Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
LUA78-238
BEGINNING OF FILE FILE TITLE C: :° 71 MED goasoet4 12)3 8 _78 i OF ! A y © z THE CITY OF RENTON MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON,WASH. 98055 osell g BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH, MAYOR • PLANNING DEPARTMENT 90 63' 235- 2550 0, 91T£ D SEP1*-11# June 11 , 1980 John M. Stone South 2211 Manito Blvd. Spokane, Washington 99203 RE : SITE APPROVAL SA-238-78 Dear Mr . Stone : We have received on this date the surety bond for the landscaping located on the west side of your mini-storage development located on East Valley Road . By carbon copy of this letter I am transmitting to the City Clerk 's Office the original surety bond. This bond will need to be renewed annually in order to retain your permit in full force and effect . If you should have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact this department . Very truly yours , Gord n Y. Ericksen, Pla ping Dir ' or Da id R . Clemens, Senior Planner cc : Leity Clerk Public Works Director Building Division with copies of bond) DRC :sli SURETY BOND Bond No . 57203436 KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS : That we , John Stone dba A-ECONOMY STORAGE as Principal , and THE TRANSAMERICA INSURANCE COMPANY as surety, are held and firmly bound unto the CITY OF RENTON in the sum of THREE THOUSAND AND NO/100S DOLLARS ($3 , 000 . 00) for the payment of which, well and truly to be made , they bind themselves , their heirs , executors , administrators , successors and assigns , jointly and severally, firmly by these presents . WHEREAS , the Principal is the owner of A-ECONOMY STORAGE located at 2233 East Valley Road, Renton, Washington AND WHEREAS , the western side of this property borders on an undeveloped strip of land, and, therefore , the City of Renton agrees that the native plant materials on the westerly side of the aforedescribed site are satisfactory at this time ; however , should said native plants at any time during the period of June 9 , 1980 to June 9 , 1981 become unsatisfactory, then the City of Renton will require installation of certain other plant materials , as more fully described in Exhibit A attached hereto and considered a part hereof, instead. NOW, THEREFORE , the condition of this obligation is such that , if said Principal shall comply with the City of Renton' s requirement , at such time as the City of Renton deems it advisable to install said plantings as described in Exhibit A, within a reasonable period of time , then this obligation to be void; otherwise to be in full force and effect . It is further provided that the conditions and terms of this bond are for the period from June 9 , 1980 to June 9 , 1981 , but that the bond may be extended annually by means of a Continuation Certificate from the Surety. Signed, sealed and dated this 9th c'ay of June , 1980 . A-ECON MY STORAGE Jo w r Principal COUNTERSIGNED COUNTERSIGNED BY: TRANS RIC I CE CC[PATIY Wttkir W . Walter W. Wolf, Wash' n ton Ju itTiA. Rapp , Attar n-Fact Resident Agent 4 Pr f aptrty 75 and Casualty In ce 1rom ansamerica urlxi Transamerica Insurance Company POWER OF ATTORNEY KNOW ALL MEIJ BY THESE PRESENTS: That TRANSAMERICA INSURANCE COMPANY, a corporation of the State of California, does hereby make, constitute anc appoint William S. Black, Walter W. Wolf or Judith A. Rapp , individually of, Spokane, Washington its true and lawful Attorney(s)-in-Fact, with full power and authority, for and on behalf of the Company as surety, to execute and deliver and affix the seal of the Company thereto, if a seal is required, bonds, undertakings, recog- nizances or other written obligations in the nature thereof, as follows: Any and all bonds and undertakings UNLIMITED IN AMOUNT, in any single instance, for or on behalf of this Company, in its business and in accordance with its Charter, and to bind TRANSAMERICA INSURANCE COMPANY thereby, and all of the acts of said Attorney(s)-in-Fact, pursuant to these presents, are hereby ratified and confirmed. This appointment is made under and by authority of the following by-laws of the Company which by-laws are now in full force and effect: ARTICLE VII SECTION 30 All policies, bonds, undertakings, certificates of insurance, cover notes, recognizances, contracts of indemnity, endorsements, stipulations, waivers, consents of sureties, re-insurance acceptances or agreements, surety and co-surety obligations and agreements, underwritingundertakings, and ill other instruments pertaining to the insurance business of the Corporation, shall be validly executed when signed on behalf of the Corporation by the President, any Vice President or by any other officer, employee, agent or Attorney-in-Fact authorized to so sign by (i) theBoardofDirectors, Ili) the President, (iii) any Vice President, or (iv) any other person empowered by the Board of Directors, the President or any VicePresidenttogiveBichauthorization: provided that all policies of insurance shall also bear the signature of a Secretary, which may be a facsimile, and unless manually signed by the President or a Vice President, a facsimile signature of the President.. A facsimile signature of a former officer shall be of the same validity as that of an existing officer. The affixing of the corporate seal shall not be necessary to the valid execution of any instrument, but any person authorized to execute or attestsuchinstrumentmayaffixtheCorporation's seal thereto. This Power of Attorney is signed and sealed by facsimile under and by the authority of the following resolution adopted by the Board of Directors of the Company at a meeting duly called and held on the 17th day of October 1963. Resolved, It at the signature of any officer authorized by the By-laws and the Company seal may be affixed by facsimile to any power of attorney or sr ecial power of attorney or certification of either given for the execution of any bond undertaking, recognizance or other written obligation in he nature thereof; such signature and seal, when so used being hereby adopted by the Company as the original signature of such officer (nd the original seal of the Company, to be valid and binding upon the Company with the same force and effect as though manually affixed." IN WITNESS WHEREOF, TRANSAMERICA INSURANCE COMPANY has caused these presents to be signed by its proper offic tr and its corporate seal to be hereunto affixed this 17th day of January ,19 80, By J. W. FLESHMAN, Vice President State of California County of Los Angeles ) ss On this 17th day of January , 1980 , before me personally came J.W. Fleshman to me known, who, being by me duly sworn, did depose and say: that he resides in the City of Sierra Madre, State of California; that he is a Vice-President of Transamerica Insurance Company, the corporation described,in and which executed the above instrument; that he knows the seal of said Corporation; that the seal affixed to the said instru- ment is such corporate seal; that it was so affixed pursuant to authority given by the Board of Directors of said corporation and that he signed his name thereto pursuant to like authority, and acknowledges same tobe the actanddeedofsaidcorporation. 2r11n1111111111111111111111111111I11Nnnn1 Ill nlnl 1 1 1 iI i If Il l0 11111 1 1 1 1 111 1 11 1 111 1111 1 111111 1 111 1 1 1 1 1 111 1 11 1 111 OFFICIAL SEAL ELIZABETH AHERNE NOTARY PUBLIC CALIFORNIA 2- r/ j PRINCIPAL OFFICE IN = 5. LOS ANGELES COUNTY My Commissior Expires March 30, 1980 Notary PublicIIIIIIillllllllllllllllllll111111IIIIIIIIIIIIIIi11111111111'IIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIII II IIIIIIY 1719 A I -76) I, J. H. Tanner, Assistant Secretary of Transamerica Insurance Company, do hereby certify that the Power of Attorney herein before set forth is a true and exact copy and is still in force, and further certify that Section 30ofArticleVIIoftheBy-Laws of the Company and the Resolution of the Board of Directors, set forth in said PowerofAttorneyarestillinforce. In testimony where_of I have hereunto sub ibed my name and affixed the seal ofthesaidCompanythis9thdayofJune19 J) J. H. TANNER, Assistant Secretary I "'V NS N ^^.f v 3'O s IMF' •?W :I04 asno1-+ A •IN r n 41 tn I j _jkk, ! 4.4Inol'ii+' i i41-0- ZAT' Q r.k'+..} fir'- c/ 10 AU falPit? 4— it Ilidgli P 4 I:I ' I'', ` _________. i 3Ill ',o1 i 11 . _- 10 s 40i. i A 4? • 4 1)(1 i i. *1 h ipt ‘ \,i1 s\ e a u' V 1 e 11:1 I I 5,,kt 4-04"- \ 1/4 1t ' J 1 1 i ii•-. 1 1y 1 4;.1 4: . 11 _ 14/ p0eII 1 21 ill a«- ' - 4 0i 40 Ikili ‘ 04 A 4p4PV s, il '\ 0 I 3 lg.q r yi p.GZ Mi 4+.w4_+,'m.w.. 1tIpi. cIIV{ (rwzli _.... meat 1001 NIbDNU I Z iB-9$ EXHIBIT "A" Bond #57203436 , dated June 9 , 1980 The ten foot landscaped area specified above for the west property line shall consist of screen hedge landscaping of photinia and London Plane trees generally conforming to the landscaping installed on the east property line, but in no case shall the hedge planting be less than 5 gallon size, at five ( 5) foot centers, and the trees shall be a minimum of one and one-half ( 1-1/2) inch caliper , at 35 foot centers. Sire AfpRosla4. - S'A -238 -78) OC 43 a THE CITY OF RENTON o 8MUNICIPAI BUIIDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, WASH. 98055 o CHARLES J. DELAURENTI , MAYOR • PLANNING DEPARTMENT 3, o 235-2550 O 11TfO SEPIt O July 2 , 1979 A29303/ 7 ti r John MM . Stone y 9,,, a' 2211 S . Manito Blvd C,qz. of 4.V rza Spokane, Washington 99203 Sys fiw,,c) cc- oc O.c !Q RE : MINI-STORAGE WAREHOUSE : East Valley Road Ll1s %\\ Dear Mr. Stone : The Planning Department has completed its review of your project , and concluded that a number of landscaping items are not in conformance with the approved plans . The tree plantings along the perimeter to not meet the staff recommendations or the decision of the Hearing Examiner . Specifically, the following corrective actions are required : 1) Replacing of the vine maple tree plantings with the london plane trees , or interspersing london planes between the vine maples on the perimeter of the site and in the vicinity of the dumpster enclosure. 2) The phontinia plantings are not of the specified five gallon size, and must be enhanced by the inclusion of this size plantings between existing plant . 3) Planter curbings are required at all planter perimeters . 4) Plant materials must be installed on the westerly side of the site or bonded to insure future installation should the native materials become unsatisfactory. 5) Completion and planting of the berm on the east side including slope stabilizing ground cover. We feel that the following corrections must be promptly completed, or we will be unable to agree to your requested certificate of occupancy. We will be happy to meet with you at your convenience to discuss these deficiencies . Very truly yours , Gordon Y. Eric sc,,n, Planning Direc/©r 429 — ,,,(,, 7 az:tt ///4 .( /4, vid k. Clemens , Senior Planner cc : Public Works Director Building Division DRC : sh SA d : -id CITY OF RENr )N No. 7112 FINANCE DEPARTMENT RENTON, WASHT,NGTO 9 8055 X1'7).//1 19 72. RECEIVED OF • 42_,,2!d/ ett-u-eA l S K/0 Cecli t_ kO 9e-A/r 6DA,e4:— TOTAL 3-‘1 ( GWEN E. MARS L, FINANC DIRECTOR BY j/,,1 ( OF R THE CITY OF RENTON 4- z MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE SO. RENTON, WASH. 98055 o CHARLES J. DELAURENTI , MAYOR • LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER 9- o O L. RICK BEELER , 235-2593 09gTfD SEP SE O P December 15, 1978 Mr. John Stone 2211 South Manito Blvd. Spokane, WA 99203 RE: File No. SA-238-78; John M. Stone Site Approval Request. Dear Mr. Stone: This is to notify you that the above referenced request, which was approved subject to conditions as noted on the Examiner's report of November 20, 1978, has not been appealed within the time period established by ordinance. Therefore, this application is considered final and is being submitted to the City Clerk effective this date for permanent filing. Si. , ely, lit iBt4T4 L. Rick Beeler Hearing Examiner cc: Planning Department City Clerk pF RF THE CITY OF RENTON U •6 Z MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE SO. RENTON, WASH. 98055 Z o op CHARLES J. DELAURENTI , MAYOR • LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER co- O D L. RICK BEELER , 235-2593 41EO SE PIV. e November 30, 1978 Mr. John Stone 2211 S. Manito Blvd. Spokane, WA 99203 RE: File No. SA-238-78; John Stone Request for Site Approval; Request for Reconsideration. Dear Mr. Stone: Your request for reconsideration, dated November 29, 1978, contains information which appears to not have been available at the public hearing on this matter. On the basis of the forthcoming request for vacating 91st Avenue South, it is appropriate that my decision of November 20, 1978 be modified to accommodate this potential vacation. Condition No. 3 is hereby deleted and replaced by: 3. Removal of Building No. 8 and 9; except in the event 91st Avenue South is vacated in its entirety by the city. This would, if the street vacation is approved, result in the submitted site plan, Exhibit #2, as modified by the remainder of the decision. The Planning Department shall review the final site plan per all of the imposed conditions. Respe$ ull L. Rick Beeler Hearing Examiner cc: /Parties of Record Dave Clemens, Planning Department INFORMATION: A new appeal period has been established for this application to expire on December 14, 1978. November 29, 1978 Mr. L. Rick Beeler Land Use Hearing Examiner City of Renton Renton, Washington Dear Mr. Beeler: We are requesting reconsideration of your decision in our site approval case, SA-238-78, because of some additional developments with respect to the case. It now appears that 91st Street can and will be vacated. All owners in- volved have reached agreement and are applying for a road vacation from the City of Renton. Hence, this would reduce my required setback from 60 feet to 30 feet. This would give us the necessary room to build Buildings No. 8 and No. 9 that you excluded because they did not have the required setback. We had been encouraged by City officials (building, engineering) to vacate 91st Street, but the option was not opened to us at that time. We are confident that your investigation into this matter with City officials will show they support this concept. For the above stated reasons, we are requesting that you modify your de- cision to allow Buildings No. 8 and No. 9 conditioned upon road vacation of 91st Street. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, JOHN STONE JS:mlc RECEIVED CITY OF RENTON HEARING EXAMINER NOV 3 01978 AM PM 7,819110,11,121112131415,6 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING State of Washington) County of King A,t TA--i -e r/, being first duly sworn, upon oath disposes and states: That on the :2?o '-tday of /Zfi A-6-n44Ac,C,1./ , 19 7( , affiant 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. Subscribed and sworn this day of 19 -'( . K931 -11r)1\ Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, residing at Renton Application, Petition or Case: ir) '/i>—x-L 231= 7,7 The minuted contain a £Lst o6 the ‘hti.ea 06 necond) November 20, 1978 OFFICE 9F THE LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON REPORT AND ]ECISION . APPLICANT: John M. Stone FILE NO. SA-238-78 LOCATION: Along west side of East Valley Road between S.W. 21st Street and S.W. 23rd Street. SUMMARY OF REcUEST: Applicant requests site approval for a mini-warehouse complex consisting of seven (7) storage buildings and a custodial and office structure totaling approximately 72,000 square feet of gross floor area. SUMMARY OF ACTION: Planning Department Recommendation: Approval with conditions. Hearing Examiner Decision: Approval with conditions. PLANNING DEPAITMENT The Planning Department staff report was received by the REPORT: Examiner on November 8, 1978. PUBLIC HEARINC : 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 November 14, 1978 at 9:25 a.m. in the Council Chambers of the Renton Municifal Building. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner. It was reported that the Hearing Examiner and the applicant had received and reviewed the Planning Eepartment report, and the report was entered into the record as Exhibit #1. David Clemens, Associate Planner, reviewed Exhibit #1, and entered the following additional exhibits into the record: Exhibit #2: Site Plan as submitted Exhibit #3: Landscape Plan as submitted Exhibit #4: Site Plan with staff comments Exhibit #5: Landscape Plan with staff comments The Examiner asked the applicant if he concurred in Exhibit #1. Responding was: John Stone 2211 S. Manito Blvd. Spokane, WA 99203 Mr. Stone indicated several concerns pertaining to landscaping and fencing recommended in the Planning Department report. He also reported that as a result of discussions with the Public Works Director, the required elevation of landfill on the site had been established at 18 feet which reduced the height of proposed buildings by two to three feet. Mr. Stcne submitted an architectural sketch designating location of a proposed hedge on the eastern boundary of the subject site which will provide a landscape buffer on the East Valley Road. The sketch was labeled as follows by the Examiner: Exhibit #6: Cross Section Mr. Stone felt that provision of the hedge would satisfy the intent of Recommendation No. P.4.b. in Exhibit #1 which requires hedge materials to screen loading door areas from adjacent street rights-of-way, and eliminte the need for requirements of Recommendation No. P.4.a. which stipulates provision of a variety of screening tree plantings along all property lines, with particular emphasis upon screening of views from the hillside to the east. Mr. Stone indicated objection to Recommendation No. P.4.c. which requires provision of decorative fencing of a wrought iron or similar architectural style as being prohibitive in cost and an uncommon amenity in a mini-warehouse complex. Mr. Stone requested the architect for the project to testify. Responding was: y SA-238-78 Page Two John Marshall, Architect 3623 12th Avenue W. Seattle, WA 98119 Mr. Marshall indicated that landscaping designated in the submitted site plan represents 78.5% of the requirement, noting that approval by the Board of Adjustment of the variance for reduced setback adjacent to 91st Avenue South would satisfy landscaping requirements by ;increasing the total landscaping area by 4,000 square feet upon installation of a 10- foot landscaping buffer along 91st Avenue South. He requested clarification of the landscaping requirement for wildlife habitat. Mr. Clemens explained the requirements of Resolution No. 1923 which requires 2% landscaping for mitigation of wildlife habitat and advised that the submitted site plan did not denote the necessary landscape area to meet requirements. Mr. Stone indicated his concurrence in Recommendations No. P.5 and P.6 and reported that he had provided restrictive covenants and posted a bond to assure future completion of off-site improvements if required. The Examiner inquired if copies of the documents were ava lable. Mr. Clemens indicated that copies would be provided following closure of the hearing. Regarding Recommendation No. P.6, Mr. Clemens noted as a result of action taken by the Board of Public Works at its meeting on November 8, 1978, the item should be revised frcn "Off-site improvements to be provided as recommended by the Engineering Division" to "Off-site improvements to be provided in accordance with action taken by the Board of Public Works." The Examiner requested testimony in support or opposition to the request. There was no response. Mr. Clemens emphasized that landscaping and screening required by Recommendation No. P.4.a. is warranted by site objectives contained in the Green River Valley Plan combined with various comments received from residents on the hillside area to the east regarding screening of developments in that area. He indicated that the recommendation would remain as previously reviewed. Mr. Stone requested further clarification from Mr. Clemens regarding required landscaping denoted on Exhibit #5. Mr. Clemens reviewed recommendations contained on the exhibit for street trees of a screening nature along the East Valley Road in order to conform to req irements of the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Stone reported that visibility from the site to he hillside area to the east is limited due to existence of foliage 20 feet in height. He also noted that building heights would be minimal and advised the seasonal nature of maple trees would provide screening during only a portion of the year. Mr. Clemens referenced Recommendation No. P.4.c. which requires decorative fencing and noted that installation of the fence would provide screening of the development until such time as landscaping matures. Mr. Stone indicated that such a fence would not be visible due to excessive landscaping requirements along the East Valley Road and would be prohibitive in cost. The Examiner inquired if 91st Avenue South has been vacated. Mr. Clemens indicated that the street has not been vacated. The Examiner referenced Section 0.6 of Exhibit #1 which indicates that at least one significant landscaped area should be established "to provide wildlife habitat" (Green River Valley Plan) , and inquired regarding staff's intent in the recommendation. Mr. Clemens designed on Exhibit #5 an area north of the proposed caretaker's apartment to 91st Avenue South and noted that landscaping could be installed to achieve the intent of Resolution No. 1923 as well as meeting requirements of Recommendation No. P.4.a. The Examiner inquired if requirements of Resolution No. 1923 would be met by the proposal. Mr. Clemens indicated a necessity for additional la scaping to meet total area requirements which would be reviewed and resolved with the applicant. Mr. Stone reported his concurrence in provision of landscaping in the areadesignated by Mr. Clemens. The Examiner inquired if the Comprehensive Plan provides guidelines for requirement of wrq'ught iron fencing. Mr. Clemens indicated that although provisions of the plan do not specifically address that particular fencing design, such provision would correlate with recommendations for screening landscape material. He suggested that other materials such as anodized aluminum screening would also provide buffering of door areas until landscaping has matured. The Examiner inquired if storm drainage plans have been submitted and approved. The applicant reported that submission to the Building Division had occurred two to three weeks earlier. The Examiner inquired if a permit for landfill had been granted. Mr. Clemens responded affirmatively. The Examiner inquired if all conditions of landfill permit ap royal had been met. Mr. Clemens indicated that completion of certain landscaping and screening requirements constituted the only condition of approval, and such requirements will be determined upon issuance of a decision by the Examiner on the site plan. The Examiner inquired regarding the proposed building color. Mr. Stone advised that determination of exterior color had not yet been made. Mr. Clemens indicated the preference of the Planning Department for earth-tone shades. The Examiner requested SA-238-78 Page Three verification of the gross floor area computation. Mr. Clemens reported a figure of 72,600 square feet. The Examiner requested a final recommendation from the Planning Department. Mr. Clemens indicated tha recommendation would remain as submitted with the exception of revision to Section P 6 changing recommendation for off-site improvements by the Engineering Division to action recommended by the Board of Public Works on November 8, 1978; and revision to . ecommendation No. P.4.c. that decorative fencing of a wrought iron material be suggested to the applicant rather than recommended to the Examiner. The Examiner requested further comments. Since there were none, the hearing on File No. SA-238-78 was closed by the Examiner at 10:05 a.m. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & DECISION: 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 to construct seven (7) mini-storage warehouse buildings on 4.1 acres of M-P zoned property. 2. The Planring 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 fcrth in full therein. 3. Pursuant to the City of Renton's Environmental Ordinance and the State Environmental Policy 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 subject to inclusion of suitable landscaping. 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 lot coverage and height requirements of Section 4-730 (M-.)) of Title IV, Ordinance No. 1628, Code of General Ordinances. Conformance with the setbacks exists on all portions of the property except along the westerly property .Line where a 30-foot building setback is proposed 'instead of the required 60-foot setback of Section 4-730.030.2 (Exhibit #2) . Staff indicated that the Board of Adjustment will review a variance request for such a setback deviation at its meeting o:- November 16, 1978. Attached :.s the variance application filed with the Building Division on October 25, 1978. Wh: le testimony in the hearing indicated only the aforementioned deviation from the setback along the westerly property line, the applicant has also requested the Board of Adjustment permit similar deviation along the southerly property line. 8. The landscape plan (Exhibit #3) does not include landscaping along the westerly and western pertion of the northerly property lines. Staff recommended this landscaping and changes to proposed landscaping (Exhibits #3 and 4) per the requirements of Section 4-730.030.2. Less than 2% of the site has been allotted for landscaping for wildlife habitat per Resolution No. 1923 and the Green River Valley Comprehensive Plan. 9. Parking provided in the proposal (Exhibit #2) meets the requirements of the Parking and Loadirg Ordinance, Chapter 22. 10. A refuse dumpster is to be located at the southeast corner of the property. Screening is not prcposed of any substantive amount around the dumpster (Exhibit #3) . 11. Around the perimeter of the site is proposed a 6-foot security fence (Exhibit #2) . This fence is to be located between the perimeter landscaping and the parking and circulation on the site. A description of this fence was not provided. 12. The applicant revised the floor elevation of the proposal to 18 feet, the same as East Valley Road. 13. Storm drainage plans have been submitted to the Public Works Department but have not been apprcved to date. y SA-238-78 Page Four 14. Off-site improvements along S.W. 21st Street and S.W. 23rd Street were waived by the Board of Public Works on November 8, 1978, subject to completion of restrictive covenants agreeing to participation in a Local Improvement District (attached copy of minutes) . Improvements along East Valley Road were deferred in this same meeting for one year. CON USIONS: 1:1. he proposal conforms to the Comprehensive Plan except as noted herein. 2. uilding setbacks required in Section 4-730.030.2 (M-P) preclude the Examiner from pproving the most westerly building. This building projects 30 feet into the 60-foot setback. On November 16, 1978, the Board of Adjustment denied this variance request nd another for deviation from Section 4-730.030.2. Since the variance requests were enied, the submitted site plan, Exhibit #2, requires revising to conform to the equired setbacks. 3. Sufficient area exists on the site to provide 2% for wildlife habitat mitigation per Resolution No. 1923 and the Green River Valley Comprehensive Plan. The Planning Department possesses a list of the plant material acceptable for this purpose which cna be included in that department's final review of the landscaping plan. 4. The applicant's proposed perimeter landscape screening (Exhibits #3 and 6) appears insufficient to provide the necessary screening. "Industrial parks should be designed to protect surrounding uses and properties by providing screening and adequate setbacks. " (Emphasis added) (page 8, Industrial Development, Comprehensive Plan, Renton Urban Area, July, 1965) . Additional and substantial landscaping will enhance ". . .property values. . .through effective control of land use. . ." (Page 17, Objective No. 4, Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Report, July, 1965) . This landscaping will ". . .promote the best interest of the community and contribute to its overall attractiveness and desirability as a place in which to work. . ." (Ibid, page 18, Objective No. 6) . In addition, it will "Promote high quality development that will enhance the image of the City of Renton. " and will "Preserve and/or enhance wildlife habitat. " (Page 4, Goals, Green River Valley Comprehensive Plan, June, 1965) . It will "Promote aesthetics, including views from adjacent hillsides, so development will not be detrimental to adjacent development. " and will "Provide a high quality working environment for employees." (Ibid) The project will accordingly be ". . .designed to minimize detrimental impact." (Ibid) A landscape buffer should be established at the periphery of bounding streets to create a favorable image. . .and. . .to iminimize impact on wildlife. . ." (Ibid, page 6, Objectives) . "A maximum amount of appropriate landscaping 'should be permanently established to provide wildlife habitat. " (Ibid, page 7) . "Large amounts of landscaping scattered throughout the site including along property lines are encouraged to provide a pleasant environment, minimize the impact of the development and enhance the visual experience from adjacent properties, including hillsides. " Ibid) . "The site layout. . .should be compatible with the characteristics of the site and the design standards of the Valley." (Ibid, page 8) . "Less aesthetic uses, such as loading areas. . .should be adequately screened and landscaped. . .so they are not visible from adjacent public rights-of-way. " (Ibid) . Manufacturing Park is defined (Ibid, page 13, Definitions) as ". . .development which includes but is not limited to, adequate landscaping. . .open space. . .wildlife habitat. . ." Therefore, the Comprehensive Plan indicates that additional and more substantial landscaping is needed than that shown in Exhibits #3 and 6. The essentially total warehouse use of the site, with accompanying loading areas along the entire building facades, would appear to require the dense landscape screening recommended by staff in Exhibit #5. This applies to only the perimeters of the site opposite the loading areas. Other perimeters require less dense landscape screening. Into this screening is to be included screening for the refuse dumpster. The larger perimeter area at the northeast corner of the site requires less dense screening since loading areas do not face it. 1 SA-238-78 Page Five The perimeter fence should be incorporated into the landscape plan. A cyclone or similar fence would require that landscaping break up the expanse of the fence and reduce its utilitarian appearance. The recommendations of staff in Exhibit #5 appear sufficient. 5. The flocr elevation of the buildings should be coordinated with the King County Department of Hydraulics relative to the Flood Zone Control Permit. 6. A secondary access point, recommended by staff, should be shown on the revised site plan. This access should be reviewed and approved by the Planning, Public Works and Fire Departments. Perhaps this additional access could be for emergency vehicles only. DECISION: Approve the site plan, Exhibit #4, as submitted by staff, subject to: 1. Landscaping of 2% of the site for mitigation of wildlife habitat per Exhibits #4 and 5 as reviewed and approved by the Planning Department per Conclusion No. 3. 2. An additional access per review and approval of the Planning, Public Works and Fire Departments. This access may be for emergency vehicles only. 3. Removal of Building No. 8 and No. 9. 4. Additional landscaping or appropriate screening of the refuse dumpster loc .tion per review and approval of the Planning Department. 5. Approval of storm drainage plans by the Public Works Department. 6. Approval of the floor elevations by the City of Renton Public Works Department. ORDERED THIS 20th day of November, 1978. L. ' •k Beeler Land Use Hearing Examiner TRANSMITTED THIS 20th day of November, 1978 by Affidavit of Mailing to the parties cf record: John Stone, 2211 S. Manito Blvd. , Spokane, WA 99203 John Marshall, Architect, 3623 12th Ave. W. , Seattle, WA 98119 TRANSMITTED THIS 20th day of November, 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 December 4, 1978. Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision )f the Examiner is based on erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact, error in judgnent, or the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at :he prior hearing may make a written request for review by the Examiner within fourte!n (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 :he 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. 1 1. BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS Renton Municipal Building 9:00ea November 8, 1978 4th Floor Conference Room 9:00 a..mm.. Present: Warren C. Gonnason, Chairman Paul Lumbert, Traffic Engineering Dave Clemens, Planning Department Richard Houghton, Engineering Supervisor Ron Nelson, Building Division Robert Hufnagle, Park Department John Webley, Parks i Recreation Director John Stone, Applicant MINUTES 1. CALL TO ORDER: The November 8, 1978 meeting of the Board of Public Works was called to order by Chairman Gonnason at 9:00 a.m. 2. REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Moved by LUMBERT, seconded by CLE ENS, the minutes be approve as ttrittan. NOTION CARRIED. 3. CORRESPONDENCE: None 4. REFERRALS FROM DEPARTMENTS: a. Deferral of Off-Site Im rovemente John StoneEast Valle Road S.W. 21 t project S.E. 91st St. and S.W. 23rd St. Mini-Warehouse. Applicantpresent.A mapAema ofoometh in the was posted for the Board to view. Mr. Stone said there wasn't anye immediate area, however he was willing to support a L.I.D. whenever development takes install the placeve' on the adjoining properties. He said it would be an economic hardship to meats at this time. It was determined there were sewers available for the project on Lind Ave. S.W. and that Mr. Stone was installing a water main,for which credit would be given him on the local improvement district. Mr. Houghton reported the City had received a petition for an LID on East Valley Road from Burlington-Northern anddrrecoommenndeed tha Mr. tha since theoneprimaryrequired to sign the petition. Report from the Planning Pa would be off the East Valley Road, Planning would like to see the East Valley Road improved at this time and a bond or covenants filed for the other streets. Mr. Gonnason noted the LIDn would cover curbs, gutters, sidewalks, storm drains and water main and probably would t o ul constructed for at least two years, late 1980 or early 1981 and an acceptable way defer the improvements on the East Valley Road and grant waiverrn ntlttheaotheaZ streets. e or a ve• LUMBERT _ the Board de ar the o -site X l" 7CFrnrI 'TT'f j!'*WMOIrlik3•C1T:"lt1•urF;r!1" IT:111??_P.,IVit.".z"Lf_ Oats • 0 res tri• "us covenal not W W. 83 • St •a • eat to t improve- ments at thta t't.sw . Discussion o owe., t .e g note• t t was pre arable the imp I.D. as East CLEMENS. all seconded by WEBLEY. that theLEast ValleyyRoadie Instal be led with Substitute the development of the orolect and the waiver be granted on the other streets LslbD petition .fl of restrl -tive nancovets. Mr. Stone reiterated his willingness to sign and post the bond. Mr. Houghton noted etheee project pshould be done al all aatL one Dtime, nototTdesirable preferable to do the project piecemeal, p MOTION FAILED. On the original motion, it was seconded by WEBLEY, the MOTION CARRIED. 1 5. OLD BUSINESS: None 6. ITEMS UNDER STUDY: None 7. COMMENTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS: None 8. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 9:30 a.m. orm #116 APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE CITY OF RENTON FOR OFFICE UiE ONLY APPLICATION NUMBER J ') 1 DATE OF FILING RECEIPT NUMBER h /! DATE OF HEARING L to GRANTED DENIED APPEALED r*************** *******r*,t,t****** NOTE TO APPL :CANT: READ INSTRUCTION SHEET CAREFULLY BEFORE PREPARING APPLICATION. 1 . Name of Applicant 4/r7-r L oLc,1 K A-7( r 16. 3-6N4,/ 54p4+ 2. Address of Applicant 1100 9if?tic Rc4te. $ rr/4 1. `lli/o/ 3. Telephone Number of Applicant 7 7 2 — his 0 4. ADDRESS OF PROPERTY INVOLVED 617f ( 4. /47 /lL/ sc., z1- 5. LEGAL DE`. CRIPTION OF PROPERTY INVOLVED Lott f— Z(c, g;-etk Plat /-4 L. 44Ar4",-,1 CARL iNIT,.,J 6414-0.*•vs 72/v1S/w. N et State EXCCT Variance Requested fie AgiLtrt c,/2' c;= air t,p v'ji 'C L,.a L C"i- T)4 t_ r O I ' M /f 7. Why can' t the property be developed within the requirements of the ordinance? llA11.0\JV p 714r?7,4 - o4'- -u' THG- iC c: m- C '/rr)i Jt k o ) (r.. z i y t Y'sA.,c- S ) kfre A-ar Rrc.>v,t' e O ! T fvS "rMgr c c r d/t- ,ci N4'(4 4' ac_ k ri +9A R Qv) f >, 0 tr- it,:r; (H N! ' ry It r & I- rl" Ra^ms r+' LOT ca,y•ri^ t+ rL CN .'- )'r• .. tt 0- 0e0'' '4Vte To O4• Cl•1lZL TT 71v.Icr f L ' • (. 4 qF, r.+ e 0 C- ke f jM beas + 8. What special circumstances or conditions apply to subject property which are peculiar to such property and do not apply generally to property in the neighbor- hood? 1A ', PP. P vrrt c, thor\I _ gk--t: t , r t. po 3` C, r n.n,ot e o p<p1 ( L r) F twr t..*//e9 r-A cL. .Li 4 A prT-v l*r iirt'1 A viao( - C rf tr,owe t. c-it c N (. r• r1c i3. . T pkui 0( "pi( prpr c /Ai(' p i 4* rrlcr t— ''rc4't l I -' cc" 0,"i'o) .N•.t w c . c ic,c c r T (,--? 1 t - rPt1. TH4 r' we1-rf T i pn' `e;;?},nr ; ' ro c , rvc I( nNts47T«i i l w. 9. Present Toning A- 13P 10. Is the Variance requested the minimum Variance necessary to allow the reasonable use of the property? 11 . Will the granting of the requested Variance be in harmony with the development of surrounding property and not injurious to the neighborhood or detrimental to the public welfare? Signature of Z%''Date Lc/7 Y 79 Applicant SUBMIT APPLICATION TO: Building Depar t Renton Municipal Building 200 Mill Avenue South Renton. Washington 98055 Telephone 235-2540 Revised July, 1973) HL 9 f t N 4'n W. Jobs N. Stowe 2211 South Mown to Roulevard to Subjects V-333-76 JOIRI M. STOMR Requests Variance from Required 60' Setback on South and test Property Lines to Construct Building 30' from Property Lines, Property Located is the Vicinity of *kst Valley Road and S.W. 23rd street Dear Mr. 'tomes The Board of Adjustment at their regular meeting held on November 16, 197$ denied vows request for a variance as stated above, finding that no special eirsemetasures saiist justifying a •ariasoe. The action of the Board of Adjuseaent is final and oowslssi a unless within ten (10) days from the date of the astios the original applisaat or an adverse party applies to the King County Superior Court far a whit of ssrtierari, a writ of prohibition, or a writ of mamdawss. Sincerely, Powald O. Rlssw, Secretary Mates Barter sf ldjsstaswt MOW up bc: L. Rick Beeler Hearing Examiner November 17, 1978 Mr. John M. Stone 2211 South Manito Boulevard Spokane, Washington Subject; V-3S5-78 JOHN K. STONE Requests Variance frca Required 60' Setback on South and West Property Lines to Construct Building 30' from Property Lines; Property Located in the Vicinity of East Valley Road and S.N. 23rd Street Dear Mr. Stone; The Board of Adjustment at their regular meeting held on November 16, 1978 denied your request for a variance as stated above, finding that no special circumstances exist justifying a variance. The action of the Board of Adjustment is final and conclusive unless within ten (10) days from the date of the action the original applicant or an adverse party applies to the King County Superior Court for a writ of certiorari, a writ of prohibition, or a writ of mandamus. Sincerely, Ronald O. Belson, Secretary Renton Board of Adjustment ROW up bc: L. Rick Beeler Hearing Examiner 1 OF RSA U 10 OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY • RENTON,WASHINGTON31) 13 POST OFFICE BOX 626 100 2nd AVENUE BUILDING • RENTON, WASHINGTON 98055 255-8678 0.111 0 dm= A LAWRENCE J.WARREN, CITY ATTORNEY DANIEL KELLOGG, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY 9, co' December 6, 1978 0, 91t 0 SEPSE O TO: L. Rick Beeler, Hearing Examiner FROM: Lawrence J.Warren, City Attorney Re: ON erlap of Board of Adjustment and Hearing Examiner Jurisdiction Dear Rick: I have reviewed your Memo of November 16, 1978 concerning the above referenced topic. In reviewing Code Section 4-730.04.9 and Section 4-731, and knowing the traditional jurisdiction of the Board of Adjustment, I do note that there is an apparent conflict between the Code Sections. I believe the solution to the problem exists in the fact that there are two legally constitu:ed bodies existing under the Code with certain powers. Under the Code you havl the general power to approve a building site plan for an M-P Zone project. Also under the Code, as it now exists, the Board of Adjustment has the right to consider waivers of setbacks. Since the approval of the entire building site plan is under the jurisdiction of the Hearing Examiner, it would be my opinion that any application for a variance should be taken to the Board of Adjustment prior to the submittal of a final building site plan for approval with the Hearing Examiner. This would eliminate all of the problems and retain the juri5 diction of both bodies. If you have any further questions on this matter, please feel free to contact me. C---77;tA)-1421(A-4C2LawrenceJ. JarWren LJW:nd cc: P anning Department C lairman of Board of Adjustment Mayor Council President Chairman, Planning & Development Committee RECE1VEt7 CITY OF RENTON HEARING EXAM NER DEC 8 1978 1 PM 1,8,9,10,11,12,1,203,4,5,6i 4 pF RE 0 THE CITY OF RENTON Z MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE SO. RENTON. WASH 98055 Z o CHARLES J. DELAURENTI , MAYOR • LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER O Q- L. RICK BEELER . 235- 2593 6 4TFO SEP1tM November 16, 1978 TO: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney FROM: L. Rick Beeler, Hearing Examiner SUBJECT: Overlap of Board of Adjustment and Hearing Examiner Jurisdiction The Board of Adjustment and Examiner are concurrently reviewing the same application for site plan approval in the M-P zone. I have conducted a public hearing regarding the site plan per Section 4-730.040.9 (M-P) . Since variances from setback requirements are requested, the Board of Adjustment will review that portion of the proposal. As we both know, each review is mutually exclusive of the other and lacks centralized consideration in one hearing by one review body. Under these circumstances, a "catch-22" situation has occurred. I review the site plan for the whole development and render a decision. Then the Board reviews and decides upon a variance from the zoning requirements. But then I may have to review the final site plan if it is revised by the Board's action. Is this true, and if so, do I have the authority to retain the site plan as originally approved by the Examiner? In other words, who approves the final site plan as revised by the Board? It seems that Section 4-730.040.9 specifies that site plan approval is the Examiner's responsibility including the revisions made by the Board. Variances could potentially significantly alter the site plan initially approved by the Examiner. Setbacks, for instance, are considered a given in my review, and the site plan evaluated accordingly. Any changes in setbacks may require additional evaluation, conditions or adjustments in the approved site plan, which would lie beyond the board's jurisdiction. This is a good example of jurisdictional overlap that should be resolved. Otherwise, the applicant must apply to the Board for a variance, but ultimately the Examiner would have responsibility for final approval of the site plan. We should avoid this "catch-22" situation to everyone's benefit. Since my decision on this site plan is due November 28, 1978, please respond as soon as possible but by November 22, 1978 since we will be off work November 23-26. Thank you. A Arils morlo v L. Rick Beeler cc: Dave Clemens, Associate Planner Ron Nelson, Building Division Of li G THE CITY OF RENTON 0 O. Z MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE SO. RENTON, WASH 98055 2 O p CHARLES J. DELAURENTI , MAYOR • LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER 4 Q- L. RICK BEELER , 235 - 2593O, Q4t SEP1E0 November 16, 1978 TO: Members, Board of Adjustment FROM: L. Rick Beeler, Hearing Examiner SUBJECT: Variance Application No. V-355-78; John Stone This application represents an overlap of our respective jurisdictions. On November 14, 1978, I conducted a public hearing regarding the site plan. Tonight you will hear two variance requests involving deviations from the setback requirements of this same site plan. Due to this overlap, I am submitting the following information. The record established in my hearing shows a variance is only necessary along the westerly property line. Otherwise, the submitted site plan conforms to the setback requirements of the M-P zone. Therefore, my decision did not address a change in the site plan along the southerly property line to necessitate another variance request. Due to this other variance request, I have requested a legal opinion from the City Attorney. I have asked if the Board or the Examiner has the final authority in approval of the site plan when a variance is involved. If you grant a variance, must I then review the site plan as accordingly amended? If so, then can my decision (overall site plan) override your action? This "catch-22" situation requires resolution to expedite matters for everyone. My input to you for your consideration relative to building setbacks is the Green River Valley Comprehensive Plan which provides rationale behind these setbacks for this area. In addition, my review of the site plan showed the need for only one variance. Lastly, the site plans that have recently been approved in this newly developing area west of East Valley Road have not required variances but have met all ordinance requirements. Thank you, and I will forward this legal opinion when it is available. My hope is that delay will not be caused the applicant and that I can bring everything together (including your decision) in my decision, due November 28, 1978. to it...A,.,„ L. Rick Beeler Hearing Examiner cc: David Clemens, Associate Planner Ron Nelson, Building Division Form #116 APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE CITY OF RENTON FOR OFFICE USE ONLY APPLICATION NUMBER 1 :I ') 'DATE OF FILING L RECEIPT NUMBER 7 h /!. DATE OF HEARING GRANTED DENIED APPEALED NOTE TO APPLICANT: READ INSTRUCTION SHEET CAREFULLY BEFORE PREPARING APPLICATION. 1 . Name of Applicant 6/t1z7 L oLr*cK A7e,r /'kg_ G 2. Address of Applicant f(,oa 9T7t1c Dc4-re, 3. Telephone Number of Applicant 7y2 — 6/S0 4. ADDRESS OF PROPERTY INVOLVED 6 i f ('4 /47 /A_,/ t ,s(- l3- 5. LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY INVOLVED Lotc f— Zlo B1-o'cr Plat J- t - Nn Ate s CARLTD r-' 6/yr..-aeAds. 0 I u 1S ie.d "JD / eie cl6N, State EXACT Variance Requested fit- Agi t. r . Tb (.:,. n •' T/IIwo 3 i,2 f e op t'p T-c L I a L On.- p4 tr )o J-, 4 ! Ik.e.. wr,r 7. Why can' t the property be developed within the requirements of the ordinance? rc fvSL , 7R v•v' "IATli j L Tor,„14L Vr1c-A"T[c,v 7f1( ' r < /rra z r=r^ t `(i urhor s ` -(zc rr (? p,ivc in e 0 TltVi •rHc; c CT ah-titj ,V4'(4 o 6 A-nt+eARca 1-0, 0 f)ih+5 .- e- rev? T"ti' st•r gAre ,' i++ oiM T'N Cl Gar ct)('rt vc- jn ,e (i C.3o/,. fi F o QC,"'g rt"Ute Ty ctou T T eJy r L e4 4 GjR-e e•n C o..',tAtte ( 8c' L`r%L f T i le- . RMw *If 'IRfNNt‘ Ogg Ail FN•1a r'btJ ((pteeriN 8. What special circumstances or conditions apply to subject property which are peculiar to such property and do not apply generally to property in the neighbor- hood? A `- PP("rrr'c-1 (4-7 C_ po 3 Lt.L /re.?Aso e o R'D1 ( c 40'r) F c.l1t c,of-//(9tE17ffi4ktkprl-‘yv1tr7 /ttt7 A 110 ur - C/1fin ?ye "/t7C'1 rS ri 3 r (3• • T p t .r i O( Y n ei( n 'p e c /A) p 1 rrt c t...AerGet 1 r 4..2 (.= P-A..) p,.ra} 4r'- w C ( e c-ri t_/•-. e e: n e e s s, n v TH c' weir- G` rlc/i o w.nr. i717 R-r s( J C T?I ; a-v 9. Neese-At Zoning ems' Pr Ive se,,ti, 41 — p tv 10. Is the Variance requested the minimum Variance necessary to allow the reasonable use of the property? 1("5- 11 . Will the granting of the requested Variance be in harmony with the development of surrounding property and not injurious to the neighborhood or detrimental to the public welfare? vS Signature of 2%''Date 60 7Y 79 Applicant SUBMIT APPLICATION TO: Building Departm t Renton Municipal Building 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, Washington 98055 Telephone 235-2540 Revised July, 1973) RECEIVED CITY OF RENTON HEARING EXAMINER PLANNING DEPARTMENT NOV 1 [d 1978 PRELIMINARY REPORT TO HEARING EXAMINER AM PM PUBLIC HEARING 7ii3r9ilOrllrl2ilr2r314i5i6 NOVEMBER 14 , 1978 APPLICANT : JOHN M . STONE FILE NUMBER : SA-238-78 i ..' T DiT NO. / M N O. 7 8 , mama A . SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The applicant requests site approval for a mini -warehouse complex consisting of ( 7 ) storage buildings and a custodial and office structure totalling approximately 72 , 000 square feet of gross floor area . B . GENERAL INFORMATION : 1 . Owner of Record : JOHN M . STONE 2 . Applicant :JOHN M . STONE . 3 . Location : Along west side of East Valley Road between S . W. 21st Street and S . W. 23rd Street . 4 . Legal Description : A detailed legal description is available on file in the Renton Planning Department . 5 . Size of Property : 4 . 1 acres 6 . Access : Along west side of East Valley Road between S . W. 21st and S . W . 23rd Streets . 7 . Existing Zoning : M-P , Manufacturing Park 8 . Existing Zoning the Area : G" , General Classification District ; "M-P" , Manufacturing Park ; "L-1 " , Light Industry ; H- 1 " , Heavy Industry. 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 places on or near the site as required by City ordinance . C . PURPOSE OF REQUEST : To permit development of the subject site for warehousing and storage uses . D . HISTORY/BACKGROUND : The subject site was annexed on April 14 , 1959 , by Ordinance No . 1745 . The surrounding property to the west and south was rezoned to M-P on April 17 , 1968 , by Ordinance No . 2397 and on May 28 , 1976 , by Ordinance No . 2936 . The subject site was rezoned from "G " to "M-P" on October 25 , 1978 by Ordinance No . 3256 . PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT TO HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING : JOHN M. STONE , FILE NO : SA-238-78 NOVEMBER 14 , 1978 PAGE TWO E . PHYSICAL BACKGROUND : 1 . Topography : The site is relatively level . 2 . Soils : The north portion of the subject site is urban land fill material . The south portion consists of Tukwila muck Tu ) . Permeability is moderate and there is a seasonal high water table at or near the surface. Runoff is ponded and the erosion hazard is slight . If drained , this soil is used for row crops . It is also used for pasture . 3 . Vegetation : In the west and north portions of the site are found some medium-sized deciduous and evergreen trees . Limited groundcover is also found in these areas but generally the site has been graded and is devoid of any significant vegetation . 4 . Wildlife : Existing vegetation on the site may provide suitable habitat for birds and small mammals . 5 . Water : Existing surface water or streams are not apparent on the subject site . 6 . Land Use : Two existing single family residences are located on the site . The remainder of the site is partly filled and entirely undeveloped . A portion of the site was used as a non- conforming storage yard . Property north , south , and west of the site is undeveloped . The existing Mobile Oil Company and Olympia Pipeline facilities are located approximately 1 /4 mile southwest of the site . F . NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTERISTICS : A combination of presently developed industrial land and undeveloped land in the process of being prepared for such development . G . PUBLIC SERVICES : 1 . Water and Sewer : An existing 12-inch watermain is located approximately 1 /3 of a mile south of the subject site on the East Valley Road and a 16- inch main is situated on the Lind Avenue extension about 1 /3 of a mile northwest of the site . An 8- inch sanitary sewer is found approximately 700 feet south of the site on the East Valley Road . 2 . Fire Protection : Provided by the Renton Fire Department per city ordinance requirements . 3 . Transit : Metro Transit Route #156 operates along SR-167 . 4 . Schools : Not applicable . 5 . Parks : Not applicable . H . APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE ZONING CODE : 1 . Section 4-729 , G , General Classification District. 2 . Section 4-730 , M-P , Manufacturing Park District. I . APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OR OTHER OFFICIAL CITY DOCUMENT : 1 . Land Use Report , 1965 , Page 11 , Industrial ; Page 17 , Objectives Numbers 3 , 4 , 5 , and 6 . 2 . Policy Statement , Comprehensive Plan , Renton Urban Area , 1965 , G , Industrial Development , pages 7 , 8 and 9 . PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT TO HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING: JOHN M. STONE ; FILE NO : SA-238-78 NOVEMBER 14 , 1978 PAGE THREE 3 . Green River Valley Comprehensive Plan , June 1976. J . IMPACT ON THE NATURAL SYSTEMS : Development of the site will increase storm water runoff , disturb soil and vegetation and increase traffic and noise levels in the area . K. SOCIAL IMPACTS : Not Applicable . L . ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT/THRESHOLD DETERMINATION : Pursuant to the City of Renton ' s Environmental Ordinance and the State Environmental Policy Act of 1971 , as amended , RCW 43-21C , a declaration of non-significant impact has been issued for the proposal , conditioned upon inclusion of suitable landscaping to reduce potential impacts and within the Valley Comprehensive Plan and Wildlife Habitat objectives . M. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION : A vicinity map and 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 Department . 0. PLANNING DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS : 1 . The subject site is zoned M-P Industrial Park which conforms to the land use element of the Green River Valley Comprehensive Plan . 2 . The applicant ' s proposal is to construct approximately ±72 ,000 square feet of mini -storage warehouses on a ±4 acre site . The applicant ' s proposed site development plan conforms to the 60 ' building setback requirements along East Valley Road , S . W. 21st and S . W. 23rd , but not adjacent to 91st Avenue S . W. The applicant has submitted a variance to the Board of Adjustment to reduce the setback along 91st and 23rd to 30 ' . This variance will be heard on November 16, 1978. 3 . The applicant ' s proposed site plan provides for the required 10 ' landscaped separation from the street right-of-way on East Valley Road and S . W. 23rd . The required landscaping is not provided on the 91st Avenue S . W. frontage . 4 . The applicant ' s site plan provides for approximately 75% of the landscaping required by the Parking and Loading Ordinance and City Council Resolution 1923 . The required additional landscaping can be provided within the applicant ' s proposed plans . 5 . The Green River Valley Comprehensive Plan states (June 1976) less aesthetic uses such as loading areas---should be adequately screened and landscaped and placed so they are not visible from adjacent public right-of-way . " Due to this project ' s nature and design , it faces public streets with doorways on all sides . Heavy landscaped buffers including screen planting and trees should be included in the required landscaping . PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT TO HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING : JOHN M. STONE : FILE NO : SA-238-78 NOVEMBER 14 , 1978 PAGE FOUR 6 . At least one significant landscaped area should be established " to provide wildlife habitat" (Green River Valley Plan . ) P . PLANNING DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION: Approval of the applicant ' s submitted plan subject to : 1 . Providing the required landscaping separation between the parking areas and 91st Avenue South . 2 . Submit a revised site plan providing for the required 60 ' building setback along 91st Avenue South , or provide for vacation of the street right-of-way prior to issuance of a building permit . 3 . Increase the number and size of the landscaped areas to provide for wildlife habitat as required by the Green River Valley Plan . 4 . Final approval is subject to approval of a detailed land- scaping plan by the Planning Department . Said plan shall include : a . A variety of screening tree plantings along all property lines , with particular emphasis upon screening of views from the hillside to the east (site objectives page 7 , Green River Valley Plan ) . b . Hedge materials to screen loading door areas from adjacent street rights-of-way. c . Decorative fencing of a wrought iron or similar architectural style with intermittent decorative pilasters accenting the design of the buildings . d . Hose bibs are not acceptable for landscaping of the magnitude required for this plan . A sprinkler system is required . 5 . Secondary emergency access to be provided as required by the Fire Department . 6 . Off-site improvements to be provided as recommended by the Engineering Division . E/ of , c A 0014 1 I ill ,I 1 i ; j`Y ` ei, 1I :III' ;•u ' Hu, III Ee 1 11 1s'/ 'Il ) C w T • 1-11l'1, y 0 1 Ali J! f i r . }' r 1 iloco-. 1 n• ' is -y$ ,F W 4 ii, o - a !r . riI; w 2 -b , ' 7:' Jr M11 2 , MU rila.1,q1 T J M SM io• 1 1 i i r i Ili w 9• rr 44414\......ii. 94 . I" 1 2111,1111 - t 1 ` a r i sf l- 2 T•1 W 1 `ill — u_—_, MA .. 41 slaw IIIIIr l J E Ito I L r G te I r c.J jr : "I' - A"--•. .%..4. \ 2 4.ell .42' a i i1 , W r L'Irt' 4' 1. .., ...-74.,.... \ Sus, I 5H G_9600 il, ,: } ir,l .,,' Cli.: A°;` r........ . , v 1 , f.,;—. '.--7.'‘• 0,;.•`;-- ,` -f-.1 j - i C <«y.r G 1 I S 1 2.4 ifi I JOHN M. STONE - SA-238-78 A APPLICANT JOHN M. STONE TOTAL AREA ±4 . 1 acres Along west side of East Valley Road between S.W. 21st PRINCIPAL ACCESS and S.W. 23rd Streets EXIST I NG ZONING M-P, Manufacturing Park EXISTING USE Single family (2 residences) , remainder undeveloped Mini-warehouse complex consisting of 7 buildings PROPOSED USE Manufacturing Park COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN COMMENTS r,. r+a.ranr...Y.v.r.M.r M+.i r.,.la r.Y.M e.."....w r.r wY•. Y+n•w.wr..rwY/F.YI I.Wn+wrvrr..+,r.u YWO u..v Mwe:r it a.YW`M.r?Al>r.M.rM.r.+ 1 Q A i _ 1---1 -1\::. -1. 1 t-- ti . r z • ,. 6 Z C r i h q T Cn It tioq9 sw\ \\::. i ram_,p} F 2 1, \\\\:\ 4\- ate 1 w. r ..ter i f SGALE:jI ZOO' aSuBJEc.7. EalSIiE • ToHN STONE Sire APPRovAL. SA-a38-78 ROUTING FOR REVIEW OF ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORMS TO : 0 Finance Department Fire Department Library Department Park Department i Police Departmentl' Public Works Department 440 Building Div . 04 Engineering Div. Traffic Engineering Div. Utilities Engineering Div . FROM: Planning Department , ( signed by responsible official or his desi nee ) 110 12 C OitO-UKI.2 0/ Q2//b SUBJECT : Review of ECF- Off— Jh ; Application No . : f/ —lie' Action Name : MlKk_ `lupma MEWL AAP 1 mitt Please review the attached . Review requested by (date ) : 4 117 Note : Responses to be written in ink. REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : l artment : L DC. Commenptsroved Not Approved z' b q r7• t; < a.-' r e:t-C Lr--C--'' Z-r c , t-,-----__ 2 .5 - -7,-,) Signature of,.birector or Authorized Representative Date REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : Department : r //E? LA Approved Not Approved Comments : r?"en i'l/i/j.1s /A-O r-/ c //yam/4-'r/.c_i S 4 S ,-//a2/C Z7 r/.v / 4A, S i/3btTiQti/1 L. e47-,-i--le C,vc/ ,CcCSs /C.04'//cl-' Fae F//C.7. 9/'/' /?-72-iS c/ z-//7eif Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : D partment : uri -. rt ri 5 cl5g,om enti Approved u Not Approved Ut..,.r N1ATii Vtri= OM%./Mt_optsh-iriNtT WILL Rfi-GLv kZr Aeutnoi s t'o r41 I Pit.a sc.,n-cr wwr arz A scwart. SysrI2frt 49/I--7• o -Z 7- 7 fsSignatureofDirectororAuthorizedRepresentativeDate REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : Rep rtment :r.>x.?., ,,.., Approved Not Appr ved om ents : J cr-7 f.__.. 7 ----- Signature of Director or A iorized Representative bate REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : Department : J--r i.Sr L.„ Q Approved DNot Approved Comments : 2T `mac a i / / Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : Department : Approved IJNot Approved Comments : Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date I PROPOSED/FINAL DECLARATION OF SIGNIFICANCE/NCB. SIGNIFICANCE Application No . SA-238-78 0 PROPOSED Declaration Environmental Checklist No . 400-78 U FINAL Declaration Description of proposal Applicant requests site approval for mini-warehouse complex consisting of (7) buildings. Proponent JOHN M. STONE Location of Proposal Along west side of East Valley Road between S.W. 21st and CITY OF RENTON S.W. 23rd Streets. Lead Agency This proposal has been determined to [] have ® not have a si nificant adverse impact upon the environment . An EIS is is not required under RCW 43 . 21C . 030 ( 2 ) (c ) . This decision was ma a after review by the lead agency of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency . Reasons for declaration of environmental /significance : 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. 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 Planni • • Di r: for Date iie Signature AdefAc i ler City of Renton Planning Department 5-76 d ROUTING SCHEDULE FOR APPLICATION TO : O Finance Department Fire Department Library Department Park Department Police Department Publ i Works Department )%6 1-`727/-'' Building Div . Engineering Div . (Please verify egal description ) Traffic Engineering Utilities Engineering Div . FROM: Planning Department , ( signed by responsible official or his designee ) pAcic etiotAtki‘; DATE : itiliiit PLEASE REVIEW THIS APPLICATION FOR : REZONE MAJOR PLAT SITE APPROVAL M SHORT PLAT SPECIAL PERMIT WAIVER SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PERMIT OR EXEMPTION AND RETURN TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT WITH ANY COMMENTS YOU MIGHT HAVE , BEFORE 1, /2 //t REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : Department : 1)/ EIV I9,a.ed Not Approved Com ents or conditions : 1 y%-'"` -• "/1es-< /1 C`/ 1 J -/Zix l..L%c r-. lam cy.f'c .y 9/S7- s -r- n4 uci-r 60 Signature ,of Director or Authorized Representative Date 7 REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : Department : j En Approved mNot Approved z-4-/lk' /-//1,4:Js .a ///oe t,-2_1 ii,,e'e J Comments or conditions : ,js- ,-m,>,e.,-0O11l7ii1.,,s. A7)..n',.c,,-c//- /tom-,JJ G-f f/ ti j /7// /7-c'il Signature of Director" or Authorized / epresentative Date REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : Department : cT«tr1r S Approved d Not Approved Comments or conditions : tzov' r)u STV. C-M ti-‘r(_c?iH6 r -A, HS ( 2z:,: 3.}) FC(, 0 R.,,i/-,c, j,rF. wcT.- wA,i (= -k 4. SG=w_(? i c. c 77 5TOS. STD . VYt...rt11% C t-k G.S. f¢/O. ( ACt4 WAT4 bti-w, COMTA.CT 'T1LITIi7S CaNk ,tl iri3E si G PO2 srP P<AN.s rZ0QoiILiii-.i=_i-+TS 4).2-1. /c. - z • 7 Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : Department : - / 1 ,- , Approved Not Approved Comments or conditions : i , ,,,, cr ...720 i...,.... y l_..( p V`"4 ,-- (J /VI_ -1-./- ..Y'/V.,_/ J•!" v-.`.•C,...JI!'•`C a•('t_. .a,-, '")CI...tl'L-Y',3 p-:.,-r. c.)o.. ^. iit6,- n,-1- ::hie /A /1-u.vt..el 3) P f0Ye-,'< in- 0•4-t. J/G 7/7e-, Signature of Director or`Authorized Representative Date REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : D partment . 7~V',-,' 1 •'.' /. )-::.;,,,, t ;i /Approved G] Not Approved o ments or conditions : r'- JU i Si Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Dat REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : Department : C Approved Q Not Approved Comments or conditions : Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date r a • w rd1/ 114 1;••..,.. 7.*::', A 7- LvHik\ m r•••- tc: r 1.:= 1, 1 1,-. 0.. 1,_,_, I-, 41.- iciN +[,, i, > k2_ 5s01: 3, 44 - by, - 1Nie i 11 i 4•••,, .. . 1911i4 I 1 aryt 9 O. 44.... e wi je41 s, z A,, „ ,, i Pt NaLtimeo° \ I Ili: 10 Lk O V ili, i, E I i 10 ' % ! A if r.., irP 1 MO\ AUI 1i9 illik i ) tzwil! . i 4. 4 I ) i I aiitiil ts:' .. 1 .. 1. , 1; , 4, 4 4 Oil tt-,-;: h '--- 11- ' k\ ii . I n — I i i 4, ,, al r--- I 4 i qqit, liip l < I - 7 ir em.................. ..........*: 1111111117 7. 4444, 4 I tial 0 , l : 7 j l 1 1 1., ___...._ 41tra el a- la II 0i. 1 3 1, t— 1 ,: i, , f. ? , 41 1-'- • - • - V• N - ,..• 0;_.•.;• 0 I• I- - . . t i Lit 1, t; - . 45 it r----- , ., yu V I 40k4lit. s.... 1 .. 4. i NL1 w t' iN,......,.. \ 1 I f , iig i q ' L lis 4 j OWN* 4 4 i , 11 t r 11till 2 i1 , cd• ' In i I. I 1 I - lb; b i. 1 i t ION ANL A 11 - 0; ow 0-• CS C: , OM ' 0, 134 I 7-... .;.;::. i..- ZY: 12. ! ' 1:.. N, 1_',___ I• .._ .. -. ---.. 1,,,,,...••,..,. ., k, . ..-?..- •::::.- N,-;';'!%, s.. .. 4.-,:\.,-.•_: ................ if Di@ MO t If 1:::: ..............._ Li pkA p/ A4 4•, 2 IMI) I WV 1 D • 0 if 4 1• 0 VV. IN‘ 1 I i . c -:-.,; r., rozio e- 41. 5: e ' 1 4 144,' dry P. 63. 4' 6,” af• 4G, V.: t.. 4 ' 1:; 1_... _ ' WS tgeoactitt rviciN6 ( K Ac..... 0 1011./ vINia 74- 41 e5i- 76 x4Pktee. Pc-' 00/ M2 i 1 4- reiskis 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 , WASHINGTON, ON NOVEMBER 14 19 78 , AT 9 : 00 A. M. TO CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING PETITIONS : 1 . ANDREW MAYETICH , APPLICATIONS FOR TWO-LOT SHORT PLAT AND WAIVER OF OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS , Files 240-78 and W-241-78 ; property located at northwest corner of Sunset Blvd . W. and Stevens Ave. S . W . in the vicinity of 513 S . W. 3rd Place. 2 .i JOHN M. STONE , APPLICATION FOR SITE APPROVAL IN M-P ZONE, —File SA-238-78 ; property located on E . Valley Highway between S . W. 23rd St . and S . W. 21st St. 3. •C . H . G . INTERNATIONAL , INC . ( EARLINGTON WOODS ) , APPLICATION FOR PRELIMINARY MASTER PLAN PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL , File MP-PUD-78 ; APPLICATION FOR EXCEPTION TO SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE RE . PARKING , File E-244-78 ; AND APPLICATION FOR EXCEPTION TO SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE RE . DENSITY , File E-243-78 ; property located at Hardie Ave . S . W. between Sunset Blvd . W. and Burlington Northern Railroad Right-of-way. Legal descriptions of files noted above on file in the Renton Planning Department . c,TR opE'V D HE4R,NG ER NT°eR N AN W a 1 ' 7978 118' 19rMill 4?i7 Lt3r4PM r5 S ALL INTERESTED :PERSONS TO SAID PETITIONS ARE INVITED TO BE PRESENT AT THE PUBLIC HEARING ON NOVEMBER 14 , 1978 AT 9: 00 A.M. TO EXPRESS THEIR OPINIONS . GORDON Y . ERICKSEN PUBLISHED November 3, 1978 RENTON PLANNING DIRECTOR CERTIFICATION STEVE MUNSON HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THREE COPIES OF THE ABOVE DOCUMENT WERE POSTED BY ME IN THREE CONSPICUOUS PLACES ON THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED ABOVE AS PRESCRIBED BY LAW. ATTEST: Subscribed and sworn to before me. a Notary Public , on the 1st day of November 19 78 •SIGNED F LA BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS Renton Municipal Building Wednesday, November 8, 1978 4th Floor Conference Room 9:00 a.m. Present: Warren C. Gonnason, Chairman Paul Lumbert, Traffic Engineering Dave Clemens, Planning Department Richard Houghton, Engineering Supervisor Ron Nelson, Building Division Robert Hufnagle, Park Department John Webley, Parks 6 Recreation Director John Stone A licant MINUTES 1. CALL TO ORDER: The November 8, 1978 meeting of the Board of Public Works was called to crder byChairman Gonnason at 9:00 a.m. 2. REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Moved by LUMBERT, seconded by CLEMENS, the minutes be (rpprove as written. MOTION CARRIED. 3. CORRESPONDENCE: None 4. REFERRALS FROM DEPARTMENTS: a. Deferral of Off-Site Im rovements John StoneEast Vallep Roadt. S.W.of1st project S.I . 91st St. and S.W. 23rd St. Mini-Warehouse. Applicanter wa; posted for the Board to view. Mr. Stone said there. wasn'tnant yr therldevelopmenea plt the e imnediate area, however he was willing to suppa on the adjoining properties. He said it would be an economic hardship to install the improve- ments at this time. It was determined there were sewers rs avhailabled for wthede prcereect on LinddnAve. S.W. and that Mr. Stone was installing a water main, tie local improvement district. Mr. Houghton reported the City had received a petition for ern and an sign on East Road from Report fromrthegPlanninghD partmentcnootteddedthathatsince•theone beprimaryequiredaccess o sign Pwouldbeoff the East Valley Road, Planning would like to see the East Valley Road improved at this timecurbs, a butters, covenants sidewalks, storm drains and other waterstreets.main anMr.d probably would not beLIDwouldcoveru forb a, g constructed for at least two years, late 1980 or early 1981 and an acceptable way would be to defer the improvements on the East Valley Road and grant a amwaivern r nhtheaote herZster reets. d or a Moved b LUMBERT that the Board deer the o -site period of one u-• no o t e re•uire• •on• an. waive = i •rove = a on S.W. 21st St. and S.W. 23rd St, subject to the posting of restrictive covenants. Motion not seconded at this time). Discussion followed, it being noted that it was preterable the improve- ments on East Valley Road be all put in at one time by an L.I.D. as connections would be easier. Substitute motion by CLEMENS. seconded by WEBLEY, that the East Valley Road be installed with the development of the oroiect and the waiver be qranted on the other streets Lsubjectetotfiling of restrictive covenants. Mr. Stone reiterated his willingness to sign and post the bond. Mr. Houghton noted the project should be done all at one time, not desirable to do the project piecemeal, preferable the whole project be done by an L.I.D. SUBSTITUTE 4(...MOTION FAILED. On the original motion, it was seconded by WEBLEY, the MOTION CARRIED. 5. OLD BUSINESS: None 6. ITEMS UNIR STUDY: None 1. COMMENTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS: None 8. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 9:30 a.m. CITY OF RENTON C tf D 0\, APPLICATION c 17 197g z + 13 SITE APPROVAL t y FOR OFFICE USE ONLY ti// PG DEPAR.0 File No . SA- c7 ,70 -7(J Filing Date /,, Application Fee $ /.2.• '6) Receipt No . (vc% Environmental Review Fee $ ry.ze 6,65 (I2,9,o) APPLICANT TO COMPLETE ITEMS 1 THROUGH 6 : 1 . Name TO f k) YkA. `d7 Phone I-S0 c(- A/7 d 2 Address t9)-II rhecxj 1 ]'C1 c-0./0 9ct1Ctk- tT uf(I 19'z 3 2 . Property location O4J E/7 r V I/;Zz, 17/16E(«.! 3. Legal description (attach additional sheet if necessary) P' ` 4 . Number of acres or square feet 7( / Present zoning V( 5 . What do you propose to develop on this property? rti/ - E /1:4fratioCL'lC 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 Planning Dept. Rev, 1-77 CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON Rg7; ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM lZ 191$ 3 FOR OFFICE USE ONLY 38-7? A /• e Application No. gNNING Environmental Checklist No.VC() 7 f PROPOSED, date: FINAL , date: Declaration of Significance Declaration of Significance Declaration of Non-Significance Declaration of Non-Significance COMMENTS: Introduction The State Environmental Policy Act of 1971, Chapter 43.21C, RCW, requires all state and local governmental agencies to consider environmental values both for their own actions and when licensing private proposals. The Act also requires that an EIS be prepared for all major actions significantly affecting the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to help the agencies involved determine whether or not a proposal is such a major action. Please answer the following questions as completely as you can with the presently available to you. Where explanations of your answers are required, or where you believe an explanation would be helpful to government decision makers , include your explanation in the space provided, or use additional pages if necessary. You should include references to any reports or studies of which you are aware and which are rele- vant to the answers you provide. Complete answers to these questions now will help all agencies involved with your proposal to undertake the required environmental review with- out unnecessary delay. The following questions apply to your total proposal , not just to the license for which you are currently applying or the proposal for which approval is sought. Your answers should include the impacts which will be caused by your proposal when it is completed, even though completion may not occur until sometime in the future. This will allow all of the agencies which will be involved to complete their environmental review now, with- out duplicating paperwork in the future. NOTE: This is a standard form being used by all state and local agencies in the State of Washington for various types of proposals . Many of the questions may not apply to your proposal . If a question does not apply, just answer it "no" and continue on to the next question. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM I . BACKGROUND 1. Name of Proponent N71'/ /Iv/C- 2. Address and phone number of Proponent: 2._ / I 5 et4 i C—i) Pok ',- t, t(1' A-44 g 9 Z U 3. Date Checklist submitted 4. Agency requiring Checklist i IN OF Q) J 5. Name of proposal , if applicable: 6. Nature and brief description of the proposal (including but not limited to its size, general design elements, and other factors that will give an accurate understanding of its scope and nature) : BO i 11.14,UvL t —v s 0uisi PI L 7 0-6 0 2- 7. Location of proposal (describe the physical setting of the proposal , as well as the extent of the land area affected by any environmental impacts, including any other information needed to give an accurate understanding of the environ- mental setting of the proposal ) : 4,4 4 cam-`'VC e'"- T // I: 5 2c S y 8. Estimated date for completion of the proposal : 9. List of all permits , licenses or government approvals required for the proposal federal , state and local --including rezones) : Kr iv G o r-- Ft_cz„4 c'c-)vrxe L t 10. Do you have any plans for future additions , expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes , explain: 11. Do you know of any plans by others which may affect the property covered by your proposal ? If yes , explain: V 12. Attach any other application form that has been completed regarding the pro- posal ; if none has been completed, but is expected to be filed at some future date, describe the nature of such application form: F L c- --j Co. -v Tit a u/i Jp6 Ib:t r 7 r v i c rJ /4- Ac sc II . ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required) 1) Earth. Will the proposal result in: a) Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? YES MAYBE WO— b) Disruptions, displacements , compaction or over- covering of the soil ? ,9-p ) r/p-Afirc. p, - C v C Cn OciST,"/-6 YES MAYBE NO c) Change in topography or ground surface relief features?l/ Y KTYST AU— d) The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? YES- MAYBE NU— e) Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils , either on or off the site? YES M YBE 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? YES MAYBE Ao Explanation: 3- 2) A' r. Will the proposal result in: Air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? PET- WA-VIC tt I ) The creation of objectionable odors? PET- HAYED c ) Alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? YES WU' Ab- 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? PEA MAYBE NO bl Changes in absorption rates , drainage patterns , or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? YES MAYBE i]-b- ci Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? YES MAYBE WU- d Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? Y S M YBE NO e, Discharge into surface waters , or in any alteration surface water quality, including but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? YES MAYBE kb- f; Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? TE3- MAYBE it g) Change in the quantity of ground waters , either through direct additions or withdrawals , or through L/ interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? YES MAYBE NU- h) Deterioration in ground water quality, either through direct injection , or through the seepage of leachate, phosphates , detergents , waterborne virus or bacteria , or other substances into the ground waters? YES- MAYBE WO- i ) Reduction in the amount of water otherwise available 6.7 for public water supplies? PEA MAYBE NO Explanation: 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)? 4-00i4. 4, t-,Z- 4 , D c, VET- MAYBE A35- b) Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of flora? G/ Y1•T' MAYBE A c) Introduction of new species of flora into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? L, „DS -ydi ,i,. yrV MAYBE AU- d) Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? liTS"_ _F Explanation: 4- 5) Fauna. Will the proposal result in: a) Changes in the diversity of species , or numbers of any species of fauna (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms, insects or microfauna)? YES gliyfr I10 b) Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of fauna? f M YB NO c) Introduction of new species of fauna into an area , or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of fauna? YES Mi,r bE d) Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? YES WO-- Explanation: 6) Noise. Will the proposal increase existing noise levels? V YES RATITE NU Explanation: 0010tiY"t'r c' Ot- tc L1(Ski -3 Y12 v c-h( 1 'i i-,=f-c 4-- 7) Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? Vt MAYBE W Explanation: 8) Land Use. Will the proposal result in the alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? v FITTBT WO-- Explanation: 9) Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a) Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? v YES M—6 NO b) Depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource? YES MAYBE NO Explanation: 10) Risk of Upset. Does the proposal involve a risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, v/but not limited to, oil , pesticides , chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? YES MAYBE Explanation: 11) Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distri- button, density, or growth rate of the human population t/ of an area? YES— MAYBE WO— Explanation: 5- 12) Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? YES MAYBE NO Explanation: 13) Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in: a) Generation Fi additional It/ ( Mvehicular .-I ' noes_ v.OV60004,YES M YBE NO b) Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? YES MBE NO c) Impact upon existing transportation systems? YES MAYBE d) Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? YE RATIT NO e) Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? Yam- M YBE NO f) Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles , bicyclists or pedestrians? YES MAYBE 4U— Explanation: 14) Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas : a) Fire protection? YES MAYBE Nb—/ b) Police protection? YES MAYBE W / c) Schools? YES MAYBE NO d) Parks or other recreational facilities? YES MAYBE NO e) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? YES MAYBE NO./ f) Other governmental services? YES FITTUF NO Explanation: 15) Energy. Will the proposal result in: a) Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? YES MAYBE N-0-- b) Demand upon existing sources of energy, or require J the development of new sources of energy? YES MAYBE 4U— Explanation: 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 NO b) Communications systems? 7—// WATif NO c) Water? YES MAYBE NO T• 6- d) Sewer or septic tanks? 7 YES MAYBE WO-- e) Storm water drainage? Yrs- RPITE f) Solid waste and disposal? YES MAYBE NO Explanation: Pit— SiIN/-4//TrtF//dc/fr' ,.eii/( /1rZ91.//4't 7)-4:-- Sc f/ U/ '77t Li,4 cl tamer 17) Human Health. Will the proposal result in the creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? YES- MAYBE KO- Explanation: 18) Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? YES Wir NO Explanation: 19) Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the le/ quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? YE-1- MMAYBE Explanation: 20) Archeological/Historical . Will the proposal result in an alteration of a significant archeological or historical site, structure, object or building? Yr5 MAYBE NF 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: signed r . we name printed) City of Renton Planning Department 5-76 41 F ii-4\\\\pECHN AFFIDAVIT w CT 171978 1. ....., ----•r DEP PRV I, 3\,1\ 5 being duly sworn, declare that I am 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 O( -day of CO\--J er 19 Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, residing at v ,, Name of Notary Public) Sign re of Owner) Address) Address) ' E 3 City) State) 5cJ 1 7 /6 2 z— Telephone) FOR OFFICE USE ONLY) CERTIFICATION This is to certify that the foregoing application has been inspected by me and has been found to be thorough and complete in every particular and to conform to the rules and regulations of the Renton Planning Department governing the filing of such application . Date Received 19 By: Renton Planning Dept . 2-73 6 1 OF R4,4 IS 6ic 0 THE CITY OF RENTON z MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE.SO. RENTON.WASH. 98055 o . CHARLES J. DELAURENTI,MAYOR • PLANNING DEPARTMENT 9,0 t. 235- 2550 044, EO SEPZE4 i' John M. Stone 2211 S . Manito Blvd . Spokane , Washington 99203 RE : NOTICE OF APPLICATION ACCEPTANCE AND PUBLIC HEARING DATE FOR SITE APPROVAL IN AN M-P ZONE FOR A MINI--WAREHOUSE COMPLEX , FILE NO : SA-238- 78 ; property located on East Valley Highway between S . W. 23rd and S . W. 21st Street. Dear Mr. Stone : The Renton Planning Department formally accepted the above mentioned application on October 17 , 1978 A public hearing before the City of Renton Hearing Examiner has been set for November 14 , 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 . icksen Planning i rector B y :0 f_'.o'r/:! i'— avid R . Clemens , Associate Planner cc : John W . Marshall , A . I . A. 3523 12th West Seattle , Washington 98119 PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT TO HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING NOVEMBER 14 , 1978 APPLICANT : JOHN M . STONE FILE NUMBER : SA-238-78 A. SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The applicant requests site approval for a mini -warehouse complex consisting of ( 7 ) storage buildings and a custodial and office structure totalling approximately 72 ,000 square feet of gross floor area . B . GENERAL INFORMATION : 1 . Owner of Record : JOHN M . STONE 2 . Applicant :JOHN M . STONE . 3 . Location : Along west side of East Valley Road between S . W. 21st Street and S . W. 23rd Street . 4 . Legal Description : A detailed legal description is available on file in the Renton Planning Department . 5 . Size of Property : 4 . 1 acres 6 . Access : Along west side of East Valley Road between S . W. 21st and S . W . 23rd Streets . 7 . Existing Zoning : M-P , Manufacturing Park 8 . Existing Zoning the Area : G" , General Classification District ; "M-P" , Manufacturing Park ; "L- 1 " , Light Industry ; H- 1 " , Heavy Industry . 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 places on or near the site as required by City ordinance . C . PURPOSE OF REQUEST : To permit development of the subject site for warehousing and storage uses . D . HISTORY/BACKGROUND : The subject site was annexed on April 14 , 1959 , by Ordinance No . 1745 . The surrounding property to the west and south was rezoned to M-P on April 17 , 1968, by Ordinance No . 2397 and on May 28 , 1976 , by Ordinance No . 2936 . The subject site was rezoned from "G" to "M-P" on October 25 , 1978 by Ordinance No . 3256 . PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT TO HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING : JOHN M . STONE , FILE NO : SA-238-78 NOVEMBER 14 , 1978 PAGE TWO E . PHYSICAL BACKGROUND : 1 . Topography : The site is relatively level . 2 . Soils : The north portion of the subject site is urban land fill material . The south portion consists of Tukwila muck Tu ) . Permeability is moderate and there is a seasonal high water table at or near the surface . Runoff is ponded and the erosion hazard is slight. If drained , this soil is used for row crops . It is also used for pasture . 3 . Vegetation : In the west and north portions of the site are found some medium-sized deciduous and evergreen trees . Limited groundcover is also found in these areas but generally the site has been graded and is devoid of any significant vegetation . 4 . Wildlife : Existing vegetation on the site may provide suitable habitat for birds and small mammals . 5 . Water : Existing surface water or streams are not apparent on the subject site . 6 . Land Use : Two existing single family residences are located on the site. The remainder of the site is partly filled and entirely undeveloped . A portion of the site was used as a non- conforming storage yard . Property north , south , and west of the site is undeveloped . The existing Mobile Oil Company and Olympia Pipeline facilities are located approximately 1 /4 mile southwest of the site . F . NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTERISTICS : A combination of presently developed industrial land and undeveloped land in the process of being prepared for such development . G . PUBLIC SERVICES : 1 . Water and Sewer : An existing 12-inch watermain is located approximately 1 /3 of a mile south of the subject site on the East Valley Road and a 16- inch main is situated on the Lind Avenue extension about 1 /3 of a mile northwest of the site . An 8- inch sanitary sewer is found approximately 700 feet south of the site on the East Valley Road . 2 . Fire Protection : Provided by the Renton Fire Department per city ordinance requirements . 3 . Transit : Metro Transit Route #156 operates along SR- 167 . 4 . Schools : Not applicable. 5 . Parks : Not applicable . H . APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE ZONING CODE : 1 . Section 4-729 , G , General Classification District. 2 . Section 4- 730 , M-P , Manufacturing Park District. I . APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OR OTHER OFFICIAL CITY DOCUMENT : 1 . Land Use Report , 1965 , Page 11 , Industrial ; Page 17 , Objectives Numbers 3 , 4 , 5 , and 6 . 2 . Policy Statement , Comprehensive Plan , Renton Urban Area , 1965 , G , Industrial Development , pages 7 , 8 and 9 . PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT TO HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING : JOHN M. STONE ; FILE NO : SA-238-78 NOVEMBER 14 , 1978 PAGE THREE 3 . Green River Valley Comprehensive Plan, June 1976. J . IMPACT ON THE NATURAL SYSTEMS : Development of the site will increase storm water runoff, disturb soil and vegetation and increase traffic and noise levels in the area . K. SOCIAL IMPACTS : Not Applicable . L . ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT/THRESHOLD DETERMINATION: Pursuant to the City of Renton ' s Environmental Ordinance and the State Environmental Policy Act of 1971 , as amended , RCW 43-21C , a declaration of non-significant impact has been issued for the proposal , conditioned upon inclusion of suitable landscaping to reduce potential impacts and within the Valley Comprehensive Plan and Wildlife Habitat objectives . M . ADDITIONAL INFORMATION : A vicinity map and 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 Department. 0 . PLANNING DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS : 1 . The subject site is zoned M-P Industrial Park which conforms to the land use element of the Green River Valley Comprehensive Plan . 2 . The applicant ' s proposal is to construct approximately ±72 ,000 square feet of mini -storage warehouses on a ±4 acre site . The applicant ' s proposed site development plan conforms to the 60 ' building setback requirements along East Valley Road , S . W. 21st and S . W. 23rd , but not adjacent to 91st Avenue S . W. The applicant has submitted a variance to the Board of Adjustment to reduce the setback along 91st and 23rd to 30 ' . This variance will be heard on November 16, 1978. 3 . The applicant ' s proposed site plan provides for the required 10 ' landscaped separation from the street right-of-way on East Valley Road and S . W. 23rd . The required landscaping is not provided on the 91st Avenue S . W . frontage . 4 . The applicant ' s site plan provides for approximately 75% of the landscaping required by the Parking and Loading Ordinance and City Council Resolution 1923 . The required additional landscaping can be provided within the applicant ' s proposed plans . 5 . The Green River Valley Comprehensive Plan states (June 1976) less aesthetic uses such as loading areas---should be adequately screened and landscaped and placed so they are not visible from adjacent public right-of-way . " Due to this project ' s nature and design , it faces public streets with doorways on all sides . Heavy landscaped buffers including screen planting and trees should be included in the required landscaping . PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT TO HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING : JOHN M. STONE : FILE NO : SA-238-78 NOVEMBER 14 , 1978 PAGE FOUR 6 . At least one significant landscaped area should be established " to provide wildlife habitat" (Green River Valley Plan . ) P . PLANNING DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION : Approval of the applicant ' s submitted plan subject to : 1 . Providing the required landscaping separation between the parking areas and 91st Avenue South . 2 . Submit a revised site plan providing for the required 60 ' building setback along 91st Avenue South , or provide for vacation of the street right-of-way prior to issuance of a building permit . 3 . Increase the number and size of the landscaped areas to provide for wildlife habitat as required by the Green River Valley Plan . 4 . Final approval is subject to approval of a detailed land- scaping plan by the Planning Department . Said plan shall include : a . A variety of screening tree plantings along all property lines , with particular emphasis upon screening of views from the hillside to the east (site objectives page 7 , Green River Valley Plan ) . b . Hedge materials to screen loading door areas from adjacent street rights-of-way. c . Decorative fencing of a wrought iron or similar architectural style with intermittent decorative pilasters accenting the design of the buildings . d . Hose bibs are not acceptable for landscaping of the magnitude required for this plan . A sprinkler system is required . 5 . Secondary emergency access to be provided as required by the Fire Department . 6 . Off-site improvements to be provided as recommended by the Engineering Division . 1 . , .; 1,,,,:1„ 00, ; i„,\7 -Iwo- .,,i.i. „, • . 'Ai! sii:,, _ _.. _ __0..1: -i., ,lik 1 --,:„--,. Ni ii ___-.% it ,r. tr a ' 4,-, afiiEt ram""'':Zi iill , ypkIli L . 1 r Nr 1 r lipaPi, la 111L1 A. W r d LLly wYRI1 e i•-i _r • °'Ij a .• • 9,. ° 1 I 1 lI t 1 11 1 G; y.l 1 !prig otass\ m• 49 n 4. 41.1 ..,-r .1 I. ,, :J... .,. : i....'1'1w; 4:'. :': ' G''' 21_1 in .A IPI 1. ' 1=1 • -. A 3 ....•... 7 t• ` t) G r' i ( :iu e. 4.—:"."--"sji -----' ' 9 IVispir p• ,.. ..„.... i-....- - i \. 5usleci 6i-re T ., Z t, 1 G-9600 H s i C a .9": /•. s, x s ..n ; .V...: A• r NM r .\ i , , o:t 1 i`, •1P.5`1 it ram _") . r..,..._] a; i1i rr l JOHN M. STONE - SA-238-78 APPL I CANT JOHN M. STONE TOTAL AREA ±4 . 1 acres Along west side of East Valley Road between S.W. 21st PRINCIPAL ACCESS and S.W. 23rd Streets E x I S-i I NG ZONING M-P, Manufacturing Park EXISTING USE Single family (2 residences) , remainder undeveloped Mini-warehouse complex consisting of 7 buildings PROPOSED USE COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN Manufacturing Park COMMENTS w,. ,, w.*vI.fb.aenl..n1... .rsr.aw,ar.n.vsaw+.y u!vaar.:..'.WM/M.4 M.N...ra. 10411 rwr.r.:•40,OWCmr1111M.:r,.vm.•CWWWI reax-.- p I I t 11 I HI I 1 T j. OC H 1: 1-- I c. " 1 2 2NJ) sr G)S f V L I 4.4 SCALE:f" ZOO A i Su 6J EGT._ S ITE , 3-oHN STONE" s,rE APPRovA4. SA--a3s- -ia i ROUTING SCHEDULE FOR APPLICATION TO : Q Finance Department 8Fire Department Library Department Park Department OPolice Department 47,a Publ i Works Department > eegy- Building Div . N Engineering Div . (Please verify egal description ) Traffic EngineeringSUtilitiesEngineering Div . FROM : Planning Department , ( signed by responsible official or his designee ) n'A tiv ri (IOitAK,17 DATE : it Q ) /C) PLEASE REVIEW THIS APPLICATION FOR : REZONE MAJOR PLAT 0‹.SITE APPROVAL - 4 '/.i'.' e) )SHORT PLAT SPECIAL PERMIT WAIVER SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PERMIT OR EXEMPTION AND RETURN TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT WITH ANY COMMENTS YOU MIGHT HAVE , BEFORE 11 4 O REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : Department : 1 >1 Iced Not Approved Com ents or conditions : 1/a t'Wio r.-.1 - 9/s 7- s•-r- A A,uG)T 66 l i; l<< ,t -' -- Signature o'f Director or Authorized Representative Date REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : Department :j [ C3 Approved Not Approved ‘,.-471a2 /-r4.-us ,4 i7iO.e4t,_f /,,,er Comments or conditions : ii /1-44.'A4,-U`ipirivS. Agile-, —c i./ric /fc'ceLs Z:GAz % ,) /,_, H .i •/,'c:I_/. (' /ik; //P/?/ 4 i t!S . i' f v cr /2// 776 Signature of Director` or Authorized ,Representative Date REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : Department : t..)Tik_irtr: s On Approved 1=1 Not Approved Comments or conditions : k)iZov t 0 ti. ST11 tE hk Ci 1- t''E.011-A G CA-A /--• ( 2 i'ai- 3:i) FO(Z r i-.2 1/4....,cr.-k ......,A,1 (-3.k_k A, SC-_....ork . ii.:.-. c cr--7 5ToS. t't I) OTt•_.ttli% Ci-1 G 'S /4:10. oiac:14 w Al- 4 saw• col.,ri.c-1.- uriLtriii, ciNtc,,i-trat--tzikAcc, F-01.NZ 'STP pi_Ai- Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : Department : Approved 1:::1 Not Appr;oved Comments or conditions : I,1. t. ,,(''e.? ii / -.• ' .- •-,A -4 j -%' 'NP`• ;/- ._ 17 e 1 1, , ,I„, ,i_.... c,,-, /,:,,„ / i J J c,,,,_ J ct i p 2) 7%, e, f-cip-4.‘ '< 4A- ,.--e.„-(.._, 24,____ J//e_7/7„,— Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : Department ::7 i/ /l //- L' '' " i.ji ,,.A)) i ,'/ ,c/ „ y- 1, c , Approved C=1 Not Approved niments or conditions : 1 /. L'`',• • i'.,t. '. v i. ,,,, (-,/ 7 ,,.......".c... z - P1. 7 t" 1._. I I)/ /, 1 ,i, ,fr ii v Zt„,Ir .,...s i '..r, 1--..., / z ,--• ...., _. e. Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : Department : C Approved C:JNot Approved Comments or conditions : Signature of Director' or Authorized Representative Date ROUTING FOR REVIEW OF ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORMS TO: O Finance Department Fire Department Library Department Park Department Police Department Public Works Department Pe Building Div. t Engineering Div. Traffic Engineering Div. Utilities Engineering Div . FROM: Planning Department, ( signed by responsible official or his deli nee) 117 C eilbkitA/4 10 29, 1b SUBJECT : Review of ECF- V— 7b ; Application No . : v 'e0-'76 Action Name : M`k(kG*Pc 4t We) J At,. 41-til . 1,, Oikk Please review the attached. Review requested by (date) : it igl/ 1/b Note : Responses to be written in ink. REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : De artment : )3 1 C- omApproved C1Not Approved Comments : z e, ei-Zt. rs 6 —o 37O Signature oc34,-;-- 7:., f> irector or Author' zed Representative Date REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : Department : f/A ET Approved l Not Approved Comments : L/t720n ///fi.,i1S //A-0 r/,P-c r/y.0/4:r3ti S /,9S -///2/<c0 a v /`'c,Iti.S 3b/7/Q,t_>/C et*- 2 C7C" ,vl> 4 CC CSS /C'C.0U/ /J -G" aie fie:. Signature of Director or Authorized /Representative ate REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : Department : Uric ri r S Approved ENot Approved om ents : 0L.rIMATri SMTi= Ors vet-opeh-tl7I-+T LoI l R11-CIA)lar A OUt riOi-4s r•U ri-1 i_ raitasc,ri-rT wA.Ti=tz a saw art. SYSTi31-tS 49/'• O -2. 7- 7i(Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : 2Dep rtment : r ,,%z,. ,.; Approved Not Appjor ved om ents : Si.?9--/--0- zre-4. _ , , „ Signature of Director or A drized Representative Date REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : Department : r a c iv/,/z) z-, Approved f"1Not ApprovedComments : J r, Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : Department : 1 Approved I'Not Approved Comments : Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date PROPOSED/FINAL DECLARATION OF SIGNIFICANCE/NUN-SIGNIFICANCE Application No . SA-238-78 C] PROPOSED Declaration Environmental Checklist No . 400-78 FINAL Declaration Description of proposal Applicant requests site approval for mini-warehouse complex consisting of (7) buildings. Proponent JOHN M. STONE Location of Proposal Along west side of East Valley Road between S.W. 21st and CITY OF RENTON S.W. -23rd Streets. Lead Agency This proposal has been determined to have not hay a significant adverse impact upon the environment . An EIS [ is len is not required under RCW 43 . 210 . 030 (2 ) (c ) . This decision was ma a after review by the lead agency of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency . Reasons for declaration of environmental /significance : 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. 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 Planni ' • Dir: tor Date 7/ 030° Signature / / City of Renton Planning Department 5-76 1-2. 1 A.,...Vt•MdlI+ 1rt,: taileoff okioN i!III k' 1` k # SW I a' i' t) li k416. 0,,,z •,,,,,-- i ti M h. ".A° J p P 1 itg_1 likti 1; e°41)61)4A.01, , la 1 i Me',A•af4II1 R;/, CI; itjyi 4 f,r 4l.it Vi' t7 id!iiql1Ili Il It i A ,Pp s I(-, 11. 0 ile r VT fr i. r X 1\ i, t ' \ • J .. I I1rcyi 7 0 if 4 :- '..") 1 iIt1 40 li rs0 A .ti• (,,i 0.4 I I1111 3: a ' w I 2 d o v arriTsy• 4 0' o or 4,41‘,404 4 _ . . . I- 0'.00' s- y . ili 44 i‘1 cii.........„,... \ a iAii. a I S Ai . _ alie=4. - 1 vi_ 1 l' s .. / 1 1! r 2 r1 i BIBIw i - I - I H i s It__ lone V 111b It VO ate c: 0.493 oba All P 4,014 1%.1.....•%....*::"...•‘N.. 1,_'7...._. . if e (NO eA0) 0*0 Iik 4 i , ,, , 41 .4 i f OF clji PkAPIAI4 f p ------- 1.• Y AA N II_ j/ A. f4tCII'J( 00 NII,t)/k4 r,,,--c,-, r 4t"----------- j l i 4411 I rti:11%-c;:iWill,le 4 r...^r i IPP61" VAU.$`C R#p 5-l 4467T ML7Wci" RECEIVED ON 7te 10J 1ITY' C HEARING F EXAMINRENER14 N O V 141978 CO©-O '`AM PMil'' , I 7t8,9,I0,11,12,1,2,3,4,5,6 EXHIBIT NO. 6M1CPnr# # *_ n r r NO.ITEM N . -541-;13f7 ENDING OF FILE FILE TITLE