No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLUA78-150BEGINNING OF FILE FILE TITLE ggibpomic fO78 MICROFILMED r ASSIGNMENT OF FUNDS IN LI[U OF 61-1rPi- L- )56—tf6:3 FSPECIFICPERFORMANCEBOND 101 31 .7 STATE OF WASHINGTON PROJECT: Benaroya Business Park , Renton ss. LOCATION: Bldgs. 1 through 7 COUNTY OF KING KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that the undersigned does hereby assign, transfer and set over unto the City of Renton all right, title and interest in and to the sum of One Hundred Thirty-Seven Thousand Five Hundred and no/100 Dollars ( $137,500) of savings account, Account No. 0060 12738 8 in South Seattle Branch, Peoples National Bank said account being in the name of Jack A. Benaroya Company, as principal , with full power and authority of the City of Renton to demand, collect and receive said deposit and to give receipt and acquittance therefor. It is understood and agreed that the deposit will be released to the City of Renton on demand and with no other condition of release. It is further understood and agreed that Peoples National Bank holds said account in its possession and agrees to hold $137,500 until a release of this assignment is received from the City of Renton. The condition of the foregoing obligation is such that the above described principal shall complete within one year all landscaping and dumpster screening pursuant to plans approved by the City (Exhibit 4 to Hearing Examiner File No. SA-216-78) and to the same standards as previously approved for Buildings 1 , 2 and 3, Benaroya. Business Park, Renton. In accordance with applicable City ordinances , the above sum represents 150% of the value of the work to be performed. The condition of this obligation is such that if the principal shall complete said improvements in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth herein, this obligation shall be released upon final acceptance of the work by the City, otherwise to rain in full force and effect. 14 Signed, sealed and dated this "-day of October 1979. APPRO ED- AS TO FORM: JACK A. BENAROYA COMPANY 4 f r.--,,(ie I, .-'.' (e/7,7 ,,,-)lC City Attorn , ,City of Rentey on'\__ C -t e,77 ACCEPTANCE The undersigned hereby accepts the foregoing Assignment of Account No. 0060 12738 8in the sum of $137,500 for payment of which, well and truly to be made upon demand by the City of Renton and with no other condition of release of said deposit. We bind ourselves, our heirs , executors, administrators and assigns, jointly and severally, firmly by these presents. PEOPLES NATIONAL BANK Bank) By W. L. BOATMAN Its Vice President RELEASE The undersigned does hereby acknowledge that conditions of the fore- going obligation have been satisfactorily met, and hereby authorizes the release of the sum of $137,500 from Account No. in this day of 1979. CITY OF RENTON By 1& 0-79 _Asz) - 7ce OF R4,11, THE CITY OF RENTON MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON,WASH. 98055 CHARLES J. DELAURENTI , MAYOR • PLANNING DEPARTMENT co- 235-2550 0947- SEP1E 0 P September 12, 1978 MEMORANDUM TO: Warren Gonnason, Public Works Director FROM: Gordon Y. Ericksen, Planning Director By: Michael L. Smith, Senior Planner RE: LONGACRES PARKWAY We have reviewed the proposed plans for Longacres Parkway and S.W. 41st Street adjacent to the Benaroya Company dated June 19, 1978, and received by this department per our request on September 1, 1978, and have the following comments: 1. Per previous discussions with your department and the Burling- ton Northern Railroad, Longacres Parkway has been designated as a parkway system on the City's Comprehensive Plan for the Green River Valley and on the Streets and Arterials Plan. As previously discussed, this includes a landscaped median at the center of the parkway design, together with the planter strips along either side of the parkway. The proposed plans do not reflect such design and must be amended to provide consistency with the adopted plans. 2. The' plans for S.W. 41st Street do not indicate the connector street extending north to the proposed cul-de-sac of S.W. 39th Street. This was a requirement of the preliminary plat approval for Orillia Industrial Park, the conditions of which Benaroya Company agreed to accept as part of the purchase of the site and site plan approval . 3. A meandering bike path should be provided along the north side of S.W.- 41st. 4. Detailed landscape plans should be provided for all landscaping of required off-site improvement planter areas. 5. Springbrook Creek shall be preserved except for that portion of construction 'absolutely necessary for the roadway and sidewalk improvements at the intersection of Longacres Parkway and S.W. 41st Street. We suggest that since these plans have been signed and approved, that we meet as soon as possible to discuss the necessary changes. MLS:wr o THE CITY OF RENTON 2 MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE SO. RENTON. WASH. 98055 o pCHARLES J. DELAURENTI , MAYOR • LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER O L. RICK BEELER , 235 -25930 g( P May 24, 1978 ED SEPS Mr. Ken Long Jack Benaroya Company 5950 6th Avenue South Seattle, WA 98108 RE: File No. SA-150-78; Jack Benaroya Company. Dear Mr. Long: This is to notify you that the above referenced request, which was approved subject to conditions as noted on the Examiner's report of May 9, 1978, has not been appealed within the time period set by ordinance, and therefore, this application is considered final and is being submitted to the City Clerk effective this date for permanent filing. Sinceriely i-7 L. Rick Beeler Hearing Examiner cc: Planning Department City Clerk o THE CITY OF RENTON MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE SO. RENTON, WASH. 98055 z o p ... CHARLES J. DELAURENTI , MAYOR • LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER o O Q. L. RICK BEELER , 235- 2593 p4t SEPSE O May 24, 1978 Mr. Joel Benoliel Legal Counsel Jack A. Benaroya Company 5950 Sixth Avenue South Seattle, WA 98108 RE: File No. SA-150-78; Jack A. Benaroya Company. Dear Mr. Benoliel: In response to your letter of May 23, 1978, this letter is to state the pertinency of the Orillia Industrial Park preliminary plat and final plat to the Benaroya Industrial Park. As was specified in Condition No. 1 of my decision of May 9, 1978, approval of your site plan was subject to: Completion by the Jack Benaroya Company of improvements required in the approved preliminary plat of Orillia Industrial Park and improvements required by the approved final plat thereof, except for improvements which would interfere with and be inconsistent with this approved site plan. Therefore, for the record, compliance is expected with this condition in any development occurring in the Benaroya Industrial Park. I trust this clarifies the record. SinC - • di amft 141316. L. Rick Beeler Hearing Examiner cc: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Gordon Y. Ericksen, Planning Director J. J. Gordon, Manager - Property Management, Burlington Northern Jack A. Benaroya Company 5950 Sixth Avenue South, Seattle, WA 98108 (206)762 4750 410p May 23, 1978 Mr. L. Rick Beeler Land Use Hearing Examiner Municipal Building 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 Re: File No. SA-150-78 Decision dated May 9, 1978. This letter should not be construed to be a formal request for reconsidera- tion of your Decision, nor does the matter discussed below warrant an appeal of such Decision to The City Council . Rather, we believe the record as dis- closed by attachments to your Decision is potentially misleading in one res- pect and we wish to clarify that part of the record. Your communication to The Assistant City Attorney on April 26, 1978 and his response of May 1 , 1978 (both of which are attached to your Decision) relate in part to a possible violation of a provision of the Subdivision Ordinance by Burlington Northern. Both of these communications predate the letters submitted to you by Burlington Northern and by this company, which are dated May 8, 1978, and which were filed with your office on that date. These were also attached to your Decision of May 9, 1978. Our understanding is that as a result of Burlington Northern's action aban- doning its Preliminary Plat as to the subject property, any possible viola- tion of the Subdivision Ordinance was eliminated. Thus, at the time of closing of our purchase from Burlington Northern (Glacier Pack Company) , the subject property will not be "undergoing platting procedures." Further, as a result of this action , we will be purchasing unplatted property, subject only to the requirements of our Site Plan , as approved by you. Under the present circumstances, such sale is not in violation of any law or regulation, and we do not agree that there ever existed a violation) . In the event we later find it necessary or desirable to subdivide this pro- perty, this company would initiate platting procedures pursuant to the Sub- division Ordinance without reliance upon the now abandoned Preliminary Plat. RECEs ) CITY OF r C:;,1 HEARING EXAMINER r.R AY 2 : 1978 AM F' INDUSTRIAL PARKS/WAREHOUSES/OFFICE BUILDINGS/SHOPPING CENTERS AND SPECIALIZAMERCHANDISE MARTS Mr. L. Rick Beeler May 23, 1978 Page Two We believe the foregoing is also understood by your office and by the Assistant City Attorney, but is not clearly stated in the record. This omission could be misleading to anyone who is not familiar with this site application. We hope this letter serves to clarify the record. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Joel Benoliel Legal Counsel cc: J. J. Gordon, Manager - Property Management Burlington Northern ip J 4-kJ O U 11110 OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY • RENTON,WASHINGTON N POST OFFICE BOX 626 100 2nd AVENUE BUILDING • RENTON, WASHINGTON 98055 255-8678 OVA Q- LAWRENCE J.WARREN, CITY ATTORNEY DANIEL KELLOGG, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY 094 4.0SEPt May 1, 1978 TO: L . Rick Beeler, Hearing Examiner FROM: Daniel Kellogg, Assistant City Attorney RE: File No . SA-150-78; Jack A. Benaroya Company Dear Rick: I have your memo of April 26, 1978 concerning the above- entitled matter for reply. I will deal with the questions posed in your letter in the order presented: 1 . Does a violation of Section 9-1110 .2 of the Subdivision Ordinance exist? Answer: Yes . The plain meaning of the statute indicates that Burlington Northern sold a portion of the "parcel" which had been submitted under their preliminary plat application, prior to the time that the plat had been approved by the City of Renton and had been filed for record in the King County Recorder' s office. The exception for sale of the entire parcel between the original subdivider and another subdivider does not apply because the entire parcel under the preliminary plat application was not sold. In addition, the Benaroya Company is not "another subdivider", but rather the ultimate user . In any event, the firm that has violated the ordinance is the Burlington Northern Company, not the Benaroya Company . There is no innocent party here who has been prejudiced by purchasing property which has not been finally platted. Finally, we see no reason under these circumstances why the City should be interested in penalizing the Benaroya Company for violation occasioned by the Burlington Northern. The Benaroya Company has assured this office that they understand the jeopardy that they assumed by purchasing property that has not been finally platted. 2 . Can or should approval of a site plan occur prior to submittal and review of the final plat? Answer: The site plan approval can occur prior to the approval of the final plat. The question of whether site plan approval should occur must be governed by weight of the countervailin factors . It is true that Section 9-1106 (2) (F) and 9-- 1106 (3) (d) require that the final plat be prepared in conformance with the approved preliminary plat . However , the deviations indicated in the testimony and the record which we are aware of seems to be rather insignificant . The principal deviation concerns the location of the proposed S . W. 41st Street between Longacres Parkway and Lind Avenue S . W. . The Hearing Examiner' s decision approving the preliminary plat (recommendation and decision Item 5 (b)) indicate that it was the intention of the Hearing Examiner to approve Public Works and Planning Department review and modification of the proposed access between Lind Avenue S . W. and Longacres Parkway by means of Southwest 41st, Southwest 42nd and Southwest 39th. This scope of review has resulted in the Benaroya Company ' s application to provide greatly increased access via an extended Southwest 41st Street completely between Lind Avenue S . W. and Longacres Parkway. This deviation from the preliminary plat seems to us to be well within the "necessary revisions" which would be made per the approval of these departments" . The other deviations seem to be relatively minor and should have no significance upon the final plat approval . In any event, the Benaroya Company is assuming the risk that their proposed site plan use will satisfactorily comply with whatever consequences are proposed upon them by the final plat . Indeed, they are under an obligation by contract to the Burlington Northern Company to complete the final plat application. It would be possible, and we would advise , that the Hearing Examiner approve the site plan subject to the obligation on the part of the Benaroya Company to complete the final plat application as originally commenced by the Burlington Northern Company. 3. Can or should a building permit be approved prior to submittal and review of the final plat? Answer: The applicant is vested with the right to apply for a building permit on the two individual parcels which make up a part of the preliminary plat and therefore the Benaroya Company is entitled to receive a building permit on each of the parcels . Once again, it is the Benaroya Company' s jeopardy of which they are aware, that any improvement they make upon the property is subject to the provision that they complete the plat application to final plat . They have indicated on the record that they are aware of their jeopardy. Therefore the final plat is not prejudiced by the approval of the site plan. The question of issuance of the building permit is properly before the administration and is not within the jurisdiction of the Hearing Examiner under the application in question . 2- A .1 SUMMARY: It is our conclusion that the Hearing Examiner' s decision should approve the site plan subject to the obligation on the part of the Benaroya Company to complete the final plat per the original preliminary plat of Orillia Industrial Park. We do not approve the transfer from Burlington Northern to Benaroya, or the site plan application or issuance of a building permit prior to approval of the final plat . Indeed, Section 9-1110(2) of the Subdivision Ordinance is designed to prevent exactly this occurrence and the possible consequences upon an innocent purchaser . However, we know of no provision in our law which requires that the applicant waive his vested rights to obtain a building permit on previouly platted land even though it is included in a subsequent preliminary plat . Further, the parties are both sophisticated commercial developers and are well able to assess the jeopardy to themselves by proceeding with the development in the face of the consequences in the event the final plat application conflicts with the site plan which is submitted. If you have any questions , please do not hesitate to contact me. Very -truly,yours , Daniel Kellogg DK:bjm AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING State of Washington) County of King Marilyn J. Petersen being first duly sworn, upon oath disposes and states: That on the 9th day of May 19 78 , of f iant deposited in the mails of the United States a sealed envelope containing a decision or recommendation with postage prepaid, addressed to the parties of record in the below-entitled application or petition. 2Z,,e4:1)t)1 Subscribed and sworn this %L' day of 7 197) e ,>?ze-te Notary Public in and for the state of Washington, residing at Renton Application, Petition or Case : Jack Benaroya Co. , SA-150-78 The ,n nuteb contain a £is-t oti ,the pattiesi,es o6 necond) May 9, 1978 OFFICE OF THE LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION , APPLICANT: Jack Benaroya Company FILE NO. SA-150-78 LOCATION: Along the north side of S.W. 43rd Street between Lind Avenue S.W. and Longacres Parkway. SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Applicant requests approval of plans for development of a warehouse facility consisting of three 371,000 square foot buildings. SUMMARY OF ACTION: Planting Department Recommendation: Approval with conditions. Hearing Examiner Decision: Approval with conditions. PLANNING DEPARTMENT The ?lanning Department staff report was received by the REPORT: Examiner on April 19, 1978. PUBLIC FEARING: After reviewing the Planning Department report, examining available information on file with the application, and field checking the property and surrounding area, the Examiner conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows: The hearing was opened on April 25, 1978 at 9:40 a.m. in the Council Chambers of the Renton Municipal Building. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner. It was reported that the Hearing Examiner and the representative for the applicant had received and reviewed the Planning Department report, and the report was entered into the record as Exhibit #1. The Examiner advised that certain questions relating to procedure had arisen during his review of the application which he felt should be part of the public record prior to commencement of the hearing. He referenced Section 9.1110.2 of the Subdivision Ordinance relating to prohibition of sale of any land which is undergoing platting procedures, noting that the subject property is located within an approved preliminary plat, File No. PP-086-77, Glacier Park Company, and a final plat had not been submitted to date. He also referenced Sections 9.1106.2.f. and 9-1106. 3.d. relating to requirements for preparation of a final plat exactly as the preliminary plat and submittal of a final plat prior to issuance of a building permit. He noted Section 9.1106.2.I. (4) of the Subdivision Ordinance which requires that all prior property lines be recorded in the preliminary plat proceedings. The Examiner asked the representative for the applicant if he was aware of these requirements. Responding was: Ken Long 5950 6th Avenue South Seattle, WA 98108 Mr. Long reported his knowledge of the provisions of the Subdivision Ordinance, but he felt that because the subject property was originally in two separate parcels under two separate ownerships, and that the site plans designate Building No. 1 entirely in one parcel and Building No. 3 entirely in another parcel, that application for a building permit was possible and the hearing for site approval should proceed. The Examiner requested that subsequent testimony address these concerns with Subdivision Ordinance requirements. Michael Smith, Planning Department, reviewed Exhibit #1, and entered the following additional exhibits into the record: Exhibit #2: King County Assessor's Map, 1-200 scale Exhibit #3: King County Assessor's Map, 1-100 scale Exhibit #4: Site Plan with Conceptual Landscape Plan including staff notes Exhibit #5: Site Plan as submitted f SA-150-78 Page Two Exhibit #6: Site Plan with additional parking proposed by staff Exhibit #7: Architectural Rendering Exhibit #8: Colored Elevations of Building Facade Exhibit #9: Building Elevations Exhibit #10: Proposed Drainage Plan Exhibit #11: File No. PP-086-77, Glacier Park Company by reference) Mr. Smith advised that the applicant is developing the final plat separately from the remaining Burlington Northern portion of the plat. He added requirements for storm water retention facilities and oil/water separation facilities to Section P.8 of Exhibit #1, and added Recommendation No. P.12 requiring King County Division of Hydraulics approval of a Flood Zone Control Permit. The Examiner asked Mr. Long if he concurred in Exhibit #1. Mr. Long indicated that he wished to address certain items for purposes of clarification. He reviewed endeavors of the Be'naroya Company to resolve all problems with City of Renton departments prior to submittal of the application for site approval to ensure that the project would be marketable and set a desirable precedent in the area as one of the initial developments in the plat. He reported coordination of plans by various development professionals to provide an aesthetic as well as functional development. He referenced a recommendation contained in a letter from the Fire Department, dated April 6, 1978, requiring railway spurs between buildings to be open at both ends, and reported that the matter had been resolved with the Fire Department through an agreement to install additional sprinklers and exits.) Referencing Section P.1 of Exhibit #1, Mr. Long questioned the intent of staff comments which state that the filing of a final plat would not preclude the granting o4 one building permit for the previously established parcel of property. He reiterated previous comments relating to the location of Building No. 1 on one parcel and Building No. 3 on a separate parcel and questioned whether one building permit would be issued for the entire project or separately for each parcel. Again referencing Section P.1" regarding a recommendation for connection of S.W. 41st Street and S.W. 39th Street, Mr." Long noted that the original preliminary plat recommendation required connection f 41st and 42nd Streets. He advised that the intent of a proposed connection had been me in creating a through street from Lind Avenue to Longacres Parkway with 41st Street and emphasized that a proposed connection of 39th to 41st would not provide a well-desi ned or functional access. He also noted that the Examiner's intent in his recommendation in the preliminary plat was to disallow a long, dead-ended, cul-de-sac. Mr. Long suggested possible alternatives such as extension of 39th through to a main arterial suc as Longacres Parkway or making a loop road to the north, and expressed preference fepr revising the recommendation to disallow a long cul-de-sac but leaving the option open for properly planned access which would direct the traffic onto main city arteria s in lieu of diversion of traffic onto minor access roadways. He indicated concurrence ith the remainder of the staff report, Exhibit #1. The Examiner Basked for testimony in support of the application. Responding was: Joel Benoliel 5950 6th Avenue South Seattle, WA 98108 Mr. Benoliel ddressed procedural concerns expressed by the Examiner at commencement of the hearing. He explained the applicant's obligation and intent to complete final platting of th property in conformance to city requirements and as a condition of the purchase. He oted certain improvements to the original preliminary plat recommendation including exte Sion of 41st Street as a main, 80-foot, connector street connecting the freeway off-rap to Longacres Parkway. He encouraged granting of the site approval and issuance of the building permit subject to an obligation to complete the final platting in accordance with the intent of the preliminary plat approval. He advised that discussions anl review had occurred for several months with various departments of the City of Renton to assure the development's compatibility and conformance with city requirements, a d that the purpose of requesting site approval at this time was one of timing, not of voiding responsibility. Mr. Benoliel inquired if his testimony had sufficiently ad ressed the Examiner's previous concerns regarding procedure. The Examiner reiter ted his concerns regarding occurrence of sale of the property subsequent to approval of preliminary plat but prior to submittal of a final plat. Mr. Benoliel referenced the ast sentence of Section 9-1110.2 of the Subdivision Ordinance which contains a provision of exclusion when the original subdivider sells the entire parcel to another subdi ider. He stated that Burlington Northern as the original subdivider I I I SA-150-78 Page Three had acquired these two parcels separately and had sold them separately to Benaroya Company, the other subdivider. He emphasized that although certain modifications to the original preliminary plat had occurred, they constituted an improvement to the original design, were not substantial, and the applicant would submit a final plat which would conform basically- to the preliminary plat. The Examirer asked for tesimony in support or opposition to the request. There was no response. The Examiner then asked a representative from the Renton Fire Department to respond to revisions in the original Fire Department recommendation for railway spurs. Responding was: Ed Wooton Renton Fire Department Mr. Wooton confirmed Mr. Long's previous testimony and advised that other alternatives for fire safety had been agreed upon to preclude the necessity for railway spurs to be open at both ends between the buildings. The Examiner asked a representative from the Traffic Engineering Division to respond to discussion relating to access. Responding was: Clint Morgan Traffic Engineering Division Referencing Recommendation 5.d. of File No. PP-086-77, Glacier Park Company Preliminary Plat, the Examiner inquired if the division was satisfied with the number and location of curb cuts proposed on S.W. 43rd Street. Mr. Morgan indicated the division's approval. In response to the Examiner's inquiry regarding Section 0.9 of Exhibit #1 that driveways be one-way, Mr. Morgan clarified divisional recommendations for channelization as an optional suggestion for the applicant to aid in improving access to and from the development, and that the comment was intended for consideration only. The Examiner asked Mr. Morgan if location of the railway spurs was acceptable to the Public Works Department. Mr. Morgan reported that he was not aware of a problem with the recommended locations. Referencing Section 0.5 of Exhibit #1, recommendation for park entrance landscaping areas, the Examiner asked Mr. Smith if the submitted landscape plan met departmental intents contained in the preliminary plat. Mr. Smith referred to Exhibit #4 and designated major entrance areas for Orillia Industrial Park and major arterials of Lind Avenue and Longacres Parkway. He advised that special treatment such as a low ground sign would be installed indicating the entrance to the park facility. Responding to the Examiner's inquiry regarding final drainage plans, Mr. Smith advised that a final decision on the plans had not been made, but meetings between the applicant and the Engineering Design Division had resulted in an acceptable plan, and final approval would be subject to Public Works Department review. The Examiner referenced Mr. Long's previous inquiry regarding issuance of building permits and asked Mr. Smith to clarify the matter. Mr. Smith indicated that although the question would be reviewed with the City Attorney, two building permits may be issued for the two existing parcels, but possibly a building permit could be issued to allow construction to commence while final plat review is in process. The Examiner asked Mr. Smith for revisions, modifications or additions to Exhibit #1. Mr. Smith advised that the report would remain as submitted including additional testimony from city departments which revised previous departmental review comments regarding the application. He noted the existence of a critical situation on S.W. 43rd Street because of proposals from the Public Works Department for a five-lane roadway to provide necessary right-of-way and improvements. The Examiner asked Mr. Long if Exhibit #7, architectural rendering, could be replaced with an 81" x 11" photograph for purposes of storage. Mr. Long indicated that the photograph would be provided. The Examiner indicated that because resolution of certain questions regarding the procedure would be required by review with the City Attorney, his decision may be delayed beyond the 14-day period stipulated in the ordinance for issuance of a report. He noted that all legal opinions would be included in the final report as part of the record and asked if parties of record were amenable to this proposal. There was no objection. The Examiner asked for further comments. Since there were none, the hearing on File No. SA-150-78 was closed by the Examiner at 11:15 a.m. 1 r SA-150-78 Page Four FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS: Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: 1. The request is for approval of a site plan for three buildings, each of 371,000 square foot area, in an M-P zone. 2. Thel\Planning Department report accurately sets forth the issues, applicable policies and !provisions, findings of fact, and departmental recommendations in this matter, and is hereby attached as Exhibit #1 and incorporated in this report by reference as set forth in full therein. 3. Pursyuant to the City of Renton's Environmental Ordinance and the State Environmental Polity Act of 1971, as amended by R.C.W. 43.21.C. , a Declaration of Non-Significance has been issued for the subject proposal by Gordon Y. Ericksen, responsible official. 4. Plans for the proposal have been reviewed by all city departments affected by the impact of this development. 5. There was no opposition to the proposal expressed. 6. All eXisting utilities are available and in close proximity. 7. The proposal is compatible with the required setbacks, landscaping, lot coverage and height requirements of Section 4-730 (M-P) and Chapter 22 (Parking and Loading) of Title IV, Ordinance No. 1628, Code of General Ordinances and Resolution No. 1923; except that 23 additional parking stalls are required. 8. The final plat of Orillia Industrial Park has not been submitted to date. A preliminary plat (PP-086-77) was approved by the City Council on January 9, 1978. An examination of the preliminary plat reveals the Benaroya proposal is nonconforming as follows: a. Addition of one more railroad spur. b. Ali4nment of S.W. 42nd Street to be in line with S.W. 41st Street. c. Red ction of the number of lots in Block 4. d. Lengthening the lots adjacent to S.W. 43rd Street and lessening the length of the remaining lots of Block 4. e. Connection of S.W. 39th Street to what was S.W. 42nd Street. I 9. Burlington Northern sold property within and part of the preliminary plat to the Jack Ben roya Company prior to submittal of the final plat. This action was in violatio of Section 9-1110.2 of the Subdivision Ordinance (see attached legal opinion f om Assistant City Attorney) . 10. Exhibits #2 and #3 indicate that the property purchased by the Benaroya Company existed aS two individual tax lots prior to the Orillia Industrial Park preliminary plat. Te timony was not given as to the period of existence of these two tax lots. These lot were not shown in the record of the Orillia Industrial Park preliminary plat. 11. With full nowledge of information supporting findings #8, #9, and #10, the applicant testified f the willingness to proceed with the application. The applicant also testified hat the purchase contract obligated the Benaroya Company to complete the final lat of the purchased property. 12. Curb cuts as proposed are acceptable to the Public Works Department. The curb cut dimensions ,are larger than normal to facilitate maneuvering of the large trucks that will f equent this facility. The Public Works Department also testified that the access o the site from S.W. 43rd Street may be limited by the future expansion to five lan s of the street. 13. The Fire De artment testified that the proposed building configurations at the end of the rail ay spurs were acceptable. 14. A prelimina drainage plan has been accepted by the Public Works Department. I SA-150-78 Page Five CONCLUSIONS: 1. The proposed buildings and site plan conform to the Comprehensive Plan for the Green River Valley. The design is an aesthetic contribution to the environment (Introduction, page 1, and Objectives, pages 6 & 8) , which will ". . .enhance the image of the City of Renton. " (Goals, page 4) . Wildlife habitat will be partially enhanced by the provided landscaping (Goals, page 4, and Objectives, page 7) . The tax base of the city s.ill be enhanced, and a ". . .viable economic climate. . . " will be provided Goals, page 4) . Suitable landscaping has been provided at the periphery of the site ;Objectives, page 6) . Internal circulation accommodates the various means of transportation (Objectives, page 7) . Per Exhibit #7, the loading areas will be visible from adjacent streets but will be obscured by the landscaping along the site perimeter (Objective, page 8) . 2. Full compliance with the parking requirements of Chapter 22 can be accomplished on the site (Exhibit #6, as suggested by staff) . However, landscaping adjacent to the proposed buildings should be retained as much as possible. Parallel parking might also be utilized at the site perimeter where feasible. The Planning Department should review the final parking plan accordingly. 3. Areas of nonconformance with the preliminary plat of Orillia Industrial Park are not significant although revisions are required in the final plat. However, the deviations from the preliminary plat are not the subject of this application. The intent of the Subdivision Ordinance is for review of individual site plans to occur after approval of the final plat (Sections 9-1106.2.f. , 9-1106.3.d. and 9-1110.2) . Per the attached legal opinion from the Assistant City Attorney, review of the site plan can proceed in advance of approval of the final plat since in this instance the deviations from the preliminary plat are relatively minor and the Benaroya Company purchase contract specifically requires completion of the final plat. However, the site plan approval will apparently prejudice review of the Orillia Industrial Park final plat in the alignment of S.W. 41st Street, connection of S.W. 41st Street to S.W. 39th Street and the length and/or area of some lots. In the attached letter of May 8, 1978, Burlington Northern withdrew the Benaroya property from the preliminary plat subject to Benaroya's completion of the improvements including the aforementioned) specified in the approved preliminary plat. The Benaroya Company expressed agreement in the attached letter of May 8, 1978. Since the Benaroya site plan will affect the Orillia Industrial Park final plat, it is appropriate that Benaroya complete improvements required of any decision regarding that final plat, except those improvements which would interfere with and be inconsistent with this approved site plan. 4. The violation of Section 9-1110.2 (Finding No. 9) appropriately lies within the jurisdiction of the City Attorney, not the Examiner, at this point. 5. Final drainage plans remain to be submitted for review and approval by the Public Works Department. 6. The staff comments relative to landscaping in Exhibit #4 should be implemented in the development to assure compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and Resolution No. 1923. 7. Details of rooftop mechanical equipment were not submitted. This equipment may potentially impact adjacent and distant properties; therefore, the Objective, page 8, Comprehensive Plan for the Green River Valley, requires that this impact be minimized. The Planning Department should review these details for compliance with the design goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan and approve the appropriate details. 8. Refuse dumpster locations were not indicated on any of the exhibits. Due to their potential aesthetic impact, the Planning Department should approve (if any are proposed) their location and screening for compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, M-P requirements, and character of the proposal. 9. The unusual circumstances surrounding this proposal (e.g. sale of land and site plan review prior to a final plat) should not be considered a precedent for future site plan review decisions. 10. Signing should be reviewed in the normal administrative processes. No sign details were submitted in the record. SA-150-78 Page Six DECISION: Based upon the record, testimony, findings and conclusions, it is the decision of the Examiner to approve the site plan, Exhibits #5, #7, and #8, subject to: 1. Completion by the Jack Benaroya Company of improvements required in the approved pre iminary plat of Orillia Industrial Park and improvements required by the approved fin 1 plat thereof, except for improvements which would interfere with and be inc nsistent with this approved site plan. 2. Add'tion of 23 parking stalls per approval by the Planning Department and as indi ated in Exhibit #6, except that landscaping adjacent to the buildings will be reta'ned as much as possible. 3. Submittal of the final storm drainage plans for approval by the Public Works Department. 4. Submittal of the final landscape plan per Exhibit #4 for approval by the Planning Department. 5. Submittal of the rooftop mechanical equipment and screening details for approval by the Planning Department. 6. Submittal of the refuse dumpster details and location for approval by the Planning Department. 7. Submittal of off-site improvement details including landscaping for approval by the Public Works and Planning Departments. 8. Compliance with all applicable requirements of ordinances of the City of Renton. 9. Approval of the Flood Zone Control Permit by the King County Division of Hydraulics. ORDERED THIS 9th day of May, 1978. Allifigi luw, _Ilk L. c reeler Lan: Use Hearing Examiner TRANSMITTED THIS 9th day of May, 1978 by Affidavit of Mailing to the parties of record: Ken Long, 5950 6th Avenue S. , Seattle, WA 98108 Joel Benoliel, 5950 6th Avenue S. , Seattle, WA 98108 Ed Wooton, Renton Fire Department Clint Morgan, Renton Traffic Engineering Division W. C. Kretzer, Burlington Northern, Inc. , Lobby 2, Central Building, Seattle, WA 98104 TRANSMITTED THIS 9th day of May, 1978 to the following: Mayor Charles J. Delaurenti Councilman Richard M. Stredicke Councilwoman Patricia Seymour-Thorpe Warren C. Gonnason, Public Works Director Gordon Y. Ericksen, Planning Director Ron Nelson, Building Division Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Pursuant to Title IV, Section 3015 of the City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed in writing on or before May 23, 1978. Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the Examiner is based on erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact, error in judgment, or the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing may make a written request for review by the Examiner within fourteen (14) days from the date of the Examiner's decision. This request shall set forth the spec'fic errors relied upon by such appellant, and the Examiner may, after review of the ecord, take further action as he deems proper. An appeal to th City Council is governed by Title IV, Section 3016, which requires that such appeal be filed with the City Clerk accompanying a filing fee of $25.00 and meeting other specified requirements. Copies of this ordinance are available for inspection in the City Clerk's office, first floor of City Hall, or same may be purchased at cost in said office. Q% RF l o THE CITY OF RENTON 0 Z MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE SO. RENTON, WASH 98055 pCHARLES J DELAURENTI , MAYOR • LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER O Q L. RICK BEELER , 235 - 2593 O4lE0 SEP t, O April 26, 1978 TO: Dar.- it6,gg, Assistant City Attorney FROM: L. 'ck Beeler, Hearing Examiner SUBJECT: File No. SA-150-78; Jack A. Benaroya Company Pursuant to the public hearing on this application and with agreement of all parties in attendance, this memorandum is to request a legal opinion regarding the following issLes: 1. Does a violation of Section 9-1110.2 of the Subdivision Ordinance exist? 2. Can or should approval of a site plan occur prior to submittal and review of the final plat? 3. Can or should a building permit be approved prior to submittal and review of the final plat? Testimony in the public hearing indicated that the Benaroya property was recently purchased from Burlington Northern, developer of the preliminary plat of Orillia Industrial Park (PP-086-77) . This appears in direct contradiction with Section 9-1110.2 (Subdivision Ordinance) depending upon the definition of "entire parcel. " My opinion is that the common sense definition of this phrase is that of the complete property being platted. Ownership does not become an issue if only the name of the applicant is changed. But ownership does become an issue when parts of the property are sold off during and not after the process of platting. The latter subverts the subdivision process and Subdivision Ordinance. During the interim between approval of the preliminary plat and submittal of the final plat some minor adjustments in physical improvements are permitted, but Sections 9-1106.2.F and 9-1106. 3.D require that the final plat be prepared in conformance with the approved preliminary plat. Sufficient testimony and the record indicate that the Benaroya proposal deviates from the approved preliminary plat. Deviations are normally addressed during review of the final plat, which to date has not been submitted. Therefore, it seems appropriate that a public nearing on the final plat should occur prior to any review, or completion thereof, of individual site plans for development or building permits on the proposed platted lots. Otherwise, the final plat would be prejudiced by the site plan review. Do you concur? Or are some of these conclusions policy decisions? Please respond as soon as possible, preferably by May 4, 1978, in order for my decision to be available within the normal 14-day period. Thank you. pF "' 1," O Z OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY • RENTON,WASHINGTON A 0 Of POST OFFICE BOX 626 100 2r,a AVENUE BUILDING • RENTON, wASHINGTON 98055 255-8678 440. LAWRENCE J.WARREN, city ATTORNEY DANIEL KELLOGG, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY o 44, 4 4.SEP1- May 1 , 1978 RECEIVED CITY OF RENTON HEARING EXAMINER MAY 21978 TO: L . Rick Beeler, Hearing Examiner AM PM 8,9,10,11112,1121314,5.6 FROM: Daniel Kellogg, Assistant City Attorney RE: File No . SA-150-78; Jack A. Benaroya Company Dear Rick: I have your memo of April 26 , 1978 concerning the above- entitled matter for reply. I will deal with the questions posed in your letter in the order presented: 1 . Does a violation of Section 9-1110 .2 of the Subdivision Ordinance exist? Answer : Yes . The plain meaning of the statute indicates that Burlington Northern sold a portion of the "parcel" which had been submitted under their preliminary plat application, prior to the time that the plat had been approved by the City of Renton and had been filed for record in the King County Recorder ' s office . The exception for sale of the entire parcel between the original subdivider and another subdivider does not apply because the entire parcel under the preliminary plat application was not sold . In addition, the Benaroya Company is not "another subdivider", but rather the ultimate user . In any event, the firm that has violated the ordinance is the Burlington Northern Company, not the Benaroya Company . There is no innocent party here who has been prejudiced by purchasing property which has not been finally platted . Finally, we see no reason under these circumstances why the City should be interested in penalizing the Benaroya Company for violation occasioned by the Burlington Northern . The Benaroya Company has assured this office that they understand the jeopardy that they assumed by purchasing property that has not been finally platted . 2 . Can or should approval of a site plan occur prior to submittal and review of the final plat? Answer: The site plan approval can occur prior to the approval of the final plat . The question of whether site plan approval should occur must be governed by weight of the countervailing factors . It is true that Section 9-1106 (2) (F) and 9-1106(3) (d) require that the final plat be prepared in conformance with the approved preliminary plat. However , the deviations indicated in the testimony and the record which we are aware of seems to be rather insignificant. The principal deviation concerns the location of the proposed S . W. 41st Street between Longacres Parkway and Lind Avenue S. W. . The Hearing Examiner' s decision approving the preliminary plat (recommendation and decision Item 5(b)) indicate that it was the intention of the Hearing Examiner to approve Public Works and Planning Department review and modification of the proposed access between Lind Avenue S. W. and Longacres Parkway by means of Southwest 41st, Southwest 42nd and Southwest 39th. This scope of review has resulted in the Benaroya Company's application to provide greatly increased access via an extended Southwest 41st Street completely between Lind Avenue S . W. and Longacres Parkway. This deviation from the preliminary plat seems to us to be well within the "necessary revisions" which would be made per the approval of these departments" . The other deviations seem to be relatively minor and should have no significance upon the final plat approval . In any event, the Benaroya Company is assuming the risk that their proposed site plan use will satisfactorily comply with whatever consequences are proposed upon them by the final plat. Indeed, they are under an obligation by contract to the Burlington Northern Company to complete the final plat application . It would be possible, and we would advise , that the Hearing Examiner approve the site plan subject to the obligation on the part of the Benaroya Company to complete the final plat application as originally commenced by the Burlington Northern Company. 3. Can or should a building permit be approved prior to submittal and review of the final plat? Answer: The applicant is vested with the right to apply for a building permit on the two individual parcels which make up a part of the preliminary plat and therefore the Benaroya Company is entitled to receive a building permit on each of the parcels . Once again, it is the Benaroya Company' s jeopardy of which they are aware , that any improvement they make upon the property is subject to the provision that they complete the plat application to final plat . They have indicated on the record that they are aware of their jeopardy. Therefore the final plat is not prejudiced by the approval of the site plan. The question of issuance of the building permit is properly before the administration and is not within the jurisdiction of the Hearing Examiner under the application in question . 2- SUMMARY: It is our conclusion that the Hearing Examiner' s decision should approve the site plan subject to the obligation on the part of the Benaroya Company to complete the final plat per the original preliminary plat of Orillia Industrial Park . We do not approve the transfer from Burlington Northern toBenaroya, or the site plan application or issuance of abuildingpermitpriortoapprovalofthefinalplat . Indeed,Section 9-1110(2) of the Subdivision Ordinance is designed to prevent exactly this occurrence and the possible consequences upon an innocent purchaser . However, we know of no provision in our law which requires that the applicant waive his vested rights to obtain a building permit on previouly platted land even though it is includedinasubsequentpreliminaryplat . Further, the parties arebothsophisticatedcommercialdevelopersandarewellable to assess the jeopardy to themselves by proceeding with thedevelopmentinthefaceoftheconsequencesintheeventthe final plat application conflicts with the site plan whichissubmitted. If you have any questions , please do not hesitate to contact me . Vey- ours , 4( Daniel Kellogg DK: bjm ng Jack A. Benaroya Company 5950 Sixth Avenue South, Seattle. WA 98108 (206) 762 4750 RIOIP May 8, 1978 L. Rick Beeler Land Use Hearing Examiner City of Renton Renton Municipal Building Renton, WA Re: Applicant: Jack A. Benaroya Company File No. SA-150-78 Site Plan Approval Benaroya Business Park This letter is intended to clarify the record of the above-referenced matter on which a hearing was held before you on April 25, 1978. We understand that the property owner, Glacier Park Company, is sub- mitting a letter simultaneously herewith withdrawing the subject prop- erty from its preliminary plat which was previously approved, subject to the conditions of your Order dated December 16, 1977. We request Site Plan Approval be issued subject to the improvements required by you, and as agreed to in our testimony at the hearing; however, consistent with the withdrawal of the site from the plat, we modify our request to conform to that change, which we approve. Joel Benoliel Legal Counsel RECEIVED CITY OF RENTON HEARING EXAMINER MAY 81978 AM PM 7 8,8,16,11,121112,3,41•il6 INDUSTRIAL PARKS/WAREHOUSES/OFFICE BUILDINGS/SHOPPING CENTERS AND SPECIALIZED MERCHANDISE MARTS BURUNGTON NORTHERN Lobby 2 Central Building INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AND Seattle, Washington 98104 PROPERTY MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT Telephone (206) 625-6682 Mr. L. Rick Beeler May 8, 1978 Hearing Examiner City of Renton 200 Mill Ave. South RE: Site Plan Approval Renton, WA 98055 Jack A. Benaroya Co. SA-150-78) Applicant Dear Mr. Beeler: On behalf of the Glacier Park Company, record owner of the property which is the subject of the above application, we hereby withdraw the following described property from our Preliminary Plat previously approved by the City, file PP-086-77+E-106-77, Glacier Park Co. , on the conditions that our sale is completed to Jack A. Benaroya Company and that applicant bond and/or complete all improvements and dedica- tions as required by your report, PP-086-77+E-106-77, and as required by the City Departments of Planning and Public Works . Description of subject property described as follows: The NW4 NW4 of Section 31, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M. , and the NE4 NE4, Section 36, Township 23 North, Range 4 East, W.M. , situated in King County, Washington. Very truly yours, GLACIER PARK COMPANY By: i oh',' c ager - Property Management cc: Jack A. Benaroya Co. RECEIVED CITY OF RENTON HEARING EXAMINER MAY 81978 pM PM 7,H,9,14.1111211,2i2,4'5,6 o THE CITY OF RENTON MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON. WASH. 98055 o p Mlimm CHARLES J. DELAURENTI , MAYOR • LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER A o Q.L. RICK BEELER . 235-2593 44 SE April 26, 1978 TO: Dan-itellpgg, Assistant City Attorney ' FROM: L. ick Beeler, Hearing Examiner SUBJECT: File No. SA-150-78; Jack A. Benaroya Company Pursuant to the public hearing on this application and with agreement of all parties in attendance, this memorandum is to request a legal opinion regarding the following issues: 1. Does a violation of Section 9-1110.2 of the Subdivision Ordinance exist? 2. Can or should approval of a site plan occur prior to submittal and review of the final plat? 3. Can or should a building permit be approved prior to submittal and review of the final plat? Testimony in the public hearing indicated that the Benaroya property was recently purchased from Burlington Northern, developer of the preliminary plat of Orillia Industrial Park (PP-086-77) . This appears in direct contradiction with Section 9-1110.2 (Subdivision Ordinance) depending upon the definition of "entire parcel. " My opinion is that the common sense definition of this phrase is that of the complete property being platted. Ownership does not become an issue if only the name of the applicant is changed. But ownership does become an issue when parts of the property are sold off during and not after the process of platting. The latter subverts the subdivision process and Subdivision Ordinance. During the interim between approval of the preliminary plat and submittal of the final plat some minor adjustments in physical improvements are permitted, but Sections 9-1106.2.F and 9-1106.3.D require that the final plat be prepared in conformance with the approved preliminary plat. Sufficient testimony and the record indicate that the Benaroya proposal deviates from the approved preliminary plat. Deviations are normally addressed during review of the final plat, which to date has not been submitted. Therefore, it seems appropriate that a public hearing on the final plat should occur prior to any review, or completion thereof, of individual site plans for development or building permits on the proposed platted lots. Otherwise, the final plat would be prejudiced by the site plan review. Do you concur? Or are some of these conclusions policy decisions? Please respond as soon as possible, preferably by May 4, 1978, in order for my decision to be available within the normal 14-day period. Thank you. y ti Of R. ti „ O tb OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY • RENTON,WASHINGTON 0 POST OFFICE BOX 626 100 2nd AVENUE BUILDING • RENTON, WASHINGTON 98055 255-8678 5 O Q- LAWRENCE J.WARREN, CITY ATTORNEY DANIEL KELLOGG, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY O, P TfO SEP1 May 1 , 1978 RECEIVED CITY OF RENTON HEARING EXAMINER MAY 21978 TO: L. Rick Beeler, Hearing Examiner AM PM 71A19110,ll 11211124114,546 FROM: Daniel Kellogg, Assistant City Attorney RE: File No . SA-150-78; Jack A. Benaroya Company Dear Rick: I have your memo of April 26, 1978 concerning the above- entitled matter for reply. I will deal with the questions posed in your letter in the order presented: 1 . Does a violation of Section 9-1110 .2 of the Subdivision Ordinance exist? Answer: Yes . The plain meaning of the statute indicates that Burlington Northern sold a portion of the "parcel" which had been submitted under their preliminary plat application, prior to the time that the plat had been approved by the City of Renton and had been filed for record in the King County Recorder' s office. The exception for sale of the entire parcel between the original subdivider and another subdivider does not apply because the entire parcel under the preliminary plat application was not sold. In addition, the Benaroya Company is not "another subdivider", but rather the ultimate user. In any event, the firm that has violated the ordinance is the Burlington Northern Company, not the Benaroya Company. There is no innocent party here who has been prejudiced by purchasing property which has not been finally platted. Finally, we see no reason under these circumstances why the City should be interested in penalizing the Benaroya Company for violation occasioned by the Burlington Northern. The Benaroya Company has assured this office that they understand the jeopardy that they assumed by purchasing property that has not been finally platted. 2 . Can or should approval of a site plan occur prior to submittal and review of the final plat? Answer: The site plan approval can occur prior to the approval of the final plat. The question of whether site plan approval should occur must be governed by weight of the countervailing factors . It is true that Section 9-1106(2) (F) and 9-1106(3) (d) require that the final plat be prepared in conformance with the r .. approved preliminary plat . However , the deviations indicated in the testimony and the record which we are aware of seems to be rather insignificant. The principal deviation concerns the location of the proposed S . W. 41st Street between Longacres Parkway and Lind Avenue S . W. . The Hearing Examiner ' s decision approving the preliminary plat (recommendation and decision Item 5 (b)) indicate that it was the intention of the Hearing Examiner to approve Public Works and Planning Department review and modification of the proposed access between Lind Avenue S . W. and Longacres Parkway by means of Southwest 41st, Southwest 42nd and Southwest 39th. This scope of review has resulted in the Benaroya Company ' s application to provide greatly increased access via an extended Southwest 41st Street completely between Lind Avenue S . W. and Longacres Parkway. This deviation from the preliminary plat seems to us to be well within the "necessary revisions" which would be made per the approval of these departments" . The other deviations seem to be relatively minor and should have no significance upon the final plat approval . In any event, the Benaroya Company is assuming the risk that their proposed site plan use will satisfactorily comply with whatever consequences are proposed upon them by the final plat . Indeed, they are under an obligation by contract to the Burlington Northern Company to complete the final plat application. It would be possible, and we would advise , that the Hearing Examiner approve the site plan subject to the obligation on the part of the Benaroya Company to complete the final plat application as originally commenced by the Burlington Northern Company . 3 . Can or should a building permit be approved prior to submittal and review of the final plat? Answer: The applicant is vested with the right to apply for a building permit on the two individual parcels which make up a part of the preliminary plat and therefore the Benaroya Company is entitled to receive a building permit on each of the parcels . Once again, it is the Benaroya Company' s jeopardy of which they are aware, that any improvement they make upon the property is subject to the provision that they complete the plat application to final plat . They have indicated on the record that they are aware of their jeopardy. Therefore the final plat is not prejudiced by the approval of the site plan. The question of issuance of the building permit is properly before the administration and is not within the jurisdiction of the Hearing Examiner under the application in question . 2- SUMMARY: It is our conclusion that the Hearing Examiner' s decision should approve the site plan subject to the obligation on the part of the Benaroya Company to complete the final plat per the original preliminary plat of Orillia Industrial Park. We do not approve the transfer from Burlington Northern to Benaroya, or the site plan application or issuance of a building permit prior to approval of the final plat . Indeed, Section 9-1110(2) of the Subdivision Ordinance is designed to prevent exactly this occurrence and the possible consequences upon an innocent purchaser . However, we know of no provision in our law which requires that the applicant waive his vested rights to obtain a building permit on previouly platted land even though it is included in a subsequent preliminary plat . Further, the parties are both sophisticated collnnercial developers and are well able to assess the jeopardy to themselves by proceeding with the development in the face of the consequences in the event the final plat application conflicts with the site plan which is submitted. If you have any questions , please do not hesitate to contact me . Ve ours , Daniel Kellogg DK:bjm i Jack A. Benaroya Company 5950 Sixth Avenue South, Seattle, WA 98108 (206) 762 4750 1111 III II/I May 8, 1978 L. Rick Beeler Land Use Hearing Examiner City of Renton Renton Municipal Building Renton, WA Re: Applicant: Jack A. Benaroya Company File No. SA-150-78 Site Plan Approval Benaroya Business Park This letter is intended to clarify the record of the above-referenced matter on which a hearing was held before you on April 25, 1978. We understand that the property owner, Glacier Park Company, is sub- mitting a letter simultaneously herewith withdrawing the subject prop- erty from its preliminary plat which was previously approved, subject to the conditions of your Order dated December 16, 1977. We request Site Plan Approval be issued subject to the improvements required by you, and as agreed to in our testimony at the hearing; however, consistent with the withdrawal of the site from the plat, we modify our request to conform to that change, which we approve. AtAt-eti-e— Joel Benoliel Legal Counsel RECEIVE© CITY OF RENT( HEAAMIG EXAMINE MAY 8197: AM 7,8,9f1A,1111211 12,. INDUSTRIAL PARKS/WAREHOUSES/OFFICE BUILDINGS/SHOPPING CENTERS AND SPECIALIZED BURLINGTON NORTHERN Lobby 2 Central Building INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AND Seattle,Washington 98104 PROPERTY MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT Telephone (206) 625-6682 Mr. L. Rick Beeler May 8, 1978 Hearing Examiner City of Renton 200 Mill Ave. South RE: Site Plan Approval Renton, WA 98055 Jack A. Benaroya Co. SA-150-78) Applicant Dear Mr. Beeler: On behalf of the Glacier Park Company, record owner of the property which is the subject of the above application, we hereby withdraw the following described property from our Preliminary Plat previously approved by the City, file PP-086-77+E-106-77, Glacier Park Co. , on the conditions that our sale is completed to Jack A. Benaroya Company and that applicant bond and/or complete all improvements and dedica- tions as required by your report, PP-086-77+E-106-77, and as required by the City Departments of Planning and Public Works. Description of subject property described as follows: The NW4 NW4 of Section 31, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M., and the NE4 NE4, Section 36, Township 23 North, Range 4 East, W.M. , situated in King County, Washington. Very truly yours, GLACIER PARK COMPANY By:or o ager - Property Management cc: Jack A. Benaroya Co. RECEIVED CITY OF RENTON HEARING EXAMINER MAY 81978 AM PM 7,8191IQ,1111211,213,41516 RECEIVED CITY OF RENTON HEARING EXAMINER PLANNING DEPARTMENT APR 2 51978 AM PM PRELIMINARY REPORT TO HEARING EXAMINER 7181903111112111213141516 PUBLIC HEARING APRIL 25 , 1978 EXHIBIT NO. /. APPLICANT: JACK BEN jCATY MP'A`NY" FILE NO . : SA-150-78 , SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR WARE- HOUSE FACILITY IN AN M-P ZONE A. SUMMARY OF REQUEST : Applicant requests approval of plans for development of a warehouse facility consisting of three 371 , 000 square foot buildings . B . GENERAL INFORMATION : 1 . Owner of Record : GLACIER PARK COMPANY 2 . Applicant :JACK BENAROYA COMPANY 3 . Location : Along the north side of SW 43rd Street between Lind Avenue SW and Longacres Parkway . 4 . Legal Description :A detailed legal description is on file in the Renton Planning Department . 5 . Size of Property : Approximately 44 acres . 6 . Access : Via SW 43rd Street , Lind Avenue SW , SW 41st ( proposed ) and Longacres Parkway . 7 . Existing Zoning : M-P , Manufacturing Park 8 . Existing Zoning in the Area : M-P , Manufacturing Park 9 . Comprehensive Land Use Plan : Manufacturing Park 10. Notification : The applicant was notified in writing of the hearing date . Notice was properly published in the Record Chronicle and posted in three ( 3 ) places on or near the site as required by City Ordinance . C . PURPOSE OF REQUEST : To allow development of a proposed warehouse facility per the existing M-P , Manufacturing Park zone. D . HISTORY/BACKGROUND : The subject site was annexed into the City of Renton on April 15 , 1959 by Ordinance Number 1743 . The site was rezoned on 12/24/69 and 12/8/75 by Ordinance No. 2533 & 2992. The site was filled as part of a special permit granted on E . PHYSICAL BACKGROUND : 1 . Topography : The site is relatively level . 2 . Soils : Urban land (Ur ) 3 . Vegetation : Scrub grass and shrubs revegetated over fill . PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT TO HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING OF APRIL 25 , 1973 PAGE TWO RE : JACK BENAROYA COMPANY ; SA- 150-78 , SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR WAREHOUSE FACILITY IN AN M-P ZONE 4 . Wildlife : Vegetation on the site may provide habitat for some small wildlife . 5 . Water : There is no existing surface water on the subject site. Springbrook Creek crosses the northwest corner of the subject site near Longacres Parkway and SW 41st Street (proposed ) . 6. Land Use : The property north and east of the subject site west of Longacres Parkway and north of Springbrook Creek. Scattered commercial and industrial development is located along the south side of SW 43rd Street . F . NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTERISTICS : The general area is experienceing a transition from undeveloped land to commercial and industrial uses . G . PUBLIC SERVICES : 1 . Water and Sewer : A metro sewer interceptor is located along SW 43rd Street , a twelve inch water main is located along SW 43rd Street , and Springbrook Creek drainage channel abuts the northwest corner of the subject site . 2 . Fire Protection : Provided by the Renton Fire Department as per Ordinance requirements . 3 . Transit : Metro Transit route 155 operates along SW 43rd Street . 4 . Schools : Not applicable . 5. Parks : Not applicable . H . APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE ZONING CODE : 1 . Section 4-730 2 . Chapter 22 , Parking and Loading 3 . Subdivision Regulations I . APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OR OTHER OFFICIAL CITY DOCUMENTS : 1 . Green River Valley Comprehensive Plan , June 1976. 2 . Soil Conservation Service/City of Renton Joint Agreement ( Res . 1923 ) . J . IMPACTS ON NATURAL SYSTEMS : Development on the subject site will disturb soil and vegetation , increase storm water runoff , and have an effect on traffic and noise levels in the area . However, these can be mitigated by proper development controls and procedures . K. SOCIAL IMPACTS : Increased social interaction will result from construction and operation of the proposed facility as well as from the increased employment and population in the area . PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT TO HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING OF APRIL 25 , 1978 PAGE THREE RE : JACK BENAROYA COMPANY ; SA-150-78 , SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR WAREHOUSE FACILITY IN AN M-P ZONE L . ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT/THRESHOLD DETERMINATION : Pursuant to theCity of Renton ' s Environmental Ordinance and the State Environmental Policy Act of 1971 , as amended , RCW 43 . 21C , a Declaration of non-significance has been issued for the subject proposal . This declaration is based on the provision of suitable landscaping and other development controls to reduce the visual impacts of masses of building and parking , and provide certain habitat for wildlife . M. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION : A vicinity map and a site map are attached . N . AGENCIES/DEPARTMENTS CONTACTED : 1 . City of Renton Building Division 2 . City of Renton Engineering Division 3 . City of Renton Traffic Engineering Division 4 . City of Renton Utilities Division 5. City of Renton Fire Departments 6 . King County Division of Hydraulics Copies of certain memoranda and comments are attached . 0 . PLANNING DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS : 1 . The subject site is a portion of the Orillia Industrial Park preliminary plat , which was approved subject to certain conditions on January 9 , 1978 , ( see attached ) . A final plat based on the approved preliminary plat has not been submitted to date . Any approval of the site plan shall be subject to final plat approval . However , the subject site is a separate parcel from the other Glacier Park owner- ship and building permit can be granted for the entire parcel . The proposed use is for warehouse with the entire three 371 , 070 square foot buildings to be leased to one tenant. Such use is consistent with the M-P , Manuafacturing Park zone . 2 . The entire parcel between Lind Avenue SW and Longacres Parkway has been purchased by the Benaroya Company for the subject development . The subject purchase and development is basically consistent with the approved preliminary plat . However , it does differ in certain elements to the plat , primarily with regard to the size of the size of the parcel and the location or absence of certain streets . SW 42nd Street has been shifted further north to become SW 41st Street with a full connection between Lind Avenue SW and Longacres Parkway. This is consistent with condition No . 5c of the preliminary plat approval , and removes a previous lengthy cul de sac . 3 . The required connection between SW 41st Street (previously SW 42nd Street on the preliminary plat ) and SW 39th Street has not been indicated on the proposed site plan . This street will be required on the final plat pursuant to the approved preliminary plat . Also the Public Works Department has indicated off-site improvement requirements necessary for final plat and site development along SW 41st Street , Lind Avenue SW , SW 43rd Street , and Longacres Parkway see attached ) . These improvements will need to be closely coordinated with the Public Works Department and Planning Department especially with regard to the right-of-way needs for the five lane plan for SW 43rd Street , the proposed meandering pedestrian/bikepaths along SW 43rd Street and Lind Avenue SW , landscaping within these areas , and the Parkway concept for Longacres Parkway. PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT TO HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING OF APRIL 25 , 1978 PAGE FOUR RE : JACK BENAROYA COMPANY ; SA-150-78 , SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR W4AREHOUSE FACILITY IN AN M-P ZONE 4 . The existing Springbrook channel location along Longacres Parkway is not shown on the proposed site plan . This existing channel was retained in the approved preliminary plat , and it appears that it will intersect with the proposed S .W. 41st Street at Longacres Park- way. This may require additional culverting within the right-of-way portions of 41st Street and Longacr e sParkway over the southerly corner of the channel where it now c-o - - under Longacres Parkway . Site plan approval should be subject to suitable construction methods per approval of the Public Works and Planning Departments . The . remaining channel area not within street right-of-way must be retained within the greenbelt area established by previous fill and plat approvals . 5. The fifteen foot landscape buffer along SW 43rd Street and the Park entrance landscape areas stipulated in the Preliminary Plat approval have been indicated on the proposed site and landscape plan „ The other streets have a ten foot landscape strip per the M-P standards . These areas are combined with the planter strips in the public right- of-way to be landscaped as part of off-site improvement requirements . The width of these areas will depend on right-of-way width and other improvement requirements , and should be coordinated with the Planning and Public Works Departments and subject to their approval . 6. The proposed landscaping areas are consistent with the r quirements of the M-P Manufacturing Park zone , the five percent -f 1 parking and loading area requirement , and the two percent total site require- ment of Resolution Number 1923 as part of the valley drainage agreement with the U. S . Soil Conservation Service . 7 . It will be critical to provide suitable landscape material's that will reach a height and bulk to mitigate the massiveness of the structures and parking areas throughout the year . (Comprehensive Plan Green River Valley , June 1976, Site Objectives , Landscaping , and Open Space page 7 . ) Also landscape areas should provide wildlife food and habitat consistent with resolution number 1923 and such Comprehensive Plan landscaping and open space objectives , page 7 . Therefore , it will be necessary to provide certain substitute and additional quantiti for the trees and shrubs proposed in certain areas of the conceptual landscape plan . However , the proposed landscaping plan is merely preliminary and detailed landscape plans for the entire site develop- ment will be subject to Planning Department approval at the time of Building Permit approval . Also see notes and comments on plans submitted as exhibits . 8 . Driveways have been kept to a minimum along S . W . 43rd Street and Lind Avenue S . W. per the intent of the preliminary plat approval condition number 5d . Such driveways are proposed with larger widths of forty feet in those areas where it is advantageous to channelize and control traffic movements for large trucks . The larger access points are at the points opposite the spaces between the buildings and at the southwest and southeast corner ob buildings one and three , in which case the driveway width is proposed as forty feet with an approach apron of sixty feet along the adjacent street . The remaining smaller driveways are proposed as thirty feet wide with fifty foot wide approach aprons . These driveway widths appear appropriate for proper large truck maneuvering for such a large facility. PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT TO HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING OF APRIL 25 , 1978 PAGE FIVE RE : JACK BENAROYA COMPANY ; SA- 150-78 , SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR WAREHOUSE FACILITY IN AN M-P ZONE 9 . The Traffic Division has expressed comments with regard to the location of the driveways relative to the street intersections of Lind Avenue SW and Longacres Parkway with SW 43rd Street . It has been recommended that these driveways nearest such intersections be restricted to one- way ( see attached comments ) . 10 . Proposed setbacks are consistent with M-P District standards . It appears that by exceeding the minimum setbacks the proposed plan allows for sufficient area for large truck maneuvery entirely on-site . 11 .. A limited number of the loading docks shown on the site plans will actually be used by the tenant due to the single leasee and the nature of the proposed operation . The primary loading areas for the subject operation will be at the ramped areas near the south ends of the buildings . 12 . Parking provided at 1 space/ 1500 square feet for the proposed ware- house use is 719stalls . Parking required by Ordinance is 742 stalls . Loading areas to be utilized by the subject tenant are separate from the parking areas . The additional23 spaces needed can be easily added to the site plan. See suggested areas on site plan exhibit. 13 . The proposed railroad spur tracks will require location and crossing construction approval by the Public Works Department . 14 . Refuse dumpster areas should be visually screened and located so as not conflict other use areas . 15 . See attached Fire Department and Utilities Division comments regarding Fire protection , utilities plan details , and utility charges . 16 . A drainage plan has been submitted to the Public Works Department. Approval should be subject to Public Works Department final approval of such plans . 17 . Signing and building exterior treatment should be carefully coordinated and designed to be consistent with the M-P zone and the aesthetic and design objectives of the Comprehensive Plan . P . PLANNING DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION : Recommend approval of proposed site plan subject to : 1 . Filing of a final plat for this portion of the approved preliminary plat of Orillia Industrial Park with the connection of S . W . 41st St . and S . W . 39th Street , the indication of Springbrook Creek on the plat map and site plan , and other requirements of the approved pre- liminary plat . This does not preclude the granting of one building permit for the previous established parcel of property . 2 . Planning Department and Public Works Department approval of necessary construction methods within proposed rights-of-way where necessary because of the Springbrook Creek location . 3 . Planning Department approval of detailed landscape plans for the entire site development and off-site improvement landscaping which will be of sufficient size and quantity to reduce visual impacts of the proposed development and also provide for wildlife food and/or habitat . 4 . Traffic Engineering Division approval of driveway locations . PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT TO HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING OF APRIL 25 , 1978 PAGE SIX RE : JACK BENAROYA COMPANY ; SA- 150-78 , SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR WAREHOUSE FACILITY IN AN M-P ZONE 5 . Planning Department and Public Works Department approval of off-site improvements including the location of bike and pedestrian paths and landscaped areas , and right-of-way (SW 43rd Street five land project ) . 6. Public Works Department approval of railroad spur track locations and street crossings . 7 . Planning Department approval of refuse dumpster locations and land- scape/screening methods . 8 . Public Works Department approval of drainage plans . 9. Fire Department approval of fire protection methods ( see attached Fire Department comments ) . 10. Utilities Division approval of utilities plans and charges . 11 . Planning Department approval of signing and exterior building treat- ment and design . 1 G . ._. _ . 1 I t r i I I t_ 1 _ ,l = I 1 I.. . _ ce i -. r f I I , ` , L:1W o 1, T Q, 1 1 T I T t re.. 40 I s.•••-..a.4e+.a.el...IIt••,e O•CO t• 1 L 13 /•,t1 t. to t. 1' v 1 f o Ili OW I s i D 1 Ql T - , T--T 1 1 TT 1 l AIL G. SO •1 i to /1 i lb I 9 i 14 .I y •. I •n 1 WI loll • • SCIezEcr M H,,I SITE tWoo'f I I I G RR JLPI \ ilk I 3 1 _ Ylr.j7s. .... I I M—P I P, BENAROYA - SITE PLAN APPROVAL GLACIER PARK CO . ; Appl . No . PP-086-77 and Appl . No . E- 106-77 ; Preliminary Plat for Orillia Industrial District and Exception from Subdivision Ordi - nance ; property located south of existing Mobil and Olympic Petroleum Distribution facility North of S . W. 43rd and westerly of East Valley Road . APPLICANT JACK BENAROYA COMPANY TOTAL AREA 44 acres PRINCIPAL ACCESS S . W. 43rd St . , Lind Avenue SW, SW 41st and Long Gres Parkway EXIS-ZING ZONING M-P , Manufacturing Park EXISTING USE Vacant PROPOSED USE Manufacturing Park COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN Manufacturing Park COMMENTS PROPOSED/FINAL DECLARATION OF SIGNIFICANCE/NON-SIGNIFICANCE Application No . SA- 150-78 0 PROPOSED Declaration Environmental Checklist No . 330-78 X FINAL Declaration Description of proposal Site plan approval for warehouse facility in an M-P Manufacturing Park zone. Prcponent Jack Benaroya Company Location of Proposal North side of SW 43rd Street between Lonqacres Parkway and Lind Avenue SW. Lead Agency City of Renton Planning Department This proposal has been determined to 0 have Q not have a significant adverse impact upon the environment . An EIS is Ellis not required under RCW 43 . 21C . 030 ( 2 ) (c ) . This decision was mae after review by the lead agency of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency . non Reasons for declaration of environmental significance : This declaration is based upon provision of suitable landscaping to buffer and reduce potential impact of large structures and pavement areas per approval of the Planning Department together with provision of sortable drainage plans and traffic control measures per Public Works Department approval . 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 plann`: ni/to el1,46.1.444:. Date April 19 , 1978 Signature City of Renton Planning Department 5-76 PP-086-77 Page Nine E-106-77 10. Although apparently all of the corner lots do not conform to Section 9-1108.24.E. (d) , tiis requirement is specified for approval of the Planning Department. Therefore, the conformance with the requirement should be reviewed again, and any change;:, if any, made to the plat map. 11. Since the East Valley Road is designated as an Industrial Collector, the necessary ten feet of land for the required public right-of-way should be dedicated to the public. 12. Conformance with the design considerations of the Green River Valley Comprehensive Plan can be most appropriately reviewed during the special permit process required for any development of the site. It should be clear that the design objectives of the Green River Valley require structures of appropriate design. Each special permit will be reviewed accordingly. 13. Regarding the requested Exceptions, the Springbrook Creek creates ". . .special physical circumstances. . . " (Section 9-1109.1.A) that cause difficulty in designing the plat. These circumstances do not deprive the applicant of the ". . .reasonable use or development. . . " of the land but somewhat increase the difficulty of design and development. In order to achieve the number of lots that are proposed, the Exceptions are necessary. Otherwise, larger and fewer lots would result. The same rights and privileges are enjoyed by the applicant and surrounding property owners. Any hardship created by the physical limitations of the site do not apply to these rights and privileges (Section 9-1109.1.B) . Granting the Exceptions will not be ". . .detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the vicinity." (Section 9-1109.1.C) It is doubtful that a difference could be discerned at the site between development with and without the Exceptions. The Exceptions requested from Sections 9-1108.24.A(6) and 9-1108.24.D should be granted. RECOMMENDATION AND DECISION: Based upon the record, testimony, findings and conclusions the Examiner recommends that the City Council approve the preliminary plat of Orillia Industrial Park subject to the following conditions: 1. Springbrook Creek and P-1 drainage channel be reserved for drainage, wildlife habitat and public access in perpetuity. Pedestrian and bicycle easements of 20 feet are to connect the cul-de-sacs shown on Exhibit #7 and S.W. 38th Street with the creek and channel. 2. Springbrook Creek and P-1 drainage channel are to be improved for wildlife habitat per Resolution No. 1923 and in consideration of recommendations by the Seattle Audubon Society. The Planning Department shall review and approve the plant materials and landscaping for these areas. 3. Public Works and Planning Department resolution relative to the subject site of the alignment of Strander Boulevard to minimize impacts upon the city's 20-acre wetland. 4. Public Works Department review of the closely spaced railroad crossings at the southwest portion of the site. If found necessary, appropriate revisions to their location should be made. 5. :Public Works and Planning Department review of: a. Connecting S.W. 33rd Street, S.W. 31st Street and S.W. 30th Street. b. Connecting S.W. 42nd Street and S.W. 41st Street. , rI c. Extending S.W. 29th Street one more lot to the east. F!5 i 81 (c r..,.4 ru( t 6 talace-es,l,ea- aces, d. Restricting any direct access to the East Valley Road and S.W. 43rd Street. e. Design of the cul-de-sacs per the applicant's suggestion of increased paving. i This review is to be made with the applicant to determine if the above can be implemented. Any necessary revisions should be made per the approval of these departments. N. PP-C- 77 i'aye Ten E-ll 7 6. Corrections made to the plat map (Exhibit $15) per the plat map (Exhibit $7) as approved by the Planning Department. 7. Fifteen-foot perimeter landscape buffer and landscaping of ingress and egress points per approval of the Planning Department. The landscape buffer should include material for wildlife habitat but be of predominantly screening material. Access points should be defined and emphasized, particularly along S.W. 43rd Street and the East Valley Road. All landscaping is to be of a continuous plan. 8. Any portion of the site which will not be developed in the near future is to be hydroseeded and/or landscaped per review and approval of the Planning Department. 9. Review by the Planning Department of conformance of corner lots with Section 9-1108.24.E. (d) . Any appropriate changes should be made to the plat map. 10. Dedication of ten (10) feet for public right-of-way along the East Valley Road. 11. Incorporation of the above in restrictive covenants where appropriate, per the Planning Department for submittal with the final plat. It is the decision of the Examiner to approve Exceptions from Sections 9-1108.24.A. (6) and 9-1108.24.D based upon the criteria of Section 9-1109.1.A and C. A copy of the plat map, revised per the above, is to be sent to the Seattle Audubon Society via Mr. Leonard Steiner. ORDERED THIS 16th day of December, 1977. 11111141p101 L. Ri Bee er . Land Use Hearing Examiner TRANSMITTED THIS 16th day of December, 1977 by Affidavit of Mailing to the parties of record: Ed Wooton J. J. Gordon, Burlington Northern, Lobby 2, Central Bldg. Seattle, WA 98104 Albert Hebrank, Arctic Building, Seattle, WA 98104 Don Cowles, Burlington Northern, Lobby 3, Central Bldg. Seattle, WA 98104 Leonard Steiner, 13239 N.E. 100th, Kirkland, WA 98003 Paul Lumbert Mort Thomas, Arctic Building, Seattle, WA 98104 Carl C. Sternoff, 225-140 N.E. , Bellevue, WA 98005 TRANSMITTED THIS 16th day of December, 1977 to the following: Mayor Charles J. Delaurenti Council President George J. Perry Councilman Richard M. Stredicke i Warren C. Gonnason, Public Works Director Gordon Y. Ericksen, Planning Director Ron Nelson, Building Division Larry Warren, City Attorney Pursuant to Title IV, Section 3015 of the City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed in writing on or before December 30, 1977. Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the Examiner is based on erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact, error in judgment, or the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing may make a written request for review by the Examiner within fourteen (14) days from the date of the Examiner's decision. This request shall set forth the specific errors relied upon by such appellant, and the Examiner may, after review of the record, take further action as he deems proper. An appeal to the City Council is governed by Title IV, Section 3016, which requires that such appeal be filed with the City Clerk accompanying a filing fee of $25.00 and meeting other specified requirements. Copies of this ordinance are available for inspection in I ! the City Clerk's office, first floor of City Hall, or same may be purchased at cost inh said office. f t d PPif" o m P I I G'Y ' • O 0 O•• I. I i 1- -: 4 . 1 . ---.gr4s _. 1 ri" II 14 0. it I 41 cw trig ) I I tor 1 1 Q y L/ y k\e . . ' el 3- P .0 '1 „,, 71-1411.1l'al 11 AilikcirminaAli i"2 4, a '4, '12 . witzoko stalmor. E, 4, s ® Ilk o v , i G ID t ' 4 1 w• V.Auv ORILLIA INDUSTRIAL IARK M t!TOh F; Y H l:BIT NO. / (a ANAs SEr? ClEr?uc4 4444+- 'UtOAD o SW` NO. PP S ` 1.01 LUNIS i C 1.0t W%. NA ` 1 is 4 i I. II I t III I 1, 1 ft RflU-- S -. rL •,NNiNG DEPARTMENT DATE - ROUTED 4" 61-0 PLEASE REVIEW THIS APPLICATIO FOR: REZONE, MAJOR PLAT it p .7g LE. APP;;O ,i, L\ ac,ti, t'-vt,z.vcQ. SHORT PLAT SPEC ,=•L PERNIT WAIVER DEL 1 1E i'ANAGE':E: T PERMIT OR EXEMPTION AiND RETURN TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENTWITHANYCOM:1ENTS YOU MIGHT HAVE , BEFORE 4 Is/73 SIG';ATURE OR is: I TA DEPART;:ENT APPR OVALAL DENIAL DATEfaE , eUiLGI:G) 2 7 ( I K A F F I C J > S« C,......c..'- i-.-/,,_-,> fi EaGI: t' >y/,./?Y P I LG HEALTH Clin LA nkE•.,si-iii n RE V . S cor 1E:; S CP APPROVALL CONDITIONS : 4. 5- CA, 3 _' ,/ s < < he r•:•s f /L.a .d>.°el*•, ts' .• , L f'e• _„e: '/, , .. 1..R., kV a, ou 7`' dH c• f.. 5 a d.- ckJ ('6 d.,tielr 2 al/iN y e PLE '•SE SIGN THE E . I . W . . I f If E i I'iilfi fl'I 111 3 i' I APRIL 6, 1978 MR. DAVE KERN ZURN INDUSTRIES, INC. 10910 - 117TH PLACE N. E. KIRKLAND, WASHINGTON ;8033 DEAR Mao KERN: AS I ADVISED DURING OUR PHONE CONVERSATION TODAY, CHIEF GEISSLER STATED THE FOLLOWING REQUIREMENTS WOULD APPLY TO THE THREE PROPOSED BUILDINGS ON S. W. 43RD STREET BETWEEN LONGACRES PARKWAY AND LIND AVENUE S. W.: 1. SPRINKLER SYSTEM SHALL BE APPROVED BY A RATING AGENCY SUCH AS THE WASHINGTON SURVEYING AND RATING BUREAU OR FACTORY MUTUAL. 2. RAILWAY SPURS BETWEEN BUILDINGS SHALL BE OPEN AT BOTH ENDS. 1 , 3. THERE SHALL BE TWO FIRE HYDRANTS ALONG EACH RAILWAY SPUR ` BETWEEN EACH BUILDING. EACH HYDRANT SHALL OE RECESSED IN 41 BY 8' BY 41 OPENING* HYDRANTS SHALL BE THREE PORT. i 4. Hose STATIONS REQUIRED AS PER N.F.P.A. VOL.2, 1978 ED, 5. IF BUILDINGS ARE SPRINKLERED FOR ORDINARY HAZARD, NO HIGH HAZARD OCCUPANCY -WOUL BE ALLOWED. t.J Li,(_ j SINCERELY, 11 RENTON FIRE DEPARTMENT E. V. k'OOTON, JR., FIRE INSPECTOR EVW/JEB ff 1 y j 1 I I II i OO I '. ':G FOR It: VIEW OF ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORMS TO : Finance Department Fire Department Library DepartmentParkIDepartment Police Department Public Works Department Building Div . Traffic Engineering Div . Engineering Div . Utilities Engineering Div. FROM : Planning Department , ( signed by responsible official or his designee ) SUBJECT : Review of ECF- 30-J-A.Application No . : SA - f SO-%._ Action Name : Ni A A Please review the attached . Review requested by ( date) : 4--ig REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : I ZezDepartment :_ Comments : t;c v.--,/ c.-,,.'": 7— 4'4.7 (. /It-1.,..--____ i yrlature rector car Authori zed I;epre!,on E.att ve Date HJ :Y OTHER C I TY DE PAR T FILN T S : Depart ,.:ont : A e ; e , i S w 4//s i' ,r G a v-.s P,1(a J -14 r tCom,~cn ;:s : e'vlp e. W. ,e ,"0, `` w, t. /-' a-f`' Ge•- c.'s '*z a T' G.r!.J J l{- I t, J 1 ,,..s-1,,, // S 0 d1c,,.r..( ks o., L;..,( 4 . i' 3 /4•e ?1a,.1„ bt YL u;V4 . ' / S Ik69 44Jt- ,kG., 1. 1,1 64",ve ‘ 1-..--. i q ridture of Di recto " o, .. -•----- i 1-' llutl;r i ed i',c'j) 1 _ .j ,., i, I;11 j Hi' Hi l+ by Department : UTL‘ r7/• _. Cominents : Lk",k-risiL J. S/sw/t.L P4:-.4-.-c ; /rh4c AS F".z MeK v'/v c. -.if' t3g/m-n.oy.L iLt4Io-i. 1 U- rS,..t r"/-•C j G I4-C,.", 1 LA1?L ccfMM,4it 5 of-i Sw 4 3 I st/ so, Ct wAret I0/ Sa Fr S:.i02 Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date REVIEW ICY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : Department : T -f/.e• I- ,•,j /, ram '' ify Commnents : 1 3 ti,// ,b•e a;q'.' 4" 4 4-: A ,,. ; ,/, J e(....e__.-..-.----" '7"--a. • Si rjnature of Direct-or o•r Authorized R .presentati re D.rte I 1 ' iREVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : Department : -rig,- p pl9f r..-bc-4 I Commen is : '/e=C_' /"'viCTam ,-4e/Li Tim• -" i ur'/tic: /1•4. Sd,i,eF/iec 4 er CS S (4-#/: ..9/1/7l C 6 ..Tit.S//-Pee.IA, frfr- 7v /9x.r) oci f 4;C :7 2,-/ G%' e'a us7;(-). c 7-,e ti . J1 C'v/'/' or ,;77e/L tCr'anc ` 'C_.t is /ti Lc 7>c.`/2 7 /1 1 /hic' /1/4 fe(d'. ?Trig-1 < df 4.er -' !l 5 /ez ,le ,.,C 11,Se u s Sl/} M,.-O /•-f l,Sr ftee, i`'/ -7 `A.;eXS 4f1" a C • I it Z&../7.r Sirjna,ture of Directot or: t orized Representative pte Iti: «', i)I;IEK (; TY D[PAi. IMENTS : 0epartmen t Comment; : I isI; it If .S i in e of Di rector or 1uuthn, ,,,,i r CITY OF RENTON F R P E111EoA( P L I CI T I fd SITE APPROVAL APR 3 1978 FOR OFFICE USE ONLY File No. SA- /0-7B Filing Da ti c+ 41 3-78 - Application Fee $ 3Z• . Receipt No. Environmental Review Fee $ (173. APPLICANT TO COMPLETE ITEMS 1 THROUGH 6 : 1. Name Jack A. Benaroya Company Phone 762-4750 Address 6th Avenue South , Seattle, WA 98108 2. Property location North side of S.W. 43rd Street between Longacres Parkway and Lind Avenue (future) . 3. Legal description (attach additional sheet if necessary) Approximately 44 acres consisting of that portion of the following described property lying southerly of the proposed S.W. 41st Street: The Northeast 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 Section 36, Township 23 N, Range 4 East, except the County Road and the Northwest 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 Section 31 , Township 23 North , Range 5 East, except the West 10 feet thereof, and ex- cept for right of way for S.W. 43rd Street. 4. Number of acres or square feet approximately 44 acres Present zoning MP 5. What do you propose to develop on this property? warehousing 6. The following information shall be submitted with this application : A. Site and access plan (include setbacks , Scale 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 ' to 800 ' D. Building height and area (existing and proposed) 7. LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER ACTION : Date Approved Date Denied Date. Appealed Appeal Action Remarks 1 i Planning D¢St . Rev, 1-771 AFFIDAVIT said corporation is I, Glacier Park Co. , A Minnesota Corporation, , being duly sworn , declare that the owner 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 3rd day of April 19 78 , Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, residing at Redmond, Washington . n t of Owner)4rfle of No,.ary blic)i a er - Property Management X` 4 GW‘„ Lobby 2, Central Building, Seattle, WA Address)Address) Seattle:,Wa h nn.tt ity)State) 625-6682 Telephone) FOR OFFICE USE ONLY) CERTIFICATION This is to certify oregoing application has been inspected by me ' and has been fou ugh and complete in every particular and to conform to the 2\es ( Ira tions of the Renton Planning Department governing the f y.ng1K- s`tYch lication . APR 3 1918 Pate Received , 0 19 By: yN'• NG DEQ Renton Planning Dept . 3- 2; Air. Will the proposal result in : a) Air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality?X YES MATTE NO b) The creation of objectionable odors? YES MAYBE NIO 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?XX YES MAYBE NO b) Changes in absorption rates , drainage patterns , or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? X YES MAYBE NO c) Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? X YES MAYBE NO d) Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? xx YES MA VBE NO e) Discharge into surface waters , or in any alteration surface water quality, including but not limited to temperature , dissolved oxygen or turbidity? X YES M YBE WO— W Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? X 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? X _ 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 , Xorothersubstancesintothegroundwaters? YES MAYBE NO i ) Reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? X YES MAYBE NO a) See attached sheet. Explanation : (b) Due to the construction of building and asphalt parking and loading areas. (d)(e) Will be limited as required by Detention/Retention of storm water in accordance with City Ordinance._ 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)? X YES MAYBE NO b) Reduction of the numbers of any unique , rare or endangered species of flora? X YES MAYBE NO c) Introduction of new species of flora into an area , or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? YES MAYBE W5 d) Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? X YES MAYBE NO Explanation: (C) New plant species will be introduced in landscaped areas. 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)?X YES M YBE NO b) Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of fauna?X 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? YES MAYBE NO d) Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? X YES MAYBE NO Explanation : 6) Noise. Will the proposal increase existing noise levels? YES MAYBE NO Explanation: 7) Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? YES MAYBE NO Explanation: 8) Land Use. Will the proposal result in the alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? X YES MAYBE NO Explanation: 9) Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a) Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? X YES MAYBE NO b) Depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource? YES M YBE NO xelanation: 10) 'isk of Usset. Does the proposal involve a risk of an xp os on or the release of hazardous substances (including, ut not limited to, oil , pesticides , chemicals or radiation) n the event of an accident or upset conditions? X YES MAYBE NO x,lanation: 11) P; 'ulation. Will the proposal alter the location, distri- b tion, density, or growth rate of the human population o an area? X Yam- MAYBE NO Explanation: 5- 12) Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? X YES MAYBE NO Explanation: 13) Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in: a) Generation of additional vehicular movement? X_ YES MAYBE NO b) Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand Xfornewparking? YES MAYBE NO c) Impact upon existing transportation systems? X YES MAYBE WU— d) Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? X YES MAYBE NO e) Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? X___. YESMAYBE NO f) Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles , bicyclists or pedestrians? X YES MAYBE NO Explanation: (a) (b) Approximately 150 employees are anticipated. 114) 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? X YES MAYBE NO b) Police protection? X YES MAYBE NO c) Schools? X YES MAYBE NO d) Parks or other recreational facilities? X YES MAYBE NO e) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? X YES MAYBE NO f) Other governmental services? X YES MMAYbE NO Explanation: 15) Energy. Will the proposal result in : a) Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? X YES MAYBE NO b) Demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? X YES M YBE NO Explanation; (a) (b) Energy consumption for heating is anticipated at approximately 70 BTU's per sq. ft. per hour. Energy consumption for lighting is anticipated at approximately 2 watts per sq. ft. per 8 hour day. 16) Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or alterations to the following utilities : a) Power or natural gas? YES MAYBE N b) Communications systems? X YES MAYBE NO c) Water? IL YES MAYBE NO 6- d) Sewer or septic tanks? X YES TATETE NO e) Storm water drainage? YES RUBY NO f) Solid waste and disposal? X YES MAYBE NO Explanation: (c) New water line is anticipated as part of an L. I.D. for the future Lind Avenue. The new water line will contribute to the effectiveness of the fire protection automatic sprinkler system. 17) Human Health. Will the proposal result in the creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? X YES MAYBE go— 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? A_ YES MAYBE NO Explanation: 19) Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities?X YES MAYBE NO Explanation: 20) Archeological/Historical . Will the proposal result in an alteration of a significant archeological or historical site, structure , object or building? X YES MAYBE Tb— 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 willful lack of full disclosure on my part. Proponent: s ned Jack A. Benaroya Company by Kenneth D. Long name printed City of Renton Planning Department 5-76 1 - 4 . CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM OF 4Ni, igkl1lEb FOR OFFICE USE ONLY APR 3 1918 Application No. el5f400-/,O- 7$ Env' ron iental Checklist No. CF 330-7$_ 211/7NG DEPP PROPOSED, date: FINAL , date : Declaration of Significance a Declaration of Significance Declaration of Non-Significance Ei] 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 owl 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 snould 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 doe_ rot apply , just answer it "no" and continue on to the next question . ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM BACKGROUND I . Name of Proponent Jack A. Benaroya Company L. Address and phone number of Proponent : 5950 Sixth Avenue South Seattle, Washington 981.08 3. Date Checklist submitted 4. Agency requiring Checklist Planning Departments City of Renton 5. Name of proposal , if applicable : Benaroya Business Park, Renton 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) : Buildings for warehousing located on a 44_acre site. Project consists of three 371 ,070 square feet buildings. Buildings are to be of tilt-up concrete wall construction and are to be served by rail . 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 11 any other information needed to give an accurate understanding of the environ- mental setting of the proposal ) : Project is located in manufacturing park zone and is in agreement with zoning code and comprehensive Land Use Plan of the City of Renton. Surrounding property is heing prepared for M-P development and has had stabilizing fillplacedonthesiteandthesurroundingsites. Site is bound by S.W. 43rd St. presently being improved) , Longacres Parkway, S.W. 41st, and Lind Avenue to be completed in future L.I.D. 's) . 8. Estimated date for completion of the proposal : 11December, 1978 9. List of all permits , licenses or government approvals required for the proposal federal , state and local --including rezones) : Site Review Permit, Fill Permit, Drainage Permit, Building Permit Building, Mechanical-Plumbing, Electrical ) 10. Do you have any plans for future additions , expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes , explain: possible development. of property on the North side of the future S.W. 41st Street. The property being considered is approximately 300 feet deep and would possibly be used for warehousing. 11. Do you know of any plans by others which may affect the property covered by your proposal ? If yes , explain: No. 12. Attach any other application form that has been completed regarding the pro- piosal ; if none has been completed, but is expected to be filed at some future date, describe the nature of such application form: Site Review application is being prepared for the City of Renton. 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? X TES-- Waft- NO b) Disruptions , displacements , compaction or over- covering of the soil ? X YES MAYBE NO c) Change in topography or ground surface relief features? X YES MAYBE ff0-- d) The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? X YES MAYBE NO e) Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils , either on or off the site? X YES 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? X YES RATITE NO Explanation: b) Building areas are to receive approximately 4 feet of fill . ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM ITEM II (3)a. Changes in currents, or the course of direction of water movements , in either marine or fresh waters. Drainage ditch owned and maintained by King County Drainage District No. 1 running north from S.W. 43rd Street may be diverted west along S.W. 43rd to future Longacres Parkway to drain into Springbrook Creek. 0 THE CITY OF RENTON c MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, WASH. 98055 simm ,no CHARLES J. DELAURENTI MAYOR • PLANNING DEPARTMENT13 O 235-2550 4' EO SEPI€ April 13, 1978 Jack A. Benaroya Company 5950 - 6th Avenue South Seattle, Washington 98108 RE : NOTICE OF APPLICATION ACCEPTANCE AND PUBLIC HEARING DATE FOR APPLICATION FOR SITE APPROVAL - TO CONSTRUCT WAREHOUSE FACILITY IN M-P ZONE, File No. SA-150-78; property located on the north side of S.W. 43rd Street between Longacres Parkway and Lind Avenue S.W. Dear Sirs: The Renton Planning Department formally accepted the above mentioned application on April 3, 1978 A public hearing before the City of Renton Hearing Examiner has been set for April 25, 1978 at 9:00 a.m. Representatives of the applicant are asked to be present . All interested persons are invited to attend the hearing . If you have any further questions , please call the Renton Planning Department , 235-2550 . Very truly yours , Gordon Y . Ericksen Planning Director J By : l ` . ichael L . S : ith Associate Planner cc : Glacier Park Company Kenneth D. Long , Architect King County Hydraulics NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING RENTON LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER RENTON, WASHINGTON A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE RENTON LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER AT HIS REGULAR MEETING IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS , CITY HALL , RENTON , WAHINGTON , ON APRIL 25 19 78 , AT 9 :00 A. M. TO CONSIDER THI: FOLLOWING PETITIONS : 1 . DR. MANFRED LABAND , ET AL , APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A MEDICAL CLINIC IN AN R-3 ZONE , File No . SP- 148-78 ; property located on the northeast corner of Williams Avenue South and South 5th Street . JACK A. BENAROYA COMPANY , APPLICATION FOR SITE APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT WAREHOUSE FACILITY IN M-P ZONE , File No . SA- 150-70; property located on the north side of S . W. 43rd Street between Longacres Parkway and Lind Avenue S . W. 3 . STAR MACHINERY COMPANY , APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL PERMIT TO FILL AND GRADE Ird M-P ZONE , File No . SP- 178-78 ; property located approximately 120 feet north of S . W. 43rd Street along the west i1 side of West Valley Road. Legal descriptions of applications noted above on file in the Renton Planning Department . I I I I ALL INTERESTED PERSONS TO SAID PETITIONS ARE INVITED TO BE PRE • ENT AT I TEE PUBLIC HEARING ON APRIL 25 , 1978 AT 9 : 00 ' . M. TO I EkPRESS THEIR OPINIONS . I; . GORDON Y. ERICKSE PLBLISHED April 14 , 1978 RENTON PLANNING D RECTOR CERTIFICATION MICHAEL L. SMITH HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THREE OP I ES Of THE ABOVE DOCUMENT WERE POSTED BY ME IN THREE CONSPICUOUS P ACES Oh THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED ABOVE AS PRESCRIBED BY LAW . AITEST: Subscribed and sworn to before me, a Notary Public , OD the 12th day of April 19 78 SIGNED' t I''' APRIL 6, 1978 MR. DAVE KERN ZURN INDUSTRIES, INC. 10910 - 117TH PLACE N. E. KIRKLAND, WASHINGTON .8033 DEAR MR. KERNS AS I ADVISED DURING OUR PHONE CONVERSATION TODAY, CHIEF GEISSLER STATED THE FOLLOWING REQUIREMENTS WOULD APPLY TO THE THREE PROPOSED BUILDINGS ON S. W. 43RD STREET BETWEEN LONGACRES PARKWAY AND LIND AVENUE S. Wolf 1. SPRINKLER SYSTEM SHALL BE APPROVED BY A RATING AGENCY SUCH AS THE WASHINGTON SURVEYING AND RATING BUREAU OR FACTORY MUTUAL. 2. RAILWAY SPURS BETWEEN BUILDINGS SHALL 8E. OPEN A"T 80TH ENDS. 3. THERE SHALL Mt TWO FIRE HYDRANTS ALONG EACH RAILWAY SPUR BETWEEN EACH BUILDING. EACH HYDRANT SHALL BE RECESSED IN 4' BY 8' BY 41 OPENING. HYDRANTS SHALL BE THREE PORT., 4. HOSE STATIONS REQUIRED AS PER N.F.P.A. VOL.2, 1978 ED. 5. IF BUILDINGS ARE SPIINKLERED FOR ORDINARY HAXARO, NO HIGH HAZARD OCCUPANCY-WMU , BE ALLOWED. a)W._ SINCERELY, RENTON FIRE DEPARTMENT E. V. WOOTON, JR., FIRE INSPECTOR EVW/JEB Lorton Dennis &Associates,Inc. Consulting Engineers March 31 , 1978 Jack A. Benaroya Company 5950 Sixth Avenue South Seattle, Washington 98108 Attention: Mr. Ken Long Subject: Storm Drainage Design Benaroya Business Park Buildings 1 , 2 & 3 Dear Mr. Long: Please find enclosed four copies of the storm detention design and calculations on the above project. As you are aware this design was based on several assump- tions one of which is the proposed building elevations. It is my recommendation that when you have final topography and building elevations that we review the storm design to assure its workability. You should also review the parking lot storage to determine if it is acceptable. If you have any questions, please contact us. Si cerely, ert D. Stanton, P.E. RDS/cd Enc. RFN ` 4 0.6.1q.bc0O2 APR 3 1918 94,N'NG DEQ c6 6133 Sixth Ave. South, Seattle, Washington 98108 ' Phone 767-3456 ROUE S C• E PLANNING DEPARTMENT DATE ROUTED 4' G/L0 PLEASE REVIEW THIS APPLICATION FOR: REZONE, MAJOR PLAT CSITE APPRO'Y'i, a4)L SHORT PLAT SPECIAL PERMIT WAIVER RFL i Nt MANAGEMENT PERMIT OR EXEMPTION AND RETURN TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT WITH ANY COMMENTS YOU MIGHT HAVE , BEFORE 473 SIGNATURE OR NITA DEPARTMENT APPROVAL DENIAL DATE BUILDI TRAFFIC E" . Set C.... Q. vj EIIGIN AIM arr. 7-/7g HEALTH l9Tl l_1 REV: E. Ei'l ' S COMMENTS OR APPROVAL CONDITIONS : 7r,' AY'f?e 1 iHc w S 411V-1 c'_SI/ /GO _7i,7,..f c/S T- S 44/ 7'` J =is L- e./ :1..,4. /_o i.yly e 4A-. J-/ Now,/ 7"C T'iCXec6.: 5 74-0' Cis e 44-17 iK ram CAdN e r 4-3a duX. (>.y aa6se%io y e CC vNl ti.7T ,F .Ctl c"-'a/j PLEASE SIGN THE E . I .W. : ROUIING FOR REVIEW OF ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORMS TO : Finance Department Fire Department Library Department Park Department Police Department Public Works Department Building Div. Traffic Engineering Di v . Engineering Div . 40 Utilities Engineering Div . FROM : Planning Department , ( signed by responsible official or his des i gnee ) 1'Vt1G14.AtsL— 11 _ SUBJECT : Review of ECF- 3D—IR Application No . : SA - (SO-7k Action Name :__- tijA A__.... c- 'FL f4-rJ Ave e4r_ J L.-__ t 0 _-M--f Z Please review the attached . Review requested by ( date) : 21 147Y REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : Department : • 2e---D 1 Comments : G k. 1 c'"-r`z-cr 4-i<__ .:e.:_...(._ za-c- ----- Signature rector~ or Authorized Representative • Date REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : Department : 1 ear; sF b s ,wk. fir 6.c ;-rvo r S (..1 `1/s-L a cv-Comments : wi a41.-Ceco.Ceru'S • o G .r 'J, .HarJ s.•cie „ .lk,i' 1 4 _v wS" / s/.i k.S 4 w,Th OpY'y 3) .....T.e,T vK- S N/ y 3 "1 S'f 7 n. J./C.c.wed c-G Si gnature of Di rector or Authori zed Rep e , . not ;r ti ve Date i u- iG O\'E R 1 i j REVIti; BY OTHki CITY DEPARTMENTS : Department : UT-LL,n/z.." Comments : w nmi.t si4-w,sK. i«'z-ems try-Q,a A-s p..s-k-, iA eft-TLn.-c w/ t3 t:/4/4-r2o y. KA p5. b?`x7. n c.a rpc- c,-I-C..S L A-at- cvti1.-,ns,.5 01-L. Sw 4"3 I 0/ So. Fr . WATF2 I0/ SW FT cc-Am_ • Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date REVIEW QY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : Department : 7 '-aAi;e tiy ,/r, re-Y12.. Comments : ziAc: rja c.; / //.„' 3 L er/7 `-.,_.)j Z6'2 Si gnature of Di rector or Authorized R _pre entati ve Date REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : Department : Cowen t s : r'/- c'gv 7/-eit, fr9C,1/'772- /x-ee-r.,r/NC ffee-- Sc-'.ef/tc c. 4 Cc 6SS 12c4f .) S''iitu- & .Tx-S i/ce x'' /4A// /(--//tC J' 'k--74—C P?fci 72, ,`_Add Oi2i' C ;ifc ' Oi Ce, 13%/et/CTo& . Sa C'vfi' cr e77-7 W T /r .. p/vc /< et,. rc-ri 2. df LG7 2-r a 57/it C/A.C- I,'SCu s si-r ft -'' ,-i <S% -tee %%/c: C/e;CAS /?,--i o r //r , C.— X/77 L1 7 Signature of Di recto or A orized Representative ate KL'VI t.W BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : Department : Comments : Signature of Di rector or fluthori zed Repri ;on tit t i ire 0,- 0-,? gIIMIMOIMIMIMINIIMIPIWAikalle i • Ahab/ V NO r. is " 11'" w --+ a P ii to l :::: r_.__ Ff' JAWT am T.- c. z- I a w 1St. x~ i fir. it.\ y G.. RECEIVED error OF RESTON 2 51979 AM PM R,9,)A,)1,1211 1213,415 A TIIB1 i NO. 7 Irip.M NO. .-5A - /-0 1` 4emk ru C YY'i - / 2MDIiVG OF FILE FILE TITLE 6b-°*/ 30 78