Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
LUA96-039
40' NPPRINOBROUK CREEP GREENBELT AND PEDESTRIAN E.ASEMENTBE 1/4,8E1/4, SEC. 26,TWP 28 N.,ROE 4 E., W.M. SPR;NCER0011 CRCEh .1FFRONMpiE UfiO:tiAR1 SPRINGBROOK I CREEK ,+w++arum At,a c=n o ` *sc"uscw °F°,,A 0' RIGHT OF WAY "o}=,a)w „.5.,;.::::_-_ __,\ `` _ \ -„ � ' ____ :, _ GB OOK CREEP. GREF_NBE' =0. :Ri: ` S�'_°_" —- -t-'1-I --\ g W.,+rq.-rr,' `i=s'cs:s : '�" ! s c m X\ \\'\, �\ I\ s "y, ^f�,'J , :..,ten,...: -_ ✓,,y �' p -1 I • e cRl � ...... :. ` �.\``S • • .S I •.S Cu° iE 1 a ^ ft J 4 u'^ vn+v "?'+• /'� \' _ \' Ca..TYPO Ir i , D. .'' cp°L+ (- i ';4:..:'S. ; ., omT.comma srRucnu¢m ganw + ze NC WALL ,�' 4 , K 1NV at-nao \ ' �. ENV.11 a-e b-lr-tr � op .1>„ / %f� rM, , W oovancwwORCE ELEV.LARGED m 50N. \? +V.14.40-1r 1.S=60z3 , •1,.,//�.H ',, . y� ,e.rsi ;,. 'f x r£.=#Y •5 it% \<, 1 I ® - '-6(A4 —.�.0- O. CB .TRENCH DRAIN® . �. 5'.:..M 3( ,f"EM snNi°�o�so �/ \ ' s @� RW leoo I , •� i , L T �y \ \ , `ashs 1r \ 4.:. M.lino PROLDING �� {H is f ~-t' .,. +,cµ / po \ m\, \` -P , : °°4 �� -,`o -..l�r -47 it-MENalAR.P-I S BUILDING". KI Fs f g,n -v I 1 e ..,...... \ RN 1 .tmlAm a� .ggl _' 12-Z s F.F. 20.0II 0 LOT �j ' r = 1° g 1 'l19 i - \\\ R ,l \I "� I Tio:.1,ss1 .+s56'C. 1.''')- \:i:'I:e's I ce 15.s9Ru+a DRAst' 1 :'�0 c try ° U y ,.,,.,� GRAPHIC SCALE \ "� Sys' 01 . MI _ _ MII DErcencei \ \��\ �' -------� )t- '' ::rtC ^',/� VAULT .Tl � �(J'1. \ W�% '' TOP DET 7680 E r>• .o\ \ 2 A"� wv.w-t 1 1 '9+^ "IE sp DEV.our 1tal j1\ /` \ �\ .. ice "__"' s'';%i 41. 50 s :IS Ss 11,J� �. /mot, • \� '. ,,,/ t_ WARP ASPHALT AS REP.D , ♦i y,�' \ \•q \• \\ •0y�„+ ,�!A_ .. ....•.:•, • -7 R7s��7ii 1 �i, / 1 '"> Y`' ��`' g :.:y <,. x�!9 i�>7T aye I • - s /*\ +tea? Ct ','.'-..'t„d l ';t''' ,EA, " �P, g V.�g fJ3 \ ® ''y,Q /\�R \\� \< , ': - .+, r: 0 ''1.“' s0 ._,n+_ 1• ' ��, A , RIM 1672, '4,4n,•, °',.a. _ ' _. - _—_. ..-_.___fill, E)OST.l. IS / 6�S I �,\. P ' 1 INV.11 \ \ .)°,,,,,,,,a 4;"\‹_ \_ "QfV•(lYP.#LL - .S ae. t ,P \ :-'94.7',s: \ \ \4'T./ �.>r:.S_ _.._V *— —�,o r� °^fyo.E �a z .n -°s1.ic+�l 0 Y. • ca wva�i5.'1sT \\\ \ \ >\- %:`P..�\ 7.,=_: s< t-.._\tipl -_),s-E.—..—.1\ . \ 1 ,!,.rc \ \ \ 21 '' \\ \L..I —r_ —� I�I�E>•1_2..! 'e _'► • `Mac. NMI_.-• �\ . \ \ _.._.._..—..—.. \. jN \ \ \\ \/ / • \\\ LOT 5 E10N0s NO Sip(M MAe(SYSId p-iZw"s pEX,/� 3`-� ° �t4 \\ \ .,� \ ! /\ \ \ \ xoTm.rauown uses oTHeRW1g AS-BUILT •s, s'.•'› \\ U\ \ \ \ \\\ — A E c.iE"i,] \ems / \� \,/ \' \ \ v\ ' — — -- a p11 aAi �'' . e®fir \ s�',w -1I� r \ \ \\ 6 a.1"o, 4 D.A,(1. OFFICE/WAREHOUSE FACILITY '. yy" @ ANDERSON RICHARDSON COMPANY RENTON WASHINGTON II' e'"'" I Iie,eam an,. I 2 CITY OF RENTON FOR REVIEW & COMMENT ONLY B.N. INDUSTRIAL PARK DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS - LOT 0 "L GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN Rs ,nn Engineering _ /-A"/' '/ Planning �sr+e4 PGL o.,e 3/14 96 ° I ACC Surveying _ - !AAA scA. / ...earn Penhallegon Associates Consulting Engineers, Inc. Dec.. RDS . I.=30' _ 750 saTH STREET 1maL50.WA 08033 (zpe)822-2014 w. ROM. 8. ARw. DATE /JWgv[a ,..,,es,•..„s• s+ee,• 1 55 2 PAINTED FLASHING O PAINTED SMOOTH CONCRETE STUCCO SOFFIT ' S \.y ALUMINUM STOREFRONT W/CLEAR GLASS 9 PAINTED OVERHEAD DOOR.\O fATI33 /z OVERBUILT UP PL PLYWOOOFINGOD �, 0 l/T�J 9 OVER PLI'w AND U s i a s II II III � (2) � a � a a 1fSQ11-HE TED WAREHOUSE I _ _ VER 1 - - 1_ I I I III ►— _J_____— 19 �VAPOR SERAB A OFFICH GRADEE..am�a a -�- ��E CAPILL MAX ( T DOCK BUMPERS `'L\ 0 0 RETAINING WALLPAINT I CROSS SECTION NORTH ELEVATION PAINTED FLASHING SCALE. Ne'.I'm• s SCALE.N5•.1•-m• - PAINTED SMOOTH CONCRETE a ALUMINIUM STOREFRONT W/CLEAR GLASS (i) Cf:) IT 7' ? 5) z °off D I i 1 1 , _IIIIIIIIII O Q IIIIIlII111 � M1 r "6.m 4_`z,'r C'> I I I I I I I I I I ��� <r N\� .4i, \\ COLOR �3 coR sioLs O •••• w' WEST ELEVATION 0 O c„ -Wm —PAINTED FLASHING SCALE.v15 .l-m . PAINTED SMOOTH CONCRETE x Cl.N= —STUCCO SOFFIT 0 COLOR2 VA-• ALUMINUM STOREFRONT LW/CLEAR GLASS PAINTED OVERHEAD DOOR O O COLOR 3 Lij = — Y � Na i .u`-` O COLOR Z 0 p.4.. -0 IIIII COLOR z s r Q 0o � PI o frl CI) . WALL IS AT AN ANGLE I_. CI]0 DOCK BUMPERS RETAINING WALLPAINT Q-4 ;-z SOUTH ELEVATION w x2 SCALE.Int. .1-0 - PAINTED FLASHING C a PAINTED SMOG 4ONCRETE ._ —STUCCO SOFFIT( ) '�Q -ALUMINUM STOREONT W/CLEAR GLASS 23,wa • r= oy� WrU s A(73 r4(') / I l l f l I za. a O •:r- '4 a..0 (I) I I I I I 1. . a o • L wL: WwaLLIs AT AN AYLE (--0,O - 41 EAST ELEVATION SCALE.VW.1'-m• ELEV 03/1,, 1e 17 ,CAD-552\9552ELEV ._ — — I_ L a I ' LI i — . -. -/ <;.— . 0 S.W. 34TH Z ,ST. A Q S.W. 34TF �� / °COMMERCIAL BLDG. COMMERCIAL BLG. 7I 4 — /y� EX WAREHOUSE lYl UNDER CONSTRUCTION UNDER CONSTRUCTI• WAREHOUSE /i 40 A. 3 I J ui "' ,'�Z�r W 4 4 82..„., N i ,5 ui .z I-- - i,, 8 ,6 +fiQ • 4 ,I. Z I-- , v Z m _� a I,IV 3 =h L ai 2 .,,e M /1 eu• PCt Li 6 o i'ja VACANT I� :OEING OF 5 — 7 I` w _ • / • 2 ? �•a' Z ms r f Q F- VACANT 7 O 9 A. S.W. 38TH ST. / A� EX BOEING OFFICES � / PARKING 5 I J VACANT w ° 3 0: Q / PARKING 7 I 8 ///-' 9 $ Y s,: .ae,. r> ,an -,% a s S.W. 39TH ST. i< p SW 39IH ST e - . I // m - - SEC, °COMMERCIAL BLDG, W • a PARKING BOEING BL , I m 1 17 IN c- UNDER CONSTRUCTION o . �� u'�-.;�� _ terse yf�,� - Y'� 5 *_a ' 4 _ ,/+.5 1744--1 -ns rue - - - e.•.."- _"`is PALTJS�....•.`— -.� w BURL u,az •c 2518Ac. EX.WAREHOUSE EX WAREHOUSE i 1 OR I L L I • 0 EX BOEFNG WAREHOUSES m OF ST ERNLO LAND CO. / eTA VACANT: ' i' _ _it M L__, l j 51ERNCO LAND CO ,. — rJ 2 ...." S.W. 4I ST \ ST. ro, L7 >% - `) 4. EX IKEA BLDG. 9T.c5 I. i; 0 RI - -: 1oe4Ac. W; EX WAREHOUSE ( W �( e rr rl ii 'l I GOV'T. LOT 7 490Ac �`` Q 1 Q i 490A ,•1 Y 28.B4 C. r� ;1 �� �, EX WA HOUSE I Glacier Park Co. GEORGE JONIENTZ '.° �r,NArr" it L(t 6o8Ac. " W i et, vA -1 � ,� u.aa r 4� i /� I STERNGO LAND CO. W iI ( `\ et, O n. y STERNLO I I ANERNCO q 1� (/ Y . Z LAND LOJ LELILA M. LAND CO... I „ VACANT j ) q CAMPBELL __ •� " GEORGE VACANTI ,L' � 1 JONIENIZ '1 ',I gff 1 Ga 1.32 Ac i0 T 7,4`. II 1"Ac I O 292Ac 553 Ac ;i I .F _ I If nee e } m„ assoo L" rcx l\ r___, r___,__ 41 -729 • 000 Oo=o6.AO=.100C=QCU[�O , .a,ocr�'p R.W. 43RD$ ST. RENTON OR ORATE-,r,,, 7ry_•.�_., o,m;,�lcoDocca^DODo LIMIT S.W. RENTON 43R In ua., L-zr1----i . ,e KENT ' .er C PORATE BRO-O�{i B S 1 NBSS PARR p _ LIMIT of �p :A ,-NEIOHBORHOO_D DETAIL MAP PR1NG YY I M145 BURL INGTONTNOF�fHERN NOPPAC • �� c IJUDU.S R4 A.L D I OTR I CT N O. I D I V. 2 ' NORTH See'LE 111 = 2001 a 2 3 4 5 ' 6 m9' 7 i 8 i T 12) u rel rg.A` `i m ,,o " ,,.," \ � A101 I' ,:, 1I 21 I r UMW..WILTS. 5110105 51.1ALL SEAS SAVE rucenarl rm./. 0 Q RM. PI rtRSCAL Plant Legend: Rur i4AO1 LATER(SEE sffOs l Sa'�a1, ::: e/[) /� SYm.oily. • D... tInr c.�/�\J'{�T\'J�e:9 ewlaJacquemonu� nmalayan BneF Welting) Ycanpe•� °Rs e[RreE t. 1I'1e{ *5 J_�y {5,m�OseMaa'f.erl.ar -fM�mpr Ne.neran.—YI — zar'D°s afePY41 12 cwcsruEs w,TM ,„:natFFnL Na 5O1 N/ SPECI,E II�� 3 Como Loofa Korean Dogwood 8-10'FL(4 canc.min.) _ �s*.�a� PELKILONTO FwISnED DrtµPNc r '-=S4� TRANSPLANTED FROM ON 511E E �m(vrt Eca,.DEor ttr sr FLAMED T OCRE ESLY or''uEln Shrubs: Q 21 Arbmae unad Strawberry into SFnib 24-30•ht. O�M� PELKWEeDDr�,. EI SHRUB PLANTING DETAIL i/ I m 22 Aralari,�a fon Evergreen Azalea 2galbn OF of Qo a az..m0111, Decldueue Azalea 5 gallon MawRLA/.41WRzes*5) Pi NUMEROUS vcE5 NO SCALE / '/ \6 .• o x2 Be.bee sFNg'Aurca' GoWm Bar berry 2galbn ` t♦20 Petue Fur/aura-Li. Rockm 5galbn ®8 Comm aWa'eleganufeima' ag Dogwood 5galbn EVENLY AROUND sm•"''weeenDE ®T famneaem pammi Pameylan,vaeter 36-FcLALx ro . - 0 14 Leurothoa font'Ralnb, Rainbow Leucocbe 2galbn SrECTED a it�rwG / / .'/.•, I-' a, :12 OemanNueh0,0P.Pyma HeMLcaf 0emanthue 59albe r 1y—'I ®1B PFWnia fnaeli Same 5galbn 6 e Our.Vhm Wyken' Ocw Luykm Laurel 21'sprit TREE PLANTING DETAIL / / • f' 0 1 y4dod.Mmn nt,.Rw Mt a g dRmdy 2.90.p.d. O4 um pL tom lfarlcci Dnubbfib Viburnum 5galbn m NO SCALE m 6 ✓bumum tlnuespnng Bouquet' La 5gamn(ze•nc-mia.) / ! / Groundcaven: rt / W/ w talUE ( /.'.r,.. Peden un-urH rY...nick Igalbn-36'o.c. ' ` Tarok Loading Area (';j?" eden hem l gamn.36'e.0 -E7. N �t`6 1 / B qb' ',' a SW 39th 5T b \ 0•• kinnikinnlck under r' / .344 t / B /fa/ Cl. M.\ 6om �t 0 t /P e m � e11. Office Area 2. Existing Rant Materiel Types. / • ;, JJ �� Deadare Cedar Sumac _ (i:::) / ``r� 7 WI Proposed tall access klnnikinnlck under /'� ^a flowering Crabapples Red Maples /:. Proposed Office/Warehsuee to Hawthorne Pansy Cotaneaster / ti7 /,"44,, Landscape Notes: �•� Ybu um Deciduous Azaleas .'�°s°f' I All newly landscaped areas to receive 4"depth of Import topsoil. Arbutue Ivy f 1 44' 2 Bed areas to reulve 2'depth of bark mulch(nesting beds to be Flowering Cherries PhotlnU Sad Laren..„.4:44*- OfficeO Area "touched up"as required). 3 Laren anal to be welded. CO / 4 All trees,shrub,and groundconn to be staked/pit planted/ fertilized per details. 3 Picnic Area 5 All newly landocaped areal/to be hilly irrigated with an automatic o 0 /� irrigation system. t 0 .4, ,ii;w�u, Property lines(typ.) 6 Deleting material to be pruned al/needed. L •� f""T 1 g Deleting Red Maples to be relocated shall be transplanted with 0 {•, /.b ;y• a mechanical one spade to maximize chance of success 4] LQ c u Mtn.',tr),, ,.. _„.....,J� 1.�L n • / B -CO El Sod Lawn 3 O k V 3 O • i�:66... , 'Pk__ _ — _ _ i l l r 0 a d North CD 4-1 - �`�... •s nq .n-«apne>- an R" I Preliminary Landscape Plan ;� co Q g — -- — E y l e t'" I" 5cale:1"=30r_0m• W OL i 01 aL e la_ U) ••• / / 40' SPRINGBROOK CREEK GREENBELT AND PEDESTRIAN EASEMENT — - - — — - - - - - - 5 / PRwc2aooK c a PPROMIUATE ORDINARY SPRINGBROOK CREEK HIGH WATER W f / I I ARK=IT o 40' RIGHT OF WAY a,7,D[Wxm Ix awc m wPERIw E 0 I tilgig 40' SPRINGBROOK CREEK GREENBELT/PEDESTRIAN ESM, ,,...,;\,S4 \ °y \ "' C8 `N.73,2 i .m..•P.,x I W I 47BYTB M .a,.ae,,,...a.,.T .m,....M .m,.,..M E�4� \x' . ..,.. TER t7,16.. s PICNIC _. _ _ 5za zxTEAR i'/io au,eaurvn.a.(N., b � �l � LOT 6 I _ T -m_,� f W ` \��\ ;,-..,A, FINISH FL00R ELEVATION.I]O'O �f DOCK HIGH OO�9 11— LOT 7 y4FEM0U9E,Ci£ICP l J `1 � Y \ ,� � \ \\ w Him \ I r �, � o,a (3 \ \ � \ \.` L e \ wGfno M1 / c� \ \ '� '�' y _m_.� m >i Isi I `\ I * o.-a.x[.,. Pry a=•R ig \\` \ q.v�i` \\ � » / / 4.6 coxPo\Nun _( "WI F4 `• CC ZrJ^ `C/ � \ I lIrIc 1N t w mFm \\\,q i` ,\\ \ ., /' RFICE e� I 50 -_w-, I G. S� �a lawixa ��Y, a i ��� j �" \' g le'v�or1 A lei•-. 1,_ — V.GRAPHIC SCALE ` \ z a ,/ \ c4 Oi rc-' �t S(,� S�e� — I l.n-w H \ \ Ilia. `/: \a. — P 4 a ,x,o mn.o- \ ♦F ('"b°e, ,1O a. wL w\ \ — mpM '� \\ \ \ \ \m"w, //1/ — p " — `\ \ z\LEGEND mµ��ttPaE `\ LOT 5 a5 �x �o mU 3 ©fir El cLowEn/rzL[Pxw[EVAULr CITF AN➢BIIU➢ING STATICTIFC -ox l5va A \�'PO S''.\ t \ a.. O TELEPHONE,RISER LEGAL DESCRIPTION: �, g\ \ �s cm CAS VALVE 1. BUILDING CODE ,UBC'91 Y/STATE AMENDMENTS f� Z��.{sm 2. ZONING , IL(LIµT INDUSTRIAL) a MT P UT R c a0O w vn.,T,ac.x-..a cm s RwO c0UNrr y O. °x a [v:;,. 3. SITE AREA<INCLUDING EASEMENTS D PER LEGAL �. O]� a PESCRIPTI�N), _ _ ` \Bf, \ °�f� NOTES: 4. SITE AREA(PER PLAT /0 EASEMENTS), ro m swTHUsrzmr Axo soum[nY Lw[s CE LOi S, ism A5 rouOMs /' Eml 3 0=02 ROCKERY M[mo4N PUT S. MAXIMUM STE COVERAGE ,63Y. \ \ N W W N O cowi2R TR[E OAn AND,RaS cwT xc eu on,a iw Ru,es. 6. BUILDING AREA 42,975 SF FIRST FLOORBEONNTNG.THE MOST EASTERLY CORNER OF NORTH - H ,m 5, \ B� \ U Q MEZZANINE, SECOND LOOK M-.z ,,,-sans:ww%IV w CASE AT ITN 390,nAT...ART ]. TYPE or CONSTRICTION ,111-N FULLY SPRINKLERED \ Qi %� 6) V/3 SIDE SETBACK THENCE SOUTHITESTERIY AEC.SALO CUR.TILROUCH A CENTP,ANGLE OF 8. OCCUPANCY AREAS .WAREHOUSEBEO \ [a/r.t,wx'BaAss - z ccwPiPNOxs N INDUSTRIAL MANUFACTURING c A CENTER PONT maw REARS NORTH.5.O 25 TANGENT •. ® OFFICE NTLIG OF•NON-TANGENT C0R.TO THE \ ux,Ess omERmss srArzo 9. PARKING REQUIRED WAREHOUSE 1/I500 R [l co Ef UTILITIES,..o.HEREON ARE BASED SOLELY UPON INFORMATION PRO..BY(c) ULc OTHERS AND PENNALLECON INC DOES NOT ACCEPT vOniTr - MANUFACTURING.I/ 00 MC OF suo wRa[mRww a c[x,ant uti a OFFICES IN 3,MAX.I.5/1000 Q SF a TOTAL REQUIRED 19062E AN ARC LENGTH or,Ss 52, O? iT x I0<WALL- - wow Iry THE 0utvoas CVR,ricxrz. TO THE SOUTHEAST UNE OF THE SPRINGSROOK CREEP GREENBELT.0 PEDESTRIAN SE -- L[/eL" m Norm TO IF FLOOR ELEVATION IS BELOW 22'ELEVATION,SANITARY P (`• uNLESSSEVER LINE WILL REQUIRE A BACKFLOV PREVENTION DEVICE, THE SOUTHERLY ANDSS— SANITARY SEILER OLE Q/ rn LINE [vo a[s maE e[irza THAN,iso ssao omwms[xorzo raALTasE OWNER, ANDERSON RCNARDSON COMPANY SOUTHEASTERLY UNITS OF LOT s T THE PONT ors[axnmc P Eil Q —U.— UNDERGROUND ROPER LINES 300 120TH N.E.,BLDG.2.SURE 217 .EENBELT.0 PEDESTRI.EASEMENT.DEUNEATED ON THE FACE 0,SAID PLAT w[LINES BELLEVUE,WASHINGTON ,BOOS — Fr. e 53-8]1) - - NO—o— Raeo rqa CIVIL ENGINEER, IN aLOw f.mew ONE BEARS NORTH.xwxx msr PP. Asrzxr PENHALLEGON ASSOC INC. 750 6TH STREET SOUTH KIRKLAND,WASHINGTON 98033 SITUATE IN THE utt OFREx,orv,c0uN,r OF Pr.STATE a RAwwc,w P-1 eel]-2014 LANDSCAPING, NORTHWESTERN LANDSCAPE CO. P.O.BOX 1118 PUYALLUP,WASHINGTON 98371 0I8-8100 03/I5/96 1516 C\CA114955249552501 40. •I''•'-:%C- •7)0,( CREEK GREENDELT AND PEDES1;''AN E:SEMEN SE 1/4, 8E1/4, SEC. 26, TWP 29 N., ROE 4 E., W.M. —//- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - SPRINGBROOK EPEE/4 / SPRINOBROOK CREEK APPROXIMATE ORDRIARt HIGH WATER MAPP=1 I 0 40 RIG OF WAY ,. • . ".• ! / 723E6 f; _ EC D.I. 1-r 45.BEND,NJ X NJ 40 A' SPRGBROO/< CREEK S.,EE'IB ,/EL, ,'EDE 15 LFE7F1 — .r'.--...',... ... .._ -..-•-.•'• ' :• ' - ' -/if-- -1 1 I 1 V 1 _A-....--..J 1117,,.. ''--- f-- i--—---——- ,,...-;,..„7..;,,,.-T--1.1 i=er•rxAproXtrATZE.w.n.x u..i 4,ye.2.,pmc.THRUST BLOCK S 42.36.37.E 01 112, 'I....P.'.::'4.. ',•, ..'", '-,I •4•:':•.O.7,Ira'''''-.1--;:!_.: ••' • ' .,(T 1-FIRE HYDRANT ASSIOLBLY I 1 -110E4a419 reM60,2.'Fl G _1 '12.. ..ar.E41.= [• ad . 3 1-erxe•TEE IIJ X Ft tt• 1 i I 1 ' '‘N , 1-CCNC.TRUST BLOCK C11--------- '-------- -Lj::Z •E--,•,', 1 N.1,.. 15'WATER EASEMENT-e-, , 7, 1 •; E,SIAL 3w sr. 77- I 1.•-•,7•Z;VS r-----4-...z .../.._;1/4.. ..A., 4 PROPOSED 13U3G I,....-- F.F.•20.00 ----.___. .., _. f, ..;-1-. 542,.z_o,,,,,. ..:- 1 1, 75 LF t.j.,,,,Di 1 41 1 ..3, L 0 7' 7,i_-_,0 T 156'/ATER EASNEN<r-: •!!_!;!.._--,,,,,,ssusal as GRAPHIC SCALE , ''.,,,,:' \ "\, I . I; I, -=•,--,•„, ...4:prI7,21?.1-4-7 I• ' 7---- ,-e.;,./.tr:!tig ' ../ ,---,-__U -.3.1 , , ,..,, ,-- -- - 30 13 15 30 ao 1m • ,•,.A - -\\ -- 1 ---'/-2:- -,,, 1 I i =,_„ __ r,.... NM MI = `.. , ;7'..7:::r.,' /It' .. Bal 1,-57 (rn nre) , 4,..,..ii, . ,.\ I . ________ •„,,,l., .____ ‘1.... .-----.17.7,7.7,..rt.- -'"---- .1 ,t1 /. / /,' '''' a.FN 'i - t4-M.',;...:2j±,-='" CCNC.THRUST BL00( "• .•,• •••••. _..---- "' . . I,`,LIGET JO.,,ag: 17:// '.'- X x,. , ''''''N • L...„ -....r"-* I -55 LF-4"DI ‘` 25 LF'114'TYPE-"PrOOPPM 1: ' V . ; ;2E ;g • /, \ , ....''. F•pz.crry-nr RENTCN SIDS. 'i' ; K k i -,:,,,,, „ Ax. /I 1 ' / / 1 i '. i "*\''', X....••••0. 6 ..,,, ‘-`, '' ..,., ''''. ''(? ".///'''sr.o. 4/' • ‘ -- INV.15.10 , / I ! • i ' 4/.,A,r:'.',.°•.-1• V,,\),c :‘,,,,,,,-) ,.,,'-... ‘ % ,. . • . -,/ ,NAPA I r'•,-,.., N"...:',.•••• '1'. \-:•,--r„. 11,411'.. '••• I -A -- II.F-. OL / _)'; ' tt'• 4""I•'.. - - - \ \ ., L, ,,...••,.•-•9 o•• i / -‘•`•< -,, •) \ , - . •4,.. 1-2.21•1".BEND NJ X MJ lipr,s • ''N.,.,......,...."-'S --'-'7::. -. -,..N...„, 1-CONC.11IRUST BLOCK ..- ... A .. 1 E 62,5:X 6Try."TEErwo‘'MJ X FL'FL-'.----.:\•1'.:4-::'..)--'7,1•:;.::::2-,,....„.....:. :74.71.ACKFI":„..E-----CK..,...V4.AL'VEPREWN-s'›.„,, ,,,;1::7......irri...-----'a4 - jt'1:4..11°E rarmayr 45'4":teNCT \ .\::s:.'.5... 0 I•t..... .. . 77--...9. ----•. ---. ‘..., , _......;\ \. / "7.-•......"4.'s.:9,2. f--,-, ------ DE.WED .-E7X --r--,7 ..--•+' -----a",::;"'""'----------- g ''','?2,./ \ ,.., :•.\\.\\ , .4 \ ...... . .., • .•5-' \,,,s, \ \ ./ s—.. , il \/N ' V 2A, \,/ :\' \\ ,t;r5'" /-''.. L 0 7' 5 .„ .,,,,,.:, \‘• // ,,,,\ \ .. 1,?5F1•,,_ our,V.....R \•.x ',. 0 =E17 EASEMENT] • \... -,,\ \ \., -s \ „,, _,,,, ., 7.s \ ,,i;,,.b,, -I ,_ ( -\ EC HYD----,... ,r .\ • ' . — ,G•i41,0?„,... s...,...,,O.sl.N . .to,,,.., ). irr • f • OFFICE/WAREHOUSE FACIUTY . +e '4.4Ny'r„Ilts, -7 ANDERSON RICHARDSON COMPANY ,.,,s/: ,,,,,,,o0 to ....0 — , . RENTON WASHINGTON I 0 FOR REVIEW & COMMENT ONLY CITY OF RENTON B.N. INDUSTRIAL PARK DEPARTMENT. OF PUBLIC WORKS .54..i . LOTS rzl'E, WATER&SEWER PLAN 6.i . . . Eit Engineering • OESADE0 PGL DATE.- 4E 3/14/96 .....• •a= • 3L--- Planning ..... MAA L1H Surveying Penhellegon Associates Consulting Engineers, Inc. ,,.,,,o. RIDS SCALE, 1"=30' ........ ••••• v.v.2 ce 2 .0 SIXTH STREET laRDAND.WA 0.90. (2.)027-2014 . REASen BY /UFA. DATE A66170.6 name=cr rtmo..m.1 a © CITY OF RENTON cz =v ::___. ? �.� - ... �`‘+': V'' Planning/Building/Public Works I- J d •• J` CC 200 Mill Avenue South-Renton,Washington 98055 o r. C +°4,i G c 01 : 0 0 4 Lai ti)cc cc ea Gag rB METER Sa ,. ;.�* •q f� s ;. L� Larry Capellaro .f Fa0,7 KingCo.Drainage Distri � � P.O.Box 2997 �O��F 0y....Kent,.WA 2 �f'� CITY OF RENTON Report DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS & ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW& cITY R o� i�NToN Decision ADMINISTRATIVE LAND USE ACTION Mil 0 3 1ggn DECISION DATE April 23, 1996 DtvC.L."' it•: =^vl"ts DIVISION Project Name Springside Building j Applicant Anderson Richardson Company (Douglas Richardson) I File Number LUA-096-039,SA,SM,ECF Project Manager Jennifer Toth Henning Project Description Applicant requests administrative Site Plan Approval and Environmental Review for redevelopment of a 3.11 acre site. An existing parking lot would be developed with an 1 • approximate 43,000 square foot building with the possible addition of up to 5,000 square feet as mezzanine in two separate areas. The building would be suitable for office, • warehouse and industrial uses. A total of 95 parking spaces would be provided on site. Dock-high and grade level truck doors would be located on the north and south building • elevations. Since the site is located within 200 feet of Springbrook Creek, a Shoreline Substantial.Developinent Permit must also be obtained. Project Location West end of the cul-de-sac on SW 39th Street Exist. Bldg. Area sf N/A Proposed New Bldg. Area sf 42,975 sq ft + 5,000 sq ft mezzanine Site Area 3.11 acres Total Building Area sf 47,975 square feet �� C.' z u[' II vFuOaoc.sm:eml uc J' ¢'^-- • " I - ;I z . f , ... . - 11.; ''' . .i• •___Iii wy. • g se. 31ITM st w,won S I OFTCIES • - • CCl/ it -J o / .i• / gait ,. 3 . �0= �i . ...own 7 410no wMpgO °MIL L vwi g0 1 0 r_ .,".. i 1 = ,, nwana V +. ! OQr'� 11 c ::L�' ...... I —� 0 0� a,. ......... .......... / Project Location Map sITERC.Doc City of Renton P/B/PW Department Environmental Determination&Administrative Land Use Action SPRINGSIDE BUILDING LUA-93-039, SA, SM,ECF REPORT AND DECISION OF APRIL 23,1996 Page 2 of 19 Part One: PROJECT DESCRIPTION/BACKGROUND The proposal would result in the redevelopment of an existing parking lot into a speculative building that is proposed to have office, manufacturing and warehouse uses. The building would have a footprint of 42,975 square feet. -Two additional mezzanine areas 2,500 square feet each may be developed, resulting in an ultimate building size of 47,975 square feet on a 3.11 acre site. According to the applicant, a maximum of 3,500 square feet office is envisioned, and the remainder of the building would be used as manufacturing and warehouse (40% and 60% respectively). Dock high and grade level truck doors would be located on the northwest and southwest facades of the structure. Parking for up to 95 cars would be provided on the periphery of the building and the site. Existing mature site landscaping would be retained where possible and would be supplemented with ornamental landscape plantings. The site is located adjacent to Springbrook Creek on the west, a railroad right-of-way on the South and east, and the end of the SW 39th Street cul-de-sac on the north. A connection to the Springbrook Creek trail would be provided from the outside seating/picnic area at the southwest corner of the site. The applicant proposes to construct a concrete tilt-up structure with exterior painted walls that are enhanced with indented features and the exterior concrete surfaces. The building could serve multiple tenants, with a maximum of four tenants anticipated, but may only have one tenant. Wall heights would be set at 28 feet with 24 feet of clear height on the interior. Offices would be located on the northeast and southwest corners of the building, and may include an additional area of office as mezzanine. -� Construction would begin in the summer or early fall of 1996 piending appropriate approvals. The shell would take about four months to complete. Up to 3,600 cubic yards of structural fill would be imported to the site to raise the floor above the flood plain. Since the site is located adjacent to Springbrook Creek, a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit is also required. Part Two: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW A. Environmental Impacts • The Proposal was circulated and reviewed by various City Departments and Divisions to determine whether the applicant has adequately identified and addressed environmental impacts anticipated to occur in conjunction with the proposed development. Staff reviewers have r. identified that the proposal is likely to have the following probable impacts: 1) Earth Impacts: Construction and site preparation activities (import of pp to 3,600 cubic yards of fill) could result in erosion and sedimentation. City Codes require the applicant provide a Construction Mitigation Plan and a Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan (TESCP) prior to the issuance of a Construction Permit. Mitigation Measures: No further mitigation required. Policy Nexus: N/A SITERC.DOC r City of Renton PB/PW Department Environmental Determination&Administrative Land Use Action SPRINGSIDE BUILDING LUA-93-039, SA, SM,ECF REPORT AND DECISION OF APRIL 23,1996 Page 3 of 19 2) Air Impacts: Construction activity would result in increased levels of airborne particulate (especially dust) potentially impacting air quality in the area of the project site. Emissions from construction equipment would have a minor impact on local air quality. Construction impacts would be short term in nature and would be regulated through best management practices of the required TESCP. Vehicular emission are regulated by the State of Washington. Mitigation Measures: No further mitigation required. Policy Nexus: N/A 3) Fire Protection Impacts: The proposal would add new construction to the City which would potentially impact the City's Fire Department. A Fire Mitigation Fee would apply to all new construction, less the area of demolished structures (as applicable). The fee has been estimated at a rate of $0.52 per square foot of new construction. For the proposed development the fee is tentatively estimated at $22,347.00 (42,975 square feet X $0.52). For the optional 5,000 mezzanine areas the feet is estimated to be $2,600 (5,000 square feet X$0.52). The Fire Mitigation Fee is payable at the time that the Building Permits are issued. Mitigation Measures: The applicant shall pay the appropriate Fire Mitigation Fee at a rate of $0.52 per square foot of new construction. This fee is payable prior to the issuance of the Building Permit. Policy Nexus: Fire Mitigation Fee Resolution and adopting Ordinance; SEPA Ordinance. 4) Transportation --New Traffic Impacts The proposal would result in increased vehicular trips that would impact the City's road system. The applicant has not identified a tenant for the speculative building and has not estimated the total number of new trips that would be associated with the development. Any new trips would be subject to the City's Traffic Mitigation Fee. This fee is assessed at a rate of$75 per each new average daily trip. The fee would be applied to the project based on estimates from the ITE manual for warehouse use, unless a traffic study yields different results and the City concurs with the report. Credit may be given based on the number of existing trips generated by the existing use that would be eliminated under the proposal. The Traffic Mitigation Fee is estimated to be $15,728.25 (4.88 X 42,975/1,000 X $75.00) for the proposal without the 5,000 square feet of mezzanine, and $17,558.85 (4.88 X 47,975/1,000 X$75.00)with the mezzanine. The fee is payable prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. Mitigation Measures: The applicant shall pay the applicable Traffic Mitigation Fee at a rate of $75 per each new average daily trip attributable to the project. Credit may be given for existing trips on the site that would be eliminated under the proposal. The fee is payable prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. Policy Nexus Traffic Mitigation Fee Resolution and adopting Ordinance; SEPA Ordinance. SITERC.DOC • City of Renton PB/PW Department 9 Environmental Determination&Administrative Land Use Action SPRINGSIDE BUILDING LUA-93-039, SA, SM,ECF REPORT AND DECISION OF APRIL 23,1996 Page 4 of 19 5) Transportation -- Construction Trips Impacts: The applicant would need to import approximately 3,600 cubic yards of structural fill in order to prepare the site for development. Approximately 180 truck trips would be needed to import the material. This would not be a substantial number of truck trips, and should not have a significant impact on the area roadways as they are already designed for heavy truck traffic in the surrounding office and industrial area. If the truck trips were to occur during the AM or PM peak traffic flows, they could impact the flow of traffic during site preparation. No construction-related traffic should be permitted during grading/filling activities except between 8:30 am and 3:30 pm. Mitigation Measures: The applicant shall limit truck traffic on the adjacent arterials during grading/filling activities to the hours between 8:30 am and 3:30 pm. Policy Nexus: SEPA Ordinance B. Recommendation Based on analysis of probable impacts from the proposal, staff recommend that the Responsible Officials make the following Environmental Determination: • DETERMINATION OF X DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED. Issue DNS with 14 day Appeal Period. X Issue DNS-M with 15 day Comment Period with Concurrent 14 day Appeal Period. Issue DNS with 15 day Comment Period with Issue DNS-M with 15 day Comment Period Concurrent 14 day Appeal Period. followed by a 14 day Appeal Period. C. MITIGATION MEASURES: 1. The applicant shall pay the appropriate Fire Mitigation Fee at a rate of $0.52 per square foot of new construction. This fee is payable prior to the issuance of the Building Permit. 2. The applicant shall 'pay the applicable Traffic Mitigation Fee at a rate of $75 per each new average daily trip attributable to the p1roject. Credit may be given for existing trips on the site that would be eliminated under the proposal. The fee is payable prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. - I 3. The applicant shall; limit truck traffic on the adjacent arterials during grading/filling activities to the hours between 8:30 am and 3:30 pm, Advisory Notes to Applicant: The following notes are supplemental information provided in conjunction with the environmental determination. Because these notes are provided as Information only,they are not subject to the appeal process for environmental determinations. General 1. The applicant shalllapply with all applicable City, state, federal and other jurisdictional regulations, codes and policies governing the project and site. SITERC.DOC City of Renton PB/PW Department Environmental Determination&Administrative Land Use Action SPRINGSIDE BUILDING LUA-93-039, SA, SM,ECF REPORT AND DECISION OF APRIL 23,1996 Page 5 of 19 2. -All required utility, drainage and street improvements will require separate submittals prepared by a registered - Civil Engineer, according to City of Renton drafting standards. Permit application must include an itemized cost estimate for these improvements. The fee for review and inspection of these improvements is 5% of the first $100,000, 4% of anything over $100,000 but less than $200,000; and 3% of anything over $200,000. One-half of the fee must be paid upon application for building and construction permits, and the remainder when the permits are issued. 3. The applicant is required to obtain a Construction Permit in order to accomplish site work and installation of site improvements. 4. The applicant will need to submit construction drawings for street lighting and each utility. These drawings will need to be on individual sheets. 5. Construction plans must comply with the City's Drafting Standards. Transportation 6. The City's Transportation Impact Fee will apply to the project as discussed in the mitigation measures above. The applicable fee is $75 per each new average daily trip. Storm Drainage 7. The project is located within the 100-year floodplain per Flood Insurance Rate Map 53033C0978 F (May 16, 1995). 8. The FEMA 100-year flood elevation is interpolated to be 16.9 feet NGVD or 20.48 feet NAVO 88. The applicant will be required to design the building floor at least one foot above the 100-year FEMA elevation. (Note: NGVD = North American Geodetic Vertical Datum, NAVD = North American Verical Datum). 9. The applicant may be required to either provide a FEMA Elevation Certificate, or provide for compensatory storage due to the location of the project in relation to the floodplain. 10. The City plans to construct a major storm water interceptor pipe (84-inch or larger) along the applicant's north property line from SW 39th Street. The 10-foot utility easement shown on the applicant's drawings would need to be revised to a minimum width of 20 feet to allow for construction of the interceptor pipe. Wastewater 11. The minimum pipe cover required for wastewater pipes is two (2) feet. 12. The applicable System Development Connection charge is estimated to be $10,553.40 ($0.078/sq ft of property) and is payable at the time the Building Permit is issued. 13. The applicant shall connect floor drains to the sanitary sewer system since a fire sprinkler system is being installed. 14. A latecomer fee for Special Assessment District 7401 may apply to the project if the project hooks up to the Metro sewer line that abuts the property. The applicability of the latecomer fee would be determined at a later time. Water 15. The applicant's utility drawings shall show the size and location of the irrigation and domestic water meters. SITERC.DOC City!of Renton PB/PW Department Environmental Determination&Administrative Land Use Action SPRINGSIDE BUILDING LUA-93-039, SA, SM,ECF REPORT AND DECISION OF APRII 23,1996 - Page 6 of 19 16. Back-flow preventio 1 devices for the irrigation system and fire sprinkler systemmust be provided and shown on the drawings. 17. The required fire flow is 3,750 gallons per minute (gpm). The 8-inch looped water pipe will not provide the required fire flow. The applicant will need to provide a minimum 10-inch water line for the looped system. 18. Water System Development Charges have been previously paid for the site. Fire 19. The preliminary fire flow requirement for Building A is 3;750 gpm. A total of four hydrants are required. The ' primary hydrant is tb be located within 150-feet of the building, and three additional hydrants are required within 300-feet of the building. The fire hydrants cannot be installed behind the parking spaces as shown. A looped fire main is required by City Ordinance. 20E I The building is required to be fully sprinklered and provided with central station fire alarm monitoring. The building may also require a manual fire alarm system. Separate plans and permits are required for the sprinkler and fire alarm systems. 21 The applicant is required to pay the applicable Fire Mitigation Fee as discussed in the Mitigation Measures above. The fee is assessed at a rate of $0.52 per square foot of new building area. The building would be 42,975 sf in size, with the possibility that an additional 5,000 sq ft of mezzanine. The estimated Fire Mitigation Fee would be $22,347.00 for the 42,975 sq ft building, or $24,947.00 for the 47,975 sq ft structure. The fee is payable at the time of the issuance of the building permit. J 22. Since the building is speculative in nature, and no tenant has been identified, additional fire and building requirements will be based on the use of the building and the type of operation to be conducted. The applicant shall provide information regarding the storage and use of any flammable, combustible liquids or gases, or any hazardous materials. 23. If the building is to be used for high-piled stock, it shall be required to meet requirements of Article 81 of the Uniform Fire Code (1994 Edition). 24. Approved Fire Department access to within 150-feet of all portions of the building exterior is required. Apparatus turnarounds are required on access roadways that exceed 150-feet in length. For additional information, contact Renton Fire Prevention at 235-2523. Police Services 25. The applicant is ad iised to coordinate with Renton Police Crime Prevention for recommendations to reduce possibility of vandalism/crime during construction and operation of the facility. Building Construction 26. The applicant's soils engineer shall approve the footing excavations prior to placement of any concrete. 27. The applicant will be required to follow the recommendations of the soils engineer in the geotechnical report. Springbrook Creek 28. A Shoreline Substantial Development Permit is needed to allow development within 200 feet of Springbrook Creek. SITERC.DOC City of Renton PB/PW Department Environmental Determination&Administrative Land Use Action SPRINGSIDE BUILDING LUA-93-039, SA, SM,ECF REPORT AND DECISION OF APRIL 23,1996 Page 7 of 19 Solid Waste 29. Garbage and recyclable deposit areas and collection points shall be easily and safely accessible to hauling trucks. Part Three: ADMINISTRATIVE LAND USE ACTION Report & Decision A. Type of Land Use Action X Site Plan Review Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Conditional Use Binding Site Plan Special Permit for Grade &FII. , Administrative Code Determination (Note: The proposal will also require a.separate Shoreline Substantial Development Permit). B. Exhibits The following exhibits were entered into the record: Exhibit.No. 1: Yellow file containing: application, proof of posting and publication, environmental review and other documentation pertinent to this request. Exhibit No. 2: Drawing No. P-1, Site Plan (Received March 21, 1996). Exhibit No. 3: Drawing (no reference number), Landscape Plan (Received March 21, 1996). Exhibit No. 4: Drawing No. 1 of 2, Grading and Drainage Plan (Received March 21, 1996). Exhibit No. 5: Drawing No. 2 of 2, Water and Sewer Plan (Received March 21,1996). Exhibit No. 6: Drawing (no reference number), Building Elevations (Received March 21, 1996). Exhibit No. 7: Drawing (no reference number), Neighborhood Detail Map(Received March 21, 1996). C. Consistency with Site Plan Review Criteria: In reviewing the proposal with respect to the Site Plan Approval Criteria set forth in Section 4-31 • - 33(D) of the Site Plan Ordinance, the following Issues have been identified by City Departmental/ Divisional Reviewers: 1. General Criteria: a. Conformance with the comprehensive plan, its elements and policies; The proposal complies with the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan Land Use designation for the site is Employment Area-Industrial. Objective LU-EE states that industrial areas should be created and sustained, and that they should include a core of industrial uses and other related businesses and services. The proposal would result in the construction of a building that could accommodate light industrial uses including warehousing and related offices. Policy LU-196 encourages a mix of office, light industry, warehousing and manufacturing. Policy LU-203 encourages the use -of landscaping, setbacks drainage controls and other mitigation measures in order to control impacts to off-site areas. The proposal would meet both of these policies. Uses would be compatible and landscaping and setbacks would be used to buffer the use from off site areas. SITERC.DOC City oif Renton P/B/PW Department Environmental Determination&Administrative Land Use Action SPRINGSIDE BUILDING LUA-93-039, SA, SM,ECF REPORT AND DECISION OF APRIL1 23,1996 - Page 8 of 17 Policy LU-207 states that parking should be located internal to the site and landscaping should be provided to mitigate adverse visual impacts. Policy LU-209 encourages safe, convenient pedestrian access. Parking for 95 vehicles would bed provided on three sides of the proposed structure. The proposal would retain existing landscaping on the perimeter of the site. Raised pedestrian walkways and striped crosswalk areas would provide access to the building office areas. A connection to the Springbrook Creek greenbelt/pedestrian easement would occi�r near the southwest corner of the building. b. Conformance with existing land use regulations; The proposal generally conforms to the applicable zoning -- Light Industrial (IL). The IL Zone provides areas for low intensity manufacturing, industrial services, distribution and storage. The proposal would provide for manufacturing, offic s and storage/warehousing. The applicant has not yet identified a tenant, and the building is speculative in nature. Development standards of the IL Zone have been addressed by the proposal for compliance with lot coverage, setbacks, and height limits. Lot coverage is limited to 65% in the Zone, the proposal results in 31% lot coverage. Minimum setbacks are 15 feet from streets, and the proposed structure is approximately 65 feet from the SW 39th ttreet. Building heights are limited to 50 feet by the Zone, the proposal has set wall heights at 28 to 30 f et. Since the proposal i located in the Green River Valley,Ian additional two percent (2%) of natural landscaping is required for devell ped sites, per an agreement between the City and the Soil Conservation Service (SCS). Since the site is 3.1,1 acres (135,472 square feet) in size, 2,709 square feet of habitat landscaping would be required. The appli,ant is retaining existing landscaping adjacent to the Springbrook Creek greenbelt. There is a minimum of 6,000 square feet of suitable landscaping in this area, which would satisfy the requirements of the SCS and the city. 1 The Parking and Loading Ordinance requires that a minimum of 5% of the interior of large parking lots be landscaped in a manner that decreases the barren appearance of the lot. The proposal would have parking dispersed on the site, with concentrations generally on the south side of the building and along the east facade. Perimete 1 landscaping consists of existing landscaping that would be retained and protected. Supplemental land taping is proposed for the interior of the parking lot. A total of 41,707 square feet of area is in the parking ari a (truck maneuvering and docks op the north side of the building have been excluded). The appropriate a 1 ount of landscaping needed to satisfy the Parking Code is a minimum of 2,085 square feet. The applicant has provided 2,709 square feet of landscaped areas within the parking lot, thus satisfying the Parking and Lot ding Ordinance requirement. The Parking and oading Ordinance requires that parking be provided for the various uses envisioned. Parking requireme is are as follows: Offices-- minimum of 3 parking spaces and a maximum of 4.5 parking A spaces per 1,000 ross square feet (gsf) of office; Maiufacturing -- minimum of 1 parking spaces per 1,000 gsf and maximum of 1.5 parking spaces per 1,000 gsf; Warehouse-- 1 parking space per 1,500 square feet. . The applicant has estimated that up to 3,500 square feet would be used for office, with the remainder as warehouse (60% or 26,685 gsf) and manufacturing (40% or 17,790 gsf). The office use would require from 11 to 14 parking spaces, the manufacturing use would require from 18 to 27 parking spaces, and the warehouse would require 27 spaces, based on the scenario the applicant has given staff to prepare this report. Therefore, a mini i um of 56 parking spaces and a maximum of 68 would be needed by the applicant to satisfy the Code r quirements. The proposal includes p5 parking stalls, or 27 above what is allowed. Since a tenant has not be, n secured for the building, the parking need could increase based on ultimate use. The applicant will nee to either: 1) reduce the number of parking stalls; or, 2) revise the Site Plan by indicating an area set aside has a parking reserve that would be landscaped until such time that the use of the building justified a convey ion to parking (according to the parking standards within the City's Parking and Loading Ordinance, and s bject to the approval of the Development Services Division); or, 3) seek and obtain a modification from he requirements of the Code in order to exceed the amount the Code allows. SITERC.DOC City of Renton PB/PW Department Environmental Determination&Administrative Land Use Action SPRINGSIDE BUILDING LUA-93-039, SA, SM,ECF REPORT AND DECISION OF APRIL 23,1996 - Page 9 of 19 Four of the parking stalls shown on the plans do not_meet City requirements for standard or compact parking spaces. These stalls would need to be modified or eliminated in order to retain the minimum amount of aisle width behind the parking area for vehicle movement. c. Mitigation of impacts to surrounding properties and uses; The proposal would replace an existing parking lot with a light industrial use. Existing landscaping would be retained on the periphery of the site, and supplemental landscaping would be added within. The building would not be out of character with the surrounding properties and would complement existing properties and uses. No impacts to surrounding properties and uses are anticipated. d. Mitigation of impacts of the proposed site plan to the site; The applicant has designed a site with appropriate pedestrian access and amenities, and linkages to the Springbrook Creek easement. Truck maneuvering areas are separated where possible from areas of pedestrian circulation. e. Conservation of area-wide property values; The proposal would be expected to conserve or enhance area-wide property values. A tenant has not yet been secured, but the uses allowed in the IL Zone are the same as uses allowed on surrounding properties. f. Safety and efficiency of vehicle and pedestrian circulation; The applicant responded to staff suggestions for the provision of walkways at building entrances, and a for striped walkway leading from SW 39th Street to the proposed building. Truck maneuvering areas, dock-high and grade level doors are generally separated from the pedestrian areas. The dock-high doors and on-grade doors at the south end of the site would be somewhat in conflict with vehicles moving on the site. However, the applicant has met the minimum dimensions for separation between parking and truck back-up areas. The most intensive truck activity would be confined to the north side of the property, where a clear separation between truck activity and other uses occurs. It appears that the site has been designed in a way that meets the program requirements of the applicant, without compromising the safety and efficiency of vehicles and pedestrians on the site. g. Provision of adequate light and air; • The applicant will need to provide a lighting plan to demonstrate how site lighting would be accomplished. Lighting should be appropriate for the intended use, providing for security in parking and vehicle/truck • maneuvering areas without resulting in spillover light in off-site areas. The lighting plan would need to be submitted to the Development Services Division and be approved prior to the issuance of a Construction Permit. h. Mitigation of noise, odors and other harmful or unhealthy conditions; None anticipated to occur. i. Availability of public services and facilities to accommodate the proposed use; and Appropriate services and facilities are available to serve the proposed use, provided required site improvements are installed. j. Prevention of neighborhood deterioration and blight. Development of the site with the proposal would improve the site which has been used as a parking lot. SITERC.DOC 1 City of Renton PB/PW Department Environmental Determination&Administrative Land Use Action SPRINGSIDE BUILDING 1 LUA-93-039, SA, SM,ECF REPORT AND DECISION OF APRIL 23,1996 Page 10 of 19 2. Mitigation of Impac s to.Surrounding Properties and Uses: a. Mitigation of undesirable impacts of proposed structures and site layouts that could impair the use or enjoyment or potential use of surrounding uses and structures and of the community; The site is buffered from surrounding uses by its location at the end of a cul-de-sac and because of its location adjacent to Springbrook Creek on the west and a railroad easement to the south. Extensive established landscaping located on the perimeter of the site would remain. No impairment of use or enjoyment to surrou ding properties is expected to occur with the proposal. b. Mitigation of undeI irable impacts when an overscale structure, in terms of size, bulk, height, and intensity, or site leyout is permitted that violates the spirit and/or intent of the zoning code and impairs the use, en oyment or potential use of surrounding properties; The building �uildin has ben designed at a size and scale that is not out of character for this industrial area. It Ili would be compatible[with surrounding development, and would not exceed any of the development standards of the IL Zone for he ght, intensity, etc. c. Provision of a des rable transition and linkage between uses and to the street, utility, walkway, and trail systems in the surrounding area by the arrangement of landscaping, fencing and/or other buffering techniquI s, in order to prevent conflicts and to promote coordinated and planned benefit from, and access t', such elements; An appropriate tra sition and linkage would occur between the proposed use and surrounding uses (Springbrook Creek, SW 39th Street) by the arrangement of existing and proposed landscaped areas, and through pedestrian 'Connections between the building and SW 39th Street and Springbrook Creek. Striped walkways would be ndicated to guide pedestrians from SW 39th to the office area on the northeast corner of the structure. Striped walkways would also be employed to indicate the building entrance on the southwest corner of the buildi g. Raised walkways are proposed around the perimeter of the building (east facade, portion of north facpde located away from truck maneuvering areas, and on the southwest portion of the structure). A linkag° is provided to Springbrook Creek and adjacent to the employee outdoor picnic area. and scale of proposed structures in relation to the natural characteristics d. Consideration of placementn p p of a site in order t avoid over-concentration of structures on a particular portion of a site such that they create a perception of greater height or bulk than intended under the spirit of the zoning code; ' One building is proposed, and its placement is in response to the irregular shape of the site. The location of the structure is appropriate for this site given the railroad right-of-way, SW 39th Street, Springbrook Creek and the desire to re ain existing landscaped areas. e. Effective location, design and screening of parking and service areas in order to promote efficient function of such , cilities, to provide integrated facilities between uses when beneficial, to promote "campus-like" or'I park-like" layouts in appropriate'zones, and to prevent unnecessary repetition and conflict between uses and service areas or facilities; The parking areas are designed to distribute parking throughout the site, and to provide for efficient movement of vehicles and pedestrians. I 1 f. Mitigation of the unnecessary and avoidable impacts of new construction on views from existing buildings and futlPre developable sites, recognizing the public benefit and desirability of maintaining visual accessibility to attractive natural features and of promoting "campus-like" or "park-like" settings in appro riate zones; S!TERC.DOC City of Renton PB/PW Department Environmental Determination&Administrative Land Use Action SPRINGSIDE BUILDING LUA-93-039, SA, SM,ECF REPORT AND DECISION OF APRIL 23,1996 - Page 11 of 19 Views to and from the site would be affected by the construction of a new building, however this is not considered to be detrimental. The project would be similar in appearance to surrounding construction/development. Attractive landscaping would be retained and supplemented, and access to Springbrook Creek would be provided. g. Provision of effective screening from public streets and residential uses for all permitted outdoor storage areas (except auto and truck sales), for surface mounted utility equipment, for rooftop equipment, and for all refuse and garbage containers, in order to promote a "campus-like" or "park- like" setting where appropriate and to preserve the effect and intent of screening or buffering otherwise required by the zoning code; The recycling/trash enclosure areas would be located on the southwest corner of the site. and would be enclosed with a 10-foot high fence or gate. This would allow the trash enclosure to be separated from the office and pedestrian areas. • h. Consideration of placement and design.of exterior lighting in order to avoid excessive brightness or glare to adjacent properties and streets. A lighting plan will be required to be submitted to the Development Services Division and approved prior to the issuance of a construction permit. 3. Mitigation of Impacts of a Proposed Site Plan to the Site: -, a. Building placement and spacing to provide for privacy and noise reduction; orientation to views and vistas and to site amenities,to sunlight and prevailing winds, and to pedestrian and vehicle needs; The proposal complies. The building would be placed to allow views to Springbrook Creek from interior office areas on the southwest corner. Since the site is located at the end of a cul-de-sac and adjacent to a creek, privacy is provided for and noise is reduced. Pedestrians and vehicles would have adequate and appropriate access to the site via driveways and walkways.. b. Consideration of placement and scale of proposed structures in relation to the openness and natural characteristics of a site in order to avoid over concentration or the impression of oversized structures; The structure would be located to retain existing site landscaping and would be of a size, scale and design that would not be considered to be excessive. c. Preservation of the desirable natural landscape through retention .of existing vegetation and limited soil removal, insofar as the natural characteristics will enhance the proposed development; Existing site landscaping is being retained to give the appearance that the use has been in this location for a longer period of time. d. Use of existing topography to reduce undue cutting, filling and retaining walls in order to prevent erosion and unnecessary storm water runoff, and to preserve stable natural slopes and desirable natural vegetation; Proposed fill is required to raise the building above the flood plain. No excessive filling is proposed. SITERC.DOC • City of Renton PB/PW Department Environmental Determination&Administrative Land Use Action SPRINGSIDE BUILDING LUA-93-039, SA, SM,ECF REPORT AND DECISION OF APRIL 23,1996 Page 12 of 19 e. Limitation of pave• or impervious surfaces, where feasible, to reduce runoff and increase natural infiltration; Since the entire sit is currently paved for a parking lot, the envisioned development would not result in a greater amount of i pervious surface over the existing condition. f. Design and protec ion of planting areas so that they are not susceptible to damage from vehicles or pedestrian movements; Landscaping would e in areas that are not subject to vehicular movement, and would be aggregated in planters with raised •urbs to protect the landscaping from vehicles. g. Consideration of I:wilding form and placement and landscaping to enhance year-round conditions of sun and shade both on-site and on adjacent properties and to promote energy conservation. The location of the s ructure on the site should not result in adverse impacts to the site or off-site areas. 4. , Circulation and Ac ess: Provision of ade �te and safe vehicular access to and from allproperties; a. q Two points of ingress/egress are proposed from SW 39th Street. One driveway would be used primarily by truck traffic and the ther (eastern) driveway would be used by both cars and trucks. The proposed access is appropriate for the e visioned development. b. Arrangement of they circulation pattern so that all ingress and egress movements may occur at as few points as possible along the public street, the points being capable of channelization for turning movements; Two driveways would provide for access from SW 39th.! This allows for trucks to utilize the west driveway for access to the north ci ocks, and cars trucks could utilizejthe east driveway for access to the remainder of the site. c. I Consolidation of a cess points with adjacent properties,when feasible; • Not applicable. d. Coordination of access points on a superbiock basis so that vehicle conflicts and vehicle/pedestrian .1, conflicts are mini 'zed; Not applicable. e. Orientation of ac iess points to side streets or frontage streets rather than directly onto arterial streets,when feasible; Not applicable. f. Promotion of the safety and efficiency of the internal circulation system, including the location, design and dimensions of vehicular and pedestrian access points, drives, parking, turnarounds, walkways, bikewais, and emergency access ways; SITERC.DOC City of Renton P/B/PW Department Environmental Determination&Administrative Land Use Action SPRINGSIDE BUILDING LUA-93-03 9, SA, SM,ECF REPORT AND DECISION OF APRIL 23,1996 Page 13 of 19 Vehicular circulation would primarily occur on the periphery of the site (north, south and east), while pedestrians would utilize a walkway located between the driveways and use raised walkways located on the exterior of the building near the office entrances. g. Separation of loading and delivery areas from parking and pedestrian areas; The loading and delivery area on the north portion of the site would be adequately separated from other uses and circulation patterns. However, the dock-high and grade level doors on the south portion of the site would potentially conflict with the parking area. The applicant has demonstrated that the trucks have sufficient area for maneuvering, but the turning movements of the trucks could result in some disruption for people parked on the south side of the building if they are trying to access or leave this area at the same time that the trucks are maneuvering. h. Provisions for transit and carpool facilities and access where appropriate; and The applicant has indicated that employees would be encouraged to utilize public transportation or vanpool/carpool. No carpool spaces are specifically called out on the plans. Depending on the building tenants and use,the designation of carpool parking facilities may not be warranted. i. Provision for safe and attractive pedestrian connections between parking areas, buildings, public sidewalks and adjacent properties. As previously stated, the applicant is providing striped crosswalks between the building and SW 39th Street sidewalk. Raised walkways are being provided along the exterior of the building at entrances, and a link to the Springbrook Creek easement is incorporated into the design of the facility. 5. Signage: a. Employment of signs primarily for the purpose of identification; A sign plan has not been submitted, since a tenant has not been identified. The applicant will need to comply with the City's Sign Ordinance. b. Management of sign elements, such as size, location and arrangement so that signs complement the visual character of the surrounding area and appear in proportion to the building and site to which they pertain; See 5a above. c. Limitation of the number of signs to avoid visual clutter and distraction; See 5a above. d. Moderation of surface brightness or lighting intensity except for that necessary for sign visibility; and See 5a above. e. Provision of an identification system to allow for quick location of buildings and addresses. (Ord. 3981, 4-7-86) See 5a above. SITERC.DOC 1 I City of Renton PB/PW Department Environmental Determination&Administrative Land Use Action SPRINGSIDE BUILDING LUA-93-039, SA, SM,ECF REPORT AND DECISION OF AP AIL 23,1996 Page 14 of 19 1 6. Aquifer Protection Area (APA): Prior to the issuance of any permit in an Aquifer Protection Area, a finding must be made that the proposal will not impact the quantity or quality of water in the aquifer on a short-term basis, long-term basis, or cumulatively in conjunction with other existing or proposed uses. ! a. The required finding shall be made by the Hearing Examiner for all proposals which are subject to approval by the Hearing Examiner pursuant to Section 4-8-10. All other findings shall be made by the Water Utility Engineer. Not applicable. b. The required finding shall be based on the activities to be conducted, substances that will be stored, handled, transported, treated, used or produced, and the potential for these activities or substances ,, to degrade the grol ndwater quality. Not applicable. 7. Hazardous Waste Treatment and Storage Facilities: a. . Above-ground hazardous waste treatment and storage facilities shall be constructed with containment controls which will prevent the escapelof hazardous wastes in the event of an accidental release from the facility. Such controls shall conforml with all adopted Federal, State and local design and construction standards. Unknown. A tenant has not been identified for the project site. The ultimate user/occupant would need to comply with any applicable regulations as appropriate. b. Underground hazardous waste treatment and storage facilities shall comply with Chapter 2 of Title VII,the Underground Storage Tank Ordinance. Not applicable. c. Hazardous waste treatment and storage facilities shall comply with article 80 of the Uniform Fire Code as adopted by ordi lance by the City of Renton. Not applicable. d. A hazardous waste spill contingency plan for immediate implementation in the event of a release of ! hazardous wastes t the facility shall be reviewed and approved by the Renton Fire Department prior to issuance of any° ermits. I Unknown. A tenant has not been identified for the project site. The ultimate user/occupant would need to comply with any applicable regulations as appropriate. ! e. The location of all on-site and off-site facilities must comply with the state siting criteria as adopted in accordance with RCW 70.105.210. Not applicable. SITERC.DOC City of Renton PB/PW Department Environmental Determination&Administrative Land Use Action SPRINGSIDE BUILDING LUA-93-039, SA, SM,ECF REPORT AND DECISION OF APRIL 23,1996 • Page 15 of 19 X Copies of all Review Comments are contained in the Official File. Copies of all Review Comments are attached to this report. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & DECISION Having reviewed the written record in the matter, the City now makes and enters the following: D. Findings 1) Request: The Applicant, Douglas Richardson (Anderson/Richardson Co. Inc.), has requested Environmental Review& Site Plan Approval for development of a building that would be between 42,975 and 48,975 square feet in size on a 3.11 acre site at the west end of the existing cul-de-sac on SW 39th Street. The proposed building would be suitable for office/warehouse/industrial uses. A total of 95 parking spaces would be provided. 2) Environmental Review: The applicant's file containing the application, the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) documentation, the comments from various City departments, the public notices requesting citizen comment, and other pertinent documents was entered as Exhibit No. 1. 3) Site Plan Review: The applicant's site plan application complies with the requirements for information for site plan review. The applicant's site plan and other project drawings are entered as Exhibits No. 2 through 7. 4) Comprehensive Plan: The subject proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan designation of Employment Area-Industrial (EAI). 5) Zoning: The site plan as presented, complies with the zoning requirements and development standards of the Light Industrial (IL) zoning designation. 6) Existing Land Use: Land uses surrounding the subject site include: North: vacant, parking lots, offices; East:commercial, parking, warehouse; South:warehouse, IKEA ; and West:Springbrook Creek, vacant land. E. Conclusions 1) The subject proposal complies with the policies and codes of the City of Renton. 2) Specific Land Use (e.g. Site Plan Approval) issues were raised by various City departments as follows: a) Truck bays and truck maneuvering areas on the'southwest side of the building may conflict with vehicle parking areas. 3) The proposal complies with the Comprehensive Plan designation of Employment Area -Industrial (EAI); and the Zoning designation of Light Industrial (IL). SITERC.DOC City of Renton PB/PW Department Environmental Determination&Administrative Land Use Action SPRINGSIDE BUILDING LUA-93-039, SA, SM,ECF REPORT AND DECISION OF AP L 23,1996 - Page 16 of 17 F. Decision The Site Plan for Springside Building File No. LUA-96-039, SA ,SM, ECF is approved, subject to following conditions: CONDITIONS 1. A lighting plan shall be submitted to the Development Services Division for review and approval prior to the issuance of a Construction Permit. Site lighting shall be provided for safety and security, but of such a type and intensity so as not to impact off-site uses and sensitive areas located along Springbrook Creek. 2. Applicant shall either: 1) Revise the Site Plan to eliminate parking spaces in excess of the number required by the City's Parki "g and Loading Ordinance; 2) Revise the Site Plan by indicating an area set aside as a parking reserve thai would be landscaped until such time that the use of the building justified a conversion to parking (according o the parking standards within the City's Parking and Loading Ordinance, and subject to the approval of thl Development Services_ Division); or, 3) Seek and obtain a modification from the requirements of th Parking and Loading Ordinance in order to exceed the maximum number of parking spaces allowed. If parking spaces are eliminated, this should be accomplished in areas where potential conflicts would occ I r between vehicles and trucks maneuvering (near the truck dock doors on the southwest portion of the property). I 3. The Site Plan shall be revised address the four sub-standard parking spaces along the periphery of the site, across from the south angled building facade. The Site Plan must show that these-parking areas have either been eliminated, or, that they would meet City Code ;requirements for standard or compact spaces, while maintaining the appropriate aisle width behind the parkirig area. DATE OF DECISION ON LAND USE ACTION May 6, 1996 SIGNATURES /7 illy > (II 19C1-- 'G7"7.6 • James C.Hanso ,Zoning Administrator date l _ 11 Michael D. Katte mann,Zoning Administrator date TRANSMITTED this 6th day of May, 1996 to the applicant and owner: Douglas Richardson Anderson/Richardson Co. Inc. 300 120th Avenue NE Building 2, Suite#217 Bellevue, WA 98005 SITERC.DOC • City of Renton PB/PW Department Environmental Determination&Administrative Land Use Action SPRINGSIDE BUILDING LUA-93-039, SA, SM,ECF REPORT AND DECISION OF APRIL 23,1996 - Page 17 of 17 TRANSMITTED this 6th day of May, 1996 to the parties of record: John Lang Sabey Corporation 101 Elliott Avenue West, Suite 450 Seattle, WA 98119 TRANSMITTED this 6th day of May, 1996 to the following: Bob Arthur,Land Use Inspector Jim Chandler,Building Official Art Larson,Fire Marshal Neil Watts,Public Works Division Lawrence J.Warren,City Attorney Valley Daily News Land Use Action Appeals& Requests for Reconsideration The decision on the requested administrative land use action is being made concurrently with the Environmental Determination. The administrative land use and environmental decisions will become final if the decision/decisions is not appealed within 14 days of the date of the publication. An appeal of either or both decisions must be filed within the 14 day appeal period (RCW 43.21.C.075(3); WAC 197-11-680). REQUESTS FOR RECONSIDERATION must be filed in writing on or before May 20, 1996. Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the Site Plan Review Committee 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 meeting, may make a written request to the Zoning Administrator for review by the Site Plan Committee within fourteen (14)days of publication. This request shall set forth the specific errors relied upon by such appellant, and the Committee may, after review of the record, take further action as it deems proper. If an appeal is made to the Hearing Examiner, requests for reconsideration will be forwarded to that office for consideration at the same time as the appeal. AN APPEAL TO THE HEARING EXAMINER is governed by Title IV, Section 4-8-11.B, which requires that such appeals be filed directly with the Hearing Examiner. Appeals must be made in writing before 5 p.m. on May 20, 1996. Any appeal must be accompanied by a$75.00 fee and other specific requirements. THE APPEARANCE OF FAIRNESS DOCTRINE provides that no ex parte(private one-on-one) communications may occur concerning land use decision. The Doctrine applies not only to the initial committee decision, but to all Request for Reconsideration as well as Appeals to the Hearing Examiner. All communications after the decision date must be made in writing through the Zoning Administrator. All communications are public record and this permits all interested parties to know the contents of the communication and would allow them to openly rebut the evidence in writing. Any violation of this doctrine could result in the invalidation of the request by the Court. SITERC.DOC • • • 40' SPRINGBRUUK CREEK GREENBELT AND PEDESTRIAN EASEMENT• I I I 1 APPNDMYNIE ONONANY 1 SPRINGBROOK I I CREEK Ma .rzR NW. .0 _• �_ - �L-- 40 RIGHT OF WAY lo,.r a..0.ro)n vl I ' ligXg• . s —1: •1 U' ',I'1,1N,..111,001. LRI I K GI./L Nlit L I/PI DL_'; F'UoAN .M F.M. - h: I21 I... „,.-A-----`\y' r — -. -- _.—. -_ - --- .. - -- 1 = -- -- ,- ._. .. - - - - - __I_ t ..>,- ii"1 4 i -1- • ,,.__. .\♦ •'1\4'•� - III I I I.;. �--- . ,. I `)�`s, I r/I 000[Cm�o�o-oNr 'T=D LOT 6 I C-T_-7,..43_ _`~ .,.. ;"I . .� \\♦ • \ ,I I� \caw rLoaa.•.v.Nrlw•hao �f Is00C WIN scar .,..'«... E f . \Dear \ �� . • • .,..•.,,. zo � , \ M-•:..,,: -�.a I 'r— III\ y� '+r, � r- i \ o \ l _. I G �� ,\ $x m`r �. V. n 19 U CD a^ �� ,(r \ ;�\ - 1%1�1�y�' �, ..��� / Oil_ ZG. - .._ ._....__.—._... \ ';ova. . .\Y • _ _ a 1 ` OT' a .....R n \ \ •��. �: — - s. loth. 1 \ _ J R 7: A \ \ � .•.•.• W��, _ car ..Z \S. cn ' "`,\ \ LOT 5 s Ln1_p.... .,,.. ,a` r =Tr AND wu DING STATlsnrC LECA.1L_E=CRIPTIONI a�V �.9 • •w I. BUILDING COX •UDC.91 )STOIC AMENUENTS ---- ----- -- Y;.. /4 ♦\ i<z - • co +. 2. ZONING . IL ILIWT INDUSTRIAL) 814. •N•1, •I w u UI..• ..N..rw„,..'V ,.w1 0 .,n... D. SITE AREA IINCLUDING EASEMENTS MD PER LEGAL '' , (� \ • •s J XSCRIP1161•r , ��.TES •. SITE AREA IPCR K /➢(ASCENTS, r0u/v..w..ilN N.,..1 u......t...rui•ux•g....u..u., • r^ lK .C,• S. NANKIN SITE CMONT•rL .Asx • Be W Y F� ...,.w•u ,+.w.... _—__—__—.___._—_._. G. WIL0ING AREA 12.975 Sr FIRST now ,. z -� rE22WINC. SECO`•0 row �1 ..r, o•r ). srP[Of cwsTRll[TIW III-N POLL SiYtIMILERC➢ ^• rMS ¢ a • M •..� .••.,...,w,. u •u1w„• uA.IX SETBACK . ,^ 8. OCCUPANCY AREAS VW[NWSC INDUSTRIAL NNNUEACTURIW. ,...rrN..w.i.....N•.+,�.�,•..• a.r i) • .[DEICE �.'.•••'••••� '•A'• 9. PANNING REWIRED EMISE •i/1000 , O�... C4 MNw„ACUMEN. O ,.u.r' 011 ICES N 1 M asn000 .... .n u.ew.. u.,...0 p • [) u, .. •. 9f•fOIK IRCWIRCD nw.a..un u..m u ... Oa W CA• 10.PARKING S,e N DEW EL, -- — ••"N"•A �' ' ' " II.BUILDING HEIGHT .2•'CLEW 1•^-28.1�D ALL 5• .v..n•+U uN.rns n,N+.L V EWC TIN.rum L=r- .u.,. C. .,. Mir. IF FLCOR ELF.TION IS BELIE/22•ELEVATION SANITARY - P (`' [a] SEVER IM[ ILLREQUIRE.DNCAELOY PREVENTIDI DEVICE. .A..uN•w"u.,. J -- -_ '•0 u++r...•u¢•I•.. ry,0 1a...un,.1 wNv u.M••A ➢YNER. ANDERSIN RIC,MRDSC.r CDPANY '.•'ti,r..c1 a.�..,ru,r....w+r.. '. A 300 20TH M.C. BLDG.2.SUITE 217 RE11(VUC.VNSHIIGTDI 98005 I R•50-e)I) CIVIL ENGINEER. .nw..+.....•M.. ".r...w r .r..,. •.r.w. PEDULLCGDI ASSOC.INC. ••N1 uNII - . )DO OTM SIRECT SOUTH Yr rU N ru tv.r , 1 nw NIRNLWO.vASNIMGTDI 90000 u• w rK 4N• .... .r.•.•....r P` • 1027-2014 LANDSCAPING. NERTNYCSTERM LANDSCAPE CO. P.D.DOx 1118 PUYALLUP,VNSHINGTDI 98371 A0•8-0100 I:.Y•. Ism _..u,.n.. .. f �, y . . 11. . .I %� Sw. 3rTX Z ST. • __gZ Q SW SrTI /i I p QC0111FMNLBIAL �pY?c _ /'/ ,:,,,a,..,„,.,,:,,,a,..,„,., I LpF•IfNGTW LN61 RWUt]a114 . Z f J 5 7; , 4, z ,:- , . Z ' ''1 14 WZ _.__. _�•S . .. I .. Isrwxr • z _ Sy, JBTX —ST. ' ,;'1`3 ) Fll Boron PBS s 1 1 X B / = 9 $/ ik 1 ± ± L ST �I� 1 ••Ti ©�` q�Q •dOPILII �CL1 \4 VARISICSISES 1 . RMIBWSE F]IPNOtlUSE I' m,ko o.o.o „•P I Mcmr 7 r ® ,9 y1 I r`_ - Na. • s.w r �s7 � sr. l I B9 pd al ECM ELM J P �Aa I ."o......v r =. K=• 47. ..,!� l ! � e ti - u- G.BORHOOD DETAIL MAP a A 44 &W �yTM -SERE 1"=20d Q0-0� II L. ao' • g• ; ti is▪, O ro Return Address: . , City Clerk's Office o City of Renton 200 Mill Avenue South x;_ Renton, WA 98055-2189 = a 1 BILL OF SALE Property Tax Parcel Number: 12 5 3 81—0 0 6 0 Project File#: C-96 0130 Street Intersection: 901 S .W. 39th S t. o Reference Number(s)of Documents assigned or released:Additional reference numbers are on page . Grantor(s): Grantee(s): 1 OGIMA LLC 1. City of Renton,a Municipal Corporation `D C) The Grantor,as named above,for,and in consideration of mutual benefits,hereby grants,bargains,sells and delivers to r`a' the Grantee,as named above,the following described personal property now located at: '11 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Springside Office/Warehouse Building t4 Water system, consisting�o. fire main loop .00 and fire hydrants . '' .� • / • V 1 Poi 'CI) /,,k4i, -.."--.. ,,.• ,..•_. tY 7 4 RN cc 9> > Fc Rp 'r Fk By this conveyance,Grantor will warrant and defend the sale hereby made unto the Grantee against all and every person or persons,whomsoever,lawfully claiming or to claim the same. This conveyance shall bind the heirs,executors, administrators and assigns forever. _ . IN WITNE EREOF,I. e hereunto set my hand and s I the d and year as written below. I IVIDUAL FO OF KNO LEDGMENT ' o ry Seal l l�vithin box TATE OF WASHINGTON )SS • //�� COUNTY OF KING ) • tife7 A;... ;�� ��/� I certify that I know or have satisfactory.evidence that • •4 ` J•.T p_...h /e0455 ,4'u, ,e y signed this instrument and ' i_ /RAdi% acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary ct for the uses and purposes 'WINO•Oft" s mentioned in t e' trument •• 11.•�� Notary Public in and for the State of Washin'�t-on 4(W &:,..i:- ri . 41��� � Notary(Print) //EG/A'll�/� 6. f �T- p/Milf%U1\ My appointment ex2ires: 9/—o2'z z I �D3� ' Dated: 6-j - 9� .0I I H:\FORMS\KCRECORD\BOS.DOC\bh • Page 1 • Return Address: CITY CLERK'S OFFICE CITY OF RENTON 200 MILL AVENUE SOUTH RENTON,WA 98055-2189 Please print or type information DOCUMENT TITLE: EXHIBIT A PROJECT NAME: SPRINGSIDE OFFICE/WAREHOUSE WATER SYSTEM: Length Size Type 58 L.F.of 8 DI Water Main 1193 L.F.of 12 " DI Water Main L.F.of Water Main L.F. of Water Main 2 each of 10 " Gate Valves 2 each of 8 33 Gate Valves 3 Fire Hydrant Assemblies SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM: Length Size Type L.F.of Sewer Main L.F. of Sewer Main L.F.of Sewer Main each of " Diameter Manholes each of " Diameter Manholes each of " Diameter Manholes STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM: Length Size Type L.F.of 55 Storm Line L.F.of Storm Line L.F.of Storm Line • each of Storm Inlet/Outlet each of 73 Storm Catch Basin each of Manhole STREET IMPROVEMENTS: (Including Curb,Gutter, Sidewalk,Asphalt Pavement) Curb,Gutter,Sidewalk L.F. Asphalt Pavement: _ SY or L.F. of Width SIGNALIZATION: STREET LIGHTING: #of Poles .)G e WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO: Project: Sp r t of P ; 0 Office athe City Clerk y "w Renton Municipal Building t� - [, '-t UTILITIES EASEMENT PID_ Rol Sw 29 —Sf; ,... 200 Mill Avenue South v i:l' t t. l,.i, Grants:eaT Kit (tit..C,; Renton,WA 98055 STR: STti% p'15-73-/f ; Street lntaxtion:SUS act 5f, k'�va.4d AvG,SW, TIES INSTRUMENT,made this 1 4 thday of August 19 9 6 •a-. by and between OGIMA, L.L.C. and (p{nse print or type iinstor(s)Nsm*sjj and hereinafter called"Grantor(s),"and the CITY OF RENTON,a Municipal Corporation of King County,Washington, hereinafter called"Grantee." That said Grantor(s),for and in consideration of mutual benefits,do by these presents,grant,bargain,sell,convey,and Warrants unto the said Grantee,its successors and assigns,an easement for public utilities(including water,wastewater, and surface water)with necessary.appurtenances over,under,through,across and upon the following described property (the right-of-way)in King County,Washington,more particularly described as follows: See attached EXHIBIT A for legal description See attached EXHIBIT B for map For the purpose of constructing,reconstructing,installing,repairing,replacing,enlarging,operating and maintaining utilities and utility pipelines,including,but not limited to,water,sewer and storm drainage lines,together with the.right of ingress and egress thereto without prior institution of any suit or proceedings of law and without incurring any legal ' obligation or liability therefor. Following the initial construction of its facilities,Grantee may from time to time cr construct such additional facilities as it may require. This easement is granted subject to the following terms and N conditions: CO e) 1. The Grantee shall,upon completion of any work within the property covered by the casement,restore the surface of t9) the easement,and any private improvements disturbed or destroyed during execution of the work,as nearly as CD practicable to the condition they were in immediately before commencement of the work or entry by the Grantee. 2. Grantor shall retain the right to use the surface of the easement as long as such use does not interfere with the easement rights granted to the Grantee. Grantor shall not,however,have the right to: a. Erect or maintain any buildings or structures within the easement;'or b. Plant trees,shrubs or vegetation having deep root patterns which may cause damage to or interfere with the utilities to be placed within the easement by the Grantee;or c. Develop,landscape,or beautify the easement area in any way which would unreasonably increase the costs to the Grantee of restoring the casement area and any private improvements therein. d. Dig,tunnel or perform other forms of construction activities on the property which would disturb the compaction or unearth Grantee's facilities on the right-of-way,or endanger the lateral support facilities. e. Blast within fifteen(15)feet of the right-of-way. This easement shall run with the land described herein,and shall be binding upon the parties,their heirs,successors in interest and assigns. Grantors covenant that they are the lawful owners of the above properties and that they have a good and lawful right to execute this agreement. a r? JI tENr FORM APPROVED BY U[ilities Easementam v l CITY ATTORNEY sear.24.1992 1 Sheet 1 of t'Imm'iwu�nn,�uVcxnVUi dli Ar:•a. r i .t Si Iatur G (.7,(iii.,,. and • • and ,, INDIVIDUAL FORM OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT • STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) SS COUNTY OF KING ) I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Rn. , 1u ric { is the person who appeared before me, and said person acknowledged that(he/she)signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be(his/her)free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned( in the instrument Dated 'J-I"'I-"1(L 11 c--) - ell- LE D C ofor.s ,.. .. d „ Notary Public in an or the State O 94�\ SS10N FAA��/J, of Washington residing at �ZQ� Q Q c0i _GTAR)-%' N� Notary(print): mtCh e , 1 )l i�. 1 --- ; * o My appointment expires:c - t n, 1 I`f'J� % ,,.,�piBL\Gc'v:,-, 1� sit: 9•.74,. „cv:,`O,/st REPRESENTATIVE FORM OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT N.a, STATE o • ���,o ) .,� W A...go ) SS • COUNTY OF KING 'ff ) CO • I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that signed this instrument, on oath stated that tY) he/she/they was/were authorized to execute the instrument and acknowledged it as the .'of C.) to be the free and voluntary act of such party/parties for the uses and purposes mentioned in CD the instrument Dated • • Notary Public in-and for the State .._ .of Washington residing at . • :.. . Nod -(pit): .. . My appointment expires: CORPORATE FORM OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT: STATE OF WASHINGTON ) SS COUNTY OF KING ) On this day of , 19 ,before me personally appeared to me known to be of the corporation that executed the withininstrument, and acknowledge the said instrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said corporation,for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and each on oath stated that he/she was authorized to execute said instrument and that the seal affixed is the corporate seal of said corporation. Notary Public in and for the State of Washington Notary(Print) My appointment expires Utilities Easement Sheet 2 of 4 Corporate Form A.R.C. 96517.00 June 27, 1996 DDG EXHIBIT A EASEMENT FOR UTILITIES An easement over, under and across the following described parcel: Lot 6 in Block 5 of the Plat of Burlington Northern Industrial Park Renton II, as per plat recorded in Volume 111 of Plats, pages 42-44, records of King County, Washington. Said easement being a 10 foot strip of land described as follows: All that portion of said Lot 6 lying north and east of the following described line: Commencing at the northern most corner of said Lot 6, said corner bears North 42 degrees 36'19" West a distance of 187.14 feet from a monument at the center of cul-de-sac at the westerly terminus of S.W. 39th Street; Thence South 47 degrees 23'23" West along the northwesterly line of said Lot 6, a distance of 10.00 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING of said line; Thence South 42 degrees 36'19" East parallel with the northeasterly line of said Lot 6, a distance of 112.81 feet, more or less,to the northwesterly margin of said S.W. 39th Street and the TERMINUS of this line. I-4 . CA Cr) O 4r EXHIBIT FOR --,. e , UTILITY EASEMENT PORTION OF SE 1/4 SE 1/4 SEC. 25, T. 23 N., R. 4 E., W.M. \\14 EXHIBIT B LOT 7 1 • 1" = 50' / I Ito I N cl 10 1 o N 42'36'19" W (CALC) 'r�`to N 42'36'37" W (PLAT) Ob ; j cr) - ' � i � 187.14 � i \t ... 112.14' 75.00' S 42.36'19" E 112.81' / . T.P.O.B. • 10.00' UTILITY EASEMENT = 136'44'49" • cK I R = 75.00' of Y L = 179.00' 1.11 0 m W •I `° CC U 1 0 ,i-tr„ L.,' • 0 V) N• `t J No w N • Z • NI (!J • w LOT 6, BLOCK 5 I Y a_ • BURLINGTON NORTHERN • 0 J INDUSTRIAL PARK II O • w Vol. 111, Pg. 42-44. m z KING CO. WASHINGTON. ' C7 w o Z c 'D • a' W I� ,�]Zg9D1IILSZ�.:r^�-_ _'-*"''n;. .iA%:i7r> ,...• ... ... / . El i [) H :tiz ��}i:+'• C , A EL Engineering `�:;i� r. ` ':1 , Planning CO - :E' ' - Consulting U' ... + /3 ` ire"'','" =," '-'• g i Z `i Q,,,••..��, itt�,' ,() • ' PenhalIegon Associates Consulting Engineers, Inc. <C6, ''•.G1.�•T �:••' \' / 760 SIXTH STREET SOUTH KIIi1QAND, WA B8033 I s• ''-'-" (208) 827-2014 FAX: (208) 827-6043 Y.P"-- c, J-(o Lq j 1 • 96517. 00 6517E-UT.DWG 6.27.96 DDG I n r ..,-..rl"1 li} :T WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO: . •• .Project: S p t-'��, g T%-e , m Office of the City Renton Municipal Building u UTILITIES EASEMENT PID_ yfr 1 _S to 7tior5t ; �' rr `` Iw 200 Mill Avenue South O i l A F h C.,„ Renton,WA 98055 Si p iiTR::4 14. °Ts a-i,t; w Street Intenedioa: S.'� 3 9 J t ro i4),U Lv;d eSLJ3 THIS INSTRUMENT,made this 1 4 thday of August R 19 9 6 -a5<( , m O G I MA, L.L.C. and , by and between (ptn a petit or type CmNor(s)N xia(s)] cm and t m m hereinafter called"Grantor(s),"and the CITY OF RENTON,a Municipal Corporation of King County,Washington, hereinafter called"Grantee." .. That said Grantor(s),for and in consideration of mutual benefits,do by these presents,grant,bargain,sell, convey,and warrants unto the said Grantee,its successors and assigns,an easement for public utilities(including water,wastnewater, and surface water)with necessary.appurtenances over,under,through,across and upon the following described property. (the right-of-way)in King County,Washington,more particularly described as follows: 6 See attached EXHIBIT A for legal description See attached EXHIBIT B for map For the purpose of constructing,reconstructing,installing,repairing,replacing,enlarging,operating and maintaining utilities and utility pipelines,including,but not limited to,water,sewer and storm drainage lines,together with the,right of ingress and egress thereto without prior institution of any suit or proceedings of law and without incurring any legal obligation or liability therefor. Following the initial construction of its facilities,Grantee may from time to time construct such additional facilities as it may require. This casement is granted subject to the following terms and conditions: 1. The Grantee shall,upon completion of any work within the property covered by the easement,restore the surface of N the easement,and any private improvements disturbed or destroyed during execution of the work,as nearly as practicable to the condition they were in immediately before commencement of the work or entry by the Grantee. C. 2. Grantor shall retain the right to use the surface of the easement as long as such use does not interfere with the easement rights granted to the Grantee. Grantor shall not,however,have the right to: a D a. Erect or maintain any buildings or structures within the easement;or CI b. Plant trees,shrubs or vegetation having deep root patterns which may cause damage to or interfere with the utilities to be placed within the casement by the Grantee;or c. Develop,landscape, or beautify the casement area in any way which would unreasonably increase the costs to the Grantee of restoring the easement area and any private improvements therein. d. Dig,tunnel or perform other forms of construction activities on the property which would disturb the compaction or unearth Grantee's facilities on the right-of-way, or endanger the lateral support facilities. e. Blast within fifteen(15)feet of the right-of-way. This easement shall run with the land described herein,and shall be binding upon the parties,their heirs,successors in interest and assigns. Grantors covenant that they are the lawful owners of the above properties and that they have a good and lawful right to execute this agreement. DOCUMENT FORM APPROVED BY LUtilities Easement M_______IATTORNEY SEPT.2q 1992 Sheet 1 Ot'4 r_. I CITY rComeropmEinticunVUTIUTY IYY'/bh PROPERTY SERVICE ,1 P _:l Ie A Si atu e of G hors: 6 " and and INDIVIDUAL FORM OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) SS COUNTY OF KING ) I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that( fTSS I M IU, rfe is the person who appeared before me, and said person acknowledged that(he/she)signed this instrument and acknowledged it o be(his/her)free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes,mentioned in the instrument Dated C6 "1y C1 • lutoh200`t—a,C0-In • �o AELLE p t Notary Public in and for the State l0•\.\ �gSI ON •F•< g of Washington residing at • J' Notary(print): i C OTA ` N My appointment expires: tX), I cr./ �'�u''•`— L/8LIC ' * h , 9• L �� REPRESENTATIVE FORM OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT STA�� W sl r fir; s�� ) • O „_F WASH\N®# ) SS COUNTY OF mog°° ) O . Cre I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that signed this instrument, on oath stated that he/she/they was/were authorized to execute the instrument and acknowledged it as the of to be the free and voluntary act of such party/parties for the uses and purposes mentioned in cr the instrument • • Dated Notary Public in'and for the State .of Washington residing at . . ........ Notary(Print): . My appointment expires: • CORPORATE FORM OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT: STATE OF WASHINGTON . ) • SS COUNTY OF KING ) • On this . day of , 19 ,before me personally appeared to me known to be of the corporation that executed the•wit ininstnrment, and acknowledge the said instrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said corporation,for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and each on oath stated that he/she was authorized to execute said instrument and that the seal affixed is the corporate seal of said corporation. Notary Public in and for the State of Washington Notary(Print) My appointment expires Utilities Easement Shed 2of4 Corporsle Form . A.R.C. • 96517.00 June 27, 1996 _ DDG ... . EXHIBIT A SZPL i . 02 i'M F.J EASEMENT FOR WATER LINE • An easement over, under and across the following described parcel: Lot 6 in Block 5 of the Plat of Burlington Northern Industrial Park Renton II, as per plat recorded in Volume 111 of Plats, pages 42-44, records of King County,Washington. TOGETHER WITH that portion of the railroad right-of-way lying adjacent to the southeasterly and southerly lines of Lot 6 as described in deed recorded at King County, Washington, recording no. 9205061673. Said easement being connected strips of land described as follows: Strip No. 1: A 15 foot easement lying 7.5 feet on each side of the following described centerline: Commencing at the northern most corner of said Lot 6, said corner bears North 42 degrees 36'19" West a distance of 187.14 feet from a monument at the center of cul-de-sac at the westerly terminus of S.W. 39th Street; Thence South 47 degrees 23'23"West along the northwesterly line of said Lot 6 a distance of 405.57 feet; Thence South 05 degrees 58'35"West a distance of 30.23 feet to a point on the southeasterly line of a 20 foot utility easement as shown on said plat and the TRUE POINT OF.BEGINNING of this centerline description; Thence continuing South 05 degrees 58'35" West a distance of 5.51 feet; Thence South 42 degrees 33'48" East a distance of 38.27 feet to a point hereinafter referred to as Point "A"; Thence continuing South 42 degrees 33'48" East a distance of 100.84 feet; Thence North 78 degrees 43'20" East a distance of 58.90 feet to a point herein referred to as Point ,,B,,. Thence continuing North 78 degrees 43'20" East a distance of 41.01 feet; N Thence North 47 degrees 25'58" East 18.39 feet to a point herein referred to as Point "C"; O Thence continuing North 47 degrees 25'58" East a distance of 168.59 feet to a point herein referred C/ to as Point "D"; 0 Thence continuing North 47 degrees 25'58" East a distance of 47.95 feet; Thence North 02 degrees 19'00" East a distance of 37.81 feet; Thence North 42 degrees 37'48" West a distance of 72.62 feet; 01 thence North 02 degrees 21'02" East a distance of 37.87 feet; Thence North 47 degrees 24'44" East.a distance of 58.77 feet, more or less, to a point in the northeasterly line of said Lot 6 and the TERMINUS of this centerline description, said point bears South 42 degrees 36'19" East 88.73 feet from the northern most corner of said Lot 6. Strip No. 2: A 15 foot easement lying 7.5 feet on each side of the following described line: Beginning at said Point "A"; Thence South 47 degrees 26'12" West a distance of 88.50 feet to the TERMINUS. Strip No. 3 A 17 foot easement lying 8.5 feet on each side of the following described line; Beginning at said Point "B"; Thence South 11 degrees 16'40" East a distance of 20.50 feet to the TERMINUS. Strip No. 4 A 20 feet easement lying 10 feet on each side,of the following described line; Beginning at said Point "C"; Thence North 42 degrees 34'02" West a distance of 18.50 feet to the TERMINUS.• Strip No. 5 A 15 foot easement lying 7.5 feet on each side of the following described line; Beginning at said Point "D"; Thence South 42 degrees 34'02" East a distance of 48.00 feet to the TERMINUS. The centerline descriptions herein are intended to coincide with the centerline of pipe as constructed and/or its extensions. The side lines of said easements shall be shortened or lengthened so as to commence and terminate in the margins and property lines stated in the corresponding centerline descriptions. 9G_004.3 ' EXHIBIT FOR - WATERLIN.E EASEMENT / PORTION OF SE 1/4 SE 1/4 SEC. 25, T. 23 N., R. 4 E., W.M. S 42'36'19" E (CALC) EXHIBIT B ��•' S 42'36'37" E (PLAT) 10 112.14' � c f.�:1 187.14' N 42'36'19" W �• 88.73 N 42'36`19" W �• - 7 5' IN C • W Cl) w I I* = 136'44'49" r cc Z Z R = 75.00' <I Q o IL = 179.00' z y0 0 Wa. ?�� m. 72.62' 0 0 N 42'37'48" W y Lu id Co o o \�j Z �- ^ � • \ 1.11 I �� l W w I W CCD cr '�, Y u°Qi in W r CC CC CC —' I \\1j Ko \ - L5 co ,..O j o Q 1,. = POINT 'D'� T — N m z e 50 STRIP No. 5 I C9 r` z o CC E m n I w LOT 6, BLOCK 5 l N BURLINGTON NORTHERN NC a INDUSTRIAL PARK II W ® FN I Vol. 111, Pg. 42-44. / OGr N KING CO. WASHINGTON. .-I m o I IZ Z N NN I I y POINT 'C' I / oh cK ��. Z STRIP No. 4 O ry` z °Q �\O LINE DIRECTION DISTANCE � ' 's 0 L3 S 11'16 40 E 20.50 �Q�o' o' a L4 N 4234�02 b W 18.50 o L4 I �' L5 S 42 34 02 E 48.00' \`g; t�°g- <v� \� 44 POINT 'B' �tio,� �.R--..k, STRIP No. 3 �� e, Q v° / ci `� s 5.51' POINT 'A' ���o . N oS•.`re I f STRIP No. 2 0 ul V.k. ^� / "s• ' 38.27' 100.84' �- F l' '� S 42'33'48" E S 42'33'48" E L�O�-' `'c •RC, —�— / 0Q :•CF WAS,*... 1, i sr IT.P.O.B. IN I g p`' STRIP No. 1 in I J����� r�.�''.9F1tsgt �q.,J4� oQ.�o. J' ' • !S7E JQ cn 2K1 � SA., NA L L Al10 S •{' 15.00' P = EXPIRES f -1.6''.6 1'0_ N N N I I � 'O N CD N / ir 4 E.E, Engineering PIanning Consulting / Penhallegon Associates Consulting Engineers, Inc. 750 SIXTH STREET SOUTH (200) 527-2014 KIR (2PID, WA 08039 FAX: (208) 827-5043 6517WA-E.DWG 6.27.96 DDG / __ `�'6 .c�cFj 9 6 51 7. 0 0 ;7nre yf 1999 STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY Northwest Regional Office, 3190 - 160th Ave S.E. • Bellevue, Washington 98008-5452 • (206) 649-7000 June 18, 1996 Douglas Richardson Anderson Richardson Co., Inc. 300 120th Avenue NE Building 2, Suite 217 Bellevue WA 98005 Dear Mr. Richardson: Re: Renton Permit # LUA-96-039, SA, SM, ECF RICHARDSON, DOUGLAS - Applicant Shoreline Substantial Development Permit # 1996-NW-10030 The subject Shoreline Management Substantial Development Permit, to construct a 43,000 square foot office/warehouse and industrial building, has been filed with this office by the City of Renton on June 4, 1996. The development authorized by the subject permit may NOT begin until the end of the 21-day appeal period, June 25, 1996. You will be notified in writing if this permit is appealed. Other federal, state, and local permits may be required in addition to the subject permit. • If this permit is NOT appealed, this letter constitutes the Department of Ecology's final notification of action on this permit. Sincerely, 1-kCJZ_ (ek(A-r-- Alice Kelly, Shorelands Specialist Shorelands and Water Resources Program • CITY of RENTOti REr.Pitmn AK:ak JUN 1 9 1996 SDP.DOC cc: James D. Hanson, Renton DIVISION 0 > tTlr! • On the 3 a day of \t�v�.. , 1996, I deposited in the mails of the United States, a se led envelope containing documents. This information was sent to: Name Representing t, - c.c.Icot • • (Signature of Sender) 24 .. STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) SS COUNTY OF KING ) I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that S47ND/A SCCL2 signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act,for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. Dated: CD 3 1 g 6 ; "v�t �� y l z_ Notary P is in an the State of Woft o ton. Notary( rint) My appointment expires: - . " � p � Yr > c ,, fo Project Name: n u�bVIOOV-• Project Number. �� _ � 1 5ts S M NOTARY.DOC " "T , CITY ~'F RENTON J1�, =4 ',44, Planning/Building/Public Works Department Jesse Tanner,Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator June 3, 1996 State Department of Ecology Northwest Regional Office 3190 160th Ave. SE Bellevue,WA 98008-5452 SUBJECT: Shoreline Management Substantial Development Permit for • • File Na LUA-96-039;SA,SM,ECF Dear Permit Coordinator: • • Enclosed is the Shoreline Substantial Development Permit for the above referenced project. The permit was issued by the City of Renton on May 24, 1996. We are filing this action with the Department of Ecology and the Attorney General per WAC 173-14-090. Please review this permit and attachments and call me at(206)277-6186 if you have any questions or need additional information. • • Sincerely,. I VINE (.4 Jennifer Toth Henning Project Manager • Enclosures: Legal Description(Attachment"A") SEPA Determination(Attachment"B") Copy of Original Application Affidavit of Public Notice/Publication Site Plan cc: Office of Attorney General City of Renton,Transportation Systems City of Renton,Utility Systems City of Renton, Code Compliance Inspector Applicant SHLTR.DOC/ 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 ®This paper contains 50%recycled material,25%post consumer r CITY OF RENTON SHORELINE MANAGEMENT ACT OF 1971 PERMIT FOR SHORELINE MANAGEMENT SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT APPLICATION NO.: LUA-96-039,SA,SM,ECF DATE RECEIVED: April 2, 1996 DATE OF PUBLICATION: April 29, 1996 DATE APPROVED: May 30, 1996 DATE DENIED: N/A TYPE OF ACTION(S): [X] Substantial Development Permit [ ] Conditional Use Permit [ ] Variance Permit Pursuant to Chapter 90.58 RCW, the City of Renton has granted/denied a permit: This action was taken on the following application: APPLICANT: Mr. Douglas Richardson/Anderson Richardson Co., Inc PROJECT: Springside Building DEVELOPMENT DESCRIPTION: The applicant seeks a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit for the development of an approximate 43,000 square foot office/warehouse and industrial building. In addition, up to an another 5,000 square feet could be developed as mezzanine office space. The site is located within 200 feet of Springbrook Creek. An existing 40-foot wide greenbelt/pedestrian easement is located on the site adjacent to the western property boundary. The development proposal features an outdoor picnic table and pedestrian path that connects to the Springbrook Creek pedestrian easement. The subject site has been used as a parking lot for nearby office buildings. Existing perimeter landscaping would remain and would be supplemented by additonal plantings. The project has received a Determination of Non Significance - Mitigated (DNS-M) from the Environmental Review Committe and Site Plan Approval from the City's Zoning Administrators. Location: West end of cul-de-sac on SW 39th Street. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: See Attachment"A" WITHIN SHORELINES OF: Springbrook Creek APPLICABLE MASTER PROGRAM: City of Renton SHSBDV.DOC City of Renton P/B/PW Department Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Springside Building(LUA-96-039,SA,SM,ECF) Page 2 of 3 The following section/page of the Master Program is applicable to the development: Section Description Page 3.03 Shorelines of the City page 13 4.04 Public Access Element page 15 5.04 Urban Environment page 22. 6.04 Public Access page 24 6.05 Facility Arrangement-Shoreline Orientation page 24 7.07 Industrial Development page 30 7.11-02 Parking- Private Parking page 32. Development of this project shall be undertaken pursuant to the following terms and conditions: 1. The applicant shall comply with the Mitigation Measures established by the City of Renton's Environmental Review Committee and the Site Plan Approval Conditions established by the City of Renton's Zoning Administrators(See Attachment"B"). 2. Public access shall be allowed to and along the Springbrook Creek shoreline. This permit is granted pursuant to the Shoreline Management Action of 1971 and pursuant to the following: 1. The issuance..of.a license under.the-.Shoreline. Management-:Act..of 197.1 shall not.release the applicant from compliance with federal, state, and other permit requirements. 2._. This_permit may be.:rescinded..pursuant:to Section.14(7).of the'Shoreline Management Act.of197.1-in.. the event the permittee (applicant) fails to comply with any condition hereof. 3. A construction permit shall not be issued until thirty (30) days after approval by the City of Renton Development Services, Division or until any review proceedings initiated within this thirty (30) day review period have been completed. 1)A Planning/B it ing/ blic Works Administrator /f*/.76 Date SHSBDV.DOC City of Renton P/B/PW Department - ;Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Springside Building(LUA-96-039,SA,SM,ECF) Page 3 of 3 THIS SECTION FOR DEPARTMENT USE ONLY IN REGARD TO A CONDITIONAL USE OR VARIANCE PERMIT DATE RECEIVED: APPROVED: DENIED: If Conditional Use, Section of the City's Shoreline Master Program authorizing the use: If Variance, Section(s) of the City's Shoreline Master Program being varied: This Conditional Use/Variance permit is approved/denied by the Department pursuant to Chapter 90.58 RCW. Development shall be undertaken pursuant to the following additional terms and conditions: Date Signature of Authorized Department Official cc: Attorney General's Office City of Renton, Plan Review(Neil Watts) City of Renton, Surface Water Utility(Ron Straka) Applicant SHSBDV.DOC ;; - CITY ___IF RENTON 41DPlanning/Building/Public Works Department Jesse Tanner,Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator • May 23, 1996 Mr. Douglas Richardson c/o Anderson Richardson Co., Inc. 300-120th Avenue NE . Building#2, Suite#217 Bellevue, WA 98005 _ - • SUBJECT: Springside Building Project No. LUA-96-039,SA,SM,ECF . Dear Mr. Richardson: This letter is to inform you that the comment and appeal periods have ended for the Environmental Review Committee's (ERC) Determination of Non-Significance - Mitigated for the Environmental Checklist Review(ECF) and Administrative Site Approval (SA) portions of the subject project. No appeals were filed. The Shoreline Substantial Development Permit (SM) is being prepared and will be forwarded to the Department of Ecology in the near future. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 277-6186. For the Environmental Review Committee, CDAUX,ja(46461-5 J nnifer Toth Henning Project Manager cc: Mr. John Lang/Sabey Corporation; Mr. Larry Capellaro/King Co. Drainage District#1 FINAL.DOC 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 CI Thia nanny',Mama 50a/rnrurinrl material 7c°,mat rnnei vnnr ViWashington State Northwest Region Department of Transportation 15700 Dayton Avenue North P.O. Box 330310 Sid Morrison • Seattle,WA 98133-9710 Secretary of Transportation . (206)440-4000 • REZ DATE: May 14,1996 CIVED TO: Jennifer Toth Henning / 2 0 /996 City of Renton, Project Manager DFVELOPrvr�ryr 200 Mill Avenue South crryoF R P ANNiNG • Renton WA 98055 • Subject: SR 405 MP 2.06 CS 1743 Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance-Springside Building File No. LUA-96-039,SA,SM,ECF FROM: Robert A. Josephson, E, Manager of Planning&Local Coordination Washington State Department of Transportation Northwest Region 15700 Dayton Avenue North, MS 122 P. O. Box 330310 • Seattle, WA 98133-9710 Thank you for giving us the opportunity to review this project which is located on SW 39th Street. Our response is checked below: X We have reviewed this subject document and have no comments. The project will have no significant impact on the state highway system. The State recommends that a traffic study be prepared to anaylyse the state intersections that are impacted by ten or more of the project's generated peak hour trips and also determine what mitigation measures, if any would be required. If you have any questions,please contact Don Hurter at 440-4664 or Vickie Erickson at 440-4915 of my Developer Services section VEE:vee File Name • •• :•>•::•:•:•:•;<;•:••>:•:•:•<•:<•>•;•:•:•.•...•:•>:•:•:••••:•••:••::•••••:••:•;•;:•:•<•:•>:•:•:•<•:•:•••:••-•••:•••••:•::••••••:•:•«•:••>•:•:•:••<•:••>•:•:••>•:•:•>•«:••»::••>•>•:•; •<••::•:•:••:::>•:•>::>•<:;GIT• Y<:: .F.R•:•:•:•:::.:•:•::::::::::•:•:•:•::::::::::<:•::..;:.:;;.:;.;:.;>:.;>:.;•:.•;:.::.:::.;;:;;:<.•;;;:•;:.::.•:•:•::::::::::•:::::•:•:::•.•:;•;•:•:•:::.•::::::::•:::. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • On the _ day of YV�o.� , 1996, I deposited in the mails of the United States, a sealed envelope containing, i, v- ektnck .1 e.c.tSt documents. This information was sent to: Name Representing 1:%btAci I&l -1C\c, e,dSmn lc,�vv+� Ca,��ellavo (Signature of Sender) SGJ/d40. STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) SS COUNTY OF KING ) I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that G b2i4 SECGE2 signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for the. usekaAd' 'purposes mentioned in the instrument. � .,.. •• Dated: 5/ `, q4 Notary P c in and the State of WssrS incon-��— Notary ( nt) `u l4 G YV My appointment expires: & E Project Name: se vts ck ' t Project Number. • NOTARY.DOC CITY OF RENTON Report DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS & ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW& CITY R EIvF0 RENTON Decision ADMINISTRATIVE LAND USE ACTION MN 0 3 1g9F DECISION DATE April 23, 1996 DtvcLllrlt,ur o %IcnVi.;6$ DIVISION Project Name Springside Building Applicant Anderson Richardson Company (Douglas Richardson) File Number LUA-096-039,SA,SM,ECF Project Manager Jennifer Toth Henning Project Description Applicant requests administrative Site Plan Approval and Environmental Review for redevelopment of a 3.11 acre site. An existing parking lot would be developed with an approximate 43,000 square foot building with the possible addition of up to 5,000 square feet as mezzanine in two separate areas. The building would be suitable for office, warehouse and industrial uses. A total of 95 parking spaces would be provided on site. Dock-high and grade level truck doors would be located on the north and south building elevations. Since the site is located within 200 feet of Springbrook Creek, a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit must also be obtained. Project Location West end of the cul-de-sac on SW 39th Street Exist. Bldg. Area sf N/A Proposed New Bldg. Area sf 42,975 sq ft + 5,000 sq ft mezzanine 3.11 acres 47,975 square feet Site Area -. _ . Total Building Area sf _ �I Z 3 'i F . u®- CO 19 :a, vnwr = S hh 9 3a- t:• Z••37. .� iR.CBO CT= I- ir/� J YG1M! O fs I L I i' � .. :,� n. r . iYlti m �i/l L 1 oa39TI! amp i I\ I a.. ! uw�a. T i .3.. a.owuwoa.s ;oei L1.1 I '" I 10 o q.... ix i ' :L'K , 4m am - Project Location Map SITERC.DOC , City of Renton PB/PW Department Environmental zit ermination&Administrative Land Use Action SPRINGSIDE BUILDING LUA-93-039, SA, SM,ECF REPORT AND DECISION OF APRIL 23,1996 Page 2 of 19 Part One: PROJECT DESCRIPTION/BACKGROUND The proposal would result in the redevelopment of an existing parking lot into a speculative building that is proposed to have office, manufacturing and warehouse uses. The building would have a footprint of 42,975 square feet. Two additional mezzanine areas 2,500 square feet each may be developed, resulting in an ultimate building size of 47,975 square feet on a 3.11 acre site. According to the applicant, a maximum of 3,500 square feet office is envisioned, and the remainder of the building would be used as manufacturing and warehouse (40% and 60% respectively). Dock high and grade level truck doors would be located on the northwest and southwest facades of the structure. Parking for up to 95 cars would be provided on the periphery of the building and the site. Existing mature site landscaping would be retained where possible and would be supplemented with ornamental landscape plantings. The site is located adjacent to Springbrook Creek on the west, a railroad right-of-way on the South and east, and the end of the SW 39th Street cul-de-sac on the north. A connection to the Springbrook Creek trail would be provided from the outside seating/picnic area at the southwest corner of the site. The applicant proposes to construct a concrete tilt-up structure with exterior painted walls that are enhanced with indented features and the exterior concrete surfaces. The building could serve multiple tenants, with a maximum of four tenants anticipated, but may only have one tenant. Wall heights would be set at 28 feet with 24 feet of clear height on the interior. Offices would be located on the northeast and southwest corners of the building, and may include an additional area of office as mezzanine. Construction would begin in the summer or early fall of 1996 pending appropriate approvals. The shell would take about four months to complete. Up to 3,600 cubic yards of structural fill would be imported to the site to raise the floor above the flood plain. Since the site is located adjacent to Springbrook Creek, a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit is also required. Part Two: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW A. Environmental Impacts The Proposal was circulated and reviewed by various City Departments and Divisions to determine whether the applicant has adequately identified and addressed environmental impacts anticipated to occur in conjunction with the proposed development. Staff reviewers have identified that the proposal is likely to have the following probable impacts: 1) Earth Impacts: Construction and site preparation activities (import of up to 3,600 cubic yards of fill) could result in erosion and sedimentation. City Codes require the applicant provide a Construction Mitigation Plan and a Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan (TESCP) prior to the issuance of a Construction Permit. Mitigation Measures: No further mitigation required. Policy Nexus: N/A SITERC.DOC City of Renton P/B/PW Department Environmental Determination&Administrative Land Use Action SPRINGSIDE BUILDING LUA-93-039, SA, SM,ECF REPORT AND DECISION OF APRIL 23,1996 Page 3 of 19 2) Air Impacts: Construction activity would result in increased levels of airborne particulate (especially dust) potentially impacting air quality in the area of the project site. Emissions from construction equipment would have a minor impact on local air quality. Construction impacts would be short term in nature and would be regulated through best management practices of the required TESCP. Vehicular emission are regulated by the State of Washington. Mitigation Measures: No further mitigation required. Policy Nexus: N/A 3) Fire Protection Impacts: The proposal would add new construction to the City which would potentially impact the City's Fire Department. A Fire Mitigation Fee would apply to all new construction, less the area of demolished structures (as applicable). The fee has been estimated at a rate of $0.52 per square foot of new construction. For the proposed development the fee is tentatively estimated at $22,347.00 (42,975 square feet X $0.52). For the optional 5,000 mezzanine areas the feet is estimated to be $2,600 (5,000 square feet X$0.52). The Fire Mitigation Fee is payable at the time that the Building Permits are issued. Mitigation Measures: The applicant shall pay the appropriate Fire Mitigation Fee at a rate of$0.52 per square foot of new construction. This fee is payable prior to the issuance of the Building Permit. Policy Nexus: Fire Mitigation Fee Resolution and adopting Ordinance; SEPA Ordinance. 4) Transportation--New Traffic Impacts The proposal would result in increased vehicular trips that would impact the City's road system. The applicant has not identified a tenant for the speculative building and has not estimated the total number of new trips that would be associated with the development. Any new trips would be subject to the City's Traffic Mitigation Fee. This fee is assessed at a rate of$75 per each new average daily trip. The fee would be applied to the project based on estimates from the ITE manual for warehouse use, unless a traffic study yields different results and the City concurs with the report. Credit may be given based on the number of existing trips generated by the existing use that would be eliminated under the proposal. The Traffic Mitigation Fee is estimated to be $15,728.25 (4.88 X 42,975/1,000 X $75.00) for the proposal without the 5,000 square feet of mezzanine, and $17,558.85 (4.88 X 47,975/1,000 X$75.00)with the mezzanine. The fee is payable prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. Mitigation Measures: The applicant shall pay the applicable Traffic Mitigation Fee at a rate of $75 per each new average daily trip attributable to the project. Credit may be given for existing trips on the site that would be eliminated under the proposal. The fee is payable prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. Policy Nexus Traffic Mitigation Fee Resolution and adopting Ordinance; SEPA Ordinance. SITERC.DOC City of Renton PB/PW Department Environmental Determination&Administrative Land Use Action SPRINGSIDE BUILDING LUA-93-039, SA, SM,ECF REPORT AND DECISION OF APRIL 23,1996 Page 4 of 19 5) Transportation-- Construction Trips Impacts: The applicant would need to import approximately 3,600 cubic yards of structural fill in order to prepare the site for development. Approximately 180 truck trips would be needed to import the material. This would not be a substantial number of truck trips, and should not have a significant impact on the area roadways as they are already designed for heavy truck traffic in the surrounding office and industrial area. If the truck trips were to occur during the AM or PM peak traffic flows, they could impact the flow of traffic during site preparation. No construction-related traffic should be permitted during grading/filling activities except between 8:30 am and 3:30 pm. Mitigation Measures: The applicant shall limit truck traffic on the adjacent arterials during grading/filling activities to the hours between 8:30 am and 3:30 pm. Policy Nexus: SEPA Ordinance B. Recommendation Based on analysis of probable impacts from the proposal, staff recommend that the Responsible Officials make the following Environmental.Determination: IDETERMINATION OF X DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED. Issue DNS with 14 day Appeal Period. X Issue DNS-M with 15 day Comment Period with Concurrent 14 day Appeal Period. Issue DNS with 15 day Comment Period with Issue DNS-M with 15 day Comment Period Concurrent 14 day Appeal Period. followed by a 14 day Appeal Period. C. MITIGATION MEASURES: 1. The applicant shall pay the appropriate Fire Mitigation Fee at a rate of $0.52 per square foot of new construction. This fee is payable prior to the issuance of the Building Permit. 2. The applicant shall pay the applicable Traffic Mitigation Fee at a rate of $75 per each new average daily trip attributable to the project. Credit may be given for existing trips on the site that would be eliminated under the proposal. The fee is payable prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. 3. The applicant shall limit truck traffic on the adjacent arterials during grading/filling activities to the hours between 8:30 am and 3:30 pm. Advisory Notes to Applicant: The following notes are supplemental information provided in conjunction with the environmental determination. Because these notes are provided as information only,they are not subject to the appeal process for environmental determinations. General 1. The applicant shall apply with all applicable City, state, federal and other jurisdictional regulations, codes and policies governing the project and site. SITERC.DOC r� p , City of Renton PB/PW Department Environment + !. ermination&Administrative Land Use Action SPRINGSIDE BUILDING LUA-93-039, SA, SM,ECF REPORT AND DECISION OF APRIL 23,1996 Page 5 of 19 2. All required utility, drainage and street improvements will require separate submittals prepared by a registered Civil Engineer, according to City of Renton drafting standards. Permit application must include an itemized cost estimate for these improvements. The fee for review and inspection of these improvements is 5% of the first $100,000, 4% of anything over $100,000 but less than $200,000; and 3% of anything over $200,000. One-half of the fee must be paid upon application for building and construction permits, and the remainder when the permits are issued. 3. The applicant is required to obtain a Construction Permit in order to accomplish site work and installation of site improvements. 4. The applicant will need to submit construction drawings for street lighting and each utility. These drawings will need to be on individual sheets. 5. Construction plans must comply with the City's Drafting Standards. Transportation 6. The City's Transportation Impact Fee will apply to the project as discussed in the mitigation measures above. The applicable fee is$75 per each new average daily trip. Storm Drainage 7. The project is located within the 100-year floodplain per Flood Insurance Rate Map 53033C0978 F (May 16, 1995). 8. The FEMA 100-year flood elevation is interpolated to be 16.9 feet NGVD or 20.48 feet NAVO 88. The applicant will be required to design the building floor at least one foot above the 100-year FEMA elevation. (Note: NGVD = North American Geodetic Vertical Datum, NAVD = North American Verical Datum). 9. The applicant may be required to either provide a FEMA Elevation Certificate, or provide for compensatory storage due to the location of the project in relation to the floodplain. 10. The City plans to construct a major storm water interceptor pipe (84-inch or larger) along the applicant's north property line from SW 39th Street. The 10-foot utility easement shown on the applicant's drawings would need to be revised to a minimum width of 20 feet to allow for construction of the interceptor pipe. Wastewater 11. The minimum pipe cover required for wastewater pipes is two (2) feet. 12• The applicable System Development Connection charge is estimated to be $10,553.40 ($0.078/sq ft of property) and is payable at the time the Building Permit is issued. 13. The applicant shall connect floor drains to the sanitary sewer system since a fire sprinkler system is being installed. 14. A latecomer fee for Special Assessment District 7401 may apply to the project if the project hooks up to the Metro sewer line that abuts the property. The applicability of the latecomer fee would be determined at a later time. Water 15. The applicant's utility drawings shall show the size and location of the irrigation and domestic water meters. SITERC.DOC City of Renton PB/PW Department Environmental Determination&Administrative Land Use Action SPRINGSIDE BUILDING LUA-93-039, SA, SM,ECF REPORT AND DECISION OF APRIL 23,1996 Page 6 of 19 16. Back-flow prevention devices for the irrigation system and fire sprinkler system must be provided and shown on the drawings. 17. The required fire flow is 3,750 gallons per minute (gpm). The 8-inch looped water pipe will not provide the required fire flow. The applicant will need to provide a minimum 10-inch water line for the looped system. 18. Water System Development Charges have been previously paid for the site. Fire 19. The preliminary fire flow requirement for Building A is 3,750 gpm. A total of four hydrants are required. The primary hydrant is to be located within 150-feet of the building, and three additional hydrants are required within 300-feet of the building. The fire hydrants cannot be installed behind the parking spaces as shown. A looped fire main is required by City Ordinance. 20. The building is required to be fully sprinklered and provided with central station fire alarm monitoring. The building may also require a manual fire alarm system. Separate plans and permits are required for the sprinkler and fire alarm systems. 21. The applicant is required to pay the applicable Fire Mitigation Fee as discussed in the Mitigation Measures above. The fee is assessed at a rate of $0.52 per square foot of new building area. The building would be 42,975 sf in size, with the possibility that an additional 5,000 sq ft of mezzanine. The estimated Fire Mitigation Fee would be $22,347.00 for the 42,975 sq ft building, or$24,947.00 for the 47,975 sq ft structure. The fee is payable at the time of the issuance of the building permit. 22. Since the building is speculative in nature, and no tenant has been identified, additional fire and building requirements will be based on the use of the building and the type of operation to be conducted. The applicant shall provide information regarding the storage and use of any flammable, combustible liquids or gases, or any hazardous materials. 23. If the building is to be used for high-piled stock, it shall be required to meet requirements of Article 81 of the Uniform Fire Code (1994 Edition). 24. Approved Fire Department access to within 150-feet of all portions of the building exterior is required. Apparatus turnarounds are required on access roadways that exceed 150-feet in length. For additional information, contact Renton Fire Prevention at 235-2523. Police Services 25. The applicant is advised to coordinate with Renton Police Crime Prevention for recommendations to reduce possibility of vandalism/crime during construction and operation of the facility. Building Construction 26. The applicant's soils engineer shall approve the footing excavations prior to placement of any concrete. 27. The applicant will be required to follow the recommendations of the soils engineer in the geotechnical report. Springbrook Creek 28. A Shoreline Substantial Development Permit is needed to allow development within 200 feet of Springbrook Creek. SITERC.DOC City of Renton PB/PW Department - Environment .'z ermination&Administrative Land Use Action SPRINGSIDE BUILDING LUA-93-039, SA,SM,ECF REPORT AND DECISION OF APRIL 23,1996 Page 7 of 19 Solid Waste 29. Garbage and recyclable deposit areas and collection points shall be easily and safely accessible to hauling trucks. Part Three: ADMINISTRATIVE LAND USE ACTION Report & Decision A. Type of Land Use Action X Site Plan Review Shoreline Substantial.Development Permit Conditional Use Binding Site Plan Special Permit for Grade&Fill Administrative Code Determination (Note: The proposal will also require a separate Shoreline Substantial Development Permit). B. Exhibits The following exhibits were entered into the record: Exhibit No. 1: Yellow file containing:.application, proof of posting and publication, environmental review and other documentation pertinent to this request. Exhibit No. 2: Drawing No. P-1,.Site Plan (Received March 21, 1996). Exhibit No. 3: Drawing (no reference number), Landscape Plan (Received March 21, 1996). Exhibit No. 4: Drawing No. 1 of 2, Grading and Drainage Plan (Received March 21, 1996). Exhibit No. 5: Drawing No..2 of 2, Water and Sewer Plan (Received March 21,1996). Exhibit No. 6: Drawing(no reference number), Building Elevations (Received March 21, 1996). Exhibit No. 7: Drawing (no reference number), Neighborhood Detail Map(Received March 21, 1996). C. Consistency with Site Plan Review Criteria: In reviewing the proposal with respect to the Site Plan Approval Criteria set forth in Section 4-31- 33(D) of the Site Plan Ordinance, the following Issues have been identified by City Departmental/ Divisional Reviewers: 1. General Criteria: a. Conformance with the comprehensive plan, its elements and policies; The proposal complies with the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan Land Use designation for the site is Employment Area-Industrial. Objective LU-EE states that industrial areas should be created and sustained, and that they should include a core of industrial uses and other related businesses and services. The proposal would result in the construction of a building that could accommodate light industrial uses including warehousing and related offices. Policy LU-196 encourages a mix of office, light industry, warehousing and manufacturing. Policy LU-203 encourages the use of landscaping, setbacks drainage controls and other mitigation measures in order to control impacts to off-site areas. The proposal would meet both of these policies. Uses would be compatible and landscaping and setbacks would be used to buffer the use from off site areas. SITERC.DOC Ctity of Renton PB/PW Department Environmental Determination&Administrative Land Use Action SPRINGSIDE BUILDING LUA-93-039, SA, SM,ECF REPORT AND DECISION OF APRIL 23,1996 Page 8 of 17 Policy LU-207 states that parking should be located internal to the site and landscaping should be provided to mitigate adverse visual impacts. Policy LU-209 encourages safe, convenient pedestrian access. Parking for 95 vehicles would be provided on three sides of the proposed structure. The proposal would retain existing landscaping on the perimeter of the site. Raised pedestrian walkways and striped crosswalk areas would provide access to the building office areas. A connection to the Springbrook Creek greenbelt/pedestrian easement would occur near the southwest corner of the building. b. Conformance with existing land use regulations; The proposal generally conforms to the applicable zoning -- Light Industrial (IL). The IL Zone provides areas for low intensity manufacturing, industrial services, distribution and storage. The proposal would provide for manufacturing, offices and storage/warehousing. The applicant has not yet identified a tenant, and the building is speculative in nature. Development standards of the IL Zone have been addressed by the proposal for compliance with lot coverage, setbacks, and height limits. Lot coverage is limited to 65% in the Zone, the proposal results in 31 lot coverage. Minimum setbacks are 15 feet from streets, and the proposed structure is approximately 65 feet from the SW 39th Street. Building heights are limited to 50 feet by the Zone, the proposal has set wall heights at 28 to 30 feet. Since the proposal is located in the Green River Valley, an additional two percent (2%) of natural landscaping is required for developed sites, per an agreement between the City and the Soil Conservation Service (SCS). Since the site is 3.11 acres (135,472 square feet) in size, 2,709 square feet of habitat landscaping would be required. The applicant is retaining existing landscaping adjacent to the Springbrook Creek greenbelt. There is a minimum of 6,000 square feet of suitable landscaping in this area, which would satisfy the requirements of the SCS and the City. The Parking and Loading Ordinance requires that a minimum of 5% of the interior of large parking lots be landscaped in a manner that decreases the barren appearance of the lot. The proposal would have parking dispersed on the site, with concentrations generally on the south side of the building and along the east facade. Perimeter landscaping consists of existing landscaping that would be retained and protected. Supplemental landscaping is proposed for the interior of the parking lot. A total of 41,707 square feet of area is in the parking area (truck maneuvering and docks on the north side of the building have been excluded). The appropriate amount of landscaping needed to satisfy the Parking Code is a minimum of 2,085 square feet. The applicant has provided 2,709 square feet of landscaped areas within the parking lot, thus satisfying the Parking and Loading Ordinance requirement. The Parking and Loading Ordinance requires that parking be provided for the various uses envisioned. Parking requirements are as follows: Offices-- minimum of 3 parking spaces and a maximum of 4.5 parking spaces per 1,000 gross square feet (gsf) of office; Manufacturing -- minimum of 1 parking spaces per 1,000 gsf and maximum of 1.5 parking spaces per 1,000 gsf; Warehouse-- 1 parking space per 1,500 square feet. The applicant has estimated that up to 3,500 square feet would be used for office, with the remainder as warehouse (60% or 26,685 gsf) and manufacturing (40% or 17,790 gsf). The office use would require from 11 to 14 parking spaces, the manufacturing use would require from 18 to 27 parking spaces, and the warehouse would require 27 spaces, based on the scenario the applicant has given staff to prepare this report. Therefore, a minimum of 56 parking spaces and a maximum of 68 would be needed by the applicant to satisfy the Code requirements. The proposal includes 95 parking stalls, or 27 above what is allowed. Since a tenant has not been secured for the building, the parking need could increase based on ultimate use. The applicant will need to either: 1) reduce the number of parking stalls; or, 2) revise the Site Plan by indicating an area set aside as a parking reserve that would be landscaped until such time that the use of the building justified a conversion to parking (according to the parking standards within the City's Parking and Loading Ordinance, and subject to the approval of the Development Services Division); or, 3) seek and obtain a modification from the requirements of the Code in order to exceed the amount the Code allows. SITERC.DOC • Ctity of Renton PB/PW Department Environmental Determination&Administrative Land Use Action SPRINGSIDE BUILDING LUA-93-039, SA, SM,ECF REPORT AND DECISION OF APRIL 23,1996 Page 9 of 19 Four of the parking stalls shown on the plans do not meet City requirements for standard or compact parking spaces. These stalls would need to be modified or eliminated in order to retain the minimum amount of aisle width behind the parking area for vehicle movement. c. Mitigation of impacts to surrounding properties and uses; The proposal would replace an existing parking lot with a light industrial use. Existing landscaping would be retained on the periphery of the site, and supplemental landscaping would be added within. The building would not be out of character with the surrounding properties and would complement existing properties and uses. No impacts to surrounding properties and uses are anticipated. d. .Mitigation of impacts of the proposed site plan to the site; The applicant has designed a site with appropriate pedestrian access and amenities, and linkages to the Springbrook Creek easement. Truck maneuvering areas are separated where possible from areas of pedestrian circulation. e. Conservation of area-wide property values; The proposal would be expected to conserve or enhance area-wide property values. A tenant has not yet been secured, but the uses allowed in the IL Zone are the same as uses-allowed on surrounding properties. f. - Safety and efficiency of-vehicle and pedestrian circulation; The applicant responded to staff"suggestions for the provision of walkways at building entrances, and a for -striped walkway leading from SW 39th Street to the proposed.building. Truck maneuvering areas, dock-high and grade level doors are generally separated from the pedestrian areas. The dock-high doors and on-grade doors at the south end of the site would be somewhat in conflict with vehicles moving on the site. However, the applicant has met the minimum dimensions for separation between parking and truck back-up areas. The most intensive truck activity would be confined to the north side of the property, where a clear separation between truck activity and other uses occurs. It appears that the site has been designed in a way that meets the program requirements of the applicant, without compromising the safety and efficiency of vehicles and pedestrians on the site. g. Provision of adequate light and air; The applicant will need to provide a lighting plan to demonstrate how site lighting would be accomplished. Lighting should be appropriate for the intended use, providing for security in parking and vehicle/truck maneuvering areas without resulting in spillover light in off-site areas. The lighting plan would need to be submitted to the Development Services Division and be approved prior to the issuance of a Construction Permit. h. Mitigation of noise, odors and other harmful or unhealthy conditions; None anticipated to occur. i. Availability of public services and facilities to accommodate the proposed use; and Appropriate services and facilities are available to serve the proposed use, provided required site improvements are installed. j. Prevention of neighborhood deterioration and blight. Development of the site with the proposal would improve the site which has been used as a parking lot. SITERC.DOC City of Renton PB/PW Department Environmentai uetermination&Administrative Land Use Action SPRINGSIDE BUILDING LUA-93-039, SA, SM,ECF REPORT AND DECISION OF APRIL 23,1996 Page 10 of 19 2. Mitigation of Impacts to Surrounding Properties and Uses: a. Mitigation of undesirable impacts of proposed structures and site layouts that could impair the use or enjoyment or potential use of surrounding uses and structures and of the community; The site is buffered from surrounding uses by its location at the end of a cul-de-sac and because of its location adjacent to Springbrook Creek on the west and a railroad easement to the south. Extensive established landscaping located on the perimeter of the site would remain. No impairment of use or enjoyment to surrounding properties is expected to occur with the proposal. b. Mitigation of undesirable impacts when an overscale structure, in terms of size, bulk, height, and intensity, or site layout is permitted that violates the spirit and/or intent of the zoning code and impairs the use, enjoyment or potential use of surrounding properties; The building has been designed at a size and scale that is not out of character for this industrial area. It would be compatible with surrounding development, and would not exceed any of the development standards of the IL Zone for height, intensity, etc. c. Provision of a desirable transition and linkage between uses and to the street, utility, walkway, and trail systems in the surrounding area by the arrangement of landscaping, fencing and/or other buffering techniques, in order to prevent conflicts and to promote coordinated and planned benefit from, and access to, such elements; An appropriate transition and -linkage would occur between the proposed use and surrounding uses (Springbrook Creek, SW.39th Street) by the arrangement of existing and proposed landscaped areas, and through pedestrian connections between the building and SW 39th Street and Springbrook Creek. Striped walkways would be indicated to guide pedestrians from SW 39th to the office area on the northeast corner of the structure. Striped walkways would also be employed to indicate the building entrance on the southwest corner of the building. Raised walkways are proposed around the perimeter of the building (east facade, portion of north facade located away from truck maneuvering areas, and on the southwest portion of the structure). A linkage is provided to Springbrook Creek and adjacent to the employee outdoor picnic area. d. Consideration of placement and scale of proposed structures in relation to the natural characteristics of a site in order to avoid over-concentration of structures on a particular portion of a site such that they create a perception of greater height or bulk than intended under the spirit of the zoning code; One building is proposed, and its placement is in response to the irregular shape of the site. The location of the structure is appropriate for this site given the railroad right-of-way, SW 39th Street, Springbrook Creek and the desire to retain existing landscaped areas. e. Effective location, design and screening of parking and service areas in order to promote efficient function of such facilities, to provide integrated facilities between uses when beneficial, to promote "campus-like" or "park-like" layouts in appropriate zones, and to prevent unnecessary repetition and conflict between uses and service areas or facilities; The parking areas are designed to distribute parking throughout the site, and to provide for efficient movement of vehicles and pedestrians. f. Mitigation of the unnecessary and avoidable impacts of new construction on views from existing buildings and future developable sites, recognizing the public benefit and desirability of maintaining visual accessibility to attractive natural features and of promoting "campus-like" or "park-like" settings in appropriate zones; SITERC.DOC • City of Renton PB/PW Department Environmental Determination&Administrative Land Use Action SPRINGSIDE BUILDING LUA-93-039, SA, SM,ECF REPORT AND DECISION OF APRIL 23,1996 Page 11 of 19 Views to and from the site would be affected by the construction of a new building, however this is not considered to be detrimental. The project would be similar in appearance to surrounding construction/development. Attractive landscaping would be retained and supplemented, and access to Springbrook Creek would be provided. g. Provision of effective screening from public streets and residential uses for all permitted outdoor storage areas (except auto and truck sales), for surface mounted utility equipment, for rooftop equipment, and for all refuse and garbage containers, in order to promote a "campus-like" or "park- like" setting where appropriate and to preserve the effect and intent of screening or buffering otherwise required by the zoning code; The recycling/trash enclosure areas would be located on the southwest corner of the site and would be enclosed with a 10-foot high fence or gate. This would allow the trash enclosure to be separated from the office and pedestrian areas. h. Consideration of placement and design of exterior lighting in order to avoid excessive brightness or glare to adjacent properties and streets. A lighting plan will be required to be submitted to the Development Services Division and approved prior to the issuance of a construction permit. 3. Mitigation of Impacts of a Proposed Site Plan to the Site: a.- Building placement and spacing to provide for privacy and noise reduction;,orientation to views and vistas and to site amenities,to sunlight and prevailing winds, and to pedestrian and vehicle needs; The proposal complies. The building would be placed to allow views to Springbrook Creek from interior office areas on the southwest corner. Since the site is located at the end of a cul-de-sac and adjacent to a creek, privacy is provided for and noise is reduced. Pedestrians and vehicles would have adequate and appropriate access to the site via driveways and walkways.. b. Consideration of placement and scale of proposed structures in relation to the openness and natural characteristics of a site in order to avoid over concentration or the impression of oversized structures; The structure would be located to retain existing site landscaping and would be of a size, scale and design that would not be considered to be excessive. c. Preservation of the desirable natural landscape through retention of existing vegetation and limited soil removal, insofar as the natural characteristics will enhance the proposed development; Existing site landscaping is being retained to give the appearance that the use has been in this location for a longer period of time. d. Use of existing topography to reduce undue cutting, filling and retaining walls in order to prevent erosion and unnecessary storm water runoff, and to preserve stable natural slopes and desirable natural vegetation; Proposed fill is required to raise the building above the flood plain. No excessive filling is proposed. SITERC.DOC City of Renton PB/PW Department Environmental Determination&Administrative Land Use Action SPRINGSIDE BUILDING LUA-93-039, SA, SM,ECF REPORT AND DECISION OF APRIL 23,1996 Page 12 of 19 e. Limitation of paved or impervious surfaces, where feasible, to reduce runoff and increase natural infiltration; Since the entire site is currently paved for a parking lot, the envisioned development would not result in a greater amount of impervious surface over the existing condition. f. Design and protection of planting areas so that they are not susceptible to damage from vehicles or pedestrian movements; Landscaping would be in areas that are not subject to vehicular movement, and would be aggregated in planters with raised curbs to protect the landscaping from vehicles. g. Consideration of building form and placement and landscaping to enhance year-round conditions of sun and shade both on-site and on adjacent properties and to promote energy conservation. The location of the structure on the site should not result in adverse impacts to the site or off-site areas. 4. Circulation and Access: a. Provision of adequate and safe vehicular access to and from all properties; Two points of ingress/egress are proposed from SW 39th Street.. .One driveway would be used primarily by truck traffic and the other(eastern) driveway would be used by both cars and trucks. The proposed access is appropriate for the envisioned development. b. Arrangement of the circulation pattern so that all ingress and egress movements may occur at as few points as possible along the public street, the points being capable of channelization for turning movements; Two driveways would provide for access from SW 39th. This allows for trucks to utilize the west driveway for access to the north docks, and cars trucks could utilize the east driveway for access to the remainder of the site. c. Consolidation of access points with adjacent properties,when feasible; Not applicable. d. Coordination of access points on a superblock basis so that vehicle conflicts and vehicle/pedestrian conflicts are minimized; Not applicable. e. Orientation of access points to side streets or frontage streets rather than directly onto arterial streets,when feasible; Not applicable. f. Promotion of the safety and efficiency of the internal circulation system, including the location, design and dimensions of vehicular and pedestrian access points, drives, parking, turnarounds, walkways, bikeways, and emergency access ways; SITERC.DOC • • City of Renton PB/PW Department Environmental Determination&Administrative Land Use Action SPRINGSIDE BUILDING LUA-93-039, SA, SM,ECF REPORT AND DECISION OF APRIL 23,1996 Page 13 of 19 Vehicular circulation would primarily occur on the periphery of the site (north, south and east), while pedestrians would utilize a walkway located between the driveways and use raised walkways located on the exterior of the building near the office entrances. g. Separation of loading and delivery areas from parking and pedestrian areas; The loading and delivery area on the north portion of the site would be adequately separated from other uses and circulation patterns. However, the dock-high and grade level doors on the south portion of the site would potentially conflict with the parking area. The applicant has demonstrated that the trucks have sufficient area for maneuvering, but the turning movements of the trucks could result in some disruption for people parked on the south side of the building if they are trying to access or leave this area at the same time that the trucks are maneuvering. h. Provisions for transit and carpool facilities and access where appropriate; and The applicant has indicated that employees would be encouraged to utilize public transportation or vanpool/carpool. No carpool spaces are specifically called out on the plans. Depending on the building tenants and use,the designation of carpool parking facilities may not be warranted. i. Provision for safe and attractive pedestrian connections between parking areas, buildings, public sidewalks and adjacent properties. As previously stated, the applicant is providing striped crosswalks between the building and SW 39th Street sidewalk._:Raised walkways are being provided along the exterior of the building at entrances, and a link to the Springbrook Creek easement is incorporated into the design of the facility. 5. Signage: a. Employment of signs primarily for the purpose of identification; A sign plan has not been submitted, since a tenant has not been identified. The applicant will need to comply with the City's Sign Ordinance. b. Management of sign elements, such as size, location and arrangement so that signs complement the visual character of the surrounding area and appear in proportion to the building and site to which they pertain; See 5a above. c. Limitation of the number of signs to avoid visual clutter and distraction; See 5a above. d. Moderation of surface brightness or lighting intensity except for that necessary for sign visibility; and See 5a above. e. Provision of an identification system to allow for quick location of buildings and addresses. (Ord. 3981, 4-7-86) See 5a above. SITERC.DOC • • City of Renton PB/PW Department Environmental Determination&Administrative Land Use Action SPRINGSIDE BUILDING LUA-93-039, SA, SM,ECF REPORT AND DECISION OF APRIL 23,1996 Page 14 of 19 6. Aquifer Protection Area(APA): Prior to the issuance of any permit in an Aquifer Protection Area, a finding must be made that the proposal will not impact the quantity or quality of water in the aquifer on a short-term basis, long-term basis, or cumulatively in conjunction with other existing or proposed uses. a. The required finding shall be made by the Hearing Examiner for all proposals which are subject to approval by the Hearing Examiner pursuant to Section 4-8-10. All other findings shall be made by the Water Utility Engineer. Not applicable. b. The required finding shall be based on the activities to be conducted, substances that will be stored, handled, transported, treated,-used or produced, and the potential for these activities or substances to degrade the groundwater quality. Not applicable. 7. Hazardous Waste Treatment and Storage Facilities: a. Above-ground hazardous waste treatment and storage facilities shall be constructed with containment controls which will prevent the escape of hazardous wastes in the event of an accidental release from the facility. Such controls shall conform with all adoptedFederal, State and local design and construction standards. Unknown. A tenant has not been identified for the project site. The ultimate user/occupant would need to comply with any applicable regulations as appropriate. b. Underground hazardous waste treatment and storage facilities shall comply with Chapter 2 of Title VII,the Underground Storage Tank Ordinance. Not applicable. c. Hazardous waste treatment and storage facilities shall comply with article 80 of the Uniform Fire Code as adopted by ordinance by the City of Renton. Not applicable. d. A hazardous waste spill contingency plan for immediate implementation in the event of a release of hazardous wastes at the facility shall be reviewed and approved by the Renton Fire Department prior to issuance of any permits. Unknown. A tenant has not been identified for the project site. The ultimate user/occupant would need to comply with any applicable regulations as appropriate. e. The location of all on-site and off-site facilities must comply with the state siting criteria as adopted in accordance with RCW 70.105.210. Not applicable. SITERC.DOC • City of Renton PB/PW Department Environmental Determination&Administrative Land Use Action SPRINGSIDE BUILDING LUA-93-039, SA, SM,ECF REPORT AND DECISION OF APRIL 23,1996 Page 15 of 19 X Copies of all Review Comments are contained in the Official File. Copies of all Review Comments are attached to this report FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & DECISION Having reviewed the written record in the matter, the City now makes and enters the following: D. Findings 1) Request: The Applicant, Douglas Richardson (Anderson/Richardson Co. Inc.), has requested Environmental Review & Site Plan Approval for development of a building that would be between 42,975 and 48,975 square feet in size on a 3.11 acre site at the west end of the existing cul-de-sac on SW 39th Street. The proposed building would be suitable for office/warehouse/industrial uses. A total of 95 parking spaces would be provided. 2) Environmental Review: The applicant's file containing the application, the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) documentation, the comments from various City departments, the public notices requesting citizen comment, and other pertinent documents was entered as Exhibit No. 1. 3). Site Plan Review: The applicant's site plan application complies with the requirements for information for site plan review. The.applicant's site-plan and other project drawings are entered as Exhibits No. 2 through 7. 4) Comprehensive Plan: The subject proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan designation of Employment Area-Industrial (EAI). 5) Zoning: The site plan as presented, complies with the zoning requirements and development standards of the Light Industrial (IL) zoning designation. 6) Existing Land Use: Land uses surrounding the subject site include: North: vacant, parking lots, offices; East:commercial, parking, warehouse; South:warehouse, IKEA ; and West:Springbrook Creek, vacant land. E. Conclusions 1) The subject proposal complies with the policies and codes of the City of Renton. 2) Specific Land Use (e.g. Site Plan Approval) issues were raised by various City departments as follows: a) Truck bays and truck maneuvering areas on the southwest side of the building may conflict with vehicle parking areas. 3) The proposal complies with the Comprehensive Plan designation of Employment Area -Industrial (EAI); and the Zoning designation of Light Industrial (IL). SITERC.DOC City of Renton PB/PW Department Environmental Determination&Administrative Land Use Action SPRINGSIDE BUILDING LUA-93-039, SA, SM,ECF REPORT AND DECISION OF APRIL 23,1996 Page 16 of 17 F. Decision The Site Plan for Springside Building File No. LUA-96-039, SA ,SM, ECF is approved, subject to following conditions: CONDITIONS 1. A lighting plan shall be submitted to the Development Services Division for review and approval prior to the issuance of a Construction Permit. Site lighting shall be provided for safety and security, but of such a type and intensity so as not to impact off-site uses and sensitive areas located along Springbrook Creek. 2. Applicant shall either: 1) Revise the Site Plan to eliminate parking spaces in excess of the number required by the City's Parking and Loading Ordinance; 2) Revise the Site Plan by indicating an area set aside as a parking reserve that would be landscaped until such time that the use of the building justified a conversion to parking (according to the parking standards within the City's Parking and Loading Ordinance, and subject to the approval of the Development Services Division); or, 3) Seek and obtain a modification from the requirements of the Parking and Loading Ordinance in order to exceed the maximum number of parking spaces allowed. If parking spaces are eliminated, this should be accomplished in areas where potential conflicts would occur between vehicles and trucks maneuvering (near the truck dock doors on the southwest portion of the property). 3. The Site Plan shall be revised address the four sub-standard parking spaces along the periphery of the site, across from the south angled building facade. The Site Plan must show that these parking areas have either been eliminated, or, that they would meet City Code requirements for standard or compact spaces, while maintaining the appropriate aisle width behind the parking area. DATE OF DECISION ON LAND USE ACTION May 6, 1996 SIGNATURES Z James C.Hanson,Zoning Administrator date 5 -6 Michael D. Kattermann,Zoning Administrator date TRANSMITTED this 6th day of May, 1996 to the applicant and owner: Douglas Richardson Anderson/Richardson Co. Inc. 300 120th Avenue NE Building 2, Suite#217 Bellevue,WA 98005 SITERC.DOC • City of Renton PB/PW Department Environmental Determination&Administrative Land Use Action SPRINGSIDE BUILDING LUA-93-039, SA, SM,ECF REPORT AND DECISION OF APRIL 23,1996 Page 17 of 17 TRANSMITTED this 6th day of May, 1996 to the parties of record: John Lang Sabey Corporation 101 Elliott Avenue West, Suite 450 Seattle, WA 98119 TRANSMITTED this 6th day of May, 1996 to the following: Bob Arthur,Land Use Inspector Jim Chandler,Building Official Art Larson,Fire Marshal Neil Watts,Public Works Division Lawrence J.Warren,City Attorney Valley Daily News Land Use Action Appeals & Requests for Reconsideration The decision on the requested administrative land use action is being made concurrently with the Environmental Determination. The administrative land use and environmental decisions will become final if the decision/decisions is not appealed within 14 days of the date of the publication. An appeal of either or both decisions must be filed within the 14 day appeal period (RCW 43.21.C.075(3); WAC 197-11-680). REQUESTS FOR RECONSIDERATION must be filed in writing on or before May 20, 1996. Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the Site Plan Review Committee 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 meeting, may make a written request to the Zoning Administrator for review by the Site Plan Committee within fourteen (14) days of publication. This request shall set forth the specific errors relied upon by such appellant, and the Committee may, after review of the record, take further action as it deems proper. If an appeal is made to the Hearing Examiner, requests for reconsideration will be forwarded to that office for consideration at the same time as the appeal. AN APPEAL TO THE HEARING EXAMINER is governed by Title IV, Section 4-8-11.B, which requires that such appeals be filed directly with the Hearing Examiner. Appeals must be made in writing before 5 p.m. on May 20, 1996. Any appeal must be accompanied by a$75.00 fee and other specific requirements. THE APPEARANCE OF FAIRNESS DOCTRINE provides that no ex parte(private one-on-one) communications may occur concerning land use decision. The Doctrine applies not only to the initial committee decision, but to all Request for Reconsideration as well as Appeals to the Hearing Examiner. All communications after the decision date must be made in writing through the Zoning Administrator. All communications are public record and this permits all interested parties to know the contents of the communication and would allow them to openly rebut the evidence in writing. Any violation of this doctrine could result in the invalidation of the request by the Court. SITERC.DOC L t 40' SPRINGBROOK CREEK GREENBELT AND PEDESTRIAN EASEMENT A \ — RINLBROUK CROON — NI I 6 SPRINGBROOK CREEK HIGH WATER NARK•ILO 40 RIGHT OF WAY (°� ffi —-_— cco cANsc XR An] N - -t----- _4 i L_=- ------- - -- -- g e G �1 a + ' riI•i 0' SPRINCBKUUh: CREEK CREE:NBEL i/PEDESfRIAN ESM1 p\r \ SC` .... .—_�.__._. I y rlrr_ _ - �•..,.,.�rr.. ....t... m err _—_ qF', nAt moo...(t,l;,�;�;-�,. c'u.:Tliw 44308..---�-- -.. RED 4 ��IG ----- — �.�_ r . \ u. :\. •A 1¢ ,..--L Ou .•gin\ NI,�— ' wr.7n.n., i�f•r:wr is I I, �_. \y.•�;.� _ A \ _- •' �. $ 7 _ ram,.•-,I„ \, / ..I'`— E --T-_D LOT 6 I C-? - — _ I_ + 1� N� \ W[PH.R.P/r>alr, = �' ;, \ • „ 1\ EN RQU1l ELCVATIQI•.I]O'-O f cecc Mrr1 OOCN'D .'ur.u o 6, LOT 7 I 36 • \♦ ' \ �\ \� _- ice „ I \,.... ...\\...un Pill �3 • ♦PV� \' -_ TIC[:I lnllln'flnlliI il o , V�\\\yF ia= � / 6 1 S • Ox mNa Yi—s ' y� _A a I `\A -1 N) •\ \ 4 tiq1. - ' , . OA S, \ A Y�Q' � �' G. `2\ Y �3 ra0 GRAPHIC SCALE � w^< % \ 1�a� ua'IN \ Jai• `i ° \ �_.F ., o,/ ,cs�b. i \,,, /,,,c III JDV ...... a. \\ Sag -- ___ Ar...!.`.1"."`.. ''.'.‹,\ ,c;,,,,,, \•s-K.I., ili r:I"rB ,.nr.1 4\ \ �'•t'. — — — — e i '\ V' � a- . .� \ LOT 5 � Fa S U Cg1113 6.,.•( (n•u.,r r CITE AND BIIII DIN?•STATISTICS ‘,.• � r,...</r.,,uo LECsAL DESCRIPTION: \, ^\4 \ o I. BUILDING CODE ,UBC'94',STATE AMENDMENTS a r w•„. R ,r.r1 2. ZONING , IL(LIGHT INDUSTRIAL) vl V I B L o N rrr x.V'(z B(Cu•o>v.mc uuxrr • 'S 3. SITE AREA(INCLUDING EASEMENTS AND PER LEGAL \`, J' (r \ DESCRIPTION)• NOTES: 4. SITE AREA(PER PLAT 0 CASEMENTS)• ,o,. nUmr.sl[x,.•u.-(TrZA.,,,iis,Va r[Swmo Asiu sF CtA •(•• yew y.r 5. KAZIN.SITE COVERAGE •65L \�e9/ \ Q g- .,.,•srm,.([ o,,,, rc r.I C[r. - ,i.•WI IHIR,ur..D on 6. WILDING AREA ll-N SG FIRST GLOW - - r. MEZZANINE• SE[Or0(LOW \ \ rZ :_.,o-.ss P,.• T. TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION • 111-N FILLET SPRINKLERED \ a f� 6 r ..,,..•a. V/3 SIDE SEIBA. ,mfr. \ \ _ X scar rues. B. OCCUPANCY AREAS •WAREHOUSE \iI w.a. INDUSTRIAL •MANUFACTU2IMG• ,A Curt.aoxr w•w 0[A.0 xo•m...o n ast J\\ r • •WFARICC d,a3 ✓.(Ss o,•Iu.,(„ARN 9. RANKING REWIRED E1WSE • 1/1500we ErP4In CO 16410 to q`uv MANUFACTURING•1/1000loacs -,s71 • / .\ Q Q I(1 -.,C r . , "'" arm.- 3.MAR 45/1000 c sAN a•n rw,ouw..[rv,M.I wxt. �Q. \ (; 95 REQUIRED W 10.PARKING SHI NN .95 CARS �•Y'L]A w ARL I(x0m n,ssn_z O \ C4 ---- • r' • •n " 11.BUILDING HEIGHT .2A'CLEAR(•/-28'TOP 6 VALE ,l•NI. y�'co* 'S ABOVE FIN FLOW) -_ .u• Town,ti Laui rA,RAIY�f•[. NATO IF FLOOR ELEVATION IS KILN 22.ELEVATION.SANITARY - P/t" [s] _ SEVER LINE WILL REQUIRE A 5ACKFLOV PREVENTION DEVICE. nl SwtM,+,.OW P/J • ,xl ,..vir(s RH[I3,,[v mw Loco OWNER. 011Wr,[M Nrto,n A,[RSE SOUOVNER� OERSON RICXAROSON[OWNIT ^4,11tLr INC%,A Lc,5,N 1.KN.!a rI[mn,rvc, 1 al 300 120TH M.C. BLDG.2,SUITE 217 u•[.,.. BELLEVUE,WASHINGTON 98005 —°— •Nw rL- CIVIL ENG11¢ER• •.O.,a..c„wn Bi Axs WO.•r)eI •Ls,.... .,„mr •.I PEroNLLEGW ASSOC. INC. •34,A 750 6TN STREET SWIM =W5 n m(or.,K x[Nra,cwrv,a "SU., s+Cla KIRKLAND.VASHIHGTON 98033 •�` u•• P—1 A92T-2D1. LANDSCAPING. NORTHWESTERN LANDSCAPE CO. P.O.BOY IIIB PUYALLUP,VASHINGTON 98371 ee18-8100 UJ/IS/Se 15 le C CCAOAYSS2.,SS:SDI ::::::::...........................:....:.........:...:.:..:........:.......................: On the 2:19141 day of a, , 1996, I deposited in the mails of the United States, a sealed envelope containing, evt- cdc'ievWttdYMS documents. This information was sent to: Name ` Representing 4:Zo cowtvit... �XYy Als\rter ZeiSt f 416nehe% 'i aavtd l.,t" a.in of ROILLV01:—PC.SOU.AreSt �l«k. A AN44./solrN 1 —C Al —TvaMportatav‘ Su.R- —'RwnnG e f SesE tt‘e.._. LZuw am tsL lwd‘an-Tv L IIY1a�cohn gnshevles 6ucklestrytt `hatgh (Signature of Sender) 5Alci STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) SS COUNTY OF KING , ) I certify*that I know or have satisfactory evidence that SA-Al b,/a K, signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. fp Dated: tf dlo 1q6 .c,,�. Notary Pu-- c in and fit he State of Westgto Notary(Print) • a • My appointment expires: • o • ,� *�" cti Project Name: - Srv1 v•sii sloe 'A,an Project Number. o 0 , SA- GSM EGr NOTARY.DOC 4 ,- ÷ , CITY ..._:JF RENTON .-J moll ` , • Planning/Building/Public Works Department Jesse Tanner,Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator April 25, 1996 Washington State - ' Department of Ecology Environmental Review Section • ' PO Box 47703 Olympia, WA 98504-7703 • SUBJECT: Environmental Determinations Transmitted herewith is a copy of the Environmental Determination and Environmental Checklist forthe following project S • reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee on April 23, 1996: ' DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED -• ' SPRINGSIDE BUILDING • : . _ • • - LUA-96-039,SA,SM,ECF The applicant requests Site Approval (SA), Environmental Checklist Review (ECF), and a Shoreline . . Substantial Development Permit (SM), for development of an approximate 43,000 SF office/warehouse and industrial building. In addition, up to an additional 5,000.SF could be developed as mezzanine space in two separate areas. The site is located within 200 feet of Springbrook Creek.. Location: West end of cul-de-sac on SW 39th Street: The 15 day comment period and the 14 day appeal period for this project will run concurrently. The comment/appeal period will end at 5:00 PM on May 14, 1996. Following the end of the comment/appeal period, the City will finalize its Determination unless comments received require a reevaluation. Appeal procedures and the mitigation measures imposed by the City of Renton's Environmental Review Committee are available at the Development Services Division, Third Floor, Municipal Building, Renton, Washington 98055. Phone: 235-2550. . If you have questions, please call me at (206)277-6186. - - For the Environmental view Committee, • i - tailit Jennifer.Toth Henning Project Manager cc: King County Water Pollution Control Division, Metro Department of Wildlife Larry Fisher, Department of Fisheries David F. Dietzman, Department of Natural Resources .. Don Hurter, Department of Transportation . Sue Rumery, City of Seattle Duwamish Tribal Office Rod Malcom, Fisheries, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe (Ordinance) Rita Perstac, Puget Power AGNCYLTR.DOC 200 Mill Avenue South-Renton, Washington 98055 1Tic nnnn•rnnlnine Sfl%rnrvrinA ennlnriel JC/nn�f nnn�..nn. AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION . • • Jessica Folkerts , , being first duly sworn on oath states that he/she is the Legal Clerk of the ._ __ • VALLEY DAILY NEWS space m two separate areas. The site is 600 S. Washington Kent, WA. 98032 —% located within 200 feet of Springbrook NOTICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL Creek. Location: West end of cul de-sac on a daily newspaper published six (6) times week. Said newspaper is a legal DETERMINATION sw 39th Srtreet. • newspaper ofgeneral circulation and is now and has been for more than six ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE The 15 day comment and 14 day appeal RENTON, WASHINGTON Periods fo this project will run concurrently months prior to the date of publication referred to, printed and published in the The Environmental Review Committee nd end at 5:00 p.m. on May 14, 1996. :nglish language continually as a daily newspaper in Kent, King County, Wash- (ERC) has issued a Determination of Non- Appeal procedures and the mitigation mea- irigton. The ValleyDailyNews has been approved as a legal newspaper byorder • si nificance - for the followin sures•imposed by the Cityof Renton's Envi- g pp g projectifiunder the Mitigatedofg ronmental Review Comittee are available of the Superior Court of the State of Washington for King County. Municipal Code. authority the Renton at the Development Services Division,Third The notice in the exact form attached, was published in the Valley Daily News .SPRINGSIDE BUILDING Floor,Municipal Building,Renton,Washing- (and not in supplement form) which was regularly distributed to the subscribers LUA-96-039,SA,SM,ECF ton 98055. Phone:235-2550.You should be during the below stated period. The annexed notice, a The applicant requests Site Approval (SA Prepared to make specific factual objec PP q PP ( ) lions. Environmental Checklist Review(ECF),and - Published in the Valley Dail • a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit 29, 1996. 1493 y News April Notice of Env D e t (SM), for development of an approximate _ 43,000 SF office/warehouse and industrial - -- building. In addition, up to an additional 5,000 SF could be developed as mezzanine • was published on 4-29-96 - ' The full amount of the fee charged for said foregoing publicatio ' the sum of $ 44 -97 ' I L g I rk, Va y Daily News ,, • • Subscribed and sworn before me this t`- -day of 19_ _ i igaitt-1:4-%-- 11‘ -.30/LiZr ,' 4 �.s... , �y���, Notary Public or the State of Washington \, ,i .G'J,` residing at Atrbur t�ei..,�.�. • �7�o,.•0 A R,k min i King County, Washington e, — •t : * y ViN A'],10,,y1 Ld f197,C��a���) t ils. ..o;31,,... C) ts° i NOTICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE RENTON, WASHINGTON The Environmental Review Committee (ERC) has issued a Determination of Non-Significance - Mitigated for the following project under the authority of the Renton Municipal Code. SPRINGSIDE BUILDING L UA-96-039,SA,S M,EC F The applicant requests Site Approval (SA), Environmental Checklist Review(ECF), and a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit(SM), for development of an approximate 43,000 SF office/warehouse and industrial building. In addition, up to an additional 5,000 SF could be developed as mezzanine space in two separate areas. The site is located within 200 feet of Springbrook Creek. Location: West end of cul-de-sac on SW 39th Street. The 15 day comment and 14 day appeal periods for this project will run concurrently and end at 5:00 p.m. on May 14, 1996. Appeal procedures and the mitigation measures imposed by the City of Renton's Environmental Review Committee are available at the Development Services Division, Third Floor, Municipal Building, Renton, Washington 98055. Phone: 235-2550. You should be prepared to make specific factual objections. Publication Date: APRIL 29, 1996 Account No. 51067 dnsmpub.dot CITY OF RENTON "LL Planning/Building/Public Works Department Jesse Tanner,Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator • April 25, 1996 Mr. Douglas Richardson do Anderson Richardson Co., Inc. 300- 120th Avenue NE Building 2, Suite#217 Bellevue, WA 98005 SUBJECT: Springside Building Project No. LUA-96-039,SA,SM,ECF Dear Mr. Richardson: This letter is written on behalf of the Environmental Review Committee and is to inform you that they have completed their review of the environmental impacts of the above-referenced project. The Committee, oft April 23, 1996, decided that your project may be issued a threshold Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated with the following conditions: See enclosed Mitigation Measures document. Because the.Environmental Review Committee imposed specific mitigation measures rather than issue a Determination of Significance, there is a required 15 day comment period during which comments are solicited from various agencies, jurisdictions or individuals (including the applicant)who may have an interest in the Committee's decision. The required 14 day appeal period will run concurrently with the comment period. The comment/appeal period will end at 5:00 PM on May 14, 1996. Following the end of the comment/appeal period,the City will finalize its Determination, unless comments received require a reevaluation. WAC 197-11-660 states that the,responsibility for implementation measures may be imposed upon an applicant only to the extent attributable to the identified adverse impacts of the imposed action. Since an environmental impact statement has not been prepared for this project,.any mitigation measure established by .the ERC not directly attributable to a' identified adverse impact is deemed to be voluntarily accepted by the applicant. ' Staff urges you to contact the various City representatives, as appropriate, (e.g., the Public Works Division) as soon as possible, to obtain more information concerning specific mitigation elements recommended for this project, if you have specific questions. This information will assist you in planning for implementation of your project and will enable you to exercise your appeal rights more fully, if you choose to do so. Appeal procedures and mitigation measures imposed by the City of Renton's Environmental Review Committee are available at the Development Services Division, Third Floor, Municipal Building, Renton, Washington 98055. Phone: 235 2550. You should be prepared to make specific factual objections. If you have any questions or desire clarification of the above, please call me at (206)277-6186. For the Environment Review Committee, ennifer Toth Henning Project Manager cc: Mr:•John Lang/Sabey Corporation DNSMLTR.DOC 200 Mill Avenue South -Renton,Washington'98055 CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (MITIGATED) MITIGATION MEASURES APPLICATION NO(S): LUA-96-038,SA,SM,ECF APPLICANT: . Anderson Richardson Company (Douglas Richardson) PROJECT NAME: Springside Building DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The applicant requests Site Approval (SA), Environmental Checklist Review(ECF), and a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit (SM), for development of an approximate 43,000 SF office/warehouse and industrial building. In addition, up to an additional 5,000 SF could be developed as mezzanine space in two separate areas. The site is located within 200 feet of Springbrook Creek. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL:. West end of cul-de-sac on SW 39th Street MITIGATION MEASURES: 1. ' The applicant shall pay the appropriate Fire Mitigation Fee at a rate of$0.52 per square foot of new construction. This fee is payable prior to the issuance of the Building Permit. 2. The applicant shall pay the applicable Traffic Mitigation Fee at a rate of $75 per each'new average daily trip attributable to the project.• Credit may be given for existing trips on the site that would be eliminated under the proposal. The fee is payable prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. • 3. The applicant shall limit truck traffic on the adjacent arterials during grading/filling activities to the hours between 8:30 am and 3:30 pm. • MITMEAS.DOC/ ' _ CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (MITIGATED) ADVISORY NOTES APPLICATION NO(S): LUA-96-038,SA,SM,ECF • APPLICANT: Anderson Richardson Company (Douglas Richardson) PROJECT NAME: Springside Building DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The applicant requests Site Approval (SA), Environmental Checklist Review(ECF), and a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit (SM), for development of an approximate 43,000 SF office/warehouse and industrial building. In addition, up to an additional 5,000 SF could be developed as mezzanine space in two separate areas. The site is located within 200 feet of Springbrook Creek. • LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: West end of cul-de-sac on SW 39th Street Advisory Notes to Applicant: The following notes are supplemental information provided in conjunction with the environmental determination. Because these notes are provided as information only,they are not subject to the appeal process for environmental determinations. - General 1. The applicant shall apply with all applicable City, state, federal and other jurisdictional. regulations, codes and policies governing the project and site. 2. All required utility, drainage and street improvements will require separate submittals . prepared by a registered Civil Engineer, according to City of Renton drafting standards. Permit application must include an itemized cost estimate for these improvements. The fee for review and inspection of these improvements is 5% of the first $100,000, 4% of anything over $100,000 but less than $200,000; and 3% of anything over $200,000. One-half of the fee must be paid upon application for building and construction permits, and the remainder when the permits are issued. : 3. The applicant is required to obtain a Construction Permit in order to accomplish site work and installation of site improvements. 4. The applicant will need to submit construction drawings for street lighting and each utility. These drawings will need to be on individual sheets. 5. Construction plans must comply with the City's Drafting Standards. Transportation 6. The City's Transportation Impact Fee will apply to the project as discussed in the mitigation measures above. The applicable fee is $75 per each new average daily trip. Springside Building LUA-96-039,SA,SM,ECF Advisory Notes(Continued) Storm Drainage 7. The project is located within the 100-year floodplain per Flood Insurance Rate Map 53033C0978 F (May 16, 1995). 8. The FEMA 100-year flood elevation is interpolated to be 16.9 feet NGVD or 20.48 feet NAVO 88. The applicant will be required to design the building floor at least one foot above the 100- year FEMA elevation. (Note: NGVD = North American Geodetic Vertical Datum, NAVD = North American Verical Datum). 9. The applicant will be required to provide either a FEMA Elevation Certificate, or provide for compensatory storage due to the location of the project in relation to the floodplain. 10. The City plans to construct a major storm water interceptor pipe (84-inch or larger) along the applicant's north property line from SW 39th Street. The 10-foot utility easement shown on the applicant's drawings would need to be revised to a minimum width of 20 feet to allow for construction of the interceptor pipe. Wastewater " 11. The minimum pipe cover required for wastewater pipes is two (2) feet. -� 12. The applicable System Development Connection charge is estimated to be $10,553.40 ($0.078/sq ft of property) and is payable at the time the Building Permit is issued. 13. ' The applicant,shall connect floor drains to the sanitary sewer system since a fire sprinkler system is being installed. 14. A latecomer fee for Special Assessment District 7401 may apply to the project if the project hooks-up to the Metro sewer line that abuts the property. The applicability of the latecomer fee would be determined at a later time. Water . 15. The applicant's utility drawings shall show the size and location of the irrigation and domestic water meters. 16. Back-flow'prevention devices for the irrigation system and fire sprinkler system must be provided and shown on the drawings. 17. The required fire flow is 3,750 gallons per minute (gpm).- The 8-inch looped water pipe will not provide the required fire flow. The applicant will need to provide a minimum 10-inch water line for the looped system. 18. Water System Development Charges have been previously paid for the site. Fire 19. The preliminary fire flow requirement for Building A is 3,750 gpm. A total of four hydrants are required. The primary hydrant is to be.located within 150-feet of the building, and three additional hydrants are required within 300-feet of the building. . The fire hydrants cannot be installed behind the parking spaces as shown. =A looped fire main is required by .City - Ordinance. ADVNOTES.DOC/ Springside Building LUA-96-039,SA,SM,ECF Advisory Notes(Continued) 20. The building is required to be fully sprinklered and provided with central station fire alarm monitoring. The building may also require a manual fire alarm system. Separate plans and permits are required for the sprinkler and fire alarm systems. 21. The applicant is required to pay the applicable Fire Mitigation Fee as discussed in the Mitigation Measures above. The fee is assessed at a rate of $0.52 per square foot of new building area. The building would be 42,975 sf in size, with the possibility that an additional 5,000 sq ft of mezzanine. The estimated Fire Mitigation Fee would be $22,347.00 for the 42,975 sq ft building, or $24,947.00 for the 47,975 sq ft structure. The fee is payable at the time of the issuance of the building permit. 22. Since the building is speculative in nature, and no tenant has been identified, additional fire and building requirements will be based on the use of the building and the type of operation to be conducted. The applicant shall provide information regarding the storage and use of any flammable, combustible liquids or gases, or any hazardous materials. 23. If the building is to be used for high-piled stock, it shall be required to meet requirements of Article 81 of the Uniform Fire Code (1994 Edition). 24. Approved Fire Department access to within 150-feet of all portions of the building exterior is required. Apparatus turnarounds are required on access roadways that exceed 150-feet in length. For additional information, contact Renton Fire Prevention at 235-2523. Police Services 25. The applicant is advised to coordinate with Renton Police Crime Prevention for recommendations to reduce possibility of vandalism/crime during construction and operation of the facility. Building Construction 26. The applicant's soils engineer shall approve the footing excavations prior to placement of any concrete. 27. The applicant will be required to follow the recommendation s of the soils engineer in the geotechnical report. Springbrook Creek 28. • A Shoreline Substantial Development Permit is needed to allow development within 200 feet of Springbrook Creek. Solid Waste 29. Garbage and recyclable deposit areas and collection points shall `be easily and safely accessible to hauling trucks. • • ADVNOTES.DOC/ ' CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (MITIGATED) APPLICATION NO(S): LUA-96-03,,SA,SM,ECF APPLICANT: Anderson Richardson Company (Douglas Richardson) PROJECT NAME: Springside Building DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The applicant requests Site Approval (SA), Environmental Checklist Review (ECF), and a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit (SM), for development of an approximate 43,000 SF office/warehouse and industrial building. In addition, up to an additional 5,000 SF could be developed as mezzanine space in two separate areas. The site is located within 200 feet of Springbrook Creek. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: West end of cul-de-sac on SW 39th Street LEAD AGENCY: City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works Development Planning Section The City of Renton Environmental Review Committee has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21 C.030(2)(c). Conditions were imposed as mitigation measures by the Environmental Review Committee under their authority of Section 4-6-6 Renton Municipal Code. These conditions are necessary to mitigate environmental impacts identified during the environmental review process. The 15 day comment period and the 14 day appeal period for this project will run concurrently. The comment/appeal periods for this project will end at 5:00 p.m. on May 14, 1996. Appeal procedures and the mitigation measures imposed by the City of Renton's Environmental Review Committee are available at the Development Services Division, Third Floor, Municipal Building, Renton, Washington 98055. Phone: 235-2550. You should be prepared to make specific factual objections. PUBLICATION DATE: APRIL 29, 1996 DATE OF DECISION: APRIL 23, 1996 SIGNATURES: 221-gr4ma mi is rator DA E 7_5/fic Department of Planning/Building/Public Works 4/2-3 kkk— m Chastain, Administrator DAT Community Service Department /.74/i V..23#‘ Lee eeler, Fire Chief DATE Renton Fire Department DNSMSIG.DOC CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (MITIGATED) MITIGATION MEASURES 41 APPLICATION NO(S): LUA-96-03$,SA,SM,ECF APPLICANT: Anderson Richardson Company (Douglas Richardson) PROJECT NAME: Springside Building DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The applicant requests Site Approval (SA), Environmental Checklist Review (ECF), and a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit (SM), for development of an approximate 43,000 SF office/warehouse and industrial building. In addition, up to an additional 5,000 SF could be • . developed as mezzanine space in two separate areas. The site is located within 200 feet of Springbrook Creek. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: West end of cul-de-sac on SW 39th Street MITIGATION MEASURES: 1. The applicant shall pay the appropriate Fire Mitigation Fee at a rate of$0.52 per square foot of new construction. This fee is payable prior to the issuance of the Building Permit. 2. The applicant shall pay the applicable Traffic Mitigation Fee at a rate of $75 per each new average daily trip attributable to the project; Credit may be given for existing trips on the site that would be eliminated under the proposal. The fee is payable prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. 3. The applicant shall limit truck traffic on the adjacent arterials during grading/filling activities to the hours between 8:30 am and 3:30 pm. • • • MITMEAS.DOC/ ; . • • CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (MITIGATED) ADVISORY NOTES APPLICATION NO(S): LUA-96-04,SA,SM,ECF APPLICANT: Anderson Richardson Company (Douglas Richardson) PROJECT NAME: Springside Building DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The applicant requests Site Approval (SA), Environmental Checklist Review(ECF), and a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit (SM), for development of an approximate 43,000 SF office/warehouse and industrial building. In addition, up to an additional 5,000 SF could be developed as mezzanine space in two separate areas. The site is located within 200 feet of Springbrook Creek. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: West end of cul-de-sac on SW 39th Street Advisory Notes to Applicant: The following notes are supplemental information provided in conjunction with the environmental determination. Because these notes are provided as information only,they are not subject to the appeal process for environmental determinations.• General • 1. The applicant shall apply with all applicable City, state, federal and other jurisdictional regulations, codes and policies governing the project and site. 2. .All required utility, drainage and street improvements will require separate submittals • prepared by a registered Civil Engineer, according to- City of Renton drafting standards.. Permit application must include an itemized cost estimate for these improvements: The fee for review and inspection of these improvements is 5% of the first $100,000, 4% of anything over $100,000 but less than $200,000; and 3% of anything over $200,000. One-half of the fee must be paid upon application for building and construction permits, and the remainder when the permits are issued. 3. The applicant is required to obtain a Construction Permit in order to accomplish site work and installation of site improvements. 4. The applicant will need to submit construction drawings for street lighting and each utility. These drawings will need to be on individual sheets. 5. Construction plans must comply with the City's Drafting Standards. Transportation • . .6. The City's Transportation Impact Fee will apply to the project as"discussed in the.mitigation • measures above.-.The applicable fee iss$75 per each new average daily trip. Springside Building LUA-96-039,SA,SM,ECF Advisory Notes(Continued) Storm Drainage 7. The project is located within the 100-year floodplain per Flood Insurance Rate Map 53033C0978 F (May 16, 1995). 8. The FEMA 100-year flood elevation is interpolated to be 16.9 feet NGVD or 20.48 feet NAVO 88. The applicant will be required to design the building floor at least one foot above the 100- year FEMA elevation. (Note: NGVD = North American Geodetic Vertical Datum, NAVD = North American Verical Datum). 9. The applicant will be required to provide either a FEMA Elevation Certificate, or provide for compensatory storage due to the location of the project in relation to the floodplain. 10. The City plans to construct a major storm water interceptor pipe (84-inch or larger) along the applicant's north property line from SW 39th Street. The 10-foot utility easement shown on the applicant's drawings would need to be revised to a minimum width of 20 feet to allow for construction of the interceptor pipe. Wastewater 11. The minimum pipe cover required for wastewater pipes is two (2) feet. 12. The applicable System Development Connection charge is estimated to be $10,553.40 ($0.078/sq ft of property) and is payable at the time the Building Permit is issued. 13. The applicant shall connect floor drains to the sanitary sewer system since a fire sprinkler system is being installed. 14. A latecomer fee for Special Assessment District 7401 may apply to the project if the project hooks up to the Metro sewer line that abuts the property. The applicability of the latecomer fee would be determined at a later time. Water • 15. The applicant's utility drawings shall show the size and location of the irrigation and domestic water meters. • 16. Back-flow prevention devices for the irrigation system and fire sprinkler system must be provided and shown on the drawings. 17. The required fire flow is 3,750 gallons per minute (gprn). The 8-inch looped water pipe will not provide the required fire flow. The applicant will need to provide a minimum 10-inch water line for the looped.system. 18. Water System Development Charges have been previously paid for the site. Fire • 19. The preliminary fire flow requirement for Building A is 3,750 gpm. A total of four hydrants are required. . The primary hydrant is to be located within 150-feet of the building,'and three additional hydrants are required within,300-feet of the building. The fire hydrants cannot be installed behind the parking spaces as 'shown. :•.A:looped fire main is required by City Ordinance. ADVNOTES.DOC/ • Springside Building LUA-96-03 9,S A,SM,ECF Advisory Notes(Continued) 20. The building is required to be fully sprinklered and provided with central station fire alarm monitoring. The building may also require a manual fire alarm system. Separate plans and permits are required for the sprinkler and fire alarm systems. 21. The applicant is required to pay the applicable Fire Mitigation Fee as discussed in the Mitigation Measures above. The fee is assessed at a rate of $0.52 per square foot of new building area. The building would be 42,975 sf in size, with the possibility that an additional 5,000 sq ft of mezzanine. The estimated Fire Mitigation Fee would be $22,347.00 for the 42,975 sq ft building, or $24,947.00 for the 47,975 sq ft structure. The fee is payable at the time of the issuance of the building permit. 22. Since the building is speculative in nature, and no tenant has been identified, additional fire and building requirements will be based on the use of the building and the type of operation to be conducted. The applicant shall provide information regarding the storage and use of any flammable, combustible liquids or gases, or any hazardous materials. 23. If the building is to be used for high-piled stock, it shall be required to meet requirements of Article 81 of the Uniform Fire Code (1994 Edition). 24. Approved Fire Department access to within 150-feet of all portions of the building exterior is required. Apparatus turnarounds are required on access roadways that exceed 150-feet in length. For additional information, contact Renton Fire Prevention at 235-2523. Police Services 25. The applicant" is advised to coordinate with Renton Police Crime Prevention for recommendations to reduce possibility of vandalism/crime during construction and operation of the facility. Building Construction " 26. The applicant's soils engineer shall approve the footing excavations prior to placement of any concrete. 27. The applicant will be required to follow the recommendations of the soils engineer in the geotechnical report. Springbrook Creek 28. A Shoreline Substantial Development Permit is needed to allow development within 200 feet of Springbrook Creek. " Solid Waste ' • " 29. Garbage and recyclable deposit areas and collection points shall be easily and safely accessible to hauling trucks. ADVNOTES.DOC/ i.\- ilitT 1 (1116111' .r.....17 am: . ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION PROJECT NAME: BPRINGSIDE BUILDING PROJECT NUMBER: LUA•99-039,SA,SM,ECF The applicant requests Site Approval(SA),Environmental Checklist Review(ECF),and a Shoreline Substantial Development Pemlil(SM),for development of an approximate 43,000 SF officefwarehouse and Industrial building.In addition,up loan additional 5,000 SF could be developed as mezzanine space In two separate areas.The site Is located within 200 feet of Springbrook Creek Location:West end of cul-de-sac on SW 391h Street THE CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE(ERC)HAS DETERMINED ' THAT THE PROPOSED ACTION DOES NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT WILL NOT BE REQUIRED. • n YOU MAY COMMENT ON THIS DETERMINATION UNTIL 5:00 PM,_ THE CITY WILL NOT ACT ON THIS PROPOSAL UNTIL AFTER THIS DATE. n APPEALS OF THIS DETERMINATION MAY BE FILED WITH THE CITY OF RENTON HEARING . EXAMINER BY 5:00 PM, • X)O( YOU MAY C MMFNI ON THIS DETERMINATION BY 5:00 PM ON MAY 14,1996 OR APPEAL THIS DETERMINATION BY 5:00 PM, MAY 14,1996. THE COMMENT AND APPEAL PERIODS WILL RUN CONCURRENTLY. • L ' I L p1=5 •nr— itj D / J FOR FURTHER INFORMATION,PLEASE CONTACT THE CITY OF RENTON,DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION AT 235-2550. DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION Please Include the project NUMBER when calling for proper Tile Identificationx:T: .. CERTIFICATION 1, ,wev JctC k 0Yl , hereby certify that 3 copies of the above document were posted by me in 3 conspicuous places on or nearby the described property on JV1 121a, Iqoily . Signed: ((tAi(i.,J.� STATE OF WASHINGTON ) . ) SS - COUNTY OF KING ) / I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Gill'by 1 4ceA/ signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary Fact,fo_r_ the ruses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. - ,,. . Dated: �� 9/o L 1i... . if LZ./e i �/ Notary P.:tic in and; the State of Was. rein 't)tin'' - ..iC j 1 Notary lint) MA , ' �.. ��2 My appointment expires: (o 9 '9k' NOTARY.DOC ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION PROJECT NAME: SPRINGSIDE BUILDING PROJECT NUMBER: LUA-96-039,SA,SM,ECF • The applicant requests Site Approval(SA), Environmental Checklist Review(ECF),and a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit(SM),for development of an approximate 43,000 SF office/warehouse and industrial building. In addition, up to an additional 5,000 SF could be developed as mezzanine space in two separate areas. The site is located within 200 feet of Springbrook Creek. Location: West end of cul-de-sac on SW 39th Street. THE CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE(ERC) HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED ACTION DOES NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT WILL NOT BE REQUIRED. YOU MAY COMMENT ON THIS DETERMINATION UNTIL 5:00 PM, . THE CITY WILL NOT ACT ON THIS PROPOSAL UNTIL AFTER THIS DATE. APPEALS OF THIS DETERMINATION MAY BE FILED WITH THE CITY OF RENTON HEARING EXAMINER BY 5:00 PM, XXX YOU MAY COMMENT ON THIS DETERMINATION BY 5:00 PM ON MAY 14, 1996 OR APPEAL THIS DETERMINATION BY 5:00 PM, MAY 14, 1996 THE COMMENT AND APPEAL PERIODS WILL RUN CONCURRENTLY. 7 I;—jp / : • p we 2 _,. � �� i IIL-Ill hull �.� I :As 0..., F- ,6a• -y'I0 `eta. ' , ....-n}m 5r • l a_ d 0 c a (TT' - �N p � — ...—.,. IM :� agni III �" • :.. r.SaHHOppo perAILP FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT THE CITY OF RENTON, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION AT 235-2550. DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION ::<::<:::: ;<;;;;>:;;v.;::.;;:ease 100(i e:;:t f ;ro ect _ . .ERw `en'callin 'for:>"0 erfile>id:ei tifcat10:1.'_.>:` :":>_;:>:>; G 1l" City a _ _iton Department of Planning/Building/Pui_ Vorks ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT:T5 � COMMENTS DUE: APRIL 15, 1996 APPLICATION NO: LUA-96-039,SA,SM,ECF DATE CIRCULATED: APRIL 02, 1996 APPLICANT: ANDERSON RICHARDSON CO., INC. PROJECT MANAGER: Jennifer Ma RENTONo PROJECT TITLE: SPRINGSIDE BUILDING WORK ORDER NO: 78076 APR 9 2 1996 LOCATION: WEST END OF CUL-DE-SAC ON SW 39TH STREET SITE AREA 3.11 ACRES BUILDING AREA(gross): 42),WALII R 9 '1$ iON BUILDING AREA(new expansion gross): 47,975 SF(MAX) SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant requests Site Approval(SA), Environmental Checklist Review(ECF), and a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit(SM , for development of an approximate 43,000 SF office/warehouse/industrial building. In addition, up to an additional 5,000 S could be developed as mezzanine space in two separate areas. The site is located within 200 feet of Springbrook Creek. • A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g.Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major information Environment Minor Major information impacts impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics Water Light/Glare Plants • Recreation Lano%Shorollne Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS 777G fir 3<iSpOY f a( /c�Ll /hi��/ a74/ems 1/ 7) 97.6-- Y 9.7uave , 8s �r X ilZo9o- x7 , = l�?� s?s` C. CODE-RELATED COMM NTS TheIsjci/ q F gzde,d h �/7 9� �'y�, / ldl c J de$C- EPA/ oaz !y!; �/ � ro>7 ce.e_ t.Ud We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional in rmation is needed to properly assess this proposal. //rr� ° /T-d// // `9% Signature of Director or Authorized Represigitative Date DEVAPP.DOC Rev.10193 G�rY s; o ..:...::........ ::.. haJ1 ........... . . y ...„.„,a.„,„.:.:::::::,:„,:,::::::::.:,:::,::::::,:::,,,:,:,. : ::: : : :.....liT:. ANSPO.R.TATIO N.... ITGATIO ::..FEE.......::..::::::::::::::.:.::::.. Project Name ,?.p6 s Ili,gLc(e, 0,-- cl i Project Address E Id 71Ci -de -S'cdc ayi 5- g91.:__ s4 to/6 I, 'L` U' 44-16 s w • Contact Person 0175-u3c. 1 a.S 1 Di -'-J Sz7 v) Address 3 d 0 — I Zv 4'22 A.Ve. , NE �. 13Idl . ? SL Z - 21'7 ' 1 //6/, Lle.) I,n..)4 98©° Phone Number ('ao ) Ljv 3 - G7/7 Permit Number C-TS Lv N -ci 113 ---- I. 3 7 SA) INI)E Gt Project Description Wa re house, /o.cci. cre F s G 1 ) )' r Land Use Type: Method of Calculation: ❑ Residential SITE Trip Generation Manual ❑ Retail ..Traffic Study ❑ Non-retail 0 Other Calculation: 1 a..Rd i‘i3 5Q, fir,) 174. f8 K. 4 z� 975- x"E. oa _ �S_ 2Z�i►-,� � � �nan ) 7 8. • P -1"' b ill 4 iI,,ci is ex i vici e d I, to 47 'I 7s 5 �f i-, n Ti'`� t e f e e:- I,t)v ) I b C, ' s t'D 1)b i,'5 s iP� �, 5 yr chi �� Transportation Mitigation Fee: >' ,i J 7 z� �-, - Calculated by: �� 7 -, V7-).‘i Date: ,4P1'i/ // 7 9 9.4 Account Number: /D51j-99' ' 3 /8 • 70. DD. /63 Date of Payment City o1, 1ton Department of Planning/Building/Pul Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: P'akir‘ Z1/4/tet 13 WrykAROMMENTS DUE: APRIL 15, 1996 APPLICATION NO: LUA-96-039,SA,SM,ECF DATE CIRCULATED: APRIL 02, 1996 APPLICANT: ANDERSON RICHARDSON CO., INC. PROJECT MANAGER: Jennifer Toth Henning PROJECT TITLE: SPRINGSIDE BUILDING WORK ORDER NO: 78076 LOCATION: WEST END OF CUL-DE-SAC ON SW 39TH STREET SITE AREA 3.11 ACRES BUILDING AREA(gross): 42,975 SF; 47,975 SF BUILDING AREA(new expansion gross): 47,975 SF(MAX) SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant requests Site Approval(SA), Environmental Checklisfigre'Vi6WWWwd a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit(SM), for development of an approximate 43,000 SF office/warehouse/End0stria uifding. In addition, up to an additional 5,000 SF could be developed as mezzanine space in two separate areas. The site is located within 200 feet of Springbrook Creek. APRn 4 1996 Whit .e � vd A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g.Non-Code) COMMENTS ���� Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major information Environment Minor Major information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics Water Light/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation S . a-ci >y ?ev/euJ B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional info ation is needed to property assess this proposal. 461S/ 5 Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date 1 DEVAPP.DOC Rev.10l93 Spring side Building Office Warehouse Facility SW 39th St. End of Cul-de-sac EIS Review Comments By Clinton E.Morgan phone 277-6216 WATER: 1. Provide construction plans to City Standards. 2. Show irrigaftion meter size and location with back flow prevention device. 3. Show fire flow backflow prevention device location and size. 4. Reqired fire flow is 3750 gpm. 5. The 8 inch loop water pipe will not proved the require fire flow. /" 4 a a-loch f'?C 6. Each fire hydrant will provide 1000 gpm. Therefore 4 fire hydrants will be required. The primary hydrant must be within 150-feet of the building, but not closer then 50-feet of the building. Secondary hydrants must be within 300 feet of the building. 7. Show domestic water meter size and location on the plans. c • I••Pij �,cS 1 c �(� � '�G� �' !"/ lJ' S ¢D me`i (\ z / /4 96CM083.DOC/ • vas.nI l II.W3 wurti:HLJ r 4 ij�'3 City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION RELK/E:WISIIETF, ET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: ' W, k-v" COMMENTS DUE: APRIL 15, 1996 APPLICATION NO: LUA-96-039,SA,SM,ECF DATE CIRCULATED: APRIL 02, 1996 APPLICANT: ANDERSON RICHARDSON CO., INC. PROJECT MANAGER: Jennifer Toth Henning PROJECT TITLE: SPRINGSIDE BUILDING WORK ORDER NO: 78076 LOCATION: WEST END OF CUL-DE-SAC ON SW 39TH STREET SITE AREA: 3.11 ACRES BUILDING AREA(gross): 42,975 SF; 47,975 SF BUILDING AREA(new expansion gross): 47,975 SF(MAX) SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant requests Site Approval(SA), Environmental Checklist Review(ECF), and a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit(SM), for development of an approximate 43,000 SF office/warehouse/industrial building. In addition, up to an additional 5,000 SF could be developed as mezzanine space in two separate areas. The site is located within 200 feet of Springbrook Creek. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g.Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Information Impacts impacts Necessary Impacts impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics Water Light/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS z-de--//`? We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. / 7 Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date DEVAPP.DOC Rev.10/93 1- — oti�Y o� CITY OF RENTON I FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU • R + MEMORANDUM . NTO DATE: April 4, 1996 TO: Jennifer Toth Henning, Senior Planner FROM: Corey Thomas, Plans Review Inspector SUBJECT: Code-Related Comments for Springside Office/Warehouse 1 . The preliminary fire flow required is 3,750 gpm. Four fire hydrants are required. One fire hydrant is required within 150-feet of the proposed structure and three fire hydrants are required within 300-feet of the structure. The fire hydrants cannot be installed behind parking spaces as shown. 2. A looped fire main is required by City Ordinance. 3. The building is required to be fully sprinklered and provided with central station fire alarm monitoring. The building may also require a manual fire alarm system. 4. Separate plans and permits are required for the sprinkler and fire alarm systems. 5. If the building is to be used for high-piled stock, it shall meet the requirements of Article 81 of the Uniform Fire Code, 1994 Edition. 6. Provide approved Fire Department access to within 150-feet of all portions of the building exterior. Apparatus turnarounds are required on access roadways that exceed 150-feet in length. See the Fire Department for details. 7. The fire mitigation fee is $0.52 per square foot: 47,975 x $0.52 = $24,947.00 Please contact me if you have any questions. CT:js Spgside C I$i Z City oi't•: iton Department of Planning/Building/PuL ,Vorks ENVIRONMENTAL it DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET "In°or ntrn oW REVIEWING DEPARTMENT:c,,,,fielwa e, COMMENTS DUE: APRIL 15, 1996 T� APPLICATION NO: LUA-96-039,SA,SM,ECF DATE CIRCULATED: APRIL 02, 1996 APR 0 2 1996 APPLICANT: ANDERSON RICHARDSON CO., INC. PROJECT MANAGER: Jennifer Toth Henning JVP lL9e0m��/utlVd7 PROJECT TITLE: SPRINGSIDE BUILDING WORK ORDER NO: 78076 LOCATION: WEST END OF CUL-DE-SAC ON SW 39TH STREET SITE AREA 3.11 ACRES BUILDING AREA(gross): 42,975 SF; 47,975 SF BUILDING AREA(new expansion gross): 47,975 SF(MAX) SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant requests Site Approval(SA), Environmental Checklist Review(ECF), and a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit(SM), for development of an approximate 43,000 SF office/warehouse/industrial building. In addition, up to an additional 5,000 SF could be developed as mezzanine space in two separate areas. The site is located within 200 feet of Springbrook Creek. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g.Non-Code)COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major information Environment Minor Major information Impacts impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics Water UghVGlare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Histonc/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS 6 , C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable Impact or areas where add' n inform bn is needed top assess this proposal. a/27„4/ Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date DEVAPP.DOC Rev.1 W03 Spring side Building Office Warehouse Facility SW 39th St. End of Cul-de-sac EIS Review Comments By Clinton E.Morgan phone 277-6216 / n 9 / CV SURFACE WATER: (Drainage) 1 l c /t Pooai -ic -o 1. FEMA 100-year Elevation interpolated to be 16.9 feet NGVD or 20.48 feet NAVO 88. Building floor must be at least 1 foot above 100-year FEMA elevation. 2. The City plans to construct a major interceptor pipe (84 inch or larger ) along their North property line from SW 39th St. The plans show an existing 10-ft. utility easement used by water. The City needs another 10 feet added to the existing utility easement for construction of the 84 inch interceptor pipe. 3. Construction drawings required per City of Renton Standards. 4. Erosion/sedimentation control plan required. WASTE WATER: (Sewer) 1. The System Development Connection charge for waste water is_$ /Q� 553. 14fl 2. The floor drains are required to be connected into the sanitary sewer system which is the result of the fire sprinlder system being installed. 3. Construction drawings required to City Drafting standards. 5. Minimum pipe cover for side sewer is 2 feet. 96CM082.DOC/ . "OPERTY`S1iRVICES FEE REVIEW "#"' •.O/! .EDEVELOPMENT`'APPLICAkic)N'REVIEW'SHEI;T • •❑; Pi4 ic LAEV IEW'ROUTING5;SLIP'=11?It` ' r-�`°. l ENVIRONMENTAL,CHECKLIST REVIEW soh T` '• �. _ ' ••. ' ' ' ,:-. ._ . ` t`' 't': -,-- •: ,, �•. .'..: , - OTHER <•n , . r CSp-n 'Cr l a i nAi _ -0,1-./�tI C. :RECEIVED FROM'a -- ,. 1 JOB ADDRESS . 'i iSt t) S t) 39 - " `..: WO# _ . _ ate -NATURE OF'•WORK:• • '.5PR/1 III�'S/T7F- =-Xi�c/LJ7f&t GREEN# ❑' SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS AND CONNECTION FEES APPLIED NEED MORE INFORMATION:' O. " LEGAL DESCRIPTION p SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS AND CONNECTION FEES ESTIMATED 0 SQUARE FOOTAGE" . ❑•, VICINITY MAP .. • • '❑: NOT APPROVED FOR APPLICATION.OF FEES'`•;. '' 0 FRONT FOOTAGE • . ❑ OTHER' • • ❑' •yESTED, ❑ NOT VESTED , CI {This fee'review supersedes and cancels fee review# '.' .' . dated ..• -, • 0 . PARENT PID#(subject to change)_' "' SUBJECT PROPERTY PID# •' I'2,53 f1' -OO6'O: ' , - ' ❑ King Co:TaxAcct#(new) -. .. It is the inteni'of this development fee analysis to put the developer/owner on notice,that the fees quoted below maybe applicable to the subject site upon • • .. development of-the property. All,quoted•fees are potential:charges that May be due and payable at the time the construction'permit is issued to install the on=site • and'off-site improvements(i.e.underground utilities,street improvements,etc.) Triggering mechanisms for the SDC fees will be based on current City•,ordinances; ,' ' and determined by the applicable Utility.Section:. ' ''" _ - - - ;Please'note that these'fees are subject-en change without notice. Final fees Will be:based on rates in effect at'time of Building Pemut/Construction,Pernut,`: ' y` , aPPlicatio))n:,`(,': ".: . .N. _ 't yV t +. The"followin oted'fees do•NOT;include` ,pe permit '`' :r'f"'..:e•'' ."cj,! zr R g qu Inspection fees "side'sewer rmits,.r/w fees or the cost of water meters. �. t , _s- ,. K r :,•- SPECTAD ASSESSMENT_: :,, '.•.•'; - ',.;;p•,, , 1'DISTRICT •,PARCEL, `METHOD OF ASSESSMENTASSESSMENT • , DISTRICTS ' -• .. .- - '�`' f *: `•NO:, NO. ' ; , ASSESSMENT, ' ` - ry ' ' - `UNITS-_ ',OR;FEI•F,"3��'s _ - I:atecomer:Agreement'(pvt),WATER`. ._. - _-__ '. 1 . , . ._ . - . - - , cs _ ' Latecomer Agreement'(pvt)WASTEWATER;_ .''?/0- -.. -.'3Z !-.P.A.' 41 I►Z8/ `j D •3� �1�'' • %tJ';':::- Latecoer•�Agreement;(pvt)OTHER . ., - -'-- -. _•- - . ' . . - •C. . - - . - r' J. • •: •i tno • Special;Assessnient.Disfrict/WATER'. -• •:*c: _--_'' - - y ;.' • -_..,:::,--•:;-'2j.;,;• };, M., Special'AssessmenCDi ll et/WASTEWATER$ .f,: _ '_. - .. I.. .. - -. ,'si`; ::' --a?:� '4.°' ,Joint Use•,Agreement`(METRO):"., • • _ ` - � . -. . • .•:s- .:x +�,.y- ,,,t,,t�` .';',-*'• 'Local Improvement'District�=__ ._... S_ _ -' .. - -1. - :;.-...--:_• :i :�'s 'y.�;?' *+q r.. 4.t C'.s - ,. .. _,. . . ,, • .., �. .:' f. is.: ':J �i', • TrafficBenefit'Zout `i• `a"- . , _ . •$75.00 PER TRIP,CALCULATED'BY TRANSPORTATION il''? :"::L=.r_;_';'„ !FUTURE OBLIGATIONS.'' - - - - , ' - - - _ - - ~ 3 SYSTEM:DEVEI OPMENT'CHARGE-WATER '''! '' -_. • • #OF,UNITS/" . ha '.' -,;',:•-'J!SDC°FEES -- . • .•f9t.PdrPi ir. ":El Partially'Pd'(Ltd Exemption) -..El Never Pd•• - _ •SQ:FTG. -' .. . ',•...:e -; + _ '.. _Sing Y' tiaE$850/unit'x, ' - - . `' . _ _ .�y;; ,t;• :. . Iti: .' le,famil resider -: •• �' :..if'., �' ,Z.•.• -.�;:,'°. ,,�;;•`', ':;.. Mobilehomedwellingr;unit4,680/unit-imparlr: _ - - , Tr.',, _. '.' - Y' .l , • s_�,�(�,•.,F*y ,.n • :▪,A artmerit't:Condo`$510Tunit not ii :CD•or'�COR zones�r." s-;:' ;:- ,- • _.'' ..':,; 1`: `'. '.:�` -1' '' : ,° , :•Commercial/Industrial 1$0.113/sq:,ft.ofapcoperty;(not'lissiha$850:00)x,. .' T. _ , _. _. ,`? `-c a51'�;'- 0; ;." 'si: "'`_Boeing,iby4Special Agreement/Foo rintof B lus'15;It eter o,wo-c:rtftbr otd . .I`cIf r*.'I:','?1-'.,:. 1': -:i r!a EPS;P P '�` ' ; SYSI DEVELOPMENT_.CRARGE:-WAS - �o 1 'r TEWATERi` ` ` z... L i; - �"1,a .�, `dri,+,:es �;,.:_ _'r .7 � _ a'-�i� �, .'' ; .i,,�,� CC rr`'. - k�. "n" � '�:,,}-;�,4;;';Q: El Pd.'PreP.,*,t0�'parhaUy.+Pti''(LRt ''E emp ) ' `:. .. ''..'`. -.•:`'''.::'.__ • -,Ft'« f' c • ','' --=` t d x lion r. ®�'Never•Pd'• •�,.h:�' ,, • ,} '-Sin le.famil-residential.:dwelling imit,$585/unit xar;= ',,. - •, - •• ' - - - •• ';, .'‘.r.- t q g(a;._ ik, Mobile.home:dwell ng,•unit'$468/unity&'` .:'• . '` .N:.•. _ , • ' '•k, =r- 4).4k ;•.� is, p. Apartment;°Condo•$350/unitnotilieVio- ='COR;zones:x° ` . _ _; . '.{&'- t-::.- :4,-, :': '•,a: ,•• Y Commetcial/Inilustrial;•$0:078/sq: ft of property(not lessthan'$585.00).x. • , /3t 3p-p' .• ,t/O, 5s3.'sip•:--..'-• 2;r, a, • REDEVELOPMENT.CREDITi.(New'-;OId•Flow)/New-Fiow)C'Above Fees T._ • . - 7:fi, :r.t.'"'X'c• '.i 'SYSTEM"'DEVELO_PME1�iT CHARGE-.-SURFACE,WATER, - . ' . - 7!" • • J ' .1.'"ai t 1/1: P,d'Prev. `�,'Partially.Pd td•Exemptio'n) �p'ti';, . • --.?,—'' ' - ' _ Single family-residential'and mobile'homedwelling unit$385/unit'x. _ , •-_•• . '' - • : .i. . §^V,M t!', All other properties'$0:129/sg•ft.of.new.impervious4Prep of,'property.x:. , ' f x , ' (not less than$3 0)•� , . . . ' , ; - - . o IlEuJ '1D�'' 1 ,:_� ,_ •.• PRELINIINARY TOTAL $' / ' S�'3 •Yv ' ,.' '*V/2/iC: . . , , , , ) Signature of Reviewing,Aut5ority. -• - "- .DATE :• a" *If subject roe is within an LID,it is,develo ers res ponsibili to check with the Finance Dept.for aid/iin- aid status: r� •" ',.;J P P rtY. P P tY P P P • **The.square,footage figures used are taken from the•King-County'Assessor's map and are approximate only. • ' jil'"• '• -c:/template/feeapp/tgb• EFFECTIVE July 16; 1995/Ord:Nos:4506,4507,4508;4525,and'4526'. , : , . ,o ,, - City oi, . 1ton Department of Planning/Building/Put;, .;Yorks ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT:Co U'rA.,lm Sent tc� COMMENTS DUE: APRIL 15, 1996 APPLICATION NO: LUA-96-039,SA,SM,ECF DATE CIRCULATED: APRIL 02, 1996 APPLICANT: ANDERSON RICHARDSON CO., INC. PROJECT MANAGER: Jennifer Toth Henning CITY uFRENTOH PROJECT TITLE: SPRINGSIDE BUILDING WORK ORDER NO: 78076 pre,,,,,, LOCATION: WEST END OF CUL-DE-SAC ON SW 39TH STREET APR C 2 1006 SITE AREA 3.11 ACRES BUILDING AREA(gross): 42,975 SF; 47,975 SF BUILDING AREA(new expansiiz,ofet87i97fF, m SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant requests Site Approval (SA), Environmental Checklist Review(ECF), and a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit(SM), for development of an approximate 43,000 SF office/warehouse/industrial building. In addition, up to an additional 5,000 SF could be developed as mezzanine space in two separate areas. The site is located within 200 feet of Springbrook Creek. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g.Non-Code)COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major information Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics Water Light/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTSO(LS 11 VV 1630.i5 S Db&c s l 1Csi5 Arzcar, � d 0 Li 0 /L2VLk6. IL6IJSr C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS`D Is „u1 �1,{wi koto6 ket,a LM kr[MS PRIOR, ID PLICUV T bF ANY 1:10Aii V We have = e -/ th1 applcati r kith particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable Impact or areas where a•• o II e•_• o • •petty assess this proposal. (1,19..# Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date DEVAPP.DOC Rev.1 O/D3 • City a nton Department of Planning/Building/Pu Norks ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: iS COMMENTS DUE: APRIL 15, 1996 APPLICATION NO: LUA-96-039,SA,SM,ECF DATE CIRCULATED: APRIL 02, 1996 APPLICANT: ANDERSON RICHARDSON CO., INC. PROJECT MANAGER: Jennifer Toth Henning PROJECT TITLE: SPRINGSIDE BUILDING WORK ORDER NO: 78076 LOCATION: WEST END OF CUL-DE-SAC ON SW 39TH STREET SITE AREA: 3.11 ACRES BUILDING AREA(gross): 42,975 SF; 47,975 SF BUILDING AREA(new expansion gross): 47,975 SF(MAX) SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant requests Site Approval(SA), Environmental Checklist Review(ECF), and a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit(SM), for development of an approximate 43,000 SF office/warehouse/industrial building. In addition, up to an additional 5,000 SF could be developed as mezzanine space in two separate areas. The site is located within 200 feet of Springbrook Creek. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g.Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics Water .UghtGlare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation , 4(216 B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS n/0„J 7 �� C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS 1, We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information eeded to properly assess this proposal. / rfe-4-t'.;(4- _ 1/76l Signature of Direct or Authorized Representative Dat DEVAPP.DOC Rev.101fl3 City o1 iton Department of Planning/Building/Pu1 Vorks ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: �d COMMENTS DUE: APRIL 15, 1996 APPLICATION NO: LUA-96-039,SA,SM,ECF DATE CIRCULATED: APRIL 02, 1996 APPLICANT: ANDERSON RICHARDSON CO., INC. PROJECT MANAGER: Jennifer Toth Henning PROJECT TITLE: SPRINGSIDE BUILDING WORK ORDER NO: 78076 LOCATION: WEST END OF CUL-DE-SAC ON SW 39TH STREET SITE AREA: 3.11 ACRES BUILDING AREA(gross): 42,975 SF; 47,975 SF BUILDING AREA(new expansion gross): 47,975 SF(MAX) SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant requests Site Approval(SA), Environmental Checklist Review(ECF), and a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit(SM), for development of an approximate 43,000 SF office/warehouse/industrial building. In addition, up to an additional 5,000 SF could be developed as mezzanine space in two separate areas. The site is located within 200 feet of Springbrook Creek. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g.Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major information Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics Water Light/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation . poI/c cc I is -fir: service- L n2cc,W oL annaa l l Sno f--can vartairsm a' ( 1u5 t Le-)i i I oCetcr cl ar1 r eo s C 01/1 phas - 1-e_CCalte L cL(l hc(i /dc i a.L vls ttth.eol Secarl-1y /1gh brig O J uth(1 help o WWWr ly-ft . WhL n build( is Mishec(, 7 f-. uJ ll f2&{ oL ac/-b ll SO Srin (au_ clod F t� PcI l-e- 1'ra.� _P/) i C,��cr,( C` lemXcon-/ o{ce_f it- apt pl (Ladh&vq_ dwq 1ocic ps er t cya; oa) �o lP PeUe��- r� y yy / b . ��office- madoi real (I-- t S&r1C1:..l f1c(AbE%f'S record& fo I?) reebvcri fig tope* 31-7) 'C7--cwt-RELATED COMMENTS �C�� �/�� f�� ���J ���/ leeCCc r t � t a_ for 17 e t I� Vt, rd- hers Ceuritiess = auo W IDI) eo06-1-nia-h or) sit's 1 nt -ea'P%i /1 i .g6ML by hu n lcv2 aret ChieveS - We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information Is needed to property assess this proposal. Signature of Direct or A orized Rep esentative Date DEVAPP.DOC Rev.10193 w:frr:+v:.J::w.:v:::.o: •..niir.;?•t}:•:}S•::i!J:::` :.:ti.?::-.v}:.v:, ...Y:::::iir�S?}:?}j Div?rii}:: • :±{•Y::•:nJr}x:+:{.vi}:is:i:::::{:?is???:-}}}::......r.......r...........:}}:<h}Y}if'-y:?Y:r' •:??hC}i i.. :.:C ........,..Y..... :..::::J}:>:.:;.}Y:::r:..:::::: CI:T1f..OF.AEN�'0 . .:.:.-:.:�.x......::::.. .:..r.. -:.:.n.;,v,:..:.v::.w: .v^rnv ...r... ::.v}r.•:r.}i}i:r{.}i. .... ::....n ....v.:.....:...:.....;.S;..j:<i!::r•?:<`:j^'�:i!.`-:' ±i?.{..........:r: ��.1••.J:.::,:�. ....... .... nx........... ........}.:.......... .r}........ :::: : : :.i}}}}.v; :ntiv;v}.{tii{:v:rri::i::}:.}i}:!!:..::�•{S{{{{ ::- ....r........:x::....:.:..............:.r......:...r.....n..v...:rn... .............:.•v:.v w:;..... ..n..-.. .. v:`CC:}rli::Yv:{±:::.}}xv„ .. ... \ �.-.t -::v :::v:::v:xh..........::::.v.r...•:vnf...v.v:n:w:::.v.v::::::::.v:...,f,.,......v. .: .. .....} .. :. ..n?;•:}:v,•f.....ff.•w•:.v,:i:{.}�:{:.i::<v:•:�ii<?i�iJ�?i::in�4:{..?Q:?Y•:,vi:}:�. +.t{2}i}:{.}}:::::f}:}u:i}'v:.;.;. ...f.,}}}}%-•S.:J}}•.:;r{n: :<..Y....:•:tr:{e.:J:%.J:{enx.-.::Y.::::}}yi,:::.^'}.{}x!'.:.}}4:-.Y-.v.: v:YS! :.tv::• V I .:J:V E S OlY><:ES:�'D ...n.......-:SJ•n }vv::x:.:v; •:•.:..v:x.n.••rnS•;}'::J}}W}:5+:w:::::::x ....:...:.. .;}i:;•i^:}liivr•::'v: ...vnv::..•........J.........n..M.: n ..............5.. .f.n. {:%.Y:i{.}Y:.{';a:{i?5i?i:}k:h--,..'J::.i:S' .x....<.:.:.J..v,:•.}'•:.:.:,.;n.:.rr .:,ti :.�:ih n:S.... x..V.•:::n•• ::.f.. •r.y.J:::-:x:.::. xx�,. ...S..t v. `w4f?T:}C?}}}:<•: iJ:•.:v::f........Y.v}:.:v f...y.. .J.t.::......v:x:::K.4:{.;.;.;ii n:.}:•}}r:.... .......:•:�.v::.J;n.}}:.-}.4 v+ ::.J:. r.}rh::v:v:v:,: i::LC}v!J:::\tin}.::::h.: ...............::v.:.:n::v..v..:....^.'}r.�.•.]C..Jin...:...........n..,....:...•::.:.....•..-•:<.r................::......n.v:n- n,Y r..::w:..v:::}•. :::::::•::::x}...:.t:................f- :.,.• :.{..v:::;..;..:::r:::n:•xJ.-..{::•:::r•..:::::.:.:..:•:::,!.:.:•:•:::.,.s.x:::.:•.•':...:<.. ..n.n:::.w:.•i}.,{x:ix:}n:::.!!:... ::.. .r.:....:LI.��.:::�.F.:.:{SURF�C�.U...ND1tVG:..,.:PR.:....:nP:.......:.�...:..:.::.:.......,......::.�..:::r.:. '..:::::.:.. ......... - ..::•:..... ....:::.:::}y.n:•:::..:::xx.:.:::::•::n.:::n.:::xv.�:f..;.=:-ii{;:. :.:.t!-:n•:.:+;..;•J.�.:4,:•::::::. �.v}r..: .,.J.!:.- .:.{....,J,JY}}y.-. '?}}}}}:i::-:}ir}•Y.:iT!:�::Y:�:i�jti�ti::tiL'r::�?�i:' PROJECT NAME: Springside Building • APPLICATION NO: 9(0- 0391 SPA I WI The following is a list of property owners within 300 feet of the subject site. The Development Services Division will notify these individuals of the proposed development. NAME ADDRESS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER • David A. Sabey 10.1° EiL ott Ave . W. • 125381-0020-00 S2atti.e-;4.!_WA. 98119 David A. Sabey - 101 Elliott Ave . W. 125381-0055-08 Seattle , WA. 98119 • City of Renton 200 Mill Ave . So . 125381-0240-04 Finance Director Renton, WA. 98055 TheBoeing Co. PO Box 3707 - M/S 1F-09 125381-0370-D6 . Prop Tax Dept . Seattle , WA. 98124 Drainage Dist . 1 601 West Gove 252304-9054-06 c/o John Nelson Kent , WA. 98033 The Boeing Co. 3131 S Vaughn WY STE 204 362304-9001-07 c/o George McElroy Aurora , CO 80014 Assoc. Inc . Jack A Benaroya Co . 1001 4th Ave . #4700 362304-9104-03 Seattle, WA. 98154 . Alasican Copper Co. PO Box 3546 125381-0050-03 • T'r�ati:.t�es Seattle , WA. 98124 ,Aaa--1tan •-:Copper Co . PO Box 3546 125381-0060-01 Seattle, WA. 98124 ,i'rxistees _ fi3;u�::l=rigton Northern 777 Main St . #1206 125381-0360-08 • :,----,Rsia1road Fort Worth, TX 76102 • prop.:' Tax Dept .- - Alaskan Copper Co . PO • Box 3546 125381-0390-02 Trus,tee's .. Seattle , WA. 98124 i• ';',; Ster'nco RE Vb -..:Ctr . • 8512 172nd Ave . NE •. 7 252304-9075-01 Sherry`Fu1kerson Redmond, WA. 98052 Sternco_Inau-str :al 8512 172nd Ave . NE 362304-9033-09 Prop =' Redmond, WA. 98052 •� - • • 21 1996 (Attach additional sheets, if necessaryb ��E.k..olV rt oN��G CooFRe • (Continued) ' 1 - NAME IADDRESS - - • ASSESSOR'S PARCEL ,,, .'NUMBER'`, ._ ;.. °-., • -•= :A; aplicant Certification I, _ ,4_S %�/51 _o' , hereby certify that the above list(s) of adjacent-,property (Print Name) . owners and their addresses were obtained from: CICity of Renton Technical Services Records ' [,7, Title Company Records 1[ Kin ounty Assessors Records C.- Signed DateMA-R.G14 Z% 1 � (Applicant) j NOTARY ATTESTED: Subscribed and sworn before me, a Notary Public, in and for the State of Washington, residing at Af/11116u2d-- on the :2/sf day of jn; r ic.. , 19 996 , Signed /r771-'l L- -( ) I s.•'oL°N! `•y (Notary Public) �,� r • r ., :45 aI C` r •..U �t. ....:For C ty o Renton Use. :. :::•:: .::: :.::.: ::::. .. ::. .: :..:: .. ..:. y/\ •1 f- i8i::•i::$+:•�•i+�.....:.......... .�::i>ii'•iiY'�:i�ii::i�iii:�ii:C::iiii.<tiv`:!?ii`viiii::`it��ii":ii:�:.::i::tii i::::i::::i};ii?iii::?.i:ii:i:�ii:i�i :i�i?i:�i:iv�`v''vii i:i:i:i:vii:?':tivi:ti{i{i•:�:v::.ijjiii:2i:5}::iiiii:i• iY?P' 7 RT C O OF`MAILIN-• .................... ....... .. . f 1•0 : - , c .. Wd:rWhereby certify that notices•of the proposed application were mailedt6..,,,,.::. • each,listed,.:.;ro...e.. . owner.:.:on:: :.:.: ::: ::a_...: ::.;:..:;.:.;:::.:.::.:::::. ..:::.:: .;::::.....::.: ::.. :.::. ..: ..:.::..::..::. . .;..: :.:...;:::.::.::,::.;.<.;;: .... ...........:.:.................;:.::::.:.. . ..:. ....:: .:::•: :.�: : •:::::.�::::.�:._:.::.�:::.�..::. : :�::.:::::::::::::•::: •:•.:�.: :::.�.::::: �.;_. �:�. . ::::: .::�.. ;.�: .:::•.fit:=�:.::::::. .:.. .:. '+::ii::}•:?.;.::::n�v.�::.�:::::w:::.�::::::w:::::::.:::::::::..::::::w:::t i:•::vim:::::::,�:.::�::::::::.�::.�:::::::.�::::::•::::;:.::::.:�:::.::::::.:. ... <.. ...)........... ........ •....:•ii:•i:::.:;:.ii::::4i::::�'iiiri:::::ii'::vv:i•i::{i:}�::;:;;;::Y>:ii:::ii:ii.v;:::•i:i�i:�>ii:Y.i:.}::.:iini'' ...::•:w.;...:... ::.:::..::.�:. �: :.:�.���:._:::::: :::. :.:.�:. ....: ::.:::.:NOTARY::,:::.:..::: ::::..::..:..:W:::.:....:..:....:.::.s.:.:,:.:...: :.: :.. ... . �4;•:�':.:::.�:::::•::.�:::::::..�:. v.�::::•n: i::vi:Ji::::vii:?vii:v}i:•?::Oi:•.�::Gi:?i:i:'i ::-•.; .........::.�::::::::::v'•ii:t:i:is i?:`}::-::,.:�1:y::v\':•:<•i i....:::::::.:...ii:i$:viii:':v:::>if. .:::.�:•.: •.:•.::... ........... ................ :...�:.:.�:::........:.;.:.v::!:•:J::n-.}�.:.�:::::.;}•:p�;.y.:iv:.��r:::::.�:.�.�::+ti4:;;:.. ATTEST;.�`'S- • ribed:and`sworn::before::me a.:Notary Public in d:°for.the;•Stiitei af-;• J sh'• .ton;::_ :. .......... .... -•'.��,�.,ri±� ': .. .. :;on the . _. .:... •:da of -' ��':.::::::::: 19 '��::: ........................ ... ed Ilctprop.doc 4 /%0 REV 07/95 • 2 i NOTICE OF PROPOSED SITE APPROVAL tu-PLICATION RENTON, WASHINGTON A Site Approval (SA), Environmental Checklist Review (ECF) and Shoreline Substantial Development Permit (SM) Application has been filed and accepted with the Development Services Division of the City of Renton. The following briefly describes the application and the necessary Public Approvals. PROJECT NAME/NUMBER: SPRINGSIDE BUILDING/LUA-96-039,SA,SM,ECF DESCRIPTION: The applicant requests Site Approval (SA), Environmental Checklist Review (ECF), and a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit (SM), for development of an approximate 43,000 SF office/warehouse and industrial building. In addition, up to an additional 5,000 SF could be developed as mezzanine space in two separate areas. The site is located within 200 feet of Springbrook Creek. GENERAL LOCATION: West end of cul-de-sac on SW 39th Street PUBLIC APPROVALS: Environmental Review Site Plan Approval Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Building Permit The application can be reviewed in the Development Services Division located on the third floor of Renton City Hall. Comments will be accepted anytime prior to Public Hearings, during Public Hearings, or prior to an administrative site plan approval. For further information on the application, or if you wish to be made a PARTY OF RECORD and receive additional notifications, by mail, of the City's environmental determinations, appeal periods and/or the public hearing date(s) for this project, please contact the Development Services Division at 235-2550. Please include the project NUMBER when calling for proper file identification. Lin •/% • 3 ,. a.TN -f.ST. 4 a. sin., CC •• ? a •il I- J .rl q 1- • - I. W Z // ew.o 0 I � I 7 , i.s a :.1 ` AIL S.m.eion�TT..Z.,SITa+iM {a.. 1 1 .-. _.. -•_.. 7Li1 .......r:. wee �`�{.7 1 ......a • n,weaa i �® 4ae=1Mq� Io.��La. ,,....•� n..0...n � ..,1 air �ifY--f�Jir.y,'.... . � _ � I .. .•I I -11, 10. LAf uwano i , t. 1 K' , .:a,..... I I , r4' FIEIG`IBOR DETAIL MAP i eili roR„1 '--Seh.E'I"=2001 II GENMALOT.DOC t$ ° 4_A CITE )F RENTON ea Planning/Building/Public Works Department Jesse Tanner,Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator April 02, 1996 t Mr. Douglas Richardson do Anderson Richardson Co., Inc. 300- 120th Avenue NE , Building•2, Suite#217 Bellevue, Wa. 98005 SUBJECT: Springside Building , Project No. LUA-96-039, SA,SM,ECF Dear Mr. Richardson: The Development Planning Section of the City of Renton has determined that the - subject application is complete according to submittal requirements and, therefore, is accepted for review. It is tentatively scheduled for consideration by the Environmental Review Committee on April 23, 1996. Prior to that review, you will be notified if any additional information is required to continue processing your application for environmental review. Please contact me,.at 277-6186, if you have any questions. Sincerely, (--------,, - ,Ittl Hai friiiiiAfj— ___JytM4' ( ennifer Toth Henning Project Manager ACCPTLTR.DOC 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 ®This paper contains 50%recycled material,25%post consumer PENDING APPLICATION. • PROJECT NAMEJNUMBER: SPRINGSIDE BUILDING/LUA-96-039,SA,SM,ECF DESCRIPTION: The applicant requests Site Approval(SA),Environmental Checklist Review (ECF),and a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit(SM),for development of an approximate 43,000 SF office/warehouse and industrial building.In addition,up to an additional 5,000 SF could be developed as mezzanine space in two separate areas.The site is located within 200 feet of Springbrook Creek. GENERAL LOCATION: West end of cul-de-sac on SW 391h Street PUBLIC APPROVALS: Building Permit _Preliminary Plat _Short Plat Conditional Use Permit _Rezone XXXX Site Plan Approval XXXX Environmental Review -Shoreline Conditional Use :;. _Other ' Permit _Fill IL Grade Permit XXXX Shoreline Substantial _Other Development Permit The application can be reviewed In the Development Services Division located on the third floor of Renton City Hall. Comments will be accepted any time prior to Public Hearings,during Public Hearings,or prior to an administrative site plan approval.Comments for Substantial Shoreline Permits must be received within Thirty(30)days from the last dale of applicant's'Notice of Application'publication in the Valley Daily News. For further information on the application,or it you wish to be made a PARTY OF RECORD and receive additional notifications of the Cily's environmental determinations,appeal periods and/or the public hearing date(s)for this project,please contact the Development Services Division at 235-2550. • :-_ -_I J_v__.J L. ' r ' I • . T"'11 � L"' sr-vz • PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION.''.,• CERTIFICATION • • I, $a,jic1 Jac VicCY' , hereby certify that S copies of the above document were posted by�me GI n in 3 conspicuous places on or nearby the described property on Signed: c5Gfic.L , abe-UX STATE OF WASHINGTON ) . ) SS . COUNTY OF KING ) • I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that 4DI JA-c.KS©,l signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. - - Dated: 4/.5-iq�o agev,/ Notary Pub ' i,tn and f tye State of Washington Notary (Print) fl74/@;-4&7./J� lt I L4(- My appointment expires: / gd NOTARY.DOC • \\] 0 TICE PENDING APPLICATION PROJECT NAME/NUMBER: SPRINGSIDE BUILDING/LUA-96-039,SA,SM,ECF DESCRIPTION: The applicant requests Site Approval(SA),Environmental Checklist Review (ECF),and a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit(SM),for development of an approximate 43,000 SF office/warehouse and industrial building. In addition,up to an additional 5,000 SF could be developed as mezzanine space in two separate areas. The site is located within 200 feet of Springbrook Creek. GENERAL LOCATION: West end of cul-de-sac on SW 39th Street PUBLIC APPROVALS: • Building Permit Preliminary Plat Short Plat • Conditional Use Permit Rezone XXXX Site Plan Approval XXXX Environmental Review Shoreline Conditional Use Other Permit _ Fill&Grade Permit XXXX Shoreline Substantial Other Development Permit The application can be reviewed in the Development Services Division located on the third floor of Renton City Hall. Comments will be accepted any time prior to Public Hearings, during Public Hearings, or prior to an administrative site plan approval. Comments for Substantial Shoreline Permits must be received within thirty(30)days from the last date of applicant's"Notice of Application" publication in the Valley Daily News. For further information on the application, or if you wish to be made a PARTY OF RECORD and receive additional notifications of the City's environmental determinations, appeal periods and/or the public hearing date(s) for this project, please contact the Development Services Division at 235-2550. • L ' I. I 0. :t -, J l t �% ' . -IF W 2 ri B R O• .I / r ._..1-i i' '.ran ./ •SS.' ' O 5 a..reca Fi ! t wrn �,L c :r, , , S -NEIG-IBORHOOII DETAIL MAF: 7 41! ES mum 1 PLEASE INCLUDE THE;PROJECT<NUMBER WHEN;CALLING:FOR PROP :.. :.,::.:..::.:...:: .... . : .:: :..... ..... ...:.:>.::....::;:ER,BILE:1p;ENTIFICAT.L.O.u>>:<_`';`>> 300-120th Ave.NE. AD Bldg.2.Suite 217 DE SOLNT A�T� Bellevue,WA 98005 ICIIA,RDSON ANY (206)453-8717 C til�l 1 (206)454 1667 60 S.E.Cascade Ave. Stevenson,WA 98648 1 TY OF RENTON (509)427-871? fax(509)4274097 RFt,`F{VED March 21, 1996 MAR 2 2 1996 QuILulIvta uiVISION City of Renton VIA TELECOPY Attn: Ms. Jenny Bartz Ref: Springside Building Construction Mitigation Description Dear Jenny, Thanks for accepting our permit applications this morning (it was amazing to see the effort that went into that)! As requested, I've included cone- spondence relating to the "Construction Mitigation Description" requirement with this fax transmission. I trust you'll be able to make the necessary copies for your use. I'll put the hard copy in the mail today as well. Please don't hesitate to give me a call if you discover any other shortcomings in our presentation materials. Thanks again. Sincerely, C - Douglas Richardson Post-it'Fax Note 7671 Date 3rz.j paoges. 3 ToSL'—�.1 r 1`7 From V Co./Dept Co. Phone# Phone# Fax# - LS Fax# GENERAL CONTRACTORS LIC#ANDERRC055KA(WA) LIC#85628(OR) 300-120th Ave.NE. • Bldg.2,Suite 217 AR ANDEDSON Bellevue,WA 98005 ICIIARDSON fax(206) 453- 717 1667 MN (206) OMDAV"1^ 60 S.E.Cascade Ave. Stevenson,WA 98648 (509)427-8717 fax(509)427-4097 March 21, 1996 City of Renton Current Planning Division , 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, Wa. 98055 Attn: Ms. Jennifer Toth Henning Ref: Springside Building - Project#: LUA96-039 Construction Mitigation Description " Dear Ms. Henning, Construction on this new commercial development will begin immediately upon receipt"of - - the necessary building permits. Pending the outcome of the permit review•process, we are tentatively scheduling`a construction start date of June 1, 1996, with-building shell completion in approximately four-months(Sept. 30, 1996), and interior improvements completed October 31, 1996. Phasing would occur only,if we are-able to obtain a grade, and fill permit prior,to issuance of the building permit. Hours;of operation are`7:00 a.m. through 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, with,the possibility of occasional work on Saturdays: We propose to move materials up and down the,Hwy. #167 corridor, exiting at S.W. 43rd,west on 43rd to Lind Ave. S.W., north'on Lind to,S.W. 39th St., west on 39th to our construction site. • Since construction will,occur during the summer and;early fall, we anticipate only a moderate chance that mud will be tracked`on and off the site. However, a construction entrance will be installed to mitigate against mud leaving-the site. Truckers will be instructed to minimize the possibility of mud on city streets. The streets surrounding our project,will be maintained and cleaned via street sweeping equipment,.;Dust will be controlled with water trucks and sprinklers. GENERAL CONTRACTORS LIC#ANDERRC055KA(WA) LIC#85628 (OR) City of Renton March 21, 1996 Page Two The area we are building in is commercial in nature, and we anticipate very minimal impact to our neighbors. The site is currently paved and landscaped, and only those areas which will have to be disturbed will, and the balance of the site we will protect from construction activities. Trucks and equipment will meet all state and local codes for sound transmission. We are good and conscientious contractors, and we will make every effort to be good neighbors and keep the building.and engineering inspectors happy with us. Sincerely, Douglas Richardson .10. co t ffe 0:6WittaaK* ddi ion I Note;:>If re s:rzo�e'.ffia n oneae'"'al<ov�trier. t notaYized"Mastar:>A"pplicati._n:f :: _.......... EXISTING LAND usE s • pave d d and landscaped parking lot . NAME: Anderson Richardson Co . , Inc. PROPOSED LAND USES: ADDRESS: 300 - 120th Ave . N.E . Bldg 2 Suite *217 industrial, office/ warehouse . CITY: Bellevue ZIP: 98005 EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION: Employment Area - Industrial . TELEPHONE NUMBER: ( 206) 453-8717 • PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION: . .RS0..:../A..;:.P...L.:C.;:.:.>:T::.::::.........::.:..: Same . NAME: Douglas Richardson EXISTING ZONING: IL. • c/o Anderson Richardson Co. , Inc . ADDRESS: see above PROPOSED ZONING: Same . CITY: ZIP: SITE AREA (SQ. FT. OR ACREAGE): TELEPHONE NUMBER: • 135 , 300 sq. ft . ( 3 . 1 1 acre) . PR OJECT VALUE: 1 8 million • RECEFn I PROJECT OR.DEVELOPMENT NAME: Springside [V I , Building. `r;�'.,• • .�;i IS THE SITE LOCATED IN THE AQUIFER PROTECTION-AREA? PROPE`Ryt`lP�0�6CT AADDRESS(S)/LOCATION: Lot 6 of the No. ` 7996 -fltur<FIrpatatil Northern Industrial Park Rexi ,.c r Ai?":,;=at west end of cul •de sac IS THE SITE LOCATED IN ANY OTHER�rvOFIEt�1k4R:ffi,N!11UVTALLY • o,tt,;>j t.-. ttFFSt , west of Raymond Ave. C 11�OFREiyTON SENSITIVE AREA? _`� Adjacent to Sprinbrook Creek, KIN.G,r6OUt\/TY,ASESSOR'S ACCOUNT NUMBER(S): Drainage Ditch District No. .1 . 125381-0060 OPERTY:_ Attach se ( .... .... See attached . i. n: es:>that•a I :.:::-.Ci.f ":>staff<rivill<>deaerrriine...ee ..-....:.::cat o.....t _ ANNEXATION $ SUBDIVISION: _ COMP. PLAN AMENDMENT $ _ REZONE . $ _ LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT $_ _ SPECIAL PERMIT $ — SHORT PLAT $ _TEMPORARY PERMIT $ —TENTATIVE PLAT $ _ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT $ — PRELIMINARY PLAT $ - X SITE PLAN APPROVAL $ _ FINAL PLAT $ _ GRADE & FILL PERMIT $ (NO. CU. YDS: - ) PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT: $ VARIANCE $ (FROM SECTION:_ ) PRELIMINARY — _ WAIVER $ _ FINAL WETLAND PERMIT $ ROUTINE VEGETATION MOBILE HOME PARKS: $ MANAGEMENT PERMIT $ BINDING SITE PLAN $ SHORELINE REVIEWS: X SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT $ CONDITIONAL USE $ VARIANCE $ _ EXEMPTION $No Charge X ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW $ REVISION $ IDA. .IT...O.F..OW dson I, (Print Name)DOUglaS Ri char, declare that I am (please check one)_the owner of the property involved in this application,X_the authorized representative to act for theproperty owner (please attach proof of authorization), and that the foregoing statements and answers herein contained and the information herewith�ubmitted are in all respects true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Anderson Richardson Co . , Inc. ATTEST: Subscribed and sworn to before me, a Notary Publi,o )h and Douglas Richardson for the State of (��75/j/j/ y;t/residing at ;' qe1 'bM (Na_Igoe of Ow esentativei) Aferfll Ben(/ , on the of/o~ ••�6— o /I?ait-h 1 996. fts (Signature of Owner/Representative) —` -Lf . . L ��, Lc> .J _ Z: 40 1'10 N.?.� ji = O'. .aa (Signature of Notary Public) % 0•• Poiss‘*.=O ............ .: .. ..:.:. R:;:=>SH.PL;;;>;CU......LLA....P .......E.P.....IP.....5........................................................ REVISED 2/95 Springside Building Legal Description LOT 6, IN BLOCK 5 OF BURLINGTON NORTHERN INDUSTRIAL PARK RENTON II, AS PER PLAT RECORDED IN VOLUME 111 OF PLATS, PAGES 42 THROUGH 44, RECORDS OF KING COUNTY; TOGETHER WITH THAT PORTION OF THE RAILROAD RIGHT—OF—WAY LYING ADJACENT TO THE SOUTHEASTERLY AND SOUTHERLY LINES OF LOT 6 DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE MOST EASTERLY CORNER OF LOT 6, IN SAID BLOCK 5; THENCE ALONG THE PRODUCTION OF THE NORTH LINE OF SAID LOT 6 SOUTH 89°05'08" EAST 14.70 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE SOUTH 47°23'19" WEST 47.30 FEET TO THE.BEGINNING OF A NON—TANGENT CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A CENTER POINT WHICH BEARS SOUTH 42°36'26" EAST A DISTANCE OF 1,188.51 FEET; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 02°37'48" AN ACRC LENGTH OF 54.55 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A NON—TANGENT CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A CENTER POINT WHICH BEARS NORTH 45°40'25" WEST A DISTANCE OF 539.58 FEET; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 17°25'32" AN ARC LENGTH OF 164.10 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A NON—TANGENT CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A CENTER POINT WHICH BEARS NORTH 28°21'37" WEST A DISTANCE OF 478.34 FEET; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 19°06'26" AN ARC LENGTH OF 159.52 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 02°28'59" WEST 20.00 FEET TO THE EXISTING SOUTH MARGIN OF RAILROAD RIGHT—OF—WAY; THENCE NORTH 87°31'O1" WEST ALONG SAID MARGIN 331.89 FEET OT THE SOUTHEAST LINE OF THE SPRINGBROOK CREEK GREENBELT AND PEDESTRIAN EASEMENT; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID SOUTHEAST LINE TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 6; THENCE EASTERLY AND NORTHEASTERLY ALONG THE SOUTHERLY AND SOUTHEASTERLY LINES OF LOT 6 TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. • SITUATE IN THE CITY OF RENTON, COUNTY OF KING, STATE OF WASHINGTON. E � CAVER aq% 21 1096 DE JEL F RE4TO Ii�G C1N 300-120th Ave.NE. Bldg.2,Suite 217 A ANDE SON Bellevue,WA 98005 ICHARDSON fax (206)454-1667 COMPAN 1 60 S.E.Cascade Ave. Stevenson,WA 98648 (509) 427-8717 fax (509) 427-4097 March 20, 1996 City of Renton Current Planning Division 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA. 98055 Attn: Ms. Jennifer Toth Henning Ref: Springside Bldg. -Project Narrative Environmental Review Site Plan Approval Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Dear Ms. Henning, We hope it has not been so long since our Preliminary Project Review meeting that you have forgotten us. We've been working diligently to prepare all the documents necessary for the next stage submittal. Please consider this correspondence as the project narrative for the three(3) permit applications listed above. Enclosed with this correspondence are those plans, and documents necessary for your review. Please don't hesitate to notify me of any shortcomings, as they will be quickly supplied. As you can see from the vicinity plan, our property lies at the end of a cul-de-sac at S.W. 39th Street,just north and west of the new Ikea development. It should also be readily recognizable as a former parking area for Boeing employees (land use for the past five years or so). The site is currently fully developed as a parking lot: paving, striping, mature landscaping. The existing site is largely flat, with grades consistent with those of the existing street and railroad spur (see the site plan for topography). The urban trail and greenbelt along Springbrook Creek parallel our property to the north. It is our intention to construct an office-warehouse/industrial development that is now 42,975 sq. ft. in size, with the possible addition of some second floor(or mezzanine) space that will likely not exceed two (2), 2,500 sq. ft. areas. The lot is approximately 3.1 acres in size. • RECEIVED ;,ve.R 21 1996 D-VELOPIViENT PLANNING CITY OF RENTON GENERAL CONTRACTORS LIC#ANDERRC055KA(WA) LIC#85628(OR) City of Renton March 20, 1996 Page Two Some features of the new development: * Concrete tilt-up construction, with exterior painted walls, enhanced with indented feature at the exterior concrete surfaces. * Possible multi-tenant building(we foresee a maximum of four tenants), but may contain a single tenant only-we are very close to an agreement with a long term tenant or buyer, but the project remains speculative construction at this point. .* Both dock high and at grade loading areas for the warehouse are shown. * We do not anticipate more than 25% of the building as office which would support the warehouse/mfg. areas, but time will tell. There appears to be very adequate parking. * Exterior wall height is now set at 28'-0", with a possibility of high pile storage ware- house space inside (24'-0" clear height). * Flat roof-"Berkley" style construction with built-up-roofing membrane. * Light manufacturing is a potential use. Mr. James Hanson of your office has provided correspondence to a potential buyer of the development, which signifies acceptance of their proposed manufacturing/warehousing use. * There has been a very real attempt to keep disruption of the existing parking and landscaping areas to a minimum. However, it should be noted that the number of parking spaces has been reduced from two hundred eighty-two (282) to ninety-five (95) cars. * Under the building, we propose to break up (pulverize)the existing asphalt, leave it on site, and import structural fill material to create a dock high environment. Site utilities will be constructed as shown in the preliminary design proposal shown here. * Painted, roll up metal truck doors. * Glass and aluminum storefronts. * Automatic fire suppression system. * A turn around lane for fire truck access has been provided. * Access to the Springbrook urban trail has been provided, along with outdoor meeting area for the building's occupants. Natural landscape habitat will be provided to meet or exceed minimum standards We look forward to working closely with the City of Renton staff members, our neighbors, and all other interested parties. Please don't hesitate to contact me or our architect (David Kehle) if we can provide any additional materials that would serve to expedite the permitting process. Thanks. Best Regards, Douglas Richardson cc: David Kehle 300-1201h Ave.NE. ANDE1)SON Bldg.z,Sulte'L37 SON Bellevue,WA 98005 I�H,A� bS�N fax(206)454-1(67 COMP I•NY 60 S.E.CaKiele Ave. Sievimson,WA 98648 (509) 427-5717 fax (509)427-4097 March 21, 1996 City of Renton Current Planning Division 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, Wa. 98055 Attn: Ms_ Jennifer Toth Henning Ref: Springside Building Project#: LUA96-039 Construction Mitigation Description Dear Ms. Henning, Construction on this new commercial development will begin immediately upon receipt of the necessary building permits. Pending the outcome of the permit review process, we are tentatively scheduling a construction start date of June 1, 1996,with building shell completion in approximately four months(Sept. 30, 1996), and interior improvements completed October 31, 1996. Phasing would occur only if we are able to obtain a grade and fill permit prior to issuance of the building permit. Hours of operation are 7:00 am. through 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, with the possibility of occasional work on Saturdays. We propose to move materials up and down the Hwy. #167 corridor, exiting at S.W. 43rd, west on 43rd to Lind Ave_ S.W., north on Lind to S.W. 39th St., west on 39th to our construction site. Since construction will occur during the summer and early fall,we anticipate only a moderate chance that mud will be tracked on and off the site. However, a construction entrance will be installed to mitigate against mud leaving the site. Truckers will be instructed to minimize the possibility of mud on city streets. The streets surrounding our project will be maintained and cleaned via street sweeping equipment Dust will be controlled with water trucks and sprinklers. RCC MAR 2 I 1996 OEVELOPMEi818 N7JIiVG c►ry of Nroh� CENERAI.CONTRACTORS LIC#ANUERRCOSSKA(WA) LIC:#85628 (OR) City of Renton March 21, 1996 Page Two The area we arc building in is commercial in nature, and we anticipate very minimal impact to our neighbors. The site is currently paved and landscaped, and only those areas which will have to be disturbed will, and the balance of the site we will protect from construction activities. Trucks and equipment will meet all state and local codes for sound transmission. We are good and conscientious contractors, and we will make every effort to be good neighbors and keep the building and engineering inspectors happy with us. Sincerely, Douglas Richardson R SE V CES DI I I N • • 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 preparation of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the most • precise information known, or give the best description 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 your 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 any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact. • USE OF CHECKLIST FOR NONPROJECT PROPOSALS: Complete this checklist for nonproject proposals, even though questions may be answered "does not apply." IN ADDITION, complete the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (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. EIVD �i 21 1996 DEVELOPMENT PI AN�I►h!(,clTvnc�<, Environmental Checklist A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: Springside Building 2. Name of applicant: Anderson Richardson Co. , Inc. • 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: Douglas Richardson 300 — 120th Ave. N.E. Bldg #2 Suite #217 Bellevue , WA. 98005 4. Date checklist prepared: January 18 , 1996 • 5. Agency requesting checklist: City of Renton 6. Proposed timinig or schedule (including phasing, if pplicable): Building •onstruction to occur summer of ' 96 , or sooner if allowed . 7. Do you have a I y plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. No 8. List any enviro h mental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. None . 9. Do you know v'hether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals • directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. No . 10. List any governmental approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. Shorelines review — substantial development . 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. Develop and construct an industrial use office/( warehouse building approx. 45 , 000 sq. ft . in area , on approx. 3 . 11 acres of ground . Site is currently fully developed as a paved and landscaped parking lot ( formerly, Boeing parking) . • Environmental Checklist 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. Lot six of the Burlington Northern Industrial II.'area , at the west end of the cul de sac on S .W. 39th St . , west of Raymond Ave . See attached legal description and vicinity map. B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS EARTH a. General description of the site (circle one �. , rolling, hilly,steep slopes, mountainous, other b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope?) Slopes up slightly at north end of site to Springbrook Creek urban trail ( approximately 30%) - small area. 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 farmland. Asphalt paving, over crushed rock surfacing, over valley soil . 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. Building footprint ( approx. 45 , 000 sq . ft . ) raised approx. 2 ' -0" to 3 ' -0" via import of structural fill material . 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)? 85% 3 Environmental Checklist • • h. Proposled measures-to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: Instyllation of filter fabric fence, and other temp . erosion control measures as required by the engineering dept , curing construction ., 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. Normal truck and construction equipment emissions . b. Are there any off-site sources of emission or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, • generally describe. No. c. Proposrd measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: Vehicles shall be in compliance with state and city regulations governing these emissions . 3. WATER a. Surfac- Water: 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 prcivide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. Yes . This lot lies adjacent to, and runs parallel with, Springbrook Creek (Drainage' Ditch District 4t1 ) . 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. Yes . See plans attached for 40 ' -0" wide Springbrook Creek Greenbelt . Building will occur within ! 200 ' -0" of ditch. 3) Estima e 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 th 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 flood plain? If so, note location on the site plan. No . 4 Environmental Checklist 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 Water: 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 material 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. Not applicable . - 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. Runoff from buildiing roof and parking areas will be routed to existing storm drainage system. 2) Could waste material 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 existing parking area was designed to comply with City ordinances regarding runoff . The new structure will not significantly alter that design. In fact , there will be fewer vehicles , which should improve the situation. 4. PLANTS a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other x evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other x shrubs grass pasture crop or grain wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bulirush, skunk cabbage, other water plants: water lily, eel grass, milfoil, other other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? The existing landscaped areas should not be significantly altered . Project will meet or exceed city requirements for landscape area and type . • Environmental Checklist • c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. Not applicable . d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetat'on on the site, if any: See b. 5. ANIMALS a. Circle alny birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or-are known • to be on or near the site: (see next page) None observed . Birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other Mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other I Fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other - I b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. • None observed . c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain No . d.. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: Maintain existing landscaped areas . 6. ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the co pleted project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. Gas heating, electric cooling (office areas only . b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. No . 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: Warehouse area may very well be unheated . Project will meet all Wa . State Energy Code requirements . 7. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH • Environmental Checklist 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 fire and ambulance response for building occupants . 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: Not,.applicable . b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? None . 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. Normal construction activity during business hours . Long term traffic should be reduced from previous use . 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: Construction crews instructed to be good neighbors . 8. LAND AND SHORELINE USE a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? Site was Boeing parking lot . Adjacent development is normal industrial , office/warehouse . b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. No . c. Describe any structures on the site. . None . d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? No . • e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? IL. f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? Employment Area - Industrial . 7 Environmental Checklist 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? Likely no more than thirty indivduals working on site . j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? None . k. Propos d measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: Not rpplicable . I. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: development will comply with Renton land use codes . 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. Not applicable . c. Propos d measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: Not applicable . 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. Exterior wall height will likely not exceed 301 -0" , with flat roof construction . b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? None . c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: Building will be tastefully painted and landscaped . 8 Environmental Checklist 11. LIGHT AND GLARE a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? Parking areas (which are currently lit at night) would be lit at night . b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? No. 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: little or no increase from existing. 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. No. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: access wi 11 be provided to Springbrook Urban Trail , along with picnic area for building occupants . 13. HISTORIC.AND CULTURAL PRESERVATION 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. None . c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: Not applicable . 14. TRANSPORTATION a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. Project is accessed off S .W. 39th St . 9 Environmental Checklist b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the . nearest transit stop? No. Distance to nearest transit stop is unknown. c. How rrIlany parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? Approximately 95 spaces . The parking area that exists now has 282 spaces - we will eliminate 187 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 publicor private? No . e. Will tre project use (or occur in the immediate .vicinity..of) water, -rail, or air transpprtation? If so, generally describe. Rail to site exists , but not likelly to be utilized . f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known', indicate when peak volumes would occur. We view this is a non- iss e , given the fact that, parking and traffic is so obviously reduced from the prior, permitted , use of the property . • g. Propol ed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: employees encolraged to use mass transit . 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. By reducing the number of vehicles to the site , it is our position that there will be a decreased need for public servp.ces . b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any.. Automatic fire sprinkler and alarm systems . By actually reducing number of people on site , we are reducing impact . 16. UTILITIES a. Circle utilitie rrentl available at the site: electr atural gas, Off er. servi , telepho 4111aZipp.eptic system, other. 10 , Environmental Checklist 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 elxist . 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. Proponent: C-- —)Cj:C/P° Name Printed: Douglas Richardson Date: March 20, 1996 • • 11 Environmental Checklist D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEETS FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS .ti6 4::ilheets`should'onl` be used: for >actions :involving decisions on :;policies;>? lans :and programs:..Youl:do.not need .out these sheets for`projed actions.) Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction with the list of the elements of the environment. When answering these questions, be aware of the:extent the proposal, or the types of activities likely to result from the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate than if the prop sal were not implemented. Respond briefly and in general terms. 1.. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water;:emissions to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: 2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life? • Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish, or•marine life are: 3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? Proposed measures to protect or conserve) energy and natural resources are: 4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, flood plains, or prime farmlands? Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: 5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are: 12 • AGENCY USE ONLY ' _Agency Reference #: Date Received: SEPA Lead Agency: Other: • — JARPA APPLICATION FORM — .�°f'•' - for use in Washington State- ��`'" '� PLEASE TYPE OR PRIl\TT IN BLUE OR BLACK INK Based on the preceding checklist, I am sending copies of this application to the following: (check all that apply) f' Local Government: for shoreline ❑ Substantial Development 0 Conditional Use 0 Variance ❑ Exemption; or ❑ Floodplain Management 0 Critical Areas Ordinance ❑ Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife for HPA ❑ Washington Department of Ecology Approval to Allow Temporary Exceedance of Water Quality Standards ❑ 401 Water Quality Certification Nationwide Permits ❑ Corps Engineers for Section 404 or Section 10 permit(s) SECTION A-Use for all permits covered by this application. Be sure to also complete Section C (Signature Block)for all permit applications. 1. Applicant Anderson-Richardson Co. , Inc. Mailing Address 300 - 12 0 th Ave . N.E. Bldg 2 #217 Bellevue , WA. 98005 Work Phone: (20 4 5 3—8 717 Home Phone: 06) 6 3 3—0 2 8 4 Fax Number: (20 454-1667 If an agent is acting for the applicant during the permit process, complete#2&3. 2. Authorized Agent n. a . Mailing Address • Work Phone: ( ) Home Phone: ( ) Fax Number: ( )__ _• 3. Designation of Authorized Agent, if applicable: • I hereby designate n. a . to act as my agent in matters related to this application for permit(s). I understand that if a Federal permit is issued, I must sign the permit. Signature of Applicant Date 4. Relationship of applicant to property: 0 Owner XXPurchaser ❑ T essee ❑ Other ( ) 5. Name, address, and phone number of property owner(s), if other than applicant: Brian Lucarelli , Trustee Alaskan . Copper Companies • Ae- Profit Sharing Trust 3223 6th Ave . So. di�L,, <97 Seattle , WA. 98124 (206) 6� 00 'N,,Nc Application Page 1 of 5 • 6. Location where proposed activity exists or will occur: Waterbody S p x___.D r o o k Creek DNR Stream Type(if known) Street Address XXXX. S .W. 3-9.th:-Street Tributary of - - • Renton, WA. Legal Description: City, County, State, Zip Code Tax Parcel No.: see attached • 'k ' 'k Section Township Range 7. Describe the current use of he property, and structures existing on the property. If any portion of the proposed activity is already completed on this property, indicate month and year of completion. . See "project narrative" . Is the property agricultural land? 0 Yes XX No Are you a USDA program participant? 0 Yes No � I 8. Describe the proposed activity, and the activity's purpose. Include'expected water quality and fish impacts, and proposed actions to reduce the duratidn and severity of those impacts and provide proper protection for fish life. Complete plans and specifications should be provided for all work waterward of the Ordinary High Water Mark or Line, including types Of equipment to be used, and for all work if applying for a shoreline permit. If additional space,is needed, please attach a separate sheet. . See "project na rative" . • • • • Preparation of drawings: See Appendix A- sample drawings and checklist for completing the drawings. One set of original or good quality r-producible drawings must be attached. NOTE: Applicants are encouraged to submit photographs of the project Lite, but these do not substitute for drawings. THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS REQUIRES DRAWINGS ON 8-1/2 X 11 INCH SHEETS. Larger drawings may be required by other agencies. Application Page 2 of 5 • 9. Proposed Starting Date: Summer ' 96 Estimated duration of activity: four months Will the project be constructed in stages? 0 Yes g7 No 10. Will any structures be placed: • a. waterward of the Ordinary High Water Mark or Line for fresh or tidal waters? 0 Yes GI No b. waterward of Mean High Water Line in tidal waters? ❑ Yes It No 11. Will fill material (rock, fill, bulkhead, pilings or other material) be placed waterward of Ordinary High Water Mark or Line for fresh or tidal waters? ❑ Yes la No a. If"yes,".in fresh water indicate volume in cubic yards: b. If"yes," in tidal waters, indicate volume in cubic yards waterward of the line of mean higher high water: 12. Will material be placed in wetlands? 0 Yes l No If yes, impacted area: (acres) If yes: a. Has a delineation been completed? El Yes ❑ No (If yes, please submit with application.) b. Type and composition of fill material (e.g., sand, etc.): c. Material source: d. List all soil series (type of soil) located at the project site, &indicate if they are on the county's list of hydric soils: Soils information can be obtained from the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), formerly Soil Conservation Service (SCS). 13. Will proposed activity cause flooding or draining of wetlands? 0 Yes C No If yes, impacted area: (acres) 14. Will excavation or dredging be required in water or wetlands? ❑ Yes El No If yes, volume: (cubic yards) a Composition of material removed: b. Disposal site foi excavated material: c. Method of dredging: 15. List other applications, approvals, or certifications from other Federal, state or local agencies for any structures, construction, discharges, or other activities described in the application(i.e., preliminary plat approval, health district approval, building permit, SEPA review, FERC license, Forest Practices Application, etc.) Also indicate whether work has been completed and indicate all existing work on drawings. Date of Date Completed? Type of Approval Issuing Agency Identification No. Application Approved Yes or No SEPA Renton 3/21/96 SEPA Lead Agency: SEPA Decision Date: Application Page 3 of 5 16. Has any agency denied approval for the activity described herein or for any activity directly related to the activity described herein? ❑ Y s CJ'No If yes, explain: SECTION B - Use for Shoreline&Corps of Engineers permits only: 17. Total cost of Project. Thi means the fair market value of the project, including materials, labor, machine rentals, etc. 1 . 8 million dol ars 1 18. Local government w/jurisdiction: City of Renton Shoreline Environment designation: Zoning designation: I L i 19. For corps permits, provide names, addresses, and telephone numbers of adjoining property owners, lessees, etc., See attached list . 1 1 1 PLEASE NOTE: Shore Me management compliance may require additional notice— consult your local government. I • SECTION C - Complete for any permit covered by this application! 20. Application is hereby made for a permit or permits to authorize the activities described herein. I certify that I am familiar with the information contained in this application, and that to the best of my knowledge and belief, such information is true, complete, and accurate. I further certify that II possess the authority to undertake the proposed activities. I hereby grant to the agencies to which this application is made, the right to enter the above-described location to inspect the proposed or completed work. . (:; .----:;? March 20 , 1996 Signature of Applicant or Authorized Agent (REQUIRED) Date Douglas Richardson . Signature of Landowner (REQUIRED if other than applicant) Date This application must be signed by the applicant. If an authorized agent is to be designated, the applicant must also sign at Item#3. - 18 U.S.0 §1001 provides that: Whoever,in any manner within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States knowingly falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact or makes any false, fictitious, or fraudulent statements or representations or makes or uses any false writing or document knowing same to contain any false, fictitious, or.fraudulent statement or entry, shall be fined not more than$10,000 or imprisoned not more than 5 years or both. Application Page 4 of 5 DO NOT SEND FEDERAL PROCESSING FEE WITH APPLICATION : . :... <::;<:'`::>"' . TO:BE`COMPLETED EY LOC.AL:OPFICIAL . .. .. . .: A:: Nature;of the existing shore ne: ::(Describe:type of:shoreline,such as marsne,streacim,lake,lagoon, marsh;tiog,swa np,flood plain, • floodway,delta type:of beach,such as accretion,erosion,hi bank,'low bank,or drke;;material:such:as sand,'giavel>uitid::clay, : . :.. roc ra •;and�extent:and:. e:o:: ea . :::>:;r: ::::;>pi::;:r::7.::: ;::>: ::.:-::;::<•:.• ?::r ]: :::.;. • B:, In the.event.that<any::o€the::Proposed::buildings:or structures::will::exceed a:hei t:of" five,feet'above:theaveia e: 'de level':::.::::::;: indicate:the,approximate location;of and:number of residentia]untts;:existrag and potential::that will have an obstructed view:.:.::::::>:;.::::::. .. .....;:.. C. If:the application:involves.a>conditional>use>or..:va lance set:forth;m full ahat:portion of the:master.program which provides that;the:.: . oseduse m be a conditio :: `::These Agencies are Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action employers. For special accommodation needs,please contact the appropriate agency from Appendix A. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Application Page 5 of 5 • ..� GEOTECH March 5, 1996 CONSULTANTS, INC. JN 96036- 13256 N.E.20th St.(Northup Way),Suite 16 Bellevue,WA 98005 (206)747-5618 FAX 747-8561 Anderson Richardson Company 300= 120th Avenue Northeast Building 2, Suite 217 Bellevue, Washington 98005 Attention: Douglas Richardson Subject: Geotechnical Engineering Study Proposed Springside Building Southwest 39th Street at Springbrook Creek Renton, Washington Dear Mr. Richardson: We are pleased to present'this geotechnical engineering report for the Springside building to be constructed in Renton, Washington. The scope of our work consisted of exploring site surface and subsurface conditions, and then developing this report to provide recommendations for general earthwork and design criteria for foundations, retaining walls, and pavements. You authorized our work by accepting our proposal, P-3793, dated January 30, 1996. The subsurface conditions of the proposed building site were explored with three test borings that revealed loose, alluvial silt and silty sand beneath the existing asphalt and 1 to 2 feet of gravelly sand fill. It is our opinion that the proposed structure can be supported on conventional footings placed over at least 2 feet of imported structural fill that bears on the native soil or existing fill. Preloading the site should be necessary only if large slab loads are anticipated or if some noticeable differential settlement in the structure is not allowable. The site soil is typically silty, and it has a relatively high moisture content. Wet weather earthwork should be avoided, if possible. The excavated soil will generally be unusable for structural fill. The existing pavement may experience some distress in heavily loaded truck traffic areas. • The attached report contains a discussion of the study and our recommendations. Please contact us, if there are any questions regarding this report or if we can be of further assistance during the design and construction phases of this project. 4b Respectfully submitte ` �� c,140 7�9 GEOTECH CONSULTA � C. '96' /0),1T N��tic t Marc R. McGinnis, P.E. Associate MRM:jcv �A • GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY Proposed Springside Building Southwest 39th Street at Springbrook Creek Renton, Washington This report presents the findings and recommendations of our geotechnical engineering study for the site of the proposed Springside office and warehouse building in Renton. The general location of the site is illustrated on the Vicinity Map, Plate 1. Development of the property is in the planning stage, and detailed plans were not available to us at the time of this report. We were provided with a lot map and a conceptual site plan. A copy of the water plan for the project site was also provided. Based on these plans and discussions with you, we anticipate that the proposed office and warehouse building will have a tilt-up concrete construction. The northern portion of the building will contain the warehouse, and truck loading will occur at the warehouse's northern end. At least part of the warehouse will be built several feet above the existing site grade to create dock-high truck loading. No heavy slab loads are anticipated. We anticipate that the existing pavement will remain around the proposed building for parking and drive lanes. SITE CONDITIONS Surface The site is an irregularly shaped lot situated immediately southwest of the cul-de-sac at the western end of Southwest 39th Street. This property has been used as a parking lot for the adjacent northern Boeing office complex for the last approximately nine years. Most of the site is covered with asphalt paving, and landscaped islands are scattered around the parking lot. Spririgbrook Creek is located immediately west of a low dike that extends along the western property line. A railroad spur extends along the southern and eastern sides of the site. Respectively east and south of this railroad spur are an asphalt parking lot and a large warehouse. The site is relatively flat, and the provided water plan indicates that the site grades vary between approximately 15 and 16 feet. This plan shows the top of the adjacent western dike to have an elevation of about 18 feet. Our field explorations were conducted after several days of unusually heavy rainfall, and the creek was flowing at an elevation near, or above, the average site grade. We noted that the catch basins for the storm drainage system in the parking lot were full. Water was standing above the rims of several catch basins. The existing asphalt pavement has been subjected to automobile loads, and it appears to have performed relatively well. We do not know if the parking lot has been overlaid in the past. • GEOTECH CONSULTANTS,INC. • Anderson Richardson Comr....y JN 96036 March 5, 1996 Page 2 Subsurface The subsurface conditions were explored by drilling three borings at the approximate locations shown on the Site Exploration Plan, Plate 2. The field exploration program was based upon the ' proposed construction and required design criteria, the site topography and access, the scope of work outlined in our proposal, and the time and budget constraints. The borings were drilled on February 8, 1996, using a truck-mounted, hollow-stem auger drill. Samples were 'taken at 5-foot intervals with a standard penetration sampler. This split-spoon sampler, which has a 2-inch outside diameter, is driven into the soil with a 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches. The number of blows required to advance the sampler a given distance is an indication of the soil density or consistency. A geotechnical engineer from our staff observed the • drilling process, logged the test borings, and obtained representative samples of the soil encountered. The Test Boring Logs are attached as Plates 3 through 5. The three test borings revealed generally similar soil conditions below the 3 to 4 inches of asphalt pavement. We found a thin layer of crushed rock beneath the asphalt, and 1 to 2 feet of gravelly, slightly silty to silty sand fill beneath the crushed rock. This fill was loose to medium-dense and appeared to have been at least moderately compacted. The native soil beneath the fill consisted of loose to medium-dense silt and silty sand. Silt and sand have been deposited in the Kent/Renton Valley over a long period of time by the Green River and other watercourses that have flowed into the valley. We also encountered occasional thin lenses of organics and peat within the alluvial deposits. The final logs represent our interpretations of the field logs. The stratification lines on the logs represent the approximate boundaries between soil types at the exploration locations. The actual transition between soil types may be gradual, and subsurface conditions can vary between exploration locations. The logs provide specific subsurface information only at the locations tested. If a transition in soil type occurred between samples in the borings, the depth of the transition was interpreted. The relative densities and moisture descriptions indicated on the test boring logs are interpretive descriptions based on the conditions observed during drilling. Groundwater Groundwater seepage was immediately below the asphalt pavement in two of the three borings, and we encountered groundwater seepage at a depth of 2 feet in Boring 3. As discussed above, the level of Springbrook Creek was near the existing site grades at the time of our borings, and this likely caused the extremely high water levels observed during our field work. Water levels in the Kent/Renton Valley are typically found at a depth of 5 to 10 feet, depending on the time of year and the amount of recent rainfall. Groundwater levels below the site will be influenced by the level of Springbrook Creek. • CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS General Based on our observations and the results of the test borings, it is our opinion that the proposed development is feasible from a geotechnical engineering standpoint. The alluvial soil that is under GEOTECH CONSULTANTS,INC. Anderson Richardson Comr.:;..y JN 96036 March 5, 1996 Page 3 the site is moderately compressible, but it appears that the commercial building can be supported on conventional foundations without first preloading the building pad. The use of conventional foundations assumes that some detectable differential settlement in the walls and floor slabs is acceptable. All footings should be placed on at least 2 feet of imported, gravelly, structural fill placed above the existing fill or native soil that is under the pavement. The asphalt should be removed within the building footprint to expose existing utilities for abandonment and to verify that no overly soft soil is present near the surface. If more that about 2 feet of fill will be placed above the existing grade for the slab areas, the fill should be placed to the subgrade elevation, and then it should be allowed to sit and consolidate the underlying soil for at least one month before slab and foundation construction. Reinforcing the slab floors with steel bars should be considered, if concentrated rack loads will be applied. Preloading should only be necessary if heavy slab loads are anticipated. The relatively high groundwater levels at the site could cause difficulties both during and following construction. We anticipate that groundwater is often near the existing ground elevation during the wet season, and this should be considered in setting final grades within and around the building. The existing storm drainage system, if reused for the proposed project, should be analyzed for adequacy in the event of high groundwater levels. The site soil is generally silty and typically wet. Reusing the excavated soil for structural fill beneath the building, the pavement, or other structural areas will not be feasible. This should be considered in the budget for underground utilities, as the backfill will need to be imported. The silty, on-site soil will be susceptible to softening under equipment traffic. Wet weather earthwork will certainly be more difficult and costly, particularly if groundwater levels are high at the time of utility installation. We anticipate that at least portions of the existing pavement will remain and be incorporated into the new development. The existing pavement appears to have performed well under automobile loading; it appears to consist of at least 3 inches of asphalt concrete over a thin layer of crushed rock and 1 to 2 feet of imported, gravelly sand fill. We anticipate that this pavement will likely perform fairly well under future automobile and truck traffic. Some distress or subgrade softening may be encountered in areas of frequent, repetitive truck traffic, particularly when groundwater levels are near their highest. The existing fill and native soil beneath the pavement are susceptible to softening under heavy traffic loading when they are wet. Geotech Consultants, Inc. should be allowed to review the final development plans to verify that the recommendations presented in this report are adequately addressed in the design. Such a plan review would be additional work beyond the current scope of work for this study, and it may include revisions to our recommendations to accommodate site, development, and geotechnical constraints that become more evident during the review process. Conventional Foundations The proposed structure can be supported on conventional continuous and spread footings bearing on at least 2 feet of imported, gravelly, structural fill placed above the native soil or fill presently beneath the existing pavement. See the later sub-section entitled General Earthwork and Structural Fill for recommendations regarding the placement and compaction of structural fill beneath structures. We recommend that continuous and individual spread footings have GEOTECH CONSULTANTS,INC. ' Anderson Richardson Corn, ly JN 96036 • March 5, 1996 Page 4 • minimum widths of 16 and 24 inches, respectively. They should be bottomed at least-12 inches below the lowest adjacent finish ground surface for frost protection. The local building codes should be reviewed to determine if different footing widths or embedment depths are required. An allowable bearing pressure of 2,000 pounds per square foot (psf) is appropriate for footings constructed according to the above recommendations. A one-third increase in this design bearing pressure may be used when considering short-term wind or seismic loads. For the above design criteria, it is anticipated that the total post-construction settlement of footings will be about 2 to 3 inches, with differential settlements on the order of 1 inch in a distance of 100 feet along a continuous footing. These anticipated settlements are in the range of typical settlements for other commercial buildings in the area. Lateral loads due to wind or seismic forces may be resisted by friction between the foundation and the bearing soil, or by passive earth pressure acting on the vertical, embedded portions of the foundation. For the latter condition, the foundation must be either poured directly against relatively level, undisturbed soil or surrounded by level, structural fill. We recommend using the following design values for the foundation's resistance to lateral loading: Parameter Design Value Coefficient of Friction 0.35 Passive Earth Pressure 300 pcf Where: 1. pcf is pounds per cubic foot. 2. Passive earth pressure is computed using the equivalent fluid density. If the ground in front of the foundation is loose or sloping, the passive earth pressure given above will not be appropriate. We recommend a safety factor of at least 1.5 for the foundation's resistance to lateral loading, when using the above design values. Seismic Considerations The site is located within Seismic Zone 3 as illustrated on Figure No. 23-2 of the 1991 Uniform Building Code (UBC). In accordance with Table 23-J of the 1991 UBC, the site soil profile is best represented by Profile Type S4. The saturated soil that is under the site is susceptible to seismic liquefaction in a moderate to large earthquake. The liquefaction hazard is reduced by supporting footings on structural fill and designing the structure for Profile Type S4. Slabs-on-Grade The building floors may be constructed as slabs-on-grade atop at least 12 inches of structural fill. The subgrade soil must be in a firm, non-yielding condition at the time of slab construction or underslab fill placement. Any soft areas encountered should be excavated and replaced with select, imported, structural fill. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS,INC. Anderson Richardson Com_, y JN 96036 March 5, 1996 Page 5 All slabs-on-grade should be underlain by a capillary break or drainage layer consisting of a minimum 4-inch thickness of coarse, free-draining, structural fill with a gradation similar to that discussed later in Permanent Foundation and Retaining Walls. In areas where the passage of moisture through the slab is undesirable, a vapor barrier, such as a 6-mil plastic membrane, should be placed beneath the slab. Additionally, sand should be used in the fine-grading process to reduce damage to the vapor barrier, to provide uniform support under the slab, and to reduce shrinkage cracking by improving the concrete curing process. We recommend placing concrete slabs over at least 1 foot of structural fill to provide more uniform support for the slab where the subgrade is soft or settles more rapidly than the surrounding ground. Isolation joints should be provided where the slabs intersect columns and walls. Control and expansion joints should also be used to control cracking from expansion and contraction. Saw cuts or preformed strip joints used to control shrinkage cracking should extend through the upper one-fourth of the slab. The spacing of control or expansion joints depends on the slab shape and the amount of steel placed in it. Permanent Foundation and Retaining Walls Retaining walls backfilled on only one side should be designed to resist the lateral earth pressures imposed by the soil they retain. The following recommended design parameters are for walls that restrain level backfill: Parameter Design Value Active Earth Pressure* 40 pcf Passive Earth Pressure 300 pcf Coefficient of Friction 0.35 Soil Unit Weight 130 pcf Where: • 1. pcf is pounds per cubic foot. 2. Active and passive earth pressures are computed using the equivalent fluid densities. * For restrained walls that cannot deflect at least 0.002 times their height, a uniform lateral pressure equal to 10 psf times the height of a wall, should be added to the above active equivalent fluid pressure. The values given above are to be used to design permanent foundation and retaining walls only. The passive pressure given is appropriate for the depth of level, structural fill placed in front of a retaining or foundation wall only. We recommend a safety factor of at least 1.5 for overturning and sliding, when using the above recommended values to design the walls. The design values given above do not include the effects of any hydrostatic pressures behind the walls and assume that no surcharge slopes or loads, such as vehicles, will be placed behind the GEOTECH CONSULTANTS,INC. Anderson Richardson JN 96036 March 5, 1996 Page 6 walls. If these conditions exist, those pressures should be added to the above lateral soil pressures. Also, if sloping backfill is desired behind the walls, we will need to be given the wall dimensions and the slope of the backfill in order to provide the appropriate design earth pressures. The surcharge due to traffic loads behind a wall can typically be accounted for by adding a uniform pressure equal to 2 feet multiplied by the above active fluid density. Heavy construction equipment should not be operated behind retaining and foundation walls within a distance equal to the height of a wall, unless the walls are designed for the additional . lateral pressures resulting from the equipment. The compaction of backfill near the walls should be accomplished with hand-operated equipment to prevent the walls from being overloaded by the higher soil forces that occur during compaction. Retaining Wall Backfill Backfill placed behind retaining or foundation walls should be coarse, free-draining, structural fill containing no organics. This backfill should contain no more than 5 percent silt or clay particles and have no gravel greater than 4 inches in diameter. The percentage of particles passing the No. 4 sieve should be between 25 and 70 percent. For increased protection, drainage composites should be placed along cut slope faces, and the walls should be backfilled with pervious soil. The purpose of these backfill requirements is to ensure that the design criteria for a retaining wall are not exceeded because of a build-up of hydrostatic pressure behind the wall. The top 12 to 18 inches of the backfill should consist of a relatively impermeable soil or topsoil, or the surface should be paved. The sub-section entitled General Earthwork and Structural Fill contains recommendations regarding the placement and compaction of structural fill behind retaining and foundation walls. Excavations and Slopes No:significant excavated slopes are anticipated other than for utility trenches. Excavation slopes should not exceed the limits specified in local, state, and national government safety regulations. Temporary cuts to a depth of about 4 feet may be attempted vertically in unsaturated soil, if there are no indications of slope instability. Based upon Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 296, Part N, the soil type at the subject site would be classified as Type C above the groundwater table. Temporary cut slopes that do not encounter seepage should not be excavated at an inclination steeper than 1.5:1 (Horizontal:Vertical), extending continuously between the top and the bottom of a cut. Dewatering, and possibly excavation shoring, will be needed for temporary excavations that encounter groundwater and caving soil. The above-recommended temporary slope inclination is based on what has been successful at other sites with similar soil conditions. Temporary cuts are those that will remain unsupported for a relatively short duration to allow for the construction of foundations, retaining walls, or utilities. Temporary cut slopes should be protected with plastic • sheeting during wet weather. The cut slopes should also be backfilled or retained as soon as possible to reduce the potential for instability. Please note that loose, wet soil can cave suddenly and without warning. Utility contractors should be made especially aware of this potential danger. Fill slopes should not be constructed with an inclination greater than 2:1 (H:V). To reduce the potential for shallow sloughing, fill must be compacted to the face of these slopes. This could be • GEOTECH CONSULTANTS,INC. Anderson Richardson Comr.;..y JN 96036 March 5, 1996 Page 7 accomplished by overbuilding the compacted fill and then trimming it back to its final inclination. Water should not be allowed to flow uncontrolled over the top of any temporary or permanent slope. Also, all permanently exposed slopes should be seeded with an appropriate species of vegetation to reduce erosion and improve the stability of the surficial layer of soil. Drainage Considerations We recommend the use of footing drains at the base of footings, where (1) crawl spaces or basements will be below a structure, (2) a slab is below the outside grade, or (3) the outside grade does not slope downward from a building. Drains should also be placed at the base of all backfilled, earth-retaining walls. Footing drains are often needed if loading dock areas are recessed below the surrounding grade. All these drains should be surrounded by at least 6 inches of 1-inch-minus, washed rock and then wrapped in non-woven, geotextile filter fabric (Mirafi 140N, Supac 4NP, or similar material). At its highest point, a perforated pipe invert should be at least as low as the bottom of the footing, and it should be sloped for drainage. All roof and surface water drains must be kept separate from the foundation drain system. A typical drain detail is attached to this report as Plate 6. For the best long-term performance, perforated PVC pipe is recommended for the footing drains. Shallow groundwater was observed during our field work. If seepage is encountered in an excavation, it should be drained from the site by directing it through drainage ditches, perforated pipe, or French drains, or by pumping it from sumps interconnected by shallow connector trenches at the bottom of the excavation. The excavation and site should be graded so that surface water is directed off the site and away from the tops of slopes. Water should not be allowed to stand in any area where foundations, slabs, or pavements are to be constructed. Final site grading in areas adjacent to the building and any retaining structures should slope away at least 2 percent, except where an area is paved. General Earthwork and Structural Fill All building and pavement areas should be stripped of surface vegetation, topsoil, organic soil, and other deleterious material. The existing pavement should be removed in at least the building footprint. The stripped or removed materials should not be mixed with any materials to be used as structural fill, but they could be used in non-structural areas, such as landscape beds. Structural fill is defined as any fill placed under a building, behind permanent retaining or foundation walls, or in other areas where the underlying soil needs to support loads. All structural fill should be placed in horizontal lifts with a moisture content at, or near, the optimum moisture content. The optimum moisture content is.that moisture content that results in the greatest compacted dry density. The moisture content of fill is very important and must be closely controlled during the filling and compaction process. The allowable thickness of the fill lift will depend on the material type selected, the compaction equipment used, and the number of passes made to compact the lift. The loose lift thickness should not exceed 12 inches. We recommend testing the fill as it is placed. If the fill is not GEOTECH CONSULTANTS,INC. Anderson Richardson Corr, _ iy JN 96036 March 5, 1996 Page 8 compacted to specifications, it can be recompacted before another lift is placed. This eliminates the need to remove the fill to achieve the required compaction. The following table presents recommended relative compactions for structural fill: Minimum Location of Fill Placement Relative Compaction Beneath footings, slabs, 95% or walkways Behind retaining walls 90% Beneath pavements 95% for upper 12 inches of subgrade, 90% below that level Where: Minimum Relative Compaction is the ratio, expressed in percentages, of the compacted dry density to the maximum dry density, as determined in accordance with ASTM Test Designation D 1557-78 (Modified Proctor). Structural fill that will be placed in wet weather should consist of a coarse, granular soil with a silt or clay content of no more than 5 percent. The percentage of particles passing the No. 200 sieve should be measured from that portion of soil passing the three-quarter-inch sieve. LIMITATIONS The analyses, conclusions, and recommendations contained in this report are based on site conditions as they existed at the time of our exploration and assume that the soil encountered in the borings is representative of subsurface conditions on the site. If the subsurface conditions encountered during construction are significantly different from those observed in our explorations, we should be advised at once so that we can review these conditions and reconsider our recommendations where necessary. Unanticipated soil conditions are commonly encountered on construction sites and cannot be fully anticipated by merely taking soil samples in test borings. Subsurface conditions can also vary between exploration locations. Such unexpected conditions frequently require making additional expenditures to attain a properly constructed project. It is recommended that the owner consider providing a contingency fund to accommodate such potential extra costs and risks. This is a standard recommendation for all projects. • This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of the Anderson Richardson Company and its representatives for specific application to this project and site. Our recommendations and conclusions are based on observed site materials, and selective laboratory testing and engineering analyses. Our conclusions and recommendations are professional opinions derived in accordance with current standards of practice within the scope of our services and within budget and time constraints. No warranty is expressed or implied. The scope of our services GEOTECH CONSULTANTS,INC. Anderson Richardson Corny' -.'y _ JN 96036 March 5, 1996 Page 9 does not include services related to construction safety precautions, and our recommendations are not intended to direct the contractor's methods, techniques, sequences, or procedures, except as.specifically described in our report for consideration in design. We recommend including this report, in its entirety, in the project contract documents so the contractor.may be aware of our findings. ADDITIONAL SERVICES In addition to reviewing the final plans, Geotech Consultants, Inc. should be retained to provide geotechnical consultation, testing, and observation services during construction. This is to confirm that subsurface conditions are consistent with those indicated by our exploration, to evaluate whether earthwork and foundation construction activities comply with the intent of contract plans , and specifications, and to provide recommendations for design changes in the event subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated prior to the start of construction. However, our work would not include the supervision or direction of the actual work of the contractor and its employees or agents. Also,job and site safety, and dimensional measurements, will be the responsibility of the contractor. The following plates are attached and complete this report: Plate 1 Vicinity Map Plates 3 - 5 Test Boring Logs Plate 2 Site Exploration Plan Plate 6 Footing Drain Detail We appreciate the opportunity to be of service on this project. If you have any questions, or if we may be of further service, please do not hesitate to contact us. Respectfully submitted, GEOT 1JLTANT NC. . � rA Vr ASI, et, f , ,'( z.,-.0-0,/ ..% AL+� +• u 3/0f k-.^ ' J EXPIRES 10/25/97 1 Marc R. McGinnis, P.E. Associate ) 't74i. James R. Finley, Jr., P.E. Principal MRM/JRF:djs • GEOTECH CONSULTANTS,INC. •• 1 m a �`I% , u- I 1,, 16' PARK�I 9 �.. S ;Ts7TH 'STi�L/9 • • '.�::.: Iqt 1S GL = ^> S Zii .•f7�IDENT.',:`\ ti0 <1Wyu I o �H\OTHST~ wY S RENiDN VII s lA• = N tagTH s Et, � •PARK':'\ ^ I f1 <Q ~ n ST _ "' ISTH D STy s,,'ii G ,:;�":��::..' • �, Gq I '�l'u, fiR ' T > ' � ✓ � • '•' �� pV�,.���� R� < u3i 13TH� 473TH � a ;; ° PLT 3'�IS• y�io.L.Illi T 1..�srQ a s 1 �� l ti�� \\\ I SW �• 16,H - �.• vl c■CC 12 c Q • • /, 5�153RD K. i'S. I I: Z W ill_ m < `_I l✓. `Ovr \\ _ TUK7Y'/LA• O_ f I S�or q .._. Il c I R •CNM11 pAM !r0 7 `: N 9� 1 1; SEET : 9� s19TH 23RD T� 5r sr ♦•♦♦♦ ♦ ♦�♦j♦BAKER BLVD I;Zr.,, tT I�ia I '"�, g D - : ST �. . ©� � : :;; RENTQN � �c ��v ♦ w jet NB,C-N7ENNIA 1 `3 • .�.• 1 PARK:- I R10N _1; == eJ> • 7 -ye\ 7 III a ,-r�'\- :: 2.1 I - o c y 1- '3' STRANDER BLVD w I 1;J ' 1 SW 27TH ST 1�. a n J I l�f� it r c S 16NTH I �r->p-1 yJ y - 1 I I S27rR '� t --1ST I TRECK DR i INDO .c $ II 2i 1 < .� \'L -22 1 y I E > < ' O'Q"1'i ? =1 ' kg 1 l 4A s5'N 29TH ST i Jy'h o ITH5T 5 169TE1 - I m 2 6P {i 2 5 y I y ST C I (16 I f CHRIST- �• ' I } Rl ENSEN �: p j535D SW 3757 ] IT241_1I T > 1 LL '� C I DR N I I / Ij'1 < I , I 1 11 1 • I SW ,341,1 CORPORATE I i S7CO I �' I DR 5 UINKLeR BLVD I \ I >- •% -I__ - -a COhuAUNITY-LPWD-0R I -I_�� -1 _ - -- --- -T w- �` 5ir«..L,T ✓- ICC I -� Ift 8 ST T. J g EMERGENCY i '� ?!' O J Q q 3!!H S i. CENTER ° I F'a• I I f< I S 3•,T 1 gip I 1 __ I NIDL:.ND OR I CdC I•I I y S'N y G ;H 5T I CT !, LAKE / 'PK /I I r I Y I I w Y • 3TH I SAXCN. !OR vl I o SW 41ST ST ! VALLEY S 177751/ e_ H iRILAND DR I ILS S 130TH ST^ . r� �: SIN �I 1 43Rp I ST 1 > <• I ! SECALEPARK � 0 t S y 181ST :_T •.. -S—t .. I180TH 7..—•• ST .7 i ono L • > + I y) \ < i. i i >! I QPJ O �!/ 3 Y1� < ▪ RI�ERSIDE ! S 182NDi ":'`_.' _ II Q. ' P / - cLC-__▪ /-Di _ O_ ST -_ i I - I -F` - i S 45TH - - I.- GREENSELT .A _Ur_TODD.<BL •: 3I 36 ! y ' I 31 �� a1 �i < s I JQ I 1 ~ ti� SEc �� SQL4 . s1E6rHr_y 1 Q I y I I •��,. �, iZ S (PATH ST CI1 S 188TH ST C 1187TH C i I' _°F:$CO " ' < 'i • I I -ST~ LL! ! f48.C: •-•---- > h'' I - F- J 715 , C') ST -,.,\/ S oJiH �' —5 9pTH ST $ S 1 JTH STD jji • 19''tD _ST_y 1 S 15aN0 57c. •�}-- _ __ } - -ti- �E` / ND 57 \ S192ND S 192ND ST � i l KENTI I .. I S 19sTH • ST ;_ �I SO i 5 193TH 5T 1 1E. . Ei -__ S 195TH ST I J qq1 N ' ) I F r I 1 1�, 196TH ST 1 1 7 • ;... �y VICINITY MAP GEOTECH SW 39th STREET AT CONSULTANTS SPRINGBROOK CREEK RENTON, WA .� Job No.: Dote:FEB 1996 Logged By: Hole: "'-����+----may 96036 4_ fc, G�(c OOP / B-1 Q. ` SW 39th STREET 5 B-3 B-2 PROPOSED 4D OFFICE/ WAREHOUSE OQ' LEGEND: e APPROXIMATE BORING LOCATIONS SITE EXPLORATION PLAN GEOTECH SW 39th STREET AT CONSULTANTS SPRINGBROOK CREEK RENTON, WA Job No.: Dole: Plate: 96036 FEB 1996 2 � BORING 1 • C r S +1 �3 C % 4 4;tY Q USCS Description • 4" asphalt over crushed rock base FILL Brown, gravelly, silty SAND, wet, loose to medium-dense 1 9 I Gray, non-plastic SILT with iron stains and organics, wet, loose 5 — 2 9 ML -becomes dark gray Black, slightly silty, fine-grained SAND with peat lenses, wet, to — loose to medium-dense _ 3 11 SP 15 — SM 4 22 �` 20 — 5 7 -with occasional silt lenses Test boring terminated at 21.5 feet below grade on 2-8-96. 25 — Groundwater seepage was encountered at 0.5 feet during drilling. 30 —35 — 40 — • TEST BORING LOG GEOTECH SW 39th STREET AT CONSULTANTS,INC. SPRINGBROOK CREEK RENTON, WA Job No: Date: Logged by: Plate: 96036 FEB 1996 JHS 3 it, N. \Q Soo BORING 2 Otis fi��, ,��Q 0 t� CG° S� „0 Q. USCS Description - - 3" asphalt over crushed rock base FILL Brown, slightly silty, gravelly, medium-to coarse-grained SAND, wet, medium-dense to dense 1 22 I Gray, very silty,very fine-grained SAND with iron stains,very 5 — moist, medium-dense • 2 14 1:sM -becomes mixed with gray silt lenses �ML 10 3 3 I iu ti Gray, low plasticity SILT with organics, wet, loose ffrrlr E.' Dark brown, fibrous PEAT, moist, loose • — _ = Black, fine-to medium-grained, slightly silty SAND, wet, _=- medium-dense 15 — <. — 4 24 I ';;< _ . • SM • 20 — -becomes silty with gray silt lenses 5 27 Test boring terminated at 21.5 feet below grade on 2-8-96. Groundwater seepage was encountered at 0.5 feet during drilling. 25 — 30 35 — 40 — TEST BORING LOG GEOTECH SW 39th STREET AT - CONSULTANTS,INC. SPRINGBROOK CREEK RENTON, WA 'Job No: Date: Logged by: Plate: 96036 FEB 1996 JHS 4 `�� BORING 3 to Q� ` '°G°, • 4, USCS Description 3" asphalt over crushed rock base I FILL Brown, slightly silty, gravelly SAND, wet, medium-dense _ 1 Gray, low plasticity SILT with iron stains, wet, loose 5 — 2 8 -with organics and some black, silty SAND 10 — 3 11 I ML -with lenses of organic silt and peat • is -- 4 8 '-0 — 5 24 Black, slightly silty, fine-to medium-grained SAND, wet, I shtsY \ medium-dense Test boring terminated at 21.5 feet below grade on 2-8-96. 25 — Groundwater seepage was encountered at 2 feet during drilling. • 30 — • 35 -- 40 --- • TEST BORING LOG GEOTECH SW 39th STREET AT CONSULTANTS,INC. SPRINGBROOK CREEK RENTON, WA Job No: Date: Logged by: Plate: 96036 FEB 1996 JHS 5 ® 1 Slope bockfill owoy from foundation. • � T/GHTL/NE ROOF DRAIN /• Do not connect to footing drain. BACKFILL Seetext for 1 VAPOR BARB/ER requirements. SLAB WASHED ROCK o.°. .'°': "\; nL �, ., 4"min. FREE-DRAINI SAND/GRAVELG NONWOVEN GEOTEXTIL E FILTER FABRIC 4"PERFORATED HARD PVC PIPE Invert at least as /ow os footing and/or crawl space. Slope to drain. Place weepholes downward. • =� FOOTING DRAIN DETAIL GEOTECH SW 39th STREET AT CONSULTANTS SPRINGBROOK CREEK RENTON, WA Is Job No.: Gale: Scale: Plate, 6 96036 FEB 1996 N.T.S. STORMWATER DRAINAGE REPORT FOR BURLINGTON NORTHERN INDUSTRIAL PARK LOT 6 OFFICE/WAREHOUSE FACILITY RENTON, WASHINGTON 14-0 March 18, 1996 °E CO`��9� 1998 FOP 1P RC4Iy o:Ni/vG 0 LYE • WAs 4) I fr. Prepared for: Anderson Richardson Company �o fr �z e2 300 - 120th Avenue N.E. �GISTER�� Building 2, Suite 217 n/ ' ssjoNAL E�- i Bellevue, WA 98005 /44& !EXPIRES 8/30/ 7 Engineering _��� Planning %`y Surveying Penhallegon Associates Consulting Engineers, Inc. 750 SIXTH STREET KIRKLAND, WA 98033 (206) 827-2014 Anderson Richardson Company New Office/Warehouse Facility Drainage Report March 18, 1996 Pace Job# 96517 Project Description: The site of the proposed office/warehouse facility is approximately 3.70 acres in size and is located at the end of the cul-de-sac on S.W. 39th Street just west of Raymond Avenue and east of Springbrook Creek in Renton Washington. The site is currently a parking lot and was constructed by the Boeing Company in late 1985. The site is flat with typical parking stalls and planters associated with parking lots. The site is bordered to the north by S.W. 39th Street. Railroad tracks and the proposed Pac-Rim warehouse border the site to the east. The west side of the site is bordered by Springbrook Creek and to the south is a commercial building. Both accesses to the site are from the north from S.W. 39th Street. Proposed development of the site consists of an 38,000 square foot office and warehouse facility. Minor grading will occur to achieve a smooth transition from the new building to the existing asphalt. Most earthwork will be fine grading with asphalt and no major earthwork will be required for the proposed building construction. Site Drainage Features: Currently site runoff is controlled by the onsite storm and detention system. The existing system consists of 12" to 18" diameter storm drain pipes and catch basins for the conveyance of stormwater runoff Detention for the site is contained in the same existing catch basins, storm pipes, and also provided by surface ponding. A plan of the original storm system design has been attached to this report as reference. Due to the location of the proposed building, the entire storm system except the flow control structure must be removed and relocated. The existing surface ponding will be eliminated since the overflow will be lowered to elevation 16.5 from 18.5. The new location of surface ponding will only be in the two loading dock areas. In order to provide an equal amount of detention volume that is being removed, a pipe detention system with a detention vault is proposed for this project. All volume lost due to the placement of the building will be replaced with similar size pipes and storm structures for the proposed storm detention system. The control structure will be altered, however, the diameter of the orifice has been changed to maintain the same allowable outflow rate that currently exists. The majority of the required detention volume will be provided by surface ponding in the loading dock area and the detention vault 1 Anderson Richardson Company New Office/Warehouse Facility Drainage Report March 18, 1996 Pace Job# 96517 Core and Special Requirements: Core Requirement#1: Discharge at the Natural Location - This project will discharge stormwater runoff in the same storm system as the existing system, and thereby satisfies this core requirement. Core Requirement #2: Off-Site Analysis • The proposed new impervious surface for this project_is less than 5,000 square feet and therefore is exempt from this core requirement. Core Requirement#3: Runoff Control - The proposed new impervious surface for this project is less than 5,000 square feet and therefore is exempt from this core requirement. This project has an existing detention system that will be modified and is discussed within this report. Core Requirement #4: Conveyance System- The existing conveyance system will be modified and is discussed later in this report. Core Requirement#5: Erosion/Sedimentation Control Plan- See engineering plans for the project erosion control. This project does not propose major earthwork excavation . Erosion control for this project will mostly consist of catch basin interim protection. Sedimentation ponds, swales, etc. will not be required for this project. Special Requirements: There are no Special Requirements that are applicable to this project. 2 • Anderson Richardson Company New Office/Warehouse Facility Drainage Report March 18, 1996 Pace,Job# 96517 Conveyance and Detention System Modifications Calculations: As previously stated in this report, the existing conveyance and detention system for this site will be modified. Attached as part of this report are the original design plans and calculations for this project's existing storm system basin. The intent of the proposed storm detention system is to replace all storage volume removed without increasing the allowable release rate of the.site. The maximum ponding elevation will be lowered to elevation 16.5 • According to the original design plans and calculations, the total amount of required storage for the site is 4,278 cubic feet. On the following page is a summary of the proposed storm detention system and a summary of volumes of the proposed structures and storm drain pipes. Catch basin numbers are in accordance with the new design. Size Orifice- According to the original design report of the existing parking lot, the maximum allowable release rate for this project's tributary basin is 0.26CFS. Since allowable outflow is less than 1CFS only one orifice will be required. Orifice Equation= Q=Ca(2gH)^.5 Qauowable= 0.26CFS H= 16.50(Prop. overflow elev.) - 11.50(Prop. inv. elev. @ control manhole). = 5.0 feet C = 0.62 g= 32.2ft/s^2 a = Area of orifice -to be determined Qanowable= 0.26CFS = 0:62a(2*32.2*5.0)^0.5 Solving for a = 0.02337 square feet_ d =Diameter of orifice = (4*a/Tt)^0.5 = (4*.02337/7t)^.5 d =2.07 inches= 2 1/16" Use sharp edged-shop drilled orifice with 2 3/16" diameter. 3 . .. . . .. , . PEN. EGON ASSOCIATES CONSULTING ENGINEERS.„.....:. . • 4 4 ... ........- ... . . VttitiOtMAtWtataaftdg:Ulltt.MMMIiiiiiMigMiiiiiMiiiiiiiiiii.MMGgggigaiilii 3/18/96 STORAGE REQUIRED: 4278.0 cu ft STORAGE PROVIDED: 4283.2 Cu ft NET DIFFERENCE: 5.2 cu ft (additional) . ' DEPTH FROM OVERFLOW MANHOLE DIAMETER(in) AREA(sq ft) VOLUME(cu ft) TO INVERT(ft) CB#1 "5.00 (Control MH) 54.00 15.90 79.52 CB#2 3.50 Type I 3.97 13.90 CB#3 2.99 48.00 . 12.57 37.57 . CB#4 ' 2.74 . Type I 3.97 . 10.88 CB#5 . 2.26 Type I • 3.97 8.98 , CB#6 2.10 Type I 3.97 8.34 CB#7 1.00 Type I 3.97 3.97 CB#8 1.00 Type I 3.97 3.97 CB#9 3.30 Type I 3.97 13.11 180.25 CF LENGTH OF PIPE(ft) PIPE DIAMETER(in) AREA(sq ft) VOLUME(cu ft) CB-CB 1-2 195 12 0.79 153.15 2-3 136 12 0.79 106.81 3-4 63 12 0.79 49.48 4-5 118 12 0.79 92.68 5-6 39 12 0.79 30.63 6-7 53 12 0.79 41.63 8-6 53 8 0.35 18.50 9-1 115 12 . 0.79 90.32 Subtotal 583.20 CF 'ENTION VAULT (Inside Dimensions) Depth Width Length " Volume (feet) (feet) (feet) 5 20 24 2400 CF . . . ..• SURFACE PONDING AT LOADING DOCK AREA Total Volume= 1062 CF (North Loading Dock) Total Volume= 234 CF (South Loading Dock) 1101WIMMI194001•100.400.1.MI . . DETSTORG.XLS 4 • • Anderson Richardson Company New Office/Warehouse Facility ( i Drainage Report March 18, 1996 Pace Job# 96517 - Temporary Erosion/Sedimentation Control: All erosion/sedimentation control facilities can be seen on sheet C l. Interim CB protection will be the only erosion control required for this project. No other calculations or facilities are required or provided for this project. 5 Anderson Richardson Company New;Ofice/Warehouse Facility Drainage Report March 18, 1996 Pace Job# 96517 EXISTING PARKING LOT DESIGN CALCULATIONS Note: The attached calculations are only the relevant portion of the total calculations for the existing parking lot. This project only proposes to modify a small portion of the overall parking area. The drainage basin that this project lies within was termed Basin"A" of Parcel No. 2. The attached calculations only show values for this project's portion of the existing site. • COMPUTATION SHEET = JOB NO. Z-3 -Of DATE 2.4 ,:g•••-- SHEET OF ESM inc. JOB NAME 7.0..1.7 - COMP.BY CHK.BY A CIVIL ENGINEERING.LAND SURVEY.AND PROJECT MANAGEMENT CONSULTING FIRM 451 Southwest 10th Street Suite 106 Renton,Washington 98055 CONTENTS _...-14;-• (206)228-5628 \ .fo ' • /-• . L 1 - _ : ••••-, 117 ; ‘LS A_ tic.)7a-C A - • tNI A _ A = _ s•02-- A-- 0. • - S ) 4 I L= 4(c_73 4/ Taz, = 0 "1i\E. CgatTssr - In C-L.flc-I . (31S-)( n • • 2•C' 1--42r ID • 2- t\'(•-• 4.7 • —17+-V.F.:c; — t' G. 5- 2-(0, -2-o ) 2.02— cucr ' COMPUTATION SHEET JOB NO. �,7 - - D DATE_. ` 124- IG V SHEET OF ESM inc. .�.I JOB NAME • �7=2:�T:*I -_y y — Kizr%-fir.-: �F2 4 r, a r A CIVIL ENGINEERING.LAND SURVEY.AND PROJECT MANAGEMENT COMP.BY Fes-- CHK.BY CONSULTING FIRM - -- . 1 r 451 Southwest 10th Street Suite 106 Renton,Washington 98055 CONTENTS 1/1Zs"-i/�i?�» `-'=C `'1 12061228-5628 C �. C.R.,.r Ar�.. - -- -- 0-77s�-cam} -�.4- I T ;�� � ( Te1/41 r i - C�c—,`-=---- Det_,ri"7:": �r,:,t.hr,or:5 / D y r< `Jra,--r^ 1- r S I r _ . Vs �� C1�: .� — .ram• .: ;Occv- , U I -. V1 5 — _,— - -� r,i ' -' - +;..�, . J) Nei _ ,-.l . ,_`', _ _ - i . i . r ' COMPUTATION SHEET — = _. ; . DATE — "� SHEET OF JOB NO. ESM inc. JOB NAME 'L^�.r16-, s>z.��'G.,.- . - f�f--,,---,-g - _ . .r.D'_' A CIVIL ENGINEERING.LAND SURVEY,AND PROJECT MANAGEMENT COMP.BY ----1-- -- CHK.BY CONSULTING FIRM .— -1 ! 451 Southwest 10th Street Suite 106 Renton,Washington 98055 CONTENTS f42«=" =z+- , '-4i C . _ 12061 228-5628 . 1f t(l�l,L, A2.r✓r"•. -�?rJD!�r`�� ~At At .- _ IYo •.` ..._ 1' AS .� A _ ` I Cz'S W/ . fttzer� A- c3 ._ . L�. . . _. . /o u m C . . . . . . e-gNpinl C7- . ':"'TZ 1-'k?— — -.t- _. ._. _C.C. _... ... . _. . ..__ 4 Z . .ZU4 . .- . . _ d,S i 7 • ii 23 5-77(„ : D 0•5 9(,,3 • 4 7 4- _ 2.E30 0 0.5 ff 4-7 Z . ?SS I 35? . G11 0 0. 1 ` .. 233(. J 0. 5— 3 3o4-O Ii D �• c 57.77 • 2S c� idT \r'o,.L,,.. `� _ 4, z7e <o (Pa, c) ) - -ppn(D i NI!, `./o l.L,t_(`y! = 3(0 7 -,3 • T F-+.N ;rki G /Q u..c: c: ' 42-7 S . 0 — 3(;:,'"; . 0 - C'D 3. O CT . -ri,..,_ „._..„. %',. -- -. - - ---..'---., 4-1 • , ^ ' M_1-, S, L1.4-I ''. T - -- / -S/t1,,C��J (i` ...mot• 1•-02.-Q .r-.!'-G'` --Q__ c ■',.-\+''_z.'C_.k\....• f (Lys2.0 ' . a t VC. Ir\+-';-__. ,;� ( . # 30 ' -- 4 5u, _ A = -4 z rT = [ Z.5(9 sty --f- . 4- /S • 0 — , 4' - rJ V = l2•�i, (.(,..� ) .. - - j::,1 ............ -- y} • COMPUTATION SHEET _ - • - JOB NO. '=" >!- p`'=� DATE_ 5'4S SHEET I 1 OF ESM inc. JOB NAME PLC= _= :r `w�: 7r i ;""F=(2,_ A CIVIL ENGINEERING.LAND SURVEY.AND PROJECT MANAGEMENT COMP.BY 1 CHK.BY CONSULTING FI)1M 451 Southwest 10th Street Suite 106 Renton,Washington 98055 CONTENTS • (206)228-5628 :7i dr -VIA -.. / n (a41) L= 42:.0 = . . • TOTAL.- Lc-�i r'SIt - ( = 3:^ 4 \!3 t..Lk. .. 4T - Z�3 71� �. '7!C_-.t. / 571• • 42, LI "- zL. Is" zJ3 COMPUTATION SHEET JOB NO. . ..-----a '( j�`� DATE_^ 3/1 SHEET I �OF ESM inc. JOB NAME �0=: � 1+ t�RJG�e - I-ice,r-r-• V !.,1 ,..._^T- A CIVIL ENGINEERING.LAND SURVEY.AND PROIECT MANAGEMENT COMP. BY l`T CHK.BY CONSULTING FIRM ! 1 l i'" 451 Southwest nth Street Suite 106 Renton,Washington 98055 CONTENTS �/Rf=!"i L�-�—Xr '—.?- .:_. (206)228-5628 P. —ham, . . . . . . . _.. T21g• TO �pq-tAvED I AR .vN-ND l _ f- . `-7-)., _!'1 ,_ _! -L6.l-kLe-D.- .. 0 /3 0. 42- C�J -41 24.- (A 2.4i O. JL- ' . '3(a 0. . . J. 7 ) 1 _, , . .J. I G. I i ; I _ ' ..-.Ij� '.. -kJ I _/. :L./' �J• i I, i.-1-12t?,. -TO LG^IC,-1-1- 1 < _L f?= . VEZ L ---ti ( fP':C GJ 4 I Z1 (70-- - 0,6` ,o1 /, SS . . -5 + /•S _ 6 . 53 n•- :., i i . I . • COMPUTATION SHEET 1OB NO. . - -=i •?= DATE ' 'L> SHEET 13 OF ESM inc. JOB NAME E:>` - -ram;%-^i•i 1.1 e, A CIVIL ENGINEERING,LAND SURVEY;AND PROJECT MANAGEMENT COMP.BY CHK.BY CONSULTING FIRM 451 Southwest 10th Street Suite 108 Renton,Washington 98055 CONTENTS 72_Ai I' A6r--• . (2061 228-5628 Ot.A.i L.C7 -1 Jig i{r ` Q ,: ,\Jop Z - ✓As,r t A !. ... _ 442 c:V3 `?. l 4- (E . C. 4 20 . � ..TG r.\ . -POINT �/lss � r= IS'., _:=; j 7C� j = !t(z S�cpc o-. z - _ 3, 0 3 .c, `'''_ -- . J� ) • /, O• _ . - 0 (o c.._ • = (S _ o4z = , sF-, J. _ ? C2 z.)C,..sF.),) ,( . 1 - v• ice: �: . - - 776 t! V ? 1 . • **************************************************************** City of Renton WA Reprinted: 03/21/96 10 : 08 Receipt ******************************************.********************** Receipt Number: R9601209 Amount : 2, 004 . 16 03/21/96 10 : 07 Payment Method: CHECK Notation: 41036, RICHARDS Init : JB Project #: LUA96-039 Type: LUA Land Use Actions Total Fees: 2, 004 . 16 This Payment 2, 004 . 16 Total ALL Pmts : 2, 004 . 16 Balance: . 00 **************************************************************** Account Code Description Amount 000 .345 . 81 . 00 . 0007 Environmental Review 500 . 00 000 .345 . 81 . 00 . 0016 Shoreline Subst Dev 1, 000 . 00 000 .345 . 81 . 00 . 0017 Site Plan Approval 500 . 00 000 . 05 . 519 . 90 .42 . 1 Postage 4 . 16