Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLUA86-017 IhT) BEGINNING .111 F FILE FILE TITLE ., / 0/0 d . . . .) l• ' 4,14 zzm. $7 rn�TnA o� rD� �y�D2.n •o *4, 5=n- m'< LO. rromO1o330 ,m m n9, N o co D3 w�^° -3 11DZ Z'5C' = an=- Dmm o w o m_ c 3 Z°z-m+<z C AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATI( 'c a a cu. w c g o°,1 6 s d K 2 K 2° �+ o > > -- m -- w �„ m O_t � o �z�z 3 °.o- >am �. Dom,$ womD� lDDmm [7 AudreyDeJoie gf a2 c �W 93 � m_aoo 515, � 2mmmi m , being first duly sworn on oath a o f a. o D N; Z 0 k d f < ,.• he/she is the Chief Clerk of the o g n y o 6 y 0 m H �.' o z m 0o D rto3 y ° 3 � � tco oT soggy• v, 3 VALLEY NEWSPAPERS a °° a ' Daily News Journal, Daily Record Chronicle, Daily Globe News fAR n dla $y v i n a F Nail ,a67Cm• p 3 Daily newspapers published six (6) times a week.That said newspapers - ? m-a. o s N o d cn_{ A y are legal newspapers and are now and have been for more than six o 51 3 ' ' 3 d2 o =° o p O - months prior to the date of publication referred to,printed and published °D s m.^w g g°' a m o D; w in the English language continually as daily newspapers in Kent, King A°4 m N :c o m m o a _ County, Washington. Valley Newspapers have been approved as legal n;.� ='8 v a gt o d z a 5-fD n. newspapers byorder of the Superior Court of the State of Washington for , "• m a d= ZZ King C unty. p g o ���at°m <w =13 00_ ma' O a,a3:�c ' �w 02 o "z on) 0 coo - 0-(1->p•< -o � c n w`c 6c.°i =c Kg CD The notice in the exact form attached, was published in the Daily News s 6 0 m o g.m-a o D c o o o ° w tn53 5 c o>> wco,o m_ Journal ., Daily Record Chronicle X , Daily Globe News , (and W p o P to y a o _ 20 not in supplement form) which was regularly distributed to its subscribers during the below stated period. The annexed notice a Notice of Environmental Determination was published on lviarch 24, 1986 R1462 The full amount of the fee charged for said foregoing publication is the sum of $29.70 Subscribed and sworn to before me this27 th day ofl'ia rc h i986 • _ Nota y Public for the State of Washington, residing at Federal Way, ��R 8 ,-,,� King County, Washington. VN#87 Revised 10/84 • RENTON HEARING EXAMINER RENTON, WASHINGTON AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE RENTON HEARING EXAMINER AT HIS REGULAR MEETING IN THE COUN- CIL CHAMBERS ON THE SECOND Audrey De J o i e , being first duly sworn on oath states that FLOOR OF CITY HALL, RENTON, WASHINGTON ON APRIL 29, 1986. AT he/she is the Chief Clerk of the 9:OOA.M.TO CONSIDER THE FOLLOW- ING PETITIONS: VALLEY OFFICE AND INDUSTRIAL VALLEY NEWSPAPERS PARK, PHASE II ApplicatonforSN sit CO.) plan)approval to allow the construction of a four story Daily News Journal, Daily Record Chronicle, Daily Globe News office building of 140,000 square feet (file SA-017-86): property located at Daily newspapers published six (6) times a week.That said newspapers 1601 East Valley Road. THE CALLISON PARTNERSHIP, are legal newspapers and are now and have been for more than six LTD. months prior to the date of publication referred to,printed and published Application to rezone 15.44 acres of to in the English language continually as daily newspapers in Kent, King B-1.property Businessfrem Hs Heavy Industrial p- B-1. Use,for future develop- County, Washington. Valley Newspapers have been approved as legal ment of "Ill Renton Place" and to newspapers by order of the Superior Court of the State of Washington for enable zoning compliance for "II Re- nton Place" (tffe R-016-86): property King County. located at the 'southwest corner of South Grady Way and Talbot Road South. The notice in the exact form attached, was published in the Daily News Legal descriptions of the files noted above are on in the Journal , Daily Record Chronicle , Daily Globe News , (and Zoning Department,Renton Building and _ not in supplement form) which was regularly distributed to its ALL INTERESTED PERSONS TO SAID subscribers during the below stated period. The annexed notice a SEN INVITED EA PR SENTT A TST THHEE PUBLIC HEARING O N ANN Notice of Public Hearin,, was published APRIL 29, 1986, AT 9:00 A.M. TO EX- PRESS THEIR OPINIONS. on April 16, 1966 1 Ronalson Building and Zoning n G. Director Published in the Daily Record Chronicle April 18, 1986. R1514 The full amount of the fee charged for said foregoing publication is the sum of $ 2c3•G2 _ Subscribed and sworn to before me this 23rd day of tipri 119 86 Nota y Public for the State of Washington, CITY OF Ri"NTO.'d residing at Federal Way, (�� King County, Washington. '� [01VN#87 Revised 10/84 � MAY 91986 BU L D!NG/ZO,'iNG DEP T Nf` \ L 1 ll OF R4, .o �� ` ' o THE CITY OF RENTON O/+ .. Z MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON,WASH. 98055 z ,mod..• , o oGimp P. BARBARA• Y. SHINPOCH, MAYOR ® LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER row FRED J. KAUFMAN. 235-2593 gTFD SEPT June 2, 1986 Mr. William Fetterley Austin Company 800 S.W. 16th Street Renton, Wa. 98055 RE: File No. SA-017-86 Valley Office and Industrial Park Dear Mr. Fetterley: The Examiner's Report regarding the referenced application which was published on May 16, 1986 has not been appealed within the 14-day period established by ordinance. Therefore. this matter is considered final and is being transmitted to the City Clerk this date for filing. Please feel free to contact this Office if further assistance or information is required. Sincerely. Fred J. Kaufman Hearing Examiner FJK:dk 1231E ' • cc: City Clerk Building & Zoning Department I AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING I ; I . STATE OF WASHINGTON ) )ss. County. of King ) _ DOTTY KLINGMAN being first duly sworn, upon oath, deposes and states: That on the 16th day of May , 1986 , 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 1/r, TH day of WO( , 1986.. 20,12.61A.Le2.1) Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, residing at �J Ta k ) , therein. Application, Petition, or Case #: SA-017-86 - Valley Office and Industrial Park (The minutes contain a list of the parties of record.) 4110- 1217E May 16, 1986 OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON REPORT AND DECISION. APPLICANT: VALLEY OFFICE AND INDUSTIRAL PARK FILE NO. SA-:017-86 LOCATION: 1601 East Valley Road SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Site Plan approval to allow the construction of a four story office building consisting of 140,000 square feet on a 7 acre site. SUMMARY OF ACTION: Building and Zoning Department Recommendation: Approval with conditions Hearing Examiner Decision: Approved with conditions. BUILDING & ZONING The Building & Zoning Department Report was DEPARTMENT REPORT: received by the Examiner on April 24, 1986. PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the Building and Zoning Department Report, examining available information on file with the application, and field checking the property and surrounding area, the Examiner conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows: The hearing was opened on April 29, 1986, at 9:20 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 documents pertinent to this request. Exhibit #2 - Site Plan Exhibit #3 - Elevation drawings. Exhibit #4 - Illustrative Site Plan. Exhibit #5 - Revised Site Plan dated May 6, 1986. Reviewing the proposal was Roger Blaylock, Zoning Administrator. Mr. Blaylock stated the applicant, represented by Austin Company, is seeking site plan approval to allow construction of a 4 story office building on a 7 acre site. The site complies with the Comprehensive Plan; is part of a larger development by the applicant; the building would create a central courtyard effect for the complex; and the applicant submitted this application prior to changing of the zoning in the area which became effective April 23, 1986. Reviewing the ERC comments, Mr. Blaylock stated the applicant would be required to participate in area-wide traffic improvements, payment of traffic mitigation fees at the time of issuance of the building permit, and provide funds to complete a master recreation plan for the Green River Valley in lieu of providing off-site public recreation. Reviewing a letter presented by the applicant to the Hearing Examiner suggesting a closer review of the ERC investigation, Mr. Blaylock stated the project has been looked at on its own merits and the traffic calculations were taken from the applicant's own traffic study. The study did not include the impacts created from Phase I of this overall project. It is suggested that this proposal be reviewed under the Site Plan Ordinance. He stated it is staff's feelings there is no supporting evidence to warrant the changing of any of the ERC conditions as the Site Plan Ordinance became effective before the date of the valley-wide rezoning. It is felt the project should be reviewed under the Site Plan Ordinance and be considered as part of the Office-Park Zone. The new standards of the Parking and Loading Ordinance should be utilized because the building permit cannot be issued until after the effective date of the Ordinance. Ail Valley Office and Industriallark, Inc. Site Approval 017-86 May 16, 1986 Page 2 Continuing, the Zoning Administrator reviewed the Site Plan criteria stating the proposal does comply with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan and policies but does not comply with the requirements of the Office Park zone due to the proposed perimeter landscaping, and the total amount of the site to be landscaped. He said the proposal is part of a campus-type setting: feels there is good circulation on the site and setbacks are more than required. In conclusion, Mr. Blaylock stated the site plan needs to be' revised to comply with the conditions in the Site Plan Ordinance, and it was recommended that the hearing be continued to May 6, 1986 for the new submittal, with a supplemental !report by staff forthcoming to the Examiner. Calling for testimony in support of the proposal from the applicant 'or their representative, wishing to speak was: Bill Fetterley Austin Company 800 S.W. 16th Renton, Washington, 98055 Mr. Fetterley commented on the changes taking place in the area of this project stating the site plan as presented today was based on what was felt to be their vested interest generated from site plan approval for Phase I. They believe this should be accepted as a predetermined design; reviewed the landscaping proposed; parking; recreational provisions: referred to SP-022-85 and SA-038-85 stating the applicant feels those approvals give them a vested interest in this proposal. Mr. Fetterley advised the previous building was constructed in an H-1 zone when the language for that zone permitted office uses. He expressed concern over the possible continuance of the hearing and the;delays to the applicant. He presented Exhibit #4 showing the impact of the increased landscaped areas that will eliminate some 'of the parking stalls; traffic circulation on the'site: and requested that the building, and building permits be allowed to continue which would permit them the time to work out the concerns staff has mentioned as well as the requirements the Hearing Examiner placed on the site plan for Phase I, namely circulation around the site. The Hearing Examiner stated there are enough concerns about this submittal, as well as the need for a new site plan, and suggested that the ;applicant prepare a new submittal. It was then decided that staff needed more time to; review a new submittal, and the hearing was then continued to Tuesday. May 6, 1986. The Hearing Examiner called for testimony in opposition to this project. There was no one wishing to testify, and no further comments were offered by staff. The hearing was closed at 9:55 A.M. May 6, 1986 - The continued hearing was opened at 9:20 A.M. with a brief review of the proposal by Roger Blaylock, Zoning Administrator. He stated the hearing continuance was requested by staff to permit the applicant to make adjustments to the on-site landscaping required in an Office Park zone of 20% of the site and a 10 ft. perimeter landscape strip • surrounding the adjacent public right-of-ways. The applicant presented a revised Site Plan which was entered as Exhibit #5. The parking has been redesigned in accordance with the new Parking and Loading Ordinance; there will be approximately 61,200 sq. ft. of landcaping, 10 ft. of perimeter landscaping has been appropriately provided along with 602 parking spaces. Mr. Blaylock stated there were concerns about circulation for fire emergency access which have been addressed, but said staff is not in complete agreement with the placement of the interior landscaping. It is felt the landscaping should be located more appropriately along the south side of the building so the green areas would better function with the central core area and be used as part of the on-site recreation for the employees. He had no further comments at this time. Wishing to testify as a representative of the applicant was: Bill Fetterley Austin Company 800 S.W. 16th Renton, Wa. 98055 Mr. Fetterley stated he had;no objection to the suggested relocation of the landscaping, and in fact, more may be added once the parking has been accomplished. He also referred to the alignment of right-of-ways along East Valley Road. The Zoning Administrator reviewed the plans stating the City needs to acquire approximately 5 ft. of property from 3 lots on on East Valley previously belonging to Sound Steel, now owned by this applicant. It is staff's request that the 5 ft. necessary be dedicated to the City. Mr. 'Fetterley referred to the City bonding for traffic mitigation measures and area-wide improvements, amounting to 150%. ' I I Valley Office and Industrial--Park, Inc. Site Approval 017-86 May 16, 1986 Page 3 This is a condition set forth by the ERC. This figure is an upward figure in case of inflation or new information in the traffic study, and could become a more definite figure in the next few months as the traffic study is almost completed. There was no one else wishing to speak in opposition, and no further comments from staff. The hearing closed at 9:30 A.M. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & DECISION: Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: 1. The applicant, Valley Office and Industrial Park, Inc., has requested approval of a Site Plan for a four story office building consisting of 140,000 sq ft., together with accessory parking on a 7 acre site. 2. The application file containing the application, the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) documentation, the Building and Zoning Department Report, and other pertinent documents was entered in the record as Exhibit #1. 3. Pursuant to the City of Renton's Environmental Ordinance and SEPA (RCW, 43.21C, 1971, as amended), a Declaration of Non-Significance has been issued for the subject proposal by the Environmental Review Committee (ERC), the responsible official. 4. Plans for the proposal have been reviewed by all City departments affected by the impact of this proposal. 5. The subject site is located at the southwest corner of the intersection of East Valley Road and S.W. 16th Street, at 1601 East Valley Road. 7. The subject site was annexed into the City in April, 1959 by the adoption of Ordinance 1745, as amended by Ordinances 1764 and 1928, adopted in May, 1959 and December, 1961, respectively. The site was reclassified to H-;1 (Heavy Industry) in May, 1962 by the enactment of Ordinance 1955. The site was filled in April, 1979. A short plat was approved in May, 1985. The L-1 zoning on the site at that time was the result of Ordinance 3583. The site was reclassified O-P (Office Park) effective April 23, 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 Manufacturing/Office Park uses, but does not mandate such development without consideration of other policies of the plan. The Office Park designation indicates development with park-like open space campuses in a setting of high operational and environmental standards, with significant setbacks and perimeter landscaping. 8. The site is one of four companion or complementary sites located adjacent to one another. The adjoining westerly lot has received site plan approval. That approval was based upon the then existing H-1 zoning attached to that site. High aesthetic standards administered under the Site Plan ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan were utilized. That site was to "provide the pattern for future development of the remaining three lots in such matters as on-site circulation, landscaping themes, and concordant appearance and operation." A central focus of the complex was the centrally located fountain/plaza/seating area to be used jointly by the four-building complex. 9. The project is estimated to generate approximately 2,000 vehicle 'trips, or approximately 14.3 vehicle trips per 1,000 sq ft of gross building area. '. 10. The ERC imposed conditions to mitigate traffic and recreational impacts of the proposal. Traffic mitigation involves the assessment not to exceed $270. per vehicle trip where the total amount of projected traffic was not to exceed the potential 2,000 vehicle trips. A fee to provide off-site recreation was determined to be $10,000.. The applicant suggested that the 1 acre common plaza required for the short plat and adjacent development served the site and its employees. Valley Office and Industrith—ark, Inc. Site Approval 017-86. May 16, 1986 Page 4 13. In response to staff analysis and the new zoning on the site, the applicant presented modified plans increasing the perimeter landscaping and interior landscaping to accommodate the new standards. The new standards permit offsetting less perimeter landscaping to benefit larger interior islands of landscaping. Staff recommended more landscaping be shifted to the south side of the building to complement and increase the landscaping at the central common area. The applicant expressed willingness to follow staff's recommendation. The plans also modified parking aisles and stall size to provide coordinated access between the subject site and the westerly complex. Pedestrian corridors have been provided to separate pedestrians from vehicular traffic where possible and to: provide a protected walking pathway to the street from the buildings. 14. The applicant questioned the imposition of the new site plan and zoning standards. This Office finds that the proposed office building would not have been permitted under the site's old H-1 zoning. Therefore, no review of an office building under the old site plan ordinance or the old zoning was possible. The applicant is bound by the new standards. / 15. he earlier site approval permitted delay of the installation of the 1 acre common areas for up to 2 years after occupancy of the first building. The grace period was permitted to further clarify and consolidate the planning and leasing of additional lots of the original short plat. 16. Two parcels which were more or less an inholding along the east side of the subject site have since been incorporated into the subject site. The configuration, of the frontage of those lots intruded into the alignment along East Valley .Road. The intrusion creates an inconsistent width for the public right-of-way. The applicant indicated that the area would be dedicated as necessary. CONCLUSIONS 1. The proposed site plan appears to serve the public use and interest. It appears to solve the applicant's problems in providing a cohesive, if not strictly identical layout to its existing building, while at the same time complying with new City standards intended to result in high quality office park development. 2. While the new landscaping requirements may throw the applicant's symmetry off slightly, the applicant cannot be permitted to object to a standard which comes closer to providing the open space and landscaping necessary to achieve high quality campus-like development. The applicant's arguments that the aesthetics of the project were skewed by additional landscaping along the perimeter and interior of the site is not persuasive. 3. The subject site, unlike the adjoining site, is now governed by the O-P district's more detailed and stricter standards, as well as the new Site Plan Ordinance. The earlier decision which indicated the 'trend or pattern' is not binding where it provides lesser standards, and the term 'pattern' does not mandate carbon or mirror replication of the first building and its associated landscaping. 4. The new Zoning and Site Plan Ordinances require additional perimeter landscaping. These additional requirements do not appear to differ significantly from either the former standards or the design implemented on the adjacent site. The site aesthetics will not suffer. The results will not throw off the symmetry too much. The additional requirements can only enhance the appearance of the complex. 5. The parking arrangement for the project's 602 stalls has met the new standards for compact cars and floor area ratio. The circulation in the parking areas appears to provide not only the applicant, but emergency services, reasonable access around and through the site. The short plat process which created the subject lot contained a provision for the 1 acre plaza. It is still effective. The 1 acre though is not sufficient to provide for active recreation, especially in this area of the City where there is a shortage of recreational opportunities. The applicant therefore, should participate to the extent indicted by the ERC in planning for and implementation of recreational opportunities in the Valley. Since few recreational amenities currently exist, the proposed common plaza should be implemented with the completion of the subject proposal. A site plan for it will be required, with completion to occur simultaneously with the occupancy of the current proposal. Valley Office and Industri u nark, Inc. Site Approval 017-86 May 16, 1986 Page 5 Although the condition of the earlier site plan permitted a delayed installation for up to 2 years, the delay now begins to look inappropriate. Two buildings and up to 4,000 employees should be served by the construction of the entire plaza at this stage of the development of the short plat. Delay is no longer warranted especially since recreational opportunities in the area are so limited, and since the applicant seems to be well on the way toward realizing occupancy and construction on the subject site. 5. In order to provide a safe and consistent alignment for a major frontage of the site along East Valley Road the applicant should dedicate that portion of the site which intrudes into the established right-of-way alignment, subject to the approval of the Department of Public Works. 6. There can be no question that the 2,000 vehicle trips and the employee load of the subject site will contribute substantially to the traffic along all the corridors of the Valley, and not just those immediately adjacent to the subject site. Therefore, the applicant will have to participate in the study and solution to the transportation situation in the Valley to the extent of $270. per vehicle trip predicated upon a vehicle trip projection not to exceed 2,000 trips per day. DECISION The Site Plan is approved subject to the following conditions: 1. Participation in the study and solution to the transportation situation in the Valley to the extent of $270. per vehicle trip predicated upon a vehicle trip projection not to exceed 2,000 trips per day. 2. Construction of the entire approximately 1 acre plaza to coincide with the occupancy of this phase of the development of the Short Plat. 3. Dedication of that portion of the easterly frontage of the site which intrudes into the established right-of-way alignment of East Valley Road, subject to the approval of the Department of Public Works. 4. Modification of the site plan to shift additional landscaping in an area on the south side of the building to act as a supplement to the plaza area. if possible. ORDERED THIS 16th day of May, 1986. YOAA- FRED J. KA MAN HEARING E MINER TRANSMITTED THIS 16th day of May, 1986 to the parties of record: Bill Fetterley Austin Company 800 S.W. 16th Renton, Wa. 98055 TRANSMITTED THIS 16th day of May, 1986 to the following: Mayor Barbara Y. Shinpoch Councilman Richard M. Stredicke Richard Houghton, Public Works Director Larry M. Springer. Policy Development Director Members, Renton Planning Commission Ronald Nelson, Building & Zoning Director Glen Gordon, Fire Marshal Roger Blaylock, Zoning Administrator Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Renton Record-Chronicle Pursuant to Title IV, Section 3015 of the City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed in writing on or before May 30, 1986. Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the Examiner is based on erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact, error in judgment, or the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing may make a written request for review by the Examiner within fourteen (14) days from the date of the Examiner's decision. This request shall set forth the specific errors relied upon by such appellant, and the Examiner may, after review of the record, take further action as he deems proper. Valley Office and Industria"'ark, Inc. • Site Approval 017-86 May 16, 1986 Page 6 An appeal to the City Council is governed by Title IV. Section 3016, which requires that such appeal be filed with the City Clerk, accompanying a filing fee of $75.00 and meeting other specified requirements. Copies of this ordinance are available for inspection or purchase in the Finance Department, first floor of City Hall. The Appearance of Fairness Doctrine provides that no ex parte (private one-on-one) communications may occur concerning land use decisions. This means that parties to a land use decision may not communicate in private with any decision-maker concerning the proposal. Decision-makers in the land use process include both the Hearing Examiner and members of the City Council. All communications concerning the proposal must be made in public. This permits all interested parties to know the contents of the communication and would allow them to openly rebut the evidence. Any violation of this doctrine would result in the invalidation of the request by the Court. The Doctrine applies not only to the initial public hearing but to all Requests for Reconsideration as well as Appeals to the City Council. For purposes of these decisions and recommendations the terms "Should" and "Shall" are to be considered mandatory. The term "May" will be considered discretionary. When the report is a recommendation to the City Council the terms "should" and "shall" are intended to inform the City Council that if they approve the recommendation the items should be mandatory to preserve the intent of the decision. . , A • " r.1a 10• •• 1F"‘I 0 M_ •••._: I 1 . —i i4:.i:.1, :.•I:t....-•..-.;0.02„60i,.0..40.0e0..;100g°g..5005:...0.i0,.g00;'..g°--o:V_,,,-,.fr.•..0..I 0o...ggA•,0go.-0g°-4...7•..;/--4a'i4/.I:•I:.i•:::.-;•,:• .••B•-E•-M'm-''-''.•4Po•.0un.;,;1:;m0 1,-. 4f,r•:••••Ill,-•7•.4 w••4'A•••-,1,• A• :i. koNsi.,',142:g; • -9 '-'141111614] Iasi 4/11.6., ... i . i,, rm. ogegoikuolago:,:•?iir' ..-.01•'1 littipiiprz."-v.,.. ;.::. li•:1 ;04.2,;,51.0%„0::;„0;.000..N1,14;e11400 - iiqueng- •.;;;.:11 . 1/4' • : . . . . . .. .. ., -.r.,INT1111,r. . •'''. A. .....•t!.!IT_AA/AA/4111::;:r A.:,,`' .„.111 1 in...a ow nu law ill -I allik - -41.•MN.= litt+1 9..mkj,..... a,,....tr.-- ..., it1V:"' • •' i,z: ek.Atk.:::::!;,--:=7 'A /2• .-• . ,•-..,... ',"••0?q.v., .-.11,4 • 11S1.-./11rAtt, 111.0144•14.iii ,;0:02,0-go' -1:LI‘4,...'• ,\1V\)•.••'••A-•••.C e0'.)•:..P:0./•e...;:l:.0;i•,.:i:1/i•.•i::.•:i:•.,..i•:i I.:ii;•..:•i•:i...1::i.% :•.•0:i:•,.i•ii:ii•].i•ii\::g§Ai.A•i:*N.li-••ii:i i•.N::ii.i•i*:i'.•i:§E.i•:i:i,4.•'....i..:,. *:::,.;0.i.7::i.i.'.;..-.:%.c,.i".i"„i-i.;ii::'.,-.ii-,i:_-:n:,-..,•0_•-".•--•,•%.r_-10 w'--:OZi_.:t1%,--^9--_.9,tc-.-i.1_-.-r..--•?t-_.1...-..-..4e._2.:..c.,i4,-19_.4`C.'.•:i:\I.•...l:..:1.l,;4t0:c.i.t."••••,"%':.:....,-.4"..7.".`,N.••.•••l.-.O..--.1;4•.o.1rg. p.•,li;iEiir l,i•,,A..P.a,,...ei 9,•.'.'.4.,,,,1:,0,•k"°g•o:0o.-_°-.-0}.7'°..,..:-0.-._!°go-_1INl01l1.11°111i01.11.e1,11°g 1w.1111.••,:..1„:12111:1iWl1::f:E 1i.. !1•ms„1•.:1•!:•.9e1„!m01•!:•8!.1A•:•w•M4!:!1•11:!1!1:1:•1!ws§11•!:1!i1!l1l41•!11,:11/ ••'..:1,y.,C..,,' r",:.oe,e•/:l.l.s i :mei"oggg: i ‘ : . , ...... r: :, „ , iw• r . .:.•/',,i•,_r 0••/., .4., 7 46'•.14..././•..•.::1,‘,.1.•,',X.•s1 tti,cl•,.e•.•.1 t•r.l14ki.\ti.. ,i.:•, •I''. .-- iiiptg \ .:,.... •-.,.. ••, ...•:: ::*::i::::::::::' ?..; •• --------------------- n,*•:•::K:i*::::::i:i:KM::::......M...,.. ANN.. . ,,,,,,,, • :-'" ,.x:i: 1.' tiii. ! •:;:i:i:K:i:i:::::: , •-_,- .......,.. -_-_-_-_-_-_ .. . ••••••:•::::::t::::::::::::::::z,:::,::::::::::-• ,• /, ,...-.._ •...._,• •• ::::i:::i:K:i::.;:x:1:itif .oar• '..• 1-;; • p -. - x::••••, ,.. ..., e:.-- .•....••• ., :, _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_:••...‹, ••:••:•::::: i:i:i:i;:•:i:i:.. k :,...,4,,, ..,.,,:... • WI -,-.N.•;:.,,,:i',..i:.. AP ...s*:.:'N ss. f•4 g)-. ..,'•;;;',.e. 4.r ...)'P7 ... iwp-imo-------- 7------ \ - . k-• -.;n••••••• • ,,. ,4: , .. • ____ _-_-_-_-_ __ --,.. 111 ... •ri ——-h.-0th ------- ------------- ,, ::.•.,:••;••:::•;••••,..:,ok,e, ...y. ..: ,,;„,,,,,'ss:•,,:,•;, :.,,f1,....•• Ilif A ,••;',kk.Av.:.. -.. ... ,-:-:-:-_-_-_- °-- • -:-:.-_- 54.1E_- - =--.: /A g t 1 ------------.-1,7-- 1'.: ----------------- ' -§.:-- :-:--7. FV. --Mriejle)- •No•o• - ..--------------- igis.„...1%•', ------------------- Voecroca*#i'f,"-------------------- -_.1-- -- ---_- _-_-_ '-'• er,r.A-'ii ----------• ocacToW0114-••••••*. ----------- .-itErt-fid- ( • I I. , k 0..0 ...,... i ...'• 0003., .t 02-,, '2?, f : t-r.c7.1: • ..:i:ic:•:: .. , . ....,....... • '2...:. 0• •, . .000o0woomio........c:..:.. , i i, ,... ... ._,1 ..1-1°..11;i••.• 0.., c 4.1..e. ;.00•oo•00000000 -. -_-- .,„,...1...01 igo._.$0.00,1„..,_ ; :11:211. 1S:".'. ••:..'.• r:. .-: • • . . . . •oo•000_o°o•oo••' . ---, _.... .-- Igi i::::*:::::::::::::::*:::::::::::: . ....:4-f.::,....,, r, 1 •c't -----\',,•• . "file':• .w. .,---- , •..ii ..,,e ri'd KAII,OV.,---- -Ati ::::,....---::-.111.1........ •• -. ..,.. , pa yu:,.•":s4-'!"..•2....... : •-....;. L ...: , : ,.7... 0.., ,..,.....! .., • . . v4426-----•--- --- - •\-• ir• Afiliii.witrimis.:::ov 1:3..''':, ' ° • 1 • , .....---‘1.005W724. /4 '' °sir la'r li:: :.::'.:....:*::i:i:i:i::;:. .H • •• '!'''. .......1. f/- . % '" - --.-- -- . .;.\ .% '-— (..-lb .::::•::::::::::::: .• .. .;•••'" ---% ' ."1":01l.. ....i:::iii: .: . . ,-_-_-_-_-_- _-__ __ : : ** tg ;•:*:1-titr- 01111 .---- • - • • 1',-'-:•••" • • • 11 a a Marl . -_ ------1.1.,.L laW ••• •:•:•:•:•:•:-. ;-411,64°.•0 ,.. I WS NMI& .-A 1.• . •00 •••:•:•:•:•:•:•.' .... aZt- •6..... 3 fiagne, • 7.. sr_ .0 i:,0 _r_'''..." ...ti. .00000. ,IL A':::::::::::::.,'t;•.16, • • • ,,. .., - - ---- ••••7-- t :i.,v ,, •e_o_. III t . ,, • • . • • • ,,. .i• ..nrIbm.1 ,. . • „.. I: i. A ..... :,::..,„:,::::::::::•. ... ......• .. ... .. .. . ...... ......•.. ..,. •••• •• • ... ...... ••• •__ • •.•1 ,..•• .„. .-„--,:.;:::. . „:,, . u , ...•......77 ,; ,....as,•11111.41".""'..• -•-•••••7••••7••• .- .-..--.. •ri•'9.1- •' • V. 1 I NMI - 1 ••••0 1 ;14:.•.'• - - -•,romiliWrien•_ ;01 ,t,„4... •••••• 1 • o o o o• •0000 'i .. mi•0000000000000• 1. ••. • — 000000 :•:•:.: 000000 al i.:lei:,e•,,t,- i i . .000:0000y. , ?. 000000• 0000000 1 ., c7111111k.'7.' •• 'ia sow fill i l• 4, •-- •00000C .IDS .P.• ay.-2 ••111 0 I e, •- :-- ':P .: •000000• ‘,,:eses.ii J..F.,:` •-WO: --------)• Voc)ocoVoC... ' ow dot r.' ..—...—— —..-... •e... !IL-:•• - •0000 ''•• 1111.•••r_ •/.• 11,10 .. ..: .i ri ,..,:. .. , • IA % '•';4.. ,".:•:-:".":?.,•'s. -_-_-_ ----- ,---- i '4 • •;:i: , •.•••••••:5...:s'•• __... -...--PlAbAk. -- .C., .°•?;,ori;0'"?.:•fj =-7.1.-..--------- ----"" gr. • -1.1.,):::2 • ...)::•!..s..4•,...r.c.;;;7.::.E. --_--..---__---_--_--_--_-_- :::::-.: 'itu .- .-..: I`V_ 'r 1 t'..(6','0•'.• ...,:.,;••7 1:ti,• ------------------------ ------ -4: i• ilk a e i• . . ... • • •.,. ,...t I • .•............: L i -.1-:..:: =--14016---_=_----_:-_"-:-_-Z------7.----- -* ---:=-_ ..„..:.::::::.:::::............. :-- _'=VL-__'' 1.:: ::: : -4-T, 11.11,,,,. , , N .:...:: :::„. ..... ::::::::::: . mu man& .C,' ,...1._ ...-:-,.... .,.: je . r.:'..-.B.A.... ::.A.:-.-.r:.-.7.-:7•7- W I I W 41•e,.•.•:;.1'...1!1/.•ill ' :•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•,..111WWW•10•1010116 • . iv ----"---_-=-2- w.r.pir ,.:13:1 ' •o o o•• •' .„.,,,,,.. - ••-:„.. .:::•••:::•:• ,••••,•••••A• ---- —--- • r : --7:•7-:--- ---- -:-...:=••■2 2:1(..004,74,100:: . , ..,"---impr. ... ,:m:rpr • . . . , .:. ,.........) ::::•,..t r :.'? AravassflOd II , . Ir. -7 7'.. 1,•4 ' •c/ i' '• . . • . di.;. 1;0000000000000000000..,., :.1 i 4... .4' ..., .... ee A A A .4:IR: 1..0:0:0:0:0:0°.i::e:,.!.•44..,/' .... .;.,,,,..:.,.., © ,---, • - -- LAND -' .. ' . • ., •• • •.......... .......... S USE ELEMENT Ingle Family .:•:•:-:•:•:•:•:•:•: Low Density :•:•:•:•:•:•:•:.:•:. •:•:•••••:•:•:•:•:•: Multmily . Commercial Office / Office Park . . Lvov& •:1(.. i:i ;.....7..v.r..!.. g PO°0°0°.0°, ....4.. ..::....:.::• ..0.!.......,.............,, Oc.0000., : ... 1%1,4i:....,..)•••,-4:.1...a..'! .4.7. ..,1 4.... : I •;: 7.• I :••••: -C. • .1 4'1 .V.: . :.:.:::::.:.:.:.:.:. _ \ ...... ' ) & .. a . —.• • • I 1 • . , . I A . . . Medium Density •00.0.00 0.000.0. . vo •00.0000000.0.. Public/Ouasi-Public •ii Multi-Family ..000.000_0_0.0. " . . . 5- .e•-• • . • 0 • •. • • ' - gSogoqge;;,.., —'. --' , High Density igsgsgoggegg[...„. — • .-,-.,.. • • . ...-.,,..;.•ifq Multi-Family . Light Industrial ggsg:000.0.0 0.0.01 ezgggosos. ••, z ‘tosegegosesegogi o v• • • i Eigigigigig04 z !1.2.9.16c1 qtZ a Recreation *""7:... .Pliril •••••• . e • • • • • Heavy Industrial .1 .. • L•:.r., -_ ;ia Greenbelt -_--_--_-- Manufacturing• Park 000.0,,.,.c0r I / Multiple Optionl i .. . _ . • i• i _ t____ • Va- i -- ' [----- ' ,,, - • . „„ 'n , •,1 . , •:. •, . . • . , . , • .. • , . , ', . ,,,, „r ,. ' ,• ' I ' ,. ' • - ", .. , -- ---- . \ 1 \ •. 1 I.' ---------- - 0'14 4 ti f....110;41; 4.-4,- , . rpt;:., ot gttk,t,-64 ,•57.j5/1' ' ‘,.,. - _It I••••••i% if..., -• 1, 1,_ I I 1 1 1 IH r,,,,,• •,.,,....t,, ,..,..... , vr.,,7,4 ,, - 4.1..„,,,,,,,,,,„.„....NA,,,,•„,....:•:,•IVi,,, .' ' ;,.. . . .," .,..'7. ')..— .4,,i...,,t . 1 1'4 if 1,1f.t.',E , ' ',-.'+,14'..,..:"1-,1.'t` '''.1.'''' ` .P/b ' .'"'. .. 1.-•(4. ';' `'P— I ME— —— -1953— -- k 11,z,,Lr 1.0,4 41, •:.t ,6'•a',.4.,%•T. IL.fi...,,,,,,,,k,,•2.,,,,i ,t,•-ps, OM ' — r;i.1.7.1 F'1'..'..!t•:. 7 ',,Pril 1/ri.45..k,'''1; 4'ti'YI'''1 l'4'';` ..,I' r ' .. ,I.c.41, '42 ..11:'el!, '4 it:A SI,',4,4 44'1•t e, ' '. _- _ r.o ;, ' .7.," 4)-.41.,.. , ,A4.--,• - - *.: 7 P' ., --• ,Vr•' 121'1' • • . " tZ. I; irr ti.:.'1.. .-,htal Va A Vi, •, .$30. 4 -1-7'YtAll . r.2, '10 rvi'7: 1 1 ', - ,.;.-.... ,... ..:1 — •4;. . „nix,. • 'i--..''''' '-'' . A+,7 - P' IT--- 01:111 il tAi .11 Vi'1"#Y4 VVir::::;11 ...'.i,' ,,1% , * ell" !.! 4 r•1 • • •111 , tis,-1, 4'. . 41''. II 014i.t , ,„ ,4 :4,4...,..... l''' 1%-'4'. ... I; , „., kt... ,• , ,!,,,., , =_ ,t‘,,... •1;i i•.:1. r4.1744.,,, ,,,:.••-_= v-- ---, ° , k,'.. 1:0..ci Lotilsill IA ' i'l ; ' •.t-,,,,v ,,x-x5,:i 3,,WV,I4g,,•it.,•,t k,„:ffi: ,k.„..,fe:,,.., 6;1•,,,t, -5 • i 1 rtit, ii; , i -- ____ ihil ,12 _____ , - ., sk,,,, ..„ "• - , ,,,-.4 ( . a F- i *Ito - • , ,Ilk - ' '.'" rttr.vrie "•,...-- ' o/1494.. — 0 1 . (.,4 1. • : IP i 1':,ill) 4,. t:1 • 41 • ' • A' • l't PI 1 ' ------ 4..' . ' 1 c AV lig_ 1 Zt— ' I • -. 1, 4.1k 1 pA iLt, ci,,,, 111.:E.1-'1'F I 0 7- Of I ir !..:it, 1 4., • 1111.1.10 '11 S 1 i.t.,14A r". P ,. 1 ‘;'..IN tir',.Q.1:'S • r.,41 tit Ai. •-•, fr ,1 W ..,.3...% - , i„ gpi.-1,1. ti ,, It'' kr,:1); , z.47,,,,,., ,fi" ,, ...1 — robi I ,,,nst i 1 . tito„ , , ,•,. e...,. Et ft.' "ir' i .1 ji ,r4 i 1-,,, I ____ ilat ILI 111114 41'. .0/4 I 4ilir ... 1 , ____ 417 , I', ...,i.',,p' A ,,. 1 • .1,,,--..,-,-,-,,, ,,,;.• .q \ - 'Pr-te4Por' • ., .,,,, ,,i- ,, ' \ .-L.;',,S-!,:: ,'41. 5,1'4 . -.-:0;,.11E1 '"i'i° -t '! - P/11 — i .1 . ' ,L,'F., L,0,... '41 . •rair* I'''''''' cr,.. 6-', ,Pg•i..0i.3.-. 14,' •"..,, . . `... )11, r rOr ' ,r' - '14'7d,-*; ::.:''•';...tj - r. ' '" •,) 7. tar Ir 'xTo.; • 00";''-' 0. elk, - tyl.'c— "--14 ;1- ' , - .• :- ..0#71.1 ' - 1 r — .. , _ EAST VALLEY_pop° I-- •----- I •. 1 , . , . • • ' .• . . • • ' • ii . ..,: L `... •,, , ' . ....,0 ,.• • , , , .• . , , ,• . ',a ' . ' " .' • • , • . , t„ . . • . . . • .a , • ,. . , a , . :• . ' , , • •••. , . ''‘' ' • ...„ ' . a ' •: , . . , a . .. . A' ' .• a,„ 't'-• ' . , • .• , 1, . 1. •• i . . ,.a . . • . . . ...,. ,1 ll .• • • � •.._.. . `T F s .w r•`� „IL ! 1 fr 1, , . ., , . ,/, , , 1 fd, , . .1 , • I p a i i 1 T 1 - 1 • 1J I i =, twos` • -J 1. l It l'i.....1.:‘,.i. .1.'..,..]� i �' gI� _1• .• • "—i i lii I •i ' !3:t(_: r�llll /Illuil 1 I i l01 `J" NIP IIIII 171111r11/! I' II-1 I 1 I ' I rc 1 , 4fJ IM1�11.• 11 lyt. Ill�"i� ,ii r: '4i 1��`� • _ti -:�:,. -::i o. • — • • 1 • r IIfi. .. ill IIlI- I ��"I'"• •1 ;' ., , I ' 1;�11p I bt l� , ' . : - / I' 1 R-4 II II • - • LEI-� � - �)\,....._ -ten. • ` `, 1. tii . R-4 . --,-----,.- . • ; II ) i„, yr , IN Is i 74 ii4.2i -_,,Ix .„ -1, :.. I '7.- . = \. I I ff.. „ i . Mil:1-:I.i',..,,.. : :.: !I tit' •.1 .1 ( • 1111.1011112ni •• :3. ;I ,. 1. r 1. T I 4`,. I , • ''' 1 i„m.,1111:12: unisManimi : _9: 171..C..,.. .j.ii 4� �4 ♦7 ;R 4,. ii ,w; ..„ =MUIR.: . ,v- v '..4..%•..., S. . 14"I .11:1 I " Matt% 5 4 —I,1 __12- MS ISM 0 -a r s eT_En._ sT _ _ .p er • \ R-4 G- + A 2 =_.am _• G_1 f .. N air • .. __• _ S�> - I /l •• •• at 7•• •• �7�a_ _1• ... f , •1 _. \ R.+�,- T al _ /• •, a `J®� • L—r--41914) _.+__ ' ,. ...7..131 . tit/ ,.I ., 4 . ..kr.. ..: ..... t--- ' --7ti---- 1.--tXr: .E-itn"-- ,... - ----_1,.:3,..---.-/;_,,./-_::. -.7.. „ 1 - -7- - ,4. -:.=',i'.4-z-i-- : .‘": '.\\.rt ...I . F-•!•7.e/ raoo 1 mu \.:! t...VS::7••:),\;":\ \I\ VALLEY OFFICE & INDUSTRIAL PARK, INC. . SA-017-86 • APPL I CANT VAT.T.V..V CYPP Trr. & INDUGTPTAL P.,TNC TOTAL AREA ± 7.0 ACRES PRINCIPAL ACCESS . 1601 EAST VALLEY ROAD EXISTING ZONING L-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL & H-1, HEAVY INDUSTRIAL WILL BE OFFICE PARK (O-P) as. of 4/24/86) EXISTING USE UNDEVELOPED PROPOSED USE FOUR STORY OFFICE BUILDING CONSISTING OF 140,000 SQ.FT. • • COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN MANUFACTURING PARK/ MULTIPLE OPTION-OFFICE COMMENTS • • • :l: . / r a THE AUSTIN 800 SOUTHWEST 16TH ST. RENTON, WA 98055 COMPANYPHONE: 206/226-8800 TELEX: 910.423.0882 DESIGNERS • ENGINEERS • BUILDERS 223-01 AU-ST-IC-T377N3 April 7 , 1986 RECFIVE ) APR 7 198G HearingExaminer MINN ON City of Renton P:� 200 Mill Ave. S. i Renton, WA 98055 Attention: Fred J. Kaufman Reference: Valley Office and Industrial Park Phase II File No. SA-017-86/ECF-015-86 Located on the Southwest Corner of East Valley Road and S.W. 16th Street - W.O. 86-5371 Dear Mr . Kaufman: There are three elements of the Environmental Review Committee' s investigation and recommendations which we believe warrant your close review. First of all , it appears that a major consideration of the mitigation for this project is by virtue of already existing projects . To burden future investments in development with after-the-fact considerations such as those pointed out in "facts" numbers one (1) and two (2) , I do not believe is the intent of the City. It is our hope that this project will be reviewed on its own merits and impact . If we are to review the entire four building complex at one time I would like to propose that the necessity for future "Site Approvals" be dropped. Secondly our understanding of traffic mitigation based on comparison with the Orillia Properties Limited project provided us with a projected mitigation amount considerably less than that proposed in recommendations one and two . I understand the City' s evaluation amount being established as 150% of the anticipated amount per vehicle trip. We believe that this should be noted in these findings and perhaps in the stipulations of the bond itself. CD Hearing Examiner April 7, 1986 Page 2 It is also our contention that the mitigation for traffic impacts should be figured on a basis of useable office area and that a "general" office rate of 12. 3 vehicle trips per 1000 sq. ft. be figured (this is a recognized standard) . This should result in a truer vehicle trip rate for structures, such as this, where the working population is for the most part, stationary throughout the work day. The third concern we would like to express is over the mitigation for "recreation" . The Austin Company and our associate companies recognize the need for the valley land owners to participate in the very real need for a recreational enhancement of the developing areas. Our objections are more to the lack of identification of the process of mitigation early enough to plan for these costs in our development proposals . The City, I am sure , realizes that the development community depends upon it for assistance in planning the feasibility of projects . A very real part of the feasibility of any project is the early identification of development costs . The costs associated with recreation mitigation were not identified in time for their being included in our feasibility studies . We appreciate your consideration of the above noted items. It is our hope that your review will not necessitate any delays and are looking forward to a hearing date of April 22 or April 29, 1986. Should you have any questions or concerns about our comments please don' t hesitate to contact me. Sin rel , Wm. tewart erley IA Project Architect WSF/ddl cc : Roger Blaylock aD THE AUSTIN BOO SOUTHWEST 16TH ST. RENTON. WA 98055 COMPANYPHONE: 206/226-8800 TELEX: 910.423.0882 DESIGNERS • ENGINEERS • BUILDERS 223-01 AU-ST-1C-T377N3 March 21 , 1986 r!4 � l ; Y �le., yfle�® I" Er) Mr. Ronald G. Nelson APR 2 81986 Building & Zoning Director CITY OF RENTON City of Renton HEARING EXAMINER Minicipal Building 200 Mill Avenue South Renton , Washington 98055 Subject : Valley Office & Industrial Park Pending Fill /Excavation and Site Plan Approval Permits Dear Ron : I would like to follow up on the phone conversation we had this morning as soon as possible . I hope that this will demonstrate our eagerness and willingness to resolve the issues surrounding the properties in question . As we understand the results of the Environmental Review Committee ' s ( ERC ) Declaration of Non-Significance , our proposal to develop Phase II of the BCS site , at the corner of Southwest 16th Street and the East Valley Frontage Road , contains the - following conditions : 1 . Traffic mitigation . 2. Recreational mitigation . 3. The dedication of the P-1 right -of-way ( on the Valley Office & Industrial Park property adjacent to Longacres Race Track , approximately one-half mile west of the site ) . 4. Compensating flood water storage for the Sound Steel property be excavated from the P-1 right-of-way on our property . In addition to the above , there is an indication that we will be allowed to excavate the "compensating flood water storage" for the fill of the "Sound Steel Property" after we have completed the fill operation . I/ y Q Mr . Ronald G. Nelson March 21 , 1986 Page 2 We have two concerns with these findings . Most importantly is the disproportionate linkage of the P-1 Channel right-of-way dedication to this Site Approval Application . Please remember that the P-1 Channel right-of-way dedication is already a condition of a fill action which we will file with your office on Monday of next week ( reference memo dated August 29 , 1985) . Obviously , we can only deed over the property once , and we would appreciate that action remaining with the pending fill application . I sensed from our conversation that the City ' s objective is to push forward with the P-1 Channel . If that is true , you can have the assurance of our cooperation , supported by the action of the fill permit as soon as you wish . The second concern is the apparent revision to the existing fill permit on the Sound Steel property . We have always planned to follow the Examiner ' s findings and excavate north of Interstate 405 . Indeed , in conversations with City staff , this has always been our position with no indication that the City was entertaining a revision to the existing permit . Our understanding of this established procedure has been incorpor- ated into commitments to The Boeing Company . Any delays would prove to be exceedingly costly to both parties . In short , it is our opinion that one of the conditions ( number 3 above) of the Site Approval will be met before the Site Approval is reviewed by the Hearing Examiner and , furthermore , the other condition that we question will require concurrence of the Examiner because of his specific requirement that compensation come from north of I-405 . We agree that the other conditions noted are legitimate attachments to the site approval process . I would like to suggest that the condition of dedication of P-1 right-of-way be dropped from the Site Plan Approval as soon as you have our filing of the Request for Fill Permit , and that the Sound Steel permit not be altered . This would allow for the most expeditious realizations of both Valley Office & Industrial Park ' s and the City ' s goals . M 3 I r • Q Mr . Ronald G. Nelson March 21 , 1986 Page 3 We appreciate your consideration of these items and your continued support in our efforts , and look forward to an expeditious reply. Very truly o rs , ( Of m . Stewart Fe terley, . I .A. Project Architect WSF :dt cc-RCHoughton , Public Works Director LMSpringer , Policy Development Director OF R.4, .. ° BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT �r z RONALD G. NELSON - DIRECTOR Z o MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON,WASH.98055 • 235-2540 0 ro• 09,11, SEPtE���Q BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH MAYOR • MEMORANDUM DATE: April 3, 1986 TO: Fred. J. Kaufman FROM: Environmental Review Committee SUBJECT: VALLEY OFFICE AND INDUSTRIAL PARK PHASE II FILE NO. SA-017-86/ECF-015-86 • LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF EAST VALLEY ROAD AND S.W. 16th STREET • The Environmental Review Committee (ERC) has analyzed the information submitted by the Austin Company for Valley Office and Industrial Park, Inc., for the construction of a four-story 140,000 square foot office building. The Environmental Review Committee finds the following facts to be true of the proposed project: 1. The addition of approximatey 2,000 vehicle trips to the projected 2,000 vehicle trips associated with Phase I construction of Valley Office Park II is significant and requires mitigation. This represents approximately a 48 percent increase in traffic loads on both Lind Avenue S.W. and S.W. 16th Street, while there will be a 52 percent increase in traffic volumes on East Valley Road. 2. The addition of approximately 1,000 employees to the existing 2,000 \ employees in Valley Office Park I and a potential 1,000 employees in Phase 1 of Valley Office Park II significantly creates the need for both year-round on-site recreation and off-site recreation. 3. The applicant has provided detailed plans to provide year-round on-site recreation as part of the entire development of the four-office building complex. Off-site public recreation has not been evaluated, and a master recreation plan is needed for the Valley Industrial Area. 4. The City of Renton must identify area-wide traffic circulation and improvement needs to provide continued public accessibility to individually privately owned properties. Without this formal identification by the City, the general level of service will continue to decline as a result of incremental adverse impacts resulting from private development. / ' 0 • Fred J. Kaufman April 2, 1986 Page 2 5. The previous traffic evaluation conducted late in 1984 was based on land use assumptions of a greater percentage of warehouse use and a lower intensity of office park uses. Actual and potential development is office park in nature and this use generates significantly more traffic in addition to the general shift in type of vehicle trips. As a result, a revised traffic study is necessary to reflect the changing environmental circumstances. 6. The City has hired a traffic engineering consultant, CH2M Hill, who will identify the area-wide traffic circulation and improvement needs along with prioritization of those needs for the Valley Industrial Area. That study should, be completed within the next 60 calendar days and be available for review by the City Council and the general public. 7. The total anticipated development of all four phases of Valley Office and Industrial Park, Inc., Phase II, within the general traffic study area represents a known impact of 560,000 square feet of office space and possibly 3,500 employees. .This represents approximately a 50 percent increase in the total employment of the study area in 1984. Valley Office and Industrial Park, Inc., is a major component of the present impacts and the ultimate impacts of full industrial development of the study area. Therefore, Valley Office and Industrial Park must be a significant contributor to the solution. 8. The subject site was filled under previous special permits. The issue of compensating flood storage is critical to the total functional use of the storm water drainage system of the Valley. The Austin Company representing Valley Office and Industrial Park, Inc., has recently tenatively committed to the dedication and excavation of the P-1 Channel as a requirement of other special permits for fill and grade. This commitment represents a positive action to resolve the area-wide problem. However it does not appear to be legally binding. The matter must be resolved as either a point in this application or as a written commitment on another application. The most expeditious manner to address the issue would be to provide a deed for the dedication of the P-1 Channel to the City of Renton. Therefore, the Environmental Review Committee (ERC), under their substantive authority [Section 4-2822(D)], recommends to the decision maker, the Hearing Examiner, that the application for site plan approval to allow the construction of one building totaling 140,000 square feet of office space located at 1601 East Valley Road is subject to the following conditions: 1. Participation in area-wide traffic improvements identified by the pending CH2M Hill study to the project's proportionate share based upon estimated daily traffic generated as calculated by standards established in the Institute of Traffic Engineers' trip generation manual. The ultimate cost per vehicle trip shall not exceed $270 per trip (estimated 2,000 vehicle trips). IP Fred J. Kaufman April 2, 1986 Page 3 2. The payment of traffic mitigation fees will be at the time of issuance of the building permit in the form of cash in the amount of $15,000 and a bond in, the amount of $270 per estimated vehicle trip based on a rate of 14.3 vehicle trips per 1,000 square feet of gross building area minus $15,000. The bond may be adjusted by the Building Official based upon the final cost per vehicle trip as determined by the CH2M Hill study or as determined by the City Council. The bond shall have an expiration date of five years. However, the intent is that all off-site mitigation shall be completed no later than July 1, 1987. 3. Since the Environmental Review Committee is waiting upon additional information to prioritize the necessary traffic improvements in the entire Green River Valley Planning Area as determined by the CH2M Hill study and covered by the bond as outlined in condition #2 above, they cannot prioritize at this time specific improvements the developer can accomplish in lieu of actual cash payment of fees. The Environmental Review Committee will provide by September 1, 1986 the developer with a prioritization and a time schedule. 4. The applicant shall provide funds in the amount of $10,000 to complete a master recreation plan for the Green River Valley in lieu of providing actual off-site public recreation. The funds shall be deposited into a special account at the time of building permit issuance to be utilized by the Parks and Recreation Department to prepare the appropriate recreation master plan. Therefore, the above conditions are necessary as a minimum for the preservation of the welfare and safety of the ; general public and a minimum to mitigate the adverse environmental impacts of the:proposal. Under Section 4-2822(D), the decision maker must accept these conditions as binding upon his ultimate decision unless he identifies in writing a substantial error in fact or conclusion by the Environmental Review Committee. The decision maker then has the option of asking the ERC for reconsideration or revising the conditions. The applicant also has the ability to request reconsideration of these conditions from the ERC or appeal these conditions directly to the Hearing Examiner under authority granted in Section 4-2823(A)(1)(a) within 14 days of the date that the DNS is final. Therefore, the appeal date would be Monday, April 7, 1986 at 5 p.m. Appeals,must be submitted in the form prescribed by both the Environmental Ordinance of the City of Renton and the Hearing Examiner Ordinance, Section 4-3011(B). RJB:ss 1081N cc: Valley Office Industrial Park, Inc. William S. Fetterley, AIA 800 S.W. 16th Street 800 S.W. 16th Street Renton, Washington 98055 Renton, Washington 98055 C r,,cam`• + + 2356Z 4 BUILDING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING APRIL 29. 1986 APPLICANT: VALLEY OFFICE AND INDUSTRIAL PARK. INC. FILE NUMBER: SA-017-86 A. SUMMARY & PURPOSE OF REQUEST: The applicant seeks site plan approval to allow the construction of a four story office building consisting of 140.000 square feet on a 7 acre site. B. GENERAL INFORMATION: 1. Owner of Record: Valley Office and Industrial Park 2. Applicant: Valley Office and Industrial Park 3. Location: (Vicinity Map Attached) 1601 East Valley Road 4. Existing Zoning at time of public hearing: Office Park (O-P) (Eff 4/23/86) Existing Zoning at time of application: H-1. Heavy Industrial (Eff 5/14/62)L-1. Light Industrial (Eff 11/9/81) 5. Existing Zoning in the Area: R-1, Residential-Single Family; L-1. Light Industrial; and O-P. Office Park (Eff 4/23/86) 6. Comprehensive Land Use Plan: Manufacturing Park/ Multiple Option-Office 7. Size of Property: ± 7 acres 8. Access: S.W. 16th Street and East Valley Road 9. Land Use: Undeveloped Property 10. Neighborhood Characteristics: North: Office; Industrial Uses East: SR-167 South: Undeveloped Property West: Office Use C. HISTORY/BACKGROUND: Action File Ordinance Date Annexation --- 1745 April4. 1959 • Corrected --- 1764 May 19. 1959 • Corrected --- 1928 Dec. 12. 1961 Rezone (R-2 & A-1 to L-1) ' 1826 April 26. 1960 Rezone (G to H-1) R-072-62 1955 May 14. 1962 Rezone (G to L-1) R-119-63 2039 May 13, 1963 Special Permit (Fill & Grade) SP-320-79 --- April 24. 1979 Rezone (G to L-1) R-069-81 3583 Nov. 9. 1981 • Special Permit (Fill & Grade) SP-025-85 --- June 14. 1985 Short Plat SH.PL-022-85 --- May 22. 1985 PRELIMINARY REPORT. ,_THE HEARING EXAMINER ' - . VALLEY OFFICE AND INuuSTRIAL PARK. INC.. FILE NO. SA^=017-86 ' APRIL 29. 1986 PAGE 2 .. Y D. PUBLIC SERVICES: 1. Utilities: a. Water: A 12-inch water line is located along S.W. 16th Street and along East Valley Road adjacent to the subject property. b. Sewer: An 8-inch sanitary sewer line is located along S.W. 16th Street near the subject property together with sanitary sewer lines for phase I to the west. c. Storm Water Drainage: Storm water currently drains into the ?anther Creek drainage system. 2. Fire Protection: Provided by the City of Renton as per ordinance requirements. 3. Transit: Metro transit routes No. 157 and 167 operate along East Valley Road adjacent to the subject site. 4. Schools: a. Elementary Schools: N/A b. Middle Schools: N/A c.. High Schools: N/A 5. Recreation: N/A E. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE ZONING CODE: 1. Section 4-718. Office Park (O-P). 2. Section 4-744(F)(2). Landscape Requirements Green River Valley. . I F. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OR OTHER OFFICIAL CITY DOCUMENT: 1. Commercial Goal: Commercial Areas Objective and Commercial Structure and Sites Objective. Policies Element. City of Renton. Comprehensive Plan Compendium. January 1985. p. 16-17. 2. Green River Valley Policy Plan. City of Renton. Comprehensive Plan Compendium. January 1985. p. 35-50. G. DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS: 1. The applicant. Valley Office and Industrial Park. Inc.. is requesting site plan approval to allow the construction of a four story 140.000 square foot office building on a 7 acre site. The property is located on the southwest c rner of the intersection of S.W. 16th Street and East Valley Highway. 2. The Environmental Review Committee has issued a Declaration of Non-Significance. The appeal period expired at 5 p.m. on Monday. April 7. 1986. The DNS was subject to the following conditions: • Participation in area-wide. traffic improvements identified by the pending CH2M HILL study to the project's proportionate share based upon estimated daily traffic generated as calculated by .standards established in the Institute of Traffic Engineers' trip generation manual. The ultimate cost per vehicle trip shall not exceed $270 per trip (estimated 2.000 vehicle trips). • The payment of traffic mitigation fees will be at the time of issuance of the building permit in the form of cash in the amount of $15.000 and a bond in the amount of $270 per estimated vehicle trip based.on a rate of 14.3 vehicle trips per 1.000 square feet of gross building area minus $15.000. The bond may be adjusted by the Building Official based upon the final cost per vehicle trip as determined, by the CH2M HILL study or as determined by the City Council. The bond shall have an expiration date of five years. However. the intent is that all off-site mitigation shall be completed no later than July 1, 1987. PRELIMINARY REF T TO THE HEARING EXAMINER VALLEY OFFICE AND INDUSTRIAL PARK. INC.. FILE NO. SA-017-86 APRIL 29, 1986 PAGE 3 • Since the Environmental Review Committee is waiting upon additional information to prioritize the necessary traffic improvements in the entire Green River Valley Planning Area as determined by the CH2M HILL study and covered by the bond as outlined in condition #2 above, they cannot prioritize at this time specifict improvements the developer can accomplish in liew of actual cash payment of fees. The Environmental Review Committee will provide by September 1. 1986 the developer with a priortization and a time schedule. • The applicant shall provide funds in the amount of $10.000 to complete a master recreation plan for the Green River Valley in liew of providing actual off-site public recreation. The funds shall be deposited into a special account at the time of building permit issuance to be utilized by the Parks and Recreation Department to prepare the appropriate recreation master plan. Mr. William Fetterley of the Austin Company representing Valley Office and Industrial. Inc. submitted a letter to the Hearing Examiner on April 7. 1986 requesting that the Examiner conduct a "close review" of the ERC's investigation into the environmental issues. The staff points to the following items to help clarify the position of the ERC's memo to the Hearing Examiner dated, April 3, 1986. First. the project was reviewed on its own merits the percentage increase in traffic loads on both Lind Avenue S.W.. S.W. 16th Street and East Valley Highway were calculated directly from the traffic information provided by the applicant. The project was evaluated on its own impacts. but reference was made to the ongoing development of Phase I. In response to Mr. Fetterley's second point. the answer is yes the basic per vehicle trip cost was increased by the ERC because of the unknown cost factor in the pending CH2M HILL study. If Mr. Fetterley wishes a specific amount then the _ public hearing should be continued until the study is available and the City Council • has established a specific policy. The ERC decisions to allow development to continue under general policy guidelines until the study was available is clearly beneficial to the developer and not the City. The estimated basic cost level was increased because day to day contact with the traffic consultant suggested that the original amount was underestimated. The cost of traffic mitigation for Valley Office and Industrial Park, Inc. was based upon different information that was available at the time of the ERC's decision on the Orillia Properties Limited projects in January of 1986. The applicant is also arguing that the traffic mitigation should be based on net leasable area. The problem with that arguement is that a recent study prepared for III Renton Place clearly shows that the Boeing Company often places a higher employee density in each building than anticipated in the Institue of Traffic Engineers Manual. They have factored their anticipated traffic rate to 20.8 daily vehicle trips per 1.000 square feet of gross office space. In fact the Hearing Examiner may wish to consider the new information in analysis. The applicant argues that the City staff should clearly identify all possible costs. The cost of a development is associated with the ultimate land use decision and the development codes of the each jurisdiction. The planning process, which incidently involves the public hearing process, is the established methodolgy utilized to disclose these costs to the applicant. The applicant must show to the Hearing Examiner that the Environmental Review Committee made errors in judgement or fact. There is no evidence supporting the applicant position. Therefore, the Hearing Examiner should reiterate all of the ERC's conditions. 3. The greatest issue with the project proposal is what are the effective regulations of the City of Renton governing the proposal? a. An application for site plan approval as required by the approval of the special permit for filling and grading of the subject site was recieved on FEBRUARY 24. 1986. 1 PRELIMINARY REPORT THE HEARING EXAMINER VALLEY OFFICE AND IM,63TRIAL PARK, INC., FILE NO. SA'ui 7-86 • ,A APRIL 29, 1986 PAGE 4 b. At the time of the site plan application the property was zoned H-1, Heavy Industrial and L-1, Light Industrial. Office buildings were not an allowed use. Office uses had been removed from the H-1 zoning classification in September of 1985. c. A building permit for a foundation was submitted on APRIL 1,4, 1986. Since the underlying zoning did not allow an office use it it not "vested". The Building and Zoning Department only accepted the application as a courtesy of the pending area wide zoning change and the site plan approval request. d. On APRIL 17, 1986, the new SITE PLAN APPROVAL ORDINANCE became effective. e. On APRIL 24, 1986, the new AREA WIDE REZONING FOR THE VALLEY became effective and the subject property was rezoned into an 0-P. OFFICE PARK zoning designation. Office uses are now allowed. f. On approximately JUNE 1st, 1986, the new PARKING AND LOADING ORDINANCE will become effective. The Building and Zoning Department will review the application for site plan approval under the following standards: (The. Hearing Examiner as part of the public hearing process may disagree and utilize other standards.) • a. The site plan eventhough it was recieved in February and� was a requirement of a previous fill and grade permit it still was not a legal application since office buildings were not allowed in the H-1; Heavy Industrial zone at that time. Therefore, .the application must be reviewed under the new site plan standards adopted by Ordinance 3981. b. The zoning considered will be O-P. Office Park because neither the application for site plan approval nor the foundation permit "'vested" the building. c. The new standards of the Parking and Loading Ordinance will be utilized because by the time the building permit is issued the new standards will be in effect and they will substantially benefit the applicant. 4. This is the first site plan application to be reviewed under the criteria of Ordinance No. 3981. The criteria are grouped into five (5) major categories: • General Criteria dealing with the goal of the Comprehensive Plan. • Mitigation of Impacts to Surrounding Properties and Uses. • Mitigation of Impacts of A Proposed Site Plan to the Site. • Circulation and Access. • Signage. 5. Signage has not been identified by the applicant. 6. The proposal does comply with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan and the general goals and policies. However, it does not comply with the specifics of the O-P, Office Park Zoning Designation in the areas of required perimeter landscaping and the percentage of the total site to be landscaped. The perimeter on-site landscaping is required to be twenty (20) feet_ only ten (10) is shown on the site 'plan. The site plan shows that.only 13 per cent of the total area is landscaped, code requires 20 per cent. The staff believes that the proposal complies with the intent of the General Criteria, but the site plan needs to be redesigned in light of the O-P, Office Park Zone. PRELIMINARY REPORT THE HEARING EXAMINER VALLEY OFFICE AND INDUSTRIAL PARK, INC.. FILE NO. SA-017-86 APRIL 29. 1986 PAGE 5 7. Evaluation of the site plan criteria requiring "Mitigation of Impacts to Surrounding Properties and Uses" appears to have been adequately addressed by the Environmental Review Committee. The proposal a part of a total concept creates a "campus-like" setting. 8. The site plan does address "Mitigation of Impacts of a Proposed Site Plan to the Site". The buildings are being placed to create private recreational/open space for employees and specific functioning use areas for parking, access. and service. The setbacks from public streets have been increased to approximately three (3) times the required amount to soften impact of the scale of the building. 9. The criteria established under the general heading of "Circulation and Access" is the most problemmatic area of this specific site plan review. The new Parking and Loading Ordinance would be very benefical to the applicant because it will be allow up to 40% of the total parking to be in compact parking spaces and allow the calculation of required parking based on net floor area instead of the previous gross floor area. 10. In conclusion the site plan needs to be revised by the applicant to comply with all of the review criteria in the new Site Plan Ordinance, the new Area Wide Zoning Ordinance designating the subject site as O-P. Office Park. and the new Parking and Loading Ordinance. H. DEPARTMENTAL RECOMMENDATION: Based upon the above analysis. it is recommended to the Hearing Examiner that the public hearing be continued to Tuesday. May 13. 1986 so that the applicant can present a revised site plan for staff review no later than Tuesday. May 6. 1986, for staff review. This would mean that the Building and Zoning Department will not have a supplimental staff report available to the Hearing Examiner until the date of the continued public hearing. RJB:rjb 2356Z , I /1.'•••....134".I 2\ / ' ''t i';1111 . ..i 1 4,6i t• ' /I laf '-- —-2--. ' - I I 'if . . 7 ..-. - 4' t 1 r'' • • - +` C 1 I iz l'i'll.n1".1 . • • • , rNlllll �, iT1 , 6! ' ►1rti , ., ;pri iIIIIIILai 1I"1r hi f:v4lil �-, I ; • I I — 1 Ir ' ' •: OH I t I I ; ; • ; I I ll e � � . , - , JIii!' MI " j _l _ I i lir ) /16.. 10‘11‘ ! iiiipi.;1;:j..:,:r1;RIZ 1,ii; d 't' I 7-. - �;�J o • '� `r+ l�;•' Lam_._.i R 4 1 _. r„�.en- 1-..0 i'ra� �\ I `� • n �'s`.y�J����J'` 4-u 4� .—'I "-- �_ l ��- • «ate 5 0 - ; . ■ >n+�I �1 •• I . I T. I ,� .- , N. Or PIA ' „' AIR Ma - . -1 '"' ' ' • ' ' .: mi}►cos • • I _L ® � —p `p .o of y ..I , \ f1_T G. / , . __ —N . - - 1.7 i A r--;;- _, , R_ 1 B 11 2 / a , __- / -2.-- ...' ._ .. as �• _ ,. 611 Po 66 3, . . G..-ti 1. _ R99 t Mir. ,1 .6 4 . i ib I . ::.1:..YPTI:1.7 '' ::\ 4...\ — - 1 i-7,r. • - cit": ItJI1 • \\\ • .. , , • - -----' .- e . APK 71 � l•.. ',•-\ . • • • . , • • .. VALLEY OFFICE & INDUSTRIAL PARK, INC. . SA-017-86 • APPLICANT V T.T.FV (1FFTrF. • DUGT TNPTAL PARTf,IDtC TOTAL AREA - 7.0 ACRES 1 PRINCIPAL ACCESS • 1601 EAST VALLEY ROAD EXISTING ZONING L-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL & H-1, HEAVY INDUSTRIAL WILL BE OFFICE PARK. (0-P) as. of 4/24/86) EXISTING USE UNDEVELOPED PROPOSED USE FOUR STORY OFFICE BUILDING CONSISTING OF 140,000 SQ.FT. • • COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN MANUFACTURING PARK/ MULTIPLE OPTION-OFFICE COMMENTS • • • a,. l h. , • y• • • .o. 1 •O"O-O•'O • • •• ►_- -i„.., •• •' • • • • . . ...... . ..,..Scibgfge .4. ■■ .COOoo0000000 C•0000 , ---. __ I■ • - a �� �.�. \'ire. •-,� � u .e0004o00°000; r�►'o°o°.i^� '`n� /,■ ..,,.67TIM . o°o°o°o°o°o°0• 10• 00°' AI aI■. • r/• • • • .Y� , fit .00 0.2 0000000p• • •O°•Ill ■1n _ � • III r■1 o°o 000 0 0 0 0 ° nl■ r„,„:,_ �.. • . 000°° ••� ■. -°o°o°o o°o°o°o°o°o;•V °.o•/ ..n . v •oop000� o 0 0 0 0 0 0 00°0 ° 1 iin �i i■ '00000, �` C � O O O O _Ti.- �I r'.��.Ty rnIFTiI'<!!�. ��''!!, 1► mum Wli■p. �� -1 _'•.�y1 'a� \ �V ,5ir,, ■t ,®1�p, ii a::'fir' ��e. •l r,,'• nti•, \'- ram' ■:■■■1 _/.' • ir.,-, ■') - �.1 IV:,�I!�yr N �7 •9; lop l i tt ,..� � 'q i■■mix,°00000000000 • '::::ir:I' p• �� t mnu■ o o o o o ■.r .".... •/4 t .61 1 is A .• v M---- '.rs.% n:11lur•1t0 £ \ :/ •v:;j :::;:,r:: '' 0..,,,,•,.ell 'n, :��:..yy.•jj� ■u :if,iiiiirr.ii irrui.l, 000/ ■ \'• ./. • :{$•..::; }$'i''rr'i::ti;;.•,- •SI ,�ls Y. ,''ttA 1 1/■■o■I ■.■rll■■■1 .°•/� ■■r-. '• .f• • :.•,;;:::,::•:: :.• • n':�OCjt.R�13, • �' •A ���� ■uun■•ss. uou•on, s - ., if % n'• 4i:��:::i:ti:::.:: •.r: •:•: �:.��� • ..a � r• iun..■■■.unu .:ur■-.■1' �h{ '' • I s i•'-• :.CIDXV' 1• iro. w.{, 'fir. 1■■■,9±�•1 ■■Ir 1.■■■':A■■ ' .0.'•' �, 1.,•r :.:; : tilt �, { :. '' w MI a-•u■■. T.rr 1• t1.r' --_______ a sac roil:■:. \ :?I a-- . -` \Cam` '••'•'•••�a •t'^+,'r h'y� ita- �••- _ Y� :j 1 ,:g:. . .'§ ��`\\ •r-�•• ••?:'�', • =wit _ ]r __ �+'^ w�.1 • 1 'c •�:.� �1 NI t. 4pIy -- 7 `ft.lL •ii00°0000 • T.ff o0000 o000000000 : -____ . ■uv-.�. . :Yet, 0000000000000r't ---- �7'^- "�i: ' -:'..,-;;;::•.... '. x i ' es Y o0000000000000. __ r e NI C' '�- >00000000000000 ���• = ;" ••••...•.�•••• - �f •OOOOOOOOOOOOO '1- ...A 3'� .� I(�: `•, -1:••�• � • 00000 �.'__ -� �,.. i'i - �'� .. . ______ , ... ofi.- .... • - # a - ---__L___.______---- -6-1---kw. AI beirezt:,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,.:0,;: .., ..,.,,,; ,E., ra ■Nr _ ....-- -- itilt.,.. n'.:.:::.:::i: it •••---. -..---._ -_-_. A inr. r •::. i.• 1.•.•••• -- - _ -! : ! 00 liti 1 • • 11■ r:■■ °000 _ �:7: , 000 :•t iitik ■ I• :- -- - OO---- nu .ai;. a r`■ 1. _ -- ----- 1 ;ms•?!. dor ,:::: u,r 1 __-_ --_--- :::::. te• r} k...•i ,.u•:r....n 117... . v.:r;' • : o`000`o`o• • C. lltu. . r . _ -;t fAlQti1��S11lF• '•r° 0000• 1 :'000000 IS I . II .■■.. ! _ i1 ------ '. ' •°o°000 :•000a000• II ••■. •r1,Ci'% v — lull — 000%0%• ••■■11.. t'�' tt - • _ " °000.-. ' 00000%° ME N Veit rS---S __■■■1 C ; - Mae = . 000°°e • n0000 ° 000000• re"'7•4)J`st r'et.3..`,:•,:o.r,.•.�wiC _- - __ __- -.• r 'r �'Z/ it:'rl 'A 2*AV - rti etil• • r=-=-_ -- - tic ,� • Ell MAUL Ne (____—___:, ,..„::: :___—_______________:___ - oo000°00°00°000•0000 � 4 ::j/vi i}: n:h ....•rn•_■■ . .. -_-_- --- -- i.r l■ '� oeeoeoo ,:.• ���'!✓ u■nun Er - _. `r, -r• •%% oo � -� 0000 II ' ' C ...er",..,, C• - ,,..!i %00000• o000 'Zi4,..s.' •---- © 1 .- '�� •... .•'00000• {}:•iii;::. C.. 0 00000° ` ?.%.. LAND USE ELEMENT pp°°° :: �t '``' • 1 , Single Family Commercial �`;a: t i • •,•1 Love Density : '` Multi-Family .. Office / Office -Park : ih • Ntop Medium Density00000°° °°%%°° Public/Quasi-Public i °%00000 Multi Family .0.00 00 - .00000.,°° °° • •1 • • High Density �a000000 o�, — - Light Industrial .... . . Multi-Family . 5000000000000o0o00a , %0000p00%p°0°pf. Z J °o°o°o°o°o°o°o O • • • •• 0eeOpo0OC°0°0°O z ' Recreation :•:•:• Heavy Industrial c.�.°� � 1 il o� I p0c k • 00C '1 _J 000C i. . ...�` Greenbelt ==___ Manufacturing Park ° e ° / Multiple Option 1 1 1 I I 1:- —I � —I i .0 . REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : ,75C-1)G- i 1 Ei APPROVED E-4 'PROVED WITH CONDITIONS DNOT APPROVED , . Fz.c..___ 0 p--, ia-Eg&.,_A-- A)0 -)— 4--.P, /,‘ 4 v4/c-rj_Dc� , p 1'57 - i ( o---C DATE: — �- SIGNATURE OF DIRECT OR/AUTHORIZED EJ -6 _PRESENTATIVE REVISION 5/1982 Form 182 _ REVIEWING :DEPARTMENT/DIVISION ; foL/ V d)�1/E�or°m&,(?— ErOif VED 0 APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS EINOT APPROVED : --- fiti later-e--aj . (4 ,/°-r-± / • ,�i,_ G<r4-Q • /14 ' 4 0,e11-7 -9 ,A4- - . . A' ÷it----zk, ' (',1 - , ',,91/)„,„....., ci-l• i4--0 Q-9g-. -4/r6rt4,4 fir ' � n/ 8 -i , � dolsi_ei54,t696..,„,s2„, DATE: i / -C,SIGNATURE OF DIRECTOR OR AUTHORD REPRESENTATIVE REVISION 5/1982 Form 182 • REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : APPROVED 0 APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS liIOT APPROVED r �/tL�, v, A-O`1N�i0/XO /a � a 0,t,s%xee,e7.Elm / i F .c7' • i _ .a DATE: /�/,9,*eid 3 7 --( SIGNATURE OF DIRECTOR OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE .'REVIEWING';DEPARTMENT/DIVTON: ✓ �"'�L),, 1 0 APPR`4`VED 1:S"PROVED WITH CONDITIONS NOT APPROVED ' ' '/:/at c.,-;Prie (-4-we'Art-4.>/.- , e..e.,d c/f ."-A.-PX- O---- .5 A./ /6°"--5-/--/1 // 4r • :.: 4 Sr:7/71--- . e:„.14,74-v--- re...-/-ze.,44.--/c1e-kle. :,_ ipl.._„..cle,e.k. C;;W)--1- 1 r" , 2— CersA ::. 3) Poise/ S, ,. nn vsi- 64. pravi c' --( Prelicts At1.' J'Nia) Co . propsc t 40 dt9 °4 P. DQ 4-r'e r- CAI CO l f-,/'try s�k J.c h�, n �� ti5{8d . .. 0 ' R N 1 Q.. ernank- Me ONO may► Krteggew/%04 SerfArNteL thettlEs DATE; ::ISIGNATURE OF DIRECTOR OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE REVISION 5/1982 Form 182 u :REVIEWING. DEPARTMENT/DIVISION ; TRAFFIC ENGINEERING DIVISION •:... DAPPFVED EPPPROVED WITH CONDITIONS El NOT APPROVED • 1 . i )eveloper to promote ridesharing and. Metro Transit usage as a condition -, '.. bf development. Documentation of these efforts are to be provided to . :the C' ErrgiTree r. R.L 1/, 6,0,4-i s D;r,.,zer- 2. Off-site improvement required for SW 16th Street and for East Valley Road. ► .•::.: 3. Development site should be part of an assessment district for • 1' : * transportation improvements that will be required as the area develops. 4. An information center for commuter pool , vanpool and transit is to be ;provided within the building. -"�� �a, z`' �) DATE; � -/:`c ' .' :.SIGNATURE OF DIRECTOR OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE REVISION 5/1982 . Form 182 REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : /1774/Ty /V.//1l4";Ei'//ig" Ei APPROVED El APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS 0 NOT APPROVED needs v,sdv-r'i4 .3::/.....�, CT TO 1 . .. - '1 y -WATER )/ 5 -/�'V 9 /)) P/e%owsi w�,c, �g fc) UM MIMI ISIEEMENT-SEWER f�/Q `l4�9¢2. SYSTEM IETELIPMENT CHARGE-WATER y,� ' ,e)¢/,9p.. ,FT Gf �� 942•z; SYSTEM oEMIOPMENT CHARGE-SEWER 4ES Q.4i/sQ it 2/ gg¢' S60 SPECIAL ASSESSMENT AREA Ci: RGE-WATER NO IF SPECIAL i ;ESSMENT AREA Eibli'.GE-SEWE! mo APPROVE, WATER PIN YC-5� APPAOVEESEWER PLAN Yeses: � 66 o„o -�P AP��,OVE 'IRE HYDRAL:'. ;IOHS eoDLS C ZY FIRE D72T. YC• • to rieS t h. 1LYSr N. '� � i'U - �� r ` t C1 t RJ S - 01 *eel Seguteds/c" /86, � DATE: SIGNATURE OF DIRECTOR OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE REVIEWINLDEPARTMENT/DIVISION : 0API:4MED ' 'et \ , PROVED WITH CONDITIONS - ' ONOT APPROVED j... t. \Ksr-AJ2.ch'air7- G)(1 jyt.ccce _ ap , . pikvlik :k 2‘(3k- 41A-c-g 1,W7V-Ir ICC eVer(t)Q (C50A-1 . . : \ • aitar())4 DATE: SIGNATU 1OF DIRECTOR OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE • REVISION 5/1982 Form 182 REVIEWING. DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : ( APPROVED 0 APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS 0 NOT AP0ROVED . .. , . . A , - DATE: .---:?"--/-7 -, SIGNATURE: OF. DIRECTOR OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE ! REVISION 5/1982 Form 182 ‘., — • . ., • i ... . t • 0 • ti o O BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT i c RONALD G. NELSON - DIRECTOR WI O MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE.SO. RENTON,WASH. 98055 • 235-2540 o9 • 1rED SEPr ���Q BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH MAYOR MEMORANDUM DATE April 3. 1986 TO: " ' Fred. J. Kaufman FRO(` Environmental Review Committee SUBJ►s. VALLEY OFFICE AND INDUSTRIAL PARK PHASE II t FILE NO. SA-017-86/ECF-015-86 LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF EAST VALLEY ROAD AND S.W. 16th STREET The E •vironmental Review Committee (ERC) has analyzed the information submitted by the AL stin Company for Valley Office and Industrial Park. Inc.. for the construction of a four-s Dry 140.000 square foot office building. The Environmental Review Committee finds t 'e following facts to be true of the proposed project: 1. The addition of approximatey 2.000 vehicle trips to the projected 2.000 vehicle trips associated with Phase j construction of Valley Office Park' • II is significant and requires mitigation. This represents approximately a 48 percent increase in traffic loads on both Lind Avenue S.W. and S.W. 16th Street. while there will be a 52 percent increase in traffic volumes on East Valley Road. 2. The addition of approximately 1.000 employees to the existing 2.000 employees in Valley Office Park I and a potential 1.000 employees in Phase 1 of Valley Office Park II significantly creates the need for both year-round on-site recreation and off-site recreation. 5. The applicant has provided detailed plans to provide year-round on-site recreation as part of the entire development of the four-office building complex. Off-site public recreation has not been evaluated, and a master recreation plan is needed for the Valley Industrial Area. 4: The City of Renton must identify area-wide traffic circulation and improvement needs to provide continued public accessibility to individually privately owned properties. Without this formal identification by the City. the general level of service will continue to decline as a result of incremental adverse impacts resulting from private development. • • • • • Fred J. Kaufman • April 2. 1986 Page 2 5. The previous traffic evaluation conducted late in 1984 was based on land use assumptions of a greater percentage of warehouse use and a; lower intensity of office park uses. Actual and potential development is office park in nature and this use generates significantly more traffic in addition to the general shift in type of vehicle trips. As a result. a; revised traffic study is necessary to reflect the changing environmental' circumstances. 6. The City has hired a traffic engineering consultant. CH2M Hill, who will identify the area-wide traffic circulation and improvement needs along with prioritization of those needs for the Valley Industrial Area. That study should be completed within the next 60 calendar days and be available for review by the City Council and the general public. 7. The total anticipated development of all four phases of Valley Office. and Industrial Park, Inc., Phase II, within the general traffic study area represents a known impact of 560.000 square feet of office space and possibly 3,500 employees. This represents approximately a 50 percent increase in the total employment of the study area in 1984. Valley, i` Office and Industrial Park, Inc.. is a major component of the present impacts and the ultimate impacts of full industrial development of the study area. Therefore. Valley Office and Industrial Park must be a significant contributor to the solution. The subject site was filled under previous special permits. The issue of -compensating flood storage is critical to the total functional use of the storm water drainage system of the Valley. The Austin Company representing Valley Office and Industrial Park, Inc.. has recently tenatively committed to the dedication and excavation of the P-1' Channel as a requirement of other special permits for fill and grade. This commitment represents a positive action to resolve the area-wide problem. However it does not appear to be legally binding. The matter must be resolved as either a point in this application or as a written commitment on another application. The most expeditious manner to address the issue would be to provide a deed for the dedication of the P-1 Channel to the City of Renton. Therefore, the Environmental Review Committee (ERC), under their substantive authority [Section 4-2822(D)], recommends to the decision maker. the Hearing Examiner, that the application for site plan approval to allow the construction of one building totaling 140,000 square feet of office space located at 1601 East Valley Road is subject to the following conditions: 1 , Participation in area-wide traffic improvements identified by the pending CH2M Hill study to the project's proportionate share based upon estimated daily traffic generated as calculated by standards established in . the Institute of Traffic Engineers' trip generation manual. The ultimate cost per vehicle trip shall not exceed $270 per trip (estimated 2,000 vehicle trips). • { Y Fred I. Kaufman April 2, 1986 Page. 2. The payment of traffic mitigation fees will be at the time of issuance of the building permit in the form of cash in the amount of $15,000 and a bond in the amount of $270 per estimated vehicle trip based on a rate of 14.3 vehicle trips per 1,000 square feet of gross building area minus $15,000. The bond may be adjusted by the Building Official based upon the final cost per vehicle trip as determined by the CH2M Hill study or as determined by the City Council. The bond shall have an expiration date of five years. However, the intent is that all off-site mitigation shall be completed no later than July 1, 1987. 3. Since the Environmental Review Committee is waiting upon additional information to prioritize the necessary traffic Improvements in the entire Green River Valley Planning Area as determined by the CH2M Hill study and covered by the bond as outlined in condition #2 above, they cannot prioritize at this time specific improvements the developer can accomplish in lieu of actual cash payment of fees. The Environmental Review Committee will provide by September 1. 1986 the developer with a prioritization and a time schedule. 4. The applicant shall provide funds in the amount of $10,000 to complete a master recreation plan for the Green River Valley in lieu of providing • actual off-site public recreation. The funds shall be deposited into a special account at the time of building permit issuance to be utilized by the Parks and Recreation Department to prepare the appropriate recreation master plan. Therefore. the above conditions are necessary as a minimum for the preservation of the welfare and safety of the general public and a minimum to mitigate the adverse environmental impacts of the proposal. Under Section 4-2822(D), the decision maker must accept these conditions as binding upon his uP mate decision unless he identifies in writing a substantial error in fact or conch- ion by the Environmental Review Committee. The decision maker then has the option pf asking the ERC for reconsideration or revising the conditions. The a, ,licant also has the ability to request reconsideration of these conditions from the ERC c appeal these conditions directly to the Hearing Examiner under authority granted in Sec .on 4-2823(A)(1)(a) within 14 days of the date that the DNS is final. Therefore, the appeardate would be Monday. April 7, 1986 at 5 p.m. Appeals must be submitted in the form prescribed by both the Environmental Ordinance of the City of Renton and the Hearing Examiner Ordinance, Section 4-3011(B). RJB:ss. 1081N cc: Valley Office Industrial Park. Inc. William S. Fetterley. AIA 800 S.W. 16th Street 800 S.W. 16th Street Renton, Washington 98055 Renton, Washington 98055 l h 1073N • CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE ENV. ZONMENTAL CHECKLIST NO.: ECF-015-86 APPLICATION NO(s).: SA-017-86 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: Application for site plan approval to allow construction of a four story .office building of 140,000 square feet. PROPONENT: Valley Office and Industrial Park. Inc. (Austin Co.) Phase II • LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: Property located 1601 East Valley Road. LEAD AGENCY: City of Renton, Building and Zoning Department. The lead agency for this proposal 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). This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request. Additional conditions were imposed as mitigating measures by the Environmental Review Committee under their authority of Section 4-2822(D) Renton Municipal Code. Responsible Official: Environmental Review Committee City of Renton 200 Mill Avenue South, Renton, WA 98055 Phone: 235-2550 APPEAL: You may appeal this determination in writing to Renton Hearing Examiner no • later than April 7, 1986. You should be prepared to make specific factual objections. Contact City of Renton, Bui1d' •g and Zoning Department to read or ask about the procedures for SEPA appeals. DATI JOF DECISION: March 19, 1986 • PUBIS CATION DATE: March 24, 1986 rillatAilaiA ronal.d G. Nelson arry M. •! inger Building and Zoning Director Policy Development`irector L'e Richard C. ughton. Public Wor Director 2348Z CITY OF RENTON HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING APRIL 29, 1986 AGENDA COMMENCING AT 9:00 A.M.: COUNCIL CHAMBERS, SECOND FLOOR. RENTON MUNICIPAL BUILDING The applications listed are in order of application number only and not necessarily the order in which they will be heard. Items will be called for hearing at the discretion of the Hearing Examiner. BLAKLEY/DOYLE SHORT PLAT Application for short plat approval to subdivide 0.42 acres of property into two lots (file Short Plat-025-86): property located at 2905-2907 N.E. 7th Street. VALLEY OFFICE AND INDUSTRIAL PARK, INC. (AUSTIN CO.) PHASE II Application for site plan approval to allow the construction of a four story office building of 140.000 square feet (file SA-017-86): property located at 1601 East Valley Road. THE CALLISON PARTNERSHIP, LTD. Application to rezone 15.44 acres of property from H-1, Heavy Industrial. and G-1, General Use, to B-1, Business Use, for future development of "III Renton Place" and to enable zoning compliance for "II Renton Place" (file R-016-86): property located at the southwest corner of South Grady Way and Talbot Road South. RENTI BUILDING & ZONING DEPAVENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET ECF - 015 - 86 APPLICATION NO(S) : SITE PLAN APPROVAL: SA-017-86 PROPONENT : VALLEY OFFICE AND INDUSTRIAL PARK, INC. PROJECT TITLE : VALLEY OFFICE PARK II BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: APPLICATION FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A FOUR-STORY OFFICE BUILDING HAVING 140,000 SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE SPACE WITH PARKING FOR APPROXIMATELY 700 VEHICLES ON A 7 ACRE SITE. LOCATION : LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST INTERSECTION OF EAST VALLEY ROAD AND S.W. 16th STREET. TO: Ell PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SCHEDULED ERC DATE: 3/19/86 El ENGINEERING DIVISION 0 TRAFFIC ENG. DIVISION SCHEDULED HEARING DATE : 0 UTILITIES ENG . DIVISION El FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU iiiiPARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT 0 POLICE DEPARTMENT 0 POLICY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 0 OTHERS : COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITING , PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT BY 5: 00 P .M. ON MARCH 13, 1986 REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : Cr, E] APPROVED APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS ® NOT APPROVED F/6- ---- (0 A-d2, 071-- .10 0 -9---- 4-dv°1,7 u/�7-/4 CdO � . Ste/ ,4..j G s—7-Q,0E— -�� , L_c 4/c,/3_pC .- -- DATE: , `— 79c. SIGNATURE OF DIRECT 0 AUTHORIZED EPRESENTATIVE REVIS!O i 5/1982 rn_- 1 0'] RENT; ] BUILDING & ZONING DEN MENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET CITY OF RENTON ECF - 015 - 86 cEB 28 1986 POLICY APPLICATION NO(S) : SITE PLAN APPROVAL: SA-017-86 D\,FL0PM`f'°T nGpa. PROPONENT: VALLEY OFFICE AND INDUSTRIAL PARK, INC. PROJECT TITLE : VALLEY OFFICE PARK. II BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: APPLICATION FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A FOUR-STORY OFFICE BUILDING HAVING 140,000 SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE SPACE WITH PARKING FOR APPROXIMATELY 700 VEHICLES ON A 7 ACRE SITE. LOCATION : LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST INTERSECTION OF EAST VALLEY ROAD AND, S.W. 16th STREET. TO: 0 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SCHEDULED ERC DATE : 3/19/86 0 ENGINEERING DIVISION El TRAFFIC ENG. DIVISION SCHEDULED HEARING DATE : El UTILITIES ENG , DIVISION fl FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT 0 BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT 0 POLICE DEPARTMENT POLICY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT OTHERS : COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITING, PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT BY 5:00 P.M. ON MARCH 13, 1986 REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : foL/ v d)gkn 4VnE/scT APPROVED 0 APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS ® NOT APPROVED -- :43 ( // /14 46-&'‘ 0,./&*2 Aic - ARA, • 144 ex-e-ese a ?Stei�%` rriJ DATE: 3/i/1 E4 SIGNATURE OF DIRECTOR OR AUTHOR ZED REPRESENTATIVE REVISION 5/1982 Frirrn 182 r>-\\ ,, RENV3UILDING & ZONING DEP® ENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET ECF = 015 - 86 APPLICATION NO(S) : SITE PLAN APPROVAL: SA-017-86 PROPONENT: VALLEY OFFICE AND INDUSTRIAL PARK, INC. PROJECT TITLE : VALLEY OFFICE PARK II BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: APPLICATION FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A FOUR-STORY OFFICE BUILDING HAVING 140,000 SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE SPACE WITH PARKING FOR APPROXIMATELY 700 VEHICLES ON A 7 ACRE SITE. LOCATION : LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST INTERSECTION OF EAST VALLEY ROAD AND S.W. 16th STREET. TO: 0 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SCHEDULED ERC DATE: 3/19/86 LI ENGINEERING DIVISION 0 TRAFFIC ENG. DIVISION SCHEDULED HEARING DATE : El UTILITIES ENG . DIVISION FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT 0 BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT 11 POLICE DEPARTMENT El POLICY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 0 OTHERS : COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITING. PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT BY 5:00 P .M. ON MARCH 13, 1986 REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : fl APPROVED El APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS ErilOT APPROVED o/ /�de/.Cr j�.0a ro At, G ivs i/Zc/e,--E� /ico 7 / -/2E .Z,,l,S�� Z DATE: N. c-A/ 3 /9s-e SIGNATURE OF DIRECTOR OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE REVDSDON 5/1982 r . RENTS BUILDING & ZONING DEIVMENT DEVELOPMENT APPLIOATISfN REVIEW SHEET ECF - 015 - 86 APPLICATION NO(S) : SITE PLAN APPROVAL: SA-017-86 PROPONENT: VALLEY OFFICE AND INDUSTRIAL PARK, INC. PROJECT TITLE : VALLEY OFFICE PARK II BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: APPLICATION FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A FOUR-STORY OFFICE BUILDING HAVING 140,000 SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE SPACE WITH PARKING FOR APPROXIMATELY 700 VEHICLES ON A 7. ACRE SITE. LOCATION : LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST INTERSECTION OF EAST VALLEY .ROAD AND S.W. 16th STREET. TO : El PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SCHEDULED ERC DATE: 3/19/86 1: ENGINEERING DIVISION TRAFFIC ENG. DIVISION SCHEDULED HEARING DATE : ri UTILITIES ENG . DIVISION 0 FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT 0 BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT El POLICE DEPARTMENT :: . El POLICY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 0 OTHERS : COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITING. PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT BY 5:00 P.M. ON MARCH 13, 1986 REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : El APPROVED erqPPROVED WITH CONDITIONS El NOT APPROVED i-ia\--,---, Coaj-yLks..-k-ice . ac..__. PkAgt" &� ,UKX 1wA-C{r I U( er L aSu - FklaDATE: ) �I U�°SIGNATE OF DIRECTOR OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE REVISION 5/1982 RENT_'_ BUILDING &. ZONING DEP(`�,MENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET ECF — O15 — 86 ' APPLICATION NO(S) : SITE PLAN APPROVAL: SA-017-86 • PROPONENT : VALLEY OFFICE AND INDUSTRIAL PARK, INC. PROJECT TITLE : VALLEY OFFICE PARK. II .BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: APPLICATION FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A FOUR-STORY OFFICE BUILDING HAVING 140,000 SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE SPACE WITH PARKING FOR APPROXIMATELY 700 VEHICLES ON A 7. ACRE SITE. LOCATION : LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST INTERSECTION OF EAST VALLEY ROAD AND S.W. 16th STREET. • .TO: "... • 0 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SCHEDULED ERC DATE: 3/19/86 El ENGINEERING DIVISION TRAFFIC ENG. DIVISION . SCHEDULED HEARING DATE : ® UTILITIES ENG , DIVISION • . 0 FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU . PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT ❑ BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT • SPOLICE DEPARTMENT • POLICY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT ® OTHERS : COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITING, PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT .BY 5:00 P .M. ON MARCH 13, 1986 ;;;;;;; DE _-_E, PARTMENT/DIVISION :. APPROVED LI .APPROVED- WITH CONDITIONS 0 NOT APPROVED <-- c/ DATE: SIGNATURE OF DIRECTOR OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE REVISION 5/1982 y . . RENT,. BUILDING & ZONING DEPN. r�MENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET .EC F - 015 - 86 APPLICATION NO(S) : SITE PLAN APPROVAL: SA-017-86 :PROPONENT: VALLEY OFFICE AND INDUSTRIAL PARK, INC. , •PROJECT TITLE : VALLEY OFFICE PARK II ' :BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: APPLICATION FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR THE CONSTRUCTION ':. OF A FOUR-STORY OFFICE BUILDING HAVING 140,000 SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE SPACE WITH PARKING FOR APPROXIMATELY 700 VEHICLES ON A 7 ACRE SITE. LOCATION : LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST INTERSECTION OF EAST VALLEY ROAD AND S.W. 16th STREET. PTO: ...- El PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SCHEDULED ERC DATE: 3/19/86 0 ENGINEERING DIVISION 0 TRAFFIC ENG. DIVISION SCHEDULED HEARING DATE: DUTILITIES ENG . DIVISION El FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT El POLICE DEPARTMENT `: Ei POLICY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT : 0 OTHERS : :COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED SIN WRITING . PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT ::.BY 5:00 P.M. ON MARCH 13, 1986 :REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : LI APPROVED Et APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS 0 NOT APPROVED , ,�� o- SG./ /6°'57z-7 Efii- e a) s ram , --/cle-71 0,.- . ' : Cik(7)er / 3/f 6 ‘ .. 3) r► ®act g, F, 91F revs+ P¢, provicaul ib etanats ba-Fuw ea Dom,�. c° e t RAJ kio � .�, d ilirM30 ( pc-scut 40 ',;I-b, 64,a= - pi Cl&etteN-44 91.-___ , cjo ► rol . 4-rehst. TrAp cat Ind Azzodi abizikt DATE: - SIGNATURE OF DIRECTOR OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE 11 REVISION 5/1982 Form 182 :r' REN41, ~`BUILDING ZONING DEP�I .. MENT t� DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET e` i. 11. ::•tCF — 015 — 86 'APPL I CATION NO(S) :, SITE PLAN APPROVAL: SA-017-86 rt, :::P:ROPONENT: VALLEY OFFICE AND INDUSTRIAL PARK, INC. :. :::PROJECT TITLE : VALLEY OFFICE PARK II Sq $RIFF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: APPLICATION FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A FOUR—STORY OFFICE BUILDING HAVING 140,000 SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE SPACE WITH PARKING !'', : FOR APPROXIMATELY 700 VEHICLES ON A 7 ACRE SITE,. LOCATION : LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST INTERSECTION OF EAST VALLEY ROAD AND S.W. 16th STREET. i :: -o: : ` PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SCHEDULED ERC DATE: 3/19/86 ' 0 ENGINEERING DIVISION .4r ; :.::: TRAFFIC ENG. DIVISION SCHEDULED HEARING DATE: i.i :::: IIUTILITIES ENG . DIVISION "!i : ; ❑ FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU il ' 1:1 PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT 'Al ::; ❑ BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT ..0 ❑ POLICE DEPARTMENT ,ci Ij El POLICY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT ': : 0 OTHERS : ,.1 . 11 .40MMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS . APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED .411 WRITING. PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT + :$Y 5:00 P .M. ON MARCH 13, 1986 l , . , •:REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION': TRAFFIC ENGINEERING DIVISION .,,, i li l :• : 0 APPROVED 111 APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS 1::::1NOT APPROVED ':; 1 : :: 1 . Developer to promote ridesharing and Metro Transit usage as a condition of development. Documentation of these efforts are to be provided to . the E' r. AWL L0-4-44 ,6rcc44— , "II: 2. Off-site improvement required for SW 16th Street and for East Valley ;1! Road. {17 : 3. Development site should be part of an assessment district for 6`I ::: transportation improvements that will be required as the area develops. 1:11z °4 -'::' 4. An information center for commuter pool , vanpool and transit is to be provided within the building. C .-4 --.-- DATE: -//%� ?:::..:SIGNATURE OF DIRECTOR OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE REVISION 5/1982 Form 182 RENT ' BUILDING & ZONING DEPte IOAENT . a DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET ECF - 015 - 86 APPLICATION NO(S) : SITE PLAN APPROVAL: SA-017-86 PROPONENT : VALLEY OFFICE AND INDUSTRIAL PARK, INC. . PROJECT TITLE : VALLEY OFFICE PARK II BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: APPLICATION FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A FOUR-STORY OFFICE BUILDING HAVING 140,000 SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE SPACE WITH PARKING FOR APPROXIMATELY 700 VEHICLES ON A 7 ACRE SITE. LOCATION : LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST INTERSECTION OF EAST VALLEY ROAD AND S.W. 16th STREET. ' TO : E.] PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SCHEDULED ERC DATE: 3/19/86 . El ENGINEERING DIVISION 0 TRAFFIC ENG. DIVISION SCHEDULED HEARING DATE : /' UTILITIES ENG . DIVISION El FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU El PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT El POLICE DEPARTMENT POLICY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 0 OTHERS : COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITING . PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT BY 5: 00 P .M. ON MARCH 13, 1986 REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : (T/L/Ty /VC/A/A,Eie//1le- ® APPROVED 0 APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS 0 NOT APPROVED *Ketch GvAr _ :i' al. SUBJECT TO ._ T ENT-WATER / /q !ed. pichous(i wile, p( e) P.Co,9 - tilvi t LATE COM MIEN-SEWER SYSTEM DE PI ENT CHARGE-WATER yoesND / I /©i`,14'X SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE-SEWER ,y,Es 0Q.i11/ fT Sao SPECIAL ASSESSMENT AREA CHARGE-WATER N 24 e84t• t SPECIAL ASSESSMENT AREA CHARGE-SEWER NO APPROVED WATER PLAN Ye-5 APPROVED SEWER PLAN Y_ C� ` 045-: APPROVED FIRE WORM .`gATIONS eovcS Ow A'or 6tg °"0 -a BY FIRE DER Ye OF rU vis 14-7-1) 77= - ? Gewalt:7V)' ' :ili �i QarvcaDCS DATE: l0 /69�- NATURE OF D RECTOR OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE REVISION 5/1982 vA,-.,, 1 a o RONMENTAL CHECKLIST REVIEW REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: -F)1 .. P .�1 V1)TI��J :`�-� )11 DATE CIRCULATED: FEBRUARY 28, 1986 COMMENTS DU , t- MARCH 13 198161 ECF - 015 - 86 v 1 APPLICATION NO(s). SITE PLAN APPROVAL: SA-017-86 PROPONENT: VALLEY OFFICE AND INDUSTRIAL PARK, INC. PROJECT TITLE: VALLEY OFFICE PARK II LE B 2 8 108Q BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: APPLICATION FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR-THE CONSTRUCT];ON OF A FOUR-STORY OFFICE BUILDING HAVING 140,000 SOUARE FEET OF OFFICE SPACE WITH PARKING FOR APPROXIMATELY 700 VEHICLES ON A 7 ACRE SITE. LOCATION: LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST INTERSECTION OF EAST VALLEY ROAD AND S.W. 16th STREET. SITE AREA: 7,0 ACRES BUILDING AREA (gross): 140,000 SQUARF FFFT IMPACT REVIEW ON ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS MINOR MAJOR MORE IMPACT IMPACT INFORMATION 1) Earth 2) Air 3) Water 4) Plants 5) Animals 6) Energy and Natural Resources 7) Environmental Health, 8) Land and Shoreline Use 9) Housing 10) Aesthetics 11) Light and Glare 12) Recreation 13) Historic and Cultural Preservation 14) Transportation 15) Public Services C/ _ 16) Utilities COMMENTS: • • RECOMMENDATION: DNS Q MITIGATED DNS Q EIS REVIEWED BY: .4:6E.c/ `' do,rmaa../' TITLE: �/,e4g= "!atsAr�C DATE: /fi9fC,4( 3, /y'JC' FORM #14 REVISED 9/10/85 OF R A,A t ,s 1701, ° BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT VP L z ""ale RONALD G. NELSON - DIRECTOR p9 MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON,WASH.98055 • 235-2540 co AO �Q 9�TED SEP'�EMO BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH MAYOR April 23, 1986 Bill Fetterley Valley Office and Industrial Park 800 S.W. 16th Street Renton, Washington 98055 Re: SITE APPROVAL APPLICATION FOR PHASE II OF THE VALLEY OFFICE AND INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX, FILE SA-017-86: PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF EAST VALLEY ROAD AND S.W. 16th STREET Dear Mr. Fetterley: The City of Renton Building and Zoning Department formally accepted the above mentioned application on February 24, 1986. A public hearing before the City of Renton Land Use Hearing Examiner has been scheduled for April 29, 1986. The public hearing commences at 9:00 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the second floor of City Hall. The applicant or representative(s) of the applicant is required to be present at the public hearing. A copy of the staff report will be mailed to you before the hearing. If you have any questions, please call the Building and Zoning Department at 235-2550. -- `Sincerely, � _=(?0-16-dr,9.-"Fcel Roger J. Blaylock Zoning Administrator RJB:JMM:ss 2357Z - 1 2346Z 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 29, 1986, AT 9:00 A.M. TO CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING PETITIONS: VALLEY OFFICE AND INDUSTRIAL PARK, INC. (AUSTIN CO.) PHASE II Application for site plan approval to allow the construction of a four story office building of 140,000 square feet (file SA-017-86); property located at 1601 East Valley Road. THE CALLISON PARTNERSHIP. LTD. Application to rezone 15.44 acres of property from H-1, Heavy Industrial to B-1, Business Use, for future development of "III Renton Place" and to enable zoning compliance for "II Renton Place" (file R-016-86); property located at the southwest corner of South Grady Way and Talbot Road South. Legal descriptions of the files noted above are on file in the Renton Building and Zoning Department. ALL INTERESTED PERSONS TO SAID PETITIONS ARE INVITED TO BE PRESENT AT THE PUBLIC HEARING ON APRIL 29, 1986, AT 9:00 A.M. TO EXPRESS THEIR OPINIONS. PUBLISHED : April 18, 1986 Ronald G. Nelson Building and Zoning Director CERTIFICATION I. JEANETTE SAMEK-MC KAGUE, HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THREE COPIES OF THE ABOVE..:.DOCUMENT__WERE_P,OST.ED,BY_ME-_IN.TF "f,,? 17—,,JOUS-PLACES ON--- .---- THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED ABOVE AS PRESCRIBED BY LAW. ATTEST: Subscribed and sworn to before me, a Notary Public, in and for the State of Washington residing in 6vi o on the a?o day of April, 1986. Q ae_e SIGNE ._ Afiyme L- 1 - - OF 1?4, NOTICE 0 ,EosE„,, City of RentOn Land. Use Hearing Examiner will hold a '‘ PUBLIC ,.HEARING, • • . CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS , CITY HALL -ON APRIL 26: 198E. .;. • BEGINNING AT -9:00 A.M. _ P.M. Th CONCERNING: VALLEY CTFICE' 8. INDUSTRIAL PARK, INC. • AUSTIN: COMPANY PHASE II REZONE From • • To 7_ , SPgPIALIQ0NDITIONAL USE :PERMIT 'TO TO ALLOW THE. CONSTRUCTION OF A. 4 STORY OFFICE rxISITE APPROVAL BLDG'. OF 140,000. SQ. FT. :FILE SA- 017-86 1 SHORT. PLAT/SUBDIVISION 'of • •• Lots [I] PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT' El VARIANCE PROM . . • GENERAL LOCATION AND/OR ADDRESS: . 1601 EAST VALLEY ROAD LEGAL DESCRIPTION ON FILE IN THE RENTON BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT. ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION SIGNIFICANT EI NON-SIGNIFICANT FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CALL THE CITY OF RENTON • BUILDING&.*ONING DEPARTMENT 235-2550 Mona •NOTICE NOT, TO BE REMOVED WITHOUT ' PROPER AUTHORIZATION • 4,r • THE AUSTIN 800 SOUTHWEST 16TH ST, RENTON, WA 98055 COMPANYPHONE: 206/226-8800 TELEX: 910.423.0882 DESIGNERS • ENGINEERS • BUILDERS 223-01 AU-ST-IC-T377N3 April 7 , 1986 Cg�g'g,; 1^ RE,N ON ,., 11 mr5 � ➢4 1 el r WI 3 APR 7 1986 Hearing Examiner City of Renton 200 Mill Ave. S. Renton, WA 98055 Attention: Fred J. Kaufman Reference: Valley Office and Industrial Park Phase II File No. SA-017-86/ECF-015-86 Located on the Southwest Corner of East Valley Road and S.W. 16th Street - W.O. 86-5371 Dear Mr . Kaufman: There are three elements of the Environmental Review Committee' s investigation and recommendations which we believe warrant your close review. First of all , it appears that a major consideration of the mitigation for this project is by virtue of already existing projects . To burden future investments in development with after-the-fact considerations such as those pointed out in "facts" numbers one (1) and two (2) , I do not believe is the intent of the City. It is our hope that this project will be reviewed on its own merits and impact . If we are to review the entire four building complex at one time I would like to propose that the necessity for future "Site Approvals" be dropped . Secondly our understanding of traffic mitigation based on a comparison with the Orillia Properties Limited project provided us with a projected mitigation amount considerably less than that proposed in recommendations one and two. I understand the City' s evaluation amount being established as 150% of the anticipated amount per vehicle trip. We believe that this should be noted in these findings and perhaps in the stipulations of the bond itself. f^I CM OF R. giI°N ti n p R 7 1986 Hearing Examiner _ � April 7, 1986 Page 2 r.. . It is also our contention that the mitigation for traffic impacts should be figured on a basis of useable office area and that a "general" office rate of 12 . 3 vehicle trips per 1000 sq. ft. be figured (this is a recognized standard) . This should result in a truer vehicle trip rate for structures , such as this, where the working population is for the most part, stationary throughout the work day. The third concern we would like to express is over the mitigation for "recreation" . The Austin Company and our associate companies recognize the need for the valley land owners to participate in the very real need for a recreational enhancement of the developing areas. Our objections are more to the lack of identification of the process of mitigation early enough to plan for these costs in our development proposals . The City, I am sure , realizes that the development community depends upon it for assistance in planning the feasibility of projects . A very real part of the feasibility of any project is the early identification of development costs. The costs associated with recreation mitigation were not identified in time for their being included in our feasibility studies . We appreciate your consideration of the above noted items. It is our hope that your review will not necessitate any delays and are looking forward to a hearing date of April 22 or April 29, 1986. Should you have any questions or concerns about our comments please don' t hesitate to contact me. Sin�erel , Wm. tewart erley IA Project Architect WSF/ddl cc : Roger Blaylock ink OF R4, $ ice ° BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT — o RONALD G. NELSON — DIRECTOR MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, WASH. 98055 • 235-2540 90 co• o9�rFD sEPjE,fg) BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH MAYOR MEMORANDUM DATE: April 3, 1986 TO: Fred. J. Kaufman FROM: Environmental Review Committee SUBJECT: VALLEY OFFICE AND INDUSTRIAL PARK PHASE II FILE NO. SA-017-86/ECF-015-86 LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF EAST VALLEY ROAD AND S.W. 16th STREET The Environmental Review Committee (ERC) has analyzed the information submitted by the Austin Company for Valley Office and Industrial Park. Inc.. for the construction of a four-story 140,000 square foot office building. The Environmental Review Committee finds the following facts to be true of the proposed project: 1. The addition of approximatey 2,000 vehicle trips to the projected 2,000 vehicle trips associated with Phase I construction of Valley Office Park- II is significant and requires mitigation. This represents approximately a 48 percent increase in traffic loads on both Lind Avenue S.W. and S.W. 16th Street, while there will be a 52 percent increase in traffic volumes on East Valley Road. 2. The addition of approximately 1,000 employees to the existing 2,000 employees in Valley Office Park I and a potential 1,000 employees in Phase 1 of Valley Office Park II significantly creates the need for both year-round on-site recreation and off-site recreation. 3. The applicant has provided detailed plans to provide year-round on-site recreation as part of the entire development of the four-office building complex. Off-site public recreation has not been evaluated, and a master recreation plan is needed for the Valley Industrial Area. 4. The City of Renton must identify area-wide traffic circulation and improvement needs to provide continued public accessibility to individually privately owned properties. Without this formal identification by the City, the general level of service will continue to decline as a result of incremental adverse impacts resulting from private development. 0 • . Fred J. Kaufman April 2, 1986 Page 2 5. The previous traffic evaluation conducted late in 1984 was based on land use assumptions of a greater percentage of warehouse use and a lower intensity of office park uses. Actual and potential development is office park in nature and this use generates significantly more traffic in addition to the general shift in type of vehicle trips. As a result, a revised traffic study is necessary to reflect the changing environmental circumstances. 6. The City has hired a traffic engineering consultant, CH2M Hill, who will identify the area-wide traffic circulation and improvement needs . along with prioritization of those needs for the Valley Industrial Area. That study should be completed within the next 60 calendar days and be available for review by the City Council and the general public. 7. The total anticipated development of all four phases of Valley Office and Industrial Park, Inc., Phase II, within the general traffic study area represents a known impact of 560,000 square feet of office space and possibly 3,500 employees. This represents approximately a 50 percent increase in the total employment of the study area in 1984. Valley Office and Industrial Park, Inc., is a major component of the present impacts and the ultimate impacts of full industrial development of the study area. Therefore, Valley Office and Industrial Park must be a significant contributor to the solution. 8. The subject site was filled under previous special permits. The issue of compensating flood storage is critical to the total functional use of the storm water drainage system of the Valley. The Austin Company representing Valley Office and Industrial Park, Inc., has recently tenatively committed to the dedication and excavation of the P-1 Channel as a requirement of other special permits for fill and grade. This commitment represents a positive action to resolve the area-wide problem. However it does not appear to be legally binding. The matter must be resolved as either a point in this application or as a written commitment on another application. The most expeditious manner to address the issue would be to provide a deed for the dedication of the P-1 Channel to the City of Renton. Therefore, the Environmental Review Committee (ERC). under their substantive authority [Section 4-2822(D)], recommends to the decision maker, the Hearing Examiner, that the application for site plan approval to allow the construction of one building totaling 140,000 square feet of office space located at 1601 East Valley Road is subject to the following conditions: 1. Participation in area-wide traffic improvements identified by the pending CH2M Hill study to the project's proportionate share based upon estimated daily traffic generated as calculated by standards established in the Institute of Traffic Engineers' trip generation manual. The ultimate cost per vehicle trip shall not exceed $270 per trip (estimated 2,000 vehicle trips). 'Fred J. • • Kaufman April 2. 1986 Page 3 2. The payment of traffic mitigation fees will be at the time of issuance of the building permit in the form of cash in the amount of $15,000 and a bond in the amount of $270 per estimated vehicle trip based on a rate of 14.3 vehicle trips per 1.000 square feet of gross building area minus $15.000. The bond may be adjusted by the Building Official based upon the final cost per vehicle trip as determined by the CH2M Hill study or as determined by the City Council. The bond shall have an expiration date of five years. However, the intent is that all off-site mitigation shall be completed no later than July 1, 1987. 3. Since the Environmental Review Committee is waiting upon additional information to prioritize the necessary traffic improvements in the entire Green River Valley Planning Area as determined by the CH2M Hill study and covered by the bond as outlined in condition #2 above, they cannot prioritize at this time specific improvements the developer can accomplish in lieu of actual cash payment of fees. The Environmental Review Committee will provide by September 1, 1986 the developer with a prioritization and a time schedule. 4. The applicant shall provide funds in the amount•of $10,000 to complete a master recreation plan for the Green River Valley in lieu of providing actual off-site public recreation. The funds shall be deposited into a special account at the time of building permit issuance to be utilized by the Parks and Recreation Department to prepare the appropriate recreation master plan. Therefore, the above conditions are necessary as a minimum for the preservation of the welfare and safety of the general public and a minimum to mitigate the adverse environmental impacts of the proposal. Under Section 4-2822(D), the decision maker must accept these conditions as binding upon his ultimate decision unless he identifies in writing a substantial error in fact or conclusion by the Environmental Review Committee. The decision maker then has the option of asking the ERC for reconsideration or revising the conditions. The applicant also has the ability to request reconsideration of these conditions from the ERC or appeal these conditions directly to the Hearing Examiner under authority granted in Section 4-2823(A)(1)(a) within 14 days of the date that the DNS is final. Therefore, the appeal date would be Monday, April 7, 1986 at 5 p.m. Appeals must be submitted in the form prescribed by both the Environmental Ordinance of the City of Renton and the Hearing Examiner Ordinance, Section 4-3011(B). RJB:ss 1081N cc: Valley Office Industrial Park. Inc. William S. Fetterley, AIA 800 S.W. 16th Street 800 S.W. 16th Street Renton, Washington 98055 Renton, Washington 98055 r. (:STY OF RENTO FILENO(S): 5 = 1�- to ,,,,,., ot:, BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMEI ( ' .#‘.Nrco MASTER APPLICATION NOTE TO APPLICANT: Since this is a comprehensive application form, only those Items related to your specific type of application(s) ore to be completed. (Pleose print or type. Attach additional sheets if-necessary.) APPLICANT I I TYPE OF APPLICATION NAME FEES Valley Office & Industrial Park, Inc. 0 REZONE*(FROM TO ) ADDRESS 800 S.W. 16th Street . 0 SPECIAL PERMIT* CITY ZIp IJ ER TEMPORARY PMIT* Renton, WA 98055 D CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT* TELEPHONE EMI SITE PLAN APPROVAL $300+$35 = T 335 Q (206) 226-8800 SPECIAL PERMIT FOR GRADE AND FILL No. of Cubic Yards: CONTACT PERSON • 0 . VARIANCE* . From Section: NAME • * .Justification Required Wm. Stewart Fetterley, AIA ADDRESS • ' SUBDIVISIONS: • 800 S.W. 16th Street 0 SHORT PLAT CITY ZIP 0 TENTATIVE PLAT Renton, WA 98055 0 PRELIMINARY PLAT TELEPHONE 0 FINAL PLAT (206) 226-8800 CD WAIVER (Justification Required) OWNER NO. OF LOTS: NAME PLAT NAME: Valley Office & Industrial Park, Inc. . ADDRESS PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT: _ 800 S.W. 16th Street 0 PRELIMINARY CITY ZIP 0 FINAL Renton, WA 98055 ' P.U.D. NAME: TELEPHONE (206) 226-8800 0 Residential 0 Industrial 0 Commercial n Mixed LOCATION MOBILE HOME PARKS: PROPERTY ADDRESS. *Southeast of intersection of t S.W. 16th St. & Lind Ave. S.W. 0 TENTATIVE EXISTING USE PRESENT ZONING a PRELIMINARY ra FINAL Vacant 11-1 & L-1 PROPOSED USE PARK NAME: Office Structure NUMBER OF SPACES: ENVIRONMENTAL ENM'R�V GOMAITTEE $ 740 SQ. FT. ACRES AREA: 304,920 SF I 7.0 Acres TOTAL FEES $1 i0m ® STAFF USE ONLY -- ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESSING DATE•STA Lo MP,. IV OF RE SOW _ APPLICATION RECEIVED BY: •— 1 - vp i p n APPLICATION DETERMINED TO BE: �'1 i ' Accepted Lb F E B 2 41986 0 Incomplete Notification Sent On ' f 1 BY: (I ttials) ' ADDITIONAL MATERIAL RECEIVED BY: .DATEkf�IED�vi=�s�: �u tJ�+-T. APPLICATION DETERMINED TO BE: '-ZJ a Accepted 0 Incomplete Notification Sent On • By: (Initials) ROUTED TO: igt Building I1 Design Eng. [50Fire PR3 Parks tgi Police Eli Policy Dev. an Traffic Eng. ® Utilities ,,,,,,r'rr 1 ,1 n A Legal description of property (If more space is required, attach a separate sheet). Lot 4, City of Renton Short Plat No. 022-085, also known as "Valley Office ;& Industrial Park Subdivision No. 2", King County Recording No. 8507169002, Volume 45, 190 & 190A, with that portion of Lots 8, 9, 10,:49, 50 and 51 in vacated Block 19 of C_D. Hillman 's _Farlington Gardens Aririitinn to the ('itylnf Seattle, Division No. 1 , as perrplat recorded in Volume 17 of Plats, on Page 74, records of King County. lying West of Fast Valley Frontage Road, as conveyed to the State of Washington by deed recorded under Recording No. 5442597; TOGETHER WITH that portion of vacated Harriman Avenue adjoining, .which, upon vacation, attached to said property by operation of'law. (For a sketch of ,suhie('t property. sPP Fxhihit "A", attarhPrl hPretn anti try Chic rpfprpnrp mars a part hereof. ) AFFIDAVIT I, Wm. Stewart Eetterl ey , being duly sworn, declare that I am ®authorized representative to act for the property owner,Downer of the property involved In this application and that the foregoing statements and answers herein contained anlid the Information herewith submitted are in all respects true and correct to the best of my knowledge and-belief. . SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME THIS ' 24th DAY OF February , 19 85 . NOTARY PUBLIC IN AND FOR THE STATE. OF •. WASHINGTON, RESIDING AT Seattle, Washy ton . Jack E. Poltz d4150 // (Name of Notary Public) 15(1Wilateka40 0i i)X Owner's Re resentative My Commission Expires March 31 , 1988. 3921 S.W. Barton Street Seattle, WA 98136 800 S.W. 16th Street (Address) • • (Address) . Renton, WA 980 i5 J (City) (State) (Zip) (206) 226-8800 (Telephone) Acceptance of this application and required filing fee does not constitute a complete application. Plans and other materials required to constitute a complete application are listed in the "Application Procedure." Form #174 FORM 115 NOTICE ENVIRONMENTAL` ,t. L E (AUSTIN CO, ) APPLICATION NO. ECF-015-86 VALLEY OFFICE R INDUSTRIAL PARK PHASE II PROPOSED ACTION APPI ICATION FOR SITE PI AN APPROVAL TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A 4 STORY OFFICE BUILDING OF 140,000 SQUARE FEET (FILE SA-017-86) GENERAL LOCATION AND OR ADDRESS PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1601 EAST VALLEY ROAD POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION. THE CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE C E.R.C.S HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED ACTION DDOES ®ODES NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT DWILL ffWILL NOT BE REQUIRED. THE CITY OF RENTON WILL NOT ACT Ohl THIS PROPOSAL FOR 1S DAYS FROM THE DATE BELOW. COMMENTS MUST BE RECEIVED BY APR T I 7 . PRE AN APPEAL OF THE ABOVE DETERMINATION MAY BE FILED WITH THE R NTON HEARING EXAMINER BY 5:00 P.M., APRIL 7, 198E FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT THE CITY OF RENTON BUILDING . ZONING DEPARTMENT 235-2550 DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE WITHOUT PROPER. AUTHORIZATION 4D Richard Carothers Associates March 18, 1986 Mr. Bill Fetterley, Architect CITY OF raNTO@N9 THE AUSTIN COMPANY 7 (I qrmN 800 SW 16th Street p' i Renton, WA 98055 wh`! MAR 2 5 1986 • Re: Phase One Planting. Boeing Computer Services Office Facility L Renton, WA RCA Job No. 8606 Dear Bill : • This letter is written to reconfirm our position concerning specific site planting issues which we feel are necessary to be implemented for the ultimate success and curb appeal of the above mentioned project. The revised Site Planting Plan dated March 18, 1986, promotes the use of both sodded lawn and shrub beds as a ground-plane between the outside perimeter edges of the parking lot and the city street curbline. This will promote not only a strong "green" lawn edge but will also provide for a low, 3 foot high shrub buffer on top of the earth berms to visually screen out cars along the perimeter edges of the parking lot. We have utilized the same concept in Phase Two. We would also recommend that all planting for the Phase One project be completed as soon as possible with the exception of the Pin Oaks, Red Maple, Armstrong Maple, Flowering Cherry and Styrax. All of the trees named above should not be planted until late fall of 1986 to complete both Phase One and Phase Two simultaneously. If you have any questions, please contact our office. Best Regards, RICHARD CAROTHERS ASSOCIATES Henry Boyar, ASLA V.P. Design HB/lu cc: File Land & Site Planning/Civil & Utilities Design/Landscape Architecture Eight Fourteen East Pike Street, Seattle, Washington 98122 Telephone (206) 324-5500 YIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST REVIEW S 1 REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: l>b)(;) ICJ e 1\C 106 DATE CIRCULATED: FEBRUARY 28, 1986 COMMENTS DUE:. MARCH 13, 1986 ECF - 015 - 86 APPLICATION NO(s). SITE PLAN APPROVAL: SA-017-86 PROPONENT: VALLEY OFFICE AND INDUSTRIAL PARK, INC. PROJECT TITLE: VALLEY OFFICE PARK II BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: APPLICATION FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A FOUR-STORY OFFICE BUILDING HAVING 140,000 SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE SPACE WITH PARKINf FOR APPROXIMATELY 700' VEHICLES ON A 7 ACRE SITE. LOCATION: LOCATED AT THE SOUTHW,EST INTERSECTION OF EAST VALLEY ROAD AND S.W. 1.6th STREET. SITE AREA: 7.0 ACRES BUILDING AREA (gross): 140,000 SQUARE FEET IMPACT REVIEW ON ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS MINOR MAJOR MORE IMPACT IMPACT INFORMATION 1) Earth ✓ 2) Air L✓ 3) Water ✓ 4) Plants t� 5) Animals 6) Energy and Natural Resources 7) Environmental Health 8) Land and Shoreline Use ✓ 9) Housing 10) Aesthetics 1.✓ 11) Light and Glare 12) Recreation 13) Historic and Cultural Preservation ✓ 14) Transportation ✓ 15) Public Services 16) Utilities COMMENTS: Fro v i cee cGc • iruyik CoAve"J‘ie043 -;lo® YVl vSci pro Jt c ieel a� P 4-`^ . v . �rpocfs`j 763 d4 a -- scs R2/u,, s Gam, I J 274_ c\lrccnyt kweJ ( v pro, d, gl . r-rGtp d/Ny ; ,/pG vGt e P 4-or. cli_sc , Cvey S aL I 44, RECOMMENDATION: jm DNS Q MITIGATED DNS Q EIS REVIEWED BY: '��/�tL �1�..., !� _ TITLE: i DATE: 3 /VcP FORM #14 REVISED 9/10/85 1071N NOTICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE RENTON, WASHINGTON The Environmental Review Committee (ERC) has issued a declaration of non-significance for the following projects: ANMAR CO. (BLDG #3531) • Application to renew grading license AnMar Co. (Gary Merlino Construction Co.). Property located 3401 N.E. Fourth Street. Letter attached regarding reconsideration of number of truck trips. BARTEL AND ASSOCIATES (ECF-018-86) Application to rezone 1.44 acres from R-3 to B-1 for office use (file R-019-86). Property located at northeast corner of N.E. Sunset Blvd. and Anacortes Avenue N.E. The Environmental Review Committee (ERC) has issued a declaration of non-significance for the following projects with additional conditions imposed as mitigating measures under their authority of Section 4-2822(D) of the Renton Municipal Code: VALLEY OFFICE AND INDUSTRIAL PARK, INC. (AUSTIN CO.) PHASE II (ECF-015-86) Application for site plan approval to allow construction of a four story office building of 140,000 square feet (file SA-017-86). Property located 1601 East Valley Road. Further information regarding this action is available in the Building and Zoning Department, Municipal Building, Renton, Washington, 235-2550. Any appeal of ERC action must be filed with the Renton Hearing Examiner by April 7, 1986. Published: March 24, 1986 Y t 41) OF RA, � ECF: tt.C.)F-.0 I5 :46 LU: SAS- Ot7-86 6"f p i City of Renton solL 0o 9$ ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 44rED SEPO. 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 allproposals with probable 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 asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Governmental agencies use this checklist to determine .whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant, requiring preparation of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise information 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 will 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 Nonproject 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). 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 read as "proposal" "proposer," and "affected geographic area," respectively. A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: Valley Office Park II 2. Name of applicant: Valley Office & Industrial Park, Inc. 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: 800 S.W. 16th Street Renton, WA 98055 Contact: Bill Fetterley 4. Date checklist prepared: February 10, 1986 (Updated) S. Agency requesting checklist: Building & Zoning 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): We would like to begin construction by April 1, 1986. Calf PiFop - F E B 2 41986 '= . BUILDING/ZONING DEPT. __ a S 7. Do you have any pt _ 'for future additions. expansions. _irther activity related r 4 to or connected with this proposal? if yes. explain. Yes, phased development of two additional buildings (schedule unknown) . 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared. or will be prepared. directly related to this proposal. The subject site has been previously studied prior to the fill activities in 1980. 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 pending. i 10. List any governmental approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal. If known. Site Plan approval; Building Permits. 11. Give brief. complete description of your proposal. including the proposed uses and • the size of the project and site. There are several 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. Construct 140,000 sq. ft. 4-story office building. • 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 I,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. Please refer to the attached site and area plans. - B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. EARTH - I a. ' General description of the site (circle one): 40 rolling. hilly. steep slopes, mountainous. other b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? 4% slope c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, caly. sand. gravel, peat. muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils. specify them and note any prime farmland. The site is a combination of fill , clay-like soils over silty loam. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. Yes -- peat and organic soils. - 2 - a. Describe th,_- irpose, type. and approximate qt .',ties of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. Material will be brought onto this site to provide suitable base for floor slabs, walks, and parking surfaces. Source unknown. Note: Please ref. City of Renton Permit No. SP-025-85. f- Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. Erosion is very unlikely. g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example. asphalt or buildings)? 70%-80% h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion. or other impacts to the earth, if any: None A 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. During Construction -- construction traffic. Upon Completion -- occasional delivery and passenger vehicles b. . Are there any off-site sources oft emission?auto . None c.' Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: None • 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. Approximately 700 feet south of subject site there is a small unnamed pond, which has a surface area of approximately 5 acres. 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. • None required. 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 - 3 - 4) Will the pra,_ _:i1 require surface water withdrav_ or.diversions? Give general description. purpose. and approximately quantities if known. No 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If so. note location on the site plan. . No 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. None b. Ground: • 1) Will ground water be withdrawn. or will water be discharged to gro.ind water? Give general description, purpose, and appaoximately 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. None 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. This project will use the combined method which will store approximately 25% of storm water in the underground 'piping system and the remai der on the parking lot surface above each catch basin. Maximum depth\ of water (from "10 year" storm) at each catch basin will be 6 inches. 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so. generally describe. Unlikely • - 4 - d. Proposed me�_��"�e1 s to reduce or control surface. c. . Id, and runoff water impacts. if any: None 4. Plants a. Check or circle type •f vegetation found on the site: deciduous tree: alder maple, aspen, other o evergreen tree: ir, cedar. pine, other o Shrubs di grass o crop or grain o Wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush. skunk cabbage. other o water plants: water lily, eel grass, milfoil, other o other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? All existing vegetation will be removed. c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None d. Proposed landscaping. use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site. if any: Landscape proposed includes areas of native plantings. 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: Hawk, heron, eagle. songbirds, other geese Mammals: deer, bear. elk, beaver, other None Fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other None • b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None c. Is the site,part of a migration route? If so, explain. Unknown - 5 - d. Proposed m. Tres to preserve or enhance wildlife. ,I any: None, other than as described above. • 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. { Electricity -- for all power requirements. n • 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: Building is designed to energy 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. None 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. None anticipated. 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: None b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic. equipment, operation. other)? • Existing traffic noise generated on Lind, Interstate 405, and the East Valley Highway. — 6 — 2) What types anafievals of noise would be created by ut 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. Construction noise during the first nine (9) months ; user automobile noise from then on during business hours. • 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: None • 8. Land and Shoreline Use A a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? Vacant b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so. describe. Not in recent past. c. Describe any structures on the site. None d. Will any structures be demolished? If so. what? None e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? H-1 (Heavy Industrial ) & L-1 (Light Industrial ) f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? Manufacturing Park/Multiple Option - Office g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? D.N.A. . h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so. specify. No i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? Working population will be approximately 1,000. j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? None k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: None - 7 - • 1. Proposed Riaasures to ensure the proposal Is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: None 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: None 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. The building will be of glass and aluminum, height to top of wall -- • 58'-0" . b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? None (some obstruction of adjacent building currently under construction) . c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts. if any: The aesthetic impacts of the proposed project will carry on the design theme for the area established by the first phase development, now under construction. 11. Light and Glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? The project should produce no adverse glare, off site. The parking lot lighting will be controlled, see "d" below. • 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: Parking lot lighting will be designed to control spill off the site. - 8 - 12. Recreation a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? There is a bike path on the west side of Lind Avenue. b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so. describe. None c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation. Including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant. if any: None • 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 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. Please refer to the accompanying Traffic Impact Analysis. b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not. what is the approximately distance to the nearest transit stop? This project will utilize the bus and "pick-up" shelters established in Phase I (on the adjacent site). c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? - The project will create approximately 700 new parking places. 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). Please refer to the accompanying Traffic Impact Analysis. • - 9 - 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. Please refer to Traffic Impact Analysis. ,A g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts. if any: Please refer to Traffic Impact Analysis. • 15. Public Services a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services ,(for example: fipt protection. police protection. health care. schools. other)? If so. generally describe. Any increased need would be in line with planned development indicated by Comprehensive Plan. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, If any. None 16. Utilities a. Circle utilities currently a ailable at the site: electricity, atural gas. lante-CarneD, telephone sanitary sewer. sep is em. of er. b. Describe the utilities that are proposed 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. All utilities will be connected to the project from available street mains. C. SIGNATURE I, the undersigned. state that to the best of my knowledge the above information is true and complete. It is understood that the lead agency may withdraw any declaration of non-significance that it might issue in reliance upon this checklist should there be any willful -pre •n or willful lack of full disclosure on • my part. Proponent: . 1 04 Name Printed: Wm. Stewart Fet'erl ey, AIA — 10 — 1073N • CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST NO.: ECF-015-86 APPLICATION NO(s).: SA-017-86 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: Application for site plan approval to allow construction of a four story office building of 140,000 square feet. PROPONENT: Valley Office and Industrial Park. Inc. (Austin Co.) Phase II LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: Property located 1601 East Valley Road. LEAD AGENCY: City of Renton, Building and Zoning Department. The lead agency for this proposal 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 43.21 C.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request. Additional conditions were imposed as mitigating measures by the Environmental Review Committee under their authority of Section 4-2822(D) Renton Municipal Code. Responsible Official: Environmental Review Committee City of Renton 200 Mill'Avenue South, Renton, WA 98055 Phone: 235-2550 APPEAL: You may appeal this determination in writing to Renton Hearing Examiner no later than April 7, 1986. You should be prepared to make specific factual objections. Contact City of Renton, Building and Zoning Department to read or ask about the procedures for SEPA appeals. DATE OF DECISION: March 19, 1986 PUBLICATION DATE: March 24, 1986 ‘g 2-7( onald G. Nelson arry M. el.Inger Building and Zoning Director Policy Development i irector Richard C. ughton Public Wor Director OVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST REVIEW SOF REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: PARK, ,Al I kFA-t o DATE CIRCULATED: FEBRUARY 28, 1986 COMMENTS DUE:C MARCH 13, 1986 ECF - 015 - 86 APPLICATION NO(s). SITE PLAN APPROVAL: SA-017-86 PROPONENT: VALLEY OFFICE AND INDUSTRIAL PARK, INC. PROJECT TITLE: VALLEY OFFICE PARK II BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: APPLICATION FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A FOUR-STORY OFFICE BUILDING HAVING 140,000 SOUARE FEET OF OFFICE SPACE WITH PARKING FOR APPROXIMATELY 700 VEHICLES ON A 7 ACRE SITE. LOCATION: LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST INTERSECTION OF EAST VALLEY ROAD AND S.W. 16th . STREET. SITE AREA: 7.0 ACRES BUILDING AREA (gross): 140,000 SQu ARF FEET IMPACT REVIEW ON ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS MINOR MAJOR MORE IMPACT IMPACT INFORMATION 1) Earth 2) Air 3) Water 4) Plants 5) Animals 6) Energy and Natural Resources 7) Environmental Health 8) Land and Shoreline Use 9) Housing 10) Aesthetics 11) Light and Glare 12) Recreation Nr›</: 13) Historic and Cultural Preservation 14) Transportation 15) Public Services 16) Utilities COMMENTS: PA3W ooK0_,Qn??0,-5j1N./e) ax§LCL / 0\rt .ek-kina f2 (-c -\-\ceueq3v-eJ 53ccd \NH, 0-caN-J-5 Vko`4' (CO ovt o J 5 • cs6ivt-L Iwnrul ivttiur , , � u l�c jury0 j vA e kolt, RECOMMENDATION: El DNS ► MITIGATED DNS n EIS k . REVIEWED BY: Tly(EC TITLE: IA(0g Pra ere F " DATE: 81)7141 FORM ##14 REVISED 9/10/85 • •IRONMENTAL CHECKLIST REVIEW SHil, REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: 1NU4 )LD I I D(...2 DATE CIRCULATED: FEBRUARY 28, 1986 COMMENTS DUE:, MARCH 13, 1986 ECF - 015 - 86 APPLICATION NO(s). SITE PLAN APPROVAL: SA-017-86 PROPONENT: VALLEY OFFICE AND INDUSTRIAL PARK, INC. PROJECT TITLE: VALLEY OFFICE PARK II BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: APPLICATION FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A FOUR-STORY OFFICE BUILDING HAVING 140,000 SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE P_ACE__WITH PARKING FOR APPROXIMATELY 700 VEHICLES ON A 7 ACRE SITE. LOCATION: LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST INTERSECTION OF EAST VALLEY ROAD AND 5,.W. 16th STREET. SITE AREA: 7 0 ACRES BUILDING AREA (gross): 140,000 SQUARF FFET IMPACT REVIEW ON ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS MINOR MAJOR MORE IMPACT IMPACT INFORMATION 1) Earth 2) Air 3) Water 4) Plants 5) Animals 6) Energy and Natural Resources 7) Environmental Health 8) Land and Shoreline Use . 9) Housing 10) Aesthetics 11) Light and Glare ✓ 12) Recreation 13) Historic and Cultural Preservation 1� 14) Transportation 15) Public Services 16) Utilities COMMENTS: ii aAJ D/c_. G v, i o " J /S 17a czyo �S7Loe2Y�� � RECOMMENDATION: FZ1 DNS Q MITIGATED DNS n EIS REVIEWED BY: TITLE: DATE: 2 /" FORM #14 REVISED 9/10/85 IIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST REVIEW SF REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: 1bL I C.( /12),VVEWPInill.Yr DATE CIRCULATED: FEBRUARY 28, 1986 COMMENTS DUE: MARCH 13. 1986 ECF - 015 - 86 CITY OF RENTON APPLICATION NO(s). SITE PLAN APPROVAL: SA-017-86 c a S 28 NM PROPONENT: VALLEY OFFICE AND INDUSTRIAL PARK, INC. POUry PROJECT TITLE: VALLEY OFFICE PARK II nFvcloPMcf?T r1CpT BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: APPLICATION FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A FOUR-STORY OFFICE BUILDING HAVING 140,000 SOUARE FEET OF OFFICE SPACE WITH PARKINR FOR APPROXIMATELY 700 VEHICLES ON A 7 ACRE SITE. LOCATION: LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST INTERSECTION OF EAST VALLEY ROAD AND S.W. 16th STREET. SITE AREA: 7.0 ACRES BUILDING AREA (gross): 140.000 SQUARE FEFT IMPACT REVIEW ON ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS MINOR MAJOR MORE =,x IMPACT IMPACT INFORMATION 1) Earth 2) Air 3) Water 4) Plants 5) Animals 6) Energy and Natural Resources 7) Environmental Health 8) Land and Shoreline Use 9) Housing 10) Aesthetics 11) Light and Glare 12) Recreation 13) Historic and Cultural Preservation 14) Transportation 15) Public Services 16) Utilities COMMENTS: Vala€47 GZ /d14E-4- RECOMMENDATION: DNS Q MITIGATED DNS n EIS ?'e REVIEWED BY: 6'h1 J cirkSay. TITLE: 4scJc S'4 DATE: � I f FORM #14 REVISED 9/10/85 'VIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST REVIEW S► 'T REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: lJ T I L 1 L 4:0 DATE CIRCULATED: FEBRUARY 28, 1986 COMMENTS DUE: MARCH 13, 1986 ECF - 015 - 86 APPLICATION NO(s). SITE PLAN APPROVAL: SA-017-86 PROPONENT: VALLEY OFFICE AND INDUSTRIAL PARK. INC. PROJECT TITLE: VALLEY OFFICE PARK II BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: APPLICATION FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A FOUR-STORY OFFICE BUILDING HAVING 140.000 SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE SPACE WITH PARKING FOR APPROXIMATELY 700 VEHICLES ON A 7 ACRE SITE. LOCATION: LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST INTERSECTION OF EAST VALLEY ROAD AND S.W. 16th STREET. SITE AREA: 7.0 ACRES BUILDING AREA (gross): 140.000 SQUARE FEET IMPACT REVIEW ON ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS MINOR MAJOR MORE IMNORT IMPACT INFRMATION 1) Earth 2) Air 3) Water 4) Plants 5) Animals 6) Energy and Natural Resources 7) Environmental Health 8) Land and Shoreline Use 9) Housing 10) Aesthetics 11) Light and Glare 12) Recreation 13) Historic and Cultural Preservation 14) Transportation 15) Public Services 16) Utilities COMMENTS: RECOMMENDATION: P/DNS D MITIGATED DNS (1 EIS REVIEWED BY: TITLE: 14/L/Ty /✓pA✓, 'e DATE: (1Y/v /g?e, FORM 4#14 REVISED 9/10/85 'IRONMENTAL CHECKLIST REVIEW SF ' REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: fj DATE CIRCULATED: FEBRUARY 28, 1986 COMMENTS DUE: MARCH i3. 1986 ECF - 015 - 86 APPLICATION NO(s). SITE PLAN APPROVAL: SA-017-86 PROPONENT: VALLEY OFFICE AND INDUSTRIAL PARK, INC. PROJECT TITLE: VALLEY OFFICE PARK II BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: APPLICATION FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A FOUR-STORY OFFICE BUILDING HAVING 140,000 SOUARE FEET OF OFFICE SPACE WITH PARKING FOR APPROXIMATELY 700 VEHICLES ON A 7 ACRE SITE. LOCATION: LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST INTERSECTION OF EAST VALLEY ROAD AND S.W. 16th STREET. SITE AREA: 7.0 ACRES BUILDING AREA (gross): 140,000 SQUARE FEET IMPACT REVIEW ON ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS MINOR MAJOR MORE IMPACT IMPACT INFORMATION 1) Earth 2) Air Air L�- 3) Water 4) Plants 5) Animals 6) Energy and Natural Resources 7) Environmental Health 8) Land and Shoreline Use L--- 9) Housing 10) Aesthetics 11) Light and Glare 12) Recreation _13) Historic and Cultural Preservation 14) Transportation 15) Public Services �-- 16) Utilities COMMENTS: 1 . Developer to promote ridesharing and Metro Transit usage as a condition of development. Documentation of these efforts are to be provided to the C. • �l 60,-k k3" 2. Off-site improvement required for SW 16th Street and for East Valley Road. 3. Development site should be part of an assessment district for transportation improvements that will be required as the area develops. 4. " An information center for commuter pool , vanpool and transit is to be provided within the building. RECOMMENDATION: El DNS u MITIGATED DNS [-7 EIS REVIEWED BY: "` { /)�� - TITLE: 6i" DATE: ' /G/ L: FORM #14 l REVISED 9/10/85 /IRONMENTAL CHECKLIST REVIEW S► ' REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: 'OLI6 . DATE CIRCULATED: FEBRUARY 28, 1986 COMMENTS DUE: MARCH i3. 1986 ECF - 015 - 86 APPLICATION NO(s). SITE PLAN APPROVAL: SA-017-86 PROPONENT: VALLEY OFFICE AND INDUSTRIAL PARK, INC. PROJECT TITLE: VALLEY OFFICE PARK II BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: APPLICATION FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A FOUR-STORY OFFICE BUILDING HAVING 140.000 SOUARE FEET OF OFFICE SPACE WITH PARKING FOR APPROXIMATELY 700 VEHICLES ON A 7 ACRE SITE. LOCATION: LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST INTERSECTION OF EAST VALLEY ROAD AND a.W. 16th STREET. SITE AREA: 7.0 ACRES BUILDING AREA (gross): 140.0pp SQUARE FEET IMPACT REVIEW ON ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS MINOR MAJOR MORE IMPACT IMPACT INFORMATION 1) Earth 2) Air 3) Water 4) Plants 5) Animals 6) Energy and Natural Resources 7) Environmental Health 8) Land and Shoreline Use 9) Housing 10) Aesthetics 11) Light and Glare 12) Recreation 13) Historic and Cultural Preservation 14) Transportation 15) Public Services 16) Utilities COMMENTS: /1(:e-r- /I—Z(2;77 /`�' ti ci ' C/24_ � � Za j . /, RECOMMENDATION: 1� 1 DNS [D MITIGATED ED DNS n EIS REVIEWED BY:; / �r� DATE: FORM #14 REVISED 9/10/85 William E. Popp Associates -,4-f )) /6\--- 0 1 7 -8(0 E ?- 015-OE) TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR OFFICE BUILDING ON S.W. 16th AND E. VALLEY ROAD December 18, 1985 PREPARED FOR THE AUSTIN COMPANY 0 CITY C' TON F v• p -2 E B 4 19ss -- BUILDiNG/ZONING DEPT sccitly III(1111}2, • ' ),2 • 1()i \ 411'; • ! ! • TABLE OF CONTENTS , I. Introduction II. Existing Conditions A. Traffic B. Level-of-Service III . Future Conditions A. Planned and Programmed Improvements B. Project Trip Generation and Improvements C. Future Background Traffic D. Future Level-of-Service IV. Mitigation V. Summary e ' I. INTRODUCTION This memorandum report provides an analysis of potential traffic impacts of the Austin Company's proposed office building located at the corner of S.W. 16th Street and East Valley Road. The development will consist of a 120,000 square foot office building with 700 parking stalls. A vicinity map is provided in Figure 1 and a site plan in Figure 2. ' This memorandum serves as an update of a previously prepared report dated May 10, 1985, for the Austin Company's Boeing Computer Service Office Building. The previous project is currently under construction on the parcel of land immediately west of the current proposal . The arterials influenced by the proposal , described in detail in the previously prepared report are: Lind Avenue, Grady Way, S.W. 43rd Street, S.W. 16th Street and East Valley Road. The intersections of S.W. 43rd/Lind Avenue, S.W. Grady Way/Lind Avenue and Grady Way/Rainier Avenue South, are all signalized. The intersection of S.W. 16th/Lind Avenue has traffic signals installed; however, they are currently functioning in a four-way flashing stop condition until traffic volumes warrant otherwise. The intersections of Lind and S.W. 41st, 39th, 22nd, and 19th are soon to be signalized as a result of new area development. II . EXISTING CONDITIONS A. Traffic Volumes PM peak period manual counts were conducted by this consultant at the intersection of S.W. 43rd Street at Lind Avenue on July 9, 1985. At the intersections of Lind Avenue with S.W. 16th and S.W. Grady Way, counts were conducted by Traffic Count of Tacoma on May 2, 1986, at the request of this consultant. - 1 - . , •\N . i; it. 1 ii 1 li tr,izy•.0,1-•i -' il i ...., _ I :^n: 1 '"II 17 . ' %.1\1:1' :, : ' i % pa= ? •il i l' 7i. .010110•1 a ,,,.-_,,-si:,,,1 15-1 i • c.. 1:', . . 2:tao. 101--.2- ."'--. `1;' -1 g‘.‘ .'":'..:-.: - '''''.4 * • : ,„. g 7 . ;.ILI' -is i'1": t ,- •• ... II. 4 ...'.........:11, .„ 4 ---- 4' n- ' : V 1 tl - 5 1 • t,/, al ' e L... 1''.'5' . ,..'.:: '' '-• '4'4 if • r ' ,.•,,;....•:: . 1 i '•.1% I 2 # Ily r. ,i , ST. 771 11. 4111‘.... .,:t-,:i; ''' t 11 orn, - es • s..,.ssr,s. s. .. \ , ,.. L: • i -.‘. =I , 11 .,. ev ":•.''r, ''cc,'•c.„ `'r ISI - ti ENT, ON.. le 41 i 1 ',.i. ;1 • ....=:"..• ...n Da ti t .:•• rad, .. , '''''I' .--i : 1 , .1., VI .t. ..•.. .1 ,,, *It - uslicialle.---.1-.it eLy 41 -4 1 1 il:c' •11. --4t 1 ' - . .r-71tI-7; ''. il , • •,124-7:fit St, i :i" „.,' RE.elL0.14 ___J; 1 . - st• 61'1E4- .. . 1111/1•S II .....,, v• C '1..• .... '..:..r1 - _ •• ., , ,,,,,. :1,. - _ikc ,.. ..,. . JABCTION„......._—— I- iSrY.vt1rg.',•'.I..,-;.•".'.1.I.I.V"•7.,-,1Vn I:1r.,•P..7 fI:'r.,.1... lS'•I-r4'.,,l-,v:. SvST•v Ir IIf7rv.orl iIISC ),+'7.t,)i.\•'n),t4.',„.•..1i<1 S_,v.;,.,.•,,P. 1.;T7 0 1 $1. _ / _ __ — _ T4. 1,13,-...:•):,•,,",.!(,:'.,'•.,,>4M-r 1,4 17iJ-1i. .1br-1.,••.,1 ..1' - !7s.,.. saIe+.:0* t, '''' i; b : g ;„ sT 4 Wale*- / 'si.,-f,_._6. N ,.. ..:. 1 , . . . - SW 1 i StST I ST 11777. ST , ,,,,, t C... : I . ..—IrRe.•?Je 1 ! eV 070 I i I A 1" ;Z?:.i, . . i, St 1111/11 Ps S. . In v ST • i.„.„ -7 ,, I 1 -, • • - i i , .Tt. v. I; I... I SW /I 1 RD SI / :"•••' '',4:, 2 N ROIL l's ,7.,. - SE ells's I- ' :,. I 5- • :' I . 5 ,. ,,T $1 DR t ,!." ,,,, 1 i k -. m , ..., .., 74 7.3 4 . __•';'.... _ -—_ LI 1 .-- T.,., ,$2441 I i'• - !'-' I -. '' —-3 5 —4 ; # .; / 1 ,... , r 31 2 1 32 41.1,7!I i t 1 :,061. i:' /i . • : a . x< ' Z i .....9,.-..,., ,I 7 . t. —.----.L; v g t i • .! 11. . u al 1 .._: a.'4\.4it...0 ST i a I f 4 i 2 'ill'i s, u ,S017.1 S1 1- i• : 4,if S I MIR/ • > II, • SA 60 \., I,,I WI.ST ' 1 4•`•.... i• 94'v•• a r---'co "1 '•-•-`- ?0 71 '71-1 , ‘ .. i.e. W -1-4c1 , Ell) Tom in VuE—rt.--6. P-u. t, .:, ..)., , s ?owl :is, u\l' / TY /W P .r.zav,ef/ WM E POPP ASSOCIATES ' CVOH 30' Odd A311VA 1SV3 ► ? s_ o %* :ifn1mm11111111om1111111 7 1 F-,, A: d ---, fr —1-1,- --i _ lij 1 __,T., 711 1 !. Tfl r:4- : i 1 !milli] • 1 H .. . .„., " i. fl l 1� 0• a I g r • _ _ •rt, vMlo ..,.r az. sill ti- •IIf it s7 o; 1Qd4 OP i r O e • _+ • 1O 1ei1 Z e - �3 ew - ►. p o • I �e m w i lie? =• Z i J _ V I I __ Ci�c* 0. vt► —,_ Et:4A , , !: • I.. o ei el1 ili !I a I'I Ililf fr. z — li I,I , CeirD I il !II III ll a `Nia I _ _ l,,l , ii lily • 'M'S .3 VA ONI1 r _. sir( o°q v WM E POPP ASSOCIATES /Gv,EZ. Counts were obtained from CH2M Hill for the intersection Grady Way and Rainier Avenue South and performed on January 31, 1985. Average weekday traffic (AWT) volumes for this intersection were also obtained from CH2M Hill . All remaining AWT volumes were arrived at by comparing peak-hour intersection counts to available AWT counts and developing a factor to apply, to other intersections. Existing traffic volumes are displayed in Figure 3. B. Level-of-Service Level-of-service (LOS) is a term used by traffic and transportation are " engineers to describe the quality of traffic flow. assigned from "A" through F" , with "A" being the best and "F" being the worst or failure conditions. LOS "C" suggests stable LOS "D" is defined as long operations with average traffic delays; longtraffic delays. traffic delays and LOS "E" is defined as very LOS "C" or "D" is normally acceptable in urban areas. The reasults of level-of-service calculations for existing co e presented below in Table 2. Table 2 Existin PM Peak Hour Level-of-Service LOS V/C1 Intersection 8 .68 S.W. 43rd/Lind Avenue S.W. 16th/Lind Avenue2 .44 BA S.W. Grady Way/Lind Avenue B/C .75,9 S.W. Grady Way/Rainier 0 1V/C = volume to capacity ratio. 2Assumes signal in operation As will be noted from the above table, the only intersection experiencing reduced LOS for existing conditions is S.W. Grady Way and Rainier Avenue. - 2 - n�lQ rn = cc C /„pp �770 25/0) /p0 i, 77J '/4'fti 4✓JP I�� /337) ,40110161.... GPPGV W A`I 1-405 �' 5950 b 3Bon SW 16th ST. sb7/ I <- / •` 1 I � N tD to SW 27th ST. C cc LECIA/O W J XXX- AW T z cc (xxx) - PM fl1 W ( SW 41st ST. O \- a /7.9p /S8Jo SW 43 r d ST. (/731) /5S Erisrivc r,P,Q,T/C i/Oi& DES WM E POPP ASSOCIATES F/GU.QE.� The previously prepared report represented S.W. 43rd and Lind as experiencing LOS D with a V/C of .89. That analysis was calculated from 1983 counts and factored to 1985 levels. However, actual counts gathered in July 1985 provided up-to-date volumes for a more accurate analysis and have resulted in an improved LOS condition. III. FUTURE CONDITIONS A. Planned and Programmed Improvements In addition to the projects listed in the previously prepared report, Renton's six-year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) lists Project Nos. 21, 22 and 23: Oakesdale--S.W. 16th to S.W. 28th; S.W. 15th to Grady Way; and Grady Way to Sunset. The completion of these three projects would open an alternate north-south route from SR-900 north of I-405 south to S.W. 43rd which is estimated to result in significant traffic diversions from Lind Avenue, Grady Way and West Valley Highway, plus some diversion from Valley Freeway and Rainier. TIP Project No. 25: S.W. 27th from Oakesdale to West Valley Highway. This new arterial will connect Strander Blvd. in Tukwila . and Oakesdale in Renton, utilizing S.W. 27th. This project is in a four- to six-year planning stage with no firm plans to construct at this time, as a railroad overpass must be incorporated in the project. B. Project Trip Generation and Distribution The trips generated by the current proposal are fewer than the previous project. This project has 120,000 square feet compared to 150,000 square feet. The calculated rate is based on nationwide average trip generation data in the Institute of Transportation Engineers ' 1982 Trip Generation Report for a general office in the 100,000 to 199,000 GSF range. The resulting average weekday and PM traffic estimates are presented on the following page in Table 3. - 3 - Table 3 Trip Generation and PM Peak Hour Distribution Land AWT PM Peak Hour Use Rate AWT Rate Vol . In % Vol . Out % Vol . 120,000 14.3 1716 2.03 244 20%/49 80%/195 Office per 1,000 sq. ft. The project's PM peak hour volumes were distributed to the surrounding street system based on existing traffic patterns. The distribution is slightly different from the distribution patterns displayed in the previous report. The primary difference is attributable to the access points of the site. This project has access points on the north and east side of the site adding a greater percentage of the trips to East Valley Road. AWT and PM peak hour project traffic volumes are displayed in Figure 4. C. Future Background Traffic Future background traffic volumes are composed of existing traffic volumes and future development traffic generated from other known area projects. In addition to those projects listed in the previous report, the following projects represent new, anticipated development impacts and are shown below in Table 4. - 4 - h ti �� /8 \ 3/) "1 ¢23 i3'/. 6o) 04) 157 �I 6"• G�POV W pV 1-405 B3o f"w SW 16th ST. 14d%—� 61 I � I � XXX - ,p WT (xxx) - PM PEAe - / QF TOTAL 7 e/PS SW 27th ST. C cc W J C J Z > J SW 41st ST. 3/0 3io (¢() /Qq) SW 43rd ST. /8% P• WfCT T,e// D/STe/BUT/aJ WM E POPP ASSOCIATES /C7Cii•PE Table 4 Additional Anticipated Area Projects PM Peak Status Development Location # of SF In Out Approved Vyzis I N.W. Corner 120,000 49 195 23rd & Lind office Site Approval Orillia N.W. Corner 120,000 49 195 Remaining Property Lind & 39th office Associates Planning Vyzis III W. Side 150,000 61 244 Lind at office S.W. 20th Approved KenCo E. Valley 27,000 11 9 & S.W. 30th mgmt. Complete Campbell E. Valley 100 Units 33 32 Motel & S.W. 39th Total of Three Projects North of 1-405 Under HGK, All on 139,000 56 226 Construction First Powell Office Citys I & II Ave. S.W. Total 259 901 The cumulative summary of AWT and PM peak hour traffic for these and previous projects are displayed in Figure 5, Future Background Traffic. - 5 - N 1 �. P, , ;-, r, ,..v y „,,,, 31r0C on 1ih3', ( 639) 22sii I j3- 50 (13/�� �p0 WO s49) a rAiihilihi,. G 1-405 N Ni r\, W 16th ST. ' Cirr3.3J\ oIa i TE \ i I t0 1s' 15---J 1 I 1 — J r- uo is to SW 27th ST. GEGEA/O cc xxx - ,41!/Tw. a (Xxx) - AM AEAK W -J O CC -I 2 J W SW 41st ST. t.h U b 2/f4o Z3800 S W 43 r d ST. (Zi 72) (23/c Fl/TUeE" / Biceceo Wo T47,e/ /(' rOCawfs WM E POPP ASSOCIATES F/GvoeES. D. Future Level-of-Service Future level-of-service (LOS) analysis were conducted at the four affected intersections plus the project driveway at S.W. 16th and East Valley Road. Traffic volumes used for this analysis are depicted in Figure 5, Future Background Traffic, and Figure 6, Project Plus .Background Traffic. The resulting LOS analyses are presented in Table 5. Table 5 Future P.M. Peak Hour Level-of-Service Future Background Intersection Existing Future Background Plus Project Los V/C1 LOS V/C LOS V/C 43rd/Lind B .63 D .93 D .94 SW 16th/Lind2 A .44 C/D .85 D .87 SW Grady/Lind B .75 E .963 E .973 SW Grady/Rainier D .90 D .944 D/E .954 1 V/C = Volume-to-capacity ratio. 2 Assumes signal in operation. 3 Assumes 5-lane section on Lind. 4 Assumes right-turn-only lane extension. As can be noted from the above table, future background conditions at S.W. Grady Way and Lind will experience a decline in level-of- service, with or without the project. The future conditions assume a five-lane section on Lind Ave. The addition of the project traffic to this intersection does not significantly alter the projected low level-of-service. - 6 - P N +� �P sNI sr\I 1\hi 1 e 321 f8 ;2093 (lil ) 720`3 Zi//J / 7sp (2.w) r -) (/563) G • o 7` 1-405 a 7/90 J -CZ?, W 16th ST. (764) I TS).-.-\ . o o~. 1 1 1 i i ao I --I I N '�s I N SW 27th ST. C cc LEGS-!/O W xxx - A it/T a (xxx) — Pk? PEAK O Q 2 > J W ' SW 41st ST. O 2Z ZS0 74'//o t) , SW 43 r d ST. (ZZ/b) Z354" P.Pa✓(CT ,LUS BA a,eOU.!/D 7Z4117/C !/OLUwis WM E POPP ASSOCIATES F/G!/.PEG. The critical movement is the northbound right turn. The LOS condition could be significantly improved by the addition of a free right turn lane. However, the anticipated construction of Oakesdale as a major north-south alternate should divert a significant amount of northbound peak-hour traffic from Grady Way freeing up street capacity for right turning traffic. The intersection of S.W. Grady Way/Rainier Ave. is projected to experience a borderline LOS D/E for future conditions. The Oaksdale extension will also benefit this intersection and thus improve LOS from those conditions shown. The remaining intersections will experience reduced but acceptable levels-of-service due to substantial area growth, with or without the proposed project. It should be noted that the proposed project traffic does not significantly alter volume-to-capacity ratios for future conditions. Future level-of-service analysis was conducted at the north entrance off S.W. 16th St. and the east entrance to the site off East Valley Road. The result of both access points was LOS A with a reserve capacity of 600 and 724 respectively. Both driveways are located such that there is sufficient site distance and no mitigation is required in this area. IV. MITIGATION Based upon assessment of the existing and future conditions of the surrounding street network, the following suggestions are indicated: - 7 - ° Expeditious treatment of the extension of Oakesdale would bring area-wide relief to the increasing PM peak-hour congestion problem. Routes benefitted included Grady Way, Valley Freeway, S. 43rd St. , and West Valley Highway. ° Staggering of work hours to disperse the PM peak-hour traffic would also help to ease future congestion. ° Improved ride-share and transit utilization could perhaps be fostered by reducing the number of planned parking stalls. Transit is readily available on Lind Avenue (as described in the previous report) . Van pool and ride-share programs are also available through cooperative efforts of Metro's Commuter Pool . V. SUMMARY 1. The Austin Company project proposal to develop 120,000 square feet of office space at the corner of S.W. 16th and West Valley Road, results in a additional 1,715 average weekday auto trips and 244 PM peak hour trips on Lind Avenue, E. Valley and the surrounding street network. 2. All four intersections analyzed are currently operating within acceptable level-of-service limits. 3. Future background traffic includes eight (in addition to the five listed in the previous report) anticipated development proposals which will send traffic through the project analysis area. 4. Area-wide background traffic growth alone will result in reduced level-of-service at three of the four intersections analyzed. 5. The intersection of Grady Way and Lind Avenue is expected to experience level-of-service reduction from B to E as a result of future background traffic. Northbound right turn movements are - 8 - primarily contributors to the low level-of-service. Grady Way and Rainier Ave. are expected to reach borderline level-of-service of D/E. 6. The proposed extension of Oakesdale would contribute to an improved level-of-service at the Grady Way/Lind Avenue intersection by diverting some of the northbound trips currently shared by the right-turn movements. In general , the Oakesdale extension would be a significant north-south alternate route and provide area-wide relief for the peak-hour congestion. 7. Level-of-service analysis was performed for both project driveway accesses from the east and north of the site, and LOS A with a reserved capacity of 724 and 600 respectively is anticipated for future conditions. 8. Improved ride-share and transit utilization could be fostered by reducing the number of parking stalls to encourage alternatives to the single occupant auto trip. - 9 - A r � 0 OEC 2 1985 , Regulatory Branch • • • William Stewart Petterley, AIA The Austin Company • FEB 1 0. 1986 - 800 Southwest 16th Street Renton, Washington 98055 / ^^ Dear Mr. Petterleyt11 This is in reply to your letter of November 19, 1985, concerning proposed fill in two wetlands at Renton, Washington. You inquired whether the two sites to lot filled are considered wetlands under our regulatory jurisdiction. A Department of the Army permit under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act is required for the discharge of any dredged_ or fill material into waters of the United States, including adjacent wetlands. The term *wetlands" means those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do sup— port, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. The Corps of Engineers has ultimate responsibility for determining whether a specific_wetland area is within Sdation 404 jurisdiction. - We have reviewed the information you have furnished as well as the data we gathered during our visit of October 25, 1985, to the project area. We deter— mined that the project area defined as Site 1 in your letter is a wetland. However, this wetland is not an adjacent wetland under our regulatory author— ity. " A, Department of the Army permit wi11 therefore, pot be required to plane_ fill into this area. At your request, we only thoroughly inpeoted Site 1 on c o e e 2 is an obvious wetland. Before we can determine Corps Jur— isdiction er S•a;.Tc.. Site 2, we would need to know more about the hydrology of the area. • If you wish us to make such a jurisdictional determination, you should provide us with a description of the drainage pattern into and out of the Site 2 wetland area. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Mr. Rudolf . Pojtinger, telephone (206) 764-3495. Sincerely, • Warren E. Baxter Chief, Regulatory Branch • • ENDING OF FILE FILE TITLE t&fl / / S4Ot7- g60