The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutLUA84-021_022_023_024bEkiirJriNti OF. FILE FILE TITLE OF R4, II o THE CITY OF RENTON Z POLICY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT • 235-2552 L ammo rn MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON,WASH. 98055 9,o co- 0 BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH MEMORANDUM MAYOR June 21, 1984 TO: Planning and Development Committee FROM: David R. Clemens V Policy Development Director 1 SUBJECT: Merlin Special Permit, Site Plan Approval, and Variances The following is a summation of the applicant's appeal followed by discussion on each of the points raised: Error #1:The Hearing Examiner should not have substituted "other reasonable use" for the "undue hardship" standard established by the City code. Discussion: The Hearing Examiner in his decision did utilize the "other reasonable use" standard as a test to determine what is an acceptable level of "undue hardship." Error #2:The Examiner refused to consider other "nonconforming" uses as justification for the variance, and should have considered the five-year short term" proposed in the applicant's amended application. Discussion: The Policy Development Department is unable to find any provision in the City code which would automatically justify the use of "nonconforming" uses as justification for a variance. However, the Examiner did consider this issue and found the issue unpersuasive. Likewise, the Examiner rejected the concept of a five-year "temporary" use of the property to likewise be unpersuasive. Error #3:The use of other examples is an inappropriate means of evaluating "undue hardship." Discussion: Any decision-maker must consider what "reasonable test" must be used in making any final decision on a particular set of circumstances. The Examiner in this case cited other examples of uses within the vicinity which provide justification for his conclusion regarding the determination of "undue hardship." Inclusion of these examples is both necessary and appropriate. Planning and Development Committee Merlino Appeal June 21, 1984 Page 2 Error #4:The limited term of the amended application should have been justification for reduced requirements. Discussion: The Examiner's conclusion in this case is not based upon duration as an issue. The Examiner argues that performance of the standards required by the City's code must be that of the applicant and not the general public. In the Examiner's opinion, substitution of public for private expenditures in the screening of the subject site is inappropriate. Error #5:The citation of the applicant's testimony is out of context and fails to support the Examiner's conclusion of "no undue hardship." Discussion: Reading of the entire text provided by the applicant in his appeal clearly supports the Examiner's conclusion. The full text, as provided by the applicant, is more persuasive than the summarized text in the Examiner's conclusion. The applicant clearly states that, if the bulk storage use were to remain following a modification in the City's right-of-way, it could conform to the requirements of the landscaping standard within the site. Error #6:Denial of the variance does create "undue hardship" and is regressive. Discussion: As discussed previously, there is no support in the City code for the use of nonconforming uses as either support or justification for a variance. Reliance by the applicant on the Zoning Administrator's testimony fails to take into account the remainder of the record, which recommends denial or modification of most of the variances proposed by the applicant. Error #7:The conclusion that there will be a lack of landscaping is erroneous. Discussion: The Examiner's conclusion is predicated on the argument that the landscaping surrounding this proposed bulk storage use would be less than the minimums required for permitted uses in the L-1 District. Error #8:The variance is not a special privilege. Error #9:The standards cited by the Examiner are unreasonable under the "undue hardship" test. Error #10: The variance does not "strip bulk storage of its validity." Discussion: The Examiner's argument is predicated on the fact that the standards set forth by the City Council for bulk storage uses as small as one acre (one-fifth the size of this site) were intended to fully screen and fully separate bulk storage uses from adjoining uses. The Examiner, therefore, concludes that abrogation of these standards should only be done on the most compelling of justification. The Examiner concludes that no such justification exists. Planning and Development Committee Merlino Appeal June 21, 1984 Page 3 Error #11: Bulk storage uses have a right to the consideration of variances. Disccussion: The appellant is correct that bulk storage uses have the same rights to consideration of variances as any other use; however, such consideration does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that any or all such variance considerations should be approved. The City's bulk storage standards were developed for a broader "general good" than that of a single use. The Examiner concludes that modification of the standards, where a "reasonable use" is left with,the property, is unjustified. Further, the Examiner finds in Conclusion #11 that this application for bulk storage use must meet a higher standard of review and a broader burden of proof of its compatibility with the City's clearly enunciated environmental and aesthetic concerns established by the Bulk Storage Ordinance. The Examiner concludes that this application fails to meet that burden. GENERAL DISCUSSION: The Policy Development Department believes that the applicant in this case faces three burdens. First of all, the applicant must show that it complies with all four variance criteria established by the City code before a variance application may be approved. Secondly, the applicant's proposal for a five-year "temporary use" must be justified in that it has the practical effect of being a permanent use. Finally, the applicant has the burden of proving that his proposed bulk storage permit is appropriate and is a "privilege" which should be issued as opposed to a "right" of an otherwise permitted use in the L-1 District. 1. We believe that the applicant has failed to show compliance with all four variance criteria. Arguably, the applicant may have shown that an "undue hardship" exists, although the Examiner concluded otherwise. This department can find no bulk storage use'of any size or location which has obtained variance relief; therefore, we believe that a "special privilege" would clearly exist if these variances as proposed were approved. Further, we believe that the proposal clearly has adverse effects upon the public's health, safety, and welfare and clearly will have adverse effects upon adjacent properties, particularly those properties on the hill to the east of the subject site as a result of the precedent setting nature of the broad range of variances proposed in this case. Finally, we believe that the variances requested are clearly not the .minimum variance appropriate for the subject use. 2. Although the applicant clings to the argument that a five-year temporary use is appropriate and practical, every department which reviewed the proposal rejected that contention. The Examiner also rejected the contention. Planning and Development Committee Merlino Appeal June 21, 1984 Page 3 3. Finally, the Bulk Storage Permit must be issued under the provisions of the Special Permit. Special Permit provides a "limited power to issue permits for uses....not permitted by right....depending upon the facts of each particular case." Further, the bulk storage standards state as its intent "to allow such facilities in a location and a manner so they are compatible with adjacent properties and beneficial to the City." Based upon the statement of intent of the bulk storage standards, and the provisions of the special permit section, the Examiner rejected the proposal for "this bulk storage use" at "this site." COUNCIL REVIEW: As discussed at the previous Planning and Development Committee meeting, the City Council is required to conclude that an error in fact or an error in law exists in the Examiner's decision. In this case, the action of the Examiner is a final decision. The City Council is without power to substitute its judgment for that of the Examiner. We believe that the applicant's strongest argument relies on the premise that "reasonable use" should not have been substituted for the specific ordinance language of "undue hardship." However, this department believes that "reasonable use" is a proper and appropriate test of whether an "undue hardship" exists in a particular case. Although this department believes, as it testified in the hearing that the bulk storage use of this site is appropriate, we are not prepared to substitute our judgment for that of the Examiner in his conclusion that the variances requested are inappropriate nor that the bulk storage use of this site, subject to those variances, should be approved. RECOMMENDATION: Based upon the foregoing discussion, the Policy Development Department believes that the Planning and Development Committee should reject the applicant's contention that an error in fact or law exists in the Examiner's decision. Therefore, the applicant's appeal should be rejected. DRC:0704G:wr OFRA, oAGENDA COUNCIL MEMBERS V , ROBERT I. HUGHES, COUNCIL PRESIDENT i EARL CLYMER KATHY KOLKER NANCY LEMATHEWS JONONCITYCOUNCILRICHWRM. REED9 SRENT THOMAS W. TRIMMCKEo9gTQsePEM P REGULAR MEETING PRESIDING J U K E 4 , 1 9 8 4 CITY CLERK BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH, M O.N DAY , 8: O O P . M. MAXINE E. MOTORMAYOR 1 . Pledge of Allegiance L 2. Call to Order and Roll Call 1081 3. Approval of Council Minutes of May 21 , 1984 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS: (A) Squire Annexation - Proposed by City for Watershed Protection; property located north of S.E. 200th St. B) Local Improvement District No. 314 - Final Assessment Roll in amount of $7,056,579.90; East Valley Road from SW 16th St. to SW 41st St. and Related Streets. 5. AUDIENCE COMMENT At this time any member of the audience may address the City Council todiscussatopicofconcern. Any citizen interested in a pending agenda item or Council committee report may request that the Council advance to that item of interest. When you are recognized by the Presiding Officer, please walk to the podium and state your name and address for the record, spelling your last name. Please limit your remarks to no more than five minutes. 6. CONSENT AGENDA The following items are distributed -to Council members in advance for study and review and will be adopted in a single motion. Any item may be removed for further discussion if requested by. a Council member. a. Appeal has been filed of Hearing Examiner's reconsideration 5/16/84 of determination 4/25/84; CG , an Oregon Partnership, re Short Plat 037-84, Variance 038-84; 6.42 acres zoned MP, variance to allow private street.—Refe P1annincj and Development Commit b. Appeal has been filed of Hearing Examiner's determination 5/11/84; Gary Merlino Construction Co. SP 021-84, SA 022-84, V 023-84, V 024-84, V 025-84 and V 026-84 special permit and site plan approval request to allow construction of bulk storage facility. .Refer to Planning and e-e c. Policy Development Director requests public meeting on Scott Annexation be set for June 18, 1984; property located south of Sunset Bvd. NE between Union NE and Queen NE (extended). Council concur. d. City Clerk reports 5/30/84 bid opening; 4 bids received; Renton Airport West Perimeter Road improvements. Refer to Transportation Committee. e. City Clerk reports 5/18/84 bid opening; 5 bids received; Renton Munici- pad Airport sea plane ramp dredging. Refer to Transportation Committee. f. Claim for` Damages filed by Broadmoor Enterprises, _Inc. in the _amount of 1 ,223.35 to recover cost of repair for delivery truck allegedly damaged by driving over open manhole 4/18/84. Refer to City Attorney and Insur- ance Carrier. g. Public Works Director requests resolution to transfer funds for three fire fighters to attend Crash Fire School . . Refer to Ways and Means Committee. h. Public Works Director requests ordinance to appropriate unanticipated FAUS and FASP funds and unappropriated fund balance into the Arterial Street Fund along with reallocations within fund. Refer to Ways and Means Committee. i . Hearing Examiner recommends approval of rezone, conditional use permit and special permit subject to conditions for Puget Sound Power and Light R 010-84, CU 011-84, SP 012-84 located on west side of Talbot Rd S ap- p•roximately 500 ft south of S.Grady_ Way. Refer to Ways and Means Committee. 7. CORRESPONDENCE 8. OLD BUSINESS (Includes Committee Reports) Page 2 Renton City Council Agenda June 4, 1984 9. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS 10. NEW BUSINESS 11 . ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT 12. AUDIENCE COMMENT 13. ADJOURNMENT For.u"se .By City Clerk's Office Only A. I . # AGENDA ITEM RENTON CITY COUNCIL MEETING a=asrxx=xaa=xs asxaxca ssssoxaas aasssa:axx SUBMITTING Dept./Div./Bd./Comm. City Clerk For Agenda Of June 4, 1984 Meeting Date) Staff Contact Maxine E. Motor Name) Agenda Status: SUBJECT: Appeal of Hearing Examiner's Consent XX DPrisinn; Gdry Merlinn Cnnctrurtinn Cn Public Hearing Correspondence File No. SP-021-84. SA-022-84, V-023-84, Ordinance/Resolution V-024-84, V-025-84, V-026-84 Old Business Exhibits: (Legal Descr. , Maps, Etc.)Attach New Business Study Session A. City Clerk's Letter, 5/29/84 Other B. Letter of Appeal Approval : C. Hearing Examiner's Report, 5/11/84 Legal Dept. Yes No N/A COUNCIL ACTION RECOMMENDED: Refer to Finance Dept. Yes No. N/A Planning and Development Committee Other Clearance FISCAL IMPACT: Expenditure Required $ Amount $ Appropriation- $ Budgeted Transfer Required SUMMARY (Background information, prior action and effect of implementation) Attach additional pages if necessary.) Appeal filed by David L. Halinen representing Gary Merlino Construction Co. accompanied by required fee received on May 25, 1984.. PARTIES OF RECORD/INTERESTED CITIZENS TO BE CONTACTED: See page 13 of Examiner's Report SUBMIT THIS COPY TO CITY CLERK BY NOON ON THURSDAY WITH DOCUMENTATION. . OF I THE CITY OF RENTON MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON,WASH. 98055 o o BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH. MAYOR MAXINE E.MOTOR, 9A CITY CLERK • (206) 235-25000,9- ED SE121° P May 29, 1984 APPEAL FILED BY DAVID L. HALINEN FOR GARY MERLINO CONSTRUCTION CO. Re: Appeal of Land Use Hearing Examiner's Decision, dated May 11 , 1984, Gary Merlino Construction Company; Files No. SP-021-84, SA-022-84, V-023-84, V-024-84, V-025-84, and V-026-84; 2900 E. Valley Road. To Parties of Record: Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 30, City Code, written appeal of Land Use Hearing Examiner's decision has been filed with the City Clerk, along with the proper fee of $75.00. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the written appeal and other pertinent documents will be reviewed by the Council 's Planning and Development Committee and will be considered by the City Council when the matter is reported out of Committee. The Council Secretary will notify all parties of record of the date and time of the Planning and Development Committee meeting. Sincerely, CITY OF RENTON Maxine E. Motor City Clerk J 5 C f BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE J't .; CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON Lid A APPEAL OF THE MAY 11, 1984 DECISION OF THE LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER DENYING THE APPLICATION OF GARY MERLINO CONSTRUCTION CO. FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT, SITE PLAN APPROVAL, AND VARIANCES FILES NO. SP-021-84, SA-022-84, V-023-84, V-024-84, V-025-84, and V-026-84) Specification of Errors Error 1. The Examiner substituted an "other reasonable use" test for the "undue hardship" test specified in City of Renton Code Section 4-722(G)3(a) . (See Examiner's Conclusion l.a.) This substitution caused the Examiner to erroneously conclude that the applicant had not met its burden of proof with respect to the requested variances. The correct test is whether hardship to the applicant resulting from the strict application of Title IV regulations is undue. City of Renton Code Section 4-722(G)3(a) . Instead of using this code-specified test, the Examiner erroneously substituted the much more burdensome other reasonable use" element of the balancing test that is used in Washington to determine whether a regulation is an unconstitutional taking. Natural Resources v. Thurston County, 92 Wn.2d 656, 669 where a private developer's preliminary plat application had been turned down by a board of county commissioners, the Washington State Supreme Court held that the board's action was not a taking, stress- ing the fact that the commissioners had indicated that they would have accepted certain plat layouts other than the one that the developer had proposed) . See also Maple Leaf Investors, Inc. v. Department of Ecology, 88 Wn.2d 726. Having adopted the wrong test, the Examiner then took notice in Conclusion 2 that other uses of the site were possible. Assuming that the existence of other possible uses made reasonable use of the site possible without the requested variances (Conclusion 2, first sentence and Conclusion 6, paragraph 1, last sentence) , the Examiner substantially dismissed the Applicant's and Zoning Administrator's arguments, which were correctly based on the "undue hardship" test. Because the Examiner's entire series of Conclusions and his Decision really were hinged upon this irrelevant conclusion that the site could reasonably be used for something other than trailer storage, the Examiner's Decision is clearly erroneous. Page 1 of 6 In contrast to the "other reasonable use" test, the undue hardship test focuses on the strict application of the zoning code provisions to the specific land use application under consideration. The test does not focus on whether a site's zoning might permit a completely different land use. Here, the Applicant demonstrated that the strict application of the zoning code was undue, and ,this fact was acknowledged by the Zoning Administrator with respect to variances for a five- year term as is illustrated by his eleven recommended conditions of approval listed on pages 7 and 8 of the Examiner's Report and Decision. Error 2. The Examiner erroneously refused to consider comparisons with adjacent non-conforming uses for variance justifications even though the Applicant made an alternative request for variances with a five-year term. (See Examiner's Conclusion 7.) Because a sub- stantial portion of the evidence supporting the requested variances stems from the legal non-conforming uses in the immediate vicinity of the subject site, the Examiner's refusal to consider the comparisons led him to a clearly erroneous decision. Even assuming for the sake of argument that the legal non-conforming uses should not be cited to justify variances where the variances will be permanent, an applicant certainly should be permitted to cite them where, as here, consideration is given to variances for a short term. The argument against such citation for permanent variances is that the legal non-conforming uses are really only temporary. Any significant changes in such uses (including modernization of facilities or even their replacement after fire) will cause them to have to conform to up-to-date codes. Granting a permanent variance based on such legal non-conforming uses could substantially extend the period during which an area would not have to conform to current codes. However, with a short-term variance, no such substantial lengthening of the period during which an area need not conform to current codes will occur. In fact, where, as here, the subject parcel is part of a limited, well-defined area comprised substantially of legal non-conforming uses that have given no indication of abating in the near future, denial of a right to cite such adjacent non- conforming uses is fundamentally unfair. Error 3. In Examiner's Conclusions 3 & 4, the Examiner created the erroneous impression, through comparison with inapposite cases, that the Applicant is able to provide all of the code-specified landscaping without undue hardship. Neither of the cited cases included variance requests, and neither site had the geometric constraints and other special circumstances that pertain to the subject site. Further, the landscaping proposed in the Beckmann Homes' application was necessary to conform to restrictive covenants that relate back to that site's rezone last fall. No such restrictive covenants exist regarding the subject site. These factors make the Examiner's comparisons of no probative value. The impression that he attempted to create by making them was wholly without basis and thus was clear error. Page 2 of 6 t Error 4. The Examiner's contention that " Mites should not be permitted to rely on public landscaping or screening if the subject site can provide the landscaping" is clearly erroneous. (See Examiner's Conclusion 5, paragraph 3.) Such a statement does not take account of the limited term of use being considered here nor proper account of the fact that the screening function will indeed be provided. Further, the statement is misleading because it suggests that the proposal relies solely upon public landscaping or screening, which it does not. As the Zoning Administrator stressed at the continuation of the Public Hearing, in regard to the proposed five-year term the primary concern of the other departments was not where screening would be provided but rather that screening be provided, the latter presumably being the policy underlying the Bulk Storage Ordinance. With the conditions of approval recommended for a five-year limitation on the variances, the Zoning Administrator made clear that we had met that policy. Error '5. The Examiner erroneously concluded from the testimony of the Applicant's Representative (cited in Examiner's Conclusion 5) that the code-specified landscaping provisions caused no undue hardship upon the Applicant. However, the specific language of the cited testimony and the context in which that testimony was made provide no support for such a conclusion. First,; the context of the cited testimony was that of the highly unlikely contingency that either East Valley Road or SR 167 would be widened during the limited period that the Applicant intends to use the site for trailer storage. I (David Halinen) indicated earlier in my testimony (see Examiner's Report and Decision page 2, paragraph 3) that the Applicant's main concern was "that [it] be permitted to utilize the site for the proposed use, with the requested variances, for a period of approximately five years from the date of occupancy" because of the Applicant's plans to later build commercial warehousing or some other type of project that will require permanent building structures) at the site. Because a full widening of East Valley Road has just barely been completed, and because no widening of SR 167 is proposed for the near future, this contingency appears most unlikely during the short term for which the Applicant intends the requested use. My "concession" was made merely to avoid extended discussion on a point that appeared to me to be nothing more than a "red herring." Second, the language of my comment also does not support an inference that undue hardship does not exist. I merely said that we would accept a condition that says we would have to move the landscaping within the site if we were to continue to operate the site for the trailer storage use]." (Emphasis added.) Because of the extreme unlikelihood that such a contingency will occur during the period that the Applicant desires to use the site for trailer storage, my statement merely conceded that the Applicant was willing to bear the risk of the consequences of the occurrence of this unlikely contingency. In context, the language does not even suggest that the hardship was not undue. Page 3 of 6 contingency. In context, the language does not even suggest that the hardship was not undue. Error 6. The Examiner's gratuitous comments in Conclusion 6 are contrary to the evidence in the record and applicable rules of law and are thus clear error. First, the Examiner's statement that "[t]o deny the variance is not to deny the applicant's reasonable use of the subject site nor should it be viewed as regressive" is both confused and erroneous. As discussed in Error 1, above, speculation about some "other reasonable use" for the site is wholly irrelevant. Under the proper test ("undue hardship") , the denial must be viewed as contrary to law and thus "regressive." Second, the Examiner's expressed difficulty of distinguishing between locations which have justifications for variances and those locations which do not stems, once again, from applying the wrong variance test. In contrast, by applying the code-specified "undue hardship" test, the difficulty becomes only that ordinary difficulty of deciding whether a proposal, on its own merit, faces undue hardships due to the strict application of the zoning. code. The subject site's narrow geometry and unique location among several non-conforming uses that lie within the small triangular area bounded by SR 167 and East Valley Road make the subject property easy to distinguish from the site across East Valley Road. The distinction is even easier to make when the short term of use that the Applicant requested is con- sidered. Third, the Examiner's conclusion that the Lumber Market would be left without incentive to modernize if the variances are approved illustrates the inequity in the Examiner's methodology. It suggests that speculative effects on incentives of a non-conforming user to conform to up-to-date code provisions should outweigh the disability that that non- conforming user places upon an adjacent property owner like the Applicant. (The Examiner's statement regarding the reasonability of Lumber Market modernization is especially curious since he took no evidence on that subject.) Here, where the Applicant has indicated a willingness to accept variances for a term of only five years, the incentive effects on the Lumber Market are miniscule, and thus such a weighing clearly favors the grant of variances requested. Fourth, the Examiner's comment that approval of the subject variances would be a waiver "with ease" of the aesthetic provisions with "no supporting hardship shown" flies in the face of the whole record. The Applicant's application and testimony clearly established the special circumstances and undue hardships that justify the variances, which the Zoning Administrator's position subsequently confirmed with respect to variances for a five-year term. Page 4 of 6 Error ,7. The Examiner's comment in Conclusion 7 that "Ct]here is no justification not to screen the subject site save economic incentives to delay or defer aesthetic improvements to the area" is contrary to the record, misleading, and clearly erroneous. The comment suggests that the proposal will leave the site unscreened, which it will not. The original application included a proposal to provide a full 20 feet of landscaping along East Valley Road plus a site screen fence along the project's north, west, and south boundaries, while relying upon the existing trees within the SR 167 right-of-way margin which already provide substantial screening along the east boundary. With the additional screening provisions that the Zoning Administrator recommended as part of the eleven conditions of approval (listed on pages 7 and 8 of the Examiner's Report and Decision) for the project with a five-year limitation, the Examiner's comment was all the more contrary to the record, misleading, and erroneous. Error 8. The Examiner's Conclusion 8, that "[t]he approval of the variances would grant the applicant a special privilege not granted others," is clearly erroneous. This conclusion was based upon his erroneous earlier refusal to consider comparisons with adjacent non- conforming uses (see Error 2) and his erroneous replacement of the undue hardship" test with an "other reasonable use" test (see Error 1) . Using the "undue hardship" test and properly considering the adjacent non-conforming uses, no special privilege exists especially if the variances are limited to the short five-year term. Error 9. The Examiner's Conclusion 9, that the Applicant is quibbling over standards, is clearly erroneous because this conclusion was expressly premised upon the Examiner's "other reasonable use" test. Error 10. The Examiner's Conclusion 10, that the variance request attempts to strip the bulk storage provisions of any useful effect, is clearly erroneous because it also is premised upon the Examiner's other reasonable use" test. In fact, the Examiner, rather than the Applicant, is the party attempting to strip a portion of the zoning code of any effect. By substituting the "other reasonable use" test for the "undue hardship" test, the Examiner attempts to make qualifi- cation for a variance virtually impossible, thus gutting the variance provisions of any useful effect. Error 11. The Examiner's Conclusion 11 erroneously implies that applicants for bulk storage permits do not have a right to any associated variances even if they have met the burden of proof specified in the zoning code. The Applicant has met its burden of proof with respect to these variances, and they must be granted even though they are associated with the bulk storage provisions. Page 5 of 6 Summary of Action Requested The Applicant hereby requests that the City Council reverse the decision of the Hearing Examiner and grant the special permit, site plan, and variances for a five-year term subject to the eleven conditions of approval recommended by the Zoning Administrator on pages 7 and 8 of the Examiner's Report and Decision. Respectfully submitted by: May 25, 1984 David L. alinen, P.E. Date Applicant's Representative Page 6 of 6 WRITTEN APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER' S DECISION/RECOMMENDATION TO RENTON CITY COUNCIL. APPLICATION NAME: FILE NO. SP-021-84, SA-022-84 V-023-84, V-024-84, MERLINO BULK STORAGE FACILITY V-025-84, V-026-84 GARY MERLINO CONSTRUCTION CO. The undersigned interested party hereby files its Notice of Appeal from the Decision or Recommendation of the Land Use Hearing Examiner, dated May 11,19 84 . 1 . IDENTIFICATION OF PARTY APPELLANT: REPRESENTATIVE (IF ANY) : Name: Gary Merlino Construction Co. Name: David L. Halinpn, P.R. Address: 9125 10th Ave. S. Address: same as for appelant Seattle. Washington 98108 Telephone No. (206) 762-9125 Telephone No. " 2. SPECIFICATION OF ERRORS (Attach additional sheets if necessary) Set forth below are the specific errors or law or fact upon which this appeal is based: see attached sheets FINDINGS OF FACT: (Please designate number as denoted in the Examiner's Report) No. Error: Correction: CONCLUSIONS: No. Error: Correction: OTHER: No. Error: Correction: 3. SUMMARY OF ACTION REQUESTED: The City Council is requested to grant the following relief: (Attach explanation, if desired) X Reverse the Decision or Recommendation and grant the following relief: See attached sheets Modify the Decision or Recommendation as follows: Remand to the Examiner for further consideration as follows: Other: May 25, 1984 Appellant/Re esentative Signa ure Date NOTE: Please refer to Title IV, Chapter 30 of the Renton Municipal Code, and Sections 4-3016 and 4-3017, specifically (see reverse side of page) for specific appeal procedures. 0538E. May 11, 1984 l OFFICE OF THE LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON REPORT AND DECISION. APPLICANT: GARY MERLINO CONSTRUCTION COMPANY FILES NO. SP-021-84, SA-022-84, V-023-84, V-024-84, V-025-84, and V-026-84 LOCATION: 2900 East Valley Road SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The applicant seeks approval of a special permit and site plan approval to allow the construction of a bulk storage facility for the short term storage of truck trailers including three office trailers for employee office and four variances from requirements of the Bulk Storage Ordinance. SUMMARY OF ACTION: Building and Zoning Department Recommendation: Approval of SP-021-84 and SA-022-84 based on conditions; denial of V-023-84; partial approval of V-024-84; partial approval of V-025-84; and approval of V-026-84. Hearing Examiner Recommendation: Special permit and site plan as submitted for bulk storage are denied. Variances are denied. BUILDING & ZONING The Building & Zoning Department Report was DEPARTMENT REPORT: received by the Examiner on April 18, 1984. PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the Building and Zoning Department Report, examining available information on file with the application and field checking the property and surrounding area, the Examiner conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows: The hearing was opened on April 24, 1984, at 10:09 a.m. in the Council Chambers of the Renton Municipal Building. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner. The following exhibits were entered into the record by the Examiner: Exhibit #1: Yellow file containing the original application, staff report, and other pertinent documents. Exhibit #2: Site plan. Exhibit #3: Series of 37 total ground photo pages for the Merlino bulk storage facility as prepared by David L. Halinen, physical engineer, laid out along a map of the subject site. Roger Blaylock, Zoning Administrator, provided a brief summary of the proposal, advising that the applicant's consulting engineer would be presenting a more detailed presentation later. Noting the complexity of the request, he stated that it deals with site approvals because of the underlying fill and grade permit, a special permit for bulk storage, and four variances from the bulk storage requirements. He reviewed in detail the four variances requested: (1) to reduce the landscape setback along East Valley Road from the required 20 feet to 10 feet, noting that the landscaping in question is from the property line back and that East Valley Road is situated on the site's west side; (2) to reduce the landscape setback along the east property line, noting that it abuts SR-167 and that the applicant is proposing to utilize landscaping material that would be hydroseeded with no substantive or vertical types of vegetation planned; (3) to eliminate the 20-foot setback and site screen fence along the south property line adjacent to the Lumber Market with the building utilizing a similar type storage behind it and to just provide the fencing; (4) a reduction of the 60-foot setback along East Valley Road, noting that the Bulk Storage Ordinance requires landscaping of the first 20 feet along a public right-of-way and no bulk storage within 60 feet, a somewhat obscure prequisite, and this request would specifically allow the applicant to utilize up to the screening fence whether placed at 20 feet or 10 feet in accordance with approval or disapproval of variance #1. The Examiner interjected to inquire what the reduction would be in landscaping on variance #2, along SR-167. Mr. Blaylock stated present plans show approximately 13 feet of landscaping from the property line to the top edge of the fill area, a reduction of 7 feet. EXAMINER'S REPORT , DECISION 2 GARY MERLINO CONS' CTION COMPANY Files No. SP-021-84, SA-022-84, V-023-84, V-024-84, V-025-84, and V-026-84 May 11, 1984 Page 2 Mr. Blaylock continued with his review, noting that the site has been utilized in the past for a truck terminal, West Coast Trucklines, on a temporary use permit, and a special permit was granted for fill and grade in 1977. These approvals are valid and active due to annual license renewals. He then requested that Mr. Merlino's representative be given an opportunity to make his presentation. Responding was: David L. Halinen Staff Civil Engineer Gary Merlino Construction Company 9125 10th South Seattle, WA 98108 Mr. Halinen expressed appreciation to Mr. Blaylock for his assistance in the preparation of the application. To explain their reasons for requesting the proposed use at this time, with so many variances, he advised that they have a tenant, Pacific Motor Transport Company, a subsidiary of Southern Pacific Railway, who would like to use the Phase 1 portion of the site as soon as possible for the proposed trailer storage use. This tenant feels that this site is especially appropriate for their short-term needs. It is their feeling that the long-term best use of the site is not for the purpose requested today but rather for some sort of warehousing or other use that will require permanent buildings to be placed on the site. He noted their plans to build such a project and, therefore, requested that the proposed use be considered an interim use. Noting the site's geometric constraints and position between two roadways, they feel literal application of the Bulk Storage Ordinance regulations will result in an unreasonable hardship upon the applicant. Their major concern is that they be permitted to utilize the site for the% proposed use, with the requested variances, for a period of approximately five years from the date of occupancy. This will allow for reasonable amortization of the cost of improvements for the present proposal. Applying for a temporary use permit was considered; however, it is felt that mechanism would not afford sufficient time to provide trailer storage for a tenant and amortization of the cost of improvements. In making this application, they do not specifically limit their request to any specific time duration. Given their desire for subsequent redevelopment of the site and the staff concerns raised in the preliminary report to the Examiner, if the Examiner feels it would be necessary for a finding of a burden of justification for the variances, they would like their proposal to be considered for a period of five years only from the date of occupancy. The Examiner inquired if they would be willing to accept that as a condition of approval, to which Mr. Halinen responded affirmatively, if he feels that would be necessary for justification of the variance requests. He stated, however, if the Examiner feels there is sufficient justification without that limitation, they would prefer that it not be imposed. The Examiner requested that Mr. Halinen describe some aspects of the site for the record. Mr. Halinen indicated the north edge of the property is approximately 79 feet in width; the frontage along the East Valley Road is approximately 1,219 feet; the south boundary of the site which abuts the Lumber Market site is approximately 322 feet; and there are approximately 1,237 feet of frontage along SR-167. Responding to the Examiner, he advised that the width at the delineation between Phase 1 and Phase 2 is approximately 475 feet. The approximate acreage of the two phases was identified as 2.99 acres in Phase 1 and the remaining acres in Phase 2. Noting that he was responding to the general theme used by the staff in its report concerning the requested variances, Mr. Halinen advised that the subject property is at the extreme north end of a triangular-shaped strip that is zoned L-1, and it is presently occupied by quite a few light industrial uses. The property to the west, across East Valley Road, is currently undeveloped. In justification of the variances requested, an attempt was made to evaluate existing uses in the area, as they meet the requirements of the Bulk Storage Ordinance, and to compare and contrast various attributes of these existing uses against the proposed variances. He acknowledged that these uses are legal nonconforming uses. It is felt that, if their proposal is limited to a five-year duration, these concerns should be considered to be as equitable in justifying these variances as long-term legal nonconforming uses. He noted that none of the existing businesses have made any indications of changes that would terminate their legal nonconforming uses. Also, since the contested variances all deal with site screening, he requested that the Examiner take special note of staff's own view of the bulk storage screening requirements and referred to item 3 on page 4, which includes the statement, "The Bulk Storage Ordinance suggests a minimum width of landscaping to screen the worst cases of industrial storage yards." As an example of "worst case," he offered the possibility of an open pile of coal that might extend to a height of approximately 35 feet and indicated their feeling that the storage of trailers would be more pleasing. EXAMINER'S REPORT . DECISION GARY MERLINO CONS_:_JCTION COMPANY Files No. SP-021-84, SA-022-84, V-023-84, V-024-84, V-025-84, and V-026-84 May 11, 1984 Page 3 As a point of advisement, the Examiner requested that Mr. Halinen direct his attention to more reasonable use of the subject site rather than the other provisions of granting of special privilege. Essentially, the question would be, "Is there reasonable use of the subject site without any of the variances or one of the variances requested?" Mr. Halinen indicated his feeling that there was not. With regard to unsightliness, Mr. Halinen described the truck trailers as compact, with a maximum height of 13'-6", which is below the maximum bulk storage use permitted. The trailers will occupy less than half of the site due to the necessary egress aisles. Further, the proposal is for truck/trailer interchange only and not for loading and unloading the trailers at the site. He noted their feeling that screening for such use should not be determined by standards for the worst cases. He requested clarification of Mr. Blaylock regarding the staff position on the applicability of Renton Code 4-734(E)(2) with respect to the boundary along SR-167. In his original application he presumed, because the east edge of the property abuts SR-167, that would be considered a public right-of-way; and as such they would be faced with 60-foot bulk storage setbacks and landscaping provisions. In reviewing the staff report, he found no mention of any 60-foot setbacks or special bulk storage landscaping provisions based on that code section for that side of the property. Those issues were addressed, however, with regard to the East Valley Road. Mr. Blaylock indicated that his understanding was that the 60-foot requested variance was from both public rights-of-way. Mr. Halinen asked if he were incorrect in making an interpretation that the 60-foot setback from the freeway as well as the East Valley Road is required. Mr. Blaylock indicated that state highways are considered public rights-of-way, and therefore he feels the variance is necessary. Mr. Halinen indicated that, if it is the staff's contention that the variance is necessary but they are recommending approval of the 60-setback reduction on the east edge of the highway, that is acceptable. Mr. Blaylock noted that the basis for their approval is the geometric shape of the property, as 60 feet would leave no maneuvering space in Phase 2 and a very marginally usable Phase 1. The Examiner inquired regarding the specific staff recommendation for East Valley Road. In reply, Mr. Halinen provided the details of the request and the following further discussion. He stated that along East Valley Road they note two items of concern: First, Section 4-734 requires 20 feet of landscaping along the road frontage and a 60-foot bulk storage setback from the property line. They propose to provide 20 feet of landscaping, but not totally within the site's boundary. Introduced into the record was Exhibit #4 Sepia-toned Variance Exhibit. Indicated on the site plan and, also on the variance exhibit, a full 20 feet of landscaping are planned, but 10 feet will be within the property and the balance within the 10 - 11 foot wide margin of East Valley Road that lies behind the sidewalk. This matter was discussed with Richard Houghton, Public Works Director, who seemed to indicate that a right-of-way permit could be issued if requested. He noted that the staff takes exception for the following reasons: They discount provision of the balance of the landscaping within the public right-of-way, suggesting that only 10 feet will be provided, which will impact the properties across the street, and they indicate a concern that at some future date East Valley Road could be widened. He pointed out that East Valley Road was improved just this year through City of Renton L.I.D. 314, which included street widening and installation of curbs, gutters, and sidewalks on both sides of the street within the vicinity of the subject project. Should the need arise for widening of the street, they are willing to accept a condition indicating that they would have to move the landscaping to within the site in order to continue operation of this use. They believe that it is unlikely that would occur and request that Bob Bergstrom, Engineering Supervisor, be given an opportunity to comment about those prospects. The Examiner invited testimony from the Public Works Department. Responding was Bob Bergstrom Engineering Supervisor City of Renton Mr. Halinen asked Mr. Bergstrom regarding his opinion of the prospects for widening of East Valley Road in the vicinity of the subject project, especially during the next five years. Mr. Bergstrom indicated it is their opinion that the three-lane roadway configuration will be adequate for East Valley Road for the foreseeable future, and he confirmed that the three lanes had been installed through L.I.D. 314 within the last year. Responding to a request for a specific definition of "foreseeable future" from the Examiner, he indicated they are looking into the 1990s, as at present the road serves only as a local collector street for light industry businesses along the easterly side of the Valley. EXAMINERS REPORT - DECISION GARY MERLINO CONE JCTION COMPANY Files No. SP-021-84, SA-022-84, V-023-84, V-024-84, V-025-84, and V-026-84 May 11, 1984 Page 4 Regarding the necessity for this particular variance, Mr. Halinen stated that it is their position that in laying out the use of the site they would probably be faced with losing the entire row of stalls were they to bring the entire 20 feet within the site, as the aisles are presently at the minimum width for reasonable maneuverability of truck-trailer combinations as they are delivering or picking up trailers. This is therefore regarded as a very important variance for reasonable use of the project. Their second concern regards the frontage along East Valley Road. The staff has recommended approval of their request for a variance from the 60-foot bulk storage setback. He referred the Examiner to his variance justification report included with the application, rather than elaborate further, unless it was wished otherwise. Mr. Kaufman indicated he was trying to determine what the Building and Zoning Department has or has not recommended. Mr. Halinen, referring to page 9 of the staff report under recommendation #4, noted that a recommendation similar to the setback from East Valley Road was made for the setback from SR-167. Relative to the second variance requested, concerning elimination of the site screen fence on the east boundary and, also, the landscaping associated with that particular provision, the site plan was modified slightly after the application was submitted in view of their discovery that the slope of the east edge of the property was a little wider than originally anticipated - 13 feet rather than 10 feet. Therefore, he amended the original request, as noted in the report, to provide a 13-foot wide strip along the east property line. To clarify, the Examiner indicated his understanding that within the 13 feet of the east property line there is a slope severe enough that practical use of it cannot be made. He inquired if the applicant is willing to landscape that area. This was confirmed by Mr. Halinen. He reiterated their problem, because of the site's narrow geometry, that they are very limited in width in laying out a reasonable number of stalls for truck storage, and therefore for reasonable use of the site the variances requested are necessary. One major justification for the variances is that there is an existing row of large trees within the SR-167 right-of-way margin which provides substantial screening from the highway and meeting the literal code requirements would be redundant. He acknowledged the staff's concern that the State Highway Department could come in and widen SR-167 and remove that screen of trees. In response to the possibility, they request that a condition be added that, should the State Highway Department remove those trees for any reason including the widening of the road, the applicant would be required to conform to the staff request as proposed. He reiterated their feeling, that should the variances be granted subject to a five-year term, those trees should provide adequate landscaping during that period. The Examiner inquired further regarding the adequacy of the use of the site, asking should trees be provided within that setback would that deny reasonable use of the subject site. Mr. Halinen indicated that question had been addressed in the variance justifications, and he recalled that the primary argument is that it is unreasonably economically burdensome upon the applicant to do so, when, in fact, other property owners in the area have not been required to do so, and when there is no practical advantage of any significance to be gained by the City having it accomplished. He indicated his agreement that physically they are not prevented from making use of the site as proposed by the staff. Again, regarding this variance request for the elimination of the site screen fence and landscaping, Mr. Halinen noted that staff had pointed out that Burlington Northern, in a recent special permit request, was required to substantially landscape for a bulk storage site (bottom of page 5). He indicated that Burlington Northern is not similarly situated because it does not abut the freeway, does not have existing vegetation and screening of the site from an adjoining public right-of-way, and their site does not suffer from the geometric hardships of this particular site. Also, he pointed out that the road grade of SR-167 is substantially higher than the site. Because of that elevation difference, even an 8-foot high site screening fence and other plantings, if the trees were not there, would be of little consequence at least for five, years until the trees were fully matured. He introduced an exhibit illustrating that situation in support of his argument. Exhibit #5 An elevation drawing of a cross-section. Mr. Halinen noted this cross-section is labeled "B-B" and conforms to the section "B-B" as shown on the site plan (Exhibit #2). The only difference is that this cross-section has been drawn at a scale of 1" = 10' both horizontally and vertically to illustrate the perspective from an automobile heading southbound on SR-167. He indicated their feeling that it is impossible to set up a fence of reasonable height to accomplish the necessary screening. The Examiner directed Mr. Halinen's attention to the fact that installation of a fence would not deny the applicant reasonable use of the property and that economics has never been accepted by the EXAMINER'S REPORT DECISION GARY MERLINO CONE_:__CTION COMPANY Files No. SP-021-84, SA-022-84, V-023-84. V-024-84, V-025-84, and V-026-84 May 11, 1984 Page 5 courts of this state. nor any other body generally, as reason for granting a variance. He also noted that any difficulties with meeting some of the requirements of the Bulk Storage Ordinance should properly be directed to the City Council, depending upon whether the variance could or could not be granted. With regard to the third variance requested to eliminate the 20-foot setback and site screen fence along the south property line, Mr. Halinen noted that their boundary abuts the Lumber Market and that facility has a red building which faces East Valley Road on the west portion of that property. The easterly portion of their site is enclosed by an approximately 8-foot high red vertical board site screen fence, and the fence on the south property line is for all practical purposes on the boundary line. From the northwest corner of that fence, the applicant has installed a chain-link type fence which extends to approximately the west boundary of that site. The locations of these fences were pointed out on the site plan. If they were to be required to provide the 20-foot setback in landscaping, they feel that reasonable use could not be made of the site, and they would not have a special privilege because of the way in which the other L-1 bulk storage users in the vicinity have situated themselves. Referring to item 13 on page 6, he noted that the staff concedes that granting variances subject to conditions subsequent is appropriate, in which it is indicated that, should the operation of the lumber market to the south cease, provisions should be included which would require the applicant to put in the additional landscaping and screening. He pointed out that, since staff considers this appropriate, the other variances could also be considered appropriate subject to conditions subsequent. He also referred to item 14, in which the staff indicates that protection of the future interests of the lumber market is also a consideration, and Mr. Halinen indicated that they could accept a condition subsequent. However, they do contend, given the physical condition on the neighboring property and the impact that a 20-foot setback would have even on the west leg of their south boundary, they should be granted the variance along the entire south boundary. In respect to the fourth variance requested to allow structure and bulk storage to be located within the 60-foot setback along East Valley Road, Mr. Halinen noted that the 60-foot setback requirements along East Valley Road and SR-167 have already been covered. He noted that much more detail regarding justifications and comparisons have been provided with the application and are included in the yellow file, Exhibit #1. In summary, he indicated they are willing to abide by the Examiner's decision for a 5-year term for the special permit and related variances. They feel that the variances are necessary to make reasonable use of the property. He also offered to respond to any questions. The Examiner indicated that he had asked most of his questions in the process of the proceedings and had read all of the documents in the yellow file. He then called for further testimony from the audience. In response, Mr. Bergstrom referred to his memorandum of March 13, 1984, which is included in both the file and staff report, and pointed out that the north 85 feet of the site is part of the proposed P-9 Channel right-of-way, and it is recommended that, as a condition of approval, some type of easement or dedication be required so that Soil Conservation Service federal funding can be obtained for that project. He noted that it has been recommended that that area be reserved for the required 2% of the site reserved for wildlife habitat and indicated that this is in conflict with S.C.S. regulations. This requirement must be met in another location, as the S.C.S. requires 2% in addition to the canal right-of-way. In response, Mr. Halinen advised that, subsequent to the Public Works Department bringing the matter of the P-9 Channel to their attention, he had sent a letter dated April 3, 1984, to the Environmental Review Committee, regarding their plans for the property in that area. In that letter it was indicated that they do not intend to dedicate that property to the City at this time; however, they are proposing development which would preclude future P-9 Channel construction, and their intention to not dedicate the property should have no bearing on whether or not a declaration of environmental non-significance should be issued. The subsequent declaration of non-significance was issued with a proviso that "The north 75 feet across the site shall be put in reservation, dedication or easement for drainage and wildlife purposes." He indicated no problem with this condition as it reads, but they do not feel they are a substantial beneficiary of the P-9 Channel construction and that all of the options that are listed for reservation, dedication, or easement for drainage and wildlife purposes should remain as written. In addition, he pointed out that the matter of the 2% for wildlife area was specifically discussed in the Hearing Examiner's report regarding their initial grading permit for this project, and he felt that issue was therefore closed. The Environmental Review Committee made its decision subsequent to submittal of this letter and appears to be saying that at least in terms of the threshold determination, that it is appropriate to have the 2% for wildlife within that area. EXAMINER'S REPORT , JECISION GARY MERLINO CONS JCTION COMPANY Files No. SP-021-84, SA-022-84, V-023-84, V-024-84, V-025-84, and V-026-84 May 11, 1984 Page 6 The Examiner requested that the record reflect that there was no one else in attendance at the hearing. He then granted the Zoning Administrator an opportunity for further comment. Mr. Blaylock noted that the applicant has created an unusual situation by stating that his client will be bound by a five-year limitation. He described their efforts to convince the applicant that a temporary permit procedure was applicable, but this they found to be unacceptable. Therefore, they were advised that a permanent solution had to be addressed and resolved for the subject site. Continuing, Mr. Blaylock noted that the five-year limitation had created a kind of intermediate use and function of the site. However, based upon the past performance of the same property owner, a five-year limitation could become an enforcement problem in the fifth year. He also noted that in the past a variance has never been granted for a specifically limited period but is normally considered permanent. Accepting the 5-year limitation, the Building and Zoning Department might consider further review of their recommendations. However, the point of contention continues to be the reasonable use of the property, and it was noted that uses in the L-1 zone would have specific limitations imposed whether or not they were a special permit for bulk storage or an allowed use in that classification. Specifically, with the second variance, which deals with landscaping along SR-167, another use would require 10 feet of landscaping; therefore, to use hydroseeding as a buffer is inappropriate. Also, the planting of Douglas fir trees along this boundary would create an appropriate screening for any subsequent use. Bulk storage is viewed as a special request beyond that. They believe the only reason for the reluctance to landscape the eastern boundary line is economics. As far as the western property line, East Valley Road, is concerned, because of the testimony given by Public Works Department that widening of the roadway is unanticipated, as the proposed bulk storage will not meet maximum limits in this zone, and if the 5-year proviso were instituted, a 10-foot landscaped area could be appropriate. He noted the intent of the Bulk Storage Ordinance is to screen and produce the intent of blending, and it appears that the applicant's proposal does not meet that proviso. The concern is, however, that procedurally they are stuck between something that is permanent and something that is temporary. Relative to screening along the south boundary, it seems that 10 feet of landscaping should be provided, and several possible solutions were suggested. The Examiner inquired if the staff objected to the five-year use. Mr. Blaylock responded that they did not object but found it difficult. The Examiner then asked if it would be appropriate to continue the hearing to provide for further review of the application by the City of the five-year use. Mr. Blaylock indicated a need for legal advice from the City Attorney regarding the possibility of proceeding to an enforcement code. The Examiner then indicated his inclination to continue the hearing unless the applicant has any objections. Mr. Halinen stated his primary objection is that their tenant has been waiting for some time for a determination regarding this issue and asked if the continuation could be made only until next week. Discussion followed in which Mr. Halinen stated he would consider a one-week's continuance and an opportunity to comment to any further staff input. Mr. Blaylock also indicated that provision #4 of the Recommendation be modified to include a reduction of setback to 20 feet from SR-167 as well as the East Valley Road. He further supported the recommendation for planting of Douglas fir trees along that roadway. At 11:34 a.m., the Examiner continued the public hearing until 9:00 a.m. on May 1, 1984, to give the staff and Mr. Halinen an opportunity for further discussion. It was agreed that a supplemental report would be forthcoming from the staff. The continued public hearing was recalled to order at 9:06 a.m. on May 1, 1984, with the previous witnesses considered to be under oath. The Hearing Examiner invited the Zoning Administrator to comment. Mr. Blaylock recalled that the hearing had been continued in order to address two items. The first question is whether it is technically legal to allow site approvals, special permits, and variances with a 5-year limitation as proposed by the applicant. In this regard, he submitted into the record: Exhibit #6 A memorandum from Mr. Blaylock dated May 1, 1984, to the Examiner summarizing a telephone conversation with the City Attorney. In his memorandum Mr. Blaylock indicates that the City Attorney has said that it is appropriate to condition land use decisions to a specific time period. He also suggested that, as a matter of enforcement, restrictive covenants which include a clause stating that the City can recover all costs associated with any enforcement of a breach of special permit conditions be utilized in preference to bonding as a tool for implementation. Responding to the Examiner, Mr. Blaylock advised that a copy of this memorandum had been provided the applicant. EXAMINER'S REPORT DECISION GARY MERLINO CONE .. .JCTION COMPANY Files No. SP-021-84, SA-022-84, V-023-84, V-024-84, V-025-84, and V-026-84 May 11, 1984 Page 7 The second item was a request from the Examiner for departmental comments concerning the 5-year limitation within the intent technicality of the Code. It was reported that all of the departments responding - Policy Development, Building and Zoning,, Fire Prevention, and Traffic Engineering - believe that it did not change any of the circumstances concerning the intent or application of the Code. These responses were then entered into the record as Exhibit #7 Responses from the various City departments concerning the proposed 5-year limitation as it relates to the intent of the Code. It was noted that the applicant had received copies, with the exception of those from the Traffic Engineering Division, which had just been received. Mr. Blaylock then proceeded to summarize the comments. The primary concern of the other departments is that the intent of the Bulk Storage Ordinance is to screen. He noted the specific concern of the Policy Development Department that the matter of time limitation did not address the problem of screening as specified in the Bulk Storage Ordinance and that the criteria should be utilized under the Code. Two recommendations were provided verbally by Mr. Blaylock to the Examiner, depending upon which recommendation the Examiner accepts. If the Examiner were to accept the 5-year clause, a modification to their recommendation would be made; however, if the Examiner finds the 5-year clause unacceptable, the recommendation made originally would stand. Mr. Blaylock, noting that the intent of the Bulk Storage Ordinance is to provide compatibility between adjacent uses, indicated that the primary burden is on the developer to show what bulk storage would be on the site and that could be a condition of the limitation. In this respect, Mr. Blaylock referred to a cross-section illustrating the bulk of the storage area. There will be trailer units consisting of a height of 13-1/2' to 14'. This maximum height is regulated by the State. Should the 5-year limitation be utilized, the nine conditions of approval recommended would be modified as follows: 1. Partial approval of the variance, V-023-84, to reduce the landscaping along East Valley Road. He explained that the intent can be met by using specific faster growing, more dense landscaping materials. This is suggested because it is believed that at the end of the 5-year period the bulk storage would be removed, and the site could be utilized for some other type of use. 2. Regarding the variance request along SR-167, V-024-84, it is their belief that the applicant's proposal to only hydroseed does not meet the intent of the ordinance and that • the site screen fence is essential. Even though it is recognized that the elevation of SR-167 is higher than the site, it will provide immediate screening of the lower portions of the trucks. It is believed that the planting material could also be of a faster growing type, and Douglas fir, four to six feet in height, are suggested. At the end of the 5-year period, the result would be a functional landscape screen, which could be retained through the life of any development, even if the landscaping presently along SR-167 is removed. The smaller materials are suggested due to the fact that the 13 feet in which these trees will be planted is actually an enbankment which could present some stability problems. 3. Relative to variance request V-025-84 to eliminate the 20-foot setback and site screening fence along the southern property line, it is suggested that a reduction is appropriate only if it is reduced to a screening comparable to that existing along East Valley Road. However, the front 90 feet do require screening. A comparable reduction would be to 10 feet. 4. With respect to variance request V-026-84 to allow structures and bulk storage to be located within the 60-foot setback along East Valley Road, it should be noted that with the plans as submitted it would not be a 20-foot setback, but development would be to the screening fence, which would be 10 feet from the property line along East Valley Road and 14 feet from the property line along SR-167. 5. This condition would remain as originally stated: "The paved entrances shall be extended approximately 50 feet farther into the subject site, and the subject site shall be maintained in a gravel surface to assure that mud and debris is not tracked onto the City's streets." EXAMINER•S REPORT . .DECISION GARY MERLINO CONS.,.JCTION COMPANY Files No. SP-021-84, SA-022-84, V-023-84, V-024-84, V-025-84, and V-026-84 May 11, 1984 Page 8 6. This condition would remain also: "The posting of a $500 cash bond to assure clean-up of City street. The bond shall be renewable each year to be maintained at the $500 level by the Board of Public Works. Implementation of clean-up operation will be authorized by either the Police Department or the Public Works Department." 7. This condition would remain as "Approval of detailed storm drainage plans by the Public Works Department." 8. This condition is revised to read, "Approval of detailed landscape plans by the Landscape Architect." It was noted that the intent is that they would be dealing with specific plant materials, possibly Douglas firs, but there is no opposition to other similar materials, and the size and spacing is negotiable. 9. To clarify this condition as originally recommended, Mr. Blaylock stated it is their belief that the Board of Public Works should not grant deferrals in the case of bulk storage applications as the intent of the Bulk Storage Ordinance is to provide immediate screening for that unique feature of open, outdoor storage in a manufacturing park or industrial area of the City. Also, two additional conditions are suggested as follows: 10. That a maintenance bond be established to replace landscaping for that 5-year period to provide continuation of that intent. The intent would be that, should there be any failure of landscaping during that period, it be replaced with landscape materials comparable to what exists at that time. 11. That restrictive covenants be placed on the property limiting the height of the bulk storage to not more than 14 feet and that the enforcement of any action after the 5-year period would be at cost to the underlying property owner. Also suggested is that the restrictive covenants carry the provision that, if the applicant wishes to extend the bulk storage special permit past the fifth year, application must be made at least six months in advance to the end of that 5-year period. The Examiner called upon the representative of the applicant. Mr. Halinen asked Mr. Blaylock to clarify the recommendation made for condition #3. He indicated his understanding that, when he mentioned that it would be appropriate to have a 10-foot landscape strip along the south boundary, he was referring to the west 90 feet, and that the balance, the easterly half acre, would not require a landscape buffer. Mr. Blaylock confirmed that was correct. Mr. Halinen referred to the Zoning Administrator's comments indicating that the proposed conditions are intended to screen the proposed use and indicated their feeling that the variances requested are appropriate given the proposed truck/trailer storage use for the site. He indicated they have no problem with the plant material recommendations for East Valley Road or SR-167. However, they contend they have met the burden of proof, especially with these landscaping materials, regarding each of the requested variances in terms of the setbacks along all the property lines. In reiteration, he stated the Examiner needs to consider a 5-year term to find they have met the burden of proof in respect to those setbacks. Relative to proposed recommendation #9 concerning any action by the Board of Public Works, he questioned whether that condition is appropriate without any City Council action on that matter. The Examiner called for further comment pertaining to the application. Responding was David R. Clemens Policy Development Director City of Renton As Mr. Clemens had not been present at the previous meeting, he was affirmed as a witness by the Examiner. , Mr. Clemens indicated that it is the Policy Development Department's belief that the applicant's proposal to utilize the site for a truck/trailer storage facility is appropriate, and they concur in the approval of that basic use. However, they feel that the proposal to reduce all of the bulk storage standards, and, in some cases eliminate the screening requirements from the site, are inappropriate. He noted that the requirements for light industrial uses of less intensity and with less visual impact are in excess of what this applicant is proposing. There is concurrence in the reduction of the 60-foot setback from public rights-of-way due to the geometric shape of the parcel with rights-of-way on the two closest sides of the triangle. He referred the Examiner to his memorandum dated April 10, 1984, recommending that all the variance requests other than number #4, V-026-84, concerning the 60-foot setback not be EXAMINER'S REPORT - .DECISION GARY MERLINO CON` CTION COMPANY Files No. SP-021-84, SA-022-84, V-023-84, V-024-84, V-025-84. and V-026-84 May 11, 1984 Page 9 approved. He reiterated the recommendation made in his April 10th memorandum that paving within the site be provided in accordance with Section 4-734(J)(8) of the Bulk Storage Ordinance. It is further recommended that the project be acceptable for approval for a 5-year period, which Mr. Clemens indicated they regard as essentially permanent. In view of the City's goal in enacting the Bulk Storage Ordinance to enhance the visibility of sites adjacent to public rights-of-way and, also, to protect the visual effect of residential uses to the east, they believe that the applicant has not met the burden of proof concerning the requested variances with the exception of the 60-foot setback. With respect to the staff's recommendations concerning paving, the Examiner requested clarification from the Zoning Administrator, indicating there may be some interpretive latitude as to what is daily use of the site. Mr. Blaylock stated that it appears that, if you continue under Section 7-734(J)(8). storage areas not intended for maneuvering space may be paved with a surface satisfactory to the Hearing Examiner. Also, the Parking and Loading Ordinance states that such storage lots may be paved with crushed rock or similar materials approved by the Public Works Department. Their intent in recommending paving at entrances is for the protection of public rights-of-way from debris. Mr. Clemens pointed out that the requirement of that section of the Bulk Storage Ordinance does specify asphalt paving, and the Parking and Loading Ordinance makes reference to bulk storage requirements for storage lots exceeding one acre or qualifying as a bulk storage use. Therefore, it is their contention that the circulation elements within the site are required to be paved with an asphalt surface under Subsection (8). The Examiner called for further testimony. Noting none, the hearing was closed at 9:34 a.m. FINDINGS. CONCLUSIONS & DECISION: Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: 1. The applicant, Gary Merlino Construction Company, filed a request for approval of special permit to allow the establishment of a bulk storage use together with a site approval, and variances from the bulk storage provisions. 2. The application file containing the application, the State Environmental Policy Act documentation, the Building and Zoning Department Report, and other pertinent documents was entered into the record as Exhibit #1. 3. Pursuant to the City of Renton's Environmental Ordinance and SEPA a Declaration of Non-Significance has been issued for the subject proposal by the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) responsible official. 4. Plans for the proposal have been reviewed by all city departments affected by the impact. of this development. 5. The subject site is located at 2900 East Valley Road. The eastern property line abuts SR-167. 6. The Lumber Market is located immediately south of the subject site while the Olympic Pipeline Company's pipeline is located north of the subject site. 7. The approximately 5.607 acre subject site is relatively level. The subject site is roughly triangular in shape with an approximately 322 foot long southern property line, a 1,219 foot long western property line (fronting on East Valley Road), a 1,237 foot eastern property line, and a 79 foot long northern property line. The site is approximately 205 feet wide at the proposed division between Phases I and II. 8. The applicant proposes the storage of the trailer unit of tractor trailer rigs on the subject site which, pursuant to Section 4-734, requires a bulk storage special permit and site plan review. The site plan review results from a fill and grade permit requirement. The applicant indicated the use would be temporary, but expressed reservations with even a 5 year limitation. 9. The subject site would serve as a transfer point where new tractor cabs would connect with trailers left by an earlier unit. The entire trailer and its goods would be moved, the site serving only as a transshipment point for the bulk commodity, the trailer and its contents. EXAMINER'S REPORT DECISION GARY MERLINO CONS CTION COMPANY Files No. SP-021-84. SA-022-84, V-023-84, V-024-84. V-025-84, and V-026-84 May 11, 1984 Page 10 10. The applicant has requested a series of variances relating to setback and screening along all but the northern property line. The variances requested are the following: a. Along the east property line adjacent to SR-167: Reduce the landscaping setback to 13 feet of hydroseeding rather than the 20 feet of screening landscaping required. Reduce the 60 foot setback from a public right-of-way in which no bulk storage may occur to the 13 foot landscape setback proposed by the applicant. b. Along the south property line adjacent to the Lumber Market: Eliminate the 20 foot setback and screening fence where it would otherwise abut the existing Lumber Market fence. Eliminate the 20 foot setback along the remainder of the southern property line. c. Along the west property line adjacent to East Valley Road: Reduce the landscaping setback to 10 feet rather than the 20 feet required. Reduce the 60 foot setback from a public right-of-way in which no bulk storage may occur to the 10 foot landscape setback proposed by the applicant. Provide 10 feet of landscaping on the public right-of-way. 11. The subject site is zoned L-1 (Light Industry). The map element of the Comprehensive Plan designates the area in which the subject site is located as suitable for the development of manufacturing park uses. Such uses are to be aesthetically pleasing architecturally and contain expansive setbacks which must be landscaped. They are also to be screened from residential uses located upslope to the east, if possible. by the use of larger trees for landscaping. 12. The subject site was annexed into the City by Ordinance 1743 in April of 1959. The site received its current zoning of L-1 in May, 1959 by Ordinance 1758. 13. The proposed office trailers and employee/visitor parking for Phase I would be located near the southwest corner of the subject site. Employee/visitor parking and the office trailer for Phase II would be located near the north end of the subject site, just south of a proposed reserve strip for the P-9 Channel. Sliding gates would provide access and security for the subject site. 14. The installation of the full required landscaping would require the elimination of one or possibly two tiers of trailer parking. The sixty foot setback requirement would probably have the same limiting effect on the subject site and might preclude bulk storage of trailers on portions of proposed Phase II. 15. The L-1 zone in which the subject site is located would permit a variety of uses subject to much less stringent standards regarding setback and landscaping requirements. 16. The Lumber Market, as well as other similar uses in the general vicinity of the subject site are legal non-conforming uses which pre-date the adoption of the bulk storage standards. These uses also pre-date the adoption of the Green River Valley Comprehensive Plan. 17. The applicant proposes utilizing the various landscape materials provided along the public rights-of-way and utilizing the public right-of-way of East Valley Road to serve as portions of the required setback and buffer. 18. A special permit for bulk storage was recently issued for Burlington Northern. The storage will be mainly automobiles and small trucks. The site is large and will be screened by dense landscaping along all rights-of-way. Beckmann Homes, Inc., an 8,600 foot L-1 site. will provide a 20 foot setback and landscaping in the front yard and two 6 foot landscaped side yards for a new wood shop and office just north of I-405. Most recent rezones for small parcels along I-405 require landscaped front yards and, in some instances, side yards as well. CONCLUSIONS 1. The applicant for a variance must demonstrate: a. That reasonable use of, the subject site would not be possible without approval of a variance because of certain unique factors such as the size, shape, or topography of the subject site. b. That approval of the variance would not grant the applicant a special privilege not enjoyed by others similarly situated. EXAMINER'S REPORT DECISION GARY MERLINO CONS i rcJCTION COMPANY Files No. SP-021-84, SA-022-84, V-023-84, V-024-84, V-025-84, and V-026-84 May 11, 1984 Page 11 c. That there would not be adverse affects on the public heath, safety and welfare, nor upon adjacent property or properties. d. That the variance requested is the minimum necessary for relief. The applicant has failed to demonstrate that variance relief is necessary to permit reasonable use of the subject site; that the variance would not grant the applicant a special privilege; that approval would not be injurious to neighboring properties; nor that the variance is the minimum necessary for relief. 2. Reasonable use of the subject site is possible without variance relief. A wide variety, of uses other than bulk storage are permitted on the subject site and could be accommodated without any need for a variance. The difficulty lies in the applicant's desire to use the site for bulk storage, a type of use greatly restricted because of its generally unsightly, unsavory or unheathly nature. A drive along SR-167 indicates that the bulk storage of trailer rigs is not aesthetically pleasing unless screened with landscaping. 3. Burlington Northern (SP-048-83) which will be storing cars and small trucks will be providing the landscaping required. Albeit Burlington has a larger site, that does not detract from the comparison. The applicant could provide the screening necessary while storing fewer trailers on the site. Burlington could also have utilized greater portions of their site if both screening and setback were not observed. 4. Beckmann Homes, Inc. which has an approximately 8,600 square foot L-1 site is providing 20 feet of landscaping along the public right-of-way adjacent to its site (SA-046-84). That site is also providing 6 feet of landscaping along each of its side yards abutting adjacent property. The subject site at approximately 244,000 square feet is about 28 times as large. The landscaping required by the bulk storage ordinance can be provided. It is just that the applicant is unwilling to provide the landscaping as it would interfere with plans drawn to conflict with City ordinances. 5. The applicant testified that if modifications occurred along either SR-167 or the East Valley Road the applicant would bring the site into compliance. Mr. Halinen stated: "We certainly would conceive that should the need arise for widening the street within the vicinity of our project during the period in which we're using it, we're certainly willing to abide by a condition, accept a condition that says we would have to move the landscaping within the site if we were to continue to operate the site for this use." While widening either roadway is purely conjectural the applicant's tendency to rely on City and State plantings to shelter and buffer the site and provide the necessary screening is inappropriate. The applicant's testimony indicates compliance could be achieved if necessary. As the City is aware due to Victoria Hills Homeowners' complaints such reliance can create problems in the future. Sites should not be permitted to rely on public landscaping or screening if the subject site can provide the landscaping. In this instance, buffering and screening is required by the Bulk Storage Ordinance and should not be varied. 6. To deny the variance is not to deny the applicant's reasonable use of the subject site nor should it be viewed as regressive. The precedent would weigh heavily. Staff has indicated the the neighboring Lumber Market is non-conforming. Issuance of the variances for the subject site would set a precedent which would, for consistency sake, have be be followed if the Lumber Market were to redevelop. Similarly, if the site across East Valley were to develop and request a variance, it would be difficult to distinguish between locations and hard to justify a variance for one site and not the other, since the subject site already can be reasonably developed without a variance. If the variances requested were approved and tomorrow the Lumber Market decided to modernize their facilities their incentive to bring it into conformity would be nil, faced as they would be with the bulk storage of trailers immediately north of their site. While the scenario may be unrealistic in the immediate future it might be reasonable in two years. Why should Burlington Northern have been required to screen a very similar use ifvariancesfromtheaestheticprovisionsmaybewaivedwitheaseandnosupporting hardship shown. Similarly, why should any property owner provide the landscaping and setback if this applicant were to receive the requested variances. 7. There is no justification'not to screen'the subject site save economic incentives to delay or defer aesthetic improvements to the area. The record reflects that landscaping could be planted, but that the applicant finds the requirement in this location unnecessary. EXAMINER'S REPORT \> DECISION GARY MERLINO CONE...JCTION COMPANY Files No. SP-021-84, SA-022-84, V-023-84, V-024-84, V-025-84, and V-026-84 May 11, 1984 Page 12 Citation of adjacent non-conforming uses is unpersuasive. These neighboring uses may have been the catalyst for requiring bulk storage screening. Non-conforming uses cannot be cited to justify variances from provisions which are not unreasonable, because if that were the case every time the code was modified to require a different standard, new applicants could always cite older non-conforming uses as justification for variance relief. 8. The approval of the variances would grant the applicant a special privilege not granted others, especially in light of the fact the applicant can reasonably comply with the provisions, or at least reasonably develop other permitted L-1 uses on the site. Further, as indicated above, the criteria for a variance indicates that approval should be predicated upon conditions which deny the applicant reasonable use of the subject site. It's obvious from the numerous L-1 uses constructed on 5,000 to 10,000 square feet sites such as Beckmann Homes) along the I-405 corridor that reasonable development of the L-1 zoned subject site is possible and not precluded by the bulk storage provisions. 9. In fact, the request is not unlike others of similar bent in which the applicant is not so much indicating that the variances are necessary to allow reasonable use of the subject site but that the variances are not reasonable because the provisions appear unnecessary. The applicant is quibbling with the standards provided which is a matter for legislation if the requirements are found to be unreasonable after Council review. The request to eliminate laundry facilities from a mobile home park was such a request (Leisure Estates Phase II). It is not that the applicant would be deprived reasonable use but that the conditions are unwanted by the applicant. 10. The applicant by requesting the variances when they are unnecessary to attain reasonable use of the subject site is in effect stripping the bulk storage provisions of any useful effect. Since the provisions are intended to apply to a site of 1 acre or larger, and could theoretically apply to a site approximately 209 feet by 209 feet the applicant's considerably larger site could reasonably be expected to meet the minimum requirements. Even the narrow end of the subject site provides area comparable to small L-1 sites. If the subject site were exempted most other sites would conceivably also be exempted, thereby gutting the bulk storage ordinance and nullifying it beneficial effects. 11. If the City is to ever gain control of its non-conforming uses, it must begin somewhere and at some time - that is, at some time certain new development should conform to the City's newly discovered aesthetic and environmental concerns. Attractive, aesthetically and environmentally sensitive development - manufacturing parks, industrial sites, commercial areas, and even bulk storage uses, such as Burlington Northern's - attracts similarly landscaped and designed uses. Pleasing, as opposed to unsightly uses, do not occur in a vacuum. A bulk storage permit is not issued as of right, but particularly imposes higher standards which should not be varied in the instant case. 12. Subject to the above conclusions the variances requested for the subject site are denied. Since the entire request and site plan is predicated upon the issuance of the requested variances the bulk storage special permit and the underlying site plan must be denied. Subject to landscaping with mature trees, shrubs, and grass the site could be integrated into the Green River Valley which is envisioned as including well landscaped, and screened, as well as, well designed uses. These sites seen from both the residential hill above the Valley and from the vantage point of the highways and other public rights-of-way adjacent to the site should be well received. DECISION The special permit and site plan as submitted for bulk storage are denied. The variances are denied. ORDERED THIS llth day of May, 1984. Fred 3. Kaufman ' Land Use Hearing xaminer EXAMINER'S REPORT 1., .DECISION GARY MERLINO CON! JCTION COMPANY Files No. SP-021-84, SA-022-84, V-023-84, V-024-84, V-025-84, and V-026-84 May 11, 1984 Page 13 TRANSMITTED THIS l lth day of May, 1984 to the parties of record: David L. Halinen Staff Civil Engineer Gary Merlino Construction Company 9125 10th South Seattle, WA 98108 TRANSMITTED THIS 11th day of May, 1984 to the following: Mayor Barbara Y. Shinpoch Councilman Richard M. Stredicke Richard Houghton, Public Works Director David Clemens, Policy Development Director Members, Renton Planning Commission Ronald Nelson, Building & Zoning Director Roger Blaylock, Zoning Administrator Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Robert E. Bergstrom, Engineering Supervisor Renton Record-Chronicle The Appearance of Fairness Doctrine provides that no ex parte (private one-on-one) communications may occur concerning land use decisions. This means that parties to a land use decision may not communicate in private with any decision-maker concerning the proposal. Decision-makers in the land use process include both the Hearing Examiner and members of the City Council. All communications concerning the the proposal must be made in public. This permits all interested parties to know the contents of the communication and would allow them to openly rebut the evidence. Any violation of this doctrine would result in the invalidation of the request by the Court. The Doctrine applies not only to the initial public hearing but to all Requests for Reconsideration as well as Appeals to the City Council. Pursuant to Title IV, Section 3015 of the City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed in writing on or before May 25, 1984. Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the Examiner is based on erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact, error in judgment, or the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing may make a written request for review by the Examiner within fourteen (14) days from the date of the Examiner's decision. This request shall set forth the specific errors relied upon by such appellant, and the Examiner may, after review of the record, take further action as he deems proper. An appeal to the City Council is governed by Title IV, Section 3016, which requires that such appeal be filed with the City Clerk, accompanying a filing fee of $75.00 and meeting other specified requirements. Copies of this ordinance are available for inspection or purchase in the Finance Department, first floor of City Hall. ItIRCVRY V6 CR LAMP i N 1 I Thcanc MDCO[N i_ Ir-h-1N1. C TAI' SR g21 _ 7/ i yAt.A..1.-t45-- 177/77///// // /r-....-1 0 7..-////M6 VLLCTRTT MT` z_.,- 7§It3c-0 _--- --1-- \\ Tr/ e:\ r r X\ \ Ill I 1 1 ilCH" PHASE I eLT.II N II056YiCtADiCDRrAL11tALIN6vRMWIRMCftDAR{tA eTIE / Am TO VITMM ID IT. Y 1R MT NL tTJ ' i own vM.i[fl RN /\ T' "` S, PHASE 2R[.-_ Cl raao0: SROAt,M...STN. •-\R DMTR yv[:ITrrreuI Ynci V YL'LR M.YVT .. Trl t< IAR[. 2% .. e' Rlf.1R4'4 CRPLMCI I EM LDYIVTYROR TRYLERS a sk) I 1LIDu1fi AMC y Me// Y ._ 4 ST.S. - y..e.4,.T[-- W+DSCA,.lee.ID[1TR,g(TVIIY MC.AND LD[VILIC--SIT LANDSCM.1 PLAN = I I I I 1 i - M C- u t.Ar r"R- - 1211.38 j.irW Y -.. 4 EAST=VALLEY :RQADu • z'_ ._. L:..... . .. ,. ..... ...- :..._`- .i..: • —.:::. :';.:..... :.. ....... . : .. . .... . . ...I: LE WI ILEGENDNOTES 1 PROPOSED CONC. SIDEWALK ALONG EX CONC.CURB AND GUTTER PROPOSED 8-RIOTOT NIGH CHAIN-LINK FENCE FN REDWOOD SLATS _ I. 11-PoOffs WIDE w-oeamt:nMCRr7D nips MAY et F ca".e.... I. IDIOM TR.Iag WALL Tti N/P.00 WT7If VON TIu,.Ca/...0.4 LI r-EX CONC. SIDEWALK ALONG EX CONC CURB AND GUTTER a.LOV CHAIN-LINK FENCE--MOVE NORTH LES TO PHASE 1/2 BOUNDARY, it. wDormswoven ro TO et imam mown*me acr.x.ru Mun CS: REMAINDER TO BE REMOVED TAO Pools i Dvormosr IN RWavAD. E'. CURB CUT A.SPNALT DRIVEWAY T _ _EX.B-FODT HIGH WOODEN SITE SCREEN FENCE OWNED BY ADJACENT 1 £ Uod•AINARsar fM•ROIIE.r[NTa ALDMA BAST lac M RD UAL. :l.r PIALIOCIATIINAT.TN. .6vYa0 M/MT DT TN[R6IMICTIri AD7ACtI.T %IliJLUMBERMARKET" P.Astt' IPROP:SEC ASPHALT PAVING EAST EDGE Or CRUSHED ROCK SURFACING MERCURY VAPOR LAMP TO BE INSTALLED ON A EC TO 2s FtOT iIGN MCCDED. POLE (SEE DETAIL.ABOVE) wE-war TF!,CK-TRAILER TRAFFIC FLOW DIRECTION a AN EYISTING 20 TO 2:FOOT wiSN >r lOCEN POLE AS-FOOT LONG TRUCK TRAILER I: SITE PLAN UG;=STCI- TRAILER :TSRAGE W[A•Q w ww. STAL-LAY:'.T, 2/.20/Bs MERLINO BULK STORAGE FAC!LITY ' e L------------- 7-- fif vii:-;),..;',`:":,-;.'•- 41,,,•;:.-,: z; 5.-, • , 4, ,,;..x.„4.„.•4:n, t------- 52-------";1 ------------"---5.,.7;:-:,";;:1,1?",,k:-.f -,:,. .,:fi.„;•:;!-ii -..-;•,i,•41,,I.. 70.•-,-;?•P;:rv't••.a5F,t1:7-i:'!.. .;:i€7/I.;%••?1,;•!,,I.1•:iiiiii-,"•::i.?:_47..iS;;:;:.-,-,--fiy; 7.1v.."•,..,;•-.5,„,,,,:qi..,•„,.,..w.„1.,,,., ,,,,,..4.4.„1,;,..,,,„.....,„,,,.....e.,. v,'-‘1•::::fi„f•-•,4,-.--mr•o•-•i",,:4, ',,•_!,;:isi:1•••••;.;;?:-.-1J-..-.1--;1;p:•!•;•1,a5,--f.1.•••As•-y--•-•- • 2,,,,e,••,••••• ..,,,,,,_•.4.,,,,,-,:„,.,1„..,,,,c,-.•„i ........A1,-----1,,, -,.t, r.,..- 7?4,,ti;•.?A„e0'0;11:4;7,:.,:gA:2,Tilltk.;t1A.1,:b,V..t*:-'t„ ,. . 11'.:Pg1-?- 7.frO:k4. 5(•'---- ' ..;-;5 t p,:vit',:,1+.-tirt4 ii.:!.V.; 4,,,,kfitA40,,r,r•"-Vi%?:i,17.eli*P-'!...{:"7-"f - 7 ___--- --— ',.0.:,,,,,,'.....5.,h.....k. te.,4- , . y.., .A.4"k6-ft •'.4...1,04.** -,..',...:."2, ''""". .,,„...4.„1„„.,.,,,,fr.„--,,,,,,,s.haqt.. '.'747....44,-;1%.,.f.E4rV;7., '',4,K7S.A•717."-' yklf.1:.::0,WPZillfif.g.i''fr,.:•1,14,(1 ,-;" :-.s.'..11750,0,.:4*7,:,&t7).7. _..„„,,,:..____.g,,T.,.iA.e.1,34,!„..1k;:ri.Z.,X4W:0,;,resS i.,4.•,%. -"IP" :: "."it,.i. 4"' ,....", ' I:, :' :' :.....,,,.,,, g:,:ei....•4,..,7.7%.r.044;1/0,14.0 1,,,,,',v,,,..4y..,•10.1..,,,,ra,,,z.v,e.-.4 ',,,..i: ," f-S--,,,..?';':,,,ei.:•-•Vi;eff,.F.,..,/i:e V,P1.,,f. ,P..--mt..,-,---...,,,,: 7.---.i ' ::::'.:.''. '.:.: ':''''.:::'•:' '.::.: : ki.: cweii;.)ligk,j1.4%iii1;''Zi.*iiki4,7tP.P.-:•Ivi*:(:V;'WF;50•A;),';'.1:cs.l'.•.:45g!?7,..f.':•• z.,,, P .,,,4'4 t•,6.,'s ce„..,.•••P.:jprO44j.s7,,,,l4t:;,,,5•1,;',.e'.',:•;.'e%f;-' r }• ( i•t,,fP•f-A1,'14',.....,7,/1:;,54,i c.,•' - __ V•igClks'''-ii-'43i4eZINfi"litR4./P*;:•;•T'``Trf;liSIO'f!:PilbrAfg L.f!fr•••nr. ::. - . : 1: t . g 11'i::..;;:::'::. ,;',..., .i:.:.'J.;:•''''''....". 1,.-4-0-.•-,--.7.0.ti0,7i0.-',1••‘•Vi":4,kil-6V714';!,.Y.-f,•://,..,1„;.;:„....if.5;;;,:iy:tY. 1,.....," Vi'...;'.....,',:•10*... f..,:/4'.!..4.$41,V P-4%.:-F47/15:V••••gt:1.11".:YA•-t-'- A.,,-:,:-;:!":,••!::,r.V.:rg. i• ;,'r,L.,117 71-rC4:lie i•-,'':,r.1.11'.1,'*.-r/''''''''"- - . •4.7'3-"-7.----": '' ''::;.-'....:14;':'''''''.:"..... ''"'' ..' ....II' F.'7.:•:;: i,";:•'•t , ,•' `'!-'11. /".:Xli: 1. .1,1?•••7.... , :''' " - V4:274';.5;; ,4':ii..,p1:-..)-F',:,..f f5,‘.iC..1.:,',..,•-• ;;Irci•yelL'',1451.• ' .f.••••.';.,-z.2--:.--7. i...,.:: - ''''''\. .,,,. 0 Eki,... 4,-.,,,...,.;,...-::,1•;",;,,,,;1•:-,A ,,„,.,, ,p,,,,,,-;A:,.:,:,;,,,iy,3),;:A.5,c_r--..,---- i: . .,,,...;, :__- - .. , ... :.,:..: ::;:,,-. 1-..,:::: •::::: ,:,...,„:,,... „, ..„... ,;,.:„.4,•,...-- 1 A E ct.v.,e1!.;:,;',!:::.::.,t`;::-!.;::!:,.;,::-'.i',•;:".!;f?'=. V,I.f•-4:;;;;:kip,-i';1;T;;;:t,,,Y...'•'::!". ...,:-; ;-..!".•!;,---- ' _, . --1''''------7. : :,.:::-•.::::, •,'-':::.,•,--::-:,,. ...t,:-,•:.,::..:...--::::: .-: - -I I ' I I1•':;.i'illifj•A'4.!,,i,'-,:•;,;?.. .'..;1;i:;;..,PZ':EftU'''X;t4t-.124; ‘,:.:::-:•4';' -- - .- , ._ 7,,,.'-----',-",-... ...:.- ' : 'i,''.,'.:: ••••:,.. :, t..f:...-,,- 4:,,::•...'§.6.-.-- I I I /I I i 4;i:„`.:;:..7;•-e•:::;,-,T;,,,;.:-.4.-•le,....i.,•.•,;•::1.--•."- , I I III I I E• - ...CC:1'. iy;j:`,1.4/1.:1./%/.-%;-.1....,,,,•` ' . ....,.., . ,.....i.; ,---- . . .. . ,,.. .r. „. , :i.,.: .:..: l' 'S „ I 0/ 1----................. ni L..\.,I------7-- I 7/40 amunimie I 7,? :e7._: „..2,._,,..„. :„.„. „....,,,,..,. z.,..„.„ 7„,,,,,..,..„.„4„,., „ i.r.:_:•,rts.;,•_ ,. 1..,:... . iffz. ____....... : ...., ff. ::::.1_,..:•::„...,,,:.,:„.. r... 7.,::::..4:;_::,:;,,:. ,:,,,....„i . s. ••., --1-----t•-•,..--.IMIII=IIII • -,,,,••:.:- .-- - .1---.:- ',.... - .,-,- ,----?•••'4,.'i',..-;:` r::• -,4=---. i• :. • .' t - • ., • l':' , - mom. - ,.„-. EAST VALLEY ROAD - A 1-1LI_ , cm.. 4,z.14,,,,/, 2 'I- I ner, r.P.,:s: -Ir. ! F.. i• •,'.:ED LNLSCAPE AREAS AND AREAS ifinQW,Ii::;Z:N CCDE--SPECIFIEr__ BULK '.-3T,:;RIAGE SETEACK r- cs..rIv:---,, -;•;:.;,"....+1"7.s3/.P.i;..;.,si;e'•frriis CR FxsTING VEGETATION BEYOND LANDSCAPE AREA ,;'iEE R....i4-734(U.,) 3:-; ;,,,y,-.s,,. .-,;,‘,..1',.,A,;• t,,::,,,:••::::•-•-'.,..;.4-. 0, Fffr,S,SEr.-.• ?,-F••..,OT HH siTE !..r.:RF.EN VAF- I---",- •-.7- PLC,F.b,..• LAW. .A r E /-21.-.7,:A 7 t. ,,,k. Li JE /.- LE-SPFL;FiEL) MIN'MUM SETBA(.:K ovi F--:E Fc ,. ;;z1-71%-....4-7::.,11;) ,-;:.]-74.4(17)2.)5 F-Cfi 9--F.•_,-,•T 1-11-1 `...rTE '.-A_ISEEN •.:EE. PC ,4-7=ArE • jil •••••:.: Ea MERLIN° BULK STORAGE FACILITY c __. I___-_____ i.....1 ; ...,et .1,, ; i: J.\ .. 4.. I II0.- --... (1741‘ I i. Ai; .,i.' -..! \ 13, P. m I . .51)-I N w •.. . acim It, • s • I • o I I_ 1, „ I ' , • I •r N 1. .111r11• .: • MI -'... • -..; j ''I • 1 i 6.,,o .1=1 V .......:!- l- 11. a.;.)= 111 011 1 1 j\ I41 • 41 /sm III It fll.L 4 0 . l w i_ . 4 G-1 MIN a .f1 ,.R- 1 \B 1 I. 4 _I_ :-.-:‹: — R-4I- :rs. b. . * 4 "_ . G4'I 2..: ate - „- III.vs Is I a Ill; _ I 1 C7\ R-3 1 1.17 . 1 fF:1aITLAO\ 5---* •I .Illl 4 .1F 44 1plgp_LE1 PARK SC ELEMENTARY l , t 5Lr4001 1 subsecr , .eI M1,3 L'1 m I; ga minim .. 1 F' e a o 1 i( .4.tr. ' r'" -ii..-i$ ;i51201. .1. sui e 7.4•,,,,;,...1.:....11,„,,,, , 6 . 77., ‘,.. .,. 454 v.r. it . ...s 1 • L-1 t i ,.... 11 C\ ce, 1:. ‘.;:. : . :• O' I n ` y ••oa' ar p • .• I•..• a' J ._ FT E 1I GARY MERLINO CONSTRUCTION CO. SP-021-84, SA-022-84, V-023-84, V-024-84, V-025-84, V-026-84 APPL I CANT GARY MERLINO CONSTRUCTION CO. TOTAL AREA - 5.607 ACRE^ PRINCIPAL ACCESS EAST VALLEY ROAD Si:I/ 3EXISTINGZONINGL-1+ LIGHT INDUSTRIAL I EXISTING USE UNDEVELOPED PROPOSED USE BULK STORAGE FACILITY FOR SHORT TERM STORAGE OF TRUCK TRAILERS. COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN M-P, MANUFACTURING PARK COMMENTS R. ia,e, ez,..„P11% Ai BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE vi CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON o `,- a/tj t i APPEAL OF THE MAY 11, 1984 DECISION OF THE LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER DENYING THE APPLICATION OF GARY MERLINO CONSTRUCTION CO. FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT, SITE PLAN APPROVAL, AND VARIANCES FILES NO. SP-021-84, SA-022-84, V-023-84, V-024-84, V-025-84, and V-026-84) Specification of Errors Error 1. The Examiner substituted an "other reasonable use" test for the "undue hardship" test specified in City of Renton Code Section 4-722(G)3(a) . (See Examiner's Conclusion l.a.) This substitution caused the Examiner to erroneously conclude that the applicant had not met its burden of proof with respect to the requested variances. The correct test is whether hardship to the applicant resulting from the strict application of Title IV regulations is undue. City of Renton Code Section 4-722(G)3(a) . Instead of using this code-specified test, the Examiner erroneously substituted the much more burdensome other reasonable use" element of the balancing test that is used in Washington to determine whether a regulation is an unconstitutional taking. Natural Resources v. Thurston County, 92 Wn.2d 656, 669 where a private developer's preliminary plat application had been turned down by a board of county commissioners, the Washington State Supreme Court held that the board's action was not a taking, stress- ing the fact that the commissioners had indicated that they would have accepted certain plat layouts other than the one that the developer had proposed) . See also Maple Leaf Investors, Inc. v. Department of Ecology, 88 Wn.2d 726. Having adopted the wrong test, the Examiner then took notice in Conclusion 2 that other uses of the site were possible. Assuming that the existence of other possible uses made reasonable use of the site possible without the requested variances (Conclusion 2, first sentence and Conclusion 6, paragraph 1, last sentence) , the Examiner substantially dismissed the Applicant's and Zoning Administrator's arguments, which were correctly based on the "undue hardship" test. Because the Examiner's entire series of Conclusions and his Decision really were hinged upon this irrelevant conclusion that the site could reasonably be used for something other than trailer storage, the Examiner's Decision is clearly erroneous. Page 1 of 6 In contrast to the "other reasonable use" test, the undue hardship test focuses on the strict application of the zoning code provisions to the specific land use application under consideration. The test does not focus on whether a site's zoning might permit a completely different land use. Here, the Applicant demonstrated that the strict application of the zoning code was undue, and this fact was acknowledged by the Zoning Administrator with respect to variances for a five- year term as is illustrated by his eleven recommended conditions of approval listed on pages 7 and 8 of the Examiner's Report and Decision. Error 2. The Examiner erroneously refused to consider comparisons with adjacent non-conforming uses for variance justifications even though the Applicant made an alternative request for variances with a five-year term. (See Examiner's Conclusion 7.) Because a sub- stantial portion of the evidence supporting the requested variances stems from the legal non-conforming uses in the immediate vicinity of the subject site, the Examiner's refusal to consider the comparisons led him to a clearly erroneous decision. Even assuming for the sake of argument that the legal non-conforming uses should not be cited to justify variances where the variances will be permanent, an applicant certainly should be permitted to cite them where, as here, consideration is given to variances for a short term. The argument against such citation for permanent variances is that the legal non-conforming uses are really only temporary. Any significant changes in such uses (including modernization of facilities or even their replacement after fire) will cause them to have to conform to up-to-date codes. Granting a permanent variance based on such legal non-conforming uses could substantially extend the period during which an area would not have to conform to current codes. However, with a short-term variance, no such substantial lengthening of the period during which an area need not conform to current codes will occur. In fact, where, as here, the subject parcel is part of a limited, well-defined area comprised substantially of legal non-conforming uses that have given no indication of abating in the near future, denial of a right to cite such adjacent non- conforming uses is fundamentally unfair. Error 3. In Examiner's Conclusions 3 & 4, the Examiner created the erroneous impression, through comparison with inapposite cases, that the Applicant is able to provide all of the code-specified landscaping without undue hardship. Neither of the cited cases included variance requests, and neither site had the geometric constraints and other special circumstances that pertain to the subject site. Further, the landscaping proposed in the Beckmann Homes' application was necessary to conform to restrictive covenants that relate back to that site's rezone last fall. No such restrictive covenants exist regarding the subject site. These factors make the Examiner's comparisons of no probative value. The impression that he attempted to create by making them was wholly without basis and thus was clear error. Page 2 of 6 Error 4. The Examiner's contention that " [Mites should not be permitted to rely on public landscaping or screening if the subject site can provide the landscaping" is clearly erroneous. (See Examiner's Conclusion 5, paragraph 3.) Such a statement does not take account of the limited term of use being considered here nor proper account of the fact that the screening function will indeed be provided. Further, the statement is misleading because it suggests that the proposal relies solely upon public landscaping or screening, which it does not. As the Zoning Administrator stressed at the continuation of the Public Hearing, in regard to the proposed five-year term the primary concern of the other departments was not where screening would be provided but rather that screening be provided, the latter presumably being the policy underlying the Bulk Storage Ordinance. With the conditions of approval recommended for a five-year limitation on the variances, the Zoning Administrator made clear that we had met that policy. Error 5. The Examiner erroneously concluded from the testimony of the Applicant's Representative (cited in Examiner's Conclusion 5) that the code-specified landscaping provisions caused no undue hardship upon the Applicant. However, the specific language of the cited testimony and the context in which that testimony was made'provide no support for such a conclusion. First, the context of the cited testimony was that of the highly unlikely contingency that either East Valley Road or SR 167 would be widened during the limited period that the Applicant intends to use the site for trailer storage. I (David Halinen) indicated earlier in my testimony (see Examiner's Report and Decision page 2, paragraph 3) that the Applicant's main concern was "that [itj be permitted to utilize the site for the proposed use, with the requested variances, for a period of approximately five years from the date of occupancy" because of the Applicant's plans to later build commercial warehousing or some other type of project that will require permanent building structures) at the site. Because a full widening of East Valley Road has just barely been completed, and because no widening of SR 167 is proposed for the near future, this contingency appears most unlikely during the short term for which the Applicant intends the requested use. My "concession" was made merely to avoid extended discussion on a point that appeared to me to be nothing more than a "red herring." Second, the language of my comment also does not support an inference that undue hardship does not exist. I merely said that we would accept a condition that says we would have to move the landscaping within the site if we were to continue to operate the site for the trailer storage use]." (Emphasis added.) Because of the extreme unlikelihood that such a contingency will occur during the period that the Applicant desires to use the site for trailer storage, my statement merely conceded that the Applicant was willing to bear the risk of the consequences of the occurrence of this unlikely contingency. In context, the language does not even suggest that the hardship was not undue. Page 3 of 6 contingency. In context, the language does not even suggest that the hardship was not undue. Error 6. The Examiner's gratuitous comments in Conclusion 6 are contrary to the evidence in the record and applicable rules of law and are thus clear error. First, the Examiner's statement that "[t]o deny the variance is not to deny the applicant's reasonable use of the subject site nor should it be viewed as regressive" is both confused and erroneous. As discussed in Error 1, above, speculation about some "other reasonable use" for the site is wholly irrelevant. Under the proper test ("undue hardship") , the denial must be viewed as contrary to law and thus "regressive." Second, the Examiner's expressed difficulty of distinguishing between locations which have justifications for variances and those locations which do not stems, once again, from applying the wrong variance test. In contrast, by applying the code-specified "undue hardship" test, the difficulty becomes only that ordinary difficulty of deciding whether a proposal, on its own merit, faces undue hardships due to the strict application of the zoning code. The subject site's narrow geometry and unique location among several non-conforming uses that lie within the small triangular area bounded by SR 167 and East Valley Road make the subject property easy to distinguish from the site across East Valley Road. The distinction is even easier to make when the short term of use that the Applicant requested is con- sidered. Third, the Examiner's conclusion that the Lumber Market would be left without incentive to modernize if the variances are approved illustrates the inequity in the Examiner's methodology. It suggests that speculative effects on incentives of a non-conforming user to conform to up-to-date code provisions should outweigh the disability that that non- conforming user places upon an adjacent property owner like the Applicant. (The Examiner's statement regarding the reasonability of Lumber Market modernization is especially curious since he took no evidence on that subject.) Here, where the Applicant has indicated a willingness to accept variances for a term of only five years, the incentive effects on the Lumber Market are miniscule, and thus such a weighing clearly favors the grant of variances requested. Fourth, the Examiner's comment that approval of the subject variances would be a waiver "with ease" of the aesthetic provisions with "no supporting hardship shown" flies in the face of the whole record. The Applicant's application and testimony clearly established the special circumstances and undue hardships that justify the variances, which the Zoning Administrator's position subsequently confirmed with respect to variances for a five-year term. Page 4 of 6 Error 7. The Examiner's comment in Conclusion 7 that "[tihere is no justification not to screen the subject site save economic incentives to delay or defer aesthetic improvements to the area" is contrary to the record, misleading, and clearly erroneous. The comment suggests that the proposal will leave the site unscreened, which it will not. The original application included a proposal to provide a full 20 feet of landscaping along East Valley Road plus a site screen fence along the project's north, west, and south boundaries, while relying upon the existing trees within the SR 167 right-of-way margin which already provide substantial screening along the east boundary. With the additional screening provisions that the Zoning Administrator recommended as part of the eleven conditions of approval (listed on pages 7 and 8 of the Examiner's Report and Decision) for the project with a five-year limitation, the Examiner's comment was all the more contrary to the record, misleading, and erroneous. Error 8. The Examiner's Conclusion 8, that "[t]he approval of the variances would grant the applicant a special privilege not granted others," is clearly erroneous. This conclusion was based upon his erroneous earlier refusal to consider comparisons with adjacent non- conforming uses (see Error 2) and his erroneous replacement of the undue hardship" test with an "other reasonable use" test (see Error 1) . Using the "undue hardship" test and properly considering the adjacent non-conforming uses, no special privilege exists especially if the variances are limited to the short five-year term. Error 9. The Examiner's Conclusion 9, that the Applicant is quibbling over standards, is clearly erroneous because this conclusion was expressly premised upon the Examiner's "other reasonable use" test. Error 10. The Examiner's Conclusion 10, that the variance request attempts to strip the bulk storage provisions of any useful effect, is clearly erroneous because it also is premised upon the Examiner's other reasonable use" test. In fact, the Examiner, rather than the Applicant, is the party attempting to strip a portion of the zoning code of any effect. By substituting the "other reasonable use" test for the "undue hardship" test, the Examiner attempts to make qualifi- cation for a variance virtually impossible, thus gutting the variance provisions of any useful effect. Error 11. The Examiner's Conclusion 11 erroneously implies that applicants for bulk storage permits do not have a right to any associated variances even if they have met the burden of proof specified in the zoning code. The Applicant has met its burden of proof with respect to these variances, and they must be granted even though they are associated with the bulk storage provisions. Page 5 of 6 Summary of Action Requested The Applicant hereby requests that the City Council reverse the decision of the Hearing Examiner and grant the special permit, site plan, and variances for a five-year term subject to the eleven conditions of approval recommended by the Zoning Administrator on pages 7 and 8 of the Examiner's Report and Decision. Respectfully submitted by: eCfq)7 -"6- May 25, 1984 David L. alinen, P.E. Date Applicant's Representative Page 6 of 6 WRITTEN APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION/RECOMMENDATION TO RENTON CITY COUNCIL. APPLICATION NAME: FILE NO. SP-021-84, SA-022-84 V-023-84, V-024-84, MERLINO BULK STORAGE FACILITY V-025-84, V-026-84 GARY MERLINO CONSTRUCTION CO. The undersigned interested party hereby files its Notice of Appeal from the Decision or Recommendation of the Land Use Hearing Examiner, dated May 11,19 84 • I . IDENTIFICATION OF PARTY APPELLANT: REPRESENTATIVE (IF ANY) : Name: Gary Merlin() Construction Co. Name: David L. HalinPn, P_F._ Address: 9125 10th Ave. S. Address: same as for appelant Seattle. Washington 98108 Telephone, No. (206) 762-9125 Telephone No. '! 2. SPECIFICATION OF ERRORS (Attach additional sheets if necessary) Set forth below are the specific errors or law or fact upon which this appeal is based: see attached sheets FINDINGS OF FACT: (Please designate number as denoted in the Examiner's Report) No. Error: Correction: CONCLUSIONS: No. Error: Correction: OTHER: No. Error: Correction: 3. SUMMARY OF ACTION REQUESTED: The City Council is requested .to grant the following relief: (Attach explanation, if desired) X Reverse the Decision or Recommendation and grant the following relief: See attached sheets Modify the Decision or Recommendation as follows: Remand to the Examiner for further consideration as follows: Other: 9) ) j102 44#1 jam May 25, 1984 Appellant/Re esentative Signa ure Date NOTE: Please refer to Title IV, Chapter 30 of the Renton Municipal Code, and Sections 4-3016 and 4-3017, specifically (see reverse side of page) for specific appeal procedures. 0538Ed2M984ay 11 OFFICE OF THE LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON REPORT AND DECISION. APPLICANT: GARY MERLINO CONSTRUCTION COMPANY FILES NO. SP-021-84, SA-022-84, V-023-84, 024-84, V-025-84, and V-026-84 LOCATION: 2900 East Valley Road SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The applicant seeks approval of a special permit and site plan approval to allow the construction of a bulk storage facility for the short term storage of truck trailers including three office trailers for employee office and four variances from requirements of the Bulk Storage Ordinance. SUMMARY OF ACTION: Building and Zoning Department Recommendation: Approval of SP-021-84 and SA-022-84 based on conditions; denial of V-023-84; partial approval of V-024-84; partial 717— approval of V-025-84; and approval of V-026-84. Hearing Examiner Recommendation: Special permit and site plan as submitted for . bulk storage are denied. Variances are denied. MAY 1 '10Pf! BUILDING'& ZONING The Building & Zoning Department Report was DEPARTMENT REPORT:received by the Examiner on April 18, 1984. PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the Building and Zoning 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 a the subject as follows: The hearing was opened on April'24, 1984, at 10:09 a.m. in the Council Chambers of the Renton Municipal Building. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner. The following exhibits were entered into the record by the Examiner: Exhibit #1: Yellow file ' . containing the original application, staff report, and other pertinent documents. Exhibit #2: Site plan. Exhibit #3: ' ' Series of 37 total ground photo pages for the Merlino bulk storage facility •as prepared by David L. Halinen, physical engineer, .laid out along a map of the subject site. Roger Blaylock, Zoning Administrator, provided a brief summary of the proposal, advising that the applicant's consulting engineer would' be presenting a 'more detailed presentation later. Noting the complexity of the request, he stated that it deals with site approvals because of the underlying fill and grade permit, a special permit for bulk storage,'and four variances from the bulk storage requirements. He reviewed in detail the four variances requested: (1) to reduce the landscape setback along ,East Valley Road from the required 20 feet to 10 feet, noting that the landscaping in question is' from the property line back and that East Valley Road is situated on the site's west side; (2) to reduce the landscape setback along the east property line, noting that it abuts SR-167 and that the applicant is proposing to utilize landscaping material that would be hydroseeded with no substantive' or vertical types of vegetation planned; (3) to eliminate the 20-foot setback and site screen fence along' the south property line adjacent to the Lumber Market with the building utilizing a similar type storage behind it and to just provide the fencing; (4) a reduction of the 60-foot setback along East Valley Road, noting that the Bulk Storage Ordinance requires landscaping of the first 20 feet along a public right-of-way and no bulk storage within 60 feet, a somewhat obscure prequisite, and this request would specifically allow the applicant to utilize up to the screening fence whether placed at 20 feet or 10 feet in accordance with approval or disapproval of variance II.1 The Examiner interjected to inquire what the reduction would be in landscaping on variance #2, along SR-167. Mr. Blaylock stated present plans show approximately 13' feet of landscaping from the property line to the top edge of the fill area, a reduction of 7 feet. EXAMINER'S REPORT A DECISION GARY MERLINO CONST'rruu:TION COMPANY Files No. SP-021-84, SA-022-84, V-023-84, V-024-84, V-025-84, and V-026-84 May 11, 1984 Page 2 Mr. Blaylock continued with his review, noting that the site has been utilized in the past for a truck terminal, West Coast Trucklines, on a temporary use permit, and a special permit was granted for fill and grade in 1977. These approvals are valid and active due to annual license renewals. He then requested that Mr. Merlino's representative be given an opportunity to make his presentation. Responding was: David L. Halinen Staff Civil Engineer Gary Merlino Construction Company 9125 10th South Seattle, WA 98108 Mr. Halinen expressed appreciation to Mr. Blaylock:for his assistance in the preparation of the application. To explain their reasons for requesting the proposed use at this time, with so many variances, he advised that they have a tenant, Pacific Motor Transport Company, a.subsidiary of Southern Pacific Railway, who would like to use the Phase 1 portion of the site as soon as possible for the proposed trailer storage use. This ,tenant feels that this site is especially appropriate for their short-term needs. It is their feeling that the long-term best use of the site is not for the purpose requested today but rather for some sort of•warehousing or other use that will require permanent buildings to be placed on the site. He noted their plans to build such a project and, therefore, requested that the proposed use be considered an interim use. Noting the site's geometric constraints and position between two roadways, they feel literal application of the Bulk Storage Ordinance, regulations will result in an unreasonable hardship upon the applicant. Their major concern is that they be permitted to utilize the site for the% proposed use, with the requested variances, for a period of approximately five years from the date of occupancy. This will allow for reasonable amortization of the cost of improvements.for the present proposal. Applying for a temporary use permit was considered; however, it is felt that mechanism would not afford sufficient time to provide trailer storage for a tenant and amortization of the cost of improvements. In making this application, they do not specifically limit their request to any specific time duration. Given their desire for subsequent redevelopment of the site and the staff concerns raised in the preliminary report to the Examiner, if the Examiner feels it would be necessary for a finding of a burden of justification for the variances, they would like their proposal to be considered for a period of five years only from the date of occupancy. The Examiner inquired if they would be willing 'to accept that as a condition of approval, to which Mr. Halinen responded affirmatively, if he feels that would be necessary for justification of the variance requests. He stated, however, if the Examiner feels there is sufficient justification without that limitation, they would prefer that it not be imposed. The Examiner requested that Mr. Halinen describe some aspects of the.site for the record.. Mr. Halinen indicated the north edge of the property is approximately 79 feet in width; the frontage along the East Valley Road is approximately '1,219 feet; the south boundary of the site which abuts the Lumber Market site is approximately 322 feet; and there are approximately 1,237 feet of frontage along SR-167. Responding to the. Examiner, he advised that the width at. the delineation between Phase 1 and Phase 2 is,approximately 475 feet. The approximate acreage of the two phases was identified as 2.99 acres in Phase 1 and the,remaining acres in Phase 2. Noting that he was responding to the general theme used by the staff in its report concerning the requested variances, Mr. Halinen advised that the subject property is at the extreme north end of a triangular-shaped strip that is zoned L-1, and it is presently occupied by quite a few light industrial uses. The , property to the. west, across East Valley Road, 'is currently undeveloped. In justification of the variances requested, an attempt was made to evaluate existing uses in the area, as they meet the requirements of the.Bulk Storage Ordinance, and to compare and contrast various attributes of these existing uses against the proposed variances. He acknowledged that these uses are legal nonconforming uses.. It is felt that, if their proposal is limited to a five-year duration, these concerns should be considered to be as equitable in justifying these variances as long-term legal .nonconforming uses. He noted that none of the existing businesses have made any indications of changes that would terminate their legal nonconforming uses. Also, since the contested variances all deal with site screening, he requested that the Examiner take special note of staff's own view of the bulk storage screening requirements and referred to item 3 on page 4, which includes the statement, "The Bulk Storage Ordinance suggests a minimum width of landscaping to screen the "worst cases of industrial storage yards." As an example of "worst case," he offered the possibility of an open pile of coal that might extend to a height of approximately 35 feet and indicated their feeling that the storage of trailers would be more pleasing. EXAMINER'S REPORT Al )ECISION GARY MERLINO CONSTF ,„TION COMPANY Files No. SP-021-84, SA-022-84, V-023-84, V-024-84, V-025-84,.and V-026-84 May 11, 1984 Page 3 As a point•of'advisement, the Examiner requested that Mr. Halinen direct his attention to more reasonable use of the subject site rather than the other provisions of granting of special privilege. Essentially, the question would be, "Is there reasonable use of the subject site without any of the variances or one of the variances requested?" Mr. Halinen indicated his feeling that there was not. With regard to unsightliness, Mr. Halinen described- the truck trailers as compact, with a maximum height of 13'-6", which is below the maximum bulk storage use permitted. The trailers will occupy less than half of the site due to the necessary egress aisles. Further, the proposal is for truck/trailer interchange only and not for loading and unloading the trailers at the site. He noted their feeling that screening for such use should not be determined by standards for the worst cases. He requested clarification of Mr. Blaylock regarding the staff position on the applicability of Renton Code 4-734(E)(2) with respect to the boundary along SR-167. In his original application he presumed, because the east edge of the property abuts SR-167, that would be considered a public right-of-way; and as such they would be faced with 60-foot bulk storage setbacks and landscaping provisions. In reviewing. the staff report, he found no mention of any 60-foot setbacks or special bulk storage landscaping provisions based on that code section for that side of the property. Those issues were addressed, however, with regard to the East Valley Road. Mr. Blaylock indicated that his understanding was that the 60-foot requested variance was from both public rights-of-way. Mr. Halinen asked if he were incorrect in making an interpretation that the 60-foot setback from the freeway as well as the East Valley Road is required. Mr. Blaylock indicated that state highways are considered public rights-of-way, and therefore he feels the variance.is necessary. Mr. Halinen indicated that, if it is the staff's contention that the variance is necessary but they are recommending approval of the 60-setback reduction on the east edge of the highway, that is acceptable. Mr. Blaylock noted that the basis for their approval is the geometric shape of the property, as 60 feet would leave no maneuvering space in Phase 2 and a very marginally usable Phase 1. The Examiner inquired regarding the specific staff recommendation for East Valley Road. In reply, Mr. Halinen provided the details of the request and the following further discussion. He stated that along East Valley Road they note two items of concern: First, Section 4-734 requires 20 feet of landscaping along the road frontage and a 60-foot bulk storage setback from the property line. They propose to provide 20 feet of landscaping, but not totally within the site's boundary. Introduced into the record was Exhibit #4 Sepia-toned Variance Exhibit. Indicated on the site plan and, also on the variance exhibit, a full 20 feet of landscaping are planned, but 10 feet will be within the property and the.balance within the 10 - 11 foot wide margin of East Valley Road that lies behind the sidewalk. This matter was discussed with Richard Houghton, Public Works Director, who seemed to indicate that a right-of-way permit could be issued if requested. He noted that the staff takes exception for the following reasons: They discount provision of the balance of the landscaping within the public right-of-way, suggesting that only 10 feet will be provided, which will impact the properties across the street, and they indicate' a concern that at some future date East Valley 'Road could be widened. He pointed out that East Valley Road was improved just this year through City of Renton. L.I.D. 314, which included street widening and installation of curbs, gutters, and sidewalks on both sides of the street within the vicinity of the subject project. Should the need arise for widening of the street, they are willing to accept a condition indicating that they would have to move the landscaping to within the site in order to continue operation of this use. They believe that it is unlikely that would occur and'request that Bob Bergstrom, Engineering Supervisor, be given an opportunity to comment about those prospects. The Examiner invited testimony from the Public Works Department. Responding was Bob 'Bergstrom Engineering Supervisor City of Renton Mr. Halinen asked Mr. Bergstrom regarding his opinion of the prospects for widening of East Valley Road in the vicinity of the subject project, especially during the next five years. Mr. Bergstrom indicated it is their opinion that the three-lane roadway configuration will be adequate for East Valley Road for the foreseeable future, and he confirmed that the three lanes had been installed through L.I.D. 314 within the last year. Responding to a request for a specific definition of "foreseeable future" from the Examiner, he indicated they are looking into the 1990s, as at present the road serves only as a local collector street for light industry businesses along the easterly side of the Valley. EXAMINER'S REPORT / DECISION 7 GARY MERLINO CONST COMPANY Files No. SP-021-84, SA-022-84, V-023-84, V-024-84, V-025-84, and V-026-84 May 11, 1984 Page 4 Regarding the necessity for this particular variance, Mr. Halinen stated that it is their position that in laying out the use of the site they would probably be faced with losing the entire row of stalls were they to bring the entire 20 feet within the site, as the aisles are presently at the minimum width for reasonable maneuverability of truck-trailer combinations as they are delivering or picking up trailers. This is therefore regarded as a very important variance for reasonable use of the project. Their second concern regards the frontage along East Valley Road. The staff has recommended approval of their request for a variance from the 60-foot bulk storage setback. He referred the Examiner to his variance justification report included with the appiication, rather than elaborate further, unless it was wished otherwise. Mr. Kaufman indicated he was trying to determine what the Building and Zoning Department has or has not recommended. Mr. Halinen, referring to page 9 of the staff report under recommendation #4, noted that a recommendation similar to the setback from East Valley Road was made for the setback from SR-167. Relative to the second variance requested, concerning elimination-of the site screen fence on the east boundary and, also, the landscaping associated with that particular provision, the site plan was modified slightly after the application was submitted in view of their discovery that the slope of the east edge of the-property was a little wider than originally anticipated - 13 feet rather than 10 feet. Therefore, he amended the original request, as noted in the report, to provide a 13-foot wide strip along the east property line. To clarify, the Examiner indicated his understanding that within the 13 feet of the east property line there is a slope severe enough that practical use of it cannot be made. He inquired if the applicant is willing to landscape that area. This was confirmed by Mr. Halinen. He reiterated,their problem, because of the site's narrow geometry, that they are very limited in width in laying out a reasonable number of stalls for truck storage, and therefore for reasonable use of the site the variances requested are necessary. One major justification for the variances is that there is an existing row of large trees within the. SR-167 right-of-way margin which provides substantial screening from the highway and meeting the literal code requirements would be redundant. He acknowledged, the staff's concern that the State Highway Department could come in and widen SR-167 and remove that screen of trees. In response to the possibility, they request that a condition be added that, should the State Highway Department remove those trees for any reason including the widening of the road, the applicant would be required to conform to the staff request as proposed. He reiterated their feeling, that should the variances be granted subject to a. five-year term, those trees should provide adequate landscaping during that period. The Examiner inquired further regarding the adequacy of the use of the site, asking should trees be provided within that setback would that deny reasonable use of the subject site. Mr. Halinen indicated that question had been addressed in the variance justifications, and he recalled that the primary argument is that it is unreasonably economically burdensome upon the applicant to do so, when, in fact, other property owners in the area have not been required to do so, and when there is no practical advantage of any significance to be gained by the City having it accomplished. He indicated his, agreement that'physically they are not prevented from making use of the site as proposed by the staff. Again, regarding this variance request for the elimination of the site screen fence and landscaping, Mr. Halinen noted that staff had pointed out that Burlington Northern, in a recent special permit request, was required to substantially landscape for a bulk storage site (bottom of page 5). He indicated that Burlington Northern is not similarly situated because it does not abut the freeway, does not have existing vegetation and screening of the site from an adjoining public right-of-way, and their site does not suffer from the geometric hardships of this • particular site. Also, he pointed out that the road grade of SR-167 is substantially higher than the site. Because of that elevation difference, even an 8-foot high site screening fence and other plantings, if the trees were not there, would be of little consequence at least for five years until the trees were fully matured. He introduced an exhibit illustrating that situation in support of his argument. Exhibit #5 An elevation drawing of a cross-section. Mr. Halinen noted this cross-section is labeled "B-B" and conforms to the section "B-B" as shown on the site plan (Exhibit #2). The only difference is that this cross-section has been drawn at a scale of 1" = 10' both horizontally and vertically to illustrate the perspective from an automobile heading southbound on SR-167. He indicated their feeling that it is impossible to set up a fence of reasonable height to accomplish the necessary screening. The Examiner directed Mr. Halinen's attention to the fact that installation of a fence would not deny the applicant reasonable use of the property and that economics has never been accepted by the EXAMINER'S REPORT Al DECISION GARY MERLINO CONSThuLTION COMPANY Files No. SP-021-84, SA-022-84, V-023-84, V-024-84, V-025-84, and V-026-84 May 11, 1984 Page 5 courts of this state, nor any other body generally, as reason for granting a variance. He also noted that any difficulties with meeting some of the requirements of the Bulk Storage Ordinance should properly be directed to the City Council, depending upon whether the variance could or could not be granted. With regard to the third variance requested to eliminate the 20-foot setback and site screen fence along the south property line, Mr. Halinen noted that their boundary abuts the Lumber Market and that facility has a red building which faces East Valley Road on the west portion of that property. The easterly portion of their site is enclosed by an approximately 8-foot high red vertical board site screen fence, and the fence on the south property line is for all practical purposes on the boundary line. From the northwest corner of that fence, the applicant has installed a chain-link type fence which extends to approximately the west boundary of that site. The locations of these fences were pointed out on the site plan. If they were to be required to provide the 20-foot setback in landscaping, they feel that reasonable use could not be made of the site, and they would not have a special privilege because of the way in which the other L-1 bulk storage users in the vicinity have situated themselves. Referring to item 13 on page 6, he noted that the staff concedes that granting variances subject to conditions subsequent is appropriate, in which it is indicated that, should the operation of the lumber market to the south cease, provisions should be included which would require the applicant to put in the additional landscaping and screening. He pointed out that, since staff considers this appropriate, the other variances could also be considered appropriate subject to conditions subsequent. He also referred to item 14, in which the staff indicates that protection of the future interests of the lumber market is also a consideration, and Mr. Halinen indicated that they could accept a condition subsequent. However, they do contend, given the physical condition on the neighboring property and the impact that a 20-foot setback would have even on the west leg of their south boundary, they should be granted the variance along the entire south boundary. In respect to the fourth variance requested to allow structure and bulk storage to be located within the 60-foot setback along East Valley Road, Mr. Halinen noted that the 60-foot setback requirements along East Valley Road and SR-167 have already been covered. He noted that much more detail regarding justifications and comparisons have been provided with the application and are included in the yellow file, Exhibit #1. In summary, he indicated they are willing to abide by the Examiner's decision for a 5-year term for the special permit and related variances. They feel that the variances are necessary to make reasonable use of the property. He also offered to respond to any questions. The Examiner indicated that he had asked most of his questions in the process of the proceedings and had read all of the documents in the yellow file. He then called for further testimony from the audience. In response, Mr. Bergstrom referred to his memorandum of March 13, 1984, which is included in both the file and staff report, and pointed out that the north 85 feet of the site is part of the proposed P-9 Channel right-of-way, and it is recommended that, as a condition of approval, some type of easement or dedication be required so that Soil Conservation Service federal funding can be obtained for that project. He noted that it has been recommended that that area be reserved for the required 2% of the site reserved for wildlife habitat and indicated that this is in conflict with S.C.S. regulations. This requirement must be met in another location, as the S.C.S. requires 2% in addition to the canal right-of-way. In response, Mr. Halinen advised that, subsequent to the Public Works Department bringing the matter of the P-9 Channel to their attention, he had sent a letter dated April 3, 1984, to the Environmental Review Committee, regarding their plans for the property in that area. In that letter it was indicated that they do not intend to dedicate that property to the City at this time; however, they are proposing development which would preclude future P-9 Channel construction, and their intention to not dedicate the property should have no bearing on whether or not a declaration of environmental non-significance should be issued. The subsequent declaration of non-significance was issued with a proviso that "The north 75 feet across the site shall be put in reservation, dedication or easement for drainage and wildlife purposes." He indicated no problem with this condition as it reads, but they do not feel they are a substantial beneficiary of the P-9 Channel construction and that all of the. options that are listed for reservation, dedication, or easement for drainage and wildlife purposes should remain as written. In addition, he pointed out that the matter of the 2% for wildlife area was specifically discussed in the Hearing Examiner's report regarding their initial grading permit for this project, and he felt that issue was therefore closed. The Environmental Review Committee made its decision subsequent to submittal of this letter and appears to be saying that at least in terms of the threshold determination, that it is appropriate to have the 2% for wildlife within that area. EXAMINER'S REPORT Al )ECISION GARY MERLINO CONSTkuTION COMPANY Files No. SP-021-84, SA-022-84, V-023-84, V-024-84, V-025-84,.and V-026-84 May 11, 1984 Page 6 The Examiner requested that the record reflect, that there was no one else in attendance at the hearing. He then granted the Zoning Administrator an opportunity for further comment. Mr. Blaylock noted that the applicant has created an unusual situation by stating that his client will be bound by a five-year limitation. He described their efforts to convince the applicant that a temporary permit procedure was applicable, but this they found to be unacceptable. Therefore, they were advised that a permanent solution had to be addressed and resolved for the subject site. Continuing, Mr. Blaylock noted that the five-year limitation had created a kind of intermediate use and function of the site. However, based upon the past performance of the same property owner, a five-year limitation could become an enforcement problem in the fifth year. He also noted that in the past a variance has never been granted for a specifically limited period but is normally considered permanent. Accepting the 5-year limitation, the Building and Zoning Department might consider further review of their recommendations. However, the point of contention continues to be the reasonable use of the property, and it was noted that uses in the L-1 zone would have specific limitations imposed whether or not they were a special permit for bulk storage or an allowed use in that classification. .Specifically, with the second variance, which deals with landscaping along SR-167, another use would require 10 feet of landscaping; therefore, to use hydroseeding as a buffer-is inappropriate. Also, the planting of Douglas fir trees along this boundary would create an appropriate screening for any subsequent use. Bulk storage is viewed as a special request beyond that. They believe the only reason for the reluctance to landscape the eastern boundary line is economics. As far as the western property line, East Valley Road, is concerned, because of the testimony given by Public Works Department that widening of the roadway is unanticipated, as the proposed bulk storage will not meet maximum limits in this zone, and if the 5-year proviso were instituted, a 10-foot landscaped area could be appropriate. He noted the intent of the Bulk Storage Ordinance is to screen and produce the intent of blending, and. it appears that the applicant's proposal does.not meet that proviso. The concern is, however, that procedurally they are stuck between something that is permanent and something that is temporary. Relative to screening along the south,boundary, it seems that 10 feet of landscaping should be provided, and.several possible solutions were suggested. The Examiner inquired if the staff objected to the five-year use. Mr. Blaylock responded that they did not object but found it difficult. The Examiner then asked if it would be appropriate to continue the hearing to provide for further review of the application .by the City of the five-year use. Mr. Blaylock indicated a need for legal advice from the City Attorney regarding the possibility of proceeding. to an enforcement code. • The Examiner then indicated his inclination to continue the hearing unless the applicant has any objections. Mr. Halinen stated his primary objection is that their tenant has.been waiting for-some time for a determination regarding this issue. and asked if the continuation could be..made only until next week. Discussion followed in which Mr. Halinen stated he would consider a one-week's continuance and an opportunity to comment to any further staff input. Mr. Blaylock also indicated that provision #4 of the Recommendation be modified to include a reduction of setback to 20 feet from SR-167 as well as the East Valley Road. He further supported the recommendation for planting of Douglas fir trees along that roadway. At 11:34 a.m., the Examiner continued the public hearing until 9:00 a.m. on May 1, 1984, to give the staff and Mr. Halinen an opportunity for further discussion. It was agreed that a supplemental report would'be forthcoming from the staff. . The continued public hearing was recalled to order at 9:06 a.m. on May 1, 1984, with the previous witnesses considered to be under oath. The Hearing Examiner invited the Zoning Administrator to comment. Mr. Blaylock recalled that the hearing had been continued in order to address two items. The first question is whether it is technically legal to allow site approvals, special permits, and variances with a 5-year limitation as proposed by the applicant. In this regard, he submitted into the record: Exhibit,#6 A memorandum from Mr. Blaylock dated May 1, . 1984, to the Examiner summarizing a telephone conversation with the City Attorney. In his memorandum Mr. Blaylock indicates that the City Attorney has said that it is appropriate to condition land use decisions to a specific time period. He also suggested that, as a matter of enforcement, restrictive covenants which include a clause stating that the City can recover all costs associated with any enforcement of a breach of special permit conditions be utilized in preference to bonding as a tool for implementation. Responding to the Examiner, Mr. Blaylock advised that a copy of this memorandum had been provided the applicant. EXAMINER'S REPORT AI I)ECISION GARY MERLINO CONSTRui:TION COMPANY Files No. SP-021-84, SA-022-84, V-023-84, V-024-84, V-025-84, and V-026-84 May 11, 1984 Page 7 The second item was a request from the Examiner for departmental comments concerning the 5-year limitation within the intent technicality of the Code. It was reported that all of the departments responding - Policy Development, Building and Zoning, Fire Prevention, and Traffic Engineering - believe that it did not change any of the circumstances concerning the intent or application of the Code. These responses were then entered into the record as Exhibit #7 Responses from the various City departments concerning the proposed 5-year limitation as it relates to the intent of the Code. It was noted that the applicant had received copies, with the exception of those from the Traffic Engineering Division, which had just been received. Mr. Blaylock then proceeded to summarize the comments. The primary concern of the other departments is that the intent of the Bulk Storage Ordinance is to screen. He noted the specific concern of the Policy Development Department that the matter of time limitation did not address the problem of screening as specified in the Bulk Storage Ordinance and that the criteria should be utilized under the Code. Two recommendations were provided verbally by Mr. Blaylock to the Examiner, depending upon which recommendation the Examiner accepts. If the Examiner were to accept the 5-year clause, a modification to their recommendation would be made; however, if the Examiner finds the 5-year clause unacceptable, the recommendation made originally would stand. Mr. Blaylock, noting that the intent of the Bulk Storage Ordinance is to provide compatibility between adjacent uses, indicated that the primary burden is on the developer to show what bulk storage would be on the site and that could be a condition of the limitation. In this respect, Mr. Blaylock referred to a cross-section illustrating the bulk of the storage area. There will be trailer units consisting of, a height of.13-1/2' to 14'. This maximum height is regulated by the State. Should the 5-year limitation be utilized, the nine conditions of approval recommended would be modified as follows: 1. Partial approval of the variance, V-023-84, to reduce the landscaping along East Valley Road. He explained that the intent can be met by using specific faster growing, more dense landscaping materials. This is suggested because it is believed that at the end of the 5-year period the bulk storage would be removed, and the site could be utilized for some other type of use. 2. Regarding the variance request along SR-167, . V-024-84, it is their belief that the applicant's proposal to only hydroseed does not meet the intent of the ordinance and that the site screen fence is essential. Even though it. is recognized that the elevation of SR-167 is higher than the site, it will provide immediate screening of the lower portions of the trucks. It is believed that the planting material could also be of a faster growing type, and Douglas fir, four to six feet in height, are suggested. At the end of the 5-year period, the result would be a functional landscape screen, which could be retained through the life of any development, even if the landscaping presently along SR-167 is removed. The smaller materials are suggested due to the fact that the 13 feet in which these trees will be planted is actually an enbankment which could present some stability problems. 3. Relative to variance request V-025-84 to eliminate the 20-foot setback and site screening fence along the southern property line, it is suggested that a reduction is appropriate only if it is reduced to a screening comparable to that existing along East Valley Road. However, the front 90 feet do require screening. A comparable reduction would be to 10 feet.' 4. With respect to variance request V-026-84 to allow structures and bulk storage to be located within the 60-foot setback along East Valley Road, it should be noted that with the plans as submitted it would not be a 20-foot setback, but development would be to the screening fence, which would be 10 feet from the property line along East Valley Road and 14 feet from the property line along SR-167. 5. This condition would remain as originally stated: "The paved entrances shall be extended approximately 50 feet farther into the subject site, and the subject site shall be maintained in a gravel surface to assure that mud and debris is not tracked onto the City's streets." EXAMINER'S REPORT Al DECISION GARY MERLINO CONSTI _.-;TION COMPANY Files No. SP-021-84, SA-022-84, V-023-84, V-024-84, V-025-84, and V-026-84 May 11, 1984 Page 8 6. This condition would remain also: "The posting of a $500 cash bond to assure clean-up of City street. The bond shall be renewable each year to be maintained at the $500 level by the Board of Public Works. Implementation of clean-up operation will be authorized by either the Police Department or the Public Works Department." 7. This condition would remain as "Approval of detailed storm drainage plans by the Public Works Department." 8. This condition is revised to read, "ApprovalApproval of detailed landscape plans by the Landscape Architect." It was noted that the intent is that they would be dealing with specific plant materials, possibly Douglas firs, but there is no opposition to other similar materials, and the size and spacing is negotiable. 9. To clarify this condition as originally recommended, Mr. Blaylock stated it is their belief that the Board of Public Works should not grant deferrals in the case of bulk storage applications as the intent of the Bulk Storage Ordinance is to provide immediate screening for that unique feature of open, outdoor storage in a manufacturing park or industrial area of the City. Also, two additional conditions are suggested as follows: 10. That a 'maintenance bond be established to replace landscaping for that 5-year period to provide continuation of that intent. The intent would be that, should there be any failure of landscaping during that period, it be replaced with landscape materials comparable to what exists,at that time. 11. That restrictive covenants be placed on the property limiting the height of the bulk storage to not more than 14 feet and that the enforcement of any action after the 5-year period would be at cost to the underlying property owner. Also suggested is that the restrictive covenants carry the provision that, if the applicant wishes to extend the bulk storage special permit past the fifth year, application must be made at least six months in advance to the end of that 5-year period. The Examiner called upon the representative of the applicant. Mr. Halinen asked Mr. Blaylock to clarify the recommendation made for condition #3. He indicated his understanding that, when he mentioned that it would be appropriate to have a 10-foot landscape strip along the south boundary, he was referring to the west 90 feet, and that the balance, the easterly half acre, would not require a landscape buffer. Mr. Blaylock confirmed that was correct. Mr. Halinen referred to the Zoning Administrator's comments indicating that the proposed conditions are intended to screen the proposed use and indicated their feeling that the variances requested are appropriate given the proposed truck/trailer storage use for "the site. He indicated they have no problem with the plant material recommendations for East Valley Road or SR-167. However, they contend they have met the burden of proof, especially with these landscaping materials, regarding each of the requested variances in terms of the setbacks along all the property lines. In reiteration, he stated the Examiner needs to consider a 5-year term to find they have met the burden of proof in respect to those setbacks. Relative to proposed recommendation #9 concerning any action by the Board of Public Works, he questioned whether that condition is appropriate without any City Council action on that matter. The Examiner called for further comment pertaining to the application. Responding was David R. Clemens Policy Development Director City of Renton As Mr. Clemens had not been present at the previous meeting, he was affirmed as a witness by the Examiner. Mr. Clemens indicated that it is the Policy Development Department's belief that the applicant's proposal to utilize the site for a truck/trailer storage facility is appropriate, and they concur in the approval of that basic use. However, they feel that the proposal to reduce all of the bulk storage standards, and, in some cases eliminate the screening requirements from the site, are inappropriate. He noted that the requirements for light industrial uses of less intensity and with less visual impact are in excess of what this applicant is proposing. There is concurrence in the reduction of the 60-foot setback from public rights-of-way due to the geometric shape of the parcel with rights-of-way on the two closest sides of the triangle. He referred the Examiner to his memorandum dated April 10, 1984, recommending that all the variance requests other than number #4, V-026-84, .concerning the 60-foot setback not be EXAMINER'S REPORT Al )ECISION GARY MERLINO CONSTRu6TIONCOMPANY Files No. SP-021-84, SA-022-84, V-023-84, V-024-84, V-025-84, and V-026-84 May 11, 1984 Page 9 approved. He reiterated the recommendation made in his April 10th memorandum that paving within the site be provided in accordance with Section 4-734(3)(8) of the Bulk Storage Ordinance. It is further recommended that the project be acceptable for approval for a 5-year period, which Mr. Clemens indicated they. regard as essentially permanent. In view of the City's goal in enacting the Bulk Storage Ordinance to enhance the visibility of sites adjacent to public rights-of-way and, also, to protect the visual effect of residential uses to the east, they believe that the applicant has not met the burden of proof concerning the requested variances with the exception of the 60-foot setback. With respect to the staff's recommendations concerning paving, the Examiner requested clarification from the Zoning Administrator, indicating there may be some interpretive latitude as to what is daily use of the site. Mr. Blaylock stated that it appears that, if you continue under Section 7-734(3)(8), storage areas not intended for maneuvering space may be paved with a surface satisfactory to the Hearing Examiner. Also, the Parking and Loading Ordinance states that such storage lots may be paved with crushed rock or similar materials approved by the Public 'Works Department. Their intent in recommending paving at entrances is for the protection of public rights-of-way from debris. Mr. Clemens pointed out that the requirement of that section of the Bulk Storage Ordinance does specify asphalt paving, and the Parking and Loading Ordinance makes reference to bulk storage requirements for storage lots exceeding one acre or qualifying as a bulk storage use. Therefore, it is their contention that the circulation elements within the site are required to be paved with an asphalt surface under Subsection (8). The Examiner called for further testimony. Noting none, the hearing was closed at 9:34 a.m. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & DECISION: Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: 1. The applicant, Gary Merlino Construction Company, filed a request for approval of special permit to allow the establishment of a bulk storage use together with a site approval, and variances from the bulk storage provisions. 2. The application file containing the application, the State Environmental Policy Act documentation, the Building and Zoning Department Report, and other pertinent documents was entered into the record as Exhibit #1. 3. Pursuant to the City of Renton's Environmental Ordinance and SEPA a Declaration of Non-Significance has been issued for the subject proposal by the 'Environmental Review Committee (ERC) responsible official. 4. Plans for the proposal have been reviewed by all city departments affected by the impact of this development. 5. The subject site is located at 2900 East Valley Road. The eastern property line abuts SR-167. 6. The Lumber Market is located immediately south of the subject site while the Olympic Pipeline Company's pipeline is located north of the subject site. 7. The approximately 5.607 acre subject site is relatively level. The subject site is roughly triangular in shape with an approximately 322 foot long southern property line, a 1,219 foot long western property line (fronting on East Valley Road), a 1,237 foot eastern property line, and a 79 foot long northern property line. The site is approximately 205 feet wide at the proposed division between Phases I and II. 8. The applicant proposes the storage of the trailer unit of tractor trailer rigs on the subject site which, pursuant to Section 4-734, requires a bulk storage special permit and site plan review. The site plan review results from a fill and grade permit requirement. The applicant indicated the use would be temporary, but expressed reservations with even a 5 year limitation. 9. The subject site would serve as a transfer point where new tractor cabs would connect with trailers left by an earlier unit. The entire trailer and its goods would be moved, the site serving only as a transshipment point for the bulk commodity, the trailer and its contents. EXAMINER'S REPORT A DECISION GARY MERLINO CONSTRuLTION COMPANY Files No. SP-021-84, SA-022-84, V-023-84, V-024-84, V-025-84, and V-026-84 May 11, 1964 Page 10 10. The applicant has requested a series of variances relating to setback and screening along all but the northern property line. The variances requested are the following: a. Along the east property line adjacent to SR-167: Reduce the landscaping setback to 13 feet of hydroseeding rather than the 20 feet of. screening landscaping required. Reduce the 60.foot setback from a public right-of-way in which no bulk storage may occur to the 13 foot landscape setback proposed by the applicant. b. Along the south property line adjacent to the Lumber Market: Eliminate the 20 foot setback and screening fence where it would otherwise abut the existing Lumber Market fence. Eliminate the 20 foot setback along the remainder of the southern property line. c. Along the west property line adjacent to East Valley Road: Reduce the landscaping setback to 10 feet rather than the 20 feet required. Reduce the 60 foot setback from a public right-of-way in which no bulk storage may occur to the 10 foot landscape setback proposed by the applicant. Provide 10 feet of landscaping on the public right-of-way. 11. The subject site is zoned L-1 (Light Industry). The map element of the Comprehensive Plan designates the area in which the subject site is located as suitable for the development of manufacturing park uses. Such uses are to be aesthetically pleasing architecturally and contain expansive setbacks which must be landscaped. They are also to be screened from residential uses located upslope to the east, if possible, by the use of. larger trees for landscaping. 12. The subject site,was annexed into the City by Ordinance 1743 in April of 1959. The site received its current zoning of L-1 in May, 1959 by Ordinance 1758. 13. The proposed office trailers and employee/visitor parking for Phase I would be located near the southwest corner of the subject site. Employee/visitor parking and the office trailer for Phase II would be located near the north end of the subject site, just south'of a proposed reserve strip for the P-9 Channel. Sliding gates would provide access and security for the subject site. 14. The'installation of the full required landscaping would require the elimination of one or possibly two'tiers of trailer parking. The sixty foot setback requirement would probably have the same limiting effect on the subject 'site and might preclude bulk storage of trailers on portions of proposed Phase II. 15. The L-1 zone in which the subject site is located would permit a variety of uses subject to much less stringent standards regarding setback and landscaping requirements. 16. The Lumber.Market, as well as other similar uses'in the general vicinity of the subject site are legal , non-conforming uses which pre-date the adoption of the bulk storage standards. These uses also pre-date the adoption of the Green River Valley Comprehensive Plan. 17. ' The applicant proposes utilizing the various landscape materials provided along the public rights-of-way and utilizing the public right-of-way of East Valley Road to serve as portions of the required setback and buffer. 18. A special permit for bulk storage was recently issued for Burlington Northern. The storage will be mainly automobiles and small trucks. The site is large and will be screened by dense landscaping along all rights-of-way. Beckmann Homes, Inc., an 8,600 foot L-1 site, will provide a 20 foot setback and landscaping in the front yard and two 6 foot landscaped side yards for a new wood shop and office just north of I-405. Most recent rezones for small parcels along I-405 require landscaped front yards and, in some instances, side yards as well. CONCLUSIONS 1. The applicant for a variance must demonstrate: a. That reasonable use of the subject site would not be possible without approval of a variance because of certain unique factors such as the size, shape, or topography of the subject site. ' b. That approval of the variance would not grant the applicant a special privilege not enjoyed by others similarly situated. EXAMINER'S REPORT Al DECISION GARY MERLINO CONSTF TION COMPANY Files No. SP-021-84, SA-022-84, V-023-84, V-024-84, V-025-84, and V-026-84 May 11, 1984 Page 11 c. That there would not be adverse affects on the public heath, safety and welfare, nor upon adjacent property or properties. d. That the variance requested is the minimum necessary for relief. The applicant has failed to demonstrate that variance relief is necessary to permit reasonable use of the subject site; that the variance would not grant the applicant a special privilege; that approval would,not be injurious to neighboring properties; nor that the variance is the minimum necessary for relief. 2. Reasonable use of the subject site is possible without variance relief. A wide variety of uses other than bulk storage are permitted on the subject site and could be accommodated without any need for a variance. The difficulty lies in the applicant's desire to use the site for bulk storage, a type of use greatly restricted because of its generally unsightly, unsavory or unheathly nature. A drive along SR-167 indicates that the bulk storage of trailer rigs is not aesthetically pleasing unless screened with landscaping. 3. Burlington Northern (SP-048-83) which will be storing cars and small trucks will be providing the landscaping required. Albeit Burlington has a larger site, that does not detract from the comparison. The applicant could provide the screening necessary while storing fewer trailers on the site. Burlington could also have utilized greater portions of their site if both screening and setback were not observed. 4. Beckmann Homes, Inc. which has an approximately 8,600 square foot L-1 site is providing 20 feet of landscaping along the public right-of-way adjacent to its site (SA-046-84). That site is also providing 6 feet of landscaping along each of its side yards abutting adjacent property. The subject site at approximately 244,000 square feet is about 28 times as large. The landscaping required by the bulk storage ordinance can be provided. It'is justthat the applicant is unwilling to provide the landscaping as it would interfere with plans drawn to conflict with City ordinances. 5. The applicant testified that if modifications occurred along either SR-167 or the East Valley Road the applicant would bring the site into compliance. Mr. Halinen stated: "We certainly would conceive that should the need arise for widening the street within the vicinity of our project during the period in which we're using it, we're certainly willing to abide by a condition, accept a condition that says we would have to move the landscaping within the site if we were to continue to operate the site for this use." While widening either roadway is purely conjectural the applicant's tendency to rely on City and State.plantings to shelter and buffer the site and provide the necessary screening is inappropriate. The applicant's testimony indicates compliance could be achieved if necessary. As the City is aware due to Victoria Hills Homeowners' complaints such reliance can creatQ:problems in the future. Sites should not be permitted to rely on public landscaping or screening if the subject site can provide the landscaping. In this instance, buffering and screening is required by the Bulk Storage Ordinance and should not be varied. 6. To deny the variance is not to deny the applicant's reasonable use of the subject site nor should it be viewed as regressive. The precedent would weigh heavily. Staff has indicated the the neighboring Lumber Market is non-conforming. Issuance of the variances for the subject site would set a precedent which would, for consistency sake, have be be followed if the Lumber Market were to redevelop. Similarly, if the site across East Valley were to develop and request a variance, it would be difficult to distinguish between locations and hard to justify a variance for one site and not the other, since the subject site already can be reasonably developed without a variance. If the variances requested were approved and tomorrow the Lumber Market decided to modernize their facilities their incentive to bring it into conformity would be nil, faced as they would be with the bulk storage of trailers immediately north of their site. While the scenario may be unrealistic in the immediate future it might be reasonable in two years. Why should Burlington Northern have been required to screen a very similar use if variances from the aesthetic provisions may be waived with ease and no supporting hardship shown. Similarly, why should any property owner provide the landscaping and setback if this applicant were to receive the requested variances. 7. There is no justification not to screen'the subject site save economic incentives to delay or defer aesthetic improvements to the area. The record reflects that landscaping could be planted, but that the applicant finds the requirement in this location unnecessary. EXAMINER'S REPORT Al 'DECISION GARY MERLINO CONST1-,,- 'TION COMPANY Files No. SP-021-84, SA-022-84, V-023-84, V-024-84, V-025-84, and V-026-84 May 11, 1984 Page 12 Citation of adjacent non-conforming uses is unpersuasive. These neighboring uses may have been the catalyst for requiring bulk storage screening. Non-conforming uses cannot be cited to justify variances from provisions which are not unreasonable, because if that were the case every time the code was modified to require a different standard, new applicants could always cite older non-conforming uses as justification for variance relief. 8. The approval of the variances would grant the applicant a special privilege not granted others, especially in light of the fact the applicant can reasonably comply with the provisions, or at least reasonably develop other permitted L-1 uses on the site. Further, as indicated above, the criteria for a variance indicates that approval should be predicated upon conditions which deny the applicant reasonable use of the subject site. It's obvious from the numerous L-1 uses constructed on 5,000 to 10,000 square feet sites such as Beckmann Homes) along the I-405 corridor that reasonable development of the L-1 zoned subject site is possible and not precluded by the bulk storage provisions. 9. In fact, the request is not unlike others of similar bent in which the applicant is not so much indicating that the variances are necessary to allow reasonable use of the subject site but that the variances are not reasonable because the provisions appear unnecessary. The applicant is quibbling with the standards provided which is a matter for legislation if the requirements are found to be unreasonable after Council review. The request to eliminate laundry facilities from a mobile home park was such a request (Leisure Estates Phase II). It is not that the applicant would be deprived reasonable use but that the conditions are unwanted by the applicant. 10. The applicant by requesting the variances when they are unnecessary to attain reasonable use of the subject site is in effect stripping the bulk storage provisions of any useful effect. Since the provisions are intended to apply to a site of 1 acre or larger, and could theoretically apply to a site approximately 209 feet by 209 feet the applicant's considerably larger site could reasonably be expected to meet , the minimum requirements. Even the narrow end of the subject site provides area comparable to small L-1 sites. If the subject site were exempted most other sites would conceivably also be exempted, thereby gutting the bulk storage ordinance and nullifying it beneficial effects. 11. If the City is to ever gain control of its non-conforming uses, it must begin somewhere and at some time - that is, at some time certain new development should conform to the City's newly discovered aesthetic and environmental concerns. Attractive, aesthetically and environmentally sensitive development - manufacturing parks, industrial sites, commercial areas, and even bulk storage uses, such as Burlington Northern's - attracts similarly landscaped and designed uses. Pleasing, as opposed to unsightly uses, do not occur in a vacuum. A bulk storage permit is not issued as of right, but particularly imposes higher standards which should not be varied in the instant case. 12. Subject to the above conclusions the variances requested for the subject site are denied. Since the entire request and site plan is predicated upon the issuance of the requested variances the bulk storage special permit and the underlying site plan must be denied. Subject to landscaping with mature trees, shrubs, and grass the site could be integrated into the Green River Valley which is envisioned as including well landscaped, and screened, as well as, well designed uses. These sites seen from both the residential hill above the Valley and from the vantage point of the highways and other public rights-of-way adjacent to the site should be well received. DECISION The special permit and site plan as submitted for bulk storage are denied. The variances are denied. ORDERED THIS 11 th day of May, 1984. 6-1,— Fred J. Kaufman " 1 Land Use Hearingxaminer EXAMINER'S REPORT Al )ECISION GARY MERLINO CONSTRu.TION COMPANY Files No. SP-021-84, SA-022-84, V-023-84, V-024-84, V-025-84, and V-026-84 May 11, 1984 Page 13, TRANSMITTED THIS l lth day of May, 1984 to the parties of record: David L. Halinen Staff Civil Engineer Gary Merlino Construction,Company 9125 10th South Seattle, WA 98108 TRANSMITTED THIS 11th day of May, 1984 to the following: Mayor Barbara Y. Shinpoch Councilman Richard M. Stredicke Richard Houghton, Public Works Director David Clemens, Policy Development Director Members, Renton Planning Commission Ronald Nelson, Building & Zoning Director Roger Blaylock, Zoning Administrator Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Robert E. Bergstrom, Engineering Supervisor Renton Record-Chronicle The Appearance of Fairness Doctrine provides that no ex parte (private one-on-one) communications may occur concerning land use decisions. This means that parties to a land use decision may not communicate in private with any decision-maker concerning the proposal. Decision-makers in the land use process include both the Hearing Examiner and members of the City Council. All communications concerning the the proposal must be made in public. This permits all interested parties to know the contents of the communication and would allow them to openly rebut the evidence. Any violation of this doctrine would result in the invalidation of the request by the Court. The Doctrine applies not only to the initial public hearing but to all Requests for Reconsideration as well as Appeals to the City Council. Pursuant to Title IV, Section 3015 of the City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed in writing on or before May 25, 1984. Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the Examiner is based on erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact, error in judgment, or the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing may make a written request for review by the Examiner within fourteen (14) days from the date of the Examiner's decision. This request shall set forth the specific errors relied upon by such appellant, and the Examiner may, after review of the record, take further action as he deems proper. An appeal to the City Council is governed by Title IV; Section 3016, which requires that such appeal be filed with the City Clerk, accompanying a filing fee of $75.00 and meeting other specified requirements. Copies of this ordinance are available for inspection or purchase in the Finance Department, first floor of City Hall. 1fre tea/ i. ti igii w n _ ,l S s.ate. w1I. 1 iF 1 f r ' L7 N11 I Imp ' • . t ... I q 2 a1 / I tie 1 5i i eQ. q. iii'J i .1 S I .—t.,__. iikig. 1 I. . I" ..ttti:•':.?..:: ..51.• . , !, • ILIA z ' G_1 I L ' r, - -- I N 1, •• t1 i0 ir— 1--_ tttr,l I R-4 .. TS R a i ! 1 1•.i'I .'".. 1 5 FR:t l r.Lr O MU P 11 I P4RKrI . . .... . . ij ' ELEMENTARY• . t SCHOOL d ' I 3 mm3m p a 979r1• nt;' I , a r,.-• 12.NTt. Z, m ' '• paI.II 10 1 ii.., L-1r 11 O aN •.... S;•. '• 4, 4/• S t1 24f/. sr t , P,,•^©*'• SOOO . 1=•, •`„ I ...`, I.1.IF 7 9 1 Q• fit.t t• t t 1•. 1 I ,• sl,,•}•, it • F r - --- . i GARY MERLINO• CONSTRUCTION CO . SP-021-84, SA-022-84, V-023-84, V-024-84, V-025-84, V-026-84 E APPLICANT GARY MERLINO CONSTRUCTION CO. TOTAL AREA — 5.607 ACR`', ` i'''',' 11221 : s PRINCIPAL ACCESS EAST VALLEY ROAD EXISTING ZONING L—.1 LIGHT INDUSTRIAL . t22 . EXISTING USE UNDEVELOPED F PROPOSED USE BULK STORAGE FACILITY FOR SHORT TERM STORAGE OF TRUCK TRAILERS. i i 1 COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN M—P, MANUFACTURING PARK COMMENTS ti 1 i ff i 1 ri %.iVcrt:%': t."4..'..:-{Vg;.?• ' t•r•if•=",t l y: 'AvI c !vA• r.r.{,, ;r:J,' `-ft-Je.ii,..:-:1- •;°•_.:*,:-%%r,. - 1: .4%, fw4;S;r r:.s:;' r i Y srr:':<.:aF,r; ''';:•- - 7$•!;r••.4,alr`utr:4"•,Vi.''1.:,. e,‹41--.r "'ref.fir,,fii;"•,',.q„,...N,t. ... 0:,/cr yc tio(bri•,lf•:i• 1i.r4,,,rk R`rtir4!'>r' f'i1:;,,-;! .-,...t yri l.. r xRrrY • •Y-ram ,f GK : rftwl Etr,' r.'<:, _ .+:•,1_ , r /^ y/ eL h +• r s J R <<<.+:-;?!:" I ' rave's:- 1' ' s ;.rw r f ^.:2 a{ •! ., xv fEJ • fk, 4` - r.. - 1.fi.,:frrirr,F.:c•}`t;> fif",1Afc4.i. eg},ff ica,Xan, 7,,.,,.d.r pFrr n.'.r _ x r f Ir Wit'f-fJ'y a:.•: r:';f. .n Lis.f 'rf;i:V.• .Y 4, r lri J I r,Srr swtsrY r arlr,rr r r.r •r r:J, .rf.f'.r.'ir r r ,+' rn.r: r.ar..,. r . "' 7^ r,r i: l r, r . , a.. V. .! • f J 'L: rr,J-r.r•.F,YwfderrF>r..) f•SrFa!Lrr.,. ,./•-,•..! .r•rr f,,•.r..f r.Y.•..... r..r_r.. r . , , r.tr .,{ir Lr r, s o f , +Y r r tr $;r r.r r- -,+< fr trr{i.F/J•!r•, r••l..J-r ,.R!, a1rsiv. rl. f:! s s) u._3 r .i iF r f. sfrr t ..> r ., ,, s. r4 .r rs .. .r , r. _ rt S,. rive rr 'Yr r. r,.».i r:,i•r rr,: . r • L a. ..;Y.lJF,!:r. •... . _•F.r...r JJ cF- L tr t.srs. i.h{i•r -r F• •rr. r r yr:.2`r':% V}(r rr,,.F T.i mil' i> y .'r4ri..- ,.:4.`^,t>.::<r;..r_..: wife%Fk o- _r'•. 1Z-" ti..•' r; r v ':! t J7:' Err. r.: ray,'r rr.a rr...: r.-'. r,.a; r ,.'c:r• <.:•'-c . _ ,.:., r .i•—.. fr ..lr,. r.. rrrr J r, f ,.. r,r. rSrr. r. 'Y _. 1X ofr ,., le.: t s $:1ft""r., • . :: ;tss.,, ...fir. .;' - viR 4 r•r- r. I1 m,,?.;: :::-4-:: ::%:.--i::,..i!,?.;y--:::::71.:.- 2:...." .:- , .....:::: :.:,/, :.-..... .:.::..: .:: .:. ..: .. ate;;.,,,,; ,<::.. f>ii a f i i t a:. %w:;' +. r..'. a'•`.+ "Kf S a- rr g sita.+- .i.; "3.;"..;..,,.<:y. s'.. b,..w. x.- iS ..• v,,'. _./....a= f7 Q7••, t. t-'--. , r,.'.. E7_. f. z.R:-, •.£ ...•y' '- '1:y->."°,. z. ,... .. . s . T.x2a•rbL.:-.- k;t c,.:--1 z,:.rK. . ';s'.• . -. „ nc.,'.=7"i- - 7-w= "• ." _. A - f =^T s`1'- r' ' / t ry tf; 4m' ///.' /ra ter F c 'S"';"••/100'/Ar. Sc •ff-s sr F:, Jri r/i.--i i tt EAST VALLEY ROAD w: l='.1;;%fir '' , .. F ED LANDS:APE AFtt,iS AND AREAS CCL E- SPECIFIF BULK :;T;RA E ETe,cK E- 4 F EX;STING VEGETATION rrf,.. r Y AJ,> ,la;;;f,,..BEYOND L NC..EtF'E AREAS .:EE R.•.'..4 7.,4(G. Ln d f'I;:;F-, SE J-F G I h%;-, Si T E :-..CREEK E—;F= F'. LAtvi ':A"E f-' . - VA.-- _I.1 6•--- r" r a L / t ILL--Pr.l;:flE[ Mil,I! ILM i,.=ao' I,,,...r DLHSETBACKE't Fc. :;Li 71.G-7?;:.Ci l,:_-!1 $=,.J rr.l- --F.:;:T I-i;3N _;'TC ':c.RELN DEL R.0 .4-7 4 E.•. . MERLINO BULK STORAGE FACILITY MCRr(MV V•CR LAMP i r--TNCATCD WOCOP. DR...... i.... otLErL_ Ir--i-1NI: C; TAIL SR G-1 _ T 10 r 1!1 p.L R 7/777-7777/ 1/..,, // 7////// y`5[ I123G G I RCT ` , i Tr/PHASE Iice aMtfAfR r EIS 11• DR`NO TO rITNN b R. OF[R yT R/•I / _ I \ Sulr. f= \\`` iiDTM Rui[3) - Ey ST\• s1.1 ( 1\ PHASE 2Q Ell rr0aE1.SM[0 r[:TATCoRCI-- DYN STERC 'N[n5nrd 11. 1 O: Ilots y vISITsTle,RR r rt_VK MOM, „ 71,1,2R) EK[..a3y f;rr "R7, F r.•'EL E. RW M IIGf j EMwRRilY rli1T(9t y/ SUO•MS_II 1 T$f SL..•A ..,..ram UND$C[ii v rf,0[ST RI 6[Tv[[Y iENC['AND$IOCrYIK--SEC LANDSCA[PLAN ;Id I I I•.I_ w_. r • "._ ,I:.•.•..-.•.•._ •_•. . _t1_ ._. . . " ` 'cam _ . y _ . 1219.38 a". v 16W/// . ...., EAST VALLEY ROAD HI WIlli LEGEND•NOTES i PPOPOSED CONC. SIEEWALK ALONG EX CONC.CURB AND GUTTER PROPOSED Et-FOOT HIGH CHAIN-LINK FENCE WITH REDWOOD SLATS L a-oaor+r,a Or-u•nc carclor+c+Ct max ea auc[0•ru•+ h I CALK TR•r.Q S.M.TO IROv\01 SuMORT DOR Tru,[[LAwaw kY EX CONC SIDEWALK ALONG EX.CONC CURB AND GUTTER EX.LOW CHAIN-LINK FENCE--MOVE NORTH LEG TO PHASE 1/2 BOUNDARYS s. (rISTM6 WoOtror sN10 TO Z IITrr[K NCRAIKtC AND Lac•+Ec N[Aa cV' 7 REMAINDER TO BE REMOVED TNC TICS[Z DVH{TCK DR K[MJVID. Y/ll!// / i. CURB CUT/ASPHALTASPHALT DRIVEWAY ITWT•G6 IHIr[Olri••[NTS .L7N6 [AST V.IC R RD S"•L- :a_A• it1f %. E I-C EX,B-FOOT NIGH WOODEN SITE SCREEN FENCE OWNED BY ADTACENT aan/D rITN TN[ a/V[•aryt[NT [t Tr1 R[SRcnr[ •Dr•;[..T Al) LIMBER MARKET" 11'I ram PRi'C$EC ASPSM LT PAVING EAST EDGE OF CRUSHED ROCK SURFACING leo MERCURY VAPOR LAMP TO BE INSTALLED ON A 2C TO 2$FOOT NIG•I WCCDEI. POLE (SEE DETAIL.ABOVE) NE-WAY TW.'(N-TRAILER TrAFFIC FLOW DIRECTION AN EVISTINS 20 TO25 FOOT •11SM •,..ODEN POLE 45-FOOT LONG TRUCK TRAILERogn JT•_.. .TYr N7 2I"2a/48AOr •• i • / r SITE PLAN SUGS:ST_(• TkioLER :TRAGE DIM • TAL-LAY:':T f. MERLINO SULK STORAGE FACILITY ' ' 2.f s/' I 5-i OF RA,4 Ar eo z BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT RONALD G. NELSON - DIRECTOR 9 ® MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, WASH. 98055 • 235-2540 0, 9g7 1:)SEPS ' BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH MEMORANDUM cMAYOR py E r : "1 ip 2 sue.MAY1984 TO: ITS)If JIV1;1 DEPT. FROM: ZONING DIVISION SUBJECT: Gary Merlino Construction Company File: SP-021-84, SA-022-84, V-023-84, V-024-84, V-025-84, V-026-84 2900 East Valley Road The above referenced application for special permit and site plan approval to allow the construction of a bulk storage facility for the short term storage of truck trailers including three office trailers for employee office was heard before the Land Use Hearing Examiner on April 24, 1984. The applicant has now stated that the short term storage of this requested permit will be for a period not to exceed five years. This hearing has been continued due to this new information and will resume again on Tuesday morning, May 1, 1984. Please review this new information along with your former comments and respond by April 30, 1984. tNic- Q41) 1) C# . 4\ 00 4- 4 Abtkcof4r..( 35° cecske• 11/4346°14. 0(.1 vsS (AV OF RA,, A. G BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT RONALD G. NELSON - DIRECTOR Z 9 MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, WASH. 98055 • 235-2540 09), SEPlE* 1, BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH MAYOR MEMORANDUM DATE: April 25, 1984 TO: Building and Zoning Department Policy Development Department Police Department Fire Department Public Works Department FROM: yL b Roger J. Blaylock, Zoning Administrator SUBJECT. Merlino Bulk Storage Permit/SP-021-84 During the public hearing process for the above application, the applicant stated that they would agree to a five year limitation upon the development and use of the site as a bulk storage facility for truck trailers. This position by the applicant was taken solely to show the temporary nature of the proposal and support the variance requests with the issue of time. The Land Use Hearing Examiner continued the public hearing for the Building and Zoning Department to obtain specific comments concerning the application's modification based upon a specific time limit. The applicant has requested a reduction in landscaping area surrounding the bulk storage and elimination of all landscaping requirements along SR-167. Please provide your comments by 12:00 Noon, Monday, April 30, 1984, to allow time to review and present a supplemental staff report to the Land Use Hearing Examiner. 0841Z ZEVIErt NG DEPARTMENT/DIV] IN : e ms- lj 0 APPROVED APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS fl NOT APPROVED L.. 44:_c_64.4,L.,712/1ZP- - 6/- ` ' ' y J(/// jam/ j'' Lta3, Ban, v.4:'''Ac. try .41Ai tt,r- -, Z'z''°471 ei , . 6 kw- j t'ver,m4 61.j t/f kr, 44, ___ __A, X..______- . .5 /7/74,/ Sea_ /113 4 gcS53 1 - Sgai4 1-97.-'' ' S4111—DATE; IGNATURE OF DIR' TOR OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE . YOY REVISION 5/1082 I r is t OF R4, BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT Z 0 RONALD G. NELSON - DIRECTOReo{L125 MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, WASH. 98055 • 235-254090Co. 0, 9gT D P SEP1E BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH ME M OR A :N'ND UM1fMAYOR1/ 1a1 V TO: ( ) I I l,1 i‘.4 CA 110 . FROM: ZONING DIVISION SUBJECT: Gary Merlino Construction Company File: SP-021-84, SA-022-84, V-023-84, V-024-84, V-025-84, V-026-84 2900 East Valley Road The above referenced application for special permit and site plan approval to allow the construction of a bulk storage facility for the short term storage of truck trailers including three office trailers for employee office was heard before the Land Use Hearing Examiner on April 24, 1984. The applicant has now stated that the short term storage of this requested permit will be for a period not to exceed five years. This hearing has been continued due to this new information and will resume again on Tuesday morning, May 1, 1984. Please review this new information along with your former comments and respond by April 30, 1984. 343/P- REC• MENDED FO' VAL BY 1 V77,4/T y ,E/t/ /Al. ,E;€ of J A, BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT RONALD G. NELSON - DIRECTOR o 09 MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, WASH. 98055 • 235-2540 co- AO 9 TE0 SEP1- BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH MAYOR MEMORANDUM DATE: April 25, 1984 TO: Building and Zoning Department Policy Development Department Police Department Fire Department Public Works Department FROM: 4 Roger J. Blaylock, Zoning Administrator SUBJECT{ Merlino Bulk Storage Permit/SP-021-84 During the public hearing process for the above application, the applicant stated that they would agree to a five year limitation upon the development and use of the site as a bulk storage facility for truck trailers. This position by the applicant was taken solely to show the temporary nature of the proposal and support the variance requests with the issue of time. The Land Use Hearing Examiner continued the public hearing for the Building and Zoning Department to obtain specific comments concerning the application's modification based upon a specific time limit. The applicant has requested a reduction in landscaping area surrounding the bulk storage and elimination of all landscaping requirements along SR-167. Please provide your comments by 12:00 Noon, Monday, April 30, 1984, to allow time to review and present a supplemental staff report to the Land Use Hearing Examiner. 0841Z REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION ; APPROVED PPROVED WITH CONDITIONS a NOT APPROVED 42/44 44 W8'41411141' 114.1 106, ./.1444C r.. DATE: SIGNAARE OF DIRECTOR OR AUTHORIZ. • REPRESENTATIVE . REVISION 5/1082 tEVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVI.SION;: TRArrpiG A/GL EE4gI NG DAPPROVED APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS fl NOT APPROVED h ve tO Cry l646,4 'Nat- '110 &xcee4 fo le o`J 4c/'e e-2/4-1.g g DATE: 16Ac.),#' ;=6:: )/45',/i/ SIGNATURE OF DIRECTOR OR AUTHO ZED REPRESENTATIVE IL REVISION 5/1982 REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVI ION ; 1if/L1ry APPROVED APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS a NOT APPROVED hILITY APPROVAL SUBJECT TO a .s44, se.)e• a---' 1TE COMERS AGREEMENT • WATER Q• 244, Z 3/ s4•FT p J I1ova " „• pre 11d L,4 S. 1TE COMERS AGREEMENT • SEWf1 9/i4- 23,L/ 231 SQ.Fr ITEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE'WATER S/ 4 S510. Q.Fr. - ' '9 ' 9 STEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE • sink11 04/sg. . : 'ZZT .24 J/279• 4J PECIAI ASSESSMENT AREA CHARGE • WATER AlO 7Sl7 PECIAL ASSESSMENT AREA CHARGE • SEWER AiO PPROYEO WATER PLAN yes eat. Fuv(& 10&'t 1C,'+4S 5 PPROYED SE': d PLAN 7 Nor f f( .4 n(17 IF 5106 $ « PPROVEJ.,FIRE HYDRANT LOCATIONS FIRE.DEPT. G{ IRE FLOW ANALY No • C?i0 — d SIGNAT RE OF DIRECTOR Or HTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE pc. OF 1 t; 0 ° BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT RONALD G. NELSON - DIRECTOR 54)0 MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, WASH. 98055 • 235-25409, 0 co. 0 ' eci SEPS ' O Q BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH MEMORANDUMMAYOR CITY OF RENTON APR 3 01984 TO: 2al. i f i J E.l ( O I t J- POLICY DEVELOPMENT DFP7, FROM: ZONING DIVISION SUBJECT: Gary Merlino Construction Company File: SP-021-84, SA-022-84, V-023-84, V-024-84, V-025-84, V-026-84 2900 East Valley Road The above referenced application for special permit and site plan approval to allow the construction of a bulk storage facility for the short term storage of truck trailers including three office trailers for employee office was heard before the Land Use Hearing Examiner on April 24, 1984. The applicant has now stated that the short term storage of this requested permit will be for a period not to exceed five years. This hearing has been continued due to this new information and will resume again on Tuesday morning, May 1, 1984. Please review this new information along with your former comments and respond by April 30, 1984. f./='/GG;',e' r l/Lfj;4' 4/%/Q.c 1 7 C.) Ts Qt f/N,0 `'A /c2 3L.C C/ Ty ofC,i21.. GE, t /1f-G G/?/Lt/'v9( 4.G` G/0 tip 7-4c cJ ,G L 4.S 1 ) r*..4/ Clr. / v:sec 1--E) 1 1 1- s)oi4 T/-/L //N/ P-'/0 /—I 4a,/'L2/7/ cw,e7/x/ ,/2/1J ap/c f/"/I 7''c 1'1 Z. ckihk) /' /oG Z 4 U/`J 3 4 W /4CC'e f-' 6 ',<;/4 S;/71e 7 s3/2/-c-GJ' 4U,W/L/0.6-G//-7 Clf Q / ""e'0- - 7-0 41GG oats- `' ' 7//z S- pia C y zao IA), Tr../ •,) A add ' - W, " ))r.. DATE SIGNATU E OF RE OR OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE REVISION 5/1982 REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION; OAPPROVED RAPPR.OVED WITH CONDITIONS ONOT APPROVED Air/ 126 S/T S?c/C W / -r i.{ ra-2 /,u p f er ///6 4 o fCt.{ /eV 6 v d2o. P4-4 d51. B rtr 2.4/A,/ S e /c' -- a, 9'01).0"c .A09%a G o L4y00SGB99C 56x° G J S/./ G : . .-ve,e NEXT 744 /a S I441 (....x22 e€,W A dz. K.DATE, c5", SIGNATU F DIRECTOR 0 AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE 30 .7 REV ON 8/1982 REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : El APPROVED,El APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS El NOT APPROVED OF R 4.1? 4 40 0 BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENTtt$ RONALD G. NELSON — DIRECTOR3, ea o-MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON,WASH. 98055 • 235-2540 co.4 eeCk I4-Eb SEP11- BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH MEMORANDUMMAYOR APR 3 0 1984 TO: I R r ReUCKSTI OK( FROM: ZONING DIVISION SUBJECT: Gary Merlino Construction Company File: SP-021-84, SA-022-84, V-023-84, V-024-84, V-025-84, V-026-84 2900 East Valley Road The above referenced application for special permit and site plan approval to allow the construction of a bulk storage facility for the short term storage of truck trailers including three office trailers for employee office was heard before the Land Use Hearing Examiner on April 24, 1984. The applicant has now stated that the short term storage of this requested permit will be for a period not to exceed five years. This hearing has been continued due to this new information and will resume again on Tuesday morning, May 1, 1984. Please review this new information along with your former comments and respond by April 30, 1984. O F J? A BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT RONALD G. NELSON - DIRECTOR 0 MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, WASH. 98055 • 235-2540 co- o . TEC SEPTdc, BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH MAYOR MEMORANDUM DATE: April 30, 1984 TO: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney FROMVV3 Roger J. Blaylock, Zoning Administrator SUBJECT:, Merlino Construction Company/SP-021-84/Time Limit on Variances Following up our telephone conversation, Gary Merlino Construction Company is requesting a special permit for bulk storage on their -East Valley site which had been previously, been used by West Coast Trucking. The applicant stated at the public hearing held-on Tuesday, April.24, 1984, that they would be willing to be bound by a condition to limit the proposed bulk storage use to a maximum of five years. The intent was that by limiting the time, the variance request to eliminate and reduce the landscaping around the subject property would be allowed. Our concern is one of enforcement and how we would implement such a condition. It would appear that we would utilize the typical methods for lands use enforcement, but this in effect could result in another delay of two to three years while we were tying to get enforcement of the time limit condition, if approved. The legal question that we are trying to ask is, is there any means to tie the applicant more closely to the time limit that he is suggesting at this point. I guess our concern is aggrivated out of past experience dealing with the same site and the same individual with the West Coast Trucking operation. In that case, the site was under a temporary use permit with a maximum two year use and we inevitably spent approximately a year trying to get compliance with the terms of the temporary use permit. The only possible methods that we have thought of is to bind the applicant by bonding for the removal of the facility or the increasing of landscaping at the end of the five year period, but I am sure that you are aware of how hard bonds are to proceed against. The other would be possibly to file the condition as a restrictive covenant which may give us more standing if we did ever enter into a court action on the property. 0842Z OF I a,. A. BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENTky r'. J f. RONALD G. NELSON - DIRECTOR 09 MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE.SO. RENTON,WASH.98055 • 235-2540 oco- 0 P 94eo SEPv • O BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH MAYOR MEMORANDUM DATE: April 25, 1984 TO: Building and Zoning Department Policy Development Department Police Department Fire Department Public Works Department FROM: Roger J. Blaylock, Zoning Administrator SUBJECTrMerlino Bulk Storage Permit/SP-021-84 During the public hearing process for the above application, the applicant stated that they would agree to a five year limitation upon the development and use of the site as a bulk storage facility for truck trailers. This position by the applicant was taken solely to show the temporary nature of the proposal and support the variance requests with the issue of time. The Land Use Hearing Examiner continued the public hearing for the Building and Zoning Department to obtain specific comments concerning the application's modification based upon a specific time limit. The applicant has requested a reduction in landscaping area surrounding the bulk storage and elimination of all landscaping requirements along SR-167. Please provide your comments by 12:00 Noon, Monday, April 30. 1984, to allow time to review and present a supplemental staff report to the Land Use Hearing Examiner. 0841Z PRELIMINARY REPORT , ., [HE HEARING EXAMINER GARY MERLINO CONSTRUCTION COMPANY SP-021-84. SA-022-84, V-023-84, V-024-84, V-025-84 and V-026-84 APRIL 24, 1984 Page 9 CONCLUSION: 25.The applicant has requested four variances along with a site approval and a special permit to locate a bulk storage facility in the L-1 zone. The variances requested severely compromise the intent of the Bulk Storage Ordinance and would appear to create a detrimental effect. If this were the last piece of property to be developing in an area, and all the other uses had been developed to previous standards, there might be some consideration for the request. However, this parcel of property is one of the first in this general area, and immediately to the west of the subject site we have a large acreage which could be developed into manufacturing or office park developments. The geometric shape of the property does support the idea of granting the variances requested. However, the Bulk Storage Ordinance is a special consideration above the typically allowed L-1 uses. RECOMMENDATION: Based upon the above analysis, it is recommended that the special permit for bulk storage, file SP-021-84, and site approval request, file SA-022-84, be approved based upon the7._ii Ki following prov' ions: 1. dni 1 of variance (V-023-84) to reduce the landscaping and screening setback Pvyalong East Valley Road. In addition, the trees that should be planted along East z Valley Road should be a minimum size of 10 to 12 feet. 2.Partial approval of variance request (V-024-84) to reduce the landscaping setback along the eastern property line (SR-167) to 13 feet from the required 20 feet. Denial of the request to not landscape this area. Landscaping shall consist of staggered Douglas Fir trees with an average height o 1-2-te—l5-feet, plus hydroseeding of the bank. The screening fence shall be placed e top of the bank approximately 14 feet from the property line. l_v 3. Partial approval of variance request (V-025-84) to eliminate the 20-foot setback and site screening fence along the southern property line. The variance should not be granted on the western 90 feet of the subject site, where the subject site does a not share the existing fence or building with the Lumbermart building to the south. ( r±vu CL--,i< It,L ..-tQ .\ -i. ' r_64,,-{':.d-.fh). e:._,; ;'.1 C '.k Q'Vu^^c IDO-y 4 4. Approval of the variance request (V-026-84) to allow structureCan storage to `J be located within the 60-foot setback along East Valley Road. Specifically, it should be reduced to 20 feet to comply with the location of the screening fence along East Valley Road. 1.t) c S.The paved entrances shall be extended approximately 50 feet farther into the subject site, and the subject site shall be maintained in a gravel surface to assure that mud and debris is not tracked onto the City's streets. f, I' (. 6.The posting of a $500 cash bond to assure clean-up of City street. The bond shall be renewable each year to be maintained ad the $500 level by the Board of Public Works. Implementation of clean-up operation will be authorized by either the Police Department or the Public Works Department. 7.Approval of detailed storm drainage plans by the Public Works Department. 8.Approval of detailed landscaping plans by the Landscape Architect :to assure compliance with certain provisions delineated by the Hearing Examiner. 9.No occupancy of the site can take place until all of the screening and landscaping requirements have been completed. Bonding is not an acceptable method to assure compliance, and the Board of Public Works is specifically prohibited from exercising its deferral prerogative. feu&.,, 1,,,,, f_IP,4 7 2,---c-4-6-6C..0°0 be., ,Q0 ,,„,,,„,,,,,e 641_, L 4 , h oviit f t' \ 0815Z BUILDING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING APRIL 24, 1984 APPLICANT: GARY MERLINO CONSTRUCTION COMPANY FILE NUMBER: SP-021-84. SA-022-84, V-023-84, V-024-84, V-025-84 and V-026-84 A. SUMMARY & PURPOSE OF REQUEST: The applicant seeks approval of a special permit and site plan approval to allow the construction of a bulk storage facility for the short term storage of truck trailers including three office trailers for employee office, and variances for: 1) To reduce the landscape setback along East Valley Road from 20 feet to 10 feet. 2) To reduce the landscape setback along the east property line. 3) To eliminate the 20-foot setback and site screen fence along the south property line. 4) To allow structure and bulk storage to be located within the 60-foot setback along East Valley Road. B. GENERAL INFORMATION: 1. Owner of Record: Gary Merlino Construction Company 2. Applicant: Gary Merline Construction Company 3. Location: Vicinity Map Attached) 2900 East Valley Road 4. Legal Description: A detailed legal description is available on file in the Renton Building & Zoning Department. 5. Size of Property: 5.607 acres 6. Access: East Valley Road 7. Existing Zoning: L-1, Light Industry 8. Existing Zoning in the Area: L-1, Light Industry, and M-P, Manufacturing Park 9. Comprehensive Land Use Plan:Manufacturing Park 10. Notification: The applicant was notified in writing of the hearing date. Notice was properly published in the Daily Record Chronicle on April 13, 1984, and posted in three places on or near the site as required by city ordinance on April 13, 1984. C. HISTORY/BACKGROUND: The subject site and surrounding area was annexed into the City of Renton on April 15, 1959, by Ordinance 1743. The subject site was subsequently rezoned to L-1, Light Industry, on May 5, 1959, by Ordinance 1758. The site had been owned by Puget Western, the development division of Puget Sound Power and Light Company. r PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER GARY MERLINO CONSTRUCTION COMPANY SP-021-84. SA-022-84, V-023-84, V-024-84, V-025-84 and V-026-84 APRIL 24, 1984 Page 2 A special permit for fill and grade was applied for and approved with conditions on September 12, 1977. D. PHYSICAL BACKGROUND: 1.Topography: The subject site is relatively level. 2. Soils: Approximately 2/3 of the subject site has been filled and could not be classified as Urban (Ur). The underlying soil type is: Tukwila Muck (Tu), slopes are less than 1%. Soil found in wet basins of upland depressions and on stream bottoms. Permeability is moderate. Available water capacity is high. Runoff is ponded, and the erosion hazard is slight. If drained, this soil is used for row cops. It is also used for pasture. 3. Vegetation: Vegetation on the site primarily consists of cattails and other typical marshland-type small trees, bushes, and grasses. 4. Wildlife: The existing vegetation on the site provides suitable habitat for birds and small mammals and other wetland-type animals. 5. Water: As indicated by the vegetation and soils on the site, there is a high capacity for ponding of surface water on the site. The water level fluctuates with the time of the year and the amount of seasonal precipitation that may occur. The subject site has not been designatd as a wetland wildlife preserve area on the City's Comprehensive Plan, although the northerly 75 feet of the subject site is within the proposed P-9 drainage channel/greenbelt area and should be retained in its natural state. Most of the standing water was located within the northerly 75 feet of the subject site. 6. Land Use: The site is presently entirely undeveloped, however, some sporadic dumping of materials has occurred on the subject site. E. NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTERISTICS: The subject site is surrounded by the following: An existing lumber market development directly adjacent and south of the site, the SR-167 Valley Freeway is located along the easterly boundary of the site, and East Valley Road is located along the westerly boundary of the subject site. Undeveloped property owned by Olympic Pipeline Company is located directly north of the site and is utilized for oil products pipeline right-of-way purposes. The 30 foot Seattle Water Department Bow Lake pipeline easement is located on the northerly portion of the Olympic Pipeline property. A 144-foot P-9 drainage channel easement is proposed in this area and will utilize approximately the northerly 75 feet of the Merlino property. Various existing industrial and commercial developments are located in the area generally south of the subject site, and the proposed Glacier Park Orillia Industrial Park is located just south and west of the subject site. F. PUBLIC SERVICES: 1.Utilities: a. Water: A 12-inch water main is located along East Valley Road adjacent to the west property line. b. Sewer: An 8-inch sewer line is located along East Valley Road adjacent to the subject site. c. Storm Water Drainage: Water flows into the East Valley Wetlands System. 2. Fire Protection: Provided by the City of Renton as per ordinance requirements. 3.Transit: Not applicable. 4. Schools: Not applicable. 5. Recreation: Not applicable. G. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE ZONING CODE: 1. Section 4-712, Light Industrial (L-1). PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER GARY MERLINO CONSTRUCTION COMPANY SP-021-84. SA-022-84, V-023-84, V-024-84, V-025-84 and V-026-84 APRIL 24, 1984 Page 3 2. Section 4-716, Freeway/Arterial Street Setback Requirements. 3. Section 4-734, Bulk Storage Facilities. H. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OR OTHER OFFICIAL CITY DOCUMENT: 1. Industrial Goals and Policies, City of Renton Comprehensive Plan Compendium, p. 18-19. 2. Green River Valley Comprehensive Plan, City of Renton Comprehensive Plan Compendioum, p. 31-35. IMPACT ON THE NATURAL OR HUMAN ENVIRONMENT: I. Natural Systems: Minor. The majority of the existing vegetation on the site is located in the north 74 feet and is to be disturbed. 2. Population/Employment: Minor. 3. Schools: Not applicable. 4. Social: Not applicable. 5.Traffic: The proposed development is expected to generate approximately 460 trip ends. J. 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 final declaration of non-significance was issued by the Environmental Review Committee on April 4, 1984. Comments by the Environmental Review Committee follow in the staff analysis. K. AGENCIES/DEPARTMENTS CONTACTED: 1.City of Renton Building & Zoning Department. 2. City of Renton Design Engineering Division. 3. City of Renton Traffic Engineering Division. 4. City of Renton Utilities Engineering Division. 5.City of Renton Fire Prevention Bureau. 6. City of Renton Policy Development Department. 7. City of Renton Parks & Recreation Department. L. DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS: 1.The applicant, Gary Merlino Construction Company, is requesting a special permit, file SP-021-84, to allow placement of a bulk storage facility along with a site approval, file SA-022-84, a requirement of the underlying special permit for filling and grading, on a ±5.6 acre parcel of property for the short term storage of truck trailers including three office trailers for employee offices. The specific request also includes the following four variances to the bulk storage requirements: a. To reduce the landscape setback along East Valley Road from 20 feet to 10 feet (V-023-84). b. To reduce the landscape setback along the east property line (V-024-84). c. To eliminate the 20-foot setback and site-screening fence along the south property line (V-025-84). d. To allow structures and bulk storage to be located within the 60-foot setback along East Valley Road (V-026-84). 2.The proposal generally complies with the Comprehensive Plan designation of Manufacturing Park and the specific zoning classification of L-1, Light Industrial, for the subject site. PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER GARY MERLINO CONSTRUCTION COMPANY SP-021-84. SA-022-84, V-023-84, V-024-84, V-025-84 and V-026-84 APRIL 24, 1984 Page 4 3.The Environmental Review Committee has issued a declaration of non-significance concerning the development of the subject site conditioned upon the northly 75 feet of the site shall be put into a reservation, dedication or easement for drainage and wildlife purposes. In addition, they have expressed a concern over the aesthetic screening of the site to the intent of the fulfillment of the Bulk Storage Ordinance. The apparent intent is to clearly show that landscape screening is an aesthetic and highly subjective point of view. Landscape screening is a three dimensional issue. The Bulk Storage Ordinance suggests a minimum width of landscaping to screen the worst cases of industrial storage yards. The burden of proof is upon the developer to show the level of intensity of the storage yard and what would be the appropriate screening. 4.The applicant's justification is lengthly and points to existing conditions in the immediate vicinity. It does appear that some reasonable points are made to both support and deny the four variances being requested. The variances are actually the key to both the special permit and to the site approval. The following is an analysis of the variance criterial as outlined under Section 4-722 for each of the four variances requested: VARIANCE V-023-84 (Landscape setback along the East Valley Road) 5.That the applicant suffers undue hardship and the variance is necessary because of special circumstances applicable to subject property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings of the subject property, and the strict application of the Zoning Code is found to deprive subject property owner of rights and privileges enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity and under identical zone classification. The applicant does suffer undue hardship as a result of the shape of the subject property. The property has been created as a result of the location of SR-167. East Valley Road existed prior to the improvement and construction of SR-167, which location was dictated because of the alignment of the Rainier Avenue and I-405 interchange. However, in this specific application of the setback variance to the proposed use of the property, it appears that there is reasonable use of the property even with the imposition of the 20-foot landscape setback. On-site circulation can still be maintained, but the total number of parking spaces for the truck trailer units would be decreased. 6. That the granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and zone in which subject property is situated. The granting of the variance can be considered materially detrimental to the intent of the Comprehensive Plan's classification of Manufacturing Park for the general area. Manufacturing parks are to have large open areas with the intent of providing landscaping and buffering between compatible uses. In this specific case, we could be introducing a non-compatible use depending upon the ultimate uses across East Valley Road to the west. The specific goals as defined in the Valley Comprehensive Plan (1975) clearly suggests that the intent is to, "promote high quality development that will enhance the image of the City of Renton" and to "promote aesthetic, including views from adjacent hillsides so that developed areas will not be detrimental to adjacent development." It would appear that the reduction of the landscaping specifically along East Valley Road, where there is the potential for the street to be widened, would create a direct conflict with the intent of these goals of the Comprehensive Plan. 7.That approval shall not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitation upon uses of other properties in the vicinity and zone in which the subject property is situated. PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER GARY MERLINO CONSTRUCTION COMPANY SP-021-84. SA-022-84, V-023-84, V-024-84, V-025-84 and V-026-84 APRIL 24, 1984 Page 5 The applicant has pointed consistently to the adjacent properties and their present situation. The fact remains that these properties are considered existing non-conforming uses with the respect to the Valley Comprehensive Plan and the ordinances of the City of Renton. The bulk storage requirements are considered specific performance criteria for bulk storage areas and the granting of variance from those that would not meet the intent of the Comprehensive Plan or the goals of the underlying zoning could be considered a special privilege not enjoyed by others in the vicinity. 8. That the approval as determined by the Examiner or Board of Adjustment is a minimum variance that will accomplish the desired purpose. The Examiner must determine that the variance requested is the minimum that would be necessary to accomplish the desired purpose. The applicant has presented a very effective factual cross section showing the elevations from East Valley Road to the bulk storage areas and the relationship between the 8-foot high opaque screen and the structures that would be only 13-1/2 feet high. As seen in the cross section, the 8-foot screen does not effectively screen the entire heighth of the bulk storage. However, the landscaping materials, if increased in size to a minimum of 10 feet from the 5 to 6 feet proposed by the applicant, would provide immediate screening and might be a point to consider the reduction of the landscape width. VARIANCE V-024-84 (Elimination of Site Screening Fence and Landscaping with Reduction of Setback along SR-167) 9. That the applicant suffers undue hardship and the variance is necessary because of special circumstances applicable to subject property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings of the subject property, and the strict application of the Zoning Code is found to deprive subject property owner of rights and privileges enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity and under identical zone classification. The applicant states that the associated screening and landscaping along SR-167 would only slightly improve visual screening from the highway while placing a heavy burden of reduced usable space and additional construction costs upon the applicant. The hardship here appears to be solely economic and not a true result of either size, shape, topography or locations of the surroundings. The trees that are presently on the highway margin could be removed at any time by the State Highway system with a widening of the highway. 10.That the granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and zone in which subject property is situated. The granting of the variance will be materially detrimental in that it will create a bulk storage area that is not aesthetically screened from the residential uses to the east. The Comprehensive Plan specifically calls for the separation of dissimilar uses; and, with the total elimination of a screening fence and all landscaping except for hydroseeding. This does not meet the intent of screening of a bulk storage site. 11.That approval shall not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitation upon uses of other properties in the vicinity and zone in which the subject property is situated. Elimination of this requirement will grant the applicant a special economic privilege inconsistent with the limitations of other industrial users. The most recent user, Burlington Northern, was required to fence and substantially landscape their bulk storage site. The other uses that the applicant keeps referring to in the vicinity cannot be equated because they are technically grandfathered uses. PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER GARY MERLINO CONSTRUCTION COMPANY SP-021-84. SA-022-84, V-023-84, V-024-84, V-025-84 and V-026-84 APRIL 24, 1984 Page 6 12.That the approval as determined by the Examiner or Board of Adjustment is a minimum variance that will accomplish the desired purpose. Effective landscaping can be accomplished in an area less than twenty feet wide if certain types of landscaping materials are utilized. On the west side of the property, consideration has to be taken into account for the direct access to the site and the overhead powerlines. However, on the east side, along SR-167, fast growing evergreen trees could be planted in a strip that is as narrow as ten feet in width and create the necessary screening in approximately three to five years. The eastern approximately 13 feet of subject site slopes from west to east as the result of the fill operation. This 13 feet could be utilized with a staggered planting of Douglas Fir trees to create a fairly impenetrable screen of the facility. Because there is an elevation difference of approximately 8 feet, the landscaping materials should be slightly larger. Twelve to 15-foot Douglas Fir trees could be utilized and become a very effective screen within a few years, while the 8-foot fence would be an immediate separation between the highway use and the proposed truck storage yard. VARIANCE V-025-84 (Elimination of Landscape Setback and Site-screening Fence along South Property Line) 13.That the applicant suffers undue hardship and the variance is necessary because of special circumstances applicable to subject property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings of the subject property, and the strict application of the Zoning Code is found to deprive subject property owner of rights and privileges enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity and under identical zone classification. The applicant points again to the hardship resulting from the fact that the other property owners in the general area have not been required to provide similar landscaping and screening for similar bulk storage uses. The City must point to the fact that these uses are grandfathered. However, there does appear to be some logic to granting the variance, partially based upon the location or surroundings of the subject property. The Lumber Market does share the southern boundary with the subject site, and their similar use could be determined to be the necessary justification for relieving the requirement. Unfortunately, the continued operation of Lumbermart is unknown; and, therefore, provisions should be included which would require the applicant to put in the additional landscaping and screening if the adjacent southern use changes from its present occupant. 14.That the granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and zone in which subject property is situated. Granting of the variance could be materially detrimental and injurious to the adjacent property to the south if its use ever changed. A good example might be that the Lumbermart would be relocated, and an office use placed on that site. The end result would be that we would have a bulk storage yard immediately adjacent without any screening to the new allowed use. Therefore, certain conditions should be placed upon the granting of the variance to limit it based upon the adjacent use. Granting of the variance for landscaping and setback along the southern 20-feet line west of the face of the building for Lumbermart would create an immediate visual problem because we would be looking sideways into the bulk storage area. The specific intent of the Bulk Storage Ordinance is to provide appropriate screening commensurate with the type of bulk storage being proposed. 15.That approval shall not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitation upon uses of other properties in the vicinity and zone in which the subject property is situated. PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER GARY MERLINO CONSTRUCTION COMPANY SP-021-84. SA-022-84, V-023-84, V-024-84, V-025-84 and V-026-84 APRIL 24, 1984 Page 7 The applicant sees in the area other bulk storages that do not provide either side yard landscaping or setbacks. In fact, the applicant's logic is in error because, if those were to be remodeled, they would be required to comply and obtain approval for a bulk storage facility. Those sites have been grandfathered because of their existence prior to annexation into the City. The applicant feels that he is being singled out from other property owners in the nearby bulk storage sites to provide side yard landscaping and setbacks; however, in fact, he is not. He is actually in an updating process that has already begun on other bulk storage users within the area. The City only needs to point to the standard landscaping requirements that were imposed upon Burlington Northern within the last three months. 16. That the approval as determined by the Examiner or Board of Adjustment is a minimum variance that will accomplish the desired purpose. The applicant believes that this is a minimum necessary variance, but the City staff consistently does not. VARIANCE, V-026-84 (Reduction of Structure of Bulk Storage Setback along East Valley Road) 17. That the applicant suffers undue hardship and the variance is necessary because of special circumstances applicable to subject property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings of the subject property, and the strict application of the Zoning Code is found to deprive subject property owner of rights and. privileges enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity and under identical zone classification. The applicant does suffer undue necessary hardship resulting from the geometric shape of the subject property, and the variance request seems appropriate only if the landscaping areas are provided per Code along East Valley Road. 18. That the granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and zone in which subject property is situated. The proposed.variance to allow the truck trailers to be within 10 feet of the right-of-way for East Valley Road is detrimental to the general public and the other specific property owners in that it combines with the reduction in landscaping to effectively push the bulk storage area very close to the public right-of-way. In fact, it does even attempt to • comply with the Comprehensive Plan designation of Manufacturing Park, which covers this entire area. It can be stated though, if the landscaping is provided per Code requirements along East Valley Road and the planting materials are of sufficient size to provide immmediate buffering, that the variance request to reduce the 60 feet is appropriate. Probably the best justification for reducing the setback is the fact that in bulk storage, we are dealing with a three-dimensional storage area, and the applicant's proposal is to store truck trailer units that would be a maximum of 13-1/2 feet high. In a normal situation in the L-1 zone, bulk storage could be 35 feet high. 19. That approval shall not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitation upon uses of other properties in the vicinity and zone in which the subject property is situated. Granting of this variance will not constitute a special privilege. The applicant has pointed to other sites within the immediate area that have truck storage areas of comparable bulk within the 60-foot setback. In fact, the Bulk Storage Ordinance seems unclear with what to do with the property between the required 20-foot setback and the 60-foot setback for uses. 20. That the approval as determined by the Examiner or Board of Adjustment is a minimum variance that will accomplish the desired purpose. PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER GARY MERLINO CONSTRUCTION COMPANY SP-021-84. SA-022-84, V-023-84, V-024-84, V-025-84 and V-026-84 APRIL 24, 1984 Page 8 The Building and Zoning Department believes that this is a minimum necessary variance. The intent of the Bulk Storage Ordinance appears to be consideration of individual uses based upon the bulk of the storage area. The applicant's bulk is not great J when compared to other existing bulk storage areas, and, in fact, is only about one tenth of the size of the approved Burlington Northern site. We can point to other uses, such as Superior Fast Freight and Garfield Associates, which have truck storage maneuvering areas that are as wide as the proposed site and set back only five feet from the adjacent property lines. GENERAL COMMENTS: 21. The Policy Development Department took specific issue with the first three variances recommending denial, but recommended approval on the fourth variance for setbacks for bulk storage uses. In addition, they raised the following two issues: a. Paving: Section 4-734(J)(8) begins by stating that all on-site surfaces used for daily traffic within a lot shall be paved. However, it continues to storage areas .not intended for maneuvering space indicating they may be.paved with a sl rface satisfactory to the Hearing Examiner to meet the requirements of this chapter and minimize dust and control storm water drainage. This, combined with recent changes to the Parking and Loading Ordinance Section 4-2204(9)(A)(2), states that Storage lots may be surfaced with crushed rock or similar material approved by the Public Works Department." Great concern should be taken to assure that a storage area is provided with appropriae surfacing. This specific area seems to have soils which absorb gravel, and a heavy base of gravel would have to be installed to assure that the City streets .are kept clean. The applicant has shown.paving at the entrances to the facility that could be considered minimal to meet the intent of the Bulk Storage Ordinance; however, paving of the entire site does not seem reasonable since most storage yards are of a temporary nature or they utilize vehicles that are not conducive .to the maintenance of a paved parking lot. A nearby example, Craig Taylor, can be seen where the rear storage yard was not paved because of the tracked vehicles on site. The Building and Zoning Department believes that the paving provided at the entrance is not sufficient to meet the general intent. However, if the site is heavily gravelled and maintained in that situation, the streets should not become muddy or dirty. b. Phasing: Policy Development has raised the issue of the interface between Phases I and II. The Building and Zoning Department would agree that this interface is of critical nature on an interim basis. It is felt that landscape screening and fencing requirements should, be installed between this boundary. 22. The Public Works Department points out that detailed drainage plans will be required at the actual time of construction and that the driveway accesses shall not exceed 40 feet in width. The Utilities Division shows that fees of approximately $18,578.48 are applicable for systems development charges for both water and sewer based upon a $.04 per square foot cost of the development. The applicant has been credited with a $.01 per square foot fee that has already been prepaid. 23. The Police Department suggests diffused permits for lighting should be utilized and occasional breaks in the slatting of fences be provided so that officers can see inside while patrolling be 'included in the approval. The Hearing Examiner has partially agreed with the, Police Department and required that the gates themselves not be slatted so that a patrol vehicle, when coming up the site, can pull into the driveway and shine its lights around the storage area. 24. The Fire Department is concerned with the location of fire hydrants within the yard and the type of materials in the trucks. PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER GARY MERLINO CONSTRUCTION COMPANY SP-021-84. SA-022-84, V-023-84, V-024-84, V-025-84 and V-026-84 APRIL 24, 1984 Page 9 CONCLUSION: 25. The applicant has requested four variances along with a site approval and a special permit to locate a bulk storage facility in the L-1 zone. The variances requested severely compromise the intent of the Bulk Storage Ordinance and would appear to create a detrimental effect. If this were the last piece of property to be developing in an area, and all the other uses had been developed to previous standards, there might be some consideration for the request. However, this parcel of property is one of the first in this general area, and immediately to the west of the subject site we have a large acreage which could be developed into manufacturing or office park developments. The geometric shape of the property does support the idea of granting the variances requested. However, the Bulk Storage Ordinance is a special consideration above the typically allowed L-1 uses. RECOMMENDATION: Based upon the above analysis, it is recommended that the special permit for bulk storage, file SP-021-84, and site approval request, file SA-022-84, be approved based upon the following provisions: 1. Denial of variance (V-023-84) to reduce the landscaping and screening setback along East Valley Road. In addition, the trees that should be planted along East Valley Road should be a minimum size of 10 to 12 feet. 2. Partial approval of variance request (V-024-84) to reduce the landscaping setback along the eastern property line (SR-167) to 13 feet from the required 20 feet. Denial of the request to not landscape this area. Landscaping shall consist of staggered Douglas Fir trees with an average height of 12 to 15 feet, plus hydroseeding of the bank. The screening fence shall be placed at the top of the bank approximately 14 feet from the property line. 3. Partial approval of variance request (V-025-84) to eliminate the 20-foot setback and site screening fence along the southern property line. The variance should not be granted on the western 90 feet of the subject site, where the subject site does not share the existing fence or building with the Lumbermart building to the south. 4. Approval of the variance request (V-026-84) to allow structures and bulk storage to be located within the 60-foot setback along East Valley Road. Specifically, it should be reduced to 20 feet to comply with the location of the screening fence along East Valley Road. 5. The paved entrances shall be extended approximately 50 feet farther into the subject site, and the subject site shall be maintained in a gravel surface to assure that mud and debris is not tracked onto the City's streets. 6. The posting of a $500 cash bond to assure clean-up of City street. The bond shall be renewable each year to be maintained ad the $500 level by the Board of Public Works. Implementation of clean-up operation will be authorized by either the Police Department or the Public Works Department. 7. Approval of detailed storm drainage plans by the Public Works Department. 8. Approval of detailed landscaping plans by the Landscape Architect to assure compliance with certain provisions delineated by the Hearing Examiner. 9. No occupancy of the site can take place until all of the screening and landscaping requirements have been completed. Bonding is not an acceptable method to assure compliance, and the Board of Public Works is specifically prohibited from exercising its deferral prerogative. r --- ---_-5-.- I I ii.:.1.; .'tt ' T:- .. .— . .i .).1 1;;'. • ‘:: 1 . '1 . • , % Mk \‘` i.• 1 A... :a : Y ;: : 1 ' --.--• 33-4 • \' r3".1 - 2 — -- — tc1u. di h• ' .-11;1.1 „ II I. ' I •T L ef. I : ' \.•;` •` 1 - I 1 a ,V% L-1 r u — I . 1_•• .aI 4A 4i • [ 'v :.1 s \y(f C.. s' r Q er i. f , ow a9 41 11- •• lik• _ 3. 1.- :•1 -; 17 LA S T. . • s. n ; I _ ee O 1 421 R-4 0' 13:4 G"I i[i „„. . __ _ at-13 o R-t' 7•[ „ e I{, R— 1 \ j... r Y . Sj 4. MI TA •,7! / _It 0 1— ..1 C.._ u — F 74_ - m r T, to •-.. .f . ., ' ` E-„, :\ \..r li T._ .•...,01M. ,....111_ Z•I L ..y i.6:=-"' „1•. A'. 4!,, ' 7;._..\.,!:. 1 L__— j4Td ..-- 1# s.17....:.6 7 lye I T.1Lf30I HILL 1 ( 1 JR Ili L Ii 4 •tom IA,R(YI Hill PARK sC C` I.ELEMENTARY i o Uqa SCH00L I 15 pt7"--*.le ...ma' " ;; 1/44. rk 6. N. n 4/1:/ ---..' •: ( I Al. or\ 4:Fs, a ....11..s...- a., .. l';',T. .%. 2ri a f ea Cam r eem©aa . I•4 1.,..rIl II to [ L.-1\ .. : . 1 4C1.59 fin •'• • d • .61,. ,. . Y a ,• 1sT j- .1 • , GARY MERLINO CONSTRUCTION CO . SP-021-84, SA-022-84, V-023-84, V-024-84, V-025-84, V-026-84 4 APPL I CANT GARY MERLINO CONSTRUCTION C.O. TOTAL AREA ± 5.607 ACRES PRINCIPAL ACCESS EAST VALLEY ROAD EXISTING ZONING L-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL EXISTING USE UNDEVELOPED PROPOSED USE BULK STORAGE FACILITY FOR SHORT TERM STORAGE OF TRUCK TRAILERS. COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE _PLAN,PLAN M—P, MANUFACTURING PARK COMMENTS MERCURY VAPOR LAMP i Iit.N f. of TREATED WOODEN I POLE LIGHTING DETAIL SR `(oi EA5= 0`EE 77777ALN7/77/ µJppprEET,'N=R RETAIN EiIST=G V GiA 123669 I.. lo Il r=I PHASE I eHPBTAT=RBI BETy'E N C= CRUSHED ROCK SURFACING MINNuOSEEDGFENCED AREA /I OR'TDI S AND TO WITNIN!OFT. OF-SR IGT RAY VEGETI BOTH PHASES) TAN NG 56'b) ` \ PHASE 2I ES.WOODEN SHEDr VEJETPTED I 0."------------I aFEh-- IIf DUMPSfER RETAIN E%ISFt DVMPSTER VEGETATION FOR 2p• JFFICE WILDLIFE NA6 4• ze , T•71'k AFE4=agBb S:EE ) OFFICEEMPLOYEEEMPLOYEE/VISITOR27FXNrELM PARYIN6 7: 7 PA RYIN6 TRAILERS 1 SUDING.WTE Y /SLIDIYG GaTE — I I I L IEMI I I 57,5'•,_ .,.. SLIDING GATE LANDSCAPE 2V•VIDE STRIP BETWEEN FENCE AND SIDEWALK--SEE LANDSCAPE PLAN 10' u.o..,..Atm•u a w-aw ro e.ro.•..•u1219i.38 Y..., . ,. . e. e ;..,..;,.;.:,:::• a 1.. .. .. ........... ...... ....... .. .. .. .... .. .. .. ........ .... ... ........ ... ... ......... ... . ... .... .I. t EAST VALLEY ROAD LEGEND NOTFS_v i PROPOSED CONC. SIDEWALK ALONG EX.CONC.CURB AND GUTTER PROPOSED 8-FOOT HIGH CHAIN-LINK FENCE WITH REDWOOD SLATS I, 2-FODT2 WIDE ON-GRADE CONCRETE PADS MAY BE PLACED%ITYIN I- I EACX TRAILER STALL TO PROVIDE SUPPORT FOR TRAILER LANDING LEGS EX.CONC. SIDEWALK ALONG EX.CONC CURB AND GUTTER EX.LOW CHAIN-LINK FENCE--MOVE NORTH LEG TO PHASE 1/2 BOUNDARY, 2. EXISTING WOODEN SHED TO BE EITHER REPAIRED AND LOCATED NEAR EV' REMAINDER TO BE REMOVED THE PHASE IMPROVEMENTS ER OR ALONG REMOVED.-I l/ / 3. FRONTAGE EAST VALLEY RD SHALL OLLV PE i EX. CURB CUT/ASPHALT DRIVEL/AY o o a , EX. 8-FOOT HIGH WOODEN SITE SCREEN FENCE OWNED BY ADJACENT ASSOCIATED WITH THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE RESPECTIVE ADTACENT V) PHASE. LUMBER MARKET" PROPOSED ASPHALT PAVING EAST EDGE OF CRUSHED ROCK SURFACING d MERCURY VAPOR LAMP TO BE INSTALLED ON A 20 70 25 FOOT HIGH WOODEN POLE (SEE DETAIL.ABOVE) ONE-WAY TRUCK-TRAILER TRAFFIC FLOW DIRECTION AN EYISTING 20 TO 25 FOOT HIGH WOODEN POLDRAFTE 45-FOOT LONG TRUCK TRAILER SITE PLAN j//SUGGESTED TRAILER STORAGE STAL L. I"=t0' '^"""" DLH L LAYOUT 2/20/84 I MERLINO BULK STORAGE FACILITY Li_D,5L I•vs e• 1• W fa;.[;.g,;(„..4.,;-,10-.- e4r.';Z•< !•eiref,'•,Y,(./f,fr;.:`..,-`,g.",,AX'4-`-g,- ;2,q.•,,',!,,-,0-",,,,,./.,,;,,,-,:.---,,,,..;-,•<,,-,,,,.-41,-;;;GS 5,-"..:---');,-;`,-,`'.-rkc'-:V- t-"r6Y-:-'n4,:4-0';',`-1*4,1140az`/Atk'Alrl:%';`,'";f';•;';. 1"; J:4-;;W".:144.-A;igit;F•t-?fr-Vf,45: ":"z 7,: _----1A".1-,, ,,'.:•--!,--,-f,c,,,X;-p'',--q;',•",.'-i,,,-0,-.E,•••-kg-e,i,---.:".--,', - -• --",stig.:;0-4/1..q.,,Pt.,,,,K,r:1,..s,ig1,0,1041',,,4:?..6c:Asg.',-."-, „.5,- ,'.,-,-'.':-..,, ',,,,.,,<„,„.".-, E._:,--:- -;,:..' -...4..!7,TA`4^1','.014:.e.'f:',6-‘4•?-','AIOP.fir`,P.?-`4,f.i."'9"aX4,-'>''''': .,,,-/- 4-'-': -J---I'''''-':'-7--•: ' '''.•::'' ' :" 7iri'ari,',y,..9, - j.;. 1.57,1%C.:,,, t.O.iv,,e;Vte,r.„..7k.-AE,,'xi,-.',4.,•-•,-v.,:,,',,S,',5,4:,,,. -- .r.f.2X,P:-...'77,".-- -,:,,,,:'‘,.-",' -.''.,::?-, :..,-.-.::,',.,.„ ,., 3-;.• V,';', k'f'...)`;`,Vqc,g7iW41-.v,It;;;;A:Vii*-I.,414,*P':ki,7At-Pc^t,Z7f;;1--,,'7''-,% ..)._ .-7.-`.4t-.,,,,:.':::,-:,..':;', ..t':,.,,' :::.:.' ':'::::::-N:.j.•i....-.,7*4 xr,i1,,.1.!,.441.-i.FR4O.11,M•n1;`, ";0;.;*-'11A''',*4..-140.0.-0.2i' "'''"-';',;''',--7'''"'-•-•,--.--7.-..:.:'.-. ..'..'...:.''. ,'.'",..:::.••• .f"....-:..i.'.:'1;.:: i:.:-.;,•...... ONWP-ci-1::=•72,;Z/P4,..,,,',i5t,`tr.tri.g`i.:khg.97,-'. -,„f,30,.4-Ai.•<-,--,,:.,,.- ., ,. _4,2..7.77,7'.,:,.,.:..,, .0-,; ,:-:p,:..,? ..:.:. .,.,:, ...-.::...... 44, igz-pi-i-,;,,,g2,,,,-,-fk-s,,,-,,,,,,4,,,,,4f.,,,,•-•ii•,,,,,,,i.•7' 4...,P.,`,.,;.. .e.II,''''' •• .5t ,,.,... ,:.::.. ,, : n,,,,......:: , ,.... . ...... 4, re:-‘9,. .ifljf*Y4,..14-•Vt7.?"<k'',•7).-V;;;;f'..7.Y7.:F.c. r.e-A-.%•,t•;,i'!;j..'._':..'.„, .._:. ' . - !-4-..„r.;..,f,:',- ''.-:,:',..,.',/::::..g,..,0 a A',,*::,::','.•::',"."..... rxri:070444-";,61"..T'ApIA.?..4."tniCVM*WY-%•?";;Itq/.;?.'0J:- -..,>i,`,.. .'" T:":*-7.1-'--: . ;. ::..';'''',',: :,.: ..'?.. , .:,,A it c•'6;;frVeAS.Ck4.;;;:d.g'f"401ab'4- 'k'll,jaA''/...Mtg?:ff%r..C;; ni.:7,4..„ .4,.. .t.',..7i.. ..0: ' ':'...:; ..:, . ......W.NPRP111.-tf_Pegfqt,g'';kk,.i.;. /14%;4:4.:.r' r-1:2,,-,', ."% 3_,:o.;: r. 4,.. :4:,.,:v..:,,,,:...... 0144)7/97a,jitig4.'gr',4',4,cr551,trt;g%.,ClidVka4P41,Ciff ':4 I.,...•':::',,•••••gx.A11,c4'``*14J,, 7".:41,41.10,11...:fri.,Pitg,gf,., , i ,.... ...' 7'.:'',"••• '. ;17.:-._y...„ ,.:4:,: .:.:..;,:::..i.....;::;..c.;::::!':..:.:!,ti<Z,,,i ,..„::, z,..., ....n.l..'•:•*::.i. t. :.:.': •,,..-.'•-••• b v.tir•----v:ii,o..erilzfoi,,,:y,•34.11.,..,,,:•:,3,,,;•,.! ',.:,,-..s,,-,j,.....--..t,,::,:,.•:.- :::,:.:::..•::.---,:: :'.:1-,. :::::--:;-- :-•: :::.:::.:-.:,: -:-:',,-- i g-....,t,,.:4:f.:1?,-; .,or,.,?!.,,14rc.:-ee,:milky-4:-..,,". .e.;•e.Z f..;5.-.6-"".%-;..- '-..... A4r—,,,.s..<2....-_?...r..„: to' 0.A . w,,,,,,v,,..,-,ci-TA,g•I -,1;A: r.-,";:-,", E 1: 7. 4 g,,,,,i,-,,,,,,,,,,,i,,,,v,,,,,,,,,,iz,m(*-41p•mg..w,.:!,,- v,„..,.!*--,.-. s.,..:„.„,,,,,,.,,,,.--,.,..,„:„,_,:,,,..,,,-,.„:.::,:,,:.„.:,-,,,,,..,.,..:„..,-. r,f,,,,...;,,,,,,t,,,„.„,-,c,,,,,4„,.p„,,,,,,,,,,,,:.„-,,,50,4,-,:,5,-,v,-." -,,,----,,-:- - --,-•‹,:-..,;",-"---.,:-----,:,,,,,-,,--.. 1 i '.1 g.,1,-.- ivz 7,,.-.. ... e... .-,.t.,_-:,.7- a., ...,:,:::,..:::-•,..,..,-,,:::0,, :,...,,,,,,-;:::::,-.:-,.:::11s.-, :,. --...1 1 f:-•:,,, ,,,i-,f;-ir.cE,,x,-,;7;c .f.i.-.v,44.1,43,.41,.;14,,,T;;.--,_ -..2.....,,e-,:"...-,-.2-7. ,,,,:-fr.,-.: - :.., -.:,- •,.:.--.:-,.:.: ,-,...:.:.-.. - I I: lr'''%%4',.‘r:i'MS'A''xl-;•f'.:YrVe.44,ig,.104'4....."*.'"'" ,k __,ft,0-.. ...4':,41,---'.'---,-v'T'- ::,:,....,,-:::.. :;,,,.,, k'll: t.5,?'/Ig',.C.AWffgt::::'ir.tbCi',11';`,..'s'''''`;,-< 1` Ft'''''''.:L'.::'..:::::::':': '........1::::.::.:''':,:::.„:,::,.:'::', ... ',....**.4'n'45. 15i'''''';'1::''."* E:it Ufr1:-.''':7 ''''t':'''' ''":::':l'' '. . . '.:;' '''.'.ifittlik' .-P'-.'-`. " , ..„-- ::..: --:::<:::."::, x.-..: :::: : :. :.::............... 01 1 CY 1%., 34 _,--<0',7A,._ :-..:. -:,-r....:-.:j,„...-,.,::. --:'., -:"...,- .r'-•• .' `,,•. -`;-`77.-7-77",,:::,,- it4:".-.„;."':P.;:.''?'"''"--..: '''‘'-...'''''''•''.'.:-':'47("r"'-."".'- 11'1.r' ''''''.1—=1=111-:7-..--',"44-,M'.'-,.--'`a''-`T'P•'-''':'I;'''' '- /.: m-- 4:;"":' ".%-- Z"•. /i< 2..::...,.. ............-..,-... ......-...•.--.-,.A,--. .. •Z.sarummanits.54‘.m....:•_.........:.:amr.rio ."-.....:••..... ........:.... . . EAST VALLEY ROAD I cc , • I 1 1 F-1 / ii1F1r-ea 3; I/ fliCgir4t,'.15.1.4titi Pk':F .:-:-.ED LANDSCAPE AREAS AND AREAS OF EXISTING VEGE.TATION .i.'ii,.i.,.....::..,.......'..,..,..........:. 1..:.,.. i',.;.,..i,...........,... C 0 DBEE-YSOPN EDC LI FAI EN%sil,..1\FL.,EK SATR3ERAA,,,,,,G.E, r.sESEESETBACK1.\..iC4K_734(D)) to i..4.,,,,,,,,,;;;;•1,03;,..,,,,. 4;._;.;'. 4s,4i,I1l• r. 1.°,, e,, 4 f 2":.. 4•-;-", 4,:,...'.,.,.,, 4..,,,.:77..,, T, 0 c PROPOSED 8-Fa)T HIGH SITE CREEN E— 'F7C1FIED LANLSTAFE AREAS CILETSPECF1ED MINIMUM SETBACK 1 MERL INVOA R„IAN CE EXHIFHT SEE r §4-71 .4-734C) 4-744(F)2.) F,R3_ELcTHIGisTE ,cREEN .,EE P.C. BULK STORAGE....A 0 TY 4, 4 w 1' ,e a y+''nY.m • Ne;a 1. i c-L a-C±- ro'-o r/ I O LANDXP•PB SCREfiNiNCr f`—__- t q-- ----/' 7 7777/77// ///// 1- I—-.......-- - tr. I 1 I. . ,V // // / I 1---- 7— 41F+1/0rOr t•1 o'w ooer lreAp1 Writs •1P1Rr t3.1"l.WATOF iltiri'rrF\/-1rinRTOrM Ir t T24-1R 1r e+1 atTi e.r.au".r • e • ...o oa°r r ,.r •u•:r i:.•tr,•:.a..•:!•r.e.:r:e.r •\,r°,:.••/.._.r.ei.,•:f,au::r:•r r..4e., ,a er.r„r..a • • `i : t oe'eea 7 o.r G:• r o : i••e-...-i.ru i • s • •.;i::o..r_e :feoi aooze n"i:-Y:.l AtAise,.e.:•..r.ai-y°•:::.o...J.•.orv..aoe l a,r u•...°•a•r•s•..o fi.r.. usov acac••. .c Lur i. ...•a• , .1....r.r•..;.o.-Eo. J:• -4i i J o.o o o(. e.e. o..o"•:o.. t o .., .. .. o e _ , o .. r.re°6 .... o...•. .,....e..av IN9f14•r t...,o:hldll CO!II Sod v 11.t'•814aWAA d O.°...,•o1T74191111!@J 0119.,.°e!1't6NIIIIl07UJGa4.AGuupl:U ghlNrCo?..,°oIQIGIYII JI1fIYCoe,,,•opQ;ItlIIJNAb1110!I o.4'0911111!IIIIGR?:ALq° acaeeA- afo,•000i " ,'oe:.00• q• r voe..o e.oe ooco•'aooe 3`",,o o 00 0 mom am IF a G..._ ii i, r Jli 13.,.. a o7WNIN N iii0'...,,, a kiti1011 ansi t.",.,ts cL..,eitem imomja. lime, iffI: o!&IIIIii ISIZ I, ..c_•ilhllatagI Iswoo f7 d—T' lQdi. aR39/ Y.9iiV/1161dii inE'.L.a•4.) •:1 i4.4lL i[aE9si16 1YBli;d/Y;aw:,iiL737i ifs"16l'...1ID3d i5®d(11.7• `aB B 66 g QMEN::: I w SNDS,14&L.g. EAST VALLEY ROAD 46 I • _ K. 51P Wl>LK j 1 has i: amass= _ 1-SYh80. BOTANICAL tyWE CUM NAPE SIZE 8 CCRITION 041alMSCONTORTASHOREPIPE6'-7' B88 OTILIA EUC_ORA UTI1EAN LIMEN 1"-1N."caliper B88 i) c99 CiOISYA TERNATA PEJOCAN ORANGE 5 gallon can,5'o.c. mum ERICA CARPEA SPRIN3J000 WHITE 1 gallon can,36"o.c. r'irgoa0 Witte' FEATHER LANDSCAPE PLAN Y1*:.•,.. Laadse Architect.1"=40• a.. Iva't` aps Site Planner 1-2 sq o H l7' SSA MERLINO BULK STORAGE FACILITYDON.SHIMONO ASSOCIATES almnaa ea i zoom 14Oth Av NIL,B•lh•vv,Wa.99005 63.58o LL 1°"L-1"' . REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIV, )N.: 2 El APPROVED g APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS NOT APPROVED G4->e 5/4E-7"A'G44/// ' ) T /(--1 E 1 2eoe4C5/t-f A ) iS- U J/C /5W,, 2/c,v,6e G C/ Ty U7(p/ie.)x2,c)cam, tST-/'fr c 07--- /6i.47/b/,o. ;(7t c- G/cP e2/, T iJK-- cJ /G L eirS A-A- 0 r2. ( ram c2 vie--' cr f ,i//S)o/c),S 0t% 77-/C Gi)/ Pr'i' 1-1 ?ice evp& c=,7/ ,6%G'"' 7/v gak/;2e h 4lif-MO A //Gz 4o,J j 4///9/G &4/ ( Q 59 EGG .vz9Ane , )3--' cam" l6 y/9-,2,z7 G,)' Tv-/ /;t) 'oa ' 2/' / c)c_ aZieZt/ DATE;&-S - (3'5/ SIGNATr OF RE OR OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE REVISION 5/1982 REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : r86---r> ,- El APPROVED . p APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS El NOT APPROVED U rt, 5-"i7-& s 4ac? O c p W / -ii-/ r 7 /A) OF 6r (7/ 6 5 ,7 I 068 .1Cu62 /AL.) 6 ---,v 5 2E '/a._) G 3- ,,/U Gro,71 Pu XL/c_ P/e,j 3 iX 1Jyrt/-ei ( 6 61' el 0/U 060 4:-#4g,AJ T S C is %rr c,r-) ;,,fic 4 G'. ViOuco (f3. ,-2uE.2:>, /) >4-r A S/at (... P. e€,W- ge (' o DATE: c5" /V Y SIGNATU F DIRECTOR 0 AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE REVISION 5/1982 REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : APPROVED 0 APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS El NOT APPROVEDiite "ge,C44.46rbi i dettisjettidAtmi--- lree. 4116‘12441A-P141041y44,41 , DATE 9/egerSIGNATUREOFDIRECTORORAUTHORIZEDREPRESENTATIVE OF R A. O THE CITY OF RENTONti , U ® - E POLICY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT ® 235-2552 aiLL MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE.SO. RENTON,WASH.98055 9,0 co- 0, 9gTcD SEP t• BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH MEMORANDUM MAYOR DATE: April 10, 1984 CriY C= r::_M7. ?N TO: Building and Zoning Department FROM: David R. Clemens r c ; APR 1 11984 F ' Policy Development Director yo„ SUBJECT: Merlino Bulk Storage Facility Special Permits, Site Approval and Variances The applicant is proposing a truck/trailer storage facility on the east side of the East Valley Road just south of S.W. 27th Street. The subject site is located between East Valley Road and the SR-167 Valley Freeway. The proposal consists of two phases of construction to the trailer storage area commencing in the south and proceeding to the northerly half of the site at a later time. The proposal appears to be consistent with the bulk storage definition Section 4-7023(5). The bulk storage permit must conform to the intent [Section 4-734(A)] which states, in part, "due to the unique characteristics and problems inherent in making bulk storage facilities compatible with surrounding properties and the environment, . . . special review of hulk storage facilities is required to ensure the intent of these regulations." The bulk storage regulations specifically require height limitations [Section 4-734(C)], setbacks for the structures and the bulk storage [Section 4-734(D)], and perimeter site screening [Section 4-734(E)]. The applicant, in this case, proposes to vary all of these regulations with the exception of the height regulations. Such a proposal appears to be clearly inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the bulk storage regulations. This proposed development does have unique characteristics surrounding it as a result of its triangular shape and the existence of public rights-of-way for East Valley Road and the Valley Freeway fronting on two sides. The Policy Development Department believes that the most onerous bulk storage regulation related to this facility is the requirement for a sixty-foot setback from any public street right-of-way for any bulk storage use or buildings. Based upon a cursory evaluation of the site remaining after implementation of the sixty-foot setback from East Valley Road and from SR-167, it appears that the Phase I site area would lose approximately one-half of the available truck parking stalls. The Phase 2 area would lose approximately two-thirds of the truck parking stalls. Even though an ecomonic use of the property would remain with the elimination of the setback, it appears that this requirement for this particular site, due to its physical characteristics, warrants a variance approval from the sixty-foot setback from public rights-of-way. Building and Zoning Department April 10, 1984 Page 2 The applicant's second significant variance is the reduction in the landscape screening setback along the East Valley Road from a minimum of twenty feet from the property to a proposed twenty-one feet between 'the sidewalk and the proposed screening fence. Although the additional ten feet of landscaping which would be required to be located on the applicant's site is burdensome, other bulk storage uses including the recent Burlington Northern vehicle transfer facility, complied with this requirement including the landscaping of the public right-of-way section between the property line and the sidewalk. The combination of the landscaped area in conjunction with the required fencing are clearly necessary to reduce the visual impact of row upon row of truck trailers on this site. The applicant also proposes the elimination'of the landscape screening along the southerly property line adjacent to the Lumber Mart and utilizing a portion of the screen fencing from that facility in conjunction with new fencing construction near the southwesterly corner of the proposed site. The L-1 regulations, Section 4-712A(5), require lumber and similar facilities to be located entirely within a building or surrounded by a sight-obscuring screen consisting of a fence and landscaping. It is clear that the bulk storage regulations intend to have bulk storage uses comply with more rigorous standards than a use that would be permitted outright in the district. As a result, I can see no justification for elimination of either the landscaping or the fencing requirements along the southerly property line. Since an eight-foot screen fence already exists across approximately the easterly two-thirds of th'e south property line, it is recommended that the landscape treatment be required across this area with the extension of the eight-foot high screening fence only from the front of the Lumber Mart building westerly to the screened fence adjacent to East Valley Road. In addition, the applicant should be required. that at such time as the screened fencing now located on the Lumber Mart site is eliminated, this property owner shall install at his expense, and within a reasonable period of time, screen fencing consistent with the regulation of the Bulk Storage Ordinance. Finally, the applicant proposed to eliminate the landscaping screen between the subject site and the SR-167 Valley Freeway. In addition, the elimination of the screening on this site will open the site to visual impact from the adjoining residential uses along Talbot Hill. It should be noted, as a result of the previous fill permit, that the easterly approximately thirteen feet of this site will be in a finished slope extending from the proposed finished grade of approximately 15.5 foot elevation down to approximately an elevation of 8 feet. This slope is supposed to be hydroseeded in this proposal. The Policy Development Department believes that this proposal is unattainable and wholly improper for bulk storage use adjacent to the heavily used Valley Freeway located at an elevation nearly 10 feet above the subject site to the elast. The City of Renton, in the development of its Goals and Policies for the Valley and recent zoning ordinance amendments, has been making every effort to improve the visual appearance of new development throughout the community. In this case, this trucking terminal use will be effectively a major visual blight directly upon the city's doorstep. Two other issues have been raised by review of this application. First, Section 4-734(J)(8) requires that circulation within a bulk storage use be paved. The applicant's proposal suggests that, with the exception of the entry and exit points from the site, no paving with permanent hard surfaces is proposed. This appears to be in conflict with the ordinance requirements. Secondly, since this proposal is intended to be in two phases, the intervening period between the development of Phase 1 and Phase 2 will leave an exposed northerly perimeter on Phase 1. It is recommended that the landscape screening and fencing requirement be installed along the Phase 1/Phase 2 boundary in order to properly screen this bulk storage use. Building and Zoning Department April 10, 1984 Page 3 RECOMMENDATION: 1. Approval of the bulk storage permit for a truck/trailer storage yard with the following provisions: a. Denial of the variance to reduce the landscape and screening setback along the East Valley Road frontage. b. Denial of the variance for elimination of the landscaping and screen fencing along the south property line. c. Denial of the variance for elimination of the landscaping, screening, and fencing along the Valley Freeway side of the site and the requirement of extensive evergreen tree planting be required within this landscape setback to rapidly enhance a visual break between the freeway and residential uses along Talbot Hill to the east. d. Approval of the variance to eliminate the 60-foot setback for the proposed bulk storage uses, if and only if, the three screening and fencing variances illustrated above are denied. 2. Approval of the site plan subject to compliance with the screening and fencing separation between Phase 1 and Phase 2 until such time as the Phase 2 portion of the site is developed and compliance with the paving requirement of Section 4-734(J)(8) for the traffic circulation areas within the subject site. DRC:0598G:c1 cc: Fred J. Kaufman, Hearing Examiner REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIV: )N : APPROVED Pik, APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS NOT APPROVED t;c"6"1"1 47 - 1 6 be. it'vep,m4 Glj aerrtroe44- di% 3 /7/ey' 44 gcS1 1°;'- - Gas S DATE: SIGNATURE OF DIR': TOR OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE . . REVISION 5/1902 OF o PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT t$z DESIGN/UTILITY ENGINEERING • 235-2631 siLLn MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE.SO. RENTON,WASH. 98055 OVA 0,9' e0 SEP1°° BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH MAYOR MEMORANDUM Date: March 13, 1984 j To:ERC Committee , From: Bob Bergstrom Subject:Merlino Development Permit I 've reviewed the Merlino Truck Terminal for drainage and Flood Con- trol . 1 . The north 85'+ of the site should be dedicated to the City for the SCS P-9 Channel right-ofway. The noted 20 wildlife area is not eligible within the channel right-of-way and should be relocated elsewhere. 2. In accordance with the latest National Flood Insurance Flood- way maps, that took into consideration the loss in flood storage from the Austin Co. fills, the north 800' or so of the side is within the 100-Year Floodway and Floodway Fringe and should be left open until the P-9 is opened up or unless compensating storage is dug somewhere else. This could be in the P-9 right- of-way west of Lind, which is a public easement for drainage purposes. 3. The filling of the Merlino property could have some serious impacts upon drainage. There is a major 48" Storm Drain Cross- ing dunPr_.4.c145 which must be conveyed to the P-g alignment by 5P-4lG1 an open channel . The indicated 10' buffers are not adequate for construction of such an open 'channel . 4. Storm detention should be provided on site - 10-year detention and 10-year storm release rate. ftt.‘&674601 jft REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIV___ON ; I * C El APPROVED APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS Ei NOT APPROVED 6100,06 ipou;...ai2c 4,04; wow-AS ...-4-0144- --e-"..rdard' a_11. /0/ 141iwirve"4 eoci.4.0 "AK /Viz 1 1 DATE:1+'"--Si SIGNA,'4RE OF DIRECTOR OR AUTHORIZ. ' REPRESENTATIVE REVISION 5/1982 REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION ; TRArrF,1e. A/Gt veEe..I NG , El APPROVED 111 APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS El. NOT APPROVED L W h ve Gt_ j/d A 1,7.9 71' VI, exceed ye),11.74 'l" 4qre_ 1 ei6+1.. DATE; %ea/4 /91,7SIGNATUREOFDIRECTORORAUTHOZEDREPRESENTATIVE REVISION 5/1982 REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVI ION : V//4/T y ./6-/; E, /A/q APPROVED APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS LNOT:APPROVED UTILITY APPROVAL SUBJECT TD e '`r -G-: a-- LATE COMERS AGREEMENT • WATER NO 244, z 3/ S"4•F r p4_rd.0 .00 LATE COMERS AGREEMENT • SEWER A/D aa ' 23-t 2,j S4.Fr SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE • WATER Y'E.5 oe.Ili 40.Fr. ' 7i.2Z9 Z4. X jp.o4 SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE • SEWER y, • p¢1Sg.Pr. =19Z11.24 ,\$'q 2'9• z4 .-" SPECIAL ASSESSMENT AREA CHARGE • WATER NO W7 •'::•__ _:___.-. SPECIAL ASSESSMENT AREA CHARGE • SEWER ADD APPROVED WATER PLAN JCS eC/L F 04' c0,16s S APPROVED SEA PLAN NOT 4i w c IF Sld6 s -"--- APPROY 1..FIRE HYDRANT LOCATIONS YESAd'.FIRE DEPT. RtLOW MLY NO 0, (/ O f 40OI0 DATE: / /3 /44 SIGNAT RE OF DIRECTOR OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE y----__:-...,‘„,::.,, if)-::::1 \'-,'•',,r45.) ---,-----,_,-..— • 0.,;:-74%'', ;?:`,?,,I. N W. 3 0 432: 3—aieira% 4_ •A /a, or ..t. ,ip /.e 5. igo't./V i/1 N './Iii I-II . 5,verr-rs , ,•• t, ••0 Li Vit.S,:' 4-)• -S 0-44,2_1t1r-_ NA -49-427E. _Lr-7.--2,•.1 13'8.85 7,-,,,A Hi NO 5 , FORM'E7 \ EAST VALLEY HWY. 4.1'-' .-7 t.-•:',,,,t•• I.ea F-j::..1 t-.:wr-," Vitikt'''''.41 t;:-!:::.4 2,,,. 7 i ra 7.12) /4.ili.,,^••,47..--..,,• N a e. T,:,2). k. 4. 4, 4 1- -0\ G. 4 dP. P f. !' i C:,•-...^.1•-•'.''.7•7•' 1!,-:-i - ..". 4 t.'•••:,-J.111 r•!'t,''':f:'. rL.•-1.4, tg-,.-',•.-•,..'•:_., '.••••;r''',.1 le''';`..':...%.: r,7'-:!:, T4 V'f;' '.'_‘. t.;:••••:f..,•:' i.:,-•"..,:::5. V;;:iel1'-''": : I.N is--,-.1-,*.i 1.-1-irf,,:i1-,L-•:' e,,-,-,...-:v m>„ ',3\ :.'"::-A".-•'=„ 4. t...7-,n..._.-----.—_-'-..-••••. 4E5••; r.,... -,,f.:_ci.-----..,-..•,,-. 47.,---- c:::,- . ,,,,-.::::-.:-.it..i„, ,..:...J...5.- 0 • .:,; ,•-;:.:.i,,-;,•:-,:;,---- L 9 1 8 S 6- m Ni i 1 E 4 Al f-- %6- ‘Iti AG•ti fri t ,v ,c• ••• 0 i W.Siz E 2# . cs'7'11. ca, 7 a icedg2• 64/11044,f 6-1 Z'' V\1 \13 d ) i z siggyr '' tql % • 14.1-gZZ 6 1'43.....----11------------ 1 S 01-N38 31-*C1 L 0367N FINAL DECLARATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE Application No(s): SP-021-84. SA-022-84, V-023-84. V-024-84, V-025-84, V-026-84 Environmental Checklist No.:ECF-024-84 Description of Proposal:Application for special permit and site plan approval to allow the construction of a bulk storage facility for the short term storage of truck trailers including three office trailers for employee office and four variances for: (1) to reduce the landscape setback along East Valley Road from 20 feet to 10 feet, (2) 'to reduce the landscape setback along the east property line from 20 feet to 10 feet and eliminate the site screen fence, (3) to eliminate the 20 foot landscape setback and site screen fence along the south property line and (4) to allow structures and bulk storage to be located . within the 60 foot setback along East Valley Road. Proponent: Gary Merlino Construction Company Location of Proposal: Located between SR-167 and East Valley Road at 2900 East Valley Road Lead Agency: City of Renton Building and Zoning Department This proposal was reviewed by the ERC on March 14, 1984. March 28, 1984, and April 4, 1984. following a presentation by Jerry Lind of the Building and Zoning Department. Oral comments were accepted from: Ronald Nelson, Roger Blaylock, Richard Houghton, Gary Norris, Ed Wooten, and Jerry Lind. Incorporated by reference in the record of the proceedings of the ERC on application ECF-024-84 are the following: 1. Environmental Checklist Form, prepared by: David L. Halinen, DATED February 23, 1984. 2. Applications: Special Permit (SP-021-84), Site Approval (SA-022-84). Variances V-023-84. V-024-84, V-025-84, V-026-84). 3. Recommendations for a declaration of non-significance: Building and Zoning Department, Design Engineering Division, Traffic Engineering Division, Utilities Engineering Division, Fire Prevention Bureau, and Policy Development Department. 4. Recommendation for declaration of significance: Police Department. Acting as the Responsible Official, the ERC has determined this development does not have a significant adverse impact on the environment. An EIS is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review by the lead agency of a complete environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. FINAL DECLARATION OF u.JN-SIGNIFICANCE GARY MERLINO CONSTRUCTION COMPANY SP-021-84, SA-022-84, V-023-84, V-024-84, V-025-84, V-026-84 PUBLISHED: APRIL 9, 1984 Page 2 Reasons for declaration of environmental non-significance: The subject bulk storage facility will not adversely impact the environment or adjacent properties and is subject to the following condition being complied with: The north seventy-five (75) feet across the site shall be put in reservation, dedication or easement for drainage and wildlife purposes. INFORMATION: The aesthetic screening of the site is critical for the fulfillment of the Bulk Storage Ordinance. SIGNATURES: Ronald G. Nelson David R. Clemens Building and Zoning Director Policy Development Director Ri and C. Hou hton Public Works Director PUBLISHED: April 9, 1984 APPEAL DATE: April 23, 1984 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST REVIEW SHEET ECF - 024 - 84 APPLICATION No(s) : SP-021-84, SA-022-84, V-023-84, V-024-84, V-025-84, V-026-84 PROPONENT: GORY MERLINO CONSTRUCTION CO. PROJECT TITLE: MERLINO BULB STORAGE FACILITY APPLICATION FOR SITE APPROVAL AND SPECIAL PERMIT TO Brief Description of Project:CONSTRUCT A BULK STORAGE FACILITY FOR THE SHORT TER STORAGE OF TRUCK TRAILERS INCLUDING THREE OFFICE TRAILERS FOR EMPLOYEE OFFICES TOGETHE.' WITH THE FOLLOWING VARIANCE: (1)SECTION 4-734(E)2 TO REDUCE SCREEN SETBACK: (2)4-734(E): TO ELIMINATE SCREEN FROM EAST BOUNDARY: (3)4-734(E)2 TO ELIMINATE SITE SCREEN ON SO. BD] AWMAgffac AND REDUCE 8 FT FENCE ON SAPS: AMID (4) -734(D) . LOCATION: 2900 EAST VALLEY ROAD SITE AREA: .± 5.61 ACRES BUILDING AREA (Gross) : DEVELOPMENT COVERAGE (%) : IMPACT REVIEW NONE MINOR MAJOR MORE INFO 1) Topographic Changes: X 2) Direct/Indirect Air Quality: X 3) Water & Water Courses : X 4) Plant Life: X 5) Animal Life: X 6) Noise: X 7) Light & Glare: X 8) Land Use: North: HEAVY EQUIPMENT STORAGE East : SR-167 (VALLEY FREEWAY) South: LUMBER Der. West : UNDEVELOPED Land Use Conflicts : View Obstruction: 9) Natural Resources: X 10) Risk of Upset: X 11) Population/Employment: X 12) Number of Dwellings : X 13) Trip Ends (ITE) : TRUCK TERMINALS, CODE 030 (460 TRIP ENDS)MAY BE LESS AS Traffic Impacts: MINOR STORAGE AR 14) Public Services : X 15) Energy:X 16) Utilities : X 17) Human Health: X 18) Aesthetics: X 19) Recreation: X 20) Archeology/History: X Signatures: onald G. Nelson David R. Clemens Building & Zoning Director Policy Development Director Aj(" PUBLISHED: APRIL 9, 1984 Ri hard C. Houghto APPEAL DATE: APRIL 23, 1984 Public Works Director 0801Z CITY OF RENTON LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING APRIL 24, 1984 AGENDA COMMENCING AT 9:00 A.M.: COUNCIL CHAMBERS, SECOND FLOOR, RENTON MUNICIPAL BUILDING The applications listed are in order of application number only and not necessarily the order in which they will be heard. Items will be called for hearing at the discretion of the Hearing Examiner. WILLI:AM & MARCIA HEATH Application for short plat approval to subdivide approximately 1.2 acres of property into four (4) single family lots and variances for: (1) to allow a private street and (2) to allow a pipestem lot, files Short Plat 034-84, V-032-84, and V-033-84, located at 1303 N. 26th Street. METRO Application to allow a 63 foot tall metal tower in a G-1 zoned district that has a 'height limit of 35 feet. GARY MERLINO CONSTRUCTION COMPANY (ECF-024-84) Application for special permit and site plan approval to allow the construction of a bulk storage facility for the short term storage of truck trailers including three office trailers for employee office, file SP-021-84 and file SA-022-84, and four variances for: (1) to reduce the landscape setback along East Valley Road from 20 feet to 10 feet, file V-023-84, (2) to reduce the landscape setback along the east property line from 20 feet to 10 feet and eliminate the site screen fence, file V-024-84, (3) to eliminate the 20-foot landscape setback and site screen fence along the south property line, file V-025-84, and (4) to allow structures and bulk storage to be located within the 60-foot setback along East Valley Road, file V-026-84; property located at 2900 East Valley Road. OF IRA,A BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT0.. RONALD G. NELSON — DIRECTOR 09 co MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON,WASH.98055 • 235-2540 0Ao9 TF0 SEPSES P April 11 1984 BARBARA Y. SHINPOCI-t MAYOiR David L. Halinen 9125 10th Avenue South Seattle. WA 98108 Re: Bulk storage facility located at 2900 E. Valley Road, file SP-021-84, SA-022-84, V;023-84, V-024-84, V-025-84, V-026-84 Dear Mr. Halinen: The City of Renton Building and Zoning Department formally accepted the above mentioned application on February 23, 1984. A public hearing before the City of Renton Land Use Hearing Examiner has been scheduled for April 24, 1984. The public hearing commences at 9:00 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the second floor of City Hall. The'applicant or representative(s) of the applicant is required to be present at the public hearing. A copy of the staff report will be mailed to you before the hearing. If you have any questions, please call the Building and Zoning Department at 235-2550. Sincerely, Roger J. Blay ock Zoning Administrator RJB:JMS:cl 0804Z OF R4,11, A. 111 r w. e 0 BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT Z WL RONALD G. NELSON - DIRECTOR 0 I MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON,WASH. 98055 • 235-2540 09gT o sEP1EMz P April 11 1984 BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH MAYOR Gary Merlino Construction Co. 9125 10th,Avenue South Seattle, WA 98108 Re: Bulk storage facility located at 2900 E. Valley Road, file SP-021-84, SA-022-84, V-023-84, V-024-84, V-025-84, V-026-84 Dear Mr. Merlino: The City of Renton Building and Zoning Department formally accepted the above mentioned application on February 23, 1984. A public hearing before the City of Renton Land Use Hearing Examiner has been scheduled for April 24, 1984. The public hearing commences at 9:00 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the second floor of City Hall. The'applicant or representative(s) of the applicant is required to be present at the public hearing. 1 A copy of the staff report will be mailed to you before the hearing. If you have any questions, please call the Building and Zoning Department at 235-2550. Sincerely, Roger J.,Blaylock Zoning Administrator RJB:JMS:cl 0804Z-2, r OF i z THE CITY OF RENTON u 40 POLICY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT • 235-2552 MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILLAVE. SO. RENTON,WASH. 98055 A O, 9gTFO SEPS • P BARBARA !Y. SHINPOCH MEMORANDUM MAYOR DATE: April 10, 1984 CiTY t03, _.._. TO: Building and Zoning Department a SF' ` jtj FROM: David R. Clemens L4 APR 1. 1. 1984 Policy Development Director SUBJECT: Merlin Bulk Storage Facility Special Permits, Site Approval and Variances The applicant is proposing a truck/trailer storage facility on the east side of the East Valley Road just south of S.W. 27th Street. The subject site is located between. East Valley Road and the SR-167 Valley Freeway. The proposal consists of two phases of construction to the trailer storage area commencing in the south and proceeding to the northerly half of the site at a later time. The proposal appears to be consistent with the bulk storage definition Section 4-7023(5). ;The bulk storage permit must conform to the intent [Section 4-734(A)] which states, in part, "due to the unique characteristics and problems inherent in making bulk storage facilities compatible with surrounding properties and the environment, . . . special review of bulk storage facilities is required to ensure the intent of these regulations." The bulk storage regulations specifically require height limitations [Section 4-734(C)], setbacks for the structures and the bulk storage [Section 4-734(D)], and perimeter site screening [Section 4-734(E)]. The applicant, in this case, proposes to vary all of these regulations with the exception of the height regulations. Such a proposal appears to be clearly inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the bulk storage regulations. This proposed development does have unique characteristics surrounding it as a result of its triangular shape and the existence of public rights-of-way for East Valley Road and the Valley Freeway fronting on two sides. The Policy Development Department believes that the most onerous bulk storage regulation related to this facility is the requirement for a sixty-foot setback from any public street right-of-way for any bulk storage use or buildings.; Based upon a cursory evaluation of the site remaining after implementation of the sixty-foot setback from East Valley Road and from SR-167, it appears that the Phase I site area would lose approximately one-half of the available truck parking stalls. The Phase 2 area would lose approximately two-thirds of the truck parking stalls. Even though an ecomonic use of the property would remain with the elimination of the setback, it appeals that this requirement for this particular site, due to its physical characteristics, warrants a variance approval from the sixty-foot setback from public rights-of-'way. Building and Zoning Department April 10, 1984 Page 3 RECOMMENDATION: 1. Approval of the bulk storage permit for a truck/trailer storage yard with the following provisions: a. Denial of the variance to reduce the landscape and screening setback along the East Valley Road frontage. b. Denial of the variance for elimination of the landscaping and screen fencing along the south property line. c. Denial of the variance for elimination of the landscaping, screening, and fencing along the Valley Freeway side of the site and the requirement of extensive evergreen tree planting be required within this landscape setback to rapidly enhance a visual break between the freeway and residential uses along Talbot Hill to the east. d. Approval of the variance to eliminate the 60-foot setback for the proposed bulk storage uses, if and only if, the three screening and fencing variances illustrated above are denied. 2. Approval of the site plan subject to compliance with the screening and fencing separation between Phase 1 and Phase 2 until such time as the Phase 2 portion of the site is developed and compliance with the paving requirement of Section 4-734(J)(8) for the traffic circulation areas within the subject site. DRC:0598G:c1 cc: Fred J. Kaufman, Hearing Examiner Building and Zoning Department April 10, 1984 Page 2 The applicant's second significant variance is the reduction in the landscape screening setback along the East Valley Road from a minimum of twenty feet from the property to a proposed twenty-one feet between 'the sidewalk and the proposed screening fence. Although the additional ten feet of landscaping which would be required to be located on the applicant's site is burdensome, other bulk storage uses including the recent Burlington Northern vehicle transfer facility, complied with this requirement including the landscaping of the public right-of-way section between the property line and the sidewalk. The combination of the landscaped area in conjunction with the required fencing are clearly necessary to reduce the visual impact of row upon row of truck trailers on this site. The applicant also proposes the elimination of the landscape screening along the southerly property line adjacent to the Lumber Mart and utilizing a portion of the screen fencing from that facility in conjunction with new fencing construction near the southwesterly corner of; the proposed site. The L-1 regulations, Section 4-712A(5), require lumber and similar facilities to be located entirely within a building or surrounded by a sight-obscuring screen consisting of a fence and landscaping. It is clear that the bulk storage regulations intend to have bulk storage uses comply with more rigorous standards than a use that would be permitted outright in the district. As a result, I can see no justification for elimination of either the landscaping or the fencing requirements along the southerly property line. Since an eight-foot screen fence already exists across approximately the easterly two-thirds of the south property line, it is recommended that the landscape treatment be required across this area with the extension of the eight-foot high screening fence only from the front of the Lumber Mart building westerly to the screened fence adjacent to East Valley Road.. In addition, the applicant should be required that at such time as the screened fencing' now located on the Lumber Mart site is eliminated, this property owner shall install at his expense, and within a reasonable period of time, screen fencing consistent with the regulation of the Bulk Storage Ordinance. Finally, the applicant proposed to eliminate the landscaping screen between the subject site and the SR-167 Valley Freeway. In addition, the elimination of the screening on this site will open the site to visual impact from the adjoining residential uses along Talbot Hill. It should be noted, as a result of the previous fill permit, that the easterly approximately thirteen feet of this site will be in a finished slope extending from the proposed,finished grade of approximately 15.5 foot elevation down to approximately an elevation of 8 feet. This slope is supposed to be hydroseeded in this proposal. The Policy Development Department believes that this proposal is unattainable and wholly improper for bulk storage use adjacent to the heavily used Valley Freeway located at an elevation nearly 10! I feet above the subject site to the east. The City of Renton, in the development of its Goals and Policies for the Valley and recent zoning ordinance amendments, has been making every effort to improve the visual appearance of new development throughout the community. In this case, this trucking terminal use will be effectively a major visual blight directly upon the city's doorstep. Two other issues have been raised by review of this application. First, Section 4-734(J)(8) requires that circulation within a bulk storage use be paved. The applicant's proposal 11 suggests that, with the exception of the entry and exit points from the site, no paving with permanent hard surfaces is proposed. , This appears to be in conflict with the ordinance requirements. Secondly, since this proposal is intended to be in two phases, the intervening period between the development of Phase 1 and Phase 2 will leave an exposed northerly perimeter on Phase 1. It is recommended that the landscape screening and fencing requirement be installed along the Phase 1/Phase 2 boundary in order to properly screen this bulk storage use. Affidavit of Publication STATE OF WASHINGTON AY 1 198 4 COUNTY OF KING SS. Cindy Strupp being first duly sworn on NOTICE She chief clerk FUBue HEARINoath,deposes and says that is the of G: :[..=:`"`'. ': _ THE DAILY RECORD CHRONICLE a newspaper published six(6)times a 41:NG LAND USE':••; week.That said newspaper is a legal news r an it is now and has been HEARING EXAMINER PUbIIC•. . ... for more than six monthshs prior tothe date of publication referred to, RENTON,`WgSHINGTON.CONSIDER THE FOLLOW-:`:A".PUBLIC NEARING WIL!printed and published in the English language continuallyas a newspaper ING PETITIONS:;s::_:; • ublished for(4)times a week in Kent, in County,Wasington,an is BE HELD BY THE RENTON... METRO - Application;.to now and during all of said time was printed in an office maintained at the LANp.,USE HEARING EX,-;,allow a 63 foot tall metal•. aforesaid place of publication of said newspaper.That the Daily Record AMINER ATHIS REGULgR'.:tower•in a G-1 zoned district. Chronicle has been approved as a legal newspaper by order of the Superior MEETING.IN' 'THE COON- that has a height limitof 35 Court of the County in which it is published,to-wit,King County,C'IL CHAMBERS ON,;THE feet." SECOND FLOOR OF CITY• GARY"MERLINO CON-HALL RENT 0 STRUCTION COMPANY.:. Washington.That the annexed is a Land Use Hearing WASHINGTON N' ( ECF-024 84 Applicationg 24,:f9B4;, ON APRIL` APP A1.g:00 A:M TO` for special permit and site'. plan approval to allow-the construction of:a-bulk stor-:a sage facility for theshort term:I storage.of truck'trailer§;'in-:,as it was published in regular issues(and cluding three office trailers:;not in supplement form of said newspaper) once each issue for a period for.•empleyee.office;file SP;. i 021-84 nd,,file SA-022-84, , and four`variances for:(1)toy of one consecutive issues,commencing on the reduce:the landscape set-..1 back'along East Valley Road from 20 feet to 10 feet,file V, 13 thay of At ri l 19 8 4 ,and ending the 023-84, (2) to.reduce-the landscape setback along the, east property line'.from:20.,'. feet to 10 feet and eliminate; day of 19 both dates the site screen fence,file.V=, inclusive, and that such newspaper was regularly distributed to its sub- 024-84 (3) to eliminate tha•t scribers during all of said period. That the full amount of the fee 20-foot landscape setback,; and.site.screen fence along charged for the foregoing publication is the sum of 3 0•6, which the:south:property,line,fle V-025-84;,•and (4),:to allow:has been paid in full at the rate of per folio of one hundred words for the i first insertion and per folio of one hundred words for each subsequent structures and bulk storage-.! to be located,within the,60insertion. foot setback along East Val-' ley Road,file V-026-84;pro-, w• I,party_located_at 2900.East:; Valley.Road ;':.•: Legal descriptions of the C'h7-ef..C1 ere. files noted'above are on file in:the:Renton Building and,: Zoning Department.• •`::-:'--' Subscribed and sworn to before me this 13th day of ALL INTERESTED PER SONS TO SAID PETITIONS April 19$.4... ARE INVITED TO BE PRE-.;: r , ey ;___ L, SENT AT.THE PUBLIC HEARING,:ON APRIL 1984,'•AT 9:00:A.M. TOTO Notary Public in a or the State of Washington, EXPRESS):THEIR -OP IN-: esiding atd$I, King County. IONS.,:-. -`;' ,..: :. '._•• - d era 1 tip Ronald.a,Nelson Y Building and Zoning Director, Published in the Daily Re-- Passed by the Legislature,1955,known as Senate Bill 281,effective June Cord'Chronicle.:April -13, 9th, 1955. 1984. R9052 :-_.-':,_ • .; Western Union Telegraph Co. rules for counting words and figures, adopted by the newspapers of the State. VN#87 Revised 5/82 0800Z 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 ON THE SECOND FLOOR OF CITY HALL, RENTON, WASHINGTON ON APRIL 24, 1984, AT 9:00 A.M. TO CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING PETITIONS: METRO Application to allow a 63 foot tall metal tower in a G-1 zoned district that has a height limit of 35 feet. GARY MERLINO CONSTRUCTION COMPANY (ECF-024-84) Application for special permit and site plan approval to allow the construction of a bulk storage facility for the short term storage of truck trailers including three office trailers for employee office, file SP-021-84 and file SA-022-84, and four variances for: (1) to reduce the landscape setback along East Valley Road from 20 feet to 10 feet, file V-023-84, (2) to reduce the landscape setback along the east property line from 20 feet to 10 feet and eliminate the site screen fence, file V-024-84, (3) to eliminate the 20-foot landscape setback and site screen fence along the south property line, file V-025-84, and (4) to allow structures and bulk storage to be located within the 60-foot setback along East Valley Road, file V-026-84; property located at 2900 East Valley Road. Legal descriptions of the files noted above are on file in the Renton Building and Zoning Department. ALL INTERESTED PERSONS TO SAID PETITIONS ARE INVITED TO BE PRESENT AT THE PUBLIC HEARING ON APRIL 24, 1984, AT 9:00 A.M. TO EXPRESS THEIR OPINIONS. PUBLISHED : APRIL 13, 1984 Ronald G. Nelson Building and Zoning Director CERTIFICATION I, JEANETTE M. SAMEK, HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THREE COPIES OF THE ABOVE DOCUMENTS WERE POSTED BY ME IN THREE CONSPICUOUS PLACES ON THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED ABOVE AS PRESCRIBED BY LAW. ATTEST: r'' Subscribed and sworn to before me, a Notary Public in and r the St e of Washington residing in on the 13th day,of'April, 198 cii Ze SIGNED• tete C.C QJi)J41t 1'-: _ L,i•..,r.- o' a-..--ti.`y-..v_. .... .....-•,r--1. T•y„.^:,,^-C-T'-_ rti l•-u r•_.r u .• r• '0_..ti..`}•,. d errs-.•, 3 0 (:)Z•IN c3TicE09A Oflq' 60 SEPS MO City of Renton Land Use Hearing Examiner will hold a PUBLIC HEARING in CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS , CITY HALL ON APRIL 24, 1984 BEGINNING AT 9:00 A.M. P.M. CONCERNING: sP-021-84, SA-022-84, V-023-84, v-o24-84, v-025-84 V-026-84 REZONE From To SPECIAL / CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT To Al I OW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A MI K STORAGE FACI.I ITY FOR TRUCK TRAIT FRS SITE APPROVAL SHORT PLAT/SUBDIVISION of Lots PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT X VARIANCE FROM SECTION 4-734(E)(2) ri SECTION 4-734(D) GENERAL LOCATION AND/OR ADDRESS: LOCATED WITHIN TEE 60 FOOT SETBACK ALONG EAST VALLEY ROAD, AT 2900 EAST VALLEY ROAD, LEGAL DESCRIPTION ON FILE IN THE RENTON BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT. ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION 0 SIGNIFICANT NINON-SIGNIFICANT FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CALL THE CITY OF, RENTON BUILDING& ZONING DEPARTMENT 235-2550 THIS NOTICE NOT TO BE REMOVED WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION Affidavit of Publication STATE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY OF KING ss. Cindy Strupp being first duly sworn on oath,deposes and says thatshe is the chief clerk of MAY 1, 4 .1 0.? THE DAILY RECORD CHRONICLE,a newspaper published six(6)times a week.That said newspaper is a legal newspaper and it is now and has been for more than six months prior to the date of publication referred to, printed and published in the English language continually as a newspaper published four(4)times a week in Kent,King County,Washington,and it is now and during all of said time was printed in an office maintained at the aforesaid place of publication of said newspaper.That the Daily Record Chronicle has been approved as a legal newspaper by order of the Superior Court of the County in which it is published,to-wit,King County, Washington.That the annexed is a..N.otice of...Environmental Determination Public Notice • public Notice i as it was published in regular issues(and NOTICE OF ENVIRON- issued a final declaration of not in supplement form of said newspaper) once each issue for a period MENTAL' DETERMINA- non-significance for the fol- TION lowing project: . ENVIRONMENTAL WILLIAM & MARCIA HEATH(ECF-033-84) of one consecutive issues,commencing on the REVIEW ON, COMMITTEE O for shortplatRENTON,WASHINGTON •. Applicationi The Environmental Re- 'approval to subdivide ap- 9th da of.April 19 $4 view Committee(ERC)has proximately 1.2 acres of pro-. y and ending the Issued a final declaration of..Perty Into four (4) single non-significance with condi- family lots, file Short Plat- tions for the following, 034-84, and variances for: dayof I 1g project: _ 1)to allow a private street,both dates ORY-MERLIN() CON-- file V-032-84, and (2) to inclusive, and that such newspaper was regularly distributed to its sub- STRUCTION COMPANY allow a pipestem lot,file V-scribers during all of said period. That the full amount of the fee ECF-02484) ' 033-84;located at 1303 N. Application.for special 26th Street (within Green- charged for the foregoing publication is the sum of $3 2.p. .Q which permit and site plan approv- belt on the comprehensive i has been paid in full at the rate of per folio of one hundred words for the alto allow the construction of Plan)- i first insertion and per folio of one hundred words for each subsequent a bulk storage facility for the • Further information re- insertion. short term storage of truck garding this action is avail- trailers Including office able on the Department, u and trailers for office, 9 Iua , • 5. 7:7—...k. fly file SP-021.34 and file SA- Muniapat Building, Renton, 022-84, and four variances Washington,235-2550.Any Chief...aerk for:(1)to reduce the land- appealtERC he must atomsetbacka East Valley Road from 20 feet.to Examiner by April 23,1984. Subscribed and sworn to before me this • 9th. day of 10 feet,file V-023-84,(2)to Publishedthe Dail 198eRe-reduce the landscape set- ChronicleAP back along the east property April 19.8.4.. line from 20 feet to 10 feet and eliminate the site screen a fence, file V-024-84, (3)to',6 ", ee.,,.. 1 eliminate the 20 foot land-, Notary Public i nd for the State o Washirgton, scope setback and site residing at King County. screen fence along the Federal Way south property line, file V- 025.84, end (4) to allow Passed by th I Legislature,1955,known as Senate Bill 281,effective June structures and bulk stoea60 9th, 1955. to be located within the 60 foot setback along East Val- ley Raod,file V-026-84;pro-Western Union Telegraph Co. rules for counting words and figures, petty located at 2900 EastadoptedbythenewspapersoftheState. Valley Road. The Environmental Re- view Committee(ERC)has VN#87 Revised 5/82 0365N NOTICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE RENTON, WASHINGTON The Environmental Review Committee (ERC) has issued a final . declaration of non-significance with conditions for the following project: GARY MERLINO CONSTRUCTION COMPANY (ECF-024-84) Application for special permit and site plan approval to allow the construction of a bulk storage facility for the short term storage of truck trailers including three office trailers for employee office, file SP-021-84 and file SA-022-84, and four variances for: (1) to reduce the landscape setback along East Valley Road from 20 feet to 10 feet, file V-023-84, (2) to reduce the landscape setback along the east property line from 20 feet to 10 feet and eliminate the site screen fence, file V-024-84, (3) to eliminate the 20 foot landscape setback and site screen fence along the south property line, file V-025-84, and (4) to allow structures and bulk storage to be located within the 60 foot setback along East Valley Road, file V-026-84; property llocated at 2900 East Valley Road. The Environmental Review Committee (ERC) has issued a final declaration of non-significance for the following project: WILLIAM & MARCIA HEATH (ECF-033-84) Application for short plat approval to subdivide approximately 1.2 acres of property into four (4) single family lots, file Short Plat-034-84, and variances for: (1) to allow a private street, file V-032-84, and (2) to allow a pipestem lot, file V-033-84; located at 1303 N. 26th Street (within Greenbelt on the comprehensive Plan). Further information regarding this action is available in the Building and Zoning Department, Municipal Building, Renton, Washington, 235-2550. Any appeal of ERC action mlust be filed with the Hearing Examiner by April 23, 1984. Published: April 9, 1984 N OT E , ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION , NVIRONMENTAL APPLICATION NO. SP-021-84, SA-022-84, V-073-84; V-11I4-84, V-025-84, V-026-84 ECF-024-84 PROPOSED. ACTION APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL PERMIT SITE PLAN APPROVAL TO Al I OW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A RHI K STORACF FACTI ITY FOR THE SHORT TFRJI STORAGE OF TRUCK TRAILERS INCI UDING THRFE OFFICF TRAI1 FRS FOR FMPI OYFF OFFICF. GENERAL LOCATION AND OR ADDRESS • LOCATED AT 2900 EAST VA ROAD - POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION. THE CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE C E.R.C.] HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED ACTION DOES OODOES NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT . ION THE ENVIRONMENT. AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT WILL WILL NOT BE REQUIRED. AN APPEAL OF THE ABOVE DETERMINATION MAY BE FILED WITH THE RENTON HEARING EXAMINER BY 5:00 P.M., APRIL23, 1984 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT THE CITY OF RENTON BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT 235-2550 DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE WITHOUT PROPER -AUTHORIZATION 0367N FINAL DECLARATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE Application No(s): SP-021-84, SA-022-84, V-023-84, V-024-84, V-025-84, V-026-84 Environmental Checklist No.:ECF-024-84 Description of Proposal:Application for special permit and site plan approval to allow the construction of a bulk storage facility for the short term storage of truck trailers including three office trailers for employee office and four variances for: (1) to reduce the landscape setback along East Valley Road from 20 feet to 10 feet, (2) to reduce the landscape setback along the east property line from 20 feet to 10 feet and eliminate the site screen fence, (3) to eliminate the 20 foot landscape setback and site screen fence along the south property line and (4) to allow structures and bulk storage to be located within the 60 foot !setback along East Valley Road. Proponent Gary Merlino Construction Company Location of Proposal: Located between SR-167 and East Valley Road at 2900 East Valley Road Lead Agency: City of Renton Building and Zoning Department This proposal was reviewed by the ERC on March 14, 1984, March 28, 1984, and April 4, 1984, following a presentation by Jerry Lind of the Building and Zoning Department. Oral comments were accepted from: Ronald Nelson, Roger Blaylock, Richard Houghton, Gary Norris, Ed Wooten, and Jerry Lind. Incorporated by reference in the record of the proceedings of the ERC on application ECF-024-84 are the following: 1. Environmental Checklist Form, prepared by: David L. Halinen, DATED February 23', 1984. 2. Applications: Special Permit (SP-021-84), Site Approval (SA-022-84), Variances V-023-84, V-024-84, V-025-84, V-026-84). 3. Recommendations for a declaration of non-significance: Building and Zoning Department, Design Engineering Division, Traffic Engineering Division, Utilities Engineering Division, Fire Prevention Bureau, and Policy Development Department. 4. Recommendation for declaration of significance: Police Department. Acting as the Respontible Official, the ERC has determined this development does not have a significant adverse impact on the environment. An EIS is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review by the lead agency of a complete environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. FINAL DECLARATION OF NUN-SIGNIFICANCE GARY MERLINO CONSTRUCTION COMPANY SP-021-84, SA-022-84, V-023-84, V-024-84, V-025-84, V-026-84 PUBLISHED: APRIL 9, 1984 Page 2 Reasons for declaration of environmental non-significance: The subject bulk storage facility will not adversely impact the environment or adjacent properties land is subject to 'the following condition being complied with: The north seventy-five (75) feet across the site shall be put in reservation, dedication or easement for drainage and wildlife purposes. INFORMATION: The aesthetic screening of the site is critical for the fulfillment of the Bulk Storage Ordinance.! II SIGNATURES: Ronald G. Nelson David R. Clemens Building and Zoning Director Policy Development Director Ri and C: Hou hton Public Works Director PUBLISHED: April 9, 1984 APPEAL DATE: April 23, 1984 i I I i ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST REVIEW SHEET ECF - 024 - 84 APPLICATION No(s) : SP-021-84, SA-022-84, V-023-84, V-024-84, V-025-84, V-026-84 PROPONENT: GARY. MERLINO CONSTRUCTION CO. PROJECT TITLE: MERLINO BULK STORAGE FACILITY APPLICATION FOR SITE APPROVAL AND SPECIAL PERMIT TO Brief Description of Project :CONSTRUCT A BULK STORAGE FACILITY FOR THE SHORT TERI STORAGE OF TRUCK TRAILERS INCLUDING THREE OFFICE TRAILERS FOR EMPLOYEE OFFICES TOGETHE WITH THE FOLLOWING VARIANCE: (1)SECTION 4-734(E)2 TO REDUCE SCREEN SETBACK: (2)4-734(E). TO ELIMINATE SCREEN FROM EAST BOUNDARY: (3)4-734(E)2 TO ELIMINATE SITE SCREEN ON SO. BD: S20(20Mlicx AND REDUCE 8 FT FENCE ON SAME: AND (4) -734(D) . LOCATION: 2900 EAST VALLEY ROAD SITE AREA: ± 5.61 ACRES BUILDING AREA (Gross) : I DEVELOPMENT COVERAGE (%) : II IMPACT REVIEW NONE MINOR MAJOR MORE INFO 1) Topographic Changes : X 2) Di!rect/Indirect Air Quality: X 3) Water & Water Courses : X 4) P lant Life: X 5) Animal Life: . I X 6) Noise: X I ! 7) Light & Glare: X 8) Land Use; North: HEAVY EQUIPMENT STORAGE East : SR-167 (VALLEY FREEWAY) South: LUMBER MARKET. West : UNDEVELOPED Land Use Conflicts: View Obstruction: 9) Natural Resources: X 10) Risk of Upset: X 11) population/Employment: X 12) Number of Dwellings: X 13) Trip Ends (ITE) : TRUCK TERNENALS, CODE 030 (460 TRIP ENDS)MAY BE LESS AS Traffic Impacts: MINOR ' STORAGE AR 14) Public Services : X 15) Energy:X 16) Utilities: X 17) human Health:. X I I 18) Aesthetics : X 19) Recreation: X 20) Archeology/History: X Signl tures: ona'ld G. Nelson I David R. Clemens Building & Zoning Director Policy Development Director I PUBLISHED:APRIL 9, 1984 Ri hard C. Houghto APPEAL DATE: APRIL 23, 1984 Public Works Director 6-83 762-9125 GARY MERLINO CONSTRUCTION CO. General Contracting- 9125 - 10th Avenue South Seattle, Washington 98108 UiTY Exit RENTOil April 3, 1984 is1 4 . 2 1) APR. 4 1984 Mr. Ronald Nelson Mr. Richard Houghton Mr. David Clemens City of Renton Environmental Review Committee) 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 Re: Merlino Bulk Storage Facility Gentlemen: In response to your four questions that were orally forwarded to me by Mr. Roger Blaylock after last Wednesday's ERC meeting, please consider the following: 1) The site plan has been slightly revised to reflect site grading in conformance with previously issued SP-062-77. We are proposing 2H:1V fill slopes along the east boundary and the north end of the fill. These 2H:1V slopes are specifically permitted by Renton Code Section 4-2316.6 as was noted in Conclusion No. 3 of the Hearing Examiner's Report for SP-062-77. 2) The site plan has also been revised to reflect that the P-9 channel is planned for the north part of the site. We do not in- tend to dedicate the property to the City at this time. However, because we are not proposing development which would preclude future P-9 channel construction, our intention not to dedicate the channel area has no bearing on whether a declaration of non- significance should be issued. Please note that we propose to meet the "2% of the site wildlife habitat" requirement within the area planned for the P-9 channel. This proposal is consistent with the view expressed in Conclusion No. 1 of the Hearing Examiner's Report for SP-062-77. Page Two: April 3, 1984 3) A drainage way limited to the SR167 west right-of-way margin was considered and approved by the City when our current Fill Permit was issued pursuant to SP-062-77. This drainage way is clearly illustrated on your file copy of the approved Filling Plan. For reference purposes, I have added delineation of the site's proposed slopes and SR167's existing west slope to the proposed Site Plan. Please note that the drainage way appears narrower on the Site Plan than on the Filling Plan. However, the difference appears only because I chose to plot the approximate location of the toe of the existing fill slope on the Site Plan, whereas the line of intersection of the SR167 slope with elevation 12.0 is shown on the Filling Plan. The two approaches are consistent.) 4) The proposed 21'+ landscape strip along East Valley Road (10 feet within the site, 11'+ within the right-of-way margin) provides just as much landscape buffering as would a 20-foot wide strip located within the site (the strict reading of Renton Code Section 4-734(E)2) . The plant types and plant maturities of the landscaping proposed for the strip are entirely in keeping with the strict reading of the code for this project. The mere fact that a portion of the strip is proposed to be located within the unusually wide right-of-way margin makes no difference to the amount of screening that the landscape will provide. Because the screening effect is the same, and because the proposed project cannot bear the expense of planting extra large plant materials, we stand by our initial landscaping proposal. Although just completed LID 314 resulted in the widening of East Valley Road and the construction of curbs, gutters, and sidewalks along it, we do acknowledge the theoretical possib- ility that the street may have to be widened again in the future. Because we do not foresee the proposed bulk storage use as the ultimate use for the site, but only intend to continue the proposed use for approximately 5 years, we are willing to accept a condition of approval with respect to this issue. A condition acceptable to us would read as follows: Should future widening of East Valley Road preclude the use for landscaping of some or all of the right- of-way margin adjacent to the site, the site screen fence must be moved further onto the site to maintain a 20-foot wide minimum landscape strip. The area between the original and revised fence locations shall be landscaped compatibly with the landscaping installed within the portion of the strip not altered. Should such such relocation of the landscape strip prove to be incompatible with the use of a portion of the bulk storage facility, so much of the bulk storage use shall be abated as to permit the landscape strip relocation. I trust that these answers will permit you to take action on our request during your April 4, 1984 Environmental Review Committee Meeting. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, GARY' MERLINO CONSTRUCTION CO. David L. Halinen, P.E. Engineer Attachments (6. copies of the revised site plan) oF R4,4 OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY • RENTON,WASHINGTON V `$ {:'' POST OFFICE BOX 626 100 S 2nd STREET • RENTON. WASHINGTON 98057 255-8678 Z c '•C C RO1LAWRENCEIWARREN, cI, Y " TP ri' i LOGG ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY a9• 00 O i ;fF N, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY 94TE0 SEP'E O f MARK E. 'BER, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY MARAONTES, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY March 23, 1984 MARTHA A.FRENCH, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY GU1L6JIN4i.:.OMi G vEP r. CITY OF RENTON TO: Dave Clemens , Policy Development Director iv\R 1,G 16384 FROM: Lawrence J. Warren,City Attorney POLICY IFvFLOPMcPoT r FPT. RE: Modification of Existing Fill Permit as Result of Environmental Determination 4 Dear Dave: As I understand it, the Environmental Review Committee has found that the FEMA flood hazard maps now indicate that. the Merlino fill project is required flood storage. Apparently at, the time the initial permit was granted there was no such indication, or the City did not see that indication. You now wonder whether or not the City' s prior determination that there was no environmental problems should be held invalid in, light of the new information. You then cite to WAC 197-10-375 . Please be advised that the Administrative Code section referred to in your letter does not support a withdrawal of a negative threshold determination concerning environmental consequences . In, order to withdraw a negative declaration, either the proposal must be modified, or the proponent had to misrepresent information or fail to fully disclose information. Neither of those things occurred: here. I ,also question whether or not the City can require this property to be flood storage without having confiscated the property. Elimination of. all practical use of the property would be an inverse condemnation and would require compensation for the loss of value of the property. If, in fact, that was to occur, then I ;would prefer that the Federal Government make that declaration and not the City. Then Mr. Merlino could sue the Federal Government for damages, hopefully leaving the City out of the controversy. Your letter makes no mention as to whether or not filling and grading is completed on the site. If, in fact, Mr. Merlino Dave Clemens page 2 March 23, 1984 has a currently valid City permit or. license, I do not see how the City can rescind the license at this time. Any continuation of the original license would probably be governed by the rules in effect at the time the original application had been made. All in all, I believe . that the City can take no action at this time based upon the FEMA flood hazard maps . If you believe there is further information that I need to consider in making this opinion, please feel free to contact me and inform me of that information. LLB Lawrence . Warren LJW:nd c c: Mayor OF R4.4 0 THE CITY OF RENTON t$ ® z POLICY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT • 235-2552 MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE.SO. RENTON,WASH.98055 9,0 co- 0, 9gr 0 MAR i 9 1.Os>n BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH MEMORANDUM MAYOR DATE: March 19, 1984 TO: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney FROM:! David R. Clemens, Policy Development Director SUBJECT: MODIFICATION OF EXISTING FILE PERMIT *AS A RESULT OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION The Environmental Review Committee is in the process of reviewing a conditional use permit,for a truck terminal on the Gary Merlin site located along East Valley Road. This site has an existing permit to fill and grade granted by the Hearing Examiner prior to the adoption of the City's Flood Hazard Ordinance. At that time, the fill and grade permit received an environmental determination which did not consider the flooding consequences of filling the site. Subsequently, the City has issued annual grading licenses to continue the filling process, since the full permit issued by the Examiner has not been utilized as of this date. As a result of the conditional use permit application to construct a trucking yard on the site, the Environmental. Review Committee has found that the FEMA flood hazard maps now indicate the site as required flood storage. As a result, the Committee is reticent to issue the new proposed conditional use permit even though the applicant would apparently have the right to continue with the old fill permit, which would have the effect of eliminating necessary flood storage. The Building and Zoning Department has indicated that you have previously looked at this issue from the standpoint of vested rights as a result of prior issuance of the annual licenses under the previously approved fill permit. After a heated discussion, it was suggested that I raise the question of whether the original SEPA environmental determination is now invalid as a result of new information regarding the flood hazard in the Green River Valley area. If the previous SEPA determination is in fact invalid, as a result of the new information available, it seems not only reasonable but required that the Environmental Review Committee withdraw the previous environmental declaration, require additional mitigation, if necessary, and reissue an environmental declaration requiring a new Hearing Examiner review of the original permit to fill the subject site. Withdrawal of the previous negative threshold determination appears to be consistent with WAC '197-10-375, although the proposed revisions to the WAC as a result of the SEPA amendments last year may have changed this section. Any assistance you can provide us on this subject would be appreciated. cc: Environmental Review Committee OF Rem o PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT z DESIGN/UTILITY ENGINEERING • 235-2631 MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE.SO. RENTON.WASH.98055 o14). SEPTo' P BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH MAYOR MEMORANDUM Date: March 13, 1984 To:ERC Committee From: Bob Bergstrom Subject:Merlino Development Permit I 've reviewed the Merlino Truck Terminal for drainage and Flood Con- trol . 1 . The north 85'+ of the site should be dedicated to the City for the SCS P-9 Channel right-of-way. The noted 20 wildlife area is not eligible within the channel right-of-way and should be relocated elsewhere. 2. In accordance with the latest National Flood Insurance Flood- way maps, that took into consideration the loss in flood storage from the Austin Co. fills, the north 800' or so of the side is within the 100-Year Floodway and Floodway Fringe and should be left open until the P-9 is opened up or unless compensating storage is dug somewhere else. This could be in the P-9 right- of-way west of Lind, which is a public easement for drainage purposes. 3. The filling of the Merlino property could have some serious impacts upon drainage. There is a major 48" Storm Drain Cross- ing under_ I- 405 which must be conveyed to the P-g alignment by 5?-io an open channel . The indicated 10' buffers are not adequate for construction of such an open channel . 4. Storm detention should be provided on site - 10-year detention and 10-year storm release rate. Fel6 ge-.67SkY4 jft ERC AGENDA MARCH 14, 1984 PAGE 2 ECF-024-84 GARY MERLINO CONSTRUCTION COMPANY SP-021-84 Application for special permit and site plan approval to allow SA-022-84 the construction of a bulk storage facility for the short term V-023-84 storage of truck trailers including three office trailers for V-024-84 employee office and four variances for: (1) to reduce the landscape V-025-84 setback along East Valley Road from 20 feet to 10 feet, (2) to V-026-84 reduce the landscape setback along the east property line from 20 feet to 10 feet and eliminate the site screen fence, (3) to eliminate the 20 foot landscape setback and site screen fence along the south property line and (4) to allow structures and bulk storage to be located within the 60 foot setback along East Valley Road. ECF-025-84 ACKERLEY COMMUNICATIONS, INC. B-311 Application for building permit to allow construction of a double faced advertising sign measuring 12 feet by 24 feet; located on the south side of S.W. Grady Way and 153 feet west of Lind Avenue S.W. ECF-026-84 ACKERLEY COMMUNICATIONS, INC. B-312 Application for building permit to allow construction of a double faced advertising sign measuring 12 feet by 24 feet; located on the southside of N.E. 4th Street at 3929 N.E. 4th Street. INFORMATION: KING COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT A determination of non-significance has been given to BBK Properties, Inc. to subdivide 21 acres into 52 single family residential lots (Olympic Ridge, File 484-3); located between 133rd and 136th Avenues S.E. and between S.E. 71st and 74th Streets (if both were extended). Any comments are due by March 21, 1984. KING COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT A determination of non-significance has been given to Schneider Homes, Inc., to rezone 6 acres of property from medium density multiple dwelling and high density multiple dwelling to B-N Neighborhood Business, file 212-84-R; located on the north side of 177th Street, between 140th and 143rd Avenue S.E. Any comments are due by March 21, 1984. MEMO FROM KEN BINDARA Memo to the ERC from Ken Bindara requesting clarification of item #3F, in a letter of environmental mitigation for Highland Village dated July 1, 1982. ti(cY 0 .ITY OF RENT( T FILE NO(S): .S,-pai- Sr, A ® BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT v - a a-8-`{ mk U - oat - NVO' may -g L(MASTER APPLICATION SC-! - a a NOTE TO APPLICANT: Since this is acomprehensiveV -- O a S-application form, only those items related to your specific type of application(s) are to be completed. V _ ()a/, _g i/Please print or type. Attach additional sheets if necessary.) P APPLICANT TYPE OF APPLICATION NAME FEES.. GARY MERLINO CONSTRUCTION CO. ADDRESS ElREZONE*(FROM TO 9125 - 10th Avenue South SPECIAL PERMIT* 330.00 CITY ZIP EJ TEMPORARY PERMIT* Seattle, WA 98108 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT* TELEPHONE SITE PLAN APPROVAL 315.00 762-9125 GRADING AND FILLING PERMIT ", No. of Cubic Yards: ' VARIANCE 150.00CONTACTPERSONFromSection: NAME Justification Required DAVID L. HALINEN . ADDRESS SUBDIVISIONS: Same as applicant Q SHORT PLAT CITY ZIP TENTATIVE PLAT PRELIMINARY PLAT TELEPHONE FINAL PLAT 762-9125 Q WAIVER Justification Required) OWNER t, NO. OF LOTS: NAME PLAT NAME: Same as applicant 4 ADDRESS PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT: Q PRELIMINARY' CITY ZIP FINAL P.U.D. NAME: TELEPHONE El Residential Q Industrial ElCommercial Q Mixed LOCATION MOBILE HOME PARKS: PROPERTY ADDRESS 2900 E. Valley Road 3 TENTATIVE ED EXISTING USE PRESENT ZONING PRELIMINARY Vacant L-1 FINAL PROPOSED USE • PARK NAME: Bulk storage facility for short term f NUMBER OF SPACES: storage of truck trailers. El ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE SQ. FT. ACRES AREA: 244,231 + 5.607 + TO:F4. FEES_. , .,7.95..00 . CITY OF R ENOI FF. USE ONLY -- ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESSING D Tt11 g I._ Li7v7 I t1,1 APPLICATION RECEIVED BY: FEB 2 3 19.84 ' APPLICATION DETERMINED TO BE: EDAccepted 6€ P,E ',-L . Incomplete Notification Sent On By:BLf,L IN.GJZONIN DEPT.2. Initials) DATE ROUTED ADDITIONAL MATERIAL RECEIVED BY: APPLICATION DETERMINED TO BE: N1ate33 t 1q(64 • EJ Accepted 0 Incomplete Notification Sent On By: Initials) ROUTED TO: Building Design Eng. Fire Parks Police Policy Dev. 0 Traffic Eng. Utilities REVISION 5/1902 Legal description of property (If more space is required, attach a separate sheet). That portion of the Northwest 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 of Section 30, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M. , lying 'westerly of the west margin of Primary State Highway No. 5 and lying easterly of the east margin of the East Valley Highway: .less the northerly 100 feet thereof. AFFIDAVIT I, David L. Halinen 9);40-ce being duly sworn, declare that I am49 authorized representative to act or the property owner, owner of the property Involved in this application and that the foregoincy 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 TO BEFORE ME THIS 0--/ DAY OF f-Iccs,e u./72y 19 R4 NOTARY PUBLIC IN AND FOR THE STATE OF WASHINGTON,RESIDING AT i, ame Notary Public)Signature bf Owner) 9125 - 10th Avenue South Address) Address) Seattle, WA 98108 City) State) (Zip) 762-9125 Telephone) Acceptance of this application and required .filing fee does not constitute a complete application. Plans and other materials required to constitute a complete application are listed In the "Application Procedure." Form #174 CST OP R NTON' Vi s,y CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON a , ii FEB 2 3 1984 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Application No. .5; -Dal-R 71 ba-8UI, \/-0a3-8171, V- oaf-Pl, V- oas-8 V-balp-cPyc Environmental Checklist No. Ecf- PROPOSED, date: FINAL, date: 0 Declaration of Significance Declaration of Significance Declaration of Non-Significance Ei Declaration of Non-Significance COMMENTS: Introduction The State Environmental Policy Act of 1971, Chapter 43.21C, RCW, requires all state and local governmental agencies to consider environmental values both for their own actions and when licensing private proposals. The Act also requires that an EIS be prepared for all major actions significantly affecting the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to help the agencies .involved determine whether or not a proposal is such a major action. . Please answer the following questions as completely as you can with the information presently available to you. Where explanations of your answers are required, or where you believe an explanation would be helpful to government decision makers , include your explanation in the space provided, or use additional pages if necessary. You should include references to any reports or studies of which you are aware and which are rele- vant to the answers you provide. Complete answers to these questions now will help all agencies involved with your proposal to undertake the required environmental review with- out unnecessary delay. The following questions apply to your total proposal , not just to the license for which you are currently applying or the proposal for which approval is sought. Your answers should include the impacts which will be caused by your proposal when it is completed, even though completion may not occur until sometime in the future. This will allow all of the agencies which will be involved to complete their environmental review now, with- ' out duplicating paperwork in the future. NOTE: This is a standard form being used by all state and local agencies in the State of Washington for various types of proposals. Many of the questions may not apply to your proposal.. If a question does not apply, just answer it "no" and continue on to the next question. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM I. BACKGROUND 1. Name of Proponent GARY MERLINO CONSTRUCTION CO. 2. Address and phone number of Proponent: 9125 - 1Oth Avenue South Seattle, WA 98108 762-9125 3. Date Checklist submitted. ' 'j 11, 4. Agency requiring Checklist City of Renton Building Department 5. Name of proposal , if applicable: Merlino Bulk Storage Facility 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) : Development of a bulk storage facility under Renton Code 4-734 for storage of truck trailers ( including three office trailers for employee offices) . 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): The project is proposed for the 5.'61-acre site that lies between East Valley Road and SR167 north of SW 27th Street. The site is being progres- sively filled in conformance with a building permit (B991) pursuant to ng and ;i i i g Sp a?permit SP1]E 2 77 A btici nP known ac rh Lumber Market occupies the parcel south of the site, while underground pipe-. line appurtenances occupy the Olympic Pipeline Co.—owned parcel to the north. 8. Estimated date for completion of the proposal : Phase 1: May, 1984. Phase 2: 1985 or 1986 9. List of all permits, licenses or government approvals required for the proposalfederal , state and local--including rezones) : Site Plan Approval with Variances Special Permit Building Permit 10. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? if yes, explain: NO 11. Do you know of any plans by others° which may affect the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain: NO 12. Attach any other application form that has been completed regarding the pro- posal ; if none has been completed, but is expected to be filed at some future date,, describe the nature of such application form: Building 'Permit applications for Phases 1 and 2, respectively. 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? XX YES MAYBE ITh b) Disruptions, displacements, compaction or over- covering of the soil?. XX YES MAYBE NO c) Change in topography or ground surface relief features? XX MAYBE NU- d) The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? XX VET- NAM" NU— e) Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? XX YES MAYBE NO f) Changes in deposition. or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay.; inlet or lake? YES gg Explanation: Phase 1 was filled pursuant to filling and grading special Permit SP-062-77. Filling will likewise be done in the Phase 2 portion of the site. Approximately the south half of Phase 1 has already been crushed rock surfaced. Two small areas of the site, one in Phase 1 and one in Phase 2, will be asphalt-surfaced for employee parking. With the exception of these paved areas and the designated landscaping areas, the balance of the site will be surfaced with a layer of crushed rock. 3- 2) Air. Will the proposal result in: a) Air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? XX YES MAYBE NO b) The creation of objectionable odors? XX YE-g— MAYBE AU c) Alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? XX YES MAYBE NO Explanation: Trucks leaving and picking up their trailers will create vehicle emissions at ,the site. However, the magnitude of and duration of these emissions should be negligible. 3) Water. Will the proposal result in: a) Changes in currents, or the course of direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? XX YES MAYBE NO b) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns , or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? XX YES MAYBE NO c) Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? YES MAYBE NOd) Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? XX YES MAYBE NO e) Discharge into surface waters , or in any alteration surface water quality, including but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? XX YES MAYBE W f) Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? XX YES MAYBE NO g) Change in the quantity of ground waters , either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? YES MAYBE NO h) Deterioration in ground water quality, either through direct injection, or through the seepage •of leachate, phosphates, detergents , waterborne virus or bacteria , or other substances into the ground waters? XX YES MAYBE NO i ) Reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? XX YES MAYBE AU— Explanation: Absorption rates may vary in the area of the site yet to be filled. Compliance with Dept. of Public Works drainage requirements should sufficiently mitigate any changes in site drainage conditions. 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)? XX YES MAYBE NO b) Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of flora? XX YES MAYBE NO c) Introduction of new species of flora into an area, or. in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? XX. YES MAYBE II-6— d) Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? XX YES MAYBE •NU— Explanation: R 4- 9 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)? XX YES MAYBE NU— b) Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of fauna? XX YES MAYBE NO c) Introduction of new species of fauna into an area, or result in a barrier to•the migration or movement of fauna?. YES MAYBE NO d) Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? XX YES MAYBE NO Explanation: 6) Noise. Will the proposal increase existing noise levels?, XX YES MAYBE NO Explanation: Noise generated by the pickup and delivery of truck trailers at the site should be of lesser intensity than the noise generated by SR.167, the freeway that abuts the east edge of the site. 7) Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? XX Tn.— MAYBE AU— Explanation: Yard lighting to aid night time security of the facility is intended. 8) Land Use. ^ Will the proposal result in the. alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? XX • YES MAYBE 0— Explanation: The proposed use is compatible with site's L-1 zoning. All adjacent parcels are also zoned L-1. ' 9) Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a) Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources?XX YES MAYBE NO b) Depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource? g YES MAYBE NO Explanation: 10) Risk of Upset. Does the proposal involve a risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil , pesticides , chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions?XX YES RATUrNW Explanation: 11) Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distri- bution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? XX yr MAYBE AU— Explanation: r 5- 12) Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? XX YES MAYBE NO Explanation: 13) Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in: a) , Generation of additional vehicular movement? XX YES MAYBE NO , b) Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? .XX YES MAYBE NO c) Impact upon existing transportation systems? XX YES MAYBE NO d) Alterations to present patterns of circulation or, movement of people and/or goods? XX YES MAYBE NO e) Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? XX YES MAYBE' NO f) Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? XX YES MAYBE NO Explanation: Truck trailer interchange pickup and• delivery will generate additional vehicular movement. Estimated trailer storage period: 3 business days avg. (7 days max.) . Phase 1: 99 stalls/3 days x 1 in-out 9 terchange = titi n t tr„n trigs p"r aj l-uicinPGc rla Phase 2.: 84 stalls/3 days x 2 in-out trips/interchange = 56 in-out truck trips per average business day. 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? XX • YES MAYBE NO b) Police protection? XX YES MAYBE NO c) Schools? XX YES MAYBE NO d) Parks or other recreational facilities? XX YES MAYBE NO e) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? XX YES . MAYBE NO f) Other governmental services? XX YES MAYBE NO Explanation: 15) Energy. Will the proposal result in: a) Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? XX YES MAYBE NO b) Demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? XX YES MAYBE Explanation: 16) Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? XX YES MAYBE NO b) Communications systems?XX YES MAYBE NO c) Water? YES MAYBE NO 6- d) Sewer or septic tanks? YES M NB e) Storm water drainage? XX YES MAYBE NZ- f) Solid waste and disposal? XX YES MAYBE NO Explanation: 17) Human Health. Will the proposal result in. the creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? XX vES T B•w5 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? XX YES . MAYBE ,NO Explanation: 19) Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities?XX YES MAYBE NO Explanation: 20) Archeological/Historical . Will the' proposal result in an alteration of a significant archeological or historical site, structure, object or building? v MM 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 willf ack of. full isclosure. on m part. Proponent: gned GAR MERLINO CONSTRUCTION CO. David L. Halinen, P.E. Engineer name printed) . City of Renton Building i Zoning Department May, 1983 Form N 176 TY OF RENTON aA PILI u; i P , [Ike. fi • i. FEB 231984 MERLINO BULK STORAGE FACILITY RENTON, WASHINGTON JUSTIFICATIONS FOR SPECIAL PERMIT AND. VARIANCES Prepared by: • David L. Halinen, P.E. February 21," 1984 MERLINO BULK STORAGE FACILITY JUSTIFICATIONS FOR SPECIAL PERMIT AND VARIANCES JUSTIFICATION FOR SPECIAL PERMIT 1. Comprehensive Plan The short-term truck trailer storage use proposed for the site is compatible with the general purpose and applicable goals, . objectives, and policies of the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance. First, the proposed use is compatible with the site's L-1 (Light Industry) zoning (see R.C. Section 4-712) and with the existing uses of other parcels in the area. The site is sandwiched between the East Valley Road and SR 167 along with a number of other L-1 parcels to the south, most of which are now being used. Current uses of those parcels include a retail lumber sales/storage facility, a storage lot for hundreds of light pickup trucks, an auto transmission repair business where old transmissions are stored in the yard, three construction companies with outside storage of equipment, a heavy construction equipment sales facility with acres of equip- ment storage, a large auto wrecking yard, and a self-service storage facility. These uses can generally be seen on the accompanying aerial photographs of the area that were taken on September 23, 1983. (Note that the current light pickup truck storage lot south of the Lumber Market was vacant at the time of the photo. See Ground Photo Page 4, taken in January, 1984. Note also that the construction equipment sales facility, Craig Taylor Equipment, is now more fully utilizing the storage lot to the south of its main facility. See Ground Photo Pages 11 and 25.) The proposed L-1 use, truck trailer storage, is generally similar in nature to those existing L-1 uses in the area. Second, the proposal will advance the Comprehensive Plan's Transport- ation Facilities Objective and its Terminals Objective (Renton Comprehensive Plan, General Goals, Objectives and Policies VII B and G, pages 19 and 21, respectively) . The proposal advances those objectives by creating a viable transportation facility that will permit local/independent truckers that make deliveries in the Puget Sound area to interchange trailers at the site with long haul (usually interstate) truckers. Finally, the proposal is consistent with applicable policies of the Plan's Transportation Facilities Objective and its Terminals Objectives. Recently constructed LID 314 upgraded adjacent East Valley Road to community arterial status providing all properties in the area with an excellent connection to SR 167 via SW 41st and SW 43rd Streets and to both the main business district of the City and Interstate 405 via Lind Avenue S.W. See id. , Terminals Objective Policy 2, page 21. To achieve safe, convenient, and efficient access onto the site from East Valley Road, proposed driveways have been limited to the minimum, number necessary to serve the proposed facility. See id. , Transportation Facilities Objective Policy 4, page 20. (Given the ti site's geometry constraints, the proposal's two-user layout, and the specified one-way internal truck circulation for trailer pickup/delivery, three driveways are necessary -- see the Site Plan Sheet S-1.) Further, the proposed site screen fence and landscape areas will provide visual protection from the stored trailers for passersby on adjacent rights-of- way. See id. , Transportation Facilities Objective Policy 9, page 20. Landscaping and screening are discussed in,detail under .Justifications ' for Variances, below.) 2. Community Need. The proposed use will permit local/independent truckers that make deliveries in the Seattle area to interchange trailers at the site with interstate haulers. None of the other L-1 properties along East Valley Road in this vicinity provide facilities for such truck trailer storage and interchange. Further, no detrimental overconcentration of this use within the City should result from the proposed use at this location. The Phase I tenant, Pacific Motor Transport Co. (an affiliate of Southern Pacific Railway) , is planning to move from its current south Seattle site because the majority of its business is centered in Renton. Its use of this site will primarily be to serve these current customers. By having its facility closer to these customers, Pacific Motor Transport Co. will simply be able to provide more efficient service. The site is especially well-suited for the proposed use because of its accessibility and topography. Adjacent East Valley Road, recently upgraded by LID 314 to .a collector arterial status, provides connection to SR 167 at SW 41st and 43rd Streets, while nearby Lind Avenue SW provides access north directly to Renton's main business district. The site's essentially flat topography (nearly a prerequisite for convenient movement. and storage of truck trailers) couples with these access advantages to make the proposed use at this site very suitable. 3. Effect on Adjacent Properties The proposed use of the property is not expected to result in any substantial orundue effects on adjacent property. The Lumber Market, located on the site to the south, has both a fenced outside lumber storage area and an employee parking area that immediately abut the site. (See the Aerial Photos as well as Ground Photo Pages 1,2,3, ' and 29.) The parcel . on the north side of the site is used by the Olympic Pipeline Company only for underground appurtenances to its piping system. Because of the devel- opmental nature of these abutting parcels, this proposal should not result in substantial or undue adverse impact on adjacent properties. Note also in this regard that the proposal's lot coverage and yards conform to the requirements of the L-1 zone. Further, even though the zone permits building and bulk storage to a height of 35 feet, the actual height will be limited to the height of truck trailers and the three proposed office trailers (i.e. , the maximum truck trailer height of, about 13 feet 6 inches) . 2 - JUSTIFICATIONS FOR VARIANCES VARIANCE 1 Substance: Variance from Renton Code Section 4-734 (E)2 to reduce the setback of "the screen" from the property line (right-of-way line) along. East Valley Road (as well as the onsite width of the associated landscaped strip) from a minimum of 20 feet to 10 feet. (See the Variance Exhibit, Sheet S-2.) Justification: (a) The applicant suffers undue hardship under the. strict application of the Zoning Code because of the site's narrow geometry. With LID 314 now completed, 11+ feet of right-of-way margin, an unusually large amount exists between the back of sidewalk along East Valley Road and the property line. Although, this code provision does not technically require the applicant to landscape this right-of-way margin, he is practically forced to do so if the project ,is to achieve a finished appearance along the road. Under the strict application of the Code, this would result in a 31+ foot wide landscape strip, while most of the currently developed L-1 zoned properties along East Valley Road have not installed any landscaping along the street. b) The granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and zone in which subject property is situated because the pro- posal provides for landscaping the entire 21+ foot wide strip (from the back of sidewalk to the site screen fence) that results from setting the site screen fence 10 feet behind the property line. (See the Landscape Plan, Sheet L-1.) c) Approval of this variance, will not constitute a grant of special privilege. The spirit of the code provision appears to be that in the situation of site boundaries along public streets, a strip at least 20 feet wide should be landscaped to provide visual screening and buffering. The proposed 21+ foot wide landscape strip meets this spirit. Further, as mentioned in (a) , most of the currently developed L-1 zoned properties to the south along East Valley Road have not installed any landscaping along the street. (See the Aerial Photos and Ground Photo Pages 1 through 19.) Additionally, some of the other L-1 zoned properties with bulk storage uses in the L-1 strip south of the site have built their frontage fences within 20 feet of East Valley Road. The south 160 feet of the 5'-8" hish World- wide Transmission and Core Supply Co. fence (within the third parcel south of the site) is only about 8 to 10 feet from the right-of-way line. (See the Aerial Photo and Ground Photo Pages 5 and 6.) No attempt has even been made to screen the John Deere/Craig Taylor equipment yards from East Valley Road, and the chain-link security fences that these yards do have lie only about 6 feet and 3 feet, respectively, from the right-of-way line. (See Ground Photo Pages 8 through 11.) The same is true of the Kohl Excavating Co. yard, 3 - where piles of manholes, pipe, and other construction materials are plainly in view through the chain-link fence that is setback about 3 feet from the right-of-way line. (See Ground Photo Page 12) . Although South End Auto Wrecking's yard does have an 8-foot high solid wooden fence, it is also located within 20 feet of the right-of-way line, about 18 feet from it. (See the Aerial Photo and Ground Photo Pages 15 through 18.) Red and White Construction's yard is situated similarly to Kohl Excavating's yard, with construction equipment and materials plainly in view through. a. chain-link fence setback 2 or 3 feet from the right-of-way. line. (See the Aerial Photo and Ground Photo Pages 18 and 19.) Given the applicant's proposal to install an 8-foot high chain-link fence with redwood slats for site screening, his proposal to set the fence back a full 10 feet from the right-of-way line, his landscaping proposal (see the Landscape Plan, Sheet L-1) , and the existence of greater than usual right-of-way margin behind the newly-constructed LID 314 improvements to East Valley Road, the approval of this variance will certainly not be a grant of special pri- vilege when the condition of the properties to the south is considered. d) The proposed variance is a minimum that will accomplish the desired purpose of avoiding what essentially would otherwise be a require- ment that the applicant provide a landscape strip wider than what appears to be the intended code minimum for landscape strips along improved public streets. VARIANCE 2 Substance: Variance from Renton Code Section 4-734(E)2 to eliminate the .site screen fence along the east boundary of the subject site and to eliminate associated landscaping. (Thus, only the 10-foot wide strip that is required under Renton Code Section 4-716 for freeway frontage is proposed along the east boundary. See the Site Plan, Sheet S-1,, and the Variance Exhibit, Sheet S-2.) Justification: (a) (1) The applicant suffers undue hardship under the strict application of the zoning code because the code-required site screen and associated landscaping only slightly improve visual screening from the highway while placing a heavy burden of reduced usable space and additional construction cost upon the applicant. The tree-lined highway margin already provides a sufficient visual screen, thus rendering the 734(E)2-required site screen fence and landscape strip superfluous. Given the relatively narrow site geometry, the additional landscape strip assoc- iated with the code-specified fence is unjustifiably burdensome. The aerial photograph illustrates the extent of the SR 167 right-of-way margin vegetation. The photo was taken on September 23, 1983,.when normal foliage was still on the trees. (Ground Photo Pages 30 through 37 were taken in early January, . 1984, after the trees had lost their foliage for the winter season. Even without their foliage, the right-of-way margin trees still provide significant vegetation as these photos illustrate.) 4 - a) (2) The applicant also suffers undue hardship under the strict application of the zoning code because the site screen fence and associated landscaping requirements are intended to provide visual buffering for land uses that are much more aesthetically offensive than the proposed use. For example, bulk storage uses in L-1 zoned areas may include lumber, coal, and fuel yards. R.C. Section 4-712(A) (4) . Such uses are likely to have 'random stockpiles of unsightly materials to heights of up to 35 feet, thus justifying the site screening requirements of R.C. Section 4-734(E)2 in those situations. Here however, the bulk storage use consists of the storage of aesthetically inoffensive truck trail- ers in neat rows. Especially since the tree-lined highway margin provides substantial screening already, providing additional screening for this use along SR 167 seems to be unjustifiable. b) The granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and zone in which the subject property is located because the existing wooded area in the SR 167 right-of-way margin coupled with the 10-foot wide strip per Renton Code Section 4-716 provide sufficient visual screening and buffering along the site's east boundary. c) The approval of this variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege to the applicant given the circumstances of other prop- erties in the area. Of the L-1 properties south of the site that have bulk storage. uses, only the adjacent Lumber Market to the south appears to meet these code requirements. However, 'even though it has an 8-foot high wooden fence that is set back about 23 feet from the SR 167 right-of- way (see the Aerial Photo and Ground Photo Pages 28 and 29) , the fence provides minimal screening of the site for SR 167 passersby because the freeway grade is approximately 4-feet above the grade of all of the L-1 properties south of the proposed site. Thus, even along the Lumber Market, the only effective part of the screening is provided, as it is along the proposed site (see Ground Photo Pages 30 through 33) , by the trees in the SR 167 right-of-way margin. Further south, the low site screen fences along the light pickup truck storage yard (see Ground Photo Page 28) and along South End Wrecking (see Ground Photo Pages 21 through 24) are in- effective for the same reasons. Worldwide Transmission and Core Supply Co. (see Ground Photo Page 27(right)) , Milt's Trucking Co. (see Ground Photo Page 27) , John Deere/Craig Taylor Equipment (see Ground Photo Page 25 and 26) , Kohl Excavating (see Ground Photo Pages 24 and 25) , and Red and White Construction (see Ground Photo Pages 20 and 21) do not even have site screen fences. The site screening that does exist along the east side of these properties is provided, if at all, by trees within the SR 167 right-of-way margin. d) The approval of this variance would be the minimum variance that will accomplish the desired purpose of eliminating unnecessarily burden- some site screening and landscaping requirements along the project's east boundary. See the discussion in (a) (1) and (a) (2) , above. 5 - VARIANCE 3 Substance: Variance from Renton Code Section 4-734(E)2 to (1) eliminate the site screen fence requirement and the associated landscaping requirement along that portion of the site's south boundary where the Lumber Market's 8-foot high site screen fence currently exists; and to (2) relax the setback requirement for the 8-foot high site screen fence along the westerly portion of the south boundary, where no fencing currently exists. (Note: If item (2) is granted, the site screen fence will be built on the south boundary and the associated landscaping requirement will be eliminated. See the Variance Exhibit, Sheet S-2.) Justification: (a) The strict application of the Zoning Code provision would place undue hardship on the applicant and would deny the subject property owner of rights and privelages enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity because none of the other L-1 zoned bulk storage sites to the. south provide setback side yard screening fences or any side yard landscaping at all. (See the Aerial Photo and Ground Photo Pages 1, 3-11, 18, 19, and 29.) b) The granting of this variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare because even if the code-specified landscaping strip was provided, the site screen fence along East Valley Road as well as the tree-lined right-of-way margin along SR 167 would block the landscaping strip from the view of the passersby on these roadways. Further, the granting of this variance will not be injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and zone in which the site is situated because the only site that could reasonably be said to be affected at all by this variance, the Lumber Market site, has its bulk storage side yard screening fences placed directly on its side yard property lines and has no side yard landscaping strips. (See the Aerial Photo and Ground Photo Pages 3 and 29.) This being the case, the owners of that site could scarcely be heard to complain about the proposed variance. Also, even with the proposed variance, the site's proposed truck storage use will be far less visually intrusive to the Lumber Market's occupants than would more extensive uses of the subject site that are permissable under the literal terms of the Zoning Code provisions. (See Section B-B on the next page, which illustrates that the proposed use encompasses only a 12 degree vertical viewing angle. over the fence horizon for a person standing in the Lumber Market yard 20 feet south of the fence, while the Code would permit development on the subject site that would encompass a 29 degree vertical viewing angle over .the fence horizon.) c) Because the other bulk storage sites in the vicinity provide neither side yard landscaping nor setback side yard site screen fences, approval of this variance shall not constitute a grant of special privelage. d) For the reasons cited in (a) , (b) , and (c) , this variance is the minimum necessary that will accomplish the desired purpose of preventing the subject property owner from being singled-out from owners of other nearby bulk storage sites to provide side yard landscaping and setback side yard screening fences. 6 - al PERMISSABLE VlEWINGL UNDER R.C.i4 734(c)- E): 17° VIEWING( UNDER: PROPOSAL: ll° - PERMISSABLE BULK STORAGE UNDER R.G. 4-734(C)-(E)F (WEST)r I s/// ID Ii 1 ' ni-r-774. 7- w 0---0--- ...-N PROPOSE TRAILER STORAGE (TYPICAL) SITE SCREEN FENCE I0 EAST VALLEY ROADD20'N IN), REV D BY R.C. i 4-734 (D)'lE)- PROPOSED 8' NIGH SITE EAST- WEST SECTION (300' NORTH OF THE SOUTH BOUNDARY SCREEN FENCE SEE VARIANCE EXHIBIT SHEET s-a) A-A ft (SOUTH) cPERMISSABLE BULK STORAGE UNDER R•C.{4-734(C)-(E) MERLINO SITE = rLUMBER MARKET di/, ///`/ /////////////////////// 4 i VIEWING L UNDER PROPOSAL it---) H i—I T— III j—I . comb V, 2.' 1L20' NORTH-SOUTH SECTION(I25'EAST OF THE WEST BOUNDARYy I PERMISSABLE VIEWING L SEE VARIANCE EXHI8rr SHEET S-2) i UNDER R.C.f 4-734 (c)-(E): B_B EX. 8' HIGH SITE SCREEN JFENCE VARIANCE 4 Substance: Variance from Renton Code Section 4-734(D) to relax setback requirements to permit structures and bulk storage (truck trailers) to be located directly behind the proposed 8-foot high site screen fence along East Valley Road and directly behind the 10 foot wide strip provided along the east boundary per R.C. Section 4-716. See the Site Plan, Sheet S-1, and the Variance Exhibit, Sheet S-2. Justification: (a) The strict application of these Zoning Code setback requirements would place undue hardship upon the applicant because of the site's narrow geometry. This geometry causes the Code-specified setbacks to encompass an inordinate portion of the site. See the Variance Exhibit, Sheet S-2.) Even assuming that Variance 3 is granted, the remaining setbacks under the strict application of the Code would consume 143,128 square feet (58.6%) of the site's 244,231 square feet, leaving only 101,103 square feet (41 .4%) for trailer storage. In contrast, a site with the same total area that is similarly situated thus, assuming road rights-of-way front and rear with no side yard setbacks and with the required landscaped areas within the remaining setbacks-- see the sketch on the' next page) but for a square geometry would have only 59,303 square feet (24.3%) of the site consumed by setbacks, leaving 184,927 square feet (75.7%) for trailer storage. Thus in this case, strict application of the Code means that 2.4 times as much site area is consumed by setbacks because the proposed site is narrow rather than square. Although the number of stalls remaining under the strict application of the Code to the proposed site has not been determined, this loss of bulk storage space undoubtedly means a drastic reduction in the number of trailers that- could be stored at the site as compared to a similarly situated square site. Because of the need for wide aisles to accomodate truck trailer combination maneuverability limitations (note the 60-foot total length of truck trailer combinations illustrated on the Site Plan, Sheet S-1) , under the strict application of the Code very little space would be left for trailer storage. Thus without the variance, the applicant cannot make reasonable use of the site. b) The granting of this variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare because the proposed trailer storage use is relatively aesthetically inoffensive, because the storage height is limited, because the storage is well-screened from East Valley Road to the west, and because it is well-separated from the SR 167 roadway to the east. First, bulk storage uses permitted in L-1 zoned areas under the strict application of the Zoning Code included lumber, coal, and fuel yards. Such uses are far more aesthetically offensive than the proposed storage of truck trailers in neat rows 'as proposed. Second, the maximum storage height of this proposal is only 13 feet 6 inches, far less than the maximum storage height of 35 feet permitted outright under the Code. (See R.C. Section 4-734(c) and Section 4-712(b) .) As is illustrated by Section A-A on the preceding sheet,, the trailers will encompass only an 11 degree vertical viewing angle over the fence horizon 7 - A PUBLIC ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY 60-foot setback V 1. Total Site Area = 244,231 sq.ft. 2. Area Consumed by Setbacks = 59,303 sq. ft. 3. Available Storage Area = 184,927 sq. ft. 4-1 0 N 494.20 ft. PUBLIC ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY SIMILARLY SITUATED SQUARE SITE Scale: 1 inch = 100 feet 8 - for a person walking along the East Valley Road sidewalk. In contrast, the Code would permit development that would encompass a 17 degree vertical viewing angle over the fence horizon. Further, once the proposed landscaping along East Valley Road has matured, ' the view of any trailers from East Valley Road will be even further obscured. (See the Landscape Screening detail on the Landscape Plan, Sheet L-1 .) Finally, the extent of the separation from SR 167 traffic seems to satisfy the underlying purpose of the Code requirement. As proposed, trailers will be stored no closer than about 90 feet from the west (southbound) lanes of SR 167. In the more ordinary case of a site abutting a public roadway, the traffic lane nearest the site would only be about 70 feet from the bulk storage setback (assuming a 10 foot wide road margin and the 60 foot setback from the property line) , even under the strict application of the Code. Because the. proposed distance is so much greater than this latter distance, because the storage height is limited to a low level, and because the SR 167 right-of-way margin is tree-lined, the underlying rationale of view protection for passersby seems to be met. Thus, the public should not be injured by the grant of this variance. Additionally, the granting of this variance will not be injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and zone in which the. subject site is located, for the same basic reasons that the grant would not be materially detrimental to the public welfare. (See the discussion in the preceding paragraphs.) c) That approval of this variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege is illustrated by Tables I and II of the Appendix. Table I demonstrates that none of the bulk storage sites in the L-1 zoned strip south of the proposed site comply with the code-required 60-foot right-of-way setbacks. If this variance request is approved, trailers may be parked within 11 feet of the East Valley Road and SR 167 rights-of-way. Although these setbacks are generally smaller than those of most of these parcels, they are not the smallest. John Deere/Craig Taylor Equipment Co. has machinery placed within 8 feet of East Valley Road, while Koll Excavating has construction materials placed up to the SR 167 right- of-way line. Also, other sites have setbacks of only 12 to 15 feet. Further, the setbacks proposed under this variance request as a percentage of average site width are smaller than those of nearly all of the nearby bulk storage sites. Only the light pickup truck storage yard at least on the East Valley Road side) and the Lumber Market have greater setbacks as a percentage of average site width. Thus, because the other bulk storage sites in this zone and vicinity also observe less than the strict Code required setbacks from public rights- of-way, and because the proposed setbacks are comparable, especially con- sidering the geometry of the site, approval of this variance shall not be a grant of special privilege. 9 - a d) Given all of the circumstances cited in (a) , (b) , and (c) , above, the requested variance is the minimum that will permit the applicant to ' situate a reasonable number of stalls on the site. This variance, coupled with Variances 1 and 2, will permit just enough room for three rows of trailers in Phase I and two rows of trailers within Phase II (see the Site Plan, Sheet S-1) . A lesser variance (i.e. , increased setbacks) would result in a loss of a row of trailer stalls, a loss that would be unreasonable under all of the circumstances. 10 w APPENDIX t TABLE I Setback distances of actual bulk storage as of September 23, 1983* on L-l' zoned sites in the vicinity of the proposed Merlino Bulk Storage Facility. Approximate Approximate Distance of Distance of Closest Bulk Closest Bulk Site Description or Storage From Storage From Name of Business East Valley Road SR 167 Occupying Site R/W Line (Feet) R/W Line (Feet) Proposed Merlino Bulk Storage Facility 11 11 Lumber Market 32 24 Light Pickup Truck Yard 32** Uncertain Worldwide Transmission & Core Supply Co. 12 20 Milt's Trucking & Excavating N/A 20 John Deere/Craig Taylor Equipment Co.8 20 Koll Excavating, Inc. Greater than 60 0 South End Auto Wrecking 20 12 Red & White Construction 12 15 Distances based on scale measurements from the September 23, 1983 Aerial Photo unless otherwise noted. Estimate based on the fact that the trucks appear to be located directly behind the frontage fence--see Ground Photo Page 4, taken in early January, 1984. i TABLE II Setback distances' of actual bulk storage as of September 23, 1983* on L-1 zoned sites in the vicinity of the proposed Merlino Bulk Storage Facility expressed as a percentage of average site depth. Ratio of Ratio of Approx. Dist. Approx. Dist. of Closest Bulk. of Closest Bulk Approx. Storage From Storage From Site Description or Avg. Site East Valley Road SR 167 Name of Business Depth R/W line to Avg Site R/W line to Avg Site Occupying Site Feet) Depth '(%)Depth (%) Proposed Merlino Bulk Storage Facility 200 5.5 5.5 Lumber Market 340 9.4 7.1 Light Pickup Truck Yard 376 8.5 Uncertain** Worldwide Transmission & Core Supply Co. 412 2.9 4.9 Milt's Trucking & Excavating 440 N/A 4.5 John Deere/Craig Taylor Equipment Co. 550 1.5 3.6 Koll Excavating, Inc. 550 0 South End Auto Wrecking 525 3.8 2.3 Red & White Construction 490 2.4 3.1 Distances based on scale measurements from the September 23, 1983 Aerial Photo, except for the Light Pickup Truck Yard. See Table I, Note **. See Table I. GROUND PHOTO PAGES FOR MERLINO BULK STORAGE FACILITY RENTON, WASHINGTON Prepared by: David L. Halinen, P.E. INTRODUCTION The photos in the following pages were taken by David L. Halinen in early January, 1984. They illustrate 1) the appearance of the developed properties in the L-1 zoned strip to the south of the proposed site as seen from East Valley Road and SR 167, and 2) the screening effect that the SR 167 right-of-way margin trees have on the proposed site during foliage- absent winter. Beneath the photos on each page, a 1 inch=200 feet scale map shows the proximity of the subject photos on that sheet to neighboring parcels. The photographer's location and the direction of each shot is illustrated by this symbol: •—i. 1 I - 1,,•mow,.•• mom. F-•; _ q I t t 40 filkpirrifitat06,..'- M Jim SR 16 i PHASE 2 PHASE 1L17 ELT• TR E.E• VALLEY R I 1 I,• o...• .•AIL likallakigkA' 4 v • -.. i. I I ' l• U. 4 ,. .4.1qiiingliaill1 : 14 1 . r .it.:3 i-4.-1, .' - . ' i NAr,;;ES•-•- -,,'-`•:, f• 1-':‘ z ' 1.UMBER MARKET ,.4.: ‘1 ' .: , . •:! i 1 i i . - . ' 4 t.• ' . 11 111%..... i , . 4.., , , =t---la .:.' - f •„, , . : 4 7 . . ' ' - 4-'1 ..... 4 4 ILI tii't t' n".. t i .' ' • '`..-,' .1..t t 1111 111...•••••44 all, 1 Cf::t it•PA t I' 3.• segoisogamaiimaalii, Hill 111 7i."..---',•1.,,..4-,. • '. - - 1 Mak j tt,--- -..4.4/14§. ‘1. 4' ',,':-;- °---- - , -. 7 . • - c1 --- 3E.=.. i.e--, 1 4 ' -.'- PHASE 2 PHASE 1 L7. --- 1. \ k\E . VALLEY R E 2 i , •-i' :I " * i f I. 03 i at • 4011111 P144- lig% 6 11 • - i 1 it • ''- .; I" . ' v .....,,t_14 . N.• • Qrs. 1 r .fl I ' :i, o., 1 i'I , .., ; • .:t w•i• ' ! Idi : 1 1 t , , a 1 ---,••••••*,—,,nro•-•-evn•r-t•,,,fro- ::::‘,..... .............. ... .,, _:...; II ... . . I I t, '11 , ki,i : ' 1 ,,• . . . I' ; :ll1 . . . 1 111111111 ii 440/1P I 111 I 11 VI.4.4--,, i 1 1 i,„ .i ' •J 1 1 04,. 1 •A' . '• 1 a- I i 4 . , 4 . tr til i IF7'- • f." 4 Ir'It1Ill1 . ' 4.440.-- 4,. 4- ' 41iir 1,..- ____::.____:;...-...2•11‘... laraCtAiAllisek 4I411111SF( 1 0- --- - w.----..-1 1• i PHASE 2 PHASE 1 L-----r---- 1 t E. VALLEY R 7-- i v. MIL it,---ter WORLDWIDE r I TRansmisslon LONE sumo Et I I i I 71 4 ems. i . ._. ,p. --4"- _ _ Fi liaw Alai SR 167 PHASE 2 PHASE 1 E.--) i I VALLEY P. 4 ins 1, 41- • am. it , x rx i'. lijik.. M t 1 \\ t 4' ; ^• SR4111111 167 PHASE 2 i 7'I PHASE 1 E. VALLEY R i c t.' +yA J s j/ y.For a '1'gF.F' _# wlt tr i t tJ -,Z-*".- ter,.. r i i ' ,i 1: f t. 1ttY tlli II iitlt•tuR ,,• .I: 11 r JIN Ii illip • t.t-i,, .1,i ,, t 1111 (mot, ,'..k ,.litI ,, , . + - .I I . Q 1 I 4• iY I 1t"10 / II I.' 11( `; r. 4 J . 4. T R SR 167 I A" 2 PHASE 1PHASE i, E. VALLEY 6 I i VI I - I r Iiiiimmimmi 1 1`1 I x-_: i 6 r SR lira ' SE 1 E. VALLEY RE 40r74. ' 4 rq t., It iir*--- i • , liElliiip'firi,, t 4 i 4 * i 1 i 4 ,rill ! f i I : I ;. L. 4- W 1111 7., ' IFCr t.A.. immwriu ow MI e 0114 I,'' „... • ft,"1 A 4: 7r----- SR 167 N +11 UNDEVELOPED2 E. VALLEY RD. a II SW 34TH ST. -----),, r et MP Me. 1 i t II i.-' I: UM a. anima II SR 167 N +1, UNDEVELOPED 2 I EY TTE . VALL RD. SW 34TH ST. 9 i r i I Ili SR 167 N . UNDEVELOPED C-- E. VALLEY RD. T SW 34TH ST. ,10 r d SR 167 N *0 UNDEVELOPED 2 111E. VALLEY RD•TT SW 34TH ST.-------- ,, i 1 1 7.7• ram 4 *"11 tn Aar SR 167 N 4. UNDEVELOPED 2 E. VALLEY RD. SW 34TH 12 r , '. l jam +. k- 4 . o•. tand - ter--•. i. SR 167 N4 i UNDE VELOPED 1 1 1 1 L E. VALLEY RD. SW 34TH ST. ----I- ----,, 13 la r/ _ ..... SR 167 N +1, UNDEVELOPED 2 E. VALLEY RD.T fi SW 34TH S T. t------- r 14 t yr' r, r' ti 4#` i ti: 41:' 111wit Mir* y r . ' 'Sri,. 0 : ..II ,•X' , di 7, i I I 34 T: RI. T: _T t`- fie;' w —... ... Ary SR 167Ilk N410 l II U NiDEVELOPED 1 1 1 E . VALLEY RD. 9 SW 34TH Si 15 7.. - , .. -..' '• .. 1 • 1. ,i ,.•Ai••,, A:.,•, .if.,-.._ -- 4'." '4.k.-• 41- 1 1t 4. I a t:-. - . . : -'" ib I ArAblok '•f"lr '''',.----):, 'e. alliseti -" 44'iogrief„;:, -;;-, r.:.'... immlig. ,--"nt 4,14-,--.4.---',4.1,.. g -7,,,,,,Aillip:...0.11;..._ . .,•-• 3400I I f b._ ' t t , • 1 1 niiirrr"Wt . ... SR 1 67 N 410 UNDEVELOPED :) 4,E. VALLEY RD.T SW 34TH ST. -------)„,, r 16 rill awes MOM NM It SR 167 N +11 UNDEV ELOPED 2 E. VALLEY RD. T 1% SW 34TH 17 io. - ^..__.-rrl Rti-.Si'.a`l YiR 4,t' i eral - s SR 167 N +II UNDEVELOPED 2 E. VALLEY RD. T I" SW 34TH ST. ------)-, r 18 s,y .,i' 1 . / 1711 .. • YV''j4": 4 I 4„..`.,:.ti---- ,.:sr>:. ,...y.s.a,;;. W 34TH T. E. VALLEY RD.S 3, ...0* N L UNDEVELOPEO • 1 1 j SR 167• ten. t i 140 il ,. t . I I MT iileill= MIME& ... i ems- . i.... F_ A: f i s 7 I 0 1 4 ji i El SR 167 N400 4i UNDEVELOPED 21 1 E. VALLEY RD. T t SW 34TH ST.------),A, r 19 le`r 1 Alga 4.111412r1. h +JJ r i - firms t la SW 34TH ST. E. VALLEY RD.5‘ N 1 1 1 I 1il i UNDEVELOPEn 4 SR 167 21 I i- et A 3 f:'....,•• • '^.'.h-1- .-1-+-;Iiy•+,v -'._ Via+...,,T . - SW 34TH ST. E. VALLEY RD. eo. N UNDEVELOPE 1 SR 16 7-- x a 22 114 ik1/4 40 Or z . . r‘ C 91 t a:. QR' y,p.p. L.+', i "° _ -''h am\,,.! d t l: w SW 34TH ST. E. VALLEY RD.11140..,N I i UNDEVELOPE[ SR 16 7 23 i, / 1 k 1. . 0.... ..0 ,44 s ' r r,A,.,. ,....3. j a# r- sk _ e if i_ 4.% ''.1:.'"*.: 1'"'l' e bili,',,V,, :..; ..ak g, le.6;4re-I93 4; i-31.-'- le f ? t w-.:,ice`'+ j rs ' r F F r r h...: F .',qua-w 'T.T.+^2*;r. nae '. 4 s sr a " ., ..+., ill 4 . rti rr:}.,'+as S e 3\ \---__SW34TH ST. E. VALLEY RD. N UNDEVELOFEi SR 167 241 I N i ti4 _ f i i, .) f .1 .k %.• to 41`/- i RY • 01141;12ti° I ' • i ;4 ' • k%Ali.•.... 4 1.— 4%N,,_ i A- ''S' ' '4. iv t• i \ , , 411* K.. aeiiill. F"V, •Aatv•1 /, \; ,i1 A'' nit., N. , 11.II—zo,, • 4"„• \ 1',•.,, .. g`w%iti;s4,-.. - .. l'' - - * 4‘ 4. - I. r • s. 414/7. 4 .4; 7 ' .t 4.11 7414111AU' N.: .0 ....\1,, • • , *..g I. `,L, up: .‘,•;44°."--1-..41NIT 4.,,- ' L''''....° '"-N1' ' 40.1.2....ik 11.31Lerk.w..4....., . Gm. 1. on. 1 3\ '..SW 34TH ST. E. VALLEY RD.wilopp., N 1 4uNDEVELOPEN SR 167 251\ C I I.• -_ . 1, 3.0 4.I - r 1 i F. ..-,.. \•,,:- I -- 40•.PIN- i: -• . 1. I •' ,,44 ola,41•,..,,,:r „..., Ai- -*.! - -' 4"-sar.i tre ii'• -4 '1' 0 .. ..-. .1, _-: r,..4 • -4 - . _ -_.- 4'- • ' ::• i: '--1--e,0 4ie --4., -.‘..„.... •.., • - ...,. .: 4„,.. ,•te ....,,.... . '7 11 t .IR-;, - 41t. ..4j ... •..*.: fr-,• l' i is....-/.•:.: l'irl","- Allr e•:.::: : 1• 47-i- 1: ., Ali:11 ap_. .. -- 7,4111KA S. 4 74"' .11'!!' 01..!4 4117 , kwe, _....-,,,,,,,..-: ,.- --, .. 11,-.„.e°,',:.,-:.,,'- -••2- ::.• r,. r—. Y / t\ SW 34TH ST. ._..„E. VALLEY RD. mook., N I 1 I 7`!,......._. uNDEvELopEig, iiiii __ _ ------ 4 I i t i Ili f ram'` r''!Y ,''•' -'- g..r•.,. :"b' -. &?` '.;±5.+% 1e ;-'VA..•+u,s.-:,r*x _ - _ IMO AMP RD.SW 27TH ST. E . VALLEY PHASE 1 I PHASE 2 I iii+- N 1___,--- 7 401 SR 16 27 f lir v., ' ',# 4. 4. 41:' ''I'' 3 • 4 ri 0. e . 4 t,r- ... •. . - .. , t • 1-:`, ' • ' tc- .f 11141 i ---rootfri...,r,A 4 0 i N *- - - 7'14 - : * .,--. 4 1 • 4. .i al111111. 1.4040111~. 104: # • 1•'..? 4.---____ ._, 7.--". 20111f.•.. l . . 4:?„-, 1kSW27THST. E. VALLEY RD• PHASE 1 I PHASE 2 1 INION1.._------------"------------T- --------iP 28 V.N. 1 r I 1. 3..1., • . I I .t , . ,'s 4!.' -ff- • 1.'4 ..,' .' •' i.1i • '1 - t s. \ a• ' 'e' : 1/IV:7ff " V, .i•iip• . • _,., a 6,,, , ;, 4 i, •I",f...1 t;11,0,..., 11,‘,.. P. -.., i11,111110t.. ,, . . • . Jr• :aft 1 I i: .‹. 11 iiii lit. S' 111,--- TAINIMILMiligirgrarainame 71 61611111.r. MI 4a.-- a - A A z......., ..,srfticuf.. v,'4t,v.~'CV:4;1.';VW-'4MV:-.2r.:44'' 12Cler- a s _ I,-. :,-.-.-i--,a- . • ••1--r..,..:.;-:;:,-.4-*-*-• i;Ve•, 0.: - - -,- 4- 1:. ..-7•-:-...• -... i.. r-r,,,n, , .,,,,,`T Als,*_, ,. II IA In••41.11..1%, 4,'".._..,.' -gic-=4"•:-:..: ' .-:-1,-.74-T;:fif. .-,43z,s:" SW 27TH ST. E. VALLEY RD. I i I PHASE 1 PHASE 2 1 1.__________------- INO- N____________--------_ _ 4al SR 167 1 29 ti"./" ..#•,t k''„ 0'• t,•", .. 1Z,.,.,,• k...- 10,,". olt• 0/ i.r, 1l.,: 1;,• 1.'. I fj 1.,, i''.,r,• 1? Ai§.,e..,.•'t...,..'• i,, I. gf.I, f. 4il,.,,. k'; ft',, I., I., e.' III' c....i4.•.:'1:‘ A.+., s.i,':- e 0'.,14iA,tiFi,.•!.'1.!.,Il.I 2,-,,, 1.,: 1. 4,. i; i 44.„,-:, o't.:— 1:• tfr;R:,. t•i. iiAk..I,',%,t i! if6I$;. o14‘• e,,./,.,.: 10•,.•'.,:,'..";.,..'..1.,''i1•., i. 1' 1%. 4 i;, 4 i'.,„ t. P, tI tt1. r14 h-, i.•,,•,' A/'','.•.,'‘.,,..•'.\, Yc:, A.., 14I: t% 1;,' n: k4... 3.Nt! t.iA•)t.. f k• 1 r i1,., 1.-'..•'-[....... r-' 1:1..•.•,:,. 1 A•., 0, 4.,•-• A1 1 I,l- p;• im'1p•:.,tn..t.. p; ie,i- i , 6 I • t 4 oN-*.. t.' 4Ig 4'•, i\ n.•,. 1‘ v, iV.•$‘ i,: I4Fk.Vb.: 7,•t, 4 'Ir: !IVillt 11.4..., ,,, „r,, . 7.' ,‘''',14• lit •.:111'01;i7 f#.41.P'Aef,;1/ 1"41'.&:‘trii vit fi 1 V 'A, 1 i •4.0ta i 1-'s'ik .' i 1 . '-i. •r 1. `,. • i'. lk 4.' : - 61• '• • - , i ''',.•t+,'•:4;.!.. t'Ali;.T.; • tit ,i A •9 ip. ,,ea,,i PI' InAk'!Ikkl 4 ..,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, .,.... 11 4; ,- 404 X • ,i'-' il. .•+.''.' ' - r.1 .,,,• ',-'.. AI ,, • ...,. 41,f,, ,•11 i 4 .ito....... k•. ••:v ,: fi ri iVier ii '.'";)-N i''Al- s A,,, , •„,., ,,„ ••• -•• •,,,,,..,, /. -ki ....: ) k..1),..,--..; -- I... 9 ....e., .:, ..,),....,,ic„.,„„,...,... .. •,... . Ai, FA.,,,,,,..,.%.,fil t),4 1.,.... 3011, • \ . , i. ' 7,.., :'.1, re ,) f,c'..# ,' j e 1,'• ' r ,?,rir..,„,;firlit .; 4 .}, ..''_rt- 7.94,7k . ••:V. -',. --:4 . - r ' 1 - i ,' •• '. ' .#: • .- ” Ar 1.444e.**.. —i, : il ‘• ' ' r .... , t-i ,I, St tr• tr-• • Air w..zo AIL.0. o„.- .••k•-•••••I . .. t .., • .r v•m4„„„, NI N,,,,1 , 0 ,*# . mp,...#.# 7-=---_.---.----=...- z _-..—___=.-_-_:-_-_-..---=- .- 7----r---- - 1 . !` ' !.- a-. :-.- - " 41.1141111101011610.68610110.0.101111.0.1111 Abesweampumemaimalmbilms....s,-.0.44.41 kola III t-- r- tV,,.ttta":r11iri7r1ay.. Z. a:' ril::-4lN4..*..-4S-.'l 27 : - i. w. 14r1° l..71.iiit't.'..w.' 4#: 1•104..-.: . • -..• •--ili f. t,..-4, 1147&11:,611.1*-01p0. - - 4•••o•' , ...' ••• r. k "..... SW 27TH STj E .VALLEY RD . PHASE 1 PHASE 2 INIO- N1____---------- 4, a 3 0 IV i; F.. -Ile:. i , _' o. ' aY . b.- did, * i%, _ ` f :; as rid«^..I ;,yt < I 441100« wt Ii l! 1:- E .` r.I tdwr IW 'NW; 1?+ i 1! J SW 27TH ST. E . VALLEY RD. 1 • PHASE 1 PHASE 2 1,________-------''-------- 11+- N 4 R 167 31 f r j.. 1 r t t r w - y '% I.I G ''''. 14 1, 3 I i+ +` , .. i iii y1e. + c ' - ram .J 4, i irt ll,4i... Q' i*411; :'+ +.`4filt iil .a ,. •••?, QWS , ,t 4 411` r iyr ••f1+ I e '* '; T..,- . µ- ate r _ 1 4 Ked iPti:FaihpgK5..wir• w.. 4,...f 1R+s - - S R SW 27TH ST. E. VALLEY RD. PHASE 1 PHASE 2 4101 0110_____1_\L 67 S I--;. z r. 1 ^I. 11 r i i IIY,t .4 C off,kIr. t, y • • f Y t 1° 1' 4 i E1/`s•i F 4 y , 1 yam i7 F 44; - r mil.s SW 27TH ST. E. VALLEY RD. I PHASE 1 1 PHASE 2 si., N 411 R 167 r 7: 33 1..„.1: .• , t i s kr Or ...1\. e i s. • ) 1 r ' '' • ''• ; t 14‘...•:' ::1 •' I':" ti- i ' l • i44. J • - ly i ,c •, i,. ..`: / , '.. -: . ., Nki.f •,' '.. ,;!.' 4. '' *-* . s. s.:, .;.....\,,,,i, , -".,‘ ...,,,.•\... ;•., .... i . I id s....N• f ' 7 ' .. . ,.- . .... ., , 41 .., PA •;--,‘ . -"... . '7, , , 7 ' - \,., • A. 1,!:. • f ._,..,.., ,-••iiiAAir 71 .. -'11 It k.'-. c•% . r 4c. N -Z::: s•:. ',‘, l• '2 .N' , _-. -,- , N,1,•,-. - -, di . ,„ 0 „.„...-. A • ., ,,,,,. '- . -"....,.,.. i yea... 71 . .f . e.- -1._Ai 4ik - '7- - , 1 N., efoi':410 /ilfia, - °Ik. ,,Iiiifi4. ......:-. 4 •,:,; . •R . - - - .:-. - :ier 5-- lk. A', . -5.11411411, v-A 44k11,i°• . .„ 4 ,... 0:111 -111.1 •• 1 AH14111k. lik- ... ii,' ,,, m-- . 4- ,.- 7.< 1111k -1 ;• ' ' , 11 .' , —141k." i Ift.t.°..AAA. 1 Aft?' *I .4i 1,j,---4,...,- •\sp jr....,,f 4,.% ; au__ ., : 1 k gi,-, , ,._--- ,..- la.:,.,,f--.. ..„0,,,,,,, .,,,..:4 -„•.., ,, - * 1.44-- go -... ' 'if t f..,..,,,,.. 4, .' t, . 1 A "'' •;,i •"."‘ •••t' .e.ot ,,,, . ' .' . - . __, .,. ••, N, 111 iAt.,•F,_/.:-., ii-....., ,,, . ,.., .... ., 7., % _. ,. .,4k. - 441-ii ,,, .v,i gi„,._ ,„-i,...-4,,, • 1ilt*. - .,'1 le0A :!.' ,411na 5. .... . - 'ig, ,. „rot...-- • . lilts,. _ . i .., • , . 1. It.i i i ,,4;A 4,, .. .4,,,, .."1, s ., : 4 i''•X Raj% 14 - •, • , ,..?.',.,1 . 3t,'--;Z:i'.-ft.,' ,Volti•zi., , .,t,: .2,-- '1. "E,s.' .....4,.... •.,. „...,„) .....4ir .;,,, a 2. a.._ f - - -" —- -024441k0*-103°-.41=4$0441Nti-' , ..- V-- .----.11 1,-. ....t.- - • . S.:-2- ..-11.‘:'.. ...;;;.,; ....',....-' ; 4--•-'-- 1:..- ....,-4',..t. ile.;Zi 't-e-IIY...-' . '. ' . a•-• E • RD .SW 27TH ST. VALLEY 1 PHASE 2PHASE1 asillo- N _. si:t 11 i-,- 34 it y 0 ilikin .' • 1 .- -.'' •• - 4 1 tsi ikSW27THST• E. VALLEY RD. PHASE 1 PHASE 2 i___________.______________________ .. R 17 t S 6 Q 35 SW 27TH ST• E. VALLEY RD. PHASE 1 PHASE 2 SR 167 1 t • A il,,f.„- , N; •-X ' 71-N .-204r - -... k • ' , "*. :.,.1.101.' k k. 4 '• -alisZ" -' ----- 1 ti!c•It.i. sroi 4 peego. is 4.1 t."14ti "• -••t t".' / 14:'• --''4,4•', / ' .' , a.', I-. • ...6 r 4'''' :7:111. Ir •-. 'ei i,,' ;•11,--,, t ; MIN. ft. m. I ' E . VALLEY RD. 1 PHASE 2 1 44, ..,, • ,,,,.. e. ••• g'r ' :''!-• ''; 1 N.I....................------ ---------- C".--"---) r--"------- 9:4 1,4• &lir a S R 167 37 OF R4, BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT RONALD G. NELSON - DIRECTOR 0, 9 co MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, WASH. 98055 • 235-2540 0 94,, SEPIE/4% P April 11, 1984 BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH MAYOR Gary Merlino Construction Co. 9125 10th Avenue South Seattle, WA 98108 Re: Bulk storage facility located at 2900 E. Valley Road, file SP-021-84, SA-022-84, V-023-84, V-024-84, V-025-84, V-026-84 Dear Mr. Merlino: The City of Renton Building and Zoning Department formally accepted the above mentioned application on February 23, 1984. A public hearing before the City of Renton Land Use Hearing Examiner has been scheduled for April 24, 1984. The public hearing commences at 9:00 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the second floor of City Hall. The'applicant or representative(s) of the applicant is required to be present at the public hearing. A copy of the staff report will be mailed to you before the hearing. If you have any questions, please call the Building and Zoning Department at 235-2550. Sincerely, Roger J. Blaylock Zoning Administrator RJB:JMS:cl 0804Z-2 OF R 0 THE CITY OF RENTON POLICY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT • 235-2552 o MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON,WASH. 98055 094T D SEPTE° P BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH ME M O R A N DU M MAYOR DATE: April 10, 1984 C,i F. ii?,'i.:4 11 TO: Building and Zoning Department r t s FROM: David R. Clemens I U APR 11. 1984 Policy Development Director SUBJECT: Merlin Bulk Storage Facility Special Permits, Site Approval and Variances The applicant is proposing a truck/trailer storage facility on the east side of the East Valley Road just south of S.W. 27th Street. The subject site is located between East Valley Road and the SR-167 Valley Freeway. The proposal consists of two phases of construction to the trailer storage area commencing in the south and proceeding to the northerly half of the site at a later time. The proposal appears_to be consistent with the bulk storage definition Section 4-7023(5). ;The bulk storage permit must conform to the intent [Section 4-734(A)] which states, in part, "due to the unique characteristics and problems inherent in making bulk storage facilities compatible with surrounding properties , and the environment, . . . special review off bulk_storage facilities is required to ensure the intent of these regulations." The bulk storage regulations specifically require height limitations [Section 4-734(C)], setbacks for the structures and the bulk storage [Section 4-734(D)], and perimeter site screening [Section 4-734(E)]. The applicant, in this case, proposes to vary all of these regulations with the exception of the height regulations. Such a proposal appears to be clearly inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the bulk storage regulations. This proposed development does have unique characteristics surrounding it as a result of its triangular shape and the existence of public rights-of-way for East Valley Road and the Valley Freeway fronting on two sides. The Policy Development Department believes that the most onerous bulk storage regulation related to this facility is the requirement for a sixty-foot setback from any public street right-of-way for any bulk storage use or buildings. Based upon a cursory evaluation of the site remaining after implementation of the sixty-foot setback from East Valley Road and from SR-167, it appears that the Phase I site area would lose approximately one-half of the available truck parking stalls. The Phase 2 area would lose approximately two-thirds of the truck parking stalls. Even though an ecomonic use of the property would remain with the elimination of the setback, it appears that this requirement for this particular site, due to its physical characteristics, warrants a variance approval from the sixty-foot setback from public rights-of-way. Building and Zoning Department April 10, 1984 Page 3 RECOMMENDATION: 1. Approval of the bulk storage permit for a truck/trailer storage yard with the following provisions: a. Denial of the variance to reduce the landscape and screening setback along - the East ValleyRoad frontage. - h. Denial of the variance for elimination of the landscaping and screen fencing along the south property line. c. Denial of the variance for elimination of the landscaping, screening, and fencing along the Valley Freeway side of the site and the requirement of extensive evergreen tree planting be required within this landscape setback to rapidly enhance a visual break between the freeway and residential uses along Talbot Hill to the east. rd.-Approval of the variance to eliminate the 60-foot setback for the proposed bulk storage uses, if and only if, the three screening and fencing variances t illustrated above are denied. 2. ' Approval of the site plan subject to compliance with the screening and fencing separation between Phase 1 and Phase 2 until such time as the Phase 2 portion of the site is developed and compliance with the paving requirement of Section 4-734(J)(8) for the traffic circulation areas within the subject site. DRC:0598G:c1 cc: Fred J. Kaufman, Hearing Examiner Building and Zoning Department April 10, 1984 Page 2 The applicant's second significant variance is the reduction in the landscape screening setback along the East Valley Road from a minimum of twenty feet from the property to a proposed twenty-one feet between the sidewalk and the proposed screening fence. Although the additional ten feet of landscaping which would be required to be located on the applicant's site is burdensome, other bulk storage uses including the recent Burlington Northern vehicle transfer facility, complied with this requirement including the landscaping of the public right-of-way section between the property line and the sidewalk. The combination of the landscaped area in conjunction with the required fencing are clearly necessary to reduce the visual impact of row upon row of truck trailers on this site. The applicant also proposes the elimination of the landscape screening along the southerly property line adjacent to the Lumber Mart and utilizing a portion of the screen fencing from that facility in conjunction with new fencing construction near the southwesterly corner of the proposed site. The L-1 regulations, Section 4-712A(5), require lumber and similar facilities to be located entirely within a building or surrounded by a sight-obscuring screen consisting of a fence and landscaping. It is clear that the bulk storage regulations intend to have bulk storage uses comply with more rigorous standards than a use that would be permitted outright in the district. As a result, I can see no justification for elimination of either the landscaping or the fencing requirements along the southerly property line. Since an eight-foot screen fence already exists across approximately the easterly two-thirds of the south property line, it is recommended that the landscape treatment be required across this area with the extension of the eight-foot high screening fence only from the front of the Lumber Mart building westerly to the screened fence adjacent to East Valley Road.. In addition, the applicant should be required that at such time as the screened fencing' now located on the Lumber Mart site is eliminated, this property owner shall install at his expense, and within a reasonable period of time, screen fencing consistent with the regulation of the Bulk Storage Ordinance. Finally, the applicant proposed to eliminate the landscaping screen between the subject site and the SR-167 Valley Freeway. In addition, the elimination of the screening on this site will open the site to visual impact from the adjoining residential uses along Talbot Hill. It should be noted, as a result of the previous fill permit, that the easterly approximately thirteen feet of this site will be in a finished slope extending from the proposed finished grade of approximately 15.5 foot elevation down to approximately an elevation of 8 feet. This slope is supposed to be hydroseeded in this proposal. The Policy Development Department believes that this proposal is unattainable and wholly improper for bulk storage use adjacent to the heavily used Valley Freeway located at an elevation nearly 10 feet above the subject site to the east. The City of Renton, in the development of its Goals and Policies for the Valley and recent zoning ordinance amendments, has been making every effort to improve the visual appearance of new development throughout the community. In this case, this trucking terminal use will be effectively a major visual blight directly upon the city's doorstep. Two other issues have been raised by review of this application. First, Section 4-734(J)(8) requires that circulation within a bulk storage use be paved. The applicant's proposal with that, with the exception of the entry and exit points from the site, no paving with permanent hard surfaces is proposed. - This appears to be in conflict with the ordinance requirements. Secondly, since this proposal is intended to be in two phases, the intervening period between the development of Phase 1 and Phase 2 will leave an exposed northerly perimeter on Phase 1. It is recommended that the landscape screening and fencing requirement be installed along the Phase 1/Phase 2 boundary in order to properly screen this bulk storage use.