Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWTR2701800 BEGINNING OF FILE FILE TITLE W TRft- t {¢ u ----------------- 12 v y O S g R v' n 7r- e e l I I z z z I � 9 I I Z IL I I I R' Q. 8 3 � 5 g v z z R 0 I r 9 I I I I I Z ' I Y I I n G PHONE CALL; I OR_/�1,77 ❑ATE Z TIM[.g'_6� ' M_JCi��.v.--'� PHONED o� Noun EL PHONE_ YUlN1 CALL 1a �i Nurnuew L �..rl Einm PLEASE CALL MESSAUF �(a ?--�-h Ff �� O✓ , WILL CALL AGAIN CAME TO SEE YOU WANTO SEE Y U SEE YOU N Z SIGNED iags rogM apoa y n m m � 6 A 1 X H N M V S 1 W•!d iJ Mp YwCI etUMe�Ot.,Cow.I NI Pionln Win:!Title lesung:e Umpasy I "' .,.more.nr.a m•,.o. ?!led Ior Record at Request of TO 'City of Renton Office of the City Clerk Renton Municipal Building 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, Washington 98055 ` BILL OF SALE N KNOW AIL MEN BY THESE TRESENTS: Thu IDS - SHURGARD INCOME GROWTH PARTNERS p L.P. II al N C...ty el Ring ri a ,State of Waibioon,the py of the first Dart, ,v for and in eonsidenuen of the sum of One and No/100---------j Delius T I.wlol money or Lb,United Statte at America,to them in hand paid by the City of Fenton the put e! the wood part. 1be rKcipt ,bt,vol is hereby atnowl.dged, do by those preunu grant. bargain, alit and deliver unto the a!d pan of Lb......d part,the lollawing de. ,,bed perms! p:openy now looted at 1755 NE 48th Street, Renton, Washington 9SO56 it the City of Renton ,County of Ring and State of Wssbtngmn, to-vea. See Attached - Addendum 1 TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the same to the aid party of the Wood p_• its heirs, eae<uters, adoeinl,trs.as and sweet !orevar. And aid party of the hnl part, for its hum, eaceutors,administrator,.covenants "depots to and wish the aid part•. of the second part, its oeecuteri, sdminUtralor,and coigns, that mid par, of the hnt part ewmt•. of the aid praptrty.goodt and chattel,and he food right and full authority to sell the amt. and that will..,rant and defend the sae hereby made unto the aid party of the second part, _ts execulon,adelinutralon and aWgra,against all and every pence:.: pe-snna,.bonuoeve,la.lully claiming ,u Ie claim fbr meet, IN WITNESS WHEREOF,The said party of the h-st yam he j hereunto set its hand aid aeal thu day of IDS/SHURGARD INCOME GROWTH VARTNRRS L.P. It BYr SHURGARD ASSOCIATES L.P. II N�yy ITS: GENERAL PARTNER IeeaP p M: G BY: SHURGARD GENERAL.PARTNER, INC. '�gS10Nd @Y> ITSe GENERAL PARTNER.. 1 � N'$ STA t OF)(ASRINOTON, :o OTA, �•. w U. BY: lU N CoAtyull rtLo KRIS STRED �T lr- a '• ItITS: SECRETARY 4�t•�` B L 40y personally appeared before car hy Vi' lsf7LQ '9f G 1 14 to be the individual decHbod it and wbo executed the sr.Uun and le,ag..g iw,,nttn, f �"id that r-AL .!gold the ame a o- Ireo and voluntary act and deed, la, the rs qy�F •WA�1� pu:posn thentio mentioned. GIVEN ender my had And 1T:ciLl...I Wu lj' day of vc-t42lf'I' Hj2y ADDENDUM 1 WAT$R, SY uTEi;;_ 83C' L.F. of 12 DI WF.TERMAIII 3 Each of 12" FLxMJ GATE VALUES 1 £act. of 8" FLxMJ GATE 2 Each of 5 1/4" FIRE HYDRANT ASSEMBLIES STOF*1 DFAiN' "E SYSTE.M' Ii".p ! Size Tyne ^.'? .... . of CONC. nTO : LINE N 323 L.F- of 12" CMP STORM LINE Go� .F. of S., ll2 STORM L;2:E N '`+n of S" CCP STORM LINE N '- CD EACH of S:OFM INLET M EACH: Cf I STOF3: II STORM ONE ST--EL1 L:3 T p� kNenten�on MwYApI Bwlaina :/a'rtya(5,J A•A^•'.f":YnM1aFO La�rwnat lttMJl w.enue Sw:N r=T!gt - Ci FYSi°:15!] Caron.ww cross _ UTILITIES /1 THIS INSTRUMENT, made this 7 day of September 19 90 ,y by and between Shurgard Growth Capital:8/ Fund 17 Limited Partners rp s; and _.. •F . Y end _and hereinafter called "Grantor(,)", and the CITY OF RENTON. a Municipal Corporation of King 1 A; County, Washington, hereinafter called "Grantee". Y WITN ESSETH: �• That said Crantor(s), for and In consldera tlon of the sum of t Ono Dollar aid by Crania.. and other valuable cons lJ retOTdo by m these pies ants, grant, bargain, sell, convey, and warrant unto the said 0•successors and assigns, an ease,n[ for bllntee, its necessary a Pu c utilltie. (Inc(Iluding water and sewer) with appurtenances over, through, across and upon the fallowing described property In King County, Washington, more particula,iy described as follows. g Attachment "A" - Legal Description Attachment "B" - Plan of Easement 17 �lJ Cn V O t UE/I-1 Said heretofore mentioned grantee, its successors or assigns, shall have the right. wi lhout prior notice or proceeding at law, at such times as may be necessary to enter upon said above described property for the -nose of construct- ing, maintaining, repairing, altering or reconstructing said u hies, or making any connections therewith, without incurring any legal obligations or liability therefore, provided, that such construction, maintaining, repairing, altering or reconstruction of said utilities shall be accomplished in such a manner that Uie private improvements existing In the right(s)-of-way shall nr.t be disturbed or damaged, they will be replaced in as good a condition as they were immediately before the property was entered upon by the Grantee. The Grantor shall fully use and enjoy thk aforedesu-ibed premises, inuuding the right to retain the right to use the surface of said right-of-way if such use does not interfere with Installation and maintenance of the utilities. However. the grantor shall not erect buildings or structures over, under or across the right-of-way during the existence of such utilities. This easement, shall be a rovenant running with the land and shall be binding on the Grantor, his successors, heirs and assigns. Grantors covenant that they are the lawful own(rs of the above properties and that they have a good and lawful right to execute this agreement. Still �i r._„rh r,p,f,i - r,, hand Limited Partnership "2 Shurgard I and General Partner and R and Ra ph P. Teller, Secretary CORPORATE FOP14: r ay v qSTATE OF Washington SS bcn COUNTY OF Ring tr On this 7th day of September 19 90 before me, the undersigned, a Notary Publ —75 anTfor the a e o as___ ice. July commissioned and sworn personally appeared Ralph P. Teller and to known Ao be the Secretary and _ respectively, Of or Inc. — the corporat— oft executed the fore. going nstrunient, a—nd aTiaow a ge t e saQ instrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said corpora tlOn, for the ties and purposes therein mentioned. and on oath stated that he authorized to execute the said instrument and th.. the seal affixed Is tt a corporate seal of said corporation. WITNESS my hand and official seal hereto affixed the day and year in this certificate above wrlttta. vvv' V/ 0 �y'"7uG)lc n n or ie tate of k,Yyhi resiJin� at P zP�ta 11 G Ctvp,��gSiON t-+Q L?= 43 30 `art.+G�Bttoq.fo',� s11 of OF WASN�das UE/2.7 b /0-iv3o EXHIBIT A Watermain Easements for Exit 7 Shurgard Westerly Easement: A 17 foot wide easement centered on the following described line: Beginning on the south property line a distance of 42.0 feet. east of the southwest property corner, thence N 00 56' 18" E a distance of 12. 5 feet, thence N 45' 56 ' 18" E a distance of 48 feet Plus or minus to a point 8.5 feet east of the west property line, thence parallel to the west property line and extending to the north property line and its terminus; together with an 18.5 foot wide easement lying contiguous to and on the east side of the west property line and beginning at 19.0 feet south of the north property line and extending south parallel to the west property line a distance of 33.0 feet , to its terminus. Easterly Easement: A 15 foot wide easement extending from the south to the north property lines and with i'.s centerline running parallel to and 43 feet west of the east property line; together with a 15 foot wide easement lying contiguous to and on the north . ide of the south property line, beginning 28 feet west of the east property line and having a length of 24. 5 feet; together with a 10 foot wide easement lying contiguous to and on the south side of the north property line and extending from the east property line 35. 5 feet to the west. CO rJ V N nl O ('7 y R o ® 16162 a v '`Fo ftISTON SfPifAL Err�G rco c �- . . -nc o�1 oca-' oGiiE . R02 Pb�z�/6 � a i N S'21 t II I 3,81,19.5t' N 1 I I � I W N II A li I CD w � I I�-- 4uauaasro-g }uawssro3 I I AIAQ+sroy I I I I o•e� � III I ISL I I I I II I I I I i I I I I I f I • OS =„1 I I I u le J i 4 ys. I 43 449L --TS COST DATA AND INVENTORY SUBJECT. CITY PROJECT NUMBERS: W- S• Nard Stara AME OF PROJE ST- TO: CITY OFRENTON FROM: Baseline Engineering Inc. UTILITIES DIVISION 200 MILL AVENUE SOUTH 7017 27th Street W„ Suite 6 RENTON,WA 98055 Tacoma, WA 98466 DATE: 10/9/92 Per your request, the following Information is furnished concerning costs for improvements installed for the above referenced project. WATER SYSTEM: Length Size Type 830 L.F. OF 12 DT WATERMAIN L.F. OF WATERMAIN L.F. OF WATERMAIN L.F. OF _ " WATERMAIN 3 EACH OF 12 FLxM.1 GATE VALVES _ 1 .ACH OF 8 _FLxM I GATE VALVES EACH OF GATE VALVES SU13TOTAL S 40,300 2 EACH OF _ 51 FIRE HYDRANT A EMBLIES $ 5,200 (COST OF FIRE HYDRANTS MUST BE LISTED SEPARATELY). ' TOTAL COST FOR WATER SYSTEM $ 45, 500 SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM: Length Size Type L.F. OF _ SEWER MAIN L.F. OF SEWER MAIN _ L.F. OF SEWER MAIN EACH OF DIAMETER MANHOLES TOTAL COST FOR SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM $ N/A STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM: Length Size Type 27 LF. OF 12 Conc. STORM LINE 323 L.F. OF 12 (IMP STORM LINE 22 L.F. OF 8 DT STORM LINE _2 EA. OF STORM IN..ET 1 EA. OF T STORM CATCHBASIN 3 EA, OF TT STORM CATCHBASIN L.F. TOTALH COSTF6fi%TORM[V9MI8E%YSTEM $ 20,400 STREET IMPROVEMENTS: (Including Curb, Gutter, Sidewalk, Asphalt Pavement and Street Lighting) 0tr:,eL uiol.l. and .Junction Box P 44 000 TOTAL COST FOR STREET ROVEMENTS S 2. (SIGNATURE) (SIGNATORY MUST BE AUTHORIZED AGENT OR OWNER OF SUBJECT DEVELOPMENT) Richard A. Moose, P.E. Baseline Engineering Inc. '1 COVENANT TO ANNEX TO THE CITY OF RENTON tM�QEVIt 11 ��sVLZ�pP/1C11T 1�N� , hereinafter referred to as 'owners," hereby covenant and agree to sign the necessary petitions for annexation to the city limits of the City of Renton. Washington, for the property herein described and on the terms more fully set forth below. :. Legal Description. The legal description of the property to which this covenant shall apply is as follows: OD :5.:p.y.•�9 40467 E SEF EXN/,6/7- Q R'cf.D F tN� CA .00 O 55 OD hereinafter referred to as "the premises." 2. Basis for Covenant. This covenant to annex is given as a condition to being permitted to hook up to newer—end water service from the City of Renton to serve the premises. 3. Parties Barad. This agreement and the covenant to annex shall be binding on the owner and all persons subsequently acquiring any right, title or interest in or to said property referred to as the promises, and shall be a covenant running with the land. 4. Time for Performance. The owners, their Heirs, successors or assigns, agree and covenant to sign a petition to annex the above described premises unto the City of Renton at such time as the assessed valuation of the subject premises is sufficient to qualify under the 75% method pursuant to RCW 3SA.14.120, together with such other adjoining or contiguous area as the City or other petitioners may determine. The owners further agree, when so notified by the City, to promptly circulate and execute such Petition and to comply with all the requirements of law regarding such annexation. If the owners, their successors :-L*D for* Record at Request Ot rlar0e... C `h „ .�1. , 4— — !( �bldre EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION: A portion of the SA Of the SEk of Section 29, Township 24 North, Runge 5 East, W.M. , In King County, Wn. described as follows: Beginning at the NW corner of tract 182 of C.D. Hillman's Lake Washington Garden of Eden Addition to Seattle Div. 13 as recorded in Vok. Il of plats, Page 81 , records of said county thence S 0` 56'18" W• 685.24 ft. along the m west line of said tract; thence S 80 47'17" E 329.29 f8. a parallel with the North line of said tract, thence N 0 56'18" E 635.24 ft. along the east line of abaid tract N to the NE corner of said tract; thence N 88 47117" W O 329.29 ft. to the point of beginning. �—4 TLI (\ L i , r c r.. - Z pp K J Je, tr t i AUTHORIZATION OF SPECIAL BILLING DATE; SEPTEMBER 13, 1990 i .SNURGARD - Exit 7- NE 48th St 6 Lake Wash. Blvd. North PROJECT NAME: PROIECr NUMBER: We-tt 1030 WORK ORDER NO-, V I1+7 a It is the intent of this letter to authorize the City of Renton to bill the undersigned for all teats :e incurred relative to the above-referenced project, by the City of Renton for the following work CONNECTIONS TO EXISTING WATERMAINS BY CITY FORCES, WATER PURITY SAMPLES, WATER ME'fER(S) INSTALLATION AND RELATED WORK BASED ON TIME AND MATERIALS BILLING TO BE SENT TQ Address _7� sa- city. Kt__s.;Z w Attn: Phone No.: ADW oiler, Contractor or rued Agent CITY OF RENTON PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMZ 7 Design/Utility Engineering BACKFLOW PREVENTION DEVICE REPORTING AND TESTING INSTRUCTIONS All Backflcw Prevention Devices installed are required, by Washington State Law (RCW 42.20.050.83-19-002/WAC 248-54-195), to be tested on installation, and annually there after. Testing must be done by a Tester certified by the State of Washington Department of Social and Health Services, a list of vhom may be obtained from this office. Please complete the bottom of this form, and return it to the Utility Engineering Department at 200 Mill Ave S, Renton Wa. 98055, together with the completed Test Form(s) attached, when the required device(s) have been installed. OWNERS MAILING INFORMATION OWNERS NAME: 1'(r'9rO : MAILING ADDRESS: 11 DEVICE LOCATION INFORMATION STREET ADDRESS: Q`1: S— - r 6, 7 6 DEVICt LOCATION: N, 4/1, tl yl- lc ;yY/J CONTACT PERSON: iPlAw" PHONE NUMBER: '? _ -;j PROTECTION ZONEf: DATE INSTALLED:__/_� USER CODEV:_ Directions to the device on the premises.(eg. Second flog utility room (Rm 209) next to elevator). 4To be completed by Utilities Personnel 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton. Washington 99055 • (206) 235-3631 ,. 1 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT l F DESIGN/UTILITY ENGINEERING • 225-2631 os � MUNICIPAL BUILDING 100 MILL AVE.SO. RENTON,WASH.98055 BACKFLOW DEVICE TEST REPORT ac COunt MO. �pwl.Gr .fnipr — COwr•C=n.1.. wuf Of Iwf WSES 1 Cam'/ 5 S rr 26-, — ldoarpkda Wrtf C — A/ . W, c_o/'n!4fwl a rn ocr u.u.ska.. ..... s• t.«.. Ghcc �60(, Y g .,477 WE ewE 3aUM•.m«M UST nISSUSE Onpa KPO3a aet3i Cw(CR r.CrF 0 CHECK VALVE NO. 1 e� CHECK VALVE K0.2 DIFFERENTIAL PRESSURE RELIEF VALVE ❑ s. leaked ❑ t Op<neda Iba. 1 t. Leaked ................. INITIAL """"'•"��•������� ��� sauced 0111sura TEST 2. Closed ant .................. 2 0,0 nol cyan ............. ❑ 2 Closed Agnl .................. 9 ❑ Cleaned_........ ............. ❑ Replaced: Replaced: Replaced I R Gmoe . . ❑ ... ❑❑ D,sc Opw ................. ❑ Ouc . • ❑ 01:e..................... Somq . Smmq I. .I . Du .ld..u.......... . ' . ❑ G..do ....... ............. ...................... ❑ PmIt Pln l«a « . .. ......... Q•ala:-•c ................. ❑ O•aonogm,Nrge ❑ P ❑ 9e pin ❑ Uop« .................. A Hm ep.n Wn U I Seat ❑ seat........................ Lo.« _................ R ....................... ❑ 0upnra m D�apn�a9m,small ❑ SO�apnra9m.................. C ❑ Omer,daaenbe.............. ❑ Olney,descooa ............. ❑ Openad at MS. FINAL Clovd light.................... ❑ Cloaed kgnl....... ❑ reducad w pras3e TEST _— Remarks --------------- THE ABOVE REPORT 1'CERTIFIED TO EE TRUE nktuwwMMAI rd rai'Eg�• we•«to a• Public Worts Department DESIGN/UTILITY ENGINEERING _ 200 Mill Avenue South -- n•'— Renton. Washington 98055 CALCULATION OF INSPECTI01�ELr'4 5NUR6hRA Fat STomg- Ya 7- SR 76L" Sv(He ate"sr) + (Akt 'uto R(Lo rq. PROJECT PROJECT REFERENCE f iRQ WRttfbAMN ImpQ61Aom ONLY Vf- vw PAVING 6 STREET LIGHTING: Nkl APPLACABLE ' �_ SE 76~'*- 1WR 00a Y.luc COuuSY >TnNOM,0� a' FtUuiRrrtt- !Aq l REcfia(1 M+NDOtV to CLTT Uf RfWc.l — P4cvealt STu id k,m•. 6uur; iC9AQIi> ('LQMiT f9rt SZQEff iufacUEhfutl tAAti at YrRUG£D. SANITARY SEVER 5 STORN: 6AtAnAV St4M (aWNiOw 91 'rb 30wLk, -m VJ,O. IQ7 S"lft Lfl•K► '10?Z I0S9tcif0 cq Kink C6t;�A i i. * ul+1. 107 . 4t0RM fcmuE"dw To QNTN j'f(,Rn LAN . ON Ne 44 P �7, W RCC(rQu%CE SEWAA OEfMIf fea Wear ,l) UR of REweU VeldW . �: I,SIC Al'im'(0) f Moo L6HME« n fYnk 19AU 9- R' OO(uA 10.OEU 4I %Mlct. UU6 3�000 SI Wr0w's (f) 5,vo TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS: S SF,0c0 TOTAL INSPECTION FEE FIRST $100,000 f I� 166 0' (2�. of ti5$,O00] SECOND $100,000 - f RE144INING f - $ — TOTAL: S y 6O Ei? CALCUL91QNSo pAV NG i STREET LIGHTING: Ko Apfut&c6 (StA ARws) SANITARY i STORM SEWM $4dn AP/u[AAtf (Sf6 A6OUC) )♦91L, Z°�, ai t S 8, ouo _ 91, 160 cRiz1*4 ct rke 40..�ST) BOND AMOUNT FOR 100% OF WORK IN R/W NUMBER OF STORM SEWER CONN. TO SYSTEM ulA — MBER OF SAN. SEWER CONN. TO BLDG.(S) 01 A PREPARED BY: h (IAL f7AJTOJI. DATE Tfro D/INSP sFF:Atl:lf 6/12/89 W_ko 30 /u y���RrE�VIEW SHEET - PERMIT FEE AND RATES PROJECT NAME: SKtq cw. [R I f LOCATION: 1. SANITARY SEWER (EACH CONNECTION) Residential $20.00 / Commercial $50.00 Industrial $100.00 f 2. STORM SEWER (EACH CONNECTION) QAp 3 /7t Residential $20.00 tonnerci.l $50.00 Industrial f100.00 f I. RIG TT-OF-WAY CONSTRUCTION (Lenmth ORp z.S 7 9 Include aidevallo, curbs, emeeavatione and improvements 0 - 55' $10.00 K Over 100 $50.00 f 25 b. INSPECTIONjAPPROVAL FEES (22 of cost.) pQp 32 75 4 3 Z76 To, replacements k i.proveemenis to rto r/w, easements on-site and off-site I.Cludas: Cost 22 Fee Sanitary Sew, f f Water f 58,000 t` f 1, I E 0 ,G Storm S.ver f f ,t Street, Walk a Curbs f f S/5 Mlu 21 of the first $100,000 1 1/22 of that amount over 1100.000, tb but less than $200,000 12 of any meounr over f200,000 ) The applicant will be required to submit *prate cosy estimates for each its. if . improvement, subject to approval by the Public Works Department. \ 5. Bond not required (gg.Tl T 2,694 / $1000 Perlurmance Bond Required Construction Bond Required (1001 Celt of work in R/W) 6. Contractor required to have Currant City business lieane.I 14 Yee Other 7. Latecomer Agreement - v.ter W $d5 * SAZ1. t0 Latecomer Agreement - Sanitary Latecomer Agreement - Storm 8. System Development Charge - Water(045'piJ Ila4N Sl-mm) g 4,$ 37•72 System Development Charge - Sanitary WD- IDS 9. Special Aasess.enc Are Charge - Water Special As...$meet Area Charge - Sanitary r 10. Approved Water Plan 0 K. Approved Sanitary Plan WO-Approved St.. Plan K'k f- �D.w11 QCh:P►tt(� h� �Owi• Ehfeua yttr 11, 194U N - AERO CONSTRUCTION CO. _ Divislon of Pacllic Commercial EQutpnwnt, Inc. ---- P.O. Box 295 Snohomish, WA 98290 (206) 334-2475 (206) 368-5301 Sept. 6, 1990 Westwood Corporation Attn: Bob Buell RE: Exit 7 Renton Shurgaurd Dear Bob, This is the cost break down for the water system on the above referenced project that you requested. 1) Connect to existing $ 7,500.00 . 2) 12" D.I. Main ( -I F%v gyp.) 32,300.00 3) 8" Double Detector Check 10,000.00 4) Service Lines 3,000.00 5) Fire Hydrants (2) 5,200.00 J1u Ia>,9 6) Fire protection Lines 15,000.00� WwurM V KtNfi 4,ol11 Total cost of water systems. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$73,000.00 151 ou u o c ( K aE ie�.rt �ncerely, Far uY4 ) i/ 5 8 1010 Rew)t0 tsSf Lar Ward Protect Manager 1 t t t 9 CITY OF RENTON UTILITY ENGINEERING No. N4 2795 , ♦ !x/ • 200 MILL AVENUE SOUTH — .r,''�a�� RENTON, Will 98055 PHONE-. 235-2631 ORDER FOR WATER SERVICE INSTALLATION Account No. 49-660 Meter Charge $ 2 40 — Work Order No. 87 1 47 Less Stub Service Credit — Down Payment — Sundry Sale No. 1 l�I system Development Charge Iru4 P 7665 . In City dm No® ` Late-Comers (City) On Sewer Yes C3 No® (W.0. 107 SWK IltQ'IItE) (Others) eater Usage: Residential [] Cpnnerclal ® Ind ust-al U TOTAL FEE $ 9 Other _ y' 11 INSTALLATION: Meter Size j✓4 QCM(Sr E, Size Service Temporary Hydrant Meter Yes ❑ No® Meter Make S Eldtu C — tetlai rT Sewage Exempt Meter Yes® No 0 (W.Q Motor No. 00 4464 091I Fire Protection Servlcs Yes 0 No® T m t: Date Installed S•ty—oil 10 9 1 5 Sf /f Ix jT RfelaA Comen Service Address _ Legal Desoiption 5�kk'P ,HO f <It -.t We ujl( — Saq,uttuu CROSS CONNECTION CONTROL'. Oaakfiow Protection Device Required Yes I] No® If Yes, Type of Device: Reduced Pressor. Backtlow Device El Double Check Valve Assembly Air or Pressure Vac Breaker Make of Device _ Model Serial No. Sixe Date Device Installed Meter No, File No. owner's Name t?NUP(K0 (iA9111L lit A"KC(Tt(vt (lir Phone 624- 911 Address lif-I Irt" 10 rt 1 S 5( 76Ex $t- City -Prnlby, State 1 Zip 190SL Contractor's Name Phone Address _ City State Zip Area Served by Renton Water CS Seattle Water Seattle Water Code No. Temporary Service Agreement Yes 0 No g] If Yes, Agreement Recording No. Service to be Located pn an Easement Yes® No C3 if Yes, Casement Recording No.W_10 30 Is There an Existing Stub Service Yes® No If Yes, Water Project No. WW-- Cate-Conners )�30 Existing Cate-Conners Agreement Yes Ig No& If Yes, Agreement No. U- A�C In Favor of Address _ City State Zip Charge $ System Development Fee Yes [�d N.0 If Yes, System 1'�Development Fee Based on�T a P.76 0 5 Square Feet THE UNDERSIGNED SUBSCRIBER REQUESTS THE CITY OF RENTON TO SUPPLY WATER AT THE PREMISES NOTED HEREON AND PROMISES TO PURCHASE THE WATER AND PAY THE CITY OF RENTON THEREFORE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THt CITY OF RENTON's SCHEDULE OF RATES WHICH SHALL FROM TIME TO TIME BE LEGALLY IN EFFECT FOR THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH THE WATER IS TO BE USED NOTED HEREON. AND TO CONFORM TO AND ABIDE BY THE CITY OF RENTON's RULES AND REGULATIONS IN FORCE, RELATING TO THE PURCHASE AND SALE OF WATER. THIS IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH CITY OF RENTON CODE, CHAPTER 2, SECTION 5-205. Nli to - Utility Billing 'an e o m of gent Yellow - Engineering ,fI ( (�t,•A�pp���/' �1 Pink - Water Shop Gold - Customer rely a nton �ftoa,,Zl.g Agent t�� f)� CITY OF REMTON No, M 2796 G UTILITY ENGINEERING b ♦ ♦ 200 HILL AVENUE SOUTH I RENTON, WA 98OS5 9eN�1 PHONE: 235-2631 ORDER FOR WATER SERVICE INSTALLATION Account Wq. q.9-66z —� Al Me ter Charge $ ��- Work Order No. 1 4 U Less Stub Service Credit Down Payment Sundry Sale No. System Development Charge In C ty Yes No late-Comers (City)'i It ter On Sewer Yes No t:f 1.11 0. (Others) — Water Usage: Residential Commercial ® Industrial ❑ TOTAL FEE $ F1�[ Other INSTALLATION: �Y I+'..'• I'1 nr. Vpi f Meter sine 1-ll� `p5S H rq }tQ! Mar, 11`+`l ` 1'0'+4 Slee Service Temporary Hydrant Meter yes NO Q IN,ttr Make Qs'lb Sewage Exempt Meter '-s No Meter No. OID A411"011 Fire Protection Service Yet t9 No El Date Installed 5 T-sit L ip .t� Service Address'V'1qq I J pl 7E ,1 - 1�Cp�0O Convents: -- -- Legal Description + eignatwie CRuSS CONNECTION CONTROL: Backflaw Protection Device Required Yes® WINev If Yes, Type of Dice: 1 Reduced Pressure Backflow Device u 1,pV Double Check Valve Assembly® Air or Pressure Vac Breaker EJ Make of Device _ Model Serial No. __ Sire Date Device Installed Meter No. File No. Owner's Name Sl.+t'(':(e('0 (AtI LPL lIN+A bIY fy+1 �„(�. Phone ./,74 - ,2160 Address 1� 1•:> . >L 2�.Is iK City QCIt St+. State !"A 2i0 7n0(f Contractor's Name Phone Address City State Zip Area Served by Renton Water Seattle Water Seattle Water Code No. Temporary Service Agreement Yes ❑ No M If Yes, Agreement Recording No. Service to be Located on an Easement Yes© No 0 If Yes, Easement Recording No. %N I Is There an Existing Stub Service Yes C!g No If Yes, Water Project No. W- t0%iJ Existing Late-Comers Agreement Yes LJ No a If Yes, Agreement No. Ili K 3 l In Favor of Address City State Zip Charge $ System Development Fee Yes E) N.0 If Yes, System Development Fee Based on Yt tr h. J f:''C Square feet THE UNDERSIGNED SUBSCRIBER REQUESTS THE CITY OF RENTON TO SUPPLY WATER AT THE PREMISES NOTED HEREON AND PROMISES TO PURCHASE THE WATER AND PAY THE CITY OF RENTON THEREFORE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CITY OF RENTON-5 SCHEDULE OF RATES WHICH SMALL FROM TIME TO TIME BE LEGALLY IN EFFECT FOR THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH THE WATER 15 TO BE USED NOTED HEREON, AND TO CONFORM TO AND ABIDE BY THE CITY OF RENTON's RULES AND REGULATIONS IN FORCE, RELATING TO THE PURCHASE AND SALE OF WATER. THIS IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH CITY OF RENTON CODE, CHAPTER 2, SECTION 3-203. White - Utility Billlny gHatuAR p " oA Agent -rare- Yell ow - Engineering1'�;7: r' t Pink - Hater Shop �lr'el;. - I Fold - Customer C Y a on 0A1Z"g Agent i CITY OF RENTON N Q pp VOA. UTILITY ENGINEERING No, a`Oi 2�D�� ♦ ♦ RENTON. MILL AVENUE SOUTH E NTON, WA 98055 PHONE: 235-2631 ORDER FOR WATER SERVICE INSTALLATION Account No I 4q-Gfl 1 . C' Meter Charge Work Order No. ?7 q ? Less Stub Service Credit -- Down PaYment SundrySale No . System Development Charge !(1.:A I' 1 CB{ In City Yes No Late-Comers (City) ` • - h 'b On Sewer N,sal No ( `�-D '�1� `1 'rt (Others) Water Usage: Residential 0 Commercial Industrial TOTAL FEE s 1 �i o d' Other INSTALLATION: Meter size I ij sl `tt i'1 size service Temporary Hydrant Meter Yes ❑ No IJ Meter Make S 4 C IAS _ Sewage Exempt Meter Yes E3 No Q Meter No. 0 a 4 4 7 o l Fire Protection Service Yes❑ No E3 Data Installed Service Address I!% i I5 sf )E Is S1 "(:.rnlM Comments: -- --- Legal Description (AIA ^•(oS6 9M u P CROSS CONNECTION CONTROL: Backflow Protection Device Required Yes E tb Ej If Yes, Type of Device: Reduced Pressure Backflow Device M Double Check Valve Assembly Air or Pressure Vac Breaker Make of Device Model Serinl No. _ Size _ Date Device Installed Meter No. File Mo. Owner's Name '.M tu:4 AC 0 C A Or3Fh. o,'APSf NITn (ARP. "One 67 1._ Address 'IONS. °( -76t' 't City -'-,4 ,A •. state 111 zip Contractor's Name phone Address City State _ Zip Area Served by Renton Water® Seattle Water Seattle Water Code No. Temporary Service Agreement Yes❑ No© If Yes, Agreement Recording No. Service to be Located on an Easement yes E] No C3 If Yes, Easement Recording No.I.li 1( Is There an Existing Stub Service Yes m No If Yes, Water Project No. W- irl U Existing Late-Come rs Agreement Yes 0 M6n If Yes, Agreement No ' ( ` In Favor of Address City State Zip Charge S System Development fee Yes® No If Yes, System Development Fee Based o4,I4I n.a 60\ Square Feet THE UNDERSIGNED SUBSCRIBER REQUESTS THE CITY OF RENTON TO SUPPLY WATER AT THE PREMISES NOTED HEREON l.ND PROMISES TO PURCHASE THE WATER AND PAY THE CITY OF RENTON THEREFORE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CITY OF RENTON's SCHEDULE OF RATES WHICH SMALL FROM TIME TO TIME BE LEGALLY IN EFFECT FOR THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH THE WATER 15 TO BE USED NOTED HEREON, AND TO CONFORM TO AND ABIDE BY THE CITY OF RENTON's RULES AND REGULATIONS IN FORCE, RELATING TO THE PURCHASE AND SALE OF WATER. THIS IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH CITY OF RENTON CODE. CHAPTER 2, SECTION 3-203. White - Utility Billing gMAtuge 04 ORMM ort Agent n{� Yellow - Engineering Af Pink - Water Shop �. (Ij`_ Gold - Customer t<u p =mn Tu I�UZ,ngAg+lt Date [E4. 66+ ri irk I Roorw Q� ou 44 V79 639 1;f 64ll . 'FEb La 1�� Q CITY Of RENTON ry UTILITY ENGINEERING No. j,♦ OOf1t7_ ' ♦ ♦ 200 KILL AVENUE SOUTH RENTON. WA 98055 �.L'S PHONE: 215-2631 ORDER FOR WATER SERVICE INSTALLATION Account No, Meter Charge s -Z 600 0si Work Order No. 67�47 / { 5 5(S Less Stub Service Credit -1.' Down Payment Sundir sale No. System Development Charge PA1(I Q- 71Q 5 In City YesX No o e Late-Comers (City) — On Sewer Yes❑ No[N(W.D. 161 J&AM) (Others) qq p Water Usage: Residential Commercial bl ndustrlalO TOTAL FEE $ ay 6Qa o' Other /� INSTALLATION: Meter Size 1!1(N bh►►emcw , Size Service _ Temporary Hydrant Meter Yes El No® Meter Make _ Exempt Meter Yes fA NW(W.V. 16 3 SsWW) Meter No. _ frotection Service Yes❑ No t4 Date Installed Service Address' �rW�/�1]SS - NE 48"m sT _ Comment'. Legal Description 11NxR�RBO Cirt } Saynatuxe CROSS CONNECTION.r.NTROL Backfiow Protection Device Required Yes❑ No® If Yes. Type of;4vice: Reduced Pressure Backflow Device C3 Double Check Valve Assembly Air or Pres.mre Vac Breaker Kake of Device Model Serial No. Size Date Device Installed hater No. 1 ' .File No. Owner's Name '5yUg{ n aQ1'1'M- yhmgmwx (WI>ObQJI'ib Phone (24-9100 Address 1201-- 3 go AN'f Sunk 2too CItW $ ;TA E state QUA ziPQ8101-3054 Contractor's Name Phone Address - City State __ Zip Area Served by Renton Water Seattle Water Seattle Water Code No. Temporary Service Agreement Yes❑ No dV Yes, Agreement Recording No. Service to be Located on an Easement Yes No F] If Yes, Easement Recording Na.Vj,10'36 Is l There an Existing Stub Service Yes No Lrrtl✓T If Yes. Wet er Project No. W- Existing Late-Comers Agreement Yes No Fie If Yes, Agreement No. _ In Favor of Address City State 21p �CCharge $ stem Development Fee Yes g No If Yes, System Development Fee Based on& P• /,�(� Square Feet , THE UNDERSIGNED SUBSCRIBER REQUESTS THE CITY OF RENTON TO SUPPLY WATER AT THE PREMISES NOTED HEREON AND PROMISES TO PURCHASE THE WATER AMC) PAY THE CITY OF RENTON THEREFORE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CITY OF RENTON's SCHEDULE OF RATES WHICH SHALL FROM TIME TO TIME BE LEGALLY IN EFFECT FOR THE PURPOSE FOR :INCH THE WATER IS TO 'BE USED NOTED HEREON, AND TO CONFORM TO AND ABIDE BY THE CITY OF RENTON'S RULES AND REGULATIONS IN FORCE, RELATING TO THE PURCHASE AND SALE OF WATER. THIS IS IN ACCORDANCF WITH CITY OF RENTON CODE, CHAPTER 2, SECTION 8-20 . s White - Utility Billing —3t9maNa¢ o� n da Agel vote Yellow • Engineering SI 11 12 Pink - Water Shop mV wit- Go - Cut toner aly p Ken dM Mtealtg�Xgeil Pare STATE OF WASHINGTON R DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH WATER BACTERIOLOGICAL ANALYSIS 4E1P, COLLECT tpN RLAO NSIRUCIIV:i` .'- II inalmctlons MB MIT f0fl0wB11 sample will be leleCtvd DATE COLLECTED TIME COLLECTED COUNTY NAME MONiN DIY YEAP - �Z gU ❑ AM � PM k/11 TYPE OF SYSTEM IF PUBLIC SYSTEM,COMPLETE: PUBLIC C� Clsttt CO." ❑ INDIVIDUAL I.D.No. t 2 3 0 1 NAME OF SYSTFM eltyo - E'P , SPECIFIC LOCATION WHERE SAMPE VXUtCT 77 YSIEeI OIROVIpI AOTBEPI'm NO i. .a..�r e s"�. wm,AIMMN cff //fr 7) 04 SAMN"COLLECTED BY:NLMw SOURCE TYPE ❑SURFACE ❑WELL r.3 SPRING ❑ PURCHASED (s.CrOOMTBIERTION SE D RE T TO:(1,041111 Hern1' IF"en02q C11 (1 HOC) A•. C (1Sy _ JUBNINOiC" •PE OE SAMPLE _— 1. CI DRINKINGWATER ❑ CMormeU.IReslouaP_TmN_Freal cMGk treelmeel��. r F',Nereo ❑ Untrealen a Odes, 2. ❑,t RAW SOURCE WATER I 3. y NEW CONSTRUCTION or REPAIHS I A. ❑ OTHER ISPeeltYl__ COMPLETE IF THIS SAMPLE IS A CHECK SAMPLE PRLwO(15 I AS NO_ PREVIOUS SAMPLE COLLECTION DATE_ REMARKS. Sit c. A.0 D 3c I"c' s! S37/C/ 21 fk,�..A7 _ LABORATORY RESULTS"w BBa ONLY) MPN-COUFORM STD PLATE COUNT SAMPLE AUSE NOT TESTED MON DILUTION~ TEST UNSUITABLE ❑ +Fmpla Teo Old AM" 1. ❑ conrleanl Gm.1I ❑ Not in Propet Container MF COLIFORM 2. ❑ TNTC ❑ Inealticlent lnlormaHon �� . Wovioee—Plisse Plead! Instwehons on Form FECAL COLIFCR 3. ❑ EAnes OaDrla ❑ MPN ❑ MF ! ❑ ❑ TOO m1 FOR DRINKING WATER SAMPLES ONLY,1 HESE RESULTS ARE. L3 SATISFACTORY ❑ UNSATISFACTORY SFE PF VFRSF,,,nrz OF ORCLN COPY FOR EKPLAL.ATION OF RESULTS lAe NO IF TIME RECEIVE[— RECEwEO aY i DAIS REPORTED LAeORATOVY REMARKS DON SD 2IREV I2181 WATER SUPPLIER COPY r. �— OSHS 1TIrJIRIan STATE OF WASHINOTON ' DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL AND HEALTH SERVICES - WATER BACTERIOLOGICAL ANALYSIS SAMPLL CDUfGNDN RI.AD INSii+l`. % ON BACK OF GD[DENROD COPY If InstmotlonS AM not followed,sample will be mlwted. DATE COLLECIED i1ME COLLECTED COUNTY NAME MDNTN DAY nYSAR ��/y�- / I 4/ ID 7 " W AM i/) _ 'YPE OF SYSTEM IF PUBLIC SYSTEM,COMPLETE yl PUBLIC CIRCI!Cl.Y55 R I.D. No. 6 (IINDIVIDUAL 5 a-) ? 3 E NAME OF SYSTEM• CI SP[CIRC L0 TIOR H[R SAMPLE COLLECTE SYSTEM WA MCA WAR 4H0 RLERDM FV n r� Z 8MYuN-taf�N�LbLRh elite o eeaTle.+ SAMPLE COLLECTED BY.lN.m.l SOURCE TYPE ❑SURFACE ❑WELL ❑ SPRING ❑ PURCHASED V.C)0mBINATION ''RI or OTHER SEND REPORT TO.IRin1 Full wm..MfillesF me SP CW.I _ R . �\�, wABHINOTDN 9$e u TYPE OF$AMPLE` 1. 6 'PINKINGWATER � check treat ent'P! FAIEred Yr L OnITw1ed Or 011 . Y 2. ❑ RAWLOURCEWATER J♦iJp 3. NEW nONSTRUCTION or REPAIRS *I✓ A. OTHER ISI>KDYI COMPLETE IF THIS SAMPLE 1$ACNE ''Wft - Pat Y10US IAS NI)_ PREVICUS SAMPLE COLLECTION DATE REMARKS-- _��, �I i � _ LABORATORY RESULTS IFOR LAB UN ONLY) _ �I MPN COLIFORM STD PLATE COUNT SAMPLE NOT TESTED BECAUSE 41 MPN DIlUT10N TEST UNSUITABLE ❑ Semple Too C'd FIW ❑ ConTluenl Gl"lh ❑ Nol In Propw Con41Mt COLIFORM ' 'r—* 2. ❑ TNTC ❑ IneuliNo-1 less Need {l�' 1�•Y i /on m IT.InictOiom lon Fnrm, P FFCAL COL IFOR 3. ❑ E.c ,DWn. 4. ❑ ❑ FOR DRINKING WATER SAMPLES ONLY.THESE RESULTS ARE x : SATISFACTORY ,~lnsFACTORY 1 et i:9F 91[E OF GRLFN CCP'i FtIR FIPI ANATION CF Hi I"I' LAB NO 'AYE AIpW[p— RECEWEO BY �, DATE REPORTED IAepMTORY: RENARRe WATER SUPPLIER COPY P. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT BUILDING DIVISION CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON PERMIT / APPLICATION ONLY - UNTIL VALIDATED NUMBER 76b7 WorL cwo m 87141jWI+Dr—* of 56 Owner�u"ou D^ Location of Work--r Lf%vi W?04 NE 4fl Ihsc (Mu Y, 70501 &va PMX Address 1201 3w ME Smut 2200 Sr- Wua. Val , INSPECTIONS FEES CONSTRUCTION Side Sewer S[orm Sewer Right-of-way Constructicn PERMIT 2 OC Sp. Utility Conn. Fee - Water Water Latecomer FeestW-E°5) 22. 1 (Public Right-of-Way) Water Insp./Approval Fees 14 I60• nl1 _ Sp. Utility Conn. Fees - Sewer 1 Sewer Latecomer Fees Sr�r �3 '��� Sewer Insp./Approval Fees Date I----- Inspection Fees Special Deposit - CASH BOND 7 11 1�,444 �1 Expiration Date TOTAL FEE Description of work and Number of Feet IYISIAW�t�u OF �2 WA�fe.MaAu �' (eLNEtTidi+ To Qfl)TTN(: HA1N1� WRTEa SER%i1.✓<S, Itd-TWA. MCI) 8f h10"ATS , F1QE DQc'•ErYMn+ $7R1►fxlEQ, VR6lf2 ?M APPIL00) PIAWS C W- `30) Businesso 74 Contractor��TIAIOCO �PPOU License Address 61 - C I$0 Sr 0 .7D Telg2lioneUb 1ZExC Ul A. 9 8032 L IT IS UNDERSTOOD THAT THE CITY OF RENTON SHALL BE HELD HARMLESS OF ANY AND ALL LIABILITY, DAMAGE OR INJURY ARISING FROM THE PERFORMANCE OF SAID WORK. ANY WORK PERFORMED WITHIN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY OR ON S R RAIP MUST E DONE BY A LICENSED, BONDED CONTRACTOR. LOCATE UTILITIES EX VATI CALL 235-2631 FOF INSPECTION. Call between B AM and 9 AM for APPLICA inspection in afternoon: call before 12 Noon the day before for inspection in morning. PUBLI WO DIRECTOR SPECIFY TIME FOR INSPECTION. CALL BEFORE YOU DIG BY _ CALL 235-2620 for street s.gns 48-HOUR LOCATORS and lighting. 1-800-424-5555 �1jlXlUG S c o PY .--•' CITY OF RENTON WATER DEPARTMENT Pressure Test 6 Purification Test Form PROJECT NO. c NAME OF PROJECT $h„r a,�2o 7o a-A mC c-k M7 U PRESSURE TEST TAKEN By M.13. W6TMERkL--C- N 1� ' QgCI AT A PRESSURE OF a,ar S 1 PSI, FOR TEST ACCEPTED ON c- -7 %0, _ PURIFICATION TEST TAKEN BY ON PURIFICATION TEST RESULTS, SAMPLE s1 SAMPLE 02 SAMPLE 03 REMARKS:p�KOKyyO�F'IL"� T- INeI' � �t� d� Af4Ln CA+Sr 76-4 KQe Q_ k4pAG, r;c Tcsr- 6/0 Geis pr-ess. m# CITY OF RENTON WATER DEPARTMENT Pressure Test & Purification Test Form PROJECT NO. l,a-1030 NAME OF PROJECT5Lh 06 , Mt.D Exit i17 PRESSURE TEST TAKEN BY ON �, c� 1 q Q.1 AT A PRESSURE OF_ a3S �s� PSI, FOR a hours -e- MIN. TEST ACCEPTED ON , , _0 1cl PURIFICATION TEST TAKEN BY ON PURHICATION TEST RESULTS, SAMPLE. #1 SAMPLE RI SAMPLE 03 REMARKS: Apvvr r/ef0 Lf /s° /71 a_ 1� - Two S¢rwca-5 'TZSTer�<Fba %$c. Rs. 06r 1 5 �... .� To =74RI Y BUILDING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT DIVISION F F AUG .110,89 FIRE FLOW C�OR�RECTION SHEET am a nglneenng Pt,REVIEWED BY: CZ ✓ 1�_ 4// _ DST FIRE DiSTRi CT: �_ WATER PURVEYOR: _ ENTON(!/A' f 7 111 T R RELMED FILE: �I PROJECT/TITLE: _ n(Vt? R L SELF S/�RA�� Aer�Y (T "7 er JOB LOCATION: K, $LvP. APPLICANT MANE: ` T 4-F PHONE: 449 elp00 AGENCY -// •"`r Ari f' APPLICANT ADDRESS: YE S'•E. / � ](MEW STRUCTUF'. nRENmEL (TENANT IM204EMENT nAWITION nSNELL ONLY I 10THER _ CIRCLED ITEMS BELOW APP TO TOUR PUNS FF-1. obl rNmber of hydrants required Ia FF-!. A fire protection sprinkler system is required for: (No. Nev _ No Exislvly n �4c.1- F-2. where fire hyd onto and/or "ter mire art required, / segal three (3) copies of a "ter min extension plan shall IWA71l f}( submitted to the Csmercist/Multifmity Product Stctim, Fire Protection Eng(nwnaring Unit. FF3, 11 raw!red fire hydrants shall be Installed rd In FF-9. Prior to imtellstim of urdsr round ester supply, operation prior to combustible construction be9lnR,ing piping for the sprinkler systs plans shall be sib- site. witted to the Cmmarc(sl/NultifMily P.cdsts Section, Fire protection Engineering Unit, for review and approval. Sub- Irl FFi. All required fire depertm,,t access roads shall be wi wi n(wua of thrn (3) sets of plait- insteLled and services'le for fire depArtMirt Mae nor to <ewbustibla construct ,n begimieg .n-site. FF-10. Ire department connections (F.D.C.) As shown an drawings area approved. Final review of required iF-3. Mark and sign fire department accase roads as, sprinkler system(s) sheik determine approved location(s) of 6i) "NO PARKING - FIRE LANE". Sae approved site Dien for F.D.C.s. l ations requiring working and signing. FiI i•t1, 1 /NDA! i To�(ZFiJ2E FF-b. The mini" type of construction allowed for this /�J Wilding is based on calculatednl n flow requi rewenc V1./j-F fLR Bib"C/ —r /L �\J iF-7. "- (2) hour rated or" tepar-. on wl1U) sheik be 1_ saw insts(led at locations noted on plans. Such "ll(s) D/mil�ic}/1� are required Tor Tire Tim. Y\�� c CALCULATIONS FIRE AREA CONSIDERED: 11 1 9Q,,TN &RnQN Ol- Type of Construction: J Ground fluor Area: sq. ft. X No. of stories: Total Floor Area nn A_[1 3 6--- gam— sq.ft. lase Fire Flow (Table): Type of Occupancy: / � z .r�.� x _ - gpA "-total 3 r2J C, goat (A) Automatic Sprinklers: Subtract _;LOX N (A) _1� �S RON, / Subtotal 4.6'Z''> open EXPOSURE QQ 2) SOUTH z ��_ FT. It 3) EAST 36 FT. I—S 1x A) WEST 30 FT. oZ U % • sat-totak 4-O x we X (A) 3_y S� ��%® gm Total • _ ?g Ron Fire Flow Required • G'CO goat Fire Flow Avai LabLe • lom-ff-G/2G/88 This certificate provides the Department of dIsealth Development and Please Gtaco ND Buildingapartme t Land Development BUILDING& LAND DEVELOPMENT th information necessary to 450 Admmat'suon Buddma .valuate development proposals. $41,0W41 valhm ion 99104 ,r 206.3447900 ,.a - Il•I�' ... wiMite�; KING COUNTY CERTIFICATE OF WATER AVAIIAB CITY no wr e Is is x number name ® Building Permit Q Preliminary Plat or PUD ❑ Short Subdivision ❑ Rezone or other APPLICANT'S NA14E Shurgard Capital Group, c/o Ruhl-Parr 6 Associates PROPOSED USE Self-Storage (Conwrcial) S.B. coiner of Lake Washington Blvd. and S.B. 76th St., (Sth Ave.-P-) LOCAT ION ,Lr7r 0. Bnls Co C P S��Q�Oli2 �'— (At at ch map c legal description if necessary) f f 1 1 1 f 1 1 WATER PURVEYOR 3NFORMATION a. Water will be provided by service connection only to an existingEl size water main feet from the site. b. / b, Water service will require an improvement to the water system of: ❑ 1) feet of water main to reach the sites and/or ( 12) the construction of a distribution system on the sites and/or ❑ (3) other (describe) 2. a. dTlie water system is in conformance with a County approved water comprehensive plan. OR LJ b. 0 The water al atom improvement will require a water comprehensive plan amendment. 3. a. r"+ The proposed project In within the corporate limits of the district, or has been IJ granted Boundary Review Board approval for extension of service outside the district or city, or is within the County approved service area of a private water purveyor. U.R ' IIJX Annexation or eRB aopcovel will be necessary to provide service. 4. a. rWater is/or will be available at the rate of flow and duration indicated no lees than 20 psi measured at the nearest fire hydrant s4 D f' TD building/property (or as marked on the attached map) , Rate of Flow Duration f9{, ❑ lees than 500 gpm [approx. gpm) 0 less than 1 hour ❑ 500 to 999 gpm .hour to 2 hours ❑ 1000 gpm or mare FOR pt72 hours or more flow test of gpm ❑ other Wcalculation of gpm (commercial Building Permits require flow OR Ai S'r71w1'97-,6 test or,calculation) i+. OMatur .^.yscam/+�`'L✓ot '44TECO/�r6W f=FE pletc ' g `r�°2 �0 COMMENTS/CONDrrIONS l oye-tjj/` o 7r AiWn w{TF)IC MAt^J XX7I5ALJ0&( � rlNs lE���?t/2P�Dr F'!leF Fj-ovl/ cA,4C ec�[� fi�OrrKinlg /�,(j Fl,�'F DI SL, AA/D �Un)UA.eN �. ✓! c�� T�DA2n ��t,PDt'AG .�SO h0:�eb4 v e6tt��Zf)y that the above water purveyor information is true. This .;ertification shall be valid for one year from date of signature. ge1ney Name natory ame Title gna ure ate 't? zee 04"11+81 00:48 FAX 206 251 0088 WESTWOOD CORP a1002 --°5t(o734- Rt ion tTN�! 12.0xIZn/xGO Gi TIM (yA►xF`) eyT .... _ JAI. A;5L-rs C44%;C. ant ASP f�.aNh 1 + r ? � ! f { t i ' � !"• �!i►"fIGR L T,' 4"DF,!QI.-5Z � l r T`C OF t lJTDI i 4-om . ' f aF { it x �Ff�EG/STEREO�< I j j r 1 ;. f• ` [O234-4 I � t 1j 4ull Ac 6` I KING COUNTY BUILDING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT DIVISION F F FIRE FLOW CORRECTION SHEET REVIEWED BY y DATEi O ry i $9�D�OQp FIRE DISTRICT: a`-5 WATER MVEIORt a �f. /wow, ��LLLIIED-Fll[L - --- PROJECT/TITLE: {''- -�'Pl'yd'?1� -�f1F SM14A ` tt�'•/� Joe LOCATION: L,C�. L_i/ I�dCCJ APPLICANT N !` K.r PNQIE: AGENCY '/'I AV �APP�LICCAANT ADDRESS: �uG .EW STRUCTURE ❑REMODEL ❑TENANT IMPROVEMENT El ADDITION SHELL ONLY ❑OTHER �( CIRCLED ITEMS BELOW APPLY TO YOIM PLANS Total rndwer o hydronta required Is if-B. fire protection Winkler'system Is required ffw: sum Co.. Nw No Existing FF-2. ere fire hydrants and/or later scion are required, � Three (3) copies of a water Min extension DIM shalt sulmitted to the Commercial/Multifewily Product Section, Fire Protection Engineering Unit. iF-3. 11 required fire hydrants shell be Imtdled " In fi-9 rlor to Imtsllstim of udergemud meter supply, operation prior to co"tlbte construction beginning Piping for tAa sprinkler fyRew plans shall be sub- to. witted to the Comsare(al/Multifaally Products Section, fire Protection Engineering Unit, for rwlw and approval. Snb- FF,A. 11 required fire department access roads shall be *it a minlmus of three (3) sets of plan. Installed and serviceable for fire dcpsrtment use to canWtlble construction beginning on-site. fi-1 Fire department connections (F.D.C.) a Shown on drsvings final reviewof required ark and sign fire department access roads as. sprinkler systaw(s) shall determine sppreved Iocstim(s) of "NO PARKING - FIRE LANE". See approved site plan for F.D.C.s. location, requiring working and signing. f fi•11. ipgzn FF 6. The Minima t f eon rue Ion allwed for this p building is based on catmtated V r+ -r1 S OCE-®u/ /N �L /{re IIw rpuirswents. �A BL aQi `"ry i>111 v i f-2. - (2) hour rated area separation wall($) shall be imtalied at locations rated on plan. Such wall($) are required for fire it ow. f>`a�/le A7• — c/ R CALCULATIONS FIRE ARIA CONSIDERED: �"-rfre a977ePJ 02�z 14D!/✓lS C� Type of Construction: Ground Floor Area: d sq. It. R No. of stories: Total floor Area �^L'' n�•, I/ „`"'f 9SS sq•1t. Base fire FT ow (Table): W 11�/_` �V ' ,0C::T wit Type of Occupacy: •/• �- % BP • Sub-total • Na (A) LL � Automatic Sprinklers: 4� Subtract-6T7%s (A) T D we • Sub-total IDm KE POSVRES / �D / �• 1) MORIN �[�jl FT. �% REV1SiON 2) SWIM 2 rI-/1__ FT. 3) EAST -!Sor!7 FT. 1 % 4) WEST 30 IT. �20 % • Sub-total _4% Use 440 % % (A) • �� OP Total • O<m Fire slow Ragilred • OP Fin flow Available Ws• fcrm ff-4/24i86 ,o.e nnryJt,'oc4S l !'U6-�'T /awc�i 23S-�9Vw �aAJ /<C WWW J'r22'� GY�ll� t,J�sr�ldvD �.g9. 6i2g NM1N N88 - C��I� �nan (' LA)4PV> Auw C7. 33`l - oo�Z LIMITED POWER SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA OF ATTORNEY GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA HOME OFFICE.SAFECO PLAZA SMECO SEATTLE.WASHINGTON 981 b5 No. 23Ei KNOW ALL BY THESE PRESENTS: That SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA and GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA,each a Washington corporation.does hereby appoint ------L. KAY SMITH; BETTY W. MCLEAN; IDA NEWCOMB; RONALD S. SHERON; LEANNE S. LOGAN; MICHAEL CREIGHTON; PATRICIA RL'SSELL; Bellevue, Washington--------------------- Its true and lawful attorney(sl-in-fact,with full authority to execute on its behalf fidelity and surety bonds or undertakings and other documents of a similar character issued by the company in the course of its business,and to bind the respective company thereby in amounts or penalties not exceeding the sum of TSIO HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND AND NOIOO DOLLARS($ 250,000.00--------------) IN WITNESS WHEREOF,SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA and GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA have each executed and attested these presents this— 5th day of Avail ,19 90 CERTIFICATE Extract from the By-Laws of SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA and of GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA: "Article V, Section 13. — FIDELITY AND SURETY BONDS the President. any Vice President, the Secretary. and any Assistant Vice President appointed for that purpose by the officer in charge of surety operations.shall each have authority to appoint individuals as attorneys-m-fact or under other appropriate lilies with authority to execute on behalf of the company fidelity and surety bonds and other documents of similar character issued by the company in the course of its business On any instrument making or evidencing such appointment.the signatures may be affixed by facsimile On any instrument conferring such authority or on any bond or undertaking of the company,the seal,or a facsimile thereof,may be it Tressed or affixed or in any other manner reproduced, provided, howaver, that the seal:hall not be necessary to the validity of an.such instrument or undertaking." Extract from a Resolution of the Board of Directors of SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA and of GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA adopted July 26. 1970. 'On any candidate exiculed by the Secretary or an assistant secretary of the Company setting out, Ii) The provisions of Article V.Section 13 of;he By-laws,and (n) A copy of the power-of-attorney appointment,executed pursuant thereto,and (iii) Certifying that said power-of-attorney appointment is in full force and effect, the signature of the certifying officer may be by facsimile,and the seal of the Company may be a facsimile thereof" I. Bon A. Dickey. Secretary of SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA and of GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA,do hereby certify that the loregoing extracts of the By-laws and of a Resolution of the Board of Directors of these corporations,and of a Power of Attorney issued pursuant thereto,are true and correct,and that both the By Laws.the Resolution and the Power of Attorney are still in lull force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF,I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the facsimile seal of said corporations this ---- day of . 19 S 91S R9 JPR nPigTEO iv1i S. Bond No. 5624700 PERMIT BOND KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: That we Shurgard.,Growth Capital - Fund 17 Limited Partnership Sa£eco Ins Co of America of Seattle, WA as Principal, Intl , a Washington corporation, as Surety, are held and firmly bound unto the CITY OF RENTON, a municipal corporation of the State of Washington, In the penal sum of Two Thousand Dollars ($2,000.00) lawful money of the United States of America, for the payment of which, will and truly to be made, we firmly bind ourselves, and each of our heirs, executors, administrators, and assigns, jointly and severally by these presents. Sealed with our seals and dated this 10 September 1990 THE CONDITION Of THE FOREGOING OBLIGATION IS SUCH, that, WHEREAS, the above named Principal has applied for a permit, pursuant to the provisions of Ordinance No. 3203, to do certain work on a City of Renton roadway, street, alley, avenue, or other public place, during a period ending NOW THEREFORE, if the above named Principal shall indemnify and save harmless the City of Renton, from all claims, ctions or damages of every kind and description which may accrue as a result of opening and/or working upon any roadway, street, alley, avenue, or other public place, by him or those in his employ, in installing or making connections with any public or private sewer or water system, or any other purpose or object whatever, and that he will replace and restore such roadway, street, avenue, alley or other public place to as good a state or condition as at the time of the commencement of said work, and maintain the same In good order to the decided satisfaction of the City of Renton Engineer, and that he *ill comply with all the provisions of his or their franchise or permit, and all resolutions or Instruments relating thereto, then this obligation to oe void; otherwise to remain In full force and effect. The liability under this bond is for a period of one year from September 10, 1990to September 9, 1991and may be extended by the surety issuing a Continuation Certificate. Shurgard Growth Capital - Fund 17 Limited Partnership By: Shur ard, Inc. Gee er By CCC 1ph e/ er, -eEary 1 eanne S. Logan ; Attorney-in-fact 1a.03 4/23/0' LAKE 61AStIINGTON •• •• •• �s• go 2 -PEN}IN 91 __ N V o ASSOCIAIL' — > a� s or + I,�SfY� A11 — � ..�.7 to st—^EELIG a O �1« Co✓enah I _ fb 40nex \ � a�Pl'� fO > 7%e5e -Fvvo U -- Parcels a n Sty -- sf eotn S� RENTON 91 ANNEXATION Site Map CITY OF RENTON '�►�� Department of Planning/Building/Public Works Earl Clymer, Mayor _ Lynn Guttmann, Administrator October 25, 1990 Ron Newhouse, Construction Manager Shurgard Corporation 1201 3rd Avenue,Suite 2200 Seattle,WA 98101 SUBJECT: SHURGARD SELF-STORAGE EXIT 7-RENTON,WA Dear Sirs: Please be aware that the City has annexed the right-of-way of NE 48th Street (SE 76t't) along the property frontage of the Shurgard project. City of Renton Codes require that the following requirements be met prior to construction within City right-of-way. 1. Original mylar drawing must be stamped and approved by the City Utility,Transportation, and Maintenance Departments. 2. The City must issue a Construction permit prior to construction in the right-of-way. In order to assess inspection fees, and the required permit bond, we require an itemized cost estimate of all work within the cited right-of-way. Further construction within the subject right-of-way will not be permitted (outside of certain remedial actions the contractor is currently taking to prevent further erosion along the road shoulder and to bring current conditions within a reasonable standard of safety for motorists) l until items No. 1 and 2 above are satisfied. The City of Renton Development Services Department is requesting that you submit the following information for the Shurgard Development on NE 48th(SE 76th): • 1 set of mylars of the Drainage Plans and Off-site Improvements for our signature. • Engineer's cost estimate for all work within the City right-of-way(NE 481h). Your timely response will assist us in processing this project and will expedite issuance of the required permit. v Vey truly yours, Kim Scattarella,E.I.T. Storm Water Utility Engineer,Plan Review 3/Woibh cc: Mark Wnhc'u Abdoor Gafow David Do.mbc-,, E. Bob Puch,We. d Corp. 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 - (206) 235.2631 OF R ,Y7. CITY OF RENTON PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT .. O 235-2631 PRP ONSTR 1CTION CONE R Nr 4 � °s e. DATE: 'f_HURS m SEPICHP.�t, 13, Iggo %191TEO sEPt EM00P TIME: b30 PM PLACE: 5—TM AMR) • denrERFHCE RoeH- '2GM6H CM( HALL., DEVELOPER / CONTRACTOR OR SUBCONTRACTOR / NAME OF PROJECT: COMPANY NAME. Wf WO60 4 RWA110M COMPANY ADDRESS: 6 II • So. [80 H` bt - V EHr . WA. g84s2 PHONE: 251-0638 FAX NO.: 251-006q CONTACT: 9 $uEu, NAME OF PROJECT: N(19440 SEtf• 5'fOR - 6,<g 7 INSTALLATION: WAtERH iH W- 1630 LOCATION: Aff WASH 81V0 H ; 5f 76t 5t NE 48T- Sr PROJECT COORDINATOR: ABafal, A$UR PLEASE CHECK DEPARTMENTS TO PF. NOTIFIED AND SPECIFY PERSON 10 ATTEND: [ ] PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT: N Utility Plan Review 6Rf*A $IrryteMAN [*A] Water Utility _ Mpou GAfwq (/] Waste Water l tility 6AQ'f t oRRt50" (7] Storm Water Utility VA f GHetSTENSEH [)t] Transportation Systems p0] Maint•rance Services Division JACK 6Q.ALei [�] Customer Services P.I.C. - — ( 6[ Construction Services GAQY YOU MG 'Fh- ;c r lriwcein yL fA FIRE PREVENTION [A POLICE DEPARTMENT [ ] PARK DEPARTMENT _ [ ] BUILDING DEPARTMENT ( ] OTHER OUTSITF 1PPARTMENTS: [A CONTRACTOR TO NOTIFY ( L'. I iSOCIATED CIVIL CONTRACTORS ( ] Departm:nt of Transportation 87'-6470 [?0] U.S. West Communications 235-3012 D11 Puget Sound Power & Light Co. 235-2947 x2912 ( ] Seattle City Light 684-3076 [A TCI Cable of Washington (Phil Fisk) 433-3434 x3084 [y] Washington Natural Gas Company 622-6767 x249 [ ] METRO - Bus Routes 684-1595 rr] King County Inspection 244-0770 [ tether. j/PRECONFM/Jx CITY OF RENTON Public Works Department 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 (206) 235-2631 FAX (206) 235-2513 FAX TRANSMITTAL SHEET DATE: September 10, 1990 ATTN: Bob Buell FIRM/AGENCY NAME: Westwood Corporation FAX NO.: 2S1-0069 PHONE NO.: 2S1-0638 _ I PAGES (EXCLUDING COVER ,,HEET) (If you did not receive all the pages, j j please call 235-2631 and ask for Pat Stoddard.) - (1 1 FROM: Abdoul Gafour 1 FAX NO: 235-21 3 PHONE NO.: 235-2631 DEPT: Water Utility - 4th Floor SUBJECT: Shurgard Self-Storage, lake Wash. Blvd.and SE 76th Street BILLING Please re t$ —for r pages. Payable to: Ci^$0 t Renton erk venue South A 98055 Charges: inimum r Page -of-State (additional) 10-Page Link( i \1 FAXCVR:ps REVIEW SHEET - PERMIT FEE AND RATES PROJECT NAME: 1 31�U�(ARD E n i i LOCATION: • I. SANITARY SEWER (EACII CONNECTION) Residential t20.00 Com„errial f50.00 / Industrial f100.00 f - 2. STORM SEWER (EACH CONNECTION) GRO 3 I/rf 1 Residential f20.00 Connerci.l $50.00 Industrial f100.00 (. (> f 5. RICItT-OF-WAY CONSTRUCTION (Length QR� Zp 7 J I r.Ivd.a • d.ve I kk., cu76a�..;...varier. and lwprovem.nta 0 - 05, W.00 )( 56' - 100 $25.00 Over 100' 050.00 f 2 S A. INSPECTION/APPROVAL FEES (2Z of coats) pQ D 3 Z 75 V 1276 For repiacments 6 i.proveements to tI., ..@*wants on-site and off-site Includes: Cost 21 Fee Sanitary $ever f f Weser s_ 58,o0o t' f 9, 1 to Store Sever Street, Walk 6 Curbs f f .(/5 M IAJ 27 of the first f100,000 I I;2Z of that amount over 9100.000, but leas then f200,000 lZ of any en...nt over $100,000 The applicant vill be required to .ubmlt "prate enar estimates far each item if improvement, subject to arrrov.l by the Public Work. Department. S. band not required BrxD QI(!E $1000 Performance Bond Required Construction bond Required (1002 cost of vo)k in R/W) 6. Contractor required to have current City business licence} Yee AA_Other 2. Lteromer Agree+ant - Water W �ZS r)�t u• 1V� �Cyp UU Mil Latecomer Agreement - Sanitary WO (0�j -- aj wI=~t ym Latecomer Agreement - Stern B. System Bev e:.....t Charge - Water 1.0A11n,x uc,44S Sass) ,t $ 3 ],7Z \J\ System Development Charge - Sanitary 9, Special Assessment Area Charge - Water .-- Special Assessment Are. Ch. •e - Sanitary 10. Approved Water Plan 0 k Approved Sanitary Plan Approved Store Stare Pigs }'I\f- Ce.ell ,jr, _�>t..'z fV) 17 L ( QI:W Get 42+ I` er (r 1 LL VAt5Mr2 {� i�cic.�n �C31 IT klM — YYlo.f4 L—aC IEJ C ,I (_t_ `� Y C— GtrwlCo s 16 J4N t� FEE APPLICATION: p DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SNEET M ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST REVIEW SHEET IM PLAN REVIEW ROUTING SLIP OTIIER APPLICANT S S DATES J0B ADORESSi `A NATURE OF WORKS 7CEIEt ® PROPERTY MANAGEMENT DACommentsDue BYComments or suggestions regarding this appe provided In writing, Please provide comments to the Comm. Dev. De00 p.m• on above date. REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION ® FEES APPLIED CANNOT APPLY FEES O LEGAL DESCRIPTION NEED MORE INF9RMA ON ❑ SQUARE FOOTAGE ❑FRONT FOOTAGE ❑VICINITY MAP It is the intent of this development f analysis to put the developer/owner on notice, that the fees quoted below will apply to the subject site upon development of the property. All quoted fees are ue and payable at the time the construction Permit is issued to install the on-sit anal off-site improvements (i .e. underground utilities, street improvements, etc.) �,d/pr �p01(1166j'faf 1,;Vl LATECOMER AGR,€ENEN PROJECT COST LATE'Cl:'ER IICLD PERK G• FEE IVAIE fDEV-1 OPER I L 2s Z —0 - o 44 LAT ECOMER�.Al; PRIVATE DEYELOPER IIE —�- -n— K L9L UTILIT__Y CO MU_N to WATER 9:o�jrio1e faml ly residential dwe EC .EEI`_ tR€OL. Cando. '"I"PLT III/Industrial ).Q4 f SPECIAL UUJ TY COt;i C 0 cll ROE - SEWE _isgle fam I resident —� dw it uj 0 1 t x Ilpartment I a mud I t 7 t — v �yomm to f r _ D. 107- g;p t$ r a DEyMI+MENTS HITII 1§Q WS OR LESS• S— AD FEE---- --�F£a 0. 4 r sa f i x sn l� s 4 Frontage Chara 6 0 Der front ft x may. G DEVELOPMENTS WITII GR AN 0 S. -�--_ Ares rha ra 4 r .f x Fr°ntag� r 0 SPECIAL ASS D Ion SEWER AREA CIIRG S:A Resi nti l w r u s a , 4mgnts or eeujy 1 SQ Der dwelling ni x COmmerclal 1,05 Der s f aro5s site area x FRONTFRONT FO�iAR —111,19 per e r TOTAL: $ . '-B The above quoted fees do NOT include inspection fees, side sewer Pe Its, r/w permit fees or the cost of water meters. gnature of Director or uthorized Representative ATE Si ow- FEE APPLICATION: L_1 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SIIEET L_] ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST REVIEW SHEET M PLAN REVIEW ROUTING SLIP OTIIER--- _- APPLICANT: cu S r D T�•_/- - JOB ADORESS: S- NATURE OF WORK: ® PROPERTY MANAGEMENT DAIS RECEIVED Comments Due 0Y PROPERTY M T. 4� Comments or suggestions regarding this application should be provided in writing. Please provide comments to the Comm. Dev. Dept.(C. .U.) by 5:00 p.m. or above date. REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION r �c FEES APPLIED U- CANNOT APPLY FEES IJLEGAL DESCRIPTION NEED MORE INFORMA ION (--] SQUARE FOOTAGE FRONT FOOTAGE ❑VICINITY MAP It is the intent of this development f analysis to put the developer/owner on notice, that the fees quoted below will apply to the subject site upon development of the property. All quoted fees are a and payable at the time the construction permit is issued to install the on-sit and ofJJf-site improvements (i .e. underground utilities, street improvements, etc.) redr0+-' yD CD/Iz1CGf�D C',t'iS7rjN9 ��j�.5 LATECOMER AGREEMENT - WATER PROJECT COST LATECOMER --CITY LEA_ NO _PEg. ETG. FED R V I V PR I 25.52/5� o LAI€G4LgS ACRE CITY IIELD PRIVATFDEYELipER —�- SPE�IAL )TILII1_g0-ff&T19fl CNA —NAI.LB_— S _�UCC FEE In family residential we 1 300 1 x Apartment ond_ o_eKbI mu I nm r i�L1Lndustrial .04 f of orouerty x i o 9�Ja 1�+�_ 4�•1 7z SPECIAL UTIL TY CONNECTION GN R E - SEW R Sin le famll re ident'al w li n 30 lot x AOartment ondo -each multi x n t 5/pa 5/pa uni Co erci I n trial 4 ft. f r rt 2 AS IT 10SQ 'a r a o D DEVE OF NT wlm n SA FEE Area_Lllarg F T�OWs OR LFSS• -- A�dIn.�Lge 4 Fronlage Ctirge 6 00 r f t f x UEVELOe ENTS I�1j1G T T N 00 GPM FIRE FLOWS, _ Are ha ce 0 40 r soft. x _ - --- F LUS39T<S.h 0 pgr front ft x _ . MIA S S 111olley Crk, InterW_tl) R UNITS SAD AR IIARGES_._ R_ FLE esiden zl w in units, aoartments or eauly welling unit x C— ummerc' devvg1_ gent: -- --- S_05 oSL,s f rats site area x FRONT FOOTAGE FI F - side) s74.38 per rply on both I es of imory ) TOTAL: T & CE7,5 The above quoted fees do NOT include inspection fees, side sewer permits, r/w permit fees or the Cost of water meters. (.YcR+., L yy�c i DATE /-//-90 Signature of Director or(.Authorized Representative CITY OF RENTON MEMORANDUM DATE: May 7, 1989 TO: Larry Warren FROM: Ken Nyberg SUBJECT: Renton 91 Annexation: Shurgard Certificate of Water Arallat,illty STAFF CON7 ACC Nancy Laswell Morris Could you please provide a legal opinion on the status of the Certificate of Water Availability for the Shurgard property. Under state law, the City of Renton must notify the Boundary Review Board of any '[ proposed extension of water or sewer service outside the municipal boundaries.. A I4 covenant to annex is not adectur :. On November I, 1988, the Utility Engineer signed a certificate of water availabilty for the Shurgard propeRy which is located outside the city limits. The former property owners had signed a covenant to annex to obtain water service in 1985. However, the City has not notified the Boundary Review Board of the intent to provide service. The property is within the city's service area as agreed to in the Enstside WUCC. It would appear that the Certificate of Water Availability states that the City will provide service to this property. Ilowever, without the Notice of Intert approved by the Boundary Review Board the City does not have the authority to provi,,e such service. To complicate the situation the Shurgard property is part of the proposed Renton 91 annexation for which a certified 75% petition has been filed with the City. Because of the annexation and other factors, it would appear prudent to rescind the certificate since water is not presently available to the property without action by the Boundary Review Board. Could you please provide direction on rescinding this certificate, and particularly the process which the city should pursue. t i 36.93.070 Tiue 36 RCW: Counties journal of its proceedings which shall be a public record. purpose districts,but not including consolidation of cities A majority of all the members shall constitute a quorum and towns; Or (c) dissolution or disincorporation of any for the transaction of business. city, town, or special purpose district, except that a The chief clerk of the board shall have the power to board may not review the dissolution or disincorporalion administer oaths and affirmations, certify to all official of a special purpose district which was dissolved or dis. acts, issue subpoenas to any public officer or employee incorporated pursuant to the provisions of chapter 36.96 ordering him to Icslify before the board and produce RCW: Provided, That the change in the boundary of a public records, papers, books or documents. The chief city or town arising from the annexation of contiguous clerk may invoke the aid of any court of competent ju- city or town owned property held for a public purpose risdiclion to carry out such powers. shall be exempted from the requirements of this section; The board by role may provide for hearings by panels or of members consisting of not less than five board item- (7)The assumption by any city or town of all or part bets, the number of hearing panels and members of the assets, facilities,or indebtedness of a special put- thereof, and for the impartial selection of panel mem- pose district which lies partially within such city or bets. A mnjority of s panel shall constitute a quorum town;or thereof. (3)The establishment of or change in the boundaries At the request of the board, the state attorney gen- of a mutual water and sewer system or separate sewer eral,or at the board's option, the county prosecuting at- system by a water district nursuant to RCW 57.08.065 torney,shall provide counsel for the board. or chapter 57.40 RCW,as now or hereafter amended;or The planning departments of the county, other coun- (4) The establishment of or change in lire boundaries lies, and any city, and any stale or regional planning of a mutual sewer and water system or separate water agency shall bunish such information to the board at its system by a sewer district pursuant to RCW 56,20.015 request as may be reasonably necessary for the perform. or chapter 56.36 RCW,as now or hereafter amended:or ante of its duties. (5)The extension of permanent water or sewer service Each member of the board shall be compensated front outside of its existing corporate boundaries by a city, the county current expense fund at the rate of twenty- town,or special purpose district 1987 c 477 § 2; 1985 c five dollars per day,or a major portion thereof, for lime 281 § 79; 1982 c 10 17. prior 1981 c 332 § 9; 1991 c nctually devoted to the work of the boundary review 45 § ;, 1979 ex.s, c 5 § 12; 1971 ex% c 127 § 1; 1969 board.Each board of county commissioners shall provide ex.s. c I I I § 5; 1967 c 189 § 9.1 such funds as shall be necessary to pay the salaries of S"flab;l;ll— 985 a 261:Ice ltcw 3s.1090s the members and staff,and such other expenses as shall Serwabilm7—19R2 c 10o See rate fon.wing RCW 6.13080. be reasonably necessary. 11987 c 477 § 1; 1967 c 189 § St.enbuay—real r 332:See.me r911.wlag RCW 34 11025. 7.1 lexlxk0v derluatlon--"Ukldd" defined Gwnbifily- 19a1 r 45;See noex following RCW 56,36%0 36.93.080 Expenditures—Remittance of costs to Sertrabilit,-1979 ea.r.e S:Ite RCW 3696920, counties. F..xpcndiWres by the board shall be subject to C�mwNho...n fir core,and rowna---Role w bound.,) rexoe. bw,n the provisions of chapter 36.40 RCW and other statutes RCW 35.10450 relating to expenditures by counties. The department of 36.93.093 Copy of notice of intention by sewer or community development shall on a quarterly basis remit wafer district to be sent officials. Whenever a sewer or to each county one-half of the actual costs incurred by water district files with the board a notice of intention as the county for the operation of the boundary review required by RCW 36.93.090,the board shall send a copy bard within individual counties as provided for in this of such notice of intention to the legislative authority of chapter. However, in the event no funds are appropri. the county wherein such action is proposed to be taken ated to the said agency for this purpose,this shall not in and one copy to the stale department of ecology: 11971 any way affect the operation of the boundary review ex s c 127 12.1 board. 11985 c 6 § 7; 1969 cx.s. c I I I § 4; 1967 c 189 § 8.) 36.93.100 Review of proposed actions by board— Procedure. '1-he board shall review and approve, disap. 36.93.090 Filing notice of proposed actions with prove, or modify any of the actions set forth in RCW board. Whenever any of the following described actions 36.93.090 when any of the following shall Occur within are proposed in a county in which a board has been es- forly-five days of the filing of a notice of intention: lablished,the initiators of the action shall file within one (1) Three members of a five-member boundary re- hundred eighty days a notice of intention with the board: view board or five members of a boundary review board Prmvidcd,That when the initiator is the legislative body in a class.AA county files a request for review: Provided, of a governmental unit, the notice of intention may be That the mambas of the boundary review board shall Cited immediately following the body's first acceptance not be authorized to file a request for review of the fol- or approval of the action. 'file board may review any lowing actions: such proposed actions pertaining to: (a) The incor oration or change in the boundary of (1)The: (a) Creation, incorporation,or change in the any city,town,or special purpose district; boundary, other than a consolidation, of any city, town, (b) The extension of permanent water service putside Of special purpose district; (b) consolidation of special of its existing corporate boundaries by a city, lawn, or [title 36 RCW—a 2091 (1987 Ed) Local Cov't—Boundarles—Review hoards .36.91.150 special purpose district where such extension is through the installation of water mains of six inches or less in &uumbility—¢ffeelhe detn--Camtrucror.-1973 to a%s.c diameter;or 195:Sec maes followina RCW 84 52043 (c) The extension of permanent sewer service outside of its existing corporate boundaries by a city, town, or 36.91.115 Petition for annexation—Action without special purpose district where such extension is through regard Io priority of filing. A boundary review board, the installation of sewer mains of eight inches or less in county auditor,cou ly legislative authority,or any other diameter; public official or dy may act upon a petition for an- (2) Any governmental unit affected, or the county nexation before considering or acting upon a petition for within which the area of the proposed action is located, incorporation which embraces some or all of the same files a request for review of the specific action; territory, without regard to priority of filing. 11992 c (3) A petition requesting review is filed and is signed 22015.1 by: %. uth111ty-19x:a 220;See time followina RCW 1693 100 (a) Five percent of the registered voters residing Aa6m on annrution ficuoun •voh., reamd to P.nnny of frllry: within the area which is being considered for the pro- RCW J5.07150 posed action (as determined by the boundary review !ward in its discretion subject to muncdiate review by 36.93.120 Fees. A fee of fifty dollars shall be paid Writ of certiorari to the superior court);or by all initiators and in addition if the jurisdiction of the (b) An owner or owners of properly consisting of five review board is invoked pursuant to RCW 36.93.100,the Percent of the assessed valuation within such area; person or entity seeking review,except for the boundary (4) The majority of the members of boundary review review board itself,shall pay to the county treasurer and boards concur with a request for review when a petition place in the county current expense fund the fee of two requesting the review is filed by five percent of the reg- hundred dollars. 11987 c 477 § 5; 1969 ex.s. c I11 1 6; istered voters who deem themselves affected by the ac- 1967 c 189 112.1 tion and reside within one-quarter toile of the proposed action but not within the jurisdiction proposing the 36.93.130 Notice of intention--Contents. The no- action. lice of intention shall contain the following information: If a period of forty-five days shall elapse without the (1)The nature of the action sought; board's jurisdiction having been invoked as set forth in (2) A brief statement of the reasons for the proposed this section, the proposed action shall be deemed action; approved. (3) The legal description of the boundaries proposed If a review of a proposal is requested,the board shall In be created, abolished or changed by such action: Pro- make a finding as prescribed in RCW 36.9),I50 within video That the legal description may be altered, with one hundred twenty days after the filing of such a re- concurrence of the initiators of the proposed action, if a quest for review. If this period of one hundred twenty persun designated by the county legislative authority as days shall elapse without the board making a finding as one who has expertise in legal descriptions makes a de- prescribed in RCW 36.93.150, the proposal shall he termination that the legal description is erroneous;and deemed approved unless the board and the person who (4) A county assessor's map on which the boundaries submitted the proposal agree to an extension of the one proposed to he created, abolished or changed by such hundred twenty day period. 11987 c 477 1 3; 1983 c 76§ action arc designated: Provided.That at the discretion of I; 1982 c 2201 I; 1067 c 189 § 10.1 the boundary review board a map other than the county %.arson'-19x2 a 220: 'If any provtmo of phis act or ill ap assessor's map may be accepted. (1987 c 411 1 6; 1969 pllca0on to any person or elrcamatnnce 11 held invali4,the renminder MS.C 11 I § 7; 1967 c 189 1 13.1 of the act or the application of the pmision to other peanns or no- conntanees is out affected- 1198E a 220 5 9.1 36.93.140 Pending actions not affected. Actions de- scribed in RCW 36.91.090 which are pending July 1, 36.9.3.105 Board not to review annexation by water 1967,or actions in counties other than class AA or class or sewer district pursuant to RCW 36.94.410 (hrough A which are pending on the date of the creation of a 36.94.440, Annexations of territory to a water or sewer boundary review board therein, shall not be affected by district pursuant to RCW 3694.410 through 36.94.440 the provisions of this chapter. Actions shall be deemed shall not be reviewed by a boundary review board. 11984 pending on and after the Ming of sufficient Millions ini- c 147 § 5.1 dialing the same with the appropriate public officer, or the performance of an official act initialing the same. 36.93.110 When review not necessary. Where an 11967 c 189 § 14.1 area proposed for annexation is less than tell acres and less than two million dollars in assessed valuation, the 36.93.150 Review of proposed actions—Actions chairman of the review board may by written statement and determinations of board—Disapproval,effect.The declare that review by the board is not necessary for the board, upon review of any proposed action, shall take protection of the interest of the various parties,in which such of the following actions as it deems necessary to case the board shall not review such annexation. 11987 a best carry out a intent nt e ntf t his chapter: 477 § 4; 1973 Isl exs. c 195 1 42; 1967 c 189 1 11.1 (1) Approvalproposal as submitted; t II'tile 36 RCW-9 2091 1141r Fit I � A Washington State Botaidary Review Board For KiHg Cofufh/ !1(Ni.tiniidi 'Ibuxr StxU1L; {t4tshii�Glun!Mflo f 'N!It,,j4jatc(2W)).34-J-41% November 4, 1957 POLICY BEYELOPMENI OEPARiMENf Cliy Of"""" Mr. Dick Houghton, Director n NOV 51987 D Department of Pu^.l:c :Yorks City of Renton I� �� �(n re Q U�p E Municipal Building Renton, WA 95055 RE: EXTENSIONS OF UTILITIES OUTSIDE CITY CORPORATE LIMITS Dear Dick: Thank you for your telephone call this morning. 1 really appreciate the opportunity to t'. ,cuss the problem of utility extensions with you. Enclosed is a copy ^f RCW 36.93.090(5), which cites when a Notice of Intention is required to be filed with the Boundary Review Board. Subsection (5) states: "(5) 'fhe extension of permanent water or sewer service outside of Its existing corporate boundaries by a city, town, or special purpose district." This amendment became effective In 1971. The City is to be commended for use of the Covenant for Annexation. Once it is recorded in the public records, it provides a property owner or successor in interest with constructive notice that they must sign a Petition for Annexation when requested to do so by the City. This ensures that the City will be able to annex areas which have become highly urbanized on Its boundaries because of the availability of utilities. However. It does not replace the requirement for filing a Notice of Intention for the provision of suc, rarvices as noted above. We were contacted by Building and Land Development on this Issue because cf a plat approval pending. in fact, David Feltman, Utilities Coordinator, (344-79701 called me again just after we finished talking. You may wish to give him a call also. M f contact with Policy and Development of the City was natural since we work with them on all annexation Issues. Mr. Dick Houghton November 4, 1987 Page Two 1 hope this answers your questions. Brice will return to the off lc: on Monday, November 9th, should you desire to discuss this further at that time. Or, out legal counsel, Robert C. Kaufman, Special Assistant Attorney General, may he reached at 453-1436. Please let me know if we can help further on this Issue. Sincerely, WASHINGTON STATE BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD FOR KING COUNTY i C Paula Anne Russell, Adm. Aset. PAR Encls. RCW 36.93.090(5) CC: G. BRICE MARTIN, Executive Secretary, WSBRB for KC (HARRY SPRINGER, Director, Policy Development Division DAVID FELTMAN, K.C. Utilities Coordinator ROBERT C. KAUFMAN, Special Assistant Attorney General t 36.93.070 '1 Me 36 RCW: Counties The board by rule may provide for hearings by panels system by a water district pursuant to RCW 57,08.065 of members consisting of not less than five board mcm• or chapter 57.40 RCW,as now or hereafter amended;or bers, the number of hearing panels and members (4) The establishment of or change in the boundaries thereof, and for llte impartial selection of panel mcm- of a mutual sewer and water system or separate water bers. A majority of a panel shall constitute a quorum system by a sewer district pursuant to RCW 56.20.015 thereof. or chapter 56.36 RCW,as now or hereafter amended;or At the request of the board, the state attorney gun- (5)The extension of permanent water or sewer service era],or at the hoard's option, the county prosecuting at. outside of its existing corporate boundaries by a city, torney,shall provide counsel for the board. town,or special purpose district. 11985 c 281 § 28; !982 The planning departments of the county, other coun- c 10 17. Prim: 1981 c 332 §9; 1981 a 45 § 2; 1979 ex.s. ties, and any city, and any slate or regional pl:mnpog c 5 § 12; 1971 ex.s.c 127 § 1; 1969 ex.s.c It I § 5; 1%7 agency shall furnish such o lorniauon In the board at its c 189 19.1 request as may be reasonably necessary for the perfonr- Se.webiaq—�-l7as a tat:See RCw 35.10.903. anee of Its duties. Sertrabiary-19a2 a ID:See note(ollowing RCW 6,12,100. Each member of the board shall be compensated from Se.enibniry--19a1 c 332;Sec ewe following RCW 35.13 o25. the county current expense fund at the rate of twenty- IwRidathe deeluati,-Iskidw defined--Sewrxbiliq— five dollars per day,or a major portion theteuf, Ior time 1981 a 45%Sec wHes IW'ow,na RCW 56.36116a. actually devoted to the work of the boundary review Sero.1,04y -1929es.a 3:S.RCW 36 96 920. board.Each board of county commissioners shall provide Coowhdmiow of or.and towns---- Rnle of h io depr renew tvwrd. such funds as shall be necessary to pay the salaries of RCW Jj 10450 the members and staff, and such other expenses as shall 36.93.093 Copy of ..olice or intention by sewer or be reasonably e,cessary. 11967 c 189 § 7.1 water district to be sent officials. Whenever a sewer or water district files with the board a notice of intention as 36.93,060 Expeadilum—Rendthowe of costs to required by RCW 36.93.090,the bard shall send a copy counties. Expenditures by the board shall be subject to of such notice of intention to the legislative avthurity of the provisions of chapter 36.40 RCW and other statutes the county wherein such action is proposed to be taken relating to expenditures by counties. The department of and one copy to the slate department of ecology. 11971 community development shall on a quarterly basis remit ex.s.c 127 § 2.j to each county one-half of the actual costs incurred by the county for the operation of tire boundary review 36.93.100 Review of proposed actions by board— board within individual counties as provided for in this Procedure. The board shall review and approve, disap- Chapter, however, in the event no funds arc appmpri- prove, or modify any of the actions set forth in RCW altd to the said agency for this purpose, this shall not in 36.9109J when any of the following shall occur within any way affect the operation of the boundary review sixty days of the filing of a notice of intention: board. 11985 c 6 § 7; 1969 ex.s.c III § 4; 1967 c 189 § (1) The chairman or any three members of the 8.1 boundary review board files a request for review; (2) Any governmental unit affected files a request for review; 36.93.090 Filing notice of proposed actions with (3) A petition requesting review is filed and is signed board. Whenever any of the following described actions by are proposed in a county in which a board has been es- (a) five percent of lire registered voters residing within tablished,the initiators of the action shall file within one the area which is being considered for the proposed ac- hundred eighty days a notice of intention with the board, tion (as determined by ere boundary review board in its which may review any such proposed actions pertaining discretion subject to immediate review by writ of Cert10- to: sari to the superior court);or (1)The: (a) Creation, incorporation,or change in the (b) an owner or owners of properly consisting of five boundary,other than a consolidation, of any city, town, percent of llte assessed valuation within such area. or special purpose district; (b) consolidation of special If a period of sixty days shall elapse without the purpose districts,but not including consolidation of cities board's jurisdiction having been invoked as set forth in and towns; or (c) dissolution or disincorporation of any this section, the proposed action shall be deemed city, town, or special purpose district, except that a approved. board may not review the dissolution or disincorporation If a review of a proposal is requested, the board shall of a special purpose district which was dissolved or dis- mak^ n fading as preleribed n RCW 36.93.150 within incorporated pursuant to the provisions of chapter 36.96 one Its, W twenty days after the filing of such a re- RCW;or quell fo. review. If this period of one hundred twenty (2) The assumption by any city or town of all or part days shall elapse without the board making at finding as of the assets, facilities, or indebtedness of a special put. prescribed in RCW 3h.91.150. the proposal shall be pose district which lies partially within such city or deemed approved unless the board and lire person who town;or submitted the proposal agree to an extension of the one (3) The establishment of or change in lite boundaries hundred twenty day period. 11993 c 76 § 1; 1982 0220§ of a mutual water and sewer system or separate sewer I; 1967 c 189 § 10.) 11111,36 RCW—p 2021 195E 1'd 1 SIT4. CeEMELOPMENT SERVICES / David Doughertt, P.E. •Civil Engineering •Traffic Studies — (2081481-%87 310 205th S.E. b0the11,WA 9W12 - — --- I' CITY OF RENTON Public Works Department barn Qycrr. ?A lyor Lynn Guttmann,Director April 2, 1990 Suregard Capital Group 4630 Pacific Hwy E., Suite B-10 Tacoma, WA. 98424 Atten: Mr. Rr• Fath g Subject: Suregard ' .velopment In Renton at NE 44th ST. Dear Mr Fath, This letter is to confirm our telephone conversation a few days ago. I have contacted Lincoln Properties Co., who presently have an option to purchase the Seelig property adjacent to your property on the East side, with regards to obtaiiing a ten foot easement. This easement is required so that the existing 12" Water Main may be relocated away from your , cased building location. Lincoln Properties stated that it would make every ef.ort to acquire such an easement for the City. They also stated that it might be difficult to get the Seelig brothers to agree to grant an easement because cf their pending law suite against the city. This letter will also confirm the City's position on participating in the relocation of the existing 12" water main. The City has no obligation to move the aforementioned water main from its present location. All other developers to the South have moved the existing main at their own expense when it suited th.m to relocate the water main If you have any additional questions regarding this matter, please contact myself on 235-2631. Very truly Q , yr,s, Ronald L. Olsen, Water Utility Supervisor SURGARD:RLO 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 - (206) 235-2631 t d YZ • 1 r I l�V w.e f'�'G W1.CHr S i}' yL J I PHo0. erg lf� �v W, c . �• o tivi'Hq SOac�) All XLlr ►71.1< ! KO (K%it{-✓r�J J •, ✓3jdS A G,%d� uK1'� �S_� 2� t(sF �5 s zS F IL wilt r15 v'l f I'vl a� ^`F (oW �i� o-lem✓r�' .J09Pw1) n8R8 tuc Y-1,w vwt . 4^ 4" L.,� r wi • �^ �i...ctty. �t+i3 +tvtaJ , I •a• N�a H..S`�l ri4 K, icy ObS lhYw bN� G- 7�t'„ Mm. h Ser.Avt`c/ a 51' tY. ; l. •.]IOaS TO T4I �•KSfLw a � I�K� GOV1� I`+►s� J 360� rkos J wmvlc( 6- a to a o� aLm f S. ZZ.`�iot ' or dLival 11 , Ov\ a Is 4 !- HAC.i N. . 0-1 (W I J-L,,i/N 0. r`ea 50��4� la/ r4K5 a . W�4Kmt tr3 l�l+i[- Lh a C.' 1 ,1,[x. 1�C'15i blt cL1., .1r SU 1K vS�t i`N +(tic vlvrtit &kcl 4t�<<✓ �or CY4erl'vr lta�c Lq.t� �e 'ovt$ 1v 4-La o�14 � DGU�y WA.i/, Fg� F�' Ngs is 9o�FSs ONAlt4E�lG\�� r, S►il .ari lo-�w aiF � ZO00 josO �pc- se s r,poi rf. .cL 1J� clu� �G" C � tvvN .�� E8 8 C-tc r�.ruf� C3teeK . Sf4e!' ___ � aa►d &CA Tabla ( 33� R �O �bJ 14r4a- of Coµc- - Wl� x. 0s+ UIOCIt - t 2 1�a p�(. • Tkrua f Co Coc = 3_=Z _ c 0.9s- Vol, o-P Cokc. _ (Z'x 6.4s' rte. 4'1 ')�° ,0i704) o. L o emu. YA r�cv� I (�wl�J ern YaL�a l : 2S� `1 .50 (ds n � c t CoH4 ZZ DOo� ` 2.46 J IZ_°- QO. belly r�.rVD1 48� 00O (lvt 2 4d r IQraa Z`pao Architects A Professional Service Co.poraticn *,� �` y,�,1r Planners 11�a( y r ,T January 19, 1990 1 is Mr. Ron Olson City Engineer City of Renton Municipal Building zco Mill Avenue South Renton, Washington 98055 RR: Water main RelOCttlOu (r20) shurgard storage Site - Exit 7 Renton, WA Ron: Per a phone conversation with lay civil engi. .ring consultant, Dave ,ouyherty (site Development Services) , it is .pp- -ent that I very hazardous situation exists at our proposed buildi. g site. A 12" diameter water main has been constructed in a utility easement along the astern property line of our site. We feel that a very hazardous potential exists during construction of our project. Our proposed project will construct permanent structures within 2'± of this water main. If this water main is disturbed during construction or in tha future from the development of our Site, it is very likely that the water main could fail, and therefore, create extensive damage to our site and possibly neighboring areas. Since the Citv of Renton was rep- --4ble for the construction of the water main as it now exists, it fur position that the City of Renton should relocate this watt. &iin, and any costs incurred from this construction be borne by the City Of Renton. By relocating tLe water main to a vacation outside our area of con- struction, it would considerably reduce potential for any liability or litigation associated with damage associated with the water main. Please find enclosed a site plan sho..ng our recommendation for relocation of the water ma-n. Construction of the Shurgard project is scheduled for spring r` 990. It is extremely important that this problem be resolved prior any construction. Newport Corporate Center • 3625 132nd Ave.S.E. Suite 100 • Bellevue.WA 98006-1399 • (206)644-4000 FA:(a06)64,- 115 t�" Mr. Ron Olson January 19, 1990 RE: Water Main Relocaticn an -7 ,- /Y29 Page 2 We welcome the opportunity to meet with you and your staff on this issue, so we can discuss ways to resolve this matter. Thank you for your help in this matter. If you have any questions regarding this information, please call. Cordially, RR8L'Y & A88OIC7ATY8 * le - " oje ger SAC:rd cc: Dave Dougherty - SDS, Bothell, WA Ron Newhouse - Shurgard Capital Group, Seattle, WA Hal Ferris - Westwood Corporat4on, Kent, WA Jerry Ruhl - Ruhl-Parr & Associates, Bellevue, WA N. y OAI (:Z)u.SW- CJ7 zA/A' CITY OF I ENTON Q j sT Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney e.LL Daniel Kellogg -Mark E. `arher -David M. Dean -Zanetta L. Forties- Robert L. Sewell. Assistant City Attorneys Diuy 12, 1989 TO: Nancy Laswell-Morris, Planning Department FROM: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney RE: Renton 91 Annexation: Shurgard Certificate of Water Availability Dear Nancy: I reviewed the materials that you forwarded to me with regard to the Shurgard Certificate of Water Availability. That certificate indicate- in paragraph 4b that annexation or Boundary Review Board approval will be necessary to provide service. That Is a correct Commentsi ions ere tten commentl that Boutndaryy Review aBoa d approval is l also required.thThat isstatement I t salso true. RCW 36.93.090(5) requires Boundary Review Board approval of extension of permanent water or sewer service outside of the existing corporate boundaries of a city- King County is acting on the he Certificate of Water Availability as if Boundary It would be appropriate for the City of Renton Review Board approval has been granted.to notify King County Boundary Reelew therefore he Certificate of Water BWater Availability Is contingent upon obtains goard approval has nte than rapproval. 1ph rnev for problemuconcerning ethe aCertifi Certificate informed Water Availability. vaai abi ity'er o The corporation has rherefore been uolitied and aay action it takes, he -eforth, on the basis of the Ce tificate of Water Availability, is subject to Boundary Revie. Board approval. I would suggest that the city staff immediately contact King County and clarify the contingent nature of the Certificate of Water Avatlabilit Lawre arras LJ W:as. cc: Mayor _. Ken Nyberg Ron tlsen✓ A8.41:72. Post Office Box 626 - 100 S 2nd Street Ren'in, Washington 98057 (206) 255-8678 iRENTON CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting Municipal Building October 16, 1989 Council Chambers Monday, 7:30 p.m. MINUT�F CALL TO ORDER Mayor Earl Clymer led the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag and called the meeting of the Renton City Council to order. ROLL CALL OF RICHARD M. STREDICKE, Council President; KATHY A. KEOLKER- COUNCIL MEMBERS WHELLER, TONI NELSON, NANCY L. MAI-HEWS, JOHN W. REED. MOVED BY KEOLKER-WHEELER, SECONDED BY MATHEWS, COUNCIL EXCUSE ABSENT COUNCIL MEMBER THOMAS W. TRIMM. (Position held by Councilman Hughes vacated on 7/3/89.) CITY STAFF IN EARL CLYMER, Mayor, BRENT McFALL, Acting . iministrative ATTENDANCE Assistant; LAWRFNCE J. WARREN, City Attorney; MAXINE E. MOTOR, City Clerk; KEN NYBERG, Community Development Director; NANCY LASWELL MORRIS, Principal Planner; LT. GARY ANDERSON, Police Department. PRESS Kathy Hall, Valloy Daily New Anne Ho, Seattle South Times APPROVAL OF MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECONDED BY MATHEWS, COUNCIL COUNCIL MINUTES APPROVE THE COUNCIL MINUTES OF OCTOBER 9, 1989. CARRIED. SPECIAL Rosemary Green, representing the Renton Centennial Committee, introduced PRESENTATION fellov committee members Clark Petersen (City of Renton Libar rary Director), (City of Renton Centennial Maxine Johnson (Chamber of Commerce Secretary), and History Book Renton Community Relations Specialist), and presented Mayor Clymer with a book by David Buerge, entitled, Renton Centennial of Renton, a pictorial account of Renton's history. Maxine Johnson was recognized for her efforts in contacting advertisers and editing the book, which will be sold by local book stores and the Renton Historical Society, Mr. Petersen extended an invitation to the Renton Centennial Celebration which will be held on Saturday, Novenber 11, 1989, at 2:00 p.m. at the Renton Community Center. Fire: Certificates of Chief A. Lee Wheeler, Fire Department, presented Certificates of Completion Apprenticeship and of Apprenticeship to Firefighters Brian Blumenstein, Mike Cabage, Paul Promotions Harm, Glen Scholten, Ted Vanderhouwen, and Jeff Bunnell. Chief Wheeler also :ommended Lt. Chuck Duffy, promoted 9/1/89; Captain Larry Eager, promoted 1/1/89; and Batallion Chief Gary Gotti, promoted i/l/89, for their outstanding achievement. Mayor Clymer expressed pride in the excellent performance of the Fire Department. PUBLIC HEARING This being the date set and proper notice having been posted and published Annexation: Shurgard in accordance with local and State law, Mayor Clymer opened the public hearing to consider the Shurgard 60% annexation petition. The proposal includes three parcels, known as Shurgard, Seelig and Traveler's Inn, totaling approximately 9.61 acres located east of the existing Renton corporate limits in the vicinity of the I1000 block of SE 76th Street (north of the NE 44th Street interchange). The parcels were deleted from the original Renton 91 10% notice of intent annexation petition, and were remanded back to staff for further review. On 7/17/89, Council granted approval to the Shurgard parcel for extension of water service foi development of a public storage mini-warehouse. Shurgard is cnrrently pursuing development permits through King County P,efe:ring to a vicinity map of the area, Principal Planner Nancy Laswell Morris described the annexation proposal, and explained a second issue pertain ng to provision of water service to the Seelig property. Although riot in the City limits, the Seelig property was included in the boundaries of LID 291, approved in 1975 to construct the Kennydale watermain. Seelig has paid his fair share of the assessment for the watermain to assure extension of water service to the site upon development. Currently, water service may be provi J to the site either by: 1) annexatiou; or 2) notice of intent to the King County Boundary Review Board to provide water service outside the City limits. Th;, second option would exclude Seelig from the annexation and aliuw pursuit of development permits through King County for higher density multifamily development than allowed by the City's Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Laswell Morris noted that since the developer of the Seelig site has not yet applied for permits, it is the staff recommendation to include the 2 • 'I hint Pave 295 October ]6 1989 �— Seelig parcel in the scope of the Shurgard annexation, approve the 60% annexation petition, and provide water service as a condition of annexation approval by the King County Boundary Review Board. Ms. Laswell Morris reported that the annexation has an assessed valuation of $4,120,300, and covenants and signatures on the petition medium represent g.3 ty f the n total assessed valuation. City zoning in the area is R-3, . multifamily, and A-1, commercial; King County zoning is a comernation of cummrnity business and high density multifamily. The site is designated as suita•!� for commercial and low density multifamily on the City's Comprehensive Plan. City departments have reviewed the proposal and indicate that the annexation rep^esents a logical extension :r City boundaries and services. Ms. Laswell Morris summarized the staff recommendation that k- until: 1. Accept the Shurgard atnexation by certifying the covenant to annex recorded on the Traveler's Inn property and authorize the Planning Division to prepare a notice of intention package for submission to the I ing County Boundary Review Board; 2. Require the simultaneous imposition of R-I zoning on the Seelig property and require the simultaneous imposition of B-I zoning on the Traveler's Inn property and Shurgard property; 3. Require the property owners to assume their proportional share of the City's bonded indebtedness. Upon Council inquiry, Ms. Laswell Morris clarified that upon annexation the Seelig property would be reclassified automa[icaliy to R-1, single family residential zone,; however, the property owner has the option of applying to the hearing examiner for a rezone to a higher density. JI 5th Avenue, 03600, Seattle, Audience comment was invited. tf - it purchased the subject parcel iattorney 9 , for the ate in indicated tF^ in 1968, participated in the LID for service in 1975, and wishes to be excluded from the annexation and allu_ed to pursue developmen! ;•:ra.its through King County. Pointing out that the Seelig parcel has is esignat--! onthe comprehensive plan for multifamily development, staff has recommended R-1, single family zoning, and noted t aatlthe Renton 91 parcel to the north was allowed to join the City with R-3, ily ncil authorize issuance of the notice of intent zoning. He requested that Cou arcel to develop i for water service to allow the paesthetics,st design of building, agreed to coordinate and review drainage plans, etc. with City of Renton staff. June Huson, 11030 SE 76th Street, Renton, stated she did not oppose the annexation but objected to development of an industrial use such as the noted, proposed mini-storage warehouses on the Shur ird site. That use, s will impact residential lake views, comrlcate the poorly planned traffic pattern and generate additional trafF .md is an unacceptable land usee11 or view property in a residential area. , pon Council inquiry, Morris advi3ud that King County will be issuing a baildi„g permit to Shurgard within two weeks, the proposal is consistent with the timing of the contract executed with the City, and mini-watehouse use is allowed in a King County business zone. She also explained that although it is possible for property to annex to the city without being reclassified, past procedure has been to reclassify the property to the lowest designation with the intent that the Council will rezone it to a higher use after review by the hearing examiner. The Renton 91 property, rezoned to R-3 upon annexation. had been reviewed by the hearing examiner. Ms. Laswell Morris also clarified that staff had worked with Seelig over the past two years regarding rezoning of his property and a concurrent rezone could have been pursued with the City if desired. MOVED BY KEOLKER-WHEELER, SECONDED BY REED. COUNCIL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. CARRIED. MOVED BY K EOLKER-WHEELER, SECONDED BY COUNCIL CONCUR N THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE STAFF TO APPROVE THE 60% IG PROPERTY IN SANNEXATION PETITION, INCLUDE THE HURGARD ANNEXATION, AND DIRECT ThE STAFF TO PROCESSE THE NOTICE OF INTENTION TO ANNEX TO THE BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD AS THE METHOD OF PROVIDING WATER SERVICE. CARRIED. a:+ls i I � Y 611 N ! '''' 147 136 13i Z. 23 446 J 135 U. 0 1 ,'7! .1 ^r 9.4: i i s firs 4 ��^1131 �-`�!L /2, 1T ✓i y,` S`EE syEET ,3 REI CivTlene 7o' lqfi6,d,Ar />,-7-144WUr L CITY OF RENTON PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Earl Clymer, Mayor Design/Utility Engineering July 31, 1989 Mr. Tom McDonald Manager, Commercial Building Permits King County Building & Land Development 3600-136th Place N.E. Bellevue, Washington 98006 Subject: Parcel #3343301125, Shurgard Capital Group SE corner of Lake Washington Blvd. and SE 76th St. Short Plat: Lot 2, King Co. S.P. #485069 Certificate of Water Availability Dear Mr. McDonald: In response to a water service agreement dated July 28, 1989, by and between Shurgard Growth Capital Fund 1700 Limited Partnership and the City of Renton, this letter serves as our release of the Certificate of Water Availability previously provided to Shurgard and doted N,,)vember 8, 1988. It is noted that Shurgard, as a condition of obtaining water service from the City, is required to extend watermains as necessary to provide adequate service for their property in accordance with City ordinances and standards. Further, Shurgard has not submitted tc the City plans for constructing the watermain extensions necessary in order to provide adequate and reliable service on their site. These extensions are necessary as noted in the Certificate of Water Availability, and also in the water service agreement. Please contact me at your earliest convenience if you have any questions regarding this matter. Sincerely, 111 i l cha d H. Herbert, P.E. Acting City Ena:neer BLKRVEIS.RHH:mf cc: Nancy Laswell Morris, City of Renton Attachments: 1) Certificate of Water Availability, dated 11/8/88 2) Water Service Agreement, dated 7/18/89 200 Mill Avenue South • Renton, Washington 98055 - (206) 235-2631 Facslmlle (206) 235.2513 obu j"yi IH1VI... Q • 01" Mod .� : Ir Erg 902 &�,[•: Se. al IIflr 'taretl.1, He presides 6ha 4 eweo return ter •tment mi sealeh and IlDI46 b LM1D DEVELOPMENt ling a •Lani o,-veropwont aas,,,a.ay.a , Wa Infarmatle•+ ++.•cassarV to on ll" .;r rrw.N en MNslw,)Q. j rate develop:._nt Proposals, N47sae r �, .. KING COUNT' CERTIFICATE OF NAiE AVAILAD LITY ,•w$• _• ;.'. wr -ESF numMr --"'-- -'�""� preltsdnsty t1 t of "ll auildl,g permit d Rasone at otM short subdivislon L ASyfKlatef ' s)rurgard Capital Group' c 7thirr S Rhm /° 1Wh1 Per self-storage (Coa+aereial)O3ZD 0s.-P-) rUSXend S.G.s.n. 76 s,g, corner of l,6e Washington Dlvd. t)1 st,r (sue .L.Or off• wl eewc Ption ! recce Beryl , 1 + 1 attach Mope YOR WOsiQTloN I SR 4UIN¢ to an existing rovided by oorviee eennwllnn niY a- tRa a, water will bap feet from the site voter OR _/ improvement to he water system 09r b• Q NStar service will require an !rM LJ feet o[ water Main k north the site andlw Q (11 atelt on the alter aor- adjer (�"l1) t e oomtcuot en oL • diatdbution Y gill other {desaribal The water system !a In eon[ormrnce with a my epprovad w _at cq,prahensive Plan- * ` a• caonaiv. plan amendment. OR rovemont will requiro a water camp b. The water system imp or hoe been Dead pro)aot to wits In the corpora' limits of the diotrout, a, r+ the Prop rivate water Purveyor. U gran:ad 9owndary Re, eosrd aPP�°V approved ervloa areadkon [o[ a P e outside !M district or city, or is within the County PP OR ly to pro•rlde service. b. pnnexatior. or eel; ►rproval will be nscesu / .vrllsbl: d below at at the rate ! flow and dvcatlon indl�telha e, a. �a•lred at the neareo Lire hydrwnt�s� ,.lo C, ne leas than kwrked on the att chad avP)r building/prvr' loss then 1 hour .. O (approx hour to 7 "Use 2 Joan tr.r.• J R ._ hours or ware •• U SOO to vso gim roR 'C [1 1°00 ❑ gPa or mire et.rar r—�-�"r X4 (] flow test c[ 'lp1° I ire Llw .(�caloulatlon of gpw (Comas t e,j ,111:11 Permits require test r oalcr r.+tion) /D OR �75T1/rlgT.�' ire fl.•w. Q , b• l^�water ny+t+m to not capable cf Pr'- 11 Ott ff �,a S D� t IN )e A 0 I MArnl _� /� ry coeasltfs/cONDlilous (�J✓ '?�LA�� lAn/5 ��1, 1�9�/ DA,e�y�c �SD 7XV _L)Lr.r�D ram'` _J' This where c rt�fY ear, trOm data or ei¢nature. /G[ V/�FU ' tltat the above watot pur•�eyor lntormatlon le rU tion P11a11 be valid for one y �/ �� 0 ! s orY gme // e I? genoY A1°g `aa urs e SHURGARD - FXIT 7 `�TQ..�."j b w-1030 2+ CITY OF RFNTON PUBLIC WORKS DErARTMENT Earl Clymer, Mayor Design/Utility Engineering May 17, 1989 P CITY DIVISIONNINC OF RENI ON Mr. Tom McDonald ( MAY T 8 Manager, Commercial Building Permits King Count Building and Land VeveloP lent G L LS is 3600 136th Place N.E. Bellevue WA 98006 Subject: Parcel #3343301125, Shurgard Capital Group SE corner of Lake Washington Blvd. and SE 76th St. Short Plat: Lot 2, King Co. S.P. #485069 Certificate of Water Availability Dear Mr. McDonald: The City of Renton signed a Certificate of Water A.ailability for the above referenced property with the -.nderstanding that this certificate would not be validated until the conditions identified had been complied with. It is our understanding, however, that King County is considering the issuance of a building permit based on this certificate prior to the completion of these conditions. This letter is to inform you that the Certificate of Water Availability issued for this parcel has not been reviewed by the Boundary Review Board. Consequently, we are bringing to your attention the fact that this certificate is not sufficient for the issuance of a building permit. The property in question is required to either annex to the City of Renton or rece.4e approval from the Boundary Review Board for the extension of water service prior to validation of this certificate. This is an important issue to the City and we ask you to keep us appraised of the review actions. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at 235-2552. Very truly ',�yours, Donald /' Pfonagh�1. Acting City Engineer City of Renton cc: PUD, CDD, Ron Newhouse, Shurgard Capital Group, 'Nancy laswell-Morris don-letters/LKWABLVD DGM:ckd 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton. Washinvtnn VRONS - "(1f,1u-1AI H I L L 1 S C L A R K M A R T I N & P E T E R 5 0 N A hA,,. 1 S.....Curryxxxn Gill(�al1wx11knWmk.I'_21 Cn mJ A.mu G.xlk.NhJnnpnxAVlltl13!ija 121H-11,234745 I..nmk(21n)623.77R .rr li ,M I(�, July 25, 1989 <�,�� Mr. Lawrence J. Warren Warren, Kellogg, Barber, Dean & Fontes, P.S. P.O. Box 626 100 South Second Street Renton, Washington 95r,57 Re: Water Service Agreement Dear Larry: I have enclosed a revised draft of the Water Service Agreement for your review. As you can see, I have incorporated the changes I discussed with Nancy Laswell Morris as well as the changes you and I discussed yesterday afternoon. It is our understanding that as soon as the Water Service Agreement is signed, the City staff will inform King County that the Certificate of Water Availability has been released so that processing of the building permits may proceed without delay. In addition, it is our understanding that the City intends to initiate a new annexation for the area located in unincorporated King County that was included in LID 291 (including the Shurqard property) , and that the Axelrod annexation will proceed separately. It is also our understanding that the City will begin this process by filing a notice of intent with the Boundary Review Board. After the expiration of the applicable time periods, the annexation will then be brought before the City Council for action. It is our understanding that you anticipate this process will take from six to nine months, giving Shurgard ample time to obtain building permits from King County for the project prior to the effective date of the annexation. V Please let me know if you have any additional comments or concerns regarding the enclosed agreement or if any of my understandings regarding the processing of the annexation by the V` City or the building permits by King County is incorrect. I Mr. Lawrence J. Warren July 25, 1989 Page 2 look forward to hearinq from you so that we can finalize the Agreement and obtain tGe necessary signatures. Thank you for your help. Very truly yours, Sally H. Clarke SHC:kk Encl: cc: Shurgard Capital Group Ms. Nancy Laswell Morris i i NLAil WATER SERVICE AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is made this day of July, 1989, by and between SHURGARD GROWTH CAPITAL FUND 17 LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, a Delaware limited partnership ("Shurgard") , the owner of the real property located in King county, Washington, and legally described in Exhibit A, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, (the 14P_operty") and the CITY OF RENTON ("City") . WHEREAS, the Property was included within City of Renton LID 291 and has paid assessments for water lines which benefit the Property; and WHEREAS, the Property is subject to a Covenant to Annex to the city dated April 9, 1985, and recorded under King County Recording No. 8504290407, under which the Covenant to Annex was given as a condition to being permitted to hook up to water service from the City to serve the Property; and WHEREAS, Shurgard has applied for construction permits from King County to build a mixed use retail/self-storage facility (the "Project") on the Property; and WHEREAS, the Renton City Council at its regular Council meeting on July 17, 1989, authorized the provision of water service to the Property and directed the City Staff to inform King County that the Certificate of Water Availability for the Property has been released and that the City will take the necessary actions to satisfy the condition related to Boundary Review Board approval so that building permits for the Project may be immediately accepted, processed and issued by King County; and WHEREAS, the City will initiate annexation of the Property, anticipating that Shurgard will have applied for and received its building permits from King County prior to the effective date of the annexation; however, should the issuance of building permits for the Project by King County be unnecessarily delayed through the fault of Shurgard, or should Shurgard fail to apply for building permits or to make a complete building permit application prior to annexation of the Property to the City, then the Project shall be processed in the City of Renton. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants herein contained, the parties hereto agree as follows: 1. The City agrees to provide water service to the Property and to immediately inform King County that the Certificate of Water Availability for the Property has been released and that the City will take the necessary actions to - 1 - �cr�aa/r 2 satisfy the condition related to Boundary Review Boar' approval so that building permits may be immediately accepted, processed and issued by King County. 2. The City further agrees to take all necessary actions to obtain Boundary Review Board approval for the provision of water service to the Property. 7. Shurgard agrees to develop the Project on the Property in accordance with the conditions set forth in Exhibit B which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. 4. Shurgard further agrees not to oppose annexation of the Property to the City, anticipating that Shurgard will have applied for and received its building permits from King County prior to the effective date of the annexation; however, should the issuance of building permits for the Project by King County be unnecessarily delayed through the fault of Shurgard, or should Shurgard fail to apply for building permits or to make a complete building permit application prior to annexation of the Property to the City, then the Project shall be processed in the City of Renton. IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have executed this Agreement the day and year first above written. SHURGARD GROWTH CAPITAL FUND 17 LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, a Delaware limited partnership By Shurgard, Inc- , Genera P rtner By Its ' CITY GOOF/F RE�IT6N By'%xe /ice /�� nneth�'r:-Mvber , Comm,="ym e�v iTecto APPRO JI9 AS TO FORM: 1, 9rPCt� �2�1 Lawrence J.,Warren, City Attorney, City of Renton 052524.M109 2 - EXHIBIT A Lot 2, King County Short Plat No. 485069, recorded under King County Recording No. 8612231555, records of King County, Washington i i 1 S9 I EXHIBIT B 1. The Project shall include a biofiltration swale sized for a two-year storm, on-site detention facilities sized for a 25-yer.r storm with a five-year release rate, and a looped water system. 2. The Project shall be constructed in accordance with the Uniform Fire Code as adopted and amended by the City of Renton and in effect on the date of issuance of building permits for the Project by King County. 3. The Project site plan reviewed by the City shall be revized and the Project constructed to include an additional 500 square feet of landscaping at the northwest corner of the site and a landscaped vertical screen on the south boundary. The end wails of each building facing 76th Street shall be constructed of brick masonry or brick veneer and greater articulation shall be provi ad for the parapet on the facade facing west (Highway 405) . 4. The Project shall include a code access, video monitoring, and electronic perimeter beam secirity system. 5. The Project will participate in the N.E. 44th Street Benefit District for traffic improvements. 052525.M109 - 1 - T1115 cea L111Ca Le provide. Lu -'i Department of Health and Please retunl to, Building c Land Development BUILDING & LAND DEVELOPMENT with information necessary to evaluate development proposals. 450 Ad..neau.nan Bodd,oy Se Hlle.Wnluepmn Pe104 I 206 I40 7900 KING COUNTY CERTIFICATE OF WATER AVAIU7BILITY no wr1 e 1nthis box number name Building Permit ❑ Preliminary Plat or PUD ❑ slert subdivision ❑ Rezone or other APPLICANT'S NAME Shllrgnrd CaplLal GI'oup, CIO 1(uhl-l'arr $ Associates PROPOSED USE Self-SLOfage (Collunelcial) LOCATION S.B. Collier of Lake WashillgLon Blvd. and S.B. 76th St. . (50 Ave.-I'-) (Attach map 6 legal description 1f necessary) M A N A M N 1 A M N N A 1 X q X WATER PURVEYOR INFORMATION 1. a. n Water will be provid,d by service connection only to an existing water main_ feet from tha site. sl+e OR —/ b. [ Water service will require an improvement to the water system oft ��IJJJ ❑ �1) feet of water main to reach the site) and/or Q'(2) the construction of a distribution system on the site) and/or ❑ U) other (describe) 2. a. dThe water system 16 in conformance with a County approved water comprehensive plan. OR b. The water system improvement will require a water comprehensive plan amendment. ]. a. f—, The proposed project is within the corporate limits of the district, or has been l_1 granted Boundary Review Board approval for extension of service outside the district or city, or is within the County approved service area of a private water purveyor. OR b' Annexation or BAD approval will be necessary to provide service. e. a. I-liGl-ter Se/or will be available at the rate of flow and duration indicated below at L no lees than 20 psi measured at the. nearest fire hydrant f4,^ ' 7p -ceeu—Erem-the build ing/propor Ly (or as marked on the attached map) 1 Rate of Flow Duration ❑ less than 500 gpm (approx. ypm) ❑ less than 1 hour ❑ 500 to 999 gym hour to 2 hours ❑ 1000 gpm or mare FOR 2-2 hours or more ❑ flow test of gpm ❑ other 1 calculation of-- C+(9(' gpm (Commercial Building Permits require flow OR AS771/11[I7"k test or calculation) b. ❑Water system is not capebl.e. cf provldi.ng fire flow. /O 1-11NAt;&F e 4A79CO/ilC,-W FEE DU � � �.�a • — COMMEFI'rS/CONDITIONS ✓EAJ 14A I 'tO fJ AJ7V�'x WA76-X M11IAf f�-yl`I` /(f-ID/J JPJ,gNs 10G(?yt ee1) Fir F..OW C4,cc c=av/,e -- Ff Ui+o Kinl� C, F1rr DISL f1A/D �DUn)DFl L �l � =✓iE�_T D/1 �D 4nSf ',q - 46-Co /'e io ( hereby curt fy that the above water purveyor information is true. This certification shall be valid for one year from date of signature. miry c�F �c? AlTO%1 _ 1C�O"Ai-Q 4. O nI Agency Name / natory Name , C=- A)2rI IJ r1 / 1_ F 27A t11ie gna ure ate 6/00 , Washington State Boundary Review Board For King County 3606136th S.E., Suite 122 Bellevue, WA 98006 Telephone(206)296.7096 September 26, 1988 � ,y{3Sv'A 000 �T Mr. Ronald L. Olsen, Utility Engineer City of Renton Department of Public Works 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 Dear Mr. Olsen: You have asked whether or not a City was required to file a Notice of Intention with the Boundary Review Board when a single property or home wished to hook up to an existing utility line. As stated orally by G. Brice Martin, Executive Secretary It has been the Board's policy that under this circumstance, no Notice of Intention Is required. This Implies two conditions: (1) There Is an existing, approved main abutting the property a.id no further extension of said main Is required, and (2) The property owner Is responsible for all costs associated with completing the hook-up of said property to the existing main. If you have further questions, please let me know. Yours very truly, WASHINGTON STATE BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD FOR KING COUNTY G. BRIC1' MARTIN, Fxecutive Serrerary GWt�r." PAULA ANNE RUSSE , Adm. Assistant GBM/par �y } CITY OF RENTON .it. DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Earl Clymer, Mayor PLANNING DIVISION MEMORANDUM Date: May It. 1989 - To: Lynn Guttman, Public Works Director Don Monaghan, Design Engineer R Olsen, Utility Engineer From: „� cy Laswell Morris, Long Range Planning Manager Subject: Issuance of Certificates of Water Availability for properties outside the current City limits 1. The City may not provide water or sewer service outside of the City limits without first filing a notice of intent to provide sewer and/or water service with the Fang County Boundary Review Board (BRB). -- completion of a covenant to annex alone is not adequate (see attachment 1) 2. The procedures to be followed are: a meeting should be scheduled between Public Works staff, Planning staff and the applicant in order to establish the need to extend ser-ices and also, axsesx the feasibility of annexing the proposed service area -- if annexation of the proposed service area does not appear to be feasible at the time, the applicant signs n covenant to annex -- Planning is notified by Public Works to prepare a notice of intent to extend sewer and/or water service outside the City limits -- the notice of intent is submitted to the BRB -- upon BRB approval, a certificate of water or sewer availability may be issued NLM:jcs 200 MAI Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 • (206)235.2550 AtfQG�lyv)Cn� ;" Washington State Boundany Review Board b For King Cbunly 9W IIII) 'llnrrr Srxw1c, IWt.Jun,Giunwilai 71:1vjJioite(206)34911196 November 4, 1987 POLICY DEVILOPMENT DEPARTMENT CI'Y Of RENTON Mr. Dick Houghton. Director NOV 1 1987 D Department of Public :Yorks rn l4 O City of Renton Ill I Municipal Building Renton, WA 98055 RE: EXTENSIONS OF UTILITIES OUTSIDE CITY CORPORATE LIMITS Dear Dick: Thank you for your telephone call this morning. I really appreciate the opportunity to disciss the problem of utility extensions with you. Enclosed Is a copy of RCW 36.97.090(5), which cites when a Notice of Intention Is tequlied to be filed with the Boundary Review Board. Subsection (5) states: "(5) The extension of permanent water or sewer service outside of Its existing corporate boundaries by a city, :own, or special purpose district." This amendment became effective in 1971. Tne City Is to be commended foi use of the Covenant for Annexation. Once It is -ecotded In the public records, It provides a property owner or successor In interest with constructive notice that they must sign a Petition for Annexation when requested to do so by the City. This ensures that the City will be able to annex areas which have become highly urbanized on Its boundaries because of the availability of utilities. However, It does not replace the requirement for filing a Notice of Intention for the provision of such services as noted above. We were contacted by Building and land Development on this issue because of a plat approval pending. In fact. David Feltman, Utilities Coordinator, (344-7970) called me again Just after we finished talking. You may wish to give him a call also. My contact with Policy and Development of the City was natural since we work with them on all annexation Issues. 4ttAcAmenr I I Mr. Dick Houghton November 4, 1987 Page Two 1 hope this answers your questions. Brice will return to the office on Monday, November ( 9th, should you desire to discuss this further at that time. Or, our legal counsel, Robert C. Kaufman, Special Assistant Attorney General, may be reached at 453-1436. Please let me know if we can help further on this Issue. Sincerely, WASHINGTON STATE BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD FOR KING COUNTY Paula Anne Russall, Adm. Aset. PAR Encls. RCW 36.93.090(5) CC: G. BRICE MARTIN, Executive Secretary, WSBRB for KC IAARRY SPRINGER, Director, Policy Development Division DAVID FEITMAN, K.C. Utilities Coordinator ROBERT C. KAUFMAN, Special Assistant Attorney General H 36.93.070 Title 36 RC%V: (-oontiea A#taehmenf l 1 The board by rule may provide for hearings by panels system by a water district pursuant to RCW S7.08.055 of members consisting of not less Ilion five board mcm- or chapter 57 40 RC.W.as now or hereafter amended;or bell, the number of hearing panels and members (4) The establishment of or change in the boundaries thereof, and for the impartial selection of panel mem• of a mutual sewer and water system or separate water bees. A majority of a panel shall constitute a quorum system by a sewer district pursuant to RCW 56,20.015 (hereof. or chapter 56.36 RCW,as now or hereafter amended;or At the request 0f tits ioi nild. the stole attorney gen.t- (5)The extension of permanent water of sewer service coal, y. h the board's option,the to boar prosecuting at- outside of its existing corporate boundaries by a city, uxncy,shall provide ctmmei for the braid. town,or specud purpose district. 11985 c 281 § 28; 1982 The planning departments of the county, other court. c 101 7. Prior: 1981 c 332 1 9; 1981 c 45 1 2; 1979 ex.s. tics, and any city, and any slate or regional planning c 5 1 12: 19I t ex.s.c 127 1 I; 1969 ex.s,c 111 1 5; 1967 agency shall furnish such information to the board at its c 189 19.1 request as may be reasonably necessary for the perform- ance of its duties. SerwA(Rn>—=tqS a 291:Sae RCW 35.10,905. Each member of the board shall be compen tiawJilily--19a2 c Ia..See cone("Ilawag RCW 6.12.too, sated from sentxbluq—I"I a 332:Sae e"m 1"Ilur,ing RCw 35.13.a1S. the county current expense fund at tine rate of twenty- I19(ala6r deekwielt--•tontine- liftae4 five dollars per day,or a Major `-maMliy— j portion thereat, for time 19aI a 4s:See nwo rollonng RCW se.36 ono actually devoted to the work of the boundary review Soetabilu, »evs.a 5:sec RCW 36.96920. board. Each board of county commissioners shall provide C"nO'"o—a 111's end kOOn— Role of bft k y te.iew band such funds as shall be necessary to pay the salaries of RCW 311045u the members and staff,and such other expenses as shall be reasonably necessary. 11967 c 189 17.1 36-93.093 Copy of notice of intention by sewer or wafer disificl to be seat officials. Whenever a sewer or water district files with the board a notice of intention as 36.93.080 Fxpmnddtufes—Remittance of costs to required by RCW 36.93.09U,the board shall send a copy counties. Expenditures by the board shall be subject to of such notice of intention to the legislative authority of the provisions of chapter 36.40 RCW and other statutes the county wherein such action is proposed to be taken relating to expenditures by counties. The department of and one copy to the state department of ecology. (1971 community development shall on a quarterly basis remit ex.s. c 127 § 2.1 to each county one-half of the actual costs incurred by the county for the ol,cration of the boundary review 36.93.104) Review of proposed actions hy board— board within individual counties as provided for in this Procedure. l be board shall review and approve, disap- chapler, floc ever, in the event no funds are appropri. prove, or modify any of the actions act forth in RCW and is the said agency for this purpose, this shall 110, in 36.93.090 when any 0f the following shall Occur within any way affect the operation of the boundary review sixty days of the filing of a notice of intention: board. 11985 c 61 7; 1969 ells. c 111 1 4; 1967 c 1891 (1) The chairman or any three members of the 8.) boundary review board files a request for review; (2) Any governmental unit affected files a request for 36.93.090 Filing notice of proposed actions wish review' board. Whenever any of the following desefibed actions (y(3) A petition requesting review is filed and is signed are proposed in a county in which a board has been es- tablished,the initiators of the action shall file within one (°) five percent of the mid red voters residing within hundred eighty days a notice of intention with the board, the area which is being considered Ibr the proposes ac- which may review any such proposed actions Lion (as determined by this boundary review board in its P ioo Pertaining' discretion subject to immediate review by writ or ecrlio. to: (1) The: (a) Creation, incorporation,or changF in (he fari Io the superior court);or boundary,other than a eorsolidalum, of any city, toil, (b) an owner or owners of property consisting of five or special purpose district; (b) consolidation of special Percent of the assessed valuation within such area. purpose dislricls,but not including consolidation of alien if a perual of sixty days shall elapse without the and towns; or (e) dissolution or disineor ration of an bo°r se jurisdiction having been invoked as bet forth in city, town, or special y this section, the proposed action shall be deemed pe purple district, czccpl that a approved. board only not review the dissolution or disincorporalion If a review of it proposal is requested, the board shall Of a special purpose district which was dissolved or dis- make ° finding as prescribe) in RCW 36.9),I511 within RCW;or reed pursuant to the provisions of chapter -16,96 one hundred twenty days after the filing of such a re- RCW; 12) The assumption by any city or town of all it pan quest for review. If (his period of one hundred twenty of t Jays shall of.pse without the board making a finding as he assets, lacilifies, or indebleJness of a special par• prescribed to RCW 36.93.150, the proposal shall be pose district which tics partially within such city or deemed approved unless the bard and the person -he Town;or submitted the proposal agree to ;tin extension of the one (3) The establishment of or change in the boundaries hundred twenty Jay period. 11983 c 761 1; 1982 if 2201 Of a mutual water and sewer system or separate sewer 1; 1967 c 1WI 1 10.( link 36 RCW-p loll (Mi I 1 CITY Or RENTON "LL PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Barbara Y. Shinpoch, Mayor Richard C. Houghton, Director MEMORANDUM iicccmbCt 22. 1987 POUCY bmiOPMENr OLPrHI6Kii TO: LaAAy SpA ingeA 0 ON OF RENIoN Mike Painess DEC 2 8 1987 FROM: Richartd Houghton E r rr nn 2 0 SUBJECT: Boundary Review Ooacl Meeting IS 14 lS The Ae6utt6 06 ouA meeting o6 DecembeA 22nd AegaAdinj the Boundary Revieto Boaad's position Aetative the City extending atit tiee outside the City timite were as 6ottau: It was agreed that Pubtic Worths would 6uanish system maps 6or water and 6eweA., show City timit6, and inctude any agrteemen-t6, 64anchises, etc. which would apply. Policy Devetopment wilt put togetheA a submittat tetteA coven,ing the City's position and send to ORB. RCH:pmp cc: R. Berg6tAom C. TAimnett ✓ 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 - (206) 235-2569 I � I _au A_. La ` r _ / r i, I I r I • YI • i I I r r .■I � +�.Pik y I I / r 1 . / I I a / I ter. . ♦ / � � i � I /♦ ilk �i � � � i ° k4,1, �y o PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT _ DESIGN/UTILITY ENGINEERING 0 235-2631 0 MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE.SO. RENTON.WASH.98055 9 a $g4rED SEPIE0Z BARISARA Y. SHINPOCH November 20, 1987 MAYOR MEMORANDUM T0: I Larry • Springer POUCY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Richard Houghton CITY Of RENTON FROM: Bob Bergstrom 10V 14 1111 SUBJECT: Boundary Review Board Update on City Dealings As Larry Springer, Ron Olsen, Carrie Trimwell and myself discussed on Monday, November 16th, new procedures from the Boundary Review Board (BRB) will be required for only City water and sanitary sewer service in unincorporated King County. In addition, the City must file a Notice of Intention to BRB for our historical service areas outside of our corporate limits for water and sewer service. Dept of Public Works will continue to collect the "Covenant to Annex" forms from properties in King County wishing to receive City utility service. For single family homes, we will notify the BRB and present copies of the covenant when we sign the "blue sheet" Availability of Water/Sewer forms. Please consider a "blanket" notice of intention to the BRB for our historic outside of City water and sanitary sewer service areas, this will hopefully avoid many small applications in the future. I have sketched on the attached maps, these areas show: 1. Sanitary Sewer - Each lot served and the Careage agreement area. 2. Watermains - Historic areas of service. Because the City only serve sanitary sewers on special City Council approval only, these parcels are fewer in number. I have included properties served and those with council approval, but no piped connection. Prior to the City applying to BRB for the Water and Sanitary Sewer Notice of Intention", I would suggest that we evaluate those areas that Policy Development wishes to annex outright. Early resolution of this issue will avoid a duplication of paperwork. I have highlighted these areas of possible annexation. Please review and advise me on our next course of action. 2D.12.5.21/REB:ckd Attachments boti eryslrom cc: Ron Olsen O� kF � ti THE CITY OF RENTON POLICY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT • 235-2552 n x MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE.SO. RENTON.WASH.99055 OP �. 0P NItED SEP1E00 BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH MAYOR MEMORANDUM DATE: December 7, 1987 TO: Larry Springer, Policy Development Director FROM: Carrie Trimnell, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: Extensions of Utility Service Into Unincorporated Territory Annexation or Unincorporated Properties Receiviu,, City Utility Service As you will recall, the City of Renton has not been following the requirements of Chapter 36.93.090 (5) of the RCW which stales that a notice of intention must be filed with the Boundary Review Board whenever a city extends permanent water or sewer service outside of its existing corporate boundaries. On November 24, 1987, we received a memo from Bob Bergstrom (copy attached) which outlined the Public Works Department's recommendations on this matter. Their recommendations are: 1) continue to require covenants to annex on unincorporated properties wishing to connect to City utilities; 2) request exemptions from BRB review when the extension is to service single-family residences; 3) file a notice of intent for the service areas identified in the City's sewer and water system comprehensive plans; and 4) initiate annexation proceedings on those areas receiving City utility service which meet the 75% assessed valuation requirement. The Public Works Department also requested our review and recommendation on these suggestions. After reviewing the information provided by the Public Works Department, I have the following comments: 1. If the City chooses to continue to provide City utility service to properties outside the corporate limits, covenants to annex must be required in order to ensure that these properties will someday annex. 2. The BRB will only consider exemptions from the State's notice of intent requirements if the utility extension is to service one single-family residence U LQB$_.aa 111e connection does not involve the extension of a maior Wility main. Extensions of Utility Service Annexation of Properties Receiving CBy Utility Strrice 1 December 7, 1987 Page 2 3. The Public Works Department would like to address BRB's concerns by filing a notice of intent for the City's utility service as identified in the City's Utility Comprehensive Plans. They feel this notice of intent should be sufficient and that the City should be free to allow utility extensions within the City's service areas without BRB involvement. The State statute is clear in its requirement for BRB approval of utility extensions beyond corporate boundaries. A Utility Comprehensive Plan is nct reviewed by the BRB and it is not t. 'Icense to conduct business outside of the City's corporate boundaries. T' a only way the City can legally extend service into unincornorated territoty is to aetBRB approval throueh filii:.r„a notice of intent. 4. The are numerous properties outside of the existing City limits which have signed covenants to annex in order to obtain City utility service. These properties are illustrated on the attached maps. The City Council has initiated annexation proceedings on three covenants located south of the existing City limits (Liberty View Subdivision and Annexation), and they could choose to do so on the other covenants. There a:e also several areas which are receiving City utility service which were not requi .-d to sign covenants, including Sierra Heights Elementary, Empire Estates Apartments and Earlington Elementary. Recommendation Policy Development should recommend to the Administration: 1. That the extension of City utility services beyond the corporate limits be curtailed except in emergency health hazard situations, and that unincorporated properties wishing to connect to City utilities be required to annex to the City if they are contiguous to the existing City limits; 2. That properties wishing to connect to City utilities which are not contiguous to the existing City limits be required to sign a covenant to annex and that the City i. file a notice of intent with the BAD. An exemption may be requested if the utility extension is to service one single-family residence and the connection does not involve the extension of a major utility main; 3. That unincorporated properties which are adjacent to the existing Renton corporate limits and which have signed covenants to annex in order to receive City utility services be required to commence annexation proceedings; 4. That a blanket notice of intent be filed for the unincorporated properties which are receiving City utility service but are not contiguous to the existing City limits. ct:dsk6 utility) Attachments o THE CITY OF RENTON POLICY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT • 235-2552 n MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE.SO. RENTON,WASH.99056 Op 9, e �, tfD SEPAEOO�P BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH MAYOR MEMORANDUM I DATE: November 18, 1997 TO: Larry Springer, Policy Development Director FROM: Carrie Trimnell, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: Extensions of City 1 'llity Service Into Unincorporated Territory Chapter 36.91.090 of the RCW sets forth the actions which require the filing of a notice of intention with the Boundary Review Board. Subsection 5 states that a notice of intent must be filed for: "The extension of permanent water or sewer service outside of its existing corporate boundaries by a city, town, or special purpose district." A recent telephone conversation with Paula Russell of the King County Boundary Review Board revealed that the City of Renton has not been following this State requirement. She has requested that the City file a "blanket" notice of intent to bring the Board up to date as to the location of unincorporated properties receiving City services, and she has asked that the City begin filing notices for all utility extensions into the County. The City has several options of how to handle this situation: 1. Begin requiring all unincorporated properties desiring connection to City utilities to annex to the City, and Inlllate annexation proceedings on those properties Immediately adjacent to the existing City limits which receiving City utility service and which have signed covenants to annex. The intent of Chapter 36.93.090 of the RCW is to deter cities from extending services beyond their corporate limits. Once an unincorporated property adjacent to a corporate boundary has received City utility service, the property owner will have little reason to eventually annex to the City. The intent of the State legislature in requiring the preparation of notices of intent for utility extensions was to encourage cities to annex , Extension of Utility Services 1 November 18, 1987 Page 2 the subject property, file one notice of intent and serve the property completely. Policy Development should recommend that this matter be presented to the City Council with the intent of establishing a policy of not extending City services beyond the City's boundaries except in emergency h.alth hazard situations, and requiring properties wishing to obtain any City services to annex to the City. 2. Follow BRII's request and file a blanket notice for all existing utility extensions and, to the future, file a notice for each and every extension. The BRB's request for a blanket notice is due to their need to know which unincorporated properties are receiving urban utility services. They would rather the property annex to the City in order to receive City utility services. It is possible to 1 request an exemption from ORB review if the utility extension is to service one single- family residence as long as the connection does not involve the extension of a major t utility main. If the City chooses to follow uRB's recommendation, a decision must be made as to which City Department - Utility Engineering or Policy Development - will be responsible for preparing the blanket notice as well as future notices. State statutes require "the initiators of the action" to file the notice. "The initiators" can be interpreted as being the City Department responsible for the extension (the Public Works/Utility Engineering Department). As you are aware, the Policy Development Department is responsible for preparing the n tices of intent to annex territory to the City of Renton. Although a utility extension notice would perhaps be organized differently than an annexation notice, the time involved in preparation would probably be comparable. On the average, it takes approximately 24 hours to write the notice and prepare the associated graphics. If this Department was responsible for preparing the utility notices, we could anticipate that several additional hours of work would be necessary due to our unfamiliarity with the ,j City's utility system. Assuming the City extends its services to one property a month, we could anticipate spending approximately 40 hours a month on writing utility extension notices of intent. "I'his would equate to the loss of one of our planner's time to work on other Department work items for an average of one week a month. t Filing o "blanket" notice of intent would be an even more time-consuming task since not all of the utility extensions have been required to sign covenants to annex, and the City j does not have all of the covenants on file. However, the filing of a blanket notice is lite y only way the City will legally be providing service to unincorporated properties. Again, t� if the City chooses to follow BRB's recommendation, it must be decided which Department will be primarily responsible for preparing the notices. 3. File a notice of Intent for the service areas Identified [it the City's sewer and water system comprehensive plans. The Public Works Department would like to address BRB's concerns by filing a notice of intent for the City's utility service areas as identified in the City's Utility Comprehensive Plans. They feel that this notice of intent should be sufficient and that the City should be free to allow utility extensions within the City's service areas without ORB involvement. On the surface, this sounds like it would work, but the State statute is clear in its requirement fir ORB approval of utility extensions beyond corporate t Extension of Utility Services November 18, 1987 t Page 3 boundaries. A Utility Comprehensive Plan is not reviewed by the BRB and it is not a license to conduct business outside of the City's corporate boundaries. The g1lu way the City can legally extend service into unincorporated territory is to get BRB approval through filing a notice of intent. 4. Ignore BRB's request completely and continue to allow utility service extensions t to %incorporated properties. Obviousl• this is the easiest way for the City to get out of doing slot of work. Ilowever, if the City chooses to ignore BRB, we will be guilty of ignoring Stale law. Prior to the City selecting this alternative, the City Attorney should be contacted in order to determine what actions, if any, could be taken against the City. ] Policy Development should continue to discuss this situation with Public Works and the ' Boundary Review Board. Once the intent of the Stale statute is completely clarified between the affected Departments, the Administration or the senior staff shot'd determine which of the above alternatives the City will take to handle this situation. I Policy Development should recommend: 1. That a blanket notice of inter.- addressing existing utility extensions be prepared pj ly between the City's Pubh, Works and Policy Development Departments; 2. That the extension of City utility services beyond the corporate limits be curtailed and that unincorporated properties wishing to connect to City utilities should be required to annex to the City; and t 3. That unincorporated properties which are adjacent to the existing Renton icorporate limits and which have signed covenants to annex in order to receive I City utility services be required to commence annexation proceedings. 4 i I ct:dsk6 utility I e 1 I pF RE a ti� `.� o THE CITY OF RENTON { POLICY DEVELOPMENT DCPARTMENT a 235-2552 Z� $ MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200MILLAVE.50. RENTON,WASH.98055 Qp b' �P TFD SEPIE0O BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH MAYOR MEMORANDUM DATE: November 10, 1098 TO: Dick Houghton, Public Worki Director FROM: Carrie Trimnell, Assista,lt Planner SUBJECT: Filing of Notices of Intent for Extensions of City Sewer and/or Water Service Per Larry Springer's request, please find attached a copy of RCW 36.93.090 which pertains to the filing of a Notice of Intent with the Boundary Review Board when the City extends sewer and/or water ��ervice beyond its corporate limits (subsection 5) . As indicated in the statue, the City is required to file a notice of intent within 180 days of the proposed utility extension. If this Department can be of any additional help on this matter, please do not hesitate to give us a call. i ct:dsk6 extl i 36.93.090 Tltk 36 RCW: Counties I the provisions of chapter 36.40 RCW and other statutes 36.93.100 Review of prop6..d actions by board- relating to expenditures by counties. The planning and Procedure. The board shall review and approve, dis�l community affairs agency, or to whatever entity the lo. prove, or modify any of the actions set forth in ;7r % cal government functions of this agency shall be trans- 36.93.090 when any of the following sh:.11 occur . :It ferred, shall on a quarterly basis remit to each county sixty days of the filing of a notice of intention: one-half of the actual costs incurred by the county for (1) The chairman or any three members of th the operation of the boundary review board within indi- boundary review board files a request for review; vidual counties as provided for in this chapter. However, (2) Any governmental unit affected files a request f. in the event no funds are appropriated to the said agency review; for this purpose, this shall not in any way affect the op. i3) A petition requesting review is filed and is sign eration of the boundary review board. 11969 cif s. c I I I by § 4; 1967 c 189 18,1 (a) five percent or the registered voters residing with: the area which is being considered for the proposed at 36.9J.090 Filing notice o► proposed actions with i lion (as determined by the boundary review board in i g D p I discretion subject to immediate review by writ of ccrtii boad.§Wbcnever any of the following described actions sari to the superior court);or are proposed in a county in which a board has been es- (b) an owner or owners of property consisting of fit tablished,the initiators of the action shall file within one*, percent of the assessed valuation within such area. hundred eighty days a notice of intention with the board; If a period of sixty days shall elapse without it which may"review any such proposed actions pertaining board's jurisdiction having been invoked as set forth to: a I this section, the proposed action shall be deeme (1) The creation, dissolution, incorporation, disincor- approved. potation, consolidation, or change in tie 'soundary of If a review of a proposal is requested, the board sho any city, town, or special purpose district,except that a make a finding as prescribed in RCW 36.93.150 with board may not review the dissolution or disincorporation one hundred twenty days after the filing of such a n of a special purpose district which was dissolved or cis- quest for review. If this period of one hundred tweni ' incorporated pursuant to the provisions of chapter 36.96 days shall elapse without the board making a finding i RCW;or prescribed in RCW 36.93.150, the proposal shall l 'f] (2) The assumption by any city or town of all or part deemed approved unless the board end the person t(,. of the asets, facilities, or indebtedness of a special put- submitted the proposal agree to an extension of the b. ysq hundred twenty day period. 1983 c 76 1: 1982 c 220 11 town district which lies partially within such nit) or 1 § town:or 1; 1967 c 189 § 10.1 (3) The estahlishm^nt of or hange in the boundaries Seeenbiaty-19112 c 220, -If any provision of this act or m a of a mutual water c -wet system or separate sewer plicauon to any person or circumstance is held invalid.the remamd t SYwltm by a wafer d1: pursuant l0 RCW 520B.06$ of the act or the application of the provision to other pension or a eumstances is not affected,- 11982 a 220 1 9.1 or chapter 57.40 RCW,as now or hereafter amended:or (4) The establishment of or change in the boundaries Of a mutual sewer and water system or separate water 36.93.110 When review not necessary. In case of at 7 system by a sewer distrta pursuant to RCW $6.7_0.015 nexation to a city or a town, where the area proposed fs 2 or chapter 36.36 RCW,as now or hereafter amended:or hundred t is less than ten acres and less than .ti (5)The extension of permanent water or sewer service hundred thousand dollars d assessed valuation, tt outside ofiis`ixisting corporate boundaries by chairman of the review board may by written r% forslate it town. or special purpose district,11982 c 10 § declare that review by the boar2 is not neeessan for i protection of the interest of the vat bus parties. in whit 1981 c 172 § 9; 1981 c 45 § 2: 1979 ex.s. c 5 § 17 case the board shall not review such annexation. 1197 ex s. c 127 § 1; 1969 ex S c III § 5; 1967 c 111 ! 91 Ist ex.s. a 195 §42; 1967 c 189 § 11.1 Sere lsflily--19112 t 14 See rare following RCW 6.1..100. $eernairity—Eneedre dates---Cn.nucrlon-1975 tat eae. Sworralidity-19111 c 332:Sec note fullowing RCW a5.11025. 195:See note,following RCW 94.52.041. Ltirlstatln deetsnllon—'"DisMct" dented--Semability- 1921 a 45:See noses fulla.mg RCW 56 36.060. 36.93.115 Petition for annexation—Action withot Saasbialy-1979 nn.c 5:See RCW 36 96920. regard to priority of filing. A boundary review boar, county auditor,county legislative authority,or any othe 36.93.093 Copy of notice of intention by sewer or public official or body may act upon a petition for at water district to be sent officials. \1'henever a sewer or nexation brfore considering or acting upon a petition fc water district files with the board a notice of intention as incorporation which embraces some or all of the sec�J' required by RCW 36.93.090.the board shall send a copy territory, without regard to priority of filing. 11981. of such notice of intention to the legislative authority of 220 § 5.1 V the county wherein such action is proposed to be taken Sa,yramnty-19112 a 220:See note fallowing RCW 3693 100, wand one copy to the state department of ecology. 11971 Anton on .noeunor peutlon wnnour regard to primry of nhn, ex s. c 127 § 2.1 NC W 3702150.15A.03.140 j rflde 36 Rr VV-,,1961 11911 F4 • Rento r• � c'I blinue Paee 204 lulu 17. 1989 MOVED BY REED, SECONDED BY KEOLKER-WHEELER, COUNCIL CONCUR iN THE RECOMMENDATION Of THE PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR. CARRIED. Council President Stredicke requested his `no' vote be recorded due to estimated costs. RFCESS MOVED BY REED, SECONDED BY KEOLKER-WHEELER, COUNCIL RECESS conven dFOR at 1056 p MINUTES.li Was called; alll me bersl Council were present. OLD BUSINESS Council President Stredicke requested the City Attorney to provide case law Employee Residency regarding mandatory rea idency for City employees, and the Administration to Requirements provide a report !fisting current residency of each City employee. He felt that those making decisions for the City ought to be residents. Mayor Clymer agreed to provide the information. Plannlne and Planning and Development Committee Chairman Reed presented a report pg-elooment Committee. regarding the appeal filed on the Thomas Barr rezone, .40 acres from R-I to Rezone: Barr, R-011-99 B dewing turehe rcom andmeiciahearing development he comments Sfrotm the applicant's h Tobin Street. After representatives and neighbors, the Committee found that the request is untimely and the hewing examiner did not commit any errors of fact or law to justify amending Isis recommendation. Therefore, the committee recommended that the Council uphold the recommendation of the hearing examiner to deny the rezone. MOVED BY REED, SECONDED BY MATHEWS, COUNCII. CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. ILUMWrI1AL1Q l Transportation Committee Chairman Mathews presented a ,eport regarding fom m_ittee the SW Sunset Boulevard roadway improvement funding in the amount of BAG: 87d Roadway, SW Sunset request est Was held to n Commi correct ttee pending a request foradway width, referred rvariance from9. ethe State. Boulevard Raadway, Intersection and The Department of Transportation has granted our request to deviate from Watermain Improvements State standards. Therefore, the Committee recommends that this item be deleted im the referral SECONDED BY NELSON, COUNCILCOMCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT CARRIED. CAG: 89-Q47, 1989 Street Transportation Committee Chairman Mathews presented a report concurring Overlay in the recomme ,dation of the Public Works Department award contract for the 1989 street Overlay project to the low bidder, A 8a in the amount of $378,8Cj.90. The engineer's estimate was S391,986.70. The Committee further recommended that the `savor and City Jerk be authorized to sign the contract.NELSON, MOVED SECONDED BY COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE CJMM TTEE REPORT. CARRIED. Utilities Committee Utilities Committee Chairman Keolker-W heeler presented a report regarding Utility: Tomlan Sewer the request for sewer connection received from Linda Tomlan on 7/10/89 for Connection Request her property located at 10405 SE 166th, outside the City limits. The Committee found that: 1) a failing septic tank and drain field exist on the proponent's residential property; 2. Consistent with Council policy, sewer extensions may be granted outside the City limits if a failing septic tank and drain field exist; 3. As a condition of allowing this sewer extension, the proponent must agree to annex to the City; 4. That the sewer extension, if approved by Council, be accomplished in accordance with City standards. MOVED BY KEOLKER-WHEELER, SECONDED BY NELSON, COUNCIL. CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. Annexation: Renton 91, Utilities Committee Chairman Keolker-Wheeler advised that the Committee Phase 11 (Shurgard) has met on the matter of tho Shurgard development extension of water service (Renton 91 Phase 11 Annexation), and has authorized staff to mat . a presentation to Council this evening. Nancy Laswell Morris, Associate Planner, Community Development Department, presented the following background information: The subject site is located east of I-405 in the 11000 block of SE 76th Street (vicinity of the NE 44th Street interchange). On 5/15/89, the City Council deleted 9.6 acres (Shurgard, Seelig, and Travelers Inn properties) from the scope of the Renton 91 annexation and remanded that area, known as Phase 11, back to staff for a report, The properties were deleted from the original ,[yjy 17 1989 Renton t itv l'ouncil Minutes Paae 205 annnexa6on scope because both Sh. .ga. ..n' Seelig were in the process of applying for building permits through King County, according to testimony. Shurgard, owner of 2.78 acres, has since requested extension of water service to the site for development of a public storage mini-warehouse. The project consists of 82,000 square feet of commercial space with 62 parking spaces. This proposed commercial development is not supported by City staff sine the property to the cast of the site is designated for residential use on the City Comprehensive Plan and is zoned for residential use in the County. Under state law, the City may not extend service outside its boundaries without either a notice of intent to annex or to extend utility service. Because the City signed a King County Certificate of Water Ava,iability for the Shurgard property in 1988 requiring annexation to the City and approval by the King County Boundary Review Board, the County wall net issue building permits until approval is received from the City. Owners of the Travelers Inr site, which is already developed, have no objection to annexation. Both the Shurgard and Seelig properties are within the area covered by LID 291, formed in 1975. At that time, the City agreed to extend water service to the Shurgard property without a condition of annexation. Therefore, a conflict exists which may incur legal action against the City by Shurgard if annexation is required. Ms. Laswell Morris discussed three alternatives available to the City: 1) Accept the development as proposed; 2) Negotiate site plan design changes prior to processing the Notice of Intent with King County Boundary Review Board; 3) Require annexation prior to extension of water service. Ms. Laswell Morris indicated staff's concern with providing services outside the City boundaries without requiring annexation due to resultant lack of control over development standards and loss of incentive for properties to annex. However, because of the agreement to provide water service as a benefit of participation in LID 291, and on the advice of the city attorney, staff recommended that Alternative 1 above be adopted allowing the deve!opment to proceed as proposed. Staff would then notify King County that City has released the certificate of water availability, thereby allowing King County to issue building permits for ,he Shurgard property. Staff also recommended that Council adopt a resolution requiring initiation of all territory within LID 291 to insure that future development is consistent with the goals, policies and ordinances of the City; and recommended that staff be authorized to contact property owners within LID 291 who have not signed a covenant to annex. Ms. Laswell Morris indicated that Shurgard has agreed to meet the following City requirements: 1) biofiltration swale, on-site detention facilities, and Doped water system; 2) site improvements in accordance with Uniform Fire Code; 3) additional landscaping and screening, br^zk veneer facade facing 76th Street; 4) electronic security system; and 5) participation in the NE 44th Street Transportation Benefit District for traffic improvements. It was noted that certain site design issues have not been fully resolved to staffs satisfaction. Upon Council inquiry, Ms. Laswell Morris indicated that mitigation measures for hazardous waste storage were not required since the site is outside the aquifer protection area. She also explained that the proposal received SEPA review by the City when the original notice of intent petition was submitted; subsequent SEPA review will be made by King County. MOVED BY KEOLKER-WHEELER, SECONDED BY REED, COUNCIL CONCUR WITH THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REFER THIS MA ITER TO WAYS AND MEANc COMMITTEE. (Motion carried below.) Audience comment was invited. Martin Seelig, P.O. Box 1925, Bellevue, referred to the staff handout and disputed statement by the City's Technical Advisory Committee that the site is inappropriate for light industria: use. He also disagreed with staff recommendations for larger, hipped roofs and placement of retail use on the west side of the Shurgard property due to potential impacts to multifamily residential use of his property directly to the east. Referencing comments regarding LID 291, Mr. Seelig indicated that he has not discussed annexation with City staff, he has not executed a covenant to annex, and he indicated concern that properties developing earlier are dictating policies for those to follow. Sally Clark, attorney representing Shurgard, 1221 2nd Avenue, Seattle, concurreri in the staff recommendations. She pointed out that because of the design of the buildings and anticipation of minimal traffic, impacts will be less than expected from a retail or commercial project. July 17 1989 Renton City Council Minutes Page 206 City Clerk entered letter from Dale Hollister, May Creek Associates, owner of property directly across NE 48th Street from the proposed Shurgard development. Mr. Hollister supported staff alternative no. 3, which requires annexation prior to extension of water service. He felt that warehouses would be incompatible with surrounding office uses and detrimental to property values and appearance of the surrounding area. Mr. Hollister indicated to the Council that he has worked with the City to rezone the property for office use as a transition between business and residential use, and he felt that the subject development should be required to provide a similar transition. He indicated that if property owners can provide that assur^nce, Ise had no objection to the proposal. MOTION CARRIED. ORDINANCES 4ND RESOLUTIONS Wars and Means Ways and Means Committee Chairman Trimm presented a report regarding Committee the Shoreline Master Program residential dock amendment, referred on Planning: Shoreline 7/3i89. Due to language of the original ordinance. No. 3758, amendments Master Program, authorised by the City Council shall be considered, accepted, and constitute a Residential Dock part of such Master Program without the necessity or further adoption of Amendments -uch amendments. Information. Police: Narcotics Control Ways and Means Committee Chairman Trimm :esented a report Program Grant recommending Council concurrence in the request of the Finance Director and the Police Department to accept the State of Washington, Department of Community Development, Washington State Narcotics Control Program's grant in conjunction with the cities of Auburn, Tukwila, and Kent. This action would transfer an ongoing grant from Auburn to Renton. MOVED BY TRIMM, SECONDED BY KEOLKER-WHEELER, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. NEW BUSINESS Council President Stredicke questioned City policy requiring property owners Streets: Replacement of to resurface streets after installation of sewer lines. Mayor Clymer indicated Paving (Clarke) that over 7/9 of the roadway in question was torn up during construction, and it is in the interest of the City's taxpayers to require replacement of the paving which was installed less than three years ago. Streets: 1990-1996 Six- MOVED BY MATHEWS, SECONDED BY KEOLKER-WHEELER, Year Transportation COUNCIL REFER THE 1990-1996 SIX-YEAR TRANSPORTATION Improvement Program IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM, SCHEDULED FOR PUBLIC HEARING ON 9/7/89, TO THE TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE. CARRIED. ADNIINISTRATIVE Council referral of 6/19/89 regarding update of City's government access REPORT channel: Malfunctioning computer equipment at TCI headquarters has t rtilitl. TCI Government resulted in display of outdated messages stored in the system's memory. The Access Channel problem has been reported and will be repaired. The channel is updated twice a week by City Clerk division staff, and a total of 53 messages was ether entered or removed during the period of 5/16/89 through 6/15/89. Cable Consultant Mayor Clymer indicated that messages of condolence have been sent to Lon Hard, the City's cable consultant, on the passing of his father, Jim Hurd. The elder Mr. Hurd was the Cit,'s first cable consultant. AUDIENCE COMMENT Theresa Zimmerman, 813 N. 1st street, Renton, expressed disappointment Citizen Committee: North that the North Renton citizens advisory committee, which has been meeting Renton Citizens Advisory for the past two and one-half years, was not notified of plans to replace Committee Heery Program Management consultants with a facilitator to rediscuss the North Renton projects with residents. She questioned the scope of the work being funded, and requested that a specific list of projected work items be provided. Mayor Clymer indicated that the facilitator is replacing the original consultant, and will be responsible for providing information regarding the projects, and facilitating discussions between residents, business representatives and City staff. City's Capital Council President Stredicke announced that the City's Capital Improvement Improvemeta Progra,., Program will be presented to the Renton Chamber of Commerce Local Government Committee on Friday, August 10 at 7:30 a.m. at the Chamber offices. Executive Session MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECONDED BY KEOLKER-WHEELER, COUNCIL CONVENE INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION TO DISCUSS PENDING LITIGATION. CARRIED. Time: 12:01 a.m. i IV25'89 16:29 1'1S 228 7429 µ.ATER DIST. 107 :j9o1 OOJ KING COUNTY WATER DISTRICT NUMBER 107 7,115 - 129th Avenue, S.li. Renton, W;iShington 981)Sli (211(j) L.ir-92p0 1'A`(: (206) 228-7429 i TIME: A'I'11NrloN: COMB Y: FAQ: C11Y: L Y TO: - - - - - - - - - - - FROM: SENDER: - tom C Y: AINC CoON'fY_i@VIT D11M,_w; 107 CITY, STATE': RENTON, I%lkgjjt4cl, 98Uso FAX NUA1l1hG: _120W 228-7429 NOTE*: We arc transmitting pace. ;l, If •ou do not reccivc;�1'1 c�i the over sheet. problem, please contact the scn.'. - � `•`' a Quality 9200. C044 M'S. w .a �„ u;.ca t�� ��} -ar.i u Clk PISS - F,uu_ ntrl KING COUNTY WATER DISTRICT NUMBER 107 7415 129th Avenue S.E., Renton, Washington 98056 (206)235-9200 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REPLY 10 Henry F.Mccuttou9h 59-4-236WS President John R.Janson Secretary Elmer F Foster Member September 29, 1989 MANAGER Thomas Peac Ms. Lynn Gunmann, Director Department of Public Work% Municipal Building 200 Mill Ave. S. Renton, WA 98055 SUBJECT: WATER AVAILABILITY FOR SEELIG PROPERTY UJ6TH STREET Dear Ms. Guttmann: King County Water District No. 107 has been approached by the property owners of the subject parcel just north and east of Travelers Inn and South of S.E. 76th Street for a King County Water Availability Certificate(see map exhibit attached for location). After reviewing this request in July of this year,the Dist, (erred the property owners to the City of Renton for service because the property laid jL t west of a L,.y of Renton main .J within an area tentatively agreed between the C,strict and the City that would be in the tuture servico area of the City of Renton. This owner has now informed the District that they did approach the City of Renton for water service and the City of Renton refused to issue A certificate without an agreement to annex to the City. The District was surprised by this as annexation to the City was never a condition of our discussions for the City to serve property outside the City and within the District's service area. In fact, we recall annexation not being a requirement for water service outside the City as opposed to sewer service that did require annexation. In any event,the property owners have indicated to the District they du=wish to annex to the City " .entnn and request the Wat,:r District now provide service. This pruperty lies completely within the%: cr District boundary is in, aded in the District's comprehensive plan and further can he provided excellent water service by the District via the District's new 5.0 million gallon 440 Reservoir. 10/25%89 16:30 FAX 229 7429 9{TER DIST. 107 IM003/003 City of Renton Department of Puo;ic Works September 29, 1989 Page Two The District hereby requests verification that the City of Renton will not provide water service to this property. Because the property owner had tuested the availability several months ago, the District does not wish to further delay this request. f ace respond in writing to the District by October 16, 1989, if the City plans on serving this area and ..nder what conditions. If the District does not hear from the City by O tober 16th, it will be assumed the City does not intend to provide water service. If you have any questions, please let us know. Sincerely, Tom Lon, Manager King County Water District No. 107 TP/mlp Enclosure cc: Commissioners December 6, 1989 Washington State Boundary Review Board of King County 3600- 136th Ave. S.E., Suite 122 Bellevue, WA 98006 ATTENTION: ALDA A. WILKINSON, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY SUBJECT: CITY OF RENTON ANNEXATION FILE NO 1629 (SHURGARD) Members of the Boundary Review Board: As District Engineer for King County Water District No. 107,We wish to respond to the subject Notice of Intention of Annexation. In making this response the District wishes to emphasize that it does not object to the subject annexation. However,the District feels obligated to address several errors and mis-statements contained in the October 25, 1989 Notice of Intention Shurgard Annexation submitted to 2 the Boundary Review Board by the City of Renton. Please find our response to this notice as follows: Comment 1 - I Background/Maps: 1. Description of and reason for seeking the proposed annexation:This notice states"The annexation of approximately 9.85 acres to the City of Renton is proposed by the City to secure adequate domestic water service, fire Flows, and sewer service for future residential and commercial construction." (emphased added) This statement is incorrect as the subject area was included in the City of Renton's ULID No.291 which has already extended adequate water service to the subject prooerties. A 12-inch water line runs through the center of the proposed annexed area and provides the three parcels adequate domestic and fire flows. The subject properties have already paid for the water improvement. Only the actual onsite extension of these lines is required for water service. Sewers are already available to all these parcels. In fact,the Water District is presently providing Travelers Inn with sewer service; the Shurgard property has a District sewer line running through the property and the Seelig Property is surrounded on all four sides with existing sewer lines. 2. On Page 2. rgea ding water and sewer: Item F-113, it states "Both Renton and Water District 107 have water lines in the area of annexation, and in some cases two jurisdictions jointly own water lines. Renton,however, is the only jurisdiction with sewer lines serving the area." These statements are in error. There are no joint use water lines and the local water lines are owned by Renton while the District's water line extends west on S.E. 76th Street to the northeast comer 320 Second AMILIe Sondl•Kirkland,Washington 980334,tY87 (206) 8284433 i 74 . �Id Ali /f� f F Aldo Wilkinson December 4, 1989 Page Two of this annexation. (See Exhibit A attached for water line locations.) Contrary to Renton's representatives the District owns all sewer lines in the area with the exception of a joint use sewer line that runs along the west property line of the Seelig property and South property line of the Travelers Inn property. (See Exhibit B attached for sewer line locations.) 3. On Page 10. item t 314 B regarding public sewers: (1)"No amendments of the Comprehensive Plan is required to permit anticipated future development on the site." We question this being the case as Renton's existing Comprehensive Sewer plan shows this area to be exclusively sewered by the District. See Exhibit "C" which is a copy of the City of Renton's Comprehensive Sewer plan that shows sewers in this area "by others". This coordinates with King County Water District No. 107's existing Comprehensive Plan that shows sewer service to this area. It is our understanding that the City would have to modify its comprehensive plan in order to provide sewer service to this area. 4 On page 13 hcca ) Sw r. It is toted sewer service will be provided directly by the City of Renton. In that the District owns the line which services the Shurgard property, arrangements would need to be made with the District for service. Special connection charges have been established for this line. The Seelig Property can be sewered to either the joint use line or various District lines. tt We trust this information will clarify the status of water and sewer facilities in the area of the i subject annexation. If you have any questions, plt.ase let us know. Sincerely, YOSHIDA, INC. Martin L. Penhallegon, P.E. Associate MLP/jlw Enclosures cc: Tom Peadon Commissioners John Milne Renton Planning Dept. Renton Engineering Depth VOSHIpA,MC ' CONSULTING ENGINEERS KIRKLAND,WASHINGTON I l I I Il.2 1„ IVY Al 111 1• 1• • IW ILs I!L IV! 13V 131 PROP ••1 /1• ANNEAREA EDD. 11 1 I,I j 1 � m unu Ist u as go ' N 114 1,! >i:•111 TI1III , 1 1 1 I Z I CITY OF RENTON WATER LINES_ WATER DISTRICT No.107 WATER LINES ■mmm0 8" WATER MAIN a!!!!!!!„!.!!le,.!! 6- WATER � . ■nummj10' WATER MAIN IIWlllllWlllllll_$'_.WATER MAIN ■■I��r 12' WATER MAIN SCALE 1' = 400' EXHIBIT "A" pi .L ' .. 144 Iff I4r pl IN ♦ is :. Irf Irf 1[[ 141 PROP ED AM4E, DARE � w• ns ... . n[ Ins • \Npd• M Irr rs H\ 4♦ S a_ i WATER DISTRICT 107 SEWER LINES - ■■ METRO TRUNK LINE 8' SEWER MAIN 12- SEWER MAIN JOINT USE LINE SCALE V = 400' EXHIBIT 'B" o � I pIVpP05ED MEN ..., � �.....,, --,. �--=-- TNN KEY MAP ✓ i iil�l LEGEND: os so B FM,: c%1ST. METRO .;EWERS 1• LI.T.r1 i 0 4 _ / • _�_ � EXIST. METRO SEWER 1 ' / •� i -�; ' -�rlll _� CONNECTION i . r,•, / � - , s' i :'X'j_ ._T. � CC EXIST, CITY SEWERS -. i r' •`� ==�+s _ i.y. A _. .. -_.. .- EXIST. MANHOLE NULtBE RB i r,••: r,,� II ! i __ ` % r EXIST. PIPE SIZE e. EXIST- LIFT STATION Gr r I ' ! \\\\\\\\\ •�•, d�j , � ' i' _ � • - I .. EXIST. OTHER SEWERS _--_'o-____ PRIVATE SEWERS I I 1 _ . ! + ! '� r' `---._ -'---'�-' - - p*9rOSEO OTHER SEWERS -- _---- ELM eo .`.�. o / 0 ` EXISTING RENION CITY LIMITS------- O• i POJ . 1 O IX dJ 1 ... F MAY, CREEK BASIN { Y PROPOSED CITY SE:' ERS •-- 1 PROPOSED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT O T "'� w. } i PROJECT NUMBER ' I it / . . .- FUTURE INFLL SEWERScl / , . 1 '.I� ,Iy' . .... 1 �. f _- -+L"T. -_-. •�a6`y� �- .._1.J� TT• '• \}r .�. _�'-_ it-_ r - 1 ,L rKE' ° — --1 % i ' . •'` ' %�� �`, CITY OF RENTON a .. . • y __ 7' 1 � � •I. �. .. ,. �,.• ,.• . .._ � � Q hen r WAS'.ING70N .,.. . i - i sive Sewer Plan EILHISVT EAST.$ASS ' P' ) � r' 1 i• :j I E S FACILITIES .+t.isi r , i4r r r � . • �j S•, \� r t OR ; . t . 't.a -r,t..'xl ts` jij s=' •, /`� • ALT= \�� .- ... Af. ..j".;sr•_��...Y/.'.r. . -j. Ir, .r. 1:., .1.1 .. .. WEST KENNYDAL CITY OF RENTON MEMORANDUM DATE: Mav 7, 1989 Tol. Larry Warren FROM* FROM: Ken yb SUBJECT: Redt Of Annexation: Shurgard Certificate of Water �l�ya lability STAFF CONTACT: Nancy Laswell Morris Could you please provide a legal opinion on the status of the Certificate of Water Availability for the Shurgard property. Under state law, the City of Renton must notify the Boundary Review Board of any proposed extension of water or sewer service outside the municipal boundaries. A covenant to annex is not adequate. On November I, 1988, the Utility Engineer signed a certificate of water availabilty for the Shurgard property which is located outside the city limits. The former property owners had signed a covenant to annex to obtain water service in 1985. However, the City has not notified the Boundary Review Board of the intent to provide service. The property is within the city's service area as agreed to in the Eastside R UCC. It would appear that the Certificate of Water Availability slat, that the City will provide service to this property. However, without the Notice of Intent approved by the Boundary Review Board the City does not have the authority to provide such service. To complicate the situation the Shurgard property is part of the proposed Renton 91 annexation for which a certified 75% petition has been filed with the City. Because of the annexation and other factors, it wnuid appear prudent to rescind the certificate since water is not presently available to the property without action by the Boundary Review Board. Could you please provide direction on rescinding this certificate, and particularly the process which the city should pursue. ' ILAKE WASHING TON � o N 91 N S! ASSOCIA `. p i Q v i z h 41 Q .uTO. St. �l EELIG s / r ....aa C..Q✓�hQh ahncX urPl;cs to fi�es� two . Parcels h St. , — �F 80th RENTON 91 ANNEXATION Site Map 36.93.070 '1 ilk 36 RCW: Counties journal of its pr(lceedings which shall be a public,ecord. purpose districts,but not including consolidation of cities A majority of all the members shall constitute a quorum and towns; or 'c) dissolution or disincorpwation of any for the transaction of business. city, town, or special purpose district, except that a The chief clerk of the board shall have the power to board may not review the dissobotion or disincorporation administer oaths and affirmations, certify to all official of a special purpose district which was dissolved or dis- acts, issue subpoenas to any public officer or employee incorporated pursuant to the provisions of chapter 36.96 ordering him to testify before the board and produce RCW: Provided, That the change in the boundary of a public records, papers, books or documents. The chief city or town arising from the annexation of contiguous clerk may invoke the aid of any court of competent ju- city or town owned properly held for a public purpose risdiction to carry out such powers. shall be exempted from the requirements of this section: The board by rule may provide for hearings by panels Of of members consisting of not less than five board mem. (2) The assumption by any city or town of all or part hers, the number of hearing panels and members of the assets, facilities,or indebtedn"s of a special put. thereof, and for the impartial selection of panel men,. pose district which lies partially within such city or bets. A majority of a panel shall constitute a quorum town;or thereof. (3) The establishment of or change in the boundaries At the request of the board, the state attorney gen- of a mutual water and sewer system or separate sewer eral.or at the board's option, the county prosecuting at- system by a water district pursuant to RCW 57.08.065 torucy,shall provide counsel for the boar& or chapter 57A0 RCW,as now or hereafter amended;or The planning departments of the county, other coup- (4) '1 he establishment of or change in the boundaries ties, and any city, and any stare or regional planning of a mutual sewer and water system or separate water agency shall furnish such information i- the board at its system by a sewer district pursuant to RCW 56.20.015 toques(as may be reasonably necessary for the perform- or chapter 56.36 RCW,as now or hereafter amended;or ante of its duties. (5)The extension of permanent water or sewer service Each member -r the board shall be compensated from outside of its existing corporate boundaries by a city, the county turret,; expense fund at the rate of twenty- town,or special purpose district. 11987 c 477 § 2; 1995 c five dollars per day,or a major portion thereof, for time 281 § 28; 1982 c 10 § 7. prior: 1981 c 332 § 9; 1981 c actually devoted to the work of the boundary review 45 § 2; 1979 ex.s. c 5 § 12; 1971 ex.s. c 127 § 1; 1%9 board. Each board of county commissioners shall provide ex.s.c I 1 I § 5; 1967 c 189 19 1 such funds as shall be necessary to pay the salaries of Snera6i5q—lapsr281:SeeRCW 35lows. the members and staff, and such other expenses as shall Sell' b;lity—I"1 c IOo See rum following RCW 6.13080 be reasonably neccaary. 11987 c 477 § l; 1967 c 189 § Sertr.binry-19a1 c 332:Sc,note following RCW 35.11025. T1 leaidalne drclu anion— Imnmkl- denvd Se,"tblltty- 1981 c 45:Sac nines ronowing RCW 56.36 od0. 36.93.090 Expeadilures—Remiltance of costs to Sewnblllty-1979 sea,e k See RCW 3696.920. couches. Expenditures by the board shall be subject to Co"eol,dnoon or rotor aiM wrm---Rok of t.mmdary retie. ",,i the provisions of chapter 36.40 RCW and other statutes ftCW 15.104to Writing to expenditures by counties. :he department of 36.93.093 Copy of notice of intention by sewer or community development shall on a quarterly basis remit water district to be sent offncias. Whenever a sewer or to each county one-half of the actual crisis incurred by water district files with the board a notice of intention as the county for the operation of the bounds y review required by RCW 36.93.090,the board shall send a copy board within individual counties as provided filer in this of such notice of intention to the legislative authority of chapter. lluwever, in the event no funds are appropri- the county wherein such action is proposed to be taken atcd to the said agency for this purpose, this shall not in and one copy to the state department of ecology. 11971 any way affect the operation of the boundary review ex.s. c 127 12.1 bonru. 11985 c 6§ l; 1969 ex.s. c I I I § 4; 1967 c 189 § 8'1 36.9.1.100 Review of proposed actions by board— Procedure. The board shall review and approve, disap- 36.93.090 Filing notice of proposed actions with prove, or modify any of the actions set forth in RCW board. Whenever any of the following described actions 36.93.090 when any of the following shall occur within are proposed in a county in which a board has been es- forty-five days of the filing of a notice of intention: tablished,the initiators of the action shall file within one (1) lhree members of a five-member boundary rc- hundred eighty days a notice of intention with the board: view board or five members of a boundary review board Provided. That when the iniliaur is the legislative body in a class AA county files a request for review: Provided, of a governmental unit, the notice of intention may be That the members of the boundary review board shall filed immediately following the body's first acceptance not be authorized to file a request for review of the fob or approval of the aclirn. The board may review any lowing actions: such proposed actions pertaining to: (a) The incorporation or change in the bounder•, of (1) The: (a) Creation, incorpowlion,or change in the any city,town,or special purpose dislricl; boundary, other titan a consolidation, of any city, town, (b) The extension of permanent water service putside or special purpose district; (b) consolidation of special of its existing corporate boundaries by a city, town, or fl ltle h RCW—p loll (ton Fd i Loci r{es.�-Roiew Boards 6.9 3.150 Gor'1—llourlda special purpose district where such extension is through Sertnbilily—ERe[the dater—<oawru¢lion-1973 Ist eu.e water mains of six inches or less in la See ilea tollo.iaa gcvv as 52043 the installation of . diameter,or (c) The extension of permanent sewer service outside 36.93.115 Pelilion for almsatfon—Active boar l regard to prforlly of filing. A boundary review board, of its existing corporate boundaries by a city. town, or county auditor,county legislative authority,or any other special purpose district where such extension is through public official or body may act upon a petition for an- the installation Of sewer mains of sight inches or less in vexation before considering or acting upon a petition for diameter; or the county (2) Any governmental unit affected, incorporation which embraces some or all o the same territory, without regard to priority of filing. 11982 c Within which the area of the proposed action is located, files a request for review of the specific action; 220§ 5) (3) A petition requesting review is filed and is signed gewrammy-1»t c laa see m to fed—,.%acw 1691.too. by: (s) Five percent of the registered voters residing A Rio^ls.oz yo.an p[°uon .u6out reward m p.+wia w ntN. for Within the areas determined is being considered da the pro- 36.93.120 Fees. A !ee of fifty dollars shall be paid posed action (ai determined by the boundary review board in its discretion subject to immediate review by by all initiators and in addition if the jurisdiction of the writ of certiorari to the superior court);or review board is invoked pursuant to RCW 36.93.100,the (b) An owner or owners or property consisting of five person or entity seeking review,except for the boundary review board itself,shall pay to the county treasurer and PC rcent of the assessed valuation within such area; Of 1*0 (4)The majority of the members or boundary review lace in the county current expense969�x se ca 111 § 6: five rcent of the rag- hundred dollars. 11997 c 477 1 5; boards concur with a request for review wben a petition requesting the review is filed by pm cm c 189 1 12.1 islered voters who dea.I themselves site d by the ec• 16.93.t30 Notice of intention—Co^lems. The no, and reside within nn hejur is mile of the proposed tics of intention shall contain the following information: action but not within the jurisdiction proposing the I The nature al the action sought; action. If a period of lorry—five days shall elapse without the (2) A brie(statement of the reasons for the p.opos board's jurgdiction having`d acti been on ked shalls Set forth in be deemed action; this section, the prop, (3) The legal description of the boundaries proposed Pro- approved. with That the legal description may be altered, If a review of proposal is requested, the board shall to be created,abolished or changed by such action. o- action. if a make a finding as prescribed in RCW 36.93.150 within vided, one hundred twenty days after the filing of such a re- CO�sonrde designated by the cacc of the ocounty hlegislative authority as quest for review. If this period if one hundred twenty Pe shall be termination that the legal description is erroneous;and dogs shall elapse without the board making a finding as one who has expertise in legal descriptions erroneous; es a r prescribed in RCW 36.93.1S0, the Proposal q A count assessor's map h d which the boundaries such deemed approved uni•ss the board and the person who ) to be created, 1967 c 477 § }; 1983 c 76 1 action arc designated: Provided,That at the discretion of submitted the proposal agree to an extension of the one proposed hundred twenty day period.1 the boundary review board a map other than the county 1; 1982 c 220§ I; 1967 c 189 1 10.1 assessor's map may 967be ace§ted,111987 c 471 § 6; 1969 SneuWny_19%2 a 720:'ll anY envision or this'Cl or eta ap d ex.s.c 1 I 1 1 plicauim Io anY p tsou m allocation circumaun[,e p.wts f is h<W�nvohd,the remoBt `r of the tit nr the o thri9n I,othe, persona 36.93.140 pending actions not affected. Actions de- cumstancu ISnot a0aud' 1i9s2 c 2'9{9.1 scribed in RCW 16.93J190 which are pending July I. pending on the dale of the creation of a 36.93.105 0oard not to review annexation by water A w or actions n Counties ocher than class AA or class or sewer district pursuant to RCW 36.94.d10 through A which are pc R by 36.94.440. Atmexatlons of tel"tory to a water or sewer boundary review board therein,shall not al affected deemed district pursuant to RCW 3694.410 through 36A4.440 the provisions of this chapter. Actions shall ti deemed tinting the Sallie with the appropriate public office:, or shall not be reviewed by a Viol oddly review board. 11984 pending on and after the filing of sufficient petitions ir.- c 147 1 5.1 the performance of an official act imitating the same. 36.9J.110 When review not necessary. Where an 11967 c 1891 14.1 36.93.150 Review of proposed scllons—�-Actions -area proposed for ennexatior, is feu than ten acres and and delermfnations of board—Disapproval, effect.'The less than two million dollars in assessed valuation' statement ro xeJ action, shall take chairman of the review board may by writtenin which such of the fU110Wing -JliOns as a deems necessary to declare that review by the board is nut necessary for the board, upon review of my p M: protection of the interest of the various parties, best cart out the at of This chapter case the board shall not review 42•h1967 annexation IR § 1119'7 c (1) Approval of the proposal as submitted; 1 477 § 4; 1973 Is ea.s.c 195 § lyitie%a('w—p 2091 ,tar ea 1 Washington State Boundary Review Board For King County !XJ6&niIh'11mcr Szitdr Wishing1un9111/H 'H:Igdiunc(.!(Xi)3d•!-dllXi November 4, 1987 POLICY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY Of PENTON Mr. Dick Houghton, Director NOV 5 1987 n Department of Public Works City of Renton Municipal Building Renton, WA 98055 RE: EXTENSIONS OF UTILITIES OUTSIDE CITY CORPORATE LIMITS Dear Dick: Thank you for your telephone call this morning. I really appreciate the opportunity to discuss the problem of utility exten:.lons with you. Enclosed Is a copy of RCW 36.93.090(5), which cites when a Notice of Intention is required to be filed with the Boundary Rey zw Board. Subsection (5) states: "(5) The extension of permanent water or sewer service outside of its existing corporate boundaries by a city, town, or special purpose district." This amendment became effective In 1971. The City Is to be commended for use of the Covenant for Annexation. Once it is recorded In the public records, It provides a property owner or successor in interest with constructive notice that they must sign a Petition for Annexation when requested to do so by the City. This ensures that the City will be able to annex areas which have become highly urbanized on Its boundaries because of the availability of utilities. However, It does not replace the requirement for filing a Notice of Intention for the provision of such services as noted above. We were contacted by Building and Land Development on this issue because of a plat approval pending. In fact, David Feltman, Utilities Coordinator, (344-7970) called me again Just after we finished talking. You may wish to give him a call also. My contact with Policy and Development of the City was natural since we work with them on all annexation Issues. Mr. Dick Houghton November 4, 1987 Page Two 1 hope this answers your questions. Brice will return to the office on Monday. November 9th, should you desire to discuss this further at that time. Or, our legal counsel, Robert C. Kaufman, Special Assistant Attorney General, may be reached at 453-1436. Please let me know if we can help further on this issue. Sincerely, WASHINGTON STATE BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD FOR KING COUNTY Ala- Paula Aaaa ltumll, Adm. Ant. PAR Encls. RCW 36.93.090(5) CC: G. BRICE MARTIN, Executive Secretary, WSBRB for KC (/CARRY SPRINGER, Director, Policy Development Division DAVID FELTMAN, K.C. Utilities Coordinator ROBERT C. KAUFMAN, Special Assistant Attorney General 16.93.070 'Title 16 RCW: Counties The board by rule may provide for hearings by panels system by a water district pursuant to RCW 57,08.065 of members consisting of not less than five board mem- or chapter 57.40 RCW,as now or hereafter amended;or bers, the numScr of hearing panels and members (4)The establishment of or change in the boundaries thereof, and for the impartial selection of panel mem- of a mutual sewer and water system or separate water ben. A majority of a panel shall constitute a quorum system by a sewer district pursuant to RCW 56.20.015 thereof. or chapter 56.16 RCW,as now or hereafter amended;or At the request of the board, the state attorney gen- (5)The extension of pr "anent water or sewer service oral,or at the board's .rption, the county prosecuting at- outside of its existing .porate boundaries by a city, torney,shall provide counsel for the board. town,or special purpose district. 11985 c 281 § 28: 1982 The planning departments of the county, other coun• c 10 17.Prior. 1981 c 332 §9; 1981 c 45§ 2; 1979 ex.s. ties, and any city, and any slate or regional planning c 5 § 12; 1971 ex.s.c 127 § I; 1969 ex.s.c I I 1 § 5; 1967 agency shall furnish such information to the board at its c 189 19.1 request as may be reasonably necessary for the perform- Serexabiliry----1919 a tat:Sea RCW 35,10.905. ante of Its duties. y»nbihly-111142 a to:See mua IoLowlna RCW 6.12.100. Each member of the board shall be compensated from .Freubiiry—Hal x 132:See sore lWlowing RCW 3S.13.02S. , the county current expense fund at the rate of twenty- Ieahtaa a a.e6toaa.--•tmso.mr a.a.d---RerwwRy— five dollars per day,or a major portion thereof,for tittle nay a 4s:See mots IWlowin8 R(W 56.36060. actually devoted to the work of the boundary review %wabilhyy-1979 exa.c 5:See RCW 3696920. board. Each board of county commissioners shall provide GmwWarmn W clues..J ro.m -- R.*of boundary mvww bused: such funds as shall be necessary to pay the salaries of RCW.IS 10.43a the members and staff,and such other expenses as shall 36.93.093 Copy of notice of intention by sewer or be reasonably necessary. 11967 c 189 § 7.1 water district to be sent officials. Whenever a sewer or water district files with the board a notice of in lion as 36.93.080 Expenditures—Remittance of costs to required by RCW 36.93.090.the board shall scud a copy counties. Expenditures by the board shall be subject to of such notice of intention to the legislative authority of the provisions of chapter 36.40 RCW and other statutes the county wherein such action is proposed to be taken relating to expenditures by counties. The department of and one copy to the state department of ecology. 11971 community development shall on a quarterly basis remit ex.s.c 121 § 2.1 to each county one-half of the actual crisis incurred by the county for the operation of the boundary review 36.93.100 Review of proposed actions by board— hoard within individual counties as provided for in this Procedure. The board shall review and approve, disap. chapter. However, in the event no funds are appropri• prove, or modify any of the actions set forth in RCW aged to the said agency for this purpose,this shall not in 16.93 090 when any of the following shall occur within any way affect the operation of the boundary review sixty days of the filing of a notice of intention: board. 11985 c 6 § 7; 1969 ex.s.c 111 §4; 1967 c 189 § i l) The chairman or any three me ibcrs of the g j boundary review board Filcs a request for review; (2) Any governmental unit affected files a request for rc 36.93.090 Filing notice of proposed actions with (3) . 3) A petition requesting review is filed and is signal board. Whenever any of the following described salons LY are proposed in a county in which a board has been es- (a) five percent of the registered voters residing within tablished,the initiators of the action shall file within one the area which is being considered for the proposed ac- hundred eighty days a notice of intention with the board, tion (as determined by the boundary review board in its which may review any such proposed actions pertaining discretion subject to immediate review by writ of certio- to: rari to the superior court);or (1)The: (a) Creation, incorporation,or change in the (b) an owner or owners of properly consisting of five boundary,other than a consolidation, of any city, town, percent of the assessed valuation within such area. or special purpose district; (b) consolidation of special If a period of sixty days shall elapse without the purpose districts,but not including consolidation of cities board's jurisdiction having been invoked as set forth in and towns; or (c) dissolution or disineorporation of any this section, the proposed action shall be deemed city, town, or special purpose district, except that a approved, board may not review the dissolution or disincorp ration If a review of a proposal is requested, the board shall of a special purpose district which was dissolved or dis- make a finding as prescribed in RCW 36.93.150 within incorporated pursuant to the provisions of chapter 36.96 one hundred twenty days after the Filing of such a re- RCW;or quest for review. If this period of one hundred twenty (2)The assumption by any city or town of all or part days shall cl:grsc without the loan) making :t finding as of the assets, facilities, or indebtedness of a special pur- prescribed in RCW 36.91.150, the proposal shall be pose district which Ties partially within such city or deemed approved unless the board and the person who town;or submitted the proposal agree to an extension of thc one (3) The establishment of or change in the boundaries hundred twenty Jay period. 11983 c 76§ 11 1982 d 220§ of a mutual water and sewer system or separate sewer 1; 1967 c I89 § IIf I (Tab 34 R(w—y 2021 P9es lid) This certificate Provide: Le Department of llealth and Please return to: Building a -Land Development BUILDING & LAND DEVELOPMENT with information necessary to evaluate development proposals. 450 Ado..... m,Buddmy Searle,Wnlnnylon 98104 206 344 7900 KING COUNTY CERTIFICATE OF WATER AVAILABILITY not write in this box number name ® Building Permit ❑ Preliminary Plat or PUD ❑ Slwrt Subdivision ❑ Rezone or other APPLICANT'S HALM Shurgald Capital Group, c/o Ituhl-Parr It Associates PROPOSED Use Self-Storage (Couunercial, LOCATION S.E. Corder of I.ake WashingLon Blvd. and S.C. 7601 St.. (SLII Ave.-P-)(Attach map G legal description if necessary) N A 1 A 1 A - N A A A A A A A A A WATER PURVEYOR INFORMATION 1. a. n Water will be provided by service connection only to an existing Water main feet from the site. size OR b. [U Water service will require an improvement to the water system oft ❑ {1) feet of water main to reach the sitel and/or [�]'(2) the construction of a distribution system on the site/ and/or ❑ (I) other (describe) 2. a. The water system is in conformance with a County approved water comprehensive plan. OR b. The water system improvement will require a water comprehensive plan amendment. 7. a. r' The y oposed project is within the corporate limits of the district, or has been E; granted Boundary Review Board approval for extension of service outside. the district or city, or is within the County approved service area of a private water purveyor. OR b. [Annnexation or DRB approval will be necessary to provide service. 4. a. DAator ie/or will be available at the rate of flaw and duration indicated below at lei nc less than 20 psi measured at the nearest fire hydrant p r-7P •`eeL Egos tha building/property (or as marked on the attached map) I Rate of Flow Duration ❑ less than 500 gpm (approx. gpm) ❑ leas than 1 hour ❑ 500 to 999 gpm ❑ hour to 2 hours y ❑ 1000 gpm or more FOR pcf2 hours or more t ❑ flow test of gpm ❑ other_ calculation of � (' gpm (Commercial Building Permits require flow OR XSTieN.r7-.e test or calculation) b. ❑Water system is not capable of providing fire flow. /-�WAyW;e ,LA7E GOrI&W �E DUE CONMEMrS/CONDITIONS ( -0I16A114AIT 70 1742,Vft WATTX M111A/ 4 4> A1QDA1 /`girls 1C3G(?y/Pw) * rjgE i=i-ow c gi-c , kCav/er,�,n a�� kinl6 f2o, 5,C'E DIST , A &L)tj1)X)p+1 o U­Vj-FQ BPARD 41-PWOtlg(. 4I6S0 /2e2U/eC-1) ' hereby certify that the above water purveyor information is true. This certification shall be valid for one year from date of signature. Ct n f2 F o0l nl rn nl /Cr)"A i-Q /_ ()/-C �nJ Agency Name nstory NRme -- LSLLL�� L/ )F .l Ems— / a Signature ate F 278 6/80 �. � CJBENANT TO ANNEX TO THE CITY OF RENFON rl ��sVL` pMt ?1T TNT hereinafter referred to as "owners," here, covenant and agree to sign the necessary petitions for annexation to the city limits of the City of Renton, Washington, for the property herein described and on the terms more fully set forth below. 1. Legal Description. The legal description of the property to which this covenant shall apply is as follows: 1` m £5-04Z29 #0487 E SEF EXN/B/7- 4 RECD F 5.00 CV CASHSL 55 in OD hereinafter referred to as "the premises." 2. Basis for Covenant. This covenant to annex '.s given as a condition to being permitted to hook up to - ewe and water service from the City of Renton to serve the premises. 3. Parties Bound. This agreement and the covenant to annex shall be binding on the owner and ill persons subsequently acquiring any right, title or interest in or to said property referred to as the premises, and sliall be a covenant running with the land. 4. Time for Performance. The owners, their heirs, successors or assigns, agree and covenant to sign a petition to annex the above •lescribed premises unto the City of Renton at such time as the assessed valuation of the subject premises is sutficient to qualify under the 75% method pursuant to RCW 35A.14.120, together with such other adjoining or contiguous area as the City or other petitioners may determine. The owners further agree, when so notified by the City, to promptly circulate and execute such Petition and to comply with all the requirements of law regarding such annexation. If the owners, their successors F;-i:D for Record at Request of ,mne.. Ci 4-1., n� � 4ddress�, VC or assigns fail to do so, the City reserves the right to terminate such utility services. S. Filing. These covenants ,hall be filed with the win; County Auditor. IN WITNESS WHEREOF the owners of the premises have signed these covenants this �,7 7-- day of CO Rr O t`1 STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) SS to COUNTY OF -K-1NG 00 On this day personally appeared before me �, ,. I �� � .,i n'I 'n to me known to be the individual(s) described in and who executed the within and foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that theyi signed the same as their free and voluntary act and deed, for tie uses and n purposes t; Lrein mentioned. GIVEN under my hand and official seal this 9 'f day of 197 Notary Pupic in and for i e State of Washington, residing at r�l i EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION: A portion of the SWh of the SE4 of Section 29, Township 24 North, Range 5 East, W.M. , in King County, Wn, iescribed as follows: Beginning at the NW corner of tract 182 of C.D. Hillman's Lake Washington Garden of Eden Addition to Seattle Div. 13 as recordeG in Vol . 11 of plats, Page 81, records p, of said county thence S 0056' 18" W6A5.24 ft. along the m west line of said tract; thence S 88 47 '17" E 329.29 f�. parallel with the North line of said tract, thence N 0 56'18" E 635.24 ft. along the east line of gaid tract LV to the NE corner of said tract; thence N 88 47'17" W O 329.29 ft. to the point of beginning. t Cn mi 7•� N r1 c t $Hur8HR0 Rt.F i/7 v-lc5o �•I-t� I iI i I � DIX A eel -:M I I fi I I MW � . � ,Shu�ArtA S?off^6t I � I y VORTH .snn8 Seu o MIe,.F:ce f , t_.w.nsr Hc.,p— STcv¢ / 6CUA. . . . . . � 12 7. pERTUL CROSS � , j � i I.i- } .I ; f I r � _, I ► -I t- I 1 —r ' , I E _ -i. . 12' VdIT CIto!, ' S11ufj�hRD fiF,� y.l -7 V t . IL ' TIE-I11 NW c,,,4p y� T I �C JL4 1YNr�f1nu76R &a ��Ai'q I. , QGy� II -4 1 3oNr, � :c,,4- Hof i I i �w.o.tl $,T 1y7� �KENN Ea NONE am ME WOMEN ME .a .aE eNo M M�w I 120 Shur wno I 3 x. 161-, 1941 i Ckv Per ilia i 1 I 1 Ii I I • mAy ,y .95;1 5h„rSaKo $Tp,tgG�r Ek, / r '7 (}, -io 30 . .4 aW. Q/�� n7Nt 1 [/JA7CiL S�rS Tcr7 WA-S COiIDtG7C'a o� C,41 .0; . �`�✓�*� - PerSennP� , �r7,fo., S?A.»a+,cA S®ece�c.r�Lo. S Gr Tirsr Lu,F 7C,Z Mc rrrt s A<c O b 'D To .b c //7S'7.iovt-!j - M/Ct jj [✓E7�frxi3c2- Via. �.� S-isy/ CA/�'7k'c-Ira r, SifS�t-C 70 2 r�� 5hoIca Ex.f « we.Yt S�11Y7 1VI Tie-in N.G (PropcR Ty Cawnc S qA pf T. _. . . Ps 1 x U Shurc��noaf �xif �u7 •3 A•n Ibt— 1441 _I , C�v Cntw 1 �G { O t t O o,yA` l �i•A �M+NmnCff i7 yAJIT ` 1 � VY � . UtAb w.d Ex•c r�n$ 31ocK "We } K i � ' 4 + I �y ------ is i I ' STo2 £IL,F. se ti• t _ ! 1 • ,LysIL IYORTM I 1 - APB,► as, 1991 T .', 4 Sohw DcraE , AAOL F1ee. Z" So1 4 Slf6V* 1- �1rp. `4Y .I-MAr4 / Y US ES�DsiP� I f_ i � : Ro,. M,,�AAFrE S.,a.rsu. NYP— STNr A61C11A1'1 12 V(RTICAC C$osS I I � w•osl f��/ lv`f ) : , 1 � { i . i j , I j i � � ! _. 4NMTN i - N E Y$ttl t. �t I scrtvt Slog wwlk . s"vCjty Ross ; It TIL-111. .NW co+.r•a t& tii 49i IylAN peuJ<R : &B 346 qr4 -i } i / ' 3ehn -t cr,x e- Hof r _ - h. .1•. $EA,)ice Tiwck I f .� +.. f _ ' .� ft — ..� . . . . " '-?- CITY OF RENTON 7PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Farl Clymer, Mayor Design/Utility Engineering MEMORANDUM DATE: March 16, 1980 TO: Nancy Laswell-Morris FROM: Jack Crumley Ron Olsen SUBJECT: Renton 91 Annexation Ron Olsen and Jack Crumley met today concerning the utility services in the Renton 91 Annexation. Ron was able to show the proposed Service Agreements with King County Water Dts'rict 8107, which resolved lack's previously stated concerns. Therefore, we hope this memorandum removes any possible concern over what may have been perceived as Inter-Departmental disagreement. U/R/M/RENTON91/RLO/JC/lf k" 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 • (206) 235-2631 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING I' May 9, 1989 APPLICANT: Renton 91 Associates, Limited Partnership FILE NUMBER: ECF; SA; R-106-88 LOCATION: Fast of the present city limits of Renton at approximately the 11000 Block of S.E. 76 street. A. SUMMARY AND PURPOSE OF REQUEST: Applicant seeks: 1) to rezone a 4.286 acre parcel to R-l: {� and 2) to obtain site approval to develop the parcel with an S[i 62 unit multi-family residential complex. B. GENERAL INFORMATION: 1. Owner of Record: Renton. 91 Associates, Limited Partnership. 2. Applicant: Renton 91 Assoc ates, Limited Partnership. 3. Existing Zoning: Suburban Residential; Community Business; and High Density Multi-Family Residential (Ring County designations.) 4. Existing Zoning in the Area: Single-family residential; Commercial use. & S. Comprehensive Lend Use Plan: Lou Density Multi-Family R Residential; Single- Family Residential; and Commercial (City of Renton designation). 6. Size of Property: Approximately 4.286 acres 7. Access: S.E. 76 Street/Lake Washington Blvd. North. a. Land Use: one single-family residence; undeveloped land. ~WIAMINARY REPORT TO THE NEARING EXAMINER RENTON 91 PUBLIC NEARING May 9, 1909 Page 2 9. Neighborhood Characteristics: North: Single-family residences East: Single-family reuidences South: Undeveloped land. West: Undeveloped land. C. HISTORICAL/BACKGROUND: , Action File 0rdiraa" Ds.La City limits in the , vicinity of proposed annexation were crrated 1960 b; ordinance. N/A 1 1.827 April 21, %nnexation A O1:'-89 Pending D. PUBLIC SERVICES: 1. Utilities A. Water: Ar existing City of Renton twelve inch main runs along Lake Washingtwr Blvd N. and along S.E. 16 S�reet and serves the southern portion of tte site. An eight inch City main runs adjacent to the southeastern portion of the rite. A six inch King County Water District 107 water line runs into the center of the site in the S.E. 76 Street right of way. b. Sewer: The City and Water District 107 are joint owners of a twelve inch gravit, sewer line that runs through the southwestern portion of the site. C. Storm Water Drainage: Storm water drainage is a problem at this site wh?.ch has steep slopes. The proposed development will require an on-site storm drainage system that is approved by City of Renton storm drainage engineers. 2. Fire Protection. Provided cy the City of Renton as per ordinance requirements. 1. Transit: Metro transit has no routes close enough to the subject property to provide service. e. Schools: a. Elementary Schools: Knnnydale Elementary School is approximately 1.4 miles south of the subject site. b. Middle Schools: McKnight Middle School is approximately two miles southeast of the subject site. C. Aigh Schools: Hazen High School is approximately 1 miles southeast of the subject site. 5. Recreation: Gene Coulon Park is approximately 2.5 miins southwest of the site. Kennydale Lions Park is approximately ..8 miles southeast of the site. PRtLIMINARY REPORT I'O THE NEARING EXAMP ?R RENTON 91 PUBLIC NEARING May 9, 1989 Page 3 E. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE ZONING CODE: 1. Section 4-3014 (C) , Change of Zone Claseif`zation (Rezone) . 2. Section 4-706, Residential Zone (R-1) . 3. Section 4-709-A, Residential Zone (R-3) . 4. Section 4-738, Site Plan Review F. APPLICABLE. SECTIONS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OR OTHER OFFICIAL CITY DOCUMENT: 1. Northeast Renton Plan, City of Renton Comprehensive Plan Compendium, 1986 (pgs. 55-60) . 2. Urban Design Goal, Objectives and Policies, City of Renton Comprehensive Plan Compendium, 1986 (pgs. 11-14) . 3. Residential Goal, Objectives and Policies. City of Renton Comprehensive Plan Compendium, 1986 (pgs. 14-16).1 G. DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS: 1. The proponent, Renton 91, has requested rezone of a site of approximately 4.286 acres, composed of two contiguous parcels, from P-1, Single-Family Use to R-1, Medium Density Multi-Family Residential Use. Tne subject properties are located on S.E. 76th Street, due east of Lake Washington Boulevard. Parcel 1, approximately 1.08 acres is located in the northwest quadrant of the property. Parcel 2 is approximately 3.22 acres. The R-3 zoning classification would allow development of a maximum of 25 residential units to the acre. The applicant is seeking to develop a residential complex with 19 units to the acre, with an agreement to provide a restrictive ,ovenant, to run with the property, to so limit development. The propunent is also seeking site plan approval for the development of an 82 unit multi-family residential complex. Such approval is required by the Zoning Ordinance (Sections 4-709A and 4-738). The development is proposed to include seven discrete buildings totalling 25,324 square feet, exterior amenities (parking, drives, walk&, pool and service areas) totalling 66,834 square feet, and open space/landscape areas of 90,397 square feet. Building 1 is 12,264 square feet with 12 units; Building 2 is 9,444 square feet with nine (9) units: Building 3 is 12,648 square feet with 12 units, Building 4 is 12,414 square feat with 12 unite; Building 5 and 6 are each 15,769 square feet with 18 units per structure. The seventh building is proposed to house the manager's unit and indoor recreation center) it will be 3,000 square feet. Buildings are proposed to be 2.5 to 3 stories in height: living units are oriented toward the West to address view corridors and site topography (See Site Plan Review - Section G.S. for further information). Building construction is planned to Include cedar siding, aluminum frame windows and composition roofing. PRELIMINARY REPORT TO TIIE IIEARING EXAMINER RENTON 91 PUBLIC IIEARING May 9, 1989 Page 4 2. Pursuant to the City of Renton's Environmental Ordinance and SEPA (RCW 41.21.c, 1971, an amended), a for the eubject proposal on February Determination of Non-Significance - Mitigated, was issued 14. 1989 (amended March e, 1989) with the following conditions: a. That the applicant, in order to mitigate aesthetic impacts to the Bite and the adjacent community shell not Plata more than 82 dwelling units on the described 4.286 acre site. (March 8, 1969 - amendment) Note: Staff would be willing to consider supporting a proposed rezone action to R-1, with a restrictive covenant which 11Pits the permitted level of 2,nsity to 18 - 19 units per acre; this reduction is sought so that the level of development will be more compatible with he Comprehensive Plan Map designation for the subject property, and supportable by existing or planned traffic mitigatioi systems, public services and infrastructure (roadways, utilities, public services, etc.) b. That the applicant, in order to mitigate storm water run-off impacts to the site and neighboring properties, develop a storm water management/erosion control plan subject to approval by the Public Works Depe tment. C. That the applicant, in order to mitigate impacts to the natural environment, aesthetic impacts, noise impacts and light and glare impacts, develop a landscape plan and oi--site lighting plan, subject to approval by the City•s landscape planner. d. That the applicant, in order to mitigate aesthetic impacts and recreation impacts, develop a plan for open space/recreation areas on site (e.g. congregate areas, seating areas, linkage to off-site trail a, play areas), subject to approval by the City•a landscape planner. Note: The applicant is encouraged to contribute $50.00 per resident to the City for future improvements, such as the Lake Washington Trail System and the May Creek Trail Plan. e. That the applicant provide the following mitigation measures, subject to approval by the Traffic Engineering Division, in order to address on-site and off-site traffic impacts on S.E. 76th Street and Lake Washington Boulevard in a manner which protects vehicular and pedestrian traffic from hazards/inconvenience created by limited sight ' distance, steep grade at ingress/egress points, and limited levels of service at access routes to the site. (March 6, 1989 amendment) . C M. Revising the design of the proposed emergency roadway which accesses Lake Washington Boulevard 3' to meet City standards for width, elope and eight { distance, so that it can be used as a regular ! entrance and exist for the site in addition to the S.E. 76th Street access. PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE IIF:ARING EXAMINER RENTON 91 PUBLIC HEARING May 9, 1989 Page 5 (2). Due to traffic impact on the intersection of SE 76th Street L Lake Washington Boulevard, the developer is to submit a plan for intersection control as necessary, including, but not limited to, left-turn channelization, frontage Improvement, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, and street lighting. (3) . Transportation benefit zone assessment charge calculated as shown: $25 X 500 (traffic volume) = $12,505 assessment amount The above cost is to participate in the following improvements for I-405 on/off ramp intersections: Expand the northbound off-ramp to provide left, thru and right-turn lanes on its approach to NE 44th Street. - Provide a free-flow right-turn lane on the eastbound approach to the northbound on-ramp loop. - Widen the WE 44th Street overcrossing structure and its extensions to the ramp intersections to five lanes. (4.) The proportional cost of signalization of both I- 405 re,p intersections. Estimated cost of each intersection ($100,000) - $200,000 Estimated development percentage of traffic volumes for year 2000 forecast - Development Traffic 500 -2i +/- Year 2000 Traffic Forecast 25,400 Developers Assessment Amount: 2% X $200,000-$4,000 Assessment Amount Note: The proponent should work with Traffic Engineering Division staff to develop other specific mitigation measures as and if necessary. f. That the applicant, in order to mitigate conat:uction related impacts, should provide: a) an erosion control plan; b) a plan for wheel-washing of construction vehicles on site to minimize tracking of dirt and debris off-site; c) a plan for periodic wetting down of the construction Bite to minimize dust and debris; d) A plan for hours of operation and haul routes to minimize traffic impacts, subject to approval by the Public Works Department; and a) a bond in the amount of $3,000. for street clean-up. 1. Various City departments have commented upon the proposed development. The comments are attached; discussion Of those items has been incorporated into this report. PRELIMINARY REPORT TO 771E HEARING EXAMINER ;(ENTON 91 PUBLIC HEARING May 9, 1989 Page 6 a. REZONE CRITERIA Section 4-3014(C,1) lists three criteria that the Hearing Examine, is asked to consider along with all other relevant information in making a decision on a rezone application. s,,_Shat substantial av ldence was presented deLnwpgt29I1Rg the subiect reclassification appear, not to have been specifically considered at the time of the last area land use analysis and area zoning. The subject property includes two of six properties which constitute the "Renton 91" Annexation area. This annexation was approved in principle by the City at the May 1 1989 City Council meeting (ordibance pending). In conjunction with annexation, the subject property received a zoning designation of R-1, Single-Family Residential Use. This designation is traditionally granted to newly annexed properties, based upon City Annexation Policies and upon precedent (see Hudson Annexation, Maplewood Annexation, etc.; . At the time of annexation there was no application to rezone p the subject property for R-3 (Medium-Density Multi-Family it+p7 Use) . Neither staff nor City officials considered R-3 zoning for this property in conjunction with annexation review. b That tpgl,Eggerty 15--120tentially classified for the proposed zone be111grequested pursuant to the ooliciessoft Y =h in t '.I n and conditions nave been met which would indicate the chanae is appropriate,. ,. The subject property is included in the Northeast Renton Area Plan, which was adopted in December of 1981, as well as in the Comprehensive Plan Compendium adopted in March of 1986. The site is designated for R-2 (Low Density Multi- z Family Use) on the Comprehensive Plan Map, which is customarily used as a guideline for zoning designations. Reclassification of the property to R-3, Medium Density r Multi-Family Residential Use, therefore, would not be consistent with the Map. However, staff believe that the proposed reclassification to R-3 (wig.., a restrictive covenant limiting development to a maximum of 19 units per acre 182 total units], required as a mitigation measure In conjunction with the environmental Determination of Men- Significance, (See G.2.a.]) is supportable under the Comprehensive Plan Goals, Policies and Objectives for city- wide and Northeast Sector residential development. These goals, policies and objectives are described below: III. URBAN DESIGN GOAL: To promote aesthetic and functional harmony, and to provide a proper balance of residential, commercial and industrial areas. A. LAND DEVELOPMENT OWECTIVE: Growth and development should occur in a timely and logical progression of the existing urban area to maximize the use of existing services. 3) Vacant land surrounded by developed land should be given priority for development. 4) Land where adequate public utilities are available should be given priority for development. 7) The City should identify its sphere of influence. ­ -_ M_ ___ PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE HE.ARIIG E%AMINCR RENTON 91 PUBLIC HEARING May 9, 1989 Page 7 IV. RESIDENTIAL GOAL: To encourage suitable housing and living environments. A. NEIGHBORHOODS OBJECTIVE: Sound, viable neighborhoods should be created and/or maintained. 1) Housing densities and types to suit a variety of family sizes, age groups, life styles and income levels should be encouraged. 1) Views should be maintained or enhanced. 8) Adequate access for emergency and service equipment should be required. 9) Housing alternatives should encourage a variety of choice in architectural design, physical location, building arrangement and ownership patterns. C. HOUSING DENSITY: The density and location of dwellings...should take into consideration natural features, the character of the area, community facilities, utilities and transportation facilities. 1) Multi-family dwellings . ..should be located near arterial streets to assure adequate access. 9) Medium or high density multi-family dwellings should be a buffer between low density multi- family residential and more intensive uses. 7) The design of multiple family dwelling sites...should achieve the same basic amc„ities within the development as generally available to single-family dwellings. 8) Multi-family dwellings...should be located near employment and shooping centers. D. IMPACT ON THE AREA OBJECTIVE: Dwellings. ..should have a minimal impact on the site and be compatible with the surrounding area. 2) Setbacks should be adequate to preserve views, allow maximum exposure to light, maintain air circulation, promote privacy and provide functional areas. 1) Architectural design and construction should be compatible with the site and adjacent areas. a) The site plan should provide efficient and functional use of land with attractive design. NORTHEAST PUN 8.1. Land use de�.isions within the Northeast Quadrant should be consistent with available transportation, community facile^lee and utilities. B.5. Multiple family residential uses should be encouraged as buffers between commercial uses and less intensive uses. PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE IIEARING EXAMINER RENTON 91 PUBLIC IIEARING May 9, 1989 Page a The proposed reclassification is also deemed to IS appropriate based upon a trend toward increasing bed residential upon and commercial development in the vicinity, and the needs of the community for a diversity of types and location of residential development to accommodate population growth and increasing interest in living in multi-family housing complexes. (See Section G.4.c., below, for additional discussion). Finally, staff view the reclassification as being desirable because It will facilitate the development of a residential project, at 19 units per acre, which is more closely related in density and design to the low -density residential use permitted by the Comprehensive Plan Map, than to a fired Ium-density type residential development which would be Develoment at 19 armttd with thecre s is eanticipatedRto addg 149 residents, including[20 e school children: 541 average daily vehicle trips are estimated.167 residents, 22a schoolt 25 ilagedits p er acre s children, and toa anticipated dd to add 600 average daily vehicle trips. C. That since the ious land se na lv is of Che area zonlnc of the syyj"`-- property., authorized publjC -- -r improvements, pgrmitted private development or other ci umstancQg�(Iertine the supiect p _-erw have pnderoone s ienificant and material hanee. A review of area history under the administration of King County indicates that the neighborhood has generally been stable, exhibiting an orderly pattern and level of growth over the years. In the more recent past there has been an increasing rate of interest in development in the icinity. _ Circumstances affecting the property which would support the proposed rezone are the following: 1) the subject property is essentially an in-fill site, as it iS generally surrounded by developed properties; 2) Che proposed reclassification of the property tram G-1,General use to R- 7, (with the proposed covenant restricting development to a maximum of 19 units per acre) is consistent with the range of types and densities of land uses which are now present and/or are anticipated for the surrounding neighborhoods in both the City of Renton and King County; 1) the proposed reclassification will facilitate multi-family development (with the proposed restriction to 19 units per acre) which provides an appropriate transition between adjacent single- family residential and commercial zones; 4) the subject property is conveniently located with respect to roadways, schools, and community facilities in both the City of Renton and K'_ng County; 5) rezoning of this site will facilitate the development of multi-family housing which market studies have determined is desirable and necessary :n Northeast Renton, while relieving the southern and central portions of Northeast Renton from the current intensive levels of developmen: which are burdening City services; 6) rezoning and development of the subject property will not place an undue burden on the City -- public services, infrastructure, utilities and other community resources/amenities (recreation, schools, etc.) are available to serve the site and/or improvements can be made so that the Site is sufficiently served; and 7) reclassification of the site will increase the viability of the immediate neighborhood by providing housing opportunities and by encouraging development of additional private amenities (e.g. shopping centers, services) to serve local residents. PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER RENTON 91 PUBLIC NEARING May 9, 1989 Page 9 d. The final test to_&Jgrmine whether a rezone is appropriate is to address the question of timeliness. Is it appropriate to rezone the subiect property at this tim9J Staff believe that the request for rezoning to R-I. Medium- Density Multi-Family Residential Use is timely for the following reasons: The subject property is presently in the process of being annexed into the City of Renton from King County, providing an opportunity to zone and develop the property at this time in a way which will best benefit the local neighborhood and the City at large as the need for multi-family housing increaser throughout the community.. The property is bounded on'the east, north and south by property zoned for single-family use (in King County or in the City of Renton) . A number of single-family homes and low-density multi-family residential developments have been constructed over the last decade. Recently, an increasing level of interest has been expressed in new development in the immediate vicinity. The subject property is bounded on the west by I-405 and of property zoned for (but no-: yet developed with) commercial use. There are also scattered commercial developments elsewhere in the vicinity. Placing a zoning designation of R-I, with development limited to 19 units Per acre, will provide an opportunity to create a low - medium-density multi-family residential use which can serve as a transitional use between abutting commercial and single- family residential properties. Residential developments will also generate new consumers which can readily be accommodated by local commercial developments at this time. The Northeast Renton Area Section of the Comprehensive Plan speaks to the fact that this quadrant has experienced single-family and multi-family residential development and commercial development, anticipates that this section will continue to grow at a rapid rate, and speaks to the general timeliness of this expansion. The study also reports the City's plan to develop and/or support private contributions (together with private developers) toward the development of infrastructure and public services necessary to accommodate such growth to the greatest degree to which it is feasible and desirable to do so. Staff ncte that the subject property is suitable for development at this time because it is vacant, it is in an area which is convenient and otherwise desirable for residential use, and•is located in an area of Northeast Renton which is capable of supporting sufficient utility lines (e.g. water mains, sanitary sewers, storm drainage systems) to serve the proposed development -- with improvements provided by the City and by the proponent. This fact is particularly important, as studies currently being undertaken to measure sewer capacity indicate that sewer service at the southern portion of the Northeast Section of the Clty 1s at or near to capacity, and, that, as a result, that portion of the community cannot support new development at present. Other public services, resources and amenities -- fire and police service, schools and public recreation facilities -- are reported to be adequate to meet anticipated needs from the proposed development. PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER RENTON 91 PUBLIC HEARING May 9, 1989 Page 10 5. SITE PLAN APPROVAL CRITERIA Section 4-7I8 (0,1) lilts tan criteria that the Hearing Examiner is asked to consider along with all other relevant information in making a decision on a Site Plan Approval application. These include the following: General Criteria a. 4211121mance w}th the Comprehensive Plan"ts e_lement5 And Relic lea: Section G.a.b (Rezone Application) describes and discusses the manner in which the project application conforms to the basic Comprehensive Plan Compendium Policies related to Neighborhood Objectives and with the northeast. Renton Area Plan. Discussion in this section of the report focuses on the ways In wh. -h the application conforms to the Comprehensive Plan - Compeno_um Policies related to the Housing Quality Objective and Impact on the Area Objective. For example, the Comprehensive Plan Compendium Policies relating to "Housing Quality Objectiver:" (IV.B) call for well designed, constructed and maintained dwellings" which "take advantage of views, site character and other amenities." The developer has designed the oroposed 82 unit multi-family residential complex so that its re ntIal character is apparent, so that it le sited in a mannOW.,which takes full advantage of the natural features on the property (e.g. terrain, natural vegetation) , and so that it is located in a way which protects the privacy of residents and neighbors. The Comprehensive Plan Compendium "Impact on the Area Objective" (IV.D) calls for dwellings to be "compatible with the surrounding area." As the proposed development in somewhat different in scope, size and design from surrounding developments, there are likely to be some impacts (e.g. aesthetics, traffic, storm drainage management) from the development. However, the applicant has taken measure to address expected impacts through design and location of structures, open spaces, landscaping, amenities, on-site circulation, access points to adjoining rights-of-way, and infrastructure/utilities (e.g. water mains, sewer lines, storm drainage systems). These measures are delineated and discussed in Sections G.S.c and G.S.d (below) in this report. While the proposed use does not conform to the Comprehensive Plan Map (guideline) designation, as noted previously In this report, staff believe that: 1) the proposed restrictive covenant to limit development to 19 units per acre, rather than the maximum 25 units per acre allowed in the R-1 zone, will result in impacts more similar to those which would be anticipated from the low density residential development which is suggested on the Comprehensive Plan Map (See Appendix "A-) ; 2) the proposed ties deal conform to the Comprehensive Plan Goals, Policies and Objectives for Residential Development; an(+ 1) the complex as designed and located will be an attractive, functional development which is compatible with local development and appropriate for the Northeast Renton area. PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER RENTON 91 PUBLIC HEARING May 9, 1989 Page 11 b, ConforW13'9 with existin land The proposed residential complex generally meats or exceeds land use regulations established in the Zoning Ordinance for medium density multi-family rasidentlel use. for Parking and Loading (Chapter 22), the Landscaping Ord Inane (Section 4- 744) and the Sit, Plan Review Ordinance (4-738), (see Appendix aA"). For example, development standards for the R-3 tone (Section 4-109A) ars 81tisfled for lot site, configuration and dimension, building heights and setbacks, lot cover4le and impervious Services. The number, location and dimension of parking spaces (covered and open) genstallyreq comply with a nduLoadinis for parking add loading (Chapter 22 - Parking 91 • Retention or natural vegetation (e.g. Mad tuna trees) and creation of landscaped areas as required in conjunction with environmental and land use review of this project (See Sections G.2, J.S.d and G.S.q of this report) will ensure compliance with requirement, met in the Landscaping Ordinance (Zoning Ordinance - Section 4-744). c• Citieation OLA02111t. to murroundinc ropertiog and uses., Potential impacts to the surrounding environment and to sighboriny land. uses have been identified by staff in the areas of hour Ing, aesthetics, traffic circulation and public utilities, The Environmental Review Committee issued a Determination of Non-Significance - Mitigated, for this project on February 14, 1969 (amended - March 8, 1989) with cond p ions developed Se address the above-defined r environmental impacts (See Section G.2) as they would affect surrounding properties. Similarly, conditions established in conjunction with this .its plan review are intended to mitlga to land use impacts from the proposed development. 11) nrysing As noted previously in this report, both City-sponsored studies (Northeast Rentnn Area Plan) and privately conducted market onelysea indicate that there is a nead for additional multi-family housing in this lector of •he City. The proposed development will provide 82 new residential units to house approximately 147 persona, Only one single-family residential unit will have to be demolished to accommodate the proposed project. Therefore, this development will have a positive impact upon housing. (2) Aesthetics The applicant, working with staff, has endeavored to wake the proposed residential structures compatible in scale and design with surrounding existing single-family developments be the north, east and south of the site. Structures have been located and set back In a manner which separates this dew lopment from nearby developments, protecting view corridors, allowing maximum exposure to light and maintaining air circulation. Recreation areas and the majority of the parking accommodations are located away from neighboring structures. Additionally, open areas have been _etained with both natural vegetation end planted materials, and screening has been planned to provide visual relief and to butter on-site lighting for neighboring properties. PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE NEARING EXAMINER RENTON 91 PUBLIC HEARING May 9, 1989 Page 12 (1) Traffic On-site and off-site traffic impacts (vehicle and pedestrian) will be addressed in Section G.S.f. below. (l) Utilities Utility services and storm water run-off management will be addressed in Section G.5.1. below). d. Mitigation of impacts of the proposed site plan to the ■ltat Conditions established for`this project by the Environmental Review Committee in the Determination of Non-Significance - Mitigated, issued rebruary 14, 1989, and amended March a, 1989 (See Section G.2) and land use conditions established through this site plan review, In combination with improvements proposed by the applicant, should serve to adequately mitigate impacts 'o this site from the proposed development. For example, proposals/recommendations for design, exterior treatment, and location of structures, recreation areas, a congregate area at the mail boxes, open space areas, landscaping and screening, rockeries and retaining walls, service areas, exterior pole lighting, access routes and parking areas, signage and identitication have been generally developed in a manner which promotes an attractive, safe, functional development for residents, staff and visitors. (See G.S.c., G.S.f., G.S.g and G.S.i. for additional discussion). a. Conservation of area-wide property valued The proposed development is generally anticipated to have a positive impact on property values since the proposed - ---residential complex complex will be: 1) providing development on a propetty which is essentially vacant: 2) located in an area in which such a use is appropriate and desirable (based upon goals established in tile Northeast Renton Plan: and l) design l to be compatible with developments on neighboring properties. f. 5afety and efficiency of vehicle and oadestrian ,cir,:ulation: (1) Otf-site Impacts Conditions established by the City in conjunction with the Determination of Non-Significance issued February 14, 1989 and amended March 8, 1989 (See Section G.2) require that the applicant participate in upgrading travel routes to the site -- Lake Washington Boulevard to the east and S.E. 76th Street to the south. Improvements will be required to traffic circulation systems and rights-of-way (e.g. ■ignalization, channel ration, signage, brush clearance, installation of sidewalks, gutters and curbs) . These mitigation measures will result in more efficient, sShr passage for vehicles and pedestrians travelling off of the site. Acceptable levels of service will also be protected by these improvements. It is estimated that approximately 970 vehicle trips will be made to/from this residential complex each day (ITE REPORT). PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER RENTON 91 PUBLIC NEARING May 9, 1989 Page 11 No public transportation system currently serves this site. METRO Transit officials have not suggested that the applicant participate in a TSM at this time. (2) On-site Applicant proposals and city recommendations for access and circulation routes 01, the site are also designed to protect pedestrian safety and to enhance vehicle circulation. Those proposals/recommendations include paths linking structures to parking areas, recreation areas, service areas and off- site pedestrian access routes. Proposals/recommendations j are made for: 1) relocation of covered carports mouth of f Building 15 to the parking area north of Building 15; and 2) $ improvement of on-site pedestrian-scaled exterior pole j lighting plans, adding 10 standards to the proposed nine i +tandards, ground mounted lights and wall-mounted carport lights to illuminate structuree, parking, service and recreation areas. These proposals/recommendations should facilitate safe, efficient use of the site for both vehicles and for pedestrians. g. Provision of adequate light and air;, The development has been generally designed and sited so that structures are well-separated from one another and from neighboring sites to reduce shadow impacts. Similarly, design and location of structural doors and windows, outdoor private and common areas, parking facilities and landscaping/screening should serve to ensure that residents are provided an environment whim offers sufficient light and air. Staff will recommend screening of ground-level patios for individual units in a way which retains adequate light and air, while protecting privacy and providing defensible space. h. Nit igation of noise odors and other harmful or u heal[by conditions, Residential and recreation structures have been located at a sufficient distance from one another, and have been so improved with landscaping that interior sounds from one structure (assuming the installation of required insulation) are not anticipated to transmit significant noise to other structures. These characteristics should serve to reduce impacts from noise generated by adjacent minor arterials (lake Washington Boulevard and S.E. 76th Street) . Similarly, location of and improvements to parking areas should reduce impacts from noise cleated in these areas to residential units. Parking areas are separated from abutting dwelling units by spaces of at least 15 feet, including landscaped areas and rockeries. These mitigating measures will also serve to reduce impacts to neighboring developments. y, Because the site is proposed for residential use, odors 'except for smoke from fireplaces -- which should be subject to air-tight construction and to control by local re,]ulation) are not anticipated. Staff recommend that the on-site detention pond be screened with wood fencing which is designed (e.g. style, height) to prevent health and safety impacts upon children who might otherwise intrude into the area. PRELIMINARY R11ORI TO THE ❑EARINd EXAMINER RENTON 91 PUBLIC HEARING May 9, 1989 Page 14 I. Availability of public services_ and facilities to accommodate the proposed wage and Public services and facilities, including fire and police services, schools, recreation areas and infrastructure/utilities, are generally available or can be improved to serve the site, as described below. Police and fire service resources are adequate to serve the site assuming the customarily expected number of emergency calls. Clear signage at the entry to the development and identification of rss:�Ontial structures, well-demarcated access, se,urity deviem,: for individual units, and on-site exterior lighting an, recommended and/or required (pursuant to City Code) to facilitate efficient service. Schools have adequate resources to serve the anticipated 15 - 20 students from this development. Kennydale Elementary School is approximately 1.5 miles to the south of the site. McKnight Middle School is approximately 2.5 miles to the southeast and Hazen Nigh School is approximately 7 miles to the southeast. Lyons Park and Gene Coulon Park are each approximately 1.5 miles south of the site. May Creek Park is to the southeast of the site in King County. The proponent and City Public Works Department staff will need to work together to develop a plan for improvements to water mains and sanitary sewer lines, as well am the installation of a storm water run-off management system In order for the proposed project to function safely and et!iciently, without placing an undue burden on City of Renton or King County facilities. As noted in Saction G.4. (Rezone) of this report, there is capacity in existing water and sever lines to serve the :abject property with appropriate connections. Due to the fact that there Is currently a substantial existing elope on the property, and tp',t .­ increase of impervious surfaces will result from the proposed residential complex, there is the potential to significantly Increase storm water run-off in the area. As a result, the development of a storm water management plan is particularly critical. Requirements for a System (including grading and drainage; to mitigate Impacts have been established in conjunction with environmental review (See Section G.2) . . J. Prevention of neighborhood deterioration and blight. Staff view this development as having a positivr: Impact on the existing neighborhood. (See G.5.e). The complex envisioned should be compatible with the existing and anticipated single-family units. multi-family uses and commercial developments (See G.5.c and G.5.d). Residents should contribute to the local neighborhood identity, as well as help support existing/ anticipated services and businesses in the vicinity, such as those at/near to the EXit 7 complex. PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE NEARING EXAMINER RENTON 91 PUBLIC HEARING May 9, 1989 Page 15 H. DEPARTMENTAL RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommend that the Nearing Examiner take the following actions with respect to the application from Renton 91 (File Number 106-88): 1. Recommend to the City Council approval of a rezone of the approximately 4.206 subject property (Parcels 1 and 2) from R-1, Single-Family Raeidentia1 Use to R-1, Medium Density Multi-Family Residential Use, subject to the following condition: a. That the applicant comply with all conditions established in the Determination of Non- Significance - Mitigated (as issued on February 14, 1989 and as amended March 8, 1989) for the proposed project. b. That the 0 proponent be required to file a covenant, �.. to run with the land, restricting development of the subject property to a maximum density of 19 � unite per acre. This covenant shall be recorded ;S with King County and placed on file with the City Of Renton, prior to the issuance of a building Permit. 2. Approve the application for Site Plan approval allow the development of an 82 unit multi-family residential ntial complex on Parcels i and 2 of the property subject to the following conditions: e. That the applicant comply with all conditions established in the Determination of Non- Significance - Mitigated (as issued on February 14, 1969 and as amended March 8, 1989) for the proposed project. b. That the applicant provide a revised site plan which delineates the following: I. Screening of the detention pond area with wood fencing of a design and height sufficient to Protect children from entering the pond area and, thereby, endangering their health and welfare. 2. Relocation of covered carports from the area to the south of Building 15 to the north of Building 15 to preserve light, air and visual corridors for residents of Building 15, to facilitate traffic circulation, and to protect the safety of the residents. 1. Increase on-site exterior illumination by the addi _ion of ten (lo) pole lights to the currently planned rine (9) pole lightr in order to improve lighting to ensure an attractive, safe site. Y 1 -J.l ;i1 -1f�` � • to RPNION 91 APARTNENTS ECF; R; SA-106-88 APPLICANT Renton 91 A§11ociate ' ICIIAL AR(A.—.-- --kZ8h-1STt PRINCIPAL ACCESS SE 7hth Street EXISTING ZONING RS 7200 ---- -- EXISTING USE Single Family R'sidential PROPOSED USE Mufti-Family Residential COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN COMMENTS Pronercv is located in the 11000 hock of S.E. 76th Stree .Z 5 ti ice Park I IL%TS -� NOTE: .i-Public —�' — - FINAL I DESIGN l; THE LAI trial GENERA RATHER I I u..Es. :Trial c ing Park Option �• _ . " 9 a 985 LAKE IINGTON o^aso k� LAND USE ELEMENT a 71 Single Family COMM*FCl81 eiesw;�e}^ Y DV:.^^.. Low Dens st. a Multi-Family Office /011ke Park saga....... -I rsf n Medium Density Public �'" e ' Multi.-Family A; y - *r° r iw'T High D Light Industrial Multi-Family usna amily ^,t Recreation � Heavy Industrial n A� 2 Greenbelt Manutacturing Park Multiple CITY OF RENTOII DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (MITIGATED) ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST NO.: ECF-106-88 APP1.i CATION NO(S): R; SA-106-08 PROPONENT: • Renton 91 Associates, Limited DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: Applicant seeks to: 1) annex a 4.206 acre parcel of property (under separate Application) ; 2) rezone the parcel from anticipated R-1, single- family renidential designation at annexation to a R-1, medium density multi-family residential designation; and 0) obtain site plan approval to develop the parcel with Be multi- family units. The project is proposed to include five buildings, uncovered parking areas, landscaping and recreational amen itiee. Total Impervioun area is proposed to be approximately 2.67 acres, or approximately 63% of the subject property. IACATI0N OF PROPOSAL: 11000 block of S.E. 76th Street, approximately 330 feet due east and then north of the intersection of Lake Washington Boulevard N.E. and S.E. 76th Street. LEAD AGENCY City of Renton Community Development Department Planning Divieton The City of Renton Environmental Review Committee has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 41.21C.010(2) (c). Conditions were Imposed as mitigation measures by the Environmental Review Committee under their authority of Section 4-2822(n) Renton Municipal Code (see attached sheet). 'theme conditions are necessary to mitigatn environmental impacts Idontified during the environmental review process. This DNS la issued under WAC 197-11-?/0(2) . Because mitigation menaurea hAve been Imposed, the lead agency will not act an this proposal for fifteen 1151 days from FeLruAry 12, 1989. Any interested party MAY submit written comments which meet bs submitted by 5:00 P.M., February 28, 1989, in order to be considered. A fourteen (14) day appeal period will commence following the tinalizatlon of the DNS. Responsible Officia Lt Environmental Review Committee c/o Don Erickson, Zoning Administrator Planning Division Community Development Department 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 PUBLICATION DATEt February 11, 1989 DATE OF DECISION: February 8, 1989 SIONATURESt -� /Ken N erg—� IIII y g '�'�- - - y Lyn C [tma� Acting Confounity DevalOttment Director Pa. Works Director DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED MITIGATION MEASURES PROJECT: Renton 91 Apartments ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST: ECF-106-86 APPLICATION NUMBER: R1 SA-106-88 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: Applicant seekm to: 1) annex a 4.286 acre parcel of property (under GOP:rate application)l 2) rezone the parcel from anticipated R-1, single-family residential des ignatlon at annexation to a R-3, medium density multi-family residential designation; and 1) obtain site plan approval to develop the parcel with 88 multi- family units. The project is proposed to include tiv» building,, uncovered parking areas, landscaping and recreational amenities. Total impervious area is proposed to be 2.67 acres, or approximately 63% of the subject property. LOCATION OF PROFOSALt 11000 block of S.E. 76th Street, approximately 330 feet due east and then nnrth of the intersection of Lake Washington Boulevard N.E. and S.E. 76th Street. RECOMMENDATIONS: A Determination of Non-Significance - Mitigated has been issued with the following conditional 1. That the applicant, In order to mitigate aesthetic impacts to the site end the adjacent commmtity, reduce the Proposed density of the Renton 91 residential development from 21 unite per acre to 18 - 19 unite per acre. Note: Staff would be willing to consider supporting a proposed rezone action to R-3, with a restrictive covenant which limits the permitted level of density to 18 - 19 unite per acres this reduction is sought so that the level of development will be more compatible with he Comprehensive Plan Map designation for the subject property, And supportahIs by existing or Planned traffic m ltigatlon systems, public services and infrastructure (roadways, utilit les, Public services, etc.) 2. That the applicant, in order to mitigate storm water run-off impacts to the site and neighboring properties, develop a storm water management/erosion control plan eubject to approval by the Public works Department. u�l• n+lnatl.ut of B'ai-Slgo o. •v llitigaloW Illj lq�tirnt Ncarurrtm Menton 91 Apartments Page 2 0. That the applicant, in order to mitigate impacts to the natural environment, aesthetic impacts, noise Impacts and light and glare impacts, develop a landscape plan and on-site lighting plan, subject to approval by the City'a landscape planner. 4. That the applicant, in order to mitigate aesthetic impacts and recreation impacts, develop a plan for open apace/recreation areas on site (e.g. congregate areas, seating areas, linkage to off-site trails, play areas) , subject to approval by the City's landscape planner. Notet The applicant is encouraged to contribute $50.00 per resident tc the City for future improvements, su.h as the lake Washington Trail Systen, and the May Creek Trail Flan. 5. That the applicant, in order to mitigate on-Bite and off-site traffic impacts, provide the following, subject to approval by the Traffic Engineering Division: a. Designing the proposed emergency roadway which accesses Lake Washington Blvd. to meet City width and elope standards so that it can he used as a regular entrance and exit for the site in addition to the SE 76th Street access. b. Due to traffic impact on the intersection of BE 76ta Street 6 tske Washington nlvd., the developer to submit a new channelization traffic plan for intersection control. C. Transportation benefit zone assessment charge calculated as shown: $25 X 592 (traffic volume) - 514,09Q assessment amount The above cost is to participate in the following improvements for I-405 ci/off ramp intersections: - Expand the northbound off-ramp to provide left, thru and right-turn lanes on its approach to NF 44th Street. - Provide a free-flow right-turn lane on the eastbound approach to the northbound on-ramp loop. - Widen the NE 44th Street overcrossing structure and its extensions to the ramp intersections to five lanes. d. The proportional cost of signr,4ization of both I-405 ramp J �~ intersections. Estimated cost of,each intersection ($100 OCnI $200,000 Estimated development percentage of traffic volumes for year 2000 forecast - _29y919P@entTretl.ic —592 -21 Year 2000 Traffic Forecast 25,400 Developers Assessment Amount: 2% X $200,000-$4,000 Assessment Amount I r,i• ml'onl 1.•1, of Unh Pt c ❑ U, , :.A hilliJ.\t)On IIf aPUCBO ynentnn 91 Apartments Page 7 6. That the applicant, in order to mitigate construction related Impacts, should provides a) an Perosion controi plan; b) a plan for wheel-washing of construction vehicles on site to minimise tracking of dirt and debris off-site; c) a plan for periodic wetting down of the construction site to minimise dust and debris; d) a plan for hours of operation and haul routes to minimise traffic impacts, subject to approval by the Public Works Department; and a) a bond in the amount of $3,000. for street clean-up. mmdoc WRITING. �P11WE�PROVIDE COMMENTS To TMEPPLANNINCNp o S"OU B OF PROVIDED IN -DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT BY 5Y00 P.M. ON COMWITY REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: -�L.�YrIII�CiC! 1(r APPROVED —APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS �/ I/ FuAL- OG,ry?E Aun O,1s, -4"T APPROVED �JJf3U„r tE-�x,Fn-A/Eu.aBilr 1?q�s 7S Y'IGD Tc C,Ty fie- 4Eylicw �„(" Joe,l 'DEFArzrwr.�,gilyr�En,lEsr ✓JEr�s's To SF-77-"igu✓Ap $y Tn t� SS IGNA'IC7REty DI 1� /Alrl. DATE�'CT �lBg R OR AUTIIORI2E^ REPRESENTATIVE REV. 6/BB REV"WINC DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: SC 24 _ APPROVED _I� APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS -t- _NOT APPROVED r�.yl��fiA JT fO vrt((� - fr-v— /S u.I�NrJ •� ! ..•( 9�L do //o,� Pni i�j /H C jG.vJG fGSf/ orC,Cs�fc ffnpa��1 s�..T/c6 6e �h,7irQ'Kr:4c( 6� G/c.�l/..,,u<�,c J-j r/tom. SICNATU F D R OA AUT ORI2ED REPRESENTATIVE DATE // JJF REV. 6/BB �WFR Si.DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: -� APPROVED T<'EZWIF DA/Ly ---APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS . _NOT APPROVED Rt16 .Cola/Y 2 k�N6(o. WIdRNI-Yltt�.N ,- grr,Prppp Ulf Wl[Y[Nr-p.{::1 'RF 8903'09p�g9 SYSRN kmvm ECIF9:[-rmtI IYSIFN IDIOIrENt Cbm. CN s urTK /9SN' =y�/s0.5'qT/zS`sr�g 3vuDu Au FnI c [-YAIFN QT rUM//S Ar j,,P,l7l i.- - NJ '�3.8s0.••L�c!l Srrd ['I':::N WAIIN 4U I City 'C'✓•udd0 ww 7L1 of R6 f• ' ::J ICYd yt5 Y iM1 G'4Ebt'L loNA7E�jlep �r......-�INH uTrxYA; :. s Y Ch r�rreS _ Nt P••e•r. YPS . . NJ Giy�rxnxY RMW ®a•O ANYdw. Q�'l(4�?,.7 C•'+ IpAJQ Sl"o ,f Au GAV" 1CNK3'URE Ot'' FiI REC' OR OR AUTI IORIZ ED AF NTATTV,' DATE PRRS E "'& --=8�� CON"SNTS OR SUGuES'TIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD SE PROVIDED IN 'WRITING. PLEASE PROVIDS CONVENTS TO THE PLANNING DIVISION,DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT BY 5100 P.H. ON Q.T.T'HE COISRINITY _____________________________i___ REVIEWING DEPARTMSNT/DIVISIONf APPROVSD _APPROVSD HITM CONDITIONS _}kC N0T APPROVED s41# L' s/.—:. »./4/AIP d d4 h,,L /' InnY".S Yrtv.�e lw�Gc c l) !t� .F,tt� .. c�,....,tlrvr�i�. e.�o .Qr.d��.,e.'+'�fr�,. ►•}���. tee OD pr. rl„J: Ir,fa jce S`iL GS oil_ iy'g ll � N,f.��N ?..IDS' On/:ri;t '(�,•,1,,/;yf Sfu.f / /� /� /� ^'4,,,5 �i».s �vr..A•'Sl;%/11 �L• rJ�'C �li7.r/� ei f'�Arye4•r7,J Ic^N r rys� �r..Jyes �l.11 �e ptirh»/aC�(: /..i/ .,Ii a•1..,!» rA DATE SSG Fi UR')E Op DIRECTOR OR AUT10. AEpRESENI'ATIVE 11tri. L� w6a- " / T• (� � � '�J b _ I nv. <� l - Si+�r y REV. 6/88 ".C' r✓r, r.,/�(w.l., ,.'�,;a„ Syth.y lf- lJn i.. rs/w-ly P,.w REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISIONI APPROVED ,&_Ap ROVED WITH CONDITIONS NOT APPROVED ✓o W a r�u h/4 ., C Or>C c��'1�! 17- U•�l t i I ; i SIGNATURE OF IRECTO�R R AUTNORI2Ep RppRESENTATIVE DATE_ /O -3 /-_k�_ REV. 6'a REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISIO113 _-2[_,Ya. t4h1e rC1,IM APPROVED APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS __NOT APPROVED Any development ano/a construction shall comply with Current Fire and Building Codes and Ordo- nonces. A second means OI approvnd access is required. Fire Deppartment access roads/lanes shall be paved minimum width 20'; minimum height 13' 6'.Yes ' No_ Preliminary fire flow calculations show a fire flow of_ Oe required. T hydrants with a minimum flow of /aoo is is required. gpm each Primarryy hydrant is required to be within /�" feat of the Secondar ithi y hydrants are required to be wn Structure. -- le of the structure. An approved automatic sprinkler system is required to protect the total structure. Yes ' 140_All fire department access roads are to be paved and installed prior to construction. Yes '!No_ ill fire hydrants are required to be installed and approved prior to ponslruct ion. Yes ✓ No DATr TRAF I'IC END. DIVISION SCHEDULED HEARING DATE: UTILITIES ENG. DIVISION FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU __ POLICE DEPARTMENT __ COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT BUILDING DIVISION PUNNING DIVISION __ SHORT RANGE A LONG RANGE PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT OTHERS: COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITING. PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE PLANNING DIVISION OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT BY 5:00 P.M. ON ____-- REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: U-A 'R,..__ APPROVED APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS , NOT APPROVED 61cfCc,"i'/nf>t/' (A4LI 6e',u rYjnu�je,GcY �Si PJ tu A,t- o--C ,P. pp-�,; 7 i K,S relgl.✓ply ks/ clepetenP neCRel,,raies/ / frofdvw,And �,tc/!irvw t'rr+l� I�te devrin�r 6/iaulc� nc% lr prn�,'s;o,rs RrpnS nr�r./ bu�tr�^ ,fur+�f. DATE SI NATURErO DIRECTOR OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE —"t'"+`�° REV. 6/BB �y'�`.�rhG•t .tNNR.4f REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVIRIONt _p�,At�IJIt�G DI U+ LOU _... APPROVED _APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS NOT IPPROVED (rcCGmmEn o PirokF_ To r,-3 5 `OU41Cci M AAIA,eAA-110A1 APPROV AL © ?,tUnllmeNo AIVRWAQ cr SI-9 NNQ NPltWpt, 3� ry 06n, No 44 5 'Z 1h RwrttBR 116HI . Svb(,esf sRmrclu'<, oi\.)f, of T1jcL`L pUlvol,, & -To cRq Aft G,R4Ar4R PAGE. SOOtA-100 ® PVWE -N 1146M (. MUCTIOV uP UN11!� ). 7TM`iJb UAN05CAp(, bt r0JZIrJG St-bLt o t5E IDRUJIafo wcvjo nie PeR PJJOL-f Cp nie ST-6 TU rR0TL5C7 6\qIS71ruG d PRO(XEFA R.E5IG6W/Ate DtWa-0pmBnlT f�03ACOJT *f SIT$. DATE___ S IUNA'I'UItE OF DIREC'IVR OR AUTIIORIZF.D RF.PRESENTATIVC no KoriewA/ 6RADE5, kx-ee 1 e. Go'^pC-r wtTIt T1IE Pt1C ICIrVF Eat HhNPIC.npf, PNdwfvt 5-JN-1,5 KrRW TO QC PPOQIP%n VO- F"yr,46 C.Oofj, CDmpP< Ph(ZKlkt WPOAi S I�Rf TU YSG Z� WiOG \s lu-UST(tro6b ) o ® K rvYeNn niNr hLJ FjPfAMMtN1 HAS TOW OWn/ pt<wr�'if, sto2n6� Lvc�,Ew/Raorn , i i i �i7�f��I�Ili�1 stl' t r I E .t � e % 4 �f tttY !{� .� 'i - I� etolier.i+airffta uil I ' etj�l'd:iatt tt ; n. MEMTOM YI M MEMTS ze • t i- r st _ 1 1 /1 jjj r1 � . �J ` I � Ililld�itii7lt(111 f r -,A-Z ------_- wmN 91 M WEHT9 ....- ysarlsr.� �� .`■. !�� .■ a i��: u n I�I�� ;11 1� Ipl ■ �N 11 di1 �u■r ��� j LJ F4RNT ELEVATION UM .,•.. .� ly 11 °O IV w v i a1i�►lfly �' ..uimu rn!!u ,•�4l, 1' ., P5 APPENDIX A RENTON 91 COMPARISON WITH ZONING STANDARDS R-2 ZONE PROPOSAL R-0 ZONE Density (maximum) 12.1 units/acre 19 unite/acre 25 units/acre Lot Size 4,200 sq.ft. 4.286 acres 7,200 sq.ft. ;. Parking Requirements 2 parking 121 resident 1 1/2 spaces spaces per unit stalls - 21 guest per unit plus stalls 1 guest space fi per four units r. Building Height 15 ft. 40 ft. 50 ft. Lot Coverage 151 218 35% interior lots 10% corner lots Yard Setbacks F Front 20 ft. 25 ft. Art.St.-00 ft. Coll.Art.-25 ft All others - 4 20 ft. Rear 25 ft. 12 ft, 20% of Lot Width or (see chart below) Side Interior 12 ft. Interior Lots- Lots - 5 ft. same as above Corner Lots - Corner Lots - 20 ft. along 20 ft. min. a street along a street *Lot Width Rear and Side Yard Setbacks 70 ft. 6 ft. 40 ft. 8 ft. 45 ft. 9 ft. 50 ft. 10 ft. 55 ft. 11 ft. 60+ ft. 12 ft.