41 ',.....7.1Z.1.. !.. %%:.::: ........ ........ ......... ......... ........ .0-10? „ ) I.,:::::::.••••—•,:::::: ® 0 Ae il r AIRPORT WY 2,1 ra2 • 7 . . :I / 0 EXISTING SIGNAL N S 2 ST •—• • ARTERIAL STREET 1 4 fo ( I ° LOCAL STREET S 3 ST T NORTH Figure 1 1 ) PARK PLAZA PROJECT SITE SITE LOCATIONS antANSPO GARDEN PLAZA • roup (4) I I i • • GARDEN PLAZA • . � • • ., • ttla 1 E&H Properties - Renton, Washington �� II l'F. 4=444••m. +u�luono ■ a•1 • ,J•I i1uWLV-roT•� ,,�I� l ti_. PcYiuuz,r 1 !! IJ ■77I n ■■ ■' t� 11 N. t ►•w i:i + 11 rt ri 7t1� S ti 11 • )-11-4: „ . l •II!? i�w i uull- 1 'i 111�� ;I�. f1p1` g. 'u 11 1 ,) H 'ti ti 4 11,1 1 iv -�I qn l 1! ffi! r url to __krill/. 4' . I- . _..........- . . ,44.,..:„.7z7_______, _. .i.,.... _• AREA MAP. VICINITY MAP H lilt • �' PROJECT NARRATIVE 811E&81 C 1G STATISTICS 1 ..— _r •••,•ari...nu u.afts rw� YiM,.M._Mill Itm.W@ IIR. SLY• - • �\ .rt. tiw Y.w�.w w.�rr r,. ., 1r.Y r..,r...•.1 1 I ,-- rem..ad.•_ur w•wr...ri..i..\.`i._ W.hw err, .rY1.Y M..1Y11,11 r>11,.11.1 \.r/IIM MOW _ 1\ ..-_ ..-_ lab .✓- rw..•Go._._n...••• ....w.... Arr rO WV.Y Ir1 man Y lrl InMI•Y.1 - .•saw i '1f _ ;•41:;:_ =V.•- yew. ....r. ..M.. rY.�•OMNI., I It r s .w.r..Onow r.,n.r..r.r..ru_.r r 41..rY•-�h.1.ntayLl�r.ps_ • �o gal UM —•~:- '.r .. rNyr .�••w OW WO r...11V 10i.•••• �.� IIiM1III1IMIIIIIIfflIM1 I �" ,I �I ...n.—•••.•'ism.•!•••_...•-•r..•'•...•.••••t•r.planar.ore. .... w hr -JfLZ It s•1 i ti . 1'• wyw r r•.....•O....r•._---rr O.....• .._.._.- tllS.miumr-Mt.rr...._ - — — ...- .._...._.rM.:....,_r.wm..w._nn_� .r.. ._. I_� t � �!I!IIII IIIa ..- Iw 1,:.:• ^.....� •.•• tr ..IW .�a..am� fit ' ] = .............. of er ./..1w�••..•..r•n• rw rr..•0.1•a rur r • ._h•. ..r.r nar. UAW• - r110.A.1•YR 1•i�.•I�CII�v Yr�f D1 . LEGAL ESCRIPTION • ash: .a.•. --. _— 1:i!I`I I I I a I I II:Ij I I!I(1 ��..:``i= t o NM=::.▪ - .r�.r... ..r•.r .a.. Ma.r [ 1, 14, • tit t `'� � i4,.„ r r.....r—._— MVOs h• F.1N• -WILY _--- i Fp7 I .i. I i I I t t I - __ ,••• • Maw II r...• , ..1v/0•Y.... • IIg11t1!IIounis119e I _N •! • ! R •=▪ =w rr�.rrr a rr ._•.hor N. r.r.Yr.r•.Ir w.•1 . •Y.Mr.1 'I - I-I I_ ...^� —_ E s -▪- — • • rrr�.IlY• ] .. . Yn•�_•r r_. ...4.M •�i•WWII MU r1•••.r•Y.••.•.•.•..••1•r.1. •--I _ m:-:u—••�r• r.au u1.•r ur�..•.•r`rry•••r --IF . ♦ c a . • Mall .' 1 '' i L li er rr t t _i��j�t ' 4 )",1.4 '� --• O / ...r ... z,:agJ:- SITE PLAN 7 n n ,----, „.„,, . E, „ .I iiii 3 ... . .....__ .. . _,,,, . .621.1a...........61,...a....- 4a.........„,........•44 1• 114 I ii , .�...1daro�tiitt�fr l l'' , ' v w Jj% 1 I , ( yF N, a � 11) ; . . . . . . .., . PARKING I • i . . . . . . . .., fS STRUCTURE • i i i 4 I . • • r+ t • PROPOSED ti g II ', BUILDING • a {N i ;1 uns o1 ve, , ! . .E I N .. _ . .J fi i !! • i , !, lir fit.tot I !II�!:I i ��-f,r eeow wt 1Wr�ouMoe7• Inv —A414100(MR) I ' i - j • I.. - 6 I.. •1�.eami s,isi. ; 1ian—..1 11« I ' ' ! ' I .� 11467" • 4 ill j ��t1�icA�°�°� iAc el".M0 •+ Jw,r wu...�;�R'.`'si1.• i•,.. ...`ilk r (4 . I 1 4 EXISTING Akt t ,,'� • BUILDING 7A-1 .•' I , 'fr ;a14) Q • i , ,....,Seisass •;+ '� •«sue. ls� e. ... - - - - � �' .,.,,,; 4 11.10, . , . .— II us : r-.0 . • lie 10 .. • RANT LEGEND T PROPOSED PLANTING PLANT LEGEND/EXISTING PLANTING - 0 k.......purrr.awr... i..w. a.rw ■•.r•. r...44...•rr _ PARR AVE. N. L. J 'L ..sr.....a. ::.'�-'-'.. ro■ ......r..sl.rr.r.+r . r...rrw I ,ti } a Q Yuan. Pro.. .........rr4a.n ro. nay�.w.r�ar Z . fp r.r..ur.eu. •' , .r— ••-.r rr�rs1..w...rw ' s ,• ...w....n..r.. �.+ar.r J Yrrw.w Sinnr...o�•+.�•.w tr•= .A• 10..mNi rr.•..e rnr..t r r,...1. - •• W '�::.rw:�. ■u•,1...�.r♦rnr..I.r....r 111rr1 , a CSI 1.r..w_r.+ • r .r.r.w n-•1r r-. .a.r..rrr... 'man ✓ L. • .,.,,1•1'=,.,, Design . Group ~..'.i:w win o'10' f0 M •O _ ---_F�--;1...4r.r. UN.rn... ��w..—_.rM 1rn_ralw.w..rlra---___ - __ — _ - _- _ _•.�„ ii .. .. .. • M•N` I IIII Illallllllrllllll - R s '1 -1 t fli'Ii,ii,l,1„�,;+1+ - r•o.e w'= I 1 • (LT 1 _ i •g — C = — v, I _ �s _ _ 0.- •K 1w• ale - I J ` J .• •C . .. \ _ „,.1,1. 1 If - --.----4, Ill A ----•- �r. .F.'. 7r: . 47. -IT6 ' ' ' 'I, . , 1 I ; I I I I I I I I . 1 t� c" non .-•-/--- --•-•-. .--/-- -..-, • -ti_ -ti- i Z� : - i --,..- -.-- iIL 1 r -O --I.- r - • N4 I I I I I ILILIIILi111111 M,_..F.. .--e • Gel LOIN L.N• • (7) FIGURE 3 b o o ! Z 6 b b b e concatraN. coin MOO B CA C / RENTON " "' ! 11'12=4 ...••...• M....,r.a...•. am EMPLOYEE LOAD, PARKING AND TRAFFIC GENERATION 1 JI Employee load According to Boeing Company estimates, the Park and Garden Plaza buildings combined will house a total of 1800 employees. Considering the slight difference in building uses described in the next section, the employee load for each building is estimated as follows: Building Gross S. F. Employees Density Garden Plaza . 245,850 1060 4.3/1000 Park Plaza 181,280 740 4.1/1000 Total • 427,130 1800 4.2/1000 y� Of the 1800 employees expected to occupy the two new buildings, 600 will be transferred from the existing "10-85" building immediately north of Park Plaza, 650 will be transferred from the II Renton Place building, and 100 will be transferred from the 500 Park building. The space vacated in these buildings will be reused at much lower building employee densities. Hence, net employment increases in the North Renton area as a result of the Park and Garden Plaza developments will be less ft) than 900 new employees. 1 To provide a "worst case" assessment of the Park and Garden Plaza projects, it was nevertheless assumed that all building employees and associated traffi1c would represent new traffic growth to the North Renton area. This is an important consideration, and should not be overlooked. Parking Parking requirements for the new buildings are based upon net usable building floor area. The parking facilities supplied for the Park and Garden Plaza buildings will also need to accommodate parking supply for the existing "500 Park" office-building. Parking requirements and supply for the three buildings were, therefore, evaluated together. A tabulation of building floor areas and parking requirements is shown in the following tabulation. I 'I (8) 1 Building Gross Bldg Net Usable Parking Required & Use Floor Area Floor Area Ratio Spaces 500 Park -Office 60,000 52,000 1/200 260 Garden Plaza -Office 245,850 213,370 1/200 1,067 Subtotal 305,850 265,370 1,327 Park Plaza -Office - - 136,565 1/200 682 -Computer Room - - 17,149 1/1000 17 -Shipping & Receiving - - 3,256 1/1500 2 Subtotal 181,280 153,970 701 TOTAL REQUIRED PARKING (3 buildings) 2,028 The proposed parking supply and its allocation is as follows: Space Allocation Project Total Garden Park Spaces 500 Park Plaza Plaza. Garden Plaza 1,023 260 763 --- C. Park Plaza -structure 1,178 --- 304 874 -surface 107 --- --- 107 Totals 2,308* 260 1,067 981* *Supply exceeds requirements by 280 spaces. The proposed parking supply will exceed building code requirements for the three buildings combined by 280 spaces. However, the Garden Plaza structure will be 304 spaces short of meeting requirements for the 500 Park and the Garden Plaza buildings. The Park Plaza structure will supply 584 spaces more than needed for Park Plaza. Up to 304 of these spaces will be allocated to Garden Plaza parking needs. The 280- space balance: is available to all three buildings as contingent parking if demand exceeds the code stipulated parking requirements. Traffic Generation Traffic generation estimates for Park and Garden Plazas were derived using various relationships between the proposed project characteristics and guidelines provided by The Institute of Transportations Engineers (ITE) in a document entitled: Trip Generation, 3rd Edition, Revised 1984. A detailed discussion of the derivation of Traffic generation characteristics is provided in Park and Garden Plazas Supplemental Traffic Studies (page 1) . 10 Traffic generation estimates for the Park and Garden Plaza projects are summarized as follows: � ' Project Gross Bldg Average Weekday Vehicle Trips Floor Area in S.F. 24-Hour* PM Peak Hour** Garden Plaza 245,850 3,050 670 Park Plaza 181,280 2,250 490 Totals 427,130 5,300 1,160 ii *Estimated at a rate of 12.3 vehicle trips per 1,000 gsf. **Estimated at a rate of 2.7 vehicle trips per 1,000 gsf; , of these trips, 83% are outbound and 17% inbound during pm peak hour. I The traffic peak hours on The North Renton area street system occur between 6:30 and 7:30 a.m. and 3:30 to 4:30 p.m. Traffic volumes before and after these peak hours are lower. The following tabulation illustrates traffic volume levels during various 1-hour periods during the afternoon commuter period: Hour Volumes as a % Hour period of 3:30-4:30 volume 3:00-4:00pm 89% II 3:30-4:30pm 100% 4:00-5:00pm 91% 4:30-5:30pm 75% Boeing engineers and executives , tend to work later shifts than those worked by the production forces. It is possible that the commuter trips associated with The Park and Garden Plaza employees may not coincide with the times of current peak congestion in The North Renton area. For example, if Park and Garden Plaza employees were to leave between 4:30 and 5:30 pm, they may not increase current peak hour traffic conditions. However, to produce a "worst case" scenario for Park and Garden Plaza traffic impacts, the analysis has assumed that: i 1 o All employees are new employees to the North Renton business / industrial area, and 1 o„ All employees travel to and from work during the same peak ' traffic times as currently found for the North Renton area. il r1nl 1 PROJECT TRAFFIC IMPACTS Existing Conditions The existing street system serving the North Renton area is illustrated on figure 4. Those streets designated as principal or minor arterials are highlighted by the wider line widths. Logan Avenue and Park Avenue are designated as north-south principal arterials. Garden Avenue is a parallel minor arterial. North 3rd and 4th streets are classified as east-west minor arterials; however, together they function in effect as a principal arterial corridor. The most current PM peak hour traffic volume counts on the North Renton arterial street system are shown also on Figure 4. These counts may differ from those shown in prior reports at some locations where more recent counts were assembled for this summary. "Level of Service" (LOS) is a measure derived by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) to describe the quality of traffic operations on the street system. It ranges from LOS A (very good traffic operating conditions) to LOS F (traffic volumes exceed street or intersection capacity) . LOS D is generally accepted in urban areas as a tolerable condition during commuter peak periods. CThe North Renton arterial system currently operates internally at acceptable levels of service (in terms of the ITS definitions, and the LOS D or better standard desired by the City of Renton) . However, it breaks down to • "intolerable" operating conditions at the arterial convergence points approaching freeway interchange locations. This is a common situation throughout King County-- and may be unavoidable. It may also be an acceptable condition for the North Renton area since these critical restraint points meter the amount of traffic that can penetrate the North Renton street system. Though peak hour traffic volumes are heavy on the arterials criss-crossing.the central residential neighborhood area of North Renton, . the arterials operate at fairly acceptable levels of service. Traffic turning movement delays do occur -- but they are within generally accepted urban traffic operating conditions. If the city desires to reduce the traffic volumes penetrating the North Renton residential area, it would need to substantially revise its arterial system philosophy. The "North Renton Benefit Assessment District Traffic Study" has been commissioned to address these issues and options. It will continue beyond the approval processes of the Park and Garden Plaza projects. (11) :4\ A coo ...• ...I 141 cr) CRITICAL co .5 Y 0 ‘' POINT 4 590-7 ), o o (....-17. .\ • , r° o (x. NE PARK DR 40- a ‘r #•••4* 444 C.3 a.. 0 g2 .............•••••-••••••••••••••••••••• c, •••••••••••••••••••••-••.......................,..........,,,•••••••••••••••.........•••• ...•••6,„ 1'°:-:.9 ''°'P ............................. ... ........ ............. .•••••••••.•....•••••••.....„.••.....••.........,...............................—. 0 ................................ ro•••••••• ........... ...... . .......•••••••••••••••••••• 0 ....................... ..... ......................... ............. ..... ............. ..... .................................... : ........... .. ............... ....................................... ..........- ........,............. ,............/....................:....y.:::.:.: •••••••••••••••••••• imEMMDMT MMK 1, t ......................... ..............„.„...,.......„,.. ..........................................................................,,................ ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• •••••• ..........................••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• :•:•:•:•:•:•:.:•:•:-:•:•:•:•:•:.:::::•:::::::::::. ik:::.::::::•::::::::::::f , czi.,1 ..............•.•.••• .••••••......••••1.:..:.......::::.:.:...:..•:...:.;.:•.•••••;;;••••.::1:: .................... ••••••••••••••••...•.••••••• ••••••.......... --- :::1:::::::i.::::: :::K::::::::::::::::::::• ';•;•••••• •••••••••••••••••••••1`n c . ............. . .., :v.-y ,..._ 1......: ... .........................„...............1...................... /.••••••••••••.......... . s BOEING -420 •-4125 480-4325 N BST I. ,c 7:77.77 E:::.. i % ••:•-•:•••::•••• ••••::: .-4 [:-...7. •••••••••::•:•.:..:•:::::...::••• •••:•:::•:2... -1pARcry 2L",," ...... rc 2:•:•:.:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:-: 71 putu -4 ..0 COS 1=1 = I 2 .... . A PAC-CAN . 0. 471 Cy gr) 0 a ° I) ....•••• ..:-...m.r... f 345 N 6 ST -4235 • o •9 1 -- .0 CT. •• 2351." "1 96°' ' in!) 4110 g ''...0m ............. .......... ....... ........-..-..• •••...... f..,:..f.-......,,.......,„, •.....•............ .................... r...:taw 7 .-...., ...::-....,.......,.. ........., ......... ........ ........,.."....„;•.;..:.:........."......,....:......... ................ ••-••-••.•••••........... . . . 7 6_,, ..*:•.i. . ......x..,...,...... i ...:.......:.... - ..-:. ...........::::,....:.:. ...........,.. -•-•••-........ Fl .,„,.....4...v.',... ...:. ,.., A .;....... ..fx.;....-.. 0 Lo in A el- t....v .--......n.:-. - ) ,.., ._. r., 0 0 ,--, -....§::::: 0 .7...f.......,:::::::-.*:,,,,,,,,,...., ._. . . 0 .......,,,,,:0-.,,,,,......, Y 8 cm -41261 1125Y41-1 665 . ...:1**1 ...... 43 Itt :.;%•••;:g;.::. f.0. 'I( 1704 4 ST 1 -:1-ff.::*:'::':":::*::*:':•::'i i 411( . ape• IP Ad to at sr ct t-t 0 0 _ A 0 AIRPORT WY.4127144o5)- I.VlCVl-1a C0 N/2 , o,I 0t65 ,1,,.;• s. s -/,10,0 v • INTERSECTIONLEVEL 1 OF SERVICE (LOS) k • A o* Q. ga- cl. 0) 12310- 1986-7 PM PEAK 4'1'11' ^31Z' mil. ^) , -4456 HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUME • P \O 0 EXISTING SIGNAL S 2 ST • ,- •—•-• ARTERIAL STREET 0 -, 4 t'A LOCAL STREET - • %.'....--.------..,... S 3 ST • 0 • A I 1 NORTH ) Figure 4 PARK PLAZA mv) EXISTING STREET SYSTEM, 'MANSPO GARDEN PLAZA TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND LOS (12) Traffic Impacts of Park and Garden Plazas As noted above, Park and Garden Plazas combined will generate about 5,300 vehicle trips per day of which 1160 could occur during the pm peak hour. The access patterns for these trips are estimated as follows: o 25% North to I-405, Lake Washington Boulevard, and Northeast Renton via NE Park Drive o 10% East to Maple Valley Highway via N.3rd and 4th Streets o 25% South via Bronson Way to Benson Road, Valley Freeway, and I-405 west. o 40% West via Airport Way and Rainier Avenue to northwest Renton, Seattle, and I-405 West to I-5 and beyond. The estimated PM peak hour traffic volumes and travel routes for the Park and Garden Plaza projects at full development and occupancy are illustrated on Figure 5. Project traffic will penetrate the North Renton residential areas on Park and Garden Avenues, and on North 3rd and 4th streets. If all trips are assumed to be new trips (see previous discussion of employee relocations) , and if the Park and Garden Plaza shift changes coincide with the 3:30 to 4:30 pm peak hour in the North Renton area, the proportional traffic impacts will be significant on most of the North Renton arterial streets. The proportional traffic increases over current PM peak hour traffic volumes are noted on Figure 5. The details of site access volumes and turning movements are illustrated on Figure 6 for the Park and Garden Plaza sites. The changes in level of service at key intersections throughout the North Renton area are summarized on Table 1. Most intersections could decrease one step in level of service as a result of the Park and Garden Plaza projects. However, most would still be operating at acceptable levels of service. Two intersections are at LOS F currently, and each will be further stressed by project traffic: o Park/Garden/Lake Washington Boulevard. o N. 3rd Street at Sunset. These are freeway gateway points which meter traffic use of the North Renton arterial system. The intersection of N. 3rd street and Garden Avenue will deteriorate significantly as a result of the project. It can be mitigated by channelization improvements. The intersection of N. 6th and Garden will experience LOS E for the east-to-north left turn movement. Signalization may be desirable, and "warrants" appear to be met (marginally) . A .a3iy.\1111 .•. . ......:... 47 fr 1 . NORTH 0 f • • • • -••• • ..... . . . • •• • ....:.:::.:-.•:;•:::•:::•:::•••••••••••:::*•... . • • • . .••• .•.. • •••••• • • • • i Di . . .•• . . . .••• •••• .•. . ... . ..... . . .. . . . . . . .. .•••••••••••••••••:-.....:.:..•••:•.:•:•.:•....:•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••...:................................... ...:.:................:.:.•••:.::. . .. . • •• • •. .•••••••• :::::::::::•••••:: .• • •• • ••• • • ••••• Ci) NE PARK OR ••••••••••••••••••••:...................f.......-........................-........ .................................................................... '....'......:....:......:.....:.....6......'......:.....:....:.............;.....:......l.... . . .•.•• . . . ••.• • • %.*••••••:•.:-..*...*-..*•.:-..*-..-. .:::::. ..' 1 ' ..•••• • • • • ••••• • • • ••• • • • • • • ,c) 4 co , . . . . ... . . . . . .. . .. ,.. . . .•• • • • a. • •••••• • • • •• ••• ••• ••.••• • ••••••• a ••• ................ .:./..../.....•••••••••••:•:::•••••••:•.;":•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••:.. r- .' t'' MD k, ............... ,..., ,.., co ... .. ..... a „, 1 - • . .. . ... ... . . . . . ..... . ... . ..... • • •• •. . .... . ... .6. . ... . . .. ....... .................... .. . . . . ........ . . . • .. . . ..... ••• • •• • •• •• • • .. . co ................ -.*::::.....::::•::::.:•:•:::::::•::::::::::•::::::::::::•:::::::•::::•:::::::•:•....... :...:::::::: :::.::::::::'• .. . • . ....... e, . ................ ....................-fil ...........„. .............. . •-•••••••••• ••••••••••••,„.................... ••... .. . .... ........................ 0 • •• • •••• •••. . . . ....„....:•:.:•:•:.::::::::::::::::::: ......:::::::::::::::::::: vt. f ':".•:*i::.::::::::::::::::::::::::::•:•:•: '...;::::::..............;..• - •••••• .......... .. ...... ..... .. . .. . . ••• • •.•...•..• •. .•••• ..d. ..•.:.:.:..•.:.:i.....•..•..•..•.. :.:.:••• .. ........ ... . . .. . ............................ ... .*::::::::::::::•:•:•::::::::::::::::::::.....4.4....4. .......:..4444.................. .... . ......... ..„4 4„„„,,,,,,,.. •::::::::::::::::•:•:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::„.................: •••••••••• • •• • .::::::::::• •••• . '::•::•i:ii.::i.:::•ii:.*:::.::.:.:::.*:..:i.:•••::i:iff..;:i :::....::::::.*::::::::::::•....i.::::. A , :•:,......•.::::.:•:•:.:•:•:•:.:.:•...:.:.:.:.:.:. A..::::::....x.x..............; u, k, / . , -:•:•:•:•:•••••••.•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•...:.:.:.:.- .„.,,............................x.... a cm :N':':*:*:':':'•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•••.:.:::.41")co•-•••.,••••• — el .... (63$ • BOEING Y i -4 30 X 8 S T - 155)0-! _,2 30 PP' ••••••............ ..... CL.. ':'•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•••:•:•••• ••••••••• CO ....:::1 = • ••:*•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:. •:•:•:•:•......... =A FIT C IAA Y mC = ..0 C7 ................ ............... LU ul :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::. :::::::::::::::::::: PARK3 C2 r-I ....:.:.:.:.:::.:.:.:.:"..... •:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:*: ' .. ;IC :•:•:•::::::::::,',7,7,!ee ogz:ezza PLAZA Cp ••• ... . 40 . C2 - !I:Air:0 :? C:::::::.:*::0 F•,::ii:::::.:.:::%:;•:::::::. .. ....... ) §.. .*••••;••••••••••••••••••••::::::•.•:••••.:/../..:•, ea:::::1 UZ:::::.;:ta A PAC-CAR sta) ", • t. :;.•••••; :•* .*•*•::;*?:;f...?A ..... .... "-- ....... •••. ..... •••.•-. •••..... --•... •••• •-•• •••.... ....-.::-.•—•••. ... ... X 6 ST 220 , :::: .•-..... ••...... :) i ..117-ii.:ED 35)1.- ... ... :::•1.:::::::•;:.• •' •' ". ggiRIO A ..:...::;f::. :::::,1:•••••••••••"'......... Tin ps0.114 -, ... ..... ... .. •.•• ..:•• ......... 1 . _ ......• .. --......,-....-;•....................... • ......./.......-../.., • 7 AHH:%:):::i4A ... 1:I.:I.:: ::::::-.:.• ....::.:::::::-...:' ............................... ••••••:-...-.•:::::6:. (ED C'J CO A cm 4.1 • • 71.„ iii..:%1 „..,C) .•••••••• Eima F,,i ...:-.... .... .... •••••••. ... -::::::::::::::..... , • ....A .•-.•....• . :•••••.• .v556-.%...-••••••-••••••••••••• V , .............:77 . ........... :•:-....y..:..... -.......-...-/...•,...•.• ..........:::::::•:... . , V!.....„..•........•...............•• 7 1•••••••• • • ...• .•.......... .. `3. ..... ......... At) .....i....:::.:::::.:.::'... :::............44............. 80 N 4 ST 80 <80 <15 I1115) 1 . • 1 50.a Nu.sr 1 9 50 P. 5 IP- 1101.1` 0 ., • in A . A \r i • 1 „,,.. . 1 , i U.1 LU 1 7.. 7• 431D PERCENTAGE INCREASE (\ AK 1 • a a Nc x HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES " cc a gi, cc . L 1 i cm cc cl . il (WORST CASE ASSUMPTIONS) . ! , • ' ' . . . 1 -, . PARK PLAZA Figure 5 • ) PARK & GARDEN PLAZAS GARDEN PLAZA PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUME INCREASES (14) 1 1 . i • A in C A el .- G .� O O a r � cr • - - - - r I 15J v ao c 5 15 10 5 O PARKING • PARK STRUCTURE " PLAZA 1178 SPACES 0 in o ," O 10 N .-� 0'Ili o a 15 —25� o O • ln o A N .-1 O O .+ .r _, n r _ V " N. 6TH ST <400 <7o woos 200 O A A in GARDEN en N Y Y PLAZA r, • L5 20J ' le-o-45 10-417i } an W W O1 to • —I Z ,z PARKING f <123 ESTIMATED 1989 PM PEAK a STRUCTURE ¢ 456.-HOUR TRAFFIC 1023 SPACES i, `w NOTE: GARDEN PLAZA ACCESS ¢ 500 � VOLUMES INCLUDE TRAFFIC a� PARK 10 J ig ASSOCIATED WITH THE 15-01-- 500 PARK BUILDING in A a N N ti i r CUSTCM N o CABINETS in ita . Cr <40 <135 100j 65 r N 5TH ST 3511. • A 85► A 0 {OD is 4-4O - r *. . ( PARK PLAZA Figure 6 ,no PM PEAK HOUR PARKING ACCESS VOLUMES TRANSPO GARDEN PLAZA FOR PARK & GARDEN PLAZAS Group (15) Table 1 Levels of Service at Key Intersections * Existing 1989 LOS *** Intersection LOS With Projects Park Avenue at: . Bronson Way B B N. 3rd Street B C N. 4th Street B I C N. 6th Street N. 8th Street C C/D N. 10th .Street C C L. Wash/Garden F F Garden Avenue at: Bronson way E** E** N. 3rd Street B E N. 4th Street B C N. 6th Street D** , E** N. 8th West C** D** N. 8th East D** D** Logan Avenue at: Airport Way C D N. 3rd Street A B N. 4th Street B C N. 6th Street C D N. 3rd at Sunset F I F I 9, * Calculations based on methodology set forth in the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual. ** Unsignalized intersection; level of service is for worst approach leg. *** Without Mitigation. ) I (16) The Garden Avenue "dog leg" at N. 8th Street should be specially noted. Though each of the two intersections individually appears to function acceptably, the two in conjunction with one another pose safety and traffic weaving problems. Park Avenue appears to operate in an acceptable manner during the pm peak hour at key intersections. this is because left- turn movements from Park Avenue are surprisingly low. during the am peak periods left-turn movements from Park Avenue are much greater. Anytime a left-turn movement does occur, it in effect blocks a thru traffic lane. To mitigate the impacts of left-turning traffic, a center two way left-turn lane would be desirable. City staff requested that the parking structure access points be evaluated for signal warrants (see Figure 6) . Signal warrants range from marginal to non-existent. Signalization should be approached with caution. Most of the garage access points are too close to existing or potential signals on the street grid. Signalization could seriously hurt north-south traffic progression on Park and Garden Avenues. MITIGATION Based upon the above identified traffic impacts associated C with the Park Plaza and the Garden Plaza project proposals, the City Environmental committee has recommended the following street and intersection improvement measures: 1. Participation in a future North Renton Benefit Assessment District to contribute "per trip generated" fees totalling $1,107,900, less credits for improvements identified in the North Renton Traffic Study that have been directly funded by the projects' applicant. 2. Up grade the Garden Avenue/Lake Washington Boulevard intersection. to achieve level of service D operations. (Note: This intersection already operates at LOS F, and it may be physically impossible to achieve LOS D without constructing a grade separation of some sort. ) 3. Install new signalization at intersection of N. 6th street and Garden Avenue North. 4. Expand Park Avenue to 5 lanes from N. 5th street to the north property line of Park Plaza. (This condition may be eliminated by the alternative implementation of a Park/Garden Avenues one-way couplet. ) 5. Re construct the existing signal at N. 6th street and Park Avenue. 6. Improve and channelize N. 5th street to 3-lane operation between Park and Garden Avenues. 7. Realign the existing signal at the intersection of North 8th street and Park Avenue. (17) 8. Contribute a fair share of the cost of signalizing the east and west intersections of Garden Avenue with N. 8th street. 9. Dedicate 10 feet of right-of-way along North 6th street between Park and Garden Avenues to allow for future widening to five lanes. 10. Construct all site access drives with a minimum width of 30 feet. 11. Provide "kiss-ride pull out" lanes 70 feet long and 12 feet wide on Park Avenue along face of Park Plaza, and along N. 61th street along face of Garden Plaza. 12. Provide a Traffic Systems Management Program at each project to reduce vehicle trips. A number of additional conditions were imposed by the committee relating to pedestrian circulation, street lighting, landscaping and other elements of the environment. PARK / GARDEN ONE-WAY COUPLET During the course of traffic studies for the Park and Garden Plaza projects, a Park/Garden one-way street plan concept was put forth for city consideration as a more long-range mitigation alternative for the North Renton area. The concept is illustrated on Figures 7, 8, and 9. The concept proposes the conversion of Park Avenue to one-way ; -]) south bound traffic flow from Lake Washington Boulevard to N. 3rd street, with options to extlend one-way operation south to Bronson way. Garden Avenue would be converted to one-way northbound operation from N. 3rd street to a convergence with Park Avenue in the vicinity of Lake Washington Boulevard. -- also with an option to begin one-way operation from Bronson way. A new 3-lane alignment of Garden between N. 6th and N. 8th streets would be desirable as illustrated on Figure 7. Figure 8 illustrates the concept in more detailed for the north end of the corridor. To totally eliminate the existing "bottleneck" intersection at Lake Washington Boulevard / Park /Garden, an easterly extension of N. 10th would be necessary from Park Avenue to Garden Avenue, and then north-easterly to the Houser way undercrossing of N. Park Drive. If the city and the community opt to extend the one-way couplet operation south to Bronson way, Figure 8 illustrates a potential channelization plan for the southern terminus. Another option is to terminate the one-way street operation at N. 6th street, using N. 6th street as a strong cross- connection between the Logan Avenue and Park/Garden corridors. , ) The Park/Garden one-way street couplet concept is being further evaluated as part of the North Renton Assessment District Traffic Study. Some preliminary traffic evaluations and cost estimates are presented in Section 4 below. (18) t• -* 6..... ..... 7 \I% ( ........ .............. ............. .................... 4i...ft\ • Abb., . ....-.:::::•:•::::::;:•::::•::::•:.1.:::::,....:-fl.,.:•. ......... 1:::::.:Inta A • NE PARK DR .....................................................................................................................:.....:;.......................: .................. ................................:..... ... ... ........ ..................... .....••......••......•................... ............ .... .................... ................... ....................... ..:..................::::01,11::.::... ..::::,:?:4 .. • i o •••••••••••••••••••• k.i 0 Jillililiel...... ...... ... .....-.....-......•...-.......:.. ...................... *. .............. .... .... .... ... ....................-............................. ............................................... ... ....,...........„...........:............• ................................ ..........................,......-...-..................................-.•.. .. ......................................................... ..................................................... .... .................................................. ...... .. -......••••.••••••• ....... .................. . .. .........................;...........-• • •................•..•...• ...... . iiiiiiii ..... N 8 ST w = ' 0 in . ..../ I } 1 % .............. ••••••••••••••• .............. ............... .............. ............................ •••••••••-"—• ............................ ! •:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:.:,..:•:.M :............................ ii..ARK I., t itt [71'; rc ,:,:,:,:,:::::::::::::::::::: . .....7."4„:Z.,A e= i ...11:: $ rieTrAl e m L., r.....;:::.............::::eif..........,.... ....-....- 5 '0 0, e el th&La sat PAC-CAR V..:, :..._:•*-:':::.. ...:.:*:.:.*:.*:.4 / F N 5 ST P . ......:...;:•..........:•....................... ••••••— 947047 . ......................,:.......•••;.:::. .......... ..... .......... L..44--- 1 ....-:::.:::::•:1 .. ............... -..........-...........-............r............. .............. ................. ........?.. ....7•••:::::;:•.XI.....::: ......... ••.•.••••• ---•••••••••.•••••• 11/i t lif...::"....•:;:.•••:!.:•.:;1..•....i:•.1.11 ,.....:::..;....g.....:::....-;::.::•••:-:':Z.:•••:.. ' N 4 ST '• -11E) •—••••••••." .41-•- :-::::,. ......;::.:',...::•.:...1.:........::: lill 4 0 ,41( • .11— ee f ... /fast .... L... / / ft Ittlti ILI lga AIRPORT WY P. P. .c ..0/--..—•-..— . 3I . be = cc ii.. ▪ ' Z i r; :: : ,, 0 4,sY -`"„ ff .o EXISTING SIGNAL 0 NEW SIGNAL • 6- 1— NEW STREET 'LINK .."41.. NO. OF LANES:. - S 2 ST 4 0 N —0- . ........... . S 3 ST A • Iiix 0 1 ap, IT, NORTH k Figure 7 ' PARK PLAZA PROPOSED PARK/GARDEN TWP TRANSPO ; GARDEN PLAZA ONE-WAY COUPLET tro‘ip (19) • • • )'! ,A : - coo , � \ / i // / / \\ . y `. / I it 0 ` / ` , //// I► N I -- -- . J I 1, l - \\ <45 t > <120 445.} 50� _ __640s 65� 1II '?400-660 `✓ u�s,�III N10ST s \\ \ in lii \LOS 111 ;\\. -LOS A r \\ill •, \ ✓ B _ III I \ \ `Po iIII \\ • III \\\ Iy III \\\ • 4 III \\\ X III \\\ "'C III \\�1 0. • III I,I III 1II III olll. 21III1---- ---- -� III A LOS r II I W I II 0 LOS A I Ili I o III III I .4 III B III -- - - III ---- • - -- -.----- ---- 0 I I I in .N 8 ST III -420 mil,II I `� <705 <330 180- LL, III k-100 <370 • 185s - _- - --95��II 1 rir685 140> 240> _4)Tr'r► 22010- III S II o III 1I .r III c III II A - III I II 0 rII1 i !! a A " III ,I .. NORTH Figure 8 PARK PLAZA PARK/GARDEN ONE-WAY COUPLET TM PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC WITHOUT TRANSP14 GARDEN PLAZA PARK PLAZA AND GARDEN PLAZA • Crov� (20) I I I I I I ICI I I I II I I I I • • I \ I 11\ I I I I I I I I _ II I II I - • ' s I I I ti � it I - H II O II I II I • II I I I II I I I II I II I II II \ II II I I I MILL ST IIIII JIwI/IY Vre III • • � III III 9 PARK PLAZA PARK/GARDEN'gure ONE-WAY COUPLET GARDEN PLAZA SOUTH END TERMINUS GEOMETRY 'TlIc"SPO (21) is CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON 14' ORDINANCE NO. 4098 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON CHANGING " THE ZONING CLASSIFICATIONS OF CERTAIN PROPERTIES WITHIN THE CITY OF RENTON FROM LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT ( L- 1 ) TO BUSINESS DISTRICT (B-1 ) (E & H PROPERTIES (R- 016-8 7) WHEREAS under Chapter 7 , Title IV (Building Regulations) of Ordinance No. 1628 known as the "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton" , as amended , and the maps and reports adopted in conjunction therewith, the property hereinbelow described has heretofore been zoned as Light Industrial District (L-1 ) ; and WHEREAS a proper petition for change of zone classification of said property has been filed with the Building and Zoning Department on or about February 17, 1987, which petition was duly referred to the Hearing Examiner for investigation, study and August 4 , 1987 , public hearing, and a public hearing having been held thereon,/ , and the Hearing Examiner having considered the matter and having made no recommendation to the City Council and the City Council having considered this matter on September 14, September 28, October 12 and November 5, 1987, and having determined to rezone the property subject to its Report and Recommendation dated November 16, 1987 ; and said zoning request being in conformity with the City' s Comprehensive Plan, as amended, and the City Council having duly considered all matters relevant thereto, NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: ORDINANCE NO. 4098 SECTION I: The following described property in the City of Renton is hereby rezoned to Business District (B-1 ) as hereinbelow specifiedF the Building and Zoning Director is hereby authorized and directed to change the maps of the Zoning Ordinance, as amended, to evidence said rezoning, to-wit: See Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof as if fully set forth herein (Said property being located at between Park Avenue North and Garden Avenue North between North 5th and North 6th Street) SUBJECT TO the conditions of the City Council adopted November 16, 1987, the same being the recommendations of the Planning and Development Committee as adopted by the full City Council. SECTION II: This Ordinance shall be effective upon its passage, approval and five days after its publication. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this 23rd day of November , 1987. Maxine E. Motor, City Clerk APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this 23rd day of November , 1987. btba.te4 411 iSk e Barbara Y. Shin och, Mayor Approved as to form: Lawrence J. Warr4A'4-"e444°23441'('I'llrl'—°° , City Attorney Date of Publication: November 27 , 1987 CITY4 : 01/11 /13/87 ORDINANCE NO. 4098 Exhibit "A" Lots 1 thru 8 both inclusive of Block 1 of the Plat of Sartorisville, as recorded in Volume 8 of Plats, Page 7 records of the Auditor, King County, Washington; Together with Lots 1 and 2, Renton Short Plat Number 282-79 recorded under Survey Number 7907109002, more particularly described as follows: Lots 9, 10, 11 and 12 of Block 1 , Sartorisville, according to the plat thereof recorded in Volume 8 of Plats, Page 7, in King County, Washington; LESS the west 83.80 feet of Lot 12, and LESS the west 83.80 of the south 30 feet of Lot 11 of said plat. I r 1 ,I A v •. �2 ORDINANCE NO. 4098 I� °00 ° AL 5 0 --L_ O q Z a o D ti i 19 ® S/ TE 8c,ny///o7/ - ro' r/21•t 3o 9y 011 y F ( . Jra.opoi-A9 BA N 90 it. 1�.a �O N 6 TH ST (SNOQ HLNt1E AVE.) GT11 AVE. N —k IJP IZK - it..' �' 71070 fn•••n r 7•1 o 7o,pnNrn 30 r',I.,0 J !I r}i m 7 J N i 30 Ji 777 I 00 ,Vf1' �:, rou i �i14 y h 1 13 h JO 3D s A. o o ci reo R r� x g 13 h ti 1�I'"o 1 Go N 1 11 I l �" r• 1 12 'F 12 f • 2 �) A• • • • • • 1 1 0 , 16 r ' �80 6 Lq�y `�f1 n 1 Ipyy3� 8� 1 I I�oo81 I I I I 3q ,0� z ��}0°°5 3 ►1 k ail o :.1 WED 70 CANTON L•C /q M OydO 'r" kby to �f O°Q /n}},1 u I Ir�pD�,Alw,tti . oli 19 A 9i I���o 8r i 8 L' 20 •:ti�,I�t to 011117 T I I low v� I 010 ; 21 A.' (1 A�y1 p h h • 7 10A °st; 6, 1 6 y f� J 1 1 ��r,'nrr 11 Ni • ' 22 xbor�y° � ip �nas 5 • N' S `r� rh iS3 Jr� rin 1�1 • 23 Z4.1 ° N RENSP •2-179, 7 109002 1 S pyr,5 1 ��,so 4 . 0 4 • �1^ • ✓ LOT r • w —`�- - a os1� LOT I II .4 24 1,�,o - n— -- - 'r' .09`s ILI - 3 T 3 N I,�Iry r���rr Ti I O Q 1 Irr 1i114 t J.+ 1 25 "°o6' 21.2 cV 4 2 1(' . ,-r4 E 1 ,/" w rcr,v I `� f ,tik) (./ 2 vI l Y z L Q T 3 Al z �v p11� 1Ir O til �n rn 26,��+, �w�ry ,f sire/` °�2 Q �N I L1 0�1)� vi ���Ir 1 '1,��I jam j . I) °°iy c 111 Ayr, r1) ( rr.P11I /•.'I. 1 N :� • •r .'r/r /01 A ) 11 II7/ = `^J 14 o 1Lo S 31'�j� 13 a vi ' 13 4 S,' 1 Z i J °f9 co 0 I H Q , W �ti0 1 } _... _4cr Q 1' Y a t I5 x�`y 12 h ylrrrin ,� o v. Q of , 12 U1,1,. 1 _ I 2 ' 11 16• ab.,I° �';�y III ' Z • II '� h J Q u, 1 CITY OF RENTON 3)1) ill 1 1 I DKrARTMENT OF rU•LIC WORKS • 17 ko'1 .7 AUpiA° 10 • 10 .II"�r, • ` I�t I� REZONE ' 18 ^H�Bu I 9 •, Q 9 `r 11Ir l � _• E & .H PROPERTIESAAJ/ —pp R-016-8 () r� IIV 1 1 DESIGNED °ATEA/CW/9g7 FILE NOI'�S1.L¢._ •w�11 DRAWN • II I9 A y l) a t''I• LP I`1 ■CAL[ rune woil 8 �, n n,,..),74,-._. .(1)prJ1')� 1 x1 '" Aff110V[D •MEET O/__ .1e it J.•.J I1' uil• i1•r.,.,or roiu ryy...... ._... .- rT .r ri • RE: E & H GARDEN PLAZA REZONE R- 016-87 The Hearing Examiner, by report and recommendation dated August 18, 1987, recommended that the City Council delay action on this rezoning request pending the outcome of the North Renton traffic study. The first phase of that traffic study, which addresses the direct impacts of the proposed action, has now been received. The City Council took public testimony on this item on four separate occasions, the first three instances being part of regular City Council meetings, and the last instance, on November 5 , 1987, being a special City Council meeting to continue the public hearing on this rezone. The Planning and Development Committee has subsequently held its meeting on November 12, 1987. The City Council at its special meeting on November 5, 1987 , arrived at a consensus to approve the rezone , making a finding that the traffic impacts caused by the rezone and subsequent construction could be mitigated, conditioning the rezone on passage of a binding site plan under site plan . application SA- 017-87 and requiring restrictive time lines be established for application for a building permit and the beginning of construction. The entire matter was then forwarded to the Planning and Development Committee to draft the conditins of approval of the rezone. The Planning and Development Committee recommended certain traffic mitigation for this rezone which was adopted by the City Council . Based upon that decision and subject to the following conditions, the rezone should be granted : Traffic Mitigation: The Planning and Development Committee recommends that the traffic mitigation for this project be as detailed in Attachment "A" hereto which is incorporated by reference as if fully set forth. Attachment "B" , Interim Traffic Mitigation Program, which is incorporated by reference herein as if fully set forth, provides a map of the improvements to be installed as a condition of this rezone. Ocuppancy Levels: The Hearing Examiner noted that the vehicle trips per " one thousand gross square feet of office space is estimated to be twelve. In a moderate increase to the employee to floor area ratio would result in higher than normal traffic impacts. Should the occupancy level rise such that the vehicle trips per one thousand gross square feet rises above twelve, then the traffic impacts of this building will be re-analyzed. 1 Time Lines: The applicant must apply to the City of Renton for a building permit within six months of the effective day of this rezone. Following the application, the applicant must diligently pursue the building permit. Following issuance of the building permit the applicant must begin construction within six months after the issuance of the building permit and must diligently pursue the construction permitted under the building permit. In order to renew the building permit, the applicant must make substantial construction under the building permit or have shown good cause for extension of the building permit and had the Building and Zoning Director extend that permit. Joint Committee: Since this rezone is the first step in the construction of what is anticipated to be four or more buildings in this general area, and because of the feeling by the neighbors that there is a lack of communication and exchange of information, there shall be formed a City-citizen-applicant-Boeing Company Committee to exchange information on traffic mitigation and other issues presented by this development and future development by the applicant or the Boeing Company in this general area with the citizens having at least three but not more than five representatives and each of the other parties having at least one but not more than three participants. The purposes of this Committee shall be: 1. To provide a means to communicate the plans and intentions of the developer and the Boeing Company to the City and the North Renton neighborhood. 2 . To define issues raised by future development limited primarily to planning, zoning and traffic issues. 3. To try and resolve as many of these issues as possible. 4. To narrow the issues that cannot be resolved so that they may be presented to the City Council or other decision maker in a succinct and organized fashion. Neighborhood Protection: Neighborhood protection from traffic may serve the existing single family residences. However, such things as traffic diverters or blockage of traffic lanes are often controversial . The City staff is therefore directed to review possible methods of preserving the single family neighborhoods by means of various devices or methods to restrain traffic flow through the single family neighborhoods, to hold public meetings to gather public input and report to the City Council on recommended measures to be implemented. 2 ERC: This rezone should be subject to the conditions imposed by the ERC to the extent that they are not inconsistent with the conditions imposed by the City Council . Hearing Examiner Report: The Report and Recommendation of the Hearing Examiner dated August 18, 1987 under File No. R016-87 is adopted by the City Council with the following modifications: Conclusion No. 1 is modified by striking the last sentence thereof. Conclusion No. 2 is stricken in its entirety. Conclusions No. 3 and 7 are amended by adding a sentence to each of them which states: .4. Tying this rezone to the companion site ,plan approval SA- 017-87 will eliminate the problem that could be created by unrestricted B-1 zoning. Conclusion No. 4 is modified by adding a sentence: A portion of this block is already B-1 zoning. B-1 zoning exists extensively along Park Avenue. This particular rezone is not an extension of B-1 zoning into an existing single family neighborhood as B-1 developed uses exist as close or closer to the single family neighborhoods. Generally L-1 zoning is a more intensive use and B-1 zoning can serve as a buffer between that more intense use and the single family use. Conclusion No. 5 is stricken and there is substituted for it the following language: The L-1 use in the same block as this rezone is an H-1 use under the City' s existing zoning code. If that use, in fact, is permitting chemicals and sawdust to be expelled into the atmosphere such that it would prove damaging to automobile finishes, then such a use is incompatible with the nearby single family neighborhood and is probably in violation of air pollution laws. To the extent that the increased usage of City streets will interfere with the loading and unloading of trucks used by this adjoining L-1 use, it should be noted that the streets are generally for travel and not for loading . The existing L-1 use does not have a preemptive right to the use of City right-of-way. Conclusion No. 16 is eliminated. 3 Conclusion No. 18 is eliminated. The recommendation is modified to read The requested rezone should be granted subject to the following conditions: 1 . Mitigation of the traffic impacts as detailed in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated by reference as if fully set forth. 2. Approval of site plan SA-017-87. 3. The applicant will abide by the restrictive time lines which include applying for the building permit within six months of the effective day of this rezone. Following the application, the applicant must diligently pursue the building permit. Following issuance of the building permit the applicant must begin construction within six months after the issuance of the building permit and must diligently pursue the construction permitted under the building permit. In order to renew the building permit, the applicant must make substantial construction under the building permit or have shown good cause for extension of the building permit and had the Building and Zoning Director extend that permit. 4. The applicant ' s participation in a City-citizen-applicant- Boeing Committee organized as detailed above and for the purposes detailed above. 5 . Compliance with the ERC conditions to the extent they are not inconsistent herewith. 6. Signing of a restrictive covenant that if the employee floor area ratio rises above that which would generate twelve vehicle trips per one thousand gross square feet, that the owner would submit to new environmental review. 7. Cooperation with the City staff in determining what traffic measures should be taken to preserve the integrity of the adjoining single family residential neighborhoods. Dated: November /6 , 1987. CITY3: 61/11/13/87 4 ATTACHMENT "A" PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION RE: TRAFFIC MITIGATION E & H REZONE AND SITE PLAN APPROVALS The Planning and Development Committee met on November 12, 1987 to try and structure an acceptable traffic mitigation program for the E & H rezone and site plans. The Committee set the policy that it wished to avoid additional traffic impacting the residential neighborhoods including along Garden Avenue North. With this in mind, the Committee makes the following recommendation concerning an acceptable traffic mitigation program: 1. There shall be formed a joint City/Citizen Committee concerning traffic diversion from the single family residences of North Renton which shall be all streets in North Renton, except for North 3rd, North 4th and Park Avenue N. The purpose of this effort will be to arrive at a joint staff-neighborhood recommendation to the City Council as to the traffic diversion steps that would be the most effective to preserve this single family neighborhood. If a single recommendation cannot be obtained , then a report should be submitted to the Council detailing the two or three best methods with the Council making the final decision., This recommendationshall be made by July 1, 1988. 2. On Park Avenue N. there should be no parking during peak traffic hours. This will permit four lanes of traffic, two northbound, two southbound. 3. Install a "C" curb on Park Ave. from the north property line of Park Plaza through the intersection of North 5th prohibiting left turns on Park Ave. North. Left turns would also be prohibited at North 6th. The developer shall also provide an additional 10' of right-of-way along the west property line from North 6th to North 5th for potential future widening of Park Ave. North to 5 lanes. 4. There shall be designed a turn movement southbound on Park Avenue N. at N. 3rd to minimize conflicts in the left turning movement onto N. 3rd and the developer shall pay for any change in the signal at that location. 5. Garden Avenue N. , northbound, shall have no through traffic to Lake Washington Boulevard. The intent is to discourage regional traffic from crossing the Garden/Park/Lake Washington Boulevard intersection and proceeding down Lake Washington Boulevard. 6. North 10th shall not be built at this time. 7. Fund a study to evaluate alternative 20-year development land use scenarios for the impact on the transportation 7. Fund a study to evaluate alternative 20-year development land use scenarios for the impact on the transportation system. The study should place as much emphasis on neighborhood mitigation as it does on traffic mitigation. 8. Bond $1. 2 million ($197 per trip) to fund transportation improvements recommended from the study and adopted by Council. 9. Reconstruct the intersection of Lake Washington Blvd./Park/Garden to provide an additional eastbound lane on Park Drive. 10. Realign Garden Ave. North at North 8th to remove the existing dog leg. 11. Rechannelize North 5th Street from Garden Ave. North to Park Ave. North to 3 lanes to provide left turn lane. 12. Signalize the intersection of North 6th and Garden Ave . North. 13. Provide passenger drop off lanes on Park Ave. North and North 6th Street in front of the Park Plaza and Garden Plaza Buildings. 14 . Implementation of as many of these conditions as possible shall occur immediately. CITY3 : 64/11/13/87 1 I 1A'N ASK.N. etl / iat-MTT AVM.N. a r---7/ I /1-7' .,1p..LIAMr� AVd.N. ...,,k 4-34-01 / . -z C A _ A WUU.4.Mir.N. Z 7 le ,. 7- z IA f PRl'q AVG.N. Mazy'AV"-.N. S Fywr,Ave.N. ' — et- f J_� s ffw,AVM. N. T ��. �T \.. cyPDral AM.N. 1 )11 MCAP:1W rn •N. \ . ( I,` I I e I I I 1 Ims• ._ ••••• 111 . cj PARK AVE. N. woo" 'k too •s• .00 •••11. •••%°1 ••••••••••% /7 • •• too .0406AA • e.or t NpG(H 11#- r, J i PRE �vA-Tio1.4 i �0 =b A rk e v 1 7\ • N 10th ST , +p U' Ti 9 2 Neth8T ■u-+�--� 7p _, • 2 • P ` N tith SRC 1` , ' I 1 J w i > , • z z ,•�e o z I c 7_ a 4th 8T O , 1zr qJiii 3rd 8 • Li — A • i i\ 1 ,,(1 , (—Li : I I ' i • , �0 .Ay+ i _ \ g0� i QO+ 0 • RE: SA-017-87 Garden Plaza Contemporaneously with the Committee consideration of the Garden Plaza Rezone (R-016-87) it considered the Garden Plaza site plan SA-017-87. Because of the disposition made in the rezoning matter and because the Council found that the traffic impacts could be mitigated the Council reverses the Hearing Examiner ' s Report and Decision as follows: Conclusion No. 1 is deleted. Conclusion No. 5 is modified by striking that Conclusion and substituting in its place: The City Council has been provided with a number of traffic studies. Although these studies are not perfect, they provide enough information for the Council to establish mitigation of the traffic impacts . Conclusion No. 6 is amended by striking the first three sentences thereof and by adding the following to the end of that Conclusion: While the existing traffic conditions in this area are undesirable, the traffic mitigation provided for by the developer is more than sufficient to mitigate the impacts of this project and should not unduly add to the traffic burden in the North Renton area. Conclusion No. 7 is amended by eliminating the last two sentences thereof and substituting in their place While the neighborhood is generally developed as single family residences, the area is zoned primarily for multi- family uses. Prior attempts by the City to change the zoning or comprehensive planning in this area has led to protests and the abandonment of such an effort. Until this area takes on a multi-family character, or until the owners in the area are willing to accept single family zoning, then it is necessary to protect the single family neighborhoods from intrusive traffic to the maximum extent possible while still permitting maximum flexibility by maintaining the existing arterials. The same is being furthered by City staff study of traffic control measures to protect the existing single family neighborhoods, which traffic measures will be implemented following approval by the Renton City Council. Conclusion No. 49 is deleted. The decision is amended to read: The site plan is approved. Dated: /6 , 1987. CITY3: 62: 11/13/87 RE: SA-055-87 Park Plaza Contemporaneously with the Committee consideration of the Garden Plaza Rezone (R- 016-87 ) it considered the Park Plaza site plan SA-055-87. Because of the disposition made in the rezoning matter and because the Council found that the traffic impacts could be mitigated the Council reverses the Hearing Examiner ' s Report and Decision as follows: Conclusion No. 1 is deleted . Conclusion No. 8 is modified by deleting the second and third sentences thereof and adding the following sentences : The proposed sky bridge would not provide the required setbacks, but the setback ordinance does not truly address _ the policy issue of whether or not the City wishes to allow sky bridges. Sky bridges are not specifically permitted in the Zoning Code, but they are not prohibited, either . In the past, the City of Renton has permitted a sky bridge by special permit. In this instance, the staff has analayzed the design and placement of the sky bridge and has recommended that it be approved. If the sky bridge is not included in this project, there is a signficiant safety hazard for pedestrians crossing an expanded and very busy Park Avenue North. The City Council finds that the proposed sky bridge, as a policy matter, is an acceptable element of the design of the parking garage and site plan. Conclusion No. 11 is stricken. Conclusion No. 13 is modified by striking that Conclusion and substituting in its place: The City Council has been provided with a number of traffic studies. Although these studies are not perfect, they provide enough information for the Council to establish mitigation of the traffic impacts. Conclusion No. 14 is amended by striking the first three sentences thereof and by adding the following to the end of that Conclusion: While the existing traffic conditions in this area are undesirable, the traffic mitigation provided for by the developer is more than sufficient to mitigate the impacts of Conclusion No. 15 is amended by eliminating the last two sentences thereof and substituting in their place: While the neighborhood is generally developed as single family residences, the area is zoned primarily for multi- family uses. Prior attempts by the City to change the zoning or comprehensive planning in this area has led to protests and the abandonment of such an effort. Until this area takes on a multi-family character, or until the owners in the area are willing to accept single family zoning , then it is necessary to protect the single family neighborhoods from intrusive traffic to the maximum extent possible while still permitting maximum flexibility by maintaining the existing arterials . The same is being furthered by City staff study of traffic control measures to protect the existing single family neighborhoods , which traffic measures will be implemented following approval by the Renton City Council . Conclusion No. 36 is amended by deleting the last sentence thereof. Conclusion No. 56 is stricken. The decision is modified to read : The site plan is approved. CITY3 : 63/11/13/87 PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION RE: TRAFFIC MITIGATION E & H REZONE AND SITE PLAN APPROVALS The Planning and Development Committee met on November 12, 1987 to try and structure an acceptable traffic mitigation program for the E & H rezone and site plans. The Committee set the policy that it wished to avoid additional traffic impacting the residential neighborhoods including along Garden Avenue North. With this in mind, the Committee makes the following recommendation concerning an acceptable traffic mitigation program: i. There shall be formed a joint City/Citizen Committee concerning traffic diversion from the single family residences of North Renton which shall - be all . .streets in North Renton, except for North 3rd, North 4th and Park Avenue N. The purpose of this effort will be to arrive at a joint staff-neighborhood recommendation to the City Council as to the traffic diversion steps that would be the most effective to preserve this single family neighborhood. If a single recommendation cannot be obtained , then a report should be submitted to the Council detailing the two or three best methods with the Council making the final decision. This recommendationshall be made by July 1, 1988 . 2. On Park Avenue N. there should be no parking during peak traffic hours. This will permit four lanes of traffic, two northbound, two southbound. • 3. Install a "C" curb on Park Ave. from the north property line of Park Plaza through the intersection of North 5th prohibiting left turns on Park Ave. North. Left turns would also be prohibited at North 6th. The developer shall also provide an additional 10' of right-of-way along the west property line from North 6th to North 5th for potential future widening of Park Ave. North to 5 lanes. 4. There shall be designed a turn movement southbound on Park Avenue N. at N. 3rd to minimize conflicts in the left turning movement onto N. 3rd and the developer shall pay for any change in the signal at that location. 5. Garden Avenue N. , northbound, shall have no through traffic to Lake Washington Boulevard. The intent is. to discourage regional traffic from crossing the Garden/Park/Lake Washington Boulevard intersection and proceeding down Lake Washington Boulevard. 6. North 10th shall not be built at this time. 7. Fund a study to evaluate alternative 20-year development land use scenarios for the impact on the transportation system. The study should place as much emphasis on neighborhood mitigation as it does on traffic mitigation. 8. Bond $1. 2 million ($197 per trip) to fund transportation improvements recommended from the study and adopted by Council. 9. Reconstruct the intersection of Lake Washington Blvd./Park/Garden to provide an additional eastbound lane on Park Drive. 10. Realign Garden Ave. North at North 3th to remove the existing dog leg. 11. Rechannelize North 5th Street from Garden Ave. North to Park Ave. North to 3 lanes to provide left turn lane. 12 . Signalize the intersection of North 6th and Garden Ave. North. 13. Provide passenger drop off lanes on Park Ave. North and North 6th Street in front of the Park Plaza and Garden Plaza Buildings. 14. Implementation of as many of these conditions as possible shall occur immediately. °°.----.. /e. idfri4 /11 ....4P/451Mr". e , , i..7. , , 6, 64Lt11L1 4/, _.....4- 4.4....-A../4, _.....c......c. CITY3:65/11/13/87 3 - di 3 'of T P424K A'1 N. .N•?rs'l hL4 A so too 01`/.,001 '• 1' •tI ®*I Ilr: // ; .. lat,p4swTT AYC.N. ..g ZI:il O• 4. .01 2 1 ,1%)IL IAMS AVG N. t 0. • / 2 WFLu AVC• N.1 . # / .r Z Z Z --N-1 / .4' T . I 4 PELL`f AVO.N. Pr+-LY AVF. N. - ,\.......7. I A ,AVe N. �/^- j Fix AVC. N. • Jft 7 aNtiN ^ -iCT` A - ,............. . 6042 r-N AIR.N.\... �-�' 40 • MWALOW AVA•N. \ . 14j441I e*• .. 11 I I IfII a , , ov00 oNoi ...., ,.. ..0.0 4 , . ------........".........------------s-s.........................2 • 4 , LOGAN AVE N /NM I I s mi z I z 7/1 8 6t co ; . . . .•. . . -- 74F— ------____ co •5 co •-i , . PARK AVE N I I . I I I I <44.4. 4a I I z z • • cg a • . .• co ch , %Mill •GARDEN AVE N Ws all . + .....N‹. 100 . Sib tor—/II. 0. . . • • - z • • s ..... a... I. I • • . . . . ..I e 4:00 0.a.•ig°als..I.so& e ti /.1.4 t3.3 . .. .." 1111111141111111111;* " 1.141•11— .1.1.1.II. 01,4, -.——•---. sk., .., • ' 84 too •%,I lif I . aft IIPIP/- . ., ilbh\N. October 16, 1987 OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON REPORT AND DECISION APPLICANT: E & H PROPERTIES File No.: SA-055-87, (Park Plaza) LOCATION: Park Plaza: West side of Park Avenue North, approximately 350 feet north of North 6th Street • SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Park Plaza: Site plan approval to allow the construction of a seven-story office building with 181,277 square feet with 107 parking spaces provided on-site and 1178 parking • spaces provided off-site in a five-story parking structure across Park Avenue to the east. SUMMARY OF ACTION: Building and Zoning Department Recommendation: Approval with conditions. BUILDING & ZONING The Building & Zoning Department Report was received DEPARTMENT REPORT: by the Examiner on September 22, 1987. PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the Building and Zoning Department Report, examining available information on file with the application, and field checking the property and surrounding area, the Examiner conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows: The hearing was opened on September 29, 1987, at 9:05 A.M. in the Council Chambers of the Renton Municipal Building. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner. The following exhibits were entered into the record: Exhibit #1 - Yellow File SA-017-87 containing application, proof of posting and publication and other documentation pertinent to this request. Exhibit #2 - Site Plan SA-017-87 Exhibit #3 - Landscape Plan SA-017-87 Exhibit #4 - Elevation Drawing SA-017-87 Exhibit #5 - Yellow File SA-055-87 containing application, proof of posting and publication and other documentation pertinent to this request. Exhibit #6 - Site Plan SA-055-87 Exhibit #7 - Landscape Plan SA-055-87 Exhibit #8 - Elevation Drawing SA-055-87 Exhibit #9 - Illustrative model Exhibit #10 - Roger Blaylock's response to Environmental Review Committee for Park Plaza Exhibit #11 - Roger Blaylock's response to Environmental Review Committee for Garden Plaza Exhibit #12 - Letter from Richard Houghton to Roger Blaylock Exhibit #13 - New transportation summary dated September 18, 1987 � I E & H Properties SA-055-87 I I October 16, 1987 Page 2 The Examiner called for further testimony regarding this project. There was no one else wishing to speak, and no further comments from staff. The hearing closed at 1:25 P.M. There are no Minutes available for this item. While a joint hearing was held on both the subject site (SA-055-87) and for the Garden Plaza proposal (SA-017-87) they have been published as separate reports. This decision was published pursuant to the request by the Hearing Examiner for additional time. Many of the Findings and Conclusions below have been adopted from the Hearing Examiner's Report on the Garden Plaza site plan (SA-017-87). FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & DECISION: Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS 1. The applicant, E & H Properties, filed a request for a site plan approval for a 181,277 square foot office building, an off-site five story parking garage containing 1,178 parking stalls, and a parking plan to accommodate 107 stalls on-site. The plan also involves housing 305 parking spaces in the garage to serve the companion Garden Plaza proposal (See File SA-017-87; Garden Plaza). These 305 spaces are included in the 1,178 stall count. 2. The yellow file containing the staff report, the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) documentation and other pertinent materials was entered into the record as Exhibit #1. 3. The Environmental Review Committee (ERC), the City's responsible official issued a determination of non-significance (DNS) for the subject proposal. The determination was subject to a list of conditions which the ERC imposed to mitigate the impacts of the proposal. 4. The subject proposal was reviewed by all departments with an interest in the matter. 5. The subject site is located between Park Avenue North and Logan Avenue North, between North 6th Street and the alignment of North 7th Street, if that street were extended. The site formerly housed the City's Mothers Park complex. The building is located more or less on the south end of a rather large superblock dominated by a portion of the Boeing complex to the north. 6. The front entrance of the proposed office building will be located on N. Park. The building will be approximately 110 feet deep and approximately 225 feet long. 7. The 800 N. 6th Building also owned by the applicant is located southwest and provides an accurate image of the subject proposal, containing almost identical style elements including the footprint, mirrored walls (a different tint might be used), and rounded corners. A major departure for this building is a proposed skybridge connecting the principle use, the proposed office building, to the garage located across Park Avenue, east of the site. 8. The proposed skybridge would be approximately 140 feet long. The skybridge would be attached to the office building on the west end and the garage on the east end. Supporting pillars would be located approximately 25 feet from the office building on the west and approximately 18 feet from the garage on the east.. The pillars would be clad in granite. A similar granite finish is also proposed for the lower exterior of the skybridge. The remainder of the finish would match the mirrored exterior of the office building. The skybridge would span approximately 78 feet of public right-of-way, including the 44 foot Park Avenue driving lanes, two 8 foot sidewalks, and 18 feet of other right-of-way. The skybridge would be located twenty-three (23) feet above the surface of Park Avenue N. . 9. The 1,178 stall parking garage matches the office building's width, approximately 110 feet wide. The garage extends the full depth of the lot and block, running approximately 325 feet through from Park on the west to Garden on the east. 10. Zoning in the vicinity is a mix of•H-1 (Heavy Industry), L-1 (Light Industry), B-1 and R-4 (High Density Multiple Family) and R-2 (Duplex Residential). An H-1 district is located immediately east of the subject site and continues north and generally encompasses Pacific Car and Foundry properties and Boeing properties in this vicinity. The L-1 district is located generally southeast of the subject site. The office building site is zoned B-1, while the garage site is zoned H-1. I . li E & H Properties SA-055-87 October 16, 1987 Page 3 11. A corridor of B-1 zoning runs the length of Park Avenue, starting just north of North 6th Street and continuing south to Bronson Way where it enters the Sunset B-1 district. West of the B-1 district is an R-4 district generally comprised of older single family homes. There are some scattered smaller apartment buildings, including one southwest of the subject site. A similarly developed district, that is, predominantly single family homes, is the R-2 district located west and east of Park and south of North 4th Street. 12. The subject site is part of the original townsite of the City of Renton. The entire site was originally zoned H-1. The portion of the site planned to hold the office building was rezoned to B-1, its current classification, with the adoption of Ordinance 4001 enacted in June, 1986. 13. An apartment building is located along the north side of N. 6th just east of the 800 6th Building. The illustrative exhibit, Exhibit 9, does not show this apartment complex, rather it shows a potential building which is taller than those now existing or proposed. Similarly, the model shows the corner lot at N. 6th and Park with an additional building identical to that now proposed, except it would not have a skybridge. Again, that building does not exist. 14. The proposed office building will be seven (7) stories in height containing approximately 181,277 sq. ft. The building will be generally rectangular, although the corners have been rounded. As indicated above, the building, with the exception of the skybridge, will be almost identical to the existing 800 6th Avenue building located on the north side of 6th, just east of Williams. 15. The garage will be five stories, with the fifth story an open roof-top parking surface. 305 spaces will serve the proposed Garden Plaza building. The remaining stalls would serve the principle use, the Park Plaza building. 16. Utilities serving the site consist of a 6 inch water line along 6th and a 12 inch line along Park in this area; a 6 inch sewer line is located along Park and an 8 inch sewer line is along 6th. Storm water is combined with the sanitary sewer in this area. 17. Eight Metro Transit lines serve the site along Park. 18. Coulon Park is located approximately one half mile north of the site, with the Cedar River Trail located a similar distance to the west, paralleling the Cedar River. 19. The map element of the Comprehensive Plan designates the area in which the subject site is located as suitable for the development of recreational uses, probably reflecting its former use, Mothers Park, and heavy industrial uses. The map does not mandate such development without consideration of other policies of the plan. The map would appear to suggest commercial development along the Park frontage with heavy industrial uses located to the east of the frontage. 20. The proposal is estimated to generate approximately 2,600 vehicle trips per day (ERC determination). Approximately 490 to 500 of those trips would be generated during the PM peak hour. 21. The companion Garden Plaza proposal will generate an estimated 3,516 vehicle trips per day, with approximately 700 of those trips during the PM peak hour. 22. These estimates work out to approximately 12 vehicle trips per 1,000 gsf. Staff indicated that the 12 vehicle trip figure is generally lower than the historical numbers that Boeing, the applicant's tenant, has usually generated. Boeing has in the past, and with their expansions now projected, could again, maintain an increased occupancy. What this means is that Boeing has generally had an employee-to-floor area ratio considerably higher than normal occupancies. All the traffic projections are based upon ordinary occupancy loads. Any increase, even one or two employees per office unit, could reasonably be expected to drive the traffic counts even higher. 23. The North Renton Transportation Study is available separately for review. At this point the City Council is still reviewing the traffic data. Information from it has been selected for inclusion in this decision. .Projections indicate that approximately 50% of this proposal's traffic will pass through the North Renton residential areas utilizing Park, Garden, N. 3rd and N. 4th Streets. Approximately 23% will enter the neighborhood south of N. 3rd, again generally utilizing Park and Garden. 24. Estimates are that all roads in the vicinity will see increased usage. There will be increases of approximately 26% for Park and Garden north of N. 4th; approximately 23% for Park and Garden south of N. 3rd; and approximately 10% for both Park and Garden south of N. 8th. E & H Properties SA-055-87 October 16, 1987 Page 4 25. The existing LOS (Level of Service) for various streets is contained within the Study. LOS is a Qualitative measure of traffic congestion in that terms such as "desirable" and "acceptable" are used to convey meaning: with LOS C considered desirable; LOS D considered acceptable; LOS E indicating a backup with at least one change of light necessary for a vehicle to clear the intersection; and LOS F representing serious congestion and intolerable delays ("failure with maximum delay conditions" - Garden Plaza traffic report). LOS E has further been defined as representing full capacity or "operating conditions at or near capacity with difficulty in maneuver operations" (ibid). These LOS designation are enumerated as follows: Park at: Garden at: Logan at: Bronson B ! E N. 3rd B B A N. 4th B B B N. 6th N. 8th C C wb* D eb* N. l0th C N/A Lake Wash F F Sunset ! E Airport B (* wb:westbound, eb:eastbound) 26. Most of these intersections are projected to decrease by one LOS, that is an LOS of B would deteriorate to an LOS of C. 27. An additional traffic report, Exhibit 13, referring to a map on Page 12, states at Page 13: "Two intersections are at LOS F currently, and each will be further stressed by project traffic: - Park/Garden/Lake Washington Boulevard - N. 3rd Street at Sunset." 28. LOS F also is shown on the map (Exhibit 13) for the intersection of Bronson and Sunset but apparently this was omitted from the text. The Table on Page 16 also overlooks this intersection with its LOS F. Again, LOS F is defined as intersection failure. 29. Page 11 of Exhibit 13 states: "The North Renton arterial system currently operates internally at acceptable levels of service (in terms of the ITE definitions, and the LOS D or better standard desired by the ;City of Renton). However, it breaks down to "intolerable" operating conditions at the arterial convergence points approaching freeway interchange locations. This is a common situation throughout King County ,- and may be unavoidable." 30. The record reflects a potential for a decreased level of service, or in the alternative, an extended P.M. peak. That is, one could expect a longer or extended evening rush hour. The traffic studies would appear to indicate that with the wide range of traffic enhancement measures adopted by the ERC, the levels of service can be maintained as they are or somewhat improved. 31. Testimony from neighboring business owners as well as nearby residents disputes the accuracy of the LOS method for this area. Casting some doubt on a methodology which calculates LOS based upon traffic numbers and street and intersection widths (Webster Method utilizing optimum cycles) is the severe backups they report on more than the three "failing" intersections. A truer picture may be better reflected by experience and reality. The record reflects that backups and delays occur over an extended time frame beginning most days at approximately 3:00 to 3:30 P.M. and extending to 6:00 P.M. Intersections are blocked, left turns nearly impossible, and pedestrian passage risky at best. Insurance rates for residents are higher reflecting the additional traffic which passes through the neighborhood. This information is not conveyed in calculations based upon ITE Manuals but could be reflected in accident rates. 32. Traffic accident rates for nearby intersections for the three years 1984 to 1986 are included in the traffic reports. The intersection of N. 3rd/Park had 13, 17 and 12 accidents in the three years; N. 4th/Park had 8, 16 and 13 accidents in that time frame; N. 6th/Park had 3, 5 and 3; and N. 3rd and Garden had 3, 3 and 6 accidents. E & H Properties SA-055-87 October 16, 1987 Page 5 33. The traffic studies and the applicant indicate that employee consolidations from other buildings in the area will modify the traffic impacts projected as the actual numbers of new employees would be reduced by such consolidations. They also indicate that a "different" worker profile would probably result in a shift of the PM peak; that is, a larger,.white collar,work force working different hours or shifts. 34. The applicant is responsible for certain on and off-site right-of-way improvements which are requirements at the building permit stage. In addition, the ERC imposed certain requirements which they determined would be directly attributable to the development of the subject site, and finally, staff determined that the applicant was responsible for $512,200 worth of traffic mitigation fees for a yet to be formed benefit district. Traffic related measures'imposed by the ERC follow: b. That the applicant up-grade the Garden Avenue North/Lake Washington Boulevard intersection to a level of service (LOS) of D. c. That the applicant share in the cost of up-grading the traffic signal at North 6th Street and Garden Avenue North. d. That the applicant provide five lanes on Park Avenue North between North 5th Street and the north property line of the site. e. That the applicant participate to a maximum amount of $20,000 in the rebuilding of the traffic signal at North 6th Avenue (sic) and Park. g. That the applicant agree to realign the existing signal at the intersection of North 8th Avenue and North Park Avenue. h. That the applicant pay their fair share of the cost of signalizing the east and west legs of the Garden Avenue North and North 8th Street Intersections. (The lower case letters identifying the conditions are taken from the ERC determination, although differing versions have been submitted. The conditions above differ in some respects from those imposed upon the Garden Plaza proposal.) 35. The seven story office building will be clad in mirrored glass. The architect indicated it may vary from the silver shade used in the 800 6th building. 36. The mirrored exterior can exacerbate the glare problems inherent in any all glass structure. Particular problems occur during the winter months when a low sun angle combines with the building's reflectivity to produce glare. Similar problems can occur during the equinoxes. Sometimes the glare is merely objectionable, but occasionally glare is dangerous and can interfere with the vision of pedestrians or the operators of motor vehicles. Obviously terrain and surrounding buildings can intercept or redirect glare. The glare situation is different than that presented by the Garden building. In this case the building is located mid-block, presenting less surface directly onto adjacent streets, although its south exposure is not yet sheltered by other buildings. Glare from the proposed building may present problems to drivers affecting peripheral vision more than a head-on problem. The use of special glazing materials can reduce the problem and the ERC required that reflective glass be located interior to a double pane window to reduce the potential problem. The mirrored skybridge could cause problems. 37. The office building, like the Garden Plaza building, will be approximately 90 feet tall, the garage is approximately 50 feet tall. The front of the building will be set back approximately 35 to 40 feet from the right-of-way. Landscaping and a drop-off lane will be accommodated in this area. A seating area located near the southeast corner of the building may serve a cafeteria/lunchroom, although the applicant's plans were not definite in this regard. 38. Surface parking will surround the building on three sides, on the north, west and east, providing an open area and form of setback. 39. The applicant has provided wider than normal sidewalks, providing 8 feet of width to accommodate the pedestrians/employees of the building. A drop-off lane has been provided along Park to allow passengers to be dropped off without hampering the traffic flow. 40. The proposed skybridge is intended to provide a grade separated pedestrian link between the garage and office building. In addition, the applicant has proposed using paving stones or other material to delineate a pedestrian crossing mid-block between the garage and the office building directly under the skybridge. Staff has indicated that such a crossing would have to be reviewed for a number of safety criteria, if it were even permitted. E & H Properties SA-055-87 October 16, 1987 Page 6 41. The garage is not as clearly delineated as that proposed for the Garden Plaza building. That proposal included clear references to roof top seating area, planter boxes, etc. Plans for this garage remain less defined. 42. The entire perimeter of the building will be landscaped. The south boundary line will not be landscaped as landscaping materials have been proposed around the building to soften its straight walls. This building does not provide the visual interest found in the Garden Plaza building, being merely a duplicate of the 800 building. 43. The landscape theme will be continued around the garage where approximately 20 feet of landscaping would be provided on the north, east and south walls. 20 feet of landscaping plus additional street trees would front the Park'facade of the garage. 44. Access to the garage is apparently provided;by two driveways. Both access points are along Park, one near the north corner, the other near the south corner. A corresponding driveway south of the office building, aligned with the garage driveway, would provide one access to the surface parking around the office building.j The other driveway would be located north of the building. i I 45. The ERC required the applicant to enter into a transportation management plan with Metro, with credit available if the number of trips!were reduced. 46. Air pollution from the additional cars was not considered in any of the documentation. Testimony at both the rezone hearing and this hearing indicated that the area may be a non- attainment area, but there was no clear response at the rezone hearing and nothing was submitted to clarify the matter at this time What is known is that soot from automobile exhaust stains homes, furnishings and clothing. It is obvious that an additional 2,000 to 4,000 trips per day would increase the air pollution level. CONCLUSIONS • 1. The decision in this matter parallels the decision in the Garden Plaza matter issued earlier. The ' site plan is not approved. While this site is zoned appropriately, issues relating to traffic and the impact on the community have not been clearly resolved. To demonstrate that the issue is not as simple as the applicant attempted to i portray it, takes no more than passing reference to the fact that the City Council has engaged in considerable debate over the potential traffic impacts which new development in this area may generate. These issues relating to traffic have not been resolved and they need resolution: This site plan is as clearly affected by traffic matters as is the Garden Plaza project - a matter that has not been resolved This office will again provide the City Council with a complete list of positive conclusions regarding the project to enable them to make an informed decision on this current request if an appeal is filed. Again, doubt exists with too many questions about impacts unanswered. • 2. Many of the following conclusions remain unchanged and this office apologizes if the reader becomes bored. Before going on, some prefatory remarks. Tastes differ on matters such as aesthetics and architectural fashion, especially in areas as highly charged as color and exterior treatment, as well as on whether building styles will "age" well or become dated. This building • is not as interesting as the Garden Plaza Building, rather it replicates the existing 800 6th Building, thereby denying observers the visual interest Garden provided. Again, features such as the mirrored finish are not subject to review, except where impacts such as reflectivity and glare could create adverse effects. 3. The project appears reasonably well designed, with a reasonable layout. It obviously can't be faulted for being out of place or incompatible with its immediate surroundings. Similarly clad buildings are the 500 Park, southeast of this site and 800 N. 6th Building west of the site. 4. With a combination of developer proposed measures and the additional measures that were to be imposed by the City - landscaping, pedestrian spaces and seating areas - the proposal would provide relief from the otherwise austere complexes in the area and from the ordinary office building style which is generally built lot line to lot line. The site nearly succeeds as an office park, but again, the density and bulk of structures with the obvious absence of a large plaza and other open spaces, and the intrusion of major arterials, prevents the entire complex from achieving true office park, campus style amenities. This building provides less relief than the proposed Garden Plaza building. 5. The proposed skybridge is;in need of extensive discussion but this decision will limit the discussion to only some obvious issues. Staff has itself provided very little discussion on the proposed skybridge to connect the Park Plaza Building and its associated parking garage. The two structures are across from each other, on opposite sides of Park Avenue, and the applicant proposes bridging Park by erecting a skybridge between the two structures. E & H Properties SA-055-87 October 16, 1987 Page 7 6. The Zoning Code makes no provision for such a structure. The record only makes a brief reference that the matter was referred to the Mayor's Office with little or no additional information. 7. This office takes notice of the fact that the City of Seattle has attempted to prohibit the introduction of new skybridges and restrict or require removal of old skybridges. Seattle attempted to eliminate or limit the skybridge between the King County Courthouse and the county jail. Seattle adopted legislation to limit the "proliferation and adverse affects" of skybridges. Protracted litigation on the subject of the skybridge over 4th Avenue occurred. The Washington Supreme Court agreed that Seattle had the right to regulate its own streets and the right to order the removal of an existing skybridge. (The Board of Regents v. Seattle, 108 Wn.2d 545 (1987)). 8. Sections 4-711(D)(1)(a) and (b) require positive front yard setbacks from the street. The proposed skybridge would not provide the required setbacks, not only that, it would extend out, over and across the street. The skybridge violates the stated provisions. 9. Traffic Engineering would like to see a grade separation of cars and pedestrians, that is, the removal of all pedestrians from at-grade crossings of streets to avoid any potential conflicts between these two groups. Even if the skybridge were a good idea from the aspect of separating foot traffic from vehicular traffic, it would appear that before the City approves this new skybridge the urban design aspects of the idea should receive extensive study. Since a tunnel, possibly more expensive, but not anywhere near as visually intrusive, could serve the same purpose, there does not appear any reason to approve this request absent an ordinance allowing such a use. The request should not lightly be passed upon with the limited amount of examination it has received by staff. 10. At one time skybridges represented a futuristic vision of cities - they were modern engineering marvels. Later they appear to have been found to be intrusive visual impediments to open spaces and clean sight lines and potential safety hazards, momentarily distracting drivers driving under them. 11. Again, it would appear that an ordinance change is necessary to accommodate the applicant's skybridge. Until such time, and keeping in mind the City's almost absolute discretion over its rights-of-way, the skybridge should not be approved. If the Council does consider the proposal, time limits which provide the City an option to have the structure removed should be seriously considered. While one skybridge is located within the area, absent a clear legislative intent to permit skybridges, this proposed skybridge should be denied. 12. This office would also go so far as to suggest that the Board of Public Works is not empowered to approve the request since they do not apparently have any power to avoid the setback provisions contained within the Zoning Code. Again, like many aspects of this proposal, haste may have deterred reasonable analysis of the proposed skybridge. 13. With the general introduction aside and with the issue of the skybridge settled, what prevents approval of the proposal as a whole are the unanswered questions remaining in the mind of the decision-maker. The traffic study appears to provide few concessions to reality, rather isolating its discussions to qualitative levels of service (LOS) such as desirable, acceptable, etc., where these terms do not equate with ordinary usage when applied to roads with considerable congestion. There is no discussion of air pollution when parking garages are known contributors to increased pollution. Is the area a non-attainment area regarding air quality, and if so, what is the impact of this proposal? There is scant discussion of the impacts of this development on the North Renton or Kennydale areas. There is no discussion of the impacts of the reconstruction of I-405. Also ignored is the role of the lessee, the Boeing Company - its plans, its potential employee densities, its opinion, acquiescence or enthusiastic acceptance of new roads through its complex - it is the prime beneficiary of the proposed buildings. (If these new alignments are not located within the Boeing complex, that is just one more indication that sufficient information was not provided for decision-making.) 14. Traffic: There can be no argument, the existing traffic problems and the potential traffic problems loom large in the rejection, but there are other issues. (See below). The various traffic reports, even the newest North Renton Transportation Study (now, apparently, there are newer studies), fail to provide much substance regarding the residential communities potentially affected by any increased traffic load. The Study and its predecessors all fail to talk realistically about the existing traffic. While the LOS information may be invaluable for dealing with statistics and conveying to Traffic Engineers the status of a roadway, an informative talk of how long intersections are backed up during the peak hours would better enable a discussion of the problems and perceived problems. The neighbors and some of those who work in the area clearly identified that intersections are backed up for.a substantially longer period than the E & H Properties SA-055-87 October 16, 1987 Page 8 3:30 to 4:30 P.M. cited in the reports; that more than one or two signal sequences are necessary for vehicles to clear intersections; that driveways are unusable and pedestrians and "left-turners" are at risk. The accident statistics for the vicinity intersections are high. 15. These traffic reports also take for granted the heavy traffic along residential streets such as N. 4th. Designated arterials or not, these streets are residents' front yards. These people apparently have little relief from the traffic'between approximately 3:00 P.M. and 5:30 P.M. Air pollution is a current problem. The homes, clothes and interiors are damaged or soiled by soot. Now, maybe these single family homes no longer belong here! Maybe single family living should be abandoned in this area. If so, then it should be a conscious decision, not attained by slow suffocation under traffic and air pollution, not attained by attrition, either. (See below for Cedar River Corridor Strategy discussion and future planning decisions). 16. It is simplistic to suggest, as the traffic studies do, that 70 percent to possibly 90 percent of the traffic in the area is through traffic with neither an origin nor destination in Renton and more or less wave it away with that pronouncement or suggest that it be forced elsewhere. Even if that pass through traffic has no reason to be on Renton's streets, it is there. This traffic must be accommodated along with the new traffic which would be generated by the proposal. While a wider I-405 may help some, that's not evident from the record, and what will happen while it is being widened. There are only limited ways of navigating between Tukwila (I-5) and Bellevue (I-90) - Renton streets would appear to be one of the possible two alternatives, the other being I-405. Lake Washington and the hilly terrain to the east restrict other alternatives. 17. This office is left confused or at least unclear regarding the references which were made to employee consolidations, that is, the movements of employees from other buildings in the area to this complex. One reference was the relocation from one of the Renton Place buildings, presumably one of those located along Grady, but no consideration was given to the potential leasing of some of those spaces to other employers with other employees. 18. Along this same line, both the applicant and the traffic reports indicate that there might be a shift in the peak hour or the peak hour numbers because of a different type of employee. Supposedly the employee base would represent more white collar workers on a different work schedule. Query: If true, then how can a consolidation of already existing employees change their status and thereby modify the impact I.on the peak hours? Presumably the white collar/blue collar ratios should not change for a simple consolidation? (Page 4, North Renton Transportation Study). If automation, change in employee base or other factor is the reason, it's certainly not in the record. Is one to presume that some factor is at work, without reference to a factual basis? 19. There is a lot of conjecture about the relocation of employees from one location to another, but nothing which guarantees such actions. Also nothing in the record suggests that some of the spaces would not be re-utilized by other employees if a crunch came. Should an employee density limit be imposed so that the traffic remains at least at the levels predicted? 20. The traffic report is a careful assessment of the theoretical or hypothetical efficiencies of roads of a certain cross-section where cars and trucks accelerate and decelerate in optimum fashion, where driveways and turning cars do not intrude, where morning and evening darkness and wet roads do not slow traffic, where the occasional pedestrian does not jay walk and where no one is able to observe the daily traffic flows. The traffic flow in this area can be observed and intersections rated LOS A and B in the various studies are frequently congested and belie those levels of service reported. 21. Simply, there has been no complete discussion of this proposal, its companion proposal to the southeast, the cause of these proposals - Boeing's surging sales and work force, what part Boeing can play, they own land which might be necessary to accommodate the traffic their employees, the applicant's tenants, will generate. Might there not be a condition that Boeing take some responsibility and dedicate the necessary alignments that the traffic reports suggest? (Again, information on the alignments was not adequately presented, but should be available to the City Council when it reviews other related aspects of traffic in the area.) 22. If staff could reasonably require the removal of the third party, Paccar, propane tanks, it seems equally reasonable to require acquisitions or potential acquisitions of right-of-way necessary to accommodate traffic generated by this proposal. The City may utilize its power to condemn right-of-way which is needed in the public benefit, and it is not all that inappropriate to require the applicant to pay for the acquisition. E & H Properties SA-055-87 October 16, 1987 Page 9 23. The need was cited for Boeing to have its employees in a centralized location and this was a suitable place for such consolidation. The question is: can this be accommodated without too many adverse impacts? Maybe such a concentration of employees with the potential traffic impacts suggested is unwarranted. Maybe Renton has no business inquiring of Boeing's plans, but considering the impact Boeing has on the City - traffic, tax base, employee/residents - the City may need to know, even if it is not entitled to know. 24. What about additional levels of traffic on Lake Washington Boulevard. Currently the poor levels of service at Park/Garden/Lake Washington meter traffic but would more traffic create backups along the boulevard? Recent changes (stop signs, speed limit reduction) were implemented to alleviate some of the traffic problems - what would be the impact of new and greater traffic on the Kennydale neighborhood? 25. The quite subjective English translations of the various Levels of Service differ substantially from the information residents and employees paint of the area. Streets/intersections with LOS C apparently are quite frequently backed up and multiple stop light changes are necessary for one to proceed through a given intersection. Therefore, one has to question whether some of the measures suggested for easing problems might help, when it may be that the severity of the problem was not accurately estimated in the first place. 26. What is apparent is that while Traffic Engineering estimates help with certain determinations and may provide reasonable indications of traffic in general, the methods may not always reflect the actual situation in a given area or neighborhood. This should not be read as an indictment of traffic projections, in this case there seem to be discrepancies. 27. Neighborhood Impacts: Upscale development, and this proposal is upscale in terms of both apparent quality and size, cannot but have an affect on the nearby residential North Renton neighborhood. It is difficult to determine affects on property values. It would appear reasonable to expect this new development to increase values for adjoining property which is zoned similarly. What is just as probable is that it could decrease values for low density residential uses, since many people seeking residential amenities prefer quiet neighborhoods with minimal traffic. And probably as a low density residential area, this area would seem less than desirable. The mixed character of the zoning does not simplify the question. A change in the zoning of the residential areas might cause values to increase, but the record is incomplete. 28. How these impacts would affect the neighborhood is unanswered. How this proposal comports with the observations found in the City's Cedar River Corridor Strategy is not dealt with by any analysis. What was classified in that document as an affordable, low density, close-in neighborhood has to be affected by these uses. But how? Unanswered. Policy Development indicated that approval of the proposed complex would not necessarily have an impact on the long range planning now underway for the entire North Renton area. At the same time Policy Development hinted that while it is de facto a single family neighborhood, it is in fact zoned for more intense residential uses, and that its single family status was probably in jeopardy. 29. It appears almost inevitable that this status would change. Not only would there be the increased traffic, but the commercialization of the area between Boeing/Paccar and the Central Business District will hasten the transition of the North Renton residential area. The Comprehensive Plan and the Cedar River Strategy may just present conflicting visions. The Comprehensive Plan - hasten the change in older transition areas; the Cedar Strategy - conserve an interesting single family neighborhood. 30. But if the North Renton area is going to change because the neighborhood is sandwiched between downtown Renton and the Boeing complex, and Boeing needs to expand and be served, shouldn't there be a reasoned, deliberative process? Shouldn't it be positively demonstrated that Boeing and the area can be served as proposed. It is now an obvious fact that this is primarily a single family neighborhood (and one zoned R-2 and R-4 a fact which is, or was, overlooked by many residents) whose smaller streets minimally meet R-1 traffic needs and certainly do not meet modern city standards for either commercial development or more intense residential development. 31. There has been no suggestion of how this additional traffic will impact air quality merely guesses that if the traffic moves through more freely, itself a doubtful conclusion, that air quality will not deteriorate. Garages such as that proposed here are known sources of additional air pollution, concentrating more than 1,000 vehicles in a rather confined area. 32. The issue is not merely reducible to whether the proposal relates well to its immediate site. Conclusions on those issues will follow as promised. The Ordinance clearly identifies its purposes: "To promote the orderliness of community growth, protect and enhance property values and minimize discordant and undesirable impacts of development both on and off-site." E & H Properties SA-055-87 October 16, 1987 Page 10 (Section 4-738(A)(2)). "To ensure convenience and safety of vehicular and pedestrian movement within the site and in relation to adjacent areas." (Section 4-738(A)(2)). These two purposes are applicable to the North Renton neighborhood and to Kennydale. The applicant's recognition of the interplay is evidenced by his reference to the Coin-5..1's recent changes to the Lake Washington Boulevard corridor to reduce the traffic impacts on the Kennydale low density neighborhood. In Kennydale's case it is generally developed, zoned and designated in the Comprehensive Plan for low density uses. What are the impacts of this proposal on those areas? 33. The applicant suggested that we get on with'the process, that since no appeal was filed from the DNS, the merits of the matters be reached. Renton Code permits appeals of the environmental determination up until the date of the hearing on the merits, if errors below exist. In addition, the decision-maker, while he may be bound Iby the DNS, still needs sufficient information to issue a reliable decision. Not only is sufficient information necessary, but the information must also be reliable. As indicated above, one needs sufficient information to thoroughly ground a decision. The suggestion to the City Council to remand the rezone matter back to the ERC still stands. While the applicant deemed the environmental process complete, the decision-maker has to rely on the SEPA information as supplemented by the information conveyed at the public • hearing. The simple admission by the ERC pin its DNS that it might not have jurisdiction for the imposition of some of its conditions is strange, even if the applicant accepted the conditions. WAC 197-11-360 states: "(1) If the responsible official determines that a proposal may have a probable significant adverse environmental impact, the responsible official shall prepare and issue a determination of significance (DS)... That is "may" not "will" or "shall." 34. The review of this proposal is not very different from the review of the Garden Plaza site plan. , While the Council was not necessarily awaiting this decision for its rezone review, this decision- maker would have appreciated a resolution of traffic and other issues by the City Council prior to issuing this decision. Since those issues have not been resolved in favor of the applicant on very similar projects, a denial seems best, although, this decision could have been held until the Council resolved those other issues. 35. As with the Garden Plaza project - one word of caution, as awkward as it may be, this decision is subject to separate appeal. That procedure should be clarified to all. 36. These conclusions began with passing reference to the substance of the proposal, a seven story office building and associated garage. If the above issues were resolved in its favor, the project appears well designed, introducing one of the first multilevel parking structures into the City, a rather pleasant change from usurping acres Iof land for asphalt surfaces. Again, though, the skybridge does not appear to be a permissible use under existing ordinances. 37. The Code provides a long, almost endless list of criteria against which to judge a site plan. The following analysis will run generally through those items not covered in the above conclusions. 38. The proposal is generally compatible with the commercial goals of the Comprehensive Plan. The development would be in an area apparently well served by utilities as required by the plan. The use seems almost certain to upgrade the immediate area from vacant or low rise to high tech office space. 39. It has greater than required setbacks, landscaping and pedestrian amenities, again, excluding from consideration the skybridge. 40. The use is generally well segregated from adjoining uses but this could change if the applicant develops other nearby proposals which could shadow or shade each other. 41. The site plan appears to present a well designed building. It mimics the 800 6th building and is not as rich in detail as the proposed Garden Plaza building. 42. The parking garage alone will save the City from many additional acres of asphalt. 43. The setbacks from the street and from adjoining uses would appear to provide for adequate light and air for both the subject proposal and for adjoining properties. 44. The air pollution questions related to the garage and general traffic remain, but the office use itself should not appreciably add to noise, odors and other harmful or unhealthy conditions. 45. The impact on the immediate area should not cause any deterioration or blight. At least nothing is evident on this subject. E & H Properties SA-055-87 October 16, 1987 Page 11 46. The south driveways from the office building and garage are located across from each other and align well which would appear to minimize turning conflicts. The northerly driveways of each do not align and could lead to conflicts. • 47. There do not appear to be any appreciable undesirable impacts related to the proposed structures and site layouts that would impair the use or enjoyment, or potential use, of surrounding uses and structures or the community. 48. The structure is taller than most in the area but not out of scale. The variety of heights may actually add visual interest to the area. The height is compatible with the existing zoning. 49. Sidewalks will link this building to its twin, the 800 6th building. If approved, linkage between them to the rear would seem reasonable to tie them together. 50. Development would mean the removal of the Mothers Park building and some of its landscaping, but those amenities would be replaced by new construction and new landscaping. 51. The parking garage will help limit the amount of paved or impervious surfaces created by this proposal. 52. As indicated in the findings, glare could be a problem which the record indicates was not fully explored. The proposed mirrored skybridge spanning Park could have also created glare problems, as reflection could be straight down on the road rather than reflected sideways. Provisions should be made to deal effectively with any problem, even after construction. 53. Not much analysis was provided on the circulation of the parking structure. Again, this proposal does not clearly define amenities, if any, associated with the garage, such as planter boxes, seating areas, etc. 54. Driveways will be wide to permit easy movements between the roads and driveways. Pedestrian crossings will have to be accommodated and studied carefully to provide safe crossings. 55. The drop-off lane will limit that type of interference with arterial flow and provide a convenient drop-off for members of carpools employed elsewhere. 56. To conclude, while there are a number of attractive aspects of this proposal which would cause one to welcome it to Renton, the number of unanswered questions and unresolved traffic and land use issues suggests that it be rejected at this time. DECISION The site plan is denied. ORDERED THIS 16th day of October, 1987. FRED J. K MAN HEARING E AMINER TRANSMITTED THIS 16th day of October, 1987 to the parties of record: Roger Blaylock The Blaylock Company 10717 N.E. 4th, Suite 9 Bellevue, Washington 98004 Richard Aramburu Attorney at Law 505 Madison/Suite 209 Seattle, Washington 98104 Larry Brown • 13975 Interurban Avenue South Seattle, Washington 98168 • E & H Properties SA-055-87 October 16, 1987 Page 12 Curt Beattie, Architect 100 West Harrison Plaza Seattle, Washington 98119 Lance Mueller 130 Lakeside l Seattle, Washington 98122 . James McIsaac, Engineer Transpo Group 14715 Bel-Red Road Bellevue, Washington 98007 Robert Anderson Attorney at Law P. O. Box 454 Renton, Washington 98055 Robert Cugini P. O. Box 3591 Renton, Washington 98057 Ms. Marjorie'Richter 300 Meadow Avenue North Renton, Washington 98055 Steve McBride 1220 North Fifth Renton, Washington 98055 Barbara E. Moss Director of Planning First City Equities 800 Fifth Avenue/Suite 4170 Seattle, Washington 98104 TRANSMITTED THIS 16th day of October, 1987 to the following: Mayor Barbara Y. Shinpoch Councilman Richard M. Stredicke Richard Houghton, Public Works Director Larry M. Springer, Policy Development Director Rebecca Lind,;Policy Development Department Members, Renton Planning Commission Ronald Nelson, Building & Zoning Director Don Erickson, ;Zoning Administrator Gary Norris, Traffic Engineer Glen Gordon, Fire Marshal Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Renton Record-Chronicle tl Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the Examiner is based on erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact, error in judgment, or the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing may make a written request for a review by the Examiner within fourteen (14) days from the date of the Examiner's decision, October 30, 1987, 5:00 PM. This request shall set forth the specific errors relied upon by such appellant, and the Examiner may, after review of the record, take further action as he deems proper. An appeal to the City Council is governed by Title IV, Section 3016, which requires that such appeal be filed with the City Clerk, accompanying a filing fee of $75.00 and meeting other specified requirements. Copies of this ordinance are available for inspection or purchase in the Finance Department, first floor of City Hall. The Appearance of Fairness Doctrine provides that no ex parte (private one-on-one) communications may occur concerning pending land use decisions. This means that parties to a land use decision may not communicate in private with any decision-maker, concerning the proposal. Decision-makers in the land use process include both the Hearing Examiner and members of the City Council. E & H Properties SA-055-87 October 16, 1987 Page 13 All communications concerning the proposal must be made in public. This public communication permits all interested parties to know the contents of the communication and would allow them to openly rebut the evidence. Any violation of this doctrine would result in the invalidation of the request by the Court. The Doctrine applies not only to the initial public hearing but to all Requests for Reconsideration as well as Appeals to the City Council. Pursuant to Title IV, Section 3015 of the City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 P.M. An appeal to the City Council is governed by Title IV, Section 3016, which requires that such appeal be filed with the City Clerk, accompanying a filing fee of $75.00 and meeting other specified requirements. Copies of this ordinance are available for inspection or purchase in the Finance Department, first floor of City Hall. 1 g 1, .., ip.••___,r t 1 ,' ,.., s\—.-11----. .-—• \%.\ ii 3 :� , b3EC7' . , t.T— j . 4 . ; . /� .... - • H' 1 \\ �� -1 _ -- -' ', .„. 1 0vi 'emu>� _ Z \ w li iu.l <..'L.!' ;• ' J, --li Ian1 II ii - .• _-*—p \ v 5 i.. 1 •1 J� "-, ,� -°-1 ,- I i !. I �I 41 .I A. , -i, " 'ff i, I , -i , 1 I� C A z \ / -1 i A \ ,.._, i, , ® I � �' icy ^r-` ;i -`� ' �_1 `1 .Q Four JDRY . c� 11—H7' ,I .~�/-'-. 1.• i1 �v r..y1 ;'a_.. -_'°� �- _— Ice. r • ' • D .▪? Jd_yr!' "'-0Y- c' � g, ,( r • ' i ii.. .. ..-‹,,_;.-- -,....,......1.i__,..,,c„,,, ,. .3., 3 .------il .,- 1 , _. _. _. , ; „ ,,.._„ _ .. .._ ;. .1 ,I. 4, ,,...___ .__4: :' :77:7—10 !-T -,,`.4.,' L__; ..1.-- -7'—, —1 :1/ : : 71' I. 1 I ? , 11 : �wq � 1 , V " cc • :;a cP� ; f , � , ,__,..i. I •ti _ ., 1 -i 1• JIs- { S'U ",I :y' --•r^' 1.1 ty-.; . !r- `oe.^. - -- / '' ,ti: t• 7 +: ail' i' �Ji'_ :r. 4 -1.1 :� `, _ - `i i \ r � _ _- .;_- . ,i.I .i1 a ,� '1'i7 .�a ,.- '"l.1 _.,... - l j c 'I. '(•' ,. sue - CO : -, ,,, N‹ 'N "----.T.• .....,... n ;_?: .:,. .) 7:4' .. : .7,4 ...' •!—.:::'.. : Ltti:1,7::4 7, . .,. <fp, ... ' Ill s'—'4''''''' • .,• .... ,—h--,.• .,, . :- '2 .------• --...----7: - i - 1 L. , Imo,•.,,. s� n . ,y ., • Br 9 _.-:‘PARK PLAZA • E & H PROPERTIES SITE PLAN APPROVAL: SA-055-87 N E & H PROPERTIES • 2.09 ac. ;Bldg. only) APPLICANT TOTAL AREA 2.46 ac. jaarslge ) 4.55 ac. TOTAL ACRES PRINCIPAL ACCESS PARK AVENUE NORTH EXISTING ZONING B-1 (for office building) , H-1 (for parking structure) MOTHER'S PARK RECREATION BUILDING ON THE WEST SIDE OF PARK AVENUE AND EXISTING USE A TAVERN & PARKING LOT ON THE EAST SIDE OF PARK AVENUE.. c. PROPOSED USE PROPOSED 7-STORY OFFICE BUILDING HAVING 181,277 SQUARE FEET AND A 5-LEVEL PARKING STRUCTURE FOR APPROXIMATELY 1,178. STALLS. COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN RECREATION (west side of Park Ave. ) AND HEAVY INDUSTRIAL (east side of Park Ave. ) . . COMMENTS THE OFFICE BUILDING IS LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF PARK AVENUE NORTH APPROXIMATELY 350 FEET NORTH OF NORTH 6th STREET AND THE PARKING STRUCTURE IS ON THE EAST SIDE OF PARK AVENUE NORTH APPROXIMATELY 350 FEET NORTH OF NORTH 6th STREET. :\\ . .... , - LAND USE ELEMENT , • I I Single Family 9 I Commercial •• ,. # I . / .4146,' - .. .:.:::::...: •ritk n -:::::•:•::::::. Lowe Dtl-snFamily ity Office / Office Park .... ; ,.. (-...... •:•.:.:,:. ,:•:•:•:? ,' • at la: ...:::::: :::•.,::::. • Mul \ , . ,.....-6,.. • !moo i, : loosoonot ! in ii:i,.. i \ - iinbri. .:R .0.00 , .Mi; :'N, 1 l' 0-81-. .::::,,,, -• :::: :,::•.:::::: Medium Density „c.o.°. .0.000.00.0.00.. Public/Quasi-Public i .............•-•:•:•:. .v4 •k. 14 •.:::. Multi-Family .0.0.0.0 „,....c, i ! .•.::::::•:••••444,. . /..1111.1.:51..,:::.,::.::::.:, ;oy.• ' ' il 7 ,1, iijimmil 11111111111•111 t ,..11.4113111t ...... AWW:;': • Light Industrial , . „••,, ._. L , .• 4::::•••fin;•,is.:.:t4 • . , • • a II=1 in 7, ..." Recreation 0.0••• Heavy Industrial • • • ' :•r^:".„ 41, _____ Greenbelt :-:-:-:-:- Manufacturing Park ,-,, • . . . .. / Multiple Option , i l 7 ai'i -..,:-:::',;:c•;.--,;-,- ,::,.' Revised April 1985 iiilli ' la ''r...%•'...;-I MEOW 1 to% . • -.. • 4., tile \ -• 4, . .• ,•:•••„- :•,„•., ......, I n % ,, `• ',a, %. 11.-•, As, vg. . - 'n -- - L A I( E -6.4..i . .„ -• ,\ "6 1 #P4 1'4 WASHINGTON • I ... , r.: I I I ...i - %oN • . ',c',;.-,1 .-. i e:-.. t. # 11111141Nik . ,....?,„,.• i i'.= %. IliP # • \, .....• 0 ., i i. I- \ . A-r...:4Fis . • ' .. .e'nc.'•e' i Ism I • o-o-o ;;;;;!w-r•'•••-•-• s. `-\••• — El. ...,.7„• 111111111161---. x--" 0000 • o •- 'T\-- s --: o o o o • • 4,4 '. , . :c .:::;•:. ..•• • 1.11 ,-,•"::; ; . 11111111111-11•. ,.-, ,•-.. •t 1 M.-.•?,,0;.c.,.'.00 .111[14P,g°/1111 I1I1I1II.II1II . ,(.-iA_4,•"A'-0 0 0.0-0.-?-0•0 0 0 i1•..,.0c'.•4 o..-. •-r-.0:•'.,.,,,o.•.,:,••;••---. 0 7° o 1 7000 ' 000 10 11 . , 00 . . . . . 0 : . . .°0o0 0•900000000 • 0000 . 00 W ' ° „ 21I V 0o 0 , 0°:o0..:4i t:A".\Q:N.:.\:i':.-:,,•'•.,•.•.:''.:;..::.::•i.::;m.::•..::al.::::..:•? ....... . .... 11111 imilllin ...,•':,‘,0;0020,°,0..t: :- , L',90°0°0°0'-'r.:,: xj0 lei .0• ° • • ' —i I ' 11111.11111 ...I.,"j•,0000000.t, ,• o o O o o e c 0 o .• 0 0 o • ., , ,-• •NI14:Vottitl'67.,10.411111r ,,•-•...,'LA. ..,e,ggego4,;,,i 0 0 0 0 -4 0 0 0 ., ,nt. i'••_In. 6_0._• .. • NNE. -_-<.,... --.... -0 00„00 •1., o o o o o o o o •,• / 0 0 • 0 , lb ...,,, 111111k- 111112.11111...111 .;"-.., - ':d'30-0-60-60-6°0--‘ 0 0 0 0 I 0 0 0 ,,.• 31'" 0 0 0 0 0 ,-• ,-• -,:': ' -0°0°0°0°0 I. oo • 000g ":‘,:t;-1,1- 000 ", ,": •••'0°0°0°0°0 a : Igq,og0g02,'t,"q 0450°.°0 ` c•0.4-4.- .0000000beec;-,•,....A `.. -,c "C-.'„_. '.. ix,. 41111117.o. -Irs" 2.9110%.1111 — • ).1.,.-..00°0.0.0°00;100.0.00.0i.„.•,....„iet,07.7.074, Ifai 0*•a• !..;,,, (11110,, .,.,;'• 0 000.bo oe .:•:.z •• .••`it- f:.-:“C• / AIRto-,1 "'0•44`;',°;SN'._Eminel.1 •-:..t 3 Aoof-.0000.0 cc 0 0 0 . .,olo o o o 49 o :-.„i . ,;r' - • r„,,.., ; • . 1..iw.4.%s'(,),g(m il.-.. 0‘70u0v ..,1; :•37.17.7.— )3,...0°0°0°0°.°e.) . . .... ,— •• ii gogog,0,0g.•.•• 0 0 0 ,4.4. 7.,•,.i.::.1:::$. ' . 0 0 0 0 0 - ... . Al;144-Wilig it ,—- - -- - • 0 0 00000 o o . -.",'' ,..•...• 0:.0 0 10; 0 ,• 77 le •Z; ;I 4467.1.44tifilOS .,a • NA 1," ,)moogg,s(0). -., 0 0.0):.F?i:•:.: - I: 0 00, 0....7.7.,,i 1,,,. ,41 .e,,,, ogq,og 10,ic;og80,4%,;(:: 00 • ' .::. 1. 000000 .0 . ,-go • r kc 40,1 4. ,,e,,,,o,o,s,,c4,10,sogw,gc:N,,,, 1 . . -, N,•: „0 . 0000 . of • i i . . .,.. 1. i ..).,•1.,._.-7-..--. .,..,,,-. -:-.2-Gr-P-s2--•"),:2,-; 15.' . ; •::„.,...i,.,. , 1. ‘ .ir.-----,..f wo-m, VOW. .• . •• • i k , • , ., ,. .•-•_,. 7.1\11:1- -' :: i.,,,,til , -''.i. c -'- . .,,,.. .,:. ,:..... ....4„: . ,, r,-, ,,,,,o,,,,,,o, J. . .,....„ __ - ,:.,:,•, ,..:,.:: - 1.it ''.'9''''''''&°°°C' 14't Min.oi'' ''''‘ .:".f.'-e•if•- ';'•-1::•-•;;' ,.IS . - ..'""lai. 0,F,c',.:.,40g0 -y;;eging!, ig-l'AtZt..:.i:•,..„.../ e if._f',,f,„5,.,.., iiii' • .••.\ 4 -$.•?..57a '''s, >y •er.• !, e .....4 Fi• . :::,,,. -:_ .. . . ... -- . .......11 -- 17•.. . _ .ri=1-1‘;‘,-.). " ,.,.. ,, . • •v.;-,:.,,,s..,.:,./,.,,.. ,.....„\--\c. 7: ... .. .1 ,„foit,,i//7 . r. : s. . - . - I I' 1 I I I . f-f- .1i i . yip_roir ,;.__„,;,',.. „;-,• ..-' - ‘ ,./D.N.;,-;:': , ,, ,., . ,, ,, . . • . „ • ., . _LI . :-: • C t'. /•• . .: : :.*-:- -'"I'. ...-..'' ;', --;.• ::;1 I.IC- 1 1-1- Li'l.- A: BB III-1-If/.*'-',41;";-------."-•-•..c. - 4--He r' ° ji. / . :'•- . ':'...'-:''::-: •• . ,;)'• !‘:`3•.:'-',..,,,.. :‘,. -Qp< ' ' ' '', - :: .. --).-'••:•••''1;\'‘: ".7'..-s'!"‘..., ; ' - ' I ril-F7- . : ':'.. 1 - - - ,,,,,- il .1 I.,- , • -.. -. , ....., • . • ' i. ----1-1-1\i-if" .''''': / •,• '''',r., t.',..1- P.), , 1, _ .q _ . ,, 1 _ : eti c r •." -:. ro-t-,...,,- •i: .:/.. -4:',r• '• (... 1 '•(.••••v• ••:',•:•:.-:•:•'• '• •''• : •' ---•--2-2--22-22------••2 : ' • •• '" -"'.• •7ff- - i-de' ' • .. '...::..=. . ri.,-,, \ :,..,:f., .,, ,,;...,dict".7i,-.- ;"•;•••:•;?::•:" .; -: =- ----------:--:- - • :••••;-::::::::::: :::;*:;i::::::;;;:::i•;•:",-' & _.,... , ,,a-:- '• :,';' '0' , :,..:-:::::i... - . ..,:---,••.:.-_,- --zz.z.:. .7.% ------- --- - -, •, -:-:•i*:: :i*:':::::X:i::' : :r::.:. Fif-i?.::•:,.:.-1:::.i.. • •..] , .--,::\,- ,. ,7-7- ---...,.:.,_ \. ,•:.... ,,.,,. :. t ::-_-_- -_-_.__ . ••••••:.:,?..mii.- .11.41,..i....a .....,:,..,:±,. :::.:•4,.: .,, 1 ,„.,..„••,,,,;•,:.-„:,• , .• ,.,:..-----Y\ -- ir:-.4.-...,;,•::•.::.-•;.? ,--- .----•-•:., -.••-.71e115-410----- -• •• • - ' is 1 " ri::• ;a::4,4.4%.,11•,;: • ::";1" RI ,r, .,1;., ••••,4,•. •• . . -•-•.i- •••"-..;:.' . . 1/4-,,,'Mt '. •:-.=-:-.;.---42-ftic-ef---:-.------- --,- -- --:------ -- J1 11. 1 ,.., , ,, , I 1:.:.:';.': ,::::V';'• ' •.-iirm . wa !..,, - '--.,--is ; \,..\ 1 ' ...,,•t--„„1,: --Epit140- .0°0 0 c ,-----------_-_- _-__-:._-_ -_-_- aflin iii 45.N. 1 •000 one it • ...;',..-.4,....Q - ___ ' 0 0 0 0.00,:,;.:,,.- `i_-_-_-_-_-_-_-'_- _-_-_ -_-_- NUMMI?MEN 1111•00, gm triN. c-r r'•^ • ------------- :.°0°090°C 0 0 0\- -' -3_ r . , — r.'('''.01: c. --------- '''-'•°"'''-':' -----_—_—_- -_ loam :INN ilinIL:„.no -111111,! -'-. / . fg e:5,:z ..t., ' _:__-__:_:_.oco'bovg1)00.,.:0.000' ...:,...--..„-=_:_:___-_I=-_-____,_________: urnr,,,,,,E.rallarl. 0•000, .-. f'.....,:,;7,.. -_-_- .....000000000000000000 ..r.:• _-_-_-_-_ •-.... -_,-_-_-- .., r...........„,,1 1 ' .• it, -c, -_.„-_--.000.0.00.00.0 .-,-. ---- ---- i \ lil-4.0......0'0 t 2 to,)0.0000 00 c,. .• ..e'. :-.q, •cr,. . - • .,, , ;k :,./ .-:i : :::.:':•11't.-.';‘,"•I's"•;;•V<;:, "•'''''-' •:,0; " ....., . .... •..0.0.0.00.00. ..... _-_-_-_-_ -_,,r4210411041-: 1 L mmmmm NJ moms i ilo •4-- .•:::::•:::::•:•:::•:::::::::::-• -•.''A ., .:,, .C.D... 000000000000000 - --- a.rsa--,,..0.. ,ape— Jr,- ._. ,. •00000000000000,.... -:,• •._--•. ._-40 I - - - . • •••(.7.:,‘ _..----.. • 0000000000coo .' .ff- . . .:r.".. 4_.',:h.. •,-: • Anoc:,i arras ...... s]iaarirm"Ht ® �/ . .ill taus a.Haan / 1 .. iii - T 1 1 1 . 1 •moo Prom Pin win I o mu ouvActiOupsaids II . � ,I ' eeu1 ePeilsding r y r 1 jk .,___.,., ; sail 11130319 POWUJKgRlW I _' .. i,,, 1 _ • .. . . • . itTA7 ---.:.,b.-. --•...- 7.• ,(-2-; -.--li. (vovio 1 1 oir 0.....i.' 7,...„Hdii:i) : -,-)." _ .•.. . ! I l -ii , • , 7 . if 0 I ! _ ! is� � � 1 il 11 Il i ! ( � : y - •" - 1 _ � �. � - - „e :_.3 •. . 1 .. ri._ t.:, ,,,.._, ,.,.., .,.._ _ . .• im- ,,,,,,_.„ ! � II I! ,• i_ ' „ „ , I , , • I ...... (..;, 1it — II1li t' e 11 1. LLII I I ' I I — — . NOR 1 ' . �� . O i 00,1! V MIurioo 0 • . I edw"-- — - ---- --}- • III 1 1i'l; 1 1 • - - - z ;i:------.- -- -�- -i-+ — 41 f l - __rt - _ I -t- i FIi il _ __ !y IH " III - ----�I 1 ; --E -- - �,i r:11 -- - - -I -_ - 4 - -_._ �� — — — 1 ..r- . it la f ��{ jl�_17:m 1� - _ I a., on _• • . _...... ,, _ . ,H -- - V , 1 P P. .. - _- FL _._ ?__„.) _____ ____, , , . ..\ 1 .1 n.. r�..J i.rD,,, e.,..e...oT'o"5 B C A C / R E N T O N . D �nce eiL r .� 1 ea architects eta V M.... ,.uvniuo eva.,v`.�•'� `�• i 120 W..m.•wart.wNh.02102•202220 OM, e&h properties •w,, rnyM dataro .• i . 0 -.... • . r i - I -----rrr 1.i . 1 i. I(J, '-'-=.r.i • -- .--.1 •—G. // 4.- , - ..-.7:—%-,n1--•..".1 2 fj A 't-- ''- fi'0 'II ' .I C%-k i ' I I _,. -C _k __, ES ' I . ' • I ._ - IR l'.;', '',. -! i — , 1,-j, '• i. —(1.3) r- 1, •Q. . LI_,1 Ir' II l'1. 1 I,ft I _It.,__I ir; :-- , ,I. • I , . l?.-. 4— '',I...,!..,.., ;-..-i-_ -_--=_;--,-..—--Q• -''.....i.,.,•• ! , 1 — Fr- "--`7,-i. --(5 1 - , D -.--=.-L -,-.' .-.4.4---- (2-., ,: :r ,-. •-I II • 1 :,Ti, ; , - . , i i. , •! ....,__._-_-_-____-,-._ Q,..:,' i •.i l'' • '. .1. 17177. 1 1 I' I r 1 ,,--'.='------'-:-..--•-.H-.-=-=—.:; '"? '. I • i I 1. 1 I • : •1 :;1. ., 1 - •0 ;•.• . 1 . .1 , --- r"--r.-..-`'--H—IF (_') :l•. .. ;.. II 1 11 ' !• 1 . f Ili 1 '1 I 17.:( ri.-----.:"- # .- 1 - , f-"- 11'ii [I I i, ., , . ., . r11-17.---il t ? 111 I I 1 II: 1 I 1 I ..,.:-..-_-..--_ ••,-.--- ,i- Li li 11 7 71 r . iAv ,% ;.' , . ,,. ' 1 t'', L• • ' , I, ! fi',1 I. .• . ;z 1 `.1;t: ;I '. -‘,. -=',,'4=-1---- - ;'• G) .• . t • • y ,: , ,I,I ' .1 4 '.1. 11 i_ I ' . II r !I 13. i 1i is_i,. . . c., II I ;7 ..1' , __ 4, ',__:, - -4,—• , ,, y, •0 i '7.1' . , • - 1, - IL / JI.....__—1_1 .__..c,-; t,r,",—,1"--Ir" . __ — ._ '1,, 1 .., ,,',, ,•1 ,r., r,1:. 1 1 • *0 ! Irr 1.' ''' l l't'. • ;• 4: s' 11 1 I I 1 , 1 . .' !" !.'' ' f i i • ,. P 1 1 II • 1 _1.,..1.1.i._,:'1__. ......0, I 6 ,I, , , i, ; ,,.• , ___t. L _ i _4.,, 1 • - .• 1; (-N I l' I :: ' ,1 11 lj_ 1 I_ __,0 , ri-f J .11 liE[11 li 1 --O • r . r1,44,41•4‘., . .1-1.4.i ..-,-L.IFLE, -, _ I rice myeller BCAC 0 RENTON associates arcrittecta ala -- 130 lalms:d.•we,.wash.•41/12e•WO.LID 11553 nl%Peo.9..7i.3.frr t 186 • • October 9, 1987 OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON REPORT AND DECISION APPLICANT: E & H PROPERTIES File No.: SA-017-87, (Garden Plaza) LOCATION: Garden Plaza: Park Avenue North and Garden Avenue North between North 5th and North 6th Garden Plaza: Site plan approval to allow the construction • SUMMARY OF REQUEST: of a seven-story office building with 245,850 square feet with 1023 parking spaces provided on-site in a four-story parking structure and an additional 305 parking spaces to be provided in an off-site parking structure located approximately 350 feet from the site. Building and Zoning Department Recommendation: SUMMARY OF ACTION: Approval with conditions. BUILDING & ZONING The Building & Zoning Department Report was received DEPARTMENT REPORT: by the Examiner on September 22, 1987. PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the Building and Zoning Department Report, examining available information on file with the application, and field checking the property and surrounding area, the Examiner conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows: The hearing was opened on September 29, 1987, at 9:05 A.M. in the Council Chambers of the Renton Municipal Building. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner. The following exhibits were entered into the record: • Exhibit #1 - Yellow File SA-017-87 containing application, proof of posting and publication and other documentation pertinent to ' this request. Exhibit #2 - Site Plan Exhibit #3 - Landscape Plan Exhibit #4 - Elevation Drawing Exhibit #5 - Yellow File SA-055-87 containing application, proof of posting and publication and other documentation pertinent to this request. Exhibit #6 - Site Plan Exhibit #7 = Landscape Plan Exhibit #8 - Elevation Dawing . ,• Exhibit #9 - Illustrative model Exhibit #10 - Roger Blaylock's response to Environmental Review Committee for Park Plaza . Exhibit #11 - Roger Blaylock's response to Environmental Review Committee for Garden Plaza Exhibit #12 - Letter from Richard Houghton to Roger Blaylock • Exhibit #13 - New transportation summary dated September 18, 1987• ; , :; is • t '•� , • ; . E & H Properties SA-017-87, SA-055-87 October 9, 1987 Page 2 The Examiner called for further testimony regarding this project. There was no one else wishing to speak, and no further comments from staff. The hearing closed at 1:25 P.M. There are no Minutes available for this item. While a joint hearing was held on both the subject site (SA-017-87) and for the Park Plaza proposal (SA-055-87) they will be published as separate reports. This decision was published in an expedited fashion to accommodate the City Council review of the underlying zoning request. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & DECISION: Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS 1. The applicant, E & H Properties, filed a request for a site plan approval for a 245,850 square foot office building, a four story parking garage containing 1,023 parking stalls, and a plan to house an additional 305 parking spaces in`:a separate parking garage 350 feet north of the subject site (See File SA-055-87; Park Plaza). 2. The yellow file containing the staff report, the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) documentation and other pertinent materials was entered into the record as Exhibit #1. 3. The Environmental Review Committee (ERC), the City's responsible official issued a determination of non-significance (DNS) for the subject proposal. The determination was subject to a list of conditions which the ERC imposed to mitigate the impacts of the proposal. 4. The subject proposal was reviewed by all departments with an interest in the matter. 5. The subject site is located between Park Avenue North and Garden Avenue North, between North 5th Street and North 6th Street. $ 6. The front entrance of the proposed office building will be located on N. 6th, with its footprint running from approximately Park on the west to Garden on the east. The building will be approximately 150 feet deep from 6th to the south. 7. The existing building at 500 Park Avenue dominates the east side of Park in this block and will be adjacent to the subject proposal on the southwest. 8. A cabinet shop, specializing in custom cabinet making, is located on the southeast corner of the block. 9. The 1,023 stall'parking garage takes up a good portion of the block, with frontage along Garden' on the east, and sandwiched between the principle use, the Garden Plaza Building, on the north and the cabinet shop on the south. The 500 Building is located west of the garage. 10. Zoning in the vicinity is a mix of H-1 (Heavy Industry), L-1 (Light Industry), B-1 and R-4 (High Density Multiple Family) and R-2 (Duplex Residential). An H-1 district is located immediately east of the subject site and continues north and generally encompasses Pacific Car and Foundry properties and Boeing properties in this vicinity. The L-1 district in which much of the subject site is located begins generally at North 6th and runs south to North 4th, and fronts generally upon Garden North. 11. A corridor of B-1 zoning, the type requested for this site and pending before the Council, runs the length of Park Avenue, starting just north of North 6th Street and continuing south to Bronson Way where it enters the Sunset B-1 district. Both west and east of the B-1 district is an R-4 district generally comprised of older single family homes. A similarly developed district, that is, predominantly single family homes, is the R-2 district located west and east of Park and south of North 4th Street. 12. The subject site is part of the original townsite of the City of Renton. A small segment of the site, at the northwest corner, is currently zoned B-1 (Business/Commercial), a designation it received in 1953 with the adoption of the original Zoning Code. The remainder of the site and most of the remainder of the block are currently zoned L-1 (Light Industrial), again, a classification bestowed on the site with the adoption of the original Zoning Code, enacted in 1953. 13. The cabinet shop is zoned L-1. • ' • E & H Properties • SA-017-87, SA-055-87 October 9, 1987 Page 3 14. As indicated, a rezone action is pending before the City Council. Currently L-1 zoning, the zoning for most of the site, will not permit the'establishment of the proposed office building as a principle use, therefore the rezone request now pending before the City Council is to allow the office use outright. The proposed garage is permitted in the L-1 zone. 15. The proposed office building will be seven (7) stories in height containing approximately 245,850 sq ft. The building will be approximately 110 feet deep by approximately 340 feet long. Cantilevering, faceting and stepbacks will modify these gross general dimensions from front to back, side to side and floor to floor. 16. The proposed parking garage is approximately 240 feet deep by approximately 310 feet long. The garage will be generally three stories high over a basement. One area, due to the spiral nature of the garage, will extend to a partial fourth story. The 1,023 stall count includes some exterior ground level spaces, some located midblock along N. 5th, immediately west of the garage entrance, between the 500 Park Building and the cabinet shop, and some located near the northwest entrance to the garage. Actually serving the site will be a total of 1,373 parking stalls. Of this number, 305 will be provided by a second parking structure which will be reviewed as part of the companion Park Plaza Building. 17. Utilities serving the site consist of 6 inch water lines along both Park and 6th, an 8 inch line along 5th and a 12 inch line along Garden; 10 inch sewer lines are located along the alley off of Garden and along 5th, an 8 inch sewer line along the alley off of Park and a 24 inch sewer line on 6th. Storm water is channeled into a storm sewer adjacent to the site after retention per City Code. 18. Eight Metro Transit lines serve the site along Park. 19. Coulon Park is located approximately one half mile north of the site, with the Cedar River Trail located a similar distance to the west, paralleling the Cedar River. 20. The map element of the Comprehensive Plan designates the area in which the subject site is located as suitable for the development of heavy industrial and commercial uses, but does not mandate such development without consideration of other policies of the plan. The maf, would appear to suggest commercial development along the Park frontage with heavy industrial uses located to the east of the frontage for the remainder of the block. • 21. The proposal is estimated to generate approximately 3,515.66 vehicle trips per day (staff report; traffic engineering comments). Approximately 670 to 700 of those trips would be generated during the PM peak hour. ' 22. • The companion Park Plaza proposal will generate an estimated 2,250 vehicle trips per day, with approximately 490 to 500 of those trips during the PM peak hour. 23. These estimates work out to approximately 12 vehicle trips per 1,000 gsf. Staff indicated that the 12 vehicle trip figure is generally lower than the historical numbers that Boeing, the applicant's tenant, has usually generated. Boeing has in the past, and with their expansions now projected, could again, maintain an increased occupancy. What this means is that Boeing has generally had an employee-to-floor area ratio considerably higher than normal occupancies. All the projections are based upon ordinary occupancy loads. Any increase, even one or two employees per;office unit, could reasonably be, expected to drive the traffic counts even higher. 24.,; ' The North Renton Transportation Study is available separately for review. Without City Council adoption,it will not be incorporated into these findings, although information from it has been selected for inclusion. Projections indicate that approximately 50% of this proposal's traffic will pass through the North Renton residential"areas utilizing Park, Garden, N. 3rd and • N. 4th Streets. Approximately 23% will enter the neighborhood south of N. 3rd, again generally utilizing Park and Garden. e 25. Estimates are that all roads in the vicinity will see increased usage. Increases of approximately 26% for Park and Garden north of N. 4th; approximately 23% for Park and Garden south of N. 3rd; and approximately 10% for both Park and Garden south of N. 8th. 26. ' 'The existing LOS (Level of Service) for various streets are contained within the Study. LOS is a Qualitative measure of traffic congestion: with LOS C considered desirable; LOS D considered acceptable; LOS E indicating a backup with a least one change of light necessary for a vehicle to clear the intersection; and LOS F representing serious congestion and intolerable delays E & H Properties • :: ; ; !,Y.• • SA-017-87, SA-055-87 October 9, 1987 Page 4 •,cl ("failure with maximum delay conditions" - Garden Plaza traffic report). LOS E has been defined as representing full capacity or "operating conditions at or near capacity with difficulty in maneuver operations" (ibid). These LOS designation are enumerated as follows: Park at: Garden at: Logan at: Bronson B E N. 3rd B B A N. 4th B B B N. 6th C D C N. 8th C C wb* D eb* N. 10th C N/A Lake Wash F F Sunset E Airport B '� • (* wb:westbound, eb:eastbound) . 27. Most of these intersections are projected to decrease by one LOS, that is an LOS of B would deteriorate to an LOS of C. 28. An additional traffic report, Exhibit 13, referring to a map on Page:12, states at Page 13: "Two intersections are at LOS F currently, and each will be further stressed by project traffic: - Park/Garden/Lake Washington boulevard - N. 3rd Street at Sunset." 29. LOS F also is shown on the map (Exhibit 13) for the intersection of Bronson and Sunset but apparently this was omitted from the text. The Table on Page 16 also overlooks this intersection with its LOS F. Again, LOS F is defined as intersection failure. 30. Page 11 of Exhibit 13 states: "The North Renton arterial system 'currently operates internally at acceptable levels of service (in terms of the ITE definitions, and the LOS D or better standard desired by the City of Renton). However, it breaks down to "intolerable" operating conditions at the arterial convergence points approaching freeway interchange locations. This is a common situation throughout King County '-- and may be unavoidable." 31. The record reflects a potential for a decreased level of service or in the alternative an extended P.M. peak. That is, one could expect a longer or extended evening rush hour. The traffic studies would appear to indicate that with the wide range of traffic enhancement measures adopted by the ERC, that the levels of service can be maintained as they are or somewhat improved. 32. Testimony from neighboring business owners as well as nearby residents disputes the accuracy of the LOS method for this area. Casting some doubt on a methodology which calculates LOS based upon traffic numbers and street and intersection widths (Webster Method utilizing optimum cycles) is the severe backups they report on more than the three "failing" intersections. A truer picture may be better reflected by experience and reality. The record reflects that backups and delays occur over an extended time frame beginning most days at approximately 3:00 to 3:30 P.M. and extending to 6:00 P.M. Intersections are blocked, left turns nearly impossible, and pedestrian passage risky at best. Insurance rates for residents are higher reflecting the additional traffic which passes through the neighborhood. This information is not • conveyed in calculations based upon ITE Manuals but could be reflected in accident rates. 33. Traffic accident rates for nearby intersections for the three years 1984 to 1986 are included in the traffic reports. The intersection of N. 3rd/Park had 13, 17 and 12 accidents in the three years; N. 4th/Park had 8, 16 and 13 accidents in that time frame; N. 6th/Park had 3, 5 and 3; and N. 3rd and Garden had 3, 3 and 6 accidents. 34. The traffic studies and the applicant indicate that employee consolidations from other buildings in the area will modify the traffic impacts projected as the actual numbers of new employees would be reduced by such consolidations. They also indicate that a "different" worker profile would probably result in a shift of the PM peak; that is a larger white collar work force • working different hours or shifts. • 'j: � i • E & '1i Properties SA-017-87, SA-055-87 • October 9, 1987 Page 5 35. The applicant is responsible for certain on and off-site right-of-way improvements which are requirements at the building permit stage, In addition, the ERC imposed certain requirements • ' which they determined would be directly'attributable to the development of the subject site, and finally, staff determined that the applicant was responsible for $595,719 worth of traffic mitigation fees for a yet to be formed benefit district. Traffic related measures imposed by the ERC follow: • • ' b. That the applicant up-grade the Garden Avenue North/Lake Washington Boulevard intersection to a level of service (LOS) of D. c. That the applicant share in the cost of up-grading the traffic signal at North 6th Street and Garden Avenue North. d. That the applicant provide five lanes on Park Avenue North between North 5th Street and North 6th Street with appropriate taper sections. e. That North 5th Street between Garden and Park, be designed (channelized) and improved for three lanes. g. That the applicant agree to reconstruct the existing signal at the intersection of North 6th Avenue (sic) and North Park Avenue. h. That the applicant pay their fair share of the cost of signalizing the east and west legs of the Garden Avenue North and North 8th Street Intersections. i. That the applicant dedicate ten feet of right-of-way on North 6th Street between Garden Avenue North and Park Avenue North to allow for future widening of North 6th to five lanes. (The lower case letters identifying the conditions are taken from the ERC determination, although differing versions have been submitted.) 36. The seven story office building will be clad in mirrored glass. The basic shape will be that of a rectangle with the corners faceted at an angle or saw-toothed, actually looking more like an elongated octagon. Approaching the center of the longer facades the building narrows, , presenting almost an 'hour-glass' shape. Each floor of the building will have a slightly different • footprint introducing to the outside observer a varying appearance consisting of cantilevered floors, stair stepping tiers (wedding cake) and the facets. In all, a very interesting building affording the viewer a variety of perspectives:`; ' 37. The mirrored exterior can exacerbate the glare problems inherent in any all glass structure. Particular problems occur during the winter months when a low sun angle combines with the ' building's reflectivity to produce glare. Similar problems can occur during the equinoxes. ' Sometimes the glare is merely objectionable, but occasionally glare is dangerous and can • "`' • ' interfere with the vision of pedestrians or the:,operators of motor vehicles. Obviously terrain • ' ' ' and surrounding buildings can intercept or redirect glare. Glare from the proposed building may present problems for morning and afternoon rush hour users. along Garden and Park and along N. 6th. The use of special glazing materials can reduce the problem and the ERC required that reflective glass be located interior to a double pane window to reduce the potential problem. 38. ;" The office building will be approximately 90 feet tall, the garage is approximately 40 feet tall. The office building will have 20 foot setbacks along all street frontages. There will be a 40 • foot separation between the office building and the garage. The garage is setback 10 feet along ' +'" Garden. A 20 foot buffer or separation is planned.between the garage and its southerly • neighbor, the cabinet shop. 39.' The applicant has provided wider than normal sidewalks, providing 8 feet of width to accommodate the pedestrians/employees of the building:' A drop off lane has been provided along N. 6th to allow passengers to be let off,without hampering the traffic flow. 40. Pedestrian links between the garage and office building have been provided. An on-site sky • bridge between the building and garage will provide a direct link for tenants. At grade links also provide for pedestrian passage. A second on-site sky bridge will provide a link to the 500 Park Building (not considered at issue in this hearing or decision) from the garage. The upper { ; level of the garage will have a small landscaped seating area. , Additional seating areas will be ' ' • provided at the northeast corner of the building and immediately west of the parking garage. E & H Properties IdZit.�r•,: SA-017-87, SA-055-87 `` October 9, 1987 , • Page 6 . is • 41. The entire perimeter of the site will be landscaped. Landscape materials will be planted in the 20 foot setbacks along the street frontages of Park, Garden and 6th. Incorporated in the landscape theme will be some of the seating areas and mini-plazas the applicant is providing. To the rear of the building, between the building and garage, the applicant will install 10 feet of landscaping. , 42. The landscape theme will be continued around the garage where the setback will shrink to 10 feet along Garden.- Landscaping will also be installed between the garage and the cabinet shop, and between the garage and the 500 Building. The roof of the garage will contain separate planter boxes as well as the seating area described above. 43. Access to the garage is from.three entrances to the structure, although, actually five driveways • will feed the garage. Two driveways will be located along N. 5th, one near the corner of 5th and Park, and one approximately midblock on 5th. Two additional driveways will be located along Garden, one immediately north of the cabinet shop, at the southeast corner of the garage, and the other at the northeast corner of the garage, between the garage and the office building. The fifth driveway will be located between the proposed building and the existing 500 Park building. A set of plans indicates that the northwest entry to the garage passes between a series of opposing at grade parking stalls which could present access conflicts. A somewhat similar situation appears to exist at the southern entrance. 44. The ERC required the applicant to enter into a transportation management plan with Metro, with credit available if the number of trips,were reduced. 45. Air pollution from the additional cars was not considered in any of the documentation. Testimony at both the rezone hearing and this hearing indicated that the area may be a non- attainment area, but there was no clear response at the rezone hearing and nothing was submitted to clarify the matter at this time; What is known is that soot from automobile • exhaust stains homes, furnishings and clothing. It is obvious that an additional 2,000 to 4,000 trips per day would increase the air pollution level. CONCLUSIONS • 1.* This office believes that at this time'the only decision which can be made is to deny the project. At the same this office believes that it would only be fair to provide a complete list of positive conclusions regarding the project in order to provide the City Council with sufficient background information so that they can make an informed decision'on the separate rezone and an informed decision on this current request if an appeal is filed. To analogize to a separate but current controversy: "When in doubt, vote no." (Senator Howell Heflin, Senate Judiciary Committee.) Too many questions about impacts remain unanswered, and some answers remain unclear. 2. Before going on, some prefatory remarks. Tastes differ on matters such as aesthetics and architectural fashion, especially in areas as highly charged as color and exterior treatment, as ' well as on whether building styles will "age" well or become dated.., This office believes that the applicant has created in the Garden Plaza Building an interesting and arresting complex. In any event, features such as the mirrored finish are not subject to review, except where impacts such ' as reflectivity and glare'could create adverse affects. 3. The project appears reasonably well designed, with a reasonable layout. It obviously can't be faulted for being out of place or incompatible with its immediate surroundings. Similarly clad buildings, also developed by the applicant, are adjacent to it (500 Park) and somewhat catercorner along,6th (800 N. '6th Building), west of the site. 4. With a combination of developer proposed measures and the additional measures that were to be imposed by the City = landscaping, plazas, pedestrian spaces and seating areas - the proposal would provide relief from the otherwise austere complexes in the area and from the ordinary office building style which is generally built lot line to lot line. The site(s) approach an office park (including, but not considering at this time, the Park Plaza Building and the 500 Park and 800 6th Street Buildings). The density and bulk of structures with the obvious absence of a large plaza and other open spaces, and the intrusion of major arterials, prevents.the entire complex from achieving true office park, campus style amenities. , 5. With that general introduction aside, what prevents approval are the unanswered questions remaining in the mind of the decision maker. The traffic study appears to provide few concessions to reality, rather isolating its discussions'to qualitative levels of service (LOS) such as desirable, acceptable, etc., where these terms do not equate with ordinary usage when applied • E & H Properties SA-017-87, SA-055-87 October 9, 1987 • Page 7 to roads with considerable congestion. There is no discussion of air pollution when parking garages are known contributors to increased pollution. Is the area a non-attainment area regarding air quality, and if so, what is the impact of this proposal? There is scant discussion of the impacts of this development on the North Renton or Kennydale areas. There is no discussion of the impacts of the reconstruction of I-405. Also ignored is the role of the lessee, the Boeing Company - its plans, its potential employee densities, its opinion, acquiescence or enthusiastic acceptance of new roads through its complex - it is the prime beneficiary of the proposed buildings. 6. Traffic: There can be no argument, the existing traffic problems and the potential traffic problems loom large in the rejection, but there are other issues. (See below). The various traffic reports, even the newest North Renton Transportation Study, fail to provide much of substance regarding the residential communities potentially affected by any increased traffic load. It and its predecessors all fail to talk realistically about the existing traffic. While the LOS information may be invaluable for dealing with statistics and conveying to Traffic Engineers the status of a roadway, an informative talk of how long intersections are backed up during the peak hours would better enable a discussion of the problems and perceived problems. The neighbors and some of those who work in the area clearly identified that intersections are backed up for a substantially longer period than the 3:30 to 4:30 pm cited in the reports;;that more than one or two signal sequences are necessary for vehicles to clear intersections; that driveways are unusable and pedestrians and "left-turners" are at risk. The accident statistics for the vicinity intersections•are high. 7. These traffic reports also take for granted the heavy traffic along residential streets such as N. 4th. Designated arterials or not, these streets are residents' front yards. These people apparently have little relief from the traffic between approximately 3:00 pm and 5:30 pm. Air ►. pollution is a current problem. The homes, clothes and interiors are damaged or soiled by soot. Now, maybe these single family homes no longer belong here! Maybe single family living should be abandoned in this area. If so, then it should be a conscious decision, not attained by slow suffocation under traffic and air pollution, not attained by attrition, either. (See below for Cedar River Corridor Strategy discussion and future planning decisions). • 8. It is simplistic to suggest, as the traffic studies do, that 70 percent to possibly 90 percent of the traffic in the area is through traffic with neither an origin nor destination in Renton and more or less wave it away with that pronouncement or suggest that it be forced elsewhere. Even if that pass through traffic has no reason being on Renton's streets, it is there. It must be accommodated along with the new traffic which would be generated by the proposal. While a wider I-405 may help some, that's not evident from the record, and what will happen while it is • being widened. There are only limited ways of navigating between Tukwila (I-5) and Bellevue (I-90) - Renton streets would appear to be one of the possibly two alternatives, the other I-405. Lake Washington and the hilly terrain to the east restrict other alternatives. • 9. This office is left confused or at least unclear regarding the references which were made to employee consolidations, that is, the movements;of employees from other buildings in the area to this complex. One reference was to relocation,from one of the Renton Place buildings, presumably one of those located along Grady, but no consideration was given to the potential leasing of some of those spaces to other employers with other employees. 10. Along this same line, both the applicant and the,traffic reports indicate that there might be a shift in the peak hour or the peak,hour numbers because of a different type of employee. Supposedly the employee base would represent more white collar.workers on a different work schedule. Query: If true, then how can a consolidation of already,existing employees change their status and thereby the modify the impact on the•peak,hours?, Presumably the white collar/blue collar ratios should not change,for a simple consolidation?. (Page 4, North Renton Transportation Study). If automation, change in employee base or other factor is the reason, it's certainly not in the record. Is one to presume that some factor is at work, without reference to ' a factual basis? . 11. There is a lot of conjecture about the relocation of employees from one location to another, but nothing which guarantees such actions. Also nothing in the,record suggests that some of the spaces would not be re-utilized by other employees if a crunch came. Should an employee density limit be imposed? . 12. ' ' The traffic report is a careful assessment of the, theoretical or hypothetical efficiencies of roads of a certain cross-section where cars and trucks accelerate and decelerate in optimum fashion, where driveways and turning cars do not intrude, where morning and evening darkness do not slow traffic, where the occasional pedestrian does not jay walk and where no one is able to observe the daily traffic flows. ^ PropertiesE & H SA-017-87, SA-055-87 October 9, 1987 Page 8 13. Simply there has been no complete discussion of this proposal, its companion proposal to the northwest;'the cause of these proposals - Boeing's surging sales and work force, what part Boeing can play, they own land which might be necessary to accommodate the traffic their employees, the applicant's tenants will generate. Might there not be a condition that Boeing take some responsibility and dedicate the necessary alignments that the traffic reports suggest? 14. Well if staff could reasonably'require the removal of the third party, Paccar, propane tanks, it seems equally reasonable to require acquisitions or potential acquisitions of right-of-way necessary to accommodate traffic generated by this proposal. The City may utilize its power to condemn right-of-way which is needed in the public benefit, but it is not all that inappropriate, it is not inappropriate at all, to require the applicant to pay for the acquisition. i g 15. The need was cited for Boeing to have its employees in a centralized location and this was a suitable place for such consolidation. The question is: can this be accommodated without too many adverse impacts? Maybe such a concentration of employees with the potential traffic impacts suggested is unwarranted. Maybe Renton has no business inquiring of Boeing's plans, but with such an impact on the City as Boeing has - traffic, tax base, employee/residents - the City may need to know, even if it is not entitled to know. 16. What about additional levels of traffic on Lake Washington Boulevard. Currently the poor levels of service meter traffic but would more traffic create backups along the boulevard. Recent changes (stop signs, speed limit reduction) were implemented to alleviate some of the traffic problems, what would be the impact of new and greater traffic on the Kennydale neighborhood? 17. The quite subjective English translations of the various Levels of Service differ substantially from the information residents and employees paint of the area. Streets/intersections with LOS C apparently are quite frequently backed up and multiple stop light changes are necessary for one to proceed through a given intersection. Therefore, one has to question whether some of the measures suggested for easing problems might help, when it may be that the severity of the problems was not accurately estimated. 18. What is ap parent is that while Traffic Engineering estimates help with certain determinations i and may provide reasonable indications of traffic in general, the methods may not always reflect the actual situation in a given area or neighborhood. This should not be read as an indictment of Traffic projections, in this case there seem to be discrepancies. 19. Neighborhood Impacts: Upscale development, and this proposal is upscale in terms of both apparent quality and size, cannot but have an affect on the nearby residential North Renton neighborhood. It is difficult to determine affects on property values. It would appear reasonable to expect this new development'to increase values for adjoining property which is zoned similarly. What is just as probable is that it could decrease values for low density residential uses, since many people seeking residential amenities prefer quiet neighborhoods with minimal traffic. And probably as a low density residential area, this area would seem less than • desirable. The mixed character of the zoning does not simplify the question. A change in the zoning of the residential areas might cause values to increase but the record is incomplete.. 20. How these impacts would affect the neighborhood is unanswered. How this proposal comports with the observations found in the City's Cedar River Corridor Strategy is not dealt with by any analysis. What was classified in that document as an affordable, low density, close-in neighborhood has to be affected by these uses. But how? Unanswered. Policy Development indicated that approval of the proposed complex would not necessarily have an impact on the long range planning now underway for the entire North Renton area. At the same time Policy '- Development hinted that while it is de facto a single family neighborhood, it is in fact zoned for more intense residential uses, and that its single family status was probably in jeopardy. 21. It appears almost inevitable that this status would change. Not only would there be the increased traffic, but the commercialization of the area between Boeing/Paccar and the Central Business District will hasten the transition of the North Renton residential area. The Comprehensive Plan and the Cedar River Strategy may just present conflicting visions. The Comprehensive Plan - hasten the change in older transition areas; the Cedar Strategy - conserve an interesting single family neighborhood. 4. 22. But if the North Renton area is going to change, because the neighborhood is sandwiched between downtown Renton and the Boeing complex and Boeing needs to expand and be served shouldn't there be a reasoned, deliberative process. Shouldn't it be positively demonstrated that Boeing and the area can be served as proposed. It is now obvious fact that this is primarily a single family neighborhood (and one zoned R-2 and R-4 a fact which is, or was, overlooked by many residents) whose smaller streets minimally meet R-1 traffic needs and certainly do not meet modern city standards for either commercial development or more intense residential development. i d j 4 c E &•H Properties SA-017-87, SA-055-87 October 9, 1987 Page 9 23. There has been no suggestion of how this additional traffic will impact air quality merely guesses that if the traffic moves through more freely, itself a doubtful conclusion, that air quality will not deteriorate. Garages such as that proposed here are known sources of additional air pollution, concentrating more than 1,000 vehicles in a rather confined area. 24. The issue is not merely reducible to whether the proposal relates well to its immediate site. Conclusions on those issues will follow as promised. The Ordinance clearly identifies its purposes: "To promote the orderliness of community growth, protect and enhance property values and minimize discordant and undesirable impacts of development both on and off-site." (Section 4-738(A)(2)). "To ensure convenience and safety of vehicular and pedestrian movement within the site and in relation to adjacent areas." (Section 4-738(A)(2)). These two purposes are applicable to the North Renton neighborhood and to Kennydale. The applicant's recognition of the interplay is evidenced his reference to the Council's recent changes to the Lake Washington Boulevard corridor to reduce the traffic impacts on the Kennydale low density neighborhood. In Kennydale's case it is generally developed, zoned and designated in the Comprehensive Plan for low density uses. What are the impacts of this proposal on those areas? 25. The applicant suggested that we get on with the process, that since no appeal was filed from the DNS, that the merits of the matters be reached. Renton Code permits appeals of the environmental determination up till the date of the hearing on the merits, if errors below exist. In addition, the decision maker while he may be bound by the DNS still needs sufficient information to issue a reliable decision. Not only is sufficient information necessary, but the information must also be reliable. As indicated above, one needs sufficient information to thoroughly ground a decision. The suggestion to the City Council to remand the rezone matter back to the ERC still stands. While the applicant deemed the environmental process complete, the decision maker has to rely on the SEPA information as supplemented by the information conveyed at the public hearing. The simple admission of the ERC in its DNS that it might not have jurisdiction for the imposition of some of its conditions, is strange at least, even if the applicant accepted the conditions. 26. This matter appears to suggest a Catch-22, kind of like the dog chasing his tail. The City Council wants this decision to consider when it considers the rezone, and this office would like the additional information Council will be provided, as well as the additional factual matters that the Council will conclude. Each wants information the other will provide and each decision could well feed upon the other. The City Council awaits this decision before issuing its decision on the underlying zoning and this office believes that unless the issue of underlying zoning is resolved and the Council agrees with the proposed traffic mitigation measures, it is somewhat difficult to decide whether this proposal is appropriate. 27. One word of caution, as awkward as it may be, this decision is subject to separate appeal - with an appeal period which will not expire till after the discussions on the rezone. That procedure should be clarified to all. 28. These conclusions began with passing reference to the substance of the proposal, a seven story office building and associated garage. If the above issues were resolved in its favor, the project appears well designed, introducing one of the first multilevel parking structures into the City, a rather pleasant change from usurping acres of land for asphalt surfaces. • 29. The Code provides a long, almost endless list of.criteria against which to judge a site plan. The following analysis will run generally through those items not covered in the above conclusions. 30. The proposal is generally compatible with the commercial goals of the Comprehensive Plan, although its is not entirely compatible with the map element where industrial uses appear to be favored in this area. The development would be in an area apparently well served by utilities as required by the plan. The use seems almost certain to upgrade the immediate area from vacant or low rise to high tech office space. 31. If the zoning is approved the proposed use would be in conformance with the zoning code. It has greater than required setbacks, landscaping and pedestrian amenities. 32. The use is generally well segregated from adjoining uses, even the cabinet shop.- It provides greater setbacks than would be required in an L-1 zone. This office cannot predict the impacts of emissions from the industrial uses in the area upon the general population or other property. • 33. The site plan appears to present a well designed building. As indicated above, it offers an incredible variety of surfaces, more landscaping than is generally required, pedestrian amenities and outdoor seating areas. E & H Properties r^ + • • SA-017-87, SA-055-87 October 9, 1987 • Page 10 f,..., . . . I 34. The parking garage alone, will save the City from umpteen additional acres of asphalt. 35. The setbacks from the street and from adjoining uses would appear to provide for adequate light and air for both the subject proposal and for adjoining properties. Being located along the north edge of the block should avoid adverse shading of neighboring uses. 36. The air pollution questions related to the garage and general traffic remain, but the office use itself should not appreciably add to noise, odors and other harmful or unhealthy conditions. 37. The impact on the immediate area should not cause any deterioration or blight. At least nothing , is evident on this subject. • • . 38. While the south driveway from the parking garage might have an adverse impact on the adjacent cabinet shop, it does not appear to be any more severe than the establishment of any other use. His driveway and access have been accommodated in the revised plans. 39. There do not ap pear to be any appreciable undesirable impacts related to the proposed structures and site layouts that would impair the use or enjoyment or potential use of surrounding uses and structures and of the community. Again, there may be some impacts on the industrial cabinet shop but not any that appear out of the ordinary. , • 40. The structure is taller than most in,the area but not out of scale. The variety of heights may actually add visual interest to the area. The setbacks, cantilevering and angled corners reduce the perceived bulk. The height is compatible with the proposed zone and not incompatible with the existing zoning. 41. The applicant, with some City imposed conditions, has provided pedestrian links between the building, actually buildings, and the surrounding streets. Plazas and landscaped areas link parking and buildings. { 42. The building appears well placed on the site,'with a generous north exposure. Natural site amenities are few and any development with the landscaping proposed will be an improvement. 43*. The parking garage will help limit the amount of paved or impervious surfaces created by this , proposal. 44. The building form and placement and landscaping appear to enhance the site. As indicated in the findings, glare could be a problem which the record indicates was not fully explored. North 6th, Garden and Park might experience reflected light during the peak hours. Provisions should be made to deal effectively with any problem, even after construction. 45. The at-grade parking may interfere with ingress and egress from the parking garage. Not much analysis was provided on the circulation of the parking structure. Pedestrian areas are provided • near, around and on the parking garage. They seem adequately separated in such circumstances.' 46. The number of driveways may be excessive, both from a traffic flow perspective and from the perspective of increased pedestrian movements across these areas. Driveways will be wide to permit easy movements between the roads and driveways. 47. The applicant has consolidated access with his 500 Park building, not only the shared garage but also driveways. This limits somewhat additional unnecessary access drives. 48. The drop off lane will limit that type of interfere with arterial flow and provide a convenient drop of for members of carpools employed elsewhere. 49. To conclude, while there are a number of attractive aspects of this proposal which would cause one to welcome it to Renton, the number of unanswered questions and unresolved traffic and land use issues suggests that it be rejected at this time. DECISION, • The site plan is denied. ORDERED THIS 9th day of October, 1987. • FRED J. KA MAN • HEARING EXAMINER . TRANSMITTED THISOctober,. 1 87 9th day of 9 to the parties of record:. • E & H Properties !li. SA-017-87, SA-055-87 October 9, 1987 ;. Page 11 '1 • Roger Blaylock ... The Blaylock Company 10717 N.E. 4th, Suite 9 Bellevue, Washington 98004 Richard Aramburu • Attorney at Law • 505 Madison/Suite 209 Seattle, Washington Larry Brown 13975 Interurban;Avenue South Seattle, Washington 98168 Curt Beattie, Architect 100 West Harrison Plaza Seattle, Washington 98119 . Lance Mueller ; 130 Lakeside Seattle, Washington 98122 James Mclsaac, Engineer Transpo Group 14715 Bel-Red Road . Bellevue, Washington Robert Anderson Attorney at Law P. O. Box 454 Renton, Washington 98055 Robert Cugini P. O. Box 359 Renton, Washington 98057 Ms. Marjorie Richter 300 Meadow Avenue North Renton, Washington 98055 . Steve McBride 1220 North Fifth • Renton, Washington 98055 • Barbara E. Moss Director of Planning R First City Equities 800 Fifth Avenue/Suite 4170 Seattle, Washington 98104 TRANSMITTED THIS 9th day of October, 1987 to the.following: Mayor Barbara Y. Shinpoch Councilman Richard M. Stredicke Richard Houghton, Public Works Director Larry M. Sp':•inger, Policy Development Director Rebecca Lind, Policy Development Department Members, Renton Planning Commission Ronald Nelson, Building & Zoning Director Don Erickson, Zoning Administrator Gary Norris, Traffic Engineer Glen Gordon, Fire Marshal Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney • Renton Record-Chronicle '"'rt E & H Properties SA-017-87, SA-055-87 October 9, 1987 Page 12 Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the Examiner is based on erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact, error in judgment, or the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing may make a written request for a review by the Examiner within fourteen (14) days from the date of the Examiner's decision. This request shall set forth the specific errors relied upon by such appellant, and the Examiner may, after review of the record, take further action as he deems proper. An appeal to the City Council is governed by Title IV, Section 3016, which requires that such appeal be filed with the City Clerk, accompanying a filing fee of $75.00 and meeting other specified requirements. Copies of this ordinance are available for inspection or purchase in the Finance Department, first floor of City Hall. The Appearance of Fairness Doctrine provides that no ex parte (private one-on-one) communications may occur concerning pending land use decisions. This means that parties to a land use decision may not communicate in private with any decision-maker concerning the proposal. Decision-makers in the land use process include both the Hearing Examiner and members of the City Council. All communications concerning the proposal must be made in public. This public communication permits all interested parties to know the contents of the communication and would allow them to openly rebut the evidence. Any violation of this doctrine would result in the invalidation of the request by the Court. The Doctrine applies not only to the initial public hearing but to all Requests for Reconsideration as well as Appeals to the City Council. Pursuant to Title IV, Section 3015 of the City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 P.M. An appeal to the City Council is governed by Title IV, Section 3016, which requires that such appeal be filed with the City Clerk, accompanying a filing fee of $75.00 and meeting other specified requirements. Copies of this ordinance are available for inspection or purchase in the Finance Department, first floor of City Hall. • • • 0 I I ji `\ 1• 1 r . .- — - ---r---- ,..J.-.-. ....i• ' .-..• ,- :. .,,,-- . ,:i . _, .... :,-,..-- -. ......: :qv-. v ..A. . 3 I. .4_.. n1 , a I " u I , . .,,' I _�i' 1.._Ll1A_-2 1 'n ' tit 1 I \\ \1 . \ i I Q i t, 1 • li m✓i • �' 0 a I �.Z 5 �l. IL_1 • ccld, • G•T I 1,- irm,,___,_ �•f�', e .' ., ...� 1.. �1 SUfbaeCe . alai df,..._ ism 3(,:i.t1,;:i.,...: I h. ii.__._7_ ri..„, .or . „ AI 0 • ;___ J.-. • 1. s• ,p. .. I 1 I<�{Ir1 = 't1_ r , I,-2 P,_,-- -7).141111 ,11•1 `• . •n, w \\�+I i t „ I• �>', iba,�Jt,. .• • _,_�0 PACIFIC CA2 ' -/ . I fry I I��F', y 't`'I= L;�1 ! tour.IDP ' ( I) //. • • A' 11 Q. N 1_ --w 5 >1_ l�• ° _P 1T11... • r s _ ..:' — —. ---M)--' i• 'AZ:Z:1 ;:—:—:. LT..':.it i kr —1 ;24:—. 7:77.t.., IL' .:3 1 % 5 a ii , / ,,,,,,, ,:,. : ,._._.4,_,„,...• • 7 IL- —71 1 : __.:-...2.'' LI- .' • ,7‘ --7 —7-7—. ..; :--, -'-- -Q i if,' if 7."-- .iCIIIITITII ! ///') . iliv 5.,... -.-v- ' i - ..c Fi..,,7 •,,-77—__ -',11. 4,--- --i--! :!-..1 HI. R-.: _4, .• - , 411 41,F.j.4 c-, • r , flTi • ,; � . •, 1 J?_ .-t+ :iVti ' ,ZjgN to ;dI , i.j .ta:-.;- a .., 'I 'r1tf � 2t ...t. ,d` ;}.. 4 J1n • •.rI, . . 1 ' ;1iil ly,' it ir / / '1 I ••ll:I?." 1.1,111:is JI '.14,►i/ . i •W ;w'� 'i uiL Pr, .'�1 3 /fCI) iI 1 • i .� } I /L14 •�' •,4._1! 1'l' .e!.• •1 ;I 11 l •11 �� 7.11.1irr",..:, ...-r•-•_ 1i�'•`f ) r ,�'•,"•, /, �lr /// 1 I `, \ t,. I 1• i!l. .7 •- ' -r 11 `0 ! �-.. �•��:� •'Cr ' i �� �4l / ' j\• I�,.. �i• x. C•.'°I;el1„• tjC.� to +j +,Q /1' -S.7.2.4 'rq •'(y.l—'!-1• f!=�1. `rT_ I1`] / • / ` t""11 ' 't -11 iil • 11 .r; L.L.-•••_-_-2.1":1Et---ii T- '',: ttli./.. --, .,9 ( ,. , , ... _ . .. ,•„. . , A , \, i N •,, r - z,i g • ..,1 I': -------1 . -ir :_;-- --7-2., ier . ,‘\ ' , , . i .• .• — ,.:-...--,— —T 1 , • r I \ r—if.1 ,, I il i �= ' • 1 ,' j R .\ i ,. Y ur GARDEN PLAZA• ' E & H PROPERTIES . 1 • • • , • SITE PLAN APPROVAL: SA-017-87 '' APPLICANT E & H PROPERTIES TOTAL AREA 3.62 ACRES. PR I NC I PAL ACCESS N 6th STREET, PARK AVENUE N. & GARDEN AVENUE N. • . •-;7. • EXISTING ZONING B-1 (BUSINESS USE) & L-1 (LIGHT INDUSTRIAL) • EXISTING USE FORMER TOWING YARD AND UNDEVELOPED PROPERTY. • PROPOSED 7-STORY OFFICE BUILDING HAVING' 245,850 SQUARE FEET AND A • PROPOSED USE 4-LEVEL PARKING STRUCTURE. . COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN COMMERCIAL (along Park), HEAVY INDUSTRIAL (along I Garden). . • COMMENTS THE OFFICER. BUILDING AND PARKING STRUCTURE ARE LOCATED SOUTH 'OF NORTH 6th STREET • AND EAST OF PARK AVENUE• NORTH AND WEST OF GARDEN AVENUE NORTH. •. t I }i'i`•'+' ii.-/t'.. '1 A:li!1-w'ti:•'ik';1r:': ';.I' ' j,1.i;1' i.;'- _ i .iA,irvtK •.itw T."'•.:. [ p�4 ;- i;,,, ... •.4;� !- .�.•i:b�'t:^: ;':L 4r.;....•.. '•} '1• •,i r 9.9'1 4' t : r,. .�;, '� + J„ dry•. ,�. ::y '' 0Aini ' w ;1: t.{i;� ,: Fvi.:17-!;1I ✓?t•:'lk:.'a' li"1i,'?.:: Ii 1 r .e„ .: .+-k:' .' a .P,..,:!,f"ha��' r �!�i,irr r;a1l:Lfy."-Tr;:�..I, c; . . .. ... . , , . . . , (• ., '-.4:... '.'• - '...•' • ,. • • • . •' . . . --'• . • . „ .. 1 . J • I 1 • . , -., . • .i ,... . . .• . LAND USEELEMENT .. - . • . : , 1 .1 . I ip• • .. . .... , . • i 1 i, . . . . . .. , • • . . • I 1 . • . s : in.' • . .•• . . i • • ,• . . , I I. ,2 , , !• • . •Single Family ,. . . . i , Commercial 1 /j . ..% „ .. , , . .... , .. . . ,./ ...,:i::;:iiii:x. , k.:i,.*•. . . . . Low DMueti-nsymily • it , N ' • • • • 4,- 4:•::.:•:•:•:•:•: ..-... ••••••••••• sum ••:•:. : ::•:::•:::::::::•:: . Office / Office Park .,/ ,-:..- ig lFa . \ ' i ;I '•::-.:. 11."1.• . ' . : . ' . t i /tK I ' MON ::::•: Medium .0000000 . i.. ..§ii•Z.%,.."0..1..t lr.b.ditql-Llii• : : Density 0000000. .0000000000,000. Public/Ouasi-Public ; I • .:I:i:I•K:W::•••: AI a a•',' lelleilin•:.:::::.i::•i*:::' Mu It I-Famdy , .ociceau,..... . . ,. ' 1 i :...i.,.-- - :,1'.. am:: j,:ii .. . ..•N4. tralurtji::: , i • i i .;: ...Aftk:*,',..-t., . .ui1:::: • . .NIM.I High Density . . ! 4 .,• ,. .,1 ISM: ..:. '••••0.*.'4: Light industrial , • , , .,, , y.,,,44,,::: .'4.14 ,.:.•?;• Multi-Family ,, i i, , .., isdamii.•: , . • EP • , i• : 111 .1 -;l' • • t.:i•••c N•Z, • •,. • 0 . ,. • ''crtq Recreation °•°•°. Heavy Industrial ., .A.7 . v . . i ',4,(,(.:LNe.4...; • • • /1 _ . . • & '1." .• ...., ,,,„.......,,z• .,•..•..-...." _____ , -,::,-,,••::•••• ** • .•i-;;•'• Greenbelt ::::::::::: Manufacturing Park , i. / Multiple Optionl ,/ 1111:11P1:14.11,t" i ...t.- .,:e...:., . ,. ....,...; ,: ,..,-, 1E4110 4 N..,.,,:j•4.rt..t1 Revised April 1985 I; J .. r..!...H,...4A..., ",,,•:., :q hail; I :• ' - c'•0 . . %. • . S• . • :. \ . .. • • • - • ••• if ! , . • , . ; .%.'7*,. 4:1•1;316. , . . • 11' 'ty,•:•'4, . , . : • • "...4.'t 4:.•,:•;zt. • ' . \\4-Vii4,, • ; • 't N''..i:4''}'•'. . • • • ' A• ' 141.1 :::: , al - .. ' , l' ,/,.•••, i., •::: " *•a••••- • . : • WA c, . . . • LAKE . ... . . - 1 -%.',L , I i•.::i:: • " ' i........ • ›- - k)'. •:•::::::: -,* lir I,. WASHINGTON 1 ,..-3 'II 4, N .. ,,... • ,.,., , . . . 1 i i'l 1 r .. , .IV\;.z.• . .. . ....” ,.....%:i.... 111, . . •• I. i. ••••: # ‘*111*# k . \•• SI . "74 lai i, I '43 ''''•,.... •.0.,.., : ,. e••vw • .-1••••w,•••• • . ,,,,' 0 0 •..'77..... '1'.%Iv I... - 000000 i r,•. . ,.•• eim 1111..11,.. 0g.0 II . al El1l 1,, 080 0, .*. • •••••0•0 0 0 00 00 0 0 0', •1 1••;..•"'A.N••f,•.,1.4.1':,,,.,1.•*.'•...t -- 770 0 0 ) 0 ,p• : m 00 * : • e : oo c .o • 1•‘ k . 0sq. 0e00o00000a • 00 1 /000 v ;:ip'...,:„•.•::*. i•::i..:.::9. NI _.1. 111111r 111 ,ogaggoa .. •, 000000000 • clIo • if - •:•:•::: .: 00•I'Ell NIMINKC 00ogogogt , 0 0 0.' ., ,i' ••'. , 4-,,,,, 4 1 4ilf,i' ,,,'‘ t•'1'1" 0 ' • '''' t `43202g02,•'.- 0 0 li'•:ilf••4,4e,"tl,,Pft,r, .,;.1•••%01,14.i- o •,.% ' :i, nos .„ ..-,,,,,,300,;,,, 9 8 0 ''''''• "0 0 • ":' : -°.. '•.• , 0 ,, . •:: •IN • ' k74firiliNN . k ....... ,..,:,..,,,,,,(,,•g,g0.3,3„ggietgr.. UPIlmisPis°0.'0.ii..•'...flv.-:•00..., 00. 0...;If .. r...44 ...4.1 . . =Elm. tAi.--1'0041.32.:',Ji.,,°0°0°0°0'0°0•''0'0' 'it- 01'10 '', mion, ,,,, :vago,, gav:.,, . . • • , 0 a 0 . . . , . . ....,., , onon...000. t 000 0000 . • 0 0 ,•• 0 ••-• 1: •::.•:•*,"1.." c°508°-12. 1., , o 0 0 •y „.r•-a• 1 o.o .; b 0 •'., ___\111\\I 1_,Illir.,:-. ..::-••IttAt ..T. ,o20.11 vf Nig . • . 1 lioa,,,,o, 020.„, .,0 0 41 0 •, 00060 , :. . * /i.li•• 0 o ,0 1..i: . ,00elm() ..i.•• .11 . , ,tp,••• 1•a. 0 000 00 ir 30 0 0 • •0000 I•J * ,m::.... ..00,101goi•lo:3 •i,„ 0 0 0 ..,. , . nt, '• -; „0 0 0 6 01 ,':•:, •°n°o?•°o"o . :00e0A )ilirti u o 1• 00oo ‘• ....:'•• . 90°00000q.•'4 6 6 o' i,..,r.••"2,"i ' ;1.' ..1,0'i 0 9 0 — ::.-/„ .`.!..-.• • • 11.(1 0! ' 1 °°°°8°S,1,1.• ••, o o ....: ' •• '"I AI&° a 0 0 0 . 0° ' ,4,'%.1. a ,,.,f1 f•.'0 , P . ... : 11/411;114 )(("(e !"—. - " ' -7.... l':,19:Migligs.6'0°0 0 .:.::::0-• --setlii, N:6,51,3'2691i:0:,,.. , 4. -vli ,., ''7: 1 Agikg,°°0°.!i' • .:••:'•' Ain't t` I O A* 0,°01' (—114 k !::. 00,00.00.0., " 0.000. i .:.:::. . • , N. ,.Nliti4 i :::: og,,,,;„gag.0„.., c?agog., ; • ...r...rz,t•vi.... : .........,,, - , :•::,: 000000,00000000°A," •4.0%40'141! milli , r iv.. . :.: . . __.. .....1 .:': ; logillogogoco)04;t• . 'og Ar, „. ,,,. .fl ,,.!,..ci e, . •1 , 'Ai gggegggggggg 0 • J.-- .,,vitaiL : ..'... •••. . , 01 ift. I, A..' ;IL., ft, •'• ..1- lig 0, Po4.• • 1 :v.i /,.., • ' .1. ..., ;' oogogogomosvo..i. ..:.°' ... , ,.,: ,k: im,-1020,0°0:100°.0,.0:00°,kgg0°,1,.pkir°•0,,,.. 111;711!::yi ......• .,0 0 '411111.IIIIIIIIIIIIMIII.•.og°0e0'9e0:0. - L), . .:....,r2:..... . .. • , -,r1r.......2_.:),,::::..i..f:iliby 1,. ..1:17.r.:4, il :'., ..wiesimigowila,,•ro, ..... . .4 Ittli a . •Istildbe v. I 181111, II limp ,,.; • ••'•"..i::••••• .. . . • ,., *PP -.• • ' - 11/4"''' ':,' a:•:•1 ' :i k)(0)222,giiCtii! ll'eg 111 11'ilibVI ''.f4C.•' i. . 11,;*e :.." o o ., ,,.• ...• "•'.• 11411110060..." • •:A",i?`;• i?.../ "' . :.hi,"'21`fa''''°?°' :II Lill !Fin so'C,;I:e17; i• :44iti IC'''' ' o o It .• ••.- '••', -- \ . .. 0 ';'•5. . s.••:::::....:.....:. •-•.......,•1 0,•,,•,, . . 4 -.Rik ;'.. i •:1 - ;I to,---ii•Ill -Mg'gliipic,, ,,L..i' 4.j•„di i b• ::, . •Agamil \ 0 .....4' . :.....,..::•,::::•.:.:::::::::..:......:....... ,.1•t.,t'',..,„:•:•\1‘, ..,,% • Figii 0 II • , 0 1 1 •::. :.::!::::::M:i*:::.:".:::i:i:iri*;:.. '1.:....*:',F3•::'.'; .;,....ck..i .... VW " Tighe "ii a 6 a •iiiii6i, i 1 • ‘1,0f,t.,, .t• .., ., . •..( .:..i.:•:::. :1::::.......,..s.I,:•c)0..y.1:' ‘• :".::7.. n..t,• ,411, I iliii 1 *.i,C,• 1 : 0 III§ etil d .. -: . __ • ''''' - . allir 1.1 IN II'''):$ 1 1 : g ; ' :.:::•::.:::::'.•:::•:' ;i- ..••(' _....-_-_-_-_---- •: ..•..,. 'Oil ; II" . II foltii0Fr'lli 1,1 t ."'-' " ....:-..;". `''..:....." . ,.....,.._,..m ....„tie ;RH .1 1 •<, ,k.„, .. • •.^.,,/,•‘.:.., -•.c.......ik•:•i•::::••::•:•::: : :....11::. _••=7-7.7:---:-:-:;-:-:-:---_ ."•et•••::iiii:::::•:•::::.:.:.:•:•:::::: ...4 II li i i 1101 ill I° • ' ...•I: .' •c):.6::',,.,4,...., 4.,14;c9t4 . ": .::•:• .. _• , -_..- ....,...:). -......._-_.-4::::i... •'.'. •:•4:4:i:4i; i1::Migii:i:i:iiii::i?! 1 WS ' 01 I° •-0 4. . )..1 :. .•I... j• • S•..111.'II,3-.. .........."7:3.3.... \ ,:?..:::‘...r.s.:7,.4.-,,rs'...;•: .,:::::1: .- -....7•:•.:,.... ....:2:-. . ....:.::.:: :IiiiM :1 ill 5: II .,,, .,1 itt,, 1 1), A:et VC/, •' .. ". .:.. '';'.i'..-Z:Z::'...1.7? ''''.. ...:.... ::-MP-410----:-:---. • '.4,...••••:,Z I 1: 111411.11.1.11 i : ..b.;.... , .,,:z............c:,:.. _ _-.•••• rinse goompoor a Ig..V.,..' . Apiyi.ql Ali.i V ---.. ..,Aortff.7 •-•-•77.-Zijigree7.-----7,-77.7-:-.7-:.-.7-7.Iiiiiradr441.14 )••• N14?•V"i14.11 . lk ti,AA -4-- -74 - • -------------- ..•-:-.-- - 7-7--.----.••-...-•-•'- - - -..4. ' -4-12111114i#4121 '2 ii6. agr ...O. 4., ----_-_--.- .0 0, ,- --_-- -. .-..1_-_ -_-_- -_-_:g • so pgrargg .(,),Q° meggitisi c,0 I 1111,,,,Goo.% ,Do "ft.'fram."4"": '°2. MINIM .uni '111.!4111111• . ..-----:'. •I--.... 4-''''-4 '44- -'- 11111111111111 M1111111111111111 gog 1, II ' . x oo• (1 I .. ..,R.Ve• 2, i .(1,,,‘7,- ------ 0 0 c 0 c•0:YON.•. ,-—• - ittiivirthrr .... , m• ,Q, • al. -' ' 1 , .. •.I +'i,i ,, 1'a; a.'i• ;i• ,- 1•.f;y • 1 A,....y. 1 . • 1 I d F • • • • ( II • . . .............. ... . ..... NC57H•..&I:.57 T • _.._.__.. ill7 9 i g Dtmo ' Ki ' .— I I I 1 1 I i a 1 i 1 i.'2%'• •-':.;:"...-.........,- . .OA%fii;11 ... ,ft, %-•"--,--N Tio�i .� 1 1PJfliI 'III1ti Plitt It - o e-If, ,lid !i� 5 E j s Q Q _., - /- rd: •'I `;o4i'nMT....04�O.o rnri^c:aga4*--!•ri i " i1i1 '; I 1 r 1 • i i i E i i i i i y ' I ' I ! ijJi _1' fi . . I I i l':_ "� �' I lit , 1 i 1 �� . 1 1 • t i �.. ,T,? P 11 Eti I�eow 1 . L..... ...-- :• .. :. • II AtL • i •1.1 I . Bill .171 . • * ' 0 '. .i a l OF. _ � ; I• a �,� • i,} op 1 • 4, . .. ..... . i , _ . • _ ail, ........., , . �� i ' +r'rw' ' --..k . , 1 1 ,„.. 11 „ 0. ci),..,0 .. , to • , . . . 1.4 . . . . • ir4 . . . . . le I 71.441l Ipv • j - �11 • Alf ~ § 1I 1 '4 i 4 — , `i i • • .,I U 1�ilk,. z4 In -- . _. . . . fi :1'c'4 SF - I• 11....., _ • ' '4 aii1Y411 7 6. ,.._. , 1/4.__. . . : .. . ...... . . . .... e . , • . .. -..__... Nagy., 0,smeer III Illir To E u47 . •• .. . ♦'''i'�II 1 a: T` �..YF r ••;I a.y �� r• :4 Y.' Ay.1 ... 'V 4 . .t r yv 1 .,.r . 4 ' �f 11aIv : I a.-k`t a :5:T+l� 4! ) ,, (PRELIMINARY LANDB_IAPE PLAN . ) .. -5g77171 H- '"'1/olm ' 1, , '''''re:;A. :,. :. ,. ,.: •,-.. •••• ;-• i,.i.i'e,'•,i:;;‘,If:',,-". -\,:: ..••'...:. .:.:.:,';'':',.."':,• '.•:'' .',.•.• '.,:.f,-,..•'7: :4.'t-..-!.,-•- . . .. •(:''- ' .•'3•%•:-'. ! • •' '... i :'• - '''',i=iicill,l''''':I!J.:, • ',;, ,d't.'•1'.;;Z.'•.,-,!:, ,. !:.:';':.. ..• •• .;7::1!;'' ' . '' • )'I,'',I!•:' :,,,.'-•':.. .'`,:,':' •'''''':1.:','''.?':'''' ..',"''!;i.,1`g;!'1.4,i,,.,, ,i'f',''r,..:" . •'Y,.2."I', ' ' :1 !1;!;.*:'!:':''''4:1;-'g ;;C:t.d.•:''!.::•.'!! .. e • ;....:..!',•,:i.i.1:::;.,::.,.;:, ..;*!-.!.::. : .:,;.:•.-1:,.", ' !:•,''.;',-;,:!',0,,,'V'?‘-`14,',, '4:,-.:71,:,V.i.,,i'‘.„ •.',1*.'r[1.!:-,.1.;'.::-.:•i',.f141010 •Ii;,:,;.",!•:,;:,...i .. , . , : .. •':,4.,1,::,,;;:ii ,', •': ; • ' •• .d.••• ••• - .;•''::'.•',''.• • !-'•!%!.:',1:,I'''':.'.::i I'1,1e,*-,, .::.'„,.•r;d4:,:::;,7..5.i-,.. ' ':`:::,:..• ;-,V•!i• ,i . • itr.401:!`“ , • ,i • ,,,.,,•4 1.1:FV,r I, I •l''. . . , . ,, . , ' ''.::'•'13101Y;',.. l' '' • , I. ' •'':',4M q.,,1, ,, . •• . ,. .. .: . , •::'1,1zed.,,i : .. .. , . . . • . : .:'.!r.i41•:! , . . • • • • •L'!,'..!..!“. , , . . • • • 't.:1;•'.'' • . ,. . . , . . .. , I, , . . • I'. . . . • , 6..!•:'",'i . . . , . I , , • • , . ' .,,i';1;'.. . . . ,• • •!V%-1;.:., .' . . • • ':%1 '!, -• . ' • . • I . , . ! . . . ' . . . . . . . . . • , :..• .. • . •t:. 4;. , .• . . . . ....•.:..,, . . • . . . , . . ' . • 1 • r- . ' • , . . .• . • . . ' •I'; •I . 7 . , .. .. ,. ., . . . ,• .. - •••.- .1 . . . . .4.• • , • -' J''i .. •• 7 ilanT4 faiti WM ' . . -e- — . .• —•-• • --:—. — ,. a•„ . I •. i I 1 . . . -: 1.-777.7-117t- .. . , :', • • •:- .. .. • . 4. _......------.:, wood.,; /.. ./ a irt.....,-N4 • . , (.? i - : I .• i! . •• f . . ,i I , . .- --.........--, , • .. ! •, • i el '. • I ' . ' ' ' . , . , . • 1-'-‘77 . q . . • § . _pi ' 1 1 1-11 . . •: i, 1 .,. , . 1"6- . !'.• . ' . • - • 1 i . i .• • . . , . , ..,. . . '\_..._ —,----:.--•,-- .1._`1 ' -__..j.:L..4 ii tc .'. . k .\, . ...,._ • . v • • I • It 1 i . 7 , , • ....___ p ............-Sm. t . . • 14 1--- .,L,,,),rf_. 1 --)4.4.__...t.;- . : r---- • 1.------7, 1[K— • .7_ .-:1--Tr-, ' •-• - - ._.1 r--. . IN • 4---. _____ . . . . • .42=‘,...t 1 1 ... . . = la .'--.-.... ., ........-...-. . 0%. , : :,„ p $ ' ., II 1, ---t • . . . - 1 •• .. • _ . . . --tiv----:7• 1 'Vt.-gl•-•••t‘itz.-- 1/ — , . • - , . . ... . 2 :. J... ti,— ._ . R t . . _ i ....;A 40.4._. . 1. • 1-- _ . — 1 *XL- '' A. —7. . . • • 1 . . .__ 1----'• — — . . .. ' •-.._:.-. — ,_____ i — •t -, . -.- _ . ,, .....; III•— 1 I __.• . ..., • 1 i• 1 . , 11. 1 . . — . . M._ 4 7 ' - I i .. ,. • -- 1.1:. . lill—..._ i - , .. - MI . —. • — 11 111 • —• " . n• , • I— '• l . — ... . .. ! • • ) . P . • .• 7 4, ° • . _ . • —. . , . , • 1 • 0. iit • • + < • A . -.:••.: vor -4"°7".• •..._.4••',0,„.,„,,4.—___..H • -• • ...3!..• . •4 -... :. . . • 4 .•,.. hs. I • I ' ___...:_,.....__Limi._ s , . • , . 1, . . • • • 1 .• . /..) . •I _ • . .• . . . .. . . .. . ,s • ".• • . ' - 1>+ 4 nond 7 • 40- ., . '. • 7 i I . , . . . . . , . . . - / 1 li• '. ‘ . . ; \.,•'. , . • .4.... , • ,i... I +. .1. ;,. , ! ,e......4‘..• . ../ ..../. . • L . . •• • , . . . ,. .. '.' .. .: .. . . ' .l'''N\ '''.\‘ . . • . . , ,--. T ., ....... . : • ...9 1 •• • ,`Pti '..... ..0.10.1 ".-1 .1 ..._ r • • -• • - . • • .. karl'HIFTH B1REET 0- . ' ' - , . — - 17.•-• ! .., •.• . . . 47.• .., ! • . ' • : .1' • I . . . li;"!.•V.,'.• ' 1 . . • • •'..i It i•P A • i - • ' • . . , ,1,,A-:•I''',.E'''',';';';',,:cti:YW_;'.4.;!:Z: •15';V:;•• ,,,'1!...r.,;,$•,4;Ir.'s,:t.,,,,,:•.rri,,,-,r,-,,„,,,-,;:,:Tz,•;1,..c.;;7,-,''..71,;..44..,:':M'-'1':1,l',' ,'Cik'7-'4',1,:l 'f':.':'-' n'Y!P',11' '',.:•''''''' '•'.ri'•'•:' ."' .1'••''' '':,"•.,'': .4--. . r%,••I . i 1 1 ( PLAZA PARKNO LEVB./FIRST 11.00R PUVI •.•• ,;• ) r"•::1•'' — - • • ILI; ..'1...!;:e • oasal...:kr*,14.11•010•4411 •.40 ipi H r nA R.DPN PI.A2....e •,...,,./ y,--------,- . , --------,,,—,-,- ... : •:•-'d•: .1 r> amebas. ' -V71.2-tit.31:474.1.4.....T4.... : .."7!II • :0:7•••••.-•".'.4'Y'\ .r— T fa NraCIXVO.1 i 1 , 1 '6v i t .6=r t....te.16,... ...i.-** f ...• . • r- . .—-. • , • ,., , *1 i '.•:::::4,..,' .t... .. f - '' ' • , --•••- ma.Os ' `• E1001....i.SULA/13A3101011:Nd VrIld, ) r " :.:' . •1,.,“,4 '.,.. ''..;:'•';i44";,',,c4,4',N,'' ',.,. ,.,„. ,-,.,c„....;',,'`.• ';',...4..,.:..1,:',:i."..-„!,%i:k.",al ;,,'''r..''. 4,...;•7'.4.c.k.'-,-.r.-', -;i•-',.-..%,:,',:: .i.:,!.7,1.•••;::-..i:1•1:/.'";ii: ...,,:'... 4., , . '.., ..J.,.-.'"4, 7, :".:, •• . •. . i ... • ;-.1,•'•.r, ,:.••,..• •• -..";P:,-••••;..'..,',.:';'.,,',.,•'. ••• ••... .., ...' ...... : ., •; • ...;,.. • . .. .• r'•-• .;,. ! • •,., 1;1:: •").,•.,' ,':' :'...I.'..' ‘!. . ' ' ' . , r • . . . . .: '1,•1, • ,:-4'..1 ! !. , ., . . . . . - .4.. ..• i . I • . . , . • . . :,.• • 4 . 1 . . - • iA •.. UMW lild1141/01 . I • ! i t I.. . i i I , . • .. •.. • • i I I ........ , • I .,.' . ..r \•••-6`. ""',. f'-'-'-''' •••• t %.. , I . . ' ,I,T , 1 Te ....• I . . • . • :- , \,i . :, ; . ' s\•:, / . I • • .. ' . . • 1 1 ..1 :•• . . • . ( ihfi ilk :1 . . .i ,.- -11-• t . • • ., ,,, .1 --- . . • • , gryno Law i '• . • -.....-,— . 1 i .• . . . . , I • . ' .. .• . :•• ‘!..!'• . • ,',... —VI ). • i • .• • .• .1 -/1 • , , •. . • • •••I ..• . • . _ ., • i . • • . . ,i :.• -t- •, . , . (..i . . • . .- .... _. : • • i , • .• . . • • i: • • .. it- • : I ' I I ... .. _ ... ..... •• : . 0 4 .. , ...:.• • . . 1 ': , , • 1 .w.' . i . ' : - , 10.1.19.41_, 9,..11114g— .----......'• ....1.— .• . ''..1." • i : • - i‘• • • -. . , • Amt:•?- A . •i , . . . . - ; • • •— lift • I • , .1 . .' t . _ ' . .. ea. _ • . .• — . 17. • ' . • . .V . -. . •_ _ - _ • _ .... . _. .._ •-- • . . 1 . • , , ..: . , . • :' • . .ii . ...... _ . _ . . . -,. ___:._ ____ 11 _. , _ .I___-...• i •11 1 • '-4 .- I • . ..,1 ', — • 1, 1 - .' ;:.: • II . • — -.1 • --."4117% -- • 1 . ) 1 I. •:•. • • .-- . >.. -71.• • — ---,1-..-....., _• r" .,. • I .. • • _ _ , . 1 • 1 •i . -•- . , 1 — , . ;_4: ii".......1., : . . _ i 1 •• • . 1:--- . • I ' •—....Vt..--AV.:LA t , . • . . di ' • ; . 1 ! ' , • 1 • , 1 1 11••••517/-:1. 1.-- l : * i --- ... fifir '_. , . t . • i---•• ,...\' , ._ ,'-' ' —R) --3 : . .• l ..L ,g— ---,.., .:1 . • 1 : . . 17174r--.-• . re .71._ •-ra-A.Z." - . . . . •••-•---.--I 1 . . I 4 f 1 " .........1.-I—II 1 ---04.--.....ri . • , , \_-.-----. _1: .- '. L__L' . .. ........4. I 1 (--- i 1 1 •: i ' . • , r•-A--x...44 , ; • .-.74.6...044..........4 . .. .... i 4.1... ' 4,...-1...,.'"•4 I 0:i i•----1 '. • i • I . ''' , . .•:•. . -..i....„..__ :_..•.'. • ..... . ,.. ,_, , , . i 1 .., ,,[ v I _ _ . ', 1 :•.-.1,•. t_• v-\.. . . .. . . i . •,.• • 1 I . , . ; • . . . , . - • .. , —1_ _._____.•_ I..— 1- .• • •_ i . .. . I— --) • i0.---.. 0 ---•%• • , .J 1 : ,,_,____._.._._ _. • • f• , • • . .• . . I !• . . , ' 1 • • 1 . • • . • IOW * ------ ... -.. ...---........-...--..--...141/Ci illh011 -- -.• - -•-• , . .• , • • • .. . I • ' ' ' . • • . . , ' • ' • . . • . • . ...I, . • • • . . , . . • • . •. . . . • . , . , , ',', . . • . . .. 1 . • • •'!:":. 1 .. • . . • .. . . . . . • ..• • • 1•I r. . • i :: i • . •• , • • . I . . . . . .. . .. . • • . 1. • . , . . . . . . a . . . • , • i . , . i . . • . . . . . . . .• : ,. . .. . ' . . . ..• . . . • . ' . . .. :,:. , • , . . • ,. !•• , • • . • , • :•.: Hr.': ' . .. , - . .. • ... . . . „ . . . . . . . .. . . . '. • , 1. . ' . ...• ,• ••' .. , . . • : '..,',..!i•:; ' • ' . , , • " • . • . . .• . ' , • . • • . . . . . „ .; ''•'*:';'' :e1.•%P4144.••:".:1 '.. ' . •....,:t:. :,;.,41.1ii,',1,',,ti,•:.' - .. ... •• .:,. •••••,..i'4'.•,•',2'•.;•'i'...;.•4..7.:.;'";::•r';'i''•'.41;.,'`:,..•'iefl;:',.F. .`0r0''.-.11P4'•.4'';-.'..1.t-.,.:•.•:.-...•-..' 7.-..• ''i4Y• ..''.;...i;..'1;t;:'.,..,..•'!;.e'l',l;1.1,;I.:,•'. 1.5.i.'.'l...',Ci:•.i•..i,'•' '..,'ii...'..`i1!r.1)!i..•f'!1...';;•;::..'''.1.'.'.-'.7,';'.;t..•';;`:i:46.M;'a4,l:1Z',."..T'I...,.1.',g';•.:14'..1."'''" :..5:1..1•.1.4':•1•.:F;i...i,l'Vr;.'';i..4;'.c;'•"•.:'1..:•.•!,1'..,:,.'-',1.;:.'.:,'..'•i;.•••..••.••.••'ri'''...'.,.•'..'':..•:••..••„••‘'•..-..'.•..5:‘'gl4''•'f::1'z,:::',I",:C..:'...'i...K..:.• -.••-..) • '. ' : '. . . . " % rt,1,.. f;4 - : ;' . . ..!.0i'V ..',C ';' .- • 1; • '14.. . , 1 ,.,:, h.. • 4 i L 1.;••. .-,:•,•r„iii.74,.F.., ,_i . .,....:.'!, ,•;,•-•,1,-',11...*,:ii.':',',,,,,,,. ,%.4.13:4-;•,,l'I.O.if.,-,... ',., ''';',.••!,'.;%`....,c:i'21''.!,.,!1;;;.r...'.:: 'P... :;;:rSINIV:4184;3r.1 • f ••i7-,4J..1".•' • •!•' • •••.' %...y.-;„•:,...::•;,:); •;...,-11•;;;1•••)r; ",,•'•`;4',?) -••-•:,• •••'',........--: -",..::;','••4 . ., ' •1 te•••••,,t• 1:•.•••.•i• •.! ,:.1,..it,;..1 .. ..,„.,.. . )'.• : •„. • ,...;. ••,.; ".r.. ., .'Ai.•,, Ii.".. ,.. +', QI:i " . .•' .' ':''‘,..''1,,q,0".0. .:- • • 's'..,v,, •:.';• ,,t,I,t,;;,? ).?•?'-'''' .V.PIMiiiti'-)ie,..!.4,'.. ,):`,•('..I,.1.!0',1.-...,...%.!::,'r!,1-, .t l'' ,I ''.,....;e'‘‘'' ,rri, ki00'54.,,• •'••'1,••`•••••E " ••,••,••1,-.-.i•'). •• •,: •• e'"•••c • C'Yc .•' ;Ai • !.. ,••• ,•.C.•••.'•-'•'‘, / Z i/ •'::I" :6:T•g,•••••tri.;• ,..'- •• " , `., 4,4,i1: . • ' ',. c•.•!`i c,,'74'..??,!," '..i.•' ",,.•05%•'*4:q••:':•.'... .1+0' • -: : ,•: .1:. :!' • . •: • ,••;,•,..t. r•:: ,.•lc.,:•.;k4j 1 ...:::,::,:i'i•I:• . . - qr.;!,4;,c.,.:,•,"/1.1"••1 • . . :41PliciThl :'' ii• : ', I •• . t:. .'.C • ; ' '' : ;if:t.-1.•4.'•': • •• : i • . • . .•. . . .. .. ., . i ,.•':::,•,:,,, ' • , . • ' :. • . . . I .•I!'l:,: . • . . • • • . 'III:• • • • ' , . ' . , . . , . . I • ,; ;c;:i :C. ' ,: 4 !•• , . . ' i ,•„ • . 4 : . , ' I :• ,. ' . . • • •• 1, . . • . ' , • . : • '. ••., • • .6 '. I:7."---- •i • I ! . ' 1 . _ 1 \ :-.. s . • 1 ,I.. . 1 . . . ; • • z •, ....,,, I. . '1 • •. • ' ..,..:.••••• .. •i• ,41 1r.cc .. I : •. • ' • ; ; or .i: ° dr .. • 4. . . , ,::-.; 1• L..._...._ ,_... ,; ,1 : : , .-1 4ilf . f .111 IL .._ . , — : ,• 1 • 1.•• . r ' • I • .. i. 11• Iiii II II 1 I • f• 1••I• • 1 • I .1 — ' ' ", .. ..- ....1 ; . .: -• . • • I ; :' I ! : . I • J • ' - 1. . t-:-. ; . .......-... - .... , 3, ' --; . •-- :1-:- • 1 ii - .-._; ;--.:•.7,...-.-. • is--...-i- _ _ , • I .• ij i: , 1 i _1 • ::::: --- 3---:n- .. , .•, . I, ,. ; ••• i • • b I' ' 3 I '7 -7 :7 ' : ,:::-' • -• '. ...--• — J--1. IT1•:.f.% , '.!. , • .. • . I ,., ti?..... . .. , . . . .. . ,„ ,,. . : , ,. • ., • . 1 , • •• • ,. •• i . ' I .- • , • • , i•-:••1. -•••••• ""' 7, 7 ' ' ' • I I/ . i . 1 1 -!*:.: ... .. . ' rils.::: ..• _._—I • • •, " --,--L; :..: _:: 1.. . ..._14 . . r• .::::. ..„ 1 7 ' • .•*h.. ' :..• + • t -..• . ...... I i i- :I "i-• 11 ! t.! I I .. i ' .._.. •.1 I.1•r . . F .. L.- L• • • : 1 ) 11 I — k ••• • : : :. : : : .-. • -,--,., • 1 iii-gi, .-1 !I - • . . .• ...-.. _L • . . . 1 I . - • . i 211 ii . ,• .. _ • ii .., I 1 -17::.:;: . : 1 :. ilil°)... ® • . .... .. 1 • , • III 1' 1 11,„ 0-;.,., ,I-; — ..s. H 'f' L 1(-1 ' • 1 EL,l' ; ! ...: , •. 1 If 2,4q •, i . i , . : -.k . 13 j 1 IL••• . i : .._. 4 I. L Il Tt c i 1 1 — i111 f II ti 1111- I • • ;31 Int 1 :•I 1••• r: :.:,• : : Ic .1 •}' .,, ::*- •-' • •r- , 1 .. •,,, . , ., t ,r..- • . , ..., • ,. i_ - i -.1-:„..;-.-......:• . ., ... • . • -, ....._..4. 1 . ; ri 1 • . k 1 li . .iC i I 1 L- • ' I I / •••••-•--•• I.,... , 1 '•1 -a: • • :". • ' ,• . • • • • I /I • • • -"".•• I 1 • , 1•• , ( )IA I I : -...•. '':. • % k.) • ' • ' ilti 1 I 1 4 , i'- I i ; I I..' I .: . - p . ...• • ; 1 1 1 I I I 11 1 _ . li , ii , • i• I • - ,•...._: _.; --i".—: 7' - i -; -•,1-.1 • :, ' .1; • l'i .... •• •• • 1 . 1 ' • ' i ' •I : ) • 1 i i• • 1 • I:. . -1 ' I I )•:-.1 :2, I ; . 4 I ---•- ' • 1 ;I 1 ' . •., • i ' : •..I .:, . ...,, .; :: 'i 111111 g .I ' . . • ,:. .: Ili 32 f ..1.,.,%; . • i 1 ,. .1 • • . • — • ARV .‘iti,— • .. 1 • %, , ! i I , .,..i._i:-4 ;.. ;.1.. . . ‘........? • . ii.: i.'- -1 .. . d it i It .4:4— I • , . I : . • g ' 'i. : _ 74,41. .. i A i • '. _•-.:.71 1,:-. Z.i ti, ' i . •-•-,•I .. : .• 1 ! 1../. 1: ‘••••i; • -I e., , • I , .1 1.1 1 -I ...1:-. f •••••v_....4 • ,-41.-. ,-• • • I ' 1 'i . . k • Il .,;.1 . ..,...__,_.,,. . 1 . , I 4 1. • . . . . , • . • .•P,.., .---=-1-T-1,-3,.. ‘.-- - 0..:,..,,:-Tc,:r:r,IY -- T•-•-•`C:i' :.1::::::‘..'''..V...1%.'7:...' ''; 4s:,,;(f.:,-i" f ....,-e.... ,s , .-0;1, •:.v.;.:-.---.Z.T.?Ak (BLILDING ELEVATIONS/SECT;. . , . 1 acizm as owirmiummimmi 1= rwrir ) I: ...•......, 1 I inommoomminimmii • i • 1 V l• - ...-- ;1 MYNAS ,.., lin now.-",‘ cm• crcumcm•Irrria --- �'. • August 18, 1987 OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION APPLICANT: . E & H PROPERTIES File No.: R-016-87 LOCATION: Located between Park Avenue North and Garden Avenue North between North 5th and North 6th Street. SUMMARY OF REQUEST: To rezone approximately 3.3 acres of property from L-1 to B-1 to allow the future construction of a six-story_office building and a 3 story parking garage. SUMMARY OF ACTION: Building and Zoning Department Recommendation: Approval with conditions. BUILDING & ZONING The Building & Zoning Department Report was received DEPARTMENT REPORT: by the Examiner on July 28, 1987. PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the Building and Zoning Department Report, examining available information on file with the application, and field checking the property and surrounding area, the Examiner conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows: MINUTES The hearing was opened on August 4, 1987 at 9:35 A.M. in the Council Chambers of the Renton Municipal Building. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner. •$ The following exhibits were entered into the record: Exhibit #1 - Yellow File containing application, proof of posting and publication and other documentation pertinent to this request. Exhibit #2 - Site Plan Exhibit #3 - Vicinity Map Exhibit #4 - Letter of Agreement by Applicant to participate in North Renton traffic study, dated July 1, 1987. Exhibit #5 - Letter of July 29, 1987 regarding re-evaluation of traffic volumes. Exhibit #6 - Aerial photograph showing location of proposed building. Exhibit #7 - Written testimony of Steve McBride. Exhibit #8 - Written testimony of Marjorie Richter. The hearing opened with a presentation of the staff report by the Zoning Administrator, Don Erickson. Information relayed covered such facts as the rezone covers 3.31 acres of a total 3.62 acre site; the site plan review is currently in the ERC review process; the rezone complies with the Zoning Map and Comprehensive Plan; utilities are provided to the site, storm water retention will be provided on-site; the closest recreational amenities are approximately 1/2 mile west of the site; the full width of the block (approximately 380 ft.) will be rezoned, the alley has been vacated; propane tanks on the adjacent site are to be removed or placed underground at the request of the Fire Department; and Erickson gave a review of comments from various departments. Mr. Erickson also reviewed the mitigated conditions of the ERC for this proposal which consisted of the applicant working with the Parks Department to provide recreational amenities on and off-site and applicant's participation in the North Renton Traffic Study. The property is felt to be classified for the requested zone in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and conditions have been met which would support the proposed change; improvements are to be paid for at the rate of $188./trip for future traffic in the area; and Erickson stated it is felt the applicant has just about reached the maximum of what can be done on the site as he • ' E & H PROPERTIES R-016-87 August 18, 1987 Page 2 now plans, and feels a building of approximately 240 - 250,000 sq. ft. is reasonable for this site. There will be a parking garage provided to the north of the building. The Examiner questioned the number of people per office and the subsequent impacts due to traffic. Erickson stated a transportation system is being recommended with this proposal to encourage other means of commute to alleviate street traffic as well as that utilizing the parking garage to be provided on-site. With the on-going changes in the area, and after reviewing staff recommendations, the Zoning Administrator recommended approval with the applicant being required to meet the conditions set out by:theERC prior to the issuance of any occupancy permits; the applicant will work with Paccar to relocate or place underground the two propane tanks located 150 ft. east of the site. Calling for testimony in support of the proposal from the applicant or their representative, responding was Roger Blaylock, 10717 N.E. 4th, Suite #9. Bellevue, Washington 98004. Mr. Blaylock advised the site plan for this proposal will be submitted within 30 - 45 days which will address traffic issues specific to this proposal and the general area; the applicant is providing a large recreational facility to address on-site needs as well as participation by the applicant in the partial funding of equipment for the newly proposed Renton Community Center. Regarding traffic, Blaylock stated the applicant is funding the traffic study for the North Renton area with the City directing the study through William Popp. The Examiner questioned if this was not retroactive planning if the traffic scenario for the area is found to show the streets can not handle the additional traffic due to the rezone. Mr. Blaylock stated there has been a lot of study put into the matter of area traffic and the applicant has committed to spending one million dollars for improvements in the area of traffic mitigation thereby referring him to a letter of July 29, 1987 he said contained this commitment. He also stated there is a separate study prepared for the Garden Plaza project and the Park Plaza facility with both studies being reviewed by the ERC; the specific project improvements being evaluated by Transpo Group focus on intersections and street widening which will be further reviewed at the site plan stage; the site will be under a direct lease to Boeing for a period of 10 years; feels the building is supporting the industrial focus of the area; and stated public changes in the area include the widening of Garden Avenue with major improvements, major access, new water lines, landscaping and improvements to traffic conditions on South Park Avenue. Continuing, Mr. Blaylock stated it is the applicant's intent to place a ring of upgraded office structures around the Boeing facility; believes they are taking an industrial area and revitalizing it by creating a commercial ring around the manufacturing area thereby buffering it from the residential area. He concluded testimony stating it is felt because the applicant has committed in writing to participate in the traffic improvements they are vested with conditions if the rezone is approved. He stipulated the applicant would commit to the Garden Plaza Building being 245,850 sq. ft. in restrictive covenants-as long as any modifications by the Examiner or the City Council for recreational facilities, etc. would be in excess of that space. Wishing to question the proposal was Marjorie Richter, 300 Meadow Avenue North, Renton, Wa. 98055. Ms. Richter said as a homeowner in the area she has watched the progress of the area; 85% of the traffic in the area is from the Boeing facilities; the value of housing in the residential area around Boeing has decreased over the last 15 years due to the traffic volumes; the hours of 2:30 P.M. to 7:00 P.M. are the peak traffic hours which disagrees with the William Popp study setting out peak hours of traffic as 3:30 P.M. to 4:30 P.M., with cross streets blocked and emergency vehicles finding it difficult to maneuver in that area. She said the noise, vulgar language from upset drivers, litter, fumes, stress and pollution are only some of the problems in this area due to the traffic - doors and windows must be kept closed during peak hours, alleys are used by some of the traffic, and pedestrian and vehicle accidents are prevalent. She questioned the traffic studies that have been made in the North Renton area; asked for traffic relief in that area, and invited those compiling the traffic information to view the problem from her home. Also questioning the proposal was Warren Vaupel, 1402 North Second, Renton, Washington 98055. Mr. Vaupel stated as a past employee of Boeing he is aware when they take over a building under lease conditions they utilize all available parking areas in adjacent companies around them, in addition to their own. He noted at some point in time Boeing may no longer be the occupant of the building and when that comes about he would like to see due consideration given to the allocation of parking areas another company would not be able to use. Steve McBride, 1220 No. 5th, Renton, Washington 98055. Mr. McBride is the co-owner of Custom Cabinet Sales. He presented his written testimony as Exhibit #7. Mr. McBride's business is located at North 5th and Garden, adjacent to the proposed rezone site; addressed the surrounding property owners impacts from this project and referred to the buildings on the east and west side of Park Avenue; the lack of buffers from this proposal and the fact his, and other light manufacturing properties will become an L-1 island surrounded by B-1 property. He reviewed the traffic impacts to be felt; the inability of his business to use street parking for customers, the difficulty of delivery at his shop by suppliers; and the fact the Garden Avenue access to the proposed parking garage will be within 100 ft. of the main entrance to his business, with the other entrance to the parking garage being a joint E & H PROPERTIES R-016-87 August 18, 1987 • Page 3 occupancy driveway which was provided as a pipestem access to another lot. He expressed concern over the impact of the 900-1300 vehicles proposed to use the small driveway; the noise, pollution, possible loss of customers to his business due to insufficient parking; and unsafe conditions that would surrounding his business from additional vehicular and pedestrian traffic. McBride concluded suggesting the City further investigate the incompatibility of the two zones in that area, and requested rejection of the proposal until all problems have been addressed so they can represent all citizens equally. Speaking further to this project was Versie Vaupel, P. O. Box 755, Renton, Washington 98057. Mrs. Vaupel expressed concern over the proposal and its impacts on surrounding properties, residential as well as business; and presented steps she thought should be followed by the City and developer to give traffic relief to the area; reviewed what she believed to be the safety concerns, noise, pollution, and feels the developers and City should provide more mitigating measures to better protect the daily lives of all residents in the area. She also expressed concern regarding enforcement by the Police Department, emergency access and response time, and possible leaks from the propane tanks located on the Paccar property. She concluded with the presentation of a letter from a property owner unable to attend the hearing, Mary Ellen Hamblin, 13025 - 138th S.E., Renton, Washington 98056. Testifying further was Terry Tedder, 1220 North 5th Street, Renton, Washington 98055 who is the co- owner of Custom Cabinet Sales. Mr. Tedder questioned the Zoning Administrator about the pipestem access and wondered if that road has been addressed regarding its use by the new facility as access to the parking structure. Mr. Erickson replied "no" but it would come up at the site plan process, and if an easement has been put aside that easement would have to be respected; Tedder said they are concerned about the possibility his business will be unable to use the pipestem for their loading and unloading; expressed concern with the aesthetics of the proposed building and feels there will come a time the City may require him to upgrade his facility to conform to the new structure. He does not feel they should be subjected to the increase in traffic that will result from this proposal. He wanted the record to reflect he and his business partner are in opposition to this proposal. Testifying for the Traffic Engineering Department, City of Renton, was Gary Norris. Mr. Norris referred to the two traffic reports that have been prepared for this proposal. One report was done for the 212,000 sq. ft. Garden Plaza proposal and an update for a 245,000 sq. ft. office complex as a part of*the Park Plaza which is north of this site. Concerns have always been over the traffic circulation in the North Renton area and the City has been working with the applicant to fund a North Renton Benefit Study. , They are trying to define the ability of this area to accommodate future traffic levels and identify specific improvements necessary to accommodate future development by this applicant and potential developers in the area. The traffic study completed for Garden Plaza was to identify the specific impacts of this site onto the adjacent arterial, which it did. From that, specific improvements were noted which were necessary to accommodate the site's access to the arterial. He stated based upon that report, specific needs were identified to accommodate the proposed development. He also referenced a study done by the Transpo Group for the Park Plaza which identified the expansion of the building to 245,000 sq. ft.; the traffic information is not complete for the overall area as yet; he understands there is an overall proposed 700,000 sq. ft. of development for this general area by this applicant. Mr. Norris, commenting on regional traffic stated those impacts will be addressed in the North Renton Traffic Study; he said development in the area should be utilized by the City to assist in the definition of an arterial system that would accommodate the needs of the City and establish barriers between residential neighborhoods, commercial areas and arterial systems. In conclusion, Mr. Norris reviewed the fees from developers and how they will be used to mitigate the traffic impacts. He had no further comments at this time. Wishing to testify was Bruce Wicks, 200 Garden Avenue North, Renton, Washington 98055. Concern was expressed by Mr. Wicks over traffic impacts to his area, safety of the children in the area; would favor a diverter of some sort at Third Street with the possible re-routing of some of the traffic; and wishes to have the City take a complete look at the impacts to Garden Avenue with regard to traffic, pollution, and safety of area children. Mr. Blaylock requested a ten minute recess to review the two traffic reports presented and prepare for presentation. Recess was called at 11:30 A.M. The hearing re-opened at 11:45 A.M. with Mr. Blaylock presenting some general comments stating the applicant is putting together a Transportation Management Plan; feels the two issues to be addressed will be the project's specific impacts which will be evaluated in detail in the Site Plan and the extension of the Comprehensive Plan effort with regard to a limited traffic study area and a method for implementing the improvements. He introduced William Popp, 1309 - 114th Ave. S,E., Suite 301, Bellevue, Washington 98004. Mr. Popp addressed the North Renton Transportation Study covering the area of I-405 on the east, 44th on the north, Lake Washington to the west and the Cedar River on the S.E., returning to I-405. He stated this is a long- range study and they are looking at several forecast land use scenarios for the area. He said he was not sure the traffic information is necessary for the rezone request as they have identified the project impacts and identified mitigation measures for those impacts. He said the study is expected to be • 1 • • E & H PROPERTIES R-016-87 August 18, 1987 Page 4 complete approximately August 31, 1987. Speaking further to the traffic issue was Jim MacIsaac, Transpo Group, 14715 Bellevue-Redmond Road, Suite #100, Bellevue, Washington 98007, who advised his firm was hired to look at the short and long terms of traffic impacts to the year 1989; traffic operations in the Garden and Park Avenue corridor were looked at and the projected traffic count for this new 245,000 sq. ft. proposal would create approximately 3000 vehicle trips per day with 650 occurring during the P.M. peak hour which he referred to as 3:30 - 4:30 P.M. He said he is trying to get an idea from Boeing just what hours the workers in this new complex will work which may extend the end of the P.M. peak hour. Mr. MacIsaac reviewed the intersections in the area that may be impacted by the traffic and stated mitigated measures that could be considered could include the channelization of Third and Garden and possible access off Park Avenue. He concluded stating he feels individual traffic impacts from either of the two projects will be less than 5%. Final comments by Mr. Blaylock referenced funds necessary to make the mitigations workable; adjacent off-site improvements that are not included in the area-wide improvements but are a part of the project and are without cost to the City; believes the rezone is warranted, there has been significant change to the area, the request is timely, and the criteria for a rezone has been met. The Zoning Administrator in closing comments stated the parking garage is permitted in the L-1 zone and not attributed directly to the B-1 zone; the City's new hazardous substances ordinances only applies to new construction and not applicable to tanks in existence at the time the ordinance was passed; feels criteria for rezone has been met and the applicant should have the right to pursue the project noting SEPA allows the phasing of ERC reviews and suggests if a future development is known it should be taken into consideration, which is what they are doing. The Examiner called for further testimony regarding this project. There was no one else wishing to speak, and no further comments from staff. The hearing closed at 12:15 P.M. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & DECISION: Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: 1.$ The applicant, E & H Properties, filed a request for approval of a rezone of approximately 3.3 acres of property from L-1 (Light Industrial) to B-1 (Business/Commercial). 2. The yellow file containing the staff report, the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) documentation and other pertinent materials was entered into the record as Exhibit #1. 3. The Environmental Review Committee (ERC), the City's responsible official issued a Declaration of Non-Significance (DNS) for the subject proposal. 4. The subject proposal was reviewed by all departments with an interest in the matter. 5. The subject site is located between Park Avenue North and Garden Avenue North, between North 5th Street and North 6th Street. 6. The site is part of the original townsite for the City of Renton. The site received its initial zoning with the original adoption of the City of Renton's Zoning Ordinance. 7. The map element of the Comprehensive Plan designates the area in which the subject site is located as suitable for the development of heavy industrial or commercial uses, but does not mandate such development without consideration of other policies of the Plan. 8. The proposed rezone actually encompasses a small portion of property already zoned B-1, therefore, acreage including that portion, totals approximately 3.62 acres as announced in various published materials. Also included in the rezone is a small pipestem corresponding with an easement shared between the applicant and a neighboring property located on the southeast corner of the block. 9. Zoning in the vicinity is a mix of H-1 (Heavy Industry), L-1 (Light Industry), B-1 and R-4 (High Density Multiple Family) and R-2 (Duplex Residential). An H-1 district is located immediately east of the subject site and continues north and generally encompasses Pacific Car and Foundry properties and Boeing properties in this vicinity. The L-1 district in which the subject site is located begins generally at North 6th and runs south to North 4th, and fronts generally upon Garden North. • E & H PROPERTIES R-016-87 August 18, 1987 Page 5 10. A corridor of B-1 zoning, the type requested in this case, runs the length of Park Avenue, starting just north of North 6th Street and continuing south to Bronson Way where it,enters the Sunset B-I district. Both west and east of the B-I district is an R-4 district generally comprised of older single family homes. A similarly developed district, that is, predominantly single family homes, is the R-2 district located west and east of Park and south of North 4th Street. 11. While the applicant has proposed the construction of an office building if the site were to be reclassified, nothing would bind the applicant to that proposal. The applicant submitted an aerial photograph which merely illustrated the type of building which could be located on the site. 12. There were two traffic reports submitted which projected the potential traffic which could be generated by office buildings on the subject site. These reports each dealt with a different size building, demonstrating that the building was still in its formative stage. One report had the building containing approximately 212,000 sq. ft., while the second report had a building containing approximately 239,000 sq. ft. As late as July 29, 1987 the applicant indicated the building was a third size - 245,850 sq..ft. No traffic analysis was predicated upon this scenario. 13. There have been two separate traffic reports which deal with traffic generated from the subject site. Both reports are predicated upon the construction of an office building. One report is based upon a smaller building, approximately 212,000 sq. ft. with all parking concentrated near the building. Projected traffic would be approximately 2,608 vehicle trips per day with approximately 573 of those trips occurring during the P.M. peak. The Level of Service (LOS) projections show certain intersections, principally North 6th and Garden, with an LOS of E which translates to intolerable delays and poor traffic conditions for an extended period. The Lake Washington/Park/Garden intersection which is already at LOS of F, which is the worst case in which demands exceeds capacity with severe congestion and delay, would have to handle an additional 7% load. 14. The second traffic report was prepared principally for a separate site and project. It does also discuss the proposal for the subject site which had, at that time, been increased to $ approximately 239,000 sq. ft. In this second scenario the subject site would be expected to generate 2,938 trips per day, with a P.M. peak of approximately 646 trips. This report redistributes some of the subject site's projected traffic by utilizing a redistribution of parking. Since it is based upon a proposed but still formative proposal, that is one which has not been reviewed or approved, the projections are purely speculative. The LOS of D projected with this redistribution could well approach LOS F, at least it would still be intolerable at LOS E. No traffic report discussed the latest figures for an approximately 245,000 sq. ft. building. 15. The applicant's traffic engineer indicated that the potential for a decreased level of service would be offset by an extended P.M. peak. That is, one could expect a longer or extended evening rush hour. The City's Traffic Engineer has not accepted either study as definitive, but simply as working documents. The shifting nature of the project's size, scope, parking relationship, and its relationship to nearby projects has made estimates all the more unreliable. These two studies separate the traffic impacts of the subject site and those of the proposed associated project of the applicant. Each details the project and backgrounds but totals do not appear to be applied clearly to the intersections. Each report also ignores traffic impacts on residential areas presupposing that that information will be forthcoming in the areawide study, and focuses analysis on Garden and Park intersections north of No. 3rd. 16. In addition, testimony from neighboring business owners as well as nearby residents cast some doubt on a methodology which calculates LOS based upon traffic numbers and street and intersection widths (Webster Method utilizing optimum cycles). A truer picture is better reflected by reality. The record reflects that backups and delays occur over an extended time frame beginning most days at approximately 3:00 to 3:30 P.M. and extending to 6:00 P.M. Intersections are blocked, left turns nearly impossible, and pedestrian passage risky at best. Insurance rates for residents are higher reflecting the additional traffic which passes through the neighborhood. This information is not conveyed in calculations based upon ITE Manuals but could be reflected in accident rates. 17. Traffic accident rates for nearby intersections for the three years 1984 to 1986 are included in the traffic reports. The intersection of N. 3rd/Park had 13, 17 and 12 accidents in the three years; N. 4th/Park had 8, 16 and 13 accidents in that time frame; N. 6th/Park had 3, 5 and 3; and N. 3rd and Garden had 3, 3 and 6 accidents. 18. Boeing has in the past and with their expansions now projected, could again, increase occupancy. What this means is that Boeing has generally had an employee-to-floor area ratio considerably higher than normal occupancies. All the projections are based upon ordinary occupancy loads. Any increase, even one or two employees per office unit, could reasonably be expected to drive the traffic counts even further upward. E & H PROPERTIES R-016-87 August 18, 1987 Page 6 19. The City is in the midst of preparing a traffic study for North Renton which will be completed within the next month or so. It will be an overall study projecting traffic impacts not only in the immediate vicinity but upon the now heavily affected residential community surrounding the Boeing complex. The study has been variously called the North Renton Areawide Traffic Mitigation Study, the North Renton Traffic Study and the North Renton Areawide Traffic Study. 20. A number of smaller light industrial uses are located in the vicinity of the subject site including some smaller fabricators, major automobile repair uses and the cabinet shop immediately adjacent to the subject site. These uses are generally defined as L-1 uses. 21. While the applicant has indicated a willingness to participate in traffic improvements, no documents exist with the contractual terms clearly spelled out. The commitments appear in a series of correspondence, with each indicating a figure subject to further confirmation and negotiation. Since the numbers are related in some fashion to traffic counts which are again related to building size, which is then related to potential occupancy load and building size keeps changing upward - well, the numbers and dollars are clearly conjectural. 22. Air pollution from the additional cars was not considered in any of the documentation. Testimony indicated that the area may be a non-attainment area, but there was no response to the allegation. This office can make no Finding regarding the matter. It is obvious that an additional 2,000 to 4,000 trips per day would increase the air pollution level. Residents indicated that soot from automobile exhaust stains homes, furnishings and clothing. 23. A Propane tank complex is located approximately 150 feet from the subject site. The Building and Zoning Department and the Fire Department both expressed concern regarding the possible concentration of people which could be located near the propane complex which development of a commercial office building could allow. A rupture could have explosive consequences. CONCLUSIONS The proponent of a rezone must demonstrate that the request is in the public interest, that it t will not impair the public health, safety and welfare and in addition,'complies with at least one of the criteria found in Section 4-3010, which provides in part that: a. The subject site has not been considered in a previous area-wide rezone or land use analysis; or b. The subject site is potentially designated for the new classification per the Comprehensive Plan; or c. There has been a material and substantial change in the area in which the subject site is located since the last rezoning of the property or area. The requested classification is premature pending the City of Renton Traffic study, and should not be approved at this time. 2. Besides timeliness, there are other issues which would appear to be deserving of more study, such as issues relating to the Comprehensive Plan, the loss of supportive low key Light Industrial services or at least land suitable for such uses, the general availability of suitable land for B-1 and L-1 uses, and the obvious traffic implications of converting low traffic generating Light Industrial uses and property to high traffic generating business and commercial uses. 3. Staff has suggested that this rezone would avoid strip commercial development along the Park Avenue corridor and that such an outcome is supported by the Comprehensive Plan. While the rezone would create almost an entire block of B-1 zoning, there is nothing in the recommendations of staff to present the strip commercial uses they indicate would be prevented by the rezone. Nothing prevents the applicant from developing a fast food drive-up restaurant on one corner, a mini-mart gasoline station on another and other strip uses along the remaining right-of-way. Plans change, and simply because the applicant has indicated or even submitted plans for an office building, does not commit the property to that outcome. 4. It is incorrect to ignore the precedent involved in eliminating, without discussion or analysis, L- 1 zoning. L-1 zoning is a step down from the H-1 zoning which predominates in the area. It serves a legitimate and valid purpose. It serves as a buffer between heavy industrial processes and less intense commercial and business uses. It is not only a buffer between the more intense H-1 and the less compatible commercial use, but it provides space for support industries such as light fabrication, machining, etc. for the Boeing complex without driving these light industrial uses to the higher rent Manufacturing Park zones. It also provides a reasonable location for E & H PROPERTIES R-016-87 August 18, 1987 Page 7 such uses as the neighboring cabinet shop which,would.be left an isolated parcel of L-1 zoning next to a B-1 zone. As the propane situation points--out, the less dense employee base of either L-1 or H-1 uses serves as a buffer from the more inherent dangers associated with manufacturing operations. Eliminating the transitional buffer subjects the greater number of commercial employees to these potential manufacturing dangers. While obviously any explosion could result in loss of life, the numbers would be substantially less if the site were to retain its current zoning. In addition to providing quiet places for residential development, this segregation of potentially dangerous uses from large numbers of people was another reason zoning was initially enacted. Actually this situation should be explored apart from this rezone request. 5. As indicated, not only is there limited discussion of the implications of the L-1 loss, but also limited discussion of what would become of the rather isolated island of L-1 zoning to the south between Garden and Park. The transition created is awkward, and the transition generally utilized between incompatible zones is absent. 6. As a matter of timeliness, the applicant had not at the time of this public hearing completed submission of a site plan. And, while a site plan is not required to consider a rezone, it is indicative of the fact that time probably, and more appropriately, properly remains before a decision in this matter must be made. The traffic engineer reported that the traffic report for this proposal is still incomplete. The applicant has already modified the plans in three stages from approximately 212,000 sq. ft. to 245,000 sq. ft., is still working on the traffic data, and the City's overall analysis of traffic for this congested area is still being worked on. The record would appear to indicate that the City's North Renton Traffic Study is less than a month from completion. Therefore the question is: Why rush to judgment when the applicant has not finalized his building plans, his traffic study for the site is still incomplete, and the City's entire analysis of this area's transportation needs is only 3 weeks from completion? 7. These unanswered questions and project size fluctuations clearly indicate why a rezone-should be judged on its own merits and not on some illustrative or tentative proposal, unless, of course, it is clearly a contract rezone which contains binding contractual provisions. What this means is that a rezone analysis should reflect the worst case scenario since an applicant, once zoning is in * place, is entitled (subject to SEPA review) to construct the maximum project with the greatest density. Therefore, one has to know, or should know, what the maximum impacts could be before approving such a request. 8. There is occasional confusion regarding this fact. Some people maintain that a rezone is merely a change in a designation on a map and 'real' review is only necessary when a proposal is forthcoming. That is not planning, that is an absence of planning. If an area cannot support the type of development which a new zoning category would permit, then the zoning is either inappropriate or premature. In either case, simply indicating that it is merely a map change is a gross understatement. Anyone who has dealt with a property owner's vested right to pursue a development predicated on a simple map designation can attest to the fact that it is more than a relabeling of a parcel on a zoning map. The rezone carries with it certain entitlements which cannot be ignored. The public and the decisionmakers need all the information which can be accumulated prior to making an almost irrevocable decision. 9. The statement made many times that subsequent review, whether site plan, platting or special permit, will catch any loose ends is, if anything, retroactive or reactive planning but it certainly is not anticipatory planning (admittedly redundant but it stresses the point that planning should precede approval). If a site does not have the potential being requested then that fact should be discovered early in the process, not after the zoning has been granted. The statement in the staff report that "Staff believes that there may be sufficient opportunities at the Site Plan Review stage for the B-1 Zone to address these issues if they occur in that zone" demonstrates the inconclusiveness of reactive planning. 10. The Recommendation to the City Council is that they wait for additional information before vesting in the subject site the B-1 zoning potentials requested. A neighbor in the vicinity has clearly enunciated the arguments in favor of waiting the few additional weeks before making any final determination in this matter. The neighbor states: "I note that an overall traffic study will not be available until after your deliberations---I question that you can sincerely exercise your professional judgment without such a document." 11. While the letter makes other statements generally opposing the project, the quoted line is on target and is undeniably correct. While the City is preparing a major statement on what they can do and whether they can do anything for the traffic in the area, they are being asked to commit to even more traffic. The information now being prepared should be invaluable in • I E & H PROPERTIES R-016-87 August 18, 1987 Page 8 making any determination which increases the traffic in an area already greatly burdened by traffic. To ignore the potential information would impair a professional determination, and no one should expect that. While the applicant is impatient to get on with his project, the matter of a few additional weeks should not impede a project which has not finalized its site plans yet. In addition, the City should not be asked to make a final determination at this time, while the applicant has already modified his own plans for the project more than once and is still reworking the proposal. It would appear both parties can utilize the additional time - - the City to establish a plan and methodology for dealing with traffic in the area, and the applicant to complete his site plan design. 12. While the applicant may or may not finalize his plans during the pendency of this matter, the issue of the North Renton traffic analysis remains. This decisionmaker cannot offer the City Council, the ultimate decisionmaker, a recommendation when the best information regarding traffic is still forthcoming. The money proffered by the applicant does not solve any problems. Nor is there any definitive contract regarding funds. While in some cases the money might prevent some problems from getting worse, and there are problems, the funds will not solve some of the problems. The only remedy presented to far is hardly a remedy - it is an extension of the PM rush hour. This expansion of the rush hour is not something elaborated upon in the analysis, but it becomes a major concern especially when the residential community nearby already suffers traffic during an already lengthy peak hour time frame. What is in fact a bad situation does not get worse in terms of overall congestion, it simply extends the congestion to earlier in the afternoon and later into the evening. One observation regarding one of the traffic reports, a minor issue but irritating nonetheless, is the use of pluses and minuses to demonstrate LOS. Traffic engineering jargon does not recognize the use of pluses and minuses since the LOS ratings are already subjective enough - the use appears little more than an effort to blur distinctions. The traffic situation in the area is bad - congestion is bad or intolerable. 13. Another issue merely touched upon but one which has had and could continue to have an affect on traffic is Boeing's tendency to make use of all available floor space for employees, thereby increasing the occupancy load of buildings (this has nothing to do with legal occupancy loads related to fire protection). While indications are increased occupancy will not be the case, there is really nothing to prevent it, other than a possible surge in Airbus sales. Boeing could simply * up the occupancy of the buildings if the pressure were created to do so. While not intended or proposed, it is one of the scenarios that should receive attention. Boeing has tended to have one of the higher, if not highest, occupancy ratios for office workers, which explains the larger parking lots and higher traffic impacts which have accompanied many Boeing proposals. 14. While the applicant might disagree with any delay, no one can honestly state that it would be clearly unreasonable, clearly erroneous or'even arbitrary and capricious to wait the additional time necessary for the City's traffic studies to be completed. The applicant's request is a precursor to other large proposals which are very much interrelated and which it is hoped the traffic study would analyze. While not invoking SEPA, (although ignoring the forthcoming traffic analysis could be sufficient error to require a remand to the ERC) SEPA can certainly provide guidance as to interrelated projects. These interrelated projects simply cannot be ignored. The cumulative impacts should be analyzed, and the rezone probably should have been contractual with specific measures identified and agreed to in detailed writings. 15. This office believes that an EIS probably should have been prepared for this project and its related proposal(s), and that the absence of such a document has deprived the City Council of invaluable information for reaching,a decision on this rezone, and has similarly deprived other public officials of information necessary in the review of other related proposals. The scope of this and related projects is approximately one half million sq. ft. of office space. It would appear that such development could have "more than a moderate impact on the quality of the environment." After all, the City prepared such a document for Gene Coulon Park and it only impacts traffic on weekends, while its other impacts would generally be conceived of as positive. 16. There is no telling what secondary impacts might be encouraged by these interrelated office projects and actions. 'A full analysis could explain the loss of L-1 zoning, the impact of the employee population on other city services such as recreational facilities, and the potential affect on housing from an increase in the employment base. /f_ 1 E & H PROPERTIES R-016-87 August 18, 1987 Page 9 17. A number of issues have presented themselves in this review and none of them were clearly answered in the affirmative. Staff characterized the request as "not inappropriate" which is not a ringing endorsement. At a minimum, therefore, the recommendation is that the City Council should await the outcome of the City's own traffic studies before approving this rezone. At the maximum, a variety of information on this and its related proposals should be submitted for review by the decisionmakers. As SEPA states: "The SEPA process shall be integrated with agency activities at the earliest possible time to ensure that planning and decisions reflect environmental values, to avoid delays later in the process, and to seek to resolve potential problems." (WAC 197-11-055(1)). "Proposals or parts of proposals that are related to each other closely enough to be, in effect, a single course of action shall be evaluated in the same environmental document." (WAC 197-11-060(3)(b)). "A proposal's effects include direct and indirect impacts caused by a proposal. Impacts include those effects resulting from growth • caused by a proposal, as well as the likelihood that the present proposal will serve as a precedent for future actions. For example, adoption of a zoning ordinance will encourage or tend to cause particular types of projects..." (WAC 197-11-060(4)(d)). 18. Under the circumstances this office believes that the failure to await the outcome of the North Renton Traffic Study and the failure to answer some of the other questions regarding the precedent of the proposed rezone such as loss of limited L-1 zoning, air pollution from increased traffic, etc., constitute a substantial error in fact and, therefore, provide sufficient justification to remand the matter back to the ERC for reconsideration of its environmental determination. (Section 4-2822(D)). This office would recommend that the City Council seriously consider that option. RECOMMENDATION The City Council should delay action on the request pending the outcome of the North Renton Traffic Study. The City Council may want to consider remanding the matter back to the ERC for the preparation of supplemental environmental information regarding the other issues raised herein. ORDERED THIS 18th day of August, 1987. FRED J. KA MAN HEARING E AMINER TRANSMITTED THIS 18th day of August, 1987 to the parties of record: Roger Blaylock 10717 N.E. 4th, Suite #9 Bellevue, Wa. 98004 Marjorie Richter 300 Meadow Avenue North Renton, Wa. 98055 Warren Vaupel 1402 North Second Renton, Wa. 98055 Steven McBride 1220 No. 5th Renton, Wa. 98055 Versie Vaupel P. O. Box 755 Renton, Wa. 98057 Mary Ellen Hamblin 13025 - 138th S.E. Renton, Wa. 98056 • E & H PROPERTIES R-016-87 August 18, 1987 • Page 10 Stephen Sylvia 16167 139th Place S.E. Renton, Wa. 98055 Terry Tedder 1220 North 5th Street Renton, Wa. 98055 Gary Norris Traffic Engineer City of Renton Bruce Wicks 200 Garden Avenue North Renton, Wa. 98055 William Popp 1309 - 114th Ave. S.E., Suite 301 Bellevue, Wa. 98004 Jim MacIsaac Transpo Group 14715 Bellevue-Redmond Road, Suite 100 Bellevue, Wa. 98007 TRANSMITTED THIS 18th day of August, 1987 to the following: Mayor Barbara Y. Shinpoch Councilman Richard M. Stredicke Richard Houghton, Public Works Director Larry M. Springer, Policy Development Director Members, Renton Planning Commission Ronald Nelson, Building & Zoning Director Don Erickson, Zoning Administrator Glen Gordon, Fire Marshal Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Renton Record-Chronicle Pursuant to Title IV, Section 3015 of the City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 P.M. September 1. 1987. Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the Examiner is based on erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact, error in judgment, or the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing may make a written request for a review by the Examiner within fourteen (14) days from the date of the Examiner's decision. This request shall set forth the specific errors relied upon by such appellant, and the Examiner may, after review of the record, take further action as he deems proper. An appeal to the City Council is governed by Title IV, Section 3016, which requires that such appeal be filed with the City Clerk, accompanying a filing fee of $75.00 and meeting other specified requirements. Copies of this ordinance are available for inspection or purchase in the Finance Department, first floor of City Hall. The Appearance of Fairness Doctrine provides that no ex parte (private one-on-one) communications may occur concerning pending land use decisions. This means that parties to a land use decision may not communicate in private with any decision-maker concerning the proposal. Decision-makers in the land use process include both the Hearing Examiner and members of the City Council. All communications concerning the proposal must be made in public. This public communication permits all interested parties to know the contents of the communication and would allow them to openly rebut the evidence. Any violation of this doctrine would result in the invalidation of the request by the Court. The Doctrine applies not only to the initial public hearing but to all Requests for Reconsideration as well as Appeals to the City Council. /-", • 1. ) • E & H Properties SA-017-87, SA-055-87 October 9, 1987 Page 11 Roger Blaylock The Blaylock Company • 10717 N.E. 4th, Suite 9 Bellevue, Washington 98004 Richard Aramburu Attorney at Law 505.Madison/Suite 209 Seattle, Washington Larry Brown 13975 Interurban Avenue South Seattle, Washington 98168 Curt Beattie, Architect 100 West Harrison Plaza Seattle, Washington 98119 Lance Mueller 130 Lakeside Seattle, Washington 98122 James McIsaac, Engineer Transpo Group 14715 Bel-Red Road Bellevue, Washington Robert Anderson Attorney at Law P. O. Box 454 Renton, Washington 98055 Robert Cugini P. O. Box 359 Renton, Washington 98057 Ms. Marjorie Richter 300 Meadow Avenue North Renton, Washington 98055 Steve McBride 1220 North Fifth Renton,Washington 98055 Barbara E. Moss Director of Planning First City Equities 800 Fifth Avenue/Suite 4170 Seattle, Washington 98104 TRANSMITTED THIS 9th day of October, 1987 to the following: Mayor Barbara Y. Shinpoch Councilman Richard M. Stredicke Richard Houghton, Public Works Director Larry M. Springer, Policy Development Director Rebecca Lind, Policy Development Department Members, Renton Planning Commission Ronald Nelson, Building & Zoning Director Don Erickson, Zoning Administrator Gary Norris, Traffic Engineer Glen Gordon, Fire Marshal Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Renton Record-Chronicle • (TT • E & H Properties SA-017-87, SA-055-87 October 9, 1987 Page 12 Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the Examiner is based on erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact, error in judgment, or the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing may make a written request for a review by the Examiner within fourteen (14) days from the date of the Examiner's decision. This request shall set forth the specific errors relied upon by such appellant, and the Examiner may, after review of the record, take further action as he deems proper. An appeal to the City Council is governed by Title IV, Section 3016, which requires that such appeal be filed with the City Clerk, accompanying a filing fee of $75.00 and meeting other specified requirements. Copies of this ordinance are available for inspection or purchase in the Finance Department, first floor of City Hall. The Appearance of Fairness Doctrine provides that no ex parte (private one-on-one) communications may occur concerning pending land use decisions. This means that parties to a land use decision may not communicate in private with any decision-maker concerning the proposal. Decision-makers in the land use process include both the Hearing Examiner and members of the City Council. All communications concerning the proposal must be made in public. This public communication permits all interested parties to know the contents of the communication and would allow them to openly rebut the evidence. Any violation of this doctrine would result in the invalidation of the request by the Court. • The Doctrine applies not only to the initial public hearing but to all Requests for Reconsideration as well as Appeals to the City Council. Pursuant to Title IV, Section 3015 of the City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 P.M. An appeal to the City Council is governed by Title IV, Section 3016, which requires that such appeal be filed with the City Clerk, accompanying a filing fee of $75.00 and meeting other specified requirements. Copies of this ordinance are available for inspection or purchase in the Finance Department, first floor of City Hall. t -.. • .4\... ,i �' t 1 I 4 a \I . I . ., .A'Arety pt.“b1 -.a'rzau --c i— i i CC in Y .7— ... -. ; \ . N-,I _La i. s IZ5 •a ' 4 . nH` I• L1"211....,...:...1.1 \ ,II L � ` di � Otill i � `— 'TNti . I --;1.f, P --r-l-a- ET FL-_-..• E .:- .,: -.4v. 4 ''''..jlireitge,`:, : SUibt)oet ,..0, _h! ' • � a-- 1 ,'`, a ", ;�° ' SITE \\ ill 1 I . F4 , _ L ,_ , ,'' .i i !. a ;') 'QI'll ° 4 `\'�i Lr • 1 Ita .I' 7 to--1 1 :.°• ' i.. -- •7 / r /// ..11 4( , re i , i,. , t i' CAQ. Imo �}„ ,, ] pAC,IFIG mr J .' �T ,6 ., 4- S riT, ,; ;: L 1• FOUr IDRY c tl % t __w ,421, ._ 1:-I--)' � ' -y,.._�QJn 7 Q21- _.1, 7.- — - 17_�.. _i J1_ - .y, J• I III _ -. . - • .,.. t a u o a • l L�ai— r , �_._� i"� _t "• zA ��_ �;Z •i �I ;Ili si • o_ _ v rrl ; _ii 13'i_:71 -! '-- ,1.. _i4 i'D_.. CCF'Q Ili 1;, - 1 q 4I• .t:9 ,,.� .rt I 7 .20 ��It' . N E. !)•,, - '..1. :7_ U 111-7 -lt "1� ^l'•l.'i1� il' �l• •lt . s _ e.� �La i1 y. i , 1: I.J. .,,a- - a .,. 1.aif ";•.,I1 •1ti1C rlyr�' 1;124u_-'._r. •! It) j ,a N 1 1111.11 ,.I. 1414111�/`� '� I/t-. �! t`1 -- I�. - .1W':;-;:I ••1:... .I .71�1;l t ';. 'D`�� • 1.W - n. ' 11 1.11 I • I,, !1/%.r/ •• 1 ,1 ry ^;i 1I . :i i 1, :t. "i Q ill +I /•, �i/ ,U) P Op` \ / ��rr':1 ,'0 7� .e ' �d. �� I-i 1 •�� ;S �1 i'_' _• 1-iii I j u �lL--i 11�1E �) ' . : I '.. 1` •`,,,I `'AI: ;�� u 41�,t` , 'A ••�,it 1� {,'t9 4 •. _4 ,1,r_• '.,`.. /� / / . \� V , .�. it'll r 1 _t `�+i _S tl n p7• i.. :. 4j,9'y—'L i.T ' 1efnt ly... ;a i.3 �'� R• ly \�.,� lI ,. N i L`�- 'i v. .. ..-'� L w.p --rl f.. ___�. %-1 ; • t 1liy. -'\ ! 1/ i41i 1 ; : . . r= , '.1',. 1.••;•.)." ,i.• • . N., 6 .- .- 4 -'. •-..9 J—••11 —7 i 1 17...L.....1 • ,. • . ' ''...' ,.' k/ , )) - . •GARDEN PLAZA "'1 ' • - • • E & H PROPERTIES i SITE PLAN APPROVAL: SA-017-87 s APPLICANT E & H PROPERTIES TOTAL AREA 3.62 ACRES. PRINCIPAL ACCESS N 6th STREET,. PARK' AVENUE N. & GARDEN AVENUE N. • EXISTING ZONING B-1 (BUSINESS USE) & -L-1 (LIGHT INDUSTRIAL) EXISTING USE FORMER TOWING YARD AND UNDEVELOPED PROPERTY. PROPOSED 7-STORY OFFICE BUILDING HAVING 245,850 SQUARE FEET AND A . PROPOSED USE 4-LEVEL PARKING STRUCTURE. • COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN COMMERCIAL (along Park) , HEAVY INDU'STRIAL (along ; Garden) . COMMENTS 4i THE OFFICE! BUILDING AND PARKING STRUCTURE ARE LOCATED SOUTH 'OF NORTH 6th STREET • AND EAST OF PARK AVENUE NORTH AND .WEST OF GARDEN AVENUE NORTH. • tmi!1. I' . .1.. .,"�.1. s h .i, a • . :;.,1�e�{�. 13`°''i rl'S ::4,'.!,0ti s,•, ,y. 0 i • rr�t' , ,,'. 1. :i .1:4iili-.‘:4414Cili,:p.t.:„.1:'*.14:1'':11:::::71:11;1....).;:::::i:i.:i::::: . . • • i r • f----N. , •, . ,. . . . • I. . . • •••,..111, 4 , LAND USE ELEMENT • Single Family Commercial : . . , ., . 1 , . • •. , t i ! I . , ' i • i ' I i • • / ._- • . . ..... 'N ' 4,.. ..:.:., .:.:•:.:.:.:•:•:•:.. Office / Office Park . • 4P. do.•••••*:::::::' woo :•:•:• :•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•••:. Multl-Family•:•:•:.:•:•:•:•:::.• , . • . 1 • -...4. & it IlbZ111 :i*i: 'gg .0000000 iM Medium Density 000.00.0 .• • 8%.0.000.0.. Public/Quasi-Public 1 !, :!iiiiin- _ .N•ult, iiiiimmil , • ; ''''• ai&tt, Iiiiiiiir...: . • . • . IMO High Density , Light Industrial • Atil Multi-Family , , ,. '....i 01‘.:. l: q- 1 • , f/ I ' i • • ..•t.!i.cv.:. • • • • 0.1. - •:"I''q Recreation 0.000, ' Heavy Industrial ...I". • • 41 'If" . . . , , ; ri;.;,•',., - .%.-•...-_,• e , •r,:•-••1:-`•- Greenbelt ••••:,•:-..,::•e•: E..1-:.::::::11-1.11:::_:: Manufacturing Park , i7 . ., • ,. .,--t,,,',;,• ----- / Multiple Option - i/ ; ::f•.:C.:'''.:':•.,.:r t ... A • PiliVr„ ..':,... t••••''',-• Revised April 1985 •.% .1 -NMI i 1 .ux=., • Vi,"..-e-M" , . vi • :, „liatilir\,.i l `,* ., '..'lit,i,- :ei:•5:.: --. I , I ••.i._;",;:,,,;?2,. .. A,....;„,,A,• '' • , .1•0' •• fis' ' • :` ,•-•- ••• 1.---.. .s,\. , LAKE . ,„. , : ... Ns, . ••., - . .WASHINGTON . ,\I• . ,. • ; . . . „., • ,,,,.., •• / 12-0.-.. . .,._ . •. i i 4 ‘' VIOP. *1111100 .' N. ' ,--..7 : s'.:' 41' iiii 1 L_ . .i....,..-;,.„...i . .,., Iii, /0 :,\,.... 0; •, k,..! t --- ._••••0 0 0'-77----r--•,,,S;, &, o /''' 0 0 • 0 • 0 AN17.4..1y,,,• ....;c:, ,, .. •.• , g: .,,,. .,ea0rv1I0ii,igoogod„.•0.:.,•.1_..••.••'..••41.-..•..•..•0..„.•I .•0••..•.•..•0.••.••.•••..•.•0•.0••.••..• ...%•,4,,•„,‘-.•*••..••„,... •.,,. /gog .. • • • • • • • • • 8 • • 5,.':,....,.::.„•,:.,:::::,:.,:.:g...:,.„.„. • ...., •,• ::i,i:i •• me .igig:• al :(2.0200gb • 6.°0°. -..- ,"., ;-c___.',Ni. • '"l'..';',:.•,•,. -..0,.,,,g,Immo ,: gg.0000.00.gt•. -0-0- „is-i,:„ft,,, ....-v, ' 1 ).1 is NI • . .1, :., , .. „ .,, ,, , ,, , • ''. , .. 1 kk.-;44:: 11111111111 III . . Ammo. . ,of,,,,m02,0,;,A., oe, c• 0 0 ...- , ., - . s ;,',I.,, ., .I. itt'4, filitiii- vis .,..., , ...„ 0,006.00..... .,. 0 O . . .A citify i,: I, 4.:, _Ick. . ..0. ••t,'' MM. ./ .1114 .;oc.,°020g9,9;4 • , •',I,. i (30°60Vci°0.*;":o°.°043oci 7.:„ \ I III .:.: ..%.4. . . , 1111 ilt, Immo ;.,...i .igic.ct,,,(44..„, 00.0...,o :0 vor.0,,, .0o0o"..000 '1:!..•.; \ .•3. .. ,I- Nam • -1 ff?ogogogo;,:),.N.• 0 0 0.0 ;. . , .. •.• .. a o • ‘,,,. . o '.i.•,,'o b o i. . ILV:41r,,.. 0g0"51111 ME „...-..41kirem. .r °000000 . ••••• ,,,, ./:,. :0 '0'0`'6°0°.1.:1.. •---- ;000,., FIN )°9?n9).°0?0,!" ' "'''••_::'71 9°0°o°0°o°. ; ' '' . ' /,,,..• '.i,,,v-,,2 Vill 0 • • 0 • %:,1 ' ?.5gogogog•...4..•.° 0 ° . .. !JAI, ' • 0 0 • .. .'- ::•':. ''. .4,:.' \ ' 1110.111 0 c _... s• ,?g0302020.•• • 0 0 ,: .,, w4, t,-,..,, f o 0 0 a ::.. .,;.• iVRI b., ihrhtl il il .0• .0. ,. 00.0.0..g ;.E... 0 0 ,•• t,"Ymt0.1111 ,si•,..• •,....itt. . • 00000,..7 0 0 0 -...4.0.4...,#01. , 0 0 0 0 ., A t i.OgO°Oge°0°0. . .. „ ... . ::.:i*•:::::.E3e I I• •ne o (I ,,yr•t,:,• , .0°000,500 ., . • •••• ••• . .... .... k •• 011 •• • ,) •t .n n.•n..; ',',:':' f:--- SI, tfr ,„,.0o...00..• _0_0_0 ,::::::..... & :::: 1,6060,0,00„,,, ,00000. ,,. ...••••--- :-..Will- 111 ---- '''-'.•• . ..-.1 --1 Ai,. •,. .....i „ ,,,t, :,,. .I PI' ' 4' ' ' 1 :0:30g0,9,0g000.:!". . ;.:. , ,oc0000000gogo. (.3ion:,41. 1 •• 0000000 t 0-•6,• 00000 . 0 • a Pt,4, ,...Ir. . Eli ..,,:;14, og0203'•?Iggggggg;.,I ,; ,,:t rir- ,.1,,,,.., %. ,.. -ID1 v ST .. J;ogogo. • . a., ii:iii ,gg,Z.gggegg,ggg8ggo :ril.' 1 ill 1 'aril' °'. '"IIMIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIMIII i.,?,02,020g0 • •,.. „, , ..., „co Ipl"..zti ;I, . .4.....,,,,i% ., ,•::. # ,11.. ..4.4„4„4. • . ,,-. , t,. tiowin 1:4;11..!.. , :.,. . -is • , .1 ill: . - .. 4411 111111•.11! ., %,. ..... s..........,..,h a imm•4),/iR v4,, ' s..".. i'l -,•P--•'...1(4141 • we ,°•J.),;0;,0,10:, .. , Iiiiii.*:: iri? .f 91' ,. . 4. _________ --. - ,,.,4 0. i..:-... :II .5gogogo',3,020) \ 1 :I' . , .;,..mit...0, .• . :, ,r, ''.:.....,.., • ';:i ::::;, ; ogq,ogo?,02,4,,'..I. illi ii..0.••.fei.c,„ ,.•-"te .: , .4. - -. .. '. .. 000 . 0 . . 0,.. re, ;•• • Af,„..,,• , _o_. ..::„. .:...:..:::.... ....:,.... .... , . . ..... . .,:,,, .. .114•4404144, . • • 0 •.,y,- (.::.-..:::.; ::::;.;:::i:::::... ‘,,."•;z::;,,•,,,.0.).;,,,...,-., . ,.. •.• . ' . Do i( .;.:::.1•M:1 ;KW:•:;:.:Miii1:•. '..-3:,.P'Z:IP:3... ),-,,''f:,: ` • • / 4 ,.. 111;1_1114.;,;ier'-.:;zz-:, all: ..- 1116"::‘c".7 .III:. 1 1111: Irli Illil',Illiiir ; . :,'•':',;','•...'. '''''C' . :?...: ,:::.:•.:.:.::••• •••"' ' •••,•;,...1/4-..........;..A.'.• :::::::••.::::.::::::::::. •::0:....( _-_-________._ . .; .,••.,. ,. „q.:,.. ffe?,;•••?;41,., • 41111r igoei.1- -:2:1. s •,,,,::::::...::,.,,:::,:,:, ..,...,. -_-_---------- :,....:.• -.• -....„ at ell 111111 11111101 ° 'II. Ill0.'1-0 IMIll " : ' ', '' •11 l'il.Tr" ..-:',:::::',:::::•::. -7' ----_-- ---_-_-__-_r_ t.:1, '':'::::i:: : :::::::::•:•:•X............:•:411101 '''''AW . li. 411 POI k g 6:., . 1 . ::...I. • __,7,....-. ....i.;,.::.:-...:,,,-_-_-_-_-_-.::- ' •. ,•::•.:•: !ii .iii:i:iii: •• . ..•1:::.;%:.i,.:, r,-, -----..-.... , • •. ... ,....-,•,....,•.4.•,,,,- ........ .s.... ...,..,-_-_,.- :-: •..•,.::::::::: . ",.,•:, • ..•••, ',e,',..,;.•.; 1111611 . 1p. Y Ili, ,.;ii.•.•'',7" ,.1:.•.:-...7.t udvmur_-_-_-_ "4•10e.:;;;; ii IT• ____41•. .:;; ,A Al. • ....., :, 4.towel, _ _ - •1( .----- .-.-''''':;', 11±I. . 7 . -:-::-.2.72Offtce:--,-- - ---"-:-2-2-----1-77-NISI DAS! 'I '4,,.s'-'?Nkikg.. • _ , 4-- , _ \_--__ _-_-_-_-_.. ..: ---------- -- -- , --Nil. ii,• a ,• ., ii - io .) 'imum [ 0 a 00 MONO MEIN" rili ..14;.,,.. _4„fp-agm- 0°0%v°. " ,---------. ..-_-_ --------_ --- ---11111"1111 1,40111.11 '0°0 1110rOWS.'..,,-1/44--: ___ 00000•\'-.. ---- •- •-- I-- -- -- Noon ,..alpoin 000 MN mibir ....... c-tfric...::,.. , -__-__-__.-__-__-__ 000.00c0.0000000000000 Nk.vt.___-_-:::::_l.. •: 7_ 70-...1- Irv: aM/17 °°.1.t°.11.le:ILI . • III. *.00000 :,N 00..0000:: •00. • . . •,. ' .. • . . (7" , . • '•;::,.,':M;4!-',, • ••' . ' ,• • •' , ' ' ' • ' .', •I'-'..; •, ' , . •.' ' • . I . . . . I . ••••• . • • . . i ,...- . itaiTH SKIII BM% ._ . . . ..__ ___ _ _ _._ .. _. _.. .. I . i 41‘ I • -I- \* --• r.. _ 1 , 1 I 4 • CI 1 . - -i- ,___ a -•7 V- _k , & . I1 , i vri I § i 11 • 1 e I i A ' d 4 • 1 i 0 \II. . _ ..‘ . _......I.. ._. . _' ro • 'I • 04 VII 0 0 f .. I. 1 • flir 1 I ,- I _' _ 1 i c•- f — \- 1,,<., \ \k_____,_...-- • --,f i --- • 1 , ... 1 ___ r____. — -J) , _ • 1 I t - <_______•—• 4 - 11;1 r-II-I ' 142.e...... 11 ' [ .., —I-1H+ 1 _ 1,--.- - --E_IE" ".-- . __.:7---Tr— '• - .• 1 -- 17:6--ill IN - —• A. _ r. -—I —_ ' — 1)1 --— f _ — _ ^ - ___ ' - - — - ._14.1° -V---..-• 1.ge-7. 1.1,•-...or- ,_ 11 _ 1 _ • it ., 1 I •— • I, 1 r § 1_ .., — I . 1 1 ' A . - ill I _...... ____. . _ — • 4 — 1 — — il 1 i . 1111 ....._ ______ --- . . _ is j 1.5”-TO ..mi _ "I-- i _ . ____ ______ A * ._ • _al . r--. 0 I It-L'" i- , • • in . . — - • - v• I — ''' ...v....0.zi. _ - .14.. .. f • .,--,... . • . 1• t, • I • • 1 —...4. —' . Vt /-•a. , ' I• -4— ,. k nod •— . ( E . • i ' ., ! . — '± I t , . ._ • 1 . ' ;. ,I_ 11 ii: • (... .../. • 1 / ,•, • I L1 i i 1 i i 1 ,.. 4 WIRTH FFTH MEET 0 I. 1 . 'IL i:,:t•2.,nr:,c,7;',•*, ;‘, .,`-+t•-v.:"rt,r1417; rri'••••r- . ,:i .1.•,,,..,.t..!•t•I,' ,o,:z•.:14vk. .•1,..i.;•;;;,.!,•91-.,;...r.T2.•••••••,,:,,.., ••‘;;•"1+,1?.1)1';:1, ;:,.."1.v.,:: •,-. b,, I.,• ,,. ( PLAZA PARKING LEVEL/FLR.91 "-I OOR PLAN ) 7:7:71 1 yi ya I 1 M.,MO....1.4.+•••••••••Lsaa •0 0 I, I' r GARDEN rt.A.4,..L.,.._., \,e,<„,___,.,•li --....:. _ .---,._,,------ ,:g _ _ L r (...2•771‘fer - �� Ft t - I 8§ '�, �_. �� rf f'/� .. V.61111 .7_ Abby �'.Y•� i J Z {WI WI,' '� r ..� �. M I r -‘ IA � a ti n- i • • ` 41 F . . , ' ! a, • •wl $, In•Q' : I i •I •it!tP: . • • [ • . • • 1,... I PARKING •• �' \._- \W. �' - STRUCTURE • • • I I PROPOSEDii ; ..a_ r: e . i I 's BUILDING \ e. i V. y 11 c - _ - . J ?' • tn: ` • • ,� u !- ;z tiE, 9j ;� '' .*mo t, ' Q 'S � •aacr Ii d fra. A:-. ti•r.. . r.. , •Z .Z j lII�4.!2- I <i*=r ,u. `tF �.• wr Imo` t t[�_ .'- ►-.` I ��` Li_ suers cnae�a "_ . I a '/ glfI s A.�v[F2[fnv.) - I I I . i I r i I i V-.✓ y5 lam. 1 �: I , J� 7t m p z' i __ - I . I I i i ' , I r I I I i Y!#I ( 1 tii IGATny I Q.N • I' 1` • ! i:,'-tY1'. . ''''' ! ! I. •F F. 11 I I 4L "._.. ." �m[n C73 D., 'I �, tt,- i cti'Yrsoua `• t r I - ,r• ,, ,r—T,a '..i r __tv p_to .,.,.. : ..,. __. - 11 I !t j it. �, .:.wJo'�[21t.t:rt:9•..f G9•.r'La►YS'3fys.rt CfM►� t • •. EXISTING a 1, • �a e - ��rw•, C:.Z9 l.- O} �A -r,--..e. 1,,---N• �� !; �s_ �Nii ...i w:.O1:Nop �_. I -_'. z _ � - - • - --. - - .!d•; •,-._ o;!"-;ta. — Cent er^n.� - a (jf, rZ017. tie ;••. . - T1�G>' !>D ED PLANTING / PLANT LEGEND/EXiSTI P.ANTING '- -'--' - .4 'j a ". IS mall tut.tr NMI TM uMrlFa aia ataa.t taan6Nt[nVua }Tnati LxattW tun 1,22 ,--�', Q .a PARK AVE. N. t N �I..aroe tr.n. oe rr r a.[rra r.z-.°.a- r am ino __ -..___..--_. ._. . _.. ',• J --• y^a•° a..r..rtn. ' sw....r,n.r rot .sr.tu.•w-r.atno ?I 1 tm�..rw } p • T. 'rri e....avw n. o.sra.m.n seams .r.nua,.oaer I( a.,o . . t.w -"ram"a.^ • i •- ar..t+•+.l.w P......va..n. r-•.t ea.....t.-t.•.a•..w. ' - ...Sr.•.r.ar.r•• 5- r �.an•I IMs — .. J R� CZ I.a.u..rl..r t.m.`art s•.almo.rn.iftwo • tP•m- °-r ha..r.w I Ina ell win r.vrwet W • .rt.•�. a.r.. ai°wo..t'"a.+..�.. ,r-,r z-e WI.tra,• ry -Weisman I;:: ' .or........�r. •. ••,.. Noau M1,.•t ... Desfga r� ti a...... Ir-.r z•z tr.o.t..t.• rp. jrrt' ` w�>r s....•v.r O•.C• Sr .07 t0 r""'�t+..,o...i. a. n..t .•t. ..v •rr.wr+a.n r ��, ^ . �.`. 2 ••.7 r.cr.rr '...r.•.•n.Ior�.... .-... .rr ..r v.°r.•.w '� \\I u k t, L .. •..,a... tutnt .•vt• Sr • •• • . . . . . . • •,"...-•'-:-.-A-4.Z ,F..-,-; 1,,-..-,••--. • . -. .. . .. ._.., . • . -, • • __. -... - . . •t. ..1, . . • • - - " . rt-•.:--...14:7,---„-,-1-t•••,...••••• _- . . .. • . ..- '521.ro'...e.et....474•7...... -- . . -. ,.. ..,____ ' • • •GARDEN PLAZA r . . • • . . -• - • „-- -'-• I.L.-..' -i 1 .... _• „......_ _ . . . . _ • • .....,,,,,....... ......, .... , ., .,..., . „....,..„v, ,.... ... ..„....,... ,1„,, „,.. . .. • - E&H Properties Renton, Washington • ' -'''. ., - -i-''''''--,-.._- lxissyson15.1111".1.111.11411minmil L. 11-1111'-• ,,,,. -...- i • -,.-- - 11 1".°11.11.16.1 ..... .2;111•1 .„-!•`•-• .. . • • ...._„„muraisol____.-14- •,,liasomolgile I. M. lintr,131 al ,__ • ..y, ,. -.. -.•- • -.--Lilo Lilr---r/iion='?1 ', ICI.•32311 c BW11131311Sill 7.: 1411 II "-:. ...".., .1 1 . ':55 IL,A111111301"I e ton I ------ ' •••••i maugniSiniumems•II ; I "log ,•• •' . ., ••,,:ais-.- ,...,„ ti: - ma-,411-divi , -.,, , • -,-,---,--,....--:,,„,.i,0---,;• . •us:11 •‘ 0, __ „,,...ea II"31..-5tIllilll NJ - • ' \• 1 ... , , lea " ,..•7331311111. 3 ' 1 4 iiI_____,-11 „ t11.,itilliI103 i . . •, .. .... • r...• . o' ,.. . •Al^- „...,-.,a......._... 1 1 ImEm........... ,. t.., .... .,11.114,IE:e'IT Bv lint , ".•,:r l''.4--iv'' . Mr..• •PSI j a :•:Z. 1 ,-•"",, . . • t j 1 --'4.,t- ")* •••../r1-: . '...•11il.rdilLleig gairl"•."4;4) 1111kiiimmim .I I --- ' r,-- ...,-..... .1%v, 1. .t i ak. npFiviS....:11„._!.t.i..0°116w am,-...a.:Ala".11.1111111., In_ricf:,_••=7„:' 447421"-''..-..-..".-V.-41---.- ...A.- 11....731:1(11:11.,1111 ..ii„,,..1r-t,_• . . - . Olt I nal.112.41 - . .-...,7-VICZO?Ill ..;_....a-4. ... •- .. 1•/ .. .., /...1 I - ., 1 r I IVIVKII0a.oula .: - .... ............,,m... .......• __...,,,..... ..-.," - -• _ ,,,. -...--...2. r 4,... - . 7 • • • I„• . 7" ..1....-.... :•,..q.....•...m...._ _ ______... 4-1 ! .%=Illt --- 7.I I , ., pm , - • nu . ,-... ... - ..,----=.-It P./Wort n 4S. -...... ...•••••-_,......"••"-- •. o ••4• i . - I I1 • ..._ .__ -----------_______ IF_ P-- - -,,,,,,„.-4,,,,•„, -•;,.., . . - 'iiiIIIIIIII . • • g) - . .. ., •• / 1 i . . ... , . --------T----------------------------:-------'''''.''.- ' 301 7 - . . . .,- • ' - - . • ' . •. • 3 3 t 3. . .. • ^% - . . . • . . • .. . . .- • ., • . ,....r. • AREA- MAP_ VICINITY MAP . . . . .. . . • . - • . . • . , . . . . ,•,..." - . I i - . PRO.Ecr NARRATIVESITE&BUILDING STATISTI - CS .11 t; • .- • . . • . i.Game nem•••••••1 II t•tilennn•M.so.VI U.In.on sa.Mr.WI.. DIV 10 MIMI Soo one k Is ImWErn me/3M= • 1. I I , , _ _ •••...••era O..eene rune Game re 1.6.•ILf•I•l•. 10 ern..Mu pls.• . lir•1.1 nears"MUM VIM illos ...11••1•41.2..1.Wm WI..•••MM. - DM. GI MI.ran.1 IS en I . _ . ...re eern•see miss.Pen IN Serer•••Sen. • I '4 , SinClainl rill rem..re.ne sears. itne went.fr.....011 one neelree le Mr I..V maw - .- Ga Illia•C MM. - -• nos.roe Sr ems an thstrise Br erne•OM=et re re iso.PIM dretoreaS. ": t 4- . • s_r_,. . • nu.Le Ma...Is I.cs•N.to.n••111 es n stren.I.sr Inn MI nela. N. ree . t--1 ' 4' .2 1 I 1 1 ' Ware ler,as...Plae•IS Mao•••••••nor.Inme re rms.no YWCA, I--F 1 • ......................................,tee Orr.Per Mar Parias Wen terterna..... M./V Inn Mal goal Gag UM =.... 1 ". 1 o•oo ‘j-.• . • ✓enererry/a get sena et see Genme Mr st. I : T• 1 . I • wavers warm es.ist v Irv) Lerma V lonl MAI/si WM iI PCjitillIMIIIIInIIIIII.1 1-1 , ,-.....„. 1 ,.................le sr..ors•nar.....Se/es..*erre t . . tr-te.el re err nee 41 Is O-1 4.1•Calet.sto Imo Of S.enure err.al Sr I ..i 1•.;• . el.-Ns nes.a.ISr nes ortarent.•IfireOlmtl..1•,!!,..!....S.r.._...!•_ MM..NORM In 1.1 I I • • ef se sfernon11 stra.re ter et...le Ss arr..Mr re Iran SO •- 1 I . ,............. • • = 1111.1I I•IIII.IIIII 4.IIIII-• = 'r I I •• !oo . . - lo•rooms to ionoor or tom.laula•o.Br sr.rm..fir.vo es.oft.M.. ' MU NO /1.01 0 4.•••V i • ' , . on.WM....Sr St..•....O.tt.•.........I X. . .1 ronotre ere re sirens.Senn Mr ens sr..se ere Is tar. Ultein nr. M.11.V V...sr 1 .) ! I III •• • _ • , ... • rem...Cr'rens en trinne.irre Inn Ins ye rilet.rie • ' - . - Smarns••/ars.•re.larreale...a Is ere as Or.rte..rms. - -Ma Pena P.V_LE 2.72-8 1 I ! ,- . ... . ..WS.otte.en orrlami.or..nrrl n re. s - •• ' ll.Ir.str•••••••••"In nen Is nen.es sr mom.on.0 Sr eensr 1• :.. • • .vn &con V tI,Al V I -- -. Sr - t Verne WO ran.rm.so Ere..en..er re nen se tas.re:Or ...Sr err eon.tool le 1•11.••.11,1p.adi t.•••••••••••••1•141•Un.•.. roan. ' net.Iter WORM.-re.ner WPM .- -- i ' .a aree Se one.•sin ter no.roart•or v.v..a 7.Woo...rovs. -(....,: : i = I 11 1 11 1111 ;111111111,1 . - ......, -ftee can./en ...On r snare se...en.1...•TO• So . _ ____ Min = I 1 I . re rim..re re.re s.s..ene•ten......•-,:1 , ,z-- i U r.ea*es.n fae us.elre re•nor.of Um Ce.... •s s...... Pl.•.••trt's rns MOS ann. Vreal=..... r 1 -- “,..m......a,se.Mar earson or Golifl••••••••1•14•11.1.10•oren Sr . ' 1---/- Jr, ii irwiliiiiiii-1 _ ,-=,--- . ..................•.............. .-. .- ---.- VIALS 3,1•S V 111.3 SI VA.sr -1" 1 LEGAL DESCRIPTION Dd.nal 15.411 SI M...Sr N.V.V -I l i 4 - PROP03113 a-store.PArszao0 illtuCllatO WI.1110•01/ = IHH -11,111,IIIIILI : IIHILIII 1 i T1 I P •••-•-• a • VIM. I.On•O.. 1..0 2.1311 V. V.Itte V • l• g 1 • -I I 1 illi 1 I I I III ! .I e i l 4-- 40 ott ..8.e.•re e.nor L.=:..x.n.„.7..r...4.„:„. Orr no= ante V flaw 1215.21. ULM ft. Air V Mi..V 1 i • [11 91. :oh. Itliiin • . •I Jur-limp • Li_ ,, i . , v. . 1 e= ;;--- N • 174=' r.":: ..... .. .. 4"..: . MM.MON I.1._.1LE 1/7_,, E,14 - 'AMMO r • TOM M.,sr maw MOS V . i. 7-ararr acme aaoro . ,II 14 . I.:i 1 I . ] . t, 1 I !r14 I! le- I. -7.. • ', 1 - f .----..--J 1 --* --------. ::..-.I......--r....1.-------..........„. ....... I_ ram...Me OS I••I..Is e ise..11 • LSO V.S • ),4 t3t g ca...--/1 : . 1 Boa "'""'''''';7“.11,1:.............. .....Ill I= _I 1 • D _ .._ . . , . ., co . T- 1 • ..:._... -7:..::-4-.'7..r.:.:-..=.,...•.N.:::....1.-=:---. ••• %Mare Frei.re.....r.In MOM S.M. , .t .- IMMO reran OM IMAM .- 11 .. , ems sr sneer Ire....... NO.Mir.AM Mean ILL PM.et W.I.areasite I.slalstal re•lle Oil --O, I 1 ' - ,- I , .. Mars • \' 7 al i• • :::...-....::::..........r:::,.......2•=';......... or...Ft.Ser Ilrestle nr.•3201.,Pallan CO TM 11111.1•6 itil......tist in.al flarein.1.4 set Illn•••..........l.1.11....urn.1 et.Mar. ,... o - .= .--s-, •, -)--\-.; ii -.• . • a4 i . ..............._....ay cr..roe.. -r .1.• -I ' .-. --,____ _- • •1210,11 1----- • 1„__,--...._____. •__,.., 7, ...___ 7_. !---, 1 ,,-..'., fr 6_ . ........., . -----9' . .• 7 ______ .• 0 . •MtAt . • I 0 ---- - --. t L.at.se ars.sr., ,.:r...r..r...re.1 ...,: ' E.7.-•=1"- ROOD : _. ... 4 •-4 I---• *-1- -• -- • El 3 -•-rr--. -I I---• . . - 1- :,-, . , , ......,.„.,...„.. .err,LL.r......7. ,. 0 B-1 Y ICI 1 . '''''':".•==.... .................. ft... '0 • Mama.=am re rreo Y....ammo nearasse.. . SiTE PLAN • B-1 ZONE •rill e • .. e ,.....„....2... ..,..t.,..L=.:,..„......... ,......, . 3,...... . ' -, •Y,; , • • : • ':. !:, ..,..:' • 1-; ;., r•,,•-1-,:•r.,'%.5!:4...T.,:::,‘1:Nr.7,,.::.":; : /-:''..--..I...-;• : •• • -•; ! • '; . ;',... ;)'.1'14.I7,,v...:; ,,,...,- I. , ; :.. • .: ;I:: I'!.,";:•';': •I'.:: •'I' ;;II,::::.1.,:Ii :I I • ! : ;".' ,I-;' ';„I';..:' i•,.' : ,• :•::?,1,,II.Si.,44/4.;.ir!`r,.??-.."!-; • • • ,p ',,,,, : 44.4'04;I 'c c• ... . '• c•••• ••;,;•cc, ;. , ' "' . ' ,,„:: c I ci, i.41 I Ic,..!:r.c,•ilit.IFILIC:`ii;yInsc."7.,..,: . , . I ,.i, c ' . ••c.c.. ,,D,„4:10;••,..:,„,• . . • ' ; •ft sc••:cc;cC-...., •;.''.i.I.c.. r . . • ' • . . , , . . ' I . • . . . . . I • • • • . • . I . • , . k , • • • • . . . •I 41, . 1- •- i •;••••• -i; •••••.:: I . ' -..*.• ; • .i.:.1 ,...• t . ' ., : . . . , . • : * : 1.. I , , , : . 1 :•• /. ,:;, .0,--..G,....•,,,,.: •;,• ,•••,1,.;pl. , ; , : : r 7 . . . i . 4•1 ' ' " 1 - , .•-,-- - 4--- . - 1 —7;I; Lj I ..• , • . • ... f, I . - A. " •: I j 1:-i-I- I 1 • ' • ' - 1 • .' 17-ir T - - .. -' , _ .... . . . - 1 . i 1 1 • , . ..:. ! . •,. . .. .: f •-- , •-• •i. : 1 1 ••••• • • • _ • ,-L_ ._ _ . .__ .__ ___ .. . , • -- . ,. ._ . •-- - - • , ,, , : , . i i _, • -.-, •:-_,- -..., -.-_, _____.. . ," • ,,•• _ : . :7 I IIII.-7-:. . • ' •• • • : i7..-D,,..., • ••• ; ' , II • . . I ..... • : • I —1.i...'...... 4,'......• ; ' ' • ' • • , .. i • • , : • i 1 , : : :.: ' i I ,: t 1, •,.. . I : • t--r,-;. ------1 -- -- -,- ‘.0..: .., 1 . , i ./ 1 :: -:- - •_. • :L.._•L 1 Jab••_I_Li. H-.I ' • i* ; '-, , __If ...,••••77.- -7 •:• .•.- 1 : i + _. • • . - .___I : W 1 f -::::::•":- ,t, . 't i7-..• 1 : • Y H 1. I.. .: :'-i ::i 11 / •• 1. / : . - . . :.F- :. : : : :1_ I : -!:- .---:-- - : , ' •,• •—• ----,-- . - - 1.i - • I : I • • : 't i 1 i i: :!. _11_;,:. - . 's•-•:: 1 .. ._. , — . . ._ . .. _ :11141 • r•L....: * ' : ''7 i 1_.1. I I .• .! . • _ ;1111-)-• (..,) • en . . . ... .. , . . 1 ni . •• • • ---- 11 - • •• • - - -- - ;.,__ ..LI — ,. _ _. • • - --. - i ..... 1 LI' 2 l' ' , ! , • - _ • • , 1 i I ....... : ! • • • •. • - . -- . - . : , 1 ! ' : ,• -, • . _ _ .. g . ',,, • • 1 1 - . 1 11 }ilir, ' ! ' 1, . ! • • , . .. , C•1 It II',:i ! . Hill IT . . • - ..1 ' 1 , :. -- . Z. i-•• . . ...I.fl[ -•21 1 1 1 I I 1 ---'••;.•-;--•• .. . - IL • t 0?'%:.,,, ., ( - % I 4 : : i 11 1 •I pi, • 1 . 11 ... I .. ., . • i lit i . ,-,, -• •-•••. " • ,L 1 .--.-. ,i, ,. , • • I II I; 1'Ili il. , ..,),;.;:s . 4 I _ " 11 'i . r111 -- • I : . • : , i-I I [ ! 1 ', I I. r I • 11'111., .' • : I • : - I 1 1 • . ._ -•••--I ---1 ----F. - --ik 1 I r 1 il L ,:i :..: s / 1 1; , ;;• —.• I • - :1 • — : I , • • • i• • • i i ,- • . --- 1 .1,--• - .--.. _. I .. , 1 • , , • • . . ,. ._ .. . . 11 1 1 • : : i : • gi A.F...1 • •••••..1 .. • I .. . • .. 1 2 .. ;. ...-,. 4.. 1i . . • t 1 i. 1 • 1 .i; , . • I .• `'' I .;1 1- • . . 1, , ..,1 i 1J •-: , i." 1 •• I• k-• •-•-I::- I t.1] I I .- I • I . .: I .1;1 ;111.;•••••••.0.1 ' ' •• Bommittlrari — —1..C . 1 ...-ip;.• ,P . 1 . ,Thi:. ', .S...... ' " '..;. 1 t MIME 1 . , 1: Ultnit I 1 • i 1 : -,......::;_: ,,, . : I I 4 i. I 1 . ' • . . . --'-,,-",,I,1..1.,".•';ti,"Met","'ISO.ir+,V."..--C.);IVArfivOtl: "1,"?,ti'..;•••trir^,447„falPM•1:1V;;;I:A.Orli',•'•;;Y",,,r•••=1.:t•..,:kP..,;, 7.•241TA.r.,•117itt•i.•,•::.,,,-;:'•-•:1-••••11-1.frtr:7 - !,- 1r11ri,.-,' tq../64,4 -,J.:.....?Y.:4 . .; 1:',4' .11;;4-.".•.V.1..;;.•;,.. ,, • I., .. ., ;E:•.: ...-,.i 'i , ., (BUILDING ELEVAT1ONS/SECTIONS ) 1••••re.r.ger — — , 1 "Ve__.:- I ,1 GARDEN A'7 /\/4, , .....444 ......4%.40...,.1,0....11.......92.1 , , 11 MI*.Me...1,..fl.....1.0411 Or 1./I ,C M..ore•,,,,,....‘,6,-...4.• t.1 0 S..—.........1. .. amomocann . lite No se.••••• I •••• . ti \\. LAND USE ELEMENT 1. Single Family Commercial : • ♦♦ �� 4113, • Low Density \ ; .,.. y \\ ; Ili■l Multi-Family Office / Office Park �,.t mMI u •OOOOOOO Medium Density %%% Public/Quasi-Public ,_ . ;_ .•:■. -,:� ��: ; 000000o Public/Quad Public ;ii; Multi-Family 0oo°.. I {i:}:::•::::: • ...1 I.IJ■■■.1 k.\� HighA!I tisiFamil , ,�••••� y Light Industrial .A . .: .,.. • Recreation • • 0 Heavy Industrial Q; • • • , 1"x� ` Greenbelt ===== Manufacturing Park / •/ Multiple Option ,/ °°w.-• Revised April 1985 ; lifilli .W( :. ;M� ■l■:1 ''. , .\ • •. 'It J rn 77.y..:i:io 4.1 LAKE �,�+, f ;efilp.-"Ir1411111kliril ��, ,f. WASHINGTON 4, .', r:LJ '1 I 4‘ # ,0,57.,. 4 .J, : • ♦ :, iii I1I1 '.•••••••-••• - -IL.I.Z.:==.i tilP411111111111111111111!jo illbk ....,/ • • ••,,, 1\ k, . I_ , ....,,, ,,, ....0.:00.0:070:0„),...":: .::..:.: .:::: ' IN: ";•.),o r ' IlNes,,':.,°sg••.0?.g". 11 .111 4.4..,:c.'c,:,.. .■ '1�l_., °o o•� o 0 0 0 • • • • o o ,o 0 ot.,. LL • • • • • • • • •+ •• o 1 0.i I N :.:.:.:.:i.:*::.::.i �ooeoq0 • 4 • • • O O O O • O� • O \ni' o°OooDo. o 0 0 0 0•�• o 0 0 ',,E41 :.:ii. _. ° 0;•�-_��I�...000000go' • O • O 0 .,• O ",,,' :,] 1L14:1 '' iR' '°•°o, =iao00000 00' O • • O ,V�. ,'.u■iMOM, 1111111.M r ,00000DOD°. U43 O. • • O •• • •• O � MINI � . �L•o°°O°go$$o ., •O•O•••• 0•0•0 O O O O O , 1111111614. t o 0 0 0 ,• 4•F ® O O' O '�'� c ;•;00000 2.°o •; • O O•• ,0�� a 1. ' 1 O O O b O � •O°O°• O•.•O•, f, 777"' °°o O o Oy ;`"; + •• ••'' •O O O b O 34 °�°�• ' � °• oOoo �' 1 i Doo oO N•"•' D�..• O O O 0 O loiTigiolipigh, �r•'Ir • J itt o°o°o'' r t;3 i q • • • A O,:�%�ii �. o, m _ ■i °goopo�ooO. �O O O ��s.s�, q �0O • O0 ' o � akitifril° ■ hi 1 0, ¢■■.•,000000°g°41 `.. 0 0 Iffli yen C,'1: 0',:A j ® /'l ■6`►�•® 0,,"1 ■■:,,OOo°D0o0o0 ob0000. .. O •• •• p�-��„,..,• 00q®- • �. ' ,�1 ,•■�'.•.o°op0000°0'' gum ill;I O O�5• • 4 ogog L _ .... a Vill F,e3gia:', 31*:4:iiine“'TS nil.treglee"• V/ ' . j II a o � _,1 ��, o°o°o ° o°o°o° •' NI ,l• � �/ 000°000QG00°O°O°O • I .��'-~ iY�'/.►-t v p •o0000 i'• 6, e::: ��. -.000 0000°O°O°O°O �,••°' .!!� .■ '. •' OODo°OD• - 1 ■:;.OODODOOODODOOOOODO ciOD. 1�= I I.■ ' —'-'— 9,lEE'"'" , ifI . I ui::_.■J : °'' 2°`2`r.-.` � 1( ,il iii.++� it r L>• ��i iii�+' �ii rot - . • f r • Il• • 00000 �■l■■Num ■■■ •FC , Jr.,�, •O DO• • :�� jure Isar& ••riV;., ' •."fe',/-\,' , f,•i •C9 .. 4 ,► �n.luau■ ■.o op .,oral■n .. , .■ ■u . ■/■■1 a■ ," ■ •Y, �T. iIi •�y is � ..O 11A ,r iiiiili: mil 41., . ;.,: .,/,••••;V::. _---- :awp loll". .,m,,.:.:m„ ,,,,.[.. . __________________ 4.......... .!1",,...........0,11161 MMMMM • s . ,,:. rt %: r .■rill• ..br... ^•�� rl" v1■■■•"1 x S { \-;----------.\• \. _ Illrc::•1-•-:,-,2...%,.-•,;?.•,•-,•. ,,,-„,-..?::-• :_wp-ima--.:-.7.-:-_- ii;-:,h,,,:,.,,, ...iiii,;;;;;,::1 k.....ffirig,tiatik,q0. p iff Vi...;:•'.: 1"g45 N-_-,--''---1/•t, y__ _p- 00•. ---- ll ■ U.0 °°o° ■ ■■■ ` 1 o°c oo°c •/ -t{;c .. 1'YlI' ZEl- '°°°D.. - - PJUII °°01.. ■ y. �'-' Illk. •00000. _ _ rj1ij ° ��1i: 11•„r, °;S :^ ''•', .-'- �•00 O 00 O 00000 .:"• ----- -. --- • , - -. 'F': 00p000000000 -i-- , • / • era t+avvMWMl! I Ile, . .. i�,• ill .j ` Jj • .1 l! I: s LLIA__LLA". \":\ . I II (Cr LL I S..'OIATso Jwc.,ro S 11—t LLI 4Za . ., �� J H-1,, \ 1 1 ' _• . _ , 6. . 04127 Ral MI -"i. 6714, ' ''''''' . • • ' A i 1 . t= . ftlion'77- 1"" Ril":.. ., _ :. '" . \ , I � a 2 �� '" + Q�,f se . • - :111..„.• , ni.E 14 • 1 1 �� 1 I � „ ~ r.-�r`ti - " S� PACIFIC CAR i 1` _ , q � Q;,J ::. . , ��° 11E1 I FOUNDRY f.o 11 Q n r) Sfil �p ,W"1ta Ifl ram • I i1 , um ii�� j. y� t'.\\ ( S;ac:.,M 4 i = rL- ,+ cm b , ICJ !•f7 Ii , I •ao.� v..e..av ,� .T��.:as ��1 • 4Ty �' � �� oiiiiii--iv 4 id ' Ni91E.D8C¢T6 .•� - rr J "�'., ,i.s.ME.NT9 ,N 12.._ [] /• vw�i 4owD R.w ' - v�"1-�l -�h. �t rm. : ;, � a�4_ �. � !J. L1 v // 1 / 1 . 6.1-P" •7 1;,, ri . , •'cu." .---, , . tr.)'-' ili myri I --A„ - ' . i , . L ' N 1 .u Nor 1 — > • .41 .14. , . .„I '6.,..: 20 ' LT.Th . a iii Iil 0,. lig / i I , M. r 'Q r ` t.' .0....,' ',, .,, PI _ 4. „_ _ : , _____.. ...,,,L,,,,4.,_ „itm. .7..1 v, / ,.. / ., . , • , ip, , \I.:. \ /`\ ` r;-,'�:I , ,tom, �n �; so `T, • i , /-- 1 ,...:,. ::. : : ,.. ;Lis. ..r. r- ., -r,„ , , : R. 1 7 I 4, ' '1" Ili t.`' . — — : ''.11-.1 ': , ' r.---:. 5,7'.„..;._;h Aft. ' • "'4, • . \ TOBINS�,1 �• ` >. 3,1" , 2- 41/!,..;\ 7: , r.,.. pp —___ c. ,."'441\4, ' - \\‘„.' , '' --, .‘\.' r.—_-jH .--- --t= • . . •NA C'- ',, ' L/I3ERT Y.: I: ,y,i'il E&H Properties GARDEN PLAZA REZONE APPLICANT E&H PROPERTIES TOTAL AREA 3.3 acres PR I NC I PAL ACCESS North 6th, Garden.and Park EXISTING ZONING B1/L1 EXISTING USE Auto Repair, storage/vacant • PROPOSED USE Office Building and Parking Garage COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN Commercial • COMMENTS