The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutLUA76-895FILE TITLE i. lin D/ 1 I B f Air a S sti' R-2 s ar R- ' 1r I., a . itwit el lit 16P jil°Iiiii"ittle*Iiti 4 . 4,114"1711 fftt. Iiildifigh.e ' ",0',.11.1-- ... . -I •, --7' -'' 4 iiit Idllillirli r 4*aSkj 4,4 ;O:4!efilie :.4 i,NO. I I lit tf`ill' 44.1;4""ii* —\\ - 011.11111 III IIMikv,* : it , r nfi !' VII isi,:fr-os," 41 6 1p ! V/r/1/#Alt Pig "VP A- ` co.... , • Ir. i' RPORM® I m i GS r,ra etE'LL. C\....\ \\ CB Citt.c, _ -fief gr.,4400 A z_ , 119e0121 44 e!iii • 4,^ "JP.-A-4 Tit. ,g1 e'Pd DUANE A. WELLS : REZONE andalC pm SITE APPROVAL G G ti. 1<n w I 2 N Q o f 1:..;;;:,:.•,‘... "•?1"" "---;---. ioi s.. 1 pn V jl1 111I I I I FP`GI : ac` III i III1 ::::; 1 II1I11111011IiIlIII6I9 h.-B..I I iiiii NN q II - II it y l!IIII- r - NO'3-5€ • - i,IIIIIlllllla I:. U !Oil opt r ,tIl ' pIh, R-3' -- fR1 'Ei ! ...ur^r111.. u 4jI l dl ,. , I ' l!: i JJ i. • overall; iI11r. IIIII io 1,4.1q .,yIuIld_ llll1IIIUI iilli r o 1' I;'-'---:..;-. 1-:-/11:- 1-OL.b.isi h" Il"i. 0 pp.- ‘ 1. al irsTio' 1:111-11p01,_.:.„,,afit.:: .7..iiltitiLr: ..... 7:____________ F-7 _, taik.A.W.4-. um immil EL\ J. 1 n:• N,...,„ n 1i1r1,W" nm., i.r.lt.,. u,- ram} tHt...Ii_ oYY.=.-- Mih.I=S__S„.A..I-. 1 Im ll7a ll.. 11 gal4ig0i REZONE AND SITE APPROVAL : • DUANE A. WELLS - Appl . R-894-76 and Appl . SA-895-76 ; rezone from G to M-P and site approval for office/warehouse in an M-P (G ) zone ; . property loca- ted on Lind Ave . S . W. and S .W. 10th St. within Earlington Industrial Park . APPLICANT DUANE A. WELLS TOTAL AREA ±36 ,000 sq . ft. PRIINCIPAL ACCESS S . W. 10th St . EXISTING ZONING G - EXIISTING USE Vacant Property PROPOSED USE Office/Warehouse COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN Manufacturing Park COMMENTS it d.`, } THE CITY OF RENTON MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, WASH. 98055 2.7 CHARLES J. DELAURENTI , MAYOR • • PLANNING DEPARTMENT 4, Q- 235-25500 44-O SEP -lem December 13 1976 Duane A. Wells q5 South Grady Way Renton, Washington 98055 RE: SITE PLAN APPROVAL, FILE NO. SA-895-76 Dear Mr. Wells : The Renton Planning Commission at its December 8 , 1976 , public hearing approved your revised site -plans for a . Proposed warehouse in Earlington Industrial Park subject to the following conditions : 1. Planning Department approval of detailed land- scape plans within the area designated on the revised plans. This includes, but may not be limited to, a minimum ten (10) foot landscape strip along the south property line, provision of planter areas not in conflict with doorways or loading areas on the north and west sides of the proposed building, landscaping of the area between the property line and street not utilized for sidewalk purposes, and a minimum five (5) foot landscape strip along the west property line. Such landscape plan shall be submitted with the Building Permit applica- tion. 2 . Provision of a suitably screened and land- scaped dumpster area at the west side of the proposed building subject to approval of the Planning Department. The area between the building and west property line not specifically needed for the dumpster shall be landscaped. 3 . Provision of proper storm water retention and oil-water separation facilities subject to Public Works Department approval . II p Duane A. Wells December 13 , 1976 Page Two We hope your development will be an attractive and successful addition to the city of Renton. If you have any questions; please contact this department. Very truly yours, Gordon Y. Ericksen Planning Director Michael L. Smith Associate Planner PAILS:wr cc: Building Division Rks CITY OF RENTON ` KUL en\IIED O APPLICATION 4.) Jel. 20 1916 SITE APPROVAL FOR OFFICE USE® ONLY 14/// G File No. SA-a 9-S" 7e Filing Date ' i o - 76 APPLICANT TO COMPLETE ITEMS 1 THROUGH 6 : 1. Name Duane A. Wells Phone 255-1293 Address 15 South Grady Way Renton, Washington 98055 2 . Property location Southwest corner of lind Ave and S.W . lUth st,,._ 3. Legal description (attach additional sheet if necessary) That portion of the former Raa rl i nEton/NorthPrn Railway right of way lying westerly of Lind Ave. S.W. and. Easterly of a line 6Ou Meet west and parallel to Lind Ave S.W. situate in Govt. Lot 2, SW- of the NWT Section 19 Township 23 _N Range 5 East W.M. 4 . Ntlmber of acres or sq. ft. 36000 sq.ft . Present zoning 5. What do you propose to develop on this property? Office/warehouse 6 . The following information shall be submitted with this application: Scale A. Site 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 76 Date denied Date appealed Appeal action Remarks //,,„4 rr:/i-a( -.1:0//4 aid F 0//70., 5' , Planning Dept. 2-73 AFFIDAVIT Duane- A. Wells being duly sworn, declare that I am the,,t of the property involved in this application and that the . . foregoing statements and answers herein contained and the information herewith submitted are in all respects true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Subscribed and sworn before me this zc) ' day of October 1976 , Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, residing at Name of Notary Public)Signature of Owner) T- c-L (A4. 15 South Grady Way Address) Address) Renton, Washington 98055 City) • State) 255-1293 Telephone) FOR OFFICE USE ONLY) CERTIFICATION This is to certify that the foregoing application has been inspected by me and has been found t —t-horough and complete in every particular and to conform t,o the .rul azcd r g' l:e.tions of the Renton Planning Department governing the .fit ' of(Iii edi4gication . lrr 2 Date Received c7 2() ;o , 97C By: C 2,y NG DEPA/R h Renton Planning Dept . 2-73 ROUTING FOR REVIEW OF ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORMS TO : Finance Department Fire Department Library Department Park Department 8,Police Department j Public Works Department 8 , Building Div . Traffic Engineering Div . Engineering Div . Utilities Engineering Div . FROM : Planning Department , (signed by responsible official or his designee ) SUBJECT : Review of ECF- Application No . : /-( - ,11S-J( Action Name : T*',4kEJ L: 4,)cELc_.s 5 t TIT ./: L A L. Aly+,-c A„'/-.c— l Please review the attached . Review requested by ( date) : REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : Department : .5---n7;>Pet--, t, Ve:;/liU Comments : A/o .S/,,n, /c-a.,t71 -13w,de,74 2-"C tcc.c.,.L. Z(7 ) d,c.e,_._ 3 7( Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : sDepartment : idle L1 /,S, 3)l1 Comments : n/ . j ` // W. 4 iP o k- e f/ T 'e1 n i ) 4 REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : Department : L '` r=/i iv'' t/C. Comments : Ir /,JLI c/ ) 0-2.-/ e1e tl /U.?L I I e- G u c Y a J L_ r•J_.. d L v c>"s I ca4 e lc s 1 Lr `7 V b i ( G .I C I O -U 1 y- ? "tC E o LCJ Sidnature of Director or Authorized Reeeresen tative Date 9.0 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 REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : Department : Comments : r rivry tii-t=rn=i+ ti r_tV,- i-itily=rii —J- l 1V-r t=Lrrivl.0 iiv =i cviv i f" i iIIi.L Application No . SA-895-76 PROPOSED Declaration Environmental Checklist No . ECF-184-76 X FINAL Declaration Description of proposal Warehouse/Office Facility Proponent Duane A. Wells Southwest corner of Zind Ave . S . W. Location of Proposal and S . W. 10th Street Lead , Agency Renton Planning Department This proposal has been determined to have not have a significant adverse impact upon the environment . An EIS is is not required under RCW 43 . 21C . 030 ( 2 ) (c ) . This decision was - ma elafter review by the lead agency of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency . Reasons for declaration of /environmental significance : Minor project in area of similar uses to that which is proposed . Various site amenities and drainage controls will be included in site; development. II_ Measures , if any , that could be taken to prevent or mitigate the environmental impacts to such an extent that the lead agency would withdraw its declaration of significance and issue a ( proposed/final ) declaration of non-significance : Responsible Official Gordon Y . Ericksen Title Pl anni n Di r ctor ate A Signature City of Renton Planning Department 5-76 CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM FOR OFFICE USE ONLY 00 Application No. 54-19S7L Environmental Checklist No. kedv-i1V 76 PROPOSED, date: FINAL, date: /2- 13-76 Declaration of Significance Declaration of Significance Declaration of Non-Significance er:4 Declaration of Non-Significance COMMENTS: Introduction The State Environmental Policy Act of 1971, Chapter 43.21C, RCW, requires all state and local governmental agencies to consider environmental values both for their own actions and when licensing private proposals. The Act also requires that an EIS be prepared for all major actions significantly affecting the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to help the agencies involved determine whether or not a proposal is such a major action. Please answer the following questions as completely as you can with the information presently available to you. Where explanations of your answers are required, or where you believe an explanation would be helpful to government decision makers , include your explanation in the space provided, or use additional pages if necessary. You should include references to any reports or studies of which you are aware and which are rele- vant to the answers you provide. Complete answers to these questions now will help all agencies involved with your proposal to undertake the required environmental review with- out unnecessary delay. The following questions apply to your total proposal , not just to the license for which you are currently applying or the proposal for which approval is sought. Your answers should include the impacts which will be caused by your proposal when it is completed, even though completion may not occur until sometime in the future. This will allow all of the agencies which will be involved to complete their environmental review now, with- out duplicating paperwork in the future. NOTE: This is a standard form being used by all state and local agencies in the State of Washington for various types of proposals. Many of the questions may not apply to your proposal . If a question does not apply, just answer it "no" and continue on to the next question. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM I . BACKGROUND 1. Name of Proponents /)41.67A/e , /o1., S 2. Address and phone number of Proponent: c_ lr'G01/ /-3,4 . ,,ifc's S z53—/Z.%3 3. Date Checklist submitted c/.2..o 7 4. Agency requiring Checklist 7 Y o i= -A iij'7'd6 5. Name of proposal , if applicable: 6. Nature and brief description of the proposal (including but not limited to its size, general design elements , and other factors that will give an accurate understanding of its scope and nature) : Ccsf S: d.1-7- /G,.dile'G' Sig Syc/I D/Ale 7&a a Gr" .',.,'p 7' .'a L/i.4 C.` i T" 2- 7. Location of proposal (describe the physical setting of the proposal , as well as the extent of the land area affected by any environmental impacts, including any other information needed to give an accurate understanding of the environ- mental setting of the proposal ) : J#C' `, te• CF ii .e./..47 A` d/41,0 ii•Vi/.w v'id .d9i/,) .viT '74c 1/1..6' 3. 4c.J. 7/ c` -42 A, ,r? .9 4/D c. ,i.,!Ei) /2A cam'P. ,Aim, i//;9 c. L13 i--ii. `dee Ci2 Y A/e S C€t.1Ji NC cr`r fi., 'i 4/G' zr:t .: / 0Z1 p'7"..y/er 8. Estimated date for completion of the proposal : 9. List of all permits, licenses or government approvals required for the proposal federal , state and local --including rezones) : Rid);4_0/1VC 17 .car'' d -T- c'. c r d 6e `ter J /` -jam 10. Do you have any plans for future additions , expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes , explain: VC 7 `-r`/i`/, --s./ ..G c!i,oc/ ` 11. Do you know of any plans by others which may affect the property covered by your proposal? . If yes , explain: 12. Attach any other application form that has been completed regarding-the pro- posal ; if none has been completed, but is expected to be filed at some future date, describe the nature of such application form: II . ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required) 1) Earth. Will the proposal result in: a) Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? YES M YBE NO b) Disruptions , displacements , compaction or over- covering of the soil? YES MAYBE NO c) Change in topography or ground surface relief . features? YES MAYBE NO-- d) The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? YES MAYBE NO e) Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils , either on or off the site? f E MAYBE NO f) Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands , or changes in siltation , deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? L6 i Explanation:c. /.V' 1 d G M N 3- 2) Air. Will the proposal result in: a) Air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? YES MAYBE NO b) The creation of objectionable odors? Y— MAYBE NO c) Alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? YES MAYBE NO Explanation: 3) Water. Will the proposal result in: a) Changes in currents , or the course of direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? YES MAYBE NO b) Changes in absorption rates , drainage patterns , or O the rate and. amount of surface water runoff? Y YES MAYBE NO c) Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? YES MAYBE NO d) Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? YES MAYBE NO e) Discharge into surface waters , or in any alteration surface water quality, including but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? YES MAYBE P— M Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? YES MAYBE NO g) Change in the quantity of ground waters , either through direct additions or withdrawals , or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? YES MAYBE NO h) Deterioration in ground water quality, either through direct injection, or through the seepage of leachate., phosphates , detergents, waterborne virus or bacteria, or other substances into the ground waters? YES MAYBE NO i ) Reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? YES MAYBE WU— Explanation: •7"/9/&' c7 Tf` r'd jam 4-10e.4 rJfL[ C'a/T,9//E, /A/ .t'_c' eiJr/o s /'/127 r7 ssa.,./i,9 G:' .6 7-0 .1-.4- Sri*6 'TG.A c! #/,cc-.3 y 4) Flora. Will the proposal result in: a) Change in the diversity of species , or numbers of any species of flora (including trees , shrubs , grass , crops , microflora and aquatic plants)?S YES MAYBE WO— O)) Reduction of the numbers of any unique , rare or endangered species of flora? YES MAYBE NO c) Introduction of new species of flora into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? YET- MAYBE NO d) Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? YES MAYBE NO Explanation: `7'-714- Si/A/C & J9c` .92Z4 Ti g 17Oi1/r 7:4/9/1/77h/4. ;legal s , L.6,V 6-7".'4/,. 0-9is ' ,9,v1) //P .4v` jr1/C1- >J/L L- 4•e E TL Y z ri,D'.e r„y Yt S 7 i14i c 4 5) Fauna. Will the proposal result in: a) Changes in the diversity of species , or numbers of any species of fauna (birds , land animals including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms , insects or microfauna)? YES MAYBE NO b) Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of fauna? YES MAYBE NO c) Introduction of new species of fauna into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of fauna?G, ' YES MAYBE NO d) Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? YES MAYBE NO Explanation: 6) Noise. Will the proposal increase existing noise levels? YES MAYBE NO Explanation: ,441.5. A 4 i'6i. ..72.'Y''/A,/C G G,/CiAeG 1 a;<1°,41 l ,t/ i 0-x e E i>X/ /tV 47 tom' eire /y erA/vr, (JL&-X/o t1i, 1j/4-4- .0,k5 #4/G a/V'?-V 4e1 i-,e l3,/,7 EX'S: Afo r S`& 7) Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? YES MAYBE Explanation: 8) Land Use. Will the proposal result in the alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? YES MAYBE NO Explanation: 9) Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a) Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? YES MAYBE NO b) Depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource? YES FUR- NO Explanation: 10) Risk of Upset. Does the proposal involve a risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil , pesticides , chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? YES MAYBE NO Explanation: 11) Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distri- bution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? YES ' MAYBE NO Explanation: 5- 12) Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? YES MAYBE NO Explanation: 13) Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in: a) Generation of additional vehicular movement? YES MAYBE NO b) Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? YES MITE' NO c) Impact upon existing transportation systems? YES-- MAYBE NO d) Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? z VET- MAYBE NO e) Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? YES MAYBE NO f) Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles , bicyclists or pedestrians? YES- MAYBE NO Explanation:E ,f` 5 /6/17- a//t%G,r2.eZ9 i/ l e t.,) r9/(/' /d' 11, E{'/i' le,. ;" . 5/t7 G cr C"'iGv J A TG) Qr9 /41 f y' ly cj iV fer7/-i/C' 7-:/ri9//( '7/E_ / A/Ce-) f 14) Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas : a) Fire protection? t. YES MAYBE NO b) Police protection? YESMAYBE NO c) Schools? 1'r YES MAYBE NO d) Parks or other recreational facilities? u YES MAYBE NO e) Maintenance of public facilities , including roads? G YES ' MAYBE NO f) Other governmental services? r YES MAYS NO Explanation: 15) Energy. Will the proposal result in: a) Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? G ' YES MAYBE No b) Demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? YES MAYBE NU— Explanation: 16) Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or alterations to the following utilities : a) Power or natural gas? YET- WATTE NO b) Communications systems? Gf YES MAYBE NO c) Water? YES MAYBE NO 1,4 6- d) Sewer or septic tanks? li'''' YES MAYBE NO e) Storm water drainage? YES MAYBE NO f) Solid waste and disposal? v'" YES MAYBE NO Explanation: 0F' 7X /5 S: --/Z-'r",C.ZZ 01/ ...!:7 iP"d . /VA S-iei•e. t --,e 3,/<1/il, 17) Human Health. Will the proposal result in the creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding Is'''.mental health)? YES MAYBE NO Explanation: 18) Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? YES MAYBE NO Explanation: 19) Recreation. Will the- proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? L--r' --- YES MBE NO Explanation: 20) Archeological/Historical . Will the proposal result in an alteration of a significant archeological or historical site, structure, object or building? l---- r YES MAYBE NO Explanation: III . 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 decla- ration of non-significance that it might issue in reliance upon this checklist should there be any willful misrepresentation or wilyfa lack of full disclosure 'on my part. Proponent: A-it %" signed)il- name printed) City of Renton Planning Department 5-76 1' ROUTING FOR REVIEW OF ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORMS TO : finance Department Fire Department. l Library Department Park Department j Police Department Publi Works Department raffic .Engineering Div . Building Qiv . d..' Engineering Div . Utilities Engineering Div .C .:. f FROM : Pl anning Department (signed by responsible offielal . or his i desi gnee) fSUBJECTReviewo ECF- 9: Application No, Action Name C please review the` attached Review . requested by: ( date) : REVIEW BY OTHER'.CITY DEPARTMENTS : Department in , Bet--) ae-71"?/. Comments y?. E'er_ -> Z a t :u : ://e..-z.._..- ized RepresentativeISi,gnature _ of , Director or Author REVIEW BY, OTHER 'CITY' DEPARTMENTS Iji,"4,c D Di Department : Comments L j i' /92 0 f Di rector or. Authori ed. Represen tative Date . Signature ® am aa , i.. f_ ya-\ c-,;..\ e (1JAH:iyi ;,-/ zi L ,gi, r; 4. . ii I 1 u fr / 1: I ,, j IC.,... ,../-!1X) OP C 1 i I, A. s . . 7 I n i i z- : 1;ki.:4-411:iiii.. , df z 1,I JACK ON N D I, 11 II z T SP ISII IT _______ ___1,___ .71_774-- r 1 --- e-- : -- o 1 ONGACRES RACE in TRACK I 11 1 II ftjI' 1 iii 6 i . : rral, ' u I C. • `' I l i yy' t; I tea• E AtT LINE '• r9.HEA•ER DL C NO. 4G y11 I ? I I I TNOM. AVE 6 r L I 1,.. I.ZZ:1:'`'. o• 4 1. .ram 1 Y I I ,.vr1' r.'....LC:- ...., .,. ''` '.:.41:.....- 1.....'7 7:: 4"". rZ, -- TMOMAS c Iltfli OEMS may:]. R,I IA'•I I r T '''777 I I I'l..l' I 1 f I!, j•, 1 1 1 l'JO , • 1. ; i:: T..' li . -_ ZE• `, I f' I i.I•o i .i't::L' ..I' I I fir. — a N:^ I I I r a' 0,,,rxp .AVE s: 4vc .-a:. I .I i! i t I E•, I I `I I•i i,1,IS.1. -I'Amor 1 LIND A\'• II I I - ili I; I•i 1 u 1•11+J_ i 1' , i'''.' l; •'11•f Il v' tie f C 111E_6I, ,,, f ` lam I•'• II A\1rv \b 1114:_y- r'I I I I I I. I I / L' ' • wiiIiiiiJTiOiiiiin L' ',I IJ . 1.I ' 'I 1 /// A=?'y= i9 PSN NO F51-1 NQ • _,y I I;' • . ' , --,-----------'N. LI\-- if 1,11:\--- I ICI i= -- :I= : I! I t .- - .4 ,.. J; : J + i . 1 . i I 1 rl Il y //// 11.1 z_rL= =.. ..e....--E._-- y.,•,7-_. -sue NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING RENTON PLANNING COMMISSION RENTON , WASHINGTON A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE RENTON PLANNING COMMISSION AT ITS REGULARREMBETIN IN THE COUNCILG CHAMBERS , CITY HALL , RENTON , WASHINGTON , ON 19 AT 8 : 00 P . M. TO CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING PETiITIONS : 1 . VARIANCE FROM THE SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS ; file No . V-880-76 ; property located in the vicinity of 2700 Mountain View Ave . No . 2 . REZONE FROM C TO B a ; file N-e . R 889 76 ; property locatcd• at t h-e s u'uthw 3 . REZONE FROM R- 1 AND S- 1 TO R- 1 , R-2 , R-3 AND R-4 ; file No' R-891-76 ; property located east of SR- 169 (Maple V alley Highway ) south of Monterey Terrace and Mt . Olivet Cemetery and west of Bonneville Power Right-of-Way . 4 . REZONE FROM R-1 TO B-P ; file No . R-892-76 ; property located at 437 South Whitworth Ave . 5 . REZONE FROM G TO M-P ; file No . R-893-76 ; property located on West Valley Highway approx . 450 ' north of S . W . 43rd St . 6 . REZONE FROM G TO M-P ; file No . R-894-76 ; property located on Lind Ave . S . W. and S . W . 10th St . within Earlington Industrial Park . 47 . SITE APPROVAL FOR OFFICE/WAREHOUSE IN AN M-P ZONE ; file No . SA-895-76 ; property looted on Lind Ave . S . W. and S . W . 10th St . within Earlington Industrial Park . 8 . WAIVER OF OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS FOR A TWO LOT SHORT PLAT ; file No . W-888-76 ; property located at 2415 Meadow Ave . No . Legal descriptions of all applications noted above on file in the Reston Planning Department . ALL INTERESTED PERSONS TO SAID PETITIONS ARE INVITED TO BE PRESENT AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ON NOV EMBER 10 , 1976 AT 8 : 00 P . M . TO EXPRESS THEIR OPINIONS . SANDRA GIST , SECRETARY PUBLISHED October 31 , 1976 RENTON PLANNING COMMISSION CERTIFICATION I , MICHAEL L . SMITH HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THREE COPIES OF THE ABOVE DOCUMENT WERE POSTED BY ME IN THREE CONSPICUOUS PLACES ON THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED ABOVE AS PRESCRIBED BY LAW . 1 ATTEST : Subscribed and sworn SIGNEDGNED .2tobeforeme , a Notary Public , on the 28thday of October 19 7 . MO-lee-wad.% 720 -2-' Ili Public Notices Public Notices NOTICE OF SITE IMPROVEMENTS PUBLIC HEARING FOR A TWO LOT SHORT RENTON PLANNING PLAT; file No. W-888-76; COMMISSION property located at 2415 RENTON,WASHINGTON Meadow Ave. No. • • A PUBLIC HEARING Legal descriptions.of all WILL BE HELD BY THE applications noted above on RENTON PLANNING COM- file in the Renton Planning MISSION AT ITS REGU- Department. LAR MEETING IN THE ALL INTERESTED COUNCIL CHAMBERS, PERSONS TO SAID CITY HALL, RENTON,.; PETITIONS ARE INVITED WASHING T.0N, ON . TO BE PRESENT.AT THE NOVEMBER 10, 1976, AT PLANNING COMMISSION 8:00 P.M. TO CONSIDER MEETING ON NOVEMBER. THE FOLLOWING 10, 1976, AT 8:00 P.M. TO PETITIONS: EXPRESS THEIR 1. VARIANCE FROM OPINIONS. THE SHORELINE MASTER Sandra Gist, PROGRAM RE - - Secretary QUIREMENTS; file No. V- . .Renton Planning 880-76; property located in Commission the vicinity of 2700 Mountain Published in the Renton View Ave. No. Record-Chronicle October 2. REZONE FROM R-1 31, 1976. R4026 AND S-1 TO R-1, R-2, R-3 AND R-4;file No.R-891-76; property located east of SR- 169(Maple Valley Highway) south of Monterey Terrace and Mt.Olivet Cemetery and west of Bonneville Power Right-of-Way. 3. REZONE FROM R-1 TO B-P; file No. R-892-76; property located at 437 South Whitworth Ave. 4.REZONE FROM GTO M-P; file No. R-893-76; property located on West Valley Highway approx.450' north of.S.W.43rd St. 5.REZONE FROM GTO M-P; file No. R-894-76; property located on Lind Ave.S.W.and S.W.10th St. within Earlington Industrial Park. 6. SITE APPROVAL FOR OFFICE/WARE- HOUSE IN AN AM-P ZONE; file No.SA-895-76;property located on Lind Ave. S.W. • and S.W. 10th St. within Earlington Industrial Park. 7. WAIVER OF OFF- 1= ; r r uC .,-, i rlc;;DATE ROUTED // //76. PLEASE REVIEW THIS APPLICATION FOR: 1 R.z..O v AJOP PLAT 1/(mkpTrP? ;O',' SHORT PLAT SPECIAL PERMIT WAIVER PERMIT OR EXEMPTION AND RETURN TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT WITH ANY COMMENTS YOU MIGHT HAVE , BEFORE /1 .57C SIGNATURE OR INITA'DEPARTMENT 52!L_DENIAL D.T E 7zBLI U 1(dG ENGINEEPIN' V 4 G FI r. HEALTH e_03,___ A ze.fr,1? REVIEWER ' S COO, , + i "R APPROVAL CONDITIONS : T 2Ak1-S 7/49 I ' y/U euA Y'1 re-c- ZOc/gTC-b 7-0 Atto g ck 9l. 6, c--fai/11 6 OA) 2( C.ic_ cJ, 4ueUev- LV'I_ U T CGCUY' 1 S Ye e-F -I-0 tad<<- J 9 cloc{ t(S l 1/o i`( !%.P- (-''f /erg< !ffrie2,—S , PLEASE SIGN THE E . I .W . . w a a, e Ale/AS Renton Planning Commission Meeting December 8, 1976 Page Eight Commission .discussion followed . Commissioner Walker indicated her support of the committee ' s recommendation , noting that -it was was logical . Commissioner. Gist stated that .it..is her opinion that the entire Highlands business district should be- looked at prior to making a recommendation , noting problems developing in the Highlands which may be complicated further by the pro- posed action. Commissioner Teegarden indicated that the time raquired for adequate review of the northeast quadrant of .. the city would preclude any action on the Loveless and Powell application for an extended period of time . The Chairman called for a vote on the question . On the question , MOTION CARRIED, GIST DISSENTING . . Discussion followed relative to the extended. agenda and limited time , and it was suggested that a special public hearing meeting be held on December 15th to consider all of the items of new business . It was decided to continue review . of the public hear- ing items at least until midnight . SITE APPROVAL: E. DUANE A. WELLS ; App.l .' SA-895-76 ; site . approval for . office/ warehouse in an M-P zone ; property located on Lind Ave .., S. W. and SA: 10th St•.. within Earlington Industrial Park . Responding to the request of the Chairman , Associate Planner Smith noted staff. meetings with the applicant to review con- cerns expressed by. the Planning Commission regarding the pro- poal at the previous public hearing. Mr. Smith indicated • that the applicant has revised plans that reflect 'the con- cerns of the Commission . He described revised plans , proposed . landscaping , and parking . He indicated the applicant 'concurs in 'rthe recommendations made . He then discussed plans for use of the structure , parking requirements and provisions , and traffic circulation in the loading area . The Chairman invited comment from the applicant. ' Duane Wells , 15 South Grady Way , stated that they concur in the revised plan and requested approval . 1 Audience comment was invited by Chairman Garrison , but none was received . IT WAS THEN MOVED BY GIST , SECONDED BY TEEGARDEN , THAT THE PUBLIC HEARING' BE CLOSED. MOTION CARRIED. Following a brief discussion, 'IT WAS . . ACTION MOV1ED BY TEEGARDEN, SECONDED BY GIST, THAT THE PLANNING COMMIS- SION APPROVE THE MODIFIED SITE PLAN DATED DECEMB:ER 3, 1976 , and further subject to; 1 . IPLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL OF DETAILED LANDSCAPE PLANS INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO A 10 FOOT LANDSCAPE STRIP ALONG THE SOUTH PROPERTY LINE, PROVISION OF PLANTER AREAS ADJACENT TO THE NORTH SIDE OF THE BUILDING IN THOSE AREAS NOT IN CONFLICT WITH DOORWAYS OR LOADING AREAS, A MINIMUM OF A 5 FOOT LANDSCAPE STRIP ADJACENT TO THE WEST PROPERTY LINE, AND LANDSCAPING OF THE AREA BETWEEN THE PROPERTY LINE AND STREET CURBING NOT UTILIZED FOR -SIDEWALK PURPOSES . SUCH LANDSCAPE PLAN SHALL BE SUBMITTED WITH THE BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION. 2 . PROVISION OF A SUITABLY SCREENED AND LANDSCAPED DUMPSTER AREA AT THE WEST SIDE OF THE PROPOSED BUILDING SUBJECT TO APPROVAL OF THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. THE AREA BETWEEN Renton Planning Commission Meeting December 8 , 1976 Page Seven The following factors were considered in the committee ' s review: the major traffic intersection , topographical condi - tions , composition of the business area, anticipated growth , and the relationship to residential areas . The committee recommends that the Planning Commission 'approve ' the designa- tions as illustrated on Figure 2 of their report , which pro- vides •for some enlargement of the commercial areas at the intersection and a low density multi -family transitional zone to provide protection of the single family areas . It was. noted that the entire northeast quadrant of the city_ could be studied next . Responding to Commissioner Walker , Senior Planner Kruger fur their described the proposed :designation changes in relation to current uses in the area , noting that essentially the com- mercial district at the northeast and southwest corners of the intersection had been expanded . The Chairman invited audience comment. Shannon O ' Neil , 1526 Duval N . E . , indicated hi.s approval of the! proposal . Jim Dalpay , 2425 Monterey Ave . N . E . , stated that he felt the proposal was not definitive regarding property .to the south extending from Duval to Union Avenue N . E . , noted changes he would recommend , and requested that the whole area be con- sidered now. Commissioners Teeg.arden . and Garrison indicated . that .-they felt. additional: study w'o.uld 'be . necessary before a recommendation could be made 'concerning the entire area . S . ,C . .Iffert , 820 Lakeside Ave . So . , Seatt.l'e , noting. his. involvement in property 'on, Union and Sunset', .indicated opposition .to. the proposal and requested- that ,add.itional time be taken to .review the whole area before a final. .recom- mendation is made . He requested consideration be given to changing the Comprehensive . Plan as recommended including extension of the commercial district to the west of Union Avenue from approximately 300 to 600 feet and south to N . E . 12th Place . He stated he was not against the zoning at . S . E . 138th .( Duval Ave . N . E . ) .' Commissioner Teegarden noted existing multi -family develop- ment 'in the area requested for consideration by Mr. Iffer.t .. Dean Tibbott , 17003 N . E . P1. . Bellev.ue , .repres.e;nting the. applicants , stated that the proposed revision is a logical expansion of the existing commercial designation and urged favorable action this evening . The Chairman called for further audience comment, but none ' were Offered . IT WAS THEN MOVED BY, GIST , SECONDED BY WALKER , . THAT THE PUBLIC HEARING BE CLOSED . MOTION CARRIED . The following action was then offered : ACTION: MOVED BY TEEGARDEN, SECONDED BY WALKER, THAT THE. PLANNING COMMISSION CONCUR IN THE LAND USE COMMITTEE REPORT. AND RECOM- ' MEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL THAT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IN THE N.E. SUNSET BOULEVARD AND DUVAL AVENUE N.E. AREA BE CHANGED AS ILLUSTRATED IN FIGURE 2 OF THE ,COMMITTEE REPORT. 4 Renton Planning Commission Meeting December 8 , 1976 Page Nine THE BUILDING AND WEST PROPERY LINE NOT SPECIFICALLY NEEDED FOR THE DUMPSTER SHALL BE LANDSCAPED. 3. PROVISION OF PROPER STORM WATER RETENTION AND OIL-WATER SEPARATION FACILITIES SUBJECT TO PUBLIC WORKS DEPART- MENT APPROVAL. MOTION CARRIED. A recess was declared at 11 : 05 p . m. The meeting was resumed at 11 : 10 p . m . with all members noted above in attendance . 5• NEW BUSINESS : REZONE: A. VALUE VILLAGE ( RUSSELL L . LEACH ) ; Appl . No . R-896-76 ; rezone from R-.2 to B-1 ; property located on Bronson Way between Garden Ave . No . and Park Ave. No . The item was opened for consideration by the Chairman , who requested a staff briefing . The Planning Director noted the site on . the vicinity map , indicating specific areas to be rezoned ; described the existing operation ; discussed the proposal providing for removal of the existing -structure to expand the operation to include new construction of four structures on the site ; and advised regarding parking and landscaping plans . Mr . Ericksen indicated the adjacent single family area to the north and noted proposed re.stric- the covenants relating to landscaping , outdoor storage , and signs . He advised that the request is in agreement with the Comprehensive Plan . The Chairman called for comments from the applicant . Russell Leach , 12505 Bellevue-Redmond Road , Bellevue , archi - tect for Value Village , stated that they have tried to reflect as much sensitivity as possible in the design in view of homes in the area . He then described development plans , including proposals for construction , landscaping , buffering and fencing , and parking . Mr . Leach indicated he was in agreement with the proposed restrictive covenants . Dixon Long , 131 Garden Ave . No . , noting his proximity to the site , stated he felt the plan presented seemed very adequate and that he could see no reason why it should detract from his property . A request for additional audience input resulted in no response . IT WAS THEN MOVED BY GIST , SECONDED BY TEEGARDEN , THAT THE PUBLIC HEARING BE CLOSED . MOTION CARRIED . Following a brief discussion , IT WAS ACTION: MOVED BY WALKER, SECONDED BY GIST, THAT THE PLANNING COMMIS- SION RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE VALUE VILLAGE REZONE REQUEST FROM R-2 TO B-1 WITH THE FILING OF RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS THAT PROVIDE AS FOLLOWS: 1 . , A MINIMUM 10 FOOT LANDSCAPE STRIP WITH A SUITABLE WOOD SCREENING FENCE ALONG THE NORTH PROPERTY LINE. 2. AN AVERAGE 10 FOOT LANDSCAPE STRIP ALONG GARDEN AVE. N. AND BRONSON WAY NORTH AND SUITABLE ,SITE INTERIOR LANDSCAPING . 3 . A .DETAILED LANDSCAPE PLAN FOR THE ENTIRE DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO AND APPROVED BY THE RENTON PLANNING DEPART- MENT. Renton -Planning Commission Meeting December 8 , 1976 Page Ten . 4. NO OUTDOOR STORAGE OF MATERIALS, CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT, SUPPLIES, OR CONTAINERS. ' 5. SIGNING SHALL BE LIMITED TO WALL SIGNS FOR EACH BUSINESS AND ONE POLE SIGN IDENTIFYING ONLY THE SHOPPING 'CENTER . MOTION CARRIED. REZONE: B. THE AUSTIN COMPANY ; Appl . No . R-897-76 ; application for rezone from GS- 1 to M-P ; property located on S . W. 16th St. between Powell Ave . S . W. and Thomas Ave. S . W. The PJ1'anning Director reviewed the rezone request , noting site location , size , existing zoning , proposed use , and agreement with the Comprehensive Plan . As there were no staff questions , comment from the applicant was i,nvited by the Chairman . Gary Shavey , architect , 700 'Cherry . Street , Seattle , indicated that he agreed with the presentation made by Mr. Ericks-en . He then responded to questions from the Commission relating to current use of the site and the dimensions of the parcel . Audience comment was, requested , but none was received . IT WAS THEN MOVED BY GIST , SECONDED BY MOLA ,• THAT THE PUBLIC HEARING BE CLOSED. MOTION CARRIED. Following a brief discussion , IT WAS ACTION: MOVED BY MOLA,. SECONDED BY WALKER, THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REZONE. REQUEST TO THE CITY COUNCIL, AS IT AGREES WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE EXISTING USE AND ZONING IN THE AREA. MOTION CARRIED. SITE APPROVAL: C, THE AUSTIN COMPANY ; Appl . No . SA-898-76 ; application for site approval for office/warehouse in G'S- 1 (M-P) zone ; property located on S . W, 16th St . between Powell ' Ave ,' S . W . and Thomas Ave . S . W. Staff review was , provided by the Planning Director , who noted the (size and condition of the site , proposed development of a warehouse and office facility for Brown Steel Equipment Com- pany;, planned setbacks , and provisions for access . He advised that' the request meets ordinance requirements pertaining to this zone and that approval is recommended . . He then discussed the possibility of the vacation of Thomas. Avenue S . W. , land- scaping plans , provisions for drainage and storage . It was. noted that requirements of the M-P zone would entail a 60 foot building setback from FAI405 . '. The Chairman called for the applicant ' s comments . Gary Shavey, Austin Company architect , stated that it is the applicant ' s intention to submit documentation for the vacation of Thomas Avenue S . W. and noted discussion with the 'City ' s Engineering Division . Mr . Shavey discussed possible modifica- tion to the siting of the proposed structure should the vaca- tion be granted. He noted concern by the Austin Company ' relative to the setback from FAI405 , although he indicated that the Company had provided for the 60 foot, setback in its plans . PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT RENTON PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 8 , 1976 APPLICANT: DUANE WELLS APPLICATION : SITE PLAN APPROVAL , FILE NO . SA-895-76 LOCATION : LIND AVE . S . W. AND S . W. 10TH ST . i FINDINGS AND COMMENTS : 1 . Review of this application was continued until site plan design problems are alleviated . 2 . Planning Department staff met with the applicant on November 15 , 1976 , to discuss the various concerns . • The applicant agreed to make certain changes in the site plan . Most of these changes are reflected in the revised site plan dated December 3 , 1976 . The Planning Department has reviewed and approved the plans with some amendments and conditions .. DECISION CONSIDERATIONS : Approval of revised site plan dated December 3 , 1976 , with corrections noted by Planning Depart- ment and further subject to : 1 . Planning Department approval of detailed landscape plans including but not limited to a 10 foot landscape strip along the south property line , provision of planter areas adjacent to the north side of the building in those areas not in conflict with door- ways or loading areas , a minimum 5 foot landscape strip adjacent to the west property line , and landscaping of the area between the property line and street curb- ing not utilized for sidewalk purposes . Such landscape plan shall be submitted with the building permit application . 2 . Provision of a suitably screened and land- scaped dumpster area at the west side of the proposed building subject to approval of the Planning Department . The area between the building and west property line not specifically needed for the dumpster shall be landscaped . 3 . Provision of proper storm water retention and oil -water separation facilities subject to Public Works Department approval . 4 C y z THE CITY OF RENTON MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, WASH. 98055 CHARLES J. DELAURENTI, MAYOR • PLANNING DEPARTMENT 235-2550o,) qT f SEP.et, MEMORANDUMiI s November 15 , 1976 TO: Files ki FROM: Michael Smith , Associate Planner • RE : DUANE WELLS SITE PLAN APPROVAL , NO. SA-895-76 I met today with Duane Wells regarding the concerns with his site plan expressed at the Planning Commission meeting of November 10, 1976 . We initially discussed the elimination o.f the parking in front of the buildingd that will conflict with loading operationssand shiftingthe parking to the east and west . ends of the building. He agreed that this could be accomplished. He also agreed to eliminate the two middle driveways to discourage maneuvering in the public right-of-way. We then discussed landscaping requirements . He agreed to provide landscaping adjacent to the south and north sides of the building , landscape the ±10 feet between the property line and curb in lieu of installing a side- walk, and prov.iding . a minimum 5 ' landscape screen along the westerly property line. We also discussed the dumpster location at the west end of the site, and he agreed to properly screen this area . He said that he would have his architect prepare revised plans reflecting the above changes . MLS :wr 0.1ei. 6V9X—y 6 Renton Planning Commission Meeting ;November 10, 1976 Page Seven indicates manufacturing park ; and there are adequate utilities available for that use. There were no questions presented to Mr. 'Fite. Audience comments in favor or in opposition were invited by the Vice-chairman . None were received. Commissioner Teegarden , noting that this is the Commission ' s first notification regarding the property , indicated his desire to visit the site prior to making a decision and moved that the matter be referred to the Special Studies Committee for review and report back on December., 8 , 1976 . Noting no second , the Vice-chairman called for further Commission discussion and con- sideration . Discussion among the Commissioners ensued , and the following factors were considered : the trendLof the uses in the area , the Comprehensive Plan manufacturing park designation , possible prematurity of the rezone request , and the matter of need for additional study . Commissioner Teegarden reiterated his feeling that the site should be seen prior to making a decision . IT WAS THEN MOVED BY GIST , SECONDED BY WIK, THAT THE PUBLIC HEARING BE CLOSED. MOTION CARRIED. The following action was then taken : ACTION: MOVED BY GIST, SECONDED BY WIK, THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE F. BARTOW FITE APPLICATION FOR REZONE FROM .G TO M-P, AS IT IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, ADJACENT ZONING, AND ADEQUATE UTILITIES TO SERVE THE PROPERTY. MOTION CARRIED, Teegarden dissenting. Commissioner Teegarden indicated that he had objected to the rezone because of inadequate study. REZONE — SITE APPROVAL: D. DUANE A. WELLS ; Appl . R-894-76 and SA-895-76 ; rezone from G to M-P and site approval for office/warehouse in an M-P ( G ) zone ; property located on Lind Ave . S . W. and S . W . 10th St. within Earlington Industrial Park . Staff review was requested by Vice-chairman Walker. The 'Planning Director apprised the Commission regarding the following : site location , total area , and character of the property. He advised that a site approval for warehouse devel - opment in accordance with M-P standards is also proposed and scheduled for review this evening . He then discussed factors applying to the plot plan relating to the area to be developed , parking provision , access , landscaping , off-site improvements , proximity to roadways , transmission lines , proposed structure height, utilities , and the matter of on-site drainage . REZONE : The Vice-chairman requested that only the rezone request be con- sidered at this time and called for comment from the applicant . Duane Wells , 15 South Grady Way , noted that there ' is present compliance with requirements of the M-P zone . He also advised that a variance was granted from the 20 '. side yard setback from the powerline right-of-way to locate a building 10 ' from that line. Renton Planning Commission Meeting November 10 , 1976 Page Eight No questions were offered by the . Commis'sion , and there were no responses to an invitation for comment in favor o,r opposi - tion . from the audience . IT WAS THEN MOVED BY GIST , SECONDED BY WIK, THAT THE PUBLIC HEARING BE CLOSED. MOTION CARRIED. Commission discussion followed relating to appropriateness for M-P use , reasoning for the granted variance , and applicability of the Comprehensive Plan. On the question to close the public hearing , MOTION CARRIED. Following further brief discussion , IT WAS ACTION: MOVED BY WIK, SECONDED BY GIST, THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMEND APPROVAL. OF THE DUANE A .WELLS REZONE REQUEST TO THE CITY, COUNCIL, AS IT MEETS M-P ZONE REQUIREMENTS, IS IN AGREEMENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, IS COMPATIBLE WITH EXISTING USES IN THE AREA, AND THERE ARE ADEQUATE UTILITIES IN THE AREA . MOTION CARRIED. SITE APPROVAL: Mr. Wells was asked to describe his proposal further to the Commission . ' Mr. Wells distributed photographs of a building in Spokane which is similar to the structure proposed . He discussed parking , access , and landscaping and inquired regarding staff recommenda- tions pertaining to them. The Planning Director and Associate Planner responded relative to ordinance requirements regarding these items and reasons for their recommendations . Due to the questions expressed by the applicant , it was requested that the matter be continued to December 8th to allow time to resolve these questions . IT WAS THEN ACTION: MOVED BY GIST, SECONDED BY TEEGARDEN, THAT THE PUBLIC HEARING BE CONTINUED UNTIL DECEMBER 8 , 1976, UNTIL THE STAFF AND APPLI- CANT CAN WORK OUT APPARENT PROBLEMS RELATING TO THE SITE APPROVAL APPLICATION. MOTION CARRIED. Commissioner Mola indicated his concern regarding the need for appropriate landscaping on the southern part of the site due to its abutting Grady Way. It was indicated that the staff would review the adequacy of the landscaping proposed . WAIVER OF OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS : E. DOUGLAS A. WESTON ; Appl . _ W-888-76 ; waiver of off-site improve- ments for a two lot short plat ; property located at 2415 Meadow Ave . No . The Planning Director introduced the item and requested review by the Associate Planner. Associate Planner Smith noted property location and size , pro- posed subdivision , and a request for waiver of off-site improve- ments as required by ordinance . He indicated that there are no similar improvements in the area . It was decided not to view slides of the neighborhood. The Vice-chairman called for comment from the applicant . Douglas Weston , 21318 - 109th Ave . S . E . , Kent , advised that there are no off-site improvements in the area , that there is a row of trees along Meadow Ave . No . that he does not want to I PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT RENTON PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 8 , 1976 APPLICANT: DUANE WELLS APPLICATION : SITE PLAN APPROVAL , FILE NO. SA-895-76 LOCATION : LIND AVE . S . W. AND S . W. 10TH ST . FINDINGS AND COMMENTS : 1 . Review of this application was continued until site plan design problems are alleviated . 2 . Planning Department staff met with the applicant on November 15 , 1976 , to discuss the various concerns . The applicant agreed to make certain changes in the site plan . Most of these changes are reflected in the revised site plan dated December 3 , 1976 . The Planning Department has reviewed and approved the plans with some amendments and conditions . DECISION CONSIDERATIONS : Approval of revised site plan dated December 3 , 1976 , with corrections noted by Planning Depart- ment and further subject to : 1 . Planning Department approval of detailed landscape plans including but not limited to a 10 foot landscape strip along the south property line , provision of planter areas adjacent to the north side of the building in those areas not in conflict with door- ways or loading areas , a minimum 5 foot landscape strip adjacent to the west property line , and landscaping of the area between the property line and street curb- ing not utilized for sidewalk purposes . Such landscape plan shall be submitted with the building permit application . 2 . Provision of a suitably screened and land- scaped dumpster area at the west side of the proposed building subject to approval of the Planning Department . The area between the building and west property line not specifically needed for the dumpster shall be landscaped . 3 . Provision of proper storm water retention and oil -water separation facilities subject to Public Works Department approval . INTEROFFICE CORRESPONDENCE Date November 4, 1976 TO: Planning Department FROM:Utilities Division SUBJECT: Duane Wells Warehouse Site Approval and Rezone The Utilities Division has several important comments regarding the Duane Wells Warehouse to be located at 10th Ave.S.W. and Lind Ave. S.W. Sanitary sewers and water supply are available to the above site subject to assessment charges and utility extension requirements. Fire hydrants will be required within 165° of the building with no portion of the building farther than 300' from a hydrant. The Fire Department should be contacted regarding this requirement. Area assessment for water service is .01 /ft. of site and for sewer service, O411/sq. ft. of site. If the property owner elects to connect to the Metro 108" trunk for sewer service instead of the City manhole in the Lind and 10th Ave. S.W. intersection, there will be a latecomer charge to Metro approximately $11 .00 per front foot of site. A water main extension will be required along Lind Ave. S.W. , a 12" water main extended from 10th to Grady Way. RB:pmp REFCElltRiff7k)\I 1 1G DEP MEMORANDUM.. DATE: November-:4, 1976 TO: Del Bennett FROM: Clint Morgan SUBJECT: Duane Wells Site Approval Alignment of driveways and loading docks will encourage truck drivers. . to maneuver trucks in the street to park at the loading. bay. I. have denied this proposal pending consideration. This would be a violation of Section 4-2204 of-the building regulations: "Use of Public Right-of-Way. Maneuvering space shall be completely off the right-of-way of any public street except .for parking spaces." y !f CEM:ad RECFIV NG DEPPck. . ENDING OF FILE . FILE TITLE 111 f 440„; 4 7 5 5