Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLUA74-785BEGINNING OF FILE FILE TITLE SICROVIMED 010° 78574 1 aECEI E® CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON 1ENVIRONMENTALIMPACTWORKSHEET 3 10 FOR OFFICE USE ONLY : Application No . --i(4) - ‘ -71 Negative Dec . VG DEQ‘ Date Received EIS INSTRUCTIONS : The purpose of this information is to assist the vari - ous departments of the City to determine whether an environmental impact statement will be required before approving and issuing a per- mit for a proposed project . Single family residential uses in non sensitive areas are exempt from this requirement as established by Washington Administrative Code 173-34 . In addition to the following information , please submit a vicinity map recommend scale : 1" representing 200 ' to 800 ' ) and a site map (rec- ommended scale : 1" representing 10 ' to 40 ' ) . APPLICANT TO PROVIDE INFORMATION REQUIRED IN ITEMS 1 THROUGH 30 BELOW : 1 . Name of applicant RICHARD BOUILLON & ASSOCIATES/ARCHITECTS a 2 . Mailing address 130 Lakeside, Suite F Seattle, Washington 98122 Telephone 325-2553 3. Applicant is : ElOwner 7Lessee I [Contract purchaser EnOther ( specify ) Architect 4 . Name and address of owner , if other than applicant : BURLINGTON NORTHERN ATTENTION: MR. RICHARD VINCENT 860 CENTRAL BUILDING, SEATTLE 98104 Telephone 624-1900 5 . General location of proposed project ( give street address if any or nearest street and intersection EAST SIDE OF WEST VALLEY HIGHWAY AT STRANDER BOULEVARD 2 - 6 . Legal description ( if lengthy , attach as separate .sheet) Attachment 7 . Area 80,266 sq.ft. Dimensions 8. Intended use of property or project ( include details : number of units , volume , etc . ) : The proposed project is a restaurant comprised of a core with 4 to 6 attached olden railroad passenger cars used as dining areas. The total building area with initially 7500 sqft and ultimately 9000 sqft. The structure is single story. Off-street parking a6comodating 126 cars is provided. 9 . Generally describe the property and existing improvements : The property is relatively level with the exception of a depression in the northwest quarter. 10 . Total construction cost or fair market value of proposed project including additional developments contemplated : 250,000.00 11 . Construction dates (month and year) for which permit is requested : Begin August 1974 End March 1975 3 - 12 . List any other permits for this project from state , federal , or other local governmental agencies for which you have applied or will apply, including the name of the issuing agency, whether the permit has been applied for, and if so , the date of the applica- tion , whether the application was approved or denied and the date of same , and the number of the application or permit : Date Agency Permit Type Submitted* Number Status** City of Renton Special City of Renton Site approval City of Renton Building Leave blank if not submitted . Approved , denied or pending . 13 . Has an Environmental Impact Statement or an Environmental Assess- ment been prepared for the proposed project? If "yes " submit copy with this yes x no environmental impact worksheet . 14. Are there similar projects , both public and private , existing or planned in the immediate area : yes n.I no don ' t know If "yes" explain. A commercial/office complex is being constructed to the west of this project across SR181 in the City of Tukwila. 15 . Is the proposed project located in or adjacent to an area or structure having unique or exceptional historic , cultural , or other values considered important by some sectors of the popu- lation? rIxlyes If "yes " explain . The proximity to the Green River is important in a regional context. Although the project is not adjacent to the river, the site may support river related flora and fauna. There are no other important characteristics. 16 . Is the proposed project located in an area that may be considered sensitive and is subject to erosion , landslides , floods , etc . ? yes l x l no If "yes" explain . 4 - 17 . Is the proposed project located in an area that has a number of large trees or other natural landscaped areas , waterways , marshes or wildlife? xlyes ri no If "yes" explain . There are five large trees on the site, see the attached site plan for location. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF PROPOSED PROJECT : In the following questions summarize what the applicant feels will be the environmental impact , both beneficial and adverse , of the proposed project . Consideration should be given to both the human and natural environmental as well as physical , social , and aesthetic aspect . For projects which are part of a more extensive plan , consider the implications of the entire plan and not just the project now being proposed . 18. Land Use : Will the project have a significant effect on land use in the surrounding area? Jx lyes no Explain : The project is among the first commercial developments in the vicinity and will assuredly influence future land use. 19 . Project Design and Appearance : Will the project design , appear- ance , landscaping , etc . , assure the maximum protection for the natural environment? x yes Lino Explain : The use of materials and height will be scaled to the quasi-rural/natural feeling of the area. The four healthiest large trees will be retained as part of the 14% of the site devoted to parking screening, boundary buffer and entrance landscaping. 20 . Ground Contours :. Does the proposed project have an effect on the existing ground contours of the project location? lxlyes 1no . Is the project likely to cause erosion or sedimentation? I yes [ `no? If "yes " to either , explain . The depression at the northwest quarter of the site will be filled to the approximate level of SR181 . 5 - 21 . . Air Quality: Will construction of the project and use of the completed project have a substantial effect on the existing air quality? (Consider the effect of any gas , chemicals , smoke , dust , particulate matter , and odors ) ? dyes xlno If "yes " explain . 22 . Water Quality : Will construction of the project and use of the completed project be likely to have an effect on the existing water quality of the area? (Consider the adequacy of drainage and runoff and the likely endpoint of any liquids draining from the project. ) I yes x no . Is there a good possibility that this project will requiran expansion of local water and/or sewer facilities?I__ (yes tx (no If "yes " to either , explain . Surface water will be drained across the entire sight to the east and deposited into a continuous recharge drain. Excess water will drain into an existing drainage ditch on Puget Power R/W. 23 . Noise : Will construction of the project or use of the completed project significantly affect the existing noise levels of the area? (— yes [x no . Will the project be, affected by airports , freeways , railroads or other sources of noise? e yes [x ( no If "yes" to either , explain . 24 . Population Density : Will a noticeable population change result from this project? ( Consider the present density per acre in the surrounding community to the proposed density of the project and including daytime density . ) f jyes rx ]no . Will the pro- ject cause periodic or temporary fluctuations in population due to tourism , employment , shopping , schools , etc . ( xlyes [ no . If "yes " to either , explain . The local population will significantly increase at peak midday and early evening mealtime hours. There will be no significant changes at any other time. 6 - 25 . , Effect on Population : Will the proposed action directly or in- directly cause the relocation of a sizeable number of persons or the division or disruption of existing community patterns of liv- ing? yes pilno If "yes" explain . 26 . Schools and Parks : Will the proposed project have an effect on schools and parks in the area? yes Ix no If "yes " explain . 27 . Transportation : Will construction of the project or use of the completed project have a significant impact on transportation in the area? A yes Pi no Explain : During peak restaurant hours the traffic patterns in the area will be altered. The proposed widening of DR181 and the introduction ,of a 2-way left turn wall alleviate any traffic problems. 28. Public Use : Will the project be available for use by all sectors of the public? x yes n no Explain : -- The decision to use the facility is the public's. The project will provide a needed service to the employees and residents of the region. 29 . Other Impacts : Identify any other beneficial or adverse environ- mental impacts which may result from the construction or comple- tion of the proposed project . The significant impacts have been discussed above. 7 - 30. VIEWS OF LOCAL GROUPS : Have you made your plans known to interested community roups or neighbors in the vicinity of the project? jyes no If "yes" what are their reactions? If "no" do you intend to contact these people?( lyes [jno CERTIFICATION BY OWNER/REPRESENTATIVE The Owner/Representative identified in Item No . 1 or 4 above hereby certifies that the information furnished in this Environmental Work- sheet is true and accurate to the best of their knowledge . A) ti Owns FR9Jelfr A t 6 28374- Signature Title Date 8 - TO BE FILLED IN BY CITY DEPARTMENTS REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : Department : Comments : Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : Department : Comments : Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date 10 - ACTION BY RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL A. Staff review determined that project : Has no significant environmental impact and application should be processed without further consideration of environmental effects . May have significant environmental impact and a complete environmental assessment should be prepared by applicant prior to further action on request for permit . B . Reasons for above conclusion : Signature of Responsible Official or Authorized Representative Date : Form : EIS-1 Planning Department October 15 , 1973 v CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT WORKSHEET FOR OFFICE USE ONLY : Vi1'V'.' Application No . ,4:-ia/- ...?` - 7/ Negative Dec . Date Received EIS • INSTRUCTIONS : The purpose of this information is to assist the vari - ous departments of the City to determine whether an environmental impa,:t statement will be required before approving and issuing a per- mit nor a proposed project . Single family residential uses in non sensitive areas are exempt from this requirement as established by Washington Administrative Code 173-34. In aidition to the following information , please submit a vicinity map rec )mmend scale : 1" representing 200 ' to 800 ' ) and a site map ( rec- ommeided scale : 1" representing 10 ' to 40 ' ) . APPLICANT TO PROVIDE INFORMATION REQUIRED IN ITEMS 1 THROUGH 30 BELOW : 1 . Name of appl i cant RICHARD BOUILLON & ASSOCIATES/ARCHITECTS 2 . Mailing address 130 Lakeside, Suite F Seattle, Washington 98122 Telephone 325-2553 3. Applicant is : I !Owner Lessee C- 1Contract purchaser I xlOther (specify ) Architect pss of owner, if other than applicant : NCENT iTTLE 98104 Telephone 624-1900 proposed project (give street address if any d intersection EY HIGHWAY AT STRANDER BOULEVARD 2 - 6 . Legal description (if lengthy , attach as separate sheet) 4ttachment 7 . Area 80,266 sq.ft. Dimensions 8. Intended use of property or project ( include details : number of units , volume , etc . ) : The proposed project is a restaurant comprised of a core with 4 to 6 attached olden railroad passenger cars used as dining areas. The total building area with initially 7500 sqft and ultimately 9000 sqft. The structure is single story. Off-street parking accomodating 126 cars is provided. 9 . Generally describe the property and existing improvements : The property is relatively level with the exception of a depression in the northwest quarter. 10 . Total construction cost or fair market value of proposed project including additional developments contemplated : 250,000.00 11 . Construction dates (month and year) for which permit is requested : Begin August 1974 End March 1975 3 - 12 . List any other permits for this project from state , federal , or other local governmental agencies for which you have applied or will apply , including the name of the issuing agency, whether the permit has been applied for , and if so , the date of the applica- tion , whether the application was approved or denied and the date of same , and the number of the application or permit : Date Agency Permit Type Submitted* Number Status** City of Renton Special City of Renton Site approval City of Renton Building Leave blank if not submitted. Approved , denied or pending . 13 . Has an Environmental Impact Statement or an Environmental Assess- ment been prepared for the proposed project? yes x no If "yes" submit copy with this environmental impact worksheet . 14. Are there similar projects , both public and private , existing or planned in the immediate area : lyes I lno don ' t know If "yes" explain . A commercial/office complex is being constructed to the west of this project across SR181 in the City of Tukwila. 15 . Is the proposed project located in or adjacent to an area or structure having unique or exceptional historic , cultural , or other values considered important by some sectors of the popu- lation? nyes I lno If "yes" explain . The proximity to the Green River is important in a regional context. Although the project is not adjacent to the river, the site may support river related flora and fauna. There are no other important characteristics. 16 . Is the proposed project located in an area that may be considered sensitive and is subject to erosion , landslides , floods , etc . ? 1 lyes lxlno If "yes" explain . 4 - 17 . Is the proposed project located in area that has a number of large trees or other natural landscaped areas , waterways , marshes or wildlife? Pxlyes I i no If "yes" explain . There are five large trees on the site, see the attached site plan for location. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF PROPOSED PROJECT : In the following questions summarize what the applicant feels will be the environmental impact , both beneficial and adverse , of the proposed project . Consideration should be given to both the human and natural environmental as well a ; physical , social , and aesthetic aspect . For projects which are part of a more extensive plan , consider the implications of the entire plan and not just the project now being proposed . 18 . Land Use : Will the project have a significant effect on land use in the surrounding area? xlyes no Explain : The project is among the first commercial developments in the vicinity and will assuredly influence future land use. 19 . Project Design and Appearance : Will the project design , appear - ance , landscaping , etc . , assure the maximum protection for the natural environment? nyes Lino Explain : I The use of materials and height will be scaled to the quasi-rural/natural feeling of the area. The four healthiest large trees will be retained as part of the 14% of the site devoted to parking screening, boundary buffer and entrance landscaping. 20 . Ground Contours : Does the proposed project have an effect on the existing ground contours of the project location? Ixlyes lno . Is the project likely to cause erosion or sedimentation? r lyes Eno? If "yes" to either , explain . The depression at the northwest quarter of the site will be filled to the approximate level of SR181 . 5 - 21 . Air Quality : Will construction of the project and use of the completed project have a substantial effect on the existing air quality? (Consider the effect of any gas , chemicals , smoke , dust , particulate matter , and odors ) ? 7-1 l yes xlno If "yes " explain . 22 . Water Quality : Will construction of the project and use of the completed project be likely to have an effect on the existing water quality of the area? ( Consider the adequacy of drainage and runoff and the likely endpoint of any liquids draining from the project . )L_J yes _ x,no . Is there a good possibility that this project will requir an expansion of local water and/or sewer facilities?I___Iyes x Ino If "yes" to either , explain . Surface water will be drained across the entire sight to the east and deposited into a continuous recharge drain. Excess water will drain into an existing drainage ditch on Puget Power R/W. 23 . Noise : Will construction of the project or use of the completed project significantly affect the existing noise levels of the area? nyes [x ` no . Will the project be affected by airports , freeways , railroads or other sources of noise? Dyes [ino If "yes" to either , explain . 24 . Population Density : Will a noticeable population change result from this project? ( Consider the present density per acre in the surrounding community to the proposed density of the project and including daytime density . ) Eyes rx1no . Will the pro- ject cause periodic or temporary fluctuations in population due to tourism , employment , shopping , schools , etc . ( ryes jno . If "yes" to either , explain . The local population will significantly increase at peak midday and early evening mealtime hours. There will be no significant changes at any other time. 6 •- 25 . Effect on Population : Will the proposed action directly or in-directly cause the relocation of a sizeable number of persons orthedivisionordisruptionofexistingcommunitypatternsofliv-ing? yes jxIno If "yes " explain . 26 . Schools and Parks : Will the proposed project have an effect onschoolsandparksinthearea? yes ixlno If "yes " explain . 27 . Transportation : Will construction of the project or use of thecompletedprojecthaveasignificantimpactontransportationinthearea? Ix I yes I lno Explain : During peak restaurant hours the traffic patterns in the area will be altered. The proposed widening of DRl8l and the introduction of a 2-way left turn will alleviate any traffic problems. 28. Public Use : Will the project be available for use by all sectorsofthepublic? xl yes I no Explain : The decision to use the facility is the public's. The project will provide a needed service to the employees and residents of the region. 29 . Other Impacts : Identify any other beneficial or adverse environ-mental impacts which may result from the construction or comple- tion of the proposed project. The significant impacts have been discussed above. 7 - 30 . VIEWS OF LOCAL GROUPS :Have you made your plans known to interested community grolnpos or neighbors in the vicinity of the project? l jyes x If "yes" what are their reactions? If "no" do you intend to contact these people?, yes 1 xno CEZTIFICATION BY OWNER/REPRESENTATIVE The Owner/Representative identi urnished Item n this1 or 4 above EnvironmentaleWobk- certifies that the information sheet is true and accurate to the best of their knowledge . ILAwrk Title Date ignature 8 - TO BE FILLED IN BY CITY DEPARTMENTS itEVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : Department : Comments : Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : Department : Comments : Signature of Director or Authorized Representative mate 10 - ACTION BY RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL A Sta f review determined that project : Has no significant environmental impact and application should be processed without further consideration of environmental effects . May have significant environmental impact and a complete environmental assessment should be prepared by applicant prior to further action on request for permit . B . Reasons for above conclusion : 19/42e 15 COA JbI age'17 A M I)0Ii At-TI o.J t r14 I NY,lirtJtFtc.AtJr ‘Mr4C.T . Z, , NO t.A 0-tre M-E As cQ F 0 aTUrr-Ak- V -r•.ri oN-1 AAA Ig.Ei iJl,r Pi s TU 1 -3 E', 3 , ?.AN 6 Cm&TAa J 1=A(.1t`•I.rt S von- STOR.M LA/Ai r2.- R.eTt=Nn O J AAJ D 01 V/wATr r Sepa a , o,,,,.). 4, t.-Aopsc-Ap pLAK.) p. in6r&- S LOSS crp ) cr, o*J LAA4 it AL.s° Prt`rtScav11. 1 - Sm1.4,r or ,ram `,ae t- s o. -r Z s viz . PL Akrr M A,twe.t,.5 GavFo a . S. G, 5 . / Gt rr i GAT,ok.oj rJl{tGK 1,$4)J1,17c Ffl(t._. tiON•9 r t2t, 'moo 4Np J41bvr4- Zietz,„.4 Signatu of esponsible Official or Authorized Representative Date : -1 2f) 7¢ Form : EIS-1 Planning Department October 15 , 1973 w i That portion of Govcrnctcltt •Lots 2Oar an etl and of Henry Meader Darnat.i.c:Land Claim No . 46 , ALh in Section 25 , Township 23 North, Range 4 Et.st of W.M. , described as follows : Commencing at the intersection of the ccl.terline Valley f.of West Highway (State Road 181) vit.h the centerline of Strander Boulevard ExtolisiOn , as shown on Sheets 4 and 5 of City of Tukwila draw- ing of Strander. Boulevard Extension date August , 1972 ; thence South it :3I 30" centerline of West Valley lHighwayine of ta• distt nce1of 194 . 77 feet to the north feet in width of said Government Lot 11 ; thence Last along said north :.i.nc South Sac' . 17' l9POINTOr BEGINNING on ;he 40. 76 feet to the tt,1.. . thence t y North 86 51 ' 30" easterlyeasterly margin of 11.UT 1 1.c, ai.dyC.^.5LGT1' I1] (;}:LJdy margin SOS. 08 feet to the south line of the City of Seattle ' s Bow Lake Pipe Line right of way; thence South 87° 13' 12" East along, said south right of way line 2.73. 8 feet to the westerly line of a 100- foot right ofwayby deeds recordedtolcduget Sound Power £, Light Cc under King; County Auditor' s 1 li e Nos . 2629432 and 2644020 (former Puget Sound Electric Railway right of way) ; thence South 1.° 13 ' 24 " East said westerly right of way line 791 . 76 feet to the north line of the south 210 feet trin w87idth 7 ' 1J" of said Government Lot 11 ; thence West along said north line 165 . 55 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. EXCEPT, that portion lying south of a line parallel with and distant tc following rdcscribedTed at right angles, from line: Beginning -at the point of intersection of the south line of the Henry Ideadef rtlDonattiontlClaim No. 46 and the centerline y 181 1 West Valley Highway) ; thence N 8° 52 ' 29" W. l a distance of 48 : 98 faet along said highway thence S 85° S0 ' 26" E. 41 . 14 feet centerline ; to the easterly margin of said highway ' and the TRUE POINT OF ,31iG? 1 ) ' fe}ctlnl torece °orllcssg to the S 85° 30' 26" L:• westerly margin of said Puget Sound Electric Railway right of • Y• SUBJECT TO a perpetual utility easement to the recorded under King, County r° 4, ,' State of Washington , pry G525398 ; AlSO, SUBJECT TO i, ; r;- Auditor' s File No. c u >. . easements , reservations and restrictions of record. r!.yr.,ix .:. F.. ` 266 square feet , more or less . To- Area: 80 ether with the building to }?e constructed thereon as hereinafter provided.a-.: • 6CEIVEI)OF Rkie CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON d}' ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT WORKSHEET JUL 3 194 FOR OFFICE USE ONLY : i41/ l 44/ C+ Application No . ' - 7-1/ Negative Dec . G DEPP Date Received 7 - - EIS INSTRUCTIONS : The purpose of this information is to assist the vari - ous departments of the City to determine whether an environmental impact statement will be required before approving and issuing a per- mit for a proposed project . Single family residential uses in non sensitive areas are exempt from this requirement as established by Washington Administrative Code 173-34. In addition to the following information , please submit a vicinity map recommend scale : 1" representing 200 ' to 800 ' ) and a site map ( rec- ommended scale : 1 " representing 10 ' to 40 ' ) . APPLICANT TO PROVIDE INFORMATION REQUIRED IN ITEMS 1 THROUGH 30 BELOW : 1 . Name of applicant RICHARD BOUILLON & ASSOCIATES/ARCHITECTS 2 . Mailing address 130 Lakeside, Suite F Seattle, Washington 98122 a Telephone 325-2553 3. Applicant is : lOwner Lessee f 'Contract purchaser EXJOther ( specify ) Architect 4 . Name and address of owner , if other than applicant : BURLINGTON NORTHERN ATTENTION: MR. RICHARD VINCENT 860 CENTRAL BUILDING, SEATTLE 98104 Telephone 624-1900 5 . General location of proposed project (give street address if any or nearest street and intersection EAST SIDE OF WEST VALLEY HIGHWAY AT STRANDER BOULEVARD 2 6 . Legal description ( if lengthy , attach as separate .sheet) Attachment 7 . Area 80,266 sq.ft. Dimensions 8. Intended use of property or project ( include details : number of units , volume , etc . ) : The proposed project is a restaurant comprised of a core with 4 to 6 attached olden railroad passenger cars used as dining areas. The total building area with initially 7500 sqft and ultimately 9000 sqft. The structure is single story. Off-street parking a&comodating 126 cars is provided. 9. Generally describe the property and existing improvements : The property is relatively level with the exception of a depression in the northwest quarter. 10 . Total construction cost or fair market value of proposed project including additional developments contemplated : 250,000.00 11 . Construction dates (month and year) for which permit is requested : Begin August 1974 End March 1975 3 - 12 . List any other permits for this project from state , federal , or other local governmental agencies for which you have applied or will apply, including the name of the issuing agency , whether the permit has been applied for , and if so , the date of the applica- tion , whether the application was approved or denied and the date of same , and the number of the application or permit : Date Agency Permit Type Submitted* Number Status** City of Renton Special City of Renton Site approval City of Renton Building Leave blank if not submitted . Approved , denied or pending . 13 . Has an Environmental Impact Statement or an Environmental Assess- ment been prepared for the proposed project? If "yes " submit copy with this yes x no environmental impact worksheet . 14. Are there similar projects , both public and private , existing or planned in the immediate area : Lx i yes no I ldon ` t know If "yes" explain. A commercial/office complex is being constructed to the west of this project across SR181 in the City of Tukwila. 15 . Is the proposed project located in or adjacent to an area or structure having unique or exceptional historic , cultural , or other values considered important by some sectors of the popu- lation? lJ yes rino If "yes " explain . The proximity to the Green River is important in a regional context. Although the project is not adjacent to the river, the site may support river related flora and fauna. There are no other important characteristics. 16 . Is the proposed project located in an area that may be considered sensitive and is subject to erosion , landslides , floods , etc . ? 1 I yes l x I no If "yes" explain . 4 - 17 . Is the proposed project located in an area that has a number of large trees or other natural landscaped areas , waterways , marshes or wildlife? xlyes ri no If "yes" explain . There are five large trees on the site, see the attached site plan for location. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF PROPOSED PROJECT : In the following questions summarize what the applicant feels will be the environmental impact , both beneficial and adverse , of the proposed project . Consideration should be given to both the human and natural environmental as well as physical , social , and aesthetic aspect . For projects which are part of a more extensive plan , consider the implications of the entire plan and not just the project now being proposed . 18. Land Use : Will the project have a significant effect on land use in the surrounding area? Ix (yes no Explain : The project is among the first commercial developments in the vicinity and will assuredly influence future land use. 19 . Project Design and Appearance : Will the project design , appear- ance , landscaping , etc. , assure the maximum protection for the natural environment? x yes Lino Explain : The use of materials and height will be scaled to the quasi-rural/natural feeling of the area. The four healthiest large trees will be retained as part of the 14% of the site devoted to parking screening, boundary buffer and entrance landscaping. 20 . Ground Contours : Does the proposed project have an effect on the existing ground contours of the project location? lxlyes jno . Is the project likely to cause erosion or sedimentation? I--lyes '—' no? If "yes" to either , explain . The depression at the northwest quarter of the site will be filled to the approximate level of SR181 . 5 - 21 . . Air Quality: Will construction of the project and use of the completed project have a substantial effect on the existing air quality? (Consider the effect of any gas , chemicals , smoke , dust , particulate matter , and odors ) ? yes xlno If "yes " explain . 22 . Water Quality : Will construction of the project and use of the completed project be likely to have an effect on the existing water quality of the area? (Consider the adequacy of drainage and runoff and the likely endpoint of any liquids draining from the project. )Li x no . Is there a good possibility that this project will requir `n expansion of local water and/or sewer facilities?1-]yes x no If "yes " to either , explain . Surface water will be drained across the entire sight to the east and deposited into a continuous recharge drain. Excess water will drain into an existing drainage ditch on Puget Power R/W. 23 . Noise : Will construction of the project or use of the completed project significantly affect the existing noise levels of the area? (—j yes jx no . Will the project be, affected by airports , freeways , railroads or other sources of noise? Ell yes ,fx jno If "yes" to either , explain . 24 . Population Density : Will a noticeable population change result from this project? ( Consider the present density per acre in the surrounding community to the proposed density of the project and including daytime density . ) F lyes rx]no . Will the pro- ject cause periodic or temporary fluctuations in population due to tourism , employment , shopping , schools , etc . xlyes [jno . If "yes " to either , explain . The local population will significantly increase at peak midday and early evening mealtime hours. There will be no significant changes at any other time. 6 - 25 . , Effect on Population : Will the proposed action directly or in- directly cause the relocation of a sizeable number of persons or the division or disruption of existing community patterns of liv- ing? yes riino If "yes " explain . 26 . Schools and Parks : Will the proposed project have an effect on schools and parks in the area? yes Ix no If "yes " explain . 27 . Transportation : Will construction of the project or use of the completed project have a significant impact on transportation in the area?IX J yes I no Explain : During peak restaurant hours the traffic patterns in the area will be altered. The proposed widening of DR181 and the introduction Hof a 2-way left turn wall alleviate any traffic problems. 28. Public Use : Will the project be available for use by all sectors of the public? X yes L_Ino Explain : The decision to use the facility is the public's. The project will provide a needed service to the employees and residents of the region. 29 . Other Impacts : Identify any other beneficial or adverse environ- mental impacts which may result from the construction or comple- tion of the proposed project. The significant impacts have been discussed above. 7 - 30 . VIEWS OF LOCAL GROUPS : Have you made your plans known to interested community Tnlupsorneighborsinthevicinityoftheproject? jyes no If "yes" what are their reactions? If "no" do you intend to contact these people?[ lyes no CERTIFICATION BY OWNER/REPRESENTATIVE The Owner/Representative identified in Item No . 1 or 4 above hereby certifies that the information furnished in this Environmental Work- sheet is true and accurate to the best of their knowledge . cam A.),114 0„ri,,s AKcorircr 6 .2814- Signature Title Date 8 - TO BE FILLED IN BY CITY DEPARTMENTS REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : Department : Comments : Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : Department : Comments : Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date 9 - REVIEW BY' OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : Department : Comments : Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : Department : Comments : Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date 10 - ACTION BY RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL A. Staff review determined that project : Has no significant environmental impact and application should be processed without further consideration of environmental effects . May have significant environmental impact and a complete environmental assessment should be prepared by applicant prior to further action on request for permit . B . Reasons for above conclusion : Signature of Responsible Official or Authorized Representative Date : Form : EIS-1 Planning Department October 15 , 1973 or- of Government Lots 2 11 and of That } Henry Meader Donation Land Claim No-. 46 , ALL in Section 2S , Township 23 North, Range 4 E.st of W.M. , described as follows : Comm at the intersection of the Celthc of West 'Valley Highway (State Road ith centerline of Strander Boulevard Extension , as shown on Sheets 4 and 5 of City of Tukwila draw- . ing of Stranc}rr foul evard Extcn:ion dated August , 1972 ; thence South aO Si ' 30" East along the centerline of West Valley highway a di st :.ace of 194 . 77 feet to the north line of the south 210 feet in width of said Government Lot 11 ; thence South 87° 47 ' 19" East along said north :.ine 40. 76 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING on the of West Valley Highway ; thence easterly r ar;in highway North 8h 51 ' 30" West along said easterly }.i ghway margin 806 . 08 feet to the south line of the ity of Seattle ' s Bow Lake Pipe Line right of way; thence South 87° 13 12" East along said south w right of wey line 273. 28 feet o, the westerly line of a I00- foot right of wey conveyed to Puget Sound Power Ft Light. Company by deeds recorded under King County Auditor' s File Nos . 2629432 and 264.1020 ( former Puget Sound Electric Railway right of way) ; thence South 1° 13 ' 24" East along . said westerly right of way line 791 . 76 feet to the north line of the south 210 feet in width of said Government Lot 11 ; thence North 87° 47 ' 19" West along said north line 165 . 55 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. EXCEPT, that portion lying south of ia line parallel with and distant 5 feet north, measured at right angles , from the following described line: Beginning -at the point of intersection of the south line of the Henry Meader Donation Claim No. 46 and the centerline of State Highway 181 West Valley Highway) ; thence N 8° 52 ' 29" W. a distance of 48. 98 feet along, said hieh'. ay centerline ; thence S 85° 30 ' 26" E. 41. 14 feet to the easterly narein of said highway ' and the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING ; thence continuing w._S 85° 30 ' 26" E. 227 . 79 feet more or less to the westerly margin of said Puget Sound Electric Railway right of way. easement to. the SUBJECT TO a ,perpeturll. utility case m Ki tc; County1un s State of Washington , .recordc,c Auditor' s File No. 6525398 ; ALSO, SUBJECT TO g cascm'ents , reservations and restrictions of t record. w• } z ;.,, 266 square feet , more or less. To- Area : 8U t r; gether with the building to he constructed i thereon as hereinafter provided.tea ' CITY OF RENTON APPLICATION 4 RECEIVEDSITEAPPROVAL e— JUL 3 g# ,:f, FOR OFFICE USE ONLY File No . SA- 7/6 -7'i Filing Dat_ 9! * 7-d- 7c' G DON* APPLICANT TO COMPLETE ITEMS 1 THROUGH 6 : GLACIER PARK COMPANY 1. Name BURLINGTON NORTHERN Attn: Mr. R. Vincent Phone 624-1900 Ext. 2487 Address 600 Central Building, Seattle, Washington 98104 2 . Property location West Valley Highway at Strander Boulevard 3 . Legal description (attach additional sheet if necessary) See attached sheet 4 . Number of acres or sq. ft. 80,266 sq.ft. Present zoning M-P 5 . What do you propose to develop on this property? A restaurant. Single story. Area = 9000 sq.ft. 6 . The following information shall be submitted with this application: Scale A. Sit and access plan (include setbacks , existing structures , easements, and other factors limiting development) 1"=10 ' or 20 ' B. Parking, landscaping and screening plan. . 1"=10 ' C . Vicinity map (include land use and zoning on adjacent parcels) 1"= 200 ' - 800 ' D. Building height and area (existing and proposed) 7 . PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Date approved Date denied Date appealed Appeal action Remarks Planning Dept. 2-73 That portit of Government Lots 2 an . 1 and of h and Claim No . o , ALL in henry Meader -Donation Section 25 , Township 23 North, Range 4 LL.st of N.M. , described as follows : Commencing at the intersection of the centerline of West Valley Highway (State Road 181) with the centerline of Strander Boulevard IixteliSi.cen , as shown on Sheets 4 and 5 of .City of Tukwi.:.a draw- ing of Strander. Boulevard Extension dated August , 1972 ; thence South „° Si ' 30" East along the centerline of West Valley highway a distance of 194 . 77 feet to the north line of the sou-,Ii 210 feet in width of said Government Lot 1.1 ; thence South 87° 47' 19"' East along said north .ino 40. 76 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING on the margin of West Valley highway ; thence easterlytsaid easterly highwaytdorNorth051 ' 30" West alongOF REmargin808 . 08 feet to the south line of the City of Seattle ' s Bow Lake Pipe Line right of way; RECt \JEb013 ' 12" East along said south / C thence South 87 i right of way line 273. 28 feet to the westerly V 3lireofa100- foot right of way conveyed to Put JUL 1974 Sound Power £, Light. Company by, deeds recorded under King County Auditor' s File Nos . 2629432t: and 2644020 ( former Puget Sound Electric Rai_Iwav 4 right of way) ; thence South 1° 13 ' 2 1" East along NZ DE said westerly right of way line 791 . 76 feet to the north line of the south 210 feet in width of said Government Lot 11 ; thence North 87° 47 ' 19" West along said north line 165 . 55 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. 1 EXCEPT, that portion lying south of a line parallel with and distant 5 feet north, measured at right angles , from the following described line: Beginning -at the point of intersection of the south line of the Henry Meader Donation Claim No. 46 and the centerline of State Highway 181 West Valley Highway) ; thence N 8° 52 ' 29" W• a distance of 48 . 98 feet along said highway centerline ; thence S 85° S0 ' 26" E. 41.14 feet to the easterly margin of said highway and the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; thence continuing S 85° 30 ' 26" E. 227 . 79 feet more or less to the westerly margin of said Puget Sound Electric Railway right of way.2, SUBJECT TO a perpetual utility easement to the w; State of Washington , recorded under King; County Auditor ' s File No. 6525398 ; ALSO, SUBJECT TO 1.,:-.,A. " easements , reservations and restrictions of record. 266 square feet , more or less . To- w- ;: - gether with the building to A ca ' 80 ' be constructed thereon as hereinafter provided. y;,. C)\‘ REfikt4/.,,\ Li CITY OF RENTON, WASH I NGTON illL 1 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT WORKSHEET a 3 197 92 FOR OFFICE USE ONLY : L G\D R,EPA Application No . 7%47 Negative Dec . Date Received EIS INSTRUCTIONS : The purpose of this information is to assist the vari - ous departments of the City to determine whether an environmental impact statement will be required before approving and issuing a per- mit for a proposed project . Single family residential uses in non sensitive areas are exempt from this requirement as established by Washington Administrative Code 173-34 . In addition to the following information , please submit a vicinity map recommend scale : 1" representing 200 ' to 800 ' ) and a site map ( rec- ommended scale : 1 " representing 10 ' to 40 ' ) . APPLICANT TO PROVIDE INFORMATION REQUIRED IN ITEMS 1 THROUGH 30 BELOW : 1 . Name of applicant RICHARD BOUILLON & ASSOCIATES/ARCHIT_FCTS 2 . Mailing address 130 Lakeside, Suite F Seattle, Washington 98122 Telephone 325-2553 3. Applicant is : ElOwne r Lessee I__1Contract purchaser EXiOther ( specify ) Architect 4 . Name and address of owner , if other than applicant : BURLINGTON NORTHERN ATTENTION: MR. RICHARD VINCENT 860 CENTRAL BUILDING, SEATTLE 98104 Telephone 624-1900 5 . General location of proposed project (give street address if any or nearest street and intersection EAST SIDE OF WEST VALLEY HIGHWAY AT STRANDER BOULEVARD 2 - 6 . Legal description ( if lengthy , attach as separate sheet) Attachment 7 . Area 80,266 sq.ft. Dimensions 8. Intended use of property or project. ( include details : number of units , volume , etc . ) : The proposed project is a restaurant comprised of a core with 4 to 6 attached olden railroad passenger cars used as dining areas. The total building area with initially 7500 sqft and ultimately 9000 sqft. The structure is single story. Off-street parking accomodating 126 cars is provided. 9. Generally describe the property and existing improvements : The property is relatively level with the exception of a depression in the northwest quarter. I 10 . Total construction cost or fair market value of proposed project including additional developments contemplated : 250,000.00 11 . Construction dates (month and year) for which permit is requested : Begin August 1974 End March 1975 3 - 12 . List any other permits for this project from state , federal , or other local governmental agencies for which you have applied or will apply, including the name of the issuing agency , whether the permit has been applied for, and if so , the date of the applica- tion , whether the application was approved or denied and the date of same , and the number of the application or permit : Date Agency Permit Type Submitted* Number Status** City of Renton Special City of Renton Site approval City of Renton Building Leave blank if not submitted . Approved , denied or pending . 13 . Has an Environmental Impact Statement or an Environmental Assess- ment been prepared for the proposed project? If "yes " submit copy with this yes x no environmental impact worksheet . 14. Are there similar projects , both public and private , existing or planned in the immediate area : xlyes If "yes " explain.I no l don t know A commercial/office complex is being constructed to the west of this project across SR181 in the City of Tukwila. 15 . Is the proposed project located in or adjacent to an area or structure having unique or exceptional historic , cultural , or other values considered important by some sectors of the popu- lation? x yes Elno If "yes " explain . The proximity to the Green River is important in a regional context. Although the project is not adjacent to the river, the site may support river related flora and fauna. There are no other important characteristics. 16 . Is the proposed project located in an area that may be considered sensitive and is subject to erosion , landslides , floods , etc . ? yes no If "yes" explain . 4 - 17 . Is the proposed project located in an area that has a number of large trees or other natural landscaped areas , waterways , marshes or wildlife? xlyes ri no If "yes" explain . There are five large trees on the site, see the attached site plan for location. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF PROPOSED PROJECT : In the following questions summarize what the applicant feels will be the environmental impact , both beneficial and adverse , of the proposed project . Consideration should be given to both the human and natural environmental as well as physical , social , and aesthetic aspect . For projects which are part of a more extensive plan , consider the implications of the entire plan and not just the project now being proposed . 18. Land Use : Will the project have a significant effect on land use in the surrounding area? Ixlyes no Explain : The project is among the first commercial developments in the vicinity and will assuredly influence future land use. 19 . Project Design and Appearance : Will the project design , appear- ance , landscaping , etc. , assure the maximum protection for the natural environment? x yes Lino Explain : The use of materials and height will be scaled to the quasi-rural/natural feeling of the area. The four healthiest large trees will be retained as part of the 14% of the site devoted to parking screening, boundary buffer and entrance landscaping. 20 . Ground Contours : Does the proposed project have an effect on the existing ground contours of the project location? Ixlyes i lno . Is the project likely to cause erosion or sedimentation? I--1 yes [ 'no? If "yes" to either , explain . The depression at the northwest quarter of the site will be filled to the approximate level of SR181 . 5 - 21 . , Air Quality : Will construction of the project and use of the completed project have a substantial effect on the existing air quality? (Consider the effect of any gas , chemicals , smoke , dust , particulate matter , and odors ) ? yes x1no If "yes " explain . 22 . Water Quality : Will construction of the project and use of the completed project be likely to have an effect on the existing water quality of the area? (Consider the adequacy of drainage and runoff and the likely endpoint of any liquids draining from the project . )L_ yes xlno . Is there a good possibility that this project will requirrin expansion of local water and/or sewer facilities?I,___lyes x no If "yes" to either , explain . Surface water will be drained across the entire sight to the east and deposited into a continuous recharge drain. Excess water will drain into an existing drainage ditch on Puget Power R/W. 23 . Noise : Will construction of the project or use of the completed project significantly affect the existing noise levels of the area? r yes [x I no . Will the project be affected by ai rpot'ts , freeways , railroads or other sources of noise? Eli yes rx ono If "yes " to either , explain . 24 . Population Density : Will a noticeable population change result from this project? ( Consider the present density per acre in the surrounding community to the proposed density of the project and including daytime density . ) [ ] yes rx ino . Will the pro- ject cause periodic or temporary fluctuations in population due to tourism , employment , shopping , schools , etc . 1 x )yes r lno . If "yes " to either , explain . The local population will significantly increase at peak midday and early evening mealtime hours. There will be no significant changes at any other time. 6 - 25 . Effect on Population : Will the proposed action directly or in- directly cause the relocation of a sizeable number of persons or the division or disruption of existing community patterns of liv- ing? yes x no If "yes " explain . 26 . Schools and Parks : Will the proposed project have an effect on schools and parks in the area? yes 1x no If "yes " explain . 27 . Transportation : Will construction of the project or use of the completed project have a significant impact on transportation in the area? +— xjyes I jno Explain : During peak restaurant hours the traffic patterns in the area will be altered. The proposed widening of 5R181 and the introduction ,of a 2-way left turn will alleviate any traffic problems. 28. Public Use : Will the project be available for use by all sectors of the public? x yes Ino Explain : — The decision to use the facility is the public's. The project will provide a needed service to the employees and residents of the region. 29 . Other Impacts : Identify any other beneficial or adverse environ- mental impacts which may result from the construction or comple- tion of the proposed project . The significant impacts have been discussed above. 7 - 30 . VIEWS OF LOCAL GROUPS : Have you made your plans known to interested community roups or neighbors in the vicinity of the project? yes xino If "yes" what are their reactions? If "no" do you intend to contact these people?rlyes ano CERTIFICATION BY OWNER/REPRESENTATIVE The Owner/Representative identified in Item No . 1 or 4 above hereby certifies that the information furnished in this Environmental Work- sheet is true and accurate to the best of their knowledge . t c _ ` . 11,6vyrus'Fe-cr A t 6 .ZS, ¢ Signature Title Date 8 - TO BE FILLED IN BY CITY DEPARTMENTS REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : Department : 2 Comments : t-G aoi_o _". t. i 7J1 7,r— Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : Department :I 12APPC 1WEE211.4" Comments : NIEM 'mil)2:(1-keyt. I kwoOrd W I De-k)I J U e--AAN LEEu% RePe2w0U To N APPuLsc\00 ecrs.Tr c p) /15Io J5 • 1 oe rri-f Cyr 1',61tTK Mp,te-% .)Ca LA-I 5 . 3 • SOJ(1L CIF TVNnI J( 4-, 1 rAP AC On! lec,c i<SS 'w Al)3be.E\rr p OOPTI e• D&VID 13Aliv\i,1 14/1¢ Signature of Director or Authorized Representative at 9 - REVIEW BY' OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : Department : Lfs› C Comments : S ' ature of Direc or or Authorized Representative Date REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : Department : Comments : Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date 10 - ACTION BY RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL A. Staff review determined that project : Has no significant environmental impact and application should be processed without further consideration of environmental effects . May have significant environmental impact and a complete environmental assessment should be prepared by applicant prior to further action on request for permit . B . Reasons for above conclusion : Signature of -Responsible Official or Authorized Representative Date : Form : EIS-1 Planning Department October 15 , 1973 That port • of Government Lots 2 a'. ' 11 and of Henry Meader Donation Land Claim No 6 , ALh in Section . 25 , Township 23 North, Rank 4 Ih.st of W.M. , described as follows : Commencingeattheintersectionoftheceterline of West `Valley Highway (State Road 181) ascenterlineofStranclerBoulevardIixtcucsi.c n , shown on Sheets 4 and 5 of city of Tukwi:..a draw• ing of Stranclor Boulevard` ; i , 301'c, l;cstTta.lc:; c th c^ tis ' 1972 ; thence SouthcenterlineofWest Valley Highway a di stt.nce of 194 . 77 feet to the north line of the sou•_h 210 feet in width of said Government Lot 11 ; thence South 57° 47 ' 19" Last Or along said north :.i.ne . t, 7(i feet • to the POINT LBEGINNINGN1„G on :} c easterly margin of West Valley Highway ; thence said easterly highway North 051 ' 30" best: along margin 808 . 08 feet to the south line of the City of Seattle ' s Bow Lake. Pipe Line right of way; 12"13 ' East along said souththenceSouth87° right of way line 273, 28 feet to the westerly line of a J 00- foot. right of way convoy do to Puget Sound Power F, Light. Company under King County Auditor' s File Nos . 2629432 and 2644020 ( former Puget Sound Electric Railway right of way) ; thence South 1° 13 ' 21 " East along . said westerly right of way line 791 . 76 feet to the north I. inc of the south 210 feet in width of said Government Lot 11 ; thence North 87° 47 ' 19" West along said north line 1.65 . 55 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. EXCEPT , that portion lying south of A line parallel with and distant 5 feet north, measured at right angles , from the following described line: Beginning at the point of intersection of the south line of the Henry Meador' Donation C) aim No. 46 and the centerline Of State Highway 1181 West Valley high~:ay) ; thence N 8° 52 ' a distanceof S . S fact along said highway centerline ; thence S 85° 30 ' Z6" E. •t 1 . 1 •t feet to the easterly margin of said highway . and the • TRITE POINT OF BEG] NNJNC; thence continuing the E.7 . 79 feet ore less to westerly-• S margin of?said Puget SoundrElectric Railway right of way . a ,perpetual utility casement to the SUBJECT• TO State of ti`'n:liinl;ton , recorded under King County GS?.a398 , ALSO, SUBJECT I'0 b Auditor ' s File No. 1 ,j easem'ents ,: reservations and restrictions o K 4 • -. A1-: ii; record. Area: 80 ,266 square feet , more or less . To- gether with the building to be. constructed t thereon as hereinafter provided. ROU'1'I: SCIII:IJIIIA: PLANNINC DEPARTMENT DATE ROUTED 7///1 I'LE/\SL RL:VIEW THIS APPLICATION FOR; uuvvtouHSuTtit'. '141"(4REZONE MAJOR PLAT I't'C APPRUVAI '111., 1LK. p42-1c., SHORT PLAT SPECIAL PERMIT WAIVER SIIORELINE. MANAGEMENT PERMIT OR I:XI:MI"I'l.ON AND RI:'I'IIItN TO 1'11E I'IJ\NN:I N(. I)I:I'/\RPMI:N'1' WITH ANY COMMENTS YOU MIC.IIT HAVE, BEFORE 7/6/1 SIGNATURE OR INITIAL DEPARTMENT APPROVAL DENIAL IU1'I'I: ILDINC 7--( 7 TRAFFIC ENC.1 l e fENCINLL'RI 7/ FIRE HEALTH REVIEWER'S COMMENTS OR APPROVAL CONDITIONS: R5%-/1"), jiL L 2 s.mac' />! o ate. , llytS/'7 4'• ' a f T'4 sue3,440,1 Futcaket.. WIPE RE, &1 6 Staff Report July 24 , 1974 Page Four APPLICATION : SPECIAL PERMIT ( FILL ) APPLICANT : GLACIER PARK COMPANY LOCATION : On east side of West Valley Highway approximately 200 feet north of Strander Boulevard Bridge . ZONING : M-P APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE MINING , 4-2302 ; 4-2305 ; 4-2306 ; 4-2307 EXCAVATION & GRADING ORD. : REQUEST : Applicant requests Special Permit from Planning Commission to fill the subject site . COMMENTS : 1 . Approximate volume of fill = 2800 cubic yards . Approximate volume of related cuts = 600 cubic yards . 2 . Subject site lies just north of the proposed 10 foot Puget Power access road or approximately 60 feet north of the south line of the Henry Meader Donation Claim 46 . 3 . Proposed fill is considered to be a minor activity having no significant impact on the environment. 4 . Proposal will require a State Floodplain Permit through King County Department of Hydraulics . RECOMVENDA- Recommend approval with staff approval of TION : provisions for erosion control and sedimentation control during construction . APPLICATION : SITE APPROVAL IN A M-P ZONE APPLICANT : GLACIER PARK COMPANY LOCATION : On east side of West Valley Highway approximately 500 feet north of Strander Boulevard Bridge . ZONING : M-P APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF 4-730 ; Chapter 22 , Parking and Loading THE ZONING CODE : REQUEST : Applicant requests approval from the Planning Commission of plans for a restaurant facility in a M-P Zone . COMMENTS : 1 . Parking required = 91 spaces Parking provided = 126 spaces 2 . The landscape plan as revised meets staff approval and S . C . S . requirements , the possibility of saving additional trees will be investigated . S',Je /41j.../0.-c/mot/ Penton Planning Commission Neeting July 24 , 1974 Page Ten 3 . PAVING OF THAT PORTION OF THE TEN FOOT PERMA- NENT ACCESS EASEMENT CROSSING GLACIER PARK PROPERTY TO THE WEST AT SUCH TIME THAT PROPERTY IS FULLY DEVELOPED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Commission Mola inquired about the landscaping of the Puget Sound Power and Light transformer on the East Valley Highway . He recommended that the Company consider updating their beautification program , as long range plans for the area indicate M/P zoning . Commissioner Seymour indicated her agreement with the recommendation . SPECIAL PERMIT - SITE APPROVAL D, GLACIER PARK CO . ; Appl . No . SP-784-74 ; special permit to allow filling and grading in M-P zone ; property located on east side of West Valley Highway at inter- section with Strander Blvd . A presentation was requested of the Planning Director by the Chairman , who advised the Commission that the appli - cant is requesting a special permit to allow filling and grading and approval of a site plan proposal for a res- taurant facility . SPECIAL PERMIT Mr. Ericksen pointed out the location of the 1 . 8 acre site on the vicinity map and advised that approximately 3400 cubic yards of fill are proposed . Proposal is to fill a low area and regrade the site for development of a new restaurant facility . He stated that it is the opinion of the staff that it is a minor action with insignificant environmental impact . Areas to be filled and regraded were noted on the topographical map . SITE APPROVAL The Planning Director described the restaurant facility and reviewed the site plan . The feasibility of retaining mature trees on the site has been discussed with the appli - cant . The landscape plan meets the M-P ordinance and Soil Conservation Service requirements . A food control permit will be required from the King County Department of Hydrau- lics , and an oil -water separator will be required for the parking areas . Discussion ensued regarding landscaping and parking plans . It was noted by Seymour that 126 parking spaces were pro- vided , while only 91 were required . It was suggested that the excess parking could be utilized for landscaping . The Chairman invited comment from the audience but received no response . Following discussion , IT WAS MOVED BY GIBSON , SECONDED BY MOLA , THAT THE PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING GLACIER PARK COM- PANY ' S REQUEST TO FILL AND GRADE BE CLOSED . MOTION CARRIED . ACTION: MOVED BY SCHOLES, SECONDED BY GIBSON, THAT THE REQUEST FOR FILLING AND GRADING BE GRANTED TO THE GLACIER PARK COMPANY SUBJECT TO PROVISION FOR EROSION CONTROL AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL DURING CONSTRUCTION. MOTION CARRIED. Renton Planning Commission Meeting July 24 , 1974 Page Nine will eventually be phased out , when the Glacier Park property to the west is developed . Responding to Ross , Office Engineer Touma indicated that the site will be reviewed for adequate storm drainage control and noted that the proposed access is adequate . Landscaping plans were discussed , and it was noted that the site is six feet below the existing railroad bed . Responding to Mola , the Planning Director indicated that the applicant has received a flood control permit from King County Hydraulics . Answering a query by Scholes , Mr . Phil Wood , Puget Sound Power and Light Company , stated that they have requested a permit to cross over the Chicago Milwaukee Railroad Company tracks . Assistant Planner Smith noted that the Company has the right to cross the railroad at the temporary access point at this time and that it is planned to use the temporary access until an agreement is worked out for permanent crossing . Further discussion ensued regarding adequacy of landscaping , especially as it affects plans for fencing . Responding to Scholes , Assistant Planner Smith described heights of planned structures and towers . Following further discussion , IT WAS MOVED BY ROSS , SECONDED BY MORRTSON , THAT THE PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING THE SPECIAL PERMIT REQUEST OF PUGET SOUND POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY BE CLOSED . MOTION CARRIED . CTION: MOVED BY ROSS, SECONDED BY MORRISON, THAT THE PUGET SOUND POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY REQUEST TO FILL AND GRADE BE GRANTED SUBJECT TO STAFF APPROVAL OF EROSION CONTROL METHODS ON ALL SLOPES AND APPROVAL OF LANDSCAPE PLAN LABELFn MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The Chairman called for further comment on the site approval request from the audience . Court Ashley , Puget Sound Power and Light , stated that this is planned to be a termination station , with no transformer . Responding to Scholes , he indicated that the substation is necessary to provide alternate service to South Center and that general industrial area in case of power failure . Following discussion , IT WAS MOVED BY MORRISON , SECONDED BY ROSS , THAT THE PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING THE SITE APPROVAL PROPOSAL BY PUGET SOUND POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY BE CLOSED . MOTION CARRIED . ACTION: MOVED BY SEYMOUR, SECONDED BY MOLA , TO APPROVE THE SITE PLAN FOR PUGET SOUND POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY SUBJECT TO THE FOLT.OW- ING CONDITIONS: 1 . STAFF APPROVAL OF FINAL LANDSCAPING PLANS INCLUDING THE REQUEST THAT STAFF APPROVAL OF FINAL LANDSCAP- ING PLANS GIVE SPECIAL CONSIDERATION TO A SITE OBSCURING FENCE. 2 . POSTING OF PERFORMANCE BOND FOR 150% INSTALLATION OF LANDSCAPING AND MAINTENANCE FOR A THREE YEAR PERIOD. Renton Planning Commission Meeting July 24 , 1974 Page Twelve B. COMMITTEE REPORTS The Chairman called for committee reports . 1 . COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMITTEE CHICAGO, MILWAUKEE, ST. PAUL AND PACIFIC RAILROAD CO. - APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL PERMIT TO FILL Chairman Scholes advised that Milwaukee Railroad has asked the Commission to expedite considera- tion of their request to fill and has amended their application to seek approval initially of a portion of Phase I of their original proposal to fill . Scholes advised that the request was made to take advantage of free fill material that had been made available . Scholes read a letter from Mil - waukee Railroad , which confirmed the amended appli - cation and agreed to a width restriction of approxi - mately one hundred feet in width for the fill extending longitudinally parallel to the present fill and limited to clear the forested area . Scholes identified Phase I and Phase II on the section map . The Community Services Committee Chairman described the proposed ultimate plan , presently under study by Wilsey and Ham Consult- ants . He noted that the applicant has requested that initial phases of fill be permitted , pending completion of the total plan . He advised that a committee meeting had been held with the appli - cant , consultants , and staff . The Planning Director advised the Commission that the Chicago , Milwaukee application had been con- tinued to allow for preparation of an environmental assessment. He noted that the document had been received and reviewed . On the basis of the review , it was determined that partial filling - a portion of Phase I - would have an insignificant effect , and a negative declaration of impact would be in order . He emphasized that any additional develop- ment in the area would require an environmental impact statement . Discussion followed regarding appropriateness of considering action on the amended request at this time . Mr . Paul Scott , Western Director of Real Estate and Industrial Development , Milwaukee Road , noted the reasons for their request . Mr. H . E . Hurst , Engineering Assistant to the General Manager , Milwaukee Road , noted that the request involves only the initial phase and asked for favorable action . Ross expressed his support of filling in some instances , stating it sometimes cleans up a rag-tag" appearance . Renton Planning Commission Meeting July 24 , 1974 Page Eleven Discussion continued on the site approval proposal . Respond- ing to Ross , Office Engineer Touma indicated that the Public W rks Department does not anticipate any conflict between the a cess to the Puget Sound Power and Light facility previously c nsi3ered which is adjacent to the property and the curb cuts . Also considered were possible problems of ingress and egress due to traffic speeds on access road . Assistant Planner Smith noted plans with the State Highway Department and coordination between developers of this property and that across the street . Then it WAS MOVED BY WIK , SECONDED BY ROSS , THAT THE PUBLIC HEARING ON GLACIER PARK COMPANY ' S SITE APPROVAL REQUEST BE CLOSED . MOTION CARRIED . ACTION: MOVED BY WIK, SECONDED BY SEYMOUR , THAT THE SITE APPROVAL REQUEST OF GLACIER PARK COMPANY BE APPROVED SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING : 1 . STAFF APPROVAL OF FINAL LANDSCAPE PLANS WITH THE RETEN- TION OF AS MANY OF THE EXISTING TREES AS POSSIBLE. 2 . CITY APPROVAL OF FINAL DRAINAGE PLAN INCLUDING SUFFI- CIENT STORM WATER RETENTION AND OIL/WATER SEPARATION CAPABILITIES AS IS NECESSARY AND ACCEPTABLE BY KING COUNTY HYDRAULICS DEPARTMENT, CITY OF RENTON ENGINEER- ING DEPARTMENT, AND CITY OF RENTON PLANNING DEPARTMENT. 3 . APPROVAL OF A STATE FLOODPLAIN PERMIT THROUGH THE KING COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HYDRAULICS . 4 . APPROVAL BY STATE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT OF ACCESS PLAN. 5. POSTING OF PERFORMANCE BOND FOR 150% INSTALLATION OF LANDSCAPING AND MAINTENANCE FOR A THREE YEAR PERIOD. Concern was again expressed relative to the amount of paving versus landscaping , and it was noted that it was expected that additional parking would be required to serve the public ade- quately . Discussion also pertained to the possibility of widening the driveways at both ends due to the landscaping and speed of traffic on the West Valley Highway . The Planning Director stated that in view of the concern of the Commission , the staff and affected City departments would review these items . On the question , MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 5. ADMINISTRATIVE : A. OPEN SPACE APPLICATION - G . T . MC DANIEL ; Appl . OSC-777-74 ; property located in the May Creek Basin , approximately between N . E . 31st and the Old Pacific Coast Railroad Right- of-Way . The Chairman noted that the reason the application was on the agenda was to establish a public hearing date . He recommended early September in order to allow for action within the time limit set by law. ACTION: MOVED BY ROSS, SECONDED BY SEYMOUR , THAT THE OPEN SPACE APPLI- CATION HEARING FOR G. T . MC DANIEL BE SET FOR SEPTEMBER 11 , 1974 . MOTION CARRIED. Staff Report July ?4 , 1974 Page I i ve 3 . The drainage plan should meet King County Hydraulics Department ' s approval and recommendations . 4 . A double left turn lane will be provided along West Valley Highway to serve both sides of the street and avoid any conflicts . Proposal is being worked out with State Highway Department . RECOM1ENDA- Recommend approval as follows : TION : 1 . Staff approval of final landscape plans with the retention of as many of the existing trees as possible . 2 . City approval of final drainage plan including sufficient storm water retention and oil /water separation capabilities as is necessary and acceptable by King County Hydraulics Department , City of Renton Engineering Department , and City of Renton Planning Department . 3 . Approval of a State Floodplain permit through the King County Department of Hydraulics . 4 . Approval of State Highway Department of access plan . Renton Planning Commission Meeting July 10 , 1974 Page Six 5- ADMINISTRATIVE : A. FIELD TRIP Field trips to view the sites of items of new business were scheduled . Members were given their choice of : 1 .. Saturday , July 13 , 8 : 30 a . m. , Sheraton Inn Coffee Inn . 2 . Monday , July 15 , 7 : 00 p . m. , Municipal Building parking lot . B . OLYMPIC PIPE LINE PROPOSAL Reminding the Commission of their recommendation to Warren C . Gonnason , Public Works Director, that an environmental impact statement be required for Olympic Pipe Line ' s proposal , the Chairman noted that Mr. Gon- nason was present to make his response . Mr. Gonnason advised that the permit that the City would be issuing in connection with the franchise itself for the pipeline merely covers public rights-of-way within the City . The permit gives the Company the right , subject to City regulation , to install their petroleum pipeline facilities within the public rights-of-way of the City . Responding to the concern of the Planning Commission re- garding the potential impact of a terminus being located within the City of Renton , Mr . Gonnason indicated that while he recognized that there could be substantial mpact effects from such development , Olympic Pipe Line does not actually have a terminus in the City of Renton . franster of products through pipelines continues to other areas , In addition , he stated that the matter of poten- tial impact does not pertain directly to this application and that any spinoff impacts , such as petroleum trucking , terminal stations , tanks , etc . , should be treated on their own merits and governed by whatever land use considerations are involved . He indicated that the City Council , through its Community Services Committee , had worked with Olympic and had mitigated a lot of what they considered impacts within the City itself. Discussion followed with Commissioner Humble stating that Olympic had informed Commissioner Scholes , Planning Com- mission Community Services Committee Chairman , that the pipeline would not continue on to Portland . Mr . Gonnason replied that the Company proposes an operation for two lines to Renton and that the existing line goes to Portland now . Mr . Farr of Olympic advised him that regarding terminals for product delivery to organizations such as Shell they can hook into these pipelines at any point and establish facili - ties at any place along the pipeline . Further discussion ensued regarding the location of the Olympic facility in Renton and safety provisions for the pipeline . The Planning Director noted that all areas of potential points of danger have specified valve locations . Responding to Commissioner Wik ' s comment that the Planning Commission Community Services Committee had looked upon the matter from the impact that might evolve from the whole network , Mr . Gonnason said that from some points of view the impact of using a pipeline is less than other Renton Planning Commission Meeting July 10 , 1974 Page Five Noting the location in May Creek Valley adjacent to a B- 1 zone , Mr. Ericksen advised that the request is not in agreement with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan . The applicant presently has a painting operation at his residence which he wishes to convert to a painting contractor' s office , shop and storage . Area involved is approximately 1 . 2 acres . Discussion ensued regarding application of the proposal to B- 1 zoning and future requirement for shoreline manage- ment action . Commissioner Ross asked that results of the pending study of commercial zoning in the May Creek area by the Comprehensive Plan Committee be made available for Commission information . SPECIAL PERMIT - SITE APPROVAL: C. PUGET SOUND POWER & LIGHT CO. ; Appl . No . SP-780-74 special permit to allow filling and grading in G zone ; Appl . No . SA- 781-74 ; site approval for overhead to underground electric transmission terminal station ; property located 150 ' north of Strander Blvd . bridge and 450 ' east of West Valley Highway and southwest of Longacres Race Track . The applicant is undergrounding overhead service lines to the West Valley Highway and requests approval of construc- tion of a power substation similar to others previously approved . Special permit to fill in the substation yard and access road , approximately 2315 cubic yards , will be required . The site is in the vicinity of the Glacier Park site recently rezoned to M/P . Landscaping is included in the site plan . It was noted that this is an allowable use in a G zone subject to Planning Commission approval . SPECIAL PERMIT - SITE APPROVAL: D. GLACIER PARK C0. Appl . No . SP-784- 74 ; special per- mit to allow fillingl and grading in M-P zone ; Appl . No . SA- 785-74 ; site approval for restaurant facility ; property located on east side of West Valley Highway at intersection with Strander Blvd . Noting that the property had recently been rezoned to M-P , the Planning Director stated that it will be neces- sary to fill the northwest corner of the site with approximately 3 , 000 cubic yards of material for ingress and egress . The site will be developed in accordance with M-P standards , and landscaping plans for natural preservation of area meet Soil Conservation Service specifications . SPECIAL PERMIT: E. SHELL OIL CO. ; Appl . No . SP-734-73 ; special permit to construct a petroleum marketing plant in H- 1 zone ; Highway , midway between Olympic Pipeline - Mobil Oil site and Longacres Race Track . The Chairman advised the Planning Commission that it is the Comprehensive Plan Committee ' s intent to have their recommendation to the individual members prior to the July 24 public hearing for their consideration . He urged the members to read the Shell final environmental impact statement and staff summary in preparation for the public hearing on July 24 . Y • h pF V U 11 Q PLANNING DEPARTMENT • RENTON,WASHINGTON o MUNICIPAL BUILDING • RENTON,WASHINGTON 98055 • WAWA 235-2550 ysp04, c.Plw.of v July 25 , 1974 Glacier Park Company Burlington Northern Railroad Richard L . Vincent Real Estate Development Department 600 Central Building Seattle , Washington 98104 RE : Renton Planning Commission action on application for Special Permit and Site Approval , application #SP-784- 74 and SA-785-74 , on a site near Strander BLVD. along West Valley Highway . Dear Mr . Vincent : The Renton Planning Commission reviewed the abovementioned applications at their July 24 , 1974 Public Hearing and approved them subject to the following conditions : Special Permit ( fill ) 1 . Staff approval of provisions for erosion con- trol and sedimentation control during construc- tion . Site Approval 1 . Staff approval of final landscape plans with the retention of as many existing trees as possible . 2 . City approval of final drainage plan with pro- visions for storm water retention and oil /water separation capabilities as is necessary and acceptable by King County Hydraulics , City of Renton Engineering Department, and City of Renton Planning Department . 3 . Approval of State Floodplain Permit through King County Hydraulics Department . 4 . Approval by State Highway Department and City of Renton Engineering Department of access plan . 5 . Posting of a performance bond for installation of landscaping and a 3 year maintenance period . t •-. Richard L . Vincent July 25 , 1974 Page Two Concern was also expressed about the width of the driveways . It was felt that widening them to 30 feet would help to relieve the problems of ingress and egress onto West Valley Highway , given its higher speed limit . This could hopefully be accomplished without endangering any existing trees slated to be incorporated in the site development. Also there was concern that there was not enough landscaping breaking up the large expanses of paving anticipated to accommodate a greater number of parking spaces than are actually required . This impact could possibly be relieved by converting some parking spaces to landscape islands , dispersing them intermittent- ly throughout the parking areas . If you have any further questions , please contact this Department . 7ts7—) ae L . Smith Assistant Planner MLS/kh cc : Roger Williams , Project Architect Richard Bouillon and Assoc . /Architects 1 D!i jig 1 H0 1•.{TION GLIHNRTM1_ I I •F LiI U II I 4 01 I 1I 1 j j B_ Isa Q I d 0 4 i ' f h I, 1 1 r d TN OF .+ENRY ME 1', R DONATIt?N C. AI+, NO 14... .1 II 1 GLACIER PARK CO. SPECIAL PERMIT (FILL) AND SITE APPROVAL : 1 W i I z , io A I \ W , I I 1 e I I I I I I d is 1 O I I I j G t , 1oi I i .'-.. n1_ 7_ I2 Il l I' IZB Iaon uI I l f II 1 1 44. Tir\11;4.- 0. r I l t .i_1_L iL; _L SPECIAL PERMIT (FILL) $ SITE APPROVAL APPLICATIONS : GLACIER PARK CO. ; Appl . No . SP-784-74 ; special permit to allow filling and grading in M-P zone; property located on east side of West Valley Highway approximately '150' north of Strander blvd. - AND APPL. No . SA-785-74 ; site approval for restaurant facility; property as listed above . APPLICANT GLACIER PARK COMPANY TOTAL AREA 1 . 8 acres PRINCIPAL ACCESS SE-181 West Valley Highway EXISTING ZONING M-P EXISTING USE Undeveloped PROPOSED USE Restaurant COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN Manufacturing Park, Light Industry. COMMENTS Applicant proposes to fill the northwest corner of the site with 2800 cubic yards of material and earth cut 600 cubic yards . Proposed restaurant use would be compatible with surrounding prop- erties given proper landscaping and drainage control . Page 6 Record-Chronicle Sunday,July 14, 119/4 Public Notices NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING RENTON PLANNING COMMISSION RENTON,WASHINGTON A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE RENTON PLAN- NING COMMISSION AT ITS REGU- LAR MEETING IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, RENTON, WASHINGTON,ON JULY 24, 1974, AT 8:00 P.M. TO CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING PETITIONS: APPLICATION FOR FINAL PLAT APPROVAL; file no. FP- 770.74; property located on N.E. 16th St. and Kennewick Ave. N.E. REZONE FROM G9600 TO • B-1; file No. R-778-74; proper- ty loCated on Jones Ave. N.E. south of the Production Co. and Weichmann Enterprises. SPECIAL PERMIT TO CON- STRUCT A PETROLEUM MAR- KETING PLANT IN H-1 ZONE; file •No. SP-734-73; property located approx. V2 mile west of East Valley Highway, midway between Olympic Pipe Line - Mobil Oil site and Longacres Race Track. SPECIAL PERMIT TO AL- LOW FILLING AND GRADING IN G ZONE; file No.SP-780-74; property located 150' north of Strander Blvd. bridge and 450' east of West Valley Highway and S.W. of Longacres Race Track. SPECIAL PERMIT TO AL- LOW FILLING AND GRADING IN M-P ZONE; file No. SP-784- 74; property located on east side of West Valley Highway approx. 150.' north'of Strander Blvd. SITE APPROVAL FOR OVERHEAD TO UNDER- , GROUND ELECTRIC TRANS- MISSION TERMINAL STATION; file No. SA-78174; property located 150' south of Strander Blvd, bridge and 450' east of West Valley Highway and S.W. of Longacres Race Track. SITE APPRVOAL FOR RES- TAURANT FACILITY; file• No. SA-785-74; property located on east side of West Valley High- way approx. 150' north of Strander Blvd. Legal descriptions of all applications on file in Planing Department office. ALL PERSONS INTERESTED OF OBJECTING TO SAID PETITIONS ARE INVITED TO BE PRESENT AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION. MEETING ON July 24, 1974 AT 8: 00 P.M. TO VOICE THEIR PRO- TESTS QR OBJECTIONS TO SAME. PUBLISHED July 14,1974. Bylund V.Wik, SECRETARY RENTON PLANNING COMMISSION CERTIFICATION I, Michael L. Smith, HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THREE COPIES OF THE ABOVE DOCUMENT WERE POSTED BY ME IN THREE CON- SPICUOUS PLACES ON THE PROP- ERTY DESCRIBED ABOVE AS , PRESCRIBED BY LAW. ATTEST: Subscribed and sworn to before me, a (Votary Public, on the 11 day of July, 1974. Harriet M.Hilder SIGNED Michael L.Smith Published in the Renton Re- cord Chronicle July 14, 1974. R2841. ENDING OF FILE FILE TITLE abu 77ö57 I