No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLUA84-053BEGINAING OF FILE FILE TITLE OFIIMED U EARLINGTONI STATISTICS BUSINESS all..Ir..rn. ee UvcLgei: r n Iiylllrorce MU I'i lel:Ave,lrn•. 4040UllIIIIII.I III firs, Ci ly 1)I111 tee F•PARRIM k1 fl, Ave ..lrr,:40.111 SedeLle,lIS Jtrllll IOW 424 021K I Te . Luvr ,.0 lentil tl: rr Wit. 6 t on FM i0 . Gems. :Lu a:Lu1. ILl:Street. 1— .) 221 60,1010 c.f.) Q Paving a Drier...) la 110 tepee: r ,1 Trace: 241 1. II:.I.1 IMMI V VICINITY MAP.. ing: N (MaudaLL.r r I ,.t1 1 . — .'•, Provided: 291 Si I:.: I IC :.)," re \&Jyl,I 1:1'.J. i'r' •lie, t {.4J::1J -I- 12 Co Lai4ei„I1.rn^: v-1wI u.,,to., Isl - ere. r" µ S r_ . r1lI J Imi min 01:,. e:lie, I:(v . e 1" 8 IC)Illfling. re Ir., 21rLLIs. 9e00 1/I+ I I' ` 1 - l.. I, r.,r.,a I Idg. a 26,400 c: . Ir'i..;.'TURWIA., (F" i tRENTON e JonUD i.II11Jg, a JrLUUI',., r` lJY!r ", ,\ g ' 1 AIrIre,drL:Coder:: Building ,Jnl,r1 ir . of rLrr,Wasip. il/ 1 e .y1i. L A -ty1 e • µic,e..rtru J a 41( DRAWING .INDEX.. Pl COVER SIIE,ET/STATISTICS rL.r•I; re..,1141,111!::.I.) r P2 SITE PEON II./2 1•15,4UU s.l.) Q P3 ELEVATIONS rvirr•1 ...lks, Irr ire:,r.I..TkilT,l: 'PL. 22,291 .1.) r P4 ELEVATIONS Tr AI,I:,+lui rr:el: I/O Atolls-!r I:I25 n Ll LAM:SCARE PLAN I'alkill'I I' Tvi Jr.l: 1111 Slal l.. SITE SURVEY Occu TTr.,;r,.nyl-.: n-I III, a ID Ti ldied II r9LL: 1 51111y Q I10i1,110,Pletri Ale.:. 45,6110:,,I. re Let CI m 0 teL RI PROJECT TEAM rr,'Ilr, IAlrk NI lane[: PI 1019 CI'ly I'OUI TI I'.r;•9 Rylrr IIUU Arledge: 2.1 ere.. I'J!e151./s.l.) 0iflipAvenue,Suite 14040 Oar lane Moss 11.]d In,In1U.0 rolLlr,WA 90104 j r( Nalkc, Iris,,,a I.rr kin„)L %v.L1 l'•.I,444.. I.) a ri)4-922J PL.r101•Br.: 5.21 26,907.20.1.) 2 O Archi Lent: 111,11„AIIIIr ARCIIITPLIS 1,rerard,I Ili Ileendl tug Required: 151 SUM::-e 1:21I11 W Q Ilnll 11.E. Int SLrec L,I:niLe 704 Edward P. Ar ned Irur, leel u'llevur,MA 911005 Cone rrie. r Pro vided: 11 SLa IJ:.- 117 o...I r, a Ir.Ire :hn as.1 I IYN.: V-1 II I< 4'.4-]lJU e. Trr reY: runup II-!4,7,03 civil Engineer:ulr,:ll. IJDI:O 4 Illl'L'lll rvl::, me. Reber: Irr.l(Clue l I Ilr1.1 il.l i.g Ilvrgh l: J SL pY I Survey: 2009 Minor avenue f.159 Glen.Clover lI•iviI l 1.( i lJinn I'Iru•r A L a. JUrLUU Seattle,WA 90107 Art Ili I,1Tiren: I,..r v,y) Z 323-4144 Oa• I. Soils Engineer: I:nirrll C'ON[11 L'I'AN'r5, INC. Itr 4Trr, In•v l,T:u•Ir CI 1E105 1/G1I1 Place N.1:,,But Le 101 damn Pin ley NIBS!:I11-111.1'Al1. WZ Bellevue,WA 90005 fi41-1]UR Act e I U1.11L n:L I.ln•Ilu,re . Silo Coverage:9,1e I 1,1,0,11 e.1.1•F Landscape CAI/211 ENTERPRISE: PK Rockwell III 01 Architect: :too Elliott Avenue W.,Slii Le 2)1 and Parking): 4U I,IIOII,U..I.I Q Menton/Build) Seattle,NA 9nu9 Upon Space: w.4x I l,]rl.o::.r.) f n2-5454 arking Required: - 18 Stalls-P I:!U,I Traffic TNI:TRANSPO GROUP David A.Markley Parking Provided: 111 lilalls W Engineer: 22-140th Avenue S.E. r..l r.clin.type: • V-1 OR W Bellevue,WA 9800 i•Lu„arpcy Group: U-2 IIIIIII•27 641-1e51 I,IJg. Fleur`Area: I,LVU s.r. rWP'1 r J s-7—Bs W rm Hy,„pS 7. 7- i 410.::. 4,,,, L,, s- 0 ,, boo 8 l', M83Nypo' m ' —GO ai, 0 :. ,........_..,„„r4,.. S- 9 ••..._,.,-_-„ psi, 1 1.1.;1:ir).:: .a.-mi 0 01,14 i, : i...,,., 1 le ait,,,, ,..z..0.0 y -; 1 0 ;.i',11/7.a,...I_1___. .. . G Hoo 40:1_ j— UIelhh1 IIY (II e 1144?i IN 1 Cl p II n 2Q,: -,,;:,,:,:,.) 1 I til4qti, qY• ''4 ,I)r, xi 1 \JD Ail. AIL Lej111111 44!u - a Z te• 3m 0. A33 C c 0 O E'' ..' 0 !. •..wlWl iii 4, 1'14. C k p i z m D ra id M I la Ohlz-, 4 m 4 t .F gek. .....wo mo, -,e, till la l_ I I 4 Ili, itri12 ITa, cam°• li...4 Iiilkam e r% 4 a eIII'isa, a Wrlra iE 11 1)111 Lys 4"" a•1 — 1: 44 I lel o .._, ... pm, AillikkS; OPCargeraiRMWMIIIP 33 1,2i,446 11j I ll l NW NIB' w MILBRAN-DT- ARCHITECTS :11811 NE- 1ST STREET , SUITE 204 ELLEVUE, 'WASHINGTON 98005 C208) '464-7130 EDWARD C. ARMSTRONG ASSOCIATE W Q RAILROAD EASEMEN 447.36'o 0a 10.00' 249.00' Q elk vo z W 0 OFFICE/WAREHOUSEQ26,400 S.F.till13REE I 0 L I Q H1tDING SIGNAL--- __-- 1 (4IM u.li WALKWAY-TYPICALK 0 a0. U" BUILDING S '-' a 12° r 8 0 Ii!i 1, OFFICE al p OFFICE 0 W 9.600 S.F. 9.800 S.F. 9 I • I C lOrFUTURERETAIL1IItiII e d P e i 6•-0" 3,600 S.F.• ` £I 6 jr- I d I T _ II ------ J L--IL-_Ei R SETBACK PING PHASE TWO ri.04I`I /I I J I p.DPHASETHREE9PHASINGLINE i_ L BUILDING SIGN , 0 I I PHASE ONE m 1I I I 1 COMFA.TS I I 1 r 17 LANDSCAPE EASEMENT 7 . ram EXISTING SIDEWALK I Q 168.00' ' r I 0 ' \ 628.38' -_ I _.. __ / j A Q I al POWELL AVENUE SOUTHWEST 0 0 °aN o ND Z"EARLINGTON BUSINESS PARK m 0 1"=30•-0" W NOTE: F m3m 1)SEE SITE SURVEY FOR LOCATION OF Q N PUBLIC UTILITIES AND EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS n''' ..2) SEE LANDSCAPING PLAN FOR z F _ PROPOSED PLANTINGa -O W 1:0 i-I pJN 23 . P2Ez:si DJ 6-T-84 r w r® inma_ U EA R L I N G T O N STATISTICS- FMQ . B U S 1 N E S S Project Name: Ea[lington Business Park z Developer: First City Equities PARK FifthAvenue.Suite 4090 z Seattle.WA 90109 2061 624-9223FirQWner: First Cityy Fq u[t[es Ill F 800 Fifth Avenue,Suite 4040 IQ Seattle,WA 30104 Et624-9223 Project Location: Off South Grady Way @ the intersection 4 of Powell Avenue S.W. 6 S.W. 10th Street. Acreage: 6.3 acres • (274,296 s.f.) Site Coverage:22% 60,000 s.[.) U Paving (Walks 6 Drives): 54% 140,365 s.C.) 0 Y_LCLNLTY. MA .-- Open Space: 248 65,911 s.f.) 1i-::`, ,' I l j j'.i i I j I,.:} I; I M-P Manu[acturin Bark QI , I I J"_ I Irlio I,I .I zonin g 1 1 1 .-j a l'I'•. i 1 I`.'.;.I Parking Require : 119 Stalls Q VI,^ a.N }\_ ' 1' A,' \•,••, i„, l `J}I - Parkln9 Provided: 322 Stalls I,,// -,,If.,„ ,',t1 ),,i,''";_ _ e 1 U. Type: 0l-...' ''I;'''' 'Y',. ,"„'•'''' ,. 1:'.' 1 Construction Group xrtha',' 1 Y Occupancy: Grout a-2 0 WnNBWI0. Building Heights: 1 2 storyr.. r L REI TON Seismic zone: 3 JRIE'N nBO •, II ''')!'...1-7-1 1 y3 a u Building Square Footages:2 Bldg, @ 9,600 s.f. I 5 'i..,g IBY' 1 Bldg. @ 26.400..C. 1-,,., pI I 1 -, -::,.._..,w,.. e 1 Bldg, @ 31,600 s.f, 11Im".)e • 1 Bldg. @ 1,600 s.f. Applicable Codes: Building Regulations City of Renton,Wash. 0:fere nn,Innw - : 197a E•li tins 41 DR.I PvING-.INDEX_ PHASE 1-BUSINESS PARR P1 COVER SHEET/STATISTICS Acreage: 3.30 acres 143.812 s.f.) Site Coverage:31.71 45,600 s.f.) P2 SITE PLAN Paving (Walks,Drives 6 Parking: 49.3% 70,921 s.f.) m P3 ELEVATIONS Open Space: 19% 27,291 s.f.) r P4 ELEVATIONS r. Parking Required: 143 Stalls-(@ 1:200 Office:1:1,500 ells,/ LI LANDSCAPE PLAN Parking Provided: 145 Stalls s1 SITE SURVEY Construction Type: V-1 IIR Q Occupancy: Group 8-2 in nul))ling Height: 1 Story Q Building Floor Area: 45,600 s.f, to CI0N PROJECT TEAM.P1 A9E II-OFFICE PAAR Q D+ne r: FIRST10 CITY venue,= In,I,yler Siteage: 2.1 acres 0- (92,151.2 s.f.) 0 n1D Fifth Avenue,.S,li Lr 14040 1:::..:rn moss Site Coverage:11.]1 II0,800.0 s.f.) 2SealGlr,WA 90104 Paving(Walks, Drives 6 Parking): 59.1% 54,444.0 s.f•1 N 074-9223 LO Open Space: 29.21 26,907.2 s.f.l 0 4 Architect: III In INN17r A11C II'I'I:C-PS _:m.- 1 I.e•.Ilal.I.I. Ili II.,n„•11. Parking Required: 158 Stalls-@ 1:200 F ai.4 r )I loll N.E. Oct Street,Suite,J.u% Edward,'. n,,11 rnnl Parking Provided: 159 Stalls D Zvi u eel 1,.;-,wfvl sRnnS ;.' j Construction Type: V-1 HR U 454-7130 ,,. - Occupancy: Group B-211111( Civil Engineer:sus11, (torna 111TG711N(.:, INC. lade,1 Need (,'i vie I •:.) Building Flo 3,600y N Building Floor t: Area: 30,600 s.f. Survey: 2009 Minor Avenue East Olen„,:lour, (,',vie I'nnl.l tennis,WA 9R102 Art Ili trl,in 1:: I:nu vy) 0aFF Soils Engineer: I:n1IT11 CONSULTANTS, INC. Rohr,1;. Levinset. la ai 1005 136t1,Place N.G.,Suite lnl .lames Pi I.ley PHASE III-RETAIL in Bellevue,WA 90005 Q f•41-17 Acreage: 88 acre 38,132.e s.f.) F Site Coverage:9.4% 3,600.0 s.f.) N N. Landscape I:511311 ENTEItr0ISFS rK Rockwell Paving (Walks, Drives,Roads, Architect: 300 Elliott Avenue W.,Suite 220 and Parking): 60% 23,000.0 s.f.) Q Design/Build) Seattle,WA 98119 Open Space: 30.6% 11,732.8 s.f.) 3 202-5454 IIQ Parking Required: 10 Stalls-@ 1:200 r Traffic THE TMNSPO GROUP David A.Markley Parking Provided: 18 Stalls• ill 23-148t1,Avenue S.E. Construction Type: V-1 11R IV] Bellevue,HA 9800 Occupancy Croup: B-2 II z, 641-3001 Bldg. Floor Area: 3,600 s.[. P1r W . rJ mJ 5-7-84_ W • 57,11571a.IEVC£0:5.25.q•} r 0 L. L SITE UTILITY AND TOPOGRAPHY INFORMATION• (NUMBERED ITaIS CORRESPOND TO THOSE ON SURVEY) 4 . • MANHOLEII. SANITARY I 12. WATER VALVE AND E WATER VALVE VERTICAL g: ii _ r LTOGETHER sOWN NEI,R EESMANHOLEP11AL23MANHOLEroEI1, DRAIN INLET UNDER KING Ta HNICAL o" 2ASWITH 11 F CAL VAULT H m PAVOL STORM MANHOLE LOT 11, LATS e SNTERASRECORDED O COUNTY.P . to N,,,,,EEra A aDLT awsx, L VAULT e SAS`" SIDE MARKER RP 1 „ WIT!UNH H TOP _ 1 ,e ELgCTRICAL°CABLE g 1 E DEEP) Z.CHAMBER ER Q 9 o eo 12.56 Vl cs e1 AND GUY POLE 0t m ZQ DRIVEWAY 13CHAMBER CULVERTS NII. STREET LIGHT ON CONCRETE SLAB TOPWPR :e WATER VALVES 0 z m C 0 o WzD JF and c7 o BEARINGS CCt. 11 Et o„ . II t`---'_— o— eT —y,--° o =a THE PUT or•w"sHlNeioH TECHNICAL eg am'i x iN\iz ,), H N•1'14'20'E•° ° `° 447.36`° DNS: z G OP 6 ERIAAL BENCH MARK SURVEY DATA,SEEDRAWINGT. 7J `°N t'14'28'E`°'249.00`°' Re\, I 6 ( SEE NOTES TO O( AS LEE TERED ON THE SURVEY, m 1 A. ASSOCIATES ONEFEETINCHPIPE GliF, ,T AND kr," 1\ i, 1''' e.., 1 ,,,, 0.12 FEET SOUTH OF CORNER. R ONE INCH PIPE 1\ iSUTILITY EASErnENr C. 1 AZ4 aOMOBACK"ANDrtP rrp) 9 A I` `. ' D. CAP,Bosx,PDED P - e a S „\`, is NO 6e9 r is FA SE.E. • I CONCRETE MOPMONUMENT W T DI50 I5 e.ee EE`oR,Ca':o; I j 1 '\ o\?I el 1 uls c. NE,.INCH IN MONUMENT WITH INCH BRASS DISC IN TOP(PUNCH s II, 1 , I `G. NE'TWO DISC IS a.ae FEET NORTHERLY BUSH,ROEO t:{-` yJ "T 1 LOT 11 (WASHINGTON TECHNICAL CENTER)LOT 2(L LA.016-83) 1,„I\ NiY 32- •'\ US . \\,\ o n N CAP:BUSH.ROED I,l\t,.E `;Y. \\ ° T m rya`'D.CAP.BUSH, y a'1 wO1 F\ +,\y 33\ CAP;BUSHROM 4 E v+'\ \ \\ ;. , xRNcs a• wI;x i o 1\ I` '\ -.\h{ :1\ 7 \.` y ` , 1 E p' e' Er r"e[Sox VCENrERUHENr IN CASE. s 1 re'<', _ 1 N s. i 7.:ON RB za.so PEST WEST OP e" 3\ ' ' AS Y` ,`-,\ \1 O. NCENTEauSE W o?i +3•`'' 1, \'V'ua m'\ '.\' a 5\ :.\\ 1 SET TACKCENTERLI ON c N W may `Q+ ``\ . I 1 FEET 0R Q I\\\' R+e 1' 1% 9•.- I`\ `'\ I, C 51.14'28W 793.38 h2 CONTAINS zi..Ose SQUARE QOO - sue .:; - — n OF o W I?t` 0 5AT p6V 2 - zz e t0"t, „ /° D, SHOWNTECHNICAL CENTER AND ARE AS m°} d 1 \ roE,,- a,« e °a' I , dr- ,ce a. ,a 9.a • ,« -n' -:o'..°_:_:_. 2 Q F 'o 9 5 + qK. ;dye STw.00, d°. l d' `., E, ;,' , WW a_ o' v, w`N o BETTER AL U W U a Z t ^ z + z i9, r POWELL - — ASPHALT HUES SHADED, .. S.W. -- - 6 `^\^« DISPLAY TOPOGRAPHY OF SITE. oT as V) OIq r Z - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - --- - r C.- O 1".40' 4-11-84 01 as 84068 1 e 1 OF i A. A. I."..' % zsy BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT RONALD G. NELSON - DIRECTOR F. xt27 O 'MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON,WASH. 90055 • 235-2540 94 m. 0 Q' 9' 4TF 0 SEPT , BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH MAYOR September 17, 1985 Barbara E. Moss Director of Planning First City Equities 800 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4170 Seattle, Washington 98104 RE: Metro Landscaping Requirements Dear Barbara: In the conditional use approval for Metro. CU-007-83, the Hearing Examiner required detailed landscape plans to be approved by the City's Landscape Architect. Metro originally su mitted a schedule to begin planting in the spring of 1986. That was presented in information of September 1983. Subsequently, in June of 1984, they had presented a npw landscaping schedule to begin planting in the spring of 1988. I i The landscaping typically includes mixture of evergreen and decidious trees ranging from firs and pine to cedars and from oaks to maples. In addition, they have included a heavy ground cover nd shrub layer for the perimeter landscaping on the.site. The ultimate intent of the landscaping was to create a visual barrier of the Metro Sewage Plant from t e manufacturing park areas on the east and I-405. Your suggestion to utilize poplar trees s generally not acceptable to the City. Poplars have heavy maintenance requirements at a certain time in their age and they appear more costly in the long run overshadowin the benefits of providing a fast growing visual screen. It would be more appropriate t create a mixed vegetational screen that would be in greater harmony with the natural a eas to the north. I personally did not realize that the landscaping of the entire plant had been delayed to such a late t'me, and I will consult with Metro to see if there is a possibility of at least installing the perimeter landscaping on the south and east sides of their project as per the, original sche ule for spring jand summer of 1986. Sincerely. ect 9-:-- (Ie LA16" 1 Roger J. Blaylock Zoning Administrator RJB:ss 1945Z 1 x= tto CITY OF REN T O'd N.. 332e=szzuseaammozasmvasarcammmamresal Cd N 1-_ 3 FIRSTCITY SEP 9 1955 EQUITIESBUILDING/ZONING DEPT. September 6, 1985 Mr. Roger Blaylock Building & Zoning Dept. CITY OF RENTON Municipal Building 200 Mill Avenue S. Renton, Washington 98055 Re: Metro Landscaping Requirements Along P-1 Channel VALI JEY 405 BUSINESS PARK Dear Bob: First City Equities is working with the land owners adjacent to our Valley 405 Business Park in the City of Renton in order to finalize details for forming the LID for Oakesdale Avenue. In conjunction with this process, we are continu- ing to develop our Valley 405 Business Park. In that regard, we would like to know what Metro's plans are to landscape their property adjacent to the P-1 Channel. Specifically I would like to know what requirements have been imposed upon their site, if any, and if any further input could be given at this time to influence that landscape buffer. The treatment plant is rather unsightly and considered I to be detrimental to the development of our property. We are in hopes that landscaping requirements imposed upon Metro's development will be heavy enough to create a visual barrier between their property and ours. Planting fast growing trees such as poplars, in conjunction with development of the P-1 Channel ,could successfully block visibility from our property. I would like to know if there is any opportunity for First City Equities to influence the City of Renton's design review approval for Metro's landscaping. In the event that the City has no leverage with Metro at this time, please provide 800 Fifth Avenue•Suite 4170 Seattle,Washington 98104•(206)624-9223 Real Estate Development and Investments P i Mr. Roger Blaylock September 6, 1985 Page Two me with a copy of their landscape plan, if available. Thanks very much for your assistance. Please give me a call to discuss this issue if you have informa- tion which could be helpful to me. Very truly yours, FIRST CITY EQUITIES tczioeu400f4:-A4a4_v__, Barbara E. Moss Director of Planning BEI\i/dlp cc: Davic Schuman Royce Berg Greg Byler 1-1;M<-z---- 6 ,,,,..„_,_},3- )7,,.....t,,,_, OF RA, z THE CITY OF RENTON MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE.SO. RENTON,WASH. 98055 n rn BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH. MAYOR • LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER 0 9,45 FRED J. KAUFMAN. 235-2593 094, SEP1EM August 20, 1984 i Leonard Milbra dt 11811 N.E. 1st, uite #204 Bellevue, Wa. 9 004 il RE: File No. S -053/84; First City Equities Dear Mr. Milbr ndt: The Examiner' Report regarding the referenced application which was published on August 3, 1984 has not been appealed within the 14-day period established by ordinance. Therefore, this matter is considered final and is being transmitted to the City Clerk this date for filing. Please feel free to contact this office if further assistance or information is required. Sincerely, Fred J. Kaufman Land Use Hearing Examiner FJK:dk 0661E cc: City Clerk Building & Zoning Department 6Crry of oeivrov 8A 0,, U821 1984BUI,D,NG/2ONiN G DEPT J. i Affidavit of Publication CPLI:i dVr, i y v # STATE OF WASHINGTON ss. t' .. COUNTY F KING h f 0 19 p,, c 984 -, Cindy. 'kupp being first duly sworn on J I L' e .;`'; oath,deposes and says that..s.he.is the ....chief...c.lerk of 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 LRC as it was published in regular issues(and not in supplement form of said newspaper) once each issue for a period of One consecutive issues,commencing on the 2 ri`tiay of July 19 8 4 ,and ending the day of 19 ,both dates inclusive, and that sick newspaper was regularly distributed to its sub- scribers during all of said period. That the full amount of the fee charged for the foregoing publication is the sum of $55 • 44 which has been paid in full .t the rate of per folio of one hundred words for the first insertion and per folio of one hundred words for each subsequent insertion. Chief Clerk Subscribed and sworr to before me this 3rd day of July 1984 c4. Notary Public in and f e State of Washington, resi ing at Kent King County. Fcriara 1 %Tay Passed by the Legislature,1955,known as Senate Bill 281,effective June 9th, 1955. Western Union T legraph Co. rules for counting words and figures, adopted by the ne spapers of the State. VN#87 Revised 5/82 11: Public Notice a three-phase project(Earlington Business Park)consisting of five buildings having a total of 79,800 square feet for retail,office, and warehouse use, file 84I10- cated at the northwest corner of,Powell Avenue S.W.and S.W. 10th Street. M-V PROPERTIES(ECF-087-84) Application to rezone approximately 57 acres of property from G-1 to R-3 and P-1 for future mufti-family.housing of 80-85 units and future professional office space of 30,000-35,000 square feet, file R-064- 84;located on the south side of S.E.Carr Road approximately 400 feet east of Talbot C Road South. i Further information regarding this action is available in the Building and Zoning Department, Municipal Building, Renton, Washington, 235-2550. Any appeal of ERC action must be filed with the Hearing Examiner by July 16, 1984. Published in the Daily Record Chronicle NOTICE OF I I July 2, 1984. 99231 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COM- MITTEE, IIRENTON,WASHINGTON.illTheEnvironmentalReviewCommittee ; . ERC) has issued a final declaration of non-significance with conditions for the following projects: WASHINGTON NATURAL GAS;COM- PANY(ECF-029-84) - ;I'i Application to install solor cathodic pro- tection equipment;property locatedin the vicinity of 500 Williams Avenue South.' WASHINGTON NATURAL GAS.COM- PANY(ECF-030-84) I i Application to install solor cathodic pro- ' tection equipment;property located'in the vicinity of 900 Jefferson Avenue N.E. WASHINGTON NATURAL GAS prom- i PANY(ECF-031-84) 1 Application to install solor cathodic pro- itectionequipment;property located,in the ' I vicinity of 400 Jefferson Avenue N.E. i FIRST CITY EQUITIES(ECF-050-84) Application for site plan approval tgpalbw 1 r OF Rai i 4 0 THE CITY OF RENTON MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON,WASH.98055 o BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH, MAYOR • LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER 9A O FRED J. KAUFMAN. 235-2593 O9. 9rED SEP1M P August 20, 19 4 Leonard Milb ndt 11811 N.E. lst, Suite #204 Bellevue, Wa. 98004 RE: File No. SA-053/84; First City Equities Dear Mr. Milb andt: The • Examiner's Report regarding the referenced application which was published on August 3, 1984 has not been appealed within the 14-day period established by ordinance. Therefore, this matter is considered final and is being transmitted to the City Clerk this date for filing. Please feel free to contact this office if further assistance or information is required. Sincerely, Fred J. Kaufman Land Use Hearing Examiner, FJK:dk 0661E cc: City Clerk Building & Zoning Department h OF R A 4. 0THE CITY OF RENTON MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON,WASH. 98055 n BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH, MAYOR • LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER 9, 0 co- FRED J. KAUFMAN. 235-25930, 9gTFD SEo- e*' August 20, 19:4 Ken Hays 11811 N.E. 1 t, Suite #204 Bellevue, Wa 98004 RE: File No SA-053/84; FIRST I ITY EQUITIES Dear Mr. Ha s: The Examiner's Report regarding the referenced application which was published on August 3, 1984 has not been appealed within the 14-day period established by ordinance. Therefore, th's matter is considered final and is being transmitted to the City Clerk this date for filin . Sincerely, FRED J. KA FMAN LAND USE H ARING EXAMINER FJK/dk/0660 cc: City Cl rk Building and Zoning OF R U 4$ 0 z THE CITY OF RENTON MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON,WASH. 98055 o BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH. MAYOR • LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER 9A O'FRED J. KAUFMAN. 235-2593 o9gT D SEP, # August 20, 1'84 Barbara Moss 800 Fifth Av I nue, Suite #4040 Seattle, Wa. 8104 RE: File N ci SA-053/84; First City Equitis Dear Ms. Mo s: The Examin is Report regarding the referenced application which was published on August 3, 19 4 has not been appealed within the 14-day period established by ordinance. Therefore, this matter is considered final and is being transmitted to the City Clerk this date for filin . Please feel f e to contact',this office if further assistance or information is required. Sincerely, Fred J. Kauf an Land Use Hearing Examiner FJK:dk 0662E cc: City Cl rk Building & Zoning Department August 14, 1984 1 Holvic deRegt Koering 725 Po ell Ave. S.W. Suite A Renton WA 98055 Dear Loren: Enclos d you will find one copy of each of the current site plan and landscape plan ;for Earlington Business Park showing clear access to the easement along the west side of the property for fire truck ingress and egress. As I t ld you last week, I spoke to Fred Kaufman, the Renton Hearing Examin r about the 'discrepancy in the 'report and decision' issued at which time he told me he was aware which plan was current and that the landscape plan :attached to the report was for general illustration only. (The older scheme was the only reduction they had to copy from.) Mr. Kaufman said if you were still unclear you could call him an he would clarify the confusion with a letter. The im ortant point to be made, however is that First City Equities is awa a of, and has dealt with the need to maintain easement access to your property. I apol gize for the, confusion. Respec fully, MILBRAN T, BARKER ARCHITECTS Ken M. pays, Jr. RECEIVED i AUG 16 1984 KMH/dpm cc: CITY OF RENTONB. Moss, F.C.E HEARING EXAMINER Fr-d Kaufman, City of Renton MILBRANDT, BARKER ARCHITECTS 11715 S.E. 6TH STREET, SUITE 100, BELLEVUE, WA. 98005 206] 45447130 EDWARD C. ARMSTRONG, ASSOCIATE AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING STATE OF WASHINGTON ss. County of King DOTTY KLINGMAN being first duly sworn, upon oath, deposes and states: That on the 3rd day of August 1984, affiant deposited in the mails of the United States a sealed envelope containing a decision or recommendation with postage prepaid, addressed to the parties of record in the below entitled application or petition. 44". SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this day of 61T47,44 1984. Not y Publ 4171— n and for the State of Washington, residing at therein. SA-053-84 - FIRST CITY EQUITIES Application, Petition, or Case #: lhe minutes contain a list of the parties of record.) 1 0638E August 3, 1984 OFFICE OF THE LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON REPORT AN DECISION. APPLICANT. First City Equities FILE NO. SA-053-84 LOCATION: Northwest and southwest corner of Powell Avenue;' S.W. and S.W. 10th Street. SUMMARY OF REQUEST: I, Site Plan approval to allow a three-phase project 1' Earlington Business Park) consisting of five buildings' having a total of 79,800 square feet, for retail, office and warehouse use. SUMMARY FACTION: Building and Zoning Department Recommendation: Approval per revised Site Plan. Hearing Examiner Decision: Site Plan dated June 29,' 1984 for Phase I and II is approved BUILDING & ZONING The Building & Zoning Department Report was DEPARTMENT REPORT:received by the Examiner on July 19, 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 j surrounding area, the Examiner conducted a public 1' hearing on the subject as follows: The hearing was opened on July 24, 1984, at 9:35 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: Exhibit #1 - Yellow File containing application, staff ;' report and letter from Policy Development to Roger Blaylock regarding retail uses as per site plan... 1 Exhibit #2 - Specific Site Plan. Exhibit #3 - Cross-section map of Phase I Building. Exhibit #4 - Cross Section of Phase II Building. The hearing was opened and Roger Blaylock, Zoning Administrator was called upon to present the staff report. The site is the 3rd phase of the Washington Technical Center. In reply to a question from the Examiner, it was stated that the exterior treatment will,be different from what is established in that area. The proposed buildings are the same style, bulk and function and architectural treatment as other buildings in the area, but there will'be p distinct difference in the Phase I and Phase II complexes as compared to another project abutting this site. The landscape design as approved for the Washington Technical Center will be uniform in this proposal. The area will drain directly into the P-1 Channel which is currently under construction. Mr. Blaylock stated that traffic estimates are a serious concern and the ERC has put the applicant on notice, due to accelerated traffic levels as a result of the possible inclusion of a convenience store within the proposal. If this is the case, the store would generate as much traffic as all of the remaining business park offices proposed for this site. The underlying environmental decision was based on a maximum traffic volume and mitigating measures to both the intersection off Powell and' S. W. Grady Way and Hardy Avenue and 7th Street. The applicant mayI utilize that 'capacity and no more, which may mean there may not be development allowed on some of the later projects. The ERC wanted to be sure the applicant was aware that they may be hampered sometime in the future, or supplemental environmental information may have to be provided at a later date. The proposed project, at the present time, is now within the traffic limits of the original Environmental Impact Statement. I y FIRST CITY EQUITIES SA-053-84 August 3, 198 Page 2 When questioned about the setbacks of Phase III, Mr. Blaylock stated that Phase III presently does not meet the setback requirements. A review was made of the space requirementsj kinds of possible uses, parking, fire access and landscaping. It was then recommender that Phase I be approved, without conditions, per the site plan dated May 9, ' 1984; Phase I be approved with the understanding that modifications could require them to come bac for further review; and Phase III be denied because of the elevations and , setback non- ompliance. The Examin r called for testimony from the applicant or their representative. Responding w s: Ken Hays 11811 N. E. 1st Bellevue, Washington, 98004 Mr. Hays commented on the P-1 Flood Channel and the extension of S.W. 10th Street, I! stating neith Jr matter was a threat to their project. He said it was his understanding the 60 foot setback was part of the C.C.&R's and were measured from the curb. Architectural compatibility for Phase I and Phase II is the typical office profile. The only difference wo ld be surface treatment to add a little variety. Parking is no problem as he felt the proj ct was within 1 or 2 spaces over the requirement for the warehouse and office; lands ape more than meets the requirements and average setbacks are over the minimum req fired. Calling for fu ther testimony in support of this application, responding was: Leonard Milbrandt 11811 N. E. 1st,- #204 Bellevue, Washington, 98005 Mr. Milbrand questioned the impact of traffic, as had been referred to by the Zoning Administrator with regard to what point this project will become saturated and they would not be allowed to proceed with the development. He said the cumulative impact information ad not been :made available to the owners, but Roger Blaylock, Zoning Administrator replied that the information was provided in the Environmental Impact Statement an he would be happy to provide this information in a different context. Mr. Milbrandt questioned the basis for the traffic information and was informed that at this point the data is not as traffic now exists, but an engineering assumption, and when the assumed point had been reached, then the City would monitor the traffic to determine if the assum tions were correct. Mr. Blaylock stated at this point the environmental ' review only al ows the addition of 14,675 trips, and at this stage with current construction through Phas I there are now 702 trips. With further development, based on a 24-hour convenience store, there are an estimated total of 3880 trips; but by comparison we now have 25% of tlhe traffic volume with only 10% of the land area. Mr. Milbrandt said they will need toij entify a point in time when they need to update the information and find out if there axe mitigating measures they may need to take if this project does develop as a successful office park. The Zoning Administrator agreed. The Hearing Examiner called for further testimony for or against the proposal. Responding was: r Barbara Moss 800 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4040 Seattle, Washington, 98104 Ms. Moss questioned specifically just what it was the Zoning Administrator was not recommending. Mr. Blaylock clarified the problem with Phase III with regard to the setback requirements under the Mfg. Park Zone, as well as whether S.W. 10th Street was a public right-o -way so it could be used as access. She inquired as to the intent of the proposed Co prehensive Plan as it pertains to retail uses for the site, but no determination could be made at this time as the Plan has not as yet been adopted. At this point the Hearing Examiner stated because of the non-compliance of Phase III with the setback requirements, and the question of dedication of S. W. 10th Street, he felt it may be suit ble to separate Phase I and II from Phase III and dismiss Phase III without prejudice so t e applicant's, could resubmit at a later date, without paying another fee. This was agre able to the applicants. There being no further testimony for or against this proposal, the hearing was closed at 10:35 A.M. I' a,r' • x FIRST CITY QUITIES SA-053-84 August 3, 198 Page 3 FINDINGS, C NCLUSIONSA DECISION: Having reviewed the record in this matter, .the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: 1. The applicant, First City Equities, filed, a request for approval of a site plan for three phases of the on-going build out of the Washington Technical Center. 2. The application file containing the application, the State Environmental Policy Act il SEPA) documentation, the Building and Zoning Department Report, and other pertin nt documents was entered into the record as Exhibit #1. 3. Pursuant to the City of Renton's Environmental Ordinance and SEPA (RCW 43.21C, 1971, 6s amended), ',a Declaration of Non- Significance has been issued for the subjec proposal by. the Environmental Review Committee (ERC), responsible i 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 both north and south of S.W. 10th Street, west of Powell Aveml S.W. 6. The subject site was annexed into the City by Ordinance 1745 in April of 1959, as amended 'by Ordinance 1764 and Ordinance 1928 in May of 1959 and December of 1961, iespectively. The site was zoned 'G-i upon annexation. Ordinance 3344 in August of 1979 reclassified the subject site to M-P (Manufacturing Park). The final p at of the site was approved by Resolution 2462 in July of 1982. 7. A num er of buildings have been constructed in the vicinity of the subject site, the site of the former Earlington Golf Course. The applicant proposes constructing a series f additional buildings in three phases. Site plan review is required under the M-P zoning. 8. The most northern of these additional buildings would be Phase I and would consist of thr e buildings and associated parking and landscaping. An office/warehousing buildin of 26,400 sq ft divided into approximately 6,600 sq ft of office and 19,800 of warhousing would be on the west third of the site. Two mirror image office buildin s of 9,600 sq ft each would be on the eastern portion of Phase I's lot. 9. Phase P would consist of one 31,600 sq ft office building and its associated parking. 10. Phase I I located west of Powell Ave and not abutting Powell would have access via S.W. 1 th Street. The submitted proposal would be for approximately 3,600 sq ft of retail s ace, in the form of a convenience store. 11. The m p element of the Comprehensive Plan designates the area in- which the subject site is located as suitable for the development of manufacturing types of uses but does not mandate such development without consideration of other policies of the plan. 12. Appare tly S.W. 10th:Street is not a dedicated public right- of-way and, therefore, the prOosed Phase III use would be on a lot without public access. At this time the applicant agreed to dismiss without prejudice that portion,of the request having to do with Phase III. The request was granted. 13. The Declaration of Non-significance' issued on the project is part of a series of similar decisions. An EIS prepared for the initial rezone and plat indicated a maxim m traffic generation figure for the entire scope of the Washington Technical Center. The various phases have been altered to include more office uses then or ginally proposed. Traffic counts beyond the EIS estimates would be closely monitoied by the City and the applicant has been notified regarding the City's concerns in this matter. 14. The landscape plans'; deviate from the grid alignment for the sidewalks of the proposal, but landscaping as a whole appears• to meet the objectives of the ' underlying plat, and zoning. The street tree theme will be carried over from the existin developed areas. FIRST CITY QUITIES SA-053-84 August 3, 1984 Page 4 15. The architectural treatment will diverge from the existing buildings in the,, technical center. The exterior treatment will be uniform throughout the proposal and will be a combination of concrete, brick and glass. CONCLUSIO S 1. The p oposed site plan, for Phases I and II appears to serve the public use and intere t. The plans appear to comply with the spirit and intent of the original plans to develop a well designed and integrated complex in this location. 2. The 1 ndscaping theme will provide continuity between the various separate , intere is owning and developing property within the confines of the original plat while ermitting individual identities to be presented. 3. The proposals appear to provide sufficient parking for the proposed uses and !comply with the other criteria of the M-P zone. Setbacks are observed and landsc ping, in some cases, is greater than is otherwise required. 4. The a terior treatment of the buildings will provide a unified theme within this divisio 1 of the overall development and would appear to present an appealing presen a in the technical park. 5. As ind cated above, Phase III has been dismissed and may be resubmitted by the applic nt when the project is more clearly defined, complies with the M-P criteria, and the status of S.W. 10th Street is clarified. DECISION p The site plan as submitted in plans dated June 29, 1984 for Phases I and II is approved. ORDERED THIS 3rd day of August, 1984. Fred J. Kauf a Land Use Hear g Examiner i. TRANSMITTE' THIS 3rd day of August, 1984 to the parties of record: Ken Hays 11811 N. E. 1st Suite #204 Bellevue, Wa. 98004 Leonard Milbrandt 11811 N. E. 1st, Suite #204 Bellevue, Wa. 98004 Barbara Moss 800 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4040 Seattle, Wa. 98104 TRANSMITTE P THIS 3rd day of August, 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 Renton Record-Chronicle Pursuant to Til le IV, Section 3015 of the City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed in writing on or before August 17, 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 tie discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing ay 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 pon by such appellant, and the Examiner may, after review of the record, take further a Lion as he deems proper. e FIRST CITY QUITIES SA-053-84 August 3, 198 Page 5 An appeal to the City Council is governed by Title IV, Section 3016, which requires that! such appeal e filed with the City Clerk, accompanying a filing fee of $75.00 and meeting, other specifid requirements: Copies of this ordinance are available for inspection or purchase in the Finance Department, first floor of City Hall. The Appearance of Fairness Doctrine provides that no ex parte (private one-on-one)1I 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. De ision-makers in the land use process include both the Hearing Examiner and members of t e City Council. All communi ations concerning the the proposal must be made in public. This permits all interested pa ties 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 reques by the Court. The Doctrin= applies not only to the initial public hearing but to all Requests for Reconsiderat'on as well as Appeals to the City Council. PAILA DAD EA.EYFHT _ NT-JQ. ADJUSTED PROPER LI IB- - f y16' UTILITY EASEYExT r L _ I I I I I I ICI PAO1 S DJUSTED WITH PROP.LINE ADJUSTMENT) 1.-- Is ill) G e 11 1 1\ , I _ '• , c- ' OFFICE/WAREHOUSE o9 a1 c 20.500 B.F. • 8 q rd t.',.lo\- it 9YPACT_A- likI WAPENOUBE:IR,000 S.F.- c 1 I P r OFFICE:0,000S.F. -1 1 '' OFFICE1.1• ; A Mt)" G SI ON- y=, f O,,OOD O.F.WSJ.-F7k-^i\. J - Si.....-WI:_'j illG'G:•0 i-GDtiG:a T °I I I 1 l l l l '' 1 III I I I 'I a rip ...„_,.. A ECQ2 -,..„..._ .WALKWAY-TYPICAL S a i' 9 Alo 1 1 OFFICE OFFICE q • _ 1 t 1— 9,000 S.F.1:•4 0,000 S.F. 41 t TJ\ \ . tit-----. .••••-_I Cli 9` P 9 f I 1 L ANDSCAPI l•S 1 3 V j 1.II A RETAIL SPACE t'• / I...'. i,... k. - Gismaii6-4.1 rc I I I I I I I I` 'Ea I'' 000 S.F. PHASE T* BUILDING SIGN 0 MO A • .,.. k I -saII.---- I PHASE ON - a kitio,1, ip` F (I n moo U LR v E f'' 1 Ektirl:- g ' ali 1312 1 a NW 111111, l ' POWELL AVENUE 50U RWEST TV.i4U -9 f,/;.; e............-------- \ EARLINGTON BUSINESS PARK N> 1 NOTE: 1)SEE 917E BURVEY FOP LOCATION OF iiiiicii Plant List PUBLIC UTILITIES AND EXISTING IYPROVEYENT9 2) BEE LANDSCAPING PLAN FOR NLTTJJyy--PROPOSED PLATING e1'ERp,'TEEV 7R,:E,'.SO'C-S F/R B:.C,c FINE I7Cly P/NC,CEO'LR, M/N/M'R 1 (C'B' lEN7/1-M3.,,,e•iNe.0, •;.59?Wt'.=.:OJVSP//•C 4-ABM'PAE, ,L•U.N,/ .XCE MVMUM SA—O5'' 8 i5712P7714CE,'RD M4YF,T:/VPT4.E,swear C-.'iM 14C'•P 5-Vq S /Q":t Q'L7 433VS.i'vI/NM•, EGA,/4CR/6,/BURrWM.A4BUZ5 NPE4/0R 5•% E /Rea/AS-1/FV73.0.1-N,/-0+212.tYu57 A. y,f gvqu-5-/auB,'nz. .7,-•nsv,Moto/rNr,_P, - ` I suw.uM. MN/MUH/CTL. Cb»alueGre EARTH ENTERPRISES6fVN' LYO CR/LANAI,/VY,Ht'PR/G(/M, 1/N.W4</NNQ.'.4,prICOSEEt7, ,N/N/MUM 9'/Ra)$29'0G, cam•, 0-7-R.0 C?mcArnkA$ ea 6•C-804 I °02084 r/ ,14 OF ! o v C'r 0 z THE CITY OF RENTON POLICY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT • 235-2552 0 o MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE.SO. RENTON,WASH. 98055 9,0 0' 6 0, 9gT O SEPi• t BARBARA Y. HINPOCH MEMORANDUM MAY01 CI_ CITY OF RENTON DATE: July 23, 1984 l JUL 2 3 1984 TO: Roger J. Blaylock, Zoning Administrator tt (t s+± _ I A B1JIL IN4:/ZONING V .PT. FROM: Gene N. William's;`Associate Planner SUBJECT: First City Equities Site Approval The Policy Development Department would like to offer some comments on the above application td supplement our review sheet notes. I apologize for the lateness of these remarks. Our concerns about this application involve phase three -- the single lot located south of S.W. 10th Street across from the rest of the project. While certain types of retail uses are appropri to to service manufacturing park/light industrial/office complexes, the proposed usefimentioned for this parcel -- convenience store -- raises some questions. Depending on the orientation, access, signage and design of this use, it may or may not; fall into what we would consider appropriate uses. However, the Manufacturing Park zone has been interpreted for years as permitting retail uses, so grounds for discriminating; between retail uses are not clear. The physical location creates some of our concerns. A convenience store in this location might prima ily serve through traffic along Grady Way, resulting in increased turning movements long this congested arterial. We believe that the site plan of this phase needs to be andled in such a manner that the phase is part of the overall development, rather than b seen or function as strip commercial. Accordingly, we recommend that the site plan be approved only if the architecture and design (including landscaping and exterior treatment) be made compatible with the other phases of the development. Likewise, signing should be of a compatible scale and nature to the other phases. Thirdly, access should be limited, as proposed, to S.W. 10th Street Finally, pedestrian access -- by sidewalks or landscaped pathways -- should be provided to link the employment areas with the retail use. Hopefully, these conditions will provide the linkages I between the sites and uses intended in the Manufacturing Park zone anci Comprehensi e Plan designation. Pacific Rim ConstructIon7Y ' GENERAL CONTRACTORS P. 0. Box 2670 Renton, Washington 98056 Phone: (206) 228.4858 CITY OF RENTON9 , July 12, 1984 D111 JUL 131984 Mr. RogerlI Blaylock City bf Renton Building Zoning Department 200 M1.11 Ave. SO. Rento WA 98055 Refer nce: Special Permit to Fill and Grade/SP-019-84 Dear Mr Blaylock: In Response to your letter dated 6-26-84 ; we are providing the following information. 1. Revised set of plans : the plans have been divided out into three phases of operations, the first being the excavations and fill of 200,000 cu.yds, Phase two is for 130,000 cu.yds, Phasa three is for 360,000 cu. yds. 2. Hour' s of operations to coincide with the State Department of Transportation Projects. OF R 46 0 THE CITY OF RENTON U `;Z POLICY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT • 235-2552 oNALL MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON,WASH. 98055 90 cD• O, 9gTeD SEPTO BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH MEMORANDUM MAYOR i DATE: July 23, 1984 TO: Roger J. Blaylock,/{ Zoning Administrator FROM: Gene N. William's;`Associate Planner SUBJECT: First City Equities Site Approval The Policy Development Department would like to offer some comments on the above application to supplement our review sheet notes. I apologize for the lateness of these remarks. Our concerns about this application involve phase three -- the single lot located south of S.W. 10th Street across from the rest of the project. While certain types of retail uses are appropriate to service manufacturing park/light industrial/office complexes, the proposed a mentioned for this parcel -- convenience store -- raises some questions. Depending n the orientation, access, signage and design of this use, it may or may not fall into whit we would consider appropriate uses. However, the Manufacturing Park zone has been interpreted for years as permitting retail uses, so grounds for discriminating between retail uses are not clear. The physical location creates some of our concerns. A convenience store in this location might primrily serve .through traffic along Grady Way, resulting in increased turning movements along this congested arterial. We believe that the site plan of this phase needs to be handled in such a manner that the phase is part of the overall development rather than be seen or function as strip commercial. Accordingly, we recommend that the site plan be approved only if the architecture arid design (inclnd, ing landscaping and exterior treatment) be made compatible with the other phases of the development. Likewise, signing should be of a compatible scale and nature to the other phases. Thirdly, access should be limited, as proposed, to S.W. 10th Street. Finally, pedestrian access -- by sidewalks or landscaped pathways -- should be provided to link the employment areas with the retail use. Hopefully, these conditions will provide the linkages between the sites and uses intended in the Manufacturing Park zone and Comprehen ive Plan designation. CITY OF RENTON LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING JULY 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 whic they will be heard., Items will be called for hearing at the discretion of the Hearing Examiner. CONTINUED ITEM: PACIFIC RIM CONSTRUCTION Special permit application for fill and grade permit to allow excavation of material and refill of import material totaling 200,000 cubuc yards, file SP-019-84; property located on the premises of the Greenwood Cemetery at 3401 N.E. 4th Street. NEW ITEMS: FIRST CITY EQUITIES Application for site plan approval to allow a three-phase project I' Earlinl gton Business Park) consisting of five buildings having a total of 79,800 square feet for retail, office, and warehouse use, file SA-052-84; locatd at the northwest corner of Powell—Avenue S.W. and S.W. 10th Stree . SPECIALTY RESTAURANT CORPORATION Applications for approval of a conditional use permit, file CU-063-84, and a substantial development permit, file SM-115-84, to allow a greenhouse, dining area addition of approximately 600 square feet to an existing restaurant; property located at 1011 West Perimeter Road. I ? 0996Z BUILDING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING July 24, 1984 APPLICANT: FIRST CITY EQUITIES FILE NUMBER: SA-053-84 A. SUMMARY & PURPOSE OF REQUEST: The aplicant seeks site plan approval to allow a three-phase project (Earlington Business Park) consisting of five buildings having a total of 79,800 square feet, for retail, office and warehouse use. B. GENERAL INFORMATION: 1. Owner of Record: First.City Equities 2. pplicant: First City Equities 3. L cation: icinity Map Attached) Located at the northwest and southwest corner of Powell Avenue S.W. and S.W. 10th Street. 4. L gal Description: A detailed legal , description is available on file in the Renton Building & Zoning Department. 5. Size of Property: , 6.3 acres 6. Access: Powell Avenue S.W. and S.W. 10th Street. 7. Existing Zoning: M-P, Manufacturing Park 8. Existing Zoning in the Area: G-1, General Use: R-2, Residential Two-Family; and M-P, Manufacturing Park 9. Comprehensive.Land Use Plan: M-P, Manufacturing Park 10. Notification: The applicant was notified in writing of the hearing date. Notice was properly published in the Daily Record Chronicle on July 13, 1984, and posted in three places on or near the site as 'required by city ordinance on July 13, 1984. C. HISTO Y/BACKGROUND: The subject site was annexed into the City of Renton by Ordinance #1745 on April 14, 195 9, which was later corrected by Ordinance #1764 of May 19, 1959 and Ordinan ce #1928 of December 12, 1961, at which time it was zoned "G." This zoning designation was later changed to M-P, Manufacturing Park by Ordinance #3344 of August 13, 1979. A preliminary plat (PP-056-80) was later applied for and approved on June 15, 1981. Final plat (FP-096-81) approved with the City Council passage of Resolution #2462 on July 19, 1982 D. PHYSICAL BACKGROUND: 1. Topography: The subject site is relatively flat PRELIMINARY REPOR I -r0 THE HEARING EXAMINER FIRST CITY EQUITIES: SA-053-84 JULY 24, 1984 PAGE 2 2. Soils: Woodinville Silt Loam (Wo), slopes are less. than 2%. Permeability is moderately slow. The available water capacity is high. Runoff is slow, and the hazard of erosion is slight. .Stream overflow is a severe hazard unless flood protection is provided. This soil is used for row crops, pasture and urban development. 3. Vegetation: The subject site is covered with some deciduous trees, scrub brush and grasses. 4. Wildlife: The existing vegetation on the subject property provides suitable habitat for birds and small mammals. 5. Water: Standing water was not observed on the site. 6. Land Use: The subject site is currently undeveloped. E. NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTERISTICS: The subject site surrounded by an office park to the north;-warehousing, storage and light industrial uses to the east; office buildings to the south across S.W. Grady Way; and undeveloped property to the west. F. PUBLIC SERVICES: 1. Utilities: a. Water: A 12 inch water line extends north-south on Powell AVenue S.W. b. Sewer: A 10-inch sanitary sewer is located in Powell Avenue S.W. Storm Water Drainage: Storm water for the subject site runs into the Springbrook Creek drainage system. No on-site storm water retentionis required. No compensating flood storage is required. 2. Fire Protection: Provided by the City of Renton as per ordinance requirement's. 3. Transit: METRO Transit Route #912 operates along S.W. Grady Way near the subject site. 4. Schools: a. Elementary Schools: Not applicable. b. Middle Schools: Not applicable. c.. High Schools: Not applicable. 5. Recreation: Not applicable. G. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE ZONING CODE: 1. Section 4-730, Manufacturing Park (M-P) 2. Section 4-744 (F)(2), Landscaping Requirements, Green River Valley. H. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OR OTHER OFFICIAL CITY DOCUMENT: 1.Green River Valley Comprehensive Plan (June, 1976), City of Renton Comprehensive Plan Compendium, p.31-35. 2. Industrial Goal and Objectives, Policies Element, City of Renton Comprehensive Plan Compendium, p.18-19. I.IMPACT ON THE NATURAL OR HUMAN ENVIRONMENT: 1. Natural Systems: Minor. 2. Population/Employment: Major. 3. Schools: Not applicable. 4. Social: Not applicable. 5.Traffic: Development of Phase 3 of the Earlington Business Park is expected to generate approximately 2,079 vehicle trips. V , PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER FIRST CITY QUITIES: SA-053-84 JULY 24, 19 4 PAGE 3 J. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT/THRESHOLD DETERMINATION: Pursu nt to the City of Renton's Environmental Ordinance and the State Enviro mental Policy Act of 1971, as amended, RCW 43-21C, final declaration of non-si nificance was issued on July 2, 1984 by the Environmental Review Comm ttee. 1 K. AGEN IES/DEPARTMENTS CONTACTED: 1. City of Renton Building & Zoning Department. 2. ity of Renton Design Engineering Division. 3. city of Renton Traffic Engineering Division. 4. City of Renton Utilities Engineering Division. 5. (pity of Renton,Police Department. 6. City of Renton Fire Prevention Bureau. 7. ity of Renton; Policy Development Department. 8. City of Renton; Parks & Recreation Department. L. DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS: 1. TIhe applicant, 'First City Equities, is requesting a site plan approval to allow a three phase development project consisting of five buildings having a total area of approximately 79,800 square feet for retail, office, and warehouse uses. This is the third segment of the development of Washington Technical center. Washington Technical Center is owner partically by HdK and First ity Equities. This phase, the first section proposed by the First City Equities in Washington Technical Center Industrial Subdivision consists of three phases. The first phase will include three buildings totalling 45,600 square feet. Two small office buildings each with 9,600 square feet will be adjacent to Powell Avenue S.W. with a larger structure 26,400 square feet located to the north Of the two office buildings. The larger building will be approximately 1/4 Office (6,600 square feet) with a total 19,800 square feet anticipated for warehouse use. The second phase would be a three story, 30,600 square foot office building and the third phase would be approximately 3,600 square foot retail use. 2. The Environmental Review Committee has issued a declaration of non-significance to correspond with the original underlying Environmental Iijnpact Statement that was prepared for Washington Technical Center Earlington Industrial Park), but specifically noted that the applicants are u ilizing higher use activities than originally anticipated in that proposal.lii.he end effect will be that all of the traffic potential which mitigating measures were required will be utilized prior to total utilization of the land. Irl this specific case, introduction of a 3,600 square foot commercial use, possibly a convenience story, would result in more traffic than all of the previous development in the plat at this time. 3. Tlhe proposal complies with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan and the specific MP, Manufacturing Park zoning of the subject site. 4. T e site plans provide sufficient parking for the proposed buildings and they eet the dimensional requirements for aisle width and stall dimensions. 5. T e applicant has shown extensive landscaping on their landscaping plan to c rrespond with the landscaping proposal as originally presented in the underlying plat. They have deviated slightly in the design along Powell Avenue S.W. The sidewalk will still meander as originally intended, but 4dths will vary from 13 feet to 24 feet in the designated public parkway area. This does not substantially alter the general design for landscaping as1. originally submitted by Richard Carouthers Associates and, in fact, it will give some diversity and allow different types of parking arrangements along the Powell Avenue frontage without impacting the aesthetics of the project. PRELIMINARY REPOT rf TO THE HEARING EXAMINER FIRST CITY EQUITIES: SA-053-84 JULY 24, 1984 PAGE 4 6. The architectural treatment of the proposed buildings utilizes concrete, brick, and glass in'the structures in a typical architectural pattern normally associated with business parks. The landscaping theme established for the total plat wall blend the architectural styles without apparently compromising the personal designs of each of the individual architects. 7. Various departments have commented on the proposal and the Building and Zoning Department and Police Department have recommended approval. The Police Department does suggest that difused perimeter lighting and adequate signing be utilized. The Fire Prevention Bureau, Policy . Development Department, and Engineering Division has recommended approval with conditions. These conditions point to the fact that adequate fire protection will have to be available prior to actual building construction, that sprinklers are required in all buildings over 12,000 square feet, and access roadways must be designed to meet all Fire Department criteria. The Engineering Division basically says that plans and profiles will be needed, at this time, for the extension of S.W. 10th Street. Traffic Engineering Division and Utilities. Engineering Division have recommended that the plans not be approved. Please note that these comments were prior to the refined,plans dated June 29th. The disapproval is based upon the fact that specific design engineering have not been completed for the water and sewer plans and the off-site improvement plans. These will be required has a condition of building permit approval in any case, and may be premature alit this time reviewing general site plan approval. Traffic Division does point to the fact that these projects will be responsible for contributions_ to the late Icomer's agreements for traffic signals at Powell and Grady and also the S.W. 7th and Hardie Avenue location. 8. It should be pointed out that the site plan for.Phase 1 is very specific and more detailed than the preliminary drawing submitted with the original application. Phases 2 and 3 may need additional review if modifications occur to those plans from this application. We would anticipate that only minor changes such as shifting the building a few feet or changing the elevation and basic color would be acceptable under administrative authority. Any changes in use activity or parking lot design will require a new public hearing for site plan approval. M. DEPARTMENTAL RECOMMENDATION: Based upon the above analysis, it. is recommended that the site plan approval, SA-053-84, be approved per the revised plans dated June 29, 1984. J W lirn ICli RAILROAD EASEMENT 4.17.36• I ADJUSTED PROPERTY LINE a60,,, 10.00' 349.00' 0FilC.:11 . .-.- 4 I I I I ! ! V ! ccIAP/ICr SLI 1, , (1ADJU STED WITH PROP.LINE ADJUSTMENT) R aw:o• Uo IIIIIII ! 11 ! 1' - t W aOFFICE/WAREHOUSE 1t--13,---a—T+ r rp /_yv n~ 28,400 B.F. . 1I P 1.4'a a a' mCOMPACTS- 4 P P WAREHOUSE:19,800 S,F.- C OFFICE:8,800S.F•- I L OFFICE 9 c, 9 a II I - DOttDIn O'SIGN-L--_ 1 I.a I 31.800 S.F. Jl K---_ 0._- O SIGN '- . I IJ I U H I I I I I I I I I I Ur l' :,,S . 4'. WALKWAY-TYPICAL-J b M 0 130.W1 I 1 a-__r__-D-__ r_-__a-__n-__rr__c -1\ s 12o•°°' LIis n•d _ o I I, ao o __ III 1 i 8 1 1111 4 y U Eli id - I, OFFICE d I OFFICE LI 11 1 1 1 9,600 S.F. 9,800 S.F.I A d P dar 1 li F o' 1 d F LANDSCAPING L ET IL___o_-_J L_-1_-11 1 SETBACK 1 Y 11 I e I II 94L I I I I IICJ d -0', ''-0. RETAIL SPACE I I lI11 3,000 S.F. m a-- ---/ BUILDING SIGN \ L--U—ems—J ) PHASE TWO F- " 1 F PHASE ONE IV 0 COMPACTS I I\ r LOMFACTSACTS 1 pI- 0 1 I I I I 1 DII f \ r PHASE THREE LANDSCAPE EASEMENTt1 \` 7 1 EXISTING SIDEWALK 4 AEI • a 155.00• m n 82038' FM lit ml -POWELL AVENUE SOUTHEST m I p W a 2woaEARLINGTONBUSINESS. PARK NDmO1•-30'-0• m NOTE: 1)SEE SITE SURVEY FOR LOCATION OF 14 m 9•PUBLIC UTILITIES AND EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS 3) SEE LANDSCAPING PLAN FOR 1 I PROPOSED PLANTING O •t1 Az li L Q SA-053-04•axIn _to ac3 z9; P22,:',.. .•r o•z584 v REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/D, rIVISION : 1 1 OAPPROVED APPROVED WITH CONDITION„ E NOT APPROVED, td72Lp DATE : 36/ Sy SIGNATURE OF DIRECTO OR. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE REVISION 5/1982 Form 182 REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : a,. APPROVED 1111 APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS F-1 NOT APPROVED jr' D0144 /04444-44ak, .,1-1.1 441 44,ajdA4.1-70 aderae4 )1444idtored (,,Airr. 1441-4444") Of DATE : .5= 9.49 SIGMA` 'E OF ERECTOR OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE. REVISION 5/1982 Form 182 REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : t- DC_ APPROVED g APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS O NOT APPROVED j a q // e DATE : SIGNAT 0( DIRECTOR 'OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE REVISION 5/1982 REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVIS1uiv,; iof '1-,/x7 d`-==__ri7 n APPROVED n APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS Ej NOT APPROVED h -(,tie S fires/ //y/.771-i Ala --- S (------- G" sp a 2., 7z;) L:-/-" (--V--)-0- 77.--o-ft/c: Z-4-7/'--- '9 -1---‘.-7 ::" 1- 17zr.IF- , 67.: 4s.,"- 7` / UCH ze) 2 Yd e de. 7. - 2,171..eye„. 601.47 ,4:4.u. k....,..-CS) ?-1.,e__&?, Cu. .21-444,7- 64-1—e-67 Sia- fre-2-" . - itl,eta 5e;(,) 7'!--14/ . - . rc--- Gay DATE : SIGNATURE OF DIR CTOR OR AUT ORIZED REPRESENTATIVE REVISION 5/1982 Form 182 REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION ; UT/G/Ty ,Ci(/G/A/4-'A-,e/NG 111 APPROVED n APPROVED WITHH -CONDITIONS I NOT APPROVED i":L.APPROYAL SUB TCCI TO I'/(Ka it COMERS AIRTEAt f I - WRYER ATE COMERS AGREEMENT - SEVER Aib STEM DEYELIPEENT CNAICE J 'Ha - SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CRAM SEVER YES S SPECIAL ASSESSMENT AREA CHARGE - INTER A/O SPECIAL ASSESSMENT AREA MORE - SEVER go 571f1 E9 WATER P: ;. ya--S uc'S (,k/A f 4.ii5 aaPRO'cr 4,:,ta PIaR y nicwhs sue. , 5 ,iPPROtE0 FIRE NYIRANT 11CATIQI IT FIRE,!EPT. 1/-S IRE FLOW ANALYSIS rr J-//8 c DATE: r4 SIGNATURE F DI 'ECTO OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE REVISION 5/1982 Form 182 REVIEWING DEPARTMENT '"TVISION ;Fell 7%11 • DAPPROVED lErAPPROVED WITH CONDITIONS ONOT APPROVED S fi-edS s/l•r,7! J 2 tywr a cat- i ^ e_- d ec es- et-i k Condi-ucthi r-c. ilyit-ern 5 Co 401ro to r e '' r e (")/0 r Ae /Pa 11/1 CD ZSI D 7t ucl 0 . U oiler 4n /`' Le/ref- S ri n e rs a re_ r k r a / A r/i/' r- /2 DOD s of r ff ff}} S oho( e irciadr e QQ,/%. a5ZfeDVd41(s Q e r eacc e5 S /-Da j, a I S Sit 6/ p c IsiT/ AGE' 7B /*ee , e Cf'e / ur-," raJ'a Naz, Q s d toz,ot We IC . oi ',d(ar- c9 as DATE : SIGNATURE OF DIRECTOR OR AUTH IZED REPRE NTATIVE REVISION 5/1982 Form 182 REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/D VISION : n APPROVED APPROVED WITH-CONDITIONS ONOT APPROVED 2A_ 50/cf' 17 gic .BaqSC(W"--- DATE : SIGNATURE OF DIRECTOR OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE REVISION 5/1982 Form 182 REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : n APPROVED M APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS n NOT APPROVED a 5 e E4 k s-r2e4eLu2 oebee4. ege 664>d-LW a"; 449J- 74v,71 g- gt,f,e,01A ji,wf see DATE : V/C/KI' SIGNATURE OF DIRECTOR OR AUTHrPIZED REPRESENTATIVE L ai J in..... _ RAILROADEASEMEr ,.._,...__ 7.36,........ -- - ADJUSTED PROPZR....,LIdik..,......... e4•" elei..gia " ArChe- '—- ,----.. el,.williNEMP --_lik MINNS 4114...i414. .441...44.4.4114. _ Asa.'.07.1111ciAlle. AGA& IIIIPA iiIIMMINS2.11•1111 .-CEIMISMIIM:=1111MILE 1 a 1. 2 1m.' Vill.11111. Mr.11. 41.1111,.." Mir I M 1 lc H,,,i.i.,,,I ' •, •ii• UTILITY EASEMENT DJUSTED WITH PROP.LINE ADJUSTMENT) li - - . al& Ailiki .., i -Hi . 1 •UP o I e. lip ir 2 0leffl(-i ,-._..., • k. .• OFF AICE/WREHOUSE 1) a1X 20,400 S.F. . Z 0 W 1-- to LIPACT_S_\ rlIMMEWNI1111 ''''' 'A ii 0:,„ •,,s., , .,,,,i jWAREHOUSE:19,000 S.F.- 1 MI F ____.—OFFICE:0•1500S.F.-P 40 1110 IIM liVO\' 1 41 _ ..__- 3, 07ICE. r. Ilk ANIL embark.l' la ti 11- a0tea. a SIGN w,.....1.....01.graGege..',65.G..".Aliv,44,424.miiii UM U.IV 1 1 1 i11' 1 IMIVirV,_,,. WALKWAY- YPICALT x 3, i 11..:. : ni.... ."'... 1 .; .1 .1723. ..----Cr'-',Th alma:"WirarailirAVAIIII—\ • li I . all \ 1. Th-T" Mr I ....o. 6.. t lik , i';611:egirk7 \ rir 1';-,IiP. k .2..ot lk M.III! I. CI .._.. 0OFFICE t.,.'leOFFICE V l• 4 X :I 1 9,600 S.F. 0.000 S.F. i ii.:, c.i... A' .1 V4,,,,, 1 1. 1 i'..„1 .„ ___ __,_ .". :.: . ....: ..... • — a„,ANDSCAPINO 04 s...:..._..............IFOLEtl. ' 4III'Niffmt e • ..._, 1 IN 0E7BACK All 4 ..., '. o. i4# 1 • •NINES.1111111FAL. AWA. F zA 4 i,RETAIL SPACE 1.\\ till 1 1_ .111r." •tEMPAIINIZEZEt. 6'.. 1 Br.$I- BUILDING SION I'll 111, PHASE T • I`mar 11, o PHASE ON 410 -cg G.. • _,,, P.\•411 1 1 co IA•AC:r r C.•r, L. ........:,-;....-..',11".. 41 9' • A , •.',', •,., 1 w4.----,334Frmsz4,-, 8.1tiElrl-g...-t-,- ----"-:7r;.:1 •lir,4.011172f- ...-. ,841r.IL\\\-°:-----=‘,:::,- 717. 7-'-:::°-: Auir ." Nses - —'41 "v :-ATlikr''''' '--..i:. .- -'i-.:,1:',cr. -:-,2-°-.---:', ilking=" 4 °'`‘ ' 1!•1&. P lo wryly ,e,5.,,,,,, 9A.,,,.A,,.....,, ,.,,a.,,.0!ler 6.4,. . e2a.ast,., •.-..- •• . ° • ____AllWresolimiergip —.7 , 12 1 WNW 411,11411, — 17 ...Z. vmmu,•-/ F-',0e8,45_-, 0 gli LIZ cll 0POWELLAVENUESOUWEST o . IA...---------------------. LOEARLINGTONBUSINESSPARKNI> c.M. I 30.-0. NOTE: 1)SEE SITE SURVEY FOR LOCATION OF Plant List PUBLIC UTILITIES AND EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS 7 2) SEE LANDSCAPING PLAN FOR 2 4, 13PROPOSEDPLANTING.. vq(--,, sevrtzee'.00vc-LAS,.7/3 84,9L/C/m'z,v5 ID;16 r cz:Yv , frihwic,4-1'&'-eY Accr,...L.C,Ava,z,..,0 174 /,'...,EfiRy,fr-4.0,145.4.,va•W 2L....A.CAPPLE„-FAW/7-t%1W,PLUM,V/A.45 MAPLE II-.hfIMMUM L"' I.I ra SA-053-84 In Eq CD• 577.4.1ErnRE5,'fqep A-1-4,te z../Fi-lwe,skv...Fer Gut-1 LL 4p%sre,cvec M4V/MIIM/21 LAPOe,`,, AA 5,-SCVCS,/Pat,OC,L7P.A.OROV9,"""Vrhy4", milliaiZ,/5,lit9C/RA-24,1."REWit.,..5 JO.A,18LA/A-Z4L1 2 5,.....C./A/G 3-S-'. . . IllW44/7-E,ttrhatti 5-1,-*.cH rit?5.a/AS,/fiArana-N,,,snvencadsr innfr./44044/m/a' Sy tar 2CirfAv_e.. 5,Y,P(...49,',,A,74, , AmE,q ,...f,,,G,,,,,,,,E, _1..Are 4//-7-/ .1L., •C/MR/4115Ma9 WITH ENTERPRISES P2 r a e,,VC.44-40!..oven/ J ivY,-/Y.X.wadAl• R.E.TII L LONEYVA.Axc,.</NNe.„,,c,fIrct,ge„.Erz ,LVA-1/MUM.9',:.trs 24,ac, r..-..=:=- 6-7-64 i.,.cfAILIcan Ito..102.R.I.' b.4-8.2 Ramer,ole-i24- . g Ilm U a til WOOD CONCRETE O iiiil r6-12=•41° g111111111111111111 iiiiiiimiiiii pe.-2-9 INSULATING GLASS I11110MOM MOMtallIII AMO. "III1III 11 1 il• a Q Nom VOFFICE/WAREHOUSE EAST ELEVATION(HALF BLDG.) I 0 3 I.)W AIM& 1111111111.1111MM 01434.wi6" arniiii-‘ Alt, a i---- ...ei--7 - , ' 1 4'..4----,..-o< . - ' ' 6 loft-4,..,.. 4...-P 1 BM a j.‘noll 1,----- -tur- -i: F,1o. 11141 OFFICE SOUTH ELEVATION OFFICE/WAREHOUSE-_ NORTH'ELEVATION m 0 0 as o a m ao F°m 4 5 STUCCO i t 1!.(P-';' " I,. ,, ,. I..M..,,:..,.. T4r...L7.,-. 7 i...-.-.*:l-l''......-i•li.r.1g IN9ULATINO GLASS aZ_9 3FOF`)CE EAST ELEVATION m Z3 SA-053-8.r p3 rm H 1 1 1 may 1T:n, I u) cn> m jr4— ./.4-,1•LIIIt' . m m . I 1" i,":, , , *..'c. 1 j , 7 o z *ik' o z z i v i Trs€IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 111111111111111111 1111.11111111111111111111111111. — a 1" till NM Imix ate = d0,.. m } I it.,,7,.. 2 m c D O r T a 1 1 11 w43 MILSRANDT ARCHITECTS 11E111 'NE 1ST STREET SUITE 204 BELLEVUE, WASHINGTON 9S005 CEDE) 454-7130 EDWARD C. ARMSTRONG ASSOCIATE yti I;1 I 1 1 i . lei .v... . 1s..... .. N 1 i 1 . 11 1 v \„...”..„----- 2 [.. 1 4. ----, :.......,t1._____.... I. k‘ . • 1 ( M i E T R j 7r . 1 i ILGH- ø;e Tom— 1 0 1 Gi G' g o D IS PO S AI. L I / R ° t 1 NORSN-Ei L k !1III LIIIIi III '1 1i I 1 lii imilil I III . 11 'I : i.I !I I p llll!I-'I Il I gMIIM_MI;: aa: l..11...... 4,11174.1, 411.ia T - L- L-1 .' uuu iilrl'1l / I llp a w.:-- - -. III `>•1 i 41„. 6--- 1‘ \ IIIIII' !Ilf IIIIIIIE! Li issw 1 li IIIII 2III 10e. -- 10,1 5.1.ffi.i_p_ui a r;;;-mot'1 L r` 11.7_71%7-7 1 .,„„'. liN CF .1ENRY ME/..DER DO TION CLAW NO.4..7, C c - - - ' 4.1% I 1n Wi1 1 . d I1 Q c _11T 1 1 vav u 1 _ : 7r'Ji ili iui1Gil;, .. . . S 2i 1 FIRST CITY EQUITIES SA-050-84 APPLICANT FIRST CITY EQUITIES TOTAL AREA ± •6.3ACRES PRINCIPAL ACCESS POWELL AVENUE S.W. EXISTING ZONING M-P, MANUFACTURING PARK EXISTING USE UNDEVELOPED PROPOSED USE THREE PHASE BUSINESS PARK(EARLINGTON BUSINESS PARK) COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN MANUFACTURING PARK COMMENTS r s ir ' ' 0445N FINAL DECLARATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE Application No(s): SA-053-84 Environmental Checklist No.:ECF-050-84 Description of Proposal:Application for site plan approval to allow a three-phase project Earlington Business Park) consisting of five buildings having a total of 79,800rsquare feet for retail, office, and warehouse use. Proponent: First City Equities Location of iroposal: Located at the northwest corner of Powell Avenue S.W. and -S.W. 10th Street. Lead Agency City of Renton Building and Zoning Department This proposal was reviewed by the ERC on June 20, 1984 and June 27, 1984, following a presentation by Roger Blaylock of the Building and Zoning Department., Oral comments` were accepted from: James Hanson, James Matthew, Richard Houghton, Roger Blaylock, Mike Parness, Gary Norris,'Gene Williams, and Jerry Lind. Incorporated by reference, in the record of the proceedings of the ERC on application E'CF-050-84 are the following: 1. Envir nmental Checklist Form, prepared by: David M. Schuman, dated May 8,. 1984. 2. Appli ations: Site Plan Approval (SA-053-84). 3. Recommendations for a declaration of non-significance: Building and Zoning Depar ment,, Design Engineering Division, Utilities Engineering Division, Fire Preve II tion Bureau, Policy Development Department, and the Police Department. 4. Recommendation for more information: Traffic Engineering Division. Acting as the Responsible Official, the ERC has determined this development does not have a signi icant 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. Reasons for declaration,of!environmental non-significance: The subject site plan proposal, will not adversely impact the environment or adjacent properties. This final declaration is subject to the following condition being complied with: 1. The Committee is in receipt of a letter from First City Equities dated June 20, 1984, regarding traffic impacts ' from the proposed convenience store. The Committee acknowledges this letter and conditions it should supplemental traffic, evaluation be warrented. SIGNATURES: Ronald G. Nelson Michael Parness Building and Zoning Director Administrative Assistant to the Mayor Z",,,chard C. Houghton Public Works Director PUBLISHED: July 2, 19841 APPEAL DATE: July 16, 1984 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST REVIEW SHEET ECF - 050 - 84. APPLICATION No(s) : SITE PLAN APPROVAL (SA-053-84) PROPONENT: FIRST CITY EQUITIES PROJECT TITLE: EARLINGTON BUSINESS PARK Brief Description of Project: APPLICATION FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL TO ALLOW A THREE PHASE PROJECT CONSISTING OF FIVE BUILDINGS HAVING A TOTAL OF 79,800 SQ. FT. pOR RETAIL, OFFICE AND WAREHOUSE USE. LOCATION: LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF POWELL AVE. S.W. AND S.W. 10th ST. SITE' AREA: 6.3 ACRES BUILDING AREA (Gross) : 79,800 SQ. FT. DEVELOPMENT COVERAGE (%) : 31,70 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: OFFICE PARK • East : WAREHOUSING, STORAGE, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL South: OFFICE BUILDINGS West : UNDEVELOPED Land Use Conflicts : MINOR View Obstruction: NONE, ANTICIPATED 9) Natural Resources: ' x 10) Risk of Upset: x 11) Population/Employment: x 12) Number of• Dw Illings: 5 BLDGS. X 13) Trip Ends ( I TIE) : 910 VEHICLE TRIPS Traffic Impacts : GRADY WAY & S.W. 10th ST. 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 : Ronald G. Nelson Michael Par ess Building & Zoning Director Administrative Assistant to the Mayor PUBLISHED: JULY 2, 1984 Richard C. Houg on APPEAL DATE: JULY 16, 1984 Public Works Director 6-8 3 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING , RENTON LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER REN1 ON, 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 JULY 24, 1984, AT 9:00 A.M. TO CON IDER THE FOLLOWING PETITIONS: FIRST CITY EQUITIES Application for site plan approval to allow a three-phase project Earlington Business Park) consisting of five buildings having a total of 79,800 square feet for retail, office, and warehouse use, file SA-052-84; locate at the northwest corner of Powell Avenue S.W. and S.W. 10th Street. SPECI LTY RESTAURANT CORPORATION Applications for approval of a conditional use permit, file CU-063-84, and a subs antial development permit, file SM-115-84, to allow a greenhouse, dining area addition of approximately 600 square feet to an existing restau ant; property',located at 1011 West Perimeter 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 JULY 24, 1984, AT 9:00 A.M. TO EXPRESS THEIR OPINIONS., PUBLISHED : July 13, 1984 Ronald G. Nelson Building and Zoning Director CERTIFICATION I, JEANETT 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: Subscribed and sworn to before me, a Notary Pub i, n and for the State of Washington residing in on the 13th zd f July, 1984. G, 0_,,,ee_40 L.__ SIGNED• 4. rre 1 A0F R u}^ vtt aO o 90 4Y 0 47ED SEPSL City of Renton Land Use Hearing Examiner will hold a 1 C' S d i in CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS , CITY HALL ON JULY 24, 1984 BEGINNING AT 9:00 A.M. P.M. CONCERNING: FILE SA-052-84 REZONE From To SPECIAL / CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT To x SITE APPROVAL I I SHORT PLAT/SUBDIVISION of Lott PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT VARIANCE FROM GENERAL LOCATION AND/OR ADDRESS: LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF POWELL AVENUE S.W. & S.W. 10mH STREET LEGAL DESCRIPTION ON FILE IN THE RENTON BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT. ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION SIGNIFICANT / NON—SIGNIFICANT FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CALL THE CITY OF RENTON BUILDING&ZONING DEPARTMENT 235-2550 THIS NOTICE NOT TO BE REMOVED WITHOUT rY r ,?ROPER AUTHORIZATION RENT 'N BUILDING k ZONING DEF` TMENT DE ELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET CITY OF RENTON ECF - 050 - $4 MAY 2 9 1984 SITE APPROVAL (SA-053-84)APPLICATION NO S) . IEV.:LOPME.NT DEPT. PROPONENT : FIRST CITY EQUITIES J PROJECT TITLE : EARLINGTON BUSINESS PARK BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: APPLICATION FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL TO ALLOW THRE PHASE PROJECT CONSISTING OF FIVE BUILDINGS HAVING A wall_ OF 79,800 SQUARE FEET FOR RETAI4., OFFICE AND WAREHOUSE USE. I LOCATION : LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF POWELL AVENUE S.W. AND S.W. 10th STR ET. TO : PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SCHEDULED ERC DATE : 5-16-84 ENGINEERING DIVISION TRAFFIC ENG . DIVISION SCHEDULED HEARING DATE : UTIL TIES ENG . ,DIVISIONfi FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT El BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT El POLICE DE ARTMENT Ll POLICY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT OTHERS : COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITING . PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT BY 5 : 00 P .M. ON TUESDAY, !MAY 15, 1984 REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : El APPROVED APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS lip NOT APPROVED : f JI DATE: 34' SIGNATURE OF DIRECTO` OR !AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE REVISION 5/1982 Fnrm 182 I REN . 1 BUILDING & ZONING DEF TMENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET ECF - 050 - 8,4 APPLICATION NO S) : SITE' PLAN APPROVAL (SA-053-84) PROPONENT : FIRST CITY EQUITIES PROJECT TITLE ,EARLINGTON BUSINESS PARK BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: APPLICATION FQR SITE PLAN APPROVAL TO ALLOW THREE PHASE PROJECT CONSISTING OF FIVE BUILDINGS HAVING A IOIAL OF 79,800 SQUARE FEET FOR RETAIL, OFFICE AND WAREFOUSE USE. LOCATION : LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF POWELL AVENUE S.W. AND S.W. 10th STREET. TO : PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SCHEDULED ERC DATE :5-16-84 ENGINEERING DIVISION TRAFFIC ENG . DIVISION SCHEDULED HEARING DATE : OUTIL TIES ENG . 'DIVISION FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU PARKS & R:CREATION DEPARTMENT DBUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT 15qPOLICE DEPARTMENT POLICY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT El OTHERS : COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITING , PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT BY 5: 00 P .M. 01i TUESDAY, 'MAY 15, 1984 REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : E 'APPROVED n APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS fl NOT APPROVER Df#144.1(1. 4-444* 1-1./it44;1 4tade4-20 aff7444 dC J leDATE : ' s / SIGNA E OF RECTOR OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE 41 REVISION 5/1982 P arm l R7 1 1 V REN 4 BUILDING & ZONING DEF TMENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET ECF - 050 - 84 APPLICATION NOES) : SITE PLAN APPROVAL (SA-053-84) PROPONENT : FIRST CITY EQUITIES PROJECT TITLE .EARLINGTON BUSINESS PARK BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: APPLICATION FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL TO ALLOW THREE PHASE PROJECT CONSISTING OF FIVE BUILDINGS HAViNra A IOIAL OF 79,800 SQUARE FEET FOR RETAIL, OFFICE AND WAREHOUSE USE. LOCATION : LOOTED ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF POWELL AVENUE S.W. AND S.W. 10th STR ET. TO : I PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SCHEDULED ERC DATE : 5- 6-84 ENGINEERING DIVISION n TRAFFIC ENG , DIVISION SCHEDULED HEARING DATE : 0 UTIL TIES ENG . DIVISION FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT n POLICE DEPARTMENT POLICY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT n OTHERS : COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITING , PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT BY 5: 00 P .M. ON TUESDAY, :MAY 15, 1984 REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVI,SION ;I- -D( 17:cAPPROVED APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS n NOT APPROVED OF 4/l G DATE : LS /4 SIGNAT 0 DIRECTOR OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE i z 1 REVISION 5/1982 REN 4 BUILDING & ZONING DEF TMENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET ECF - 050 - 8,4 APPLICATION NO tS) : SITE PLAN APPROVAL (SA-053-84) PROPONENT : FIRST CITY EQUITIES PROJECT TITLE : EARLINGTON BUSINESS PARK BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: APPLICATION FQR SITE PLAN APPROVAL TO ALLOW THREE PHASE PROJECT CONSISTIING OF FIVE BUILDINGS HAVING A IUTAL OF 7 ,800 SQUARE FEET FOR RETAIL, OFFICE AND WAREHOUSE USE. LOCATION : LOCITED ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF POWELL AVENUE S.W. AND S.W. 10th STREET. TO . D PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SCHEDULED ERC DATE : 5-16-84 ENGINEERING DIVISION TRAFFIC ENG , DIVISION SCHEDULED. HEARING DATE : n UTILITIES ENG , DIVISION FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU 0 PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT tEl BUILDING ZONING DEPARTMENT 111 POLICE DEPARTMENT POLICY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT El OTHERS : COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED Ii WRITING , PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT BY 5: 00 P .M. ON TUESDAY, MAY 15, 1984 REVIEWING DEPA TMENT/D.IVI;SION : 7afl/ E'y/77 APPROVED n APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS QNOT APPROVED i h 1 e S ic //9' " Ge-)i t 21e-eexti 4- ze-Y--b* 4‘ 1€24. pami DATE : SIGNATURE OF D1R CTOR OR 'AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE I REVISION 5/F1982 REN N BUILDING & ZONING DEP TMENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET E C F - 050 - 84 APPLICATION NOS) : SITE PLAN APPROVAL (SA-053-84) P OPONENT : FItST CITY EQUITIES PROJECT TITLE : EARLINGTON BUSINESS PARK APPLICATION FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL TO ALLOW THREE PHASEBRIEFDESCRIPTIONOFPROJECT. PROJECT CONSISTING OF FIVE BUILDINGS HHVII% R IU1AL OF 79,800 SQUARE FEET FOR RETAIL, OFFICE AND WAREHOUSE USE. LOCATION : LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF POWELL AVENUE S.W. AND S.W. 10th STREET. TO : El PUBLIC WO KS DEPARTMENT SCHEDULED ERC DATE : 5-16-84 El ENGIFEERING DIVISION I ITRAF IC ENG , DIVISION SCHEDULED HEARING DATE : IMUTIL TIES ENG , !DIVISION 0 FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU El PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT BUILDING ZONING DEPARTMENT POLICE DE ARTMENT n POLICY DE ELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Ei OTHERS : COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITING , PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT BY 5 :00 P .M. ON TUESDAY, MAY 15, 1984 REVIEWING DEPA TMENT/DIVI;SION : UT/L/Tty 4---it/G/A/4-A-,e//!6 IEl APPROVED Ei APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS yi NOT APPROVED LP:jv APPROVAL SUOM CI I II F. E (COMERS Ail#EPAiNT • WATER 4r ATE COMERS MEEKEST - SEWER p) YS1EM DEVELOPMENT CHAISE VATE1 y s SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CNME SERE( YO SPECIAL ASSESSMENT AREA. CHASE • RATER, A/,© SPECIAL ASSESSMENT AREA CHANCE • SEER No APPROVED WATER PLii A/ APPROVED SEaER PLAR w(L'5 5'C • DinsAPPROVEDFIRENYIIAITLICA IS IY Fill_SEPT. FIRE FLOW ANALYSIS YES 1410) a -ygpr i DATE : 3//6 /e4 SIGNATURE 1F DIRECTO OR ;AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE REVISION 5/1982 Form 182 REN 4 BUILDING &C ZONING DEF TMENT r DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET ECF - 050 - 84 APPLICATION NO(S) : SITE PLAN APPROVAL (SA-053-84) PROPONENT : FIRST CITY EQUITIES PROJECT TITLE ,EARLINGTON BUSINESS PARK BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: APPLICATION FQR SITE PLAN APPROVAL TO ALLOW THREE PHASE PROJECT CONSISTING OF FIVE BUILDINGS HAVING A [DIAL FOR RETAIL, OFFICE AND WAREHOUSE USE. LO CATION : LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF POWELL AVENUE S.W. AND S.W. 10th STREET. T0 : in PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SCHEDULED ERC DATE : 5- 6-84' ENGINEERING DIVISION n TRAFFIC ENG . DIVISION SCHEDULED HEARING DATE : n UTILITIES ENG , DIVISION 1IRE PREVENTION BUREAU n PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT n BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT n POLICE DEPARTMENT L IPOLICY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT n OTHERS : COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITING , PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT BY 5 : 00 P .M . ON TUESDAY, MAY 15, 1984 REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION ; c/r e_ Feiitn i - n APPROVED APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS n NOT APPROVED II Sfi-e_ds 5/4// v e.to v id cao,f-- cii. e_ t G CCe.SS D,- k cNO S7/'uct !ir a c/r-C._ ilpile-an A car- re e,p Hof' cpire___ 4 ( Y. ud pDAe /4/° //1 grip e-- x e,,,,i.„,j,,,, . /4117ofira a a ,od-ied-- "44 t' , .1(1.11'e - 410 - rS,prine rs 4 iL t n er /( ,6 ria,"r / Df jqr qJtS he/ i d acc es /'©Qegl/eg t s SL 7/ ,4c OCR?Ill a 6e /lic•./ C,,"e leiD / fri t J u - // 4/1 QS Sha Ar Wed ra ocY/ ,' Coles ,eifri C .e- DATE ; . ,/5_ SIGNATURE OF DIRECTOR OR AUTH IZED REPR,fNTATIVE REVISION 5/1982 Form 1R7 REN•N BUILDING & ZONING DEFOTMENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET ECF - 050 - 84 APPLICATION NO c S) : SITE ',PLAN APPROVAL (SA-053-84) PROPONENT : F RST CITY EQUITIES PROJECT TITLE : EARLINGTON BUSINESS PARK BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: APPLICATION FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL TO ALLOW THREE PHASE PROJECT CONSISTNG OF FIVE BUILDINGS HAV1NU A IUTAL uF 79;8b0 SQUARE FEET FOR RETAIL, OFFICE AND WAREHOUSE USE. LOCATION : LOCAHTED ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF POWELL AVENUE S.W. AND S.W. 10th STREET. TO : PUBLIC WO KS DEPARTMENT SCHEDULED ERC DATE : 5-16-84 ENGINEERING DIVISION TRAFFIC ENG , DIVISION SCHEDULED HEARING DATE : UTIL TIES ENG , iDIVISION FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU 0 PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT LBUILDING ZONING DEPARTMENT POLICE DEPARTMENT I ( POLICY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT OTHERS : COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITING , PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT BV 5 : 00 P .M, 0 TUESDAY, MAY 15, 1984 REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : OAPPROVED rAPPROVED WITH-CONDITIONS I ( NOT APPROVED z) z DATE : l610(-( SIGNATURE OF DIRECTOR OR AU ORIZED REPRESENTATIVE REVISION 5/1982 REN ,4 BUILDING & ZONING DEF TMENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET CITY OF RENTON ECF - 050 - q4 MAY 8 1984 APPLICATION N04S) : SITE PLAN APPROVAL (SA-053-84) Pnucr DEVELOPMENT DEFT. PROPONENT : FIRST CITY EQUITIES PROJECT TITLE : EARLINGTON BUSINESS PARK BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: APPLICATION FQR SITE PLAN APPROVAL TO ALLOW THRE PHASE PROJECT CONSISTING OF FIVE BUILDINGS HAVING A IUiAL OF 79,800 SQUARE FEET FOR RETAIL, OFFICE AND WAREHOUSE USE. LOCATION : LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF POWELL AVENUE S.W. AND S.W. 10th STREET. j I 1 TO : PUBLIC WOKS DEPARTMENT SCHEDULED ERC DATE : 5-.6-84 ENGINEERING DIVISION n TRAFFIC ENG , DIVISION SCHEDULED HEARING DATE : OUTIL ENG , DIVISION FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT POLICE DEPARTMENT POLICY DE ELOPMENT DEPARTMENT OTHERS : COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITING , PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE BUILDING &ZONING DEPARTMENT B" 5: 00 P .M, ON TUESDAY, MAY 15, 1984 REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : n APPROVED APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS I ( NOT APPROVED fla5e rv&i /fl e ^S k tyte 0-e -a-x8e :4 eic-e-e_ ff' 40a4-1:2.f s-t2e6eue Itee_e. idges Aa.tiez4;, e ,4' 0-Td;,4,44,71- DATE : ,c/AMSIGNATUREOFDIRECTOROR 'AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE 1 REVISION 5, 1982 OT I C ENOTICE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION APPLICATION NO. SA-053-84, FCF-050-84 PROPOSD . ACTION APPLICATION FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL TO ALLOW A THREE PHASF PRO,IFCT. (FART INGTON RIISTNFSS PARK) CONSISTING OF FIVE itVEBUT! WINGS HAVINr, A TnTAi OF 79.800 SQ. FT, FOR RETAII , OFFICF, WARFHOUSF USE. GENERAL LOCATION AND OR ADDRESS LOCATED AT TH NORTHWEST CORNER"OF POWELL AVENUE S.W. AND S.W. 10rH ST. POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION. THE CI Y OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE I E.R.C.3 HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED ACTION DOES 44DOES NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. ' AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT DWILL IWILL NOT BE REQUIRED. AN APPEAL OF ' THE ABOVE DETERMINATION MAY BE FILED WITH, THE RENTON HEARING EXAMINER BY 5:00 P.M., ' JULY 16. 1984 • FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT THE CITY OF RENTON BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT 235-2550 i L DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION 1 .. . , t 1 Date circulated : MAY 8, 1984 Comments due : MAY 15, 1984 ENVIRONMEMITAL CHECKLIST REVIIEU SHEET ECF - 050 - 84 APPLICATION No (s ) . SITE PLAN APPROVAL (SA-053-84) PROPONENT : FIRST CITY EQUITIES PROJECT TITLE : EARLINGTON BUSINESS PARK Brief Description of Project : APPLICATION FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL TO ALLOW A THREE PHASE PROJECT CONSISTING OF FIVE BUILDINGS HAVING A TOTAL OF /9,SUU SQUARE FEET FOR REITAIL, OFFICE AND WAREHOUSE USE. LOCATION : LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF POWELL AVE. S.W. AND S.W. 10th ST. SITE AREA : 6.3 ACRES BUILDING AREA (gross ) 79,800 SQ. FT. DEVELOPMENTAL COVERAGE (%) : 31.7 % (BLDGS) IMPACT REVIEW NONE MINOR MAJOR MORE INFO 1 ) Topographic changes : 2 ) Direct/Indirect air quality : 3 ) Water & water courses : 4 ) Plant life : 5 ) Animal life : L 6 ) Noise : 7) Light & glare : 8 ) Land Use ; north : east : . south : west : Land use conflicts : View obstruction : 9) Natural resources : 10 ) Risk of upset : 11 ) Population/Employment : c 12 ) Number of Dwellings : 13 ) Trip ends ( ITE ) : 9/0 7 -ecs traffic impacts : RI G''-ac/ 14 ) Public services : 15 ) Energy : 16 ) Utilities : 17 ) Human health : 18 ) Aesthetics :G 19 ) Recreation :v o 20 ) Archeology/history : COMMENTS : P ti/ S 6 I ori-2- A 7 22rr r Reco enda ion : DNSI DOS ore information 6C' u4°41' y Reviewed by : itle : Date : -% r e/42 FORM: ERC-p6 I 12)V1LOIrUGI Date circulated : MAY 8, 1984 Comments due : MAY 15, 1984 ENVIRONMENTAL EHEECKLIST REVIEW SHEET ECF - 050 - 84 APPLICATION No (s ) . SITE PLAN APPROVAL (SA-053-84) PROPONENT : FIRST CITY EQUITIES PROJECT TITLE : EARLINGTON BUSINESS PARK Brief Description of Project : APPLICATION FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL TO ALLOW A THREE PHAS PROJECT CONSISTING OF FIVE BUILDINGS HAVING A TOTAL OF 19,8UU SQUARE FEET FOR R TAIL, OFFICE' AND WAREHOUSE USE. LOCATION : LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF POWELL AVE. S.W. AND S.W. 10th ST. SITE AREA : 6.3 ACRES BUILDING AREA (gross ) 79,800 SQ. FT. DEVELOPMENTAL COVERAGE (%) : 31.7 % (BLDGS) IMPACT REVIEW NONE MINOR MAJOR MORE INFO 1 ) Topographic changes : 2 ) Direct/Indirect air quality : 3) Water & water ,courses : 4 ) Plant life : 5 ) Animal life : X 6 ) Noise : 7 ) Light & glare 8 ) Land Use ; north : east!: . south : west: Lan use conflicts : Vie obstruction : 9 ) Natural resources : X 10 ) Ris of upset :. X 11 ) Pop lation/Employment : 12 ) Number of Dwellings : x 13 ) Trip ends .( ITE') : tra fic impacts : A)01Z 14) Public services : 15 ) Ene gy :Kr 16 ) Uti ities : X 17 ) Human health 18) Aesthetics : 19 ) Recr1eation : 20 ) Arc eology/history : .Pc COMMENTS : Recommen .ation :1SI: c__ DOS More Information_ Reviewed by : e Title : Date: 171 FORM: ERC- 6 P! Ice Date circulated : MAY 8, 1984 Comments due : MAY 15, 1984 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST REVIEW SHEET ECF - 050 - 84 1 i APPLICATIIJN No (s ) . :SITE PLAN APPROVAL (SA-053-84) PROPONENT : FIRST CITY EQUITIES PROJECT T TLE : EARLINGTON BUSINESS PARK Brief Des ription of Project : APPLICATION FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL TO ALLOW A THREE PHASE PROJECT CONSISTING OF FIVE BUILDINGS HAVING A IOIAL OF T9,bOU SQUARE FEET FOR RETAIL, OFFICE! AND WAREHOUSE USE. LOCATION : LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF POWELL AVE. S.W. AND S.W. 10th ST. SITE AREA : 6.3 ACRES: BUILDING AREA (gross) 79,800 SQ. FT. DEVELOPMENTAL COVERAGE (%) : 31.7 % (BLDGS) IMPACT REVIEW NONE MINOR MAJOR MORE INFO 1 ) Topographic changes : 2 ) Direct/Indirect air quality : 3 ) Water & water courses : 4) Plant life : 5 ) Animal life : j 6) Noise : 7) Light & glare :', i 8 ) Land Use ; north : east: . sough : west : Lan use confliicts : Viel obstruction : 9 ) NattJral resources : 10 ) RisIJ of upset :, 11 ) PopLlation/Emp'loyment : 12 ) Numtier of Dwellings : 13 ) Trip ends ( ITE) traffic impacts : 14 ) Pubic services : 15 ) Ene9gy : 16 ) Utilities : 17 ) HurJn health : 18) AesiIIhetics : 19 ) Recr1eation : 20 ) Archeology/history : . COMMENTS PtC4"1 /1"4414' jttA44i4244e. r i4A az", 44,4?-4* 7 r 1,4444.2) 1 Recommendation : DNSI DOS More Information Reviewed by : ': Q/.G— Title : 0'iDatei: s79;85,/ FORM: ERC-06 UrnL..1-TIEC2 Date circulated : r9IY 8, 1984 Comments due..: MAY 15, 1984 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECIKLIST REVIEW SHEET ECF - 050 - 84 APPLICATION No (s ) . SITE PLAN APPROVAL (SA-053-84) PROPONENT FIRST CITY EQUITIES PROJECT T TLE : EARLINGTON BUSINESS PARK 1 Brief Des ription of Project : APPLICATION FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL TO ALLOW A THREE PHASE PROJECT CONSISTING OF FIVE BUILDINGS HAVING A IUTAL Of /9,BUU SQUARE FEET FOR RETAIL, OFFICE AND WAREHOUSE USE. LOCATION : LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF POWELL AVE. S.W. AND S.W. 10th ST. SITE AREA : 6.3 ACRES' BUILDING AREA (gross ) 79,800 SQ. FT. DEVELOPME TAL COVERAGE (90 : 31.7 % (BLDGS) IMPACT REVIEW NONE MINOR MAJOR MORE INFO 1 ) Topographic changes : 2 ) Diret/Indirect air quality : 3) WateL. & water courses : V/ , 4 ) Plant life : 5 ) Animel life : 6 ) Nois'e : 7 ) Light & glare : 8 ) Land Use ; north :1/ east': . south : west': V// Land use conflicts : View obstruction : V 1 9) Natural resources : 10 ) Risk of upset : , 11 ) Population/Employment : 12 ) Number of Dwellings : 13 ) Trip ends ( ITEM) : traffic impact's : 14) Public services : 15 ) Energy : 16 ) Utilities : 17 ) Human health : 18) Aesthetics : 19 ) Recreation : 20 ) Archeology/history : COMMENTS : Recommendation : D SI OS More Information Reviewed by : Title : Date : 47 /8 FORM: ERC-06 f\ Y Date circulated : MAY 8, 1984 Comments due : MAY 15, 1984 ENVIIRONMENITAL CHECKLIST REVIIE SWEET _. ECF - 050 - 84LL APPLICATION No (s ) . !SITE PLAN APPROVAL (SA-053-84) PROPONENT : FIRST CITY EQUITIES MAYS gs l:ru-k PROJECT TITLE : EARLINGTON BUSINESS PARK Brief Description of Project : APPLICATION FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL TO ALLOW A THREE PHASE PROJECT CONSISTING OF FIVE BUILDINGS HAVING A TOTAL OF /9,8UU SQUARE FEET FOR RETAIL, OFFICE AND WAREHOUSE USE. LOCATION : LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF POWELL AVE. S.W. AND S.W. 10th ST. SITE. AREA : 6.3 ACRES BUILDING AREA (gross ) 79,800 SQ. FT. DEVELOPMENTAL COVERAGE (%) : 31.7 % (BLDGS) IMPACT REVIEW NONE MINOR MAJOR MORE INFO 1 ) Topographic changes : 2 ) Direct/Indirect air quality : 3 ) Water & water courses : l./' 4) Plant life : i,,' 5 ) Animal life : v 6) Noise : 7 ) Light & glare :; 8 ) Land Use ; north : east!• south : west;: Land use conflicts : View obstructilon :. 9 ) Natural resources : 10 ) Risk of upset : 11 ) Population/Empiloyment : 12 ) Number of Dwelllings : 13 ) Trip ends ( ITED : 1.../ traffic impact's : 14 ) Public services : c 15 ) Energy : 16 ) Utilities : L/ 17 ) Hum n health : 18 ) Aesthetics :4,------ 19 ) Recreation : 20 ) Arc eology/history : .COMMENTS 5e.e Ibe v elDr i e. t „,/,,a'o.+ Sltce 1 . Recommendation : DNSI DOS More Information 04Reviewedby : Title : ` , L -71?5 - 1 Date : s- f' FORM: ERC-06 I Date circulated : MAY 8, 1984 Comments due : MAY 15, 1984 EWWVIIR9DNff9IENITAL CHECKLIST REVIE‘ SHEET E C F - 050 - 84 APPLICATION No (s ) . SITE PLAN APPROVAL (SA-053-84) PROPONENT : FIRST CITY EQUITIES PROJECT TITLE : EARLINGTON BUSINESS PARK Brief Description of Project : APPLICATION FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL TO ALLOW A THREE PHASE PROJECT CONSISTING OF FIVE BUILDINGS HAVING A IUTAL UI- /9,8UD SQUARE FEET FOR RETAIL, OFFICE AND WAREHOUSE USE. LOCATION : LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF POWELL AVE. S.W. AND S.W. 10th ST. SITE AREA : 6.3 ACRES BUILDING AREA (gross ) 79,800 SQ. FT. DEVELOPMENTAL COVERAGE (%) : 31.7 % (BLDGS) IMPACT REVIEW NONE MINOR MAJOR MORE INFO 1 ) Topographic changes : 2 ) Direct/Indirect air quality : 3 ) Water & water courses : I 4) Plant life : 5 ) Animal life : 6) Noise : 7 ) Light & glare : 8 ) Land Use ; north : east : . south : west : Land use conflicts : View obstruction : 9 ) Natural resources : 10 ) Risk of upset : 11 ) Population/Employment : 12 ) Number of Dwellings : 13 ) Trip ends ( ITE ) : traffic impacts : 14 ) Public services : 15 ) Energy : t/ 16 ) Utilities : 17 ) Human health : 18 ) Aesthetics : li 19 ) Recreation : 20 ) Archeology/history : . COMMENTS : / eel ,4 S 0..J /4 Recommendation : DNSIX More Information_ Reviewed by : title : Date,• 5 /f 41/ 1 FORM: ERC-06 1 1 — POL1 di Date circulated : MAY 8, 1984 Comments due : MAY 15, 1984 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST REVIIEW SWEET ECF - 050 - 84 CITY OF RENTON 8APPLICATIbNNo (s ) . : SITE PLAN APPROVAL (SA-053-84) MAY1984 POLICY PROPONENT : FIRST CITY EQUITIES DEVELOPMENT DEPT. PROJECT TITLE : EARLINGTON BUSINESS PARK Brief Description of Project : APPLICATION FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL TO ALLOW A THREE PHASE PROJECT CONSISTING OF FIVE BUILDINGS HAVING A WTAL OF 79,80U SQUARE FEET FOR RETAIL, OFFICE. AND WAREHOUSE USE. LOCATION : LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF POWELL AVE. S.W. AND S.W. 10th ST. SITE AREA : 6.3 ACRES! BUILDING AREA (gross) 79,800 SQ. FT. DEVELOPMENTAL COVERAGE (%) : 31.7 % (BLDGS) IMPACT REVIEW NONE MINOR MAJOR MORE INFO 1 ) Topographic changes : j 2 ) Direct/Indirec;t air quality : l/I 3) Water & water ;courses : 4) Plant life : 5 ) Animal life : 6) Noise : 7) Lighlt & glare :, i 8 ) Lan Use ; north : /O-H!C •e .Pcvk east : /1 i-R 44.0 Si raf Ls/0-Y- 9 /i ki- vr1U. /-P-isal J 6 Usouth : lete ,4u'(ci? 4 west,: (JHievetop [f NI?eaS ,,8 l r(" Lan use confliicts : Uie obstruction :i 9) Natural resour T vces : i 10 ) Ris lI of upset 11 ) Population/Employment : 1 12 ) Numder of Dwellings : VI 13 ) Trip ends ( ITE!) : J e554 ; q 1 .-73-Ai re.2,44•e r a/ traffic impacts : 14 ) Public services : j 15 ) Energy :v"I 16 ) Utilities : 17 ) Human health : 18 ) Aesthetics : 19 ) Rec ieation : j 20) Archeology/history : . U , COMMENTS : Recommendation : DNSI DOS More Information Reviewed by :c $)4C. ' /mUyfc-y, 1itle : /415/6Evall'ULstt r Date' : gig L\NJ FORM ERC-06 i f f June 25, 1984 Ci 8 Y air E:EH ON Roger J. Blaylock 17) .° 1.1 pZoningAdministrator City of Renton JUN 2 9 1984 Municipal Building 200 Mill Avenue South BUILDING ZONING DEPT. Renton, WA 98055 Dear Roger: Enclosed are six copies of the revised site plan a d landscape plan which ypu reviewed and we discussed on 6-22-84 at your office. In this colver letter I' hope to explain our intent and justification for our de iation from the specific sizing of landscape. easements. As you know the guidelines prepared by Richard Carothers Associates for Earlin ton Business! Park divide the plat into two zones: 1) street- scape zone and 2) interior zone. Our proposed revision is in the former zone; the streetscape. This zone is considered thej 'primary image setting' zone' . The key feature of this zone is a landscape easement. Within the easement as described in the guidelines (see attached excerpt from Richard Carothers Associates Prepared Guideline: Section 1.1.1 Streetscape Zone) the first 13' min. to 24' max. are designated as public arkway. It also states that the 6' min. to 17' max. remaining shall be a transition zone for owner/occupant landscaping. The objective in these provisions seem to be to provide adequate screening of the pa'•rking areas from public view and to do so in an aesthetically pleasing and natural way by using 'screening shrubs' and bermed areas whlere permitting. I The revisions to our original site plan approval submittal affect the landscape easement 'yin discussion. The motivation for this revision is to irovide a better parking situation at the entry side of the office buildings. At present, the site plan submitted for approval I I MILBRAND T AR HITECTS 11811 N.E. 1ST STREET, SUITE 1204, BELLEVUE, WA 9 005 206] 454-7130 EDWARD C. ARMSTRONG, ASSOCIATE 1 \ June 25, 1984 Roger J. Blaylock Page Two shows (15) compact stalls together with (4) regular, parellel spaces on either side. This seemed wholly inadequate. Our revision provides 12) regular spaces and (11) compacts with no parellel parking at all. Our propised revision calls for the parking at the e try side of the offiice buildings to penetrate partially into that 30' landscape ease- ment at Powell Avenue S.W. However, at no point along this frontage does. this proiosed penetration cause a diminished screening effect. In fact, by greatly enlarging the entrance areas landscaping the aesthetics and initial impact screening are substantially increased. And, despite a dimension less than 30' from curb to parking at a few locations along the easement between the entrances the min. of 6' of transition land- scaping is never violated. The shortest dimension from curb to parking is 21'-0". Our average easement width ends up being 31'-3" with an overall gain of approximately 100 s.f. additional area for landscaping. In conclusion, I feel the integrity and intent of the guidelines are maintained without sacrifice, and in some respects enhanced. I .trust you are able to 'support this proposal effectively gilven these facts. Thank you. Sincerely, NIILLBRANDT ARCHITECTS itti 41-1Q. KEN M. HAYS KMH/dpm cc: First City Equities s i t Uir f/ 1 .1 .1 Streetscape Zone The sreetscape zone is the primary image setting zone and it includes all arterial and collector roads. All improvements within this corridor will Iave the greatest degree of control . Attribttes within this zone include: 1 . The Landscape Easement - This easement begins at the back of the curb ad extends inward for a distance of 30 feet long all arterial and collector roads. The first 13 feet minimum to 24 feet maximum are designated as la public parkway. This parkway includes a 5 foot walk- way/joggingtrail . The remaining 6 feet minimum to 17 feet maximum 4 shall be a transition zone, permitting Owner and Occupant site/land- aping improvements. Common elements within the Landscape Easement include walkways, jogging trails, par course, planting, irrigation, street lighting, project signing and project entries. F'ARI<l tVGt AU,I-ANV-Z/N 1\ I 1 -t—`' (0 i I 13-t-OWNER MIN. AND oGa.)PAt'T aiiiiit,... ,,, .\--,...--: .,-- 7,:: , ''',. 4 , . i' ,.7:,, ,, ,, _,,,., :____:...„:„.:_____;>,,,,, - 6=N .ie•-i _,, ,, -..".....„-., ai-a, alinme-ice` hi 4z; i.' Atli I .. Ablk.4,.. ht...A. h,TEMA.... .. :464,,,,,,,,,,,,..„,„. vz,,,„_ 7.s.77...alw." ov.,,ligii3O"- MI, .......--; ( Re) II. 0,199010, 1 Nyirik, .big:LIT'Sr iDW 1-LAN 5N. 6Mtr4. LAWN _l__ RMAL O11 0444N NOTICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE RENTON, WASHINGTON The Environmental Review Committee (ERC) has issued a final declaration of non-significaiice with conditions for the following projects: WASHINGTON NATURAL GAS COMPANY (ECF-029-84i) Application to install solor cathodic protection equipment; property located in the vicinity of 500 Williams Avenue South. WASHINGTON NATURAL GAS COMPANY (ECF-030-84) Application to install solor cathodic protection equipment; property located in the vicinity of 900 Jefferson Avenue N.E. WASHINGTON NATURAL GAS COMPANY (ECF-031-84) Application to install solor cathodic protection equipment; property located in the vicinity of 400 Jefferson Avenue N.E. FIRST CITY EQUITIES (ECF-050-84) Application for site plan approval to allow a three-phase project (Earlington Business Park) consisting of five buildings having a total of 79,800 square feet for retail, office, and warehouse use, file SA-053 T 84; located at the northwest corner of Powell Avenue S.W. and S.W. 10th Street. M-V PROPERTIES (ECF-067-84) Application to rezone approximately 57 acres of property from G-1 to R-3 and PI-1 for future multi-family housing of 80-85 units and future professional office space of 30,000-35,000 square feet, file R-064-84; located on the south side of S.E. Carr Road approximately 400 feet east of Talbot Road South. Further information regarding this action is available in the Building and Zoning Department, Municipal Building, Renton, Washington, 235-2550. Any appeal of ERC action must be filed with the Hearing Examiner by July 16, 1984. Published: July 2, 1984 r _ 4 ° f d 1 FIRSTCIIY June 20, 1984 EQUITIES JIJN 2 0 19 Mr. Roger Blaylock CITY OF RENTON BUILDING & ZONING DEPT. 200 Mill Avenue S Renton, WA 98055 II Re: Environmental Review Committee Evaluation Site Plan Approval SA-053-84 EARLINGTON PARK Dear Roger: I i I am in receipt of your June 15, 1984 letter addressing the Environmental Review Committee's concerns for the potential traffic impacts resulting from a retail convenience store being built on Lot 12 at the Earlington Park project. First City Equities would like to retain the retail use for !this portion of the project at this time. We are not currently prepared to submit for building permit for that, use, but we do want the City's approval in the event that we do get such a user in the future. We do acknowledge that approximately 2,000 trips per day could be generated by our building a 24-hour convenience store in that location] and we also acknowledge that our development is governed by the original E.I.S. traffic projections. David Markley of The Transpo Group and I have discussed these concerns. He acknowledged that the 2,000 trips/day was the standard used by the Traffic Institute. He pointed out however that not all of the 2,000 trips would be external trips. (The E.I.S. projections were based on all external trips.) Many of the 2,000 trips would be diversion or impulse trips rather than additionally generated trips. The demand would be a local demand pulling in about '75% impulse traffic. Mr. Markley also suggested that such a store in this location would be supporting the already existing demand and could actually serve to reduce the traffic on the street system. I i I I 800 Fifth Avenue•Suite 4040 •Seattle,Washington 98104• (206)624-9223 Real Estate Development and Investments Mr. Roger Blaylock June 20, 1984 Page Two In order to proceed with the environmental review and to be prepared for the public hearing on July 17, I would like to suggest that the City approve the retail use as we have ;designed it. If in the development of the remainder of our property at Earlington Park we get to the point where we have met the originally projected traffic projections, we could supply the City with a supplemental E.I.S. re- evaluating the traffic impacts for the existing and future development. Very truly yours, FIRST CITY EQUITIES 14114/"'"4-A7A-41: Barbara E. Moss Director of Planning BEM/dlp cc: Ken Hays (w/encl) Bob Roed (w/encl) David Markley (w/encl) Loren Davis (w/encl) Greg Byler(w/encl) David Schuman (w/encl) j I OF R ,. 6 BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT z s•IL ''U> o RONALD G. NELSON - DIRECTOR Ito 09 MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, WASH. 98055 • 235-2540 O' 94, 4 June 15, 1984 SEP BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH MAYOR Ms. Barbara Moss First City Equities 800 5th Avenue, Suite 40401 Seattle, WA 8104 Reference: First City Equities Site Plan Approval/SA-053-84 Environmental:Review Dear Barbara 1 I I . The Environ ental Review) Committee has withheld their final determination concerning the above project. Adding !retail commercial activities into the proposed development of Washington j'echnical Center/Earlington Park will increase the traffic generation substantially over that originally estimated in the draft EIS. The City is keeping a running total of trip generation from the project as it is built in phases, and our concern is that at some point ydu may have land area left without any capacity for construction. In effect, you have used up your development potential on a smaller portion of the site and would. not be able toll develop one of the last pieces. The traffic information submitted by your engineer was reviewed by our Traffic Engineering Division. The Environmental Review Committee did not formally accept the information but extended !the trip generation table that we have developed through previous acti dns in the industrial complex. In effect, the new retail commercial utilizing a 24-hour co venience store would generate approximately 2,079 trips based upon an average daily trip level of 577.5 trips per 1,000 square feet according to the Institute of Traffic Engineer's Trip Generation Manual. In the worst case, a total of 2,517 trips would be generated i In total, the retail alone represents approximately 53% of all of the existing facilities built by HDK and those proposd by First City Equities. At this point, First City Equities has several options available to them. First, they could eliminate the reference to retail commercial and be totally within the intent and scope of the Draft and Final EIS. 1 Second, they could leave the proposed retail commercial facilities within the project anticipating that at some future time there may be a limitation upon development; of the latter portions of the project. This may result because there may not be enough traffic capacity left upon the neighboring streets at the time of future development. ' The third possibility would be to do a supplemental EIS at this point ret-evaluating the introduction of commercial activities within the total 109-acre proposal. li Ms. Barbara Moss First City alluities June 15, 198 Page 2 The item will be placed back on the Environmental Review Committee's meeting fortWednesdayornextweek, 'and they would appreciate a written response concerning your acknowledgment of the present situation. Sincerely, For the Envi nmental Review Committee: C--\? orifze._ Roger J. Blalock Zoning Administrator RJB:0944Z:w' OF R4 BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT ry RONALD G. NELSON - DIRECTOR e:•0 MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, WASH. 98055 • 235-2540 O P 947-60 SEP1cv0 BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH MAYOR June 11, 1984 Steve Speidel, ASLA Project Manager Richard Carothers Associates 814 East Pike Street Seattle, WA 98122 RE: Clarification of Section 4-730.060 Dear Mr. Speidel: This letter is to confirm al decision of the Building and Zoning Department regarding the interpretation of Section 4-730.060. As discussed with one of my staff last week, th Building and Zoning Department interprets Section 4-730.060 as follows: i For every one additional foot of height over forty-five feet (45'), one additiona foot of setback shall be required along all property lines. This additional setback is not required to be landscaped. If you do not agree with our interpretation of Section 4-730.060, you have the right t• appeal the i 9 terpretation for the Land Use Hearing Examiner within fourteen (14) day from the date of the decision. Sincerely, CrSt,(4-A. Roger J. Blaylock Zoning Administrator RJB:JMS:0937Z:wr MILBRAINIFT R H [T C' - 11511 NE 1ST STREET .1 E 204 , BELLEVUE , WA. B 6 BOB) 464-7130 07.7, rm EDWARD C. ARMSTRONG • ASSOCIATE £ 0? F 4 c PP TRANSMITTAL FORM To: C/TY of i V7Z N PLP Date: CP.Lp I Project: 11( aos)/vi SS 74 Attention: /'O& 7? . A7'//x . ® Job No. € /a JE7W UUN° Gentlemen: We are sending E 'Herewith El Under separate cover, via the following items: CopiesP Description e 4 i /?b.1)kkt7ON 5 P6"1)/Sg7, /T r (-0V&7Z 1'/,kip These are transmitted for: , El Your Information L DDistribution Bids due 19 Approval Signature As Requested Your Files Review & Comment Remarks: crf 1-1j Lr0 jid JUN 6 1984 tL7 BUILDING/ZONING DEPT, cc: Very truly yours, g&f,- //a',.5 r i I FIRSTCIIY EQUITIESMay29, 1984 ec' Mr. Roger Blaylock I FEl yw 1 CITY OF RENTON Building ;& Zoning Department 200 Mill Avenue South MAY P130 19 34r Renton, WA . 98055 Re: Traffic Analysis EARLINGTON PARK Dear Roger: Per our (meeting last week, I am enclosing for your review the traffic analysis prepared lby The Transpo Group for First City Equities comparing the original E.I.S. traffic projections with our revised plans for the Earlington Park project. Note that the analysis addresses several different options for development. In all cases, Holvick deRegt Koering's property remains constant and reflects their actual building program. The variables which were addressed with FCE's property include Option #11, which supposes a 75% office use and 25% warehouse use. Option #2 reflects the traffic impacts expected by FCE building 100% office. Options #3 and 4 indicate the maximum achievable development level to be devoted to FCE office use if the trip generation estimates of the final E.I.S. are to be maintained. The Transpo Group concludes that Option #3, using the PM peak hour trip generation as the independent variable, is more correct than use of the daily trip generation Option #,4) because the PM peak hour is the time period used as the basis for level, of service analysis, the most dependable basis for analysis in the industry. When drawing conclusions regarding traffic impacts from development of our site, we must remember that when the final E.I.S. was prepared, certain mitigating measures had not taken place which subsequently have occurred or are being scheduled. They include SW Seventh Avenue extending to Monster Road, anticipated widening'of Grady Way and the two traffic signals which have been installed. These measures would improve the traffic flow considerably and could only act to minimize the impacts expected by development in the area. I 800 Fifth Avenue•Suite 4040•Seattle,Washington 98104•(206)624-9223 Real Estate Development and Investments I I Mr. Roger Blaylock May 29, ;1984 Page Two I believe this report will adequately address the traffic department's concerns and request for a traffic study as a condition of our site plan approval. Let me know if there is anything else the City needs in their review process. Please notify us once you' have determined the public hearing date. Very truly yours, FIRST CITY EQUITIES 4(//-44/64-16-172112.12 .- Barbara E. Moss Director of Planning BEM/iam cc: Leonard Milbrandt Ken Hayes Greg Byler i I I i I rir - 4 f 1. FIRSTlY May 29, 1984 EQUITIES Mr. Roger Blaylock NCITYOFRENTON Building & Zoning Department 200 Mill Avenue South 11 MAY 30 1984 Renton, WA 98055 Re: Traffic Analysis BUlLDiN EARLINGTON PARK Dear Roger: Per our meeting last week, I am enclosing for your review the traffic analysis prepared by The Transpo Group for First City Equities comparing the original E.I.S. traffic projections with our revised plans for the\Earlington Park project. Note that the analysis addresses several different options for development. In all cases, Holvick deRegt Koering's property remains constant and reflects their actual building program. The variables which w .re addressed with FCE's property include Option #., which supposes a 5% office use and(2596 warehouse)use. Option #2 reflects the traffic impacts expend by FCE building(I0U%oof icel., Options #3 and 4 indicaite the maximum achievable development leverfo—be devoted to FCE office use if the trip generation estimates_o. theiinal. E.LS. are to be maintained. The Transpo Group concludes that Option #3, using the PM peak hourtltrip generation as the independent variable, is more correct than use of the daily trip generation Option #4 because the PM peak hour is the time period used as the basis for level of seranalysis, the most dependable basis for analysis in the industry. When drawing conclusions regarding traffic impacts from development of our site, we must remember that when the final E.I.S. was prepared, certain mitigating measures had not taken place which subsequently have occurred or are being scheduled. They include SW Seventh Avenue extending to Monster Road, anticipated widening of Grady Way; and the two traffic signals which have been installed. These measures would improve the traffic flow considerably and could only act to minimize the impacts ,expected by development in the area. 800 Fifth Avenue•Suite 4040•Seattle,Washington 98104•(206)624-9223 Real Estate Development and investments O I Mr. Roger Blaylock May 29, 1984 Page Two I believe this report will adequately address the traffic department's concerns and request for a traffic study as a condition of our site plan approval. Let me know if there ins anything else the City needs in their review process. Please notify us once you have determined the public hearing date. Very truly yours, FIRST CITY EQUITIES 14,140(4-4 r72-412 Barbara E. Moss Director lof Planning BEM/iam cc: Leonard Milbrandt Kent Hayes Greg Byler I I I I FIRSTCITY 0 MAY 2 91984EQUITIES Memorandum P „f To Design Te .m Date May 25, 1984 JtA1'EARLINGTON PARK From Barbara Moss File Subject S ite Plan Approval Meeting 5/25/84 EARLINGTON PARK Today Ken Hayes of Milbrandt Architects and myself attended a site plan approval meeting with the City of Renton staff to review their concerns for our project. The following represent pertinent comments. In attendance were: Roger Blaylock:_ 'City Building & Zoning Dept. Jerry Lind - City Building & Zoning Dept. Ken Hayes - M.A. Barbara Moss - FCE M.A. to provide 6 sets of the revised site plan to Roger Blaylock for inclusion with the Environmental review publication by Tuesday, 5/29 by 9:00 a.m. A reduced site plan is needed by June 5 or 6. A lot line adjustment is required to align Lot line 10-11 with the phase line between Phases I and II CC&Rs cover reciprocal access and parking. Ken will point this out in the cover letter to the City with his revised site plan and will include a copy of the CC&Rs noting the applicable pages. Site plan approval is good for 2 years with no extensions possible. Once an approval expires, the process must begin again from the start. Distribution Leonard Milbrandt Robert Roed PK Rockwell David Schuman Jerry Lind Ken Hayes Art Hitchings Greg Byler "oger Blaylock 800I Fifth Avenue • Suite 4040 • Seattle, Washington 98104 • (206) 624-9223 i 4 ft. Ken will arran-, with Earth Enterprises to do a t _ red landscape concept plan using the revised site plan. This plan must be in Roger Blaylock's hands by June 5 or 6. Three full size copies are required plus a reduction. The 15' utility easement running through Phase I needs to be vacated with the Public Works Department. Bush, Roed & Hitchings will take care of this. The public hearing is projected to be either June 19 or June 26. A building permit could be issued as early as July 17 or 24, depending on which public hearing agenda we are ass'gned to. The building plans can he submitted' for review by the City concurrently with the site plan approval, hut no building permit can he issued until the site plan is approved. One condition of 'site plan approval was a traffic report comparing the impact of our proposed phases with that which was projected in the original. E.I.SII. Roger said that we could submit the report Transpo did for us recently. To vacate the 15' utility easement, we should write a letter to the Renton Mayor and City Council requesting the vacation and making reference to the Auditor's file # or the easement # and include the plat with the utility easement noted on it clearly. (per Arneta Henninger of Public Wks, whom I spoke with following the staff meeting) Although we have a curb cut spanning the Phase I and II division line, it is not necessary to seek a variance per the new City code - Section 4-2204 (2)(A)(3) 800 Fifth Avenue ,• Suite 4040 • Seattle, Washington 98104 • (206) 624-9223 I MILB ANE ARCHITEC1 11811 NE 1ST STREET ,S'B04, BELLEVUE , WA. BE 20B 7 414-7130 I EDWARD C. AIRMSTRON0 , ASSOCIATE TRANSMITTAL FORM City of Renton Building & ZoningTo:Date: 5-29-84 Municipal Bldg, Project: Earlington Business Pa k Renton, Washington Renton, Washington Roger Blaylock) Attention: Job No. 84-12 Gentlemen: i We are sending ® Herewith j 0 Under separate cover,via the following items: Copies Description 6 ea. Revised site plan and cover sheet showing parking provided per City of ReIInton ordinance and fire truck turning radius. These are trans itted for: h 70YourInformation ® Distribution 0 Bids due 19 CITY O REMO Approval j Signature 0 As Requested N 0t. MAYYourFilesjReview & Comment ii)N, 2 9 1984 Remarks: ' suiimaeINC'a/ZONING ,DEFT. I P it cc: Very truly yours, II IKetAiviLet672 - " ' - I I I I r. The Transportation Planning & Traffic Engineering Consultants Grove March 27, 1984 CM o REE 19 Ms. Barbara E. Moss \ R i 101 First City Equities jt. MAY 301984 w ql4 4 800 Fifth Avenue Suite 4040 r.,, Seattle, WA 98104 ci. a ;iLL i' DEFT, f 2 9 984 SUBJECT: EARLINGTON PARK - TRIP GENERATION COMPARI`!1s.i Dear Ms. Moss: Thank you for asking The TRANSPO Group to review and comment on alternative site plan proposals for the Earlington Park. As requested, we have prepared a comparison of the changes in daily and PM peak hour trip generation, the generation of heavy truck traffic, and a general estimate of the effect of these traffic volumes on the street network. Development Options The base clndition used for comparison is the development proposal outlined in the February 1981 FEIS for the Earlington Park project. The Earlington Park proposal covered 109.31 acres with a building area of 1,980,880 square feet. As depicted in Table 1, this proposal contains a mix of warehouse, business park and office uses. The first development option (Option #1) covers 81.28 acres and accounts for a total building area of 1,336,420 square feet. The reduction in building acreage is the result of 17 acres that were set aside for a retention pond, and acreage for roads that were not accounted for in the initial EIS. The uses under Option #1 are confined to business park, office and light ware- housing, and is segregated according to ownership. Under Option #2, the 81.28 acres is divided into two parcels in accordance with ownership of the property including 26.17 acres under the control of Holvick deRegt Koering (HdK) , and 55.11 acres under the control of First City Equities (FCE) . Under development Option #2, the HdK properties would be developed with business park and office uses only, while the FCE property would be entirely devoted to office use. For purposes of comparison, Options #3 and #4 indicate the maximum achievable development level to be devoted to FCE office use if the trip generation estimates of the 1981 FEIS are to be maintained. Under Option #3, 44.48 acres 775,000 square feet of building space) devoted to FCE office use could be developed in the same number of PM peak hour trips that were estimated in 1981. Under Option #4, 35.50 acres (618,570 square feet of building space) could be developed in the same number of total daily trips that were estimated in the FEIS. The TRANSPO Group, Inc. •23- 148th Avenue SE, Bellevue, Washington 98007• (206) 641-3881 1\ i u ll 1 TRANSPO Ms. Barbara E. Moss Grove March 27, 1984 Page 2 Summary In summary, this anal sis finds that the dailytripy generation associated with development Options #1 :or #2 would increase by 18 and 36 percent, respective- ly, as compared with the original Earlington Park proposal . The evening peak hour traffic volumes will increase by 90 to 440 vehicles per hour (vph) -- a 3 to 17 percent increase -- from 2,660 vph with the Earlington Park proposal . Of equal significance is the reduction in the heavy truck volumes due to the elimination of heavy warehousing. On a daily basis, heavy truck volumes are anticipated to reduce by 25 to 95 percent. During the peak hour, volumes are estimated to be reduced by as much as 85 percent as compared with the Earling- ton Park proposal . A part of the reused site plan shows a connection from the site to Monster Road. This is expected to reduce daily and peak hour traffic volumes by as much as 15 to 25 percent. As part of the first phase of development, two traffic signals were installed, and these signals will help mitigate first ana second phase congestion-related impacts. Therefore, while it is true that Options #1 and #2 increase both daily and peak hour volumes, it is possible that the reduced truck volumes could result in traffic impacts no worse than those estimated in the 1981 FEIS. Work beyond the scope of the present analysis would be required to confirm this possibility. Trip Generation A comparison of daily and PM peak hour trip generation was made using trip generation rates found in the traffic analysis for the Earlington Park project so that the results could be directly compared. The results of this analysis are depicted on Table 1 and show that the daily trip generation associated with Options #1 and #2 are estimated to be 23,390 and 27,000 vehicles per day vpd), respectively. This is to be compared with the daily trip generation associated with the original Earlington Park proposal which was forecasted to generate 19,820 vpd. The evening peak hour traffic volumes will also increase from the 2,660 vph level associated with the Earlington Park proposal to 2,750 and 3,100 vph for development; Options #1 and #2, respectively. This increase is due to the replacement' of warehousing space with office and business park space. The latter uses have trip generation rates considerably higher than those associated with warehousing. I Mco Ms. Barbara E. Moss VOWMarch27, 1984 Page 3 Truck Traffic As indicated above, the percentage of trucks in the traffic stream is expected to reduce sharply due to the decrease in heavy warehousing activity. Under the Earlington Park proposal , between 2,710 and 6,070 trucks per day were estimated to be generated. Under Option #1, this truck volume reduces to between 680 and 4,550 trucks per day; under Option #2, the reduction is to 101 to 4,300 trucks per day (see Table 2) . During the PM peak hour, the original Earlington Park proposal would generate between 65 and 170 trucks per hour, while development Option #1 would generate between 20 and 155 trucks per hour. Option #2 contains no warehousing but generates more total peak hour trips than Option #1; therefore, it generates peak hour truck trips nearly equal to Option #2. On a daily basis, truck traffic could reduce between 25 and 95 percent, while during the evening peak hour, volumes could reduce as much as 85 percent. The significant aspect .of these reductions is that the traffic impact of each heavy truck is equivalent to between 2 and 4 passenger vehicles. This is because the heavier trucks move more slowly and have operating characteristics that are less responsive than passenger vehicles. Thus, while the actual reduction in heavy truck trips may be 1,500 to 2,600 trucks per day, it may have an impact equivalent to a reduction of 3,000 to 10,400 passenger vehicle trips. Land Development Potential As requested, TRANSPO calculated the amount of development that could occur if the trip generation remains at the level predicted for Earlington Park in the FEIS. In this analysis, the land use mix assumed the HdK development would be the same as currently proposed (25 percent business park and 75 percent office), while the FCE property would develop with 100 percent office. This analysis shows the development threshold levels are different depending on whether daily or PM peak hour trips are used as the independent variable. This diffeience occurs because the peak hour trip generation rate is not proportional to the daily trip generation rate for all land uses. The results of this analysis show that if PM peak hour trips are held equal to those found in the 1981 FEIS (Option #3) , up to 44.48 acres of FCE's land could be developed with 100 percent office use. This converts to 775,000 square feet of net building area. Using daily trip generation as the independent variable, up to 35.5 acres of FCE's land could be developed with 100 percent office use. This is equivalent to 618,750 square feet of net building area. We believe the use of the PM peak hour trip generation as the independent variable is more correct than use of the daily trip generation. This is not because the developable area is larger, but because the PM peak hour is the 1 , I TKKe 111ANSPO Ms. Barbara E. Moss GrOVpMarch27, 1984 Page 4 time period used as the basis for level of service analysis. As you may already know, level of service is the best concept we have for integrating the effects of intersection design, traffic control and traffic volume into a comparable measure of traffic congestion and delay in urban/suburban areas. Since the PM peak hour time period occurs each day when non-project traffic volumes and congestion are at their worst, it is our opinion that it should be used as the basis for comparison of trip generation and traffic impact. Conclusions Based on the review of trip generation characteristics outlined above in combination with the improvements that are proposed as well as improvements that have already been made to intersection design and signalization, this analysis indicates that development under Option #1 or Option #2 would cause more daily and peak hour trips to be generated. However, it is possible that the accompanying reduction in heavy truck trips could result in traffic impacts no greater than those associated with the original Earlington develop- ment plan. As we have discussed, the changes to the land uses, the street network, and traffic control systems 'have probably changed traffic flow conditions around the site fiom those depicted in the 1981 FEIS. These changes may have improved or worsened traffic conditions, and in turn, may have changed the conclusions drawn in the 1981 traffic analysis. Accordingly, some monitoring or updating of our 1980/1981 work may be justified. We believe there are two alternative courses of action: Completely update the traffic analysis including making counts at all major intersections, making revised forecasts of travel demand for a revised land development program, and identifying the impacts and mitigating actions associated with this revised development program. This assumes the revised development levels are substantially more intense than originally proposed in the 1981 FEIS. Monitor the trip generation for the existing developments to determine if the actual traffic volumes agree with the forecasted trip genera- tion. It may be that the mix of tenants who occupy the development will generate more or less traffic volumes than were forecasted. In this event, itlmay be more reasonable to restrict or expand the level of development that may be. permitted. Such conclusions would be based on a comparison of the intersection level of service. We believelthe second option is best because it gives a "real" measure of the traffic volumes. While we strive to make the forecasts accurate, the variable character of traffic conditions limits the level of accuracy. Accordingly, the traffic volume monitoring program is preferable because it reduces the margin for error. The TRAMP° Ms. Barbara E. Moss Gr0\ip March 27, 1984 Page 5 I trust this letter responds to your questions regarding changes in traffic impacts that result from redefinition of the development profile for the Earlington Park project. If you or the City of Renton have any quesions regarding our findings and conclusions, I encourage you to call me at yourconvenience. Sincerely, The TRANSPO Group, Inc. fil-4:-\/ David D. Markley Principal DDM/lf Attachments 1 Table 2 TRUCK VOLUME SUMMARY Heavy Truck Volumes U$e Daily PM Peak Hour Original EI; Heavy Warehousing 1570 - 2750 35 - 70 Light Warehousing 880 1540 15 35 Business Park 260 - 1030 15 - 35 Office 0 - 750 0 - 30 Total 2710 - 6070 65 - 170 Option. #1 HdK' Business Park I 100 - 390 10 - 15 Office 0 - 880 0 - 35 FCE Office 0 - 2270 0 - 85 Light Warehousing , 580 - 1010 10 - 20 Total 680 - 4550 20 - 155 Option; #2 HdK Business Park 100 - 390 10 - 15 Office 0 - 880 0 - 35 1 FCE Office 0 - 3030 0 - 115 Total 100 - 4300 10 - 165 Option #3 j i HdK Business Park 100 - 390 10 - 15 Office 0 - 880 0 - 35 FCE Office 0 - 2440 0 - 95 Total 100 - 3710 10 - 145 Option #4 HdK' Business Park j 100 - 390 10 - 15 Office I 0 - 880 0 - 35 FCE Office 0 - 1950 0 - 75 Total 100 - 3220 10 - 125 I I Table 1 LAND DEVELOPMENT AND TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY Trip Generation Rate Trip Generation Use Building Land Area Site Building Daily PM Peak Daily PM Peak Acres Sq.Ft. Coverage Area Original EIS Heavy Warehousing -- 774,490 5 9 3,870 700 Light Warehousing -- 377,340 6 9 2,270 340 Business Park 338,470 10 1.3 3,380 440 Office 490,580 21 2.4 10,300 1,180 Total 109.31 1,980,880 -- 19,820 2,660 Option ill HdK Business Park 6.80 296,210 33% 97,750 10 1.3 980 130 Office 19.37 843,760 33% 278,440 21 2.4 5,850 670 FCE Office 41.33 1,800,330 40% 720,130 21 2.4 15,120 1,730 Light Warehousing 13.78 . 600,260 40% 240,100 6 9 1,440 220 Total 81.28 3,540,560 ---1,336,420 -- 23,390 2,750 Option #2 HdK Business Park 6.80 296,210 33% 97,750 10 1.3 980 130 Office 19.37 843,760 33% 278,440 21 2.4 5,850 670 FCE Office 55.11 2,400,590 40% 960,240 21 2.4 20,170 2,300 Total 81.28 3,540,560 ---1,336,430 -- 27,000 3,100 Option #3 HdK Business Park 6.80 296,210 33% 97,750 10 1.3 980 130 Office 19.37 ; 843,760 33% 278,440 21 2.4 5,850 670 FCE Office 44.48 1,937,500 40% 775,000 21 2.4 16,280 1,860 Total 70.65 : 3,077,470 ---1,151,190 -- 23,110 2,660 Option #4 HdK Business Park 6.80 296,210 33% 97,750 10 1.3 980 130 Office 19.37 843,760 33% 278,440 21 2.4 5,850 670 FCE Office 35.50 1,546,430 40% 618,570 21 2.4 12,990 1,480 Total 61.67 2,686,400 --- 994,760 -- 19,820 2,280 r 53- rgli0, O Ch Y OF RENTON FILE NO(S) fi,1e, 1 BUILDING 6iRtRTMhI MASTER APPLICATiON,k NOTE TO APPLICANT: Since this is a comprehensive application form, only those iters related to your specific type of application(s) are to be com4leted°, j• Please print or type. Attach additional sheets if necessary.). I APPLICANT I 1 TYPE OF APPLICATION NAME 1 FEES I First City Equities I Q REZONE*(TO ADDRESS I I CI PERMIT* 80;0 - 5th Avenue , Suite 4040 0 TEMPORARY PERMIT* CITY ZIP CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT* Seattle, Washington 98104 an SITE PLAN APPROVAL • A5C1 TELEPHONE 1 GRADING AND FILLING PERMIT 206/624-9223 No. of Cubic Yards: CONTACT PERSON Q • VARIANCE From Section: Justification Required NAME Barbara Moss (First City ''Equities) SUBDIVISIONS: ADDRESS Same as above) I ID SHORT PLAT CITY I ZIP U TENTATIVE PLAT I lI PRELIMINARY PLAT TELEPHONE I , C7 FINAL PLAT Q WAIVER Justification Required) L OWNER NO. OF LOTS: PLAT NAME: NAME Same as above) M PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT: ADDRESS Q PRELIMINARY CITY ZIP EJ FINAL P.U.D. NAME: TELEPHONE a IndustrialResidential UCommercial EJ Mixed. LOCATION . MOBILE HOME PARKS: PROPERTY ADDRESS Q TENTATIVE To be assigned 17_:] PRELIMINARY EXISTING USE I (PRESENT ZONING M:-p FINAL Vacant PROPOSED USE PARK NAME: Office and Office/Warehouse NUMBER OF SPACES:ff- a,- rrirw,vn) ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE 11g:ac SQ. FT. ACRES TOTAL FEES AFfEA: I r JI ry{ / n 274:'"96 :.:1S .F . 6.^3 ACTeS f r 1 lD l COTYOF ICEtelY014 S F USE ONLY -- ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESSING 1 D ITtfe ,, ,, 71ii. 11 MAY 8 1984 1 APPLICATION RECEIVED BY: f :ivv. APPLICATION DETERMINED TO BE: 1 Accepted Incomplete Notification Sent On By: E3011rD1P _/zoNiNci P. r'•T.1 Initials) DATE ROUTED I ADDITIONAL MATERIAL RECEIVED BY: APPLICATION DETERMINED TO BE: 5-5-i I ,Q Accepted Incomplete Notification Sent On By: Initials) ROUTED TO: 1 i,Building Design Eng. Pa Fire J Parks ti Police Policy Dev.Traffic Eng.Utilities REVISION 151982 0 r t r ' x c $ 1 Legal description of property (if more space is required, attach a separate sheet). Lot 2 as shown on City of Renton Lot Line Adjust @tNo. LLA-016-83 as recorded under King County Recorder's No. 8311159001; together with Lot 2 as shown on City of Renton lot Line Adjustment No. LLA-004-83 as recorded under King County Recorder's No. 8309309001 ; together with Lot 11 , Washington Technical Center as recorded in Volume 122 of Plats, Pages 98 through 102, Records of King County, Wacherntjtyun AFFIDAVIT I, DAVID 14 s ct1 tiM A/ being" duly sworn, declare that I am authorized representative to act for the property owner,®owner of the property involved in this application and.tha the foregoing statements and answers herein contained and the Information herewith submitted are in all respects true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. SUBSC IBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME THIS DAY OF WSJ19 . NOTARY PUBLIC'IN AND FOR THE STATE OF WASHI TON, a„,,,„7,90x AT Name of Notary Public)Signature of Owner) Ho/ 7 •k1 1()• 6i -5-- 800 - 5th Avenue, Suite 4040 Address) l Address) Seattle, Washington 98104 City) State) (Zip) 206/624-9223 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 l e CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM CITY OF tEh1TON _ .. Eiif _li ,: MAY 81984 _., FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Application No.S i - D S3 - A I BUtLEJNO/ZONING PEPT. nvi ronmental Che Ikl ist No. Cr- Os-0 - /PROPOSED, date: FINAL, date: n r71 O.q -- D Declaration of Significance Declaration of Significance 0 Declaration of Non-Significance EI Declaration of Non-Significance COMMENTS: I i Introduction The State Environmental Policy Act of 1971, Chapter 43.21C, RCW, requires alll 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 thi checklist is Ito help the agencies involved determine whether or not a proposal is such a major action' I 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 yourexplanationinthespaceprovided, 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 answer 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. I The following questions apply to your total proposal , not just to the license for which you are currently pplying or ttre, proposal for which approval is sought. Your answers • should include thelimpacts 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 paperworkl 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. I , ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM I. BACKGROUND 1. Name of Proponent First City Equities 2. Address and phone numlber of Proponent: 800 - 5th Avenue , Suite 4040 Seattle , • Washiington 98104 206/624-9223 3; Date Checklist submitted 4. Agency requiring Check ilk st Renton Building f Zoning_Department 5. Name of proposal , if applicable: EarllIington Busiiness Park 6. Nature and brief des4i0tion of the 'proposal (including• but not limited to its size, geheral design elements, and other factors that will give an accurateunderstandingofitsscopeandnature) : Construction of a group of one story ,•bldgs .& a_three. story office building ° ion a vacant 6. 3 acre site . The building uses will be Office and Office/Warehouse combined. Site improvements will include buildings and associated parking and service areas . i ' i\ w 1 2- 1 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 ) : Located in Ian area of existing and proposed projects of similar 'size and use . 8. Estimated date foir completion of the proposal : 1984 - 1985, 9. List of all permits , licenses or government approvals required for the 'proposal federal , state and local--including rezones) : City of Renton Building Permit, Site Plan Approval . 10. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes , explain: Future Phase II 11. Do you know of any plans by others which may affect the property covered by your proposal ? Iif yes, explain: No 12. Attach any other application form that has been completed regarding the pro- . posal ; if none ha's been completed, but is expected to be filed at some future date, describe the nature of such application form: Building PPrriit f II. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Explanations of all. "yes" and "maybe" answers are required) 1) Earth. Will the proposal result in; a) Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? X YES MAYBE NO b) Disruptions, displacements, compaction or over- covering of the soil? X YES MAYBE NO c) Change in topography or ground surface relief features? X tE MAYBE U— d) The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? ES WEE 0 e) Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on orloff the site? X YES MAYBE NO1 f) Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? X DES M YBE, WU— Explanation: Improvement, will result in soil compaction and covering . of the soil which is usual with building and parking' lot construction. If 3- 2) Air. Will the proposal result in: a) Air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality?X ' YES MAYBE b) The creation Of objectionable odors? X DES WIFE NU— I c) Alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature, or any change in ,climate, either locally or regionally? X YES MAYBE NO Ex lanation: 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? X YES MAYBE NO b) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or - the rate and amount of surface water runoff? X YES MAYBE NO c) Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? X YES MAYBE NOd) Ch nge in the amount of surface water in any water bogy. X 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? X YESVEr MAYBE WU— f) Alteration• of ttie,!,direction or rate of flow of ground waters? X YES MAYBE NO g) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either though 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 dirfect injection, or through the seepage of leachate, phosphates, detergents, waterborne virus or bacteria, or other substances into the ground waters? X YES MAYBE NO i ) Recuction in the amount of water, otherwise available fo public water supplies? X DES MAYBE3 Expiana ion: Coverage of the surface with the usual impervious materials will reduce the ability of the site to absorb surace water. 4) Flora. Will the proposal result in: a) Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of floral (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops , microflora and aquatic plants)? X( YES MMA VNO b) Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or end' ngered species! of flora? X 1TE,S" , MAYBE NO c) Introduction of new species of .flora into an area, or • ' in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? 1 X r MAYBE NO d) Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? X YES MAYBE NO . Explanation: 1 4- 5) Fauna. Will •the proposal , re•sult in: a) Changes in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of fauna (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms, insects or microfauna)? X YES MAYBE tr b) Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of fauna?X YES MAYBE NO c) Introduction of new species ,•o.f fauna into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of fauna? YES MAYBE I NO - d) Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? X YES MAYBE I .NO Explanation: Reduction in the amount of habitat for insects and I microfauna which is common to construction activitiesl. 6) Noise. Will the proposal increase existing noise levels? X YES MAYBE! NO Explanation: 7) Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? X YES MAYBE Explanation: Exterior light levels will increase due to normal security and parking area lighting. 8) Land Use. Will the proposal result in the alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? X YES MAYBE I NO Explanation: 9) Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a) • Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? X YES MAYBE NO b) Depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource? X YES 'MAYBE NO Explanation: I .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? X Y.ES MB NO Explanation: 11) Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distri-bution, density, or growth rate of the human populationofanarea? X UM- Explanation: F,:, 1 5- 12) Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand- for1a1dditional housing? X YES. MAYBE NO Explanation:. I I I 13) Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in: a) Generation of additional vehicular movement? X_ I ' YES MAYBE NOb) Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? X YES MAYBE NO c) Impact upon existing transportation systems? YES MAYBE NO d) Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? X YES MAYBE NO e) Alterations to waterborne, rail or air •traffic? YES MAYBE NO f) Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? X_ 1 YES MAYBE NO Explanation:This project will contribute to the number of vehicles using the adjacent streets . New parking stalls will be provided on site as required. Orif inai E.,L S. c)ddrpsced the tr 'fic ii moacts. 14) Public Services. Will; the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need forinew or altered governmental services in any of the following areas : I a) Fire protection? i X YES MAYBE NO b) Police protection'?X YES • MAYBE NO c) Sc ools? I X YES MAYBE NO d) Parks or other recreational facilities? YES MAYBE NOI e) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? X YES . MAYBE. NO f) Other governmental services? • YES MAYBE N• O Explanation: I 1 - 15) Energy. Will the proposal result in: a) Use of substanti;lal amounts of fuel or energy? YES MAYBE NO b) Demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development 'of new sources of energy?X YES MAYBE W Explana ion: Demandup'.on; ,exis.ting sources of. .energy7 will I ' increase ; but there will be no requirement for development of new energy sources . 16) Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or alterations; to the following utilities: a) Power or naturally glias? X YES MAYBE NO b) Communications systems? X 1 YES MAYBE NO c) Wat r? I II 1\i \ YES MAYBE NO e i I v 6- d) Sewer or septic tanks? YES MAYBE NO e) Storm water drainage? X YES MAYBE f) Solid waste and disposal? YES MAYBE NO Explanation: I 17) Human Health. Will the proposal result in the creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)?' X YES • M YBE W Explanation: I I 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? X YES MAYBE NO Explanation: f I I 19) Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? X . YES MAYBE NO Explanation: 20) Archeological/Historical . Will the proposal result in an alteration of a significant archeological or historical site, structure, object or building? YET- MATTE- NO Explanation: III. SIGNATURE I , the undersigned, state that to the best of my knowledge the above information is true and complete. It is understood that the lead agency may withdraw any decla- ration of non-significance that it might issue in reliance upon .is checklist should there be any willful misrepresentation or willful lack of fu c s reon my part. Proponent: si ed) DAVID._ 3M. SCHUMAI I name .printe'd•) City of Renton Building i Zoning Department May, 1983 Form N 176 I ND1NG oF FILE FILE TITLE 51111)1 I I II II I II IIII IOso 71 '1 I I