Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLUA90-143 215-0' . , '85-0' , L CO ,,---......,— CL. 4. ca L. 0 III III III 1 1 1 I 1 1 1111 1 . ' III 1111 1 'iafT,,4 Vet,M1. 0 NORTH ELEVATION ci — i. a) 132'-0' .1, g _s > > g 87'-0' ' Reflective Glass- i Mechanical Screen —Exterior insulating, and —, ,-- - --\, F...-------, I ,---- 1-1 Finish System _ 1___ __ _ I—I__ ___________ ____ _ I _l__ pr.= 5 al < g _ it 03 a. 1• 7 _ , . , P k `? . , - • I I 1 I I III I I 11 HI 1 ' • lI 1 I ! --7.4 .... ... 4 ; . • ",,----.. _411 . . . e. - - - I I I I IW 10r7 1I C9 EAST ELEVATION WEST ELEVATION fl Lecson Pomeroy NoMwest.fr. . Royce A Berg A1A Presrde,H . 1127 Pine Street. Suite 300 . . Secee,WA 981014206)583 8030 • NO DESCRIPTION DATE SITE:RAH NW.ay. P Rts,i,,,,.. r-{x i',.., .,'t', IIIER1_________1 ,________________ _ _ _ _ ___ . 1- i 1 - _ 1 _l_LJ__ 1 1 1 1 • BLACKRIVER A _ ..c,-g= . , 1 _ 11 r _II ELEVATIONS Atctwecture am:Fionnng CORPORATE PARK RENTON, WASHINGTON .11 SOUTH ELEVATION . pc— oc....1,,,, FIRST CITY WASHINGTON, INC. I `7pfk.,Elre A IA'President so8nw..WA 9810‘750=8e0D Main Entry —Planter Surface Parking Beneath Building — FOUR STORY OFFICE BUILDING File:86059\70F7 PHASE VI ELEVATIONS . JOB NO.:88059 SHEET NO OFT • DATE: 11-5-90 DRAWN:(A,4 7 CHECK: RAB • L. • ai t WA. 41 0 ."I I. •• Di= ." $ ,r,,________ :.: ,_ ,, , ....... _.000 , 0 ;:,.. , „,_./in.1.1.01;111 I! _1. 7, ‘ 1 /(....7. ,,t,,I 4 b i1T — �� .,-, II s 1 r o FIRST FLOOR PLAN SECOND FLOOR PLAN t .> _ w L t 3 Y W m O U) s 03 Q o • -i •11.0. ...--.. 41 0. WINO- lc CO a Et .aIc 9 9 040 4 , h .rr , -I Archdeckse and Plomng 4 »a • »> -r•••o" I Leoson Pome6oy Northwest Ine § \:1 m m g Royce A Be A AS P es:tler•t 1127 Pane Street S�to 300 u J • SeotVe,WA 08101 583 8033 'I � ',( I fl7 I ..a -J�fl r� ..r�nn »a a ..... -r„r, W.Iuiil .ve- yl ' NO DESCRIPTION DATE / ! '8111111 II e / p-.nm61tl d 511 vAI)op,r.. u":':, r ' � r 5 4 L 4ir L THIRD FLOOR PLAN FOURTH FLOOR PLAN BLACKRIVER FLOOR PLANS I11L] aeh.ecl�eoixf9Or.9 CORPORATE PARK RENTON, WASHINGTON I lesson PomerW1.418 81 tic FIRST CITY WASH INGTON, INC. O A.fie'9_AIA ResKfeN Z 00011e.WA 981011206j5E3 1030 1 41 81 1Z3 201 FOUR STORY OFFICE BUILDING F:I e:86069\60F7 1 JOB DATE:0.�5-90 SHEET NO OF:7 PHASE VI FLOOR PLANS ' I DRAWN: AAA 6 CHECK: RAB -�f �� ` 1 � � 9 i ) Q� C � T PHASE V m 11 ` I EXISTING BLDG.D Z t FF I Zn NU N 1.` I 1 ? yF FFAnM IgumTT��'L W '. 1'1 o r . EVISTIKO.CURE 0 '' CO coT- ; N88°45'32°W 409•23' - 88'45'32°E-- _--� PROPEAiY UWE 77,�•�I i ,01.4'r eh wl^��' 1 ��''tp1 gnu ti.to sm,+eot..YP " GY,410-NP, t `''''.�.t 4.. 4 Li E,r�Sriufr ARE O a.. 4 ca / .o �� �• ��� �ru1[ :i: m.� n� 1 \7� taF• pc� Ke «o _. a oarcr • {aau 24'wIE Ixtrr-1 \\ I * T� RE i • 5. Ck. #71 iP'��l_gitl ®®I•11 W,t%`1 • u0Hr E-^"P EXISTING OFFICE AND C S �` \ I' #.I t', �' ICxB' NA - \ ;, ,wo 6, ens PARKING AREA 3 LJ.I m JI r. w Ee RE ro EvCa7 rwr. C1�.PVC 0 CO 24'POLE ueHT-�'4 �,{��� .F:,`y41StOTy _�JJ yy ,B. o i. • SirE��l � , 511.GLE WMINOIRF \ •,lt '1�p, 0 e • n•`T+`.K`+T.;.GT'., (..1 as Q O %I unNG c,, -1. - .•r Ito y,A-�'Y oRN ye E/I.n4G COC cllr \ _ �. �,a�`;`. -. !L-;,,4.. ,"`; o :^a'mE'conouwcoo5 c,osIL - a n. ERIC%0.046 — �. � • .' © {III , NEV °W — .. "/ I �4 b corT,,... TiNG,la Ea GE.•wcb 5YI46ol.1YP. Z� `\ � • � � ---pt-✓`- aJwoau,c-,rlsnNG.TO eE rsEw+weo. . Pv \, '-���� �si4(Y£.b_ _ No.,..-„,......,T. /_ .�7.5 cm^v-N e.•�MEn+r rxisr_' 7 \ `y/�L 614:.*,,':i-1! '""g'C— .. �._ . �_ E406TwG Mo'cortc+wcW Ta.�5E iINC>WnLL— �• s.'.` .451 V41-w,'.''� 1.i'n ' ;nn i( l0___• „us r1, Try ,�-/ • Wat-.TY/, _`` W ` �I\T`Ilti� -^lls.m. ' Itd• - tit.'" pW'y� #. P rrs L64TE `�J \ `MM_:�i „ c�'� R•! 1'�E++T El15nu6 CCR �U • 61ht= ¢^°� Architectur e i•/P ,r�1Nl .� f Tei+ro a=[Isn.Jo wa» J ���yN //� VT- ( s=�..Eta c -J=r�.ir e✓I,nNc+ w pU.•M{o�r v�,'F. •`j• \ ''1' wi irk., ,,4 1.. :G 41)-- vwrrntzY SEUER MN.41alE evSnuG pIIRtVL11,CH Q" U40 `--- .'. " `, :1-� METRO Y,TOI+..I.Hdg E-.I6TIH. GHT mM2w MM'' Q •'�` lJ Lemon Pomeroy Northwest,Inc E{ISTNG.i,.EWAuc - .����.- -- - 6�,2^'w R6.474.cLUSTee EKSn•16- Royce A.Berg AIA President aiMax- Y �� /� , ,� 1127 Beattie. Pine 81 eel,01(206).583.8030 .to 330. . 0e+-TERWO�,.W'-Le E+15TI.s \ ��' pi t - iv ci:L I iY I w-✓�JN ffy -fries y 4,102,-1.1- _`.I..IJN!'�% �'�'�T P¢.-K�i-t \ �' • % N ©V4�n %,,/ L,....*441. M,y ��- n,1 fl.446. NO DESCRIPTION DATE _' 1 I /' m 'i/�:iL( bi;11/ar&4.^I ra�l'� _`A'Ww sN,rWr+- �REowNs csa c c. MEM �.,1� : ;y,. v I♦-� /L�,� .it�^ PLANT MATERIAL LEGEND M-- \ ` y` ��,.•.5. � 22 P5. 1' -nuoJ✓�IP+•rhbh-I 1,e4,.•i,hne r+ ,4,147.rroFl-E.,Prorlj 1'ortPE --- „uzµsq ga r'' �a no.I SIDED ,u • 655- P O Fa`I�iG'kt Vrl� ,I aHEal rl�F+'°'(wFa3 '»R-'�f' MmomiNimmm —� I206))essaie9 O'r TPPUCP4T �, \ /yy/ , l/ J,}: --- _ __-_ • / (�+jfr -cB 040,'aim-Tri ,ate,tM1i.51 ig-( wcwrf,'I P 16<i. VN . BLACKRIVER \...,..---1,.......------ <-Pz,\ �, P/lntirw, as aacPo-ra ,P ,aU �, u LANDSCAPE l n i!ao ewkb °ms 'ro�n�w,v �,aw�ro, .a° PLAN °��°°° CORPORATE PARK '�� I w ` . � onF fay Pwe, rs7G�1 Rev cart z 7AF2g fl Ne RENTON, WASHINGTON t Ctx+%t�F �� ` p Id 4. F • . - P�� C�•��•'+''•'�''� r -, i- f��"�.4'ry,,-nPatF4P1, �+t�V .,xn+,+E �•� Pn04,4,••••••Iwn•,•eu FIRST CITY WASHINGTON,INC. GA^_1 \,.,,..,,,.T ,44`,41's't wiA.Resam, �� � j�r` YNrFA'U,PAP Rkr^'tW.' �, � 2 2I Pine S,�eet Suite 300 c Seolli-"", c..0..6D]D PHASE VI = f4`K,HO (a6(L'♦!.!{(1U✓%-I M{,wHING.itifia„ AR"-, e•oi-pi-41;-, 1209 4ai loot" LANDSCAPE PLAN I / 1M4,,,m,IvvU.e a°con q'tofy o 1,j"ar. JOB NO 86059 SHEET NO OF 7 / ' lP•..1i, 1.0 Of-.�( r18°t{'([i{ •fJ•�*'I Lf VY>6U.�lih�o SITE PLAN ______ 5 It"/ao'I 1Z� i • 9 • - i I — 4` / rfie • /fir �� ,N /' \\` `�1 I 1 '_—• / 1/1 / \\5.��;, : V0yy�i��'gip '�i1 h — I T \ 9 1 \\,)\'',,,..' Y ,, \14u It 1 tm,- ;4. I . \ . / , \ \_:-:11t._ ' F\I ° 0 0 0 #,,, I ; cm .\1 yr- 1• ' o0 ' D1 __Li -.. ._-_ fi I I `a o \r _,--16 ,_*__, : . \\ \ .. -.:.i . • , \, -------71' E,„, "!.:71:NlItliti 72. ms}E •\ .A1 ,-1-1 4_ . \ ‘ \ C \ L: ia� _ \� 1m \ 1 \ \ INm • po0i S' v D \\ `‘\ \ \‘ i;,- '1\ • . f • • • ---/N O RT H 1 -co)L 7.3-Q1 S'Gu -j ATIe_ GRA�IJL+et OR61,J ne+6 �� , w BLACK RI V EFL G.F.P. PA.R1L I'M__ BUSH,ROED&HITCHINGS,INC. e ' R a 7- c e N p PHASE $ �u • CIVIL ENGINEERS&LAND SURVEYORS SEAL 0 C QENTO NI V.JG REAe lOHS ER_G. 4-I-9I - 2009 MINOR AVE EAST SEATTLE.WA 98tce sZipeo. 51T6 PLAN laEHIEW 11.z.z.BRf7 120fil323-4 a • • • I- " , I, • il) 1"---\ • • .. 1 _ 1.... -C1-/------'''' ._.C\:14,-_-). - \\• - ....- I-- 0 ..--• 0 0. b-; N T 0 • \13 3 .0 4, 1 --I -1,11 --I \-I ••11;.. 'sr .m......--Z..-"II -I I I '4,8 \.p./, ,.,..,,,-„,„. I ..-•.•-• ' ri ,,...... Z.r.,,• 4 `47,-..1t,'4'. ,.••-• r.'..41.,r4-,! 0,-,•'.-' t_ ..v.t.., 1::::-. \,,\ % 4. r— • ' , ,..o„,,,,„„ • TREE LEGEND ,,,,,,,,,,..... ,... ..... v S 1.',Pew 2.19.00 '''''•nr_Al,__ N—PO RAILROAD EASENT ENT P. AL ALDER ,, v• .. - . — ....- ... _ . M TT...77.n--...9....'-'7:7:.: --.'"."'-' --.4*-11:1 •n ..i,1Vs41 1:'.'1i-,---j1,P•..•v':"• •"•'v P'st'•'/‘'•.s..Vr.!,,•-8g,•Et„::a•\\•,•.W ,',•'M'''\.‘\. ).. ,...2. :Ef.'-I 3"-•I'•Acs-''ss'-sPc-.<:.-M-1.W..v'--.R.E-•II C-AAR S9f0'n.0I2 "!.....5.-1T5"'"_,c...,o.-,-_•-_:,-_-p I-cv''y.f.r_, v '-\-'-`..'7\".T.'N—1-......1,'.A....T.,.E",MR.,-I-A;E1•:Sc:,oOw-T-Ivc. ....o,A._v,D,E'•TE R''M,,'e.'•...„..,T.I"-,,-e.l-..-,,__--__- --c-e -....1.111NAv.7H-.I.AN..v1 4m:10cc ., .''.'.'.. -_ -\--.I-I\_.:.TI11I .i-._n•••*E*_.DW_5M./._1....*E•-:1 grI‘W•.o_•.-E lrDVv,F.,I.I,Ir 59IFv,.,RMA.,.,I6 Ery_0G-IWlg .\:arI-..la4-:I-I;INT7P,AO-T.,-'E...ie.•7”..E-.-a-_ t . § __ — - 8 • ,Rv. A i'1v1'\0V,,.11''1r',,i\1,,-'0,'..‘.'•I4 1iI%'4.1-.':t 1,....0t•.,1''.''n.,'.''t''0„'''',1'1'•,„,:'\•4 '4"••','_ ''''\:,''.'f'F".•- !.E•1•'.:7.••"•3.'; 7•-'''"— ''• V :- 4I&pt.0.t2Q,mM.M.ACD,P4uUMA.•O / ,- - i 7A \ ; , - EcSI4-,I LIO PPA434,41s4e2,.1e5-:roa0 a 2tfWHMS6ACpPrIoOAASCrPIE,E WLePPRSkHIReTIM LLUmaZa•TACHEC&_RIAy NORETCIM o R NI.'0 I,1u OI0,T74.sEN44ID3 •DJ 1A IM-11.17.M.S • niamPlc.a..11;4.,pees 0 1 -ns•4as.,..i... 141..ee.,< JI._,V • / -1'R_A C-_r r-4 . : -c-ruao...1F.E 14,71.ED ./ .1:2) ,„ • \ r .....„.,.,..... , ..--- _......; %•••.,1., ,„\k„,,,,,,. 2 , .I••••••. _v4rryase_eR...4..SEIG \',,,y ......"---,,s---- ---. .1'.',1t,,Is.1 •UTILITY EASERIENT AiAn.,.'" w.e6"..-70 3,e.s.• '..s.vaw.r..e.v.vr,,,zesar,,,-AIL,.1 s..-..I. ,,,...--, VI \. ._ i• / ,.--. _-..-.-- .--_-.7-------r-.------.--•,-.."--' i 13 . , .„,....-.^' - . ,.'Ft /f) ' - , , PHASE VI 11\/I/ : •• yeti, -.9. ,. • .4.4tY.:0- / , 1 ' riAti .• ___________ ---- ,• . , ,..,.,:. ...„ _.„..,....„ .._ . t4.._ ............ ...,....,.....„...,...._ , . f......, • . . s.d• "2.4.7.14C,..; •-1-i--gli.:1__, . • - • .•ACRE ...,_ -------r•T_••r'n•'''' .•-- T• -——- ---- , ....- _ • n.• ,,....,__,..--. r...,„.T --________T,, _-- \ „P .) z „ ‘7•..;-_ '' ' ' ___ g .......,--TY--........-''-----"'''''. „- ...., • ... 011" \t L. REQ.• le • v....7.r-,-v•M--n ,T no ...- • '-'-'1ift----7EI'Lf4''____'--- --.4 • / .......---- .c.r''.4' j ___,,___, ___ ,.• .,„.."• .0 , . ,... • -, 14, \c,,,o,44•,, ...,.. _-- i'. - . _. ,,,,,,,,. 4,66,,0.,.'%;" . ..,•9° ,.•4'.;., 1 --- ,.' . ,..• ___.----5--- 0''''''''- ,_ •• ' - s a • --. . ,„,...-- ,T, Te.••°.C''' , \ 50 --- T' --. Tv..•o. di „.......,....„. • --v--""' •11-4••r - ,,,,,,,4 1 .0.2-ra__ - - ERMAN.,CATITOGOE.v•LAPE•R L CURT.," •*eV' --da „,„ --- TorrINIG-THE RIAHT-OF-VTIA-r.,P 0.5p.t.LE, sl, - og- , ,,,,' \ ,-' 4....;,-,-•::::-'11 ,,,a,`111-' ,,. 4 .'i.-5..- III................,...I.'''''"''''''''' - _.......00110. - I! . ,,,. ....,ARE Holz vve,144 PEMPoSES ../22 ',... ------- t• okiLy / .;',- -l'sr''------- ••••..rrI-------.'74--,... ' ...-----. z.:._,_ ______....------. :;4].c., ..."' ,..' ."-V.,•- ....'. ,,,.------- N,TS.V. -4- 4..., . ----^ ----.,;,.../ -/'-'/7 ./..1,'_;"-----" `—_____-...j,„1_,---- . • • A ------`k ..../--- ..:,.. .- 1 \ --- \', • - _-- __,•- • •.1,::::1' 0 \ . ____,..,- ,f" ,- , _.--•-- -- ------C-C-;,, A L- • „.......-• 0 A.- ..- - , ..-r- . •.--- •,'____----,............0""-- • '''' . ".- .._ . ..--- . s,____„.•-::::,---_-_,.....„....,,,:-...„,.>,...-. ••..-., -. - . • Number of Trees on Site =I . ••••• __it__ -,...._-_-_---30- ,s . • __- .4,,... • - _.- ,.-,... ' • . - _ Number of Trees Preserved liji TOPOGRAPHY PLAN/ , - ,.w-a;;,,,,::,,,••,‘-' • ti., •,,,,_-_-=--r ____ ,,,-----,,,,,,,,-res, ,,•• ,,___,,r, 3, 1.___ ___ ,_0,„,,,.,..,..., • Number of Trees Relocated ROUTINE VEGETATION T O ON ,/ MANAGEMENT APPLICATION ,....0 , _-- _ Number of Trees Removed =I p REE LCATI COORDINATES ' ATTACHMENT#1 .. HO CITLIIII 11.1/6.1511 TM 0 .-.0•''.S.-- ,-....- • nr7I,.1N5I. :CC.:.:I5,R:.1'1....e.5i7ga,.. 111,011.:Z01.5V24..5.A5•1411: T1T1i.M.l50l "C111,...O5109L7...1M."1A7"N)1 111"011A,,..'11013"..5R11.17,5•9, ii.,...v.:11„:.i7...l..3.1i,.....I,.1......, OElHl C2I.""PL.2I1O.1T51I 1:H1:,:A270M2..M1:.121]1ITr1r.:• T:0IIE: .25151 1111,. I1C1.,0U0EnC51 1....E.1551N05.5I1N 105 TT3TMMM-1.RVNC•I HUT OARA IRE.IMI DllTwRwE m aTIT gcIU N EGin. NeME tn RAora nW al alre ml le •i.t': : tt:v-.,r•a•.41..•.7E.M7:..A4,7A..P,'E.I.f.A'.rM.Y'zO 4e6EeOeP.sRe.I,.s•Z J7T•A T4•1Er4•5:-•I 7 9 . 41 R 03 BLACKRIVER PHASE VI ' , >C FIRST CITY EQUITo.I;..I .. .E..-S i " / BUSH ROED&WOMBS INC - : . HAVATGE CIVIL ENGINEERS&LAND SURVEYORS••* -.•• MACRE MAYA. 1575 COMTE u.o..i.e III MT R03.1.51 11.01.141 CHITIN SEATTLE.wEST•RIT. ,-• MAI. ' IN 1,TH.51E WAWA. nil 1.3.1.1201 11,121.51S1 Y MN Ito MIHAIL: 11,...3 r.ron'e'sors 1.... • i _ I'-50'PIN-22,.19851m"MAJ './1.5506 3 , • -. • , ' 3 7 , . . . - . •. ‘ - • Existing Office Use Ein ARCHITECTURAL LIGHTING BY LITH A H ONIA HI-TEK • ARCHITECTURAL UGHTING BY UTONIA HI-TEK. L • 8"HOURS 50-100W HI0,15GW INCANDESCENT 70/10G/15U20025G/40G/1000W HIGH PRESSURE SODIUM > b� 4- x F - ,� KBR8 �� �m.,-� KAA b,a�e�w9.�Na Neme.0 �,(1T o rwe„wa ."71 a-w,w.,.,..,rc•A".wa.aN, n •7'�, r1 I'g, ' �' IL. ,name;� io1 a .awo..m.a.�issumo...m �-r�•` - i o:s r� u�i"� fe`S ' •t'I • e oot9wwaew..w••aR °°vne.tw'ns.m, ' ,a. . ell w.•.m�.nwa 0 / *ti= : . a l comb..Wasiumtrurn or•XEzed tone. a�Y.nm...a vase mw«.w,.en wa,ao.�v, S 1��+3 ,.,E�.. Gi �i E 9 ,vn�wvd°"°'ten` i r' p •.wus,.oM.,cw :bmvbm°•""vwa.m,m,bma wpe... i �) _ .,, .•I� / • 41 «01.1S-aaE-9v�a..,.ba,a,n,.,�.,.•,: J b�'an 9a P.•ae " tr, � ` ° ..- litilIA 't7° Use ouse Wc� „..maaa.M.aa �bras.:amn'",n.,.o m,,.e be. °a' ;rT.D=Dt.-1.Viaodsuaaab�.abmor,s � ,� �N baN �r�t`�: to * �. "" .e..-a„m bawl -.....,...a..,.. i,e ot�'q_ l` ,:..iA, '* i _'j_•,,.,,,_.``_, y`µ L laser{ 7aM !... ;`•s2 1, . —__ ! - ttP : . , r. .: ..� f (raC 1t � �''• �j Futur - l • LIGHTED BOLLARDS 9 24'LIGHT POLES&FIXTURES 6 O ;w i jr s a � e a 1 as , [1 SPEgFlCA �'+w.,N.namc+u+r.mxr,4n %' "' I 0•:°•f,_ ❑� Nit • �7 u L •M0�°'•,•.,m.=�,,.Nx..san�+e.a„ LJ Existing Office Use c . N. Sb ,29��. ( - l T o m.. O.111P,°anv,ivaa�w'rim`wN MI "HIGH PRESSURE O1 •s•ISTAY.-i,n..m,.X..na..,.a I I SODIUM I o. t •` c ili PI um. la..ea.x -�/ a o 6 ea Q c swiZ.tosw:meurs)) ri,,o q O ') 100W ap;(10.,.aj °°° • Lonet5gacres Existing Office/Warehouse Use CO a 2 LL NORTH SIGN LIGHTS 7 ADJACENT USES MAP 1/200" 1 >' 2F aaye� co 9Y • 07 W: L C Site Area t169,314 S.F. a.) . En Z r .:I, Building Area S 71,057 S.F. m___ ,. SW TIH RENTON CA rg.13 J I --/ 1 I Y ,O 1st Flom s,vs SF. Architecture Oriel Planning 7 Z( (220,4s2 s,r.w(Par¢um oa,'e) 13LACKRIVER d W y m ,tU ` b from P Sntl Floor ARK S.F. CORPORATE05 m Q r (� ��^ ,a 4N Flom .o;s7a sr. SITE _,/lig� SI CL ,/) / ____ OL =_ Mang Coverage(Gross S.F.) ._a1.9% I_ 0 '`^-�4 11) El - CL = �5, Site Coverage Toro.sp.) 3 5.3%(±sms In parshj 0=Re) E Impervious Lessson Pomeroy Northwest,Inc Royce A-Berg A IA President _5. pervous Surface Area x12 S.F.S aNIIEs Impervious Surface Coverage s72.8%6% .-.LONGACRES 1127 Pine Street, Suite 300 Seattle,WA9810i(206)583.8030 Landscape Area s272% SOUTHCEMER e Fluor-mat,C Ivoe PKtt.INC-AT-cob.ce cofioNwaapy MAr,E-CI-uSrCy.- Parking Count 5321 Stalls(48 Stalls in Reserve) P,... m HAWTHORN APR'E OWIGB ✓{ GOGED Gm-. Evl if n1&Iaz'S,.aSE StandCompact act z'e9 stalls ///I�� E F VALLEY xl.TniC?CvW'DE '—I CS 5WAw Na.ucap xzsstaus8 Stalls(2s)%) T I 7 ^1 m GENERAL NO DESCRIPTION DATE vaoA.MORING.-c.W�I.E V.1 HOSPITAL M I 7 Parking Ratio t1/221 S.F. ��R'r,{ (2Vz00 eased en 90•„encencp sNOM ��_® IIIII• SITE SECTION NORTH-SOUTH 8 TABULATION 4 VICINITY MAP 2 ��E MIIMMII MIIM ;'0,.', v^•a' g-'�f"-•°yj° SHEET DESCRIPTION MIIIM -�� BLACKRIVER • s• �-..��- 'S "{ ' 1 Project Data PROJECT DATA IaE" "'°°"`� CORPORATE PARK ✓, . ' - off• 2 Site Plan -a •• "�3• 3 Topography/Clearing - >;'d,,.,, , d RENTON, WASHINGTON I -� 4 Grading&Drainage Lesson N Pomeroy Nm"we:ylr,"- FIRST CITY WASHINGTON,INC. .O. 5 Landscape Plan M.A EnO.AIA Pres,eent Q r - p n Se WA 8101(2 58. aw r `��P 6 Floor Plans seunle.wnve+m Roof rwao90 PHASE VI : a` ' s PROJECT DATA n I. ,>_.;.a ,=�� 7 Elevations �6" S'NtN $4•a JOa NO 66059 SHEET NO OF 7 1 MONUMENT SIGN 5 INDEX 3 44. 1 -� . \ \\ '‘1 1 , PHASE V g 1 m hiC,TINCT o r-r=os-r= 1 '•'Ci=c nO 1 ` EXISTING BLDG.D—F 1 U I Z t 11 1 , T yY ° '''TMr � I a) ezlsrlb•cuay. _, �� C OUT ` 1 1V N 88'45'32'W 40923' .. 88 4832°E8 SYMEa-TYP.E . U 2cl P/., e r. .'4L, 4 T ',C 4—II ,,� 'I� ^ 1 ` , 5c \ $��`,�sg$3z3 ti/j' r DIRE 0 \ ` \ •t• • a dtff3e 1 rr(M ,,,,. I51/4 fP.H....pE \ Na. \ a A.1�1 MN- • .. t 4_ }?I 1 eriD�.uHE NM a'wI.E UGIff w cb A 9i a II� 4 �14 i� $a :;:;.1 . `EXISTIN.-OFFICE AND c AL` s g`ea.LTMPwaeE J \\�_ w..0'in.,o�, a r t:•>:,.t . PARKING AREA c W cu n 's }@(:tea /�_� Hwlna,.�k,eY15 .I>. o ` I LACHITH •1ER/ 0' ) ^.' _� I el:.nr�cDas-= \ — i Tr. .) ,,,,, 7 SF� ` �� 1 aaN c.-- =EnSnNG = m u aI/I.T. a �� s 'ro0'conaWwo�EASTu� • 0. CO a. Q "WAG r u�EWy ILLyJfUC-1 win. ���1 S"(M8DL TfP- 'S ,' \ ' Ph' ,r Rc Jl � :M �'�rr=�-Io o Ey15'ni00 1 cEREA,CIF1J _ � � •._-'/I— eHwoou,Excnu`+,TO ze RE+10,00 eNTRv vu°at `p`-- �f:A so' r'] a h,,,rd./ 1 3Ry}���1/ as ww e �—.47 rxlR' �ca�ann ! --''`` ]u ,���_SC.°c1T7���XGv •.,cr .ItP :AC 1 ter odED /� 4y �i�R�Gf f. _`` W" Rr '�tri wit��NC7 :R'F _aE: '} : ,1D' -S'1a� `L%KnIL-- ,-Cj.er. re.c 2cwc+rre�r'1` O\\ •.s..,I�` -..� �. y',v e.w`� m.e....er.-.,T EulsnUc� C RZrMBOI. 4. • \ . �_} �e �� —� Rt*- DEYi51.Ic+cuaN AtChiieCNre Ontl Manning i g /' ,W �sS.V=R Er..E-:�.IreXIcnNC- MCNUMENT a0N 1Mt 1,„�r+ ��4 �� 44 sr/5 s>Mn S1,.E:R Mnn4bLEE enJCs RRtLTIcwIA SiC+rl 4I O`I � , \--� `e ' S9. 1'sTf 4vr�w.NI,LE EILISTINF eECISTIJG��i4EWA,Y -- N �\ �p Lesson.Paineof Noehwesl,Inc M-g Tfl / / ,.,`N 8 T+�i2A HWryETRE6 U lISTL•R 6�C5TIN(r (kT/Ce A,Berg,e A President 'i c±' 1127 Pine Street, Suite 300 • 'e. `.z�''{� D.t IN<G5 sl.w>-e etiSTl,.� Seofte.WA 98101 6)5838030 ti�\f / TGP-1, NrNGSO FaA •'• E1A b, 1k b tIOF:IU�R S- -�' -r t VACANT •/' \\ ••f1 \.� ��' NO DESCRIPTION DATE ,- M i i 73Z ) % •\ ti • -9 — 0 MIMIIMIE ?m'Faa.1 _ �� A- -Jam. 1 —'-04 M—I=I M— I TW 5 � 1� / __� • srpro E 818018E ° • ♦ w .v VACANT •P1� el,APP • i Hwy �•' '-/king Reserve in Lawn �48 Stalls ' { -- �� • �P\f�'' -/• Wildlife Habitat t3,40D S.F.(2%) M-- BLACKRIVER `''�•-�"�•''--' �,� ! TREE ABULATION SITE PLAN • "` ecWeeneRann"°VN CORPORATE PARK � ' VACANT Number of Trees on Site I RENTON, WASHINGTON \\ QNumber of(1est xe. FIRSTCITYINC.Be 1800 \ \ n x FZLlEe'�6T4610 1 20'I 409 ion• SITE PLAN 1 / / Number of Trees Removed . / JOB N0 86059 SHEET NO OF 7 SITE PLAN Ir/4D'I 1 ara 2 is y• r' I ` . 1 • I _ et Lace 111111 2 �� 7 s 11 2 is% . r ..- — • a y y ��" . 4 ici - W. 01\. lik .,,c_ lirlPFAL_ 0° • .1 O.' , . 11$ ' 111111 , 111111,iii0 ti Att wnuFe icR- • (0 -.ill" sisoksi•• lit .1.1 • -I-4337s s.f. 1.0 ‘' I\ $ NI\17 .... -• ...._ stir. Cpt4) 3,400 SF kI11 - 1111,----- Oli ' . ,. ,.,. . . .....,, . • .. t‘)?4,s -.. 1.\.........:_________, 4........_,---- _ , __ - - .-- B._ , &OCAI/IPQM _ ..._ . o _. ... �,. ? - TE N o. s� - /�.3 _ 90 .Y. ALTERNATE DRAINAGE PLAN i� i.. r��v �..�tea'-.ec ' r-...a -. -••• - - • --:: � -_ -� 4- anni -— ..,., _ . �A�' 14�•�} JOB NO .. NW86059 SHEET NO _ 2 �Archrtecturer�ndPlann�ng �i ATTACHMENT TO SI�'� w Blackriver Corporate Park DATE �- Q� �(1 r ;tr _ ■' pa, 2 P�aSe VI DRAWN A Leason Pomeroy Northwest:Inc..Royce A 13erg AI.A 1927 Pme Street Suite 300 Seattle WA 98101.(206)5133-8030 , -_l,-c story Q r Office Building : ':�ra•::T _ -- ._ .- - •- Y - it g I . - . • \ . . 1 . \ \ ri I 1 . I „ - . .. t'vetV1.-%\04. , 7 :..,1 _ , , \ . -- - • 610 CP ei ct 51; ,-; -,-4 , :,,, ..,1 . 11.1\ 'il F i s s i s i :•..,- i \ , --1 1 ifr . 1 _. __-;TIUIMiE1L:R•=,'-•-I,1•i-1,:sNi.4S-.i=5;.7f't•n;'_.4Ti-,',r:..°'-.,.- -„i ianim.,rr:-.,ft-:s.ke'4i'..':'-.,-.i-1*.a,_..iu'n„1.,l.,,-).!A4-sI3ui i,E•7Rn.;4iI:i1:•-r1;irI,.;rI•-,i1,.tie.,c:.%l:t.?,i.-4t-A,-k'd-t-i1i 1-iiaZ--s,r."=1-'-1;k,i1r i:)i,.l14l1,,,:-)1,I1.';.,;4i m 4.*rV:.:`,.z'':-'•-a-EM TN lO i_"i•-'r.:.kaE•N5I '.,• - ,' • u'lI'L t—! -./.. ,•_-.•7o,_t 4,'i i- .1,b..:.\.-,b-I_•\-,-N\N,.,*,,•*-l‘11,\1-,4,bl.i41.,.1:..11•.„41,„:\ .---6,0 )I1i . . wsi!1II!,''. v • _ — __ __ tiop__ _ _ s ic.4pi .e-4 - 7- - • V) 0 1mc n g • ,65..1.±. . ... ' . D . _img. , . ......, 1 . -711 141 ‘-)F, -.1.- 6*. -t_b__07 e.7 -) --- v.11. ::: .574ACi.gV:;__ 66 ,_. _ • ...- _ , I- ------ , , _ _ _ _ -I- _. ._ _ _ ___,..: _________________Icria4,______.tr.__51.z_i___q.1•20.01;4__ .6 _ IIIL-w--W-.L,t7,•41 .1.11 „. •s--- -1., ___ I I IL --•4.1-11------fr. /Z2 I ) 11111' '-'0- 1;III BEN_: •IMINUOINIIIII II —, • ----- --- - , - -1-- . _ .. : 6, 1 - 1 _ __________ _ . _________ ..,....MEMII:..... ...::_-_,..4-••:*s7 •--4,. •::37.--;.',71:-J.-T.!--;:‘-:•-,•-. ,,.,,,-.---- _ ,,, _•:5',foo,:•?, . .:•iLs-. ._,.. • - - 1--7 ..• zi • 4 e7C ' i-.4*_. ,_____. _ )_. _.... Atm.....„),‘,. :i„.• , _....• ._ _ . co•1 tp;, ,flt. ,.. p ,is- _-_, Rossi i#iamor : 7- :.1:-14,..71—M4 d,i-d.._.4*.IT-7 , lik( 11.1‘..0 . .., •,--;:,,,,i,i-.4%s --4-...„,4 - ---- ----- •"" ": " - ',1-P,',a, ff,.. 4 mi ,---4,1mitpi _ - -- z.,_-_ _.,_:,....-----.7,1-:. 1:='--i•-.7"".`.--='"-:,- I.::"` 1.4,,__-• r± -,-.Ia.',- r ": - --L-IL---. .. —_-7_—-4;__.ecico--a, -,:i_ .. 1- 1,,,...ell ui 1 er —_-, ,. -—__ _—__ _ ='- 'if• .17"- --- ---,-,-,.- - -"C'„' ' p.,.-.: ' .,,.' — - . 'z'Z' S•jsk -.74: wimir --- atignuamitai' • ----- -- --- - --.. --- .... • • l PLANNING DIVISION CITY OF RENTON \ • • •• MAR 1 1 1991 . 6 , _ P' •• _ k - CEVED ,,.. t f 7 .,•'.,......'. . �' WI I�u� Voeiv r 4 c .F 111 sYIIItIIIfIio13ll1°k 1l_... ':. -:., 1r11\1111°. , 3400 5. . tin v.). ) t f{C.P GPP Sc. ll1ltlt11 I1I1,111111lM 2c it • 14cP 14cx i IG IA0r*� sr •.s s m .,.li. t„i,t F.. .-....,..a,....4.4I..4A4k k9r 1Isi ---- WrIiaSIlM, IS, • li po/1A t• OS \AJ ,.. , _ .4,, logo ....00:.,______ Aco . ,4* . .000.111"... ir , EXHIBIT � � O. ' � O s 43 70 . 4 ALTERNATE DRAINAGE PLAN - Architecture and Planning E G - ATTACHMENT TO :Sptp,k) 143 .4)n JOB NO ; NW86059 SHEET NO ;, - Iackrive� Corporate Park - _ - .z. 3 Z �� _ DATE . �•D f_;_.,21;:_::::,,,-7,.... .:..-fr:1:.:::-1,..:-1--:- .: z �_ Phase VI :1 i DRAWN .. ..:_ 4 - Leason Pomeroy Noifhwest.tnc..Royce A Berg A.1.A..1127 Pipe Street Sue e 300 Seotne WA 98101(206)5133 Soso, _ 4 Story Office Building CHECK SHEET OF 2 e- • J - • + poins.r. oo 5.F. ?JI,►u0 ....1.:->'.. 2\* f(CP GP P • • J ,� • ; / . ,,. tiiiiiir 111114W . 10og\ 1 Oa 01,,,A I\ • *4 11.0. s., tioiro 131•11 A• ililiAlla • 5%1[0_ a lion-A Nit lre-a2tiling. ‘ , ... \ likl.li_11----* . 9cotv,$ • s. , 1111■111"-Co s011t ' li \1fr - _. ._ t . , iiiiiiii........ __Ik so - idi _ , ., ,..... A . A* tii.... ---to _ _. _. , _,_:___ Ao ...,,_. • . i ._ . „ _._,...:,.„.„-- ; J 1ALTERNATEDRAINAGEPLMU • F ATTACHMENT TO :S 5�; 19•� -fin JOB NO : NW86059 SHEET NO } Architecture and P►annmg - - � ::.--,.:- _-__.;:;-..A.....,,-„..?„..-.;-, Blackr vet Corporate Park Y - •- - - i - _ - _ - _ '^�.-` a.a _ DATE : Vit)091Phase vl`T • DRAWN :° t season Pomeroy Northwest,,'Inc Royce A Berg A1.A•!i27 Pine Street Sude`^30D Seattle WA98701 j2o6)583 8D3U Story 0 f f C e 6 V t 1 d n g CHECK SHEET O F 2 • • • a . . • • di .ll • • H . lriinirtuT • 1 W.A.; . . . . . " . • 1 Of'!"15 -p_---• \ . . \ 2, g. a% \.... , — • • • • • • tvIN!'1011 1°1 \ . . • 1'''..ro.__,, A in. t 0 d o u p e . � ititkThi- . \.._______, 0 1A z c • , .-I-. 4 37S S.f. f 01 RotkS) ' ( 3,400 SF Voi) . V 1011110. , Ilia .,. ......a... ..-------""". . 60P11/11?12M . . F4ie. • . : . *1111----- . - . Lliv... • - -...-- - . • B . . . . . • 'o • • • • ALTERNATE . DRAINAGE PLAN t ATTACHMENT TO • S Ae�SM)143•�D JOB NO : NW86059 SHEET NO Archrtec4ure and Planning •- ' B G k {V e , _ • _{ �' Corporate Park DATE • .$.�� r J� .tG Phase VI 2 DRAWN ,. Lesson Pomeroy Normwest Inc.Royce A Berg.A l A 927 Pine Street Suite 300 teams,.WA 9870'1 j206,563 8030 y 4 Story O f f Ci e 6 w t d n g CHECK SHEET O F 2. i ___i 1 , SA- sm. EcF, govmpi, Existing Office Use I 45 INF 90 .. . . 1). tiii • v _ _ 0,....;. ,„ , IA .....:::_. .64,1: _ ,ea 0. Ir. -10.— ..• in. .. . 11 iii• IN. , t V. 1.1.1)e JOGGING TRAIL ,r . . ..i: 7 ' ' I.» ..o). ;I, jj� ' :_14.110k ,,t .• \II:4-Ti \ At li , .....'7"a' '.,ff4a 4 : ---_- --.;:ficog, . ati.,.:• :., g:2 21: l'.. ii. ..... ttrp 1 74 .. 1 Iii I •*. /to.- klos:AILY -14--*:* we'. O. , 3 il• --'../. .11 CC; j 0 :. ' 'titk t ' .ga pa; ...,:...,..,,, itke:. 1.I.! P1104111 I $ .A! 0 .tat! , .„fi . I) a O - y... ••. .I 0..I am `1i� "," �.: . 1 .&i� Existing SPRIMOBROOK , ., el 1 ` 4 t In y w+c '.wr-r PIS •• .,� - 4. 7. y _., ,�• ,� �: �..a�►.� � .e LI..... *-1 F•=Iri Office/ ar aA ,, -- 46,.ti -a.•♦' .- r� warehouse . h a) , �. I �.. iti :, .. ... 4:1, . ,w '•' ,ae. . Use 30It; 21m .c''• •sue I �•. : � tJ _' ri \, ItY‘lik V -, 'ski►'.� .'•� slittil low x u. j ,:ice \ : 1 ••'�i,� t „Ir. _tom o,,, _ ,� 4 le w. CIS t values . 41.1' 00.P. - '_. ,1•I\wL Ax A.iaiv., z.-:,,••\,.:.1).*-•.-.:1k1k-•..13 ti 1 */„1‘a•‘,d„i\,...t.-t, Metro Sewer `\� i% •'1 ` ,;.'__. v:' e 4 `.:: e "aI; o , . 4/\ rA Treatment Plantf!\•. -1 O Future ' _ .� ► •,,) SUbStation CLi:m1 , . r2;:f 6Low, % : ,_ , ,r--- ,' 4. , 7 O 1c0 -edir-- 1111i41.61 t . '.i , 0 /.•z• )43 tut.. . jot_ : I . . _$.0.44. L�6 4,11‘ • .4 tY Existing Office Use GA)_ 16... off+ CI) I-- 0 > > g • �+ RE ..1 � �t .:�01 � � it �f' c. to • JM - •- c STATorreE 40S aL m •`Cn Lim ^ ini UJ as - ., ,r,- ... ,f. . , / c::. . xl a. v ne na �.al II V c ;4 MIMI 11111Mr_i . Illi ..-- . 0 Longacres Existing Office/Warehouse Use c m u_ m ci.. cc E X}114E'Vl Nrn A. ., .. „...„. 4=2„. r � IT . 5_ ;, _4 - O ADJACENT II 7 C ITT USES MAP 1/200 1 _ . - = r CITY OF RENTON MEMORANDUM DATE: February 13, 1991 TO: Environmental Review Committee FRO onald K. Erickson, AICP oning Administrator Staff Contact: Mark R. Pywell, AICP Project Manager SUBJECT: ECF; SM; RVMP; SA-143-90 Blackriver Corporate Park Phase VI The project referenced above was reviewed by the ERC on January 16, 1991. The applicant has requested the Environmental Review Committee to reconsider four of the mitigation measures that were placed on the project. Condition #1. ERC has called for the applicant to pay $253,674.00 to the Grady Way TBZ. The applicant feels that the past fees should relieve them of having to pay the $253,674.00 assessed the project. The applicant has indicated that it was their understanding that the significant L.I.D. assessments already being paid by First City for Oakesdale Ave. and Oakesdale utilities would be treated or credited as offsets against future impact assessments. The Transportation Systems Division states that they are unaware of any past agreement(s) that would allow the reduction of the current TBZ fees. Condition #2. The applicant is required to place 15% of the parking into a parking reserve. If, after a two year pilot period after the effective date of implementation of the reserve parking area, the applicant can demonstrate that the reserved parking area is necessary to serve employees, than the applicant may apply to the Administrator of the Planning/Building/Public Works Department to obtain a release of sections or all of the reserved parking area. The applicant feels that the building will have 93 to 94% efficiency and therefore, is already under parked. Staff usually uses an 85 to 90% efficiency rating to determine parking. The parking reserve placed on this building is the same as is usually applied to an office building in the City of Renton. Staff also does not believe that the 85% to 90% efficiency reflects the design of the building as much as the proposed initial tenancy which will likely change over time. Condition #5. The applicant is required to discuss the proposed development with the Community Services Department to determine the impacts on recreational facilities. The applicant indicates that they have participated in off-site recreational facilities and will provide on-site recreational facilities (e.g. horseshoe pits, picnic tables). They do not feel that they need to provide any further consultation or facilities. Condition #8. The applicant is required to provide additional landscaping in the reserved parking area. Although landscaping is a site plan review item, staff felt ''-at to mitigate off-site aesthetic impacts further landscaping is necessary. The applicant needs to provide a wildlife habitat area equal to 2% of the project site in accordance with the Landscaping Ordinance. Staff also recommended that six specimen sized trees be provided between the building and Oakesdale Ave. The idea behind this recommendation was that the specimen sized trees would be replacing the significant trees to be removed for the construction of the building and associated parking area. The applicant feels that since they paid a cash sum to upgrade the street trees that they should not have to use specimen size trees on-site. Staff feels that the recommendations to the ERC were reasonable for the proposed project and commensurate with conditions imposed on similar projects in this immediate area. Staff does not recommend that the ERC modify the conditions at this time. 40 City of Renton Environmental RevlewiCommittee MEETING NOTICE February 13, 1991 To: Lynn Guttmann, Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator John Webley, Community Services Administrator Lee Wheeler, Fire Chief From: (] _.........,...y Don Erickson, Secretary Meeting Date February 13, 1991 Time 1 p 00 AM Location Third Floor Conference Room Agenda attached below. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE AGENDA February 13, 1991 Third Floor Conference Room Commencing at 10:00 AM TIME/KEY PARTICIPANTS NEW CHEVRON USA, INC. CU;ECF-096-90 Applicant seeks to redevelop an existing service station on a 24,295 sf lot. Construction includes an 11,000 sf bldg, four fuel dispensers, and three new 12,000 gallon fuel tanks. The project is located at 301 South Grady Way. RECONSIDERATION HIGHLANDS CHURCH C U;R-048-90 The applicant seeks to rezone the easterly portion of the project site from R-1 (single-family residential) to P-1 (Public Zone) and to construct a two-story 12,000 sf addition to the existing church in order to provide additional classroom area. The project is located at 3031 NE 10th Street. BLACK RIVER, PHASE VI ECF;RVMP;SA;SM-143-90 The applicant proposes to construct a four-story 71,057 sf office building with landscaping and parking on a 169,314 sf site. The project site is located on the east side of Oaksdale Avenue and approximately 150 feet north of South Grady Way. cc: J. Covington, Executive Assistant to the Mayor L. Warren, City Attorney F. Kaufman, Hearing Examiner G. Gotti, Fire Marshal J. Hanson, Development Services Y. DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING/BUILDING PUBLIC WORKS ENVIRONMENTAL; REVIEW COMMITTEE >` STAFF REPORT Jaritjary 16i 1$g1 A: BACKGROUND: • . APPLICANT .. Dean Erickson/First City Washington, Inc. PROJECT: ' Blackriver Corporate Park Phase VI ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST. RVMP,SM. SA-143-90 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL; The; .applicant proposes to construct a four-story 71057 square foot office building with landscaping and parking area on a 169,314 square`foot site. LJCATION OF PROPOSAL: The project site is located on the east side of Oaksdale Avenue and approximately 150 feet north of S. Grady Way ISSUES; Aesthetics/Land Use, Natural Environment,Traffic, Noise, Light and Glare, Public Services/Utilities, Construction RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommend that the ERC issue a'Determination of Non-Significance- Mitigated,with the following conditions (see page 2} • -\i\ 1 1 1� ifo tul\ 1 J[/KTft3 ----- �o OUT ; -� L. y - R ea_r w 40927 _.s7r E n ♦ f. A �' Ate, ;* 7e4_ • ''I 'it.-♦ ' mi.,:iY•4 i C- 1 . �ps�. - — ev*Tw n'rt 1 p �i .•.1 �.nnaxrnr r • \\ Ilit,ritAti � a S0� 4 a 1/4414 Q '�S`1 ``y� � �,._�a �.•E; 7L..1�\k..! L. 3 '\ - �H M. i'.1 1r A.00144,111.44444.41 N d ' • \ ;J ��''^ ��+ �.Jlw ,'1`• , �i1Rl. _,err: \`°j° � S� :. •K.,—,- .,4. \'��, - - . ExlsTridGIF AND + ��i— EtisnrKrY_;- ;c� ' PARKNGIAREA t�rol.e U049— „� � r pee aE«w.ev�a� +� .aisnwCA145--' ` ; '4 .: xar Hwc•ceerr �1 etr a„re+t--'F -- \ �._ '. __ ! ? " � 'I oo r 'me'cons at5 ew:T.c uK�cswA,x r '". - o �' ,�'�.-!'-aM ��II ^- [w M'AC 'Y'l ZJ• '`� ! (:, I1 `,, � ,�y a'r�-7ewr.De;NrSrwG.' En o•-�o w -„ In , " Z1� LO ts' w•,.wq.E✓K144-. TO 66 rm,.o.tza w f. V1\ �.1 firs r Ifg s- —4,_410�~}}y�p";�__ �--7i a-s w.E..a.+i.T exKT+� 7 .� yr,,/ t.♦z 4R ski- _ n.,�tI:•��--G er nm *40- �`6 ` 4 ,+Ie� ►*• •L� `.EQ'r,' _ 'fry A E "`'� . ., \ •• \ • e ri -1 ' f✓I r" 9w >a ro e,.....ro w.n y`T yw' imlora " ,`�' i-<,� r • ., , SwrtaRYSLL Y! Kit 9 J6 uG.1 Nr p ye. ; -- MT.re•n,.ert.nw.a.E 4.44 ex IG %1,.?Z a.:ARWAYc 9YMd]L.Tvr. �?ll'.. ,-, � 4 -Owa,1 wnanary GUnTd.•<Kn.y- y�� - _ _• -,!-ii.�@ Ai; ,1.„ e•�Tr�.•...V.W.MKTWS -�- \ 1 ,V 3 s ;2TY W ;� eitsn6 eveaC . • •' , - BLACKRIVER \ \--- -- --- V N I CORPORATE PARK .�-- q�4 G.q��inq F PLRENTON, WASHINGTON _�, FIRTY WASHINGTON,INC. : � PHASE VI \ \'`:.:,__,,�- 5%iiP4 C. scomnrAvam+iiameeewo Z 1 201 401 t001 LANDSCAPE PLAN % - % - ' ' Erns:onmental Review Commnicc Staff Report Blackriver Corporate Park Phase VI • • • January 16, 1991 Page 2 • • 8pA Eco IVI IIA E N DATI O Transportation 1. The applicant shall, in order to mitigate the impacts of increase traffic on area roads, provide the following mitigation fee of $253,674.00 for the Grady Way TBZ to the satisfaction of the Transportation Systems Division prior to the Issuance of site preparation/building permits. • Note: The fee is based on the following: Building Area = 71,057 square feet Vehicle trips per the Environmental Checklist • 21 Vehicles per 1,000 square feet 21 x 71,057/1,000 = 1,492.20 Estimated Vehicle Trips Assessment of Grady Way Transportation Benefit District ($170.00 per trip • generated) 1,492.20 x $170.00 = $253,674.00 to be deposited to- Account No. 105/572/318.70.00.62 2. The applicant shall, in order to reduce the number of vehicle trips for the proposed structure by 10%, provide a TMP (Transportation Management Plan) to the satisfaction of Metro and the Development Planning Section prior to the Issuance of site preparation/building permits. Light,and Glare • 3. The applicant shall, in order to mitigate the potential impacts of glare caused by the reflective glass onto Oakesdale Ave. and/or S. Grady Way, prepare a reflective glare diagram for those hours • when the angle of the reflected sunlight is 30 degrees or less with the horizon to the satisfaction of the Development Planning Section prior to the public hearing before the Hearing Examiner. • • Public Services/Utilities • 4. The applicant shall provide the City with a "Hold Harmless" agreement as a portion of the project site lies within the 100 year flood plain and may be subject to flooding. This agreement shall be to the satisfaction of the Development "Services Division prior to the Issuance of site preparation/building permits. Recreation 5. The applicant shall, in order to mitigate the impacts of this project on City recreational facilities, consult with the Community Services Division to review the Park and Recreation Comprehensive Plan and the Master Trails Plan to determine what projects this development impacts, prior to the public hearing before the Hearing Examiner the applicant shall provide a recreation mitigation plan to the satisfaction of the Community Services Department and the Development Planning Section. . Construction • 6. The applicant shall provide a construction mitigation plan including the following components: a) an erosion control element; b) an element limiting hauling hours to between the hours of 8:00 A.M. and 3:30 P.M.; c) an element requiring the applicant to water down the site periodically to control dust and debris; e) a.$2,000.00 cash deposit for street cleaning (if needed) and f) an element to requiring the wheel-washing of all construction vehicles prior to leaving the project site, prior to the issuance of site preparation/building permits. This plan shall be prepared to the satisfaction of the Planning Development and Public Works Sections of the Department of Planning/Building/Public • Works and implemented throughout the construction phase of this project in order to protect the adjacent commercial/industrial land uses. • Note to Applicant: . 1. The applicant shall submit copies of an agreement from Metro and Washington Natural Gas Indicating their approval of the proposed construction within their easements prior to the public hearing before the Hearing Examiner to the satisfaction of the Planning Development Section of the Department of Planning/Building/Public Works. • • Environmental Review Committee Staff Report Blackriver Corporate Park Phase VI January 16, 1991 Page 3 2. The applicant shall provide an amended landscaping plan which Includes the reserved parking areas and the wildlife habitat area to the satisfaction of the Development Planning Section prior to the public hearing before the Hearing Examiner. 3. The applicant will be required to extend the 12"watermain along the south boundary of the project. 4. The applicant shall provide fees for the special utility connection assessed this project. The fee for the water system is$210,333.56, prior to the Issuance of site preparation/building permits. 5. The applicant will be required to make all Code mandated off-site and on-site improvements (e.g. sidewalks, street lighting, curbs, utility lines and systems) prior to the issuance of occupancy permits. .................. The applicant seeks approval to construct a four-story, 71,057 square foot office building with parking and landscaping at the intersection of South Grady Way and Oakesdale Ave. The proposed office building is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Map which designates the project site for Manufacturing Park/Multiple Option uses. The proposed project is also consistent with Plan Elements for the Valley Plan area. The subject property is zoned for Office Park use, which permits the proposed office building as a permitted use with site plan 'approval. The proposed project adequately addresses the development standards for an office park. The Springbrook Creek Is considered a valuable and Important resource within the City of Renton. Springbrook Creek is protected by the standards and regulations in the Shoreline Master Program Ordinance. The proposed development is consistent with the Master Shoreline Ordinance in that it will compliment existing development that is adjacent to the subject property, the proposed building will be located approximately 200 feet from the creek and parking areas will be located approximately 150 feet from the creek. The area to the north, south and east of the project site has been developed for a variety of office and light industrial uses. The area to the west of the project site has been developed for the Metro Sewer Treatment Plant. The proposed use is compatible with the surrounding land uses. The proposed project is adjacent to Blackriver Phase V (a three-story building) and Phase II (a two-story building). The parking lots of these three phases are directly adjacent to each other and are interconnected by an internal circulation system. The internal circulation system connects with Oakesdale Ave. and Powell Ave. 1. Aesthetic/Land Use Impacts: The applicant is proposing to construct a four-story, 71,057 square foot, office building ' as part of the Blackriver Corporate Park. The rear portion of the building will be elevated to provide surface parking beneath the building. The exterior of the building will be finished with reflective glass, steel and concrete to match the existing buildings in the park. The existing development on adjacent parcels consist of one,three and four story office buildings. The proposed four-story building has been designed so that the front face of the building, as seen from Oakesdale Ave., is broken into three sections. Each section is set back from the previous i; section fifteen to twenty feet. This will help reduce the apparent lateral bulk of the project as seen from the street. The applicant has provided a landscape plan which for the most part is adequate. The plans provided by the applicant indicate that parking will be provided for 321 vehicles. Staff believes that fifteen percent of these spaces(49 parking stalls) should be placed in a parking reserve. The forty- nine parking spaces should be removed from the parking lot on the south side of the existing drainage swale. This would allow for additional'landscaping in these areas. ' " Envi;onmental Review CommLu-u Staff Report Blackriver Corporate Park Phase Vi January 16, 1991 Page 4 Metro and Washington Natural Gas have easements crossing the subject property. The site plan indicates that the applicant proposes to cross these easements with interior roads and parking areas. Prior to the public hearing before the Hearing Examiner the applicant will need to provide copies of an agreement with these agencies for the proposed development within the easements. The applicant has submitted a Routine Vegetation Management Plan. There are twenty trees (Hawthornes, Cottonwoods) on the project site. The applicant has Indicated that six trees will need to be removed for this project. Fourteen of the more significant trees will be retained. The trees to be removed will be replaced by the trees in the required landscape areas. Mitigation Measures: See Notes#1 and #2. Policy Nexus: Landscaping Ordinance 4-31-34, Parking and Loading Ordinance 4-14, Environmental Review Ordinance 4-6 2. Natural Environment Impacts: The project site is separated from the relocated Springbrook Creek (P-1 channel) by Oakesdale Ave. S.W. Due to the fact that the project site is within 200 feet the applicant has applied for Shoreline Management Permit. The project complies with Sections 7.05.01.A. of the Shoreline Management Program in that the proposed structure will be located in an area that has already been developed with commercial uses. The proposed structure also complies with Section 7.05.02 in that the proposed building will be located more than fifty(50) feet of the water's edge. The proposed building will be located approximately 250 feet from the water's edge. A draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) was prepared for the entire Corporate Park in July of 1980. Although most parts of this DEIS are outdated, the description of the subject property is accurate. The DEIS indicates that the portion of the project site that is now proposed for development was part of the golf course that covered most of the 109 acres that the Statement studied. The project site is located within the area described by the Green 'River Valley Plan of the Comprehensive Plan. Section I.C.8. of the Valley Plan states that wildlife habitat should be preserved or its loss mitigated should be mitigated. Section 4-31-34.F.2 of the Renton Municipal Code requires 2% of a project site in the Green River Valley be established as a wildlife habitat area. In order to provide mitigation for the loss of wildlife habitat caused by this project, the applicant has agreed to provide a wildlife habitat area equivalent to 2% of the area of the project site. Mitigation Measures: See Note#2. Policy Nexus: N/A 3. Traffic Impacts: The area that this proposed project is located within is developing for office and warehouse uses and the number of people employed in this area is increasing rapidly. Although, there is not a bus service offered along Oakesdale Ave. S.W. it can be expected in the near future as the employment base grows and justifies it. Staff recommends that the applicant work with Metro to develop an agreement that will reserve an area along Oakesdale Ave. for a future covered Metro bus stop. The applicant will also,need to work with Metro to develop a Transportation Management Plan (TMP)for the project site in order to reduce the number of vehicle trips on area roads to the extent possible. The proposed project is located within the Grady Way TBZ, all roadway and intersection Impacted . location are provided for in the TBZ. The fee, as Indicated below, is to provide participation in these projects. Building Area = 71,057 square feet Vehicle trips per the Environmental Checklist 21 Vehicles per 1,000 square feet 21 x 71,057/1,000 = 1,492.20 Estimated Vehicle Trips Assessment of Grady Way Transportation Benefit District($170.00 per trip generated) 1,492.20 x$170.00 = $253,674.00 to be deposited to account no. 105/572/318.70.00.62 Environmental Review Committee Staff Report Blackriver Corporate Park Phase VI January 16, 1991 Page 5 As part of the site plan review the applicant will be required to develop a pedestrian circulation system to provide a pedestrian linkage between the proposed building, the existing buildings and the sidewalk along Oakesdale Ave. The applicant will also be requested to work with METRO to provide a location for a future bus stop along Oakesdale Ave. Staff is concerned with the proposed vehicle linkages between the new parking lot and the existing parking lots. One of the proposed vehicle drives requires the vehicles to jog over several feet. As part of the site plan review, staff will continue to work with the applicant to straighten out this roadway. Mitigation Measures: See Recommendations#1 and #2.. Policy Nexus: Transportation Goals and Policies/Comprehensive Plan 4. Noise, Light and Glare Impacts: a. Construction Noise impacts can be expected to be generated during the construction phase of the project. As there are no residential land uses in close proximity to the subject property, no exceptional measures are necessary to reduce noise levels beyond those normally applied to a project of this type. b. Operations The applicant is proposing to use reflective glass In this building. Reflective glare is not expected to be readily visible from Oakesdale Ave. or South Grady Way where it could impact the vision of motorist. However, to confirm this, the applicant needs to prepare a reflective glare diagram for those hours when the angle of the reflected sunlight is 30 degrees or less with the horizon. On sight lighting will be screened by landscaping and light shades as necessary. Mitigation Measures: See Recommendation#3. Policy Nexus: Commercial Policies/Comprehensive Plan, Environmental Review Ordinance 4-6 5. Public Services/Utilities a. Police and Fire Services Impacts: Police and Fire Prevention Bureau staff report adequate resources to provide anticipated services to the site during construction and operations with system Improvement fees and with Code-required improvements (e.g. three hydrants, 20 foot fire lanes,automatic sprinkler system). The Police Department did note that emergency response requires a phone system that identifies each caller and their location, not the property owner. Failure to have such a system would pose a major impact on police services. Mitigation Measures: None Required. Policy Nexus: N/A b. Storm Water Management Impacts: A portion of the project site is within the 100-year floodplain as defined by FEMA. Compensatory storage volume will have to be provided in order to fill any portion of the site that currently lies below the elevation of the 100-year floodplain. Due to the fact the subject property is located within the 100-year floodplain, the applicant will need to provide the City with a"Hold-Harmless Agreement" holding the City harmless for any damages (e.g.flooding,fire, etc.) resulting from development within this floodplain. The applicant will be required to provide a storm water system in accordance with the 1990 King County Surface Water Design Manual which will Include a Level 1 downstream analysis. The applicant will also need to provide on-site biofiltration and an oil-water separator. • Environmental Review Committee Staff Report Blackriver Corporate Park Phase VI January 16, 1991 Page 6 At this time the applicant is proposing to divert the storm water into an existing swale that leads into the P-1 channel. Due to the large amount of impervious area, the runoff will increase significantly over this site. Since blofiltration swales are designed only for a 2- year predeveloped release rate, a greater design storm-event would Increase flow velocity above the maximum design flow, thereby deteriorating water quality. Detention would provide a metered flow rate, that would maintain water quality except in extreme design storm events. Therefore, staff recommend detention (per 1990 King County Surface Water Design Manual), unless the applicant can produce a specific document agreement with • the City that waives detention. If detention were waived and the paved area exceeds one acre, then runoff from all paved areas should be treated by a wetpond prior to discharge (per 1990 King County Surface Water Design Manual). Mitigation Measures: See Recommendation#4. Policy Nexus: Environmental Review Ordinance 4-6, Storm Water and Surface Water Drainage Management Ordinance c. Sanitary Sewer Utilities Impacts: There is an existing sewer line and manhole are available for sewer connection at southwest portion of the subject property. There Is a latecomers agreement sewer fee of$4,129.28 and a special utility connection charge of$10,666.78 that will be assessed at the time of building permits. Mitiaation Measures: See Notes. Policy Nexus: N/A d. Water Utilities Impacts: The applicant will need to extend the existing 12" watermain along the south boundary of the subject property to the east property line. If final fire flow calculations exceed 2500 GPM this loop will have to be closed. Due to the existing water pressure in this area the applicant will need to install a pressure reducing valve in the buildings water system. Special utility connection charges will be assessed this project. The fee for the water system is$21,333.56 which will be assessed at the time of building permits. Mitigation Measures: See Recommendation#5 and Notes. Policy Nexus: Storm Water and Surface Water Drainage Management Ordinance e. Recreation Impact: In order to provide on-site recreational facilities for the employees the applicant is proposing to construct a outdoor seating area and a horseshoe pit as part of this development. A running course with workout stations already exist within the Corporate Park area. Staff recommend that the applicant provide shower facilities for the employees within the proposed building. Staff also recommend that the applicant review the Park and Recreation Master Plan and the Trails Master Plan with the Community Services Department to determine the recreation impacts of this project prior to the public hearing. Mitigation Measures: See Recommendation#7. Policy Nexus: Parks and Recreation Comprehensive Plan, 6. Construction Impacts: Standard construction impacts are anticipated with the proposed development of the new office building. Mitiaation Measures: See Recommendation#6. Policy Nexus: Environmental Review Ordinance,4-6 Environmental Review Committee Staff Report Blackriver Corporate Park Phase VI • January 16, 1991 Page 7 .::. ............ .. . ::.::::::::::::... .......:..,. .....:, ........ ........ ..:h �v•:>r vi..:.... >: nd�::�cvmment�l;>u o�::tfie:::prveGt,::::::::e::�.:G�!.:::!a?.e.:�:�.:.: ::<:::::>:::<::<<:»ace.:as:folla...s,............................:::::::.:...............................:..:.:..::.:.:..::.::..�:..:::::..:.:�:.�:.:.:...;:.:.;:.:;;;::.;;:.;;:•;:.::;;:.::.:.;:.:»:«.>;;>:.:::: I LAND USE Construction Field Services: Development Planning: Fire Prevention Bureau: Long Range Planning: - Parks and Recreation: Police Department: Sewer Utilities: Storm Water: Transportation: Water Utilities: ENVIRONMENTAL Construction Field Services: Development Planning: Fire Prevention Bureau: Long Range Planning: Parks and Recreation: Police Department: Sewer Utilities: Storm Water: Transportation: Water Utilities: • • • • • • • DEPARTMU )F PLANNING/BUILDING/PUth WORKS c134 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST REVIEW SHEET °� F�'.so Dee• ? RM�oNN REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: P� - '� �C,` Z99O • DATE CIRCULATED: 12/3/90 COMMENTS DUE: 12/14/90 ECF-143-90, APPLICATION NO(S): RVMP;SA;SM-143-90 PROPONENT: LPN Architects&Planners, Inc. • PROJECT TITLE: Blackrlver Corporate Park Phase VI BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Applicant seeks.to construct a four-story, 71,057 sf office building with parking and landscaping on a.169,314 sf site. LOCATION: Northeast corner of Oaksdale&Grady Way SITE AREA: BUILDING AREA(gross): IMPACT REVIEW ON ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS: PROBABLE PROBABLE MORE MINOR MAJOR INFORMATION IMPACT IMPACT NECESSARY 1. Earth 2. Air 3. Water J 4. Plants 5. Animals 6. Energy&Natural Resources 7. Environmental Health 8. Land&Shoreline Use 9. Housing 10. Aesthetics 11. Light&Glare 12. Recreation 13. Historic&Cultural Preservation 14. Transportation • 15. Public Services / 16. Utilities ✓ COMMENTS: maw * W Or," a- 3" ' J6-1,47.4.1 1 94...4.1 rP - I ,LI 14 trt‘LA--b.`"°- 4) Tnf- evu. e =+ � -- - IAA We have reviewed this ap Ilcation w th particular a en to�tl'io a areVinvelch we have expertise and have identified areas of probable Impact or areas where additional Information is needed to properly assess this proposal. Cr. la la lib Signature of Director or Authorl ed Representative Date • Rev. 6/88 envnrehl "V 32N-� `� ._ ("N.�1r191'?!�. .1 o N �.0 V� _ ..�.Y 'U q rl"�'�I'a 11,�d cLa- , -Li W 1---) pa, d -��3.61 d, Q'Y 11 s ^l re I 1i-0 11 ( Li -1-N�I'Vd a--����•Q. 5 O'd 4�"'n o M L rl v-1 d -Z) L s ,d-w .'��� N Q 1 a-7 ,z1 ]- S P'6 I. cv - s •sc'yd -131-1yN,a QQ ( \ 1nV.5s-a-7_S "ry 3-1 c1 a#Y1 s ('w n a N .s Q Q.-/ lv-*r 3+14..3 cr, 7 s� , �—� v p 2 .a Cti ) -AQ r e'l a S 1 Yr..N. sackl c`^�'� Ls 1 • 0b--41.. 41 - b11' S ' 9 citA.. ' ,42 ,4-t7 Qt. <In-n q to 1.1.-vi 7 1.L1'ry S. .- r 041y‘44.?v -31N 'o c cti-ruo M S) 5 - ' - a, N I 5 Ni g-a ''d --91vJ av 3 S' - qv 4-*) s%iv 3 S V V 1---1.'✓31)-- 31J 1 S- N O Op n H I a-,--' s: 51.1)•31-4-a z 2y►bq '. tom- z Q..�.. C 4,\ a-a3 3 tS ' c 4-1, -9.34 p"1d 1t15 -rue NI a, t "17 N NbYt 1-6 t,„ 1 21 (74 cL-c1*-rD c� I 3�1 ci 4 ).1b121 L-11 &- 414j <1.-7"'ftspN S C11 s� act )v,n a\ S -119 1 s A•al !aa co 1 a v S 1.3 1 'p Q v�..ta .� ` ro A o a d a1-rs gra-a•A 10-1 _20 7 t\sr s y•? :vs a c o y s r c l^i f1 \" a•Q ► � N-S S 7► gj Sv a.� rn Zf�31-i � a- el v S W 91 V -'2J`1 J 7r2)V C) 144.3 AV";'�- •L 1 N 4 a a-a jy sr-ra ,ct- (1 Ys1 a 7)-n% ?i w 21 SNv 1 S1 v-z)d ?4, ql SQ23N -�' ArY) u - S ` 5.30 e4-0 s s 7' s ! )"*.`Int'a ( to Nm � `o) >,'�� 4:2. r S cs7 7 a v1 rQ v Qo •n S'"s°\ +.02'�'� eft"), , 9 a-1P ' iN ) ten ; -)'a'ICJ �-�`� t&s 0. L9 , I i KiiUCL �11�111P.JR ` • 4• ( :. + • ...ostiirtaan • DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS • DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET ECF-143-90 APPLICATION NO(S).: RVMP;SA;SM-143-90 • PROPONENT: LPN Architects&Planners, Inc. PROJECT TITLE: Blackriver Corporate Park Phase VI BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Applicant seeks to construct a four-story, 71,057 sf office .building with parking and landscaping on a 169,314 sf site. • LOCATION: SEC: 24 TWNSHP:23N RNG:3E Northeast corner of Oaksdale&Grady Way TO: • PUBLIC WORKS DIVISION SCHEDULED TAC DATE: 12/21/90 • ENGINEERING SECTION TRAFFIC ENG. SECTION x UTILITIES ENG.SECTION FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU POLICE DEPARTMENT • DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION CONSTRUCTION FIELD SERVICES DEVELOPMENT PLANNING PLANNING&TECHNICAL SERVICES • PARKS AND RECREATION DIVISION OTHERS: • COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITING. PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE PLANNING DIVISION BY 5:00 P.M. ON DECEMBER 14, 1990. REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: ///,t Iy /7 t//-) APPROVED APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS f/ NOT APPROVED x• /45 0/1 c 05561) A? /0-/4 - 7a / f-si5-y MF_G=TIiYG= / /d F/(M47'fl 1910 c(L -u ji,a sC1,14-t4-Ton RF.c-���� 1. P/P/ LI/YF_ E ni t?/n(G /7 /5 2"C' / pa/,0 rX/7'y /3 3,6 '' c UK(!1 Th pi/lb, 7 Fir /'vim s /ti,1,r /347.. o 7//iv�-t� 7MVo c 17E r o5'NG M19N//r)La I s) T C14N�N(s) IN 5/ 2 .�24'47 M/4LS, 3. A Le ve.f I •e mwvr s fif,exmii ce.si / s;;'/1.4 1.17u fs. C. 5/4.;}—Pl) h .c.ti/ 4.Due to the large amount of impervious area,the runoff will increase significantly over this area. Since the biofiltration swales are designed only for a 2-year predeveloped release rate, a greater design storm: ' event would increase flow velocities above the maximum design flow, thereby deteriorating water quality. Detention would provide a mitered flow rate, that'would maintain water quality except in extreme design storm events. Therefore, we would like to recommend detention (per 1990 King County Surface Water Design Manual), unless the developer can produce a specific document agreement with the City that waives detention. If they produce this agreement,we may want it to be legally reviewed, to examine the possibility of revision. If detention were waived and the paved area exceeds one acre,then runoff from all paved areas should be treated by a wetpond prior to discharge (per 1990 K.C. Surface Water Design ' , Manual)., .r.-17M1111 1 . t1r1-r,t - ... DATE: / 271 • ya SIGNATVE ' OF 'IRECTOR OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE • ,(,� 5. Ike-t i fy ecr 5.44/ 1/tee , 5/h7 01/ 3 4/1447 4 e6 - ed Or', / le1 (44 (, w414 in)rmn iv//l,r� o . I REV. 5/90 to•/1`1 NI (t-, � s ed4 0247 r :" i f a /( ! �l.i�I.�'..). On"; .�•,, G ILr4. 44 // i1 i►AA.I ... . .>a r FEE APPLICATION: ( ,PEVELOPMENTAPPLICATION REVIEW S11 L r ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST REVIEW SIIELf CI PLAN REVIEW ROUTING SLIP d ' OTHER • // DATE: / //4' / 0 APPLICANT: �,tiLQ± L4%-•) 4i-t,� ' . JOB ADDRESS: > &3- (t-z %✓" V-- ��at NATURE OF WORK: .z.� PROPERTY MANAGEMENT 14*/94 DATE RECEIVED Comments Due BY PROPERTY MGMT. Comments or suggestions regarding this application should be provided In writing. Please provide comments to the ' Comm.Dev.Dept.(C.D.D.)by 5:00 p.m.on above date. REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION C;),A-4/31-4-- - It-14A'11- FEES APPLIED CANNOT APPLY FEES ❑ LEGAL DESCRIPTION NEED MORE INFORMATION ❑ SQUARE FOOTAGE D FRONT FOOTAGE ❑ VICINITY MAP ' It Is the Intent of this development fee.analysis to put the developer/owner on notice,that the fees quoted below will apply to the subject site upon development of the property. All quoted fees are due and payable at the time the construction permit is Issued to Install the on-site and off-site Improvements(i.e.underground utilities,street Improvements,etc.) PROJECT COST LATECOMER LATECOMER AGREEMENT-WATER, NO. PER. FIG. FEE CITY HELD --p - PRIVATE DEVELOPER HELD — 0- LATECOMERS AGREEMENT-SEWER CITY HELD --d - PRIVATE DEVELOPER HELD 6-3023 i-4 l/ +-t1./1- `i14.9, oty SPECIAL UTILITY CONNECTION CHARGE-WATER UNITS SUCC FEE Single family residential dwelling unit $940/lot x Apartment, Condo,each multiplex unit $545/ea. unit x Commercial/Industrial$.126/sq.ft.of property x • (not less than $940.00) /Co 9,siva 4102/,333. 5(i SPECIAL UTILITY CONNECTION CHARGE-SEWER Single family residential dwelling unit$470/lot x Apartment, Condo,each multiplex unit $270/ea.unit x Commercial/Industrial $.063/sq.ft.of property x l (not less than $470.00) I(,09 3/i/L� Olio, 1,106. 7 b SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICT(Ilospital Area)WATER UNITS SAD FEE Developments with 1500 GPM Fire Flows or Less: Area Charge$0.034 per sq/(x Frontage Charge $16.00 pp.front ft. x Developments with Greater than 1500 GPM Fire Flows: • Area Charge$0.048 p¢isq.ft.x Frontage Charge $18.00 per front ft.x • — 0— • SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICT(Honey Crk, intcrcptr)-SEWER UNITS SAD FEE Area Charges: Residential dwelling units„Jpartments or equivalents; $250 p r dwelling unit x Commercial developmepf': $.05 per sq.ft.of gross site area x Front Footage Charges: $37.19 per Front t. (on ea.side)x $74.38 per Fr.F . (prpty on both sides of Imprv.) x 0 TOTAL: $ 13CP/Ion.9. �D=� The above quoted fees do NOT Include Inspection fees,side sewer permits,r/w permit fees or the cost of water meters. • I all-4,4) )/it . . - /oth9 D Signature of Director or Authorized Representative DATE k °imommda.gN.r uiL I'Iil VLIlIIUIV tiUliLAU POLICE DEPARTMEN1. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION CONSTRUCTION FIELD.SERVICES DEVELOPMENT PLANNING 0 • PLANNING&TECHNICAL SERVICES PARKS AND RECREATION DIVISION OTHERS: • COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITING. PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE PLANNING DIVISION BY 5:00 P.M. ON DECEMBER 14, 1990. • REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: RI,I.C..v APPROVED V APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS NOT APPROVED LLK6U,1. el OGUI,low pa Ll l_O • (I1 1- 4(o ) Ski)• u CC/14 IF U_C.e CL o --HA CL-f- 6CCuAxCk.). L.l c LN/ices C•l,l 4.1ZLc•ILUP,c 3 tiG( 4 LwCf,t j I-- . • • • • `�a - �f- te�' c.vt DATE: I21I10 SIGNATURE OF DIRECTOR.OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE. REV.5/90 devrvih% REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: PL.4 N J �i'/T lti `J (70M • APPROVED APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS • / 1 NOT APPROVED 1)4oiP� �P��,r/� 0,C,/11 tie.fo eg's .gyp--.Arti 14-C u „�-r��eeP /l 1-GQO. At- '-/# bc,WW/44-7 /4 1IM/ eyrl/fr Dyl/ S i/` to 3/4e C/ rx"fr4,7 fife/v., 7 a .1e. a. 51v1! , cf. 7 61-7 An ( e>(/ I` 44 11 . 100- -ee1 r(/7lc' Sce,r II%Yl 11/K , S�iuu� lJ q The/U . e- �USir`-- �/j///� c�ri ii lh `Ovll6l 11if appl/(alf h a G�'r,P Az 2 2 "ix / 54 a/P ��l v / /e-*4✓ fir.(' pry ,•1 5 3y � � � � y � iiN piR l i>rrrrt DATE: / o�//7/40 SIGNATUF f F DIRECTOR O AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE REV.5/90 devivshl MINOR MAJOR INFORMATION IMPACT IMPACT NECESSARY 1. Earth 2. Air 3. Water 4. Plants • 5. Animals 6. Energy&Natural Resources 7. Environmental Health • 8. Land&Shoreline Use 9. Housing 10. Aesthetics 11. Light&Glare 12. Recreation 13. Historic&Cultural Preservation 14. Transportation 15. Public Services 16. Utilities Parks COMMENTS: 04,7„4.4404-/t4A-r- , c 014•",), /-=';141Ae. 4-04 7",".. 1-e 6 /444_ 01-4(-10.4 ,:11.11er.oti ileo. :oxpeste.16. . f--)e ,,Gg-r„.A-c.--.K.160 ...341:4•Art"-e-""'"!)-esde t Tr,-/ te/ e. 1 /. d—ror-4, et_ /1„7--: "44,444,7? - We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas In which we have expertise and have Identified areas of pro e Impact or areas where additional information Is needed to properly assess this proposal. gnature of rector or Authorized Representative Date/ Rev.6/88 envnahl v. VIIIII.100 COMMENTS: - p cI te"-46/ 'es4 V41)-11-4— We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas In which we have expertise and have Identified areas of probable Impact or areas where additional Information is needed to properly assess this proposal. nature of Director or Authorized Representative Date Rev.6/88 envralit 3. Water_ — • 4. Plants 5. Animals 6. Energy&Natural Resources • 7. Environmental Health 8. Land &Shoreline Use 9. Housing 10. Aesthetics 11. Light&Glare 12. Recreation • • 13. Historic&Cultural Preservation 14. Transportation 15. Public Services 16. Utilities COMMENTS: �� Qe .� ���-�-�.� zeje z— tip G? N� Wa- . r�e (/���� t't�G f�� `�_�1�1��G.�^ ALL 7��--C �•�-e - L'--•-G� �''G'�'tY'-ri'.ci-P C C zp r � � e"1,2tdeLG‘eLGCC. C �t tiC GLw Lam•/S 1+e.�C� We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have Identified areas of probable Impact or areas where additional information Is needed to properly assess this proposal. /2 —// Signature of Director or Author ed Representative Date Rev.6/88 envrvehl REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: 6 APPROVED i/\APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS NOT APPROVED • • • DATE: SIGNATURE OF DIRECTOR OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE REV. 5/90 • devrvshl • DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET ECF-143-90 APPLICATION NO(S).: RVMP;SA;SM-143-90 PROPONENT: LPN Architects&Planners, Inc. PROJECT TITLE: Blackriver Corporate Park Phase VI BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Applicant seeks to construct a four-story, 71,057 sf office .building with parking and landscaping on a 169,314 sf site. LOCATION: SEC: 24 TWNSHP:23N RNG:3E Northeast corner of Oaksdale&Grady Way TO: x PUBLIC WORKS DIVISION SCHEDULED TAG DATE: 12/21/90 ENGINEERING SECTION TRAFFIC ENG. SECTION )( UTILITIES ENG. SECTION FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU POLICE DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION CONSTRUCTION FIELD SERVICES DEVELOPMENT PLANNING PLANNING&TECHNICAL SERVICES PARKS AND RECREATION DIVISION OTHERS: COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITING. I'. PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE PLANNING DIVISION BY 5:00 P.M. ON DECEMBER 14, 1990. . REVIEWING.DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: / t) h( Rt�vi iskJ APPROVED APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS X NOT APPROVED 2 • FX tee/4 /2 a of wrl w / i t/vt 50 1440�1 a1 /liar / 60(.11. • , - J C;oe lire`c:s/e' GvQ/<vt fia41), � F . /� f/k/4 lc,;(> f/�zv cG/ca i; exc Sao ,5 (0_7/6 W/ h Ce 71-0 h-e ?t- . P 1 �re/ ii 6�t F/ c /c u//7a 3 .�1,� � � ma's re <.,red i� o !r/ ' 3. / ((4 Uri'// tiro Uri �i(Iced) 5,�/ti67� s/5Ii i/1,7(:,/fug /47 cl c"G/,hr n-/rrfrn ),S GPI 5 . /9// ci 7/i /A arrztir 4 5�t o �a�i r -� �,�,�I -e c �i 5 G�z.'do ltia�� l o ear . p �/l kc 3 Y , s i </Gde , �,, oy77/ f . . 't�1 r- �j�41/7/�//.e/zee, DATE: /i�//'f `%9 SIGNATURV9 DI��CtOR OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE 6, PresS.cve�'Ve4uci i.— Verl c reV/PZ,4 , REV.5/90 I devmhl. - DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET ECF-143-90 APPLICATION NO(S).: RVMP;SA;SM-143-90 PROPONENT: LPN Architects&Planners, Inc. PROJECT TITLE: Blackriver Corporate Park Phase VI BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Applicant seeks to construct a four-story, 71,057 sf office building with parking and landscaping on a 169,314 sf site. LOCATION: SEC:24 TWNSHP:23N RNG:3E Northeast corner of Oaksdale&Grady Way TO: PUBLIC WORKS DIVISION SCHEDULED TAC DATE: 12/21/90 ENGINEERING SECTION TRAFFIC ENG. SECTION • UTILITIES ENG. SECTION FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU POLICE DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION CONSTRUCTION FIELD SERVICES • DEVELOPMENT PLANNING PLANNING&TECHNICAL SERVICES PARKS AND RECREATION DIVISION OTHERS: . COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITING. PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE PLANNING DIVISION BY 5:00 P.M. ON DECEMBER 14, • 1990. REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: (- TA W ' APPROVED APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS . NOT APPROVED Any development and/or construction shall comply with current Fire.and Building Codes and Ordi- nances. A second means of approved access is required. Fire,Department access roads/lanes shall be paved minimum width 20'; minimum height 13' 6". Yes A' 'No Preliminary fire flow calculations show a fire flow of S is required. 3 hydrants with a minimum flow of /ad 0 gpm each is required. Primary hydrant is required to be within /�4 feet of the structure. Secondary hydrants are required to be within O 4 feet of the structure. An approved automatic sprinkler system is required to protect the total structure. Yes ) No All fire department access roads are to be paved and installed prior to construction. Yes 4. No All fire hydrants Iry required t0 be installed and approved prior to construction. Yes . No DATE: SIGNATURE u P •ECTOR OR UTHO D REPRESENTATIVE REV.5/90 d^vrvhl .• r-e „1-j►14 i yi' L aitil REQUIRED FIRE FILUW CALL ATIONS 1. HAZARD IDEN5IFICf TION INFO MATION NAME: IJ le.fiC �� U2.•r (P dQ ,•0 U.B.C. CLASS OF BUILD e" '7--- ADDRESS: SA) na ,l 4 4(g14r/, 14 - FIRE MGMT AREA 2. DETERMINE TYPE F CONSTRUCTION - CLASS (CIRCLE ONE): I - II ./Y IV III V FIRE-RESISTIVE ON-COMBUSTIBLE ORDINARY WOOD FRAME MIXED (NOTE: IF "MIXED," SEE SPECIAL INSTRUCTION FOR AREA AND BASIC FIRE FLOW) 3. DETERMINE AREA: GROUND FLOOR AREA: FTZ NUMBER OF STORIES TOTAL BUILDING AREA: a cV D 22.-- (A) 1. DETERMINE BASIC FIRE FLOW FROM TABLE Ill, USING AREA (A): 6/ 0 D 0. ` GPM (B) 5. DETERMINE OCCUPANCY FACTOR ADJUSTMENT: ADJUSTMENT: /O D 0 GPM (C) IF LOW HAZARD, SUBTRACT UP TO 25% OF (B): 1F HIGH HAZARD, ADD UP TO 25% of (B) 6. COMPUTE SUB-TOTAL (B+C): (IF B+C LESS THAN 500 GPM, INSERT 500 GPM) '300 Q GPM (D) 7. DETERMINE SPRINKLER ADJUSTMENT: ADJUSTMENT: /cc () GPM (E) (IF COMPLETELY SPRINKLERED, SUBTRACT UP TO 50% OF (D): IF LIGHT HAZARD OCCUPANCY AND FIRE RESISTIVE OR NON-COMBUSTIBLE CONSTRUCTION, SUBTRACT UP TO 75% OF (D). 8. DETERMINE EXPOSURE ADJUSTMENT: USING THE TABLE AS A GUIDE, ENTER THE SEPARATION AND ADJUSTMENT FOR EACH OF THE "FOUR FACES" OF THE BUILDING IN THE TABLE AT THE RIGHT: SEPARATION MAX. ADJUSTMENT EXPOSURE SEPARATION ACT. ADJ. 0-10 25% MAX NORTH /0 4. ADD 0 ' % 11 - 30 20% MAX EAST 53 / ADD /5 % 31 - 60 15% MAX SOUTH 61 ADD / j % 61 - 100 10% MAX WEST /5-0 1 ADD 0 1 101 - 150 5% MAX TOTAL % OF ADJUSTMENT 150 or 4-Hr WALL 0% MAX (NOT TO EXCEED 75%) bi.C % (TOTAL % ADJUSTMENT TIMES (D) ADJUSTMENT: f O+ .GPM(F) 1. DETERMINE ROOF AND SIDING COVERING ADJUSTMENT: (IF SHINGLE COVERING, ADD 500 GPM) ADJUSTMENT: ' 0. GPM (G) 10. COMPUTE ESTIMATED FIRE FLOW REQUIRED: ,IF D+E+F+G IS LESS THAN 500 GPM, INSERT 500 GPM) ;201 IF D+E+F+G 1S GREATER THAN 12,000 GPM, INSERT 12,000 GPM) j ( }E+F+G) QUIRED FIRE FLOW: GPM I(11) ::. 1. SIGNED: -�•s.r.�. . 7DATE: /0/ 1 0 • I, • DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS h.?, } ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST REVIEW SHEET • t7 J> C.` �'•'� r REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: -13Yn..tr`I'I ATall Y �, . 4 ,' ,� 99A DATE CIRCULATED: 12/3/90 COMMENTS DUE: 12/14•t • ;.(�,1 ' ' ECF- 143-90 DEC 3 . '4), APPLICATION NOS): RVMP;SA;SM-143-90 1990 �cFS Iv, PROPONENT: LPN Architects&Planners, Inc. Q PROJECT TITLE: Blackriver Corporate Park Phase VI BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Applicant seeks to construct a four-story, 71,057 sf office building with parking and landscaping on a 169,314 sf site. LOCATION: Northeast corner of Oaksdale&Grady Way SITE AREA: BUILDING AREA(gross): • IMPACT REVIEW ON ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS: PROBABLE PROBABLE MORE MINOR MAJOR INFORMATION IMPACT IMPACT NECESSARY 1. Earth 2. AIr 3. Water 4. Plants 5. Animals 6. Energy&Natural Resources 7. Environmental Health 8. Land &Shoreline Use 9. Housing 10. Aesthetics 0 11. Llglit&Glare 12. Recreation 13. Historic&Cultural Preservation 14. TransportatIon 15. Public Services • 16. Utilities COMMENTS: e 4+ z2.c".2- 11) 1-41,e We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas In which we have expertise and have Identified areas of probable Impact or areas where additional Information Is needed to properly assess this proposal. Signature of Director or Authorized Representative i/ Date Rev.6/88 etwrobl Review Comments Black River Corporate Park Phase VI SM-143-90 (4 Story) Office Building December 28, 1990 By First City Washington, Inc. Building Area = 71,057 Vehicle Trip rate per Environmental Checklist 21 Vehicles per 1,000 square feet 21 x 71.057 1,000 = 1,492.20 Estimated Vehicle Trips Assessment for Grady Transportation Benefit District ($152 .00 per trip generated) 1,492.20 x $152.00 = $226,81-4 40' Deposit: $2.26,814.40•to account No.: /65/S 1i /,3/ . To.oo.6 g • NOTE: All roadway and intersection impacted location are provided for in the TBZ projects for which the above fee is to provide participation in those projects. . 90-604:CEM:p. . S • • • • • r City of Renton Environmental Review Committee MEETING NOTICE January 16, 1991 To: Lynn Guttmann, Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator John Webley, Community Services Administrator ,ifi..„ Lee Wheeler, Fire Chief From. on Erickson, Secretary Meeting Date: January 16, 1991 Time: 10:00 AM Location: Third Floor Conference Room Agenda attached below. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE AGENDA January 16, 1991 Third Floor Conference Room Commencing at 10:00 AM TIME/KEY PARTICIPANTS NEW HIGHLANDS CHURCH CU;R-048-90 The applicant seeks to rezone the easterly portion of the project site from R-1 (Single-Family Residential) to P-1 (Public Zone) and to obtain a Conditional Use Permit to construct a two-story (12,000 sf) addition to the existing one and two-story (17,995 sf) church building in order to provide additional classroom and office area. The project is located at 3031 NE 10th Street. BLACK RIVER, PHASE VI ECF;RVMP;SA;SM-143-90 The applicant proposes to construct a four-story 71,057 sf office building with landscaping and parking on a 169,314 sf site. The project site is located on the east side of Oaksdale Avenue and approximately 150 feet north of South Grady Way. RECONSIDERATION EAST VALLEY OFFICE CENTER, BLDG 3 & 4 ECF;SA-118-89 The project consists of two four-story office buildings on a 14.47 acre plat. It will be divided into two phases with Phase I consisting of the east building (Building 3), 592 parking spaces (incl. 118 spaces held in reserve), landscaping to match the adjacent properties and the pedestrian plaza extension being built immediately upon approval. Phase II, consisting of the west building (Building 4), 592 parking spaces (incl. 118 spaces held in reserve), landscaping and completion of the plaza will be construction upon completion of Phase I. The project is located at 1701 East Valley Frontage Road for Building 3 and 1700 Lind Avenue for Building 4. • ♦ 1 Environmental Review Committee Meeting Notice January 16, 1991 Page 2 BOEING CU-028-87 Applicant seeks extension of the conditional use permit that allowed the construction of a 40,000 sf temporary office building. The project Is located on the west side of Garden Avenue North,500 ft north of North 8th Street. DISCUSSION/INFO ONLY PACCAR OFFICE BLDG CU;ECF;RVMP;SP-140-90 The applicant seeks to obtain: a) a conditional use permit to develop a two-story/53,325 sf office complex (with 66 immediately adjacent parking spaces) on a 2.39 acre vacant parcel; b) a conditional use permit to improve a 3.69 acre vacant parcel as a 319 space parking lot to serve both the planned new and existing PACCAR facilities; c) a Special Permit to allow preparation of the site for construction in advance of issuance of a building permit; and d) a Routine Vegetation Management Permit to clear shrub/scrub ground cover to accommodate the proposed new development. A covered walkway will be provided to connect project structures. Landscaping will be provided to replace/enhance on-site vegetation. The site is zoned H-1 on the Land Use Map and designated for heavy Industrial use on the Comprehensive Plan. The project is located at 502 Houser Way North. BLACK RIVER VII &VIII ECF;SA;SM-071-88&ECF;SA-109-88 TRACT A The proposal includes phased construction of three office buildings ranging in height from one to four stories. These buildings would provide 183,600 square feet of space. Surface parking would accommodate approximately 800 autos. TRACT B The proposal Includes phased construction of three office buildings ranging in height from three to seven stories. - These buildings would provide 286,200 square feet of space. Surface parking would accommodate approximately 500 autos and another 800 stalls would be provided in a three story parking structure. cc: J. Covington, Executive Assistant to the Mayor L.Warren, City Attorney F. Kaufman, Hearing Examiner G. Gordon, Fire Marshal J. Hanson, Development Services Architecture and Planning , I Leason Pomeroy Northwest, Inc., Royce A. Berg,A.I.A., 1127 Pine Street,Suite 300 Seattle,WA 98101 (206)583-8030 January 15, 1991 CITY OFRNG ENTU�N� Mr. Mark Pywell , A. I .C.P. JAN 1 6 1991 Senior Planner ti lAVD City of Renton 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 RE: Blackriver Corporate Park Phase VI ECF;RVMP;SA;SM-143-90 NW 88041 Dear Mark: Per our meeting on 9 January 1991 , I have enclosed information on electromag- netism presented to the city on Renton Plaza II . Note Renton Plaza II's dis- tance to the center line of the high power lines was 20 feet to the north and 70 feet to the south; Phase VI of Blackriver is over 220 feet, which is sig- nificantly greater. The recently completed Honda dealership on Grady Way and Rainier Avenue appears to be much closer than this project to the high power lines, so we do not believe this should be an issue. The reflective glass utilized on Phase II existing to the east of this project has a 38% exterior reflectivity. The glass proposed for this project is 30% reflectivity, which is less than the 38% of Phase II . All glass is reflective at certain angles and times of the day. There have been no known complaints or problems associated with the existing Phase II building and its reflective glass, which sits in almost the same position relative to adjacent streets and Grady Way. The use of reflective glass reduces the energy consumption of the building, which is why it is used. If I can provide any further information, please call . iirctfu ly, e A. erg Pr: ident mp cc: Dean Erickson Paul R. Coppock Enclosure: Status and Implications of Research on Biological Effects of Elec- tric and Magnetic Fields: A Utility Perspective, 1987 STATUS AND IMPLICATIONS OF RESEARCH ON BIOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF ELECTRIC - . ' AND MAGNETIC FIELDS: A UTILITY PERSPECTIVE Jack M. Lee, Jr. Biological Studies Coordinator Bonneville Power Administration Portland, Oregon _ t4Ry- ?1-6.\-J L-3 SEP <A, 5 'i9B7 LPN Architects & MUMS Paper presented at the 31st Engineering & Operations Workshop, American Public Power Association, March 17-19, 1987 Nashville, Tennessee < . ' STATUS AND IMPLICATIONS OF RESEARCH ON BIOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF ELECTRIC AND MAGNETIC FIELDS: A UTILITY PERSPECTIVE Jack M. Lee, Jr. Bonneville Power Administration ABSTRACT This paper discusses the status and implications of recent research on the biological effects of electric and magnetic fields. Research on power-frequency fields began in the early 1970's and focused mainly on electric fields. Overall, no consistent effects of electric fields have been found on the health, growth, or reproduction of laboratory animals. However, several effects have been confirmed which have uncertain biological significance. These include effects on animal behavior and physiology and on cell growth and communication. A series of epidemiological studies beginning in 1979 have now raised concerns about a possible association between weak magnetic and/or electric fields and human cancer. There are now at least 20 such reports involving occupational or residential exposure to power-frequency fields. Although most of the studies have methodological limitations, together they indicate an important need for additional well-designed studies. Results of the laboratory and epidemiological research seem to be causing some in the scientific community to take a more cautious approach when assessing the potential health effects of electric and magnetic fields. This 'is evidenced_in_recent reports of some science reviews, arid in statements made in scientific symposia. This situation leads to a number of difficult questions for the utilities to consider during the years it will probably take for research to allow the issues to be resolved. These questions involve the basic nature of scientific evidence, including determining what evidence is needed to "prove" or "disprove" the existence of a cause and effect association. Other questions involve whether line design or location criteria can or should reflect uncertainty over the biological effects issue. Finally, there is the question of how best to handle the dissemination of information on the biological effects issue both to utility personnel, and to the public. INTRODUCTION Since the early 1970's, the "biological effects" issue has been a highly visible part of the siting process for high voltage transmission lines. The origins of the issue can be traced to reports of health complaints from Soviet substation workers assigned to new 500-kV substations, and some early studies of laboratory animals. Both the human and animal reports involved electric fields. As a result, extensive studies of power-frequency electric fields were implemented throughout the world. As results of the research began to be published, it became clear that 50/60-Hz electric fields did not cause any obviously harmful biological effects, even at high doses. Although some effects were reported, overall, they were subtle, and most scientists did not appear concerned about the potential for any serious effects of such fields on human health. 1 Even so, the issue continued to expand whenever new lines were proposed. This led some in the utilities to conclude that "biological effects" was a strategic issue. What the public was really saying was that they didn't want powerlines constructed on or near their property. The biological effects issue was viewed as an ideal aid for supporting arguments to change the routing of a line. Although this strategy was probably used by some, no doubt others opposing. the location of a line were genuinely concerned about the • possible effect of the line on their health. Recent research and events over the last few years, however, has resulted in a new look at the evidence for assessing the potential health effects of electric fields. In addition, the early assumption that weak magnetic fields were biologically unimportant, has been challenged. Most noticeably, several studies now suggest that weak magnetic and/or electric fields may be associated with human cancers. The issue has also widened in scope to include both transmission and distribution lines. In fact, some have suggested that the basic issue is now the electric and magnetic fields produced by any electrical device, including household wiring and appliances. There is still no evidence that conclusively links electric and/or magnetic fields with adverse health effects in animals or humans. However, the recent research has raised important questions that can only be answered by well- designed studies that will take years to complete. This situation has a number of implications for the utilities for both the short- and long-term. The objectives of this paper are to, (1) summarize the status of issues and research involving electric and magnetic fields, and (2) identify possible implications of• this research for the utilities. The information in the paper~ - • deals with a controversial issue. For the most part, the'paper`represents the views of a "utility" biologist who has worked with the bioeffects issue for approximately 14 years. It does not necessarily represent the official views of the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA). ELECTRIC AND MAGNETIC FIELDS This paper discusses research involving ELF (extremely-low-frequency) electric and magnetic fields, specifically, power-frequency fields which are 60-Hz in North America and 50-Hz in Europe and some other areas. Electric fields are due to voltage and magnetic fields and are caused by current flow. These fields are of biological interest because they induce weak electric fields and currents in conducting objects, including people and animals. Figure 1 compares the way the current is induced by these two fields. Note also that an object, e.g. a person, perturbs the electric field lines of force, while the magnetic field is not changed by the presence of a person. Similarly, magnetic fields from powerlines easily pass through most buildings but electric fields are greatly shielded by such structures. Figure 2 includes examples of typical field strengths found in the home, within 1 foot of various electrical appliances, and on powerline rights-of-way. While electric field strength is fairly stable from a given source, magnetic fields are highly variable as current levels change. They are also influenced by such factors as how currents are balanced among the phases of a powerline, and by how ground currents return through the distribution system. 2 • o.3s� I ELECTRIC MAGNETIC o.s° FIELD FIELD ` . 025 1 DOUBLE CIRCUIT 500kv LIRE OPERATING AT I 1 550kv MO 2624 A/PHASE,5000Mw TOTAL a 020 III 1 11 I / _ 4 U I I 1 I j _ y 2 0.15 , DOUBLE CIRCUIT 230kV LINE 1 1 1 1 1 t ' L.7 1 OPERATING AT 242kV ANO 954 1 1 1 1 1 ` A/PHASE.BOOMW TOTAL I � 1 � � 0.10 I 1 1 1 1 I 1 OAS 1 0 20 40 60 B0 100. 0 50 100 ISO 200 250 300ft ' Dotted Lines Indicate Current Flow Figure 3. Magnetic Field Strength at Figure 1. Induced Currents Distances from Transmission Line C/L Transmission lines can produce magnetic fields stronger than from distribution lines (Fig. 2) although homes are not allowed on transmission rights-of-way. Distribution lines are more numerous, often near homes and, therefore, represent the more frequent source of long-term powerline magnetic field exposure. Fig. 3 shows how rapidly field strength decreases away from a powerline. ,2— 300 - 10 — ;. (7 250 - r E y,'a E • _ 3 1-- X 8 — U Q 200 - rya 3< z I f 2i <F., o }t`. Fes- 6 *. 't . W - . y _ X 150 +L` W iyu` W ;'3. s.. LT. 4 — < 10O — • V ti_ s. W T — ; _ c 50 2 — • .,., . , • 0 0 ROOM APPL. ELECTRIC DIST. IRAN. HOME ELECTRIC 230kV 345kV 500kV 765kV AVE. (1 FT.) BLANKET LINE LINE BLANKET LINE LINE LINE LINE • Figure 2. Examples of 60-Hz Electric and Magnetic Field Strengths. Powerline levels are for on the right-of-way. Bottom of the bar is the right-of-way edge value. Distribition lines often have only pole easements (Source: . Lee et al. 1986). 3 RESEARCH SUMMARY • AGRICULTURAL/ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES Although the focus of this paper is on research related to possible human health effects, questions also continue to be raised about effects of powerlines on crops, livestock, and natural systems. This section will briefly summarize results of the agricultural and environmental research. References for studies described below can be found in , Lee (1986). ' It is now generally acknowledged that electric and magnetic fields from even the largest transmission lines do not noticeably affect the growth of crops and other low-growing vegetation. Long-term studies at Penn State University of crops grown under green-house conditions further showed that even electric fields five times stronger than those of transmission lines did not affect crop growth. Under certain conditions, trees left to grow near transmission line conductors can be damaged by the corona induced on branch tips by strong electric fields. In practical conditions, however, trees are not allowed near conductors because of the danger of electrical flashover. Surveys of livestock owners, and experimental studies, found no evidence that transmission line fields affect the health, growth, or reproduction of livestock. These studies have included the species most commonly found on transmission line rights-of-way: Although most of the studies were not designed to detect subtle effects, they do show that such fields apparently do not result in any effects detectable in normal farming operations. Similarly, there is no evidence that electric or magnetic fields adversely affect the behavior or health of wild mammals or birds. An exception is the honeybee. A study sponsored by BPA, and one sponsored by EPRI, confirmed that transmission line electric fields can adversely affect honeybees while in commercial-type wooden hives. It is important to point out that the effects, including poor colony survival, are related to shocks received by bees in the hive. The effects found were not due to the bees flying or foraging in the electric field. The effects can be mitigated by placing grounded wire over the hives, which greatly reduces the induced currents in the hive. At BPA, however, we believe that a better mitigation approach is simply not to place hives on the right-of-way of the larger transmission lines (e.g. , 345-kV and above). LABORATORY ANIMALS In the U.S., most research for assessing the potential effects of electric and magnetic fields on people has used animal models. In contrast, studies in Canada, and in Europe, often involved people occupationally exposed to such fields, or in some cases, laboratory studies involving human volunteers. Until recently, neither of the two primary U.S. funding organizations (DOE and EPRI) has sponsored any epidemiological research. With laboratory animals, an obvious problem is the extrapolation of effects found in animals to humans. For any agent, whether chemical or ELF fields, such extrapolations are difficult and imprecise. Several extensive laboratory animal studies involving electric and in some cases electric and magnetic • fields have now been completed. Overall, results of these studies show no consistent evidence that these fields affect the growth, health, or reproduc- tion of laboratory animals. However, a number of field effecLts have now been confirmed by one or more research groups. These are summarized in Table 1. Table 1. Effects of ELF Electric Fields on Laboratory Animals Confirmed by One or More Laboratories (Source: Anderson 1986). Major Area Effect Behavior Detection of electric field, changes in activity, preference/avoidancey Nervous System Increased excitability of nerve fibers, faster muscle recovery from fatigue Biological rhythms Changes in biorhythms (physiology, activity), elimination of night-time rise in melatonin Bone fracture repair Fracture repair delayed in rats Most of these effects are from 'the large screening studies done by the Battelle Pacific-Northwest Laboratories. Although some may dismiss the effects as interesting but unimportant, a number of questions remain unanswered. For example, because the mechanisms for the effects have not been •determined, it is possible that some could still result-in >significant • effects, perhaps as a result of long-term field exposure. A-recent paper has hypothesized a possible link between the effect on the hormone melatonin and breast cancer (Stevens 1987). It should be noted that there are also a number of possible effects, which may be confirmed by further research. Among these is the possibility for birth defects, which was suggested in the Battelle study of miniature swine. _ Follow-up studies using rodents exposed to a range of 60-Hz electric fields are still in progress. Although a large number of laboratory animal studies have been done involving a-c magnetic fields, it is more difficult to find replicated studies as compared to electric field studies. In addition, for magnetic fields, a wider range of frequencies and exposure conditions have been used, which complicates the comparison to power-frequencies. In one often-cited series of studies sponsored by the U.S. Navy, male monkeys exposed to a 2G, 72-80-Hz magnetic field gained weight at a slightly greater rate than controls. Other studies using magnetic fields (pulsed and sinewave) reported an increase in malformations in chick embryos. Other studies, however, could not replicate the findings. . Research on magnetic fields is also complicated by recent findings that suggests an interaction between a-c fields and the geomagnetic d-c field. For example, a new -study found that in one test the behavior of laboratory animals was affected by an a-c magnetic field, only when the strength of the earth's field was changed by an exposure facility (Thomas et al. 1986). J 5 CELL AND TISSUE STUDIES It has long been assumed that currents induced in people or animals by 50/60-Hz electric and magnetic fields flow around body cells, and the current does not actually penetrate the cell membrane. Further, the magnitude of the induced fields and currents, from even the largest line, are weaker than those produced by some natural body functions, e.g. brain waves. This is very different from the case of ionizing radiation, e.g. X-rays, which can directly damage the DNA within the cell. However, a growing body of research is now suggesting that weak, induced, inter-cellular body currents can affect the cell membrane surface, resulting in changes within the cell. Much of this research has been done in California at the University of California, Riverside, and at the Veterans Administration Medical Center in Loma Linda. Scientists there believe that the cell membrane acts to amplify the effects of weak, induced fields as well as other stimuli (Adey et al. 1986). There is also evidence that the amplification process is nonlinear. Certain _ effects attributed to weak, induced fields, e.g. , movement of calcium in and out of cells, is most pronounced at certain frequency and/or amplitude "windows." Other studies report that other effects of weak fields are to affect "messenger" enzymes that are involved-in cell communication. There are also controversial reports that the growth of human tumor cells is increased by exposure to 60-Hz magnetic and electric fields (Winters and Phillips 1984). The results of the cell and tissue (in vitro) studies are even more difficult than animal studies to interpret in the context of the potential for effects on humans. Some scientists, however, believe that the in vitro studies allow possible field interaction mechanisms to be explored. This could greatly aid in the understanding of how electric and magnetic fields might interact with whole animals and humans to produce effects. Taken together, results of the animal and cellular research suggest that weak ELF fields may interact with organisms in ways which differ from the traditional toxicology concept, e.g. , more is worse. If this is the case, it obviously makes the design and interpretation of studies of animals and humans very difficult. Another view, however, is that the laboratory studies are "teasing out" effects which may not occur in whole organisms where a variety of self-regulating processes occur. Overall, however, as will be mentioned below, scientific opinion appears to be shifting toward a more cautious interpretation of the results of laboratory research. OCCUPATIONAL EPIDEMIOLOGY As mentioned in the introduction, much of the basis for the concerns that developed over biological effects issues originated with occupational health reports from the Soviet Union. These reports of generally subjective ailments were not confirmed by studies in Canada, the U.S., and the U.K. It is often concluded that the reported effects may have been caused by shocks experienced by workers in the Soviet stations, or by factors other than the electric field. 6 The early studies, however, generally involved small sample sizes, and were ' essentially screening studies looking for several possible effects. Consequently, they tended to have low power to detect anything but very large effects. A large 10-year-long "cohort" study began in Sweden in 1984 designed to follow a group of electrical workers and monitor their health. This type of study also allows for better estimates of field exposure, which was only roughly estimated in the earlier studies. Other research in Sweden has suggested that children of HV electrical workers, . had experienced higher than expected frequencies of birth defects. This issue was of interest because Swedish laboratory research had found that injected electrical currents resulted in breaks in chromosomes of human blood cells. This effect was also found in blood samples of some electrical workers. The Battelle swine study mentioned earlier also had added to the interest in the birth defect issue. Although -still not fully resolved, that issue was overshadowed by a report appearing in 1982. A paper by Milham (1982) reported that a group of 10 "electrical occupations" from a large Washington State death certificate data base showed a 36 percent proportional increase in deaths from leukemia. The report prompted other epidemiologists in California and the U.K. to examine records in their areas, and similar findings were reported. Other studies, however, reported no increased cancer risks for electrical workers. At last count, there was a total of 16 publications reporting some increased cancer risk for various electrical workers and 5 negative reports. A new paper by Savitz and Calle (1987) has reviewed this body of research, and a summary of their findings is shown in Table 2. Table 2. Combined Results of Recent Studies of Leukemia and Electrical Workers (Source: Savitz and Calle 1987) Relative Risk Occupation Total leukemia Acute myelogenous leuk. Electrical Equipment Assemblers 2.4 - Aluminum workers 1.9* - Telegraph/radio/radar operators 1.8* 2.6* Streetcar, subway, rail operators 1.7 - Power station operators 1.6 1.0 Electronic technicians 1.3 1.9 Power/telephone linemen 1.3 2.5* Electrical/electronic engineers 1.2 1.9* Electricians 1.1 1.0 Motion picture projectionists 1.1 1.0 Telephone repair/installers 0.9 1.0 Welders/flame cutters 0.9 1.7 Totals 1.2* 1.5* * Lower bound of 95% confidence interval greater than 1.0. • t . 1 , The occupational cancer reports have been reviewed and discussed extensively, and several points are frequently made. These are: 1. Many of the reports are screening studies that report proportionate indexes of mortality derived from death certificates, and they are, therefore, not actual mortality rates. 2. The use of occupational titles to categorize presumed exposure to electric and magnetic fields has not been validated by actual exposure measurements. 3. The various occupations are exposed to a variety of other non- electrical agents, some of which, e.g. benzene, are known or suspected carcinogens. Taken together, the reports do suggest that, for whatever reason, certain electrical occupations may be associated with low-to-moderate excess risks of leukemia and perhaps other cancers. More specific research that includes estimates of exposures to electric and magnetic fields and other agents, _ including chemicals, are needed for a resolution of this issue. The Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) has recently announced plans to sponsor epidemiological research involving electrical workers. COMMUNITY EPIDEMIOLOGY A now well-known report published in 1979 identified a possible association between childhood'cancer and proximity of cancer homes to certain high-current'-- - configuration powerlines (Wertheimer and Leeper 1979). This exploratory study done in the Denver, Colorado, area suggested that the association was related to return current flow through household plumbing and/or the resulting magnetic fields. This study was widely criticized on at least two points. The first involved the reliance on wiring configuration as a surrogate measure for magnetic field exposure. The second point often raised was the apparent lack of evidence to support a plausible biological explanation for a cause and effect association between very weak magnetic fields and cancer. The powerline field strengths discussed in the paper, as low as a few milligauss, were much smaller than fields known to exist close to household electrical appliances. The publication of a paper the following year from Rhode Island (Fulton et al. 1980), in which no association was found between childhood cancer and powerlines, seemed to some to be further evidence that the Denver study was a statistical fluke. The situation took another turn, however, 2 years later. Wertheimer and Leeper (1982) extended their research and reported a smaller but still positive association between adult cancer and high-current powerlines. Those authors suggested that chronic exposure to magnetic fields may have a promoting effect on cancer development (rather than an initiating effect). Also in 1982, a study in Sweden claimed to have replicated the positive childhood cancer/powerline association reported by Wertheimer and Leeper (Tomenius 1986). As discussed in the previous section, the report by Milham on occupational cancer also appeared that year. 8 By this time, many in the industry had begun "keeping score" as the balance of . papers shifted between negative and positive findings. The next round of papers on the subject came from researchers in the U.K. Myers et al. (1985) did not find any association between childhood cancer and proximity to powerlines. Another study (Coleman et al. 1985) found no excess in leukemia for residences within 100m of overhead lines although the sample size was very small (7 cases;_ 10 controls). A larger study involving 7,631 people living near power facilities in the U.K. also found no leukemia association (McDowell 1986). Most recently, in November 1986, preliminary results were presented on two of the most closely-followed studies on the powerline/cancer issue. These case- control studies were funded by some New York utilities but administered by the N.Y. Department of Health. They involved childhood cancer in Denver, and . adult leukemia in the Seattle area. Although final reports on the projects have not yet been published, the preliminary results presented at the DOE/EPRI/NY contractors' review seemed in general to be consistent with the findings originally reported by Wertheimer and Leeper. Table 3 is a summary of a portion of the results of the study of 253 childhood cancer cases reported on by Savitz et al. (1986). There was a trend for increased cancer- risk near the high-current configuration lines. Only the VHCC category, however, was statistically significant. Further, because there were only eight cases and two controls in that category, the precision was very low as indicated by the wide confidence interval. Table 3. Portion of Preliminary Analyses of the Recent Study of Childhood- - Cancer in the Denver Area (Source: Savitz et al. 1986). Wiring Code Rel. Risk (all cancers) 95% C.I. Very High Current (VHCC) 5.4 1.2 - 23.9 Ordinary High Current (OHCC) 1.6 0.8 - .3.4 Ordinary Low Current (OLCC) 1.3 0.7 - 2.4 Very Low Current (VLCC) • 0.7 ' 0.3 - 2.0 Buried Cable 1.0 When the two HCC wiring configurations were compared to the three lowest configurations there was approximately a 1.6x increased cancer risk (2x for leukemia) for the high-current lines. The study also included an extensive measurement program for electric and magnetic fields within study homes. Results indicated that the Wertheimer/Leeper wiring code did rank order the configurations in terms of measured magnetic field strengths. In general, high home use of electrical power was not a good predictor of electric or magnetic field strength throughout the home. Average magnetic field strength in homes near VHCC lines was around 2-3 mG. For homes near LCC lines, average values were generally less than 1 mG. When measured magnetic fields were used in place of wiring configuration, the association with cancer cases was much weaker. No association was found with electric fields. Dr. Savitz carefully listed several qualifications which must be placed on his study. His overall conclusion, as presented in the meeting abstract, stated, "Within the limits of these uncertainties, this study adds to the literature, suggesting that . prolonged exposure to low-level magnetic fields may increase the risk of developing cancer in children." (Savitz et al. 1986). Dr. Savitz acknowledged 9 that other factors could be involved in the suggested association. Thus far, however, his analysis shows no evidence that any of several known confounders were involved (e.g. maternal smoking). He also pointed out that the positive association cannot be explained by random errors in assessing field exposures. Such errors would actually mean that the real risk level is higher than that found in his study. The Seattle adult leukemia study reported on by Stevens et al. (1986) also found that the wiring configuration code rank ordered magnetic field exposures. Again, there was considerable variation in the measured data. In this study, neither the wiring codes nor the measured magnetic fields were associated with cancer cases. Some attendees at the Denver meeting suggested that the two studies seemed to cancel each other. Dr. Wertheimer, however, pointed out during a discussion period that her 1982 adult cancer study had also not found an increased risk for leukemia. Cancer types that she had found to be elevated for adults were not included in the Seattle study. The newest study, which began in 1987, involves childhood cancer and powerlines in the Los Angeles area. It is sponsored by EPRI, and the principal investigator is Dr. John Peters from the University of California (USC), Los Angeles. Results are not expected to be available for approximately 2 more years. ASSESSMENT OF THE EVIDENCE The above is a brief summary of the status of research on the biological effects of electric and magnetic fields. This body of research is now extensive, including probably thousands of published papers. It is increasingly more difficult for utility personnel, or anyone else, to stay on top of this fast-moving topic. The question most asked, of course, is what does all the research mean? Some may still hold the view that if we do enough research, eventually the question of whether or not there are human health effects from ELF fields will be clearly answered. It should be pointed out, however, that science and "biopolitics" probably do not operate so precisely. If one is waiting for the scientists to tie this problem up with a neat answer, just for the utilities, it will probably be a very long wait. At best, what seems to happen on matters of public and/or occupational health is that the evidence may eventually accumulate to the point where "most" rational persons reviewing the evidence agree that a cause and effect association should be assumed. In theory, no amount of empirical data allows one to "prove" a cause and effect association (Lave and Seskin 1979). A well-known example is the now generally assumed cause and effect association between smoking and lung cancer. Some still maintain that the association is actually due to some other factors, i.e. , genetics, that happen to also be associated with smoking. At the other extreme, it is also impossible to prove that something does not have an effect. Regardless of how many negative studies may be reported, one can always devise another set of conditions to test, which in theory, could 10 show an effect. Taken together a number of well-done studies reporting "no significant effects," may provide persuasive evidence to support (but not prove) a no-effect hypothesis. In applying the above discussion to ELF fields, until recent years, the evidence appeared to be heavily weighted in favor of negative results. The positive results reported in some studies, on the whole, seemed to be subtle and with no pathological significance. Scientific reviews of the evidence typically concluded that harmful effects of ELF fields had not been documented and such effects were unlikely. There were, of course, some scientists that had gone on record early on to make a case that powerlines were potential hazards to human health. Most noticeably in the U.S. were Drs. Marino and Becker, originally researchers at the Veterans Administration Hospital in Syracuse, New York. A shift in the "mainstream" of scientific opinion was suggested in a' 1983 report by Dr. Asher Sheppard to the state of Montana (Sheppard 1983). Although Dr. Sheppard's overall conclusion was generally consistent with the "no harmful effects found" view typified above, he suggested a more cautious approach. In view of the uncertainty over the meaning of electric field effects found in some studies, Dr. Sheppard recommended that the edge of right-of-way electric field strength be limited to 1 kV/m. The state of Montana later adopted this as a siting standard for new lines only, but subject to waiver by landowners. This was apparently the first time in the U.S. that a 60-Hz field standard was set specifically on the basis of the potential for nonshock-related health effects. :A year later the World Health Organization (1984) released a `hea'lth-criteria. document on ELF fields that also included some precautionary notes. While acknowledging that pathological effects of ELF fields have not been confirmed, the WHO report stated that some studies have reported effects, and, ". . . these studies serve as a warning that unnecessary exposure to electric fields should be avoided." (WHO 1984:88). Although no long-term exposure limits were recommended, the report did recommend, ". . . that efforts be made to limit [electric field] exposure, particularly for members of the general population, to levels as low as can be reasonably achieved." (WHO 1984:18). The report said there was no need to limit intermittent access to areas with a field below 10 kV/m. A scientific committee report for the state of Florida published in 1985 concluded that harmful effects from 60-Hz electric and magnetic fields were unlikely (FEMFSAC 1985). Although the committee acknowledged that there was some uncertainty in the literature, there was no "scientific" reason to place limits on transmission line fields. The state of Florida, however, recently formed another committee to review the ELF biological research and to make recommendations regarding possible standards for both electric and magnetic fields. The international utility symposium held in Toronto in September 1986 (O'Grady 1986) also provided some indications of shifting scientific viewpoints on the biological effects issue. Three of four scientists participating on a "summing up" panel concluded, to varying degrees, that at least under some circumstances ELF fields could prove harmful. The strongest statement was 11 . voiced by a well-known researcher, Dr. Richard Phillips. Dr. Phillips, formerly with Battelle-Northwest and now with the U.S. EPA, surprised many at the symposium when he said that the data now indicates to him that there is a high likelihood that people living or working near power facilities may be at risk: Although Dr. Phillips still does not believe there is any proven public health problem, he feels a cautious interpretation of the data is warranted. COMPARATIVE RISKS Even though no cause and effect association between ELF fields and cancer has been established, risk estimates are frequently derived in the epidemiological studies. A frequently asked question is, how do these risks compare to those for other factors that people face in their daily lives? First of all, it should be noted that in most of the ELF studies only relative risks, or risk ratios are derived. Calculation of absolute risk estimates generally requires data that is more difficult and costly to obtain. As some background, it is helpful to place overall cancer mortality in perspective. Table 4 shows some sample mortality statistics for U.S. total population and for children. Table 4. Examples of U.S. Mortality Rates (Source: Vital Statistics of the United States, 1978). Group/Disease Rate/100,000 Total Annual (all ages) 810/100,000 pop. Heart Disease 300/100,000 " All cancers 170/100,000 ." . - Leukemia - 14/100,000 Total Annual (1-14 years) 43/100,000 children Accidents 20/100,000 11 All cancers 4.4/100,000 11 Leukemia 2/100,000 As indicated in the table, cancer is an important mortality factor for both adults and children. Leukemia is a rare cancer but for children it is more frequent, relative to other cancer types. The causes of many cancers are still largely unknown, and this is especially true for the childhood leukemias. Table 5 shows some examples of leukemia risks suggested in some studies in comparison to those suggested in the ELF studies. Table 5. Examples of Suggested Increased Leukemia Risks Reported in the literature. Group/Source Risk Level Reference Prenatal X-ray exams (risk to exposed children) 1.6 x Harvey et al. 1985 Radium in groundwater 1.5 - 2 x Lyman et al. 1985 Benzene workers 5 - 10 x Infante et al. 1977 Farmers (chemicals, viruses?) 1.3 - 1.8 x Blair and Thomas 1979 Powerlines 1.4 - 5.4 x (cited in this paper) Electrical workers 1.1 - 2.6 x (cited in this paper) • 12 r , When viewed in the context of other studies, if true, the increased risks attributed to ELF fields could be important from both a public and occupational health standpoint. For public health, an important factor is the large size of the potentially exposed population. Dr. Savitz has pointed out that for an individual living near a powerline the evidence to date should be no reason for worry. However, from an overall public health standpoint, he believes there-may be reason for concern (Edwards 1987). One could argue that even if future research does establish a causative role for ELF fields in carcinogenesis, this would simply be another risk that people must accept if they choose to have the many benefits of electrical energy. This view, however, must be tempered with at least two major considerations. The first involves risk reduction or management. A primary reason for health effects research is to find real or potentially harmful factors so they can be dealt with to eliminate or at least reduce their role in the particular health effect of interest. As an analogy, investigations of auto accidents show that many injuries and deaths occur as a result of persons being thrown from the vehicle. People who choose to drive or ride in motor vehicles assume a risk of injury or death. However, with a knowledge of the causes, a straight-forward risk reduction measure was developed, which is the use of seat belts. Even with this and other risk reduction aids, there is still a risk which people must accept if they choose to use motor vehicles. This is the second main consideration. Some risks are incurred voluntarily, while others are viewed as involuntary. The last category might include, for some people opposed to the practice, the fluoridation <of a public--water. supply.. Research has shown.that....pe.ople tend to view-the two types°of risk very-differently. Very high •voluntary-risks -may -be readily accepted while even low involuntary risks are opposed strongly (Slovic et al. 1980). The main point usually made by persons opposing a powerline on health effects grounds is that if there is any chance of harmful effects, they do not want the line near them. They may acknowledge that although most everyone has electricity in their home, everyone doesn't have to live near a high voltage transmission line. The situation, of course, gets more complicated when existing lines are considered. For new lines, there are a number of possible measures for reducing electric and/or magnetic field strength that include both line design and routing. With existing lines, almost any method for reducing magnetic field strength would be extremely costly. IMPLICATIONS FOR UTILITIES The biological effects issue poses a number of hard-to-answer questions for the utilities. Among these is still the fundamental question, what does the accumulated evidence mean in terms of the potential for ELF fields to adversely affect human health? A related and perhaps even more basic question is., what evidence is needed before utilities would conclude there is a problem associated with exposure to such fields? 13 • ' Should these questions even be answered by the utilities or should we defer to the regulators and/or the courts to answer them for us? Those who suggest that utilities consider imposing self-regulation in the form of modifications in line design or operation criteria will probably find it "tough going." Anything that may imply acknowledgement of a possible problem, when evidence is still inconclusive, may to some be asking for trouble. There is the other view, of course_ Have the utilities been, in effect, put on notice that there could be .a problem? What should a responsible organization do with the "suggestive" evidence now available? Suppose that 5, 10, or 20 years from now adverse effects of ELF fields were confirmed. During this time, were efforts ' made to use the potential for health effects as additional criteria in the design or location of new powerlines? Even if a utility were to decide to include magnetic fields as a design factor for new lines, it is not clear what the design objective would be. One approach is to design to meet a standard; however, there are no state or Federal standards or guidelines in the U.S. for 60-Hz magnetic field exposures. If one looks to the results of epidemiological studies for guidance, the situation is also not very helpful. Although some studies suggest levels of 2-3 mG as being lower levels associated with increased cancer risk, there would be considerable uncertainty in trying to design for such small levels. Finally, one possibility is the "ALARA" approach as recommended in the WHO (1984) report. However, what constitutes, "exposure levels that are as. low as are reasonably achievable," is certainly open to a wide variety of opinion. Another basic area of consideration is, how is information on the biological - effects issue disseminated both within and outside the utility organization? Even this process will be largely influenced by how a utility deals with the questions posed above. Many utilities today take pride in how controversial health or environmental issues are handled and communicated to their publics. The biological effects issue will increasingly represent a major challenge to the utilities in this regard. 2536e • 14 REFERENCES CITED Adey, et al. 1986. Tissue interactions with nonionizing electromagnetic fields. Final report to: Department of Energy. DOE/ET/29078--T2. DE86 014715 Anderson, L.E. -- 1986. Studies of laboratory animals exposed in ELF electric and magnetic fields. Paper presented at the International Utility Symposium Sept. 16-19. Toronto, Canada. Blair, A. and T.L. Thomas. 1979. Nebraska farmers: a death certificate study. Am J Epidemiol 110:264-273. Coleman, M. et al. 1985. Leukaemia and electromagnetic fields: a case- control study, pages 122-125 in, International Conference on Electric and Magnetic Fields in Medicine and Biology. Institution of Electrical Engineers. London and New York. Edwards, D.D. 1987. ELF: the current controversy. Science News. Feb. 14. Florida Electric and Magnetic Fields Science Advisory Commission (FEMFSAC). 1985. Biological effects of 60-hz power transmission lines. Report submitted to the Department of Environmental Regulation. Tallahassee, Florida. Fulton, J.P. , S. Cobb, L. Prebie, L. Leone, and E. Forman. 1980. Electrical wiring configuration and childhood leukemia in Rhode -Island.'- American -Journal of Epidemiology '111':292-296. Harvey, E. et al. 1985. Prenatal x-ray exposure and childhood cancer in twins. N Engl J Med 312:541-5. Infante, P.F. et al. 1977. Leukaemia in benzene workers. Lancet. July. pp. 76-78. Lave, L.B. and. E.P. Seskin. 1979. Epidemiology, causality, and public policy. American Scientist 67:178-185. Lee, J.M. Jr. 1986. Studies of a-c transmission line electric and magnetic fields in natural environments. Paper presented at the International Utility Symposium on Health Effects of Electric and Magnetic Fields. Sept. 16-19. Toronto, Canada. Lee, J.M. Jr. et.al. 1986. Electrical and biological effects of transmission lines: a review. Bonneville Power Administration. Portland, OR. Lyman, G.H. et al. 1985. Association of leukemia with radium groundwater contamination. J Amer Med Assoc 254:621-626. McDowall, M.E. 1986. Mortality of persons resident in the vicinity of electricity transmission facilities. British Journal of Cancer. 53:271-279. • 15 Milham, S. 1982. Mortality from leukemia in workers exposed to electrical and magnetic fields (letter to the editor). New England Journal of Medicine 307(4):249. Myers, A. et al. 1985. Overhead power lines and childhood cancer. Pages 126-130 in, International Conference on Electric and Magnetic Fields in Medicine- and Biology. The Institution of Electrical Engineers. London and New York. - O'Grady, J.P. (ch. organ. comm.) 1986. Syllabus: international utility symposium on health effects of electric and magnetic fields. Available from Ontario Hydro, Suite H8 D4, 700 University Ave. Toronto, Canada. M5G 1X6. Savitz, D.A. et al. 1986. Results of case control study of childhood cancer and exposure to electromagnetic fields. Project Resume. Contractors Review. U.S. DOE and EPRI. Nov. 18-20. Denver, CO. Savitz, D.A. and E.E. Calle. 1987. Leukemia and occupational exposure to electromagnetic fields: review of epidemiological surveys. J Occupational Med 29:47-51. Sheppard, A.R. 1983. Biological effects of high voltage ac transmission lines with reference to the colstrip project: garrison-spokane hvtl. A Report to the Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation. Helena, Montana. Slovic, P. et al. 1980. Facts and fears: understanding perceived risk. Pages 181-216, in, R. Fehwing and W. Albers (eds). How Safe is Safe Enough? Plenum Press. Stevens, R.G. et al. 1986. Epidemiological study of residential exposure to ELF electric and magnetic fields and risk of acute non-lymphocytic leukemia. Project Resume. Contractor's Review. U.S. DOE and EPRI. - Nov. 18-20, Denver, CO. Stevens, R.G. 1987. Electric power use and breast cancer: a hypothesis. American Journal of Epidemiology 125 (in press). Thomas, J.R. et al. 1986. Low-intensity magnetic fields alter operant behavior in rats. Bioelectromagnetics 7:349-357. Tomenius, L. 1986. 50-Hz electromagnetic environment and the incidence of childhood tumors in Stockholm County. Bioelectromagnetics 7:191-207. Wertheimer, N. and E. Leeper. 1979. Electrical wiring configurations and childhood cancer. American Journal of Epidemiology 109:273:284. Wertheimer, N. and E. Leeper. 1982. Adult cancer related to electrical wires near the home. International Journal of Epidemiology 11(4):345-355. 16 Winters, W.D. and J.L. Phillips. 1984. Electromagnetic field induced bioeffects in human cells in vitro. Paper presented at the Twenty-Third Hanford Life Sciences Symposium. Oct. 2-4. Richland, Washington. World Health=Organization, International Radiation Protection Association (WHO/IRPA). 1984. Environmental Health Criteria 35. Extremely Low Frequency (ELF) Fields. World Health Organization. Geneva. 131 pp. • 17 • Architecture and Planning • } • Leason Pomeroy Northwest Inc,Royce A.Berg,A.I.A.,,1,127 Pine Street,Suite 300 Seattle,WA 98101 (206)583-8030 ' CrrY OF RENSYO JAN 161991 MEMORANDUM t.texaAtiVED TO: Dean Erickson DATE: January 15, 1991 First City Washington., Inc. 700 Fifth Ave. Suite 6000 PROJECT: Blackriver Phase VI Seattle, WA 98104 PROJECT NO: NW 88041 SUBJECT: Meeting 9 January 1991 with Mark .Pywell , AICP Senior Planner, City of Renton City of Renton Ref: ECF;RVMP;SA;SM-143-90 1. Parking reserve of 15% will probably be part of conditions submitted to Hearing Examiner by staff and Environmental Review Committee. Discussed 15% 'of gross or net building area and the concern 'for marketability of office with reduced parking. - 2. Valley plan requires 2% of landscape. for 'wildlife habitat - noted we are only required to have 20% landscaping in Zone OP and we have over 26% and would designate an area for wildlife within that area. 3. Security review by police reflected some concern with parking under building. Mark has noted this level was open and lighted and should not be a problem. 4. Approvals from Metro, Washington Natural Gas and Puget Power for paving over easements would probably be required prior to building permit issuance. 5. Concern with reflective glass - noted Phase II to south was existing with no impact and that all glass is reflective. LPN will provide data on reflectivity of Phase II to Mark for comparison. 6. Some discussion was presented to Mark in staff review as to electromag- netic aspects of the high power line to the south. Noted to Mark we went through a similar process on Renton Plaza II and would forward the data for his files. 7. Utility fees discussed. Noted L.I.D. Oakesdale allows First City credit for most fees. ' 8. Mark recommended contacting Parks Department for coordination with Master City Plan. ' r Jr . Meeting Minutes/Mark Pywell Page 2 9. Tentative public hearing on 21 May 1991. 10. 18 January 1991 Environment Review Committee meeting. BY: Royce A. Berg Acr mp cc: Mark Pywell Paul Coppock Leason Pomeroy Northwest,Inc.,Royce A. Berg,A.I.A., 1.127 Pine Street,Suite 300 Seattle,WA 98101 (206)583-8030 Architecture and Planning Leason Pomeroy Northwest,Inc.,Royce A. Berg,A.I.A., 1127 Pine Street,Suite 300 Seattle,WA 98101 (206)583-8030 February 5, 1991 Mr. Mark Pywell , A. I.C.P. Senior Planner City of Renton 200 Mill Avenue South PL4NN:NG DIVISIONRenton, WA 98055 Cm'oFREN7'ON RE: Blackriver Corporate Park FEB 0 6 1991 Phase VI VED NW 86059 Your Ref: ECF 143-90 RVMP SA:SM-143-90 SUBJ: Comments to Conditions of ERC Dear Mark: Item 1 - Per review of the Grady Way Corridor Transportation Improvement Study, it is our understanding that the significant L. I .D. assessments already being paid by First City for Oakesdale Avenue and Oakesdale utilities would be treated or credited as offsets against future impact assessments. First City, being the majority participant in the Oakesdale L. I.D. , should be able to off- set the $253,674.00 assessment against that account. Item 2 - We are concerned with the 15% parking reserve in addition to our using a 90% efficiency factor for the building. Normally, a full building user has 93% to 94% efficiency. It is possible to accept this if it is ordi- nance versus policy, or if the time element for release of reserve parking is predicated only on a demonstrated need in conjunction with an effective Trans- portation Management Program. Item 5 - Recreational facilities have been provided on and off site for this development, and should not require more than coordination with the Master Program within the city Community Services Department. Item 8 - First City, in addition to being the majority participant in the Oakesdale L. I .D. , including the landscape improvements, paid an additional cash sum to upgrade the size of the street trees now existing and should not be required to provide additional improvements beyond normal city ordinance requirements. Letter to M. Pywell Page 2 NOTES TO APPLICANT Item 3 - Per review with the civil engineer, this charge should be $21,333.56 versus $210,333.51, which we believe is a typographical error. R ctfu y, • erg; Pre•ident RAB: p cc: Dean Erickson Leason Pomeroy Northwest,Inc., Royce A.Berg,A.I.A., 1127 Pine Street,Suite 300 Seattle,WA 98101 (206)583-8030 CITY O \ RENTON N Planning/Building/Public Works Department - Earl Clymer, Mayor Lynn Guttmann,Administrator Atigust 30, 1993 Mr. Dean R. Erickson Vice President First City Washington, Inc. Suite 6000 700 Fifth Avenue Seattle, WA 98104 SUBJECT: Blackriver Corporate Park- Phase VI Shoreline Substantial Development Permit City of Renton Permit No. SA-143-90 Dear Mr. Erickson: I have reviewed your letter, dated July 27, 1993, which requested an extension of time for the Substantial Development Permit for the project listed above, with the City Attorney. In accordance with Renton's Shoreline Master Program, Section 2.06.01 and WAC 173-14-060(1) substantial shoreline development permits are limited to two years unless actual construction or substantial progress towards construction has been initiated by the applicant. For the project listed above, this does not appear to be the case. Therefore, we can not issue an extension to the existing shoreline substantial development permit. You may, however, apply for a new permit when the existing permit expires in December. I believe that the City could support such a request for a new permit and also believe that DOE also, likely be able to support the application. Section 2.06.01 of Renton's Shoreline Master Program reads as follows: Construction of a project for which a permit has been granted pursuant to this Master Program must be commenced within two (2) years after the approval of the permit by the City, or the permit shall terminate. If such progress has not been made, a new permit shall be necessary. [WAC 173-14-060(1)]. WAC 173-14-060(1) reads as follows: Construction or substantial progress toward construction of a project for which a permit has been granted pursuant to the act must be undertaken within two years after the approval of the substantial development permit. Substantial progress towards construction shall include, but not be limited to the letting of bids, making of contracts, purchase of materials involved in the development, but shall not include development or which are inconsistent with the criteria set forth in WAC 173-14-100. Provided, that in determining the running of the two year period hereof, there shall not include the time during which a development was not actually pursued by construction and the pendency of litigation reasonably related thereto made it reasonable not to so pursue; provided further, that local government may, at its discretion extend the two-year time period for a reasonable time based on factors, including the inability to expeditiously obtain other governmental permits which are required prior to commencement of construction. We can not, according to the City Attorney, request the City Council to grant you an additional extension of time, beyond December 31, 1993, because of the wording contained in the City's Shoreline Master Program and WAC 173-14-060. The City Council already granted you an extension of time on your Shoreline Substantial Development Permit until December 31, 1993, due to the fact that you were 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 Mr. Dean R. Erickson • �.� - July 30, 1993 Page-2 unable to pursue permits within a reasonable time due to factors that were beyond your control. Since that time extension was granted, there has been no pending litigation so you could have pursued your building permits and initiated construction. Whereas, I can appreciate how current economic matters may have been a major contributing factor in your not doing so, there is nothing in either the State act or our Shoreline Master Program that allows us to grant an exemption for this reason. It may be advisable to wait until you are ready to pursue construction to file for the new Shoreline Substantial Development Permit. This way we could incorporate any permitted changes to the building footprint or site plan at the same time. Decision Therefore, on behalf of the Department and pursuant to your request, I have no other choice but to make an administrative decision that an additional extension of time for the Shoreline Substantial Development Permit for Site Plan #SA-143-90 can not be granted, therefore, a new Shoreline Substantial Development Permit should be submitted at the time you are prepared to initiate construction or begin to make substantial progress towards construction. Since this is an administrative decision, it is appealable to the City's Hearing Examiner within fourteen (14) days of the date of this letter. Such an appeal should be filed with the Hearing Examiner along with a non-refundable$75.00 fee pursuant to Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-11.B.1.b. Dean, if you have any questions regarding this decision, please feel free to discuss them with me. I can be reached at 277-5582. in ely, Donald K. Erickson,AICP Zoning Administrator cc: Amy Kosterlitz Buck&Gordon erickson/udrive Suite 6000 700 Fifth Avenue Seattle, Washington 98104 (206)624-9223 Facsimile(206)382-9752 fRSta* WASH I NGTON, INC. SEC iVE•D JUL 18 1993 July 27, 1993 �EVEC O CIry�RN F iviA,�iv Mr. Don Erickson Zoning Administrator Development Services Division Planning/Building/Public Works Department City of Renton 200 Mill Avenue South Renton,Washington 98055 RE: Blackriver Corporate Park - Phase VI Shoreline Substantial Development Permit City of Renton Permit No. SA-143-90 Dear Don: The Site Plan approval for Phase VI was granted a two-year extension (April 21, 1995) by the Hearing Examiner. The Shoreline permit was extended by Council Resolution to December 31, 1993. The purpose of this letter is to request a further extension of the Shoreline permit to coincide with or extend beyond the expiration date of the extended Site Plan approval. If the City plans to grant additional general permit extensions, then this request and further action may not be necessary. I have enclosed copies of the Shoreline permit and the letter received from the Hearing Examiner granting extension of the Site Plan approval. Laureen Nicolay,City Associate Planner,has advised that this request be sent to your attention. Please let me know how to proceed in obtaining an extension of the Shoreline permit for Phase VI. Thank you for your assistance. Very truly yours, ' T CITY% IN TON, INC. Dean R. Erickson Vice President DRE:ds Enclosures sn«ruce ' CITY OF, RENTON • R"LL fatItt, Hearing Examiner Earl Clymer, Mayor Fred J.Kaufman Feb � c 1993 February 23, 1993 Dean R. Erickson Vice President FirstCity Washington, Inc. 700 5th AVE, Suite 6000 Seattle, WA 98104 Re: Blackriver Corporate Park, Phase VI File No. SA-143-90 Dear Mr. Erickson: I have reviewed the request to extend the Site Plan approval for the above permit and the request appears justified, although the City has adopted more stringent storm water management conditions and those should be applicable to this project. Therefore, the permit will be extended for two years if the applicant complies with the current storm water drainage requirements of the City as applicable to this proposal. If this office can be of further assistance, please feel free to write. Sincerely, FRED J. KA AN HEARING'EXAMINER FJK:wmb cc: Mark Pywell Jan Conklin Dori Erickson Jim Hanson City Clerk 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 - (206)235-2593 THIS PAPER CONTAINS 50%RECYCLED MATERIAL,10%POST CONSUMER CITY OF RENTON SHORELINE MANAGEMENT ACT OF 1971 PERMIT FOR SHORELINE MANAGEMENT SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT APPLICATION NO.: SA-143-90 DATE RECEIVED: November 5, 1990 DATE OF PUBLICATION: November 12 & 19, 1990 DATE APPROVED: May 6, 1991 DATE DENIED: N/A TYPE OF ACTION(S): [X] Substantial Development Permit [ ] Conditional Use Permit [ ] Variance Permit Pursuant to Chapter 90.58 RCW,the City of Renton has granted/denied a permit: This action was taken on the following application: APPLICANT: First City Washington, Inc./Dean Erickson DEVELOPMENT DESCRIPTION: The applicant seeks approval to construct a four story, 71,000 sq.ft., office building on 169,314 sq.ft. site with on- site parking and landscaping. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 4 of City of Renton Short Plat No. 016-88 as recorded under King County Recorder's No. 8910279013, said Short Plat being a portion of the Northeast Quarter Of Section 24, Township 23 North, Range 3 East, W.M., in King County, Washington. SEC-TWNP-R: Sec. 24, T23N, R3E WITHIN SHORELINES OF: P-1 Channel (Springbrook Creek) STATE SHORELINE OF SIGNIFICANCE (YES/NO): Yes ENVIRONMENT DESIGNATION: Urban APPLICABLE MASTER PROGRAM: City of Renton, December 5, 1983 (Revised July 22, 1985 and July 16, 1990) The following section/page of the Master Program is applicable to the development: Section 2.02,Substantial Development Permits Section 7.05 Commercial Developments Development of this project shall be undertaken pursuant to the following terms and conditions: 1, The applicant shall comply with the mitigation measures of the Determination of Non- Significance=Mitigated issued January 16, 1991. shsubdev -7 2. The applicant shall comply with the Decision of the Hearing Examiner dated April 22, 1991. This permit is granted pursuant to the Shoreline Management Action of 1971 and pursuant to the following: 1. The issuance of a license under the Shoreline Management Act of 1971 shall not release the applicant from compliance with federal, state, and other permit requirements. 2. This permit may be rescinded pursuant to Section 14(7) of the Shoreline Management Act of 1971 in the event the permittee fails to comply with any condition hereof. 3. A construction permit shall not be issued until thirty (30) days after approval by the City of Renton Building and Zoning Department or until any review proceedings initiated within this thirty (30) day review period have been completed. = 4cIil Plahnin9/BuiWn9/ C' blic Works Administrator Date THIS SECTION FOR DEPARTMENT USE ONLY IN REGARD TO A CONDITIONAL USE OR VARIANCE PERMIT DATE RECEIVED: APPROVED: DENIED: This Conditional Use/Variance permit is approved/denied by the Department pursuant to Chapter 90.58 RCW. Development shall be undertaken pursuant to the following additional terms and conditions: VD\C/0 Date Sign to of thorized Department Official cc: D.O.E., NW District Office Attorney General's Office City of Renton, Development Services Division City of Renton,Transportation Systems City of Renton, Utility Systems Applicant • shsubdev '} `` " CIT'Y •JF RENTON ..LL Hearing Examiner Earl Clymer, Mayor Fred J. Kaufman CITY OF RENTON FEB 2 4 1993 RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE February 23, 1993 Dean R. Erickson Vice President FirstCity Washington, Inc. 700 5th AVE, Suite 6000 Seattle, WA 98104 Re: Blackriver Corporate Park, Phase VI File No. SA-143-90 Dear Mr. Erickson: I have reviewed the request to extend the Site Plan approval for the above permit and the request appears justified, although the City has adopted more stringent storm water management conditions and those should be applicable to this project. Therefore, the permit will be extended for two years if the applicant complies with the current storm water drainage requirements of the City as applicable to this proposal. If this office can be of further assistance, please feel free to write. Sincerely, FRED J. KAtIfFMAN HEARING EXAMINER FJK:wmb cc: Mark Pywell Jan Conklin Don Erickson Jim Hanson City Clerk Inn Mill Avenue. South - Renton. Washington 98055 - (206)235-2593 • Suite 6000 700 Fifth Avenue Seattle, Washington 98104 (206)624-9223 Facsimile(206)382-9752 RRSICIy WASH I NGTON, INC. 19) February 8, 1993 ,r• Mr. Fred J. Kaufman � �99N-6 Hearing Examiner, City of Renton �� 200 Mill Avenue South ksN1 4' Renton', Washington 98055 Re: Request for Two (2) Year Extension of Site Plan Approval; File No. SA-143-90; Blackriver Corporate Park, Phase VI Dear Mr. Kaufman: On April 22, 1991, the Site Plan for Phase` VI of Blackriver Corporate Park was approved subject to certain'conditions: We are`diligently'contiinuing with our work on this phase of the park and believe that we-qualify for the two-(2)'year'exte'nsion • of the Site Plan approval pursuant to Renton City Code'4-31-33 (I). Therefore, we request that the extension be granted to allow for completion of the required approvals from Public Works/Planning, coordination of the utilities easements and lender's commitment for construction financing. The reasons for the extension are as follows: Item Nos. 2 and 7 of your Decision require that the drainage system for the project be approved by the Public Works and Planning staffs, and that we demonstrate, with written approval, the coordination of our development plans with the various utilities easements that cross the property (Metro, Puget Power and Washington Natural Gas). Significant progress has been made to obtain these approvals; however, our work is not yet completed. As you know, the financing market has been troubled by the continuing recession. The project, however, has received a favorable lender response. The building is an excellent "spec" design that is .not tailored to a specific use or user. It is strategically located with great visibility in a market historically characterized by low vacancy and continued growth. With the addition of a major pre-lease tenant, the project'will,-even'in,these difficult times-,''meet:the'ciiteriasof those. lenders :in the market. Pre-lease'marketing information- is presently under.,review by several prospective tenants; however, no leasing commitments have been'Made as of this date. Mr. Fred J. Kaufman February 8, 1993 Page 2 Thank you for your consideration of this request for a two (2) year extension of the Site Plan approval. If you have any questions, please call me at 624-9223. Very truly yours, FI ST CITY INGTON, INC. • Dean R. Erickson Vice President DRE:ds kaufman soot- /9.3 -y0 777 4! CITE JF RENTON Planning/Building/Public Works Department Earl Clymer, Mayor Lynn Guttmann,Administrator PLANNING DIVISION October 8, 1991 CITY OF RENTON Mr. Paul Coppick, LPN OCT ® 9 1991 1127 Pine Street Suite 300 RECEi Seattle, WA 98101 SUBJECT: Blackriver Corporate Park, Phase VI, Resubmitted Conceptual Drainage Plan Dear Mr. Coppick: We regret the delay in our review of the resubmitted conceptual drainage plan for the Blackriver Corporate Park, Phase VI project. Our review comments follow: 1. Time of concentration calculations do not include overland flow across parking lot to your upstream catch basin. This shorter time of concentration should yield a conservative (high) peak flow rate which is acceptable for this conceptual drainage plan. 2. Wet pond sizing appears to meet the criteria of the storm water code. 3. A chain link fence located at maximum water surface elevation or higher, a, minimum of 6' high, is required around the pond. 4. A gravity drain controlled by a valve must be provided for the wetpond in accordance with King County Surface Water Design Manual Section 4.6.2. 5. Wetpond control orifice sizing.will be checked when final configuration of control manhole is submitted. 6. Biofiltration swale: complete sizing calculations were not submitted, so we will not comment on the proposed 11.5' swale width. 7. The entire bioswale including rockery should be contained within subject property. A set back of several feet from the property line would be preferred. Also, the control manhole is too close to the Metro sanitary sewer line. We will require a letter from METRO approving this plan prior to construction. Other than this, we take no exception to the location of the bioswale or the wetpond, assuming that this layout is consistent with the site plan and Hearing Examiner requirements. 8. Tightlining of storm drain line: This item requires further analysis. Although the submitted plans show a 36 inch influent pipe to the site, information you have supplied indicates that this is in fact a 42 inch line. Therefore, the influent flow based on capacity of the 36 inch line may be low. For the 36 inch effluent pipe, backwater conditions at point of discharge have been neglected' (that is, during the 100-year storm event, the outlet may be submerged). 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 Blackriver CorporatL_ . Lrk Phase VI October 8, 1991 Page 2 In addition to these design criteria, this project will be filling in the pit which may currently be providing storm water detention volume. The recommended methodology to address these issues would be to perform a level 3 downstream analysis of the drainage basin associated with the Powell Avenue drain line, all the way to the P-1 Channel. This would help identify hydraulic grade line under actual flow conditions. This analysis should be part of your TV report, submitted with the building permit application. If you have any questions, please call me at 277-6178. Sincerely, : 4-10- Gregg Zimmerman, P.E. Plan Review Supervisor cc: Randall Parsons )►v .,. ° we a GAZ/tp093 �ir* ' t% �_ ' CITY -)F RENTON Planning/Building/Public Works Department Earl Clymer, Mayor Lynn Guttman,Administrator July 24, 1991 Paul Coppock Leason Pomeroy Northwest, Inc. 1127 Pine Street, Suite 300 Seattle, WA 98055 SUBJECT: Blackriver Corporate Park, Phase VI ECF, RVMP, SA, SM-143-90 NW 86059 Dear Mr. Coppock: I have reviewed the plans submitted to this office with your letter dated June 18th. The location of the parking reserve and the number of stalls, and the location of the wildlife habitat meet the requirements established at the public hearing. The location and configuration of the biofiltration swales and wetponds will need to be approved by the public works staff. The plan does indicate that the parking reserve area will be planted in lawn. The intent of City staff was that this area would be more fully landscaped. It would seem that some trees and shrubs could be planted in this area. The trees could be located in areas that would be used for landscaped areas if the parking spaces were developed at some future date. Shrubs could also be located in these areas or in areas where they could easily be relocated to form the perimeter landscaping for the parking lot. If there are any further questions regarding this matter, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, 070/11/7, Mark R. Pywell, AICP Project Manager jul24ltr 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 06/21/91 15:27 D.O.E. BARAN HALL 001 PLANNING DIVISION CITY OF RENTON JUN 2 4 1991 FAX TER RECEIVED TO: IJ1 a,.i RtujeSLP .13 s_ s4 FROM: _ �O�V�•�1�N-� ;i,.,. . . • . . • .I.0 , „•:l:74 �...aJZak! Architecture and Planning, "z Leason Pomeroy Northwest,Inc.,Royce A.Berg,A.I.A., 1127 Pine Street,Suite 300 Seattle,WA 98101 (206)583-8030 June 18, 1991 Revised June 28, 1991 Mr. Greg Zimmerman Department of Public Works City of Renton pt.444,6. 20Renton, WAWA 98055 venue South any°F�Oim,c1r JUL Re: Blackriver Corporate Park, Phase VI -. 0 3 199/ ECF;RVMP;SA;SM-143-90 �( NW 86059 VE0 Dear Greg: Please review the enclosed Grading and Drainage Plan and Calculations For Concept Updated per your request. In an effort to maintain coordination with the City's concepts we would appreciate if you could approve the location and configuration of the following items for concept. 1 . Completion of the Powell Avenue storm drainage, tight lined from existing 42" CMP to existing 36" CMP outfall , per our 10/19/90 meeting. 2. Relocation of Biofiltering Swale to accommodate wildlife habitat, relocation, and wetpond installation per Hearing Examiner. 3. Location and configuration of wetpond with retaining wall and 3: 1 and 2:1 slopes per Hearing Examiner. CONCEPTS APPROVED: REMARKS: Si cerely, aul R. Coppock PRC:fvj cc: Mark Pywell Dean Erickson Royce A. Berg Architecture and Planning Leason Pomeroy Northwest, Inc., Royce A. Berg,A.I.A., 1127 Pine Strt, t r Irtl, ,.f "(,1 :, . 3(1 June 18, 1991 Mr. Mark Pywel l , A. I.C.P. PLANNING DIVISION Senior Planner CITY OF RENTON City of Renton 200 Mill Avenue South JUN 2 0 1991 Renton, WA 98055 RE: Blackriver Corporate Park, Phase VI RECiV ED ECF;RVMP;SA;SM-143-90 NW 86059 Dear Mark: Please review the enclosed Grading and Drainage Plan, and Site Plan For Concept. In an effort to maintain coordination with the City's concepts we would appreciate if you could approve the following items so we may proceed in developing the plans with our consultants. 1. Wildlife Habitat location on site at southern most easterly corner, relationship to wetpond and slopes to wetpond and minimum size 3,400 S.F. 2. Location of reserve parking and number of stalls in reserve (48) . 3. Location and configuration of Biofiltering Swale subject to public works approval . 4. Location of and configuration of Wetpond subject to public works approval . CONCEPTS APPROVED: REMARKS: Sincerely, Paul R. Coppock PRC:fvj cc: Dean Erickson Royce A. Berg ..- �aF,STATE OA N •Q 1 n. d• .,p.Jy, H�IA89 STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY Mail Stop PV-11 • Olympia, Washington 98504-8711 • (206) 459-6000 PLANNING DIVISION June 18, 1991 CITY OF RENTON JUN 2 4 1991 RECEIVED Mr. Dean Erickson First City Washington 700 Fifth Avenue Suite 6000 Seattle, WA 98104 Re: City of Renton Permit #SA-143-90 First City Washington - Applicant Shoreline Substantial Development Permit #1991-12277 Dear Mr. Erickson: The subject Shoreline Management Substantial Development permit has been filed with this office by the city of Renton on June 6, 1991. If this permit is not appealed to the Shorelines Hearings Board on or before July 8, 1991, authorized construction may begin. Other federal, state, and local laws regulating such construction shall be complied with. Unless an appeal is filed, this letter constitutes final notification of action on this permit. Sincerely, Pa ricia Trerice Permit Coordinator Shorelands and Coastal Zone Management Program PT:db sdp.mg cc: City of Renton "$'�', 3 06/21/91 15:27 D.O.E. BARAN HALL 002 • SIATF OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOI C)GY Mail Stop PV-I I . CAymp'd, W.bhinjccon "+8504-87► . (X) 459 ar'xk) June 18, 1991 PLANNING DIVISION CITY OF RENTON JUN 2 4 1991 RECEIVED Mr. Dean Erickson First City Washington 700 Fifth Avenue Suite 6000 Seattle, WA 98104 Re: City of Renton Permit #SA-143-90 First City Washington - Applicant Shoreline Substantial Development Permit #1991-12277 Dear Mr. Erickson: The subject Shoreline Management Substantial Development permit has been filed with this office by the city of Renton on Juno 6, 1991. If this permit is not appealed to the Shorelines Hearings Board on or before July 8, 1991, authorized construction may begin. Other federal, st.ce, and local laws regulating such construction shall be complied with. Unless an appeal is filed, this letter constitutes final notification of action on this permit. Sincerely, Patricia Trerice Permit Coordinator Shorelinds and Coastal Zone Management Program PT:db sdp,mg , cc: City of Renton M CURRENT ...P ................. .IDP:.V. IT...O On the Stk day of Jux , 19 11 , I deposited in the mails oftt the United States a sealed envelope containing S1tWe.,t►rx„ Feym documents . This information was .sent to: Name Representing • [IAA rcvu koSaYn fINS4 G 1 14 (141W% Wit-et. 4 P-4-011 1 -Amokv,141 Gi . . • • • • • (Signature of Sender) r Subscribed and�,amouiL to me this day of 19 �/ ��GP�IET J.,���i, , • wr.510N •��, • :" NOTARY Not •Publi in and for the �Nt PUBLIC Z Sta � Was ington residing '.�9'•;cq,e s,A99tr,���.` at ..-/ J'Yl� Le/ •, F•....•N; C� �• therein. ' ** ._WAS..•o�. Project Name • , ; Project Number CITY OF RENTON SHORELINE MANAGEMENT ACT OF 1971 PERMIT FOR SHORELINE MANAOEMENT SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT APPLICATION NO.: SA-143-90 DATE RECEIVED: November 5, 1990 DATE OF PUBLICATION: November 12 & 19, 1990 DATE APPROVED: May 6, 1991 DATE DENIED: N/A TYPE OF ACTION(S): [X] Substantial Development Permit [ ] Conditional Use Permit [ ] Variance Permit Pursuant to Chapter 90.58 RCW, the City of Renton has granted/denied a permit: This action was taken on the following application: i APPLICANT: First City Washington, Inc./Dean Erickson DEVELOPMENT DESCRIPTION: The applicant seeks approval to construct a four story, 71,000 sq.ft., office building on 169,314'sq.ft. site with on- site parking and landscaping. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot of City of Renton Short Plat No. 0.16-88 as recorded under King County Recorder's. No. 8910279013, said Short Plat being a portion of the Northeast Quarter of Section 24, Township 23 North, Range 3 East, W.M., in King County,Washington. SEC-TWNP-R: Sec. 24, T23N, R3E WITHIN SHORELINES OF: P-1 Channel (Springbrook Creek) STATE SHORELINE OF SIGNIFICANCE (YES/NO): Yes ENVIRONMENT DESIGNATION: Urban i APPLICABLE MASTER PROGRAM: City of Renton, December 5, 1983 (Revised July 22, 1985 and July 16, 1990) The following section/page of the Master Program is applicable to the development: Section 2.02 Substantial Development Permits Section 7.05 Commercial Developments Development of this project shall be undertaken pursuant to the following terms and conditions: 1. The applicant shall comply with the mitigation measures of the Determination of Non- Significance- Mitigated issued January 16, 1991. shsubdev 2. The applicant shall comply with the Decision of the Hearing Examiner dated April 22, 1991. This permit is granted pursuant to the Shoreline Management Action of 1971 and pursuant to the following: 1. The issuance of a license under the Shoreline Management Act of 1971 shall not release the applicant from compliance with federal, state, and other permit requirements. 2. This permit may be rescinded pursuant to Section 14(7) of the Shoreline Management Act of 1971 in the event the permittee fails to comply with any condition hereof. 3. A construction permit shall not be issued until thirty (30) days after approval by the City of Renton Building and Zoning Department or until any review proceedings initiated within this thirty (30) day review period have been completed. (liqq1 Planning/Buil ' ublic Works Administrator Date a g/Buil n g/ THIS SECTION FOR DEPARTMENT USE ONLY IN REGARD TO A CONDITIONAL USE OR VARIANCE PERMIT DATE RECEIVED: APPROVED: DENIED: This Conditional Use/Variance permit is approved/denied by the Department pursuant to Chapter 90.58 RCW. Development shall be undertaken pursuant to the following additional terms and conditions: • (/VD\°O ."--- 1--, •-----------.., -. Date Sign to of thorized Department Official cc: D.O.E., NW District Office Attorney General's Office City of Renton, Development Services Division City of Renton, Transportation Systems City of Renton, Utility Systems Applicant shsubdev CITY L F RENTON • Hearing Examiner Earl Clymer, Mayor Fred J.Kaufman • • • • May 10, 1991 • Royce Berg 1127 Pine, Suite 300 . Seattle, WA 98101 RE: Blackriver Corporate Park, Phase VI File No. SA-143-90 .Dear Mr. Berg: The Examiner' s Report regarding the referenced application which was published April 22 , 1991 has not been appealed within the 14-day period established by ordinance. Therefore, this matter is considered final and is being transmitted to the City Clerk this date for filing. Please feel free to contact this office if further assistance or information is required. Sincerely, p. /1.4.,244,4)% FRED J. KAUFMAN HEARING EXAMINER FJK:dk cc: City Clerk • 'Building Division . • Planning Division • • • • win Mill Avenue South - Renton. Washington 98055 - (206) 235-2593 • AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING STATE OF WASHINGTON ' ) )ss. County:of King ) • DOTTY KLINGMAN , being first duly sworn, upon oath, deposes and states: • That on the 22nd day_ of April , 1991. 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 to before me this ��— day of fr i l , 19 91,. I - ge„ j1),L41) No: ary P . is in ay,Nd for the State of Washington, residing , , , therein. • Application,• etition, or Case If: SA-143-90 - First ity Washington, Inc./Dean Erickson BLACK RIVER CORPORATE PARK - Phase VI (The minutes contain a list of the parties of.record.) • April 22, 1991 OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON REPORT AND DECISION APPLICANT: First City Washington, Inc./Dean Erickson (Blackriver Corporate Park - Phase VI) File No: SA-143-90 LOCATION: East side of Oakesdale Ave. SW and approximately 150 ft. north of SW Grady Way. SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Site Approval to permit construction of a four-story office building with, landscaping and parking. SUMMARY OF ACTION: Planning Division Recommendation: Approval, with conditions. PLANNING DIVISION REPORT: The Planning Division Report was received by the Examiner on April 2, 1991 PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the Planning Division 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: MINUTES The hearing was opened on April 9, 1991 at 9:00 A.M. in the Council Chambers of the Renton Municipal Building. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner. The following exhibits were entered into the record: Exhibit #1 - Yellow File containing application, proof of posting and publication and other documentation pertinent to this request. Exhibit #2 - Vicinity Map Exhibit #3 - Site Plan Exhibit #4 - Landscape Plan Exhibit #5 - Elevation Plan •Exhibit #6 - Exterior Color Plan Exhibit #7 - Map showing wetlands and swales Exhibit #8 - Alternate Drainage Plan The hearing opened and ROYCE BERG, representing the applicant, advised the Hearing Examiner that an agreement had been reached with staff, and the appeal hearing set for this date with regard to mitigation fees (AAD-029-91) for this proposal has been withdrawn. MARK PYWELL, Senior Planner reviewed the site plan application, and his presentation follows. After entering the above exhibits, Pywell continued stating the subject site is being developed per its, designation on the Comprehensive Plan and is zoned Office Park. A four story office building is. planned that will be approximately 57 ft. tall, and will be a 71,000 sq. ft. building on 3.9 acres. The applicant is proposing the use of reflective glass on the exterior of the building with staff recommending a solar-tinted glass instead. Provisions have been made for a wildlife habitat on the site; there will be about 321 parking spaces to be located adjacent to the building (with staff recommending that 15% of the parking spaces be held in reserve). Pywell said a Routine Vegetation Management Plan has been submitted by the applicant which proposes to retain fourteen of twenty sizeable trees on the site; Oakesdale Avenue is developing as one of the major entrances to the general area around the site and further special landscape treatment should be used to enhance that area. First City Washington, lnc./Dean Erickson Blackriver Corporate Park (Phase VI) SA-143-90 April 22, 1991 Page 2 This project is located within 200 ft. of the Springbrook Creek, and a Shoreline Management Permit will have to be obtained (the applicant has already applied for the permit). PYWELL said the wildlife habitat area (2% of the project site) is shown by the applicant on the east side of the,proposed building but staff recommends it be moved to the south portion of the site to address noise concerns that may cause a disruption to the wildlife in the area. King County Surface Water Manual requirements have been used for this project; this site will require a wet pond feature and staff is recommending that an amended site plan be prepared to locate all of the necessary water quality control features necessary for this project site. The Examiner questioned if this hearing should have been held today if the water quality control calculations will change the site plan so much and ROYCE BERG assured the Examiner there would be no change to the footprint of the building. MARK PYWELL continued noting aesthetically this building design will match existing buildings on adjacent parcels constructed during earlier phases of this project; portions of the site have been filled from the Springbrook Creek P-1 Channel, and the Department of Ecology felt some of the fill material may be contaminated and recommended a soils study. There should be no negative impacts to the surrounding property values; safe and efficient pedestrian and vehicle linkages have been provided; a Transportation Management Plan will be needed to reduce vehicle trips and avoid impacting traffic on adjacent roadways; and noise, dirt and hauling routes were addressed. Staff recommended reserve parking be placed on the site south of the drainage swales. Planner Pywell said staff is requesting non- reflective glass be used; fire, police and utility services are available to the site, and on-site recreation will be added in the form of, but not limited to, outside seating areas, picnic tables, horseshoe pit, shower and locker facilities, and a par course and trails to tie in with other city-wide trails. Staff recommended this project for approval, subject to the conditions set out in their report (copy attached). Responding for the applicant was ROYCE BERG, 1127 Pine, Suite 300, Seattle, 98101 who began by entering Exhibits 7 and 8. Explaining the exhibits he said (a) shows the wetlands habitat where the applicant prefers it be located, which re-routes the biofiltering pond to the southeastern portion of the site; (b) which, they do not prefer, leaves the swale to the southwest and establishes the wildlife habitat in the location suggested by staff, and leaves the parking ratio the same with no net loss in building area. Addressing other issues he said they are trying to hold reflectivity to 20% and use reflective glass to reflect heat. Tinted glass does not reflect heat. The building has been relocated to place an additional buffer around the trees in the wildlife habitat; he said they are trying to buy two parcels of property to the south to landscape and use to provide a front door to their property. Mr. Berg also addressed trees to be left on the property, suggested size of new trees, and noted they wish to keep the reserve parking area for just that - reserved parking, with the possibility of activating the parking at some time in the future. He disagreed with staff's condition to hold reserve parking for two years and asked that the city's policy or ordinance be clarified for him. Referring to the suggested walking surface in the parking lots, Mr. Berg felt it was redundant to have to put another walking surface in the parking lot to walk from a sidewalk through another driveway aisle to another sidewalk, etc.. They would prefer to do the stripping and feels the sidewalk circulation between parking stalls and between properties has been adequately provided by the applicant. He suggested maybe sidewalks could just be provided between this property and Oakesdale for possible access to the bus. GREG ZIMMERMAN, Plan Review Supervisor, testified he had reviewed alternative drainage plans A & B and in essence they provide what the city is looking for. The dimension of the wet pond will be further reviewed, and it is felt there is adequate room to install the wet ponds in the alignments. He said with the adoption of the King County Storm Water Manual there are three provisions that have to be considered for site plans. Detention and compensatory storage to be provided elsewhere on site so there is no loss of flood plain was addressed for this site back in the early 1980's when Blackriver Corporate Park participated in the P-1'installation in the form of property dedication and design considerations for that property. He said the city has agreed, by letter, that the dedication by Blackriver of property to the P-1 Channel for detention and compensatory storage considerations would fulfill those requirements for the Blackriver project. Regarding water quality ZIMMERMAN said there is a special provision that states if over one acre of pavement is proposed for a project, and the project is within one mile of level A or B surface water, then a wet pond would be required in addition to a biofiltration swale for water quality. He said the wet pond will be provided for this project. He said it appears with the amount of storage provided by Blackriver with the dedication of land, this will more than compensate for the amount of fill that will be used for this project. In closing comments from staff, Planner Pywell said staff still recommends the size of the trees remain as requested, reflective glass should not be used, and reserve parking should be placed on the southeast portion of the site. The Examiner called for further testimony regarding this project. There was no one else wishing to speak, and no further comments from staff. The hearing closed at 11:00 A.M. First City Washington,inc./Dean Erickson Blackriver Corporate Park (Phase VI) SA-143-90 April 22, 1991 Page 3 FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & DECISION: Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: 1. The applicant, First City Washington, Dean Erickson, filed a request for approval of a Site Plan for a four-story, 71,057 square foot office building. 2. The yellow file containing the staff report, the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) documentation and other pertinent materials was entered into the record as Exhibit #1. 3. The Environmental Review Committee (ERC), the City's responsible official, issued a Declaration of Non-Significance - Mitigated (DNS-M) for the subject proposal. 4. The subject proposal was reviewed by all departments with an interest in the matter. 5. The subject site is located on the east side of Oakesdale Avenue S.W., just north of S.W. Grady Way. The site is located immediately north of a power line corridor that fronts along Grady Way in this location. 6. The subject site was annexed by the adoption of Ordinance 1745 enacted in April, 1959, as amended by Ordinance 1764, enacted in May, 1959 and Ordinance 1928, enacted in December, 1961. 7. The subject site was reclassified to O-P (Office Park), its current classification, with the adoption of Ordinance 4020, enacted in October, 1986. 8. The map element of the Comprehensive Plan designates the area in which the subject site is located as suitable for the development of office and manufacturing park uses, but does not mandate such development without consideration of other policies of the Plan. In this case the O-P zoning would be controlling, and offices would be the appropriate use of the site. 9. The approximately 169,314 square foot parcel is relatively level. The irregularly shaped parcel is roughly 560 feet wide (Oakesdale frontage) by 440 feet deep. The parcel is narrower to the south, with a dogleg near the southwest corner of the parcel. 10. The four-story, 57 foot tall building will be finished in steel and concrete. The applicant proposes reflective glass for the window treatment, whereas staff has recommended the use of solar tinted glass, a form of glazing that reduces the glare and reflectivity of the windows. Staff suggested that the use of this low reflective glass will reduce impacts on drivers, pedestrians, other buildings, and wildlife. The latter are adversely affected by reflective windows since birds become disoriented by the mirror-quality of the glass and fly into the windows. 11. The building will be styled to generally match the existing buildings to the north and east of the subject site. The building will have a footprint of approximately 130 feet wide (Oakesdale facade) by approximately 215 feet deep. Depending upon one's perspective, the south or west facade will step inward in 3 sections. The southwest corner will provide the gabled-appearing entry that will be set off by columns and reveals. The eastern leg of the building will be three stories over ground level parking. 12. The applicant proposes continuing the landscaping treatment developed on the surrounding sites. The applicant has located the building to preserve some of the larger, more significant trees on the site. Staff has recommended that the applicant use larger caliper (diameter) trees to provide a more finished look that matches the other buildings in the area. Staff recommended that the wildlife habitat be relocated to the south so that it is not located between this new office building and the parking and building to the east. The applicant submitted an alternative plan that places the wildlife habitat along the south margin of the property. 13. In connection with the landscaping and habitat alternatives, the applicant submitted a plan showing a wet pond detention system. Biofiltration swales can be provided on site without major alterations to the proposed site plan. Biofiltration had been proposed but staff has not completed the calculations for this site, and additional storage capacity for storm water might be required. Staff had suggested. wet ponds might be necessary and the applicant responded with these plans. First City Washington,,_a_0./Dean Erickson Blackriver Corporate Park (Phase VI) SA-143-90 April 22, 1991 Page 4 14. The applicant will be providing parking for 273 vehicles initially. The project required 321 stalls of which the applicant will be setting aside, in reserve, 48 stalls. The applicant proposed spreading these reserved stalls throughout the complex. Staff recommended that they be congregated to provide more robust landscaping along the south property line, near the swale. 15. The subject site is located in the newly developing western end of the Earlington Industrial area. The area is developed with light warehousing uses, office buildings, and low-rise manufacturing park uses. The Metro Treatment plant is located west of the site. 16. Springbrook Creek is located west of the site across Oakesdale Avenue. Due to the proximity of the creek, a Shoreline Permit has been required for the proposed development. 17. Dredge spoils from the excavation of Springbrook Creek and the pond were deposited on the subject site. These soils may have been inadequately tested for contamination. Remedial work may be required if the soils contain excess levels of contamination. CONCLUSIONS 1. The Site Plan Ordinance provides a number of specific criteria for reviewing a site plan. Those criteria are generally represented in part by the following enumeration: a. Conformance with the Comprehensive Plan; b. Conformance with the Building and Zoning Codes; c. Mitigation of impacts on surrounding properties and uses; d. Mitigation of the impacts of the proposal on the subject site itself; e. Conservation of property values; f. Provision for safe and efficient vehicle and pedestrian circulation; g. Provision of adequate light and air; h. Adequacy of public services to accommodate the proposed use; The proposed use satisfies these and other particulars of the ordinance. 2. The proposed office building is compatible with the site's designation in the Comprehensive Plan. The office building is compatible with office-park development. It is similarly compatible with the O-P zoning of the site. In addition, the building meets the urban design goals of the Comprehensive Plan. It is well-designed and well-integrated with surrounding development. 3. The building meets the particulars of the Zoning Code including setback requirements and parking requirements. The 57 foot tall building also meets the height requirement of the O-P zone which determines height in relation to setback. Building Code review will occur when the applicant submits construction plans. 4. The building is well-separated from adjoining buildings and the impacts, other than traffic, should be minimal. The staff recommendation that solar tinted glass replace the reflective glass ordinarily used should further minimize the impact of this building. (see below.) The four story building is slightly taller than the adjacent buildings, but falls well within the limits of the O-P zone. In addition, the staggered height of this complex of buildings will introduce needed variety. 5. The applicant under either alternative, either with the wildlife habitat located east of the building or south of the building, has produced an acceptable plan. While either plan would reduce the impacts of the proposal on the subject site itself and mitigate wildlife habitat loss, staff's suggestion of isolating the wildlife habitat (as represented by the southern plan) seems more appropriate. Sandwiching the wildlife habitat between buildings and parking areas seems somewhat counter-productive. Placing it adjacent to the power line corridor would provide a more contiguous and effectively larger habitat area. First City Washington,Inc./Dean,Erickson Blackriver Corporate Park (Phase:VI) SA-143-90 April 22, 1991 Page 5 6. While discussing the wildlife habitat and counter-productive issues, the choice of glazing materials seems almost as important. Reflective glass seems to attract or at least distract birds. The effect is that birds tend to fly into the glass of reflective buildings. Since the subject site is in an area designated for wildlife habitat mitigation measures, it would be inappropriate to attract wildlife to a site and then introduce reflective glass which confuses wildlife. 7. In addition, staff has noted the glare/heat problems of reflective glass on vehicles and pedestrians. While the elimination of reflective glass will introduce a slightly disparate exterior treatment to the area, continued use of reflective glass is inappropriate where problems have been shown or conditions warrant a change. The applicant shall therefore, use a glass that is appropriate to the setting as determined by staff. 8. The construction of the proposed building should have a positive affect on neighboring property • values. 9. The applicant should provide a demarcation for pedestrians in and across parking areas as suggested by staff. Other than that, and the reduction in and relocation of parking (set aside as reserve) the plans provide for safe and efficient circulation patterns. The reserved parking should be placed as recommended by staff both to concentrate it and to provide a softer building appearance where possible. This office will not in this case revisit the traffic issues already addressed by the ERC since traffic service levels appear acceptable when coupled with mitigation measures imposed by the ERC. 10. The applicant has demonstrated that the storm drainage demands of the site can be satisfied with some arrangement of wet ponds and swales. The final configuration will have to meet the requirements of the city and also provide satisfactory aesthetics. The final drainage system capacity standards shall be approved by the Public Works staff while the location and aesthetic aspects shall be approved by the Planning staff. This office would recommend that the southern alternative be given priority to concentrate wildlife habitat/detention systems/landscaping in one location. 11. The site is otherwise well-served by the city's infrastructure and should prove to be a well- designed addition to the city. DECISION The Site Plan is approved subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall comply with the conditions imposed by the ERC. 2. The final drainage system capacity standards shall be approved by the Public Works staff, while the location and aesthetic aspects shall be approved by the Planning staff. 3. The reserved parking shall be relocated and approved by planning staff. 4. The wildlife habitat shall be relocated and placed adjacent to the power line corridor, subject to staff approval. 5. The applicant shall use a glass that is appropriate to the setting as determined by staff. 6. The applicant shall demarcate in some fashion pedestrian paths through the parking areas, subject to the approval of staff. 7. The applicant shall demonstrate, with written approval, that it can work around and over the various easements that cross the subject site. 8. All landscaping shall be subject to the approval of the planning staff, but the caliper of trees shall be enforced in a reasonable manner. 9. The applicant shall provide a guarantee to run for three years to assure that landscaping will be maintained. The agreement shall be in a form subject to the approval of the City Attorney. 10. Soil tests shall be conducted and remedial action shall be required if contamination is found on the site. First City Washington,'itic./Dean Erickson Blackriver Corporate Park (Phase'VI) SA-143-90 April 22, 1991 Page 6 ORDERED THIS 22nd day of April, 1991. • FRED J. K FMAl\ HEARING XAMINER TRANSMITTED THIS 22nd day of April, 1991 to the parties of record: Royce Berg 1127 Pine, Suite 300 , Seattle, WA 98101 Greg Zimmerman Plan Review Supervisor City of Renton TRANSMITTED THIS 22nd day of April, 1991 to the following: Mayor Earl Clymer Councilman Richard M. Stredicke Don Erickson, Zoning Administrator Lynn A. Guttmann, Administrator Members, Renton Planning Commission Jim Hanson, Development Services Manager Gary Gotti, Fire Marshal Ronald Nelson, Building Director Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Jay Covington, Mayor's Executive Assistant Transportation Systems Division Valley Daily News Utilities System Division Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 15 of the City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 P.M. May 6, 1991. Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the Examiner is ambiguous or 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 a review by the Examiner within fourteen (14) days from the date of the Examiner's decision. This request shall set forth the specific ambiguities or errors discovered 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, Chapter 8, Section 16, which requires that such appeal be filed with the City Clerk, accompanying a filing fee of $75.00 and meeting other specified requirements. Copies of this ordinance are available for inspection or purchase in the Finance Department, first floor of City Hall. The Appearance of Fairness Doctrine provides that no ex parte (private one-on-one) communications may occur concerning pending land use decisions. This means that parties to a land use decision may not communicate in private with any decision-maker concerning the proposal. Decision-makers in the land use process include both the Hearing Examiner and members of the City Council. All communications concerning the proposal must be made in public. This public communication permits all interested parties to know the contents of the communication and would allow them to openly rebut the evidence. Any violation of this doctrine would result in the invalidation of the request by the Court. The Doctrine applies not only to the initial public hearing but to all Requests for Reconsideration as well as Appeals to the City Council. • PRELIMINARY REPORT TO Thi HEARING EXAMINER Blackriver Office Park Phase VI PUBLIC HEARING • • • April 9, 1991 • • Page 7 • voluntary contribution to the Renton valley trail and recreation program Would ha appreciated but is not required as part of this project. • • As this project will require new connections to the City's utilities (water and sewer) • • the project will need to provide a Special Utility Connection Charge of$36,129.62. • • .• , . • • • • • • . • , • • • • • . . • • .• • • • • • ,•; • • • • • prelmrpt • • PRELIMINARY REPORT TO T SEARING EXAMINER Blackriver Office Park Phase VI PUBLIC HEARING April 9, 1991 Page 8 j. Prevention of neighborhood deterioration and blight. • Staff view this development as having a positive impact on the existing area. This development will be replacing a currently vacant lot with building designed to match the existing buildings within the area and landscaping. The applicant has constructed several buildings within the area that have been well maintained.• • H. DEPARTMENTAL RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommend that the Hearing Examiner support the application of the First City Washington, Inc./Dean Erickson (SA-143-90) for site plan approval to develop a 71,057 square foot, four-story. office building and landscaping subject to the following conditions: 1) The applicant shall comply with the conditions established by the Environmental Review Committee In the Determination of Non-Significance - Mitigated for the proposed project on January 16, 1991. 2) The applicant shall provide an amended site plan and landscape plan which delineates the following features: a) A distinct paving material to designate the pedestrian pathways within the ps.,king area and access roadways. b) The reserved parking area consolidated In the parking area located south of thr.; existing drainage swale with landscaping including trees, shrubs and ground cover. c) All additional features (e.g. wet ponds) required for preservation of storm water quality to City of Renton standards. d) A wildlife habitat area relocated to the south end of the project site and back from Oakesdale Ave. These plans shall be submitted to the satisfaction of the Development Planning Section prior to the issuance of site preparation/building permits. Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits the applicant shall submit a letter from a registered landscape architect stating that all landscaping has been installed according to the approved landscaping,g, plans and City standards. 3) The applicant shall, in order to reduce reflective glare impacts to nearby roadways (particularly during the September 21st to the March 21st period of the year) and to reduce stress in certain fauna which may be confused by their reflection, revise plans for exterior glazing of the building to provide exterior glass panels of solar tinted glass. 4) The applicant shall submit agreements from Metro and Washington Natural Gas for tht; proposed development with their respective easements prior to the issuance of site preparation/building permits. 5) The applicant shall have the soil on the project site tested for contamination prior to tht; issuance of site preparation/building permits. If soil contamination is found the applicarl' shall submit a soils remediation plan to the satisfaction of the City of Renton and the Washington State Department of Ecology prior to the issuance of site preparation/building permits. All required soils remediation shall be concluded prior to the issuance at occupancy permits. 6) The applicant shall provide the following recreation facilities in accordance with the applicants letter dated March 11, 1991: a) shower and locker facilities within the proposed building; b) outside seating area and picnic tables; and c) a horseshoe pit. All facilities shall be installed prior to issuance of occupancy permits. 7) The applicant shall, In order to ensure the maintenance of the landscaping, provid2 a surety device equal to ten percent of the cost of the landscaping. This device shall remain in force for a period of three years from the date of occupancy and a final inspection o the premises. If the landscaping Improvements are deferred for any reason the threQ, year period will begin at the date the landscaping is installed. prelmrpt • DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED MITIGATION MEASURES PROJECT: Blackriver Corporate Park Phase VI. PROPONENT: First City Washington, Inc. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST: ECF-143-90 APPLICATION NUMBER: RVMP;SA;SM-143-90 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL:. The applicant proposes to construct a four-story 71,057 square foot office building with landscaping and parking area on 169,314 square foot site. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: The project site is located on the east side of Oakesdale =`,✓E niJe and approximately 150 feet north of S. Grady Way. • CONDITIONS: The Environmental Review Committee issued a Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated with the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall, in order to mitigate the impacts of increase traffic on area roads, provide the following mitigation fee of $253;674.00 for the'Grady Way TBZ prior to the issuance of site preparation/building permits. Note: The fee is based on the following: • Building Area = 71,057 square feet Vehicle trips per the Environmental Checklist 21 Vehicles per 1,000 square feet 21 x 71,057/1,000 = 1,492.20 Estimated Vehicle Trips Assessment of Grady Way Transportation Benefit District ($170.00 per trip generated) 1,492.20 x $170.00 = $253,674.00 to be deposited to Account l;c. 105/5 72/318.70.00.62 2. The applicant shall, in order to address transportation system impacts, develop a Transportation Management Plan which may Include (but is not limited to): a) a designated transportati.:n coordinator (who may be an employee.in the building with other duties) to monitor and maintain the TMP; b) transit/ride sharing information center; c) flex-time schedule for employees; ) preferential parking for HOV's and motorcycles; e) public transit incentives (subsidized b.s passes); f) bicycle racks. The plan must Include a) reduction of on-site parking spaces (thrc+ae placement in reserve of 15% of the required 321 parking spaces and b) an agreement to pro:viclr: adequate funding to support TMP activities (e.g. subsidized bus passes), and to make necE 3snry modifications (such as relocation of preferential parking. Facilities plans.(e.g., assigned prefer ed parking spaces) shall be developed to the satisfaction of the Planning/Building/Public Worth s Department and METRO, and approved by the Planning/Building/Public Works Department prior to issuance of building permits. Service plans (e.g., service coordinator, monitoring system) seal' be developed, to the satisfaction of the Planning/Building/Public Works Department and ME.'fRCI prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit. Plans shall be implemented immediately upon receipt of the Certificate of Occupancy. Note 2.1: If, after a two year pilot period following the effective date of implementatior of the reserve parking area, the applicant can demonstrate that the reserved area is necessary to serve employees, then the applicant may apply to the Administrator of the Planning/Buildinc.,/P' olic Works Department to obtain a release of sections or all of the reserved parking area. At the time of.such a release.of a portion of or all of the reserved parking area, the applicant.will provide and implement a drainage plan in accordance with the King County Surface Water Design mitmeas 1 . • Manual, to the satisfaction of the 'Storm Water Section of the Planning/Building/Public Works • Department prior to the:issuance of any permits.) • 3. The applicant shall, in order to,ensure that the potential glare caused by the reflective glass in the proposed building does not impact traffic on Oakesdale Ave: and/or S. Grady Way, prepare a reflective glare diagram for.those.hours vvhen•the angle of the reflected sunlight is 30 degrees or less.with the horizon or provide other documentation that demonstrates that the structure will not. cause glare to the satisfaction of the Development Planning Section prior to the public hearing before the Hearing Examiner. 4. The applicant shall provide the City with'a"Hold Harmless" agreement as a portion of the pro'rct site lies within the,100 year flood plain and may be subject to flooding. This agreement shall be to the satisfaction of the Development Services Division prior to the issuance of site preparation/building permits. • 5. The applicant shall, In order to mitigate the Impacts of this project on City recreational facilities, consult with the Community Services •Department to review the Park and Recreation Comprehensive Plan and the Master Trails Plan to determine what projects this development impacts. Prior to the public hearing before the Hearing Examiner, the applicant shall provide a recreation mitigation plan to the satisfaction of the Community Services Department and the Development Planning Section. The approved plan shall be implemented throughout the life of thi> project. 6. The applicant shall provide a construction mitigation plan including the following components: ai an erosion control element; b) an element limiting hauling hours to between the hours of 8:00 A.hi. and 3:30 P.M.; c)"an element requiring the applicant to water down the site periodically to contrcl • • dust and debris; e) a $2,000.00'cash.deposit for street cleaning (if needed) and f) an element •,:o requiring the wheel-washing of all construction vehicles prior to leaving the project site, prior to t'ie issuance of site preparation/building permits. This plan shall be prepared to the satisfaction of the Planning Development and Public Works Sections of the Department of Planning/Building/Pubic Works and implemented throughout the construction phase of this project in order to protect the adjacent commercial/industrial land uses. 7. The applicant shall, in order toV mitigate impacts and to ensure the survival of the significant tre3; on the project site,' relocate the proposed building a minimum of twenty-five feet, from the, significant trees in Order to ensure the protection of the trees and their root systems. • 8. The applicant shall, in order to mitigate aesthetic impacts from the project site and to the abutting developed areas/sites, provide revised landscape plans to: a) provide landscaping in the reserved parking area (shrubs and turf); b) provide a wildlife habitat area equal to 2%, of the area or the project site; and c) provide for a minimum of six specimen size trees between the building and Oakesdale Ave. These plans shall be approved to the satisfaction of the Planning/Building/Public Works Department. prior to the public hearing for the site plan review. The plans shall be implemented in conjunction with the construction of the development. ' V Note to Applicant: • 1. • The applicant shall submit copies of an agreement from Metro and Washington. Natural Gas indicating their approval of the proposed construction within their easements prior to the issuance of site preparation/building permits to the'satisfaction of the Planning Development Section of tile' Department of Planning/Building/Public Works. 2. The applicant will be required to extend the 12"watermain along the south boundary of the project. 3. The applicant shall pay for the special utility connection assessed this project: The fee for the water system Is$210,333.56. 4. The applicant will be required to make all Code mandated off-site and on-site improvements (e.g. sidewalks, street lighting, curbs,utility lines and utility systems) prior to the issuance of occupancy permits. • mitmeas-2 - I ) ill ' '. . \ ',.\ a I. :1 P. • 0`1, .►5 !M • • ; CPU R 7.: EOUD Q3?; p.--..',.•,--.i..---- :-. • I.-. . ... . . ......-0•,... -_..: , - ',.-, • INIMOI.g.".............g.w.r.j. . ' . • :: .• :;%1 ' • ' -,ki.. • • • . , ..v . ' ,'':,:.: ..." .', • \-,.-..-.'..'7.' •• -. •,,S.;<;', ' ..),•. ' :•'.;'C •.'' ••••• ''-' 4\ -.. .:-•••••-- .'-•. -. :.::.•:.‘'.. e:).•':'....•.''\ _ —. — • p.;.•0_' ,.5 ....A •L. . • .. ' ... . �.., �R,�.: . j i110 iil�; ... 0 , . : \ . , . . `. • ,•� ��a ,,{ j ,UII�III 11�' ;gyp P !I it S . • I III 1. ;III�110• ,� 1i 11t•:- ••• . •\ - : ''. • .-: .-- silidil MP ,, g it 11;Q .-. ..; .. ' . . , . .'„!,::'.••.' ' ';..%41101111"1 11111110 -.J ----.- - r/ •/. --� '''' �' ' TER L.� d f. • • BLACKRIVER CORPORATAT PARK PHASE VI .. . n - ECF;SA;RVMP SM143-90 • • • • • APPLICANT First •City Washington, Inc TOTAL AREA 169,314 S.f. • PRINCIPAL ACCESS Oakesdale Ave SW • EXISTING ZONING 0-P, Office Park . . • EXISTING USE Vacant Land PROPOSED USE office building • COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN Manufacturing Park/Multiple Options-Office • COMMENTS Located on the east side of Oakesdale Ave SW and approx. 150 feet north of SW Grady Way . • • • ExIstilg Office Use Lin AFCFPrECTURAL LIGHTING BY LITHZ IA i-o-TEK _ ARCHITECTURAL LII 1 7nG BY Lrn-Q.oA HI-TEK. _ -� L . KBR8r MIND 5asggw t®'1511E tfrAND SIaxr KAA 400/ V HIGH PRESSURE SODIIAE . . t, • ti .: .� �..s��. �r�.. rI ..1.....ra. ....mo-w�..�r....rr... - 4 s ���.1 ,(Ot'r — 1� . {. Gi • p as _ .....��...n.rea- r ....J Faun�.....� �'r—�. y.1 - __ Offie/ .. paiscopoParommrviampum .urso-u4rr..ara • r'�.�w►'��.ar _ _ t` ,+ _ 1. ST `V .oL-...�.�.... �...�_ itINN: •L' L �ITre t r1s \I .1..- ! Fuhrp ko 9O�/ 'V .+VI '16:�a�Si sta jen, O. LIGHTED BOLLARDS 9 24'LIGHT POLES&FIXTURES 6 O ti%•t • •� o"' :� �'�- L I ®..r.....�..r. i �� �'! Existng O Use 5 `. TFL 0 L� L. :,, E �w 7onoow . o�' SWUM te ® Lcoo mm >[ o .....c.-... —...- a--: . - ,» m imul. aT 0 0 a 4Me 5 al < ameamamia —q• ............... des Eristnp Office/Warehouse Use aesrrrn2 = Z.E • mac` SIGN LIGHTS - 7 ADJACENT USES MAP 1/200' 1 tc . m w. > --fc W I ste xt59.914 S.F. C Z, J T Deems -71.=....ss.57 S.F. 'w�' WC+iiecMe ano Pbru�m`B lA @ N V J I } — I"�+' C5 trae...t v..rr..vq t+4) IPOCURPLI7E �mqe. .m..x v. PARE L X— W 5 C W(L at (C "I�^ i a ..�. es.r..ss. E ` 11 :.. r O __ S.eCv.p Corerege Ita.0 va xa19% s d ;:,.c, f 1 a —_;°s sit cm.et.ge rm.a•..ua x s�xk tt.....ra�...t 7Tnc _____ � :era Pm,erw raorin,.;ea:Pc_ _5. srQervbu®Surface Area x123,054 S.F. 4 MALES Q ;Mic0 1127 a.Berg-et ae,�d 00 - mpervious Surface Coverage x729% tt27 Are Street. Sane 300 \_exli101401.00 Cracm0e I/ FrAvitslEr A- I LONCiAt54S Seattle.M 98101;2061583 8030 lsMscye Ae. x27.2% SOUiHfFh'fet yryk.g Cant .327 Stags(ea Sen.In Reserve) 1,1I :.it e (/fr..i eI . Ceeeeft OIF.Ge/OoyScomma •feuW•ER"ce. " 5w/•* escep mM m : sr GENERAL. No s:t^ES•C1aT.O1 DATE L—to..rewr:Gwes& H�IflPlebe;Relic Mf . = - 1=utm Bs*m.es.m�rt SNMI =I.i.1-i.���= ®1•11MMINMIIMI SITE SECTION NORTH-SOUTH 8 TABULATION 4 VICINITY MAP 2 MIIIIIIMMM M—� : wv d' . SHEET DESCRIPTION 1 Project Data PROJECT DATA BLACKRIVER •i'- 2 Site Plan I an mo CORPORATE PARK 3 Topography/Clearing I rNroN WASHINGTON I d-" 4 Grading&Drainage �,.�K bore A.Berg A,RescentFIRST CITY WASHINGTON.INC. n _ 1 5 Landscape Plan " a; m I 7 Floor Plans j °���� PHASE VI d --- �Ik 7 E►evations PROJECT DATA roc.- i ....0 tr' 1 JOB NO:56059 80EEI NO of 7 • Y � 1 1 MONUMENT SIGN 5 INDEX 3 ®I_ i j 3 u 3 P. I 1.L. • •• .-.. , \ 1 Z 1,--- -- 1 . H \ V \\ \s‘ i— \ PHASE V 0 I g \ \, 6 - 1 : -,. 511Nre I rr 0, I 0 1 at , ft — , • .,',,, ‘,. 0 \ \\;...0 •W — j _1 L ,.. . cz „ , t __ _ __IE 218.451"....=2-3 - 88:. -e C.0•15 Ins 0• ev.,...4k. ia. ...,I I 411 I __,,, 7 .0 r* 1' "- ...w . "17,1:',V,-, 13.PRIDPE.ZTI:XS ,,...,,_...., 1 , .41pri"7 .., '111,,,i 4. L.tM_'''',1,,r. 4,,e--31',17. ,,..16.41. ab.,., i,..„.....",%1 L.G.14. I • i... 4,1413,...1W, i \ vz:12. -,r Mt•t 1 rL \ % Isi • m g,..r.,, 1 onmeca-rot ' 0 ve t V,' • k‘1111•Ailite. ...11 tlqi 1 Ak..ir "") 1 Lk., all - .."-u'e • 1,..„, ti'Vsli 1,--'7*-1 4.! 1 i 74..7-4 N07714 Arr:3-f'----/-ai&-, - L g L_zy axe err— , .oy t;.',1-•g. 46 • . rak-AL e 0 _ G-Neex.A' \‘‘ W•141 P.,e0.6 Ph...,-.71 .11•411 4 4. • . '_.' , i g > >1 \. e,.eA.t.40cPXe,O0...g.,.EL1e•..1Eg0W-.t.4,u..oCC..4G..44•9,..rCIa.r..."A2‘—..e1C'1_O.t)--_N;_-I C A)-\—,k.\\1 '. t o.• •\„-,.'.,v\-'se-.\-T_-.l-A 11_-:i;i1k„.0.p.7x-w •-.,-.., 1e4zCoG0v0 Oe ,5..F E2 F.d4 I4mC1E1r1.,GA.16. . LTgF..,\ - t' 4e ,mi . 1 AR,,,GAREA z •.CC.L.O..).. i 1=-Ea• 4i 4k4-" \ - 4 O . CO- - - — ,_ ,_ _ 700 1 ; 0. g°.a3 • l...........e.,...1.,...n.etrz.C.-_........);i.72.- - ,.f1,11.. ..1, —t---r"...----1.,5,..r.a.Kim'corm...coo"-a....- • 71.\ 1:a.-! '.451,feZZLIllig . .1..•1 1;,*.X'&24.4*• , Ircri i:,4' a' "—a, ii& %,. .t.*-%, , ,.... _ , ,..w. -..!..N.40 .,),..49.).........„...___so,'" Arch.),..),6 cr.Paryurg , • ' ra' • - ...„. " ' t7:rot .. 0% .... boa.........."env-rno la-r-Ati'''.-../1 rim,:. illell 2. ... ‘11:5,'•Vo).../.7:11116..%\\ 11117.. . ... .-:-. . ....>:- 111.-- .. 7.="r 4t1 =ENV U. -;..040:'..'-'.-',...— . ..-1.1 * Mit Mr..MAL.ows.......6..e Oo.1.6.- LeCr...n Pomeroy r(crtrAes,mc 1601114G14.-6116.6.. • -.' '- ". 1:---:';'• 4, lW - 0.-6.)..61-11.111.161.1.1.1•64 6.16)65- (kroce A.Berg A IA PresK1e. 90.C41-xe. 1127 Pine 51•661 Suete 6.44.1,11Tiffr I •'. 0'141- -\--% V -1:- el0.%.; VT. 11.1,1,v ....6---cH6.1...6...1.6•661-6G• Scarce WA 98101(206)183E030 • .....' ' "••••t /Owe .41,1., .11,1„.74- Pre01.,41....A.0.4se, q....-1-r Loft' .,,„,4 -4..•% 1,4 ....1,„. PATE tV• grif.' 0 Ow -,..swegfolge,..6...kw-A.4,r --44- 1 6,0' Pe-4'4, 1 6.11 61.6.1•raVI SW 11-,••0 \ fetV gebbiGuS Cscr Sac. +-I-,i \ , \1 1, # _ . •. .....--- 04.—.841,4 e...,.v eVtig.,..-1 0,4.1 4,1,........44.4,4«..... - PLANT MATERIAL LEGEND ..., ..8".(16147.Hi6rter.6.1 14101,' \ 5 lam•••N.Yawn. \ \ ..141' - 4*11 T3a. lanime•AR.6•51.• \ ._ ,.....,,,..c. . ,..iwa..1 16..11.1*1 4t.erot einro-*evear,se- 0\ - 0 ,. *4,444 0-00., 0406.1 r1.1‘af 14.11.4 .71.0,r 140 11:127.211111.•:• • RIEM0.01. r/f APPLY-0.1. .., , ..r.0 _...---5-- . ...:-•-•""' \ -- , 1 ......---• ; .0 v4.00...0.4,.o.a0-rrsee,,••••,rint*,0•••( L.0..,,,r,41,0•14.,xt0a, <• - .... ...L....0 e.../ BLACKRIVER .... M. — nr----,,arr4=4,mvanig pLANDLANscAPE .- . ......-- 1...,...-- tz ED .1.014.-0 rAok.F Aso - '. .' F7N I An,can"cra P.-rag CORPORATE PARK \ • , \ .../..- L...,. ....,i,....,,,.. 61,014,r1 RENTON, WASHINGTON ,,,.- ,4 \ ti% • WASHINGTON,INC. ... .COP'..4. CM Cl""*,itHnSe -*Mie.Gr44!".••••Q•aw4 -***A",114,1"4440744.7"..krAr" 3•••*••••,Pm araF czt;-••,,,y,...tiapfitefti aPtV "Ca.C.C•9 ....... Aeausii...L•re•Cs••••=!•:• rig \ k, . ,...._._••••:_,.....65...a...... _________0<sP• _..o ..?„,',,f,u,r.sordaia PHASE VI z t Ara.tt,“..04-*ft.-4 w 1•,1.1mrttr-PHY4-ARA.) bek•Ps.171,./ I. \ SITE PLAN EI=EI. LANDSCAPE PLAN ) ...---- - 00.1'...196...44,4eaVes, ep tco 11.11.0.111'erl.0,04 ci, Hsfosa.r4A, :Tr::6°59i-5.8o sNEET 43 cf 7 DRAWN 5 , haul 1 CHECK CEZD ) • ) 1 ). . s 1 • +j i 1 • g • . ..----I 11 //a/ ' O/.ice/�/ I r _� - : . , Iris 4 ,. • // . �, r, V 0 1 t.' .. .: ►•`� . z • 1 11 ;l / `:..'it. ', II) I t1 • / �•ice/ 1��'j�Q���.*6``'��� d_-� ' • � s 0 / 5 }T�u /R� i I tip\ \,��� I] n P $ l • .. _..Ic L _] T n . .7)V",....' , . \ . I 1 tea, j\ ,7 I. gC c (114: _ ‘1, V.A, •1 . 1 • T - f-VP 00‘...\ ' '''\ ‘ ,,4\v \, p I, ' __ L___. . s s---) 1 . . . ,%...,. , \ \. r„.., , \ tit% i._,.__,7,:_a__' . tl........-.."--- . . k :L."::*:.\'' ,\.sital , 4, - i.-• 4 4 -I --- . \ ' \ ‘ .\ • P 8 \i 1 `3 7 v0. 11 ` wdn' f ,�i 7iF O• DZ 0 v \\ 'k 1 1M : %\ \ \ 1 1 1 1 , • N..., . • • -co); 1�f Scu6hV.1-1.. GaLnW..4 o0.AIIJsoa , P r t asr et-ac.K ICI van- co RV. Ps0.K 1. BUSH,HOED dI HITCHINGS,INC. 9' P h • h ' 1 p PH AS s _� f E.CIVIL ENGINEERS LAND SURVEYORS SEAL y� pm amsuw unuw. 4,.t000n.va Mr s . aeioa N � y r -get-irons \A/A SITS ft<A Lg. e, Ii.9D f�t7 MI321+141 44MM0 . I � . . • • 215'-0' 85'-0' TL 03 • i - ? 1 , 11 I . II . II Ii - ? i_ I- - - M' .M I IIII ( III ! , III .• CL NORTH ELEVATION • d V -; 132'-0' _I_ °° , > 87'-0' I Reflective Glass Mechanical Screen Exterior insulating, and w f rFinish System m L c — n I n I _ v ai 3 ---1—t 1,---1-t---r-i 1-- '-t-r -+ --- ---` 1 7-1 -11-1 --s -�-i--- -- I aj Q - I 1_ 1 I I HMI i ! I ?1 ? 1 _ i 1 1 17, ° i I II I I f ! • M I t 1 I .' �; • �y�� — — ---- -- ------ ,� — —�— — — 1a — EAST ELEVATION WEST ELEVATION 117; : S"-_2a Sere " ,.e.::AA Sea GE:G1;2ECI5E3c33_ NO OES02IP110N GATE _ Is..1W P !cn:Feu. 1U.c:: -- 11 Ntr:..:nun• cci k. 1µ-.c . ` r - - ! li Hillil1iil ? i iiii i ! • ' li ii I I I I I I l i t ! , I , , I I Il i I ; I I i i I I , 1 1I J� ! II . ' Ii _i_u_ I = . . BLACKRIVER . k -_a-i i �( ; ill _=_ _ _ _ �! ELEVATIONS CORPORATE PARK ' RENTON, WASHINGTON ! . _1 SOUTH ELEVATION ,.....,„Fw<- ;g1*•: FIRST CITY WASHINGTON, INC. :;•,;0 �,.'3. s.,w:� Main Entry Planter Surface Parking Beneath Building FOUR STORY OFFICE BUILDING RRe:86059\70E7 JOPHASE VI ELEVATIONS ENO 11-5-se ET NO OF:7 . DRAWN: I,J 7 CHECK: RAB , s i i\ ' i1 . , t it '-- I{ -I - , - i=- -1 I 17 I - I , ,fin0 =; I ' I I i°l _i _ 1.,_ = I a l% • 1 ...:11 g—m,-6!4 i 0 . • .1 I I I 4-, �__—_s_ �_s--s_ mi. s_— —._. t s_--_) _ l o QD FIRST FLOOR PLAN SECOND FLOOR PLAN > > m L 3 Y w ® . , U c 0 CO a ir:t I A N i i i. I . I 1 ss/ \ �I{ 1~ i .� I ss i .kc eo o-a .p t.\ !I I i' a: •: 1 .r:uscn rose o .✓n K m i `s�. TriS — m�Ke H 9d9 t tea '0 r1 1 I 1 1t NO DESCRIPTION DATE 1; , D—11 `I 11 •' it I 'in —=1 •{ ISR v>. III:': 7I aL _ 1regn, .. Fc 14.I'J THIRD FLOOR PLAN FOURTH FLOOR PLAN 1 BLACKRIVER FLOOR PLANS CORPORATE PARK 7-N. RENTON, WASHINGTON ..r.,, -..,.me;.,µ FIRST CITY WASHINGTON, INC. z .�°.. :rir , 14.. ir. 12• 201 FOUR STORY OFFICE BUILDING File:°`"SO16 -' — ---�—PHASE VI _ FLOOR PLANS - --a- _ = ----- - - -_.-�_ - — -- __ ___-- --- --- TEJOB NO I EAT N00F:7 . _ . _ _ - __ _ DRAWN: 6 - - _ -_ _ _ -- - _ _ --_ __ CHECK:•RAB [----- ,,, , 1 ......... t • . _ \ t\I . 1 7z lito..clun, , pizt,ir T , . . • ,, • \, . .„. , -c \____ . ir 0 1-± • - ik— • . k _ .• . : . . Y ( ft-oo S.V.. MAO•'). . . _ i -3• 43(' . l'/ '...._, 1-/-41—..---->h . ,. . , Ace CP )4,e-1a - num 2 c.- . '. it • Rce 14 cx : •. . 1001° . , . / * . 40\ • - . • !. .--. . •• • ivp , 1 gilt 0°. Ili • 1.----.010 :, .. 0.0 11101,..400 111.1"1.,,iii i . 11.111.1.001111 IIIIIIIIIW T . 111111111 , VOIX.iiii\ ' , 111111.wieN '=, i 1 i• Willii(P t. 111117 A i 1%111 ° attilla ., . WI , . ,Las .. -, ;OBP WPM NI Vegia'Ating • IM.' killIWIW. ". A . ... „....___ ... ._.....„_.- , . _., 4 IWO ,....,-- , . ...:,.., • ALTERNATE -DRAINAGE PLAN . . ___...„ .. ,.,--- . . . .,..„... .. . _.... tiffy..!yl:, , .,!,,,-.i.:,v;,n,-,--*n,,-,12,:f....,,,,:_ fp-L.'2-,:,I-,:-:,_;--:,=,,--.,:-,,,-::•--:7--.,,-,-.,; :=:-.,-.:::‘-..;;-..-!:._c3.--_-7--...',-.F':.m-7w•ff:-.:,2'.;y.:x,o-Q-.,-::., :: :,:,.;-,,,:, -6. ::-_ ,-4z2. ATTACHMENT TO :5p9%*,) 19. -,`)(2 JOB NO .: NW86059 SHEET NO ,:-.7ATchitetjureondPlanning!-.q. --.---- - -.• :-. ,,,-4, ,-. .- ..'.;..--'t..-'''''''''.---n-r' '''''''-r- —.''''"'''''' ''''c''&'.''''''''--- -' Blackriver Corporate Park DATE : 14?),tu•D I • 1 ' ,..„...„,,,..,„,....-,.3 - . -a ...,..., .... -...., ... ..,,,,,,,,_ ,,_ ._,.,y, _.. ..,...„..-‘,-.f.-,-,--, •-^.--_.--_-_77-_-•-.7.1,*-,--_,-..:-.:-...-,-,-..,,,_:-.-...,.,....,,....., --. ---....- . . ,-., ,...,•*.-..-. . ^. -,.q. . ., ,+,,,..,=4- L--,,- , '-,... .;,,.....:'.S.7-,,,,,--..._7,.,,-.------_,-.--. ....1,--,_-..,-;:_,-:.:,,....,,,,,,,..,....,....,_,•.,.-I=7.,...1 v,. . -...., . -. a *, . .• ISI,IS `..:11:. :,:1;,...;:,Z-,;.,...::-!:*.::'!::'':::: .:A,..'.: ;,,:., ..:.::::: f:r-.:Z ;,fLt:-':?;;iq::'k,0.f;;:VZR; -;.g4tjt:..1.fa;::;Z:f phase VI DRAWN Leason ---,----_:-..---_—_:—„, . .,...__,•,--,--_, ,. ,_.. _ . ... _. ..tE-54-----Agi;-:,--E1---,-, '''''''—'—'15:'';'''''''irotiQs1.iii64 Roy-ce A:BefijAW1127.Rpe.Streel.Sude Seattlo:. _9811)1(206),SWIffill.,r ..,a-,-.1,..,..s-, ,,,,: SI.o ry Office Building CHECK : - SHEET OF 2 ...' , \ I II 1 a 10 \ I A \ I \ ........' . I ...."' L ........ I fka 1 NMI 2 *7-4, \ .... ,, "---....---- --------------- • —\ -- \\ (2. I t CO:SC44 •‘..„-- on ,....,, ......_ ‘..._. _ ,... .,.... , . , . ...TN, • 0 ' 111111•00001 lig .14t . ---1-4,3`/5 6.-F. , ID 111111dia filk RA ( Moo S.F. Vim') IPP-aiik , -.- 6(k11/113QIN .* \,\.........:___ . . B- ..., EXHIBIT NO. F. ITEM NC. ALTERNATE DRAINAGE PLAN %.5/9 7, / 1-.5 - 90.. -_, ...Lamm,' r_.--.---;:- - • -ii- ATTACHMENT TO :GPv 3 tiv)1492•W JOB NO : NW86059 SHEET NO-titt119-Cli:ire9in.dr°11ning . ''-':'-7: Blackriver Corporate Park DATE _ _ . . . - • , , _ 7. - Phase VI DRAWN-_--, - - - , • • . • _-- -: ,,,,. :. ''---- -----,-- -,.— , ....- - . - ' • . • - ' ' - 4 Story Office Building CHECK : SHEET OF 2 - ,--,.— :- _ teasonporneroynionhwesunc..Rorceft Berg.Ato •"2"aleStreet•Sude31:05eotne•=98/Cli(24:45)583-8°3° - ' -,•' ' TS fe � ILD wh��`tr• o e c ::;: . ..:..: . ...:.. i .R... .>:a�e::iii:or� :'Fhe,apl���t:o::.fs�::::.:ed.�..:.:::::::::::d.:�:.:.>:..�::�:Pp:...:::::. :::.:�:.�::..::..::..::.:�::::y.;:::.;;;•.;::.:::.::.::.:::::.:::.:...:::::::::::; :.::.:;.:.:.;:.::::..�:::..::::::: .;: . .: ;. :•:; <wdl;: :: ped:f r::heann >.ataf�e::drscretron<ufahe::Hearing�camine..r:�>::�:: :: �: ::;:<:z:> PROJECT NAME: . BLACKRIVER CORPORATE PARK PHASE VI PROJECT NUMBERS: ECF;RVMP;SA;SM-143-90 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant proposes to construct a four-story 71,057 sf office building with landscaping and parking area on a 169,314 sf site. The project site is located on the east side of Oakesdale Avenue and approximately 150 ft north of South Grady Way. . . PROJECT NAME: BLACKRIVER CORPORATE PARK PHASE VI PROJECT NUMBERS: MD-029-91 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is appealing the Determination of Nonsignificance - Mitigated, Condition One for File NO. ECF;RVMP;SA;SM-143-90, concerning traffic mitigation fees. The project site is located on the east side of Oakesdale Avenue and approximately 150 ft north of South Grady Way. • DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING APPLICANT: First City Washington, Inc./Dean Erickson PROJECT NAME: Blackriver Corporate Park Phase VI FILE NUMBER: ECF; SA; RVMP; SM-143-90 LOCATION: The project site is located on the east side of Oakesdale Avenue S.W. and approximately 150 feet north of S.W. Grady Way. A. SUMMARY AND PURPOSE OF REQUEST: The applicant proposes to construct a four-story 71,057 square foot office building with landscaping and parking area on a 169,314 square foot site. B. GENERAL INFORMATION: 1. Owner of Record: First City Washington, Inc. 2. Applicant: First City Washington, Inc./Dean Erickson 3. Existing Zoning: O-P,Office Park 4. Existing Zoning in the Area: P-1, Public Use; M-P, Manufacturing Park. 5. Comprehensive Land Use Plan: Manufacturing Park/Multiple Options--Office. 6. Size of Property: 169,314 square feet 7. Access: Oakesdale Ave. S.W. 8. Land Use: Vacant land 9. Neighborhood Characteristics: North: Office buildings East: Manufacturing park uses South: Manufacturing park uses West: METRO treatment plant C. HISTORICAL/BACKGROUND: Action File Ordinance Date Initial annexation --- 1745 4-14-59 Amended --- 1764 5-27-59 Amended --- 1928 12-22-61 Rezone to O-P --- 4020 10-13-86 D. PUBLIC SERVICES: 1. Utilities a. Water: A twelve Inch water main runs along Oakesdale Ave. S.W. prelmrpt PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER Blackriver Office Park Phase VI PUBLIC HEARING April 9, 1991 Page 2 b. Sewer: An eighteen Inch sanitary sewer line runs along the east line of the subject , property. c. Storm Water Drainage: An existing 42 inch storm sewer enters the site from the east and flows into an open ditch on the site. 2. Fire Protection: Provided by the City of Renton as per ordinance requirements. run alongS.W. GradyWay. 3. Transit: Metro routes#163, #240, #340,and#912u y 4. Schools: N/A 5. Recreation: Liberty Park and Cedar River Park are approximately two miles northeast of , the subject site. A Par Course is located along Oakesdale Avenue. E. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE ZONING CODE: 1. Section 4-31-16, Office Park District(0-P). 2. Section 4-31-33, Site Plan Review. 3. Section 4-31-34, Landscaping. F. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OR OTHER OFFICIAL CITY DOCUMENT: 1. Green River Valley Plan, City of Renton Comprehensive Plan Compendium, 1986 (pgs.31- 50). 2. Section 4-9, Land Clearing and Tree Cutting Ordinance, Renton Code. 3. Section 4-14, Parking and Loading Ordinance, City of Renton Code. 4. City of Renton Shoreline Master Program. G. DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS: 1. The applicant, First City Washington, Inc., seeks site plan approval to construct a four story (57 foot tall), 71,057 square foot office building with landscaping and associated parking area on a 3.9 acre (169,314 square foot) site. The rear portion of the building will be elevated to provide surface parking beneath the building. The exterior of the building will be finished with steel and concrete to match the existing buildings in the surrounding office park. The applicant has proposed the use of reflective glass as well; staff will recommend solar tinted glass instead, to reduce impacts on the wildlife habitat in nearby {' Springbrook Creek. The existing development on adjacent parcels consist of one and three story office buildings. The proposed four-story building has been designed so that the front face of the building, as seen from Oakesdale Ave., is broken into three sections. Each section is set back from the previous section ten to fifteen feet. This will help reduce the apparent lateral bulk of the project as seen from the street. The applicant has provided a landscape plan which for the most part Is adequate. The plans provided by the applicant indicate that parking will be provided for 321 vehicles. Staff believes that fifteen percent of these spaces (48 parking stalls) should be placed in a parking reserve. The forty-eight reserved parking spaces should be removed from the parking lot on the south side of the existing drainage swale. This would allow for additional landscaping in these areas. Metro and Washington Natural Gas have easements crossing the subject property. The site plan indicates that the applicant proposes to cross these easements with interior roads and parking areas. Prior to the issuance of site preparation/building permits the applicant will need to provide copies of an agreement with these agencies for the proposed ' development within the easements. preimrpt PRELIMINARY REPORT it-THE HEARING EXAMINER Biackriver Office Park Phase VI PUBLIC HEARING April 9, 1991 Page 3 The applicant has submitted a Routine Vegetation Management Plan. There are twenty trees (Hawthorns, Cottonwoods) on the project site. The applicant has Indicated that six trees will need to be removed for this project. Fourteen of the more significant trees will be retained. The trees to be removed have been proposed to be replaced by trees at least 2" In diameter--staff will recommend replacement with six inch caliper trees--in the required landscape area between the front of the building and Oakesdale Ave. As this project is within 200 feet of the P-1 Channel (Springbrook Creek) a Shoreline Permit has been required in accordance with the City of Renton Shoreline Management Program. The proposed development is separated from the P-1 Channel by Oakesdaie Avenue which has been fully'improved. Storm water from the project will be diverted to the P-1 Channel after it has been treated by flowing through facilities designed to remove contaminates from the water (e.g. biofiltration swales,wet pond)that will be located on the project site. 2. Pursuant to the City of Renton Environmental Review Ordinance and SEPA (RCW 43.21.c., 1971,as amended)a Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated was issued on January 16, 1991,with conditions(See attached Mitigation Document). The applicant has submitted the required documents and amended plans required to be submitted by the ERC prior to site plan review before the Hearing Examiner. 3. Various City Departments have commented upon the proposed development. The comments are attached and discussion of those items has been incorporated into this report. 4. Section 4-31-33(D)(1) lists ten criteria that the Hearing Examiner is asked to consider, along with all other relevant information, in making a decision on a Site Plan Approval application. These include the following: a. Conformance with the Comprehensive Plan, its elements and policies: The proposed office building is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Map which designates the project site for Manufacturing Park/Multiple Option-Office uses. This designation is intended primarily for light industrial uses with certain compatible heavy industrial uses, commercial and office uses located in a park-like setting of high operational and environmental setting. In this case, the suffix "Office" indicates that the most appropriate use of the site would be for an office building. Section I.D. of the Comprehensive Plan states that wildlife habitat should be preserved. The applicant has designated an area of the project site as a wildlife habitat area. Section I.G.1 states that water should be detained on-site and then released at a natural rate and quality. The applicant will be providing a bio-swale area and other features to ensure that the storm water that leaves the project site is of adequate quality to meet City requirements. Section III.0 states that adequate landscaping should be provided surrounding the periphery of the site and used to buffer the unsightly areas. The applicant has provided a landscape plan which meets the minimum requirements for this.area. b. Conformance with existing land use regulations: The subject site is zoned for Office Park uses, which permits the proposed office building with site plan approval. The proposed project adequately addresses development standards for office uses (4-31-16). The applicant has provided an amended site plan which addresses the set back from the trees to be preserved (This issue is further discussed in section G.4.d. of this report). The applicant has provided adequate parking in accordance with the Parking and Loading Ordinance. The amended site plan address the issue of providing a parking reserve area(This issue is reviewed further is section G.4.f. of this report). It should be noted that the applicant will need to provide final storm water plans in compliance with the King County Surface Water Design Manual with the application.for building permits. If the water quality system designed for this project proves, in the final analysis to be inadequate, the applicant may have to reduce the parking provided on the project site. As the existing parking has been prelmrpt PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER Blackrlver Office Park Phase VI PUBLIC HEARING April 9, 1991 Page 4 calculated to meet the needs of the proposed building, the reduction In the number of parking stalls would require a reduction in the size of the building. As noted in Section G-1 above, this project is located within 200 feet of the P-1 Channel. The project was advertised,by the applicant on November 12 and 19, 1990 as required by the Shoreline Management Program of the City of Renton. The applicant has also proposed to use biofiltration swales to retain water quality for the storm water to be diverted to the P-1 Channel. c. Mitigation of impact to surrounding properties and uses: Potential impacts to the surrounding environment and surrounding land uses have been identified by staff in several areas. Aesthetics and effects on the natural environment are discussed in this section. Traffic circulation (pedestrian and vehicular, on and off-site) is discussed in section G.4.f. Public services and public utilities are discussed in section G.4.i. The Determination of Non-Significance - Mitigated, issued by the Environmental Review ' Committee, established conditions developed to address the environmental impacts (see Mitigation Document attached), as they would affect , surrounding property and land use. Similarly, conditions established in conjunction with this site plan review are intended to mitigate impacts to the neighborhood. (1) Aesthetics The applicant, working with City staff has endeavored to make the proposed office building compatible with the adjacent land uses. The project abuts the previous phases of the Blackrlver Office Park on the north and east sides. The construction materials of the proposed building have been selected to match the existing buildings in the area. The exterior finish will be a concrete, steel and (based upon staff recommendation) solar tinted,low-reflective glass. The proposed four-story building has been designed so that the front face of the building, as seen from Oakesdaie Ave., is divided into three ;{' sections. Each section is set back from the previous section by ten to fifteen feet. This will help reduce the apparent bulk of the project as seen from the street. 1 The proposed four-story building is taller than any of the adjacent structures,which range in size from one to three-stories in height. There are taller buildings, five to seven stories, south of 1-405 and along Grady Way. The applicant has proposed the use of a four-story building in this location due to the size of the parcel on which it is located and its location. (2) Natural Environment The project is located within 200 feet of the P-1 channel (Springbrook Creek). Due to the proximity of the channel the applicant has submitted a Shoreline Management Permit application. Public notice was printed in a local newspaper on November 12 and 19, 1990 in accordance with the City of Renton Shoreline Management.Program. Provided that the water run-off from the project site is treated adequately prior to release into the channel (Springbrook Creek) the project should not have a significant impact on the Creek The channel is separated from the project site by Oakesdale Ave.which Is an existing roadway. A portion of the project site received fill material from the P-1 Channel when that project was excavated. The Washington State Department of Ecology in a letter dated, February 4, 1991, notes a concern that some of the fill material received from the bottom of the channel may have a low level of contamination. The applicant will need to have the site tested prior to the issuance of ,site preparation/building permits and if a significant level of contamination is found on site the applicant will need to provide a soils remedlation plan and complete the soils remedlatlon prior to construction on the site. prelmrpt j PRELIMINARY REPORT T6 THE HEARING EXAMINER Blackriver Office Park Phase VI PUBLIC HEARING April 9, 1991 Page 5 Projects located within the Green River Valley are required to set aside an area equal to 2% of the project site for wildlife habitat. The Intent Is to provide a quiet area that provides food and a nesting area for the native wildlife. The area the applicant has indicated for the wildlife area is between the building and the active recreation area for the project. Staff recommends that the wildlife habitat area should be located in a more remote area of the project, such as the south end of the project site. d. Mitigation of Impacts of the proposed site plan to the site; Potential impacts to the site have been identified by staff in several areas (aesthetics, natural environment, traffic circulation, noise, light, glare, public services and public utilities). Aesthetic impacts are discussed in this section. Natural environment impacts are discussed in Section G.4.c. Noise, light and glare are discussed In Section G.4.g and G.4.h. Public services and public utilities are discussed in Section G.4.i. The Determination of Non-Significance - Mitigated, issued by the Environmental Review Committee, established conditions developed to address the above- defined environmental Impacts (See Section G.2 and the attached Mitigation Document), as they would affect the subject site. Similarly, conditions established in conjunction with this site plan review are Intended to mitigate impacts to the property. (1) Aesthetics The applicant, working with City staff, has endeavored to make this proposal compatible with the site location and characteristics as well as to the adjacent structures. The proposed structure has been designed to match the existing adjacent buildings that were constructed in earlier phases. The proposed structure is one story taller than the existing structures in the Immediate area. However,tall buildings exist south of the 1-405 and along Grady Way. The applicant has relocated the proposed.building so that it will not interfere with the significant trees that are to be retained along the east boundary of the project site. The landscape plan provided by the applicant is satisfactory. An amended landscape plan will need to be submitted to indicate the plant materials to be used In the reserved parking area, as well as to show measures(tree wells, etc.) being taken to preserve existing, retained trees. The applicant has indicated that the reserved parking area be planted in turf. Staff recommends that a variety of shrubs also be planted in this parking area. • e. Conservation of area-wide property values; The proposed development is not expected to have a negative impact on property values it will be: 1) constructed on an existing vacant lot which has been graded in the past but never landscaped; 2) designed to match existing buildings on adjacent lots; and 3) provide a landscape buffer between the building and the project boundary. f. Safety and efficiency of vehicle and pedestrian circulation: The Determination of Non-Significance - Mitigated issued by the Environmental Review Committee established conditions designed to address the impacts of the proposed development (See Section G.2 and the attached Mitigation Document). The conditions require the applicant to participate in the Grady Way Transportation Benefit Zone,to prepare a Transportation Management Plan and a construction management plan. The applicant has provided sufficient on-site parking for the project. The Environmental Review Committee (ERC) required that 15% of the 321 proposed parking stalls be placed into a parking reserve. The ERC recommended that the isolated parking stalls, south of the biofiltration stall be placed into the parking reserve. The applicant has indicated on the amended site plan that the 48 parking prelmrpt PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER Blackriver Office Park Phase VI PUBLIC HEARING April 9, 1991 Page 6 stalls be scattered through-out the parking area. Staff recommends that the 48 stalls be located in one area, preferably as recommended by ERC. The amount of landscaping provided In one area will have a greater visual impact and would provide a more significant buffer for the proposed project. The applicant has provided a walkway around the building and in the landscaped area between the building and the sidewalk along Oakesdale Ave. Staff recommends a pavement marking system (e.g. stamped concrete or painted walkways) be provided within the parking areas and access roads to indicate the pedestrian paths through these areas. g. Provision of adequate light and air: The proposed office building is located approximately 225 feet from the nearest existing office building. This spacing should allow for natural light to reach the pedestrian areas around the proposed building and provide for adequate air circulation. The applicant has proposed using a reflective glass in this building and notes that the proposed glass is less reflective than the glass used in the adjacent buildings. Staff was concerned that glare from the building could impact the surrounding roads and land uses. The applicant has provided a glare diagram which indicates that even without the proposed landscaping the light reflecting from the building would, for the most part, not extend beyond the property boundaries. Staff believe that given the proximity of the building to a wildlife habitat area, reflective coasted glazing should not be used, when other alternatives such as solar tinted ' glass are readily available. The landscaping plan should also be designed assist in retaining any glare produced from the building on the project site. h. Mitigation of noise, odors, and other harmful or unhealthy conditions: Noise and odors are anticipated in conjunction with the grading and construction activities. Some mitigation of these impacts will be achieved through the limitations on hauling operations applied by the construction mitigation plan. As the building will be used as office space, the only noise generated by the , building should be from mechanical equipment. The noise generated by this equipment should be mitigated, for the most part, by the screening walls erected around it. Odors and noise impacts (except those regulated by state and local codes)are not anticipated during the operation of this building. Availability of public services and facilities to accommodate the proposed use: and Police Department and Fire Prevention Bureau staff report adequate resources to provide anticipated services to the site during construction and operation of the proposed building with system improvement fees and with Code-required improvements (e.g. 20 foot wide fire lanes,fire hydrants). Police Department staff note that the applicant may want to design the under-building parking area so that it can be controlled by gates at a later date should it become necessary. Police Department staff also note that emergency response requires a phone system that identifies each caller and their location, not the property owner. Failure to have ' such a system would pose a major impact on police services. Public utilities are available for the proposed development provided that the applicant provides the Code-required improvements. It should be noted that if the final fire flow calculations indicate that a fire flow exceeding 2500 GPM, the applicant will be required to provide a loop water system for this project. The loop water system will need to be located within a fifteen foot wide easement. The easement would not be able to extend into any area impacting the significant trees to be preserved. In order to address recreational impacts, the applicant has met with a representative of the Community Services Department as required by the Environmental Review Committee. According to a letter dated, March 11, 1991, the applicant has agreed to provide the following on-site recreation facilities: a) shower and locker facilities within the building; b) outside seating areas and picnic tables; and c) a horseshoe pit. It is also noted that the applicant, in the past, has provided a par course and trails into which the City will tie other City-wide trails. A prelmrpt PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER Blackriver Office Park Phase VI PUBLIC HEARING April 9, 1991 Page 7 voluntary contribution to the Renton valley trail and recreation program would be appreciated but is not required as part of this project. As this project will require new connections to the City's utilities (water and sewer) the project will need to provide a Special Utility Connection Charge of$36,129.62. prelmrpt PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER Blackriver Office Park Phase VI PUBLIC HEARING April 9, 1991 Page 8 j. Prevention of neighborhood deterioration and blight. Staff view this development as having a positive Impact on the existing area. This development will be replacing a currently vacant lot with building designed to match the existing buildings within the area and landscaping. The applicant has constructed several buildings within the area that have been well maintained. H. DEPARTMENTAL RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommend that the Hearing Examiner support the application of the First City Washington, Inc./Dean Erickson (SA-143-90) for site plan approval to develop a 71,057 square foot, four-story office building and landscaping subject to the following conditions: 1) The applicant shall comply with the conditions established by the Environmental Review Committee in the Determination of Non-Significance - Mitigated for the proposed project on January 16, 1991. 2) The applicant shall provide an amended site plan and landscape plan which delineates the ; following features: a) A distinct paving material to designate the pedestrian pathways within the parking area and access roadways. b) The reserved parking area consolidated in the parking area located south of the existing drainage swale with landscaping including trees, shrubs and ground cover. c) All additional features (e.g. wet ponds) required for preservation of storm water quality to City of Renton standards. d) A wildlife habitat area relocated to the south end of the project site and back from Oakesdale Ave. These plans shall be submitted to the satisfaction of the Development Planning Section prior to the issuance of site preparation/building permits. Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits the applicant shall submit a letter from a registered landscape architect stating that all landscaping has been installed according to the approved landscaping plans and City standards. 3) The applicant shall, in order to reduce reflective glare impacts to nearby roadways (particularly during the September 21st to the March 21 st period of the year) and to reduce stress in certain fauna which may be confused by their reflection, revise plans for exterior glazing of the building to provide exterior glass panels of solar tinted glass. 4) The applicant shall submit agreements from Metro and Washington Natural Gas for the proposed development with their respective easements prior to the issuance of site preparation/building permits. 5) The applicant shall have the soil on the project site tested for contamination prior to the issuance of site preparation/building permits. If soil contamination is found the applicant shall submit a soils remediation plan to the satisfaction of the City of Renton and the Washington State Department of Ecology prior to the issuance of site preparation/building permits. All required soils remediation shall be concluded prior to the issuance of occupancy permits. 6) The applicant shall provide the following recreation facilities in accordance with the applicants letter dated March 11, 1991: a) shower and locker facilities within the proposed building; b) outside seating area and picnic tables; and c) a horseshoe pit. All facilities shall be installed prior to issuance of occupancy permits. 7) The applicant shall, in order to ensure the maintenance of the landscaping, provide a surety device equal to ten percent of the cost of the landscaping. This device shall remain In force for a period of three years from the date of occupancy and a final inspection of the premises. If the landscaping improvements are deferred for any reason the three year period will begin at the date the landscaping is installed. prelmrpt f • d y - . \ / t a! . 1 • /sp� Ite ! � • r r► re' . i ► • 406o a m, s , .r.�.; awtZ"\ ,., ._., •. ., . . i 1 a.k',714," 10, :.... • .,. • ' '. •.:, ._. • ,,,..,,.‘-*-;.) . ': •. -. - ' .., ,..._. .LI ' ..' - ."I'eg:filt;•:'..;:aClaiti li.V4'6,1,4 sN:� ' • i. t U ; . .. ' . - ''.. \ -)\ 1 ... ,' ' , '' . . - 4 '. I s . -, :. " .• '''. _________..r;-------- Co;..,1 \1 SSG 1 \ ' oRc�0Rs'o- �'''"" IUUI� �IIUU 0 '�..5 p, L ,, ,�.: ���QI ' III; 3U._.0 I, , ' . • ,. t . . vat II :li �o . ��tl, jl 5 . _ ,61.I IIII1 111 .i111�11 ism' 0�I ipi;QO .... BLACKRIVER CORPORATAT PARK PHASE VI • - n - ECF;SA;RVMP;SM- 43-90 .... • APPLICANT First city Washington, Inc TOTAL AREA 169,314 s.f. PRINCIPAL ACCESS Oakesdale Ave SW EXISTING ZONING 0-P, Office Park . EXISTING USE Vacant Land PROPOSED USE office building COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN Manufacturing Park/Multiple Options-Office COMMENTS Located on the east side of Oakesdale Ave SW and approx. 150 feet north of SW Grady Way ;.. •:. • ':-:1--:1:_-,::1:/4:.X...11•: h pop,} 'V V W •it t11 Y • '& • -I i er i,r,. °oOo00oo000'` , • • • • • ••• . • •d•b • •• ' _-_-_.._.-.„_-.:_t,....,.,/M•i 3m...,••:..h,.00..•.0,°4 k.e.••,-• .n..:r. ..-,_,'. ..„.--.__h•,7g"___'',-='_i„f„`,•_,_,i =i:7-.'l1'4,jt__'-4 4-=:"C.,k_.-,.,,t-_-k.:-::-„t'::.r:_-._v s..i.*-?._'_,i :4 :I::ft.: ,i•i,,:::e.:1::PI:::*::'::"N11•:1:110•1 ii tyl.. x4,T AI0 k.Aj i•....„q• imCr .1:.•-(:b.6,1 • .oho°• •/ 1 °0° 000,�� Yi,., c11 000 i••••••• • •••••••�•• . It .' s 0,0. o o' a! ,01� o o °o, 'I'dt• • • • • •• ••' • • •', " I . �:-e wl- , ,!1)•••• A : 000 O o°° (��Y� • • • f , ' • • • • • • `ul'Op° p 000' "' (` ilu • • • • 1• iir,: ■n■ _ _ In p°o 0 000. • •-• I f! ii::Mi Ill • • • • ,•.11. s NII■61 •• t ■■ •°O 000°0°,D • • _ _ •:.•:111■ • • • •. • il'■■n, _ ^•:: '"o°o°Oo oOo° • • • ::: ..�.. : 'All e.rAir hal • o �°, 00' Du■ • i �� ■■i 'p0p0 Og0°O°• V',. 111■ • •e •mil ! ;r:1■ pope o 0°0°• 0•0.0• •111■ `-I• • 1 C::1\ pOpO O�O gg y4.O°p°O°•A_ " 1T.'_. I!■ 4 _-J :+� p0p0 0 0�0°O' Y. DODO• �.. �� 1 .!■ J > �H -1 :::1■ pogo op 000000 000°' ii �piii::• ' ••. v , fo _,1 •':..r 0000 0°0°0°0••i •O0' ,r9l � ::::..IIIr .•7 iii:hL " 1■ 00000 o 000000, °o'((i),, Io6{Qj1[/11■,•J 1iarV 1 1 .,, 0 0 0 O�O°000 0 H0, 7.11.. .,,. oo ` : I °o°oQoao°8 °�' •ftkk. •0.1 :tm— mil•= (OiaO� ' - C■;; •op°O°O O°O�OpO°OO ,' O�. ■111 .:' �nl.rr l■11 , •j a'ea'x•',.'w41Z V +.Ca Amin I■I■ i1 M 11I■■■V•.i.----, 1� r)^i ' 11 V .4 o 0 0 0 I 11■■■■IY 11 •s L '� I' rnul' o'o 0 0 0 0 \i.t, t1y 9:. r,:y o 0 0 0 0 o t."I!1■■I:-.: ti•.//, 4,•1i et / i • r +' 3 ` • I■■1■ popOp0000°O° I■■■■11■■\. 1 i •:. .; . t t i::i::�'° 0000000: i'�'jf•■r■■II■r■i 4 .Y} : ;, ;ye;t \/\1/ ;:;).,.3 ,Cl.: g, 4N. '°►- _ Hi11:I af.nO■1 '. %• . 1`. >a s2`rr �,--' 1 } -moIu■■r, _sul:ur ' ?':y '; ,; .Y-r�'`rr 3 1 I ■1 W. Mo r• C - ,1■ - 1 I' p ••Y I r..� ,. .I%`rt' _•r•h-WFIt _--_ r-_ I' ;,<•:::::::r:::tii:::x:i:::iiii r. tit,•,; 00000` °.00°• ----_ - °000000• L _ r1 1 'pOp •■■■�7y■ f i.],• tl•1`Q �_= 0000000000�. - ---- 111 _ - -11037 - a r Os r, ,- 00000000000'•' r ^ s�3,. a--- '- • Q °°' __ - --- I. ` �a.. ��.rt7jt•, ot• 1%.c.',r+�• G• 000000000'0.M1 arF•gi rr- i 1 ` *. ' . �?':��;t1 43's.. t`{ •0000000000000 iS Qom ', I I I, :•1 •�1i�r,"•:•;+,4>>' r,• , • •0000000000000•; Z ,,1'-' �- �•'"''•' ''•' •• 000°o°o°°• -- ' % :': '''.'. i''`:. ^�.tS 'r�. .C.: /��\ • •000• •••�••••• - ' : Agr:AINIP - -APm... ....... ,...':' ,�'?' • `c� � 0 _ ` • • ...•� F. - _-'d mom , liiii� fig• ,"•' ••.,il•. ';tom, `t �•'� or . • ........_iim.,I.I.IiI pil eiislo_m_._:-. .I( i,: Illulrn+ �� I•••••• III: 11■1■■■yV E.- _�� ^.c•IYFV- %•' :" Mlirr'� h. . i. ..• • 11■II 11■1'■■■■1.i. _ - -- _-- 'a47 I 4. MI illEMI •▪•▪• iiii rpc er 1 -__ _ = oo°o=_ ;'v�' l::i,S is 'r II1 ■■■■ •.....■■ � ----'000•-- ,c•- • •.,� _ II■■■ 1 i .:: ■■EI■■ ■■■■ _- _ ______- .;a :'Lf• I' t - .•ton r t., ■■■i■■■i1=I v IIrSV11i1�[k4filFM ; ■■�.■il 111 1,:;--•- ° ,�ur. •°po° ii :: 000000. 1 ,. ■■■1'■r1�rV`:° 111 - I1Yl .o[� 0000.4.•('K% r. ''i°000°o°o°o° .� ■■■1•■1,c•'•.=Ill 't• 00000 •Ill II ___ •: -Ara I 0000000 r•t•,_■,� j _ 0000•- •000000• I,p%�5+•,;\ ■■■,O_-IICfL`� -i - -fl,Y� rio • ■■■■-r11 :er'1 •000000• 'n• •■II.11•:^ n, __` --- - ••7 000000• '.,l • \•'I P rvc.:, 1 c ==-- w�.lav Grp' a �.o°oo°°°o • �; 1 e _ ram •,.IeU7�"` 1 ,�.dtr. .•,w'`� __ t- tYt -_ r r f 1 ``'r� • • .,•' .1 o,'r•oz'1:,?..Ili.',.,.•."•,:9 = tttt -- •r c, / u• V;'' ' • • ...4• .. ---- =t ';c'1o: ,j; V __- I- _ rUc. I �% Fhb • .•• _-t .;.,• ......yam. _ - - - .a'• •G • • • r"''!L -- ~---- ~ - — YAK _-- •r'J: Ili - v. "� ••• • c — — —-V —= Lull ,Y4• 1. • I,h -i _ ,1, Ate// j-.J� wink --_- •F, ------- T Q�, E _ _ • :i   pe ----- -== Y~Alt..e i 'u °°°0fillim ?aa:{.,•■■uiiiiii:i ___ i\■■11■■► 0000000• ,o :rt � ; ..• ,�u■,lnr' lit, •'°000000°• 3•�:. I■■II,•.�:'• f . _ �i�i■�i�il■r o0000000o at., i ` '� �■ rr��j''�{'' __ •' 00000000•� I'V•err � �' •III ottittastoog C /? J i' ! _-�ICL,i''C-- - I i■I .0000.0.000.0430004. 7 i.! -- ---1 1 000000°•,. •---- � -- --a ---- �N■1 •0000000, • •rr. ,. 0000000• k'i \ • 00000°.%. ', � 'r� •t' LAND USE ELEMENT °' °000 1,�'• ,r '•0000•.000000 14.47.1.11.� I F_ • .000000000. 00000• 000000 «+L..••s. 00000•00000 a ''�•• ' •000000000 I'r'^ • • 1 •o00 q00• �i•.O e eO••'a.U,,.a�•r Single Family = sZ''▪�`-"'l' 1 Commercial "; 0 . • LOW Density Office / Offi �+' ' Multi-Family N. ce Park . Medium Density 000000° Public/Quasi-Public ' 000000°, Multi-Family 0000000, al :11,1N 1 IiiHigh DensityIiP III • '�� M _ Ligl t -Industrial - �, p� <` Multi-Family • :. popOp�.Q• \1/4,,,: Vp0pO0op0.000 b1U°0°O°0o'po0°o�-v-o. Vilil • • • b0000000$°0°0°000080t Recreation • •••••••••. HeavyIndustrial `�4,001 ° g�000�o E z L. 19 ,:x'fpYpi Greenbelt =___= Manufacturing Park \.i• : 1 / Multiple Option Zgc.:..0°g°°C; I 1 CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (MITIGATED) ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST NO.: ECF-143-90 APPLICATION NO(S): RVMP;SA;SM-143-90 PROPONENT: Dean Erickson/First City Washington, Inc. PROJECT NAME: Blackriver Corporate Park Phase VI .i DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes to construct a four-story 71,057 square foot office building with landscaping and parking area on a 169,314 square i. - foot site. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: The project site is located on the east side of Oakesdale Avenue and approximately 150 feet north of S. Grady Way. LEA AGENCY: • , • ..City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works I Development Planning Section 1 ' The City of Renton Environmental Review Committee has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). Conditions were imposed as mitigation measures by the Environmental Review Committee under their authority of Section 4-6-6 Renton Municipal Code (see attached sheet). These conditions are necessary to mitigate environmental impacts identified during the environmental review process. Thi Determination of Non-Significance - Mitigated (DNS-M) is issued under WAC 197-11-340(2). Because miti ation measures have been imposed,the lead agency will not act on this proposal for fifteen (15) days from Janiary 21, 1991. Any interested party may submit written comments which must be submitted by 5:00 p. !, Feb m ruary 5, 1991, In order to be considered. A fourteen (14) day appeal period will commence following the finalization of the DNS-M. Res onsible Official: Environmental Review Committee I1 c/o Don Erickson, Secretary 1 Development Planning Section Department of Planning/Building/Public Works 200 Mill.Avenue South '' Renton,WA' 98055 ' PU oOCATION DATE: January 21, 1991 i • DA`E OF DECISION: January 16, 1991 SIGNATURES: 1 I tk ----- I . I/1'G(1I Ly I '. Gu mann,Administrator DhTE . De t. ment of Planning/Building/Public Works 1 Jo E.Webley,Administrator DATE Co munity Service Department ' �' /,� , /"_ /i ' Lee Wh'ee r, Fire Chief f • DATE Re on ire Department - , s. mltslg _ • DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED MITIGATION MEASURES PROJECT: Blackriver Corporate Park Phase VI. PROPONENT: First City Washington, Inc. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST: ECF-143-90 APPLICATION NUMBER: RVMP;SA;SM-143-90 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes to construct a four-story 71,057 square foot office building with landscaping and parking area on a 169,314 square foot site. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: The project site is located on the east side of Oakesdale Avenue and approximately 150 feet north of S. Grady Way. • CONDITIONS: The Environmental Review Committee issued a Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated with the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall, in order to mitigate the impacts of increase traffic on area roads, provide the following mitigation fee of $253,674.00 for the Grady Way TBZ prior to the issuance of site. preparation/building permits. Note: The fee is based on the following: Building Area = 71,057 square feet • Vehicle trips per the Environmental Checklist 21 Vehicles per 1,000 square feet 21 x 71,057/1,000 = 1,492.20 Estimated Vehicle Trips Assessment of Grady Way Transportation. Benefit District ($170.00 per trip generated) 1,492.20 x $170.00 = $253,674.00 to be deposited to Account No. 105/572/318.70.00.62 . 2. The applicant shall, in order to address transportation system impacts, develop a Transportation Management Plan which may Include (but Is not limited to): a) a designated transportation coordinator (who may be an employee in the building with other duties) to monitor and. maintain the TMP; b) transit/ride sharing information center; c) flex-time schedule for employees; d) preferential parking for HOV's and motorcycles; e) public transit incentives (subsidized bus passes); f) bicycle racks. The plan must Include a) reduction of on-site parking spaces (through placement in reserve of 15% of the required 321 parking spaces and b) an agreement to provide adequate funding to support TMP activities (e.g. subsidized bus passes), and,to,make necessary modifications (such as relocation of preferential parking. Facilities plans.(e.g., assigned preferred parking spaces) shall be developed to the satisfaction of the Planning/Building/Public Works Department and METRO, and approved by the Planning/Building/Public Works Department prior to Issuance of building permits. Service plans (e.g., service coordinator, monitoring system) shall be developed, to the satisfaction of the Planning/Building/Public Works Department and METRO prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit. Plans shall be implemented immediately upon receipt of the Certificate of Occupancy. Note 2.1: If, after a two year pilot period following the effective date of implementation of the reserve parking area, the applicant can demonstrate that the reserved area is necessary to serve employees, then the applicant may apply to the Administrator of the Planning/Building/Public Works Department to obtain a release of sections or all of the reserved parking area. At the time of.such a release.of a portion of or of the reserved parking area, the applicant will provide and implement a drainage plan in accordance with the King County Surface Water Design mitmeas-1 III , Manual, to the satisfaction of the Storm Water Section of the Planning/Building/Public Works Department prior to the issuance of any permits.) 3 The applicant shall, in order to ensure that the potential glare caused by the reflective glass in the proposed building does not impact traffic on Oakesdale Ave. and/or S. Grady Way, prepare a reflective glare diagram for those hours when the angle of the reflected sunlight is 30 degrees or less with the horizon or provide other documentation that demonstrates that the structure will not • cause glare to the satisfaction of the Development Planning Section prior to the public hearing before the Hearing Examiner. 4. The applicant shall provide the City with a "Hold Harmless" agreement as a portion of the project site lies within the 100 year flood plain and may be subject to flooding. This agreement shall be to the satisfaction of the Development Services Division prior to the issuance of site preparation/building permits. , 5. The applicant shall, in order to mitigate the impacts of this project on City recreational facilities, /, consult with the Community Services Department to review the Park and Recreation Comprehensive Plan and the Master Trails Plan to determine what projects this development impacts. Prior to the public hearing before the Hearing Examiner, the applicant shall provide a recreation mitigation plan to the satisfaction of the Community Services Department and the Development Planning Section. The approved plan shall be implemented throughout the life of this project. 6. The applicant shall provide a construction mitigation plan including the following components: a) l i an erosion control element; b) an element limiting hauling hours to between the hours of 8:00 A.M. and 3:30 P.M.; c) an element requiring the applicant to water down the site periodically to control • dust and debris; e) a $2,000.00 cash deposit for street cleaning (if needed) and f) an element to j requiring the wheel-washing of all construction vehicles prior to leaving the project site, prior to the issuance of site preparation/building permits. This plan shall be prepared to the satisfaction of the i �' • Planning Development and Public Works Sections of the Department of Planning/Building/Public Works and implemented throughout the construction phase of this project in order to protect the adjacent commercial/industrial land uses. • v 7.•i The applicant shall, in order to mitigate impacts and to ensure the survival of the significant trees on the project site, relocate the proposed building a minimum of twenty-five feet from the .' significant trees in order to ensure the protection of the trees and their,root systems. 8. The applicant shall, in order to mitigate aesthetic impacts from the project site and to the abutting developed areas/sites, provide revised landscape plans to:a) provide landscaping in the reserved `l parking area (shrubs and turf); b) provide a wildlife habitat area equal to 2% of the area of the project site; and c) provide for a minimum of six specimen size trees between the building and • I Oakesdale Ave. These plans shall be approved to the satisfaction,of the Planning/Building/Public Works Department prior to the public hearing for the site plan review. The plans shall be i! implemented in conjunction with the construction of the development: Note to Applicant: ' 1 The 'applicant shall submit copies of an agreement from Metro and Washington Natural Gas • '1 indicating their approval of the proposed construction within their easements prior to the issuance ,I of site preparation/building permits to the satisfaction of the Planning Development Section of the Department of Planning/Building/Public Works. p 2,; The applicant will be required to extend the 12"watermain along the south boundary of the project. 3. The applicant shall pay for the special utility connection assessed this project. The fee for the water system Is$210,333.56. • 4 The applicant will be required to make all Code mandated off-site and on-site improvements (e.g. 'dj sidewalks, street lighting, curbs, utility lines and utility systems) prior to the issuance of occupancy ., permits. li ;j '�I • 4 • mitmeas-2 j t ' • • DEPARTML: OF PLANNING/BUILDING/PtL WORKS 4vN CHECKLIST REVIEW SHEET co'°�RF4'�Sio ENVIRONMENTALDee NroNN REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: C' COMMENTS DUE: 12/14/90 ���� DATE CIRCULATED: 12/3/90 C O ECF-143-90 ' APPLICATION NO(S): RVMP;SA;SM-143-90 • PROPONENT: LPN Architects&Planners,Inc. • PROJECT TITLE: Blackrlver Corporate Park Phase VI BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Applicant seeks to construct a four-story, 71,057 sf office building with parking and landscaping on a 169,314 sf site. LOCATION: Northeast corner of Oaksdale&Grady Way SITE AREA: BUILDING AREA(gross): IMPACT REVIEW ON ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS: PROBABLE PROBABLE MORE MINOR MAJOR IMPACTMPACT I JJ C ESSARY I 1. Earth • J 2. Air , 3. Water 4. Plants 5. Animals t 6. Energy&Natural Resources 7. ' Environmental Health I 8. Land &Shoreline Use 9. Housing 10,. Aesthetics J 11. Light&Glare • J 12. Recreation I 13. Historic&Cultural Preservation 14. Transportation V 15. J.Public Services 16. Utilities t COMMENTS: I) VrtilAN IAA-A kzjAA-ise--<-3r INA_P-4-11,1-- At) ,x, , Vet ptc.Jep£ QL 2,) 1,1. .,a r, l o.,,JAz ) - 3 - f. Xa•t,,,d► . 1 `�u� .lam Is 4 fl'K . tr-b-4-4--bN-e- V-31:rr-L-rJbk—tict\, fit) 't LA - ^-%'. a"`pto Ith St i roe areas n ich we have expertise and have Identified • We hav�vle-Coved this ap Ilcatlon w tli part cu ar a en toil�i areas of probable Impact or areas where additional information Is needed to properly assess this proposal. Aldt.4-(314) `(I', I � IaI I b Signature of Director or Authorl ed Representative Date Rev,6/88 ommhl J ,Qcan vre_ e at (tt55 'u• d4,-e5 r• aping b� Slnarsd) s i 3 to& i [Jim o c1 c` ..j Y b ca.k a.. Y Q.g ac r'i a l trn J Yv` r I • C M:1 r o` t IM. u A. CAS 1 J U-pc c, r.4.4 T Y c` ('c G 154-u. 1 5 V1 e.GG $ S 0-7 t. L XI eE,a A a c. e a ss t h e °< R e R e S E a v A<(t-t< I N .4 N Ev,DS 11 NEEDS PS 3E P(zboty I Begs tm mkte Su.aE 6MPC.-b �. S 4-t .2G 'DbN ,..r. #44,ti- 6 �, Nkrb `k xe k5 'F a R- -o-r tt '3(..Lt �..'�r lei ew • 1�t c ICI I SS-N - Q- D • ut)' VkA.t5 v;i2A..cv S LIL S Q a 1C a 64; C.1ck.G S .V IBC S Q. w1 l� hc.e.4b u.)a rya 4-k Iv r am bdC Fi .51114043 -t t poi Lai S S INY v yes • • l lj (5l b - t t..T R AT( b 1J :3 E . 1 oN cs.J u-'ia i d t-z) . l Q.4 CkIAN N E �- h a2 'E-m o,,a. N Al.•-d rC6- l•J). -re, AcC.t✓ r R pa EµLw`y 'g werv,.t_'O • VI3'C0 IN V e 5'r L-ca-A TZ9`A, 1J o • � N -s i-t-� REc.cz.�•.4.z-t �� S E E n1.s G�-a o� - s�e,�-c I'�r�� j;. zs P'c S I N 'P lrr•N T t 4.1 Gr S is, Cat W e wL.b i E. a. t4 t ce. 44.1)1)t-rt d' , o �� s L �.t-t-t c..►�•-r-t�,� w a w tr:4. '� E "Dc5 t GL,h.(5 c-f...• -VG o , S E ct • „loci - c ,,ya ol o • tr\ * 1C)t> 5 'C ck l S P Litt c.. �} : L A) t1 V S W e N cm rb p(tG -t•IA-et \1- .4,hS u,V4. J '{ w p p I?C N \r<6s Da * a-4-1 E +- PIA A Ste- S Ac A) �{ \ k : �.4 t '[ R.t c.-r l p N 5 C C:�- n�.p.. S T`-(L f Lac� ? J -t- Aet- W o c. .,b p (t-lt 5 Ptt-t.z•Np-t- t i ) LI c 1-4T I tA lr S Eittu..c.t) l Q E c.T•e T'a t_.t M, t G•Umze a� lb a. ehcr b(1. " Nar VILtCEkreLt,L) , .J�1N1'i,iS.•+niuu4ea'ea:a::*aunu�w .. p r + a ,. y,: ,-' d .t1t�i'da1�3�Lthalnl:it:iblil u '`.��I.�lraitiirtiliai.,;` sriiall *• s a. '.ltlxil'Ml4 1 1 • DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET • ECF-143-90 APPLICATION NO(S).: RVMP;SA;SM-143-90 • PROPONENT: LPN Architects&Planners,Inc. PROJECT TITLE: Blackriver Corporate Park Phase VI BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT; Applicant seeks to construct a four-story, 71,057 sf dice .building with parking and landscaping on a 169,314 sl site. LOCATION: SEC:24 TWNSHP:23N RNG:3E Northeast corner of Oaksdale&Grady Way TO: • PUBLIC WORKS DIVISION SCHEDULED TAC DATE: 12/21/90 ENGINEERING SECTION TRAFFIC ENG. SECTION • x UTILITIES ENG.SECTION FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU POLICE DEPARTMENT • DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION CONSTRUCTION FIELD SERVICES DEVELOPMENT PLANNING PLANNING&TECHNICAL SERVICES PARKS AND RECREATION DIVISION OTHERS: COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITING. , PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE PLANNING DIVISION BY 5:00 P.M. ON DECEMBER 14, • 1990. • REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: It 1\ /9' '/ r1//0 APPROVED • APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS i/ NOT APPROVED f95 Ol5 c 05551) 17 0-14 -- 90 /4T^_O%-s ' 4' M�GT7/YG= /1la T/(T 4i" l/ r9 hl/J 56-714-n4--To12 R5-(1 E P •�.. P/P/ iNF_ E N7/%11//YG /Te. /S 9 z"c � I-X/?/vim S/T, /3 r• 3,6• tf c aH c rY�-r Pif'b 7 Fir 5r�' e/.vim s /f r /3/Y:. 7 74(15/4-P T//iVO vG4 517 011A/ - MO Nhoz/i(5) A7 cher A/6-N(c) IN 5/ z5C)24 4T�/y/its, \ S. N le v_ I .�(~VI j f c: t �q/,s,: ( l y 7c1 �S, C. /r�l:�, ) S i U / -(,6-v/ 4.Due to the large amount of Impervious area, the runoff will increase significantly over this area. Since the biofiltration males are designed only for a 2-year predeveloped release rate, a greater design storm:- event would increase flow velocities above the maximum design flow, thereby deteriorating water quality. Detention would provide a mitered flow rate, that would maintain water quality except In extreme design storm events.Therefore, we would like to recommend detention (per 1990 King County Surface Water Design Manual), unless the developer can produce a specific document agreement with the City that waives detention. If they produce this agreement,we may want it to be legally reviewed, to examine the possibility of revision. If detention were waived and the paved area exceeds one acre,then runoff from all paved areas should be treated by a wetpond prior.to discharge (per 1990 K.C. Surface Water Design Manual . - ....... gat e4//704‘ _... DATE: / 2 -/) •Yo' SIGNATVR OF 'IRECTOR OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE • ,(,� 5. (/soft/ er{5�+'I�is l�loc,fei Sife . Uois17 fre'ih,a3 nM Ile 4es4vritc4 d&7 1 (eb wbt 4. (A-4 ei in ton / it rJe Gc�4 �-- U REV. 5/90 6. ,/.f1467", �•5 Cie fe�s� - /a. . " 4! ' 0-'4 1L. tcl,?>., c, (7,1._tii /f1 *1 lvt:t-1 rr'.r ? "f f p!,/c --- •�•��■•wry , r "cif LLusibitil I AITLILAIIUN RLVILW 511 ' , . hi ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST REVIEW SIIEL! • : I] PLAN REVIEW ROUTING SLIP 0a OTIIER .// / DATE: i /i/ //Q APPLICANT: '''' .2-14.L� I /J �-{c., i JOB ADDRESS: I _%..- j�' J�lifff • r _ NATURE OF WORK: • 4.- .__ _ .4i. . A 'r IJ... I i PROPERTY MANAGEMENT /4-41/7d . . ; ; DATE RECEIVED , =is :•„ ,1, Comments Due , t, BYJPROPEQR�T/Y)MGMT.M ' i, Comments or suggestions regarding this application'should be provided in writing. Please provide comments to the • Comm.Dev.Dept.(C.D.D.)by 5:00 p.m.on above date. REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION > FEES APPLIED ` [] LEGAL DESCRIPTION CANNOT APPLY FEES ' ' NEED MORE INFORMATION Q SQUARE FOOTAGE �, 0 FRONT FOOTAGE ❑ VICINITY MAP , It Is thelntent of this development fee•analysis-lo put the developer/owner on notice,that the fees quoted below will apply to the subject site upon development of the properly. All quoted fees are due and payable at the time the ' ' • • construction permit Is Issued to install the on-site and off-site improvements (I.e.underground utilities,street Improvements,etc.) : ,• . It ; PROJECT COST LATECOMER LATECOMER AGREEMENT-WATER NO. PER. FTC. FEE I.CITY HELD ' • • , ,_.-0 .. , ( PRIVATE DEVELOPER HELD — ©_, LATECOMERS AGREEMENT-SEWER •f, 1 CITY HELD , . -_..O PRIVATE DEVELOPER HELD 8-3a3 - fey, SPECIAL UTILITY CONNECTION CHARGE-WATER V UNITS SUCC FEE Single family residential dwelling unit $940/lot x ' Apartment, Condo,each multiplex unit $545/ea.unit x Commercial/Industrial$.126/sq.ft.of properly x , , , • (not less than $940.00)' ' " '` ' ° /C>9,3iS1�' (7)fa//.235. 5 , SPECIAL UTILITY CONNECTION CHARGE-SEWER , Single family residential dwelling unit$470/lot x „ Apartment, Condo,each multiplex unit $270/ea.unit x Commercial/Industrial $.063/sq.ft.of properly x ��y (not less than $470.00) '/ 6lya9 !T j4 blj6. 78) ' SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICT(Hospital Area)WATER UNITS SAD FEE Developments with 1500 GPM Fire Floy6s or Less: Area Charge$0.034 per sq.Jtx Frontage Charge$16.00 pf r front ft. x i Developments with Greater than 500 GPM Fire Flows: ";. Area Charge$0.048 pgfsq.ft.x Frontage Charge $18.00 per front ft.x — 0— ' SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICT(Honey Crk, Intercptr)-SEWER UNITS SAD FEE Area Charges: Residential dwelling units„4partmenls �� f; ii ' or equivalents;$250 p r dwelling unit x ' Commercial developmep(': •f, $.05 per sq.ft.of grols site area x • Front Footage Charges: $37.19 per Front .(on ea.side)x $74.38 per Fr.F .(prpty on both sides of imprv.) x 0 i TOTAL: $ (3(P/ .9. to/ The above quoted fees do NOT Include Inspection fees,sloe sewer permits,r/w permit lees or the cost of water meters. ; . • ; Halo Q ofateLvt/ /qa • 'SI g l� Director or Authorized Representat ve • DATE i ar/burr,/leespO►h l, •, , re ••'• . . POLICE DEPARTMEN1 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION ' ' ' ' CONSTRUCTION FIELD SERVICES DEVELOPMENT PLANNING PLANNING &TECHNICAL SERVICES -• • • PARKS AND RECREATION DIVISION 1 •. OTHERS: COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITING. PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE PLANNING DIVISION BY 5:00 P.M. ON DECEMBER 14, 1990. • • REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: RU.C.t) APPROVED ✓ APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS NOT APPROVED 1,Len ,U. . A OwI,L.ci,_. peuf ILL t-I_ 1* 41 660 S14.0 it( c<__. jX) (.W1 it!line a. 46 -141.a+ (.t' (.'C-K, .t' ' a (.o4•LoL__ 6 , (L+u1 ova ck.,. L( l-4- 1 (AL. .41-a.GIt.tx,LI'3 • titJ2tLIt475 — 2( '10 i �L( DATE: 1 SIGNATURE OF DIRECTOR OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE `' REV.5/90 'dwnnhl ,, • . REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: •PEA N if V/ t, 5 a/70m APPROVED • APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS ` 1 NOT APPROVED ' 1, P416Yad otegV07 -es •o//Alki; Rety0 eq'S ,4._r- /v/05 l� . ; io_c .atirdee.;e 14 4 -rRo: 6=efFotax- A t- )1-10-Le it=K bc;4//4*-y t. PZI/// illcQ 1l, S(d ?; lv e 64 rA' 41, '1 fife/Pc, ar,/ . or/G/4, f: ' a. 5 cco 5 acve4(f rc o ri e j) Art, e n/S r, Nl If cr f'41 74,4/r 6ed-i 5e M r r/7.,, a-- 5 T2pv -r r1I,iii cr lift , SAS • . 6ptc/41 vti/!117 0.1414C-e/l/I ,G/terArQ, b /4eA ga4c•kee 12-e. 56Pet LL nf ill is na)r C t• _ l , . / cc u47i/ c,+i / /h Our/ / n/7` 1r0w!Wil 22 54 erfe v / ,, / 72-0 /,t�Aorrril DATE: /a/MA t O SIGNATUD F-PIRECTOR OR AUTHOIZED REPRESENTATIVE REV.5/90 dawvsld ' • MINIM MHJUII 11411UIMMAIIUIV IMPACT IMPACT NECESSARY • 1. Earth • 2. Air • 3. Water 4. Plants 5. Animals • • 6. Energy&Natural Resources • 7. Environmental Health • 8. Land&Shoreline Use • • 9. Housing 10. Aesthetics • • 11. Light&Glare • 12. Recreation • X 13. Historic&Cultural Preservation • 14. Trans ortation • 15. PubliccSery Services l 16. Utilities • • ' a_rks • co MMENTS: �G ,.��+-iL 1,61.4--+tor-•�L.1,11e! ef. C114Jt/L)1 ,')' or. fd elJ / r rr/c--•.._-• /4i•1— .01••1 ,►'r 441111.0te e14 441"4314C?:74 G c• rt.,....r L... ,k -- -.�e,� ��•_. j i�� 41.4 .� /��---rG�-'�. % . d > G�-cG.c- ,r2�•— -f�s� Gl%,- • . .� 4 -�-,, . -� — 4-ereGioA.l-�4 4-1 "4-v We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas In which we have expertise and have Identified areas of pro e Impact or areas where additional Information is needed to properly assess this proposal. t / 2- �J —2-3 gnature f; rector or Authorized Representative Date • • Rev.6/80 •nvmhl W. vunuoa' I • 1 s. • COMMENTS: p -c- �Z4 ) w.4GP - t") . .,/,,f24.(4, c.41. _ • • • • • • • . • • We have reviewed thls applicallon with particular attention to those areas In which we have expertise and have Identified • areas of probable Impact or areas where additional Information is needed to properly assess this proposal. /& $J nature of Director or Authorized Representative Dale • • Rev.6/08 •mmhI I. , Plants • — i. Animals 3. Energy&Natural Resources 7. Environmental Health , • 8. Land&Shoreline Use 9. Housing ' 10. Aesthetics 11.. Light&Glare 12. Recreation 13. Historic&Cultural Preservation • 14. Transportation • 15. Public Services 16. Utilities _ i-40 1 U , V-c6 COMMENTS: � `�/1 ¢e-� :. %����.� �ac.� ee"/ 7‘e-- , , - �� 7/ • • (� Lj'y""'�—Zf`.t.�G¢^ __ �s'-e. I .��j��o� z•--P �3Le- eigle,04 ..put%>)1LNe-,e We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas In which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable Impact or areas where additional information Is needed to properly assess this proposal. /6- --)/2-• pale 9 SI nature of Director or Author!eresentative Rev.6/88 mvMhl REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: 6-611 4MA--if APPROVED APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS NOT APPROVED 3 g• • DATE: SIGNATURE OF DIRECTOR OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE • REV.5/90 devrvthl • • DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET ft ECF-1143-90 APPLICATION NO(S).: RVMP;SA;SM-143-90 PROPONENT: LPN Architects&Planners, Inc. PROJECT TITLE: Blackriver Corporate Park Phase VI BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Applicant seeks to construct a four-story, 71,057 sf office .building with parking and landscaping on a 169,314 sf site. LOCATION: SEC:24 TWNSHP:23N RNG: 3E Northeast corner of Oaksdale&Grady Way TO: )C PUBLIC WORKS DIVISION SCHEDULED TAG DATE: 12/21/90 ENGINEERING SECTION TRAFFIC ENG. SECTION • K UTILITIES ENG. SECTION FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU POLICE DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION CONSTRUCTION FIELD SERVICES DEVELOPMENT PLANNING PLANNING &TECHNICAL SERVICES PARKS AND RECREATION DIVISION OTHERS: COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITING. PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE PLANNING DIVISION BY 5:00 P.M. ON DECEMBER 14, • 1990. REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: P/ Rh//i Fri 4J APPROVED APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS X NOT APPROVED �• � ;fair,/ 12 it w r w� ,�/1 t Gj°.f'` C�,e4171 l/ / egf - boc,19 i • of inert I�Fr�r (rN CI�r W( ,Gu��`� ff ), r . cilr�� ���'e i�/vt-c� Ca/c '/' ;4 exc / O ' , f rel/r1i/1/ 6' F/ CK/Cc,/q /ak_4 / 's 3 h .ei I'e ire�� o 70 o l f • 3, 5/i rim Uh/i c,tir c ni l55 t l �# HP'''�.it�;�/ /9r c/� /h7. �1-}P(/sn ���/CI c L- /11/ %ii I�i arm• UU,��zr i (ail a-;711 difft 0,41-fe I /m ovG Pi'' . 144 ke 22 5 C 3 y; S e /'�_ 2O", we'd, o4//t vfi?i 1 i. SIG `ate - r ��/ ,(��j DATE: f cA//•'� q NATUR F DIRE OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE 6; Pr 55.i., e Vec(oc/ Vq/Gc re s� �v/Pcf , ; • (J REV.5/90 davmhl «. DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET • ECF-143-90 APPLICATION NO(S).: RVMP;SA;SM-143-90 . PROPONENT: LPN Architects&Planners, Inc. PROJECT TITLE: Blackriver Corporate Park Phase VI BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Applicant seeks to construct a four-story, 71,057 sf office .building with parking and landscaping on a 169,314 sf site. LOCATION: SEC:24 TWNSI-IP:23N RNG:3E Northeast corner of Oaksdale&Grady Way TO: PUBLIC WORKS DIVISION SCHEDULED TAC DATE: 12/21/90 ENGINEERING SECTION - TRAFFIC ENG. SECTION . . ' • ' UTILITIES ENG. SECTION' FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU • d POLICE DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION CONSTRUCTION FIELD SERVICES . l '' DEVELOPMENT PLANNING ' PLANNING &TECHNICAL SERVICES PARKS AND RECREATION DIVISION OTHERS: COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITING. . PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE PLANNING DIVISION BY 5:00 P.M. ON DECEMBER 14, • 1990. 4 • REVIEWING''DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: ' ' U-g--, 404 Gt . ' APPROVED )(- APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS • NOT APPROVED Any development and/or construction shall comply with current Fire and Building Codes and Ordi- nances. A second means of approved access is required. Fire e_po rtment access roads/lanes shall be paved minimum width 20'; minimum height 13' 6". Yes 'No ' 1 Preliminary fire flow calculations show a fire flow of c ' is required. 3 hydrants with a minimum flow of /00 0 gpm each is required.Primaryhydrant is required to be within f' D feet of the structure. ' feet of the Secondary hydrants are required to be within `?O 0 structure. An approved automatic sprinkler system is required to protect the total structure.'Yes No — All fire department,access roads are to be paved and installed prior to construction. Yes X... No_ All tiro liY dran4 IN rgcjuired to be Installed and approved prior to construction. Yes... ... No DATE: SIGNATURE F ETC OR OR UT O ED REPRESENTATIVE REV.5/90 I /J� -1 -e 1(•J11•f;:d REQUIRED FIRE FIWW CALC ATIONS 1. HAZARD IDEN/TIFICf1TIoN INFO MATION NAME: IJ A 77' -�� ��r 1 ikd #10 :d ,Y-•� U.U.C. CLASS OF BUILD e- ,z_- ADDRESS: -S7tI W<4,14924 q(Qlno9 L4 - FIRE MGMT AREA 2. DETERMINE TYPE F- CONSTRUCTIONS CLASS (CIRCLE ONE): I �' II ,. WO IV III y FIRE-RESISTIVE •, ,, ON-COMBUSTIBLE . ORDINARY WOOD FRAME MIXED . (NOTE: IF "MIXED," SEE SPECIAL INSTRUCTION FOR AREA AND BASIC FIRE FLOW) 3. DETERMINE AREA: GROUND FLOOR AREA: FT2 1 NUMBER OF STORIES , TOTAL BUILDING AREA: gd D 7 .---- (A) 1. DETERMINE BASIC FIRE FLOW FROM TABLE AI, USING AREA (A): '9 0 0 O,. . GPM (1) 5. DETERMINE OCCUPANCY FACTOR ADJUSTMENT: ADJUSTMENT: /O D 0 GPM (C) IP.,LOW HAZARD, SUBTRACT UP TO 25% OF (1): 1F HIGH HAZARD, ADD UP TO 25% of (B) 6. COMPUTE SUB-TOTAL, (B+C): (IF B+C LESS THAN 500 GPM, INSERT 500 GPM) �da 0 GPM (D) 7. DETERMINE SPRINKLER ADJUSTMENT: ADJUSTMENT: /S0.0 GPM (E) (IF COMPLETELY, SPRINKLERED, SUBTRACT UP TO 50% OF (D): IF LIGHT HAZARD OCCUPANCY AND FIRE RESISTIVE OR NON-COMBUSTIBLE CONSTRUCTION, SUBTRACT UP TO 75% OF (D). Q. DETERMINE EXPOSURE ADJUSTMENT: USING THE TABLE AS A GUIDE, ENTER' THE SEPARATION AND ADJUSTMENT FOR EACH OF THE "FOUR FACES" OF THE BUILDING IN ' TIIE TABLE AT THE RIGHT: SEPARATION MAX. ADJUSTMENT EXPOSURE SEPARATION ACT. ADJ. 0 110 ; 25% MAX NORTH /6'd + ADD 0 ` % 11 : 30 20% MAX EAST 53 / ADD /5-', i 31 60 15% MAX SOUTH 61 ADD /6 % 61 - 100 10% MAX, ' WEST /6-0 ' ADD 0 % 101 - 150 . . 5% MAX TOTAL % OF ADJUSTMENT 150 or 4-1Ir WALL 0% MAX (NOT TO EXCEED 75%) d.C i % (TOTAL % ADJUSTMENT TIMES (B) ADJUSTMENT: ' 61 .GPM(F) 1. DETERMINE ROOF 'AND SIDING COVERING ADJUSTMENT: (IF SHINGLE COVERING, ADD 500 GPM) ADJUSTMENT: ' O. GPM ,(G) 0. COMPUTE ESTIMATED FIRE FLOW REQUIRED: • IF D+E+F+G IS LESS THAN 500 GPM, • INSERT 500 GPM) .2 v2' 0 IF D+E+F+G ,IS GREATER THAN 12,000 GPM, INSERT 12,000 GPM) . (71.uvs }E+F+G),r.r- r R QUIRED FIRE FLOW, GPM (II):• �/ 0 1. SIGNED: •` DATE: f 2 , • 1. J DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS *A-1,1374, ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST REVIEW SHEET •• • `', II.> REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: -1.11n-t"r6‘:)0 (7n n ' (4SCR.•J. 0 J, .�r�� • (.i? • E DUE: 12 1A.t �` `l ►'�-• 0 Sof DATE CIRCULATED: 12/3/90 COMMENTS � •/t.� i/ DEC t)4)„../ , N ECF-143-90 EC 3 1 1990 .R/gc1 APPLICATION NO(S): RVMP,SA,SM-143-90 • , `k rr` s' PROPONENT: LPN Architects&Planners, Inc. V p PROJECT TITLE: Blackrlver Corporate Park Phase VI ' BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Applicant seeks to construct a four-story, 71,057 sf office building with parking and landscaping on a 169,314 sl site. LOCATION: Northeast corner of Oaksdale&Grady Way SITE AREA: BUILDING AREA(gross): IMPACT REVIEW ON ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS: PROBABLE PROBABLE MORE MINOR MAJOR INFORMATION IMPACT IMPACT NECESSARY 1. Earth 2. AIr 3. Water 4. Plants 5. Animals 6. Energy&Natural Resources 7. Environmental Health 0. Land &Shoreline Use 9. Housing 10. Aesthetics • 11. Light&Glare 12. Recreation 13. Historic&Cultural Preservation 14. Transportallon. 15. Public Services 16. Utilities COMMENTS: • .3) ez 21. -H.- •;:s • We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas In which we have expertise and have Identified • areas of probable Impact or areas where additional Information Is needed to properly assess this proposal. a/1 447 t �", 27 , f ) 47 Signature of Director or Authorized Representative ` 6iP Date • Rev.6/88 .n„v,iol • • • Review Comments • • • Black River Corporate Park Phase VI SM-143-90 (4 Story) Office Building • December 28, 1990 By First City Washington, Inc. Building Area is 71,057 9 Vehicle Trip rate per Environmental Checklist P' 1. 21 Vehicles per 1,000 square feet #• 1, 21 x 71.057 . 1,000 n 1,492.20 Estimated Vehicle Trips ,, Assessment for Grady Transportation Benefit District • • ($152 .00 per trip generated) 70. a53, 67i/• vr4, � 4,'. .�so �f?l y6:22v1,492.20 x $J52.00 .• $226,814 40' —_�._._. ..._.__.._... ... ._ ._._.. ', :,a53, 7 31. (Deposit: $2.26;814:40'to account • No.: • • m r/s .t/3/'. 7o.00.6A / / i; • NOTE: All roadway and intersection impacted location are provided for in the TBZ projects for which the above fee is to provide participation • . in those projects. '• 90-604:CEM:p. . • • • • i i 1 • t vt t • 1' y' } a 4 • ` Office Use y I • • • I ARCHITECTURAL UG TnNG BY u11••C A I-o-T@C _ UAL LIGHTING BY UTI-OVIA I-n.rs<. ,f _ ,-J L KBR8r ROUND so4G1W M0,sow 0ww0scefr - 1(/�/� m oor6➢2mr6a/ONt111.01.1.11.1111.•MO �v w01 PRESSURE 000nne . —� 41a V. i �!!� •�` _ _c^:ram=•. r� ,_ -______ ti'`�. �I • `� t" it'llo11 f - .,.- .. .-:-st,41. V,I,i-.1' -,-.',•,.-,7-''W-:..•1._r:,--''''s-,t..-:' .Y' '. i- LIGHTED BOLLARDS 9 24'LIGHT POLES&FIXTURES 6i/ yl_I ': .0.1,,t•i.c,'w.•� 0 P .{V® TFL1 D co rOffice Use g " _ o . L—J -- • 70tIODW .,R,..q,....� _ o r .:_,9,.______-- . c.) cr) T oe. . 4 _ V Q CISo •'��i � allic.� W4�Y ®. _ �a � ~ • u .i.i._ y r ®rs�®m.p u..r.w,® Existing //W ^ m • H . SIGN LIGHTS - • 7 ADJACENT USES MAP 1/200• 1 - Q 1 7 41 - ' SNe Aron x769,31a SF. r aertua to W p� 7 S ? r ...5.'"AOc _ in L C Z; Y -I A B.irrB Area :71WS.F.LMS 3 svmm ArCMte[tuee.a:10 Pgr'+Tg • W J I Immminmlitil2 I •O .arm lsso,.v sr..r r.n`o�.at ; BIl�R1PFSc ORPCRATE _ F."°n` N <w, E. X.5 W F. m Ober .24,162 SF. G • d W m Q `l-C l` p, �' n =sAn.sr. S� 1 j . • f1 Sne R.�.a erJ x 1.5% xn.rr.ne�+47 SFdmc iea:on Pomeroy Northwest.tee ' —._�— — r--f— `yy7 =—S. Yrperriau 5e128 Area xT23.054 Sh .un.e ❑ 1127�A Sheet.A Wevdent t t27 Rile Sireet. Suite tb YlrPertrlalrs Sonata Co.erago x72B% $ H�IiER '• Seotae.WA 9 8101 820 5)583 8030 / 1 lsgx8pe Arm 2272% t e J/ I� 1 / 1 `NIat.E CU 1Li t ��R 2021 Sta.(�{9 Stela h Marra) G Fn•NIRORI.UR.oe N,RRG.Y• OVE, E- rL Rwwao05y ...��/// p.s° 56158mein' eINRNO.N U.�'E O.FrCE I6OYb pRpypG�p G4� EtiJM1NG Ger..:YIE �Acap - rsII ASt.NN peas) .5. - GENERAL NO DESCRIPTION DOTE l Ea,i[[.� 4WP:.G n.enP zr ttrr R+q I�SPIfAL :ITE N/+J REVlCW n-`•-x F/fltlCt[fY'(k -a.c.n..e...�-GV..LE nankin Raab x1r221 SF. RL-VIGIp.F.SER(RG• 1-I • lz.l>nearam psBtc.cTl SlrlkM - - t • SITE SECTION NORTH-SOUTH 8 TABULATION 4 VICINITY MAP 2 �i r°^ SHEET DESCRIPTION • . • BLACKRIVER .� !'- 1 Project Data PROJECT DATA •' �9 - 2 Site Plan L CORPORATE PARK 3Topography/ClearingRENTON, WASHINGTON �' d- 4 Grading&Drainage FIRST CITY WASHINGTON,INC. aI _ 5 Landscape Plan- °i 6 Floor PlansJDl fE' 'r' ;PHASE VI li 1 7 Elevations PROJECT DATA 1 .v..a 6+' k y��. JOB NO,86059 SHEET NO OR 7 - ORE n-S90 DRAwN.1�,8- 1 MONUMENT SIGN 5 INDEX 3 CRECa, RAB a i 1 c — I • C ; \1 �J PHASE V p I i o L \ ' ai \ E7DSLNG aLD(i D la E Om I taii11 ! sz • ., E . \ \\ ‘1 . I _ Ire' c6 Gur eiwa•ArY CR.).\ \ ��w ��--�- �--�-- >a a571SE --� .` C- `n (( rap: 0/�\\ 1 :' �' I0 \°1 .• -t IMi p I I �t I_� ] "'•^I • p:-r arf. , 1_ 1 fir% • FiQ7Pr4.Tr u.0 ��• T - 1 L ` 00 . 1 \ a I t'r • I W I 4: �' ' " a .;.:.: - NSn�lfr F w % •� MPS I - • ;y \ g�� 4 > �'s,'g�It i gi EXISTING OFFICE AND a a)L 2�y w•w,`Ei \ i zaw- l c' t4$„ a.. • e PARKING AREA .\ Nwbw.rrr $ \ \• \ 0 .o..a.m y i Q: ,,. al.w uc.OM .w. \V, > f 2 e.clu.r'a \ 181i� i& 84r: :: L:.i 3_:;% ,...) s i ) r •L c. 6.Ix oc RwRO - 1 •t ..1 n.o�� I `e W m •r.o.0- \ _ :; : •- c..�w iworrr.es vn.ou t 3 m 4 C,t(/rec.•e. • \ \ ,\ n 3rFa--w�..` -f it ij'� WEOE �• ::1. �TP�'�+��, (C)R�, (lT E.l$4. . 0 CO t—� 1111=1\ \ smorr ::-: ,,t~' ,•kl I:nueq.TyP. I,;.p Cl CZ a o ,.rolsuw \ ` \s i ^ II IT!:i.PcT v 3� \`it - _ ) •i- _ ti ,',•:" I 1' ..r.+17.Ioc•1 Qom'=E.ntn.K -• /CI ^LmSyrQ _ 'L`� ?y`•:.--....7:17: - l—=.�Jc- ✓L f'^II ofie'fOM M TEi 1i W Ii QDRtOr AnE.R—`�� e-,. i• . -4` Z1 kmV. II,ileFf 4�LEM►IJc— �� ▪� _ "_.=,.q mT- =- 1 GcaTo.«W.o;E+FT1D tE¢N��.i� - SY..Ea.VP- ��� • • '\ _,'.1" . - e+Fwoo,Eyrn.0.W eeaE..la.D CI.F(Ry F{/•1J. _"� -1 1y;`� -=s dm..:T.,T1./ ��*�1 df__E�PT�.IG elv lorro+aLpu„- e • W MN.L— 000 - :�?: .b .—,0..c.........-F P.M ik ',.o•.\-_7.%- M O \ s �� I`i-mac:�--�— ~1 �R uie1.0.WS. InrT a.+a wsv'+ 7 1 is ,N cn/.p6w!dCrW V S1e AW 1 .o.).eR JGM �t Q" `F---i•%I/, C k. . _ I 1;\5 ---- ev9rwfr gclaiara. 0 —>! - ' y. y' �5ro-.a+r�.ae••.wa.a caicrn+C. \town cb: w`+om,wesl rc>r u6..r�,..ne1a. \ 8 GYKn.ICs«.GWMc • - f\ k. ,.to Lv.1-•w`LaTea�J.WrlR 6<r7u6- Movc S9.eAIA R t lt' \F`{\\+'' - ice- \, Gv .aKFi A.J.A.C�.CTuYi -/- (106)5838030 • w y1 _ \ .. _.j 6 \ • i`. • , ` \ 4 l- -'-• Iro DESCRORIOM GATE km?N/•.I A...c.Y If i•70 \t \ ` ¢ D --'• 9FN)Or.Fee GAL 4-1.71 \\ \\\d 7 -- - •• - eusnne EYeR fSE (� � we*w r� `• •�j VACANT : -'.-��- �. P/eAckg Reserve in Lawn t48 StnU \` - , % -f.��• - •/ \ Male Habitat±.400 SF.(2%) BLACKRIVER \_• - -1 - �� ' .. T6 . �TFtEE ULATION SITE PLAN VN ��° CORPORATE PARK \\ ' :•�• P Number of Trees on Site �. I Ao RENTON, ,- WASHINGTON lug • �r' �•'Number of Trees Preserved n F \Q w enq wu•�m:\Q+ FOIST CRY WASHINGTON,INC. N • , • (,��. / �' j Number of Trees Relocated o ^��;2 � PHASE VI \fin-, • \ Number of Trees Removed �' SITE PLAN / roe F.a Bum s.>EEr NO OF s • • / -- 087E •114.90 PLAN DFuwM. • SITE PLAN • Irma'I � CHECK•RAa ♦. • . • •IIi • ' • • I , • • p 1 • 33 pp le g a°� , w ~ m N�� cc.W � � ae51@@a m � to-� Y } iN�' -6 ► a kk e C)S t.t•t A $ di "`. 1:' b ale' as U 4W' li zY ;,t. 3 �� 1 gg . � 'eio m U e j i . !i! 1 f.'; .3�Ki r;', ,;:•� it \` , 4 \, { pao `� �i�� lL tii - . . 1 'k 1 , ' ...j."=-::.i'' ',.: '';.::';:'0101 --\,\ " ' l''' • .-"'-'4* LIE111E1 .0 . . . Q IQ- I �`i t (/W(/�� , �, ,."\ y1 Ci1ii � Q ,\• '+.; oc F F F- 11 a • o 5• 1lpjpjyfl�� fi i • _ `� I r' \ g g @ e �\�� �,• $ �I . \ '• � . 2 2• z Iili jltisiiliid �' "-7Ia � ., Si � A \ ABAAAAAaAAAAAA , 1. NI a,;i1 I- 1 k I. 1 ' Pg, \\'\ , !! Ytle•6 • ••• 1. `, !e `f y�>< • kkk6kkkkk666kk1`� ikainilkliliOM '6 • , t \ sx • s.nri,\ h SI 1 {(iRA ii = iitddlE A L .4i SKTIO IV\ I .. _ �1�Y d? 3_3= 3333d 3d i I •� , RAA1RRFfii Alai 11� I6,,i'll 1"~� } �` �• l aAAAAAAaaa MIKES II: Hi 1: \1U • Ili 1,Y • J,!' • \t ' / ,, . A\l, ,E.,021k 1 A ee t14:1/eeQe eeai"!1!! 1� �, k li k:h+::khkk•kh6aA�'::e$ ' '1 l 1 Q P$01 AJAR [if#!{4�Aa5(pR pq}t!910,;\-i'1-r aea /e„a; 5 4 N L 1; r,/ • 7 as aiR6A3_ A R r J_Cl 1 r : :q' 1 +, t1 �,,, +0 1I p 5 i5i t3A jA55S.'-$!� `!: c �• Ii !I ' �,l► u . .�1,1 0 \ \ ti AAaaABAAaA3aA5AAAAAAA Si1 } / /• 1 1 t \u:' 4 1 i ' y� t4 1 ti k. 1 lO ed aIt 0 5 !i 3 33 I.til \,.I •.� � ',ems `1 ', •-4 a�7_}' Il id og e Z. • t•; ---- 1 1 4 ,1 IT ' AA a a a 11. • '$ • 4`! 11\ \\ \\ \`..'.` \\` 1 Q.•�1 tli'iE F,q4 �! 1 `I ,i ,\1; \ k$,,`,` 1 3t\ \ f 1\ 1 arc.caeeaeel .. I I I I MI' 1• `+ems "\ ` \ • .111043 9 101 . •\' L /' ' t\y. ""I "1, `i 1 • \ !i • 3s _ • 1 \ \„%\ \\ \ 1 \\ AV • • ' ,L 10 1 I I . \\• \ .' ) .1, \ ‘'., % .•;. ' \ ' ..7 .\ e 1 I \ \ s \ r • ' .00e . 1 ... :s i R 1 O 1 I 3NIl H�1V W 1 1 I i . \ Y, �• • • f • � , \` i�/�\ ✓ b--- i �ii ph---.--- . 1 //a 1 .j,/ I I 4 � I .. I \ � �a f1!t, • i • \\ _ am ,�/ _ / // / It • /\ // r11 / , V 0 I t , • s• ,,....--- >\\( TO \ ' -- '4.. • ...,----------- -- it,„ciati 0... • T ILtn 'F1 :Iio I I \ t. t i 1 IX ,u yP \ 1 \ vi t 'w, t.;A � I �. .� ..L I it. g \\-v-_* ...7.,„„\ :1,.\:t,3: \ . 11\ ir .0 11=1 1,- . 1 \\ . IS \\''' it i \k.k" 'aiisL..tot[.1\,s\„.i.i.',ill All[ii.. 11 6 . \\ r„ \ 1 2 1 j 1: t /t\ I I . mnn L In \ gt 1 • I%\ \ \ i'1 \\ uoRrH • • • 1 DO1 ;I-f SGN6M.T1.+ GRLD1..1.a 4 ORAI,.1naG .1 • . 41 r• r t,- eL A.... 1c1 veg. coRr.. c' - /e+A1L BUSH,HOED&HITCHINGS,INC. 4',5"°S • h — PHASE. .� • CIVIL ENGINEERS&LAND SURVEYORS • SEAL 0 T Phi tW9"e.On AVE UV SEATlE.WA 96102 4 Pill 4`1 N antra N v/A F uaPNS y W.'. i-I•�i 48/mie� 1:..1i 0 . 51T6 PL1aJ /�e.'�eN P... �fmi ns.,.. • , . . . • 1 1-_ ,...,.. . 1 E7 wimmon q PS ttk. 1 il a . 1 11.', ' t I fNIg R 1 Ili tek — E.; 0 I la it lil qpEE2 lik __------ c. •i 1 z...,..„....<___ .........._---- ......,.........- 444,14 il q 1 ii l!' ,-.94s- - ---''---b - lom 1 1 5 0 F-- l• ?r41) .1q a - 1 _‘11,..,,e - ......- - cn n .F XI 1 L11t 122141. • I Ird'' .• M 'V 1:0 r61 nil o'''''' -_, ----r-1_,T ,_-_,--........---,46;p0 8 M 73 t1;10-`"7/7. !tea 1 L-1 z * -- i -0 < iE$ • e..s>"• - ' •-_ -.e----— .0.011160,t.1- ;Or--.lit , F, > m - ,,,,,wk -- - 1 1 -.. so... • . kik.s 9 21 ..... - • -- ,40-M. 417.1-''41ir 2 X Al --------4 °r------Pi •-•-• - ..N :051( --'' eq.-- - • oa,t& .0, ,i,,,c1,1 -A'-0.0 ..-- e, -i- --•••' MO '511;* .14'-- 1 ____-/ ‘\ ,t." ' ,, it- ' ,„04 Alif,„ . • tlik NC rg„,_ _„,,,, ., ,.,.- )1,; • A/ rm.., • , , T.;, gli I 4mv_ 10_ ,. la"' k'I%Ir ifir, v4i,f• *), ;;• ItItil 1---,- _ - -..........' ii, ',,,s;,, '• k.,.% \ r . i, .„. ...1,i,,A„ ,;-,1 , pm: ! 7-..-. ..,—.: pi__ .i.) w \ •. kl,-1 i• 7) 0 17- 21-k,,,,- e . .2b - • , 1 • 0,,,, itPiIIP -41 \ A ti Zit. Vist 1 r - 1 111 Pr, dT -.141 IstAl. A' \•r $ i 1 kil6 1 r ! ' Ng _NO 1 \ 4 7inili, __ oit '4•Na , 0. , 1 - ,,,,. li. t tit_ - -'s i3lir 1 . \ mok, v , .,!•-4,4,4,1,,c4t6 - o % „Ir.... 6.04_ \ . , tsjs: Iti'll-- ' Tr ' 'Gk.-, t.t... ., ,Vir 0% irdirc.; ‘itigiV111,11"t2.* -a-si". ' Ir'•-,i \ itryirik, W ``2' ' AV,tilk4 ei* • • • s'23 41) I. 'slo\ii",r-r7P-Iiiiimilribi .isotlimpop __ __ \ - P ‘ , tpit%rr 0APPLiivard_,Li_16.4Z Z. • il:. —7': y • '' lantiAl'414;02.4 t- Ifli A . ' 11,01N NMI 'i; • trtil_ "I______ z iiirgt r.-- _Ilpi . . . . •1 1 t, . 1 Irz,Foli 1 it i ? AL 0,:n. Pi54 t p 1 r L ... a TER c 0(s)i 1 rif I el 1 N _al ilifaiitl_iii -;I: itill,6 ii P , tit i'- ''- - -r-:-_-1- - i - )T i ;1 4 I tl " 13k i A. "4 .-4 ; 1 g P a- i I 111 i 111111 HI J11- 1 -I-i 2 : - # 1,1 -ti ss,! i 1 4i .\1 , il-c-- I 3 --r6-1--i : ..\I i ,,. i. g . il 1 1ii t 1 I 1 i EXISTING BLDG. fi r ,. z ,. , I •E. 6 Ao, d4 6 i. •A k • 114 Iii II 11 ) t 1 Ili ' if A 4 it-11 i 1 i 111 I f k • 1 .... grip! 1 .31, Immo, I v,917, A. First City Washington,Inc. i CrillitIliski ifil, 2, Blackriver Corporate Park P.,:lj.§ . q PHASE VI i I al g '641 ,g 1 ! 1111111111 .gKi Renton, Washington • ow .._ .... i i .� ,.� • 4 . ai ,.. ,, _ \ a J ____ I � ,I� � I rI � � \ � ,., „ ,. ,-1::---, :.4 - . 1 CL ; ' Y I I I I M I 0 ' it L_____ i 4 ; N1E'7—÷ii • I.. t_ —1 r 4-0- t- -= --_- Mt -Al -- — FIRST FLOOR PLAN SECOND FLOOR PLAN 6 > > .. 15 3 Y W a V CD it▪ m a _ • Yi • I • I2 ..� Ik of . yi 1 "„ is \\ •i I( 7 I i` ilL : te�L , 7 ! i NO DESCRIPTION DATE Il ti•: I}I I ,,1f T1i 1` ,. — THIRD FLOOR PLAN FOURTH FLOOR PLAN - I - BLACKRIVER FLOOR PLANS 17"N I '- CORPORATE PARK RENTON, WASHINGTON x r:»w,- FIRST CITY WASHINGTON, INC. .. (1g t 4, e u zol FOUR STORY OFFICE BUILDING .:eF" JOB NO.:82060 S4EET N0 0F:7 PHASE VI FLOOR PLANS SATE }, 1090 DRA.N:(%u[ 6 CHECK: RAB • • • • 215'-0' i Y 85'-0. L. Ca r i 1 _ a . - II I -1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I _ 1— - c+ L J_—___—_—_� _—_ o • 1 1 I _ III I 1 I I I I I I .1 — I-� _ a� I I I I 1 I ( ! � • ,: Q U NORTH ELEVATION c — L 132'-0• _j_ , 87'-0" 1 Reflective Glass r Mechanical Screen Exterior Insulating, and .E > > o IFinish System °' L e 3 Y W -I I-!�. I n I n 1 1 i-�,r-1 ! . / 1- . ---- I 1T'---- I I =}- f 1 1 1 'I I I co V C • -1-I I , I I I { 11 � -I- { +1 , I l i , ® al _ ---�-1 -1 - I -T �--ri-- -- 1 7 i_I_—_�—_—— _—_ __'—_-_—_— i W d ¢ IT - III HMI _ - ; Ii I I III 1 1 I 11 I of -a=---1-----'-+--- --L------ --�------ �q-----------'- ''_:---- 21 ,y— - -III III i ( I I I I I I Y I I I l r 1 I 1 I �! M - tc i 1 mial a' EAST ELEVATION . - WEST ELEVATION • cce A ileac n;A r eyy_" :IV Pole Si.,:e NO DESCRIPTION DATE S.'e Pull FP:.9:_ 1114:: i t ! I I ( 1 1 1 ti ! 1 1 1 1 ! L i ii ii EN III lit 1 1 ! i l l 1 1 i i i I --A I� I I J I I I L I _ l i I I- ------_- 1 B L A C K R I V E R •••..--- - -: - -- —_— ---- _—_—---- — '-• ELEVATIONS .c,. earo',awn) CORPORATE PARK ��� �� �� - I RENTON, WASHINGTON •� I . .1 SOUTH ELEVATION I w ,,. -._ FIRST CITY WASHINGTON, INC. I I ,, . 6ai:;,,'`. si"__; `Main Entry Planter Surface Parking Beneath Building FOUR STORY OFFICE BUILDING FIe86059\TOM • _ _ JOB NO.:aeon SHEET NO OF: - - - - ___ PHASE VI ELEVATIONS . DATE: :17-y0 7 . ' - C HE011 yRA9 • 4 • :'s>:::C•Z.T. ':: • .............. . .......... • :i▪ CURREN-T. : .'.: .; • F:FIDAV.IT...O.F::.S•ERV :. :.:. CE: •;BY:;MAT•LY.NG;::::•:•::.::.::::: :::::: =:g:::::::.:;. On the 3 day of deposited in the mails the United S ates9a sealed envelope containing }1,e, , --r ay documents . This information was .sent to: . Name Representing • Ma _, At• LPN cc c .4s i m�5 • C.)e..04,1, to c. . 9416 - C (.4ct.sttiOiTy‘ • • (Signature of Sender) d, i . Subscribed and sworn to me this Q 19 ,°40,..„s,rn 3.�GY day o f C 1 °°°° - ,,Er •,,,,_.., p Sc°_ NOTARY W.▪ 3 It Nota/r •Publi in and for the Sta of Washington residing N�; PUBLIC . ® .Z.® at 1:,7,x'4/ 10el'▪ ', 0,;,, therein. . ::::::::::::::::::::::::::,:i;:::.:*:::::,:.*:.:::i:::::::•::::i:API:.ta.e.',.:7. ,::-:::::: : :0::::•::::*.f.i:•::::4 .:w::::::,g.•::rEN:::-:•:,:.:k._-:::.:::17piki•iii:•::::••••:•:•:•••::::•imii::: ::m • - .r 0 Pra:J:e.c..t::.;N:umb er:::::::. :3•:::::-:..: :'. :. :::. :: .. : . :::-.'::::. ...:::;:•:•:<<;: ::;:: •:: • Architecture and Planning 1t J. Leason Pomeroy Northwest,Inc., Royce A.Berg,A.I.A., 1127 Pine Street,Suite 300 Seattle,WA 98101 (206)583-8030 cav OF RENTON RECEIVED April 2, 1991 �„j APR - 2 1991 Mr. David Martin, P. E. BUILDING DIVISION City of Renton ING DIVISION Department of Planning/Building/Public Works CITY OF RENTON 200 Mill Avenue South Municipal Building APR 0 2 1991 Renton, Washington 98055 1tCEIVED Re: Blackriver Corporate Park Phase VI ECF RVMP SA, SM, 143-90 NW 86059 Dear David: Has there been a decision on the traffic mitigation fees to balance the 100% versus 50% participation of First City, Metro and Container Corp for construction of the L. I .D. and Oakesdale Avenue. The appeal date with the hearing examiner in 9 April 1991 for this issue. Res"pe tful 1 , Royc '6(: Pres dent RAB:fvj cc: Mark Pywell Dean Erickson Paul Coppock DELIVERED Architecture and Plannina Leason Pomeroy Northwest,Inc,,Royce A. Berg,A.I:A., 1127 Pine Street,Suite 300 Seattle,WA 98101 (206)583-8030 TRANSMITTAL 114411/4/ To: Mark Pywell , A. I.C.P. Date: April 1, 1991 V oil, • City of Renton 200 Mill Ave. S. Project Name: Blackriver Ph VI b'ci, , 7 , ,9, Renton, WA 98055r. r , i Project No: NW 86059 ccv: ITON Attn: 6 E= c, t;. ? V L kl,I ilE LI Re: SA;SM;143-90 I ;;';:7? 1 Description: 11 sets Site Approval Drawings revised per E.R.C. comments dtd 4/1/91 1 each color site plan, landscape plan and neighborhood map 1 each 8-1/2 X 11 Site Approval PMT reduction of sheet 5 of 7 (Landscape Plan) per E.,R.C. comments dtd 4/1/91 • • Remarks: ❑Sent per your Request ❑(For Approval ❑ Other: ❑ For your Use/Reference ❑ For Distribution ❑ For Review and Comment ❑ For your Records 1 set 8-1/2 X 11 reduction sheets 1 of 7 thru 7 of 7 (excluding Landscape Plan, sheet 5 of 7) sent 4/1/91 under separate cover. Hand delivered By: Paul R. Coppock for Royce A. Berg cc: Dean Erickson (w/encl ) Lauch in BethuneVI Ron Goldy ilk , • Architecture and Plannin pflJ Pomeroy Northwest, Inc.,Royce A. Berg,A.I.A., 1127 Pine Street,Suite 300 Seattle,WA 98101 (206)583-8030 TRANSMITTAL To: Mark Pywell , A. I .C.P. Date: April 1, 1991 Senior Planner City of Renton Project Name: Blackriver. Ph VI 200 Mill Ave. S. Renton, WA 98055 Project No: NW 86059 0�°>�°�°O of Attn: `\, 48S\ Re: 51 ® Description: ,rt 1 set Site Plan Approval Drawings revised per ERC comments dtd 4/1/91 Remarks: ❑Sent per your Request ❑ For Approval ❑ Other: 3 For your Use/Reference ❑ For Distribution ❑ For Review and Comment ❑ For your Records Note: the Landscape Plan (5 of 7) is not yet included in this package. via courier 6 I By: Paul R. Coppock for Royce A. Berg cc: Dean Erickson Architecture and Planning ,,,, 1 Leason Pomeroy Northwest,Inc„Royce A. Berg,A.LA., 1127 Pine Street,Suite 300 Seattle,WA 98101 (206)583-8030 TRANSMITTAL To: Mark Pywel l , A.3.C.P. Date: April 1, 1991 Senior Planner City of Renton Project Name: Bl ackri ver Ph VI 200 Mill Ave. S. Renton, WA 98055 Project No: N 86059 LANNING DIVISION Attn: Cry OF RED ON Re: 011991 • Description: "ti 1 set 8-1/2 X 11 site approval PMT reductions dtd 4/1/91 revised per ERC comments (except 5 of 7) Remarks: ❑Sent per your Request ❑ For Approval ❑ Other: ® For your Use/Reference ❑ For Distribution ❑ For Review and Comment ❑ For your Records via courier NOTE: Mark, revised landscape (5 of 7) colored exhibits and full size sets will be delivered tomorrow. By: Paul 11. 'Coppock for Royce A. Berg cc: Dean Erickson Architecture and Planning Leason Pomeroy Northwest, Inc., Royce A.Berg,A.I.A., 1127 Plne Street, Suite 300 Seattle, WA 98101 (206)083-8030 March 29, 1991 Mr. Mark Pywel l , A. I .C.P.Senior Planner PLANNING DIVISION City of Renton CITY OF RENTON 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 APR _ 2 1991 RE: Blackriver Corporate Park, Phase VI RECEIVED ECF;RVMP;SA;SM-143-90 NW 86059 Dear Mark: Per our meeting last Wednesday (27 March 1991) and review of the Determination of Non-Significance Mitigated, mitigation measures, as received: there is no specific reference to Public Works issues prior to the permit stage. LPN and Bush, Roed & Hitchings (civil engineer) met with the Public Works Department on 19 October 1990 to review plans for drainage concerns; plans were submitted reflecting these issues. Attached is a copy of the minutes. We assume, as with other specific areas, and the language in Item 2. , any final details would be resolved in the permit stage of review. As there is no direct language for reserve parking locations, we have placed them in contiguous landscaped areas to supplement buffers and impervious surface, but not in the front of the building, which I believe you indicated staff would probably recommend to the Hearing Examiner. Allocation and access of parking and access to Puget Power site dictate using this parking at this time. Please note the building has been moved over 25 feet to the west. The wildlife habitat has been incorporated in the adjacent stand of existing Hawthorne trees, and supplemented with food source plant material and buffered by a hedge from the parking area under the building. Additional specimen trees were added to the specimen trees already placed along Oakesdale by First City. Re.pe'tfull 14, Pre.ident RA: :mp cc: Dean Erickson Ron Goldy Paul R. Coppock encl : LPN/City Meeting Minutes dtd 19 Oct. 1990 via fax l;; i • ✓ x • 1,t! ,: . Architecture and Planning i, - Leason Pomeroy Northwest Inc. Royce A Berg,A I A,;1127 Pine Street,.Suite300 Seattle,WA 98101 (206)583-8030 • MEMORANDUM TO: Bob Roed DATE: October 19, 1990 Bush, Roed & Hitchings 2009 Minor Ave. E. PROJECT: Blackriver Ph VI Seattle, WA 98102 PROJECT NO: NW 86059 SUBJECT: Meeting with City of Renton regarding Drainage for Phase VI on October 19, 1990 ATTENDING: Greg Zimmerman - City of Renton Kim Scattarella - City of Renton Bob Roed - BRH David Bell - BRH Paul Coppock - LPN ITEMS DISCUSSED: 1. Per BRH - site was filled by Soils Conversation Service with spoils from the P-1 channel . 2. Bush, Roed & Hitchings - note that 10th Avenue never was a right-of-way through the subject site. 3. Bush, Roed & Hitchings to verify easements through site. 4. City of Renton to verify their inventory of pipes and locations on city maps. City of Renton and Bush, Roed & Hitchings to review the purpose of the ditch between the 36 inch corrugated metal pipes. 5. City of Renton is concerned that the amount of area served, by 36 inch corrugated metal pipes entering the property handles a volume that would be larger than the biofiltering swale could accommodate and would prefer the existing drainage through the site tightlined. All on-site surface drainage should be passed through oil/water separator and into biofiltering swale. 6. Bush, Roed & Hitchings to confirm grades and 200 foot length required for swale. 7. LPN to research new grades and verify if parking lot could be adjusted to accommodate more parking stalls. 8. Crossing permits may be required for. Metro and Washington Natural Gas. Meeting Minutes 10/19/90 Page 2 9. Maintain 7.5 foot clearance of storm drainage from existing water pipes. 10. Consider the use of overflows at the oil/water separator while designing storm drain system. • 0,19 BY: Paul R. Coppock PRC:mpD J _ cc David Bell Dean Erickson Greg Zimmerman Kim Scattarella Royce A. Berg Lesson Pomeroy Northwest,Ind.,Royce A.Berg,A.I.A., 1127 Pine Street,Suite 300 Seattle,WA 98101 (206)583-8030 , CITE _ i:JF RENT ON Planning/Building/Public Works Department Earl Clymer, Mayor Lynn Guttman,Administrator March 27, 1991 . • Royce A. Berg LPN Architects&Planners, Inc. 1127 Pine St, Suite 300 Seattle,WA 98101 SUBJECT: Blackriver Corporate Park Phase VI ECF;RVM P;SA;SM-143-90 Dear Mr. Berg: The date of Tuesday, April 9, 1991, at 9:00 a.m., has been set for a site plan approval public hearing to review the above-referenced matter. The hearing, before Mr.Fred Kaufman, Renton Hearing Examiner,will be held in the Council Chambers on the second floor of City Hall, Renton,Washington. The applicant or representative(s) of the applicant is required to be present at the public hearing. A copy of the staff report will be mailed to you one week before the hearing. If you prefer to make other arrangements to receive the staff report, please contact Kathleen Childers,277-5582, or Sandi Seeger,277- 5581. If you have any questions, please call 235-2550. Sincerely, • Donald K Erickson,AICP Zoning Administrator cc: Dean Erickson First City Washington, Inc. 700 Fifth Ave, Suite 6000 Seattle,WA 98104 • • hexhr/DKE/wo 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 yr 'r- MAR 19 '91 16:14 LPN ARCHITECTS (206)583-8788 P.1/2 FACSIMILE/TRANSMITTAL COVER SHEET LPN ARCHITECTS & PLANNERS, INC./ROYCE A. BERG, A.I.A. 1127 PINE STREET, SUITE 300 SEATTLE, WA 98101 PLANNING DIVISION CITY OF RENTON (206) 583.8030 (206) 583-0708 (FAX) MAR 1 9 1991 DATE: lb" [43 RECEWED TIME: , $10 •000l1' r4- 6 DELIVER TO: 1�.'.. 4i 1 At �1"�tV _a COMPANY:COMPANY: " 1 9CN _tit, folosvm. 1 1 FAX NUMBER: IM1�N1 .. - NO. OF PAGES INCLUDING THIS COVER SHEET: lb PROJECT NO: NW tip iJ LPN PROJECT: t)14iceallak Rime Co ITEMS ATTACHED: /, • L A AO '010 IS IL 12.66SOIE tefX,hartoNIS _fork \(tOR IARAUPittog ?v, SNP R t -VD • II a FROM: rimp4 1ii $ . SENT BY: If you do not receive the Indic ea pages, please call the above number. Thank you. MHH 1'J ' 1 1b;1 U-TI HKC:h1Ij. I le�b)'i'c,d-1iLb r.crc . .. r.R ' F wr.C":1 ----t• --1- 17-=t• --q--1=-----4 w. ,__I �.A __, %=1-____,t--/_._ ij___ ,_,.. . mum% 1"11)---- -t ..._.) \ a .7:1 ‘ 40s* -1 .2. T1 ' 14441%1C-74...-1..... , 4 tS 1 -21 • L 13—.' ' D , \ . SO M. Xt. Ef .1,-E, /71.- " -1' . q gIC‘` -T'C3) \ Volil V• O 73 t)- crl 6 --- de / ci,. _4 A , PUNNING DIVISION L. • L9-2- CITY OF RENTON 3:9 MAR 1 9 1991 RECEIVED ,� . CITY OF RENTON APR 1 5 1991 RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION 110' L e A n n e Hutton ,being first duly sworn on oath states 5 1 0 6 7 that he/she is the Chief Clerk of the VALLEY DAILY NEWS • Kent Edition • Renton Edition • Auburn Edition Daily newspapers published six (6) times a week. That said newspapers are legal newspapers and are now and have been for more than six months prior to the date of publication referred to, printed and published NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING in the English language continually as daily newspapers in Kent, King RENTON HEARING EXAMINER County, Washington. The ValleyDailyNews has been approved as a legal RENTON, WASHINGTON Y g PP g A Public Hearing will be held by the Ren- newspaper by order of the Superior Court of the State of Washington for ton Hearing examiner at his regular meeting King County. in the Council Chambers on the second floor of City Hall, Renton, Washington, on April 9, 1991 at 9:00 a.m. to consider the The notice in the exact form attached, was published in xthe Kent Edition following petitions: xx , Renton Edition xx , Auburn Edition x , (and not in BLACKWATER CORPORATE PARK PHASE VI supplement form) which was regularly distributed o its subscribers ECF; RVMP;SA;SM-143-90 during the below stated period. The annexed notice a Pun 1 i c Notice The applicant proposes to construct a four-story 71,057 sf office building with land- scaping and parking area on a 169,314 sf #5 5 5 3 site. The project site is located on the east side of Oakesdale Avenue and approxi- M a r c h 28 , 1 9 9 1 mately 150 ft north of South Grady Way, was published onLegal descriptions of the files noted above are on file in the Development Ser- vices Division, Third Floor, Municipal Build- ing,The full amount of the fee charged for said foregoing publication is the Renton. All interested persons to said petit?ons sum of$ 42 .46 are invited to be present at the Public Hear- ing on April 9, 1991 at 9:00 a.m.to express (...(450:63:14 their opinions. Published in the Valley Daily News March 28, 1991. 5553 Subscribed and sworn before me this 1 o t h day of Apr 19 91 44,tid) Notary Public for the State of Washin ton da residing at King County, Washington VDN#87 Revised 4/89 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING RENTON HEARING EXAMINER RENTON,WASHINGTON • A Public Hearing will be held by the Renton Hearing Examiner at his regular meeting in the Council Chambers on the second floor of City Hall, Renton, Washington, on April 9, 1991 at 9:00 a.m.to consider the following petitions: BLACKRIVER CORPORATE PARK PHASE VI ECF;RVMP;SA;SM-143-90 The applicant proposes to construct a four-story 71,057 sf office building with landscaping and parking area on a 169,314 sf site. The project site is located on the east side of Oakesdale Avenue and approximately 150 ft north of South Grady Way. • Legal descriptions of the files noted above are on file in the Development Services Division, Third Floor, Municipal Building, Renton. All interested persons to said petitions are invited to be present at the Public Hearing on April 9, 1991 at 9:00 a.m.to express their opinions. Publication Date: March 28, 1991 Account No.51067 hexpub OF 'R4,� ! �, n`� Z,Oy • 1 r• © ® TI'CE , •947.EC' SEPZEMOF' City of Renton Land Use Hearing Examiner i; • i PUBLICwill hold a I' HEARING , in CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL • .•... oN APRIL 9, 1991 BEGINNING AT 9:00 A.M. P.M. CONCERNING: I BLACKRIVER CORPORATE PARK PHASE VI ECF;RVM P;SA;S M-143-90 THE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A FOUR-STORY : ' 71,057 SF OFFICE BUILDING WITH LANDSCAPING AND PARKING AREA ON A 169 314 SF SITE. / .., , . • t, .ffs,.,---7,.,„...__Li 1. 4 L....J. .,._ .. \ , j .1j\ • 4 ir,,, .e, ! d k a"5, ,:: ► r1,1. a�..a _", . - ,, j iE I ,l 1 t •. _ O . ` � • r. „�, If • i .S.r. . ,, it., ,^ 4„ .• us ' , 09 f: t.• d J 4K'•.PFfor;: -�^. l ,.A.*, 1 I. y:',' Future 1 O O• „�'�tis ‘ '�+��111 : s, ISub tall :•s.. Q Existing Office Use ..IE II / ! I aooc GENERAL" CATION'WND/OR A ESS:° EAST SIDE OF OAKESDALE AVENUE AND APPROXIMATELY 150 FT NORTH OF SOUTH GRADY WAY. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CALL THE CITY OF RENTON , I • PLANNING DIVISION 235-2550 , . • THIS NOTICE NOT TO BE REMOVED ' WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION • `-f,, CERTIFICATION I , Marr6 Se,vP•Ia , HEREBY CERTIFY THAT 3 COPIES OF THE ABOVE DOCUMENT WERE POSTED BY ME IN 3 CONSPICUOUS . ,�4l'gk ove,Hom ft. NEARBY THE DESCRIBED PROPERTY ON 3- 2 8'-91 • • �T%. 11 ,sue .o NOTARY ptTTEtsr: Subsc ibed and sworn to before me, a ® PUBLIC :N Public in and for the State of Washin on • • 1D N,a, %✓,/ve ,,sb e p. ••1 i , on thec9'i SIGNED : l ati j le 4. Op WAs\eo°° ':171aen9fl0e- VVI 6F RFC INIC31- 1110E To O,9�T�o SEPT��O�. City of Renton Land Use Hearing Examiner G` will hold a in CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS , CITY HALL ON APRIL 9, 1991 BEGINNING AT. 9:00 A.M. P.M. CONCERNING: BLACKRIVER CORPORATE PARK PHASE VI . ECF;RVMP;SA;SM-143-90 • THE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A FOUR-STORY 71 ,057 SF OFFICE BUILDING WITH LANDSCAPING AND PARKING AREA ON A 1699314 SF SITE. _ / 11,b,.;,,, 4\... - ;.k )..,..-If....ititi)..k-z-1, ottt , I ,......),..... r-, . n ..\ , : -f Li. it, . i-i \ t :;.• : r,... . wadI OA tia. ,ii i i 1 ',Q1a v� ��..-.,;.......;, ,5� ! t1 �_il V. •. E 1st Itjri +► .: V. .0�'{�•J •,,,, re use �ice" .#10`�l •., i t' ••. ji 's ,, r1,t'Use f ,ott-tot'. 1. �r , 1710:' ' -• •• • -• i I 114•1, iTh 03 -).• O edi ;41!,111;.., f ,�. �Substatidn,r :ems J • i 0:4: s :,.AIM • ..! -=_i .� . rA,'t. ...,' a:.4;,��':.`. • oo c 10 �ia a'O lit. �j�f' 0 E:C=3d 9% Existing Office Use ' Y • ; t O • V3EVERAL :W EAST SIDE OF OAKESDALE AVENUE AND APPROXIMATELY 150 FT NORTH OF SOUTH GRADY WAY. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CALL THE CITY OP RENTON PLANNING DIVISION 235-2.550 5 THIS NOTICE NOT TO BE REMOVED WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION •11:tF y; -a t..• i .,{,,+ •^ "'c �. r. -:i ; Y,x� sf 'r 'y * ';ti- -� 1,�r Architecture and Planni t F , -� • , rt O LeasonPomeroy Northwest Inc.,Royce A.Berg,A.I.A., 1127 Pine-Street;;Suite 300 Seattle,:WA 98.101 (206j`583-8030, , March 11, 1991 Mr. Clinton E. Morgan 166t Z dW Traffic Engineering NOlN9a�flh110 City of Renton NOISIAi®9NINNVId 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 RE: Site Approval Plan Blackriver Corporate Park Phase VI ECF;RVMP;SA;SM-143-90 Dear Mr. Morgan: Per our meeting on 8 March 1991 on traffic mitigation versus L. I.D. fees, the following buildings were already developed along Oakesdale Avenue S.W. and as part of Tract B to accumulate totals for offsets against L. I.D. PHASE BLDG ADDRESS GROSS S.F. STATUS IV-A 800 Oakesdale Ave. S.W. 74,915 S.F. Complete IV-B 900 Oakesdale Ave. S.W. 74,915 S.F. Complete V 1000 Oakesdale Ave. S.W. 50,546 S.F. Complete VI Oakesdale Ave. S.W. 71,100 S.F. Pending site plan approval These buildings occur to the north of the proposed Phase VI buildings and south of the proposed Phase VII and VIII buildings in the separate E. I.S. submittal . III S.W. Naches 70,036 S.F. Complete with Naches Street completed and paid for by First City Jp:ctfu ly, kit" , e Pre.ident RA::mp cc: $lark Pywell , A. I.C.P. Mary Lynn Myer Dean Erickson James MacIsaac, P.E. Mark Miller via fax :c Architecture and Plannir onl • s. Leason Pomeroy Northwest;Inc.,Royce A.Berg,A.I.A., 1127 Pine Street,Suite 300 Seattle,WA 98101 (206)583-8030 March 11, 1991 Mr. Sam R. Chastain Director Parks and Recreation 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 RE: Blackriver Corporate Park Phase VI NW 86059 Site Approval ECF-143-90 SUBJ: Conditions Dear Sam: Per our meeting today to review Condition 5 of the Declaration of Non- Significance for the above referenced project, we reviewed the par course and paths already incorporated by First City in development of this project along Oakesdale Avenue and the long term planning of the Parks Department to tie walk and trail networks together. Mitigation for this current facility should include: 1. Shower and 1'ocker facilities within building 2. Outside seating areas and picnic tables 3. Horseshoe pit to relate to other buildings If possible, but not required, a voluntary contribution of funds to the city trail system. We appreciate your time and the background information you provided for the Re on valle trail and recreation program. Resp ctfull (.4Royce A Presi ent RAB:m cc: t1ark Pywell , A. I.C.P. Dean Erickson Paul Coppock via fax Architecture and Planninn Leason Pomeroy Northwest,Inc.,Royce A. Berg,A.I.A., 1127 Pine Street,Suite 300 Seattle,WA 98101 (206)583-8030 TRANSMITTAL To: Mark Pywell , A. I.C.P. Date: March 8, 1991 Senior Planner City of Renton Project Name: Bl ackri ver Ph VI 200 Mill Ave. S. PLANNING DIVISION Renton, WA 98055 Project No: NW OWPR RENTON Attn: AR 1 1 1991 Re: 1ECE V Description: 1 print glare diagram dated 2/13/91 1 copy Site Plan and Elevation revisions dated 2/13/91 • Remarks: ®Sent per your Request El For Approval El Other: ❑ For your Use/Reference ❑ For Distribution ❑ For Review and Comment ❑ For your Records These are preliminary sketches per your conversation with Royce Berg; will follow up with final , formal sketches. By: Paul R. Coppock 'CV cc: Trans only: Dean Erickson, Royce A. Berg • " CITI ' OF RENTON x mwrdt ••lL Hearing Examiner Earl Clymer, Mayor Fred J.Kaufman PLANNING DIVISION • CITY OF RENTON MAR - 7 1991 March 7, 1991 Royce A. Berg Leason Pomeroy Northwest, Inc. 1127 Pine Street, Suite 300 Seattle, WA 98101 Re: Appeal of DNS Mitigation Measure Condition One Blackriver Corporate Park, Phase VI, ECF-143-90 Appeal #AAD-029-91 Dear Mr. Berg: We have received and reviewed your appeal of the above matter and a date and time has now been scheduled. An appeal hearing will be legally advertised and set for Tuesday, April 9 , 1991 and will begin at 9 : 00 A.M. in the council chambers located on the second floor of the Renton Municipal Building. Due to time constraints, it is important that all parties, adhere to this time and date. if you are not able to attend, may we suggest that you appoint a representative to appear on your behalf. We appreciate your cooperation. Sincerely, FRED J. UFMAN HEARING EXAMINER FJK/dk cc: Lawrence Warren, City Attorney ilia k Pywell, Senior Planner Don Erickson, Zoning Administrator Kathleen Childers, Secretary 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 - (206) 235-2593 Architecture and Plonnin. I leason Pomeroy Northwest,Inc.,Royce A.Berg,A.I.A., 1127 Pine Street,Suite 300 Seattle,WA 98101 (206)583-8030 CITY OF RENTON TRANSMITTAL MAR - 1 1991 To: Hearing Examiner Date: February 28, 199F ECEIVED Office of City Hearing Examiner City of Renton Project Name: Blackriver Phase VI Project No: NW 86059 Attn: Re: Blackriver Corporate Park Phase VI Pending Site Approval ECF;RVMP;SA;SM-143-90 - Appeal of D.N.S. Mitigation Description: 1 letter of appeal by LPN Architects for First City Washington 1 copy City of Renton Review of Reconsideration dtd 14 Feb. 1991 1 copy LPN letter dtd 12 Feb. 1991 for reconsideration (w/attachments) 1 check in the amount of $75.00 for appeal fee Remarks: ❑Sent per your Request ❑ For Approval ❑ Other: )H For your Use/Reference ❑ For Distribution For Review and Comment ❑ For your Records By' oy . Berg cc Dean Erickson Mark Pywell , A.I.C.P. (trans only) Architecture and Planning Leason Pomeroy Northwest,Inc.,Royce A.Berg,A.I.A., 1127 Pine Street,Suite 300 Seattle,WA 98101 (206)583-8030 February 28, 1991 PLANNING DIVISION CITY OF RENTON Hearing Examiner Office of City Hearing Examiner MAR -- 1 1991 City of Renton 200 Mill Avenue South RECEIVED Renton, WA 98055 RE: Blackriver Corporate Park Phase VI NW 86059 ECF;RVMP;SA;SM-143-90 SUBJ: Appeal of E.R.C. Committee D.N.S. Mitigation Measure Condition One Dear Hearing Examiner: Per review of the mitigated Declaration of Non-Significange for this project, and our request for reconsideration, we need to appeal the Condition One, which is the mitigation fee for Transportation Benefit Zone for Grady Way. The appeal relates not to the fee amount, but to whether the fee credits or offsets costs already incurred by First City Washington in paying for the development of Oakesdale Avenue S.W. and S.W. 7th Street (per attached corr s ondence to City of Renton) . Res'pec fully if oyc *g Pres dent RAB:mp enclosures (including check for $75.00) cc: Mark R. Pywell , A. I.C.P. Don Erickson, Secretary, E.R.C. Dean Erickson, First City Washington �� - CITY OF RENTON x �(� Planning/Building/Public Works Department Earl Clymer, Mayor Lynn Guttman,Administrator February 14, 1991 Royce Berg,A.I.A. LPN Architecture&Planning 1127 Pine Street, Suite 300 Seattle,WA 98101 • SUBJECT: Blackriver Office Park Phase VI ECF; RVMP;SA; SM-143-90 Dear Mr. Berg: The Environmental Review Committee (ERC)first reviewed this project on January 16, 1991 to evaluate whether there were significant adverse environmental impacts from the project and to provide the necessary mitigation measures. Upon receipt of your comment letter the project was referred back to the ERC with your letter for their consideration. At the ERC meeting, it was determined that the concerns.listed in your comment letter had been adequately addressed by the Determination of Non-Significance- Mitigated issued on January 16, 1991. The fourteen day appeal period for the environmental determination will end at 5 p.m: on March 1, 1991. An appeal of the environmental determination would be filed with the office of the Hearing Examiner with a fee of$75.00. In response to your letter dated February 5, 1991,the following comments are provided: Item 1. At this time staff is unaware of any documentation indicating the requested credits should be applied to the TBZ fees. The Transportation Systems Division is investigating this and if any credits are due they will be listed in the report to the Hearing Examiner. Item 2. City staff usually uses a figure of 85%to 90%efficiency for determining the"gross floor area" of a building when determining the amount of parking required. In this case it is believed that the applicant using a figure of 90%to 95% is based upon the expected initial tenant which could change during the life of the building. It should also be noted that the figure of 15%for the parking reserve is the same figure used on other area office buildings. Item 3. Although the applicant has worked with the City Community Services Department in the past the ERC still feels it is necessary for the applicant to work with this Department to ensure the impacts of this phase of the development are mitigated. Condition 8. The reason for the requirement for specimen size trees in the landscaping plan was to mitigate the removal of three significant size trees through the development of this phase of the project. It should be noted that in this case, a specimen size tree would be a tree over 2" in diameter. • 900 Mill Avenue South - Renton. Washington 98055 Staff notes that there was a typo in the notes attached to the Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated. This will be corrected in the preliminary report to the Hearing Examiner. Sincerely, • Mark R. P , AICP Project Manager AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION 51067 Dawn Rieger ,being first duly sworn on oath states that he/she is the Chief Clerk of the f NOTICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE VALLEY DAILY NEWS RENTON, WASHINGTON The Environmental Review Committee • Kent Edition • Renton Edition • Auburn Edition (ERC) has issued a Determination of Non- Significance-Mitigated for the following pro- ject(s) under the authority of the Renton Daily newspapers published six (6) times a week. That said newspapers Municipal Code. The following Applicant(s) are legal newspapers and are now and have been for more than six have completed a mitigation process: BLACK months prior to the date of publication referred to, printed and published PHASE CORPORATE PARK in the English language continually as daily newspapers in Kent, King ECF;RVMP;SA;SM-143-90 County, Washington. The Valley Daily News has been approved as a legal The applicant proposes to construct newspaper order of the Superior Court of the State of Washington for a four-storyans a1 ing7 and office g area by P g with landscaping parking area King County. on a 169,314 s.f. site. The project site is located on the east side of Oakesdale Avenue and approxi- The notice in the exact form attached, was published in the Kent Edition mately 150 ft. north of South Grady XX , Renton Edition xx , Auburn Edition xx , (and not in Way supplement form) which was regularly distributed to its subscribers Further information regarding this action PP g Y is available in the Development Services during the below stated period. The annexed notice a Division, Third Floor, Municipal Building, Renton, Washington, 235-2550. This Deter- Public Notice (Environmental Determination) 5348 mination is FINAL. To appeal this Declara- tion, you must file your appeal document with the hearing examiner within fourteen published on Feb. 7.5, 1991 (14) days of the date the Declaration of was p Non-significance is final or the Declaration of Significance has been published in the official city newspaper. See City Code Sec- The full amount of the fee charged for said foregoing publication is the tion 4-6-23, RCW 43.21C.075 and WAC 59.94 197-11-680 for further details. There shall sum of$ /` be only one appeal of a Declaration of Non- Significance or Declaration of Significance, and if an appeal has already been filed, your appeal may be joined with the prior appeal for hearing or may be dismissed if the other appeal has already been heard. This appeal period which will end at 5:00 p.m. on March 1, 1991. Any appeal of this Subscribed and sworn before me this 8 day of March 19 91 decision may be made to the City's Hearing Examiner, Municipal Building, 200 Mill Ave- nue South, Renton, Washington 98055. An appeal must state clearly, in writing, why the Determination should be revised and �n //A ///� must be accompanied by a non-refundable \ �C-�c-e S� $75.00 filing fee. Published in the Valley Daily News on February 15, 1991. Acct. No. 51067. 5348 Notary Public for the State of Washingt l'- residing at act, Renton King County, Washington VDN#87 Revised 4/89 NOTICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE RENTON,WASHINGTON The Environmental Review Committee (ERC) has issued a Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated for the following project(s) under the authority of the Renton Municipal Code. The following Applicant(s) have completed a mitigation process: BLACKRIVER CORPORATE PARK PHASE VI ECF;RVMP;SA;SM-143-90 The applicant proposes to construct a four-story 71,057 sf office building with landscaping and parking area on a 169,314 sf site. The project site is located on the east side of Oakesdale Avenue and approximately 150 ft north of South Grady Way. Further information regarding this action is available in the Development Services Division, Third Floor, Municipal Building, Renton, Washington, 235-2550. This Determination is FINAL To appeal this Declaration,you must file your appeal document with the hearing examiner within fourteen (14)days of the date the Declaration of Non-significance is final or the Declaration of Significance has been published in the official city newspaper. See City Code Section 4-6-23, RCW 43.21 C.075 and WAC 197-11-680 for further details. There shall be only one appeal of a Declaration of Non-Significance or Declaration of Significance,, and if an appeal has already been filed, your appeal may be joined with the prior appeal for hearing or may be dismissed if the other appeal has already been heard. This appeal period which will end at 5:00 p.m. on March 1, 1991. Any appeal of this decision may be made to the City's Hearing Examiner, Municipal Building,200 Mill Avenue South, Renton, Washington 98055. An appeal must state clearly, in writing,why the Determination should be revised and must be accompanied by a non-refundable$75.00 filing fee. Publication Date: February 15, 1991 Account No.51067 pubnot • Yam. A N OT E ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION . APPLICATION NO. ECF;RVMP;SA;SM-143-90 PROPOSED ACTION• BLACKRIVER CORPORATE PARK PHASE VI FIRST CITY WASHINGTON, INC. • THE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A FOUR-STORY 71,057 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE BUILDING WITH LANDSCAPING AND PARKING AREA ON A 169,314 SQUARE FOOT SITE. GENERAL LOCATION AND OR ADDRESS • THE PROJECT SITE IS LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF OAKESDALE • AVENUE AND APPROXIMATELY 150 FEET NORTH OF S. GRADY WAY. POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION. THE CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW • COMMITTEE C E.R.C.) HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED ACTION • ❑DOES DOES NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT ❑WILL titWILL NOT • BE REQUIRED. • • THE CITY OF RENTON WILL NOT ACT ON THIS PROPOSAL. FOR 1S DAYS FROM THE DATE BELOW. COMMENTS MUST BE RECEIVED BY AN APPEAL OF THE ABOVE DETERMINATION MAY BE FILED . WITH THE RENTON HEARING EXAMINER BY 5:00 p.m, MARCH 1, 1991 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT THE CITY OF RENTON PLANNING DIVISION AT 235-2550. DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION ernpelr • CERTIFICATION I , Marl, S,ve,ia. , HEREBY CERTIFY THAT COPIES OF • THE ABOVE DOCUMENT WERE POSTED, BY ME IN 3 CONSPICUOUS P , e Ia9t4�1 OR .NEARBY THE DESCRIBED PROPERTY ON a- ) 5--5i . 4�� P0,11ET,j $ ir Jv NOT 1 '. JTO ARY T: Subscribed and sworn to before me, a • o N ENota$y Public in and for the State of Washi gton • PUBLIC .res 8i in evof ti /9 , on the ,SIGNED : ill�t . moo F.•. 9, A9°;•• . ,***Is a WAS#, N OT E ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION APPLICATION NO. ECF;RVMP;SA;SM-143-90 PROPOSED ACTION BLACKRIVER CORPORATE PARK PHASE VI FIRST CITY WASHINGTON, INC. THE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A FOUR-STORY 71 ,057 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE BUILDING WITH LANDSCAPING AND PARKING AREA ON A 169,314 SQUARE FOOT SITE. GENERAL LOCATION AND OR ADDRESS THE PROJECT SITE IS LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF OAKESDALE AVENUE AND APPROXIMATELY 150 FEET NORTH OF S. GRADY WAY. POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION. THE CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE C E.R.C. ] HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED ACTION ❑DOES DOES NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT ❑WILL tilWILL NOT BE REQUIRED. . THE CITY OF RENTON WILL. NOT ACT ON THIS PROPOSAL FOR 15 DAYS FROM THE DATE BELOW. COMMENTS MUST BE RECEIVED BY AN APPEAL OF THE ABOVE DETERMINATION MAY BE FILED WITH THE RENTON HEARING EXAMINER BY 5:00 P.M., MARCH 1 . 1991 • FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT THE CITY. OF RENTON PLANNING DIVISION AT 235-2550. . DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION envpstr f 1,- CITY OF RENTON MEMORANDUM DATE: February 13, 1991 TO: Environmental Review Committee FRO )i , le onald IC Erickson,AICP ir 'oning Administrator Staff Contact: Mark R. Pywell,AICP Project Manager ' SUBJECT: ECF; SM; RVMP; SA-143-90 Blackriver Corporate Park Phase VI The project referenced above was reviewed by the ERC on January 16, 1991. The applicant has requested the Environmental Review Committee to reconsider four of the mitigation measures that were placed on the • project. Condition #1. ERC has called for the applicant to pay$253,674.00 to the Grady Way TBZ. The applicant feels that the past fees should relieve them of having to pay the $253,674.00 assessed the project. The applicant has indicated that it was their understanding that the significant LI.D. assessments already being ' paid by First City for Oakesdale Ave. and Oakesdale utilities would be treated or credited as offsets against future impact assessments. The Transportation Systems Division states that they are unaware of any past agreement(s)that would allow the reduction of the current TBZ fees. Condition #2. The applicant is required to place 15%of the parking into a parking reserve. If, after a two year pilot period after the effective date of implementation of the reserve parking area, the applicant can demonstrate that the reserved parking area is necessary to serve employees,than the applicant may apply to the Administrator of the Planning/Building/Public Works Department to obtain a release of sections or all of the reserved parking area. The applicant feels that the building will have 93 to 94% efficiency and therefore, is already under parked. Staff usually uses an 85 to 90% efficiency rating to determine parking. The parking reserve placed on this building is the same as is usually applied to an office building in the City of Renton. Staff also does not believe that the.85% to 90% efficiency reflects the design of the building as much as the proposed initial tenancy which will likely change over time. Condition #5. The applicant is required to discuss the proposed development with the Community Services Department to determine the impacts on recreational facilities. The applicant indicates that they , have participated in off-site recreational facilities and will provide on-site recreational facilities (e.g. horseshoe pits, picnic tables). They do not feel that they need to provide any further consultation or facilities. Condition #8. The applicant is required to provide additional landscaping in the reserved parking area. Although landscaping is a site plan review item, staff felt' t to mitigate off-site aesthetic impacts further landscaping is necessary. The applicant needs to provide a wildlife habitat area equal to 2%of the project site in accordance with the Landscaping Ordinance. Staff also recommended that six specimen sized trees be provided between the building and Oakesdale Ave. The idea behind this recommendation was that the specimen sized trees would be replacing the significant trees to be removed for the construction of the building and associated parking area. The applicant feels that since they paid a cash sum to upgrade the street trees that they should not have to use specimen size trees on-site. Staff feels that the recommendations to the ERC were reasonable for the proposed project and commensurate with conditions imposed on similar projects in this immediate area. Staff does not recommend that the ERC modify the conditions at this time. 1�1 I • it �� �n� r»:nm�::nt::.I.::�:::.vi •:w: ���:mm tt e February 13, 1991 To: . Lynn Guttmann, Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator John Webley, Community Services Administrator Lee Wheeler, Fire Chief From: 4,11.- Don Erickson, Secretary :::.lv:...tiari::>:: ::::: ::::::::<:<::::: :::Hir ::FIo...r:::....nference::R o .. ................................................................. .... Agenda attached below. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE AGENDA February 13, 1991 ' Third Floor Conference Room Commencing at 10:00 AM • TIME/KEY PARTICIPANTS NEW • CHEVRON USA, INC. CU;ECF-096-90 • Applicant,seeks to redevelop an existing service station on a 24,295. sf lot. Construction includes an 11,000 sf bldg, four fuel dispensers, and three new 12,000 gallon fuel tanks. The project is located at 301 South Grady Way. • RECONSIDERATION HIGHLANDS CHURCH CU;R-048-90 • The applicant seeks to rezone the easterly portion of the project site from R-1 (single-family residential) to P-1 (Public Zone) and to construct a two-story 12,000 sf addition to the existing church in order to provide additional classroom area. The project is located at 3031 NE 10th Street. • • BLACK RIVER, PHASE VI E C F;RV M P;SA;S M-143-90 The applicant proposes to construct a four-story 71,057 sf office building with landscaping and parking on a 169,314 sf site. The project site is located on the east side of Oaksdale Avenue and approximately 150 feet north of South Grady Way. cc: J. Covington, Executive Assistant to the Mayor L. Warren, City Attorney F. Kaufman, Hearing Examiner G. Gotti, Fire Marshal J. Hanson, Development Services t• .. CITE OF RENTON "LL Planning/Building/Public Works Department Earl Clymer, Mayor Lynn Guttman,Administrator February 13, 1991 V • • Royce A. Berg V LPN Architects&Planners, Inc. 1127 Pine St, Suite 300 Seattle,WA 98101 SUBJECT: Blackriver Corporate Park Phase VI • ECF;RVMP;SA;SM-143-90 Dear Mr. Berg: . This letter is to inform you that the comment period has ended for the Determination of Non-Significance- Mitigated for the above-referenced project. ' Comments were received. The issues raised by the respondents have been noted and will be considered by Staff in their reports. The Committee's determination is final and may be appealed to the CitY's Hearing Examiner no later than 5:00 p.m. on March 1, 1991. To appeal this Declaration, ybu must file your appeal document with the hearing examiner within fourteen (14) days of the.date the Declaration of Non- Significance is final or the Declaration of Significance has been published in the official city newspaper. ' See City Code Section 4-6-23, RCW 43.21 C.075 and WAC 197-11-680 for further details. There shall be only one appeal of a Declaration of Non-Significance or Declaration of Significance, and if an appeal has already been filed, your appeal may be joined with the prior appeal for hearing or may be dismissed if the . other appeal has already been heard. Any appeal must state clearly why the determination should be revised and must be accompanied by a non-refundable$75.00 filing fee. If you have questions or desire clarification of the above, please call Mark Pywell at 235-2550. Fo Environmental R omm' e, Donald K. Erickson,AICP Secretary cc: Dean Erickson First City Washington, Inc. • 700 Fifth Ave, Suite 6000 Seattle,WA 98104 • strtapel/DKE/kac 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 eic% - CIT' OF RENTON Planning/Building/Public Works Department Earl Clymer, Mayor Lynn Guttman,Administrator February 13, 1991 • Don Bales State Department of Ecology Shorelands Baron Hall, M/S PV-11 Olympia,WA 98504 SUBJECT: Blackriver Corporate Park Phase VI ECF; SM; RVMP; SA-143-90 Dear Mr. Bales: Enclosed please find a copy of the Blackriver Corporate Park Phase VI site plan. Although this project site is located within 200 feet of the P-1 Channel (Springbrook Creek), it is separated from the channel by Oakesdale Ave. The City Public Works Section is currently working with the applicant to determine what storm water can be allowed to be diverted into the P-1 Channel and the type of treatment (e.g. bio-swales, wet pond) necessary to ensure water quality. If you have any further questions concerning this project, please contact me at 277-6167. Sincerely; • Mark R. Pywe , ICP Project Manager Balesltr 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 Architecture'and Planning Leason Pomeroy Northwest,Inc., Royce A.Berg,A.I.A., 1127 Pine Street,Suite 300 Seattle,WA 98101 (206)583-8030 February 12, 1991 PLANNING DIVISION CITY OF RENTON Mr. Mark Pywell , A.I.C.P. Senior Planner FEB 1 ., City of Renton � '=� 200 Mill Avenue South RECEWED Renton, WA 98055 RE: Blackriver Corporate Park, Phase VI ECF;RVMP;SA;SM-143-90 NW 86059 Dear Mark: My understanding of the improvements and studies utilized for Resolution 2827 Traffic Mitigation Plan for Grady Way Transportation Benefit Zone is that off- sets are allowed for up-front funding of road improvements against future impact fee assessments. Reference page 1 and page 32 of the Grady Way Corri- dor Transportation Improvement Study dated 5 July 1988 and page 2 of Resolu- tion 2827 ". . .apply mitigation fee in equitable manner. . . ." First City dedicated the land for the Oakesdale Avenue S.W. and S.W. 7th Street extension into the existing Oakesdale. First City is also the majority participant in the cost of this L.I.D. , which is now improved with five lanes and signals as traffic mitigation in order to develop this property. Develop- ment and trip generation for First City parcels will also be substantially less than referenced in the transportation studies due to restraints on devel - opment, and we feel should not be doubly assessed until previously paid fees and land costs are offset. In conjunction with the above, the city is asking for parking reserve, which in turn reduces parking and trip generation which should reduce the quantities of mitigation fees offset to the L.I.D. and land costs. First City also dedicated the land to create the 17 acre P-1 detention pond as it now exists to solve off-site drainage problems and to be able to drain into without retention for these parcels. We request Traffic Engineering review the above, given the substantial fees already paid by First City. Re.pe; tful l 'oy- e A. :erg Pr:sident mp cc: Dean Erickson Clint Morgan, Traffic Engineering, City of Renton Enclosures GRADY WAY CORRIDOR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT STUDY REVISED DRAFT REPORT Prepared for: First City Equities Company in cooperation with City of Renton July 5, 1988 Prepared by: D ���� The TRANSPO Group, Inc. K) 14715 Bel-Red Road, Suite 100 Bellevue, WA 98007 FEB 5 1991 LPN Architects&Planners • TG: 87206.00 I. INTRODUCTION This report documents the results of an analysis of arterial street needs and financing arrangements for an area designated as the Grady Way Corridor in �. Renton. The study was conducted for First City Equities, a major developer in the area, at the request of the City of Renton. The Grady Way Corridor is situated in Southwest Renton, an area that has been subject to accelerated development pressures during the last several years. Existing development in the area includes office buildings, light industry, warehousing, wholesaling, commercial , retail , and municipal util- ities. New growth has required a substantial commitment to expand the infra- structure in the area, especially the highway and arterial street capacity. It is anticipated that new development, consisting primarily of office build- ings, will continue at a rapid pace with the area expected to reach a build out condition before the year 2000. In response to these pressures the City of Renton has made an initial assessment of road improvement needs in Southwest Renton and prepared a tenta- tive program of projects. These include a major new cross-town arterial (0akesdale Avenue), and extensions and widenings, including intersection reconstruction, on other arterials in the area. In order to fund these major projects the City has resorted to two financing mechanisms: • Use of the Local Improvement District financing mechanism as a means of obtaining the "up-front" funding required to proceed with major projects in a timely manner. While this may appear to be an exac- tion, it has been done with the understanding that the LID assess- ments would be treated as offsets against future impact fee assessments. /I/ 9 P • The imposition of development impact fees based on trip generation, and the use of the funds to assist in financing an agreed upon pro- gram of road improvements. To cope with the need for additional arterial system capacity in the area, the City has proceeded with an aggressive construction program using both conventional public (highway user) financing and private developer funding. The widening of Grady Way west of Rainier Avenue was accomplished using conventional public funding sources; whereas, the construction of a major segment of 0akesdale was financed by property owners using an LID. Thus, the City has had experience over the last several years with a road financing strategy involving a significant participation by the private sector and with this experience, is moving toward the formulation of a comprehensive public/ private road improvement financing program for the City of Renton. -1- Exactions and Deck ons - Authority is provided fc ledications of land under the sub-division statute. Although not technically a source of revenue, dedication of land for streets and related uses may free up revenue for other uses. Local government may require such dedications only where they are located within the proposed development and are reasonably necessary as a direct result of the development. Right-of-way dedications for off-site improvements such as for the Oakesdale arterial may be viewed as advance payment of future impact fee assessments that might be imposed on the devel- oper. In effect, contributions of land for streets and arterials are a useful funding source only in combination with other revenue funding sources. Impact Fees - The principle basis for the assessment of impact fees against proposed development is the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). More recently, house bill HB396 adopted by the 1987 Legislature provides specific authority for transportation benefit districts to impose impact fees. At present, the City of Renton imposes a schedule of impact fees on new development City-wide. The fee is set at $188 per daily trip generated. Trip generation rates for new development are based on estimated driveway traffic counts by land use types, of which three categories are identified: industrial/ warehouse, office and commercial/retail . The amount of the current fee is considered to be provisional and subject to revision based on the findings of further detailed study. Assessments (Local Improvement Districts) - Through the formation of a Local Improvement District (LID), bonds can be sold, capital improvements financed and constructed, and cost assessed to individual parcels of land within the district. Although LIDs are a public mechanism, their use in effect represents a collective private funding source. LID financing can be used in combination with public funds to finance a project. LID financing is attractive because it assures full project funding thus permitting implemen- tation of capital improvements in a timely manner. Most of the recent arterial improvements in Southwest Renton, including the segment of Oakesdale Avenue between Grady Way and Monster Road, have been financed and constructed as LID projects with their cost assessed against abutting property owners. -32- CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON ECo(D D RESOLUTION NO. 2827 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING A TRAFFIC MITIGATION PLAN FOR THE GRADY WAY TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT ZONE AS A CITY POLICY UNDER THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT. WHEREAS, the City of Renton has undertaken a study of traffic conditions known as the Grady Way Benefit Area Assessment Study; and WHEREAS, the area within the Grady Way Transportation Benefit Zone has experienced rapid growth which generates substantial additional traffic; and WHEREAS, the transportation system is inadequate to support the present development and the projected business development within the Grady Way Traffic Benefit Zone. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DO RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS : SECTION I . The above recitals are found to be true and correct in all respects . SECTION II . The Grady Way Transportation Benefit Zone is hereby created with its boundaries as follows : The Burlington Northern Railway main line on the west, Burlington Northern east side branch on the north, and I-405 on the east and south. SECTION III. The Grady Way Transportation Benefit Area II Assessment Study is hereby adopted by the City of Renton as a factual document and the traffic mitigation charges included therein are hereby adopted by the City of Renton as policy under the State Environmental Policy Act. 1 RESOLUTION NO. 2827 SECTION IV. The administrative staff is authorized and directed to apply the mitigation fee in an equitable manner, to negotiate fees under this policy in a manner that utilizes sound engineering and legal principles, and to coordinate and cooperate with developers and property owners to utilize sound planning and engineering practices which reduces daily trips and thereby reduces the need for transportation mitigation. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this 3rd day of December 1990. • Marilyn .1P l/ptersen, City Clerk APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this 3rd day of Dscamber , 1990. E r lyme , ayor • Approve 's to form: Lawrence J. War n, City Attorney RES.84-03/27/90-as. -2- /r • • December 12, 1988 .4 • GRADY WAY TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DISTRICT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY REPORT FOR THE TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE OF THE RENTON CITY COUNCIL Prepared by: city of Renton Traffic Engineering Staff Gary Norris, PE, Traffic Engineer John Adamson, Program Development -Coordinator Mark Jacobs, Asst Traffic Planning Engineer ra7tj • LPN Architects&Planners vii t Lr ✓`Y produce. The cost per generated trip was determined to be $185, $152, $72, and $40 for industrial, office, retail- }, compare, and retail-convenience, respectively, which represents a fair share breakdown of roadway improvement costs. RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION We recommend that the City Council accept staff recommendations as follows: 1. Adopt the Consultants report "GRADY WAY CORRIDOR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT STUDY"' prepared by the TRANSPO Group. 2. Adopt road improvement needs schedule as recommended by staff. 3. Adopt funding method #2 and associated fee schedule as recommended by staff. 4 e PLANNING DIVISION 4,t,TATe0, CF1Y OF RENTON JOSEPH R. BLUM • FEB 1 1 1991 Director 4.`t 1889 aoy STATE OF WASHINGTON e�cFEED DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES 115 General Administration Building, M.S. AX-11 • Olympia, Washington 98504 • (206) 753-6600 • (SCAN) 234-6600 February 8, 1991 Environmental Review Committee ATTENTION: Don Erickson Development Planning Section • Department of Planning/Building/Public Works 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, Washington 98055 SUBJECT: Determination of Non-Significance (Mitigated ) - ECF-143-90 Blackriver Corporate Park Phase VI - Green River Drainage,. King County, WRIA 09 . 0001 Dear Mr . Erickson: The Washington Department of Fisheries has received the above- referenced proposal and has the following comments . One of the major impacts to streams in urbanizing areas is stormwater run-off . In order to protect water quality and fish habitat, peak flows in excess of the natural flows have to be detained and biofiltration provided . Our stormwater management guidelines for the purpose of protecting fisheries habitat and aquatic life are attached. We strongly recommend that the final drainage plan for the proposed development conform to the guidelines . An Hydraulic Project Approval may be required for _ this project. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact me at (206) 392-7190 . Sincerely, Av.e_ KteAralar-p__, Gayle Kreitman Regional Habitat Manager Habitat Management Division gk cc: WDF - Olympia 3 • sinr <"ipnm f o.. : p y • IOSEPH R. BLUM Ti • Director ?yd IP14y buy STATE OF WASHINGTON • DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES 115 General Administration Building • Olympia, Washington 98504 • (206) 753-6600- • (SCAN) 234-6600 DRAFT STORMWATER GUIDELINES November 1, 1990 APPLICATION OF GUIDELINES • Run-off from a - project with more than 5,000 square feet of impervious surface should meet the following guidelines for water quantity and water quality. Depending on proximity of downstream fish and shellfish resources, water quantity guidelines may not apply to all projects. Water quality guidelines will apply to all projects. ' WATER QUANTITY Increased run-off from development should be retained and infiltrated to preserve base stream flows, and/or detained and released in a manner to 'preserve the receiving .stream channels dominant discharge (Bates, 1983) . Pre- and post-development run- off rates should be analyzed using a continuous simulation model such as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) HSPF computer program (HSPF, 1988) . If such a watershed model is not available, a rainfall event simulation model may be used. If using a rainfall event model, runoff should be computed using a Soil Conservation Service (SCS) based hydrograph method, and the rainfall •event should be . a Type 1A distribution with a 24-hour duration (USDA, 1986) . For SCS hydrologic soil groups Type A and B (USDA, 1986) use of infiltration basins should be considered. Site investigation and design criteria are essential for successful performance of infiltration basins (Ecology 1990; King County 1990) . Infiltration could significantly reduce the volume required for detention. Detention basin performance (Figure 1) , shall be such that discharge from the developed area meets the following criteria: 1 . Fifty percent of the pre-development two-year peak release rate for the two-year developed design storm. The release rate of 50 percent of the two-year pre-development peak accounts for_the extended duration of release that occurs ' • as a result of the increase in run-off volume from the developed state (Powers, 1989) . - 2. The pre-development 25-year pear release rate for the 25-year , developed design storm. 1 • If a continuous simulation model is used, flow duration (instead of peak flow criteria) should be used to design detention ponds at the two-and 25-year floods. Q25 Pre-Development Peak I Outflow Q2 50% Q2 • • Post-Development 2 25 Design Storm Frequency (yrs) Figure 1 - Detention Basin Performance WATER QUALITY Pollutants in stormwater run-off should be treated using best management practices. Treatment of stormwater run-off with a wet detention pond (Kulzer, 1989) and biofiltration channel . (Horner,) 1988) will provide acceptable water quality control. Where possible, biolfiltration channels of any length should be used for ' pretreatment of stormwater runoff. Sedimentation and erosion I control practices should be included in the design to prevent water; ; quality features from becoming silted in. Also, regular " maintenance is required to ensure pollutant removal effectiveness. ; The following are acceptable design standards for wet ponds and ibiofiltration channels. 2 1� Wet Ponds - A pool of water retained in a pond by placing the outlet above the pond bottom. 1. Permanent pond surface area should equal two percent of the catchment area for residential, and three percent for commercial. Pond volume should be equal to the volume generated • from two-thirds of the two year, 24-hour storm. 2 . The permanent pond water depth should be three to six feet, plus one foot of dead storage for sediment. 3 . Ponds shall have a minimum of two cells. 4. Residence time shall be enhanced by configuring the pond to have a length to width ratio greater than 3 :1. A 5: 1 configuration (or other method of lengthening flow path such as use of baffles) is preferred. 5. If the wet pond is also used as a detention pond, the permanent wet pond volume should not be part of . the detention volume required. Biofilters - A filter strip or swale used to treat. stormwater run- off by interaction with vegetation and soil surfaces. 1 . Avoid gravelly and coarse sandy soils in order to maximize water contact with vegetation and soil surface. 2. The biofilter width should be designed based on a two-year 24- hour peak flow, and the following; a. Velocities should be less than 1.5 fps.. b. The flow depth should be less than four inches. c. Longitudinal slope should average two to four percent. Rock or log check dams or terraces should be installed as necessary to achieve slopes less than four percent. . 3 . Biofilters should be locatedto.,obtain maximum length. If less than 200 feet, the width should be increased by an amount proportional to the reduction below 200 feet, in order to obtain the same area of vegetation contact. 4 . Side slopes should be no steeper than three horizontal:one vertical. 3 f • References Department of Ecology. 1990. Stormwater management manual for the Puget Sound basin. Washington State Department of Ecology. Technical Review Draft. Bates, K. 1983 . Draft guidelines for policy development. Stormwater management in urban areas. Washington Department .of Fisheries. Habitat Management Division. Unpublished. Horner, Richard R. 1988 . Biofiltration systems for storm run-off water quality control. Prepared for Washington State Department , of Ecology and others. King County surface water design manual . January 1990 . King, County Department of Public Works. Kulzer, Louise. 1989 . Considerations for the use of wet ponds for water quality enhancement. Office of Water . Quality. Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle. Powers, P.D. 1989. Stormwater detention performance based on dominant discharge. Draft. Washington , State Department of Fisheries. Habitat Management Division.. Unpublished. United States Department of- Agriculture. 1986. Urban hydrology for small watersheds. Soil Conservation Service. Engineering Division. Technical Release 55. I " U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1988. Hydrologic simulation program - FORTRAN (HSPF) . .USEPA: •• Environmental Research Laboratory. Athens, Georgia. i I 4 J�METRO Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle Exchange Building • 821 Second Ave. • Seattle,WA 98104-1598 February 5, 1991 PLANNING DIVISION CITY OF RENTON Environmental Review Committee FEB 0 7 1991 c/o Don Erickson, Secretary Development Planning SectionVE Department of Planning/Building/Public Works 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA. 98055 Determination of Nonsignificance File No. : ECF-143-90 Blackriver Corporate Park Phase VI Dear Environmental Review Committee: Metro staff has reviewed this proposal and anticipates no significant impacts to water quality or to Metro's wastewater facilities. However, we have the following comments regarding public transportation services. Public Transportation Services Metro staff endorses the Transportation Management Plan requirements referenced in the conditions and will assist the proponent in insuring that an appropriate plan is implemented. Primary transit access to the project site during the next three years will continue to be along South Grady Way. Metro intends to work with Boeing and the City of Renton to provide transit service improvements to serve nearby Longacres Park which is tentatively planned to open in 1993- 94. The Blackriver Corporate Park should benefit from these service improvements. Consideration of transit service on Oakesdale north of Southwest Grady Way will depend on completion of Oakesdale Avenue to SR-900 (Martin Luther King Jr. Way) at a standard that could accommodate transit buses, and installation of a new traffic signal at the Oakesdale /SR-900 intersection. Any future new service will be subject to Metro's budget constraints, a public review process, and approval by the Metro Council. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment. Sincerely, pp-- Gregory M. Bush, Manager Environmental Compliance Division GMB:p1g5996 ♦ �C'2'.:9TA4 Off, Art '1'1889 aDY STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY PLANNING DIVISION OITY OF RE NTON Mail Stop PV-11 • Olympia, Washington 98504-8711 • (206) 459-6000 February 4, 1991 FEB 0 61991 Environmental Review Committee tl`li=k0=0 V D c/o Don Erickson, Secretary City of Renton Development Planning Section Renton, WA 98055 Re: Blackriver Corporate Park Phase VI, File # ECF-143-90 Dear Mr. Erickson: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the determination of nonsignificance. We reviewed the environmental checklist and have the following comments. 1. Dredge spoils at the site presently exceed Method A Cleanup Standards under the Model Toxics Control Act, Chapter 173-340 WAC. As these standards are health based, there could be potential threat to the potential users of the proposed .development. This would need to be determined by calculating risk assessment based standards using the Method B Calculations found in WAC 173-340-740. Prior to development, soils found to exceed Method B Standards would require remediation and/or institutional controls to mitigate potential hazards to human health. 2. The proposed project appears to be located within Shoreline Management Act jurisdiction because it lies within 200 feet of the ordinary high water mark of the Black River or the P-I channel and possibly a marsh, bog, and or swamp in the 100-year floodplain. As such, the proposal should be evaluated for compliance with the Shoreline Management Act and the City of Renton Shoreline Master Program. 3 . Without an adequate site plan it is impossible to fully evaluate the project and determine whether it is consistent with the Shoreline Management Act and local shoreline master program. We recommend that additional information be provided for public review and comment prior to issuing any permits or approvals for this project. 4. The project site plan included in the shoreline permit application must meet the requirements of WAC 173-14-110. 5. SEPA requires the proponentof an application to consider the impacts of the proposed project on public services, including solid waste. The applicant should refer to the County Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan to ensure that the intent of this plan with regard to waste management and recycling is met. Beyond this, the office of Waste P Don Erickson February 4, 1991 Page 2 Reduction, Recycling and Litter Control requests the applicant to consider the following: 6. The buildings should be designed to accommodate recycling. Opportunities for recycling aluminum, glass, newspaper, corrugated containers, shrink wrap and other plastics, computer paper, and high and low grade office paper should be made as convenient as throwing them out. Space should be provided to accommodate the storage of recyclable materials both inside the building and at a centralized location outside the building for collection. The developer may wish to include space in the design of the building to locate a small baler to handle large volumes of recyclables. 7. During the construction/landscaping phase of the building, we encourage the builder to use compost and products made from recycled materials wherever possible. Compost can be used as a soil amendment in landscaping and as a mulch over newly planted beds as well as in erosion control. Uses of products containing recycled materials include parking lot bumper stops, park and picnic benches, landscape timbers and sign posts made from recycled plastic, rubberized asphalt made with recycled tires, glassphalt made with ground glass, insulation and other building materials, etc. If you have any questions regarding the first comment, please call Gail Colburn of Hazardous Waste Cleanup at 867-7058. If you have any questions regarding comments 2 through 4, please call Don Bales of the Shorelands Program at 459-6762 . If you have any questions regarding comments 5 through 7, please call Peter Christiansen of our Northwest Regional Office at 867-7048. Sincerely, Brenden McFarl nd Environmental Review Section BMF: 91-424 cc: Don Bales Linda Rankin Gail Colburn Peter Christiansen Janet Thompson-Lee AlIlk Duane Berentson Washington State Secretary of Transportation T Department of Transportation District 1 15325 S.E.30th Place Bellevue,Washington 98007-6568 (206)562-4000 January 23 , 1991 Don Erickson, Chief, Current Planning PLANNINGbIVISION Planning Division CfTYOFRENTON Public Works Department 200 Mill Avenue South JAN 2 5 1991 Renton, WA 98055 SR 405 MP 1.7 CS 174300 Mitigated Determination, , • of Non-Significance for Blackriver Corp. Pk. VJI File ' No. ECF-143-90 Dear Mr. Erickson: This letter is in response to the Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance (MDNS) and environmental checklist that we • received from the City of Renton on January 23, 1990. The proposed development, located on the east side of Oaksdale Ave. SW, approximately 150 feet north of SW Grady Way, is for the construction of a 4-story 71, 507 sq. ft. office building with landscaping and , parking. .:on::a - 169 , 314 sq. ft. site. . : The Department of Transportation has reviewed the MDNS and environmental checklist, a d wvv,,. concur with the mitigation measures that the City of R6-rrton is imposing upon the project. We have no additional comments or recommendations - concerning this project. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposal. Should you have any questions, feel free to contact Don hurter (562-4274) or Robert Eichelsdoerfer (562-4297) of my Developer Services section. Sincerely, ES L. LUTZ, P. E. • tilities/Developer Services Engineer RTE:rte • cc: WSDOT Local- Programs Division, MS 121 `raf._ CITY OF RENTON Department of Ph,,_,,ng/Building/Public Works Earl Clymer, Mayor Lynn Guttmann, Administrator January 18, 1991 Royce A. Berg LPN Architects&Planners, Inc. 1127 Pine St, Suite 300 • Seattle,WA 98101 SUBJECT: Blackriver Corporate Park Phase VI ECF;RVMP;SA;SM-143-90 Dear Mr. Berg: This letter is written on behalf of the Environmental Review Committee and is to inform you that they.have completed their review of the environmental impacts of the above-referenced project. The Committee, on January 16, 1991,decided that your project may be issued a threshold Determination of Non-Significance- Mitigated with the following conditions: See enclosed Mitigation Measures document. Because the Environmental Review Committee imposed specific mitigation measures rather than issue a Determination of Significance, there is a required 15 day comment period during which comments are solicited from various agencies, jurisdictions or individuals (including the applicant) who may have an interest in the Committee's decision. The comment period will end February 5, 1991. Following the end of the comment period, the City will finalize its Determination unless comments received require a reevaluation. Following the finalization of the Determination,there is a required 14 day appeal period. WAC 197-11-660 states that the responsibility for implementation measures may be imposed upon an applicant only to the extent attributable to the identified adverse impacts of the imposed action. Since an environmental impact statement has not been prepared for this project,any mitigation measure established by the ERC not directly attributable to an identified adverse impact is deemed to be voluntarily accepted by the applicant. Staff urges you to contact the various City representatives,as appropriate, (e.g.,the Public Works Division) as soon as possible,to obtain more information concerning specific mitigation elements recommended for this project, if you have specific questions. This information will assist you in planning for implementation of your project and will enable you to exercise your appeal rights more fully, if you choose to do so. In addition, by the end of the comment period, we should be able to establish a tentative public hearing date before the Hearing Examiner,should a public hearing be necessary. If you have any questions or desire clarification of the above, please call Mark Pywell or me at 235-2550. Environmental evi mmittee, Donal. ' Erickson,AICP Secretary cc: Dean Erickson First City Washington, Inc. 700 Fifth Ave, Suite 6000 Seattle,WA 98104 eredecsn/DKE/lae 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 • - : .CIT,.,•.'' OF' .:2_.E; T.Q..R:iiicii: .. ::i:s: :::::is •::.•.:::•:. :.:•.:;•::::••••••�••••••••••••::—...::..... .: ..•......•:.:�:.......:::::.:..::::: N.TON::.:: :::.:;•>:::.;:•:: ......•: :•: :.........:... .... • • ...:: • ::::CURRENT :1-;I;•:;:::::S.Ia: i:`:::: : :: t :>: : :: : : ::`: : ::: ::�:: > : » . :::P.LANNING:.:.D . . F.IDAVIfi::.O. . .S. On 'the 1843 day of I , 19 41 , I deposited in the mails of ‘-ittZUlaited States-` e. led envelope containing �Gr'1(IM1t d'hS � JA 1 documents . This information was .sent to: . Name Representing • 7Z$efit or ge.Aill . . . Mr. Paul Reitenbach, Chief, Con munity Planning — Mr. Gregory M. Bush, Metro Department of Wildlife — Department of Fisheries Mr.James Lutz, Department of Transportation — Mr.Jay Laughlin, City of Seattle Duwamish Tribal Office - Muckleshoot Tribal Office D:L Lensegrav, Puget Power • (Signature of Sender) Stiv4f k• 19b�c �,b• � N to G i, to me this �� day of arARY v e, i )b .' —___, ;77 �/ E N • *.� • :, .4% ueuo Nota •Publi n and for the '����`�•.1, �s�a•:02:a Sta ''of Washington residing• g 0 0. up WASHIvg,i at ?/It-Fi�c� • 4•,o,tilI nsOss • therein. . :.i.:.r;O.'.ec:t.::Name :::Steiik1 't.:(i `::; .: :: >: ::>:::i >:;i::: : ...rO .:e ct...Numb:e r..T:: 'r :: . 19! .:.:..:....::...:is fl ::............. c011k CITE, ,OF RENTON Department of Planning/Building/Public Works Earl Clymer, Mayor Lynn Guttmann, Administrator January 18, 1991 Washington State Department of Ecology Environmental Review Section Mail Stop PV-11 Olympia,WA 98504 SUBJECT: Environmental Determinations Transmitted herewith are copies of Environmental Determinations and Environmental Checklists for those projects reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee on January 16, 1991: DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED BLACKRIVER CORPORATE PARK PHASE VI ECF;RVM P;SA;S M-143-90 The applicant proposes to construct a four-story 71,057 square foot office building with landscaping and parking area on a 169,314 square foot site. The project site is located on the east side of Oakesdale Avenue and approximately 150 feet north of S. Grady Way. The 15 day comment period for these projects will end on February 5, 1991. Following the end of the comment period, the City will finalize its Determination unless comments received require a reevaluation. Following the finalization of the Determination,there is a required 14 day appeal period... If you have questions, please call Mark Pywell or me at 235-2550. For the Environmental Review Committee, • Donald K. Erickson,AICP Secretary cc: , Mr. Paul Reitenbach,Chief, Community Planning Mr. Gregory M. Bush, Metro • Department of Wildlife Department of Fisheries Mr.James Lutz, Department of Transportation Mr.Jay Laughlin,City of Seattle Duwamish Tribal Office Muckleshoot Tribal Office D.L Lensegrav, Puget Power • agncyttr/DFZ/kae 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 CITI OF RENTO JAN 291991 CITY CLERK'S OFFICE 51067 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION 3Lf 91 Kathleen Hoover ,being first duly sworn on oath states that he/she is the Chief Clerk•of the • VALLEY DAILY NEWS • Kent Edition • Renton Edition • Auburn Edition NOITICE ENVIRONMENTAL:4 its- • DE111E�RMINATi o L Daily newspapers published six (6) times a week. That said newspapers ENVIRONMENITALrRErrW CQMMIr 1TTEE are legal newspapers and are now and have been for more than six RENTON, WASHING ONF months prior to the date ofpublication referred to, printed andpublished The Environmentalseda Review on of Committee(ERC) has issued Determination of Non- in the English language continually as daily newspapers. in Kent, King Significance-Mitigated for the following pro- County, Washington. The Valley Daily News has been approved as a legal ject(s) under the authority of the Renton Municipal Code. newspaper by order of the Superior Court of the State of Washington for • BLACKRIVER CORPORATE PARK PHASE King County. Vi - • E CF;R V M P;SA;S M-143-90 The applicant proposes to construct a four- The notice in the exact form attached, was published in the Kent Edition ; story 71,057 sf office building with landscap- X X , Renton Edition XX" , Auburn Edition XX , (and not in ing and jithking,area on a 169,314 sf site. supplement form) which was regularly distributed to its subscribers The project site is located on the xim tely Pp g y Publ.ic Notice of Oakesdale Avenue and approximately during the below stated period. The annexed notice a 150 ft north,of South Grady Way., This decision will be finalized in fifteen (E n.v r i o n m e n.t a l Determination) • . 52,26 (15)days. Written comments received after 5:00 p.m., February 5,-1991 will not be considered.A fourteen(14)day appeal,peri- Janu•a,ry. 21, .1991..• od will commence following the finalization was published on of DNS-M. The mitigation measures imposed by the City of Renton's Environ- mental Review Committee are available at The full amount of the fee charged. for said foregoing publication is the . . the Development Services Division, Third Floor,Municipal Building,Renton,Washing- sum of$ 14 .A 7 ton 98055. Phone: 235-2550. Published in the Valley Daily News Jan a nary 21199.105226 Acct. #51067 `mx .' tithe,g) (k4f215/1}- _ Subscribed and sworn before me this ,2 5th. • day of J.an 19 .91. Notary Public for the State of Washington residing at King County, Washington - VDN#87 Revised 4/89 NOTICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE RENTON, WASHINGTON The Environmental Review Committee (ERC) has issued a Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated for the following project(s) under the authority of the Renton Municipal Code. BLACKRIVER CORPORATE PARK PHASE VI ECF;RVMP;SA;SM-143-90 The applicant proposes to construct a four-story 71,057 sf office building with landscaping and parking area on a 169,314 sf site. The project site is located on the east side of Oakesdale Avenue and approximately 150 ft north of South Grady Way. This decision will be finalized in fifteen (15) days. Written comments received after 5:00 p.m., February 5, 1991 will not be considered. A fourteen (14)day appeal period will commence following the finalization of • DNS-M. The mitigation measures imposed by the City of Renton's Environmental Review Committee'are • available at the Development Services Division, Third Floor, Municipal Building, Renton, Washington 98055. Phone: 235-2550. Publication Date: January 21, 1991 Account No.51067 pubnot ti Tice ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION APPLICATION NO. ECF;RVMP;SA;SM-143-90 PROPOSED ACTION. BLACKRIVER CORPORATE PARK PHASE VI FIRST CITY WASHINGTON, INC. THE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A FOUR-STORY 71,057 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE BUILDING WITH LANDSCAPING AND PARKING AREA ON A 169,314 SQUARE FOOT SITE. GENERAL LOCATION AND OR ADDRESS THE PROJECT SITE IS LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF OAKESDALE AVENUE AND APPROXIMATELY 150 FEET NORTH OF S. GRADY WAY. POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION. . THE CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE C E.R.C.] HAS DETERMINED THAT THE. • PROPOSED ACTION ❑DOESDOES NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT ❑WILL 16VVILL NOT BE REQUIRED. THE CITY OF RENTON WILL. NOT ACT ON THIS PROPOSAL FOR 18 DAYS FROM THE DATE BELOW. COMMENTS MUST BE RECEIVED BY FEBRUARY 5. 1991 • AN APPEAL OF THE ABOVE DETERMINATION MAY BE FILED WITH THE RENTON HEARING EXAMINER • BY 5:00 P.M., FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT THE CITY OF RENTON PLANNING DIVISION AT 235-2550. DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE . ,� WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION (Y — — - } CERTIFICATION I ! Mar .5n. P. ��� , HEREBY CERTIFY THAT 3 COPIES OF • THE ABOVE . DOCUMENT WERE POSTED BY ME IN ,,P,�'�, �• , CONSPICUOUS `�ttq 'gib OR NEARBY THE DESCRIBED PROPERTY ON (� a a �l • c° Nor 18: J° n: TST: Subscr bed and sworn to before me, a D c ; PUBLIC J Hoary Public, n and for the State of Washington • b t $ 'idi in , on the o2� QGL 00„*It •151_% L).4 y of 1�9/. SIGNED : �Y1 °ooe��WASHri���� NOTICE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION APPLICATION NO. ECF;RVMP;SA;SM-143-90 PROPOSED ACTION BLACKRIVER CORPORATE PARK PHASE VI FIRST CITY WASHINGTON, INC. THE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A FOUR-STORY 71,057 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE BUILDING WITH LANDSCAPING AND PARKING AREA ON A 169,314 SQUARE FOOT SITE. GENERAL LOCATION AND OR ADDRESS THE PROJECT SITE IS LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF OAKESDALE AVENUE AND APPROXIMATELY 150 FEET NORTH OF S. GRADY WAY. POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION. THE CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE C E.R.C. ) HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED ACTION ❑DOES kDOES NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT ❑WILL WILL NOT BE REQUIRED. THE CITY OF RENTON WILL NOT ACT ON THIS PROPOSAL FOR 15 DAYS FROM THE DATE BELOW. COMMENTS MUST BE RECEIVED BY FEBRUARY 5. 1991 AN APPEAL OF THE ABOVE DETERMINATION MAY BE FILED WITH THE RENTON HEARING EXAMINER BY 5:00 P.M., FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT THE CITY OF RENTON PLANNING DIVISION AT 2 3 5-2 5 5 0. DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION envpslr CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (MITIGATED) • ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST NO.: ECF-143-90 • APPLICATION NO(S): RVMP;SA;SM-143-90 PROPONENT: •Dean Erickson/First City Washington, Inc. • PROJECT NAME: Blackriver Corporate Park Phase VI . • DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes to construct a four-story 71,057 square foot office building with landscaping and parking area on a 169,314 square :.. - foot site. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: The project site is located on the east side of Oakesdale Avenue and approximately 150 feet north of S. Grady Way. LEAD AGENCY: City of Renton . Department of Planning/Building/Public Works • Development Planning Section The City of Renton Environmental Review Committee has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement (EIS) is not: required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). Conditions were imposed as mitigation measures by the Environmental Review Committee under their authority of Section 4-6-6 Renton Municipal Code (see attached sheet). These conditions are necessary to mitigate environmental impacts identified during the environmental review process. . This Determination of Non-Significance - Mitigated (DNS-M) is issued under WAC 197-11-340(2). Because mitigation measures have been imposed,the lead.agency will'pot act on this proposal for fifteen (15) days from January 21., 1991. Any interested party may submit written comments which must be submitted by 5:00 p.m., February 5, 1991, in order to'be considered. A•fourteen (14) day appeal period will commence following the finalization of the DNS-M. Responsible Official: Environmental Review Committee c/o Don Erickson, Secretary Development Planning Section Department of Planning/Building/Public Works ' 200 Mill Avenue South Renton,WA 98055 - ' PUBLICATION DATE: January 21, 1991 DATE OF DECISION: January 16, 1991 SIGNATURES: - ' tk — 1/ g611 Ly, •. Gu mann,Administrator DATE • De . ment of Planning/Building/Public Works. ciA.J.,c_u_).443_ / — /SC 9 r . . . , Jo E.Webley,Administrator r DATE ' Co munity Service Department ,e,/ . ,,,e/1 _41_, /- /r-1 9/ • , Lee •ee r, Fire Chief , , • DATE, i S • Re on ire Department • mitsig DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED MITIGATION MEASURES PROJECT: Blackriver Corporate Park Phase VI PROPONENT: First City Washington, Inc. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST: ECF-143-90 APPLICATION NUMBER: RVMP;SA;SM-143-90 • DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes to construct a four-story 71,057 square foot office building with landscaping and parking area on a 169,314 square foot site. • LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: , The project site is located on the east side of Oakesdale Avenue and approximately 150 feet north of S. Grady Way. CONDITIONS: The Environmental Review Committee issued a Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated with the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall, in order to mitigate the impacts of increase traffic on area roads, provide the following mitigation fee of $253,674.00 for the Grady Way TBZ prior to the. issuance of site preparation/building permits. Note: The fee is based on the following: • Building Area = 71,057 square feet Vehicle trips per the Environmental Checklist 21 Vehicles per 1,000 square feet 21 x 71,057/1,000 = 1,492.20 Estimated Vehicle Trips Assessment of Grady Way Transportation Benefit District ($170.00 per trip generated) 1,492.20 x $170.00 = $253,674.00 to be deposited to Account No. 105/572/318.70.00.62 2. The applicant shall, in order to address transportation system impacts, develop a Transportation Management Plan which may include (but is not limited to): a) a designated transportation coordinator (who may be an employee in the building with other duties) to monitor and maintain the TMP; b) transit/ride sharing information center; c) flex-time schedule for employees; d) preferential parking for HOV's and motorcycles; e) public transit incentives (subsidized bus passes); f) bicycle racks. The plan must include a) reduction of on-site parking spaces (through placement in reserve of 15% of the required 321 parking spaces and b) an agreement to provide adequate funding to support TMP activities (e.g. subsidized bus passes), and to make necessary modifications (such as relocation of preferential parking. Facilities plans (e.g., assigned preferred parking spaces) shall be developed to the satisfaction of the Planning/Building/Public Works Department and METRO, and approved by the Planning/Building/Public Works Department prior to issuance of building permits. Service plans (e.g., service coordinator, monitoring system) shall be developed, to the satisfaction of the Planning/Building/Public Works Department and METRO prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit. Plans shall be implemented immediately upon receipt of the Certificate of Occupancy. Note 2.1: If, after a two year pilot period following the effective date of implementation of the reserve parking area, the applicant can demonstrate that the reserved area is necessary to serve employees, then the applicant,may apply to the Administrator of the Planning/Building/Public Works Department to obtain a release of sections or all of the reserved parking area. At the time of such a release of a portion of or all of the reserved parking area, the applicant will provide and implement a drainage plan in accordance with the King County Surface Water Design mitmeas-1 Manual, to the satisfaction of the Storm Water Section of the Planning/Building/Public Works Department prior to the issuance of any permits.) 3. The applicant shall, in order to ensure that the potential glare caused-by the reflective glass in the proposed building does'not impact traffic on Oakesdale Ave. and/or S. Grady Way, prepare a reflective glare diagram for those hours when the angle of the reflected sunlight is 30 degrees or less with the horizon or provide other documentation that demonstrates that the structure will not cause glare to the satisfaction of the Development Planning Section prior to the public hearing before the Hearing Examiner. 4. The applicant shall provide the City with a "Hold Harmless"agreement as a portion of the project site lies within the 100 year flood plain and may be subject to flooding. This agreement shall be to the satisfaction of the Development Services Division prior to the issuance of; site preparation/building permits. 5. The applicant shall, in order to mitigate the impacts of this project on City recreational facilities, consult with the Community Services Department to review the Park and Recreation Comprehensive Plan and the Master Trails Plan to determine what projects this development impacts. Prior to the public hearing before,the Hearing Examiner, the applicant shall provide.a recreation mitigation plan to the satisfaction of the Community Services Department and the Development Planning Section. The approved plan shall be implemented throughout the life of this project. 6. The applicant shall provide a construction mitigation plan including the following components: a) an erosion control element; b) an element limiting hauling hours to between the hours of 8:00 A.M. and 3:30 P.M.; c) an element requiring the applicant to water down the site periodically to control dust and debris; e) a $2,000.00 cash deposit for street cleaning (if needed) and f) an element to requiring the wheel-washing of all construction vehicles prior to leaving the project site, prior to the issuance of site preparation/building permits. This plan shall be prepared to the satisfaction of the Planning Development and Public Works Sections of the Department of Planning/Building/Public Works and implemented throughout the construction phase of this project in order to protect the adjacent commercial/industrial land uses. 7. The applicant shall, in order to mitigate impacts and to ensure the survival of the significant trees on the project site, relocate the proposed building a minimum of twenty-five feet from the • significant trees in order to ensure the protection of the trees and their root systems. 8. The applicant shall, in order to mitigate aesthetic impacts from the project site and to the abutting developed areas/sites, provide revised landscape plans to:a) provide landscaping in the reserved parking area (shrubs and turf); b) provide a wildlife habitat area equal to 2% of the area of the project site; and c) provide for a minimum of six specimen size trees between the building and Oakesdale Ave. These plans shall be approved to the satisfaction of the Planning/Building/Public Works Department prior to the public hearing for the site plan review. The plans shall be implemented in conjunction with the construction of the development. Note to Applicant: 1. The applicant shall submit copies of an agreement from Metro and Washington Natural Gas indicating their approval of the proposed construction within their easements prior to the issuance of site preparation/building permits to the satisfaction of the Planning Development Section of the Department of'Planning/Building/Public Works. 2. The applicant will be required to extend the 12"watermain along the south boundary of the project. 3. The applicant shall pay for the special utility connection assessed this project. The fee for the water system is$210,333.56. • 4. The applicant will be required to make all Code mandated off-site and on-site improvements (e.g. sidewalks, street lighting, curbs, utility lines and utility systems) prior to the issuance of occupancy permits. . • • mitmeas-2 . • • ;:>:::: ..... ::;::b PART MENT'QF PLANNING/:BUILDING PUBLIC :•:WORKS::::>: : : : ::: : >::>:::: I. :: . .:.... ........ ....... ................ .... ..... . ..... ..... .. ... ...... ....... •.it it :W.shing on,.m c,.........:•:::::::::::... :i:::::::::::;:::: :::>:::::::::::::::::::::::<:::::::::::::.::::.Dean:.Pciciison.F.:�X.:..::.Y. a........9�:..::..::.�:..::...�.�:.�:.:.......:::::::: .:::........... ... ->:•; <:>::>:: :::::::::::::::>.:;;::::>:::::::::::::;::::: ;::::::BI krvef"<G.or orate;Park. tease.:::::::::::::::::::.::.:<.::;.:.�:.�:.�::::... L: > ..E:KLl Ts:::::::<:::: :::::>:::;RVMP SM SA.:14..3:90:. ::::::..:::.::...:. •:..::..::..::..:. :.•::.•::.:.:..::.•:.:.::.: :::::ENV.fiO..VMENTA.,..!CH.::C : . ::.:..... ... .':..::.►• :. :::. ..•................:::::::::::::::.... . ..::•.•::.:.,,,:.::.•::..,:.: •.:::.: :.: 11 Htl . :.>:::::::: :. ::: :: :.:................................. . ........... . I II I. 7 .........I ' : t7tl:: .':...:.:11II ,I III I 7.. I NI.I.7I ........ . .. ......... ......................... .... Aur.S. .. ............... .................. L:::::::::::::: :::::::. .::.a . ...cant:;: ro .Qs s.:: p :GQn kruc::... __•:.__ :..__, :: :>::>:<:::>::::::DES> .iPTIQNs:(�!i=PCiC�I�45Ar.: �he......pP::.�:.�:.'::....?::..:p' :...::::::.: :::•:::: : :.::;<.:•::•:•:.:.:::.: :..�.: i n •......... ...... ;; oo �:office:::bu..din. .....i...:::::ands.:..p...9:., .: .:<� : M:":.::.<.•::":1e:.: :•> :" »;:. : � .;:.:;::: : :: : >:: ::::.: <::::::::1:•::::> ::<::;:::.::a nd::;..:ar:ki nt•9:::::::: e.I:..::a.on a:.: I:S•.:::9::;:l... .:;.q::::u•:„a: ..:::e.::.f•::o::'"..•..:o:...tse:."...:: ::::.::::.: :> ;.;.>..; :: •> > :::::":":• :':••:::•::.:•:::: : . ................. ..........'.. ::.: N :: F 1;,: : :. :1l:Ifl.:I.t: I7I :1 :;:.......::..:. ;*.;: :.::..::";..I.r.I........::. . 1: I I , lll.." 771 1 711f ltMi I tiNA , + I " " '•"•`••`: •" '. " ""' :.:. .::. .. ..L( GATi4 .::OP::PRQPQ AL ::> ::a< ::::7ha::Ra ecsite:i5lacao Qeha te Oa� s:d.awe:. :: :: i:: ::g*:::: > : : : :•:::. .:•::: :.:: ...:::::; :: ::•> w•.:iii5 : :nd.:a.p.roxi. ..atefy>1�Qfe etnort hofS� Grady._ <:: :: Way :: :>:: : : z::::>:: ::?:;:::::::;:;:::;::: :::;: : : :>:: : ::::<:•:: ::>::::::;: .... .::.�:.'::.�:::w:.�:::•. :.•::.•::. ::{•}ii:•is4:^:•i:4i:4:•i:i}}ii:biii:•}:4:•ti::a;:: ?ti::: ::}i:•:•::.•::.•::: :•::.�: i:•::•i:}:::'::•::::::::: •::•:::•:••: ... .....:..::f::::::::::::•. ::::.:..................................... ......I tl.11.ltl..-.III ..71 ..................... ............................................. ra::. t r v onmant.7. ....c ......:: GI ::::: b ic.:S�arviceS.:Utili...ea:::> : :: >:.»:.>;:.;:.:.::.»: :>::.»::.:.::::::.::::::::.:>:>:: ::»:;:>;:;: <::::::::<:;:.:;.;::: : :. i ::.. .ht.:and... ..are�.P.0 .1::::................/...........::..:.............. ............ .... ............. .... :,:n•:tiUd i i ::: :; : :;:: >: : :3:: ::::: ;:;:;:;;::::: ''• :: :: ::::: t:: • ,\ ; • 11 r PHASE V 1\\ — EXISTING BLDG.D 1] SCQ mrY! • t,. . Kg_ .. m \j3,,\., .T `.- I I I1rIeAsrrb true —- -1'-, —'-' -> .� r i 1 V C s e.l �. V Cur 1 $__ Ree•+�zw +os�zr +sare _ -� Igo.ionr •‘ 'AWN.11% 6� S Oki `�rxraveaiv^we® ' II .ig -%It !kk N'714 Visoi , I/� ,ice, �4 '13 , - V,,x5.,: wt.,: . e15n......a e 1 ��P 'tt xt— �� : r ,� ��� r [ ...a.h° Aw I■'� •• ewe-a-ue •O. v oa,ePou w i�wRe `• • . cyMpa.Tyr. `�',�� c' m .. ... k Yr\ ��! .•j� ��, ���• it.4 sooty.Try EXISfNGi OF�lCE AND • ` ,..&f� cPARKNGIAREA ` ist � � :�..; •:•- +:1�j— e+sn.aIt. : • �t �fo rLru i� 4,'IOLE UGNf— �4 /-.4{ ,(...Y14.4' 1 1 1-.SrTC EGMG.r VV \ 1 I r n II11 .,1 • T6.w cw4--. - • - •>` ��. T/' 0 U I,,.raranmrr p�,l a�'s e...an.r� r"r \ • a $ � �i 1 e r me'Tones 4 e.e..lc ewer.,,�wca-' - \- Offlce4 +G sG I ''' to—1 \ N. ` ,Ss.. F': ' '144 • ty i..r...`^;*7.4.:G,100..o...+o...0 ,\ • Cr - -ra.w•r...,,Er'an,Y.. ro as wp.......1 rnr w•tr 7 I' �•i'a�"� ' 17�T-..IFS .rr_ —.s'1►illiiii —aS n..•sw..CIAW.T e7:r+Y./ .t� EirnW .... ndwp0o ts---ow WyIT • \ , •••.:<•. S f� \ J .�/ '.•—S/MA•.J.al4.TT MGn.10. 4glUh, y!,�•,�t� " �J�!''.. `�Aq''i I' Y S.NTWT Swam Mw1.iaewenJ6 N r M tT O �.r. • .y»�, »`-. .rives;- 4 • �' e.en.o♦ea,art.+..o...a NIGT>.G- 9rML0w.TYr. `\ :'S, `_`� ` •,• �! _e ``' _b.e,1.MIiIT@•alreret�tgn.N. \\ \\it? 'to' „a. ....--------- � L ( y a' y l .. 4 •• a1i =.1'..L. ... \ .3•g 11'Q (i. 4. ynnIpSy EEV 6 0\ • • \ !t' �YY � \ �.-�"��..�"' < BLACKRIVERPr. VN I "r""`---°"�° CORPORATE PARK \, % -�-� RENTON, WASHINGTON \ .�, T� won lvma rmnn ev i'. FIRST CITY WASFIINGTON,INC. • P\ ./, Ga y A Bna AiA neiocr.l 1/1°C iii.nro shoe! s��m saa = sweccwemonreleelew° PHASE VI \ ���� SJ'v�P F LANDSCAPE PLAN l �'-II" / .. Environmental Review Comrr ,)Staff Report Blackriver Corporate Park Phase VI ' January 16, 1991 Page 2 • • Transportation • 1. The applicant shall, in order to mitigate the impacts of Increase traffic on area roads, provide the following mitigation fee of $253,674.00 for the Grady Way TBZ to the satisfaction of the Transportation Systems Division prior to the Issuance of site preparation/building permits. Note: The fee is based on the following: Building Area = 71,057 square feet Vehicle trips per the Environmental Checklist 21 Vehicles per 1,000 square feet 21 x 71,057/1,000 = 1,492.20 Estimated Vehicle Trips • • Assessment of Grady Way Transportation Benefit District ($170.00 per trip generated) • 1,492.20 x $170.00 = $253,674.00 to be deposited to Account No. 105/572/318.70.00.62 2. ' The applicant shall,'in order to reduce the number of vehicle trips for the proposed structure by 10%, provide a TMP (Transportation Management Plan) to the satisfaction of Metro and the Development Planning Section prior to the Issuance of site preparation/building permits. Light and Glare 3. The applicant shall, in order to mitigate the potential impacts of glare caused by the reflective glass onto Oakesdale Ave. and/or S. Grady Way, prepare a reflective glare diagram for those hours when the angle of the reflected sunlight is 30 degrees or less with the horizon to the satisfaction of the Development Planning Section prior to the public hearing before the Hearing Examiner. Public Services/Utilities 4. The applicant shall provide the City with a "Hold Harmless" agreement as a portion of the project site lies within the 100 year flood plain and may be subject to flooding. This agreement shall be to the satisfaction of the Development Services Division prior to the issuance of site preparation/building permits. Recreation 5. The applicant shall, in order to mitigate the Impacts of this project on City recreational facilities, consult with the Community Services Division to review the Park and Recreation Comprehensive Plan and the Master Trails Plan to determine what projects this development impacts, prior to the public hearing before the Hearing Examiner the applicant shall provide a recreation mitigation plan to the satisfaction of the Community Services Department and the Development Planning Section. Construction 6. The applicant shall provide a construction mitigation plan including the following components: a) an erosion control element; b) an element limiting hauling hours to between the hours of 8:00 A.M. and 3:30 P.M.; c) an element requiring the applicant to water down the site periodically to control dust and debris; e) a $2,000.00 cash deposit for street cleaning (if needed) and f) an element to requiring the wheel-washing of all construction vehicles prior to leaving the project site, prior to the issuance of site preparation/building permits. This plan shall be prepared to the satisfaction of the Planning Development and Public Works Sections of the Department of Planning/Building/Public Works and implemented throughout the construction phase of this project in order to protect the adjacent commercial/Industrial land uses. Note to Applicant: 1. The applicant shall submit copies of an agreement from Metro and Washington Natural Gas Indicating their approval of the proposed construction within their easements prior to the public hearing before the Hearing Examiner to the satisfaction of the Planning Development Section of • the Department of Planning/Building/Public Works. 1 • Environmental Review Committee Staff Report Blackriver Corporate Park Phase VI • . • January 16, 1991 f . Page 3 , 1 . 2. The applicant shall provide an amended landscaping plan which includes the reserved parking I areas and the wildlife habitat area to the satisfaction of the Development Planning Section prior to the public hearing before the Hearing Examiner. 3. The applicant will be required to extend the 12"watermain along the south boundary of the project. 4. The applicant shall provide fees for the special utility connection assessed this project. The fee for the water system is$210,333.56, prior to the Issuance of site preparation/building permits. 5. The applicant will be required to make all Code mandated off-site and on-site improvements (e.g. sidewalks, street lighting, curbs, utility lines and systems) prior to the Issuance of occupancy permits. ' >::::: 1 Theapplicant seeks T approval to construct a four-story, 71,057 square foot office building with parking and landscaping at the intersection of South Grady Way and Oakesdale Ave. The proposed office building is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Map which designates the project site for Manufacturing Park/Multiple Option uses. The proposed project is also consistent with Plan Elements for the Valley Plan area. The subject property is zoned for Office Park use, which permits the proposed office building as a permitted use with site plan approval. The proposed project adequately addresses the development standards for an office park. The Springbrook Creek is considered a valuable and Important resource within the City of Renton. Springbrook Creek is protected by the standards and regulations in the Shoreline Master Program Ordinance. The proposed development Is consistent with the Master Shoreline Ordinance in that it will compliment existing development that is adjacent to the subject property, the proposed building will be located approximately 200 feet from the creek and parking areas will be located approximately 150 feet from the creek. The area to the north, south and east of the project site has been developed for a variety of office and light , Industrial uses. The area to the west of the project site has been developed for the Metro Sewer Treatment Plant. The proposed use is compatible with the surrounding land uses. The proposed project is adjacent to Biackriver Phase V (a three-story building) and Phase II (a two-story building). The parking lots of these three phases are directly adjacent to each other and are I interconnected by an internal circulation system. The internal circulation system connects with Oakesdaie AI e.and Powell Ave. :;M:E� !• • •: •::•::• ii:iii.::• •>:•::.:• .<:• >:ii i:i:•; . • •:•:::•:i ii:ii .:;;: ;. . .>;:: : :< >: ::: :<:>: N111. tON�lAE1�7'AL::ELE.IVI....N 'S.,:::::::::m:::::::::::::. :::..::.......: .:...•:: :::. :. :.�:..::.�:..:. . :::... ..........:. 1. Aesthetic/Land Use Impacts: The applicant is proposing to construct a four-story, 71,057 square foot, office building as part of the Blackriver Corporate Park. The rear portion of the building will be elevated to provide is surface parking beneath the building. The exterior of the building will be finished with reflective glass, steel and concrete to match the existing buildings in the park. The existing development on , adjacent parcels consist of one,three and four story office buildings. The proposed four-story building has been designed so that the front face of the building, as seen ' from Oakesdale Ave., is broken into three sections. Each section Is set back from the previous ' section fifteen to twenty feet. This will help reduce the apparent lateral bulk of the project as seen from the street. The applicant has provided a landscape plan which for the most part is adequate. The plans provided by the applicant indicate that parking will be provided for 321 vehicles. Staff believes that l. fifteen percent of these spaces(49 parking stalls) should be placed in a parking reserve. The forty- , nine parking spaces should be removed from the parking lot on the south side of the existing drainage swale. This would allow for additional landscaping in these areas. Environmental Review Comm)__=u Staff Report Blackriver Corporate Park Phase VI ' January 16, 1991 , Page 4 Metro and Washington Natural Gas have easements crossing the subject property. The site plan indicates that the applicant proposes to cross these easements with interior roads and parking areas. Prior to the public hearing before the Hearing Examiner the applicant will need to provide copies of an agreement with these agencies for the proposed development within the easements. The applicant has submitted a Routine Vegetation Management Plan. There are twenty trees (Hawthornes, Cottonwoods) on the project site. The applicant has Indicated that six trees will need to be removed for this project. Fourteen of the more significant trees will be retained. The trees to be removed will be replacedby the trees in the required landscape areas. Mitigation Measures: See Notes#1 and#2. Policy Nexus: Landscaping Ordinance 4-31-34, Parking and Loading Ordinance 4-14, Environmental Review Ordinance 4-6 2. Natural Environment Impacts: The project site is separated from the relocated Springbrook Creek (P-1 channel) by Oakesdale Ave. S.W. Due to the fact that the project site is within 200 feet the applicant has applied for a Shoreline Management Permit. The project compiles with Sections 7.05.01.A. of the Shoreline Management Program in that the proposed structure will be located in an area that has already been developed with commercial uses. The proposed structure also complies with Section 7.05.02 in that the proposed building will be located more than fifty(50) feet of the water's edge. The proposed building will be located approximately 250 feet from the water's edge. A draft Environmental Impact Statement(DEIS) was prepared for the entire Corporate Park in July of 1980. Although most parts of this DEIS are outdated,the description of the subject property is accurate. The DEIS indicates that the portion of the project site that is now proposed for development was part of the golf course that covered most of the 109 acres that the Statement studied. The project site is located within the area described by the Green River Valley Plan of the Comprehensive Plan. Section I.C.8. of the Valley Plan states that wildlife habitat should be preserved or its loss mitigated should be mitigated. Section 4-31-34.F.2 of the Renton Municipal Code requires 2% of project site in the Green River Valley be established as a wildlife habitat area. In order to provide mitigation for the loss of wildlife habitat caused by this project, the applicant has agreed to provide a wildlife habitat area equivalent to 2% of the,area of the project site. . Mitigation Measures: See Note#2. Policy Nexus: N/A • 3. Traffic Impacts: The area that this proposed project is located within is developing for office and warehouse uses and the number of people employed in this area is increasing rapidly. Although, there is not a bus service offered along Oakesdale Ave. S.W. it can be expected in the near future as the employment base grows and justifies it. Staff recommends that the applicant work with Metro to develop an agreement that will reserve an area along Oakesdaie Ave. for a future covered Metro bus stop. The applicant will also need to work with Metro to develop a Transportation Management Plan (TMP)for the project site in order to reduce the number of vehicle trips on area roads to the extent possible. k: The proposed project is located within the Grady Way TBZ, all roadway and intersection Impacted location are provided for In the TBZ. The fee, as indicated below, is to provide participation in these projects. Building Area = 71,057 square feet Vehicle trips per the Environmental Checklist 21 Vehicles per 1,000 square feet 21 x 71,057/1,000 = 1,492.20 Estimated Vehicle Trips - Assessment of Grady Way Transportation Benefit District($170.00 per trip generated) 1,492.20 x$170.00 = $253,674.00 to be deposited to account no. 105/572/318.70.00.62 Environmental Review Committee Staff Report Blackriver Corporate Park Phase VI January 16, 1991 Page 5 As part of the site plan review the applicant will be required to develop a pedestrian circulation system to provide a pedestrian linkage between theproposed building, the existing buildings and the sidewalk along Oakesdale Ave. The applicant will also be requested to work with METRO to provide a location for a future bus stop along Oakesdale Ave. Staff is concerned with the proposed vehicle linkages between the new parking lot and the existing parking lots. One of the proposed vehicle drives requires the vehicles to Jog over several feet. As part of the site plan review, staff will continue to work with the applicant to straighten out this roadway. Mitigation Measures: See Recommendations#1 and#2.. Policy Nexus: Transportation Goals and Policies/Comprehensive Plan 4. Noise,Light and Glare Impacts: • a. Construction • Noise Impacts can be expected to be generated during the construction phase of the project. As there are no residential land uses in close proximity to the subject property, no exceptional measures are necessary to reduce noise levels beyond those normally applied to a project of this type. b. Operations The applicant is proposing to use reflective glass in this building. Reflective glare is not expected to be readily visible from Oakesdale Ave. or South Grady Way where It could Impact the vision of motorist. However,to confirm this, the applicant needs to prepare a reflective glare diagram for those hours when the angle of the reflected sunlight is 30 degrees or less with the horizon. On sight lighting will be screened by landscaping and light shades as necessary. Mitigation Measures: See Recommendation#3. Policy Nexus: Commercial Policies/Comprehensive Plan, Environmental Review Ordinance 4-6 5. Public Services/Utilities a. Police and Fire Services Impacts: Police and Fire Prevention Bureau staff report adequate resources to provide anticipated services to the site during construction and .operations with system improvement fees and with Code-required improvements (e.g. three hydrants, 20 foot fire lanes,automatic sprinkler system). The Police Department did note that emergency response requires a phone system that identifies each caller and their location, not the property owner. Failure to have such a system would pose a major Impact on police services. Mitigation Measures: None Required. �. Policy Nexus: N/A b. Storm Water Management impacts: A portion of the project site is within the 100-year floodplain as defined by FEMA. •• Compensatory storage volume will have to be provided in order to fill any portion of the site that currently Iles below the elevation of the 100-year floodplain. Due to the fact the subject property is located within the 100-year floodplain, the applicant will need to provide the City with a "Hold-Harmless Agreement" holding the City harmless for any damages(e.g.flooding,fire, etc.) resulting from development within this floodplain. The applicant will be required to provide a storm water system In accordance with the 1990 King County Surface Water Design Manual which will Include a Level 1 downstream analysis. The applicant will also need to provide on-site biofiitration and an oil-water separator. • r- Environmental Review Comnidk =a Staff Report . Blackriver Corporate Park Phase VI January 16, 1991 Page 6 At this time the applicant is proposing to divert the storm water into an existing swale that leads into the P-1 channel. Due to the large amount of Impervious area, the runoff will increase significantly over this site. Since biofiltration swales are designed only for a 2- • year predeveioped release rate, a greater design storm-event would Increase flow velocity above the maximum design flow, thereby deteriorating water quality. Detention would provide a metered flow rate, that would maintain water quality except In extreme design storm events. Therefore, staff recommend detention (per 1990 King County Surface Water Design Manual), unless the applicant can produce a specific document agreement with the City that waives detention. If detention were waived and the paved area exceeds one acre, then runoff from all paved areas should be treated by a wetpond prior to discharge (per 1990 King County Surface Water Design Manual). Mitigation Measures: See Recommendation#4. Policy Nexus: Environmental Review Ordinance 4-6, Storm Water and Surface Water Drainage Management Ordinance c. ' Sanitary Sewer Utilities impacts: There is an existing sewer line and manhole are available for sewer connection at southwest portion of the subject property. There is a latecomers agreement sewer fee of$4,129.28 and a special utility connection charge of $10,666.78 that will be assessed at the time of building permits. Mitigation Measures: See Notes. Policy Nexus: N/A d. Water Utilities Impacts: The applicant will need to extend the existing 12" watermain along the south boundary of the subject property to the east property line. If final fire flow calculations exceed 2500 GPM this loop will have to be closed. Due to the existing water pressure in this area the applicant will need to Install a pressure reducing valve in the buildings water system. Special utility connection charges will be assessed this project. The fee for the water system is$21,333.56 which will be assessed at the time of building permits. Mitigation Measures: See Recommendation#5 and Notes. Policy Nexus: Storm Water and Surface Water Drainage Management Ordinance e. Recreation impact: in order to provide on-site recreational facilities for the employees the applicant is proposing to construct a outdoor seating area and a horseshoe pit as part of this development. A running course with workout stations already exist within the Corporate Park area. Staff recommend that the applicant provide shower facilities for the employees within the proposed building. Staff also recommend that the applicant review the Park and Recreation Master Plan and the Trails Master Plan with the Community Services Department to determine the recreation impacts of this project prior to the public hearing. Mitigation Measures: See Recommendation#7. Policy Nexus: Parks and Recreation Comprehensive Plan, 6. Construction • impacts: Standard construction impacts are anticipated with the proposed development of the new office building.. Mitigation Measures: See Recommendation#6. Policy Nexus: Environmental Review Ordinance,4-6 Environmental Review Committee Staff Report Blackriver Corporate Park Phase VI January 16, 1991 Page 7 • I c hesc.. .a�i LAND USE Construction Field Services: Development Planning: Fire Prevention Bureau: • Long Range Planning: 1 Parks and Recreation: Police Department: Sewer Utilities: Storm Water: Transportation: Water Utilities: ENVIRONMENTAL Construction Field Services: Development Planning: Fire Prevention Bureau: Long Range Planning: Parks and Recreation: Police Department: Sewer Utilities: Storm Water: • Transportation: Water Utilities: "is • • DEPARTMt DF PLANNING/BUILDING/PU61 WORKS , . ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST REVIEW SHEET AFC ? '�'°'c�RF�'�s�o oh h REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: .Ilkt, 1.4990 DATE CIRCULATED: 12/3/90 COMMENTS DUE: 12/14/90 ���� ECF-143-90 ' APPLICATION NO(S): RVMP;SA;SM-143-90 PROPONENT: LPN Architects&Planners, Inc. • PROJECT TITLE: Blackriver Corporate Park Phase VI BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Applicant seeks to construct a four-story, 71,057 sf office building with parking and landscaping on a 169,314 sf site. LOCATION: Northeast corner of Oaksdale&Grady Way SITE AREA: BUILDING AREA(gross): IMPACT REVIEW ON ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS: PROBABLE PROBABLE MORE MINOR MAJOR • INFORMATION IMPACT IMPACT NECESSARY 1. Earth 2. Air 3. Water • 4. Plants 5. Animals 6. Energy&Natural Resources 7. Environmental Health • 8. Land&Shoreline Use 9. Housing 10. Aesthetics 11. Light&Glare • 12. Recreation 13. Historic&Cultural Preservation 14. Transportation V 15. Public Services 16. Utilities • COMMENTS: r 4nA nn0 1/5i-ezt..11 ,94,44 s �S \ixt,z-, e 4 Q \ix&JCGA ,o cat, �t) � G-L,,,,�. .. e `'` .,144 s+-ottit- We have reviewed this ap Ilcatltth p rt1 i r atten to[Riots a emirnAch we have expertise and have Identified areas of probable Impact or areas where additional Information is needed to properly assess this proposal. Ia, 141 1 `ib Signature of Director or Author) ed Representative Date • Rev. 6/88 enwvehl • i ��, I 1 i • C14-3aNi910 J.9N 1CV ! .�.V 'VC/ .1.-DN a11.'d civ 3'7)V'1 07I - -�-� 'ti o, . d a.-)3-a)1 cS Q.y.r,Aj s -1 N 11'4-1 Li vo 1 d 1-s ,d-vv •'7 a J S 1 .4-. N sd -a 3 lilt "Q ('9\ o,:n 2 1.21-3 N 3 S 1 Y')'' `'l ) - ? rV-7d S , y sacQ �'-°'r (z • • a S ' 9'4.4. ca sari -n `'m C' 1.1`•�''7 1-1.1'ry o aLi.%atQ ' T-1N 'V 4� tri- tr M S) v-al S -9 C' ► s-N Yn a, N I S>d 3'a ''d �71Y'J 1.fi�as" Q v 9-K-0 S%l a a S 1414 11''d3-44'732) I S• N O (3 1 $1..p431-4-3 n a Z brve J �"�'d p S 2wcfc) ' Cap-i•--) Q..1_ C Sc,l 3•e3 4 •3 t Sa S sal s 3-4 ins/ . 1r1' 'rue Iva, t *f "1 N NblN D 176 , d,-n t-A I 3 a r 4 )1A,?J I-it - c, (11 { ?-� -1 S'�-'►�. �a� t 1 cnsto yr/I Sd a v �v►n a‘,/ S -1 I s aro,i ?di covivls- !. DAQ MAD a ). vronoad d„ O-,-aki, " 1 -2) sr s ''�•? :}-sad �o z, s"1-1 nor S A2-ja.a ( u1(h � . a Q/-d 17‘ 49 rn PJ 17rah d a"g ti ,L. N 4 Q-� i L � � � �'dm a i 4 �Z�}1 sz21� d�Yv ?Z•11% 971 W QI, 54v1SI q-ed S Q33 N ;' A-'n 0 2 3ti ta3 N 45 N 1 >rU ly a cy‘1'/7"s ,r. v ate- S 1 3.3, 44--0 g 7-7-2 -v) *)%') 41, ' •Iptnr -In ( La S'-' a•w+ %. Ng, s S-a ?e v% • ) cco -7-rry, '.S a1 r+ s ri"•►►^n'l S col S a' r S" S S y ly t\ ; �a-�� a-�" w(Y. C9 .., 1,0kiY'41114tilativia'llaimAiwai ii i4414,06k .. ram :}:..w , ,.. ..(1414410444 librllfYU�ICf� P'u'i:f��dY'�fY r' x DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET ECF-143-90 APPLICATION NO(S).: RVMP;SA;SM-143-90 • PROPONENT: LPN Architects&Planners,Inc. PROJECT TITLE: Blackriver Corporate Park Phase VI BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Applicant seeks to construct a four-story, 71,057 sf office .building with parking and landscaping on a 169,314 sf site. LOCATION: SEC:24 TWNSHP:23N RNG:3E Northeast corner of Oaksdale&Grady Way TO: • PUBLIC WORKS DIVISION SCHEDULED TAC DATE: 12/21/90 ENGINEERING SECTION TRAFFIC ENG. SECTION UTILITIES ENG. SECTION FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU POLICE DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION • CONSTRUCTION FIELD SERVICES • DEVELOPMENT PLANNING PLANNING&TECHNICAL SERVICES • PARKS AND RECREATION DIVISION OTHERS: COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITING. PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE PLANNING DIVISION BY 5:00 P.M. ON DECEMBER 14, 1990. REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: AA APPROVED APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS V"NOT APPROVED x. A5 OI 5 c G55613 17 11 -/4 - 90 Of'c 4' MF / NYG--) Pia F/(TN4D/ A lib C1t --cr..17,I 5ta/941!1-?0/2 Rawv/if•-p, 1. NE E 7V7731.?/ Y G /7 /S � c tit�° paiPr r_'� ,'/7/YG. 5/T /S. f. . 2 34' '/ Coil cif T/z P l/'R, 7 l/C 5r-: c mie s ,,1 ,r 13/:. oR 74/Nr 1j 7'�it'0 ci 5iT1� , U9�NG MAN/ o c.t(5) , T che4N6,(s) 1/' 5/ 2E�M4TammGS, S. A 1e vc-Q I , ~4 3/P^eh a,sicil,s;s( 1 y7u f c. C. /f7:-u,� ) S/CPU be s("41/ 4.Due to the large amount of impervious area,the runoff will increase significantly over this area. Since the biofiltration swales are designed only for a 2-year predeveloped release rate, a greater design storm event would increase flow velocities above the maximum design flow, thereby deteriorating water quality. Detention would provide a mitered flow rate,that would maintain water quality except In extreme design storm events. Therefore, we would like to recommend detention (per 1990 King County Surface Water Design Manual), unless the developer can produce a specific document agreement with the City that waives detention. If they produce this agreement,we may want it to be legally reviewed, to examine the possibility of revision. If detention were waived and the paved area exceeds one acre,then runoff from all paved areas should be treated by a wetpond prior to discharge (per 1990 K.C. Surface Water Design Manual). • — A - 6I, 1 yyr,ert DATE: / 2 -/) • Yt7 SIGNATJfl' OF s IRECTOR OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE 5. V'etify�:r5�rl�alS If t o si/`e . Gl„ycih7 1-e, 1/(3 4447 �-e 4eovrw'c./ 6j11 & Owl4, 4 f n7 felon 1,/4/br , , REV. 5/90 6. ,Lf fl terrt;1 // •, ,/,.,it) /!1.. a r r7Y1461i I/123)./ .I • . 4,-q t. rGG Ar1-1.R.H11UIY: ( "VELUM LNI AFFLIGAIIUN REVIEW 511 1.r ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST REVIEW SIIEEf , CI PLAN REVIEW ROUTING SLIP OTHER / DATE: ��/i 79 a APPLICANT: ' .4.4.4.t' I•f 4 441. JOB ADDRESS: 4( _�.a.._ =jr y`- •:111 11 "_ NATURE OF WORK: _I.�:.... f ._ .G !11M/ ieilMlikVD,r �3VAE._.—. rif I PROPERTY MANAGEMENT lcW/7d DATE RECEIVED • Comments Due • BY PROPERTY MGMT. • Comments or suggestions regarding this application should be provided in writing. Please provide comments to the • Comm.Div.Dept.(C.D.D.)by 5:00 p.m.on above date. . REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION • FEES APPLIED CANNOT APPLY FEES 0 LEGAL DESCRIPTION NEED MORE INFORMATION ❑ SQUARE FOOTAGE ❑ FRONT FOOTAGE ' ❑ VICINITY MAP It Is the intent of thls development fee.analysis to put the developer/owner on notice,that the lees quoted below will apply to the subject site upon development of the property. All quoted fees are due and payable at the time the construction permit Is Issued to Install the on-site and off-site Improvements (i.e.underground utilities,street Improvements,etc.) PROJECT COST • LATECOMER LATECOMER AGREEMENT-WATER NO. PER. FIG. FEE CITY HELD —p PRIVATE DEVELOPER HELD — 0_ LATECOMERS AGREEMENT-SEWER CITY HELD • , ---d — PRIVATE DEVELOPER HELD 8-3a3 .4 44 1r.9. Qs'. SPECIAL UTILITY CONNECTION CHARGE-WATER V UNITS SUCC FEE Single family residential dwelling unit $940/lot x Apartment, Condo,each multiplex unit $545/ea.unit x Commercial/Industrial $.126/sq.ft.of properly x . (not less than $940.00) /CO 9,3/5/I-Z' fia/,335. $1# SPECIALjUTILITY CONNECTION CHARGE-SEWER Single family residential dwelling unit$470/lot x Apartment, Condo,each multiplex unit $270/ea.unit x Commercial/Industrial $.063/sq.ft.of property x ��y (not less than $470.00) /( '/4/C1 014 GGG. 78l SPECIAL IASSESSMENT DISTRICT(Ilospital Area)WATER UNITS SAD FEE Developments with 1500 GPM Fire Flo)4s or Less: Area Charge$0.034 per sq.J( x Frontage Charge $16.00 pf r front ft. x Developments with Greater than 500 GPM Fire Flows: • Area Charge$0.048 p¢ sq.ft.x Frontage Charge $18.00 per front ft.x --- 0— SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICT(lioney Crk,Intercptr)-SEWER UNITS SAD FEE Area Charges: • Residential dwelling units„Jpartnrents or equivalents;$250 p r dwelling unit x Commercial developme I': r, $.05 per sq.ft.of gross slle area x Front Footage Charges: $37.19 per Front t.(on ea. side)x $74.38 per Fr.F . (prpty on both sides of Imprv.) x O — TOTAL: $ (3(P/Ion.9. ' The above quoted fees do NOT Include inspection fees,side sewer permits,r/w permit fees or the cost of water meters. aGeZ:A/ hi-" /%/%y �(5. 90 Signature of Director or Authorized Representat ve DATE ouy.1j ww/faiaNfitgr/1h R/ 1 I • a II IL' I ttLVLId1iUtV DUIILNU ' ' ... POLICE DEPARTMEN1 • DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION , ' ` • ' ' ' ` 'CONSTRUCTION FIELD SERVICES . DEVELOPMENT PLANNING PLANNING&TECHNICAL SERVICES • • PARKS AND RECREATION DIVISION . OTHERS: COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITING. PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE PLANNING DIVISION BY 5:00 P.M. ON DECEMBER 14, 1990. • REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: RA.C1) APPROVED ✓ APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS NOT APPROVED G(,(,1.ael owl, P' ' (!.11- -( & ) kou c(.. IX) (C444I1'ciCL CA. 46 -I--ti.cu 66 �,.��(, i c vLe C�,. 0 ( .h)1 cn (AL. ,�)1Z(,� :1tAx/ l•3 Uv `J Sit tutAwlt.c 5- j u ` atc. j . Lt4A 173( d �'� DATE: SIGNATURE OF DIRECTOR OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE REV.5/90 • &imam • • REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: 'PIA N llq f//,l,0 5,(/70/y APPROVED APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS 4 NOT APPROVED p fro e se- A (G-t ''7rcx'e4 /"r A /. 6TzWtaitag. A l- h0- 4 ez be Mm.-7 pZi/M/1` avylit<q i1'I, S(,0yn 10 C, A % ! frt e//c. -79/42° 4: a. 5 .,t4I /J yeureil(F,c/h 17iki) •e>t/5 f, /14/l crG'�//,,kr h r /7 c' S� )7 ll�iyi „ye r erG-t4i1't1 h e4 r, Ri17 e g le-e44..ya' 5. 51ecf4' (fi//bi 6el?kree-j7v11 Li e/y ,a, �el I e�2ee( S*Pef Morel f ai a i cf. /' / d 4 , ?h (/U L er r/ s/74c L1'�7// �riuvi I h [f/vr7d/ mi I il(r,�'i}r/1'1 • At 22 'ix 54er(e 6, 9a04,1) / ZO • 7`� /afriAlf,- ���4 DATE: l 91/Y 0 SIGNATUFV i F DIRECTOR OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE REV.5/90 • dovontd MIIVUtt MAJUt1 INt-UIIMAIIUN r IMPACT IMPACT NECESSARY 1. Earth 2. Air 3. Water 4. Plants .i 5. Animals • 6. Energy,&Natural Resources 7. Environmental Health 8. Land&Shoreline Use • 9. Housing 10. Aesthetics 11. Light&Glare 12. RecretIon >( 13. Hlstori &Cultural Preservation 14. Transportation 15. Public Services 16. Utilities 'arks f COMMENTS: jtt. -"4/.T`. Ct.,•/A Peet AC. a,4..„A e�,/ /f r ••1.-01 .:!�' 'yet! Hi l• 4,. 41.1 6/4..„ r:-/ ..,r. o• .Me0Orpette' . ,moo064, ....... Gir . .- , • t• �'111 G4Lr1 pi•— rf%�i`_ C/•-,a '. �• +[i,•t- �-� .b-Gfis•.— .G-ZG.a.l//d -2e � We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas In which we have expertise and have Identified areas of prof e Impact or areas where additional Information is needed to properly assess this proposal. • /2 -S gnature of rector or Authorized Representative Date j. Rev.6/88 anvmhl Iv. V11I11IOo I • COMMENTS: - c.c_ C.s�`jb `tt, 414 1 Gaa, .,404tette--dr- Part„.• • We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have Identified areas of probable Impact or areas where additional Information is needed to properly assess this proposal. /0' nature of Director or Authorized Representative Date • • Rev.6/08 snvmhl 3. Wuter • 4. Plants • 5. Animals • 6. Energy&Natural Resources 7. Environmental Health • 8. Land&Shoreline Use • 9. Housing 10. Aesthetics 11. Light&Glare 12. Recreation • 13. Historic&Cultural Preservation • 14. Transportation • 15. Public Services is. Utilities 00 U t kitc COMMENTS: �7‘e- :3L42""" t1 C 71'e Ge�oe We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas In which we have expertise and have Identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional Information is needed to properly assess this proposal. -r/•- 9Z) Signature of Director or Authorl ed Representative Date • Rev.6/88 •nvmhl REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: 61,16 � PI APPROVED i/\APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS NOT APPROVED • • DATE: SIGNATURE OF DIRECTOR OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE • REV.5/90 • devrvild i • r i DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS . I . . DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET f j ECF-143-90 APPLICATION NO(S).: RVMP;SA;SM-143-90 PROPONENT: LPN Architects&Planners, Inc. PROJECT TITLE: Blackrlver Corporate Park Phase VI BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Applicant seeks to construct a four-story, 71,057 sf office .building with parking and landscaping on a 169,314 sI site. LOCATION: SEC:24 TWNSHP:23N RNG:3E Northeast corner of Oaksdale&Grady Way TO: PUBLIC WORKS DIVISION SCHEDULED TAC DATE: 12/21/90 ENGINEERING SECTION TRAFFIC ENG. SECTION • )C UTILITIES ENG. SECTION' ' FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU POLICE DEPARTMENT • DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION CONSTRUCTION FIELD SERVICES DEVELOPMENT PLANNING PLANNING&TECHNICAL SERVICES PARKS AND RECREATION DIVISION ' OTHERS: ' COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITING. PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE PLANNING DIVISION BY 5:00 P.M. ON DECEMBER 14, 1990. . REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: p/ I},j Rr///,c,.cJ 1. APPROVED 'APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS X NOT APPROVED 2• FNfiee/4 I2" rwgl w/a/ 1 od&vi pef�r ll //, � eq.,-1- (Qov1-/c�•s•i ttle,„ ,W /vl 0 4 ), F . f'iv%1 �i�'e E/at-o Ca/cC'/c,-�1��1?i exc / ''00 , �S (0,15 w,'// h a r e �o la-e ,c >• /c 5 (" p y) �v'ef /s7ii•''! rt & rcr/c'(/4./1/al / 3 h1 c e I/Ye4 L3, 5/er( / GAiyrc i ,/690cLc.a) ci/p//', 50-1 ih6/cA 5 ; /l)cie /h:ri Dr/rrf4 ��v k 5 • /9 i/ v �" if&I /l r/ d l/zw `7(�t��-t GU�7'/ rZ,x I G6,/ h -C C, /l 5 h/.ui./;;QO " wr v u vim- ` 14i- 22 `( ,� "= 2v c�•a�'e-! . / o cat �j. p ��l �c 3 Y S c a f / .i ci<fGde 4,11c eh? JI/Pi. rs / r/R4,piAg/xtiee m DATE: f iA/iqi /v/�J) 6 SIGNATURI/9 DIO� OR OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE c Pressc.,ve Vec(c.ct ' Vet/Pc reb v/Ow I� REV.5/90 • devrvthl I. • • • DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET • ECF-143-90 APPLICATION NO(S).: RVMP;SA;SM-143-90 PROPONENT: LPN Architects&Planners, Inc. PROJECT TITLE: Blackrlver Corporate Park Phase VI BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Applicant seeks to construct a four-story, 71,057 sf office building with parking and landscaping on a 169,314 sl site. LOCATION: SEC:24 TWNSHP:23N RNG:3E Northeast corner of Oaksdale&Grady Way TO: PUBLIC WORKS DIVISION SCHEDULED TAC DATE: 12/21/90 ENGINEERING SECTION , , • TRAFFIC ENG. SECTION .. UTILITIES ENG. SECTION )(FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU 4 POLICE DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION CONSTRUCTION FIELD SERVICES • DEVELOPMENT PLANNING • PLANNING&TECHNICAL SERVICES PARKS AND RECREATION DIVISION OTHERS: COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITING. PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE PLANNING DIVISION BY 5:00 P.M. ON DECEMBER 14, • • 1990. • REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: (A- - /P,LI--?'u `4 • APPROVED APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS . • NOT APPROVED Any development and/or construction shall comply with current Fire and Building Codes and Ordi- nances. A second means of approved access is required. Fire .apartment access roads/lanes shall be paved minimum width 20'; minimum height 13' 6". Yes No Preliminary fire flow calculations show a fire flow of o c2 d is required. - hydrants with a minimum flow of /0D 0 gpm each is required. Primaryhydrant is required to be within /� . feet of the structure. Seconary hydrants are required to be within ?O 0 feet of the structure. An approved automatic sprinkler system is required to protect the total structure. Yes. No All fire department access roads are to be paved and installed prior to construction. Yes 4. No_ All tiro hydrants arc rquired t0 be installed and approved prior to construction. Yes No DATE: ir2 `l 7d SIGNATURE (i 'ECTOR OR UTHO D REPRESENTATIVE REV.5/90 / )4L,�;l /I-ev( i1���r1,., - (/ . REQUIRED FIRE FIWW CALL ATION S 1. HAZARD IDEN1IFIC TION •INFO MATION NAME: IJ f. / 1.. ' � T'lAr�� �� �� ,.� U.B.C. CLASS OF BUILD e z-- ADDRESS: .SW &t/<')424U q(g1ner k) - FIRE MGMT AREA 2. DETERMINE TYPE F- CONSTRUCTION V- CLASS (CIRCLE ONE): • I. . I -� II 11/i IV III V FIRE-RESISTIVE ON-COMBUSTIBLE ' ORDINARY WOOD FRAME MIXED (NOTE: IF "MIXED," SEE SPECIAL INSTRUCTION FOR AREA AND BASIC FIRE FLOW) 3. DETERMINE AREA: GROUND FLOOR AREA: FT2 , • ' NUMBER OF STORIES Ii TOTAL BUILDING AREA: 5?cV 0 7 2--- 'i; (A) 1. DETERMINE BASIC FIRE FLOW FROM TABLE RI, USING AREA (A): 1(� C1 O 0.. - GPM (B) 5. DETERMINE OCCUPANCY FACTOR ADJUSTMENT: ADJUSTMENT: /Q O 0 GPM (C) IF LOW HAZARD, SUBTRACT UP TO 25% OF (B): IF HIGH HAZARD, ADD UP TO 25% o[ (B) 6. COMPUTE SUB-TOTAL' (IOC): ' (IF B+C LESS THAN 500 GPM, INSERT 500 GPM) �Oa O GPM, (D) 7. DETERMINE SPRINKLER ADJUSTMENT: ADJUSTMENT: • /c 0 0 GPM (E) (IF COMPLETELY,. SPRINKLERED, SUBTRACT UP TO 50% OF (D): IF LIGHT HAZARD OCCUPANCY AND FIRE RESISTIVE OR NON-COMBUSTIBLE CONSTRUCTION, SUBTRACT UP TO 75% OF J(D). 0. DETERMINE EXPOSURE ADJUSTMENT: 1 USING T11E TABLE AS A GUIDE, ENTER THE SEPARATION AND ADJUSTMENT FOR EACH OF THE "FOIUR FACES" OF THE BUILDING IN THE TABLE AT THE RIGHT: 1 SEPARATION MAX. ADJUSTMENT EXPOSURE SEPARATION ACT. ADJ. 0-10 ' , . 25% MAX NORTH X0 + ADD 0 % 11 - 30 20% MAX EAST 53 / ADD /5 $ 31 - 60 15% MAX SOUTH 61 - 100 ' • 10% MAX WEST /6-0 ''• ADD 0 ' % 101 - 150 5% MAX TOTAL % OF ADJUSTMENT 150 or 4-11r WALL 0% MAX (NOT TO EXCEED 75%) 6. , % (TOTAL % ADJUSTMENT. TIMES (D) ADJUSTMENT: 1'jQ .'GPMI(F) ). DETERMINE ROOF AND SIDING COVERING ADJUSTMENT: (IF SHIINIGLE COVERING, ADD 500 GPM) ADJUSTMENT: ' 0. GPM (G) 10. COMPUTE ESTIMATED FIRE FLOW REQUIRED: • :IF D+E+F+G IS LESS THAN 500 GPM, INSERT 500 GPM) ;,202. 0 ' IF D+E+F+G IS GREATER THAN 12,000 GPM, INSERT 12,000 GPM) •. . ( }E+F+G) ID).QUIRED FIRE FLOW: . GPM (11): 1 . SIGNED: s,r� ,) DATE: /01/7 0 . • • • • .I DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS �h.),•,< ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST REVIEW SHEET ' • +? / 4< ►s,t jS �y � 11.. REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: �Ya.r�spoir C�T�� n prc.�•. VJ� ,�r> ' M ,�� . DATE CIRCULATED: 12/3/90 COMMENTS DUE: 12/111•4 1.67• ECF-143-90 DEC 3 ,ppo/pL04/ S APPLICATION NO(S): RVMP;SA;SM-143-90 • tt -.1 199U �0 L4rvEa PROPONENT: LPN Architects&Planners, Inc. PROJECT TITLE: Blackriver Corporate Park Phase VI BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Applicant seeks to construct a four-story, 71,057 sf office building with parking and landscaping on a 169,314 sf site. LOCATION: Northeast corner of Oaksdale&Grady Way SITE AREA: BUILDING AREA(gross): a• IMPACT REVIEW ON ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS: PROBABLE PROBABLE MORE MINOR MAJOR INFORMATION IMPACT IMPACT NECESSARY 1. Earth 2. Air 3. Water 4. Plants 5. Animals • 6. Energy&Natural Resources • 7. Environmental Health 8. Land&Shoreline Use 9. Housing 10. Aesthetics • 11. Light&Glare 12. Recreation 13. Historic&Cultural Preservation • 14. Transportation - 15. Public Services 16. Utilities COMMENTS: • e E� 2ti. -•..,-. b) is • • We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas In which we have expertise and have Identified • areas of probable Impact or areas where additional Information Is needed to properly assess this proposal. i � � l Signature of Director or Authorized Representative / dp Date . Rev.6/88 emnv+ld Review Comments • Black River Corporate Park Phase VI SM-143-90 (4 Story) Office Building December 28, 1990 By First City Washington, Inc. Building Area - 71,057 . Vehicle Trip rate per Environmental Checklist 21 Vehicles per 1,000 square feet 21 x 71.057 1,000 a 1,492.20 Estimated Vehicle Trips • Assessment for Grady Transportation Benefit District • ($152 .00 per trip generated) 1,492.20 x $152.00 - $226,81-4 40" - _.._. ,a53,C?5/ Deposit: $2.26;814:40'to account No.: /n5/57,V3/k. 70•00. ,A ' a r'i :/ _4_ J c..4. •%,(,t. 1. / V ,�% JGL ,./ •(� !rr f • T • NOTE: All roadway and intersection impacted location are provided for in the TBZ projects for which the above fee is to provide participation . in those projects. . 90-504:CEM:ps , • II • • F, I :ii;:j•:•i'r'::•Y:;ryi�?•:(:•i:{':i'::{{::{;ii;:${?{:}:?�:{:}:{::•{:�::i{i:;•:{•i':..•:.::•:�:::}:{::i:•}::i:•iii`:C;:};i:SYt:+:+:i?:ii::: i• R.�vtow.Comm...::oo:.::::: .:. :...:::::.�:.•::... NM �:.•::. :.::.::: • January 16, 1991 • To: Lynn Guttmann, Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator John Webley, Community Services Administrator Lee Wheeler, Fire Chief From. on Erickson, Secretary ••.•eetlra D.ate::::: ::<:>:::::::Jan�a ....6;.... �:1...:.:.:::::•:::::.::::::.::..:::::::..:..............::::.:..:. ::..::..::.:.:.....:..:::::..:: :::.:::::.:::::::.':. :. ..:.:.;:.;:..>:.:::;::.;:.;::.::•<;>:::::;::::; • • Agenda attached below. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE AGENDA January 16, 1991 Third Floor Conference Room Commencing at 10:00 AM TIME/KEY PARTICIPANTS NEW HIGHLANDS CHURCH CU;R-048-90 The applicant seeks to rezone the easterly portion of the • project site from R-1. (Single-Family Residential) to P-1 (Public Zone) and to obtain a Conditional Use Permit to construct a two-story (12,000 sf) addition to the existing , one and two-story (17,995 sf) church building in order to provide additional classroom and office area. The project Is located at 3031 NE 10th Street. BLACK RIVER, PHASE VI ECF;RVMP;SA;SM-143-90 The applicant proposes to construct a four-story 71,057 sf office building with landscaping and parking on a 169,314 sf site. The project site is located on the east side of Oaksdale Avenue and approximately 150 feet north of South Grady Way. RECONSIDERATION EAST VALLEY OFFICE CENTER, BLDG 3&4 ECF;SA-118-89 The project consists of two four-story office buildings on a 14.47 acre plat. It will be divided Into two phases with Phase I consisting of the east building (Building 3), 592 parking spaces (incl. 118 spaces held in reserve), landscaping to match the adjacent properties and the pedestrian plaza extension being built immediately upon approval. Phase II, consisting of the west building (Building 4), 592 parking spaces (incl. 118 spaces held in • reserve), landscaping and completion of the plaza will be construction upon completion of Phase I. The project is located at 1701 East Valley Frontage Road for Building 3 and 1700 Lind Avenue for Building 4. Environmental Review Comr ,«4a Meeting Notice January 16, 1991 Page 2 BOEING CU-028-87 Applicant seeks extension of the conditional use permit that allowed the construction of a 40,000 sf temporary office building. The project is located on the west side of Garden Avenue North,500 ft north of North 8th Street. DISCUSSION/INFO ONLY PACCAR OFFICE BLDG CU;ECF;RVMP;SP-140-90 The applicant seeks to obtain: a) a conditional use permit to develop a two-story/53,325 sf office complex (with 66 Immediately adjacent parking spaces) on a 2.39 acre vacant parcel; b) a conditional use permit to Improve a 3.69 acre vacant parcel as a 319 space parking lot to serve both the planned new and existing PACCAR facilities; c) a Special Permit to allow preparation of the site for construction in advance of issuance of a building permit; and d) a Routine Vegetation Management Permit to clear shrub/scrub ground cover to accommodate the proposed new development. A covered walkway will be provided to connect project structures. Landscaping will be provided to replace/enhance on-site vegetation. The site Is zoned H-1 on the Land Use Map and designated for heavy industrial use on the Comprehensive Plan. The project is located at 502 Houser Way North. BLACK RIVER VII&VIII ECF;SA;SM-071-88&ECF;SA-109-88 TRACT A The proposal Includes phased construction of three office buildings ranging in height from one to four stories. These buildings would provide 183,600 square feet of space. Surface parking would accommodate approximately 800 autos. TRACT B The proposal Includes phased construction of three office buildings ranging in height from three to seven stories. - These buildings would provide 286,200 square feet of space. Surface parking would accommodate approximately 500 autos and another 800 stalls would be provided in a three story parking structure. cc: J. Covington, Executive Assistant to the Mayor L.Warren, City Attorney F. Kaufman, Hearing Examiner G. Gordon, Fire Marshal J. Hanson, Development Services :::: . :: .: N I . .G ;D.IIILD.ING .:PU.:::ICI.0 1.N....Q:.; KS>;::•::::.:•::g.::••::<.>:. ::::* ;: > : ;:.;::<:.:::•;:.»::.::.:>::•:.:.. EE:::::<>::>::»::::>»::::: :::::>::::::::::::::::::<:::>::::: ::::<:•:::<:::::::::p:: ; :::: . ::;:>:.:.il:::»:. : .> ;Erickson/F.irst;:Cit.;:Washing►Qn.I:I ::::•;:•::•::•>::•::»:<•::•:::-::.: :<:•:.�.13.I.ackriy�r:CQrpo a.e .. k.�h,.•::.:•::::.•:.:K::.*�:.� ::.•::.:::.:•:::::::::.:::.: ENVIRONMENTAL��.:HF�� L T•�:»::::::::<: ::FI�Mp�SMa..::.C: .Fo S .::...:. :1 �- :....... . ::•:::::::.• .•::.•::.:.:.. ... ...::::::::::::::: ' r. 0 5 <::<::;:::: :;:::::: . .::: :• .::.. . . :: :: :::;:>:>:i: .,•.;•ap,.icant proposes'to:cor struct:::a:.ott:::s..o!Y:.::b.:..::A ••••••.::<•:;::I•E . • IP: I. • • •-F;PROppSAL.::. :::::::>:•::•;:.;7he:apPl: a.:::.: ... p::•::•::..::•::..::•::::::.::.:.:•••::•:::• :...•:::::::::::::: :::::.:'.: it ..:::::lan i ;::::and.::: arc:::.•foot•:::off..tca.::.>bu.ld.:::g:::w.::h:::::....:'•.•: P... .g...:. :..::.•::... :;.:.�e,:.:: .:::: ::::: ::: : <: :< :'::>: ::•:> : :<:<:::::?<: :::<::<'•:• : ; :: .ark.. .. . .car.:•::. :::::::::::::...........::•.•::.:•.: ::::.: .:•::::.�:.•::.:•:.•.: :•. :. :. :.: t I. PHASE V\\ \\\\ 1 ±I ' ' TJ ' y H _ru�za .. 1 t. ;lam@` 'par roofearr rma 1 "'V',,i4V. 4 M ; ►„ I lit t: 1� , I��.;t�IX �.L_ &W".47.77 i.3i.�`��. It 9'.•; \'.;� ' L1 Yule- , [..f‘i.t. 'q' 6111a„e12�Po.a LANK— �• ., .� � 7� .:..- I- \ \ 47 ' I gi ' r` 8 \ • \ alj t: g n 1-1T-IPallitll \ 47 at M•n,;, EXIST•-•,,�,jEAI10..IC • �••:Ao..,r '� : I" ' it •\ •- t' ., 1 ""E oCe''. - I• i . AREA 4f1btE4Gxr—_ � t - ,�— Z- '9�`Mw dcr�ca•e--\ — C t� 'r' : re:a•-�- _ .21 i•':-yre Ws E¢--`.. -• _ .. _'* OStory; � _` J�a,n is t� �N C�ye Ncnua xew,•xkwrtx— — 1 •"•`^7 I. , !.3 •a n roe'ronaw eo:rrtc. YMtot.TYP. A e• — 1 .am 1,14 Ccr6 • 7i w , i +. avv r:� p —� Wag t'�i.' U1 , i• n 'I r.\ -- �rrw.u�o:e,`nsra�.ro m os.�,,,eo . 01\ F1, ..,, 1 r 1 ts, , ._-Df*.�- n w 7a ` NN r ,' .• —•_ �' S +_7 5 w.w.1 e..awa co r.GJ Qg�++N w , -- ���0� � � � N�T�ND�I/•Wn[yN00p Ti.�$r • mmtxa- 1. ,.,`,.. ..M /� .: ---"'i.eetictew..w.,.da CrI TP yld§T •'\r. �f 1,.'- `' /yi.l �� ctu+TM.<wnu•. VAN ,, .,\. 40 . • ie •`\ \yc 1 , x, .•o•• w 131.� , MI g O ensn�EyeaCa• '4 D r,.Ittcl.Tttitit:.T a�w Gurreo 9 ' • • te;y- r,; y!i, ADJACENT USES MAP 'now 1 ,,TA A .1 .. sin =1i�1� m 45 i SWTIIC[H:E: OL• ' mum rn E•o,x I Q VICINITY MAP 2 tacrpt ii E ','. .. • • • , ;J J" .;j.;`1Technical`Adviso y Committt • ::,kt.t, , k • " "rn r' :Agenda Jrri +',!':i.; •lc�('�ii,'"�j�,,jy+l�„ iC; '','41�F,J ., t' i:• ,r 'F3: i-! '' FJanuary'4; 199'1•i ; :,•{ i, ; .q i,let i.' • ' 2 • >,,;i:,•a!: ''t,. • ;�'..,, '`+_:}`,:Ai•- i:, I,i:itb}dJJ L" IV ; L^T yi F.1 1,`9, .i .r :','K�ftF%bi'j f}.lnF {{ •'' �.{i,;•7,j,•J' ' `S r.',iry r • • ,. .'j�° r1�li'fi•1 v,'! !i• • ij i�i, 1• ' ',•',. {J^'1,•', • �'11•:11,. ,,a'1" { .- • ,i,Jt:i 'I• • : ,. :, : r i • • yi,); '`hi'li 1„';Ii•j.'6'11 •, ,'{,,'',I•;•'I'......; �.J ,,•,1,,:;::,; t ;lY;;4''�;'a:,. • • •„! :;;,' !• {`� •BLACK RIVER, PHASE VI ji' -••,J,,44 {'If':.,• i1 fs4':,}i..,.,•.;„;,! ",I::' 'r,'. ,'' ,J,i ' '{ r , ;..,t1: . :';•;;' 1 ` , ECF;RVMP;SA;SM-143-90 • , i'', _` "" ` • • 'Applicant seeks to construct afour-story, 71,057 sf office' .y ,4r,a 5'I:' 'i,'''. 1.•'-•-,, ,' ';,';" ,, on a 169 314 sf iii, building with parking and landscaping ;t " site. The project is located on the northeast corner of is 'i ii' ;�;'' '' • >ik _ :' • • e;';.;; !i= Oakesdale&Grady Way �l: lF = '! • , �7,: i 1 ,, ;'ie.i..'1:,,1' .ire :;' .wa.:,p'I• tl :,['f` "'' i .. i • ?.i. ,.•1�'�:'g"j!id „,f,;i; ,i+,.i;{ ,�s F'''�!i.; ,+: !° ��,I ;t!f'' •.F • Ti?4 r,ti;y�:•F6'k:"jJ a!�' s:,ii �; .'{!5 �t:;•t•: ,r„i4 't' ;+I: E f„l P,III 7! ,14' Jr• f, J•, , • I I:' i ' ' } , :'a(J'i:, . 'i `'!,' :i I..I1ti, 1r: ,y • • • • • ji i,. Y y i;.;d,•,i J1,X1',a'< ;4r �„tix; ' • 1,?.,9'i,l,'�E' ;'` •' �7 v' rt9, #':'' , ,,:,I��4f\. ',,iv,ill'tj ''Si,''•' ':tf,1/,fi„,;. ' •'•_, i:; ,Y •rArf 1{ • • • ,• .i+ •,.yie'.iiil',4; iii;,f,j`, I i rIi '•F lt• S••i' , '. ,i'. 1 '" a ' ' rrh a ' I;'ki;,. ttri r;;l. :{ " s•,yt;i,yr,,-1'• S ' `t? i' 1'flfl;in „i; jr, } �,{ ',i 'r:.�•,,�;, IBi; ,, ''t�: Iuit:}•rJ�l4K9 ,'Jl.,}.I# ,.,11,''14`";,`;jf11k,x ,i-e'� t;: S'; , ,,Vice ::, {,,, ,r? :JaC, ,;ir } 4 • ••••.tj #.lt4 4. ,il'JIf 9' i "ii,:l:'i'•,s }i.i1trvi.,,,o!,"!� 's,' 11 .tlt ',tI • • ' Pd • ! �•lJ•l��A I P !I i 'i' ' ,j{ '1•14 itl, I ! 1]. `.Y.i I 1• , ''''rt • ivll••'! :2.L^..Y.$rj:1a. V3 ', y,rp • "1,,7,,..., ' • 't;iJ 'i:{:' t +,',•� „i :,J'' ,'yi,;j},'I` i ,y„�S'`ii lI .t 1• ,1' 31 • .y;i;'L.�)„�,iY.', ":1{,fal:i:"MI6'�j{7;.`}widy,y' "•'•' ,I i ^i FSS ` 1( Y I'`+1'"{ •!,t'••'.'d;,f; t l`f.{,8`.'F t! ,i±, ' }' ! !'> 0,11;{4,,y!;i;:,v'atti.}'!i.#1.;!t;:,' ?i+:j,;;;<,!�;`,,r., "+ ,1�• ",t; :• f` 1j 1.r:'`I.i:•ti:{i'.'J, ', '':(•n{,l',: 'I•,. • !,1,;" `l1"rF, I', •• • ' y:,,.�.t1Y�;:i;,:,� i: .< `•1': :ir ri\ry{;. ''rt, ,,.?,.;r{;'I'1:�.' i, • �' i`'" ,''- :•G•"$;.11q'.;...;4,'i ,,'{J'C,,:' '',,:, !'•,' • 'I„ .,+`:. ,��ps ,,4., I t4 ,•4:, Ga.r.J,,.,F,;.,7,i,'; 1; •.4 k'<;,�„ +., :, ,J r';='k:'•4j•' :'a' 1. p°g.)�` 'iv' trsc'+Id'I • Sn" i y."1,i',y�d. 'r,,:,t.,,li/r}{,, C'.{,+1' r(4,. j ''t 1 .u'dJ'J ,:'.,,• !Il, ),1,' 4.4' dn.ti7414q,4•a' M,. '"S• ! ,'';r, .'Fi.A,nrp••4: I''',(•' ' ';"�,i'i.I•+ "r .'I r'!' .(„ ,f-' :. '.t., •P�.1;,le. - r,' _ :,'.It:?l';".:'ri"" ''' ) - 'i , !Cai x:�s l:K'4 �;J'- .f`: `trj'J'' 4•}�,`{:,t.1,Nf, :,'1j •S:' ai''. },�, t"ts :,� TIv.S.y'rI, 4 E,e)2,E,.,.11:r 1:1,:1'. .l:r,',�. 1 '''°:<v:. 'i E• r: , +£:J ;';,',J;r '�'�',",'r„4l{ ,, , „;, j�j !.� 'd' .i:j' ••l.ya} !} '��"3i,�' ixx,•,bi3:,a;{ 'S$'• $:S,i?78:,,.'':F" ,t+, ,�;,. ,�;, •!,i ''��,;•. '!fF stY'4`�1�;• ,,:.'„ 'h1C,f}il•, ',11 •''I" ,i • Lr.i, r` • • 1. • ,,t f�rt4:r e,'w'lytl:-1•,r'iti•i'1;:' JFk(�y;lJ •• i' .�`., :}•^'. S^'r "'i .16 :y;t :l'w..:', !i'a Sl,S� ">'- 2'.itl'±S t.'i`Si .,,i:i?1 "lL•;.` ,C :,. ..j, �{;•4.[: .L' ' "1'', 4:" ;{,!;, ;�. {i ..t`:.,;J , S�,f' k�7aatt ,M1},, t1,41:.ro•(j:,44•It'N'i''"''' i I',+ Lt,f?.;:.4kp t,' -ti."d1q.,..:.'„ '1:i'}:i," ;{ '••y,..''- i{ • . {, , [' './4 ,'`', IP�'J ':+lid �, a '. ,1J:• ,,f, ,I,7.i,1,I.Ikj:l !%• r, , '1 .•,r, ; : ',J�1':i;',,:u; tilt+'J•I" ;, ''• • • ';�F�rJ';;("'''•!:,1t { ii°ir1'1?d�' .p.'''!j�l i,i,.,. I',• I::�a '•h i� • . •" ,I;.1;{fi';1, I1 ,:II i; ':'::J:';,' i i•• •1w. • .,,� 1 , 4,'ry; • 'tit,,.,,' +i;{ P{i i Ir, • • ! i '.' ,,.,I.'•J, di• ,�2 i,�1 r ,i�31j:;yi,. '.t•1 G;u. •? lj�'';„y" , ;"L iit,' • I• li • • i"#'Ai'1'`",r!'"'';7: �a'.:i ,`'.+�,�'r :'a1,'�'}i'' Y}r'. • r<'.. `,��•, •, il., :I .1 i`i " i5..' , e7 „1.r,i: • ,. e ; !t;., [;' ;Itili�'I 7',ir., ;i t•,,i 1d1:• •,Ck�,;�itla,• y }� I I r . ! • 'I lyd i j 1 t , r�� • ,1I 4 It , I i '' i 'l: • .1''^(fdi jE7,:r�'."jf'r�•"'•�'iij .)�'„'.a i::,•':I. 'I ` .i+,�ix+1 t'l:'t �a 1,• I'.ii' ,"•i '' • • i' • ','Il'„<�A:!:• r 7.,1;,'�Gjpr�'!l;.I • !il,l',:"l.. • • .jeTt!i /�%J''`;I'1;,.!.F'It'.'ll. ,'y•' •1j, .I4,,.r , 't , • • • 'I' ;3 3�1 • f ri:'�iY:y�E,c!'i,:(,, 9;''' '•S pryi8't.;, • a ', ' • .'j'•9•1i6 i,'.;..s':'tl;Ti,; ,, . r ,:' ti !:'• -}'•. ' • ' ' • .,t'r, i',i! ', t;fr' 1�•F7"(i. r' •lei ,. >, , ` {: '.: .syi' ,i}i!'J ifY"1':,'.','.1,.• ' II,} ik.i ,jt t ',7 '41',i, ,r,d 44 ( li; i' • b�l t•f?,,e i+ , ' ,1,.:I' r-r 1.'• :,_� 1 I. 1;.i'!` Ir�.�`n•14rt::i-",T: ,. i;'I.i,(t, �7:I1d41'Mi"',t; I,; �,: Technical Advisory Committee __aff Report Blackriver Corporation Park Phase VI December 28, 1990 Page 3 Mitigation Measures: See Notes#1 and #2. Policy Nexus: Landscaping Ordinance 4-31-34, Parking and Loading Ordinance 4-14, Environmental Review Ordinance 4-6 b. Natural Environment Impacts: The project site is separated from the relocated Springbrook Creek (P-1 channel) by Oaksdale Ave. S.W. Due to the fact that the project site Is within 200 feet the applicant has applied for a Shoreline Management Permit. The project compiles with Sections 7.05.01.A. of the Shoreline Management Program in that the proposed structure will be located in an area that has already been developed with commercial uses. The proposed structure also complies with Section 7.05.02 In that the proposed building will be located more than fifty (50)feet of the water's edge. The proposed building will be located approximately 250 feet from the water's edge. A draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)was prepared for the entire Corporate Park in July of 1980. Although most parts of this DEIS are outdated the description of the subject property Is accurate. The DEIS identified a riparian forest along the north . boundary of the project site. The DEIS indicates that the portion of the project site that is now proposed for development was part of the golf course that covered most of the 109 acres that the Statement studied. Mitigation Measures: None Required. Policy Nexus: N/A c. Traffic Impacts: The area that this proposed project is located within is developing for office and warehouse uses and the number of people employed in this area is increasing rapidly. Although,there is not a bus service offered along Oaksdale Ave. S.W. it can be expected in the near future as the employment base grows and justifies it. Staff recommends that the applicant work with Metro to develop an agreement that will reserve an area along Oaksdale Ave. for a future covered Metro bus stop. The applicant will also need to work with Metro to develop a Transportation Management Plan (TMP) for the project site in order to reduce the nunber of vehicle trips on area roads to the extent possible. The proposed project is located within the Grady Way TBZ, all roadway and intersection impacted location are provided for in the TBZ. The fee, as indicated below, is to provide participation in these projects. Building Area = 71,057 square feet Vehicle trips per the Environmental Checklist 21 Vehicles per 1,000 square feet 21 x 71,057/1,000 = 1,492.20 Estimated Vehicle Trips Assessment of Grady Way Transportation Benefit District ($152.00 per trip generated) 1,492.20 x $152.00 = $226,814.40 to be deposited to account no. 105/572/318.70.00.62 Mitigation Measures: See Recommendations#1 and #2.. Policy Nexus: Transportation Goals and Policies/Comprehensive Plan tecrpt Technical Advisory Committee Staff Report Blackriver Corporation Park Phase Vi December 28, 1990 Page 2 • • • LAND USE . 1. Whether the proposed project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan zoning designation and with Goals, Policies and Objectives set forth in the Plan? • The proposed office building is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Map which designates the project site for Manufacturing Park/Multiple Option uses. The proposed project Is also consistent with Plan Elements for the Valley Plan area. 2. Whether the proposed project is consistent with the land use map zoning designation, applicable Zoning Ordinance components, the Shoreline Master Program and other applicable standards/ordinances? The subject property is zoned for Office Park use,which permits the proposed office building as a • permitted use with site plan approval. The proposed project adequately addresses the development standards for an office park. . The Springbrook Creek is considered a valuable and important resource within the City of Renton. Springbrook Creek Is protected by the standards and regulations in the Shoreline Master Program • . • • Ordinance. The proposed development Is consistent with the Master Shoreline Ordinance in that it will compliment .existing development that is adjacent to the subject property, the proposed building will be located approximately 200 feet from the creek and parking areas will be located approximately 150 feet from the creek. 3. Whether the proposed development is compatible with vicinity land uses. • The area to the north, south and east of the project site has been developed for a variety of office and light industrial uses. The area to the west of the project site has been developed for the Metro • Sewer Treatment Plant. The proposed use Is compatible with the surrounding land uses. • ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. Whether the applicant has adequately identified and addressed the following environmental Impacts likely to occur in conjunction with the proposed development. • a. Aesthetic/Land Use • Impacts: The applicant is proposing to construct a four-story, 71,057 square foot, office • • building as part of the Blackriver Corporate Park. The rear portion of the building will be • elevated to provide surface parking beneath the building. The exterior of the building will be finished with reflective glass, steel and concrete to match the existing buildings in the park. The existing development on adjacent parcels consist of one, three and four story office buildings. • The proposed four-story building has.been designed so that the front face of the building, as seen from Oaksdale Ave., Is broken into three sections. Each section is set back from • the previous section fifteen to twenty feet. This will help reduce the apparent bulk of the • project as seen from the street. . The applicant has provided a landscape plan which for the most part is adequate. The plans provided by the applicant indicate that parking will be provided for 321 vehicles. Staff believes that twenty percent of these spaces (64 parking stalls) should be placed in a parking reserve. Forty-nine of these spaces should be from the parking lot on the south • side of the existing drainage swale and four should be along the outdoor seating area. The remaining eleven spaces could be from around the entrance onto Oaksdale Ave. This would allow for additional landscaping In these areas. Metro and Washington Natural Gas have easements crossing the subject property. The site plan Indicates that the applicant proposes to cross these easements with Interior roads and parking areas. Prior to the public hearing before the Hearing Examiner the applicant • will need to provide copies of an agreement with these agencies for the proposed •development within the easements. 1 taarpt • Technical Advisory Committee.. •iff Report Blackriver Corporation Park Phase VI December 28, 1990 • Page 5 detention were waived and the paved area exceeds one acre,then runoff from all paved areas should be treated by a wetpond prior to discharge (per 1990 King County Surface Water Design Manual). Mitigation Measures: See Recommendation#4. Policy Nexus: Environmental Review Ordinance 4-6, Storm Water and Surface Water Drainage Management Ordinance 3. Sanitary Sewer Utilities Impacts: There is an existing sewer line and manhole are available for sewer connection at southwest portion of the subject property. There is a latecomers agreement sewer fee of $4,129.28 and a special utility connection charge of $10,666.78 that will be assessed at the time of building permits. Mitigation Measures: See Notes. Policy Nexus: N/A 4. Water Utilities Impacts: The applicant will need to extend the existing 12" watermain along the south boundary of the subject property to the east property line. if final fire flow calculations exceed 2500 GPM this loop will have to be closed. Due to the existing water pressure in this area the applicant will need to install a pressure reducing valve in the buildings water system. • Special utility connection charges will be assessed this project. The fee for the water system is$21,333.56 which will be assessed at the time of building permits. Mitigation Measures: See Recommendation#5 and Notes. Policy Nexus: Storm Water and Surface Water Drainage Management Ordinance 5. Recreation Impact: in order to provide on-site recreational facilities for the employees the applicant is proposing to construct a outdoor seating area and a horseshoe pit as part of this development. A running course with workout stations already exist within the Corporate Park area. Staff recommend that the applicant provide shower facilities for the employees within the proposed building. Staff also recommend that the applicant review the Park and Recreation Master Plan and the Trails Master Plan with the Community Services Department to determine the recreation impacts of this project prior to the public hearing. Mitigation Measures: See Recommendation#7. Policy Nexus: Parks and Recreation Comprehensive Plan, f. Construction • impacts: Standard construction impacts are anticipated with the proposed development of the new office building. Mitigation Measures: See Recommendation# Policy Nexus: Environmental Review Ordinance,4-6 tarp! Technical Advisory Committee Staff Report Blackriver Corporation Park Phase Vi December 28, 1990 Page 4 de Noise, Light and Glare • Impacts: 1. Construction Noise impacts can be expected to be generated during the construction phase of the project. As there are no residential land uses in close proximity to the subject property, no exceptional measures are necessary to reduce noise levels. 2. Operations The applicant Is proposing to use reflective glass In this building. Reflective glare is not expected to be readily visible from Oaksdale Ave. or South Grady Way where it could impact the vision of motorist. However, to confirm this, the applicant needs to prepare a reflective glare diagram for those hours when the angle of the reflected sunlight is 30 degrees or less with the horizon. On sight lighting will be screened by landscaping and light shades as necessary. Mitigation Measures: See Recommendation#3. Policy Nexus: Commercial Policies/Comprehensive Plan, Environmental Review Ordinance 4-6 e. Public Services/Utilities 1. Police and Fire Services Impacts: Police and Fire Prevention Bureau staff report adequate resources to provide anticipated services to the site during construction and operations with system improvement fees and with Code-required Improvements (e.g. three hydrants,20 foot fire lanes, automatic sprinkler system). The Police Department did note that emergency response requires a phone system that Identifies each caller.and their location, not the property owner. • Failure to have such a system would pose a major Impact on police services. Mitigation Measures: None Required. Policy Nexus: N/A 2. Storm Water Management Impacts: A portion of the project site Is within the 100-year floodpiain as defined by FEMA. Compensatory storage volume will have to be provided in order to fill any portion of the site that currently lies below the elevation of the 100-year floodplain. • Due to the fact the subject property is located within the 100-year floodplain, the applicant will need to provide the City with a "Hold-Harmless Agreement" holding the City harmless for any damages resulting from development within the 100-year floodplain. The applicant will be required to provide a storm water system in accordance with the 1990 King County Surface Water Design Manual which will include a level 1 • downstream analysis. The applicant will also•need to provide on-site blofiltration and a oil-water separator. Due to the large amount of impervious area, the runoff will Increase significantly over this area. Since biofiitratlon swales are designed only for a 2-year predeveloped release rate, a greater design storm-event would increase flow velocity above the maximum design flow, thereby deteriorating water quality. Detention would provide a metered flow rate, that would maintain water quality except in extreme design storm events. Therefore, staff recommend detention j (per 1990 King County Surface Water Design Manual), unless the applicant can produce a specific document agreement with the City that waives detention. If I lecrpl • Technical Advisory Committee If Report Blackriver Corporation Park VI December 28, 1990 Page 7 ::::::::.:.......:...:.......................:::::::::::::.::............:::::.:::::..................... .::. :.....:. . ■N,ME TS:�Q.F.:::.�,�VIEWNN(�D�P:ARTM�..::�'...:,::.::::.:::.::.::.:;;..... . :i:i�.R::::i7::}:.X.�.!!.T!!r.... ....... ... ..... .... .. ........ ..,.........,. .. I:Si:',?:Isis!:i:i;:.:,e.!:!I:!•!•i:!:'i,,:i!A:hG! I:j:l:!:i:l!I�! ...:......:._..._........._.:.,c ...:..............d....:...I.......................,.....I...,.......................J.......... ..:......_......_.._....._........I........J........... ::•::!:,c:�;=�:,cl�rr::u:�c:::c::r::::�r.::::.:. .. :I I...:I f,,:yi'ii'i'!•i' ....I..........:........{.........r.:_Irka!II.k:;!!•... ...._...._....................:�........... _..._:..............._...:-:r.:u!:'! ..I.........__...._......._..L_......I_.; ;�.,;.:!a.,l...,l.:..I:::.,.:.:....,.,.,..,I,:.,.:I I: {'::i }>;::, :{}:;: > :: .: :}:;a:�`•i:�i:: ��:v:'�}ii:<Y�:::; {{:.<;:; :.'•:>;;::;:; :;:;:;;:;:;:;: :::: :?::: :}'r:}:<i:::L;:i� ::::':::;;.;}{::}�:;:;: }:;s::•{:::;;,; }} t. :: a t : v ::ev.1.ew�d..an..d.cotnme0t.0%.lJp000 :pro e0810 ese`com.....:en...,:.. :::>:>:::.::Yarlotis:.�Gi.. ..dep rtmen.:s..:ha.:e:G...:....................::::::::::::.::::::::::::::.....:...........:::: 1.::::::.:::::::::::::::::::: :<.::�:.:;:.:::;:::: i� ( ,!•::,:!:!:,•: I ,:!.::I::;:::!::�'!!!!::!::::::I�!:':a::......:::.......!... ..il.I.,:':I:.:I.!::•:.I!I'I,I,ICI!!!!i!I!I�....:.L,:.:�,:....L,,,II:{,IILIs�I.,.l6a',6:: ::;v,:!'y:(I!:!::::::••:I:g.M.......1 ....:... ..................._S:'.._!'t:II!!!I'I :!!-::!:.::.....:.......,.,:,:I.I,,.,�Iy.l.}ry.;;,.;.I.,.,.;::.;!:;:}:{.,.,•:,':•I:.I I I I I,I:..:I,.I I.I..I I•.:I.:I:,I.I I:!I I LAND USE Construction Field Services: • Development Planning: Fire Prevention Bureau: Long Range Planning: Parks and Recreation: • Police Department: Sewer Utilities: Storm Water: • Transportation: Water Utilities: ENVIRONMENTAL • Construction Field Services: • Development Planning: Fire Prevention Bureau: • Long Range Planning: Parks and Recreation: Police Department: Sewer Utilities: Storm Water: • Transportation: Water Utilities: . • tacrpl • Technical Advisory Committee Staff Report Blackriver Corporation Park Phase Vi • December 28, 1990 Page 6 • 1. The applicant shall provide the following mitigation fee for the Grady Way TBZ to the satisfaction of the Transportation Systems Division prior to the issuance of site preparation/building permits. Building Area = 71,057 square feet Vehicle trips per the Environmental Checklist • 21 Vehicles per 1,000 square feet 21 x 71,057/1,000 = 1,492.20 Estimated Vehicle Trips . Assessment of Grady Way Transportation Benefit District ($152.00 per trip generated) 1,492.20 x $152.00 = $226,814.40 to be deposited to account no. 105/572/318.70.00.62 • • 2. The applicant shall provide a TMP (Transportation Management Plan) to the satisfaction of Metro and the Development Planning Section prior to the issuance of site preparation/building permits. 3. The applicant shall prepare a reflective glare diagram for those hours when the angle of the reflected sunlight is 30 degrees or less with the horizon to the satisfaction of the Development Planning Section prior to the public hearing before the Hearing Examiner. 4. The applicant shall provide the City with a "Hold Harmless" agrement as a portion of the project site lies within the 100 year flood plain to the satisfaction of the Development Services Division • prior to the Issuance of site preparation/building permits. 5. 1 The applicant shall provide fees for the special utility connection assessed this project. The fee for the water system Is$210,333.56, prior to the issuance of site preparation/building permits. • 6. The applicant shall provide a construction mitigation plan including the following components: a) an erosion control element; b) an element limiting hauling hours to between the hours of 8:00 A.M. • and 3:30 P.M.; c) an element requiring the applicant to water down the site periodically to control dust and debris; e) a$2,000.00 cash deposit for street cleaning and•f) an element to requiring the wheel-washing of all construction vehicles prior to leaving the project site, prior to the Issuance of site preparation/building permits. This plan shall be prepared to the satisfaction of the Planning Development and Public Works Sections of the Department of Planning/Building/Public Works and implemented throughout the construction phase of this project in order to protect the adjacent commercial/Industrial land uses. 7. The applicant shall consult with the Community Services Division to review the Park and Recreation Comprehensive Plan and the Master Trails Plan to determine this projects this projects impacts, prior to the public hearing before the Hearing Examiner the applicant shall provide a recreation mitigation plan to the satisfaction of the Community Services Department and the Development Planning Section. • Notes: 1. The applicant shall submit copies of an agreement from Metro and Washington Natural Gas indicating their approval of the proposed construction within their easements prior to the public hearing before the Hearing Examiner to the satisfaction of the Planning Development Section of • the Department of Planning/Building/Public Works. 2. The applicant shall provide an amended landscaping plan which includes the reserved parking areas to the satisfaction of the Development Planning Section prior to the public hearing before the Hearing Examiner. 3. The applicant will be required to extend the 12"watermain along the south boundary of the project. • tacrp% • • • • :: IV:GNQTI� • January 4, 1991 To: Gregg Zimmerman Planning Gary Gordon Sam Chastain Penny Bryant • Jim Hanson • From: Don Erickson, Chairman • . >li >::.Locati n-::::;«: :::»:::::::::::<:::Tfiii•cl'.�I.o'or;Coii:fererica.Roo.....:...........:.:::::::.�::::.�::::.�:.::.�:::::::..:................:...�.�:.�:.:.:.�:.::.:::.� Agenda is listed below.. TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE AGENDA January 4, 1991 Third Floor Conference Room Commencing at 8:30 AM TIME/KEY PARTICIPANTS . NEW PROJECTS BOEING 4-83 BLDG ENV LAB ECF-153-90 • Applicant seeks environmental review of a. new environmental laboratory to be located in the 4-83 building. Renovation of part of this building will be required. The project is located at the Renton Boeing Plant, 400 Park Ave N. SUMMERWIND SHORT PLAT LLA;SHPL;V-147-90 • Applicant seeks a short plat to redesign two existing lots • • with proposed Lot#1 to support an existing single-family home (discrete from the Summerwind development) and with Lot #2 to support a detention system for Summerwind #5. A variance is sought for proposed Lot #2 based upon the fact that the parcel is designed so that the depth/width ratio is greater than that customarily allowed by the Renton Subdivision Ordinance. A Lot Line Adjustment is sought to correct the boundary between the subject property and Summerwind #4 immediately to the west of this site. .The project is located at 4940/5000 Sunset Blvd. BOEING 7-404 TRAILER COMPLEX • ECF-148-90 Applicant seeks to locate 13 new 12' x 60' trailers on the project site to form a single 156'x 60' (9,360 sf) building. This temporary building will be used for office space while • the 4-01 building is demolished and the 4-80 building is under construction: The project is located within the Boeing Renton Plant facilities, adjacent to the 4-81, 4-17 and 4-20 buildings. OF RE - , @o ) NOTICE oSEPS OF PENDING SITE PLAN APPLICATION DESCRIPTION : BLACKRIVER CORPORATE PARK PHASE VI EC F;RVM P;SA;S M-143-90 APPLICANT SEEKS TO CONSTRUCT A FOUR-STORY, 71,057 SF OFFICE BUILDING WITH PARKING AND LANDSCAPING ON A 169,314 SF SITE. • GENERAL LOCATION AND/OR ADDRESS: NORTHEAST CORNER OF OAKSDALE &GRADY WAY PUBLIC APPROVALS REQUIRED : ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW • SITE PLAN APPROVAL BUILDING PERMIT PUBLIC COMMENTS WILL BE RECEIVED BY THE BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT .ANYTIME PRIOR TO PUBLIC HEARINGS AND DURING PUBLIC HEARINGS. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CALL THE CITY. OF RENTON BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT 235-2550 THIS NOTICE NOT TO BE REMOVED WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION CERTIFICATION I , Mrr.r ,Save )a , HEREBY CERTIFY THAT 3 , COPIES OF THE ABOVE DOCUMENT WERE POSTED BY ME IN 3 CONSPICUOUS PLACES ON OR NEARBY THE DESCRIBED PROPERTY ON - •,- 9d • .00,1,13118 Q� ���( . pU °•s ATTEST: Subscribed and sworn to f pi8 •��:1i0 Notary Public, in 'and for the Sta�i''.Mashingtora,.,•• residing in' ��t(i°�/ = of�thNo ` : .SIGNED : /// i & da of/ —�'— • Z PUpL‘ O 4 �i(51 •••'?i 1°'°;'• ,tee ”--a CITY OF RENTON Department of Planning/Building/Public Works Earl Clymer, Mayor Lynn Guttmann, Administrator December 3, 1990 Royce A. Berg LPN Architects&Planners, Inc. 1127 Pine St, Suite 300 • Seattle, WA 98101 • SUBJECT: Blackriver Corporate Park, Phase VI ECF;RVMP;SA;SM-143-90 Dear Mr. Berg: The Development Planning Section of the City of Renton has formally accepted the above-referenced application for preliminary review. It is tentatively scheduled for consideration by the Technical Advisory Committee on December 21, 1990. Following that review, you will be notified that: 1)your application is complete and has been scheduled for environmental review and determination, or 2) that additional information is required to continue processing your application for environmental review. Please contact me, at 235-2550, if you have any questions. Sincerely, . 9-‘1,7 Mark ell, Project Manager cc: Dean Erickson First City Washington, Inc. 700 Fifth Ave, Suite 6000 Seattle,WA 98104 • accptltr/MP/kac 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 NOTICE OF PENDING SITE PLAN APPROVAL RENTON,WASHINGTON A Site Plan Application has been filed and accepted with the Development Services Division of the City of Renton. The following briefly describes the application and the necessary Public Approvals. DESCRIPTION: BLACKRIVER CORPORATE PARK PHASE VI E C F;RV M P;SA;S M-143-9 0 Applicant seeks to construct a four-story, 71,057 sf office building with parking and landscaping on a 169,314 sf site. GENERAL LOCATION: Northeast corner of Oaksdale&Grady Way PUBLIC APPROVALS: Environmental Review , Site Plan Approval Building Permit The application can be reviewed in the Development Services Division located on the third floor of Renton City Hall. Comments will be accepted anytime prior to Public Hearings, during Public Hearings, or prior to an administrative site plan approval. For further information on the application or dates of final action by the City, please contact the Development Services Division,at 235-2550. iii- ril Existing Office Use f J 'L _ i , , MOMS VIAL I' .4:�i:i 1lj1 I sft ... - ..i. �"� 1 II*: .1' '' J •1: .ra // i�la, t1 1a _ ', .t ~ - I1 �l !. u ..1...a: , I .,� ,..� �EA� _ : . . 1 _ I Exist t- r •de -,. Wa use •$ f� �"(\\I.\`'�- �,• €•�"�'�.i- ,J' Use 1 lie 1 :: ;4!`,,, : .'- _ i _.44° aw4 9 jl \ C * rs=ønliJ '; ,,ram' ,_ i-7: `- . . .. l Q�0 �e Existing O Office Use / •m ap C IC [� Q® ICI Q Q Longacres • Existing Office/Warehouse Use NORTH ADJACENT USES MAP 1/200• 1 o A �'9 'A` SAY Site Area ±169,314 S.F. a 1 Building,Area ±71,057 SF. .. RENTON SIN 77H r Fl •• taoor ±0.935 SF. BLACKRIVER y i`. :•K...:.'. (220,462 S.F.r/Praaq Genoa) 4:' me Floor 220,462 SA CORPORATE :;;;;:'<: •` i 3nO Floor 220,574 S.F. SITE PARK 1 - . - . 461 ±20,574 SF. Building'Coverage 63,034 SF.) ±41.9% 10 Site Coverage(FootPr+nt SF.) ± 5.3%(±12.1%r/Prtrq Garage) S flu PorA�C Impervious Surface Area ±125,176 S.F. 4MIIES ii ., Impervious Surface Coverage ±73.9% LONGACRES Landscape Area ±26.1% SOUTHCENTER / Parking Count ±321 Stale cl 2 1 st■,ar ±12 Stab /�\ GENERAL< VALLEY I Compact ±tm Stale(39.3x) jC/�/V7 I i" +P► ± 5 Stall(2%) / HOSPITAL sltpinot parking patio ±1/221 S.F. (±1I200 Ballad on 90%Mooney) alN S MOTH E 'n OF RFC NOTICE U \% Q Z q Eec tFD SEPt EMO OF PENDING SITE PLAN APPLICATION DESCRIPTION : BLACKRIVER CORPORATE PARK PHASE VI ECF;RVM P;SA;SM-143-90 APPLICANT SEEKS TO CONSTRUCT A FOUR-STORY, 71 ,057 SF OFFICE BUILDING WITH PARKING AND LANDSCAPING ON A 169,314 SF SITE. GENERAL LOCATION AND/OR ADDRESS: NORTHEAST CORNER OF OAKSDALE & GRADY WAY PUBLIC APPROVALS REQUIRED : ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW SITE PLAN APPROVAL BUILDING PERMIT PUBLIC COMMENTS WILL BE RECEIVED BY THE BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT .ANYTIME PRIOR TO PUBLIC HEARINGS AND DURING PUBLIC HEARINGS. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CALL THE CITY OF RENTON BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT 235-2550 THIS NOTICE NOT TO BE REMOVED WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION PLANNING DIVISION CITY OF RENTON NOV 2 9 1990 • RECEIVED 30039 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION Kathleen Hoover_ • ,being first duly sworn on oath states that he/she is the Chief Clerk of the VALLEY DAILY NEWS • Kent Edition • Edition • Auburn Edition t on Renton ..�. _: . . ,,,.,:<rysy.::;.,.�-x•�;Fk:•� ... �rz... . g8HORELI !<"AkjeATiots `c'#N) '9i' ►►nNIOTICE;OP/APPLICATION"F0Frf ' Daily.newspapers published six 6 times a week. That said newspapers nW a,SHORELI�VE•MANAGEMENTa :F;+:�f; 1 are legal newspapers and are now and have been for;more than six =3;SUBSTANTIAL iDEVELOPMENT PERMIT"s , Notice;is.,her by glieri tb. FIRST ClM • months prior to the date of publication referred to, printed and published 4 WAS,iNr�,�,p tasi,fil apli�a��i'�o�6,forA;° in the English language continually as daily.newspapers in Kent, King �.a su_sfanhai evelopment' •ermit,torthe; County, Washington. The ValleyDailyNews has been approved as a legal • .' g PP #� ��:�:t•3,:cow b.�.r.t,,.::.xfr._-.; newspaper by order of the Superior Court of the State of Washington for , Fonstruction or development_of 4-STORY., �0FFICE-BU LDING'`OR APPROXIMATELY- King County. 69;837:SR locatedl"at:,GRADY WAY S.W: 1ND OAKESDALE:},AVE: S.W. within Sec The notice in the exact form attached, waspublished in the Kent Edition tion(sj':24 of,°Township`o N Range'3E,.; 1NMi?In th City, of,Renton;rKing;County;., XX ,, Renton Edition XX'• , Auburn Edition XX. , (and not in 11,Washington Said development'is proposed. supplement form) which was regularly distributed to its subscribers s"to.be within -1 CHANNEL and/or its asso P P.ub'lli c N o t i_c e. . dated duringthe below stated period. The annexed notice a : rAny person,desiring;to:express,his view: 4,arid be-notified of.the'action taken'onthis. (Notice. of Application) • 4.9.03. XappIication'shouldSnotify,the,,Building_and Zonirigi Department;,-,,Renton.Municipal, Building;:200 Mil Aven`uerSouth; Renton;• was published on November 12.,•19.; 19 9 0: • Washington 98055 in writing of_his;interest' rwithin thirty(30),days of_the last publication :ofpthis' A�:Y.7i ;�'w £.t�.:y t.•,.FOP,.; Published;_in;rthe ValleyIiaily NeWs The full amount of the fee charged for said foregoing publication is the November 12'and•19;,1990,4903r" g sum of$ 9 4 .0 0. • �yt;#jqf"_f .. ;,�:, 7' ` :�'='t. l fr(g'tiagid Y7415:1 Subscribed and sworn before me this 2 O f.h day of Nov.. ' 19 •9 0'. 1(1 *. Notary Public for the State of Wash gton residing at Att fr is-A'-r- King County, Washington 1p42 WVDN#87 Revised 4/89 NOV 26 1990 • LPN Architects & Planners CITY OF RENTON SHORELINE MANAGEMENT ACT OF 1971 PERMIT FOR SHORELINE MANAGEMENT SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT APPLICATION NO.: SA-143-90 DATE RECEIVED: November 5, 1990 DATE OF PUBLICATION: November 12 & 19, 1990 DATE APPROVED: May 6, 1991 DATE DENIED: N/A TYPE OF ACTION(S): [X] Substantial Development Permit [ ] Conditional Use Permit [ ] Variance Permit Pursuant to Chapter 90.58 RCW, the City of Renton has granted/denied a permit: This action was taken on the following application: APPLICANT: First City Washington, Inc./Dean Erickson DEVELOPMENT DESCRIPTION: The applicant seeks approval to construct a four story, 71,000 sq.ft., office building on 169,314 sq.ft. site with on- site parking and landscaping. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 4 of City of Renton Short Plat No. 016-88 as recorded under King County Recorder's No. 8910279013, said Short Plat being a portion of the Northeast Quarter of Section 24, Township 23 North, Range 3 East, W.M., in King County, Washington. SEC-TWNP-R: Sec. 24, T23N, R3E WITHIN SHORELINES OF: P-1 Channel (Springbrook Creek) STATE SHORELINE OF SIGNIFICANCE (YES/NO): Yes ENVIRONMENT DESIGNATION: Urban APPLICABLE MASTER PROGRAM: City of Renton, December 5, 1983 (Revised July 22, 1985 and July 16, 1990) The following section/page of the Master Program is applicable to the development: Section 2.02 Substantial Development Permits Section 7.05 Commercial Developments Development of this project shall be undertaken pursuant to the following terms and conditions: 1. The applicant shall comply with the mitigation measures of the Determination of Non- Significance- Mitigated issued January 16, 1991. shsubdev 2. The applicant shall comply with the Decision of the Hearing Examiner dated April 22, 1991. This permit is granted pursuant to the Shoreline Management Action of 1971 and pursuant to the following: 1. The issuance of a license under the Shoreline Management Act of 1971 shall, not release the applicant from compliance with federal, state,and other permit requirements. 2. This permit may be rescinded pursuant to Section 14(7) of the Shoreline Management Act of 1971 in the event the permittee fails to comply with any condition hereof. 3. A construction permit shall not be issued until thirty (30) days after approval by the City of Renton Building and Zoning Department or until any review proceedings initiated within'this thirty (30) day review period have been completed. Planning Buil 'ng P blic Works Administrator Date THIS SECTION FOR DEPARTMENT USE ONLY IN REGARD TO A CONDITIONAL USE OR VARIANCE PERMIT DATE RECEIVED: APPROVED: DENIED: This Conditional Use/Variance permit is approved/denied by the Department pursuant to Chapter 90.58 RCW. Development shall be undertaken pursuant to the following additional terms and conditions: (tM°0 _ . Date Sign to of thorized Department Official cc: D.O.E., NW District Office ' Attorney General's Office City of Renton, Development Services Division City of Renton,Transportation Systems City of Renton, Utility Systems Applicant • shsubdev l *yam •.,. • r • n ip, , • . S 3 a i • :w K r i i r . : S44Criitihtig APPtJ AT)O `,41. ' ':` 410REUNii MANAGE - lj.,y. �"Alv?IA4 t ''1ECOP,1CNf Nvtico I hp•aby 241p, -^• 4.-!1/4 ON110P4 flip Out 4t' f; Ofr'7CC 9U NG't r.)' (`► J.Y ••• A.,`eA K T ''. kr.400 dt' stA'? • Y , ,f :R'4n' ;"F`Y41, AJF W. '2.:164.1.i .4 .y ?,MM' • 'i" '! 7.. •on r:,4 _ `;2 't•Qn' DY t0C1 •-?- ' :k16'irk., ,n <%Vie. *,.• 71 Zli .. ,,...,,, t+7P.' . :1 C J t Y 1::- I) I r r:a. a 1, '+ 5 1 1 ♦t I. tr ,lA;Cup',,.c�� .ii'�a �,., ,, n I. _ .,.,;,.4t fir.. Dal: • • • • • • !1",,;"1-ii • for,t •' vsesii .4. ,„7 unty, •-el rid :T=11 I 11.) n rt ers DEPARTMcnIT OF PLANNING/BUILDING/PIIDLIC.WORKS ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST REVIEW SHEET ®ec ,q0 ��M 0 j REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: P1 ��� 199p DATE CIRCULATED: 12/3/90 COMMENTS DUE: 12/14/90 ECF- 143-90 �++ APPLICATION NO(S): RVMP;SA;SM-143-90 PROPONENT: LPN Architects&Planners, Inc. PROJECT TITLE: Blackriver Corporate Park Phase VI BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Applicant seeks to construct a four-story, 71,057 sf office building with parking and landscaping on a 169,314 sf site. LOCATION: Northeast corner of Oaksdale&Grady Way SITE AREA: BUILDING AREA(gross): IMPACT REVIEW ON ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS: PROBABLE PROBABLE MORE MINOR MAJOR INFORMATION IMPACT IMPACT NECESSARY 1. Earth 2. Air 3. Water 4. Plants 5. Animals 6. Energy&Natural Resources 7. Environmental Health 8. Land &Shoreline Use 9. Housing • 10. Aesthetics ✓ ' 11. Light&Glare J 12. Recreation 13. Historic&Cultural Preservation 14. Transportation V 15. Public Services 16. Utilities COMMENTS: 1) L.1106 VAsisc-cr At) eavirt" k.-4A-C2c2_ 6.41,„9,1 3 a 3- ' --� 'tAJ- -k .4.44 - �S •A- — N44. \ vt, ,o c ak 6,3Ndsv,A.. No-vx F Stel- We have reviewed this ap hcation with particu ar a enti to tto a areas m ich we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. AAA.".4114) 14141 lib Signature of Director or Authori ed Representative Date Rev. 6/88 envrvsht • • to) 01,v.+ .+eS S is %o de-S► Ca o °o c( hec isS C114 1 'O CASHA fc\ �� wA1e• c4 ), uLe.U.,-31:44 Q,c : 454-Ca.. \ S eX0.4. S. 8 1 J. 1veE.106 A. cca SS Iv Ke Res,av " 2.34 1 4 N Cs D,S 'tb be �R a( v"(t O .-r -r!t EEb S . Td c P2,a J t S 1 e Ns 1 Mair(de U.Q g nok.P4cra et-s '4 E-2 C ''D 6 N 4 N R�3-4 4 N'ib P A Rom.r 1'�(�l✓ A(-€kS' 'Fb ( - -oTttCAP- 3u.t.Liu"$ 4E , ‘G.tSS-N - -tbt • ''�v N-t' r2C.ev S t,+LS 2 ois as4: .cS "t f‘tSe w� l� v%¢.e.4to a. `CCV4..k. tc bdG FiS e0.0 v cat• Lek.t I t S PyY �^ CDT PS t o kAtr+.J l 3 t 2Z c L Of; 5WeRA-c-D al I1. I ATcb ft\ 3E I W C.ta rcb 1Z� S Q-1 nt o,.s r.N PeLbASS" 'C'b AS 5 65 3 c e eze l3 "C� Z -.a�3` ; &AVN£ S AL / 2 0 E-M .v 'J A..:0 ?i'C. IN V e";5T"l-Cs-Ae Z'SItk) k 40 O N -'S ,TG RG G.(?.V.4•4. -t p14 `J e E NJ%S Cs-8 d - 5e Pe ex Pc S I N 'P L.A tet c e.1 tr CET W -CAN 6 E' • et o t c e Aer tw-ri . o Fr- S ITC "-L T L C A:r 1 • • we u. E ,'Des �G2 .At-�. -+��o . SEC , IS ( 15) t c c5 'C l S Lh 1.t e. (A) .-Cif e S ' J N CM b z-b CA U'LLif 6,4„ �� pctC % -t*t e- Nbumot,I s K.9 M -c :r4 e-C N Ec.Es{'(ek21 . Nidit Do 044 E 'p N A Ste- S A N `( (z.4SIR.te-r 1pNS CSce, "A-P. vie . PtrArs1 I-1,J& ( vJ o U L-D %>r C%-l'S PA•M-1 + • (1 ) L� C wr I lACw`-1). ig '91 e E CT E rt- I..A CLE AND C bra- Kr Lis:K ST Nor c e.I c DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET ECF-143-90 APPLICATION NO(S).: RVMP;SA;SM-143-90 PROPONENT: LPN Architects&Planners, Inc. PROJECT TITLE: Blackriver Corporate Park Phase VI • BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Applicant seeks to construct a four-story, 71,057 sf office building with parking and landscaping on a 169,314 sf site. LOCATION: SEC: 24 TWNSHP:23N RNG: 3E Northeast corner of Oaksdale&Grady Way TO: PUBLIC WORKS DIVISION • SCHEDULED TAC DATE: 12/21/90 ENGINEERING SECTION TRAFFIC ENG. SECTION UTILITIES ENG. SECTION FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU POLICE DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION CONSTRUCTION FIELD SERVICES DEVELOPMENT PLANNING PLANNING&TECHNICAL SERVICES PARKS AND RECREATION DIVISION OTHERS: COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITING. PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE PLANNING DIVISION BY 5:00 P.M. ON DECEMBER 14, 1990. REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: APPROVED APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS NOT APPROVED N Y RN vwl Coo nx M EST$ CAA e..$C i P e. fa k Ste.itrrrteeicS Ler C.sV E Rh Re ftri.. DATE: f a1 1 01,l (48 SIGNATURE OF DIRECTOR OR A THORIZED REPRESENTATIVE REV. 5/90 devnrsht I ' DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS x ri, ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST REVIEW SHEET • REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: -1-Ya..Y1$ O `/!`L.. - 0 •' `` DATE CIRCULATED: 12/3/90 COMMENTS DUE: 12/1 4 simA,'r4;•; ECF-143-90 DEG+ 3 � APPLICATION NO(S): RVMP;SA;SM-143-90 � 1990 iC4%,SN CAVED PROPONENT: LPN Architects&Planners, Inc. PROJECT TITLE: Blackriver Corporate Park Phase VI BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Applicant seeks to construct a four-story, 71,057 sf office building with parkpg.and landscaping on a 169,314 sf site. LOCATION: Northeast corner of Oaksdale&Grady Way SITE AREA: BUILDING AREA(gross): IMPACT REVIEW ON ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS: PROBABLE PROBABLE MORE MINOR MAJOR INFORMATION IMPACT IMPACT NECESSARY 1. Earth 2. Air 3. Water 4. Plants 5. Animals 6. Energy&Natural Resources 7. Environmental Health 8. Land &Shoreline Use 9. Housing 10. Aesthetics 11. Light&Glare 12. Recreation 13. Historic&Cultural Preservation 14. Transportation 15. Public Services 16. Utilities COMMENTS: We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have Identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional Information Is needed to properly assess this proposal. Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date Rev. 6/88 envrvsht Review Comments Black River Corporate Park Phase VI SM-143-90 (4 Story) Office Building December 28, 1990 By First City Washington, Inc. Building Area = 71,057 Vehicle Trip rate per Environmental Checklist 21 Vehicles per 1,000 square feet 21 x 71.057 1,000 = 1,492.20 Estimated Vehicle Trips Assessment for Grady Transportation Benefit District ($152 .00 per trip generated) 1,492.20 x $152.00 = $226,814.40 Deposit $226,814.40 to account No.: ,n5/6'7a/3/g. 7o.oo.6 a y-775 7/i/.3,c cere:-/C-CzA-Cier-y),/ /2(4,d.0-/p/z/1_,J • • NOTE: All roadway and intersection impacted location are provided for in the TBZ projects for which the above fee is to provide participation . in those projects. 90-&04:CEM:ps o r- • DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS . DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET ECF-143-90 APPLICATION NO(S).: RVMP;SA;SM-143-90 PROPONENT: LPN Architects&Planners, Inc. PROJECT TITLE: Blackriver Corporate Park Phase VI BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Applicant seeks to construct a four-story, 71,057 sf•office .building with parking and landscaping on a 169,314 sf site. . LOCATION: SEC: 24 TWNSHP:23N RNG:3E Northeast corner of Oaksdale&Grady Way TO: PUBLIC WORKS DIVISION SCHEDULED TAC DATE: 12/21/90 ENGINEERING SECTION TRAFFIC ENG. SECTION UTILITIES ENG. SECTION FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU POLICE DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION • CONSTRUCTION FIELD SERVICES DEVELOPMENT PLANNING PLANNING &TECHNICAL SERVICES PARKS AND,RECREATION DIVISION OTHERS: COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITING. PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE PLANNING DIVISION BY 5:00 P.M. ON DECEMBER 14, ' 1990. REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: APPROVED y APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS NOT APPROVED • • • DATE: • /a7//�� SIGNATURE OF DIRECTOR OR AUTH IZED REPRESENTATIVE • REV.5/90 • aevrvsn% Review Comments Black River Corporate Park Phase VI SM-143-90 (4 Story) Office Building December 28, 1990 By First City Washington, Inc. Building Area = 71,057 Vehicle Trip rate per Environmental Checklist 21 Vehicles per 1,000 square feet 21 x 71.057 1,000 = 1,492.20 Estimated Vehicle Trips Assessment for Grady Transportation Benefit District ($152 .00 per trip generated) 1,492.20 x $152.00 = $226,814.40 Deposit: $226,814.40 to account No.: it,V 7a/3 . 7o.oo.6 A Lo 4 aay -Z7` 6 de._ • , /24d z--A4Aij e,z7 • NOTE: All roadway and intersection impacted location are provided for in the TBZ projects for which the above fee is to provide participation in those projects. 90-504:CEM:ps DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC W9t' „.(.... -,.:Pic...2 i ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST REVIEW SHEET , cgp4 REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: 512)ttinr\ DATE CIRCULATED: 12/3/90 COMMENTS DUE: 1 T2�-'V ,�'i /0 ECF- 143-90 rRS ��s`� APPLICATION NO(S): RVMP;SA;SM-143-90 0`'''`tS.' ��°t De .�,roi PROPONENT: LPN Architects&Planners, Inc. '8 �9 &-11� c 1 D PROJECT TITLE: Blackriver Corporate Park Phase VI �`'��i,t�, - BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Applicant seeks to construct a four-story, 71,057 sf office building with parking and landscaping on a 169,314 sf site. LOCATION: Northeast corner of Oaksdale&Grady Way SITE AREA: BUILDING AREA(gross): IMPACT REVIEW ON ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS: PROBABLE PROBABLE MORE MINOR MAJOR INFORMATION IMPACT IMPACT NECESSARY 1. Earth 2. Air 3. Water 4. Plants 5. Animals 6. Energy&Natural Resources 7. Environmental Health 8. Land &Shoreline Use 9. Housing 10. Aesthetics 11. Light&Glare 12. Recreation 13. Historic&Cultural Preservation 14. Transportation 15. Public Services 16. Utilities COMMENTS: NO► 1 t`I SF6v /yoX4 TOM Otil 77-- _ va ' 06v4/6h'75 11\/I d 91 1-(.1/ ON 5// a 5.ifi) rg)14 �X/ y ,,yl 0� N /)/77,17,47`/,D / o w4 57— F�-v /3/�N 777 G�r�p/4 T d Al -1 C N h YS °I�� /CANT- /Jf�a��i‘�=S U5 li y'�C, /�YNoFf' 7 o / - / C YN�'/\ /=X/5/ f//�i�S coy We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have Identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information Is needed to properly assess this proposal. - - rM/14440/f/,rrr3/Z„—— /a-/7-T d Signature • lea ar-6r Authorized Date Representative t p ae Rev. 6/88 envrvsht DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET • ECF-143-90 APPLICATION NO(S).: RVMP;SA;SM-143-90 PROPONENT: LPN Architects&Planners, Inc. PROJECT TITLE: Blackriver Corporate Park Phase VI BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Applicant seeks to construct a four-story, 71,057 sf office .building with parking and landscaping on a 169,314 sf site. LOCATION: SEC: 24 TWNSHP: 23N RNG: 3E Northeast corner of Oaksdale&Grady Way TO: PUBLIC WORKS DIVISION SCHEDULED TAC DATE: 12/21/90 ENGINEERING SECTION TRAFFIC ENG. SECTION UTILITIES ENG. SECTION FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU POLICE DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION CONSTRUCTION FIELD SERVICES DEVELOPMENT PLANNING PLANNING &TECHNICAL SERVICES PARKS AND RECREATION DIVISION • OTHERS: COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITING. PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE PLANNING DIVISION BY 5:00 P.M. ON DECEMBER 14, 1990. REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: ,4 4-ly APPROVED APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS I/ NOT APPROVED 1. >45 pis c O556J f7 to-/4 - /d pAQrp/3s('4' 44f',e77/Y L //c )//M4Tco1y r9 N/J o(L -w47 - 5�'P -ro/ IRF-q (el A l 2-. 'Pi n LiIYF_ E nil / /TA /5 S` 2"C'('(> pair rX/��� /3 ��7 3,6' `f G oN C pr T� P(/°�z, 7'N/=5ry / V S • /t/ tY /3/N, o�Ghr7:,//tiF O 7 /1/0 cGfl �r i (/S��/G MO oz (5) /1T G 9N6 (c) IN 5/ 25PM4-7.-i /4Gs. 3, A Le v-e4 I o1 5 'e- �/�se73( ��a tS• C. �-,� ) 1� 19t v i/ 4.Due to the large amount of impervious area, the runoff will increase significantly over this area. Since the.biofiltration swales are designed only for a 2-year predeveloped release rate, a greater design storm event would increase flow velocities above the maximum design flow, thereby deteriorating water quality. Detention would provide a mitered flow rate, that would maintain water quality except in extreme design storm events. Therefore, we would like to recommend detention (per 1990 King County Surface Water Design Manual), unless the developer can produce a specific document agreement with the City that waives detention. If they produce this agreement,we may want it to be legally reviewed, to examine the , possibility of revision. If detention were waived and the paved area exceeds one acre,then runoff from all paved areas should be treated by a wetpond prior to discharge (per 1990 K.C. Surface Water Design Manual). (M/R DATE: 12~/2—9i) SIGNAT IRECTOR OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE I 7fr - jJ,�� /(�J 5. I/e�r{-� eg5 ei 1Ma� Silk . G1a4•s7 �rilif3 NUl 6-e 4ep`'Ped U- ' ' Ce cr,4G( ot'Qgcfrn fry, Na(��Gc o , REV. 5/90 ti1a�� /� ffrb �.5 ' 5 clotc e) w // W��P Gk% -v� I�dL� �/ (,�/- `�( I�, Q devrvshl I - • DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WOS` Ar( � ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST REVIEW SHEET 41 ,1 • 0 ;E REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: Watt-srU-hli4,e—S QS•i -!it,Z,01' S0 DATE CIRCULATED: 12/3/90 COMMENTS DUE: 12/14/ .k*:_- f ©tvl„DON ECF-143-90 e' 5, "°l NY't.»9 APPLICATION NO(S): RVMP;SA;SM-143-90 DEC 2 0 1990 PROPONENT: LPN Architects&Planners, Inc. PROJECT TITLE: Blackriver Corporate Park Phase VI ' • BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Applicant seeks to construct a four-story, 71,057 sf office building with packing and landscaping on a 169,314 sf site. LOCATION: Northeast corner of Oaksdale&Grady Way SITE AREA: BUILDING AREA(gross): IMPACT REVIEW ON ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS: PROBABLE PROBABLE MORE MINOR MAJOR INFORMATION IMPACT IMPACT NECESSARY i ' 1. Earth 2. Air c 3. Water 4. Plants 5. Animals 6. Energy&Natural Resources 7. Environmental Health 8. Land &Shoreline Use 9. Housing - 10. Aesthetics 11. Light&Glare - 12. Recreation 13. Historic&Cultural Preservation 14. Transportation 15. Public Services i ; 16. Utilities COMMENTS: CC r��r StyE 0 Ly w67 (7(- ( Co/ilfrr/2N1s Sh iVr PoN ;2 '7t-en. We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information Is needed to properly assess this proposal. ' 1 Signature of Director or Authorized Representative S2 Date i v Rev. 6/88 envnrshl • /11 - DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET ECF-143-90 APPLICATION NO(S).: RVMP;SA;SM-143-90 PROPONENT: LPN Architects&Planners, Inc. PROJECT TITLE: Blackriver Corporate Park Phase VI BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Applicant seeks to construct a four-story, 71,057 sf office e building with parking and landscaping on a 169,3)14 sf site. LOCATION: SEC: 24 TWNSHP: 23N RNG:3E Northeast corner of Oaksdale&Grady Way TO: PUBLIC WORKS DIVISION SCHEDULED TAC DATE: 12/21/90 ENGINEERING SECTION TRAFFIC ENG. SECTION UTILITIES ENG. SECTION FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU POLICE DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION CONSTRUCTION FIELD SERVICES DEVELOPMENT PLANNING PLANNING &TECHNICAL SERVICES PARKS AND RECREATION DIVISION OTHERS: COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITING. PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE PLANNING DIVISION BY 5:00 P.M. ON DECEMBER 14, 1990. r f REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: APPROVED APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS NOT APPROVED • • • I • DATE: SIGNATURE OF DIRECTOR OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE REV.5/90 devrvshl 1 FEE APPLICATION: ,DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SR L ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST REVIEW SH«; ❑ PLAN REVIEW ROUTING SLIP 0 OTHER DATE: /dt//9 //9 D APPLICANT: *244-JOB ADDRESS: )1€ tGa..L.e-2[i AJ NATURE OF WORK: PROPERTY MANAGEMENT /A/#/94 DATE RECEIVED Comments Due BY PROPERTY MGMT. v Comments or suggestions regarding this application should be provided in writing. Please provide comments to the Comm. Dev. Dept.(C.D.D.)by 5:00 p.m.on above date. REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION 111/0.144't" v❑FEES APPLIED ❑ CANNOT APPLY FEES ❑ LEGAL DESCRIPTION NEED MORE INFORMATION ❑ SQUARE FOOTAGE ❑ FRONT FOOTAGE ❑ VICINITY MAP It is the intent of this development fee analysis to put the developer/owner on notice,that the fees quoted below will apply to the subject site upon development of the property. All quoted fees are due and payable at the time the construction permit is issued to install the on-site and off-site improvements(i.e.underground utilities,street improvements,etc.) PROJECT COST LATECOMER LATECOMER AGREEMENT-WATER NO. PER. FTG. FEE CITY HELD ._ PRIVATE DEVELOPER HELD — LATECOMERS ©— LATECOMERS AGREEMENT-SEWER CITY HELD PRIVATE DEVELOPER HELD 8-3023 41.2;iA9• e SPECIAL UTILITY CONNECTION CHARGE-WATER UNITS SUCC FEE Single family residential dwelling unit$940/lot x Apartment,Condo,each multiplex unit$545/ea.unit x Commercial/Industrial $.126/sq.ft.of property x (not less than $940.00) /(p f,3/1/LZ1 y a//333. Vs SPECIAL UTILITY CONNECTION CHARGE-SEWER Single family residential dwelling unit$470/lot x Apartment, Condo,each multiplex unit$270/ea.unit x Commercial/Industrial $.063/sq.ft.of property x (not less than $470.00) /C09 3/17/L! 'la, 6)66. 781 SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICT(Hospital Area)WATER UNITS SAD FEE Developments with 1500 GPM Fire Flo s or Less: Area Charge$0.034 per sq. .x Frontage Charge$16.00 p r front ft.x Developments with Greater than 00 GPM Fire Flows: Area Charge$0.048 p sq.ft.x Frontage Charge $1 .00 per front ft.x — 0— SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICT(Honey Crk, Intercptr)-SEWER UNITS SAD FEE Area Charges: Residential dwelling units, partments or equivalents;$250 p r dwelling unit x Commercial developme : $.05 per sq.ft.of gro s site area x Front Footage Charges: $37.19 per Front t.(on ea.side)x $74.38 per Fr.F .(prpty on both sides of imprv.)x —O - TOTAL: $ 3e0,/'ot.9• The above quoted fees do NOT include inspection fees,side sewer permits,r/w permit fees or the cost of water meters. Ce-421.4"4 )141 . "h AO .. Signature of Director or Authorized Representative DATE " \n wv/forma/feeapp/bh r� r , DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS P ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST REVIEW SHEET De c 7 REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: ?r �yy_ 7�(r 1990 DATE CIRCULATED: 12/3/90 COMMENTS DUE: 12/14/90 ECF- 143-90 APPLICATION NO(S): RVMP;SA;SM-143-90 PROPONENT: LPN Architects&Planners, Inc. PROJECT TITLE: Blackriver Corporate Park Phase VI BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Applicant seeks to construct a four-story, 71,057 sf office building with parking and landscaping on a 169,314 sf site. LOCATION: Northeast corner of Oaksdale&Grady Way SITE AREA: BUILDING AREA(gross): IMPACT REVIEW ON ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS: PROBABLE PROBABLE MORE MINOR MAJOR INFORMATION IMPACT IMPACT NECESSARY 1. Earth 2. Air 3. Water 4. Plants 5. Animals 6. Energy& Natural Resources 7. Environmental Health 8. Land &Shoreline Use 9. Housing 10. Aesthetics 11. Light&Glare 12. Recreation 13. Historic&Cultural Preservation 14. Transportation 15. Public Services 16. Utilities COMMENTS: CA/ fib Div -- h-e-61 LUAA..,J , het, - .al+ L.Gl L'( 1 �v� �a�rti a,i.(.c�U a.,AaL U �,� LOC iow, a� wou-Ld\ p .AAA_kiaoy L k prc c*, o� P Lucu ,0( 6,L, We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. 16 (� IZ'y616 Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date Rev. 6/88 envrvsht DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET ECF-143-90 APPLICATION NO(S).: RVMP;SA;SM-143-90 PROPONENT: LPN Architects&Planners, Inc. PROJECT TITLE: Blackriver Corporate Park Phase VI BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Applicant seeks to construct a four-story, 71,057 sf office building with parking and landscaping on a 169,314 sf site. LOCATION: SEC: 24 TWNSHP:23N RNG:3E Northeast corner of Oaksdale&Grady Way TO: PUBLIC WORKS DIVISION. SCHEDULED TAC DATE: 12/21/90, ENGINEERING SECTION TRAFFIC ENG. SECTION UTILITIES ENG. SECTION FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU POLICE DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION CONSTRUCTION FIELD SERVICES DEVELOPMENT PLANNING PLANNING &TECHNICAL SERVICES PARKS AND RECREATION DIVISION OTHERS: COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITING. • PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE PLANNING DIVISION BY 5:00 P.M. ON DECEMBER 14, 1990. • REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: R(1,00 APPROVED ,\/ APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS NOT APPROVED ly wA' o pIw _cow) sww(w cev Alicc.o e w - a,+ wwrti C),6 d b a, L t 4LGcw ok, Ll )it5 w ,es-12twLww Sk o wt DATE: IZl q C(o SIGNATURE OF DIRECTOR OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE • • REV. 5/90 devrvsht DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WOR ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST REVIEW SHEET ,� •-•-"' `.p REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: Sev. eiC' �. 1,I1*-c.'s L.,! 0 .. L� pb/, DATE CIRCULATED: 12/3/90 COMMENTS DUE: i1,5 . 9'� l l40 ECF- 143-90 ' . as 0/ 'vr`i .SAI &\;` APPLICATION NO(S): RVMP;SA;SM-143-90 FR0Cr 2 0 1990 PROPONENT: LPN Architects&Planners, Inc. �1`''� jii v PROJECT TITLE: Blackriver Corporate Park Phase VI BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Applicant seeks to construct a four-story, 71,057 sf office building with parking and landscaping on a 169,314 sf site. LOCATION: Northeast corner of Oaksdale&Grady Way SITE AREA: BUILDING AREA (gross): IMPACT REVIEW ON ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS: PROBABLE PROBABLE MORE MINOR MAJOR INFORMATION IMPACT IMPACT NECESSARY 1. Earth 2. Air . 3. Water 4. Plants 5. Animals 6. Energy& Natural Resources , 7. Environmental Health 8. Land &Shoreline Use 9. Housing , 10. Aesthetics . . 11. Light&Glare 12. Recreation 13. Historic&Cultural Preservation 14. Transportation 15. Public Services 16. Utilities V COMMENTS: 1 . f`loT IN 5 w6./g PlOV4/4-740/vM AI' 2 , (Vor IN 4QUiFF,A O/icYr77cN /4/9'F1 3. M Tito (A/7x•Rc- 6/z />r/-'75 s ri/,ociG/y 5 Qv7(f Al f 77aN G F Alf°G° 7-Y (1-'/7/{/fir 2 O' /"t 6 T/ A4-S( t/.,-/y7- We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information Is needed to properly assess this proposal. � l/ A,F,(////,a/1 / / 2./ ///7 Si n ture7 irecter'or Authorized Representative Date Rev. 6/88 envnisht • • ,DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS' : ' DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET ECF-143-90 APPLICATION NO(S).: RVMP;SA;SM-143-90 PROPONENT: LPN Architects&Planners, Inc. • PROJECT TITLE: Blackriver Corporate Park Phase VI BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT:, Applicant seeks to construct a four-story, 71,057 sf office building with parking and landscaping on a 169,314 sf site. LOCATION: SEC: 24 TWNSHP:23N RNG: 3E Northeast corner of Oaksdale&Grady Way ' TO: XPUBLIC WORKS DIVISION SCHEDULED TAC DATE: 12/21/90 ENGINEERING SECTION TRAFFIC ENG. SECTION • UTILITIES ENG. SECTION FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU POLICE DEPARTMENT X DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION ' CONSTRUCTION FIELD SERVICES DEVELOPMENT PLANNING PLANNING &TECHNICAL SERVICES PARKS AND RECREATION DIVISION • OTHERS: COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITING. PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE PLANNING DIVISION BY 5:00 P.M. ON DECEMBER 14, 1990. REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: PL/1 N )Y f/t 1 y) 5 (770N APPROVED APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS NOT APPROVED • d e e.6{) U /r- ���°�1c��. sC., PA17 fO 7e C/ a, S gv111 A(F 1 01N / 4� e x/ r', /14 f/ cr/���7 /� 61°.e c/a-P v h/1 P`1j1 y It-cf. v q . Z c l� �rs""z � fj�/ c�jU�v! r /� �Ov�(�// �"/i //0�// S , 4l 4 {' 22 `'x " s Yf • 5'1 • - , r044/1/J1.744 f/u-(41 DATE: /9\/� q O SIGNATU' •FSQIRECTOR OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE REV.5/90 . dcvrvsht 'ei IA DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS on"4/o ®sf, i000 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST REVIEW SHEET Pee ��,`� REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: '` DATE CIRCULATED: 12/3/90 COMMENTS DUE: 12/14/90 ECF-143-90 APPLICATION NO(S): RVMP;SA;SM-143-90 PROPONENT: LPN Architects&Planners, Inc. PROJECT TITLE: Blackriver Corporate Park Phase VI BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Applicant seeks to construct a four-story, 71,057 sf office building with parking and landscaping on a 169,314 sf site. LOCATION: Northeast corner of Oaksdale&Grady Way SITE AREA: BUILDING AREA(gross): IMPACT REVIEW ON ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS: PROBABLE PROBABLE MORE MINOR MAJOR INFORMATION IMPACT IMPACT NECESSARY 1. Earth 2. Air 3. Water 4. Plants 5. Animals 6. Energy&Natural Resources 7. Environmental Health 8. Land &Shoreline Use 9. Housing 10. Aesthetics 11. Light&Glare 12. Recreation 13. Historic&Cultural Preservation 14. Transportation 15. Public Services 16. Utilities 6 {macx P10-1`tA-k... COMMENTS: 3 H. L� c cz.e We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. Signature of Director or Author ed Representative Date Rev. 6/88 envrvsht DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET ECF-14`3-90 APPLICATION NO(S).: RVMP;SA;SM-143-90 PROPONENT: LPN Architects&Planners, Inc. PROJECT TITLE: Blackriver Corporate Park Phase VI BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Applicant seeks to construct a four-story, 71,057 sf office building with parking and landscaping on a 169,314 sf site. LOCATION: SEC: 24 TWNSHP:23N RNG:3E Northeast corner of Oaksdale&Grady Way TO: PUBLIC WORKS DIVISION • SCHEDULED TAC DATE: 12/21/90 ENGINEERING SECTION TRAFFIC ENG. SECTION UTILITIES ENG. SECTION FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU POLICE DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION CONSTRUCTION FIELD SERVICES DEVELOPMENT PLANNING PLANNING &TECHNICAL SERVICES • PARKS AND RECREATION DIVISION OTHERS: COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITING. PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE PLANNING DIVISION BY 5:00 P.M. ON DECEMBER 14, 1990. REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: 6 `pict -tki-x-Arr APPROVED . APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS NOT APPROVED 2 �� DATE: SIGNATURE OF DIRECTOR OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE • • REV. 5/90 devrvsht I DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC W045S" ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST REVIEW SHEET <C. REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: U x U4il tT1e.S `'��x�' t'��ter /990 0/0 DATE CIRCULATED: 12/3/90 COMMENTS DUE: 12/14 f /f S' ECF- 143-90 cl;), A, arc,, r,„`.., APPLICATION NO(S): RVMP;SA;SM-143-90 Dec " 0 PROPONENT: LPN Architects&Planners, Inc. Z� (r�.� '90 PROJECT TITLE: Blackriver Corporate Park Phase VI BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Applicant seeks to construct a four-story, 71,057 sf office building with parking and landscaping on a 169,314 sf site. LOCATION: Northeast corner of Oaksdale&Grady Way SITE AREA: BUILDING AREA(gross): IMPACT REVIEW ON ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS: PROBABLE PROBABLE MORE MINOR MAJOR INFORMATION IMPACT IMPACT NECESSARY 1. Earth 2. Air 3. Water 4. Plants 5. Animals 6. Energy&Natural Resources 7. Environmental Health 8. Land &Shoreline Use 9. Housing 10. Aesthetics 11. Light&Glare 12. Recreation 13. Historic&Cultural Preservation 14. Transportation 15. Public Services 16. Utilities COMMENTS: . Vol- (N A 62U/r6,2 pe o7C-6//,6nl % A7::ff • 3. %VrPSSvPr? 2 I MC We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. I /77/7a Si nature �f irect orAuthorized Representative Date 9 �� • Rev. 6/88 envrvsht DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET • ECF-143-90 . APPLICATION NO(S).: RVMP;SA;SM-143-90 PROPONENT: LPN Architects&Planners, Inc. • PROJECT TITLE: Blackriver Corporate Park Phase VI BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: . Applicant seeks to construct a four-story, 71,057 sf office building with parking and landscaping on a 169,314 sf site. LOCATION: SEC:.24 TWNSHP:23N RNG: 3E Northeast corner of Oaksdale&Grady Way TO: • X PUBLIC WORKS,DIVISION SCHEDULED TAC DATE: 12/21/90 ENGINEERING SECTION TRAFFIC ENG. SECTION • X UTILITIES ENG. SECTION FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU ' POLICE DEPARTMENT • DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION • CONSTRUCTION FIELD SERVICES • DEVELOPMENT PLANNING PLANNING &TECHNICAL SERVICES ' PARKS AND RECREATION DIVISION OTHERS: COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITING. PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE PLANNING DIVISION BY 5:00 P.M. ON DECEMBER 14, 1990. • REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: p/ 1 rir UJ APPROVED APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS • X NOT APPROVED I • f.:X 7'0,14 12 C1/4- ( 144,/i C((Gl/!e lj on �1 o )of 17/ I1R_R f d ec,,Jl.', 60,4 c ,* , • O� a I /_ `` rroy w/%� G en I s/GiP U.JQ e/t Al 1). L F lci P7W! F(,r,, c /c_u(c 7;; e)('S c e„2 " SO GG ,��oo� w,// /q �-e Y h-e Ev ? P t/'el/4; ) . -6' �� ��/�(,/ / , 3 h d4. s ce4-0 r e fir ' 7b jo lip .e , (/ 3. 5/f(. CUh// ne( d� I�io 9�/"���i,l� cylp/ ; 5,1 f 6/c/\ 575nv'�P�/v��_D, /I? G0(,;7-7' . Dc- 5 • /4// I rni,yto v -,,/zz �'► m U - t/ 22 '� � �a� A� a �?r . l� I�qq ���/l �e 3 Y /� �C cr • 70,u_ri/�/i�//�/�l��i/i( DATE: //q q�SIGNATUDI OR OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE • gr pv'esScve 1/'eeucl/iI V'q/rre re� vi -e4 , . . REV. 5/90 devrvsht / 1°/177,0 T /' /T- /S A/ &'T //y i - too— ,4t76 PGaop/ /4/AY /5 C//v .b /3 V ' Con/0 7,64t-r31/' V10LU u/e 1-0 UT� r o )� P/go v//O,D F 21.1, 7t147 c U/jl/ /V/TLV eor f 1N17 /°? i7O7"1 �� S/JTz A� Ca " et et r l /_ �l. P7 //ON 0 /O 0 ^'/MA F L.Gii_D, NNN /1,6_,Q -/yvviic_ __5, /7,71m---////A/\ft ei(x...61/4/c, CI C!CI C'./ 4 e�: FoA ( 1 2/ 1,- ,gt_'S C2G/74/ 46'44 VVtobev '1`/7 - 17,. DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS PLANNING DIVISION CITY OF RENION ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST REVIEW SHEET DEC p 5 1990 11 " REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: .- a4 rgicr OA'T1on 64k clitvED _ DATE CIRCULATED: 12/3/90 COMMENTS DUE: 12/14/90 ECF- 143-90E~ C ENE APPLICATION NO(S): RVMP;SA;SM-143-90 DEC 3 1990 PROPONENT: LPN Architects&Planners, Inc. PROJECT TITLE: Blackriver Corporate Park Phase VI PARKS&RECREATION BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Applicant seeks to construct a four-story, 71,057 sf office building with parking and landscaping on a 169,314 sf site. LOCATION: Northeast corner of Oaksdale&Grady Way SITE AREA: BUILDING AREA(gross): IMPACT REVIEW ON ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS: PROBABLE PROBABLE MORE MINOR MAJOR INFORMATION IMPACT IMPACT NECESSARY 1. Earth 2. Air 3. Water 4. Plants 5. Animals 6. Energy&Natural Resources 7. Environmental Health • 8. Land &Shoreline Use 9. Housing 10. Aesthetics 11. Light&Glare 12. Recreation X 13. Historic&Cultural Preservation 14. Transportation 15. Public Services 16. Utilities Parks COMMENTS: `i1 !a'� ✓�✓- A; , �' ... e-//////((yy��. �,��w ,�Q />>J �o� pad �¢ �p ,f��,�/�I Sr C f+66`a' —r-e'o��- '� � /1.a � �`P�W�� G`"" ,.`b+,rge,.�l""`... g•�j'Eid�.�...Fa,,, • >Z4---c-.? ew Gam° 7�r 7 r '`° 4/6c-�'�5•e)Gsl. ,re/PlAa'Pa, "d/1/4 We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of pro le impact or areas where additional information Is needed to properly assess this proposal. ignature of irector or Authorized Representative Date Rev.6/88 envrvsht DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET ECF-143-90 APPLICATION NO(S).: RVMP;SA;SM-143-90 PROPONENT: LPN Architects&Planners, Inc. PROJECT TITLE: Blackriver Corporate Park Phase VI BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Applicant seeks to construct a four-story, 71,057 sf office building with parking and landscaping on a 169,314 sf site.. LOCATION: SEC: 24 TWNSHP: 23N RNG:3E Northeast corner of Oaksdale&Grady Way TO: PUBLIC WORKS DIVISION SCHEDULED TAC DATE: 12/21/90 ENGINEERING SECTION TRAFFIC ENG. SECTION UTILITIES ENG. SECTION FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU POLICE DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION CONSTRUCTION FIELD SERVICES DEVELOPMENT PLANNING PLANNING &TECHNICAL SERVICES • ARKS AND RECREATION DIVISION OTHERS: COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITING. • PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE PLANNING DIVISION BY 5:00 P.M. ON DECEMBER 14,. 1990. . REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: APPROVED rPROVED WITH CONDITIONS NOT APPROVED DATE: 7 2 IGNATURE�OF DIRECTOR OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE ' REV.5/90 devrvsht DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS • ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST REVIEW SHEET CITY OF RENTON RECEIVED REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: Cep nS -�vu> ic'I\ S eXk.)ic-e-s DE DATE CIRCULATED: 12 3 90 COMMENTS DUE: 12/14/90 0 3 1990 / / / / kat`ING®-v1eI P idUliLDING60/181641 ECF-143-90 APPLICATION NO(S): RVMP;SA;SM-143-90 DEC Q �99® ot." PROPONENT: LPN Architects&Planners, Inc. a PROJECT TITLE: Blackriver Corporate Park Phase VI BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Applicant seeks to construct a four-story, 71,057 sf office building with parking and landscaping on a 169,314 sf site. LOCATION: Northeast corner of Oaksdale&Grady Way SITE AREA: BUILDING AREA(gross): IMPACT REVIEW ON ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS: PROBABLE PROBABLE MORE MINOR MAJOR INFORMATION IMPACT IMPACT NECESSARY 1. Earth 2. Air 3. Water 4. Plants 5. Animals 6. Energy&Natural Resources 7. Environmental Health • 8. Land &Shoreline Use 9. Housing 10. Aesthetics 11. Light&Glare 12. Recreation 13. Historic&Cultural Preservation 14. Transportation 15. Public Services 16. Utilities COMMENTS: - 0e - C r '1 GU-a,? 4-q Ar24tAACeoff. Papt.„„0 We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information Is needed to properly assess this proposal. 7 -ye) /../.040/7 S) nature of Director or Authorized Representative Date Rev. 6/88 envivshl DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET ECF-143-90 APPLICATION NO(S).: RVMP;SA;SM-143-90 PROPONENT: .• LPN Architects&Planners, Inc. PROJECT TITLE: Blackriver Corporate Park Phase VI BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Applicant seeks to construct a four-story, 71,057 sf office building with parking and landscaping on a 169,314 sf site. LOCATION: SEC: 24 TWNSHP:23N RNG:3E Northeast corner of Oaksdale&Grady Way TO: PUBLIC WORKS DIVISION SCHEDULED TAC DATE: 12/21/90 ENGINEERING SECTION TRAFFIC ENG. SECTION UTILITIES ENG. SECTION FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU POLICE DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION CONSTRUCTION FIELD SERVICES DEVELOPMENT PLANNING PLANNING &TECHNICAL SERVICES PARKS AND RECREATION DIVISION OTHERS: COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITING. PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE PLANNING DIVISION BY 5:00 P.M. ON DECEMBER 14, 1990. REVVIIEW�ING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: 0-egg--itifr 44/flee--"O. V APPROVED APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS NOT APPROVED • 1�� DATE' )'� NATURE OF DIRECTOR OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE REV.5/90 devrvsht I, wF DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS NNiiik 101 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST REVIEW SHEET DEc fk;,'°oiv REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: VY - e.`leX1"h ''° ';, � R�NTON FiRI= DEFT �d�"�� ) DATE CIRCULATED: 12/3/90 G) m S- 12/14/90 Qci. r 'J90 ECF- 143-90 ® �+ g APPLICATION NO(S): RVMP;SA;SM-143-90 , - RECEWED PROPONENT: LPN Architects&Planners, Inc. PROJECT TITLE: Blackriver Corporate Park Phase VI BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Applicant seeks to construct a four-story, 71,057 sf office building with parking and landscaping on a 169,314 sf site. LOCATION: Northeast corner of Oaksdale&Grady Way SITE AREA: BUILDING AREA(gross): IMPACT REVIEW ON ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS: PROBABLE PROBABLE MORE MINOR MAJOR INFORMATION IMPACT IMPACT NECESSARY 1. Earth . 2. Air 3. Water 4. Plants 5. Animals 6. Energy&Natural Resources . 7. Environmental Health 8. Land &Shoreline Use 9. Housing 10. Aesthetics 11. Light&Glare 12. Recreation 13. Historic&Cultural Preservation 14. Transportation 15. Public Services 16. Utilities fi COMMENTS: go /. / • 4 Vd iej We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas In which we have expertise and have Identified areas of probable impact or area. where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. / • // tie,,,mil_ 6 //7 M Signature of Director or '41" 9rized Representativ`: Date Rev. 6/88 envrvsht DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET ECF-143-90 • APPLICATION NO(S).: RVMP;SA;SM-143-90 PROPONENT: LPN Architects&Planners, Inc. PROJECT TITLE: Blackriver.Corporate Park Phase VI BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Applicant seeks to construct a four-story, 71,057 sf office • ' .building with parking and landscaping on a 169,314 sf site. LOCATION: SEC: 24 TWNSHP:23N RNG:3E Northeast corner of Oaksdale&Grady Way TO: PUBLIC WORKS DIVISION SCHEDULED TAC DATE: 12/21/90 ENGINEERING SECTION • TRAFFIC ENG. SECTION . UTILITIES ENG. SECTION , FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU 1( POLICE DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION CONSTRUCTION FIELD SERVICES . DEVELOPMENT PLANNING PLANNING&TECHNICAL SERVICES PARKS AND RECREATION DIVISION OTHERS: COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITING. PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE PLANNING DIVISION BY 5:00 P.M. ON DECEMBER 14, 1990. REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: 1. CA-Q. PA n ,1 „1 APPROVED . )• APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS NOT APPROVED Any development and/or construction shall comply with current Fire and Building Codes and Ordi nances. A second means of approved access is required. Fire eppartment access roads/lanes shall be paved minimum width 20'; minimum height 13' 6". Yes ANo -- Preliminary fire flow calculations show a fire flow of czQ02 J�0 is required. • :3 hydrants with a minimum flow of `000 gpm each is required. Primary hydrant is required to be within / Q feet of the structure. Secondary hydrants are required to be within 30 0‘ feet of the structure. An approved automatic sprinkler system is required to, protect the total structure. Yes X- No_ All fire department access roads are to be paved and installed prior to construction. Yes 4. No_ All fire Hydrants are required to be installed and approved prior to construction. Yes K No / t SIGNA �Ibi (441, I DATE: TURE ECTOR OR I UTHO'i D REPRESENTATIVE • t • REV.5/90 devrvsht • ii)M,/p1417,4 ti_ All), ' REQUIRED FIRE FIWW CALC ATIONS 1. HAZARD IDEN/ IFICjTION INFO MATION NAME: IJ 144, .` . , �� '#..F.f (� 'd0� U.B.C. CLASS OF BUILD � ;2-- ADDRESS: SW 40A 4(C9,y.,e1 ,,5 FIRE MGMT AREA 2. DETERMINE TYPE F-• CONSTRUCTIONS CLASS (CIRCLE ONE): I - II Z14 IV III V FIRE-RESISTIVE ON-COMBUSTIBLE ORDINARY WOOD FRAME MIXED (NOTE: IF "MIXED," SEE SPECIAL INSTRUCTION FOR AREA AND BASIC FIRE FLOW) 3. DETERMINE AREA: GROUND FLOOR AREA: FT2 NUMBER OF STORIES , TOTAL BUILDING AREA: gv? Q 2 2---- (A) 4. DETERMINE BASIC FIRE FLOW FROM TABLE #1, USING AREA (A): 1'/ 0 0 d.. ? GPM (B) 5. DETERMINE OCCUPANCY FACTOR ADJUSTMENT: ADJUSTMENT: ,/Q Q 0 GPM (C) IF LOW HAZARD, SUBTRACT UP TO 25% OF (B): IF HIGH HAZARD, ADD UP TO 25% of (B) 6. COMPUTE SUB-TOTAL (B+C): (IF B+C LESS THAN 500 GPM, INSERT 500 GPM) ".Qd 0 GPM (D) 7. DETERMINE SPRINKLER ADJUSTMENT: ADJUSTMENT: Ica 0 GPM (E) (IF COMPLETELY SPRINKLERED, SUBTRACT UP TO 50% OF (D): IF LIGHT HAZARD OCCUPANCY AND FIRE RESISTIVE OR NON-COMBUSTIBLE CONSTRUCTION, SUBTRACT UP TO 75% OF (D). 8. DETERMINE EXPOSURE ADJUSTMENT: USING THE TABLE AS A GUIDE, ENTER THE SEPARATION AND ADJUSTMENT FOR EACH OF THE "FOUR FACES" OF THE BUILDING IN THE TABLE AT THE RIGHT: SEPARATION MAX. ADJUSTMENT EXPOSURE SEPARATION ACT. ADJ. 0-10 25% MAX NORTH /mod -r ADD 0 % 11 - 30 20% MAX EAST j 3 / ADD /5- % 31 - 60 15% MAX SOUTH 6,--c ADD /4 % 61 - 100 10% MAX WEST / So f ADD d % 101 - 150 5% MAX TOTAL % OF ADJUSTMENT 150 or 4-Hr WALL 0% MAX (NOT TO EXCEED 75%) �. % (TOTAL % ADJUSTMENT TIMES (D) ADJUSTMENT: 0 GPM(F) 9. DETERMINE ROOF AND SIDING COVERING ADJUSTMENT: (IF SHINGLE COVERING, ADD 500 GPM) ADJUSTMENT: ' 0. GPM (G) 10. COMPUTE ESTIMATED FIRE FLOW REQUIRED: (IF D+E+F+G IS LESS THAN 500 GPM, INSERT 500 GPM) :1 aIS (IF D+E+F+G IS GREATER THAN 12,000 GPM, INSERT 12,000 GPM) ( +E+F+G) rQUIR ED FIRE FLOW: GPM (H) 11. SIGNED: -i'ati - - ,,o) DATE: f // 7 0 •i �! o CITE -OF RENTON Department of Planning/Building/Public Works Earl Clymer, Mayor Lynn Guttmann, Administrator November 26, 1990 1 Royce A. Berg LPN Architects&Planners, Inc. 1127 Pine Street, Suite 300 • Seattle,WA 98101 SUBJECT: Black River Corporate Park Phase VI RVMP; SM; ECF; SA-143-90 Dear Mr. Berg: Staff has completed the Initial review of your application for the project referenced above. It was noted that the application did not include the required legal notice documentation. The legal notice consist of providing two copies of a notarized affidavit of publication supplied by a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Renton. A copy of a sample form has been included for your reference. The notice must be published at least once a week--on the same day of the week--for two consecutive weeks. As soon as the required documentation requested above is submitted, staff will be able to continue the review of the project. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact me at 235-2550. Sincerely, Mark R. Pywell,AICP, Senior Planner • Bergltr 1 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 • S ::I, E,.•........:....•,: � Q O :::<:::``M.:::::::::::::::::I::.::;.::<:E.•': :> <::>�:::::::::�::>.::�:> EP TME::::::: » > »> >MASTER .: :P :::;<. ::::; TI >•N < > > > ><> > > A PLICA O :::: ::: ::>:: ::> : ::: :::�:�:�::�: O R . .. . .... .... ......... .. ....... � : ::: >P .::>:����.F�APP:LI ��•AT�:>>N�&� FE�E:S �� • NAME: DEAN ERICKSON —'REZONE $ FIRST CITY WASHINGTON, INC. _SPECIAL PERMIT TEMPORARY PERMIT ADDRESS: _*CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT $ 700 FIFTH AVE SUITE 6000 SITE PLAN APPROVAL $ 000 SPECIAL PERMIT •CITY: • ZIP: _GRADE&FILL PERMIT $ • S EATTL E 98104 (NO.CU.YDS: ) *VARIANCE $ TELEPHONE NUMBER: (FROM SECTION: ) • ?(lF 24-927 _'WAIVER $ :: •::::::: ;;> ::>:>::::;::;. : .,::.:.:::::.::.:..:::.::.::.::..•... .:::..:::::....:::.:...::.:.. ?&ROUTINE VEGETATION C ,.P:ERS.QNAPP.LICA;NT MANAGEMENT PERMIT $ I. Q+� NAME: ROYCE A. BERG (JUSTIFICATION REQUIRED) LPN ARCHITECTS & PLANNERS, INC. • ADDRESS: SUBDIVISION: $ 1127 PINE STREET SUITE 300 _LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT •$ CITY: ZIP: _SHORT PLAT • $ S EATT L E 98101 _TENTATIVE PLAT $ PRELIMINARY PLAT $ TELEPHONE NUMBER: _FINAL PLAT $ (206) 583-8030 NO.OF LOTS: PLAT NAME: PROJECT OR DEVELOPMENT NAME: PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT:• $ BLACKRIVER CORPORATE PARK' _PRELIMINARY PHASE VI _FINAL' PROPERTY/PROJECT ADDRESS(S)/LOCATION: NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE OAKESDALE AND BINDING SITE PLAN: $ GRADY WAY INTERSECTION KING COUNTY ASSESSOR'S ACCOUNT NUMBER(S): 918800-0148 MOBILE HOME PARKS: $ _TENTATIVE EXISTING LAND USE(S): . PRELIMINARY FINAL VACANT PARK NAME: EXISTING ZONING: NO.OF SPACES: OP XENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW $ 3Ct.J+ PROPOSED LAND USE(S): PROJECT VALUE: $ 3133OJ 1,-1,c h, • OO SENSITIVE AREA: OFFICE APA: _1 _2 OTHER _N/A • SEWER MORATORIUM AREA: YES 0 PROPOSED ZONING: OP 0 TOTAL FEES: $ 25 7a 7g' SITE AREA(SQ.FT.OR ACREAGE): DATE PAID: t/6/ 0 POSTAGE PROVIED: 460 NO 169, 314 S. F. : 3,5 0 ':::'r:�::>�:::;:;:;?::'::},:�:;:;}:};:;:;'::;:;::}i::�i:�}:;::'r{'�i7:�i?}'{�':):�iir'�'�'(:�>iir}::}�::}:'r:{:$'r:�'r:::ti�:i�::::}}j}{{:�:�::)::'r�;:i:•:�'r:�:i:�:::�::$:�:i�:�:�::i:::{:::::>:::::�::i:::}i::r'r::i:�::?:�i7:v:�:{{::::;:::i:{(�; • ......... s.s.�.�t.o...tn•.be.,cotzi le�ed. I. . t ff...............::::>:::•»:.: ::•;:.;::•::;:;:•>:;.:,:;.::::•..:::::::::::::.•.•::..:::::•::•::::<::::>:•::•>:.:::::.s;•..;.:.:::..:•::.:........G.<:•::•:•:•:.::::•:::•;:•»::::.:;•: •.�.w.:�:::.�:::L;?{{i•:i•;}.:•i•{•i.•i;•:v.:;{...::;::::::::v::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.�:::::.::•i:??i:•.•.;:.�:::::.::•.�:.�::.�:.v:.:v.v:.•::.•::.w.::•.:v::•.•::.:•:.:v.�:.•.....i. .L..D.E LOT 4 OF CITY OF RENTON SHORT. PLAT NO. 016-88 AS RECORDED UNDER KING COUNTY RECORDER'S'NO. 8910279013, SAID SHORT PLAT BEING A PORTION OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 24, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 3 EAST, W.M. , IN KING COUNTY, : WASHINGTON. • • I, Dean Erickson. , being duly sworn, declare that I am (please check one) X the authorized representative to act for the property owner,_ the owner of the property involved in this application and that the foregoing, statements and answers herein contained and the information herewith submitted are in all respects true and correct to the .best of my knowledge and belief. • • SUBSCRIBED AND. WORN TO BEFORE ME THIS DAY OF /)Y4/Jif . 19 70 • SOT Y PUBLIC IN AND F THE STATE OF •WA GTON, ES ING . Joanne V. French DEAN ERICKSON/FIRST CITY WASHINGTON, INC, (Name of Notary Public) (Signature of Owner) 8553 N.E. 137 th Place 700 FIFTH AVE SUITE 6000 • (Address) (Address) ' Kirkland, WA 98034 SEATTLE. WA 624-9223 .(City/State/Zip) (City/State/Zip) • (206)823-9818 (Telephone) • (Telephone) Acceptance of this application and required filing fee does not constitute a complete application. Plans and other material required to constitute a complete application are listed in the"Application Procedure." • • RtnMastr 2/90 . '."ANT. . . . .. .............. ......... ...................... PVEL .::�:�: :::�:�:>:�::�:: :::>: :�:�>::: ::�:::::� ::: ::::::::> :>:::::: ::::::�::::�::..... .. .... ....:U OpIvIE1VT'::�DE��� •Its : ' �..:: ::;>.<:::>:::;::::�:::::<:::::::::�::::::::::::::::>::::::<::::: :::>:::::::::::<::::::::<:::: OR ELI N E..MA T.E . APPLICATION FOR: • OFFICE USE ONLY: X SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT Application No.: —M " /43' O ECF No.: i43"9O CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SEC-TWP-R: Date Approved: :• VARIANCE. -- Date Denied: Publication Date: EXEMPTION - - Comprehensive Plan: • • • • Zoning: • REVISION Water Body: ...........................................::....:.:::::::::::. TE RECEIVED APPLICATION RECEIVED &DETERMINED TO 3E,;;;;,;;;;;;;;;;;;;,;;;;; • :;: ...:: E R;O.i7TE� :':�:�:�:�:� ::�;;:�:;�:�:�:�:::'�:::�:� :�:�:���:�:���::::�: �:.:::: :::::::::�>:::;;:::::::: ;;::'<:�:�:::;`:;%;;: :;?::'::�:;:::�i:�:�:��:�:�:'i?:'.�:�s:���»::�:�i:::�5:�:�::5 :��' �''•:�:�:�':<:�' `:�':':::'��:�:�':��:�:'t�:::�:':��:�::�:�5:':::::�: •:::...�:�.:::..:.:::::::::D.....:::.�:::::::::::.�::::.:.::•::::::::::::,...,.•AC,G',NiPTED. .N.OT`IFIOATION•.SENT.:::::.�::.�:::::::.:::.:::::.::::.�:.�:::::.•:::�::::::::::::.:::.:::::::.::•::..:..::..:•: OTIFICA ............. .... .................... ...... ATE RECEIVED•;;;::,;::;•.;,,;• .;;;;;,,; :,::ADDITIONAL.MATERIAL RECEIVED&D TERMINED TO:•B ::•::•;:•>:•;;:<•;:•>:;:;:::<:::• t *t: s::::: : ::2;: ;i•>':`•: :is :?`: 5 is?: :<:: >::: 2: >i:Y: >: :`: > 2 : ::::: ::>: : :: :: :s:: >' ': :: : ::::: ::: :i::': :::: e ....:ATE ROUTED .:�:.::•::•::•;:•:•;:;:::•::<•::::•;: .......... ...._:AC¢EPTEU�NOTIFICATION.SENT..::::::::.�::. . .......::<;•:;:•:;•>;:<.:•:: ••::::. INCO •::>::::::::::.:::::.�:.�:::::::::::::::::•::........................ ......... ..........MPL:ETE��<N.:.TIFICi1TI N�: ENT:��:�:<�;:�»>:�::>:�:��>:?:>>:>.z::::::»:�»>�:��:�::;�:�»:�>:�>:�s�:<�;: :�>;:::<�:�:»: :::::::: ��s In addition to the information below, the applicant should include a site map and any other pertinent information which will assist in the review of this application. The Community Development Department reserves the right to require additional information needed to evaluate the application. APPLICANT TO PROVIDE INFORMATION REQUIRED IN ITEMS 1-10 AND 14-16: Applicant Name: •FIRST CITY WASHINGTON. INC. ATTN: DEAN ERICKSON Owner: X /Purchaser /Lessee /Other Address: - 700 FIFTH AVENUE. SUITE 6000. SEATTLE, WA 98104 Phone: (206) 624-9223 • . • 2. Name of Property Owner: FIRST CITY WASHINGTON, INC. Address: SAME AS ABOVE Phone: PLAN, ..., CITY OF"' \ITON NOV 0 5 1990 • Shoreline Master Application Page 2 • ;_DEAN ERICKSON, FIRST CITY WAS14INGTON,= INC. (ADRESS-+AS ABOVE) 3. Contact/Consultant LPN •ARCHITECTS & PLANNERS; INC./ROYCE A. BERG, A. I.AI. Address: 1127 PINE STREET, SUITE 300, SEATTLE, WA 98104 Phone: 583-8030 4. General location of proposed project (give street address, if any, or nearest street and intersection): NORTHFAST CORNFR FROM S.W. GRADY WAY AND OAKESDALE AVE. S.W. INTERSECTION . ;'FAST 'Or THE RFIOCATFJ) P-1 CHANNEL. 5. Legal•description'(if lengthy, please attach as a separate sheet): LOT 4,OF CITY OF. RENTON. SHORT .PLAT .NO. 016-88 AS RECORDED UNDER KING COUNTY RECORDER'S NO. 8910279013, SAID SHORT PLAT BEING A PORTION OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 24, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 3 EAST, W.M., IN KING COIINTY:'WASHINGTON 6. ,Name of adjacent water area or wetlands: P-1 CHANNEL • '7.. Current use.,of.property and existing improvements: • VACANT WITH NO EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS • 8. Proposed use of property and proposed improvements (please be specific): CONSTRUCTION OF A +171 ,057. SF 4-STORY OFFICE BUILDING AND 'ASSOCIATED PARKING ON • 3.89 ACRES OF THE BLACKRIVER, CORPORATE PARK, FORMALLY VALLEY 405 BUSINESS PARK I•) 1' ANQ EARLINGTON PARK, 9. Proposed'construction costs and schedule: A. Provide total construction cost and fair market value of proposed project. Include additional . developments contemplated but not included in this application: CONSTRUCTION,COST EST. $3,330,945 WITH TENANT IMPROVEMENTS. . FAIR. MARKET VALUE EST. $7.332.900 . B. Provide construction dates (month/year) for which the permit is requested. • • Begin: SUMMER 1991 End:. SPRING 1992 • 10. List any other permits for this project from state, federal, local governmental agencies, or the City of Renton for which you have applied or will apply. Include the name of the issuing agency; whether the permit has been applied for, and if so, the date of the application; whether the application was approved or denied and date of same; and number of the application or permit. r.TTY OF RFNTON SITE PI AN APPROVAL TO COINCIDE WITH THIS SHORELINE APPLICATION. an'nTTTONAi PFRMTTS REQUIRED INCLUDE BUILDING, PUBLIC WORKS COSNTRUCTION, ELECTRICAL, MFCHANTCAI AND .Fl1Tl1RF SIGN PERMITS. _ • • rJ Shoreline Master Application • Page 3 ITEMS 11, 12, AND 13 TO BE COMPLETE BY LOCAL OFFICIAL 11. Nature of the Existing Shoreline (describe type of shoreline, such as marine, stream, lake, lagoon, marsh, bog, swamp, flood plain, floodway, delta; type of beach, such as accretion, erosion, high bank, low bank, or dike; material, such as sand, gravel, mud, clay, rock, riprap; and the extent and type of the • bulkheading, if any): • 12. In the event that any of the proposed buildings or structures will exceed a height of thirty-five (35) feet above-the average grade level, indicate the approximate location of and number of residential units, • existing and potential, that will have an obstructed view. • • 13. If the application involves a conditional use or variance, set forth in full that portion of the master program which provides that the proposed use may be a conditional use, or in the case of a variance, from which the variance is being sought. • ITEMS 14, 15, AND 17 TO BE PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT 14. If applying ?'or a variance or a conditional use, complete the variance or conditional use form. 15. Project Maps: Attach an accurate site plan and vicinity map to the application. Refer to the application instruction handout for map,requirements. 16. Addition information (if necessary, please attach as a separate sheet): SEE ATTACHED • • Shoreline Master Application Page 4 STATE OF WASHINGTON ) )ss CITY OF RENTON ) I, , being duly sworn, certify that I am the above-named applicant for a permit to construct a substantial development pursuant to the Shoreline Management Act of 1971, and that the foregoing statements, answers, and information are in all respects true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Applicant's Signature Subscribed and sworn to me this 5th day of November, , 1990 , ,rzei t /Public in and for the State of Washington e iding at: 553 N.E. 137th Place Kirkland, WA 98034 • • 4 6 REFERENCES 1. EIS for Earlington Industrial Park, February 1981 by R.W.Thorpe&Assoc. 2. DEIS for Blackriver Corporate Park,Tracts A and B, by Jones&Stokes,final draft scheduled November 1990 3. Grading&Fill for Valley 405 Business Park: a. City of Renton Grading and Fill Permit Application No. SP-100-86, approved through the City Council appeal decision September 14, 1989. b. Renton Shoreline Permit Application No. SM-004-87. c. Environmental Checklist No. ECF-024-87. 4. Blackriver Corporate Park (BCP) Phases IV and V, Oakesdale a. Renton Site Plan Approval No. SA-090-87,approved. b. Renton Shoreline Permit Application No. SM-013-87, approved. 5. P-1 Channel, City of Renton: a. Renton Shoreline Application No. SM-093-81, completed. b. Renton Special Permit No. SP-060-81, completed. 6. Earlington Industrial Park: a. Renton Shoreline Application No. SM-91-81. b. Preliminary and Final Plat-Washington Technical Center. 7. Oakesdale L.I.D., City of Renton: a. Renton Shoreline Application No. SM-004-81, completed. 8. Traffic Analysis: a. Transpo Group, December 1980 to City of Renton b. Transpo Group, updated August 1985 to City Renton c. Transpo Group, supplement September 1985 to City of Renton Architecture and Plannin I Leason Pomeroy Northwest,Inc.,Royce A,Berg,A.I.A., 1127 Pine Street;Suite 300 Seattle,WA 98101 (206)583-8030 TRANSMITTAL To: City of Renton Date: October 19, 1990 Dept. of Bldg and Zoning 200 Mill Ave. S. Project Name: Blackriver Ph VI Renton, WA 98055 4. n 'U� Project No: NW 86059 �� Attn: Donald Erickson 4, .3,,, Re: Site Approval Submittal ' ....'1:: lb Description: `'.: 1 Application Fee in the amount of $2,572.78 1 copy Routine Vegetation Management Permit Application w/attachments 12 copies Completed Site Plan Approval application legal description and Affidavit of Ownership. Includes original . 12 copies Completed Substantial Development Application with legal description and Affidavit of Ownership. Includes original . 12 copies Environmental Checklist 12 copies Certification of Notification of Property Owners with two labels and postage for each property owner 12 copies Letter of Design Intent 12 copies Prints, Site Plan with vicinity map, grading/drainage, land- scape plan, building elevations, lighting and signage 1 set 8-1./2" X 11" PMT reductions of above drawings Rlmomiginal 8-1/2" X 14" Preliminary Color Scheme ❑Sent per your Request H For Approval ElOther: • ❑ For your Use/Reference For Distribution ❑ For Review and Comment ❑ For your Records S ubmittal for Site Plan Appproyal anri Substantial Development—Permit By: Paul R. Coppock cc` Dean Erickson (w/1 set encl) Lauchlin Bethune (w/1 set prints) David Bell (w/1 set prints) • / r ENVIR� ..N M TA . C H E C K.L I' S Purpose of Checklist: • • The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), Chapter 43.21C RCW, requires all governmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) must be prepared for all proposals with probably significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help you and the agency identify impacts from your proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be done) and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required. Instructions for Applicants: • • This environmental checklist ask you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Governmental agencies, ,use this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are si nificant, requiring preparation of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise`infofmaticin known, or give the best description you can. You must answer-each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In most cases; you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans without the need to hire experts. If you really do not know the answer, or if a question does not apply to your proposal, write "do not know" or "does not apply". Complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later. Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, and landmark designations. Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems, the governmental agencies can assist you. • • The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you .plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that swill help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to.determining if there may be significant adverse impacts. Use of Checklist for Nonproiect Proposals: (Please Type or Print Legibly) Complete this checklist for nonproject proposals, even though questions may be answered "does not apply". IN ADDITION, complete the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (part D). 0 For nonproject actions (actions involving decisions on policies, plans and programs), the references in the checklist to the words "project," "applicant," and "property or site" should be • "proposal," " " read as proposer, and "affected geographic area," respectively. PLANcalfivili � ot� • 'Environmental Checklist Blackriver Phase VI October 9, 1990 A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: Blackriver Corporate Park Phase VI 2. Name of Applicant: First City Washington, Inc. 700 Fifth Avenue Suite 6000 Seattle,WA 98104 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: Dean Erickson Royce A. Berg First City Washington, Inc. LPN Architects&Planners, Inc./ 700 Fifth Avenue Royce A. Berg,A.I.A. Suite 6000 1127 Pine Street Suite 300 • Seattle,WA 98104 Seattle,WA 98101 (206) 624-9223 (206) 583-8030 4. Date checklist prepared: October 9, 1990 5. Agency requesting checklist: City of Renton Community Development Department 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): Construction starts summer of 1991, ends spring of 1992 7. Do you have any plans for future additions,expansions, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. Tenant improvements associated with building occupancy will occur intermittently. 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared,directly related to this proposal. EIS for Earlington Park by Thorpe&Assoc.dated February 1981. See attached sheet. 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes,explain. None. Second EIS is being completed for Tracts A and B of Blackriver Corporate Park, one-quarter (1/4) of a mile north of this proposal. - 10. List any governmental approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. City of Renton Site Plan Approval, City of Renton building, construction, electrical'and mechanical-. permits, City of Renton grade and fill permit. 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses,and the size of the project and site. There areseveral questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. • Page 1 Environmental Checklist Blackriver Phase VI October 9, 1990 Construction of one 4-story office building with a total of+71,057 S.F.for office use on a+3.89 acre project site of Blackriver Corporate Park. Parking will be provided per the code requirement. 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any,and section,township, and range if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan,vicinity map,and topography map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. The site is located northeast of S.W. Grady Way-Oakesdale Ave. S.W. intersection, and east of the P-1 pond across Oakesdale Ave. S.W., in section 24, range 23,township 04 of Blackriver Corporate Park. B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. EARTH a. General description of the site (circle o fla oiling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? 1-3% is the typical slope on the site. A slope of 30-40%occurs at the portion of the existing railroad track bed to be removed and at the existing drainage swale. c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay,sand,gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. The upper 5 to 13 feet of the native soil is soft to stiff clayey silt with medium to dense silts and sands with varying amounts of gravel. City of Renton fill from the P-1 channel excavations have been added to the surface above the native soils. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so,describe. No. e. Describe the purpose,type,and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. The site will be cut approximately 5,000 c.y.to bring building pad down to correspond to surrounding grades. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so,generally describe. Erosion could occur during grading. However, silt fencing, sedimentation ponds and other measures will be taken to control the erosion per city standards. g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example,asphalt or buildings)? +75% Page 2 Environmental Checklist Blackriver Phase VI October 9, 1990 h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: Erosion control ditches, silt fences and sedimentation ponds will be used to reduce or control the erosion during construction, per City of Renton standards. 2. AIR a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e.,dust, automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke)during construction and when the project is completed? If any,generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. Normal emissions from dust and vehicles during construction. Normal vehicular emissions after the project is completed and occupied. b. Are there any off-site sources of emission? sNo. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: Reduce dust by sprinklering with water. 3. WATER a. Surface: 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams,saltwater, lakes, ponds,wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. The P-1 channel is to the west across Oakesdale Ave. S.W. 2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet)the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. Yes;the site is within 200 feet of the P-1 channel, but will not require work in the channel or street as Oakesdale Ave. S.W. is already improved to service this project. 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. None. 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose,and approximate quantities if known. No. 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. No. The creation of the P-1 detention pond dedicated by First City and construction by SCS, eliminated requirements of flood ponding storage on this site. 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so,describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. No. Page 3 Environmental Checklist Blackriver Phase VI October 9, 1990 b. Ground: 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose,and approximate quantities if known. No. 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any(for example: Domestic sewage; industrial,containing the following chemicals. . .;agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems,the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s)are expected to serve. No waste material will be discharged into the ground. c. Water Runoff(including storm water): 1) Describe the source of runoff(including storm water)and method of collection and disposal, if any(include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so,describe. Storm water runoff will be collected in a piped storm system which will flow into oil/water separators before discharge into an existing swale. The drainage from off-site existing pipe will be connected to the existing pipe under Oakesdale Ave S.W. 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so,generally describe. No. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface,ground,and runoff water impacts, if any: Discharge into an existing swale which will provide biofiltration. 4. Plants a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the 'te: X deciduous tre=:.ald aspen: othe - crub alder less than six inch caliper, street trees in L. .•., ha orns and co •nwoods. evergreen tree:fir, cedar, pine,other shrubs --Yr grass crop or grain wet soil plants:cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage other water plants:water lily, eel grass, milfoil, other - other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? All scrub vegetation in the proposed project site area will be removed. The majority of significant trees will be preserved on site. c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None. Page 4 'Environmental Checklist Blackriver Phase VI October 9, 1990 d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants,or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: Proposed landscaping is shown of the landscape plan. The landscape design will incorporate and enhance plantings and add evergreen and deciduous trees. 5. Animals a. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site.___ Birds:dip, ero 'eagle songbird•,sparrows, sea gulls,ducks, misc. migrating shoreb .s Mammals:dee.. •ear.ik, beaver, other Fish: bas,, almo roUt, erring,shellfish, other b. List any thre. - e• •r endangered species known to be on or near the site. An immature bald eagle was sighted soaring near and adjacent site in the spring of 1987, but there is no known history of bald eagles' use of the site. Great Blue Herons 2/3 of a mile north of the site have been proposed as a monitored species. c. Is the site part of a•migration route? If so, explain. The P-1 channel and pond attract migratory wildfowl and shorebirds. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: Majority of significant existing trees will be preserved on-site with additional new plantings to enhance wildlife. 20-acres of Blackriver Technology Park(north of the P-1 detention pond) have been retained as a preserve and riparian forest area. This area will provide natural habitat for wildlife in the area,as well as the banks and the P-1 channel. Future development includes adding new trees and landscaping to Blackriver Corporate Park and additional landscaping will extend existing preserves in future development, in addition to the existing buffer from water line to the property line. Special native vegetation plantings have been proposed to supplement this buffer. 17 acres of Blackriver Corporate Park have been deeded to the City of Renton to provide wildlife habitat and flood control for the P-1 channel and detention pond to the northwest of this project. Proposed erosion control and post-construction runoff control techniques will mitigate water quality impacts to fish and other aquatic life. 6. Energy and Natural Resources a. What kinds of energy(electric, natural gas, oil,wood stove, solar)will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs?.Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. Use of gas and electric power for heat, lights and air conditioning. b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so,generally describe. No. c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: Page 5 Environmental Checklist Blackriver Phase VI October 9, 1990 Meets Washington State Energy Code requirements. 7. Environmental Health a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste,that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so,describe. No. 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. No special emergency services required or anticipated beyond what is already available. 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: None required or anticipated. b. Noise • 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)?Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. Normal background traffic and construction noises from adjacent developments and street. 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example:traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. Short term: Construction and affiliated traffic noises from normal working hours, 6 a.m.to 7 p.m. Long Term: Normal traffic noises. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: None. 8. Land and Shoreline use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? Site: Vacant undeveloped property South: Grady Way, Puget Power and undeveloped property with power line access West: Oakesdale Avenue S.W., P-1 Channel;and Metro Treatment Plant East: 1 three-story office building (Blackriver Corporate Park Phase II) North: 2 one-story office buildings b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so,describe. Not in the recent past. c. Describe any structures on the site. None. Page 6 Environmental Checklist Blackriver Phase VI October 9, 1990 d. Will any structures be demolished? If so,what? No. e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? OP f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? MP/MO-0 g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? Urban along P-1 channel and P-1 basin h. Has any part of the site been classified as an"environmentally sensitive"are? If so, specify. No. i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? Approximately 400 to 600 people at the project completion. j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? None. k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: N/A I. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: Compliance with land use plan and use if compatible with adjacent uses and with comprehensive plan and zoning designation. 9. Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. None. b. Approximately how many units, if any,would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. None. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: N/A 10. Aesthetics a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas;what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed. Page 7 • ' Environmental Checklist Blackriver Phase VI October 9, 1990 +57 feet plus 6 to 8 foot screen for roof mounted equipment. The exterior will be painted exterior insulation and finish system and glass. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? None. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: The building is designed with an irregular shape to reduce the scale and mass of the structure. 11. Light and Glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? Lights from parking lighting and exterior building lights at night time. b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? No. c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? None. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: Control light dispersion from pole lights and building lighting to prevent on-site and off-site glare. 12. Recreation a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? Fort Dent Park and Longacres Racetrack are nearby. Exercise stations designed with paths and incorporated into the Master Plan concept were provided by applicant. b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so,describe. No. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: Horseshoe pit proposed on site and previously improved existing exercise stations and paths. 13. Historic and Cultural Preservation a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national,state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so,generally describe. No. Page 8 • Environmental Checklist Blackriver Phase VI October 9, 1990 b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic,archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. None. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: None. 14. Transportation a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site,and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. Direct access to Oakesdale Ave. S.W. ultimately to Interstate 405 with on/off ramps at Rainier Ave. S.to the east and Interurban Ave.,via S.W. Grady to the west. b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not,what is the approximately distance to the nearest transit stop? No. Approximately 3/4 of a mile to public transit with new transit stops being considered by Metro as entire park develops. c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? 321 stalls provided. None eliminated. d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so,generally describe (indicate whether public or private). No new roads are required, completed under L.I.D. by First City, Container Corp., METRO and the City of Renton to serve this property. e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of)water, rail, or air transportation? If so,generally describe. No. f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. 21 vehicle trips/1000 GSF = 1492 daily trips PM Peak Hour: 2.4 vehicle trips/1000 GSF 170 vehicle trips/PM Peak Hour Based on Trip Generation and Information Report,3rd Edition, published in 1982 by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. Also referenced Traffic Impact Analysis for Valley 405 Business Park,August 1985, by the Transpo Group and original traffic study in 1981 E.I.S. g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: Proximity to bus line and other developments to incorporate car pooling and transit bus use. The Transportation Management Plan for the Blackriver Corporate Park is in place between First City and Metro. Page 9 ' ' Environmental Checklist Blackriver Phase VI October 9, 1990 15. Public Services a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services(for example:fire protection, police protection, health care,schools, other)? If so,generally describe. Project will require normal fire protection and police protection already serving the area. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. None. 16. Utilities _ a. Cam.:_ '' 'es cu• - • :vaila, ite: lectricit • - : • : ,water, iiite ephon=Q :.ep � , em,of er. b. Descri•e the utilities that are : • • •se• for the project,the utility providing the service,and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. Electric power, gas,water, sewer telephone. All utilities are directly accessible at the site and at the adjacent street requiring minor excavation to extend to the building. C. SIGNATURES I,the undersigned,state that to the best of my knowledge the above information is true and complete. It is u• •erstood that the lead agency may withdraw any declaration of non- significance the i;might issue in reliance upon this checklist should there be any willful misrepresent: io/'or wi ,• la i of full disclosure on my part. , / - Proponent: ,1 4 JA Name Printed: ROYCE A. BERG, LPN , CHITECTS&PLANNERS, INC. l Page 10 Environmental Checklist Blackriver Phase VI October 9, 1990 REFERENCES 1. EIS for Earlington Industrial Park, February 1981 by R.W.Thorpe&Assoc. 2. DEIS for Blackriver Corporate Park,Tracts A and B, by Jones&Stokes,final draft scheduled November 1990 3. Grading&Fill for Valley 405 Business Park: a. City of Renton Grading and Fill Permit Application No. SP-100-86,approved through the City Council appeal decision September 14, 1989. b. Renton Shoreline Permit Application No. SM-004-87. c. Environmental Checklist No. ECF-024-87. 4. Blackriver Corporate Park (BCP) Phases IV and V, Oakesdale a. Renton Site Plan Approval No. SA-090-87,approved. b. Renton Shoreline Permit Application No. SM-013-87,approved. 5. P-1 Channel, City of Renton: a. Renton Shoreline Application No. SM-093-81, completed. b. Renton Special Permit No. SP-060-81, completed. 6. Earlington Industrial Park: a. Renton Shoreline Application No. SM-91-81. b. Preliminary and Final Plat-Washington Technical Center. 7. Oakesdale L.I.D., City of Renton: a. Renton Shoreline Application No. SM-004-81, completed. 8. Traffic Analysis: a. Transpo Group, December 1980 to City of Renton b. Transpo Group, updated August 1985 to City Renton c. Transpo Group, supplement September 1985 to City of Renton Page 11 Architecture and Planning I Leason Pomeroy Northwest, Inc., Royce A. Berg,A.I.A., 1127 Pine Street,Suite 300 Seattle,WA 98101 (206)583-8030 DESIGN NARRATIVE BLACKRIVER CORPORATE PARK PHASE VI NW 86059 October 30, 1990 This proposal is for the design and construction of one four-story office building of approximately 71,057 square feet, at Blackriver Corporate Park by First City Washington, Inc. The building is situated with orientation to Oakesdale Avenue S.W. and Grady Way S.W. Site access already exists at Oakesdale Avenue, with additional access through the site to adjacent developments. The first floor of the building has partial parking and pedestrian ties for existing projects to the north and east routed through the parking lot. Seating and picnic tables are provided at the building entry and east plaza. Bike racks will be provided in concurrence with previous Blackriver buildings to encourage bicycle traffic. A horseshoe pit and sitting area will be established as a recreational amenity to tie into similar activities on adjacent properties. The exercise "Par" course has already been established along Oakesdale Avenue. Fourteen of the twenty existing significant trees are proposed to be preserved. Hawthorns and cottonwoods are also included in the preserve and recreation area. Additional trees and shrubs will be added to buffer the parking area. Sod and hedgerows along the perimeter streets will buffer the parking areas from the public. Site drainage will be separated into two sections, and discharged through an oil/water separator. The existing drainage ditch will be enhanced to act as a biofiltering swale; water will be discharged through the swale into the existing pipe under Oakesdale Avenue, and into the P-1 channel . The storm drainage from the adjacent property will be tightlined to the existing tightline under Oakesdale Avenue per Renton Public Works Department recommendation. Exterior building materials will be exterior insulating and finish systems and reflective insulating glass. Recesses and jogs near the entry will proportion and scale the elevations and provide identity for the entry and plaza. Existing and planned uses within 1,000 feet of the project are compatible with the proposed development. Existing office, commercial , manufacturing and storage facilities surround the property. aftiv, ,vrsd oiv NOV 0 51ss® OF RE 4 ti ' _ o City of Renton ' •1.C1. ; _ ROUTINE VEGETATION MANAGEMENT 0 9e PERMIT APPLICATION 'rfo sEPts`"O�P PROPERTY OWNER (APPLICANT) NAME: FIRST CITY WASHINGT_ON1 (DF.AALERICKSON) MAILING ADDRESS: 700 FIFTH AVE SUITF 6000. SFATTI F. WA 9R104 TELEPHONE NO. : 624-9223 CONTACT PERSON (IF OTHER THAN PROPERTY OWNER) : LPN ARCHLTFCTS MAILING ADDRESS: 1127 PINE ST. STE 300. SEATTIF, WA 9R1f11 TELEPHONE NO. : 583-8030 SITE ADDRESS (PROPERTY LOCATION) : NORTHEAST CORNER OF GRADY WAY AND OAKESDALE AVE. SIZE OF SITE/PROPERTY: 169,314 SF IS THE SITE UNDEVELOPED X , PARTIALLY DEVELOPED , OR DEVELOPED DESCRIPTION OF SPECIFIC WORK TO BE ACCOMPLISHED: CLEAR SITE TO PREPARE FOR CONSTRUCTION OF BUTT DING_ RFMOVAI OF f TRFFS. IS THE WORK TO BE PERFORMED FOR THE SAKE OF PREPARING THE SITE FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT? YFS CITY LAND USE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. : N/A IS THE WORK TO BE PERFORMED WITHIN 25 FEET OF THE HIGH WATER MARK OF A STREAM, CREEK, LAKE, SHORELINE OR WETLAND? NO, FXCFPT FOR FXTSTIN( OPEN DRAINAGE SWALE IS THE WORK TO BE PERFORMED WITHIN 25 FEET OF THE HIGH WATER MARK OF,A STREAM, CREEK OR WETLAND? iNO SEE:ABOVE IS THE WORt TO BE PERFORMED IN AN AREA WHERE SLOPES EXCEED 40% OR WHERE SLOPES EXCEED 25% WITH A CLASS II OR CLASS III LANDSLIDE OR EROSION HAZARD AS IDENTIFIED ON CITY OR COUNTY RECORDS? NO IS THE WORK TO BE PREFORMED• WITHIN A "NATIVE GROWTH PROTECTION EASEMENT? NO TIME SCHEDULE FOR TREE CUTTING/VEGETATION MANAGEMENR,N ; ACTIVITIES: START DATE: SUMMER 1991 END DATE: SpRi { tl.Tc ill, iom EoN NOV 05 1990 TYPE OF MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT TO BE USED, IF ANY: HAND OPERATED. SAW,-:MULCHER, BULLDOZER DESCRIPTIONU : OF WORK BLACKBERRYS AND GROUND COVE ICAL EQUIPMENT: TO BE REMOVED FROM AREA TO BE DEVELOPED. EXISTING SIGNIFICANT TREES INDICATED ON SHEET 3 OF Z TO REMAIN DESCRIBE PROPOSED MEASURES TO BE USED TO PROTECT THE. SITE AND ADJACENT PROPERTIES FROM POTENTIAL ADVERSE IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED WORK AND EQUIPMENT OPERATION: . '. SITE WILL CONFORM TO CITY STANDARD EROSION CONTROL MEASURES WHICH MAY REQUIRE. SILT FENCES AND EROSION CONTROL PONDS. The following additional information/materials must also be attached to this application form: (Note--incomplete permit applications cannot be processed) . SHEET 3 of 7 ATTACHMENT #1. A plan for the specific work to be performed, including: the location of all areas proposed to . be cleared and the types and sizes of vegetation/trees to be removed or altered, future building sites (if any) , right- of-ways, utility lines, and easements. (Note: Clearing should not occur outside of these areas or more than 15 feet from a proposed building foundation -line) . If a dripline of - a tree will overhang/overlap ' a construction line, this must also be indicated on•'the plan. The plan must be drawn to scale with northern property line, at the top of the paper and clearly show all property boundaries and adjacent streets. ATTACHMENT #2 . Standards and criteria to be used for routine tree trimming and topping; • ATTACHMENT #3 . Standards and criteria to be used for ground cover management;. ATTACHMENT #4 . Standards and criteria to be used in determining the location for use of any chemicals, pesticides, or herbicides; STANDARDS AND CRITERIA Attachment #2 - Routine tree trimming and topping The key to pruning trees is removal of branches to enhance the health, welfare and vigor of the tree. Pruning should be done to remove diseased or damaged branches, conflicting or rubbing branches and branches or limbs that directly affect utilities or buildings. When topping a tree, it is important to consider the shape and the species. Also a consideration is the time of year. Also a consideration is the time of year. Heavy pruning of trees should be done in the winter or the dormant months of the tree to be pruned. This will reduce shock, and keep the tree from bleeding sap. Whenever major pruning or topping of a tree is to be done, it is advisable to consult an arborist. STANDARDS AND CRITERIA Attachment #3 Ground Cover Management Standards When removing existing ground covers or native materials, one should consider the immediate and long-term effects. The immediate effects include erosion, drainage patterns and wildlife habitat. Long-term effects include manmade or natural restoration, plant community and environments and wildlife habitat. When removing plant materials that absorb and soften the effects of rain, methods of construction should include offsetting these effects to not jeopardize neighborhood plant communities. This can be achieved by using siltation fencing, retention or holding ponds and other filtering processes. When choosing plant materials to restore the site, the wildlife habitat can be enhanced by planting species with berries or nuts to provide food, or thorns for protection. STANDARDS AND CRITERIA Attachment #4 - Determining location for use of herbicides and pesticides The most important aspect of using a pesticide is to read the label and follow the directions for mixing and application as closely as possible. Never use pesticides out of the context of their specific directions. Pesticides are growth regulators that are tested at specific levels; use outside of these levels can actually enhance plant growth. In determining the location for use, you have to evaluate whether you need a long-term or short-term effect, spot spray application or an all-purpose killer, and you will need to determine if it is a one-function or multi- function application. Other considerations for use of pesticides include their effect or direct location of application to wetlands or natural drainage patterns, public storm sewers and finished landscapes. The applicator should also consider weather conditions, protective clothing and proper ventilation in applying in an indoor or covered area. It may be necessary to post signs stating that herbicides or pesticides are being used in the area. AFRCHITECTUR,- LIGHTING BY LIT __.��DNIA HI-TEK • 70/100/150/200/250/400/1000W HIGH PRESSURE SODIUM . KAA 15 to 50 Ft.Mounting•Initial Lumens 9,500-140,000•Lamp Life 24,000 Hrs. SAME AS TAA • " ~ ', •HOUSING—Rugged,heavy-gauge,lightweight aluminum housing.Rectilinear shape,continuously seam welded for weathertight integrity.EPDM one-piece,fully gasketed, T w • extruded aluminum door frame with impact-resistant tempered L ' glass lens.Extruded aluminum arm for pole or wall mounting. . Standard dark bronze polyester powder finish with eleven D optional architectural colors. llir • I •OPTICS—Unique one-piece hydroformed reflector.Multi • - ' . faceted,segmental design with three-dimensional parabolics for precise Type III light distribution. •BALLAST/ELECTRICAL SYSTEM—High power factor ballast,factory tested for reliable operation.Electrical DIMENSIONS • . . . components are isolated from the optical chamber to provide timing 70.200w 250 400w igg0 • excellent heat control and long ballast life. Removable power �.+ 1.6 R.2:17m?, 2.3 n2..2zm2. 3.o n...2em. .•. door for ease of installation/replacement of electrical ,,, 21-+63.3 an 24=�t o 30-76.2 crr • .. • components on medium and large housing.Positive locking wide, >s•,,a,an• >9K-r49.5 an 23W 8'7 cm -; . disconnect plug.- Depth . 71w:18.4 an 9w 243 an i0; i6.r cm 1 •U.L.—Listed suitable for wet locations. 'Inducts Mourning Arm +For MA deduct 6 tt.2:.06m1 from above values ORDERING INFORMATION Select the wattage,mounting.voltage and options for your requirements,then transfer the designations to the appropriate blocks.Accessories should be ordered as separate line items. *TYPE— A I KAA 250S I I .SP12 II I DCB ‘ WATTAGE OPTIONS • WATTS WEIGHT DESIGNATION✓ SUFFIX DESCRIPTION . . lbs/kg —HS House Side Shield - 70 1717.3 70S ❑ — —SF Single Fuse(120,277 volts) 100 (55v) 1918.E 100S ❑ —DF --•.Double Fuse(208,240,480 volts) t 150 20/9.1 • 150S ❑ —PER/PE NEMA Twist-Lock PE(120.208,240V) + 200 22.'10.0ift1400S ❑ —PER/PE7 NEMA Twist Lock PE(277V) + 250 24!10.9 50S ❑ —PERIPE4 NEMA Twist-Lock PE(480V) + 400 39'17.7 400S ❑ —PER NEMA Twist-Lock PE ' 1000 53/24.1 1000S ❑ —ORS Quartz Restrike System MOUNTING —TB MultiTap Ballast(120.208.240&277V) —DMB Architectural Color,Medium Bronze WE NATION A., —DCS Architectural Color,Sand Stone DCB Architectural Color,Black Square POI SP 12 0 (Semi-Gloss) Round Pole RP 12 —DCC Architectural Color,Capri Blue Wood Pole or Wall WW 12 0 VOLTAGE —DCA Architectural Color,Aztec Tan Wall Bracket WB 12 ❑ DESIGNATION✓ —DCX Architectural Color,Garnet Optional Mounting 120 0 —DCZ Architectural Color,Citation Gold Mast Arm' MA 0 • 208 —DCW Architectural Color,White - Degree Arm Pole DA 12P 0 240 0 (Semi-Gloss) Degree Arm Wood Pole or Wall DA 12W ❑ 277 0 —DCG Architectural Color,Gray 'Not available 70.100,150 and 200W units. 480' ❑ —DCO Architectural Color,Ocher ACCESSORIES —DCN . Architectural Color,Natural Aluminum . Tenon Mounting Slipfitter is ordered as separate line +Includes Receptacle and Photocontrol.Photocontrol item.Important with this accessory,an RP 12 or optional shipped as separate item and must be field installed. DA 12P mounting arm must be ordered on the fixtures. NOTE:For more details,see options and accessories sheet C-O A. . - Tenon 1 2 2 3 3 4 For color reference,see color guide sheet DC.• Size fixture fixtures fixtures fixtures fixtures fixtures at 180' at 90' at 120' at 90' at 90' 23'8-0.D. 12-190 12-280 12-290 12-320 12-390 T2-490 274-0.D.• T3-190 T3-280 T3-290 T3-320 T3-390 T3-490 ' 4- O.D. T4-190 74-280 T4-290 T4-320 T4-390 14 490 . •t JOB NUMBER APPR a6�4OVAbt$TAMP ' JOB NAME • NOV Q 5 7,90 LOCATION ' ` • _ • LITHOMA • � 40 ��HI--TEK KAA S PHOTOMETRIC DATA TYPE A The charts below provide the most usefu'::..:.a from p otometric tests of specific lamp/°__..11anaire combinations.For complete results of any combination shown, or other requirements, contact your LITHONIA/H1-TEK representative. . KAA 1505 NAM.:150 watt High Pressure Sodium Lamp retied 16.000 Lumen, KAA 2005 LAMP:200 watt High Pressure S ilium Lamp rated 12.000 Lumens Test Report No.16667 Feetrandle values based ea 20'mounting height Test Report No.16909 Feotcandlo values based en 20'mounting height INITIAL FOOTCANDLES FLUX DISTRIBUT1ON INITIAL FOOTCANDLES FLUX ONIT11RUt10N 2 2_ 1 ' DOWNWARD LUMENS •.OF LAMPS DOWNWARD LUMENS •.OFUYPS 11 1 1110Ht 6.7N I 47.7 1 m09T 4.314 I TAw 1.436 79 3 �, 0 tAAL 4.4440 el0 TOTAL 11,436 71.4 \■1 TOTAL IA,NO. MO 0 1 1 7. 7 2 3 J / 1 .S .2 .1 • $ 1 .7 .1 . COECF CENTS OF UTXaANON t T J 03 COERICEtsTSOi 1JTLaA21oN 2 0.5 i 2 i a 03 i as W •� monk�� U 3 W RON7 lg 3 0 0.4 0.4 I eW kt O 03 M41t eC 15 4 „ 0.3 a 4 u1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 I 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 t 0 DISTANCE N LINTS OF MOUNTNG HEIGHTS y 0 ANCENUMT5OF mamma HEIGHTS fi uosnwc Howec0 43Cno•IF6CTOw 0.1 1.O11MTeIGr1OGNrr COMIXCtIDN1ACTOn' yyI1 0.1 . . - (Y.rnyrM klw•1•r nN rewete.boa, M Mary,se le woe"thruor t.•61ebn V' , .16 t6 h.•136 NOTE:Correction fetter 0 1 2 3 4 5 K h••1 4 _ 0 1 2 3 4 5 . 24 A.• .M1wA4OE I.OIH wM1710/1OIM1eItMM{ :q:•1 7ti 11'SY far 10019.Multiply by.59 •ThAV111st W41Mw14e7102 MUMTMA MOMS 21 e• .31 KAA 250S LAMP:250 watt High Pressure Sodium Lamp rated 30,000 Lumens KAA 400S LAMP.400 watt High Pressure Sodium rated 50.000 Lumens Test Report No.16625 Footcondle values bawd on 30'mounting height Test Report No.16515 Feotcandle values bawd en 30'mounting height • FLUX06TRIlUNON •INITIAL FOOTCANDLES FLUX DSTRIBUTION 2 2 DOWNYAttO LUMENS '.OF LAMPS m DOWNWARD LUMENS •.OFLAMPS N . \\\I i 1FmIOH* u.SVO b 7 F.OH: .77 130 4e 3 .o[AmI E.XID 7e.3 W 0 tITAe37.73C900 73 ah:?0 TOTAL 22.740 75 t TOTAL •]7.000 )!E s' • S 2 1 ,S .2 1 p ! 7 1 .S) 0.6 .1 1 i J J COEFFICIENTS OF=mommMill 0.60 �� . E i Q 1 03 03 W MON1�� W Uforit•••• • 1.1 3 . d0.4 • - 3 e0.4 _ _ JI N �'J SH b t 0.3w...�e 4- N 03 ..A.� 4 el 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 g • 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 02 5 02 DISTANCE N UNITS OF MOUNTING HEIGHTS " g DISTANCE N UNITS OF wouir DIG HEIGHTSP. 1g140640.14R C04SE0O444C104 W 0.1 1I06I74GI44101TCM1IECTIOMF4CTWI Qt IMJI9,t D.K..•.DI IM tmR,e.mo.1 O Imh-OM e n,w rIIr ••I by ew .at.cwI -63 U 26 h•1 33 1 U 26 h.•1.33 34h. 71 0 1 2 3 4 5 34h• .71 0 1 2 3 4 S 31h• 62 T..vcws/wan,w 1MTSmy1101►awGHtll'M5 366• .67 TAMP&MOT.w wen 041.OWrsIG9E1G,I1S KAA 1000S LAMP:1.000 watt High Pressure Sodium rated 140,000 Lumens ELECTRICAL CHARACTERISTICS Test Report Na.16702 Feotcandle values based on 40'mounting height UNI CtIIIENT Pu MAe9 POW!! MMM7 (AMPSI 060601.11 INPUT FACTOG 4IGUAAION INITIAL FOOTCANDLES FLUX DISTRIBUTION WATTAGt,11AUAST VO41AG( 11MT'OPE11 'VOl1AGI WATTS 1%) UN1 V•NAM►'LIMNS 2 • . H DOwm+MRD LUMENS •.OFLAMPS 120 2.00/1.65 96 wow 57..26 41.0 20/ • 1.15! .95 166 • 1 wEAR 51,067 3e.5 150 HX44Pf 240 1.00/ .13 192 • 168 90. •5%••12% ` RS .72 222 O ' `\ 'TOTAL 1M16D n 277•S 410 .50/.42 314 - a 0 10 S 7 1 S 120 1.55/2.22 90 ,.��/ '7 1 208 .67/1.96 '156 1^�._„��� // 200 Aute-Regulator 240 .71/1.11 . 110 345 90. •10%••10% COEFFICIENTS OF UTILIZATION 177 .67/ .96 20t - 1 2 0.B 410 .311/ .56 360 W RONmmmmmslsl 120 208 1.80/2.75 1.00/1.60 156 3 - 5 0.4 250 Aut..l ter egula 240 .90/1At 110 300 90• • 10%••10% 3 4 H 03c277 .71/1.30 208 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 i1� 480 38/ .69 360 • 02 DISTANCE INLP=OF MOUNTING HEIGHTS !1 120 2.52/4.30 90 • •wt1m,o Kiwi Cwn cro.F4C1Gw IA W 0.1 208 1.56/2wt 156 I1m.,n.D,rIMKr.•Iq•r ab raKaCWl 400 AYM-legul4nM 240 . 1.36/2.15 110 465 90• • 10%••10% 36 h.•1.23 277 1.11/1.86 208 441• - .E3 0 1 2 3 4 5 410 .75/1.07 360 • 41 h.• .69 TRMERSE WIDTHwUM waw 50•MOt0HfM NS' 120 $.00,'9.20 90 . 201 4.60/5.30 156 • , 1000 AutsJ.gvlater 240 4.00,4.60 180 1090 90• •10%•.10% frA L/TH4N/A 277 330/4.00 201 440 2.00/2.30 360 H/-TEK Tested to currant IES and NEMA standards under stebirwd laboratory conditions.Various operating 't la• factors con cause differences between laboratory data end tactual field measurements. oesions and .` • INDUSTRIAUOUTDOOR.L.IGHTING specification it this catalog are based on the most current avalably data and are subject to change. A DIVISION OF LITHONIA LIGHTING ' P.O.BOX 72•CRAWFORDSVILLE.INDIANA 47933 KAA S 317 362.1637 a TELEX 272392(HI-CRAWL . • ' C1966 Litnonia Lighting.Rev.2.17 • • V ."Ey Nut grid Bolt Co. • 10111 TILLEY ROAD SOUTH • • - OLYMPIA,WA 08502 - • • 754-4877/1- 00-562-8968 . C,-„y •. • SQIIABE NON-TAPERED S1L POLES SPECIFICATIONS: •. - ''r;. • * POLE SHAFT: • • • - Weldable grade (ASTL4-A500 Grade B) hot rolled commercial quality steel tubing with a minimum yield of 46,000 PSI. Uniform wall • I . '.:." . thickness of _120, .180 or .250. Shafts are one-piece construction with full length longitiuiinni electric resistance weld. Uniformly square in cross-section with flat sides, small corner-radii, and excellent torsional qualities. ' •. * ANCHOR BASE: . . - Fabricated from structural quality hot rolled carbon. steel plate 16To'!o Fes ' per ASTEI-A36_ The anchor base plate is provided with properly • sized slotted boles to accommodate the anchor bolts specified for • each pole design. * ANCHOR BOLTS: - Manufactured of 3/4" or 1" diameter steel rod per ASTM--A36_ - Anchor bolts are shipped assembled, .in sets of 4, with 2 hex nuts N.. . and .2 flat.washers each. ;14- HAND HOLE: - - -----. •• - A rectangular hand hole of 21" x 41/4" is provided. - A hand hole cover, 1/8" thick steel, is provided with attaching hardware_ • - i • * POLE TOP CAP: • .1. r - A removable weatherproof top cap for the pole is.standard. _ , * HARDWARE: • • All atrac-bing screws, etc. are provided of'A1S1 300 series stainless - - steel. - 1 * FINISH: ' • - After surface preparation, a rust inhibitive is applied. The standard - • finish paint color is dark bronze. Other colors are optional at cus- tomer request. • * PROTECTIVE WRAPPING: -• • . - Standard protective wrapping consists of a full length plastic sleeve - to protect the finish. . • - Other types of wrapping are available. • A nominal fee.-will be charged. . • . - '> : -'If poles are stored' outside, protective wrapping must be removed immediately ' - upon receipt to prevent staining . - - _ . .. ._-_ _.. TYPE . . q 1 1 1 1 59. .AAAAAA • ', AAAAAAA illiiiiii CI Ftqqqvit M a.O ., r , }� § # a a 1 a N .'emgpN--...__.. . ../.. .. . t . . 6. ft , w w w w IL i . 9 01 . 2 a i ¢ a 6 r q r m M n ry �r cn c� , 10 .• oo tl II � •r 10 �q o °4 r1 ono r `�4 ' C ! .\ N ��,' i' L .' y 2 a q r 1 a v d a i ii m 13 A § 1D toM Zo ro r tro r r r i .•} r " wt E 'u1 K K K K K K K K K K K K K K K . / 1 4 i i 1 1 1 1 i 4 _ 4 1 4 4 1 1 1 i 1 •1 1 :P . in..-'• lip d I_�l.ti.�.y,l, y , � 11 �p �. 1 � • T � � 'CO 1 6 $Ir n w r.. r w r r,. . . '� aN � a � a 0/ g �T' c .31i 1�7 �� Qzn� IH1 a , f M /Q 1• iii 4"" L. i ._ _.__ _.'.' . . 4 —. 7. 7. . ii Dt; liz imsii • sie i4 �•...... �Ny t d N Opi W NNN I N N (1 t/ t IV po AAA a8t:) • ,• 11 C 8 •11 IHI. ila 1r11! 11iij. • 11 'I4111 VI; 6 1 IA z H .r F.----------.1.-----1. 1, h old d f s Ida 1.' ii PP ..\ ARCHITECTUF-,-, L LIGHTING BY LI' . -IONIA HI-TEK 8" ROUND 50-100W HID, 150W INCANDESCENT . ., �� • HOUSING—Extruded one piece aluminum,.125"wall . thickness.Dark bronze polyester powder finish standard. r 8" . 42"overall height standard. I •ENCLOSURE—Clear seamless 100%virgin acrylic, 1/4"wall. .......—w i ' •GASKETING—Closed cell silicone. - •OPTICS—Hydroformed,fluted,anodized aluminum reflector . _ combined with spun aluminum anodized cone. • •BALLAST/ELECTRICAL SYSTEM—High power factor 4z • ballast,factory tested. Electrical components are tray-mounted with quick disconnect plug, and accessible through bottom of bollard. •EXTERNAL HARDWARE—Stainless steel,tamper resistant. •ANCHOR BOLTS—(4)1/2"x 11"with double nuts and ' ' washers.41/2"B.C.template. - • • •LISTING-U.L. listed suitable for wet locations. - ORDERING INFORMATION Select the wattage,mounting,voltage and options for your requirements,then transfer the designations to the appropriate blocks.Accessories should be ordered as separate line items. . ,TYPE- F I KBR8 7OSM I ( I DCB PE . • WATTAGE OPTIONS WATTS WEIGHT DESIGNATION✓ SUFFIX DESCRIPTION lbs/kg • —H24 Overall Height:24" High 50 . 18/8.16 50S ❑ —H30 Overall Height:30" Pressure 70 21/9.53 . 70S ❑ —H36 Overall Height:36" 1 Sodium 100 231/2/10.66 ' 100S 0 —F2 Festoon Outlet Metal —F2GF Ground-Fault Festoon Outlet Halide 100 23/10.43 100M 0 —PC Polycarbonate Lens-- Mercury 75 20/9.07 75H 0 —-BL Bronze Acryl c Lens Vapor 100 23/10.43 100H ❑ —DMB Architectura Color,Medium Bronze Incand. 150 13/5.90 Incand 0 ' ' DCS Architectura Color,Sand Stone (Max-) —DCB Architectura Color,Black . (Semi-Gloss) VOLTAGE —DCC Architectura Color,Capri Blue DESIGNATION✓ —DCA Architectura Color,Aztec Tan —DCX Architectura Color,Garnet 120 ❑ —DCZ Architectura Color,Citation Gold 240 ❑(N/A on Metal Halide) —• DCW Architectura Color,White (Semi-Gloss) ACCESSORIES —DCG Architectura Color,Gray CATALOG —DCO Architectura Color,Ocher NUMBER DESCRIPTION —DCN Architectura Color,Natural Aluminum —D Diode(Incand.Only) R8S Half-Shield-8"Round —SF Single Fuse —DF Double Fuse • NOTE:For more details,see options and accessories ,i ' sheet A-0/A. PE= PHOTO ELECTRIC CONTROL For color reference,see color guide sheet DC. JOB NUMBER APPROVAL STAMP • ) JOB NAME • -� • : . LOCATION .UTHON/A /ss .. H/-TEK KB R8: c TYPE F PHOTOMETRIC DAT, The charts below provide the most useful data from photometric tests of specific lamp/luminaire combinations. For complete results of any combination shown, or other requirements, contact your LITHONIA/HI-TEK representative. HIGH PRESSURE SODIUM Clear envelope ,• METAL HALIDE Clear, 5000 Hrs. , 100S 70S 50S 24,000 Hrs. - 100M • Use around sandstone, Use around blooming brick, earth, bark,natural plants or specimen trees, Lumens : - wood or. warm/earth- Lumens where natural appear- 9500 6300 4000 toned structures. 8500 ' ance is essential. ,10 10 10 5 20 20 16.5 8.311.....9I20 • — ',, i • 14 7 6.3 • 10 5 7 4 3 4 2 1.5 . 2 .1 .........00.00,/ 1.5 1 0.5 • .5 ,.../0.8 0.5 0.3 0' 3' 6' 9' 12' 15' 0' 3' 6' 9' 12' 15' MERCURY VAPOR Deluxe Phosphor-Coated INCANDESCENT 150A: Inside Frost, 750 Hrs. 100H 75H 50H 24,000 Hrs. Rated Life •150A 116/TS 116/TS: Clear Traffic Signal, 8,000 Hrs. Use around shrubbery, Use where color rendition Lumens lawns, ponds, or blue- Lumens outweighs all other 4400 3150 1350 green toned structures. 2780 1280 • factors. I 5 3.6 1.5 0:00)...) 3 1.510 7.2 3.17.5 1.55 3.6 1.7 3 1.5 • 2 1.0 2 . 1.4 0.61 .4.5 .3 1 0.7 . 0.4 .5 .2• .5 0.3 0.1 , .2 .1 0' 3' 6' 9' 12' 15' 0' 3' 6' 9' 12' 15' Tested to current IES and NEMA standards under stablised laboratory conditions.Various operating factors can cause differences between laboratory data and actual field measurements.Dimensions and specifications in this catalog are based on the mast current available data and are subject to change. LITHO/VIA HI-TEK . INDUSTRIAL/OUTDOOR LIGHTING ' - P.O.BOX 72•CRAWFORDSVILLE,INDIANA 47933•USA • . • 317/362-1837•TELEX 272392(HI-CRAW) KBR8 A DIVISION OF LITHONIA LIGHTING ©1986 LITHONIA LIGHTING,REV.7/86 TFL SPECIFICATIONS / - • HOUSING-Compact NEMA heavy duty die-cast aluminum f i l housing,tempered glass lens,hinged front bezel for easy 15%, \ lamp access.Hardware is stainless steel.Standard dark __ bronze polyester enamel finish,choice of eleven optional —decorator colors. ` � I ,�O/�00W k • OPTICS—Reflector is one-piece anodized aluminum.Optic 15,/eL • chamber is sealed to inhibit entrance of oiitside contaminants. Twin beam lightpatterns,2-positionr HIGH PRESSURE g adjustable socket for vertically oriented,mogul base lamp. -• BALLAST—High power factor,autotransformer. SODIUM • INSTALLATION—Yoke-type mounting of galvanized steel. . Integral cast slipfitter for 23�"to 2%"O.D.is optional. _1 • LISTING—U.L.listed suitable for wet locations: e Effective Projected Area: : • Front:1.3 sq.ft.(.12 sq.meters) Side:.5 sq.ft.(.05 sq.meters) Weight: 15 to 25 Ft.Mounting 70W:22 lbs.(10.00 kg.) Initial Lumens 5,800/9,500 100W:23 lbs.(10.45 kg.) Lamp Life 24,000 Hours ORDERING INFORMATION The luminaire catalog number guide below illustrates the variations available,and establishes the components to build a catalog number for ordering purposes.To use,select the wattage/beam spread,voltage,and options for your requirements,then transfer the designations to the appropriate blocks above.Accessories should be ordered as separate line items. TYPE- M TFL 70S-TA2 DCB WATTAGE/SPREAD OPTIONS 1 BEAM SPREAD WATTS D SIGNATION r SUFFIX DESCRIPTION 147°H x 113°V 70 70 S TA2 ❑ —SF Single Flue(120,277V) 137°H x 101°V 70 70 S TA2 '❑ —DF Double Fuse(208,240,480V) • 148°H x 119°V 100 100 S TA2 ❑ —PER/PE NEMA Twist-Lock PE Receptacle& 128°H x 100°V 100 100 S TB2 ❑ Photocontrol for 120,208,240V)++ ACCESSORIES(order as separate item) —PER/PE4 NEMA Twist-Lock PE Receptacle& Photocontrol for 480V++ CATALOG —PER/PE7 NEMA Twist-Lock PE Receptacle& NUMBER DESCRIPTION VOLTAGE Photocontrol for 277V++ YS Yoke Slipfitter DESIGNATION r —PER NEMA Twist-Lock Receptacle only.No CRA Horizontal Cross-Arm Adaptor 120 0 Photocontrol CRA 45 45°Cross-Arm Adaptor 208 0 —IS Integral Slipfitter PWB Wood Pole/Wall Mount Bracket 240 ❑ . —C62 2'of Pre Wire 16-3 SEO Cable PMB Round Pole Mounting Bracket 277 [aY —C42 2'of Pre Wire 14-3 SEO Cable SABF Steel Angle Bracket 480 0 --C22 2'of Pre-Wire 12-3 SEO Cable WPBF Wall Pipe Bracket —DC Decorator Color(Specify-See Reverse RABF Right Angle Bracket Side) XW2FP 2 Lt.Wood Pole Cross-Arm' —LS Lamp Support XW3FP . 3 Lt.Wood Pole Cross-Arm* —WGS Wire Guard+ XW4FP 4 Lt.Wood Pole Cross-Arm* —VGS Vandal Guard+ —TVS Top Visor+ —TB Multi-Tap Ballast(120,208,240,277V) Prime painted finish denoted.For galvanized finish, —TP Tamper-Proof Screws change Pin catalog number to G. NOTE:For more details,see accessories +Shipped as a separate item-field installed sheet F-A. ++Photocontrol shipped as a separate item • DCB= BLACK SEMI-GLOSS NOTE:For more details,see option sheet F.O. .,_ , .,_ JOB NUMBER APPROVAL STAMP JOB NAME `t LOCATION L ik 1 . DIVISION OF IAA UTHONIA LIGHTING TP1 1 M C 4 TYPE M PHOTOMETRIC DATA The charts below provide the most useful data from specific photometric tests of the specific light sources and distribution patterns shown.For complete results of any combination shown,or other requirements,contact your HI-TEK/LITHONIA representative. LAMP:70 wan High►timer.Sodium Lamp toted S.600 Lum.o. LAMP:70 wan Nigh►r..wr.Sodium Lamp ruled 5.400 Lumen. TFL70S TA Foolc.ndl.rakes on based 20•mounting height TFL 70S TB Fo.l.Gndle eow«hosed.n 20'mounting Misfit. . lea Report NO.131144 AIMING ANGLE.SO= fur Loped N.. AIMING ANGLE•50• ISO FOOTCANDLE DIAGRAMS ISO CANDELA CURVES ISO FOOTCANDLE DIAGRAMS ISO CANDELA CURVES • 44 • w—� Ittill��\.1• 24 „I1•�lifilll•Iii•lii•li•Ifa• .4— „� tali•ti�li•� „��IIIIM���9■ 2 3,�MII•III■ii•\i•I N • 13 �011•�11111 1111111 3 Ifar�121111 MINIIIfi■ g 2 ] • ;I.il��ifiitiit lifl•Il■ �2 0111tI1I1♦ifl■��!M�'M 10 m >o m f. b m r. ] I. ]o ]0 es ]. .0 „ M C P DSTPoBUTION CURVE I C P DISTPoBUT1ON CURVE / a�_ p .0 ' I '''...4 AaVIP: 2 I . , '''* A 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 1 . 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 ,. �.GO A • DISTANCE W0TSmnt •�Of 10:017inmG W • 30 alit �TNouin.GANCE N m UNITS ire wCm ]O�.ie►�10 Ir..I I. ,,,.•1]. 11•//.ti 4...w.•.wa.erm•n ]... .. W 0 W Neer••••.•.e ti.....a......ma ]o o.. es W 0 W . TFL 1 00S TA LAMP:100 welt Nigh Preswe Sodium Lon".aloe 9.500 Lumens TFL 1 00 S TB LAMP'100 we Nigh Pressure Sodium Longo mood 9.000 Lumens F.ollondi.oak...based.n 20',..,timing height FwNondlo wolves Stoma.n 30'mounting height Teri loped No.13E3S AIMING ANGLE•SO• Teo Romeo No.13103 AIMING ANGLE• • • ISO FOOTCANDLE DIAGRAMS ISO CANDELA CURVES ISO F.00TCANDLE DIAGRAMS ISO CANDELA CURVES 6 .71.1.111111.1111111111111. 6 b I•11.1111MMMMM 1.111111r•11111111..M.11 a_a__a... •'o�0o ��iLa� w mirmisim=m 4 "���111.11� PRIM W 4 .IIII =tea\IMMO 3 I T,Jl���l--,I� 3 1 � �It�`i♦`M� ,��MI•�BIMI■ i w/�i��MILI •I B 2 f .�lfi�li�lfi�llfijt�� ■ e 2 ]• 0 M�11♦if��111I ♦I� ' ] 0 ]0 m m m m 0 m 0 W w 00 ]0 60 70 m • Si T°' CP DICTRSUTIDN CURVEI ] /,. _ CP DKTRIBUTION CURVE . ) 00 00 ; :,gi 1 1 I I riglip.A1 111,7 W. VIP / \ left w ,446 , m ...�4 I„.,..4.. la d sviik �&,.. 2 441 ��* 2 >orI to .o 4 3 2 1 0 t 2 3 4 .�. 4 3 2 1 0 1 “EIGHT 3 . 1 »• ��\ dSgNCEwtA1n50i1gVNTnIG tIEK.NT ]0 ]0 dSTANCE�N MATS OF NOUMMG 2 .O.e1.4N[a..I00 10TU•MC100 n A.1 rr ]0 ]0 IrdM•.G.t.. re00•0000••0700 n..1 m lu..p..nor.0.wti.aw•.wer..wl b.• .. 10 0 10 IwrP.ew..r..C..,. .IN.I 00.. M W 0 W DECORATOR COLORS ELECTRICAL CHARACTERISTICS SUFFIX DESCRIPTION UNE NT PRIMARY POWB —DMB Decorator Color,Medium Bronze PRIMARY IAMPSI IMOPOUT INPUT FACTOR REGULATION —DCS Decorator Color,Sand Stone wA T TAG!/RAUAST VOLTAGE START/OPER. VOLTAGE WATTS I%) UNE V•LAMP LUMENS —DCB Decorator Color,Black(Semi-Gloss) 120 .75/ .01 96 —DCC Decorator Color,Capri Blue 201 .47/.47 166 • 70 Hx-HPF 240 .40/ .40 192 as 90« «5%_•12% —DCA Decorator Color,Aztec Tan 277 .35/ .35 222 —DCX Decorator Color,Garnet 4e0 .21/ .21 304 —DCZ Decorator Color,Citation Gold 120 1.30/1.15' 96 —DCW Decorator Color,White(Semi-Gloss) - 10o FIX-NPR • i o .66/.67 • 1666 130 90+ +s9r._«12Y. —DCG Decorator Color,Gray 277 .60/ .50 222 —DCO Decorator Color,Ocher <a0 .33/ .29 384 —DCN Decorator Color,Natural Aluminum .. • Ih..16:1:=7„.=>y1ftfJM _cbc:ea:t • DIVISION OF (A_ LITHONIA LIGHTING P.O.BOX 72••CRAWFORDSVILLE,INDIANA 47933. 317/362-1837 TFL 100S Copyrlght1984UTHONIAUGHTiNG/284 Division National Servka Industries � : : :::•;::;.�.::::-;::.::.;•.::.:::.•.:�..:.:.:..:...;.;;..::........::.::.:...:.:.,:.• ................:...:..:•::::::::•:::::::::.: • :;: RTY OWNERS < :::>::::>:<:::::>:>::>::::::::�:: ;:::::OE::NOTI:F:I.CAT:I'QN��O,F...P......................... .... ..................... .................................... . ***FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY*** PROJECT TITLE: wc y'uer 4 APPLICANT: APPLICATION NUMBER: S� -' i 43 i0 W\, RV NW, E .F The following is a list of property owners within 300 feet of the • subject site. The Community Development Department will notify these individuals of the proposed development. NAME ADDRESS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER Brown L.M.&Moody D.A. 13975 Interurban Ave.S. 242304-9053-08 Seattle,WA 98168 242304-9054-07 . Metro ' 281 Second Avenue 242304-9097-06 >: - Seattle, WA 98104 City of Renton 200 Mill Avenue South .242304-9098-05., - o Renton,WA 98055 Puget Sound.Power&Light Puget Power Building 242304-9104-07 Bellevue,WA 98008 ; 242304-9107-04 242304-9108-03 242304-9110-09 A 242304-0125-05 p King County500-A King Count y Admin Bldg 2423041 Y n9112.07 , ® fg� o N 5 • BNRR . Propera_CDepartment 242304-9117-02 2 �Q ty;,T 777 Main Street; a yy Fort,Wortli,TX 76102r# 4 4°o i Chu a Casey M. c/o SeaFirst National Banka 334040-7100-09 P.O.-Box 358 tit , --Seattle;,WA?98111q'" ' } - • the dv1R s� `'i�i Northwestern Mutual.Life 720 East-Wisconsin Ave. 918800-0100-04 Milwaukee,WI 53202 918800-0110-02 First City Washington 700 Fifth Avenue Suite 6000 918800-0147 Seattle,WA 98104 NAME ADDRESS • ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER • • • • • Certification I, i0 j� ,R. ( o , hereby certify that the above list(s) of adjacent property owners and their addresses a taken from the records of the King County Assessor as prescribed by law. ATTEST: Subscribed and sworn to before me, a Notary Pu lig, in and f r the State of Washington residing at rwlo on the � day of Sig l.J0r1J . ... . .. . o sc bed: . •:..:.....::::....:.:.:.:.:....:....:....:...:...:... . :::::::.: ::::::::::.�::.�:::::::::. ............. ....... .b..• :i:i:tl?':�ij:�?}ij i}:�ij}i:'v?j:!�::: �:�?ijiii?:�??}f.:�:�:� v:.:��:�.�:�.:: _ .•. .. ..'�i::: •. .,..:�i' i':�:::is�j::�:�i::il�:�'�:�:�i:�:�:'�:���.�:�:v::'�`��!:}tOf3T�:�:4�.:o.:i:•:�i:�:r9:�i:�:�:�}ii:�ii?»ii>:�i}:�:�i:�.:::::i:�?i:�ii:>:�i:?:�i:�:;�ii::::?>::�:�Ffli. ;:;:Was�lin t•'n;residin. a.. . .,.. :. ':•. ': '::.;;:•;>;:.;:.;:.; .;;:.;;:. .;:;:.;:.;;;:.;:<:.;>:.;>;:.;:.;:.:::;;::;:x:.:;:.:;:.;::<.:>:.;;:.:;:.;;:>':::.;:.>::::.:.;:.;;;:;:;:.;;:.;:::::.::.::::.: :•. �. 6:• :•ii}}ii?: ': 1}i' �'::i.,.}. :..,...,i' :i :'}:::.:. :: i:::'v: :::}i}}i:...,....�.;v:•.}}}Ji}}�:Ji:�iiiK:•:i:i?:i•ii:.::v:•:::•i:::i:�ii.�.i::ii::;}:::::}:::::::::i{•:��i:4iiiP <:•.::.::::.:.;.... ........:;;:;.;�<.;:.:.:.. . ... .. . . . .. �. :. .:,. sue..:...;:.;;;>-;:. '«s::.:.:.�:..::..::..::..::..::..:: ...::.::..::..::....:..::.::..::.............. . ... ......................: .:.:;:::.:::.::.:..;::............::.;:;;.:�..... :..:»: ::::.;:...!etc .............. . Rev 5/90 CERTIFIC.doc DUPLICATE RECEIPT DUPLICATE RECEIPT . CITY OF RENTON CITY TREASURER REG/RCPT : 02-12327 11-05-1990 CASHIER ID : H 2:11 am 8000 MISCELLANEOUS RE $393.09 ENVIRONMENTAL REV FEES .000.000.00.345.81.O0t.000007 8000 MISCELLANEOUS RE $150.00 . VEGETATION MGMT FEES . 000.000.00.345.81.C i0.000015 8000 MISCELLANEOUS RE $1,146.19 SHORELINE SUB DEV FEES 000.000.00.345.81.00.000016 8000MISCELLANEOUS RE880.Lu1 SITE PLAN APPROVAL 00 0.0C i 0.00.3 45.81.0 0.000 017 7055 POSTAGE $3.50 000.000.05.519.90.42.000001 TOTAL DUE $2►572.78 RECEIVED FROM: FIRST CITY CHECK $2,572.78 TOTAL TENDERED $2,572.78 CHANGE DUE $0.00 DUPLICATE RECEIPT DUPLICATE RECEIPT • • • PLANNING & ZONING FEES NAME: FI r PROJECT: U(GC.ar 111-Pr-- J I IL Revenue ccount • Amount ',Trancode Annexation Fees 000/000/345.81.00.02 Appeals & Waivers 000/000/345.81.00.03 Binding Site Plan/Short Plat 000/000/345.81.00.04 Comprehensive Plan Amendment 000/000/345.81.00.05 Conditional Use Fees 000/000/345.81.00.06 Environmental Review Fees 000/000/345.81.00.07 Preliminary Plat 000/000/345.81.00.08 50% Final Plat (General Fund) 000/000/345.81.00.09 50% Final Plat (Park Fund) 101/000/345.81.00.00 Final/Preliminary PUD 000/000/345.81.00.10 Grading & Filling Fees 000/000/345.81.00.11 Lot Line Adjustment 000/000/345.81.00. 12 Mobile Home Parks 000/000/345.81.00. 13 Rezone 000/000/345.81.00.14 Routine Vegetation Mgmt Fees 000/000/345.81.00. 15 / • Shoreline Substantial Dev Fees 000/000/345.81.00. 16 /��, O O Site Plan Approval 000/000/345.81.00. 17 l) l yR2. 19 ee Special/Temporary Review Fees 000/000/345.81.00. 18 Oa DO Variance Fees l 000/000/345.81.00.19 Other Misc Planning/Zoning Fees 000/000/345.81.00.20 • Maps 000/000/341.50.00.00 7041 Photo Copies 000/000/341.60.00.24 • Publications 000/000/341.60.00.24 Postage 000/000/05/519/90.42.01 5, 5CD 7055 - Sales Tax 000/000/231.70.00.00 9998 ............ ............... ...... TOTAL BY: 1.-.K) DATE: t/5J9O