No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLUA77-062 MA5 BEGINNING OF FILE FILE TITLE 5PL ciHL PERMIT SP- O�a- 77 ag00 EpSr VALLEY RD . �� RRY MCRLINO 7/ ao / 77 0 R 4 •v 41 Vi 0 THE CITY OF RENTON �vA V ��'S +� MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON.WASH. 98055 L'kii tf7" 't'r4 .ti p CHARLES J. DELAURENTI , MAYOR • LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER pA q. L. RICK BEELER . 235-2593 ED SEPZ0° September 27, 1977 Mr. Gary Merlino RE: File No. SP-062-77 9125-10th Avenue South Seattle, WA 98108 Dear Mr. Merlino: This is to notify you that the above referenced request, which, was approved subject to conditions as noted on the Examiner's report of September 12, 1977, has not been appealed within the time period set by ordinance, and therefore, this application is considered final and is being submitted to the City Clerk effective this date for permanent filing. Sincerely, -L. Rick Beeler Hearing Examiner LRB:mpp cc: Zel Mead, City Clerk Gordon Y. Ericksen, Planning Director it - 1 ----- ------- —----------- -- - --- gENtistOP 1 1, CORNER 19/30 N 170 633.00 E165T 761.72 • S HWY. MON. 1 i I N 170 633.00 E 1657 755.00 i W 1 a 1— N0110 1�1c rn °II I -3°1 taw G b�� EAT? WA le, 'bbf _ . W _ 1 01 1 I ,,1 .w 1 . ..-.yi:.' i . '$- jvy _ Y s.,;.4q ' -=r '`i µrr - f la Tql- - IP°� NE VENT To RE • v :- ,�,`- -- ,..�;may':-. •,yiz,;`T^'g t•ho;.a! H;�.... 30 _ � := � - -. ... :.. .� �Kc ..*�';=`-<«�...' u'�Cx . ..4- Clatl 19 cletarviel q'< ,, � Lx:"+ :.�s"*�f`:s' `,��'i��..i'a-+QY -. +•• O Z' 1 72 TO REMAIN ; 0 0 'cV �V•m 1. > cp • tii r-ifl71` A�,t� ,"s . nY.d-f , ro.-'x.�,-s -!.• ; '`i t_:'..Cr d v.. :• yy 5 0 40�F F1 • LZ in z¢ • 1 cu 22'CHANNEL ,-_._ .,,,. •._._._..,® mra,.- -:4+040,n +_, 0 BOTTOM r` ti c. -a• e rO ?m PERMANEN Z -- ,y. t EASEMENT Zw ~ZW BOUNDARY NI D3 Wm N2 I 11i V O. e o f I'' - ►o o' Q z MeglAN0 _ r �� ,RY LY W N170 232.59 ION y E1657 876.95 O °%`• tip 14614-00 MATCH LINE Li SHEET 3, - 0 F>- Piny RA...) f 0 3:1 S.S. 1-31Z1 `_ 2 I IQ 0 PROPOSED/FINAL DELLARATION OF SIGNIFICANCE/Nall SIGNIFICANCE Application No . SP-062-77 ❑ PROPOSED Declaration Environmental Checklist No . ECF-261-77 0 FINAL Declaration Description of proposal Fill and grade approximately 25 , 000 cubic I' _._yards of material on approximately 5. 7 acres , to prepare site for future commercial or industrial use. .Proponent GARY MERLINO Vicinity of 2900 East Valley Road between SR-167 and the - Location of Proposal East Valley Road. Lead Agency City of Renton Planning Department This proposal has beien determined to 0 have ® not have a significant adverse impact upon the environment . An EIS ❑ is ED is not required under RCW 43 . 21C . 030 ( 2 ) ( c ) . .. This decision was made after review by the lead agency of a completed environmental checklist and othera information on file with the lead agency . Reasons for /oegcitaration of environmental significance :-.. 1 . Project is of minor scope. 2 . Project is consistent with Comprehensive Planning , Zoning , and existing uses in the area . 3. This negative declaration is further based upon the provision of • proper mitigating measures within the site development plan . Measures , if any , that could be taken to prevent or mitigate the environmental ;impacts to such an extent that the lead agency would withdraw its declaration of significance and issue a ( proposed/final ) declaration of non-significance : • Responsible Official Gordon Y . Ericksen Title Plan Mg Director. Aoe Date August 22 , 1977 Signature (' City of 1 On Planninc 2Pnartmpnt AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING State of Washington) County of King Marilyn J. Petersen , being first duly sworn, upon oath disposes and states : That on the 12th day of September , 19 77 , affiant deposited in the mails of the United States a sealed envelope containing a decision or recommendation with postage prepaid, addressed to the parties of record in the below-entitled application or petition. Subscribed and sworn this V4, day of 1rje- 191,( . C)A Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, residing at Renton Application, Petition or Case: Gary Merlino, SP-062-77 (The mi.nute.i contain a . it the panti.e4 of necond) y.zember 12, 1977 OFFICE OF THE LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. APPLICANT: Gary Merlino FILE NO. SP-062-77 LOCATION: Property located at 2900 East Valley Road just north of the existing lumber market between East Valley Road and SR-167. The site is also south of the existing Seattle Water Department Bow Lake Pipeline and Olympic Pipeline right-of-way. SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Applicant requests special permit pursuant to the City's Mining, Excavation and Grading Ordinance to allow filling of approximately 20,000 cubic yards of material within a 5.75 acre site. The subject request is considered the initial step in preparing the property for future commercial or industrial development. SUMMARY OF Planning Department: Approval subject to conditions. RECOMMENDATION: Hearing Examiner: Approval subject to conditions. PLANNING DEPARTMENT The Planning Department staff report was received by the REPORT: Examiner on August 23, 1977. PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the Planning Department report, examining available information on file with the application, and field checking the property and surrounding area, the Examiner conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows: The hearing was opened on August 30, 1977, at 9:00 a.m. in the Council Chambers of the Renton Municipal Building. Parties wishing to testify were sworn. It was reported that the Hearing Examiner and the applicant had received and reviewed the' Planning Department report, and the report was entered into the record as Exhibit #1. Michael Smith, Planning Department, reviewed Exhibit #1, and entered the following additional exhibits into the record: • Exhibit #2: Assessor's Map Exhibit #3: Engineered Fill Map Including Cross Sections Exhibit #4: Resolution No. 1923 (reference only) Exhibit #5: Documents from Soil Conservation Service (on file with Planning Department - reference only) • Exhibit #6: Memorandum from Hearing Examiner to Planning Director and Public Works Director, dated August 24, 1977, and respective responses, dated August 25, 1977 and August 26, 1977. Mr. Smith submitted an addition to Exhibit #1 and stated that the maximum slope shall be no greater than two to one as per ordinance requirements. • In response to the Examiner's inquiry regarding dimensions of the P-9 channel at the northern end of the subject property, Mr. Smith clarified the boundaries on the map, Exhibit #3, stating that although a discrepancy exists in the dimensions, it would be resolved by the King County Hydraulics Division. In response to the Examiner's inquiry regarding requirements for 2% of property retained for landscaping suitable for wildlife habitat, Mr. Smith reported that property located within the P-9 channel would be included in the requirement and additional landscaping, if required, would be in the form of exterior boundary landscaping around the site to flow properly into the development scheme and would be accomplished at the time of development. SP-062-77 Page Two The Examiner inquired about the possibility of a dike around the perimeter of the fill. Mr. Smith indicated that although the applicant had not made a decision for storm water retention, the Public Works Department would coordinate the matter at the time of application for an annual license by the applicant. In response to the Examiner's inquiries, Mr. Smith indicated that the applicant had not submitted a geology report or a rehabilitation report, had not indicated type of fill material, and that the Traffic Engineering Division had reported that no significant impact would result from the fill process. Mr. Smith also stated that the Mining, Grading and Excavation Ordinance specifies requirements regarding compaction and size of material utilized for fill .purposes. The Examiner referred to Section 4-2314 of the Mining, Grading and Excavation Ordinance which specifies setbacks for the fill and toe of the slopes and asked Mr. Smith to discuss the impact which would result on the property. Mr. Smith indicated that the applicant had proposed the toe of the slope to be on the property line on the easterly side. Discussion ensued regarding the necessity for a legal opinion to clarify the Mining, Grading and Excavation Ordinance in regards to setbacks. Mr. Smith also made an amendment to Exhibit #1 and stated that the requirement to fill the public right-of-way should be reviewed with the Public Works Department. In response to the Examiner's question, Mr. Smith indicated that the project would proceed in a continual process depending upon the availability of material from the applicant's construction business. The Examiner asked the applicant if he concurred in Exhibit #1. Responding was: Gary Merlino 9125 10th South Seattle, WA 98108 Mr. Merlino indicated his concurrence in Exhibit #1 but wished clarification on certain items pertaining to water lines and building elevations. He reported having participated in a previous LID at considerable expense. Mr. Smith felt that a review with the Utilities Division by the applicant would be necessary to resolve any questions regarding water lines. He also reviewed building height requirements imposed by the King County Hydraulics Division for the purpose of flood control and reported that a revised study was forthcoming which may revise height requirements. In response to Mr. Merlino's inquiry regarding the completion of P-1 and P-9 channels, Mr. Smith reported that the City of Renton had constructed a pumping station and had done considerable research and met requirements of Soil Conservation Service for the project, and it was felt that the project would be accomplished in the immediate future to alleviate the flooding situation in the area. The Examiner asked Mr. Merlino the number of vehicles which would be involved in the fill process. Mr. Merlino indicated that no more than 15 or 20 truckloads would be utilizing the access roadways per day. In response to the Examiner's question about the acceptability of construction of a dike around the perimeter of the property, Mr. Merlino indicated his preference for temporary culverts and open ditches to prevent access problems because of mud caused by excessive rainfall. The Examiner asked Mr. Merlino if he concurred in requirements for mud and dust control and hydroseeding of slopes after completion of fill. Mr. Merlino indicated his concurrence. The Examiner asked Mr. Smith for additions, modifications or corrections to Exhibit #1. Mr. Smith had no further comments. The Examiner stated that the hearing would be closed to public input but continued for a two week period to enable the City Attorney to provide a legal interpretation of Section 4-2314 of the Mining, Grading and Excavation Ordinance in regards to setbacks. He indicated that copies of the legal opinion would be forwarded to the applicant and a decision would be forthcoming within two weeks after receipt of the attorney's opinion. The applicant stated that he had no objection. The Examiner asked for further comments. Since there were none, the hearing on Item #SP-062-77 was continued pending a legal opinion at 10:25 a.m. SP-062-77 Page Three FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS: Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: 1. The request is for a major landfill of approximately 20,000 cubic yards on 5.75 acres at 2900 East Valley Road. 2. The Planning Department report accurately sets forth the issues, applicable policies and provisions, findings of fact, and departmental recommendations in this matter, (is uncontested) , and is hereby attached as Exhibit #1 and incorporated in this report by reference as set forth in full herein. 3. Pursuant to the City of Renton's Environmental Ordinance and the State Environmental Policy Act of 1971, as amended by R.C.W. 43.21.C. , a Declaration of Non-Significance has been issued for the subject proposal by Gordon Y. Ericksen, responsible official. 4. Plans for the proposal have been reviewed by all city departments affected by the impact of this development and no adverse comment was expressed. 5. There was no opposition to the proposal expressed. 6. All existing utilities are available and in close proximity. 7. The proposal is compatible with the required setbacks of Sections 4-712 and 4-2314 of the Code. 8. Along the northern portion of the property lies the P-9 drainage channel of about 70 feet in width. The applicant testified that this overlapped an 80-foot Puget Power easement. The Planning Department indicated their records did not show this easement. The U.S. Soil Conservation Service recommendation of 2% of the site to be of a suitable wildlife habitat (also adopted by City Council Resolution No. 1923) is proposed to be accomplished by utilizing the P-9 drainage channel and perimeter ,landscaping if needed. 9. Future use of the property is confined to those uses specified in Section 4-712 (Light Industry) of the Code and review by the Examiner per Section 4-2303.2. 10. The property is bordered on all sides by existing landfill as a result of construction of the East Valley Road, SR-167, or lumber market. 11. Vehicular access to the property will be from the East Valley Road similar to the filling operation on the proposed Glacier Park Orillia Industrial Park site (across the East Valley Road and to the south) . It is anticipated that approximately a maximum of 15 trucks per day will come to the site, which volume will not overburden the East Valley Road or other arterials or roads. No opposition was expressed to this access or volume of traffic. 12. Precise storm water retention facilities for this stage of development of the site have not been established. The applicant indicated a willingness to develop these facilities according to the Public Works Department requirements. 13. The proposed fill will reach an elevation of 15 feet which is 6.8 feet below the tentative flood level established by the King County Hydraulics Division. That , division's review of the applicant has not been completed but is essential to final approval of this application and the Flood Zone Control Permit. The applicant is aware that building floor elevations may be required to be at the 21.8 foot elevation. 14. Dust control is proposed via water sprinkling. 15. Control of mud on city streets is proposed via a mechanical sweeper and a flush truck. 16. Erosion control of the fill is proposed to be accomplished by hydroseeding all slopes. 17. Fill material will conform to the requirements of the Mining, Excavation and Grading Ordinance, Chapter 23, Title IV. 18. The fill oepration will occur sporadically as fill material becomes available. Distinct phases are not planned. SP-062-77 Page Four 19. No opposition was expressed to some landfill occurring in the public right-of- way of the East Valley Road; however, this landfill lies within the purview of the Public Works Department. 20. Some of the existing landfill material is concrete and debris which does not conform to Section 4-2316. 21. Section 4-2314 requires a 10-foot setback of the tops of slopes from the building setback line (see attached memorandum dated August 30, 1977 from the Examiner and legal opinion from the City Attorney dated August 31, 1977) . CONCLUSIONS: 1. The proposal generally conforms to the Green River Comprehensive Plan with the exception that wildlife habitat must be provided on the site. It appears that. the requirement of 2% of the site to be wildlife habitat can be accomplished within the area designated for the P-9 drainage channel. Any additional area needed can be taken from the perimeter via landscaping during final development. The Planning Department has on file several documents (Exhibit #5) outlining the landscaping materials for wildlife habitat. 2. Section 4-2303.2.B. requires that the Examiner conclude that the fill activity . . .not be unreasonably detrimental to the surrounding area. " Based upon the evidence submitted in the public hearing and the physical characteristics of the site, the proposed landfill is compatible with and similar to existing landfill operations in the immediate vicinity. Since the operation will occur in a drainage area, some restrictions are necessary to control erosion, mitigate loss of wildlife habitat, and facilitate storm water drainage. These conditions will make the Special Permit not detrimental to adjacent properties and the surrounding area. 3. The P-9 drainage channel should be preserved in its existing natural condition to maximize drainage effectiveness. A 2 to 1 slope should be maintained on the fill (Section 4-2316.7) , and this slope should be stabilized by hydroseeding (Section 4-2312.10) . 4. Fill material should be inspected periodically by the Public Works Department for conformance to Section 4-2316. Existing fill material should be inspected for conformance, to Section 4-2316. 5. Drainage of storm water,that will accumulate atop the fill must conform to the standards under the jurisdiction of the Public Works Department. A drainage plan was not submitted as part of the application nor at the public hearing. However, the drainage plan can be resolved by the applicant with the Public Works Department prior to issuance of the Special Permit. Since the fill operation will occur sporadically, the Department should establish specific criteria and procedures to control storm water drainage and erosion responsive to this type of irregular operation. A part of this procedure should be hydroseeding of the landfill except where existing vegetation is retained. 6. Per Section 4-2303.2.0 the final uses and site plan must be approved by the Examiner. A public hearing will be required and the Examiner must conclude that the uses and site plan conform to the Comprehensive Plan and are compatible with the vicinity as well as applicable zoning requirements. 7. Sufficient access exists via the East Valley Road and SR-167. The stated maximum, 15 trucks per day, can be adequately accommodated on these roads. 8. The applicant is aware of the possible requirement of making the floor elevation of future buildings at the 21.8 foot elevation (or as established through the current study by the Soil Conservation Service) . This requirement lies within the jurisdiction of the King County Hydraulics Division and not the City of Renton. 9. Dust and mud control as recommended by the Public Works Department and accepted by the applicant is sufficient to meet the requirement of Section 4-2312.8. 10. The additional setback requirement of Section 4-2314 does not apply where slopes do not occur as in the proposed fill abutting and meeting the grade of the existing fill along the south property line. But in instances where slopes occur, the required 10-foot setback must be measured from the building setback lines (see attached memoranda) . This impacts the proposal in requiring a total of 10-foot setbacks from the west, north and east property lines since no building setbacks are required in L-1 (Section 4-712) . Chapters 23 and 30 do not provide the Examiner with the authority to reduce this setback requirement. SP-062-77 Page Five While the Examiner is prevented from approving a variance, it seems appropriate to comment upon the effect of this setback requirement. The setback of Section 4-2314 is intended to ". . .preserve the setback for the safety and benefit of adjacent properties, the adequacy of foundations, and to prevent damage as a result of water runoff or erosion of the slopes. " (Section 4-2314.1) The purpose of Chapter 23 is to ". . .protect. . .areas and uses. . .against detrimental effects" (Section 4-2301.C) and to "Promote safe, economic, systematic. . .grading activities. . . " (Section 4-2301.2.D) . Application of the setback will accomplish these purposes; however, it may be counterproductive in instances. A moat could be created if the fills do not meet -" a 10-foot setback area for each property totals a 20-foot area for "protecting" each property. This appears not to be the intent of the ordinance. The intent seems to be to require landfill to be set back from adjacent property where the landfill may be detrimental to that abutting property - a clear case of protection. However, in other instances nothing detrimental can be shown, but moats may be created around neighboring properties undergoing landfill operations. It appears in this case that a variance should be sought from the Board of Adjustment. In addition, Section 4-2314 should probably be revised to accomodate a wider range of situations. RECOMMENDATION: Based upon the record, findings and conclusions, the grading and filling Special Permit is approved, subject to: 1. Retention of the P-9 drainage channel in its existing natural state. 2. Landscaping of 2% of the site for wildlife habitat purposes per the landscaping materials suggested in Exhibit #6 and per approval of the Planning Department. This/landscaping may be installed in phases corresponding to the extent of the fill. 3. Finalization of the storm water retention system and its approval by. the Public Works Department. 4. Dust control be implemented by water sprinkling. 5. Control of mud and debris on adjacent or affected public right-of-way be implemented by a mechanical sweeper and water flushing. 6. Exposed slopes be hydroseeded to control erosion per requirement of the Public Works Department during periodic inspection of the fill operation. Slopes will be stabilized at all times and minimize erosion. 7. Existing fill, material that does not meet the requirements of Section 4-2316 is to be removed upon determination by the Public Works Department. 8. Fill material will conform to the requirements of Chapter 23, Title IV. 9. Tops ,of the slopes to be no less than 10 feet from the west, north and east property lines. ORDERED THIS 12th day of September, 1977. � l Rick Beeler Land Use Hearing Examiner TRANSMITTED THIS 12th day of September, 1977 by Affidavit of Mailing to the parties of record: Gary Merlino TRANSMITTED THIS 12th day of September, 1977 to the following: Mayor Charles J. Delaurenti Council President George J. Perry Councilman Richard M. Stredicke Warren C. Gonnason, Public Works Director Gordon Y. Ericksen, Planning Director Ron Nelson, Building Division Gerard M. Shellan, City Attorney SP-062-77 Page Six Pursuant to Title IV, Section 3015 of the City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed in writing on or before September 26, 1977. Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the Examiner is based on erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact, error in judgment, or the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing may make a written request for review by the Examiner within fourteen (14) days from the date of the Examiner's decision. This request shall set forth the specific errors relied upon by such appellant, and the Examiner may, after review of the record, take further action as he deems proper. An appeal to the City Council is governed by Title IV, Section 3016, which requires that such appeal be filed with the City Clerk accompanying a filing fee,of $25.00 and meeting other specified requirements. Copies of this ordinance are available for inspection in the City Clerk's office, first floor of City Hall, or same may be purchased at cost in said office. ;i >~� 1®d ( if• FII f•. Oi "I fli. I I ; 1' \ l l ( )k; ' I 1 • i' i \ ii . , i ^� z o n P,$ (o (;E RA RD M.SHELLAN,CITY ATTORNEY LAWRENCE J.WARRE N, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY 4)glfp SErity August 31 , 1977 Mr. L. Rick Beeler Hearing Examiner City Hall Renton, WA 98055 Re: Setback requirements on applications for special permits-Merlino ;Austin Co. Dear Rick: . Thank you for your Memo dated August 30, 1977 regarding the above matter. Section 4-2314, , without queS.tion, requires a minimum setback. of ten feet as indicated in your letter . It is your conclusion that a strict interpretation of this particular requirement would produce moats at property lines between the adjoining properties whenever adjacent properties have heretofore established a different grade.. You are inquiring whether you may change or reduce the setback lines required by the aforesaid Section without doing violence to the purpose and . intent of the ordinance itself. In this connection we refer you to subparagraphs C and D of Section 4-2301 that you should consider in determining whether a strict interpretation and adherence, to the cited Section would. be detri- mental to the. adjoining properties . If such definite finding is made, you' would have inherent authority to provide for some relief. Alternately, the property, owner may seek redress by -applying for a variance from the Board of Adjustment . You certainly could, recommend such a variance based on the fact pattern that you have outlined. We also 'call your attention to Section 4-3010 B which allows you some discretion in imposing conditions , modifications and restrictions as you may find necessary to make the application compatible with the environment and carry out the objectives and goals of the City' s Comprehensive Plan and other ordinances . It seems tome that a strict interpretation would result in an absurd situation that would not be in the best interest of the City, and may be detrimental' or create other problems , and then in any such case you have limited discretion to modify it . The preferable way , of course, 'would be for. you to request the City legislative body to . consider certain amendments to the existing ordinance in order to avoid the situation you have described. Any reduction that you may recommend in this setback line as required by Section 4-2314 should be strictly limited to the facts of this Page 2 August 31, 1977 Mr . L. Rick Beeler particular case and adequate safeguards imposed therefor . If we can be of any further assistance to you in this matter, please advise . We remain, Very trul " •urs, der. rd M. Shy Ilan Ci y Attorne GMS : ds O Y FZ b,A -1 4. o THE CITY OF RENTON Z MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON. WASH 98055 o� ... `F CHARLES J. DELAURENTI , MAYOR • LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER L. RICK BEELER . 235-2593 O SEPt� � August' 30, 1977 • • TO: Gerard M. Shellan, City Attorney FROM: L. Rick Beeler, Hearing Examiner SUBJECT: Setback Requirements on Applications for Special Permits; Gary Merlino, SP-062-77 and Austin Company, SP-063-77 • As a follow-up to our conversation yesterday and as a result of the hearings held today on these two subjects, I am requesting a legal opinion regarding the following: Section 4-2314 of Chapter 23, Title IV, Mining, Grading and Excavation Ordinance, outlines setbacks for landfill. . The interpretation of this provision affects these two applications an3 landfill in general in the Green River Valley. The provision stipulates that the tops of the slopes of. landfill will be set back from the. "setback line," a minimum of ten feet (4-2314.2) . Crucial to the application of this ordinance is the definition of "setback line. " The strict application.of this requirement in the Green River Valley would produce moats at property lines between properties where slopes occurred and landfill didn't meet the grades of adjacent properties. This interpretation is predicated on the assumption that "setback line" is defined as the distance from the property line to the building line as specified by the underlying zoning district or, in other words, the same as the setback line of a structure. Therefore, Section 4-2314 would require an additional ten feet of setback. Chapter 16.11 of the American Law of Zoning by Anderson would indicate this interpretation to be correct. My conclusion is that the setback for landfill slopes, where they occur, must be measured from the line established for building setback purposes in the underlying zoning. The structure of Section 4-2314 seems clear in requiring this interpretation. It appears that the additional setback requirement is overly burdensome and perhaps unreasonable in the Green River Valley. An ordinance revision may be more appropriate to resolve this conflict. Gerard M. Shellan Page Two The hearings on the above subjects have been closed but continued for a brief period to allow for your legal opinion on this subject. As soon as your opinion is received I will forward copies to the applicants and complete my decision. As was indicated in our telephone conversation, if the landfill must indeed be set back ten feet from the building setback line, the applicants would have to make application for a variance from this requirement. I would appreciate your response within ten days. iiiiiiiiiiii.P L. Rick -eler LRB:mp cc: Mike Smith, Planning Department . 1 ' Aoc key, o 0 THE CITY OF RENTON V O6 010 7 MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, WASH. 98055 o °' CHARLES J. DELAURENTI I MAYOR • LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER P.0 �� L. RICK REELER , 235-2593 O C.,4''r 0 f0 SE P1*- August 24, 1977 MEMORANDUM TO: Gordon Y. Ericksen, Planning Director Warren C. Gonnason, Public Works Director FROM: L. Rick Beeler, Hearing Examiner SUBJECT: Merlino Special Permit No. SP-062-77 At the August 30, 1977 public hearing on this subject, I will need the following information: 1. Clarification of Ron Olsen's comment that water is not available to the site. Is this a problem at this time in the development process? 2. Comments on the storm drainage retention required. The file lacks anything on this. 3. Amplification of recommendation for retention of the north 74 feet in a natural state. Tripp-Harper did this voluntarily, but any other precedence? Any other alternatives? 4. What form did Council use to adopt.the Soil Conservation Service requirement for 2% landscaping in wildlife habitat? Need any resolution number. 5. What would constitute ". . .landscaping suitable for wildlife habitat."? 6. Any comments received from King County Hydraulics Division regarding this or Tripp-Harper? 7. Amplify what constitutes keeping city streets clean and the dust controlled. My reasons for this are to forewarn you, thereby giving you the opportunity to respond in writing instead of at the hearing, and to make sure that these items enter the record correctly. Any specific recommendation must be supported by references to adopted ordinances, resolutions or policies. In many cases the implications of the requirements must be explained. RECEIVED T T )00111/ CITY OF •RENTON _e)(F.iIBi TN O. 6 HEARING EXAMINER ClA► -...r'r,.'�...,, r_ ,.. ... .. 'AUG 3 01977 ITEM NO. Si'- a d .22� AM PM Rick :eele r 718191101111121>1121314151f cc: Mike Smith, Planning Department 1 • . , 1 . • , . . • , I • ,• .. •;. , .,., . , . . i 4%t 0 .• 0 THE CITY OF 'RENTON o %. • / . MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE.SO. RENTON, WASH. 98055 ' 2 il. ' o CHARLES J. DELAURENTI MAYOR • PLANNING DEPARTMENT /3 o 4 2 35 - 2550 0 <<, 41 c_46 4 te , D SEIA , 1 , i • , . . ' MEMORANDUM August 25 , 1977 ' . , . RECEIVED . . 1 . CITY- OF RENTON TO: L Rick .Beeler, Hearing Examiner • HEARING EXAMINER • . . . . . : - 1 • . . FROM: Gordon Y. Ericksen, Planning. Director . AUG 2 5 1971 By: Michael L. Smith , Associate Planner AM ' . PM . . .,1 • • 71819i10,11112111203i4i516 RE: GARY MERLINO SPECIAL PERMIT, NO. SP-062-77 . . . , . , . . . The following information is presented in response to your memo,- randum dated August 24 , • 1977 : . , 1. AvailabtlitY. of water to site - ,Ron Olsen of the Utilities Division .of. the ' PubliC Works Department can best, answer this question. HoWever, inrditcU$sing the, Matter with him, it was • his intention to stMply comment on 'the fact that although , . .. . . wat.er service is available, to. the site , the :main will need to be ..extended to City standard across, the entire ' frontage. at the time, of .specific site development. , - , . . • . .. . 2. Storm drainage • retentiOn This is also a: matter to be. speci - . fically .addressed by the Public Works Department. , HoWever, : our report did include . a discussion of this element and .a '.recommendation . on the' Method of retention similar to that which. has been recommended by the Public Works Department for .similar projects . ' ' , . 3. Retention of north 74 feet for P-9 drainage channel . 7 The . . . . , Renton Green River Valley ,Comprehensive Plan, June 1976 , . ' . Objectives, On pages 5 through 7 , outitnes various objectives to be established as development review' policies. . Attached is .a copy of this document, with, specific references to ele- ments that would apply to Ithe subject proposal . The land use element of this plan indicates this area for location of a drainage channel . 1 . . . . ling County Hydraulics DtVition and' City of Renton have • required retention of proposed channel areas in preVious . pro- , jects'. One specific ,project is a previous fill by Mr. Merlino . . , . _ . . . L. Rick Beeler, Hearing Examiner • August 25, 1977 Page Two south of the subject site. Attached is a copy of the Plan- ning Commission decision. Discussion with King County Hydraulics Division indicates that they will establish a similar requirement for the proposed project. Also attached is a copy of a City resolution establishing City policy to participate in the proposed drainage channel project. 4. The City Council adopted the Soil Conservation Service require- ment for 2% landscaping in wildlife habitat by Resolution .No. 1923. (See attached. ) 5. Type of landscaping for wildlife habitat - th.e Soil Conserva- tion Service has compiled, a list of those species best suited for provision of wildlife, food and/or habitat. It is rather extensive and covers manyspecies native to the area.. Other materials are available which are helpful in choosing land- scape materials suitable for this function.. Compatibility of landscape plans to this requirement can be reviewed a,t the time of specific site development. 6. We have not received any comments to date from King County Hydraulics regarding the subject application or the Tripp- Harper project. Telephone discussions with them, however, have indicated they. are in: the review process ; and there are no significant problems except for ;retention of the drainage channel areas . 7. Dust and mud control -' Section 4-2321 . 8 establishes the. need. for control of dust and mud both on-site and on City streets . The. Public. Works Department is responsible, for enforcement of this requirement. . We hope that this has clarified any questions you may have. If you need additional information, Please contact this department or the Public Works Department. . MLS:wr ' Attachments cc: W. Go'nnason, Public Works Director 0 e� n . CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON m n RESOLUTION NO. ).•923 • WHEREAS the United States Department of Agriculture, Soil ' Conservation Service, has submitted to the City of Renton,as well as , other cities,/Riag County., a letter agreement dated June 3, 1974, For the purpose of evaluating environmental setting within the Green River area, and • WHEREAS the City of Renton elects to become a party to any such agreement,. NOW THEREFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY, OF RENTON DO RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I: The Mayor and City Clerk are hereby authorized and ' directed to execute that certain Letter Agreement dated June 3, 1974, a true copy being attached hereto and incorporated herein, on behalf ` . of the City of Renton. • • . • SECTION II: No City funds shall be expended for the acquisition of any property within the subject area, or commitments made therefor, ' without prior approval .of the City of Renton, and subject to applicable . budget laws. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this 22nd day of July, 1974. Delores A. Mead, .Citk APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this 22nd day o_f July, 1974. ' ;'::- , _ ___...A- 6."----i .x_.— I ':( . Abr ry (2,rirry l t', Mayor • . • • Ap ved as to f ,,Gerard M. Shellan, City Attorney . R 7 y 1... ! ' .c ly'may' , • -2- The sponsoring local organizations will : I . Purchase in title or perpetual easement and maintain in public control trr 'i during the life of the, projects at least 110 acres of suitable wetland �. A 1 habitat at locations approved by the SCS and the Washington State • 1 Department of Game. 1 i f 2. In granting commercial-industrial development permits"•with the Green River Flood Control Zone District require: I a. A landscape development plan that will provide reasonable consider- ation for wildlife and esthetic values (environmental quality) ,' for the area planned for buildings and parking lots; d• r5 �'' I b. a significant g portion (not less than two percent) of the land involved be designated and commerce-industry managed for the ' life of the project to produce wildlife habitat for species .best. suited to site, conditions, and. location; i L • c. all land not needed or used for other purposes, ,be planned and rmanaged for wildlife open-space until such time asiit is utilized �'�' in additional developments. .. ! 3. • With Soil Conservation Service assistance, reserve or P rirplace existing wildlife habitat along affected channels . 1,I i • 4. With. Soil Conservation Service assistance, provide fish f passage through , structural measures where deemed necessary by the Service and the Washington State Department of Fisheries, , • 5. Adopt .and enforce a. land use plan (policy) consistent with the regional land use policy of the Puget Sound Governmental Conference or the 4 Regional Planning ,Authority having jurisdiction before Public Law 566 • a' funds are expended on any part of an independent system. L.' I am in agreement with the above.' If you are in agreement, please sign in the space provided and return to the Coordinating Sponsor (King County) for further processing. l [ I • 7/•• ,) i.c 4'11 .'. ---- ' ..2.;'''(';)C.---- 01.) f . Galen S. Bridge Date .;j'�f 5/ /%/l% (( State conservationist i Green River. Flood Control Zone District ,By• �. , . , Local Organization ' , Room 900 K .C. Adm. Bldg. Seattle Wa.it'r Director ul lic Works Address Zip Code to 'Da i . 1 k i ' ••I' UNITED _ 'EPA RTMENi of A SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE Room 360 U. S. Courthouse, Spokane, Washington 99201 5' ti June 3, 1974 • rill - Mr. John D. Spellman County Executive, King County King County Courthouse Seattle, Washington 98104 King County Engineers Office Green. River Flood Control Zone District ! ct Room .400 King, County Cour. thouse - 'd1 Seattle,. Washington 98104 rir . r,,,Iph Ei•i1 C ii s t Chairman, King ,Co, Conservation D i s t-r i ct - • 35 South Grady Way. , . i. - Renton,. :Wash`irigton 98055- . - - .. . , . M��yor' Frank' E. TOdd Tel:' City of Tukwila City Hall . , wet 14475 59th Avenue South - % - Tukwi.la, .Washing.ton 9'8067 - . - Mayor Avery Garret ' ! I City of Renton City Hall :II 200 Mill Avenue South, AV Renton; Washington 98055 • i • Mayor Isabel Hogan V • ,..,.,,i City of Kent -j ! City Hall I P.O. Box .310 ! :,.-+1' Kent, Washington 98031 Mayor Stanley .P. Kersey • City Hall j City of Auburn i 20 A Street Northwest Auburn, Washington 98002 Gentlemen and Ms. Hogan: • �,. It is essential that environmental considerations be fully recognized in ' carrying out the East and West Side Green River Watershed Work Plans. An ��` evaluation of enyironmental settin and �°' 9 project measure impact reveals the 10101 need for agreement between the sponsoring local organizations and Soil a Conservation Service on the following. 1 i 1 :. -' PRESERVATION OF NATURAL AREAS In the Soil Conservation Services (SCS) "Proposal for Reten- tion and Improvement of Non-Wetland Wildlife Habitat in Green River Watersheds," the SCSstates, "In many areas , habitat along channels and streams represents the last remaining habitat in the •. valley suitable for pheasants, California quail , rabbits, (musk- . • rats) , and many species of 'songbirds. As urban buildup continues in the Valley, habitat areas become more and more' critic'al and must be 'retained to preserve at least remnant pop lations. of many • wildlife species. " • ., SCS is requiring that the sponsoring agencle provide "wild- q 9 „ - Green Rivr and 'mitigation .areas in the Valley; , 'fhabitat" mite life9pp ' unless all governmental units having jurisdictionl within the Green River Watersheds pass such , resolutions ,. the floodjwater channeli- • ' zation program may be deleted from Federal Assistance funding. METHODS OF INSURING HABITAT AVAILABILITY: 1. Preserve existing habitat where possible. • 2. Replace habitat where lost .through construction% Establish plan for replacing lost habitat and establishing additional areas prior to time contracts are let for revegeta- . • ting disturbed areas. • 1. Require all landfill areas abutting any of the pro- 'j • posed channels to preserve an area adjacent to the \: channel for wildlife and esthetic purposes - minimum 10-15 feet wide and run entire length of property, bordering the channel . ' SCS PROPOSED WETLAND MITIGATION SITES FOR SPONSORS' CONSIDERATION: South of FAI 405 - east of freeway, SR 167, running south " to a p oint just north of 180th Street. Preserve entire .i} • area. - Type III - approximately 35 acres (An upstream water control :i .:' structure and a riser on the highway culverts would enhance this area. • • ---- F:o:ur::baockVs orth of.,;180th .Stre:e.t.;•-.between .West, ,Val l.e,y >.... ra roa . .. - - - Hfghway 'and tl d:' • • Type IV - approximatelly 8 acres. Seven acres additional . land suitable for upland habitat in horseshoe-shape of wetland. Type I and III will have the greatest project induced impact on wildlife habitat. Type I - seasonably wet but dry during most of the growing ' •sea'son. In project area - used by wintering ducks. . .. •. . _, - Typ'e ILL.-• genera•lly.•'iwet. thr.o,u-gh ,m,ost of__th,e; grow-i,ng,-s.easo,n . with water depths of 6 inches or more. Used for feeding and nesting. • . ,,� SCS PROPOSAL I OR (:ONSIUI RAI',ION: CONDITIONS FOR OBTAINING A PERMIT TO DO LAND FILLING • ANTI OR CONS 10C l IUN 1. Develop landscape plan. • a. Consideration 'for wildlife and esthetic values (environmental quality) of area around buildings and parking lots. 2. Percentage of total land be designated, planned and n ildl t suited to sit n ion. .-. - - . -. - .:-�ma` ayed-.fo"r"�w.' fe•, be's e.; c,o 'di t=.• �. :.�; .. ..:"._..:•.,`- - -. . . and location. • . a. Area to remain as wildlife habitat for perpetuity or "X" number 'of years. • 3. All land not needed or used for other purposes be • planned and managed for wildlife or allowed to revert ' back to original conditions. a. Remain as open space until such time it is needed for further development. RESULTS: 1. Provide much of th'e mitigation that may need to be - -' - .. • • ' provided, by the waterhsed project sponsors.. ... • • . 2. Preserve open space and greenbelt areas (however small ) throughout the developed portions of the Valley. 2. Assure perpetuation of many wildlife species which otherwise would be gone from the Valley.- • • • • • • • �,, y.,.n.l. S: CITY OF RENTON, WASFIINGTON , RESOLUTION NO. 1970 ;` WHEREAS the City of Renton, a municipal corporation, operating as a non-charter code city under the Optional Municipal Code, has heretofore executed certain agreements in connection with the Green River Water Shed Drainage Plan, and - ; WHEREAS King County and other cities are likewise participants and subscribers to said•Plan, and WHEREAS various meetings have heretofore been held for the • purpose of considering alternative methods of project implementation i in girder to accelerate the proposed development, and I WHEREAS it has further been determined by the Soil Conservation Service that the Eastside Project, including the City' of Renton, could be implemented at an early date, NOW THEREFORE ^ BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND THE CITY COUNCIL OF'.THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON AS FOLLOWS: r, SECTION I: The City of Renton hereby• re-affirms its participation and concurrence with the proposed Water Shed Project, as heretofore ratified by written agreements, and further concurs in - the implementation and construction of the Eastside Project at the earliest possible time. A. -' 47 • SECTION II: The City Clerk is hereby authorized to certify 'copies of this Resolution and forward 'same to King County, Soil Conservation Service and other cities affected by said Eastside Project. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this 17th day of March, 1975. elorr,r, A ! odd, City et. APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this 17th day of March, 1975. very aiti3a. vc tt, Mayor Appr ed as to form: liC h Gel rd llan, City Attorney ' IM1 Renton Planning Commission Meeting June 26, 1974 Page Four Committee, stated that at its meeting of April 17 the Com- mittee recommended that the special permit to fill and grade be granted, inasmuch as it' was their opinion that the area was unsuited for the location of a wildlife sanctuary due , to the proximity of a. railroad right-of-way and highway. • Discussion ensued regarding desirable locality for a wildlife sanctuary and whether or not an EIS is appropriate. It was then MOVED BY SEYMOUR, SECONDED BY SCHOLES, THAT THE PUBLIC • • HEARING BE CONTINUED UNTIL JULY 24, 1974. A roll. call vote was requested with the following result: , ' Humble - No ;,::.{j`' Gibson - No Morrison No • Ross - No `' ' Scholes - Aye . Seymour - Aye ' Mola - No MOTION DEFEATED. The Planning Director again stated that continuance- was recom- mended to allow sufficient time for staff review of the environ- mental assessment. ACTION: . I MOVED BY SCHOLES, SECONDED BY SEYMOUR, THAT THE ITEM BE REFERRED TO THE COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMITTEE FOR STUDY AND REPORT BACK AT 'y ' .THE DULY 10, 1974, MEETING. • Discussion followed regarding whether or not the matter was al- ready in committee, the preogative of the Planning Commission to grant or not grant permits to fill , and the suggestion by Commis- . - sioner Morrison to give the staff authority to act after their environmental review. y On the question, a roll call vote was called with the following '• result: ' v,� . • , Humble - No Gibson - No Morrison - No Ross - No Scholes - Aye . Seymour - Aye Mola - No • MOTION DEFEATED. ACTION: MOVED BY HUMBLE, SECONDED BY ROSS, THAT THE APPLICATION BE CONTIN- UED UNTIL THE JULY 10, 1974, MEETING, WHEN A STAFF REPORT AND COM- , MUNITY SERVICES COMMITTEE REPORT IS ANTICIPATED. MOTION CARRIED ' UNANIMOUSLY. ' �G D. MERLINO, GARY; Appl . SP-768-74; special permit to allow fill- ' 7" ing and grading in L-1 zone; property located at 3000 East Valley Road. . Sti' comments were requested by the Chairman. - ' Mr. Ericksen stated that it was the staff's opinion that an envi- :.. ronmental assessment was not necessary based on present use of f, ( ) a Renton Planning Commission Meeting June 26, 1974 Page Five ' the 5.8 acre site. He noted that the property is presently zoned L-1 and partially, filled. Approximately 2.8 acres are presently filled, and approximately 3 acres are unfilled. . The unfilled areas were' pointed out. Based on previous data • from the applicant and review with Soil Conservation Service any king County Hydraulics, the staff recommends approval wi.h provision that the easterly 87' of the site be retained in its natural state. Commissioner Humble noted that the Comprehensive Plan Com- ii mittee had made. its report, also recommending approval sub- '•' •' jec.t to retention' of the 87' easterly strip. Should the drainage channel be relocated to the other side of the free- , ` way, the area could be eventually filled. . Discussion followed regarding other reasons for not filling the easterly 87' of the site, including drainage, wildlife sanctuary and need for future setbacks. • Comments were invited from the applicant by Commissioner • Mola. Mr. Gary Merlino, 8630 Fauntlee Cr. S.W. , Seattle, stated that adjacent property owners had filled easterly portions of their sites. Responding to Commissioner Morrison, the Planning Director ' indicated that it would be the public agen'cy's resp'onsi- bility to remove dirt.from filled areas . planned for the drainage channels. Mr. Ericksen also stated that the Com- 'i``.•. . mission can require development plans to be submitted regarding ultimate use. of the property, in accordance with the Mining, Excavation and Grading Ordinance. ' Mr. Merlino cited- rising costs as a reason for filling the area now. Responding to Commissioner Humble, he stated that filling of the entire site is .expected to require four � ' years and require, an additional year to solidify. t,l; • • Following discussion, it was MOVED BY SCHOLES, SECONDED BY '!'� SEYMOUR; THAT THE PUBLIC HEARING BE CLOSED. MOTION CARRIED ;a UNANIMOUSLY. ACTION: MOVED BY SEYMOUR, SECONDED BY MORRISON, THAT THE GARY MERLINO APPLICATION TO FILL BE GRANTED SUBJECT TO: 'il 1. RETENTION OF THE' EASTERLY 87' OF THE SITE IN ITS ' NATURAL STATE UNTIL THE FINAL DRAINAGE CHANNEL LOCATION IS ESTABLISHED. • 2. PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF THE DEVELOPMENT PLANS WHEN THEY ARE PREPARED, INCLUDING SETBACKS, BUILDING LOCATIONS, LANDSCAPING, SCREENING, STORAGE, PARKING • AND CIRCULATION.' . 3. ADDITION OF THE TWO PERCENT SOIL CONSERVATION • SERVICE LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENT TO BE INCORPORA— TED AT SUCH TIME, THE. REMAINING' 87' IS FILLED AND A PROPOSED SITE ;DEVELOPMENT PLAN IS PRESENTED,. • .''':.) Discussion followed regarding the requirement for site plan . approval , as provided for in the Mining, Excavation and Grading Ordinance. r.A ;' On the question, MOTION CARRIED, ROSS DISSENTING. �- 1 \ ,' � / ' / / c- 4 • INTRODUCTION This Comprehensive Plan is the official statement of the City of Renton which establishes major policies concerning desirable future development in the Green River Valley planning area. The planning area is illustrated in Figure 1. The southerly boundary is S.W. 43rd Street; the westerly boundary is the Green River and the railroad tracks; the northerly boundary is the Black River and the railroad tracks ; and the easterly boundary is Hardie Avenue S.W. , Rainier Avenue South, the base of Talbot Hill (edge of wetlands) and SR-167 (Valley Freeway) . The Comprehensive Plan consists of the Goals , Objectives , Land Use Element (Figure 2) , Circulation Element (Figure 3) , Community Facilities Element (Figure 4) , and Definitions . The Goals and Objectives are to be used in association with and to assist in the interpretation of the three elements ., proposed developments should be reviewed against the Comprehensive Plan to insure that growth is consistent with the Plan. The purposes of the Comprehensive Plan are: • To improve the physical and social environment of the City as a setting for human activities - to make it more functional , beautiful, decent, healthful , interesting and efficient; • To promote the public interest, the interest of the City at large rather than the interests of individuals or special groups; • To facilitate the democratic determination and implementation of City policies on development; • To effect political and technical coordination in development; • To inject long-range considerations into the determination of short-range actions; and 0 To bring professional and technical knowledge to bear on the making of political decisions on the development of the City. The Comprehensive Plan is intended to help resolve some of the dilemmas confronting municipal officials and the people they represent. The Plan addresses itself to the major aspects of open space needs . It takes into account existing conditions and future needs , and attempts to express the best reasonable consensus that can be achieved at a given time as to the character and direction of future growth. . .. I s .. . . \ Wr mob •Ct. . .. ote 1111 -----? \ NO ".•:•:•:::::•:::::::::::::.*:::::::........ ...:•••.:•:•:•:•:••••:•:•:•:-.•:•:•:•:•:•.:•:•. dt....II .c .:.......- :..".: .(> .: • .::::::::.:.::::::::.x.::::.:.::::::::::::::::::.::......... ... x,I, IN ' \ --- ...:::.;::1'4' :::::":::;:::g ,dde 1 • - — ', ._ . „::::.:::::::.::::.....:.::iii.:::::::&:::.*:::i*:.:::;K:i:e.. :::. 4:: :....... :::: •".',.4..,f.:.14 r : op I % .::::::::.:.:.::.:.......::::::% :.^ .......:. ..............::::::::•:.:::•;X::::::::::.::i ::?.• if:: ff..f. •::::. ;..-., ..1: ; , 1 . I k.:::::::::::::.:::::.::::::::::.::.:: 'h. ""4"`—,1\:::::::i:::.::::::.;i::::::: :if: •.: if:: i:i: •;;.-.1-47.q,:,.4 . 1 , ...:.:::::?:::::::::::::::::::::::::::.:iii -:'.s:•--;L'..:..:•ki ..*:::::•?:":::::::.:::.::::::. •..:i. ::::::.::::iii :if.. .tZn..ti;i it ; 1 , .:::.:::::i*.:**::::::::: .4:?"'.:.;.'i 6 s i*,. ..::::.:::::::.::::i:i: :::.-: .";;;;i:::::.•..e• E..2, • , . . t .—: ••••••••:•:•:•••••:•:•:•:•• "; 1 i.t.•,.co i .-,:',4 !•:.......:.;:-.......• ...........••• .........• %.•::::::::::•:•:::•: ' ,..-,„..,:v(,:, e, -,-e,: : :•:•:•::•:•:•:• •'.....,•:•:•.•• Aga . ,. , . • %,%:.,!•':::::::•••••,d:01„,s c.4.0:.6 a 0 ,.,z....%, ,..:::::;.;:;.;:::::..........:„..••....,.6.•• 0 Kle.N. ,....41 1,, 1...a ,5, .7 , ".-••••:.., g&,7,z“,,,,,,,,0,4:'r...i'-,,,,,, $,•:.::::::::.:.:••••••• oto—co 0 ,41.,..FA di 1.•:::'::::,.::::. : ::.Ow 300 •AL 1 ".7.....P::::i:::::::. 11,:...f.:::.::::•:•:•:•.....-• • .. 140 m:- • /I I , ..:::::::::::-....• - , ..........::.:......::::. :.::::.:. fieet9stat... ......-11 ........:.... .......:.: . ..:.:...".'"•%-:—........:-:.:-::::::::::::::.:,:::::::;. .......1:...?::** i ::.-'9%.:.:.:•......... , : : i.3:::i.i:iiiii::::1 •. • ••;:::::::::i'::::::::::: 4fik,. s ft 11:011; ii.:'::: :.:•:::::::::::::.:::::.1::ii::.',::::::::•:M::::iiiiiiii .'::::.:i.::::liiii i • rIli. .''-:'''• t••••• .:: :: ::::•:•: ::: ::::: ::.:::.:::.:.: i - • 0. •• .<•:•.......:•:. .:.:4.::.:....:.:::::.:.:•.:.:.:.:•:•.:.:.:4.:•.:.:— d ' ,, • 1 ****1** ,-. ::::::::::::::•:. 4::::::::::::::::::.:::::::::::::::::_:::_::::::::::: , ' • . . .. f::::•:::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::•:::::::::::::::::::i.:::::::::::::, , •::::::Ki:.::: -,,:..*.E, V:: f,1).• 4 :•:-..:•:::•::::•:.....:::::**:::.:::::.::::.::::::::i*:::::x::::*... im................- ::::: ::• :,,, ,,,. . 1 .4.610 A K iii::•.:::' •::iiii?:::§ii•:::.*:::i:::•::.x:iiiii:.:::::::::.iiii*.:.§ (Aim , .:::::::::;:::::: • --- ',‘ v•• i :: 'v:ii:::::::§1.::::..:::::i.:i*.igi::::?..:.::::.:iii-::miggi: 1 , TALBOT I ' ••:•:•:••••:•:•: :.: • \.:•7041 •• i::.*:::::•::::::i..i::::::::::,:5::::!::....:.:.:.......::::.••••- HILL. ..: ''' %es 1. .4 ''..7 .-• ••: •••::;•:•:•:•:•::::::.:::::::::::::;::::::::::: . •1010m.M4 11:40..........•.0 ft:::•::iiii.:'i:i :iiiiiii*::::eSiiiIii:.:::: i §i i: 1 ilh . : eV.•4110.0.0 OVID '..:::::.::::::: ' ,.. •••••••••• ::::::.:::::iff; ::::::i::.*:::::::::::gq*Mi;:a .3........ :', • A Sdz.. .'. '''' ••••••••••••••••••••• '::::.......,•,,•• , ; ....t.:::::::::::fiK:Kff.:.iii:iff:..:§:..: ' I 1 .4'.... 'RR ''''''''' •117.1.0.••e:• ..','' "• ::4::•ii *:::§:i I . '-' •i :. -•*"" •••••••••••.. ./..I11 I :•;•;••:::•%:':1::..::4.:"-4:.4-:. .''';:''',;.".:."''-'''i•': "'.'':.•;-:..'..;•':•-••'::•';•::'•':.i••.;i•':'i•'i•:'i••'i'•;'i••f•;f'••''••;i•:'f•:•':::"'•:%.:i'::•':*••'••''::••i'?••.:4:;:::7':•.:::4/.i.-.:i'.::r'.::::''::•::%:i:—:'.:;:*'.:1.'-ii,.?..:.:::;:. :s:;:ii;1:K1:.8::::::.:::.::::::::.:::i:;gi•:0:::.g::::.:::::::::i::i.:::::::...::i:ii.*:::i..:.::1:*::::::::: 6.;..i:*..::. ...•a . CITY . L I M.,.I_• s••• I. ..•:::::::::•::::e ....' ' ...:R :::::::::.::::::::.:.::::::::.::::::::::.:,,,,::.::::36 _ vet:. • • -- :4-64:0:::::::;: :;;;::::::i.e.;:?:f: :: : . . 4.:‘,i*: ... ,,de'? .. •:e:,..''''' ''. .:,,,,...;'%,.....m.:.•••••:•/Of:::•::::•::::::::::,:::::::::. .::::::::::::::§::::::::i:::::a:K..,:K,.... , 4r----: 4/6' il.M....,Mt:;i::::::::: iiiii:g::::"..f.e .::.:;:.;::::IN::.:::;::iM.:.;i: i?,:s , 41111114 11:4:4: :Mi*:::•• ..:._::?•:,:„..:i...:....:r.i....:: ::::::::.• ..:::::i...i.:::::::Igii::if.iii:::::iiii:11:611i:::::::::i: :::•?.....:::':1:::::::::::::::1::::::::::::::::::::1:::;;I::::::::::?::::::::*::::::::1:::::::::::::::::.:::::.:::::::::::::E. I'l i ;1.10.5s"::::• ::,. :•::•:•:•:•::::•:•:•:.. A.::::::.x.:::.*::::::.:,.::::.x.::::::.x.::::::...::::....:.:$ 1 l• :riiii.•••W,..:. ::::::•*::::::::*::::::::. :::::.::::::::K:::::::•*:::::::::::::::::*::::::::*:::::::::i:::::::*:. Jr\ 1 .14:::*;.••:::.' ":.::::•:••••:::::::•:•:•:••' .•::::.:....:t.:.:.N.:•.:.:.:.:.......x.:......x.:......x.:.........:... I •:°"•••••••:•:.. • :•••••••••••••:.e.:•:••. .•:•:•••••:•:••••••:e0:•:•:•::::•:•:•:•::::::•:•::::::::•:•::::::::•::::::::::ii::. S.Kit.:.ig:: : ::::::ii:::: ::i.:".:.:i:: :iii.:i:iiiii.:i.: :•ii:iii::ii:.:•:1:.:K:1:::.i:::::.::::•••• , 1 • ........0:Pr .•'.r :•:• '6.....::.:;iia...... ::::A,•:•:•••••••••••••••••• • .i.iiilf.C:::1;:f•C• . ..•...:..•. . . ••J I // 7/ /i K E N T IL I / . ' )1 1 legend: CITY OF , RE LAND USE ELEMENT .. fa PLANNINGDN;°PT.N ' ; I FIGURE .:%:"' Manufac .:::•,:•:•:•:•:•:.:::.:.: . .............":.: t u r i n g Park 1 :•.',..*:`,..:74.:7' RG er Greenbelt er en ba et li ot Drainage Channeln e"..e 6° Public rumCommercial .••••••• I 011906•001/4 '''.....................v. I 1 , 1 R VALLEY ..„, " 20uv s I GREEN RIVE 1 S CODAPREHEN IVE PLAN cale 1 .- -4-I GOAL'S I • A goal is a general aim or desired end; a broad, long range purpose toward which policy decisions and action are directed. The term is used to connote a very general , long range achievement or performance level, which may require implementation from the combined operation of varying levels of government, or 'coodinated agency operations at any one level of government., It is the intent of the CityylIto promulgate realistic and' obtainable goals for the Valley that will promote high quality development which will benefit the community and surrounding jurisdictions , firms and residents. The goals listed below are intended to be equal in importance although some may be more readily achieved than others . • Promote high quality development that will enhance the image of the City of Renton. I Preserve and/or enhance wildlife habitat. 0 Enhance the tax base of the City of Renton so all the citizens of Renton are able to benefit. Minimize noise, air and water pollutants; transportation difficulties; glare , heat; • vibration; and other detrimental effects. I' Promote aesthetics , including views from adjacent hillsides , so developed areas will not be detrimental to adjacent development. • Provide a high quality working environment for employees. • Provide a viable economic climate for industrial firms. • Promote passive and active, recreational . opportunities that are compatible with urban development. • Promote a diversified economic base, • Development should be designed to minimize detrimental impact. I i 1 , 1 ..� .r CIS- I OBJECTIVES An objective is aspecific purpose, product or performance level; a middle range of achievement. Several objectives can be proposed to achieve a'Hgiven goal. A coordinated group of objectives may be required to attain a goal. • Just as with goal , it is the intent of the City to . • establish realistic and obtainable objectives to promote high quality development in the Valley. Since objectives ' are formulated to ' accomplish'I, goals , they are more specific ' and suggest one or more courses of action.• For the .purposes. of this Comprehensive Plan these objectives .are' presented separately for the. Valley as. the over all unit ' and for the individual sites that will comprise the components of the' Valley. .. In a sense these are. inseparable due to their ! mutually dependent relationship. . However, as a practical matter, property. owners probably will desire to : subdivide their land and install improvements prior to selling parcels to individual developers. After the individual 'developer acquires the property he will request various developmental permits from the City. VALLEY OBJECTIVES: Land ' Use - ' • Light industrial; ' of,fice, and warehouse uses and those heavy industrial uses that. can be made .compatible with 'goal's of -the Valley are the types of developmental land uses intended for the Valley., ' • Incompatible uses in• industrial areas should be discouraged. • Certain areas should be retained in their natural state to meet U.S. Soil Conservation Service requirements and community needs for mitigation . of wildlife habitat And open space. •• ' 0 Land uses'Ishould bellgrouped to promote a harmonious • mix. S Green belt uses' should be expanded into suitable areas. . 'g Circulation - . t 4 • ' Access should be limited to controlled ingress ' i and egress points tO avoid conflicts and congestion. • . • . I • 1 1 •• -6- J, ) • Circulation should be designed to minimize the area devoted to rights-of-way. • At-grade railroad service should cross as few streets and trails as possible to minimize safety problems and inconvenience to other, modes of transportation. • Streets should be adequately designed to safely accommodate the types of vehicles that will be used. • All parking, servicing and loading and unloading of vehicles should be only on-site. • The possibility of providing mass transit should be considered. Landscaping and Open Space - . 0 A landscape theme and recommended plant list should be established to provide habitat for wildlife and to promote aesthetics. • Large areas should be permanently reserved and managed for wildlife habitat. 4 • A landscaped buffer should be established at the periphery of bounding streets to create a favorable image; between areas of incompatible land use to minimize differences ; and along water channels and wildlife habitats to minimize impact on wildlife and promote recreation. Al Whenever feasible unique natural features should be incorporated into developmental plans to preserve the character of the Valley. Design and Development - • Design standards should be established to insure high quality development. • Development should odcur in a logical , systematic manner to prevent the premature expansion of utilities and minimize the possibilities of vacant parcels occurring. Recreation - • The drainage channels , including the banks and adjacent maintenance roads , should be used for recreation whenever 'feasible. i )c • -7- I • An off-street pedestrian and bicycle path system should be incorporated in the developmental plan for the Valley. • Whenever feasible 'wildlife habitats should include recreational opportunities. • Joint recreational opportunities, should be encouraged for the benefit of employees and the community. SITE OBJECTIVES: Circulation - • Internal circulation should accommodate all modes. of transportation but these should be kept separated as much as possible. Ingress and egress points should be well defined to expedite the safe movement. of vehicles and people. Parking - • Adequate screened andlandscaped parking should be provided for employees and visitors. • Large interior landscaping islands or a series of smaller parking lots should be used to break up the large areas, of paving. Where feasible pervious paving materials should be employed to minimize surface water runoff. Landscaping and Open Space - • A maximum amount off appropriate landscaping should be permanently established to provide wildlife habitat. • Large amounts of landscaping scattered throughout the site including along property, lines are encouraged to provide a pleasant environment, minimize the impact of the development and enhance the visual experience from the adjacent properties , including hillside's. • A' -8- • Areas set aside for future expansion should remain in the original state or rehabilitated to support wildlife until the expansion is needed. • Whenever feasible unique natural features should be incorporated into developmental plans to preserve the character of the Valley. Design and Development = • The site' layout and architectural treatment should be compatible with the characteristics of the site and the design standards of the Valley. • Less aesthetic uses , such as loading areas and outdoor storage areas, should be adequately screened and landscaped and placed so they are not visible from adjacent public rights-of-way. • Roofs and other features of the site that are visible ,from adjacent hillsides should be designed to minimize visual 'limpact. • All utilities should be placed underground. • Firms. with large numbers of employees should . develop outdoor recreation facilities . • The latest technology should be employed to miniitiize adverse characteristics . PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT `. 'op r WARREN C. GONNASON, P.E. • DIRECTOR ntja. °r 4 ' MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE.SO. RENTON,WASH.98055 • 208 235-2569 Op 44. 4rED SE Pit° CHARLES J. DELAURENTI MAYOR August 26 , 1977 RECEIVED TO: L. RICK BEELER CITY OF RENTON Hearing Examiner NEARING EXAMINER FROM: WARREN GONNASON L� AUG 3 01977 Public Works Directoe 144 7181911O111112,11213141516 RE : MERLINO SPECIAL PERMIT NO. SP-062-77 In response to your letter of August 24 , 1977, concerning this subject, the following information is supplied: 1) At present City water is located at the southwest corner of the property. In order for the property to be developed, the developer will be required to install a water main in East Valley Highway to his north property line . This will not be required during this stage of. development . 2) The storm drainage retention required is based upon the City's proposed drainage ordinance. The ordinance outlines the criteria to be followed and the developer devises the plan. The P-9 channel as proposed in the SCS drainage project is approximately 70 feet in width as it traverses through the northerly portion of the Merlino properties . This portion of the properties should not be filled and should be kept clear to provide the necessary right-of-way for the proposed drainage facility. 6) No known comments have been received from the King County Hydraulics Division regarding this or the Tripp-Harper property. 7) . Dust control is accomplished by sprinkling water on the unimproTed surfaces that are being driven on or graded. . The city streets should be kept clean of all dirt, mud, and debris . This can be accomplished by using mechanical sweepers to pick up the big pieces and flush truck to wash the street down after the sweeper is finished. This would also be in response to your Item #4 on your memo regarding the Austin Company Special Permit #SP-063-77. If you desire any additional information, please advise . RECEIVED CITY OF RENTON PLANNING DEPARTMENT HEARING EXAMINER PRELIMINARY' REPORT TO HEARING EXAMINER AUG 3 O 1971 AM PM PUBLIC HEARING 71819,10111e121112,314e5,6 AUGUST 30 , 1977 EXHIBIT NO. / APPLICANT: GARY MERLINO ITEM NO. 5P 7 7 FILE NO . : SP-062 -77 , SPECIAL PERMIT TO FILL AND GRADE A. SUMMARY OF REOUEST: Applicant requests special permit pursuant to the City ' s, Mining , Excavation and Grading Ordinance to�� allow filling of approximately 20 ,000 cubic yards of material within a 5. 75. acre site . The sub- ject request is considered the initial step in preparing the property for future commercial or industrial development . B. GENERAL INFORMATION: 1 . Owner of Record : GARY MERLINO 2 . Applicant : GARY MERLINO 3 . Location : Property located at 2900 East Valley Road just north of the existing lumber market between East Valley Road and SR-167 . The site is also south of the existing Seattle Water „Department Bow Lake Pip',eline and Olympic Pipeline right-of-way. 4 . Legal Description : A detailed legal description is available on file in the Renton Planning Department. 5 . Size of Property : Approximately 5 . 7 acres . 6 . Access : Via East Valley Road. 7 . Existing Zone : L-1 , Light Industry. 8 . Existing Zoning in L-1 , Light Industry; M-P , Manufacturing the Area : Park District; and G, General Classifi - cation District . 9 . Comprehensive Manufacturing Park with greenbelt designa- Land Use Plan : tion for proposed drainage channel pro- ject area . 10 . Notification : The applicant was notified in writing of the hearing date . Notice was properly published in the Record Chronicle and posted in three places on or near the site as required by City ordinance . Notice was also mailed to surrounding property owners . C. PURPOSE OF REQUEST: To prepare the site for future industrial or commercial development . D. HISTORY/BACKGROUND: The subject site and surrounding area was annexed into the City of Renton on April 15 , 1959 , by Ordinance No . 1743 . The subject site was subsequently rezoned to L-1 , Light Industry, 'on May 5 , 1959 , by Ordinance No . 1758. The site had been owned ,.by. Puget Western , the development division of Puget Sound Power and Light Company. PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT TO HEARING EXAMINER ' PUBLIC HEARING OF AUGUST 30 , 1977' PAGE TWO RE : GARY MERLINO, SPECIAL PERMIT TO FILL AND GRADE , SP-062-77 E. PHYSICAL BACKGROUND: 1 . Topography : The site is relatively level , although the general elevation of the site is low at approximately 9 to 10 feet . 2 . Soils : Tukwila Muck (Tu ) . The underlying organic layers are strong brown to very dark brown and peaty muck. Permeability is moderate . There is a seasonal high water table at or near the surface . Available water capacity is high . Runoff is bonded , and erosion hazard is slight. 3. Vegetation : Vegetation on the site primarily consists of cat- tails and other typical marshland-type small trees , bushes , and grasses . 4. Wildlife : The existing vegetation on the site provides suitable habitat for birds and small mammals and other wetland-type habitat . 5 . Water: As indicated by the vegetation and soils on the site , there is a high capacity for ponding of surface water on the, site . The water level fluctuates with the time of the year and the amount of seasonal precipitation that may occur. The subject site has not' been designated as a wetland wildlife preserve area on the City' s Comprehensive: Plan., although the northerly 74 feet of the subject site is within the proposed P-9 drainage channel /greenbelt area and should be retained in its natural state. 6 . Land Use : The site is presently entirely undeveloped. However, some sporadic dumping of materials has occurred on the subject site . The existing lumber market development is located directly adjacent and, south of the. site . The SR-167 Valley Freeway is located along the easterly boundary of the site , and the easting East Valley Road is located along the westerly boundary of the subject site. Undeveloped property owned by Olympic Pipeline Company is located directly north of the site and is utilized for oil products pipeline right-of-way purposes . The 30 foot Seattle Water Department Bow Lake pipeline easement is located on the northerly portion of the Olympic Pipeline property . A 144 foot P-9 drainage channel easement is proposed in this area and will utilize approximately the northerly 70 feet of the Merlino property. Various existing industrial and commercial developments are located in the area generally south of the subject site, and the proposed Glacier Park Orillia Industrial Park is located just south and west of the subject site. F. NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTERISTICS The subject site is located in a transitional area from undeveloped wetland to various industrial 'and commercial uses . Glacier Park Company is presently conducting filling operations south and west of the site and has plans for future development of that area . G. PUBLIC SERVICES : 1 . -Water and Sewer: An existing 12 inch water main is located along East Valley Road near the southwest corner of the subject site . There is an 8 inch sewer line along the East Valley Road. Storm sewers are not available in the area . 2. Fire Protection : Proviced by the Renton Fire Department as per ordinance requirements . Any future development of the site will be subject to the City of Renton standards . PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT TO HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING OF AUGUST 30 ,. 1977 PAGE THREE RE : GARY MERLINO, SPECIAL PERMIT', TO FILL AND GRADE , SP-062-77 3. Transit : Metro Transit Route No . 155 operates along S. W. 43rd Street approximately one mile south of the subject site . 4. Schools : Not applicable . There are no existing schools in the general area . 5. Parks : Although there are no recreation-type parks in the general area , there are established and proposed greenbelt wetland areas consisting of the existing 20 acre wetland area in the central portion of the Valley west of the subject site and the various drainage channels and the lineal greenbelt along the east side of SR- 167 , the Valley Freeway. H. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE ZONING CODE: 1 . Chapter 23 , Mining , Excavation , and Grading Ordinance. 2. Section 4-712 , L-1 , Light , Industry District. I . APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OR OTHER OFFICIAL''CITY DOCUMENTS: 1 . Green River Valley Comprehensive Plan , June, 1976 , page 4 , Goals , and pages 5 through 8, Objectives .. .: .. J. IMPACTS ON NATURAL SYSTEMS: Although the subject proposal will disturb present soil and vegetation conditions , increase storm water runoff, and may affect drainage patterns in the area , the size and impacts of the proposed project are not considered significant. However, a certain amount of mitiga- tion of the loss of wildlife will be necessary through various land- scaping and developmental controls . K. SOCIAL IMPACTS: Filling of, the subject property will provide a'. step 'toward future development of the site to higher intensity uses . There may be some indirect social spinoff effects with such future development. L. ENVIRONMENTAL 'ASSESSMENT DETERMINATION: Pursuant to the City of Renton ' s Environmental Ordinance and the State Environmental Policy Act of 1971 , as amended (RCW 43 . 21C ) , a declara- tion of non-significance has been issued for the subject proposal (see attached) . This is based upon previous EIS ' s prepared for the large fill project presently being conducted by the Glacier Park Company south of the subject site , the relatively minor scope of the subject project , and is further predicated upon proper development procedures in accordance with the City ' s Comprehensive Plan and other City requirements and provision of suitable environmental impact miti - gation measures . M. ADDITIONAL ' INFORMATION: A vicinity map and site map are attached . N. AGENCIES/DEPARTMENTS 'CONTACTED: 1 . King County Hydraulics Division . 2 . City of Renton Engineering Division 3. City of Renton Utilities Division 4 . City of Renton Traffic Engineering Division PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT TO HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING OF AUGUST 30, 1977 PAGE FOUR RE : GARY MERLINO , SPECIAL PERMIT TO FILL AND GRADE , SP-062-77 0. PLANNING DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS: . 1 . The subject proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning for the subject site and general area . 2 . A portion of the subject site is designated for the proposed P-9 drainage channel . This area is shown as greenbelt on the Renton Comprehensive Land Use Plan , and consists of approxi - mately the northerly 74 feet of the subject site. This area should be preserved in its natural state prior to development of the P-9 drainage channel . 3 . Pursuant to the objectives of the Renton Comprehensive Plan for the Green River Valley the site shall be suitably landscaped at the time of development so as to help mitigate loss of existing vegetation and wildlife habitat . According to the SCS require- ment adopted by the Renton City Council an additional two percent of the site, exclusive of otherr city landscaping requirements , shall be provided in landscaping suitable for wildlife habitat . 4. The site is directly north of existing filled and industrially developed land , and is located in an area considered to be logical for expansion of such development. However , as an additional mitigating measure , and pursuant to Section 4-23O3 . 2 . C , final site development plans should be re9iewed by the Hearing Examiner . 5 . Ample access to the site is provided by East Valley Road . 6. The existing elevation of the subject site is approximately - nine to ten feet with approximately one to two feet of standing water over much of the site . The proposal is to fill to approxi - mately 15 foot elevation . The King County1Hydraulics Division requires fill or flood proofing to an elevation of 21 .8 feet . This requirement is based on Army Corps of Engineers revised 100 year flood level elevation of 20. 8 feet . Although these figures are presently being studied and could be revised in the future , until such time any development must meet this, requirement. 7 . The Planning Department has contacted King. County Hydraulics Division for its review and comments on the subject application . The applicant has been informed of the Flood Zone Control Permit requirement of the Department of Ecology and King County Hydraulics Division . Any action on the subject application should be subject to approval of the Flood Zone Control Permit. 8 . An interim storm drainage plan has been proposed by the applicant. However , pura .ant to Public Works Department requirements for other similar fill proposals a dike or berm at the top of the fill around the perimeter of the site may be required for drainage control on the site . 9. Suitable hydroseeding and erosion control methods will be nec- essary as an integral phase of the proposed fill and grade project. 10. Fill material must conform to ordinance requirements . 11 . Care must be taken to control dust and mud during the proposed project. PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT TO HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING. OF AUGUST 30, ' 1977 PAGE FIVE RE : GARY MERLINO , SPECIAL PERMIT TO FILL AND GRADE , SP-062-77 P. PLANNING DEPARTMENT RECOMMEDATIONS: Recommend approval of the proposed project subject to : 1 . Retention of the northerly 74 feet of the subject site in its existing natural state as per the greenbelt designation of the Comprehensive Plan , and the proposed location of the P-9 drainage channel . 2 . Final approval of the engineering design and supervision of the " filling and grading for compliance with the requirements of Chapter 23 , Title IV , including the annual license by the Public Works Department , 3 , Final approval of the uses and site plan for the property shall be required by the Hearing Examiner after conducting of Public Hearing . 4 . Two percent of the subject site shall be appropriately* land- scaped for purposes of mitigating removal..._of _wi 1 d] i f e- habitat pursuant to the SCS•.agreement with the City .of Renton . Such land- scaping shall be included in the landscaping plans for site develop- ment, and be exclusive of other landscaping requirements . 5. The entire landfill shall be hydroseeded as soon as an integral portion of the phasing and completion of the grading . project . 6. Interim storm water retention shall be accomplished via plans approved by the Public Works Department , this may include the construction of a berm or dike on the top and around the perimeter of the fill , 7 , Suitable dust control methods shall be utilized including water- ing of work areas per approval of the Public Works Department. 8. City streets shall be kept clean of debris from the fill operation at all times , 9, The Public Works Department may require additional traffic con- trol by the contractor and/or owner if it is found to be necessary during the subject operation . 10, Final approval by King County Department of Hydraulics an.d the . Department of Ecology of the Flood Zone Control Permit for the subject proposal shall be required . - es == PU,B-L-IC WORKS DEPARTMENT ,a o BUILDING DIVISION 235 -2540 o to - MUNICIPAL BUILDING 2 00 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, WASH. 98055 cry O,fl�TFD SEP1 July 29,- 1977 CHARLES J. DELAURENTI MAYOR • • TO: Planning Department - FROM: Jim Hanson - • SUBJECT: Merlino Special Permit for Fill. • Two to one is the maximum slope allowed ,by ordinance. . - Scope -near East Valley Road is_ not specified. • - - Approval from King County Department of Hydraulics must. be obtained. . • JCH m / P • • • REivt Z° CC\-\\\L.\'.+ 6)61\- • � , _ter•' ��� - - - - , r • • • • ROUTING FOR REVIEW OF ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORMS TO : Finance Department Fire Department ' Library Department Park Department Police Department Public Works . Department I ' Building Div . Traffic Engineering Div . ' Engineering Div . ,' Utilities Engineering FROM : Planning Department , (signed by responsible official or his designee) , , /tt ? t-I �G c�P,- � 1-,k SUBJECT : Review of ECF- ,,2 62 ( -77 ; Application No . : 1— OtoZ -77 I ' Action Name : AYa-1 MG12Lloo / 'Sr6'614L / M /T f ag- 7 poi Please review the attached. Review requested by , ( date) ' /S/77 REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : . ',I Department : Comments : le�t� Signature ofiD#" ector or Authorized Representative Date I ; I � REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : Department : �-x� t h��Y` •� Comments : i'1 o s % -P'c Signatur of Director or Authorized Representative Date 6-76 (OVER) I _ REVIEW BY OTHER CITY L—. ARTMENTS : Department : i -('L 'T-( (i .� Comments : Ha ��� ;' � � �cT ) •,. �;j: (. i i L P/Lr7 ( L. Signature of Director orAuthorized Representative, Date REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : Department : lVD S i c. �G'-7P�.�r'.. i Comments : , 4zz.. Signature of Director or' Authori ed Represenative a 0 I I i REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : Department : Comments : i � • I '1 Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : Department : Comments : i I Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date I • , • • 1 , . , .: ,;: _.., ,, .,;_.•,,•,°,--,... ; ;1:- _ '',• : I I -,:1_,, - 41- a - — 1 .+ =*I-1.il'im ' i v g rw- I r sr ; b _- J, �, ` i0, _ iI R. • 10 l = i b T/T —_ __ _ f tt • °y� ,M I T F Cr?------ ---- -- -- 1 - --- ----- 2� _ _.. trs• -------- 1 �5 8 G-9 • 00 / I :. • . L_ / ,i oag / 1 I2 m .54 T � �. ill I / 1 111,y% . Tt A IS-Q MITT• 4�L�t tG. 'if` �• Al\ ' 16~ .J`` • eib: I �e 13 '�' a _'1 0 II L — A' Bl III 3 � '' .., Gt f• ,T r o<„ y,S o y I0 , . I I • < H i • II . I I .).Wit; '` - • I — I , J JiaT cT IL1 ri L_ -] , • it IW 1 I IQ, 1.1. T . ., .-T--- 7 �-I - 41.6 _.. I .__ is 22, 23'` ' ! 1 J ----- ,, — - -- - -- ., 10 !--- -- - - _ -' _,. 6 LG 2. 1 to 125 2 LB '_9 5J'3 E— — - • ) � l _ ;r; T '7I r .� r T wY63, 1— — i , _ , I _ n aq'nT n. n. na . 1.. ._ .. ,_•_ _ L I_ J.4 t=+''° ._. .� SPECIAL PERMIT : • GARY MERLINO; Appl . No. SP-062-77 ; Special Permit to fill and grade ; property located at 2900 East Valley Road just north of the ' existing lumber market between East Valley Road and SR-167 . The site is also south of the existing Seattle Water Department Bow Lake Pipeline and Olympic Pipeline rights-of-way. 7 I APPLICANT GARY MERLINO TOTAL AREA ± 5 . 7 Acres PRINCIPAL ACCESS East Valley Road EXISTING ZONING L- 1 EXISTING USE • Undeveloped Filling and grading for future commercial PROPOSED USE or industrial development • COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN M-P (Manufacturing Park ) COMMENTS . IL -7'0 -ds •0JM :•J,1w'i. L iYrndg Oivfl ilW 11.a11 1 JOOPgn izQi ool = 7dvs i t \ i Q .21r eig• At r 4 Aivrdrro,7 "rird_ nrr2 zas X 4 j \ . 1 . 1 \ t * 1 009 -g ,. ''' r ---\ o / e 1 pi. , 1 % 1 ` I ► � N 2 /No7h7 tI Nwi9 i O it . dwoa\ h i gm' . °at. MGM NPOs �'o• IlL 1 t ti ---- ) " \ dd • � °-- ii mber von A u porev .�' 4 ,''.4:if.78-bn 7'�oz t. 11 - �^.. j�. ,.T„`r,==e3 a V ov PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT -• WARREN C. GONNASON, P.E. • DIRECTOR n °.,' MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. Sp. RENTON, WASH. 98055 • 206 235-2569 OED SEP1G‘4 CHARLES J. DELAURENTI MAYOR August 26 , 1977 TO : L. RICK BEELER RECEIVED Hearing Examiner CITY OF ER HEARING EXAMINEWER FROM: WARREN GONNASON '- ,n UG 3 01977 Public Works Directo Pkt 71819110111112111213141516 RE : MERLINO SPECIAL PERMIT NO. SP-062- 77 In response to your letter of August 24 , 1977, concerning this subject, the following information is supplied: 1) At present City water is located at the southwest corner of the property. In order for the property to be developed, the developer will be required to install a water main in East Valley Highway to his north property line . This will not be required during this stage of development . 2) The storm drainage retention required is based upon the City ' s proposed drainage ordinance. The ordinance outlines the criteria to be followed and the developer devises the plan. The P-9 channel as proposed in the SCS drainage project is approximately 70 feet in width as it traverses through the northerly portion of the Merlino properties . This portion of the properties should not be filled and should be kept clear to provide the necessary right-of-way for the proposed drainage facility. 6) No known comments have been received from the King County Hydraulics Division regarding this or the Tripp-Harper property. 7) Dust control is accomplished by sprinkling water on the unimproved surfaces that are being driven on or graded. The city streets should be kept clean of all dirt, mud, and debris . This can be accomplished by using mechanical sweepers to pick up the big pieces and flush truck to wash the street down after the sweeper is finished. This would also be in response to your Item #4 on your memo regarding the Austin Company Special Permit #SP-063-77. If you desire any additional information, please advise . CITY OF RENTON I I C if tau & () APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL PERMIT ' dUL 0 FOR OFFICE USE ONLY 4 � � File No . SF- 1)( , ,-/7 �� / Date Rec' d. o a vp.10� Application Fee $ o?cc?.. `� Receipt No . /Ga Environmental Review Fee $ 'APPLICANT TO COMPLETE ITEMS 1 THROUGH 6 : 1. Name l:'S'il Ry /" L LIP O Phone Address �/ S /!� -r� � . 2 . Property location 90 £/./-5 7 `,(�i'iLe-C �� g-f/d x cj 4-5 , 3. Legal description -(attach additional sheet if necess - D E S C R I P T I O N 'i,a)e o , en RAO. 7,4,x Lat l©3 _ THAT PORTION OF THE. NORTHWEST V4 OF THE NORTHEAST I/4 OF-7-- SECTION 30, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH,RANGE. 5 EAST,W.M., LYING WESTERLY OF THE YSI.EST MARGIN OF PRIMARY STATE HIGHWAY N4 5 (S.R, 1(07 ) AND LYING EASTERLY OF THE. EAST MARGIN OF THE. EAST • VALLEY HIGHWAY ( 52ND. AVE.S.) ; LESS THE. NORTHERLY 100 FEET — THEREOF. SITUATE. IN KING COUNTY, WASNINGTON. - -- DA7 U(Y� - U.s.C. G.S. MEAN SEA LEVEL OF 1529, 154T ADJUSTMENT. 14 . Number of acres or square feet �SO1 0 4rPresent Zoning L - / '5 . What do you propose to develop on this property? p-1CG'r b LGAsl, )S , 11 Fo#C. ouLs ' 6 . The following information shall be submitted with this application : A. Site and access plan (include setbacks , Scale existing structures , easements , and other factors limiting development) 1" = 10 ' or 20 ' B. Parking , landscaping and screening plan 1" = 10 ' C. Vicinity map (include land use and zoning on adjacent parcels) 1" = 200 ' to 800 ' D. Building height and area (existing and proposed) E. A special permit required by the Renton Mining, Excavation and Grading Ordinance shall submit the information listed in Section 4-2307 . 5 in addition to the above. i7 . LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER'S ACTION: Date Approved Date Denied Date Appealed Appeal Action Remarks Planning Dept . 7 7 %" AFFIDAVIT I , G/cy , being duly sworn, declare that I am the owner of the property involved in this application and that the foregoing statements and answers herein contained and the information herewith submitted are in all respects true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. . I Subscribed and sworn before me this 6th day of June , 19 77 , ;Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, residing at Seattle 62, L��r�inJa- 1 Name of Not- y Public) (Signatu . f Owner) 19005 = 53rd- Ave. N.E. , Seattle, WA 98155 /� c�- - of (Address) - - (Address) 7 cr- 1.a 1--1 (City) (State) en 9e/°if (Telephone) ! (FOR OFFICE USE ONLY) CERTIFICATION ( This is to certif • —a 4, foregoing application has been inspected by me ! and has been fo d ki ough and complete in every particular and to conform to the a1ey�, rar }J(1� r ations of the Renton Planning Department governing the f�ilin ofL.uc plication . JUL 20 097 ' Date Received • , 19 By: . .___ d.o.a.�dee< Renton Planning Dept . 2-73 -2- 7. Location of proposal (describe the physical setting of the proposal , as well as the extent of the land area affected by any environmental impacts , including any other information needed to give an accurate understanding of the environ- mental setting of the proposal ) : 2900 East Valley Road Renton, WA • 5.75 Acres Low L.l Zoned Property Material 8. Estimated date for completion of the proposal : _-__ 1980 9. List of all permits , licenses or government approvals required for the proposal (federal ,, state and local --including rezones) : _King County Flood Control, - Hydl~aul_ics- City of Renton . fill. permit____.___.__ 10. Do you have any plans for future additions , expansion, or further activity related .to or connected with this proposal ? If yes , explain : After fill is placed_-_Bu_ ___garell u.se - Office Building • 11. Do you know of any plans by others which may affect the property covered by your proposal ? If yes , explain : No • • • 12. Attach any other application form that has been completed regarding the pro- posal ; if none has been completed , but is expected to be filed at some future date, describe the nature of such 'application form: None II . ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS • (Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required) (1) Earth. Will the proposal resuilt 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 YES MAYBE NO (d) The destruction, covering'or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? _ X - YES MAYBE NO (e) Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils , either on or off the site? X YES MAYBE NO (f) Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands , or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion _which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay , inlet or lake? X YES MAYBE NO Explanation: _ (B) Fill low property - 250 ,000 Sq. Ft. with 25,000 Cubic Yards fill. (acv,v €* . ; 9' eleV) r A CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON / p pp'' ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM (,,/�_ ,_ • .. �v'.LR;rvtlr� yl FOR OFFICE USE ONLY ■ _ o6942. -..._T_-.L__.�. __._ `1•� =raN, v Application No. - --� Environmental Checklist No. 1 e ` )�/__71 PROPOSED, date: FINAL , date : EiDeclaration of Significance Declaration of Significance Declaration of Non-Significance a Declaration of Non-Significance COMMENTS : Introduction The State Environmental Policy Act of 1971 , Chapter 43.21C, RCM, requires all state and local governmental agencies to consider environmental values both for their own actions and when licensing private proposals. The Act also 'requires that an EIS be prepared for all major .actions significantly affecting the quality of the environment. . The purpose of this checklist is to help the agencies involved determine whether or not a proposal is such a major action. Please answer the following questions as completely as you can with the information presently available to you. Where explanations of your answers are required, or where you believe an explanation would be helpful to government decision makers , include your explanation in the space provided, or use additional pages if necessary'.. You should include references to any reports or studies of which you are aware and which are rele- vant to the answers you provide. Complete answers to these questions now will help all agencies involved with your proposal to undertake the required environmental review with- out unnecessary delay. The following questions apply to your total proposal , not just to the license for which you are currently applying or the proposal for which approval is sought. Your answers should include the impacts which will be caused by your proposal when it is completed, even though completion may not occur until sometime in the future. This will allow all, of the agencies which will be involved to complete their environmental review now, with- out duplicating paperwork in the future. NOTE : This is a standard form being used by all state and local agencies in the State of Washington for various types of proposals . Many of the questions may not apply to your proposal . If a question does not apply, just answer it "no" and continue on to the next question. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 1 . BACKGROUND 1 . 'Name of Proponent GARY MERLINO Z. Address and phone number of Proponent: • 9125 - 10th Avenue South Seattle, WA 98108 (206) 762 9125 3.. Date Checklist submitted 4. Agency requiring Checklist __CL.TY_OE__RENTON__._ 5. Name of proposal , if applicable; 6. Nature and brief description of the proposal (including but not limited to its size, general design elements , and other factors that will give, an accurate understanding of its scope and nature) :' 5. 75 Acres Land - Below existing Road Grades - Needs Fill _. Material to make property usable. (APQoax. 2Sodo Cu. �. -4- (5) Fauna. Will the proposal result in: • (a) Changes in the diversity of species , or, numbers of any species of fauna (birds , land animals including . reptiles , fish and shellfish, benthic organisms , insects or micr'ofauna)? X 6,*•N YES MAYBE NO (b) Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of fauna? X YES MAYBE NO (c) introduction of new species of fauna into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of fauna? X YES MAYBE NO (d) Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat?' YE'S MAYBE NO Explanation: k/A) (7.:7-JS .c.eJ1,1 2 )'Sri;i0r ufr; a yak 1" 1 t. rV 1,_AL- z R._i "i V \kt. c lY\ c} C (C1-.3 FL) (6) Noise. Will the proposal increase existing noise levels? ;(_ YES MAYBE NO Explanation: knot.. ` 'dam .—__.�m �a• �>- • (7) Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? X YES MAYBE NO Explanation: • • (8) Land Use. Will the proposal result in the alteration of the. present or planned land use of an area? K , k YES MAYBE NO Explanation: 1v ' �!' ' ,�', c`� r �l v'vzAL € I +C� XSr :'. Z l c� iv`, d awl `l—* r, ,-a. viaG, (9) Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in : (a) • Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? YES MAYBE NO (b) Depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource? X YES MAYBE NO • Explanation: (10) Risk of Upset. Does the proposal involve a risk of an ' explosion or the release of hazardous substances ' (including, but not limited to, oil , pesticides , chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? X YES MAYBE NO Explanation: • (11) Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distri- bution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? X YES— MAYBE NO Explanation: yh �• -3- (2) Air. Will the proposal result in: (a) Air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? X • YES MAYBE NO (b) The creation of objectionable odors? YES MAYBE NO (c) Alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or X regionally? YES MAYBE NO Explanation: • (3)-- Water. Will the proposal result in: (a) Changes in currents , or the course of direction of water movements , in either marine or fresh waters? 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? YES MAYBE NO (d) Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? _x_ YES MAYBE NO (e) Discharge into surface waters , or in any alteration surface water quality, including but not limited to X temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity. YES MAYBEW (f) Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? YES MAYBE NO (g) Change in the quantity of ground waters , either • • through direct additions or withdrawals , or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? X YES MAYBE NO (h) Deterioration in ground water quality, either through direct injection, or through the seepage of leachate, • phosphates , detergents , waterborne virus or bacteria, or other substances into the ground waters? X YES MAYBE NO (1 ) Reduction in the amount of water otherwise available X for public water supplies? YES MAYBE NO Explanation: (C) Filling of Low Land _ • (4) Flora. Will the proposal result in: (a) Change in the diversity of species , or numbers of any species of flora (including trees , shrubs , grass, crops , microflora and aquatic plants)? YESe'� MAYBE NU� (b) Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or X endangered species of flora? ! MAYBE NO (c) Introduction of new species of flora into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing X species? YES M YBE NO (d) Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? X Yam- MATTE NO Explanation: •r,0.> Oc: t; Fe, ie5 c_Cr�;la;���.1i(9-1 ILC `z;t;eV4t • -6- (d) Sewer or septic tanks? X YES MAYBE NO (e) Storm water drainage? X • YES MAYBE NU— (f) Solid waste and disposal? X YES MAYBE, NO Explanation: (17) Human Health. Will the proposal result in the creation of • any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding' mental health)? X YES MAYBE, W Explanation: • (18) Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in, the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? X YES MAYBE NO • Explanation: • • (19) Recreation. Will the proposal 'result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? X YES MAYBE NO Explanation: (20) Archeological/Historical . Will the proposal result in an alteration of a significant archeological or historical site, structure, object or building? X YES MAYBE NO Explanation: • III. SIGNATURE 1, the undersigned', state, that to the best of my knowledge the above information is true and complete. It is understood that the lead agency may withdraw any decla- ration of non-significance that it might issue in. reliance upon this checklist should there be any willful misrepresentation. or willful lack of full disclosure on my part. (I � Proponent: (signed) • GARY MERL'INO (name printed) City of Renton Planning Department 5.-76 -5- ( 12) Housing. Will the, proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? X YES MAYBE NO Explanation: New Buildings — Create Jobs (13) Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in: (a) Generation of additional vehicular movement? YES MAYBE NO (b) Effects on existing parking facilities , or demand for new parking? X YES MAYBE NO (c) Impact upon existing transportation systems? X 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? X YES MAYBE NO (f) Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles , bicyclists -or pedestrians? X YES RATITE NO Explanation: Ca) ---1 a ' f y' (1o�a�?� c 11r< . .) t t31) �z r. 7. RAC C. i °° t :r 7�m .•�� .".`_ t L C® c ice' c tit!i_ AS. t. S l teZ (14) Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas : (a) Fire protection? X YES MAYBE NO (b) Police protection? X YES MAYBE NO (c) Schools? X_ YES MAYBE NO (d) Parks or other recreational facilities? X YES MAYBE NO (e) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? X YES MAYBE NO (f) Other governmental services? X YES MAYBE NO Explanation: ( 15) Energy. Will the proposal result in: (a) Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? X YES MAYBE NO ' (b) Demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? X YES MAYBE Explanation: (16) Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or alterations to the following utilities : (a) Power or natural gas? X YES MAYBE NO (b) Communications systems? X YES MAYBE NO (c) Water? X YES MAYBE NO ATICE OF PUBLIC HEARING RENTON LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER RENTON, WASHINGTON A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE RENTON LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER AT HIS REGULAR MEETING IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS , CITY HALL , RENTON , WASHINGTON , ON AUGUST 30 , 1977 , AT 9 : 00 A. M. TO CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING PETITIONS : 1 . DUANE A. WELLS AND VAL BAIN , APPLICATION FOR SITE APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT OFFICE AND LABORATORY BUILDING IN M-P ZONE , file No . SA-061-77 ; property located at Lind Avenue S .W . and Tenth Avenue S .W. 2 . GARY MERLINO , APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL PERMIT TO FILL AND GRADE IN L-1 ZONE , file No . .SP-062-77 ; property located at 2900 East Valley Road . 3 . THE AUSTIN COMPANY , APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL PERMIT TO FILL AND GRADE IN H-1 ZONE , file No . SP-063-77 ; property located between Lind Avenue' S .W. and, Raymond Avenue S .W . on the south side of S .W. 16th S.,treet. Legal descriptions of all applications noted above '"are on file in the Renton Planning Department. • i ; ALL INTERESTED PERSONS TO SAID PETITIONS ARE INVITED TO BE PRESENT AT THE PUBLIC HEARING ON. AUGUST 30 , 1977 AT 9 : 00 A. M. TO EXPRESS THEIR OPINIONS . GORDON Y . ERICKSEN PUBLISHED August 19 , 1977 RENTON PLANNING DIRECTOR CERTIFICATION I , MICHAEL L . SMITH , HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THREE COPIES OF THE ABOVE DOCUMENT WERE POSTED BY ME IN THREE CONSPICUOUS PLACES ON THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED ABOVE AS PRESCRIBED BY LAW . ATTEST: Subscribed and sworn xl , to before me , a Notary Public , ; / on the VIP.' day of �� oS , //'' ; / 19 SIGNED l/ ; _7Z Cam.• � %.- r 4 Of izt, 4. 0 ;_ -. o THE CITY OF RENTON U `� MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON.WASH. 98055 pp '.,�'' CHARLES J. 6ELAURENTI, MAYOR • PLANNING DEPARTMENT 4235-2550 O,Q4T fD SEPItCe . August 11 , 1977 Gary Merlino 9125 - 10th South Seattle , WA 98108 RE : NOTICE OF APPLICATION ACCEPTANCE AND PUBLIC HEARING DATE FOR SPECIAL PERMIT TO FILL AND GRADE IN L-1 ZONE ; FILE NO. SP-062-77 ; PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2900 EAST VALLEY ROAD Dear Mr. Merlino : • The Renton Planning Department formally accepted the above menti-oned application on August 8 , 1977. _A _public hearing before the City of Renton Hearing Examiner has been set for August 30 , 1977 at 9 : 00 a .m. Representatives of the applicant are asked to be present . . All interested persons are invited to attend the hearing . If you have any further questions , please call the Renton Planning Department , 235-2550 . Very truly yours , Gordon Y . Ericksen . Planning Director /r / / ,/ // By : L..�., ._, , ' ssociate • anner • M L S :w r CITY 0 .F RENTON LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING AUGUST 30, 1977 AGENDA • COMMENCING 9:00 A.M. : COUNCIL CHAMBERS, SECOND FLOOR, RENTON MUNICIPAL BUILDING SP-062-77 GARY MERLINO Special Permit to fill and grade ; property located at 2900 East Valley Road just north of the existing lumber market between East Valley Road and SR-167 . The site is also south of the existing Seattle Water Department Bow Lake pipeline and Olympic Pipeline right-of-way. SP-063-77 THE AUSTIN COMPANY Special Permit to fill and grade ; property located on the south side of S . W. 16th Street between Lind Avenue S.W. and Raymond Avenue S . W. PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT TO HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING AUGUST 30 , 1977 APPLICANT : GARY MERLINO FILE NO . : SP-062 -77 , SPECIAL PERMIT TO FILL AND GRADE A. SUMMARY OF REOUEST: Applicant requests special permit pursuant to the City ' s Mining , Excavation and Grading Ordinance to allow filling of approximately 20 , 000 cubic yards of material within a 5 . 75 acre site . The sub- ject request is considered the initial step in preparing the property for future commercial or industrial development . B. GENERAL INFORMATION: 1 . Owner of Record : GARY MERLINO 2 . Applicant : GARY MERLINO 3 . Location : Property located at 2900 East Valley Road just north of the existing lumber market between East Valley Road and SR-167 . The site is also south of the existing Seattle Woter „Department Bow Lake Pipeline and Olympic Pipeline right-of-way. 4 . Legal Description : A detailed legal description is available on file in the Renton Planning Department. 5 . Size of Property: Approximately 5 . 7 acres . 6 . Access : Via East Valley Road. 7 . Existing Zone : L-1 , Light Industry. 8. Existing Zoning in L- 1 , Light Industry ; M-P, Manufacturing the Area : Park District ; and G, General Classifi cation District . 9. Comprehensive Manufacturing Park with greenbelt designa- Land Use Plan : tion for proposed drainage channel pro- ject area . 10 . Notification : The applicant was notified in writing of the hearing date. Notice was properly published in the Record Chronicle and posted in three places on or near the site as required by City ordinance . Notice was also mailed to surrounding property owners . C. PURPOSE OF REQUEST: To prepare the site for future industrial or commercial development . D. HISTORY/BACKGROUND: The subject site and surrounding area was annexed into the City of Renton on April 15 , 1959, by Ordinance No . 1743 . The subject site was subsequently rezoned to L-1 , Light Industry, on May 5 , 1959 , by Ordinance No . 1758 . The site had been owned by Puget Western , the development division of Puget Sound Power and Light Company. PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT TO HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING OF AUGUST 30 , 1977 PAGE TWO RE : GARY MERLINO , SPECIAL PERMIT TO FILL AND GRADE , SP-062-77 E. PHYSICAL BACKGROUND: 1 . Topography : The site is relatively level , although the general elevation of the site is low at approximately 9 to 10 feet. 2 . Soils : Tukwila Muck (Tu ) . The underlying organic layers are strong brown to very dark brown and peaty muck. Permeability is moderate . There is a seasonal high water table at or near the surface . Available water capacity is high . Runoff is bonded , and erosion hazard is slight. 3. Vegetation : Vegetation on the site primarily consists of cat- tails and other typical marshland-type small trees , bushes , and grasses . 4. Wildlife : The existing vegetation on the site provides suitable habitat for birds and small mammals and other wetland-type habitat. 5 . Water: As indicated by the vegetation and soils on the site, there is a high capacity for ponding of surface water on the, site . The water level fluctuates with the time of the year and the amount of seasonal precipitation that may occur. The subject site has not been designated as a wetland wildlife preserve area on the City' s Comprehensive; Plan., although the northerly 74 feet of the subject site is within the proposed P-9 drainage channel/greenbelt area and should be retained in its natural state . 6 . Land Use : The site is presently entirely undeveloped . However, some sporadic dumping of materials has occurred on the subject site . The existing lumber market development is located directly adjacent and, south of the. site. . The SR- 167 Valley Freeway is located along the easterly boundary of the site , and the easting East Valley Road is located along the westerly boundary of the subject site. Undeveloped property owned by Olympic Pipeline Company is located directly north of the site , and is utilized for oil products ..pipeline right-of-way purposes . The 30 foot Seattle Water Department Bow Lake pipeline easement is located on the northerly portion of the Olympic Pipeline property. A 144 foot P-9 drainage channel easement is proposed in this area and will utilize approximately the northerly 70 feet of the Merlino property. Various existing industrial and commercial developments are located in the area generally south of the subject site, and the proposed Glacier Park Orillia Industrial Park is located just south and west of the subject site. F. NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTERISTICS: The subject site is located in a transitional area from undeveloped wetland to various industrial and commercial uses . Glacier Park Company is presently conducting filling operations south and west of the site and has plans for future development of that area . G. PUBLIC SERVICES : 1 . Water and Sewer: An existing 12 inch water main is located along East Valley Road near the southwest corner of the subject site . There is an 8 inch sewer line along the East Valley Road. Storm sewers are not available in the area . 2 . Fire Protection : Proviced by the Renton Fire Department as per ordinance requirements . Any future development of the site will be subject to the City of Renton standards . • 11 PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT TO HEARING ',EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING OF AUGUST 30 , 1977 PAGE THREE 1' RE : GARY MERLINO, SPECIAL PERMIT TO FILL AND GRADE , SP-062-77 3. Transit : Metro Transit Route No . 155 operates along S . W. 43rd Street approximately one mile south of the subject site . 4. Schools : Not applicable . There are no existing schools in the general area . 5 . Parks : Although there are no recreation-type parks in the general area , there are established and proposed greenbelt wetland areas consisting of the existing 20 acre wetland area in the central , portion of the Valley west of the subject site and the various drainage channels and the lineal greenbelt along the east side of SR-167 , the Valley Freeway. H. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE ZONING CODE: 1 . Chapter 23 , Mining , Excavation , and Grading Ordinance. 2. Section 4-712 , L-1 , Light Industry District. I . APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OR OTHER OFFICIAL 'CITYDOCUMENTS: 1 . Green River Valley Comprehensive Plan , June, 1976 , page 4 , Goals , and pages 5 through 8 , Objectives . . J . IMPACTS ON NATURAL SYSTEMS : Although the subject proposal will disturb present soil and vegetation conditions , increase storm water runoff, and may affect drainage patterns in the area , the size and impacts of the proposed project are not considered significant. However, a certain amount of mitiga- tion of the loss of wildlife will be necessary through various land- scaping and developmental controls . . K. SOCIAL IMPACTS : Filling of the subject property will provide a . step toward future development of the site to higher intensity uses . There may be some indirect social spinoff effects with such future development. L. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT DETERMINATION: Pursuant to the City of Renton ' s Environmental Ordinance and the State Environmental Policy Act of 1971 , as amended (RCW 43 . 21C ) , a declara- tion of non-significance has been issued for the subject proposal (see attached ) . This is based upon previous EIS ' s prepared for the large fill project presently being conducted by the Glacier Park Company south of the subject site , the relatively minor scope of the subject project , and is further predicated upon proper development procedures in accordance with the City ' s Comprehensive Plan and other City requirements and provision of suitable environmental impact miti - gation measures . M. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: A vicinity map and site map are attached . N. AGENCIES/DEPARTMENTS CONTACTED: 1 . King County Hydraulics Division 2 . City of Renton Engineering Division 3. City of Renton Utilities Division 4 . City of Renton Traffic Engineering Division PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT TO HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING OF AUGUST 30, 1977 PAGE FOUR • RE : GARY MERLINO , SPECIAL PERMIT TO FILL AND GRADE , SP-062-77 0, PLANNING DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS: . 1 . The subject proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning for the subject site and general area . 2 . A portion of the subject site is designated for the proposed P-9 drainage channel . This area is shown as greenbelt on the Renton Comprehensive Land Use Plan , and cOsists • of approxi - mately the northerly 74 . feet of the subject site . This area should be preserved in its natural state pr;iorto development of the P-9 drainage channel . 3 . Pursuant to the objectives of the Renton Comprehensive Plan for the Green River Valley the site shall be suitably landscaped at the time of development so as to help mitigate loss of existing vegetation and wildlife habitat. According to the SCS require- ment adopted by the Renton City Council an additional two percent of the site, exclusive of other city landscaping requirements , shall be provided in landscaping suitable for wildlife habitat . 4. The site is directly north of existing filled and industrially developed land , and is located in an area considered to be logical for expansion of such .development. However, as an additional mitigating measure , and pursuant to Section 4-2303 . 2 . C , final site development plans should be reViewe'd by the Hearing , Examiner . 5. Ample access to the site is provided by East Valley Road . 6. The existing elevation, of the subject site is approximately - nine to ten feet with approximately one to two feet of standing water over much of the site . The proposal is to fill to approxi - mately 15 foot elevation . The King County ' Hydraulics Division requires fill or flood proofing to an elevation of 21 . 8 feet. This requirement is based on Army Corps of Engineers revised 100 year. flood level elevation of 20.8 feet . Although these figures are presently being studied and could be revised in the future , until such time any development must meet this requirement. 7 . The Planning Department has contacted King. County Hydraulics Division for its review and comments on the subject application . The applicant has been informed of the Flood Zone Control Permit requirement of the Department of Ecology and King County Hydraulics Division . Any action on the subject application should be subject to approval of the Flood Zone Control Permit . 8. An interim storm drainage plan has been proposed by the applicant . However , purusant to Public Works Department requirements for other similar fill proposals a dike or berm at the top of the fill around the perimeter of the site may be required for drainage control on the site. 9. Suitable hydroseeding and erosion control methods will be nec- essary as an integral phase of the proposed fill and grade pronect. 10. Fill material must conform to ordinance requirements . 11 . Care must be taken to control dust and mud during the proposed project . PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT TO HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING OF AUGUST 30, 1,977 PAGE FIVE RE : GARY MERLINO , SPECIAL PERMIT TO FILL AND GRADE , SP-062-77 P. PLANNING DEPARTMENT RECOMMEDATIONS: Recommend approval of the proposed project subject to : 1 . Retention of the northerly 74 feet of the subject site in its existing natural state as per the greenbelt designation of the Comprehensive Plan , and the proposed location of the P-9 drainage channel . 2 , Final approval of the engineering design and supervision of the ` filling and grading for compliance with the requirements of Chapter 23 , Title IV , including the annual license by the Public Works Department. 3 , Final approval of the uses and site plan for the property shall be required by the Hearing Examiner after conducting of Public Hearing . 4 . Two percent of the subject site shall be appropriately land- scaped for purposes of mitigating removal Of wildlife habitat pursuant to the SCS' agreement with the City .of Renton . Such land- scaping shall be included in the landscaping plans for site develop- ment , and be exclusive of other landscaping requirements . 5. The entire landfill shall be hydroseeded as soon as an integral portion of the phasing and completion of the grading project . 6. Interim storm water retention shall be accomplished via plans approved by the Public Works Department , this may include the construction of a berm or dike on the top and around the perimeter of the fill , 7 . Suitable dust control methods shall be utilized including water- ing of work areas per approval of the Public Works Department. 8 . City streets shall be kept clean of debris from the fill operation at all times , 9. The Public Works Department may require additional traffic con- trol by the contractor and/or owner if it is found to be necessary during the subject operation . 10. Final approval by King County Department of Hydraulics and the Department of Ecology of the Flood Zone Control Permit for the subject proposal shall be required . pF R• A4.7 40 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT C) 2 --sT BUILDING DIVISION 235 25d0 z __ o © ''' MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, WASH. 98055 o�qt t0�� July 29, 1977 SEP Fp j� CHARLES J. DELAURENTI MAYOR TO: Planning Department FROM: Jim Hanson SUBJECT: Merlino Special Permit for Fill • • Two to one is the maximum slope allowed ,by ordinance. . Scope near East Valley Road is not- specified. • Approval from King County Department of Hydraulics must be obtained. • I 3 JCH/mp • I • . ID '\ (Q3 I ` ' I i ROUTING FOR REVIEW OF ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORMS TO : Finance Department Fire Department Library Department Park Department ' Police Department Public Works Department Building Div. Traffic': Engineering Div . Engineering Div .✓ Utilities ;Engineering Div. 1{ a official or his FROM : Planning Department , (signed by responsibl : designee) ; ,;, { iael S:14( fk I 7 A lication' No'. " — n(a2- -77 SUBJECT : Review of ECF- ,� (� j �7 •� pP I : Action Name : 60.1e1M LI O / �C;� �TYLM /1 Please review the attached. Review requested by (date) : : ;., 5 77 ° is REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : , Department : 6- Comments : c � ' 't,�„ Signature o ector or Authorized Representative Date REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : Department : ci�'ci kctY�J ' Comments : n o S %� +1� —re' Si gnatur of Director or Authorized Representative` Date, 6-76 C (OV"ER)' �. REVIEW BY OTHER CITY C-, ARTMENTS : Department : ul ,-i Comments . �..< <,, ��� ,' l'<t i .:, y r 17e:•: (i Li, it A- i<rl S ) - l1rL ;l' Signature of Director or Authorized Representa`tive1/!' Date REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : 1,1 Department : ND S 1.3 4 i ic i ��'' P Comments : Signature of Director- or Authori d Represenative , . a e . REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : Department : Comments : Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : Department : Comments : Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date PROPOSED/FINAL DEL.LARATION OF SIGNIFICANCE/NON-SIGNIFICANCE Application No . SP-062-77 ❑ PROPOSED Declaration Environmental Checklist No . ECF-261-77• L_J FINAL Declaration Description of proposal Fill and grade approximately 25 , 000 cubic _yards of material on approximately 5. 7 acres , to prepare site for future commercial or industrial use. Proponent GARY MERLINO Vicinity of 2900 East Valley Road between SR-167 and the Location of Proposal East Valley Road. Lead Agency' City of Renton Planning Department This proposal has beten determined to 0 have ® not have a significant adverse impact upon the environment . An EIS ❑ is is not required under RCW 43 . 21C . 030 ( 2 ) (c ) . This decision was made after review by the lead agency of a completed environmental checklist and othera information on file with the lead agency . Reasons for /decltaration of environmental significance : ,. 1 . Project is of minor scope. 2 . Project is consistent with Comprehensive Planning , Zoning , and • existing uses in the area . 3 . This negative declaration is further based upon the provision of proper mitigating measures within the site development plan . Measures , if any , that could be taken to prevent or mitigate the environmental ;impacts to such an extent that the lead agency would withdraw its declaration of significance and issue a ( proposed/final ) declaration of non-significance : • Responsible Official Gordon Y . Ericksen Title Plan `ng, Iirect / — Date August 22 , 1977 S1 nar e / �r�F. 9 u r City of ;c' , On Plannir.o Genartment 8� !L _ S is ec ''J •• xx A I R. • 1 . Ai!:_.:=2, .7 ,.Illt:::::_ mi. . ... ,;: --,4"- 4, ai la - ==_-= _= Lam) s •4i ♦'•. . •o f (0. -- -4#_ 1 I .0 \ . 6 G-9S00 • • fl I �— I / II f, 0 o T:: o it nac — bx.lxsx�-' i ] 12 9 ,,\ • . •.- __:16_4...,, -rS ' G 1 I I �- - ___ ( ,, SG 4•.ems yti j� _�_ 1 \,z >yse ' SIM i \ — \>�l ,S,S1,:jbL,>.c i9 — ` , t o1 • I I CO L x I• I `L I I : I i' I jo _7 1 ‘ . . ! I ! 1 f ;�----- ---- , — ---- -- 1LI I �-- i' I W �1 I -I -SR =- — ' .,..,.. . : 1 ' 7 a ,e;ro z, I zxi z,;zsie ee ze j; j - - .._— - -, - I SPECIAL PERMIT: GARY MERLINO ; Appl . No . SP-062-77 ; Special Permit to fill and grade ; I property located at 2900 East Valley Road just north of the existing 1 lumber market between East Valley Road and SR-167 . The site is also south of the existing Seattle Water Department Bow. Lake Pipeline and I Olympic Pipeline rights-of-way. APPLICANT GARY MERLINO TOTAL AREA ± 5. 7 Acres PRINCIPAL ACCESS East Valley Road EXISTING ZONING L-1 EXISTING USE Undeveloped Filling and grading for future commercial PROPOSED USE or industrial development ' COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN M-P ' (Manufacturing Park ) COMMENTS y X0axM :G-'TJ.:r' t"HP�SGu:o'nni. iFizzz;#v-,::m"<if: :r:s/ 9 eviA 5 - �Rp�o � tom,. K� ,,� t44 .O. 5sivu4r. ' //��/ 1 f . . Li �+ ,ice, . t qsa / ,/ \o ' .. r $OVN► W IN • 1)0 , • AA u \comp 1 Gael (,,gA+A1 MAc4 oNI CO. N i r SOPJ ,p `. C 0 ///7 I \,„.. '.';/,/ -;.:.- z I* -4two 5 d a .• V. I 3 v. \ 1, / / J 1 3 S3s 1 LUMtlef r (it $NN'r t,s,4c-Ia . PAPA. coMpAa I • Milo JAMf.S I. ,GewK ' ; 1 1 1 i i . ci? 5cAze lir zoo' S4.11JEGI ore GARY NwwA1O &Pe ciAI- Fraelor,r: go. sp- O1ot- 77 1 INTERDEPARTMENTAL REVIEW REQUEST TO : n PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR \. BUILDING DIVISION ENGINEERING DIVISION .. �'►;,;h.1-4-.A,.7' .1i16 TRAFFIC ENGINEERING DIVISION (Sr UTILITIES DIVISION s\ K FIRE DEPARTMEN HEALTH DEPARTMENT • � • t J ` FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT ilif is laci li Contact Person RE: ;�YL,t-I L GIexc_ ( rpo&' l-77 I 4• S rj?5 U// L_. r i r r Foie. - �I t✓it - Please review the attached information regarding the subject proposal and return it to the Planning Department by f/</7 ,i ' with your written, recommendation . Your response will be included as part of the staff report to the Hearing Examiner. Thank you , PLANNING DEPARTMENT { e/ Date 7 i'/77 it ? FTC,_ I . , 1 ,ROUTING FOR REVIEWI; OF ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORMS _, :, :i. TO : Finance Department Fire Department ' Library Department : ' ' ' Park Department Police Department ': Public Works. Department Building Div. Traffic, Engineering :•.Div . ; Engineering Div .✓ Utilities' :Engineerin,g:!.Div• . V'.". FROM : Planning •Department , . (signed by respori'sirbile official' or lists' ' . ' designee) ' dv ,C- 3e1 � f1 ` i SUBJECT : Review of ECF- ,;Z Co 1 `77 ; •Appl i cati o'n'' No : 1-= Oto'2''-7771 Action Name : CI-,.121 Ma12Li&aO 1 'Sr 1M / rM ,r f j -/L-C, /. 4,--/a4r)ir • . ... . i • .• '.,. : ,. r CIS Please review the attached . Review requested ' b y; ( date:)'c'`" :,9' -11' .. REVIEW BY OTHER' CITY DEPARTMENTS . .. ;-,:,;;'.4,:' fir,:,.;; ' ,,•,,I':-`,y` • • • Department : L-D f Comments . ` . • u::. z. i ;^ • Signature o ector or Authors zed Repriesen;tiati ve' ; , Date , REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : • . D.ep!a-rtment : E.---kes...7 ;k�tv, Comments : i'1 c s ,..3 �•�' -r�'c 101.'J n.C,.-f— , • • Si gnatur' of Di rector or Authorized Repre;.sentati ve . , : ;Date,, H;''.,1.• • •. r , ','.. ``O.V E R • 6-76 • : I. ... • ....... _ .. .�,...... , ,. .„....,.,.;�,,, gi.. f : %"; I 1 I I a " REVIEW BY OTHER CITY L_. ARTMENTS : Department : L» ILt-4i its Comments . � ; ? 11:(i II ,� i / i P//11) (714t--- Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : Department : ND S 1.34i fic. T Pic. Comments : (51 �7 /. Signature of Director- or Autt�ori rYed -Represienira,ti ve ate REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : Department : Comments : Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : Department : Comments : ' Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date 1 O'E F - PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT w'41:1') Z o BUILDING DIVISION 235 -2540 ® MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, WASH. 98055 co. 44. o44t SEP1 July 29, 1977 . ' CHARLES J. DELAURENTI MAYOR • TO: Planning Department • FROM: Jim Hanson SUBJECT: Merlino Special Permit for Fill Two to one is the maximum slope allowed by ordinance. • Scope near East Valley Road is not specified. Approval from King County Department of Hydraulics must be obtained. • • ;7/1./ JCH/mp • 2- ) e� :1 °4 1 • , • iy syl�;r off. 4 .► ,;.� o THE. CITY OF RENTON MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, WASH. 98055 5 ,v�-. rn S `i w, -, CHARLES J. DELAURENTI , MAYOR • PLANNING DEPARTMENT pA 235-2550 4TFD SEPtt. August 16 , 1977 George Wannamaker • . King County Division of Hydraulics Room 976 King County Administration Building Seattle , Washington 98104 Dear Mr. Wannamaker : RE : GARY MERLINO , SPECIAL PERMIT NO . SP-062-77 AUSTIN COMPANY , SPECIAL PERMIT NO. SP-063-77 Attached for your review and comments are two special permit applications for fill and grade recently submit- ted to this department. These projects are located in the portion of Renton within the Green River Valley . floodplain . . We would appreciate any comments y.o,u have regarding these applications prior to the August 30 , 1977 , Land Use Hearing Examiner public hearing date . If you have any further questions , please contact this department. Very truly yours , Gordon Y . Ericksen • Plan in9"-) Director1") i k' „ : Michael L. Smi-th Associate Planner MLS :wr Attachments