Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLUA80-056 2..r 1 (( 10(-4,4..."--0-^) immIR Renton City Council Meeting i.,/ n ,t� June 15, 1981 \ ,ems' %e67- e-cry �'%G // (v 4 .1101:°Audience Comment Mr. Leppo stepped forward to the podium. PP Leppo: My name is Jeffrey Leppo and I am here as attorney for First City Equities. My address is Bogle & Gates, Bank of California Center, Seattle, Washington 98164. I would -10 request at this time that the Council advance the agenda to consider the First City Equities Earlington rezone and preliminary plat. "" Mayor: This is the Planning and/ Development Committee Report? wio M tk.adtx (r ib-t-• d � j2.0 c k__ `c.C. . Rockhill: I move we suspend the order of business and move to the report of the Planning and Development Committee on this subject. Sccond_. tNi.i. ti ugh1E s. • Mayor: It has been moved by Mr. Rockhill, seconded by Mr. Hughes, that • to suspend the order of business and advance to the Planning and Develop- ment Committee report on this subject. All those members in favor say 'aye. ' o oppose? The ayes have it and Ms. ,Mead, if you would read the Planning and Development Committee report. (Ms. Mead, City Clerk, read the rezone report of the Planning and • Development Committee: Copy attached.) Mr :.Stredicke: Madam Mayor. Mayor: Mr. Stredicke. Stredicke: Could I inquire on the correspondence on the agenda that deals with the Earlington Park rezone appeal is pertinent to the Committee's . • report and whether it should be read at this time. Mayor: Do you understand Mr. Stredicke's question, Ms. Mead? Ms. Mead: (unintelligible) C_o( Cj-V C_e Mayor: Correspondence regarding the Earlington, is that connected with the First ey Equities appeal? Unknown: Yes, it is Madam Mayor. Mayor: I think that at this point--Mr. Clemens,Ccting Planning Director do you have something to add that would help everybody move this thing along or would it be more appropriate after this correspondence Mr. Stredicke has request,/eddtto be read? Mr. Clemens: I think the correspondence is appropriate. While Ms. Mead is reading that, I will put up these exhibits. / • Page Two MIR Mayor: O.K. (unintelligible) Ms. Mead, would you read the correspondence Mr. Stredicke referred to? Leppo: Madam Mayor. • Mayor: Yes. Leppo: I also suggest that at this time we consolidate the consideration . of ,the preliminary plat as they are very closely related. Mayor: O.K. Mr. Clemens, is that appropriate, dd. you believe? Clemens: I would think that one is alot simpler than the other so it would be possible for discussion. �9 } l.�-.6.Zi, V rf1 l S b Lk 2�a tc.C�Mayor: ) f you would like to be seated (talking to Mr. Clemens) or whatever and we will proceed. Ms. Mead, do you have the correspondence? • Ms. Mead: Yes, I do. (Ms. Mead read the correspondence. Copy attached.) . Rockhill: Madam Mayor. Mayor: Mr. Rockhill. • Rockhill: I question whether-this letter should be read because I don'-t see any new information there and when the Planning and Development Committee hears an appeal, we do not take any new testimony unless it is • bringing information which could not be presented. earlier and I would like a ruling from the attorney on whether this should have been allowed to be read. Attorney: Madam Mayor and the members of the City Council: I think Mr. Rockhill's point is well taken.in principle. I think if the Council considers the letter .an argument, and does not consider the facts as to be testimony in and of itself, now there is maybe a slight distinction there but everything that is said here tonight is merely argument and it is not necessarily fact in and of itself and I think one can construe certainly that if -it was advanced as evidence, it would not be admissable, because the evidenc2 was all given at the hearing. But it is advanced as argument, then try Council should take it for what it is worth, as argument. • Z L 7 — • Leppo: Madam Chairman Mayor: Mr. Leppo. Leppo: I think the distinction the Council raises is somewhat elusive. Lauri Johnson spoke at the original public hearing. She was also present at the Committee's consideration of this matter last Thursday„It which time she did not speak. I think that the letter which we . 'not sub- mitted to us in advance, is more than argumentative inthat it serves a number of facts- that were not raised by Ms. Johnson during her numerous opportunities to raise that on the record and that it should'not be admissable. • IMMIR Page Three Stredicke: Madam Mayor. Mayor: Mr. Stredicke. Mr. Stredicke: If anyone in the audience wanted to speak tonight on audience comment which comes before this matter would be before the council, whatever they say could be heard by all members of the council. This matter was on the agenda as an agenda item and would have been read prior to any action on this thing anyway. Now somebody wants to think that that is going to really sway new evidence into the thing and everything, that is fine. I think that someone is a little scared when they are talking that way. -3- Mr. S redic If any ne 'n the a i nce wan e to spe t night on' udie e Comm n whi h omes b fore this a to would e efore he ouncil, wh tev hey sa co ld be hea d by 1 me ers of th co ncil. This matte wa o he gen a s 'a ag nda i em an would hav been rea prio to a y ac ion n h s t in an . ow s ebo ants to think at t at 's goin re ly s y n w evid n eint th th' g a d e erythi g, that i 'ne. I t ' k that omeo e is litt scar d e - en the e talki abeut-- hat way. Mayor: Mr. Stredicke, refrain from editorializing but your point is well taken,3oth under Item 6, Audience comment, and'ten8, Correspondence and ecirrent Lusiness} this could have been heard by the ®t council. Either thwoman could have came to read it herself or stated or asked the clerk to read it. So it could have been . . . . Mr. Kellogg, you jumped up, would you care to add to this? Kellogg: I think Council is struggling with the thing that all the attorneys do to try to keep a record clear and unfer at least its a fact in these types of proceedings, it is very difficult to keep the record clear 'since for the most part this body, has not, I suspect any of them, has-net-read-the-enure-reeera-- actually has read the entire records I think the the burden should shift to the opponents of the materials that have been put forth as argument if he can show us that there is . a fact alleged in the letter that is not in the record-- in other words--pretty important new evi e.,4,,,Figt„,11.s rely arguing about things that are already in the- record. he can show us that itnotHIin ,. the records and the burden is on him as appellent, then of course,, you would have to disregard it. A judge would tell you to disregard the question., Now whether er-net you could do that or not, it's up to you.but that's your function. So I think the burden_Ll on the _appellent to tell us if there is something in the letter, in ,,,,sense-,""Ts inadmissable. Madam Mayor. Mayor: Mr. Rockhill. Rockhill. In an effort which I hope wont be futile, to try and avoid alot of arguing over points which I don't t ink is important, I wonder if we could get to the point that was important) atreally came down to what we disagreed • upon but-the-eemmitte- -- what the committee did not agree upon--let's say that- we didn't disagree, we just didn't agree on4he meeting and that is basically-- it was greed upon by everyone present' that if P-1 existed there is no problem rezone. Now that was agreed by everybody present That-P-±- the City and everyone, theP-1 does not exist, P-1 may or may not exist. So the question is if P-1 exists, what does it do? It takes care of drainage from this property. The appellent claims that if it is rezoned then that puts them in a position wh re they can hire engineers to try and prove that they can take care of the drairrom this pro e ty., Then it becomes/technical problem. If it becomes a technical problem bias to be solved by the technicians here in the City, not by the City Council. It out of our hands. It is a technical problem because I dont think the City Council should be the ones to determine that whether this plan • for drainage is a good one or that plan for drainage is a good one. That basically is the whole question and the appellent feels that unless it is rezoned, is not in the position to put the money into this gamble. I find the -4eal -wnc, it should be rezoned -- he can take the gamble --if he loses it, that's up to him. If he doesn't want to t91.4 the gamble, he can wait for P-1. He- I think he has the right because there is nothing holding up the rezoning except t e drainage. That was agreed upon. If there is another solution to drainage b i cs P-1, then let him find it. That is his problem, not our, problem. I think he should have the privelege of trying to find it if he wants to. and that was really the -4- hard/ riing. ould we rezone it,arad let him find it , and let the technicians _ . decide deestMbi��,,�afgood system or note 31 he doesn't,4ke1eCc op him off say don't build. If he does, that is the heart of the whole thing. Mayor: Council will bear with me, .my log reads (unintelligble) (laugh) I -is agreed that yeti- Mr. Reed, you were the other half of this committee? Has that been stated, not that you-agreed, but has it been fairly .stated that that was the problem? • . Reed: Essentially. . - �,�s� Mayor: Mr. Clemens, Is thei time for you to get on the white horse and come a-here and help out? Clemens: I am not sure I can express interruption Mayor; I think that what is needed is that all council members who were not present to the testimony at. - the appeal have some iateet-netien laymens notion as-te-what-Evan-heard-there-se-they-eaa-make-a-reasenabie---- of what occurred there so they can make a reasonable judgement in this matter. Clemens: ' Thequestion relates to the property ( � p p y � � '�) the current- Springbrook Creek alignment is approximately in this fashion (at the posted exhibits) Springbrook Creek currently floods all or portions of --significant portions of--- this rezone/ The question that Mr. Rockhill I believe currently state was should the decision on thOrezone prosceed before or after the decision on the P-1 Channel. The staff--the Planning Department- staffj-is auditing the Examiners decision, felt thatOplicy question) that related not only to this propertyr but other properties in the valley, that .if the P-1 Channel wad not constructed, that the Council would be faced with a much bigger policy thatlorloning 25 acres, but what to do , with development with the remaining .])200 acres in the valley . Mr. Rockhills edili • contention was that the applicant has stated tha he can find on sit solution ith enou engineering arid enough money • to that problem and I believe that if-ge-pays-a -erg veer-en tag -meney, he is. • probabl correct. Our difficulty was 4 a much larger policy issue tawragArrologn and ( . ki: i-blc) that Re " 6f'hats as simply as I can state it. Mayor: Mr. lemens a portion of the pump station or something s- e or�P 1 . Channel will be)-- it is in the operation now). . . e I'..b- LQ t . .. . • N) a.04 . El,(4 ‘,/ ` - - tc - - -5- 2 4)-`-. _ 1 ' ow4 'unintelligible) . . . and extents southerly to Grady Way which frankly would affect this property in a very positive fashion, if/constructed. it was Mayor: Mr. Reed, do you care to add anything at this point? Mr. Reed: Madam Mayor, correct me if I am wrong. If the pump station, 1P-1 Channel is put in Tract A, it would be definitely (unintelligible) . Clemens: Substantial portions of Tract A are part of the detention Tondo CS i , "hand _�� ,1� Mayor: I need to give the Attorney a chance_At this point. Is that your understanding that Tract A will in effect be'"Fiolding - pond or jetention por d for standing water? Attorney: Seventeen acres of its Madam Chairman,will be as you can see from the preliminary plat. P-1 Channel is designed to go like this (pointing to map) and this portion from _hereon is on First City Equities propert 'so Here's Tract A, right here (pointing to map) so all this portion of the property is the &etention pond and this portion is not and is developable if the rezone is granted in this area. I might add that this entire area (unintelligible) . . . dedicate this for the purpose of the P-1 Channel. �S pay a.u"� v w� Mayor:' Mr. Shane,. . Ci) Shane: Madam Mayor (unintelligible) as- far a., P 1. What bothers me is that we received a letter tonight that made me kind of laugh because I thought to myself we save shorelines and all that stuff and this is just something (unintelligble) of what you come up with. Is it 610-v-4 p-;jy Planning Director. - says its going to be relined and it would have to be drenched out so (unintelligible). Akrent you going to, have a 400 foot strip in there , our Planning Director is asking here. (`o `` '' Mayor: I have a great deal of (unintelligible .t( are going to have a Channel 140 feet wide, Shane: unintelligible . . . 200 feet on each side so I dont figure how you get more than 400 out of there or less. . (unintelligible) Now to my knowledge before when God made that river down there he didn't have a 400 foot wide river either. and (unintelligible) . . all this planning stuff what we have in here all the-time of a sudden, (unintelligbile) and so what I am getting at Madam Mayor is- this: if the fl.anning .Ipartment can come up here, they just use an arbitory figure all the time)I would like to know this on this Channel I read that Black River Pump Stationlwas/alleviate , the, water problems. erntlitiow Im wondering if we add � iv is lackRiver Channel in there)where is this big water problem we got a e en we put the pump station inyI mean something doesnt add up to me all the time. 1 Mayor: Somewhere in there, there is a question and Im going to take a shot at an answer. -6- Mayor: Once upon a time because they expect a --what amounts to a 100-year flood in the valley --they designed a channel system that is going to be 300 feet wide and almost twelve miles longs That was aesthically 's a 1 J unacceptable to everybody that looked at it. They redesigned it and made it 140 feet wide and it meanders instead of taking a straight shot. 4 140 feet wide (I did learn something about hydrolics)when you take 300 feet down to 140 t-meves-a-Iet-faster-wheh the water ;gees-a;pt- moves alot faster which changed the alignment of the channel/. A 140 foot strip will go through their property. If I understand the attorney, they have dedicated them some 200 feet ( interruption) Attorney: It-wiii-be-&edeated What will be dedicated is the absolute channel and the detention pond thats on the property which amounts to slightly over 17 acres, but we are not talking about anything other than the actual channel itself and retention pond. Shane---Madam- Stredicke: Madam Mayor. Mayor: Mr. Stredicke, and then Mr. Rockhill. Stredicke: Mr. Shane's information/"God didnt have a 400 foot river there but God had easement for flooding over a lot bigger area than. that . Mayor: We could have done without that)Mr. Stredicke. (laugh) unknown Madam Mayor Cvoice)62) Ive been waiting for the appellent to semewakt-explain have someone explain tonight the way he did the other day which I thought was rather well about how. . .as I have said the question, if P-1 is built there is no problem. If P-1 is not built that is the problem--whether they can find another way to handle this water. They showed us the other day1I though , a possibility. I have heard them say nothing about that tonight and . . . . .fnany voices speaking) . . VO\C. 1 C.t72-- l - -(19 • Mayor: Now---are we agreed Mr. Reed(and you have to help with this --mayor said to someone) the contention of he committee is if P-1 was built, no problem, the • ` rezone • would be acceptable.)�I possible prospect of P-1 wont be built, then l`n , an alternative to provide for drainage would have to be made acceptable before `V` a rezone was acceptable to you as a committee member? Its easy for me to say . . . . (Laugh) Is that about right? (75) &ic�e unknown Yes, Madam Mayor, my contention that this rezone is premature because the P-1 Channel---- (unintelligible) My feeling was that these guys might be wasting their money and they might not be and it comes out to a question of whether they want to go ahead and waste their money and lase- t.not know whether the P-1 goes in. I guess that's a council decision. Mayor: All ri- Was this meeting prior to the Thursday meeting that we had on the P-1 Channel? (Unknown) 75+7 It was about 4 hours prior. • Mayor: All right. Was the direction given to the Council at er the Council gave to the Mayors at that time are---is this gentleman aware of that direction? (Unknown) o ova (Jcoeup42A, I wouldn't know. \ fiqs t.,. Mayor: I think it should be stated now ' - ,-�-= '� the Mayors of the Valley AOY4Tven exclusive instructions by their Council to talk to he property owners down therms and by July 2, we have been told by the corp of engineers that if we doAt have an answer by October 1 that project is dead so for a timing thing you should probably be aware- of that. And the Iayors are going to proceed and follow paths of instruction to discuss the P-1 on July 30. Now, Council you want to hear what the proposal is for alleviating the tke- flooding problem in the event the channel is not built. s-that-appreprate? (yoice Mayor:/ Would you identify yourself for the Clerk: 'Mad 2:0-Qu -60-4,. h4awr: Yes, My name is David Schuman and I am a partner with First, City Equites and I would like to address the Council if I may. There seems to be a little bit of confusion. If I could just take a moment, hopefully, to tr�y.andd straighten things out. There were two issues that came before the Waringtrig"inally, One, was a request for a rezone of the area that is outlined Some in the orange (map) which is approximately 25 acres of land. The second thing that came before the hearing txaminer is a preliminary plat approval on the development as its shown there (map) o Phase 1 into the Lots with a Tract A and a Tract B. The Hearing Examiner came forth with two decisions. --ient- The denial on the rezone and the approval of the preliminary plat with the zsp. provisal that we provide a 200 foot strip on each side of Springbrook Creek and the abandoned Black River Channel. We \a Baled both of those decisions, the rezone and the preliminary plat approval There wa number of conditions on the preliminary plat approval. We only appealed one. The 200 foot setback. Mayor: As an error in fact or law or . 1 Schuman: Yes, both. "' Mayor, 4nd you cited ? Z .fir Sch: We cited numerous instances where we bu.il&t felt th Hearing gxaminer errored. The planning sub-committee on Thurs. evening voted 2 to 0 to oyerturn the 4earing Examiner's decision on the 200 foot setback on the preliminary plat. And as Mr. Rockhill said one to one on tit-- whether to overturn the bearing Examiner on-cr.-Si-- rezone so that is where t13a I think some of the complications are coming in. The 200 foot setback on either side of Springbrook Creek was a condition of the preliminary plat approval so lialao interruption -8, should voice: Madam Mayor I wonder if we eeu±d not have the other half of theflanning 4.:Developmnet Committee report read.bet We keep on referring to it and the people out here have no idea what he is referring to. Mayor Is the matter that council dhould consider now and in no way telegraphs their � ,,fIeelings on the other matter? ' vexve: I feel that the two things are wrapped together John (75+53) How do you feel? John: They are Madam Mayor. It was my feeling that the second appeaoul l( l by our planning department as far as the setback. ere-eeneerned issues are concerned. The Planning Department recommended that we concur with their request and again it was my understanding the planning ,Npt. ny limitations or any restrictions they needed in regard to this setback. could handle Mayor: Mr Clemens, is that the planning depts decision that the fact that your dept. could handle those conditions appropriately? Clemens: The applicant agreed with ,our recommendation to the committee that the dedication rather than beEi.ng a dedication for an unknown purpose or an ueknew (unintelligible ) purposej tie tv.specific p pose and that is th -1 channel, The applicant has agreed that dedication should be for the `?1 channel. At such time there are(eensuitants)permits ftgal.InR to the Springbrook distriet Creek or the -1 channel if anyone wishes to a place at that time the application is made. Shoreline permitf and site plan approvalthru the gearing xaminer all both are required and both ^would be scrutinized appropriately. //�� Mayor: Since the Tplanning,department agrees and two members of the ,Tplanning and Ilvelopment committee agree)is it your belief that council could act ont portion without impacting or giving up their right to act on the rest of it independently. Madam Chairman? &known voic' Mayor: Im going to ask my Planning Director%) if he would like to answer that first and then. . . Clemens: I believe that it would be satisfactory but the council may feel that there are some undertying pieces but the plat appears to be essentially a separate issue from a question of the rezone. Mayor: All right. Mr Leppo. Leppo: s. The reason that I think there is a concern here is tit the plat is for the entire piece of property right now and witl1eut-- we are talking about including the rezone and thatGcouncil proceeds prior to the rezone then we have to determine which piece of property we are talking about Mayor: So we will save the best for lastionly there appears to be (unintelligi e Madam Mayor; Mayor: Mr. Shane. Shane: I would like to ask one question. I would like to know what the work black- mail means? Im aware here . . . Mayor: 31Pr Mr. Shane, Eren the attorney is appalled at that . Im not going to allow that . Rephrase your question. ` QL9 . -9- Shane: Madam Mayor. There' s been a question at the back of my mind. If I f nna norc,G —$414e Gwas_prop .rtv 1 clat9ncl , If `1ierson has a piece of property where they say is going to be the P-1 channel , another person isnt on that-he gives up nothing. But the person who is trying to get his property sold, he has to (unintelligible) so now, what im wondering about, everybody here is a taxpayer--one man has his property condemned by another an act of planning, you might say. Anothe person can get his property.14140. Something doesnt add up to me. rough a condemnation process, not through a planning process and unintelligible. Mayor: Mr. Leppo. Leppo: . . . fd * a"a reeerr e I think that to be helpful to begin with, alittle background----as you can see, thats the preliminary plat we talking about that I£s PpPea acreage surrounded by the black gre.assi line (referring to map) The green there is not primarily on the . . Mr. Clemens can indicate where the line isthere. Thats the property line right there. In 1979, First City Equities obtained a rezone for 73 acres, which is +eft-ef-the-pr'epeity the rest of the property that is not farmed orange or brown up there. All that property tha is white and that part of it is also part of the ibl P-1 c annel eta in tract A) is all rezoned M-P already,eee manufacturing park. We are solely concerned with the rezone with that strip of approximately 25 acres. running along the western boundary of the property. Subsequeint to the rezone in 1979, First C E obtained title to that property. It is important to be aware that title was obtained at the request of the City., It was realized art at that time if the project proceeded as it was currently planned, there would e a undevelopable island--piece of property between the access road a ong he property line and the proposed valley parkways . It was there-fore suggested by the City to 1st CE that they p rch s t i property to permit a more logical development to occur. d 1 d° n di are ere now to obtain the rezone for that portion. I think it is also important to understand that the addition of this 25 acres provides additional flexibility in the developmentf,Pthe Hearing Examiner recognized in his own decision. This is planned to be a quality development with open space, landscaping and - - puld lri,t, sensitivity and the elimination of 25 acres seriously jeopardizes the flexibigli•ty that is impairing the project as it is planned. We would suggest that the same considerationSthat led the City to request 1ct CE to enlarge this parcel + still applicable today and suggest that otthcse*&Q-Q-- are rezones be approved. Now, (interruption) Mayor: I think that we should be very careful that we are not getting into the- deciding whether or not this is a quality development and all that. As I understand, Mr. Rochhill and Mr. Reeed)they agreed that the problem is the -- timing. /Right. Leppo: Turning to what was the sole issue of contention at the committee/ meetings I think Councilman Rockhill properly characterized what the issue. is . We all agree that the rezone is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. We all agree that the rezone is in what is known as the flood way branch. We all agree that if the P-1 channel is built, then the flooding problem is alleviated. We all agree that the rezone does not permit develop ,-. t within this area without a permi t i&e all agree that 1st CE ea+z1notfl " °7W61"" -10- eeedw-4 ---can only occur if 1st CE can engineer a storm water system that is acceptable to the City. Where we disagree with the planning staff is that it is our belief thattsufficiency of an engineer system is a technical issue and is one to be decided by the planning staff 1i" granting a permit under the Renton flood control Ordinance. It is not a legislative decision iarerwhether a storm water drainage system c , be..engineered 6i=44e without the P-1 channel . It is a technical issue. ..t Mayor Ynknewii: It could become a political issue. You understand that peco4ably, if for any reason th hann 1„f i I sr� u' It -=- Then this council and that of tu'kwi l g. i s go\l ng to have to d i de can th+s-be-bd++t;-hew mtieb fare C how many people are going to build, how much more down there when we cannot guarantee any kind of protection against flooddiinpp Leppo: I understand t and what I m saying the consideratio f whether property --this property can be developed is a decision w4a4ris most logically made by the planning staff based upon t eir abil_ity to convey water to the P-1 pump station theugh an engineerPsystem if the P-1 channel is not built. It does not affect other properties nor eL }4e psis it in effect a policy decision on whether development should occur that is subject to flooding because development cannot occur on this rezone property unless we can demonstate to the City that there is no flood potential and it will not harm other properties. Granting this rezone will have no effect whatsoever on 1st CE obligation to make that kind of demonstration . Mayor: I have a question to ask. if/yo not construe it as argumentative simply to move this thing along I Puily understand that time is money. ►l There is I presume great objection by your clients to waiting until the 1 issue of the P-1 channel is resolved and I wouldt;"'�sk--- I know this hing_ ,,1 k-' has been going on 20 years --but they have truly - is thrown down, a decision must be made by Oct. If Possible, a decision will be made in mid July. Now, is that onerous for your client to. . . Leppo: May I respond to that? When we originally acquired this property in 19 9 and came before the City for the first time-it was ip, Feb. 1979 Ord e were told that a decision was going to be made by July1979 on the . -1 channel or it was going to die. We were then told in 1980 that a decision. was going to be made on the -1 channel by a certain date-or it was going to die..ao4 we are now two years later being told again that a decision was going to be made on the '' 1 channel so our reluctance to wait is based on the last 22 years of being told that a decision was immediately forthcoming on the P-1 channel and to this date, not having one. Mayor: I guess about the only thing I can say is that you have been talking to technical peopleup until now and- two city council members who have the power and the authority of the council to make this decision gave us the direction on Thurs night following this meeting. , 1 14 Leppo: Madam,The question is nevertheless that development in this area Jo' is not one to occur--is not dependent upon a decision on the p-1 channel 41‘1)}b.e�t� '(—i nt-oi-i-i ) If the P-1 channel does go forward and a .decision is ` made in October, then we can all agree that there is -no problem with flooding here. The only situation is that if it doesnt go forth. If it doesnt go forth and first (,ity 1quities cannot demonstate to the city -11- that it can convey storm water to an engineered system}then it cannot develop in this rezone area and only irrst City 4uities is out of money. It is their money out of pocket and there is no damage to the city or to other property owners. • Mayor; Mr. ellogg? Kellogg: Madam Mayor and members of the City Council speaking in support of the recommenfation of the. lanning Director) I think if the 1979 rezone were back here before the council) the-flanning .Bpartment would make a different recommendation Ken they did at that time. As Xheir recommendation at this point is that this matter be deferred until the matter of the cm. drainage be f' lly determined, 'that it is premature to make this decision right now. Lcpuncil is correct that there will be a second tier of decisionsgsmaki.ng as to whether the development will occur within the orange Um boundary and within the flood excuse me, and that will be the substantial development imeao4 as part of the shoreline management program. The recommendation of the planning department is found grounded on the fact that why should We allow the increasin of the densities to -11P uses at this timeuwe snow very well , at least there is no showing of the record, of engineering possibilities to allow the development to M-P standards. Now lets take another example, IP this were not in the flood fringe area, and this rezone ra s° before the council ) this would be the last step before the applicant applied for his building permit Once he had the rezone, h would get his building permit. New-beeause rd` herefore. the council could of afford to say well lets wait and see how it turns out .. If you rezone property to B-1 , tomorrow you could have&B-1 use there . Now this situation is unique in that }j tomorrow you are not likley to have M-P use there because theyG`ve VJ to get their substantial developerW permit and that process has not touched the council . They go from staff to 4earing ixaminer to court . But the potential liability which would -ilegaimin66.19em adhere from a mistake or ei-re in judgement from that process will land right square in your laps for the big lawsuitor damages. And it would be the position of the planning director. Now at this point why should the(ity take that risk? What is the City getting to be-41rr4tdco4-took,. ti u i , iA-914yinduce it to take that risk? rb'1liere is nothing stopping the applicant from going ahead with hist-Wch drawings and engineer plans and whatever he has to do --and if he would come back to the Nearing examiner with a substantial technical showing that there is no danger to surrounding properties) then .I. presume that the Hearing Examiner would say, that is fine, zone it M-P. But you see the applicant must show and the Hearing ixaminer must find that the proposed intensity of use will have no triterne+ detrtmenta+- material detrimental effect on surrounding properties. And that's the finding that Mr. Kaufman made that this proposed development would have et material and detrimental effect on other properties because tt-wed}d- if it .w�er-e developed to M-P standards it would tend to shift the flood water, under the properties. The simple question for the council to answer is yes or no. Does the proposed rezone or the increase of the uses allowed within that area, would_that have a detrimental impact on the surrounding properties? If you say, yes, M-P uses in that area would have a detrimental effect, then you have to affirm the Hearing Examiner. And that does no.t stop the plat. They can record the plat as a mixed-zone plat. So that's the simple question. Does it have materially, detrimental impact on the surrounding properties? -12- Mayor: Mr. Kellogg. :-F= pw. can council .simply substitute it s judgement as to detrimental impact on the surrounding properties? The Hearing Examine has aid it is his belief that it is detrimental .te rrervrndti-ihg • 1%/6-a I see, this not �r-�- mittee appeal mw' process. . .the council can simply say we do 0 not (g e with you. Kellogg: No. The Council and the committee have the same rule. Neither body may substitute its judgement. to order for you to reverse the Hearing Examiner , you must find affirmatively that he was in error, in saying that this proposal would be materially detrimental to other properties. Mayor: Make sure that is clear to council . Madam Mayor LL .��,,�� � Mayor: Mr. Shane. A t� ci ���" — . l&cal\ 3t Shane: . Mr. Attorneyj can the city issue consumatic bonds unless it affects the whole community? Mayor: (unintelligible) . . . pertinent to what is before us now. Shane: I would like to get an answer. Kellogg: Madam Mayor irirrt > Atu.AN-c'c "P"-k- - k1::).1-C" Shane: That he means to the issue is this madam. mayor . --Chair makes a ruling-- Mayor: I 'm going to agree with the atty Mr. Shane Mr. Shane: You mean the atty doesnt know if the consumatic bonds is the issue? -Vat it doesnt pertain to the whole community? Mayor: I guess I ' ll go way out on a limb. Do you construe that counselmatic bonds led to the senior citizen center (unintelligible) . kb Shane; "that affected the community. Consumatic bonds, MIadam /Moyor, (hmini lli•yble) I think that is what is germaine to the. question of zoning 12#. J and so forth is under what form will you go ahead and develop the'llackiver annel? If the issue of consumatic bonds is the only form and it cant be done unless it pertains to the whole community and half theecity has nothing to gain, then every Landowner that lives on the hillside will be paying the taxes te-tb+s-- for this Mack ll?iver Q,hannel situation down here. So what is germaine, iswi.11 the l.ity"ever ahead-- go ahead and finance the P-1 channel? And the man is asking and we have people saying C -13- Y �4r n Mayor: ft • Your question [the Thurs. night meeting, Mr. Shane , and I guess yo were there at least at the time I was and I (detected not one bit of sympathy on the part of this &ity eouncil to use councilmatic bonds in any fashion for this project. Stredicke: Madam Mayor-) I dont see any point in discussing consumatic bonds, Mayor: I think youre right, Mr. Stredicke. I think Mr. Kellogg has stated this as (unintelligible) and this will go on very simply if the council agrees with the Hearing Examiner that the rezoning of this property at this time may have detrimental effects on other properties down there ` I think you have to affirm wiiitak the Hearing Examiner. If the council does agree . . . Have I stated that correctly? On the contary, if the council doesr1t feel that that• has been a (unintelligible) then you are entitled to overturn the Hearing Examiner. Mayor: Mr. Clymer evening Clymer: Madamikyor I ha e had the feeling all/week we havent allowed these people to makek4iesentation because everytime they start to talk, someone interupts. Do you have the feeling that you havent had the chance to state your case or..?/ LeppO: We do have some additional comments we would like to make Yet: Clymer: I would like to hear their comments and then get on with a decision the council has to make. • Leppo: Madam e"�d I would like to just summarize my own presentation here iurresp9jnse to councils comments. Its should be clear to council that the rezones this property does not in and, of itself, increase the density of this property. Nor,..es the rezone permit development to occur ip ���is area. Council has .•� ?_ i f this were another type of property and'an`�t,, to1iierr :ind of rezone .then that tommorrow' uld go out and develop it. But its not. The fact is that if the rezone is granted, 1ste_ity iquities cannot go out and develop this property until it can demonstrate to the city sat i sfactvC)ny that it can eng i neerr4storm water CowaNkrdsystem, that alleviates any possibility of flooding or damage to o her property and 1Lo i% 4: (• n i nto l l -Cand therefore the rezone cannot matey i a l l y detrimentally, affect any other property because development does not . occur as a result of the rezone. Now I would like to permit an opportunity for other members of 1st Qity Equities to speak . (LA of Ldpe) ba-oar t -2/ ., -14- My name is Barry lmore and I am a =/:_�Gi _• partner in First City Equity. My address is 900 Fourth Avenue Suite 3818, Seattle Washington. I might take a moment just to review the planning commission's wording on a particular area because I think tht the word that she used Madam Mayor may in terms of the finding that the Panning Commission had in-terms of what (unintelligible) Mayor: Just be carleful: Planning. Commission, Planning Committee, Planning Department. Brrzy: Planning Department, •excuse me. We have a word that they arp using that would have subltantially detrimental effects on properties andewo properties Of other persons located in the vicinity of the site, which I feel is a very definite statement that has (lpough)/ demonostated at all by any one. I would like I�couldnt hear ^ to make a number of observations on the Planning ,�repartments division in terms of flooding. Personally, we are unaware of any. such evidence in the record showing that any detriment let alone substantial detriment by virture of x4i this requested rezone that would take place. Secondly, the rezone is reques ag 7 granting a change of designation which allows us not to develop anything at all and that the evidence as to• th way of the development o this property would affect or be affected by other 1roperties is in our belief a subject properly addressed at the stage to request for if-building permit*/made by ourselves. and/that time when a l is at the burden of providi g responsible development plans and calculations and engineering drawings w uld fall on us as it does with anybody else that comes in to the City of Renton to attempt to construct a project. There is no hard data in fact as to wha • will be built here on this property and wkat-tis- hence what its effects \would be and we dont.feel that it is available for a very good reason 9We have owned this pro erty for a little over a year and • the reason that we own t is that the same fanning tept that is telling us that we shouldnt be rezoned. right nowt asked us to acquire it. They asked us to acquire it so that it would aid all of us in of planning for the eventual Ting ali ing-- g��lment of,v he P-1 Channel and the alley arkway. We feel • that we have that A�.f .19 We have been before you now off and on for over two years. Beyead-the- '�rer,ertp-betere-pert-came-reserve We own the property befo,�je you put a rezone iwe)carit plan our unzoned property to prove or disprove the Rearing ixaminer:and sub-committee's position. it wouldnt ak, nse for us to go out End create in-depth studies to demonstrate 1st 9itie s'Tdpment on this property whether it coup adequately handle water runoffil°hether it could flood or any of the other issues e feel are properly a concern of the planning. We understand that the P-1 4hannel s- - has been trying to happen for a long time. We have been suffering through it wit1\ all of you.. I think that xte hhave demonstrated .with or without the P-1 channel that the entire development 3esy take place with the r • flexibility 20 of either\\way with or without it and we are to the point t' ' C.L. iqkterms of the rezone request' that rezoning this prgerty doesrit create any flooding, rezoning this property doesrit create any detrimental situations-to anyone because it is a name change and a name change alone,d One of the process steps that we have to go through in order to demonstrate whether it floods or not is we have to hire civil engineers, soil$eng, Engineers, architects and do alot of calculations based on what's going to be built on this rezone property. t II I dont think that anybod here at the council knows whats •going to be built, I dont think the Planningc-e t. has addressed whatb going to be built and yet they ma4 the statement that there is substantial detrimente(hazard in calling the • property MP instead of B. \We dont agree. We feel that a denial of this rezone � • would be a denial for us to demonstate or have the ability to demonstuate -1�e�l • -15- this property can be developed properly. The development process that we are talking abou is covered by the�'ity of Kenton and the state statutes and were constructed specifically to guard gainst allowing a project to go • ahead th t is sutpstantiaily detrimentalgto itself and other properties. We purchaselthis prdperty per the Ccitys request and cooperated in every manner that we know of vith the City agreement-. of Fenton in planning the property to be a quality frst class development. . We would appreciate the city rezoning this property. to allow us a logical and financial ability to answer the issues which lin our opinion have been assumed in the total absense of any hard data. I meat 'w rezoning this property is a name changeand therefore could cause no detrimental affect on any property inc uding onto itself regarding floodin4I` . The proof of flooding is incumbent to a large number of fIeedings !Stud'ies, none of which have been conducted towards the property . and we would certainly appreciate the ability to conduct these studies with some confidence. ' Therefore) we are reporting this evening asking for an approval on a req ested rezone. - Thank you. 1 Myor: Council' do snt have a question) ' Mr Clemens could you please enlighten us on the three s paate times its been stated the $fanning Otpt asked Mr. Gilmore to purchase the p 'perty that is now i sued for ezone. I am fully aware that you were not the director h - p for Why would we ask someone to buuIl property ? Clemens: I am no sure who made this statement . I personally did not make that statement. 4he logic h wever1 is very good. The applicant proposal was to construct a-eentinneas- continues to beta warehouse area in this ,roperty witk t-shaped property with lot spacing on Powell Ave. • S.W. and a street to be constructed west of Creek of/ both sides of • thgc area. Becaus�, of the location of the bridge under 405, Valley parkway would be forced to be located 0, D i41A alignment which the applicant is now Z.;--- well aware of , (owever, at the time that before they purchased th e property)theJr roadway in order to achieve their design that they sought, would hav been located in this location separted by' very narro& and very d'fficult to use strips from a new roadway in galley parkway so there "s benefit on oth sides; obviously from the dity5 standpoint _. . ' :...A 0440 the developme t standpoint ta, single road serving the same purpose makes alo more sense than two arallel roads serving the' same purpose. . Madam Chairman: Once again for the records my name is David Schuman, Im a partner in lsr City Eq. and.my adress is 900 Fourth Ave, Seattle, WA. I would just like to touch on a couple of issues that wottidwere left out. •First of all, when we first came before the city, Mr. Gonnason, •who was the`d)ublic • Qorks director, Mr. Erickson who was. the.efanning iarector when we first came with the original ' 5 acres that we first had, 73 of which we had rezoned �w the gentlemen who made the request that we acquire,addiiti nal property in order to facili� ate a better plan.a.nd Me did do that° so-that 's one thing I wanted to point ¶f�ut. Item No. 2)the 'H.E. is _referring to a number of places concerned about flooding on adjacent properties. I dorit think that it has been pointed out by anybody that surrounding �*w stern boundary of.. our property is}METRO sewerage wk ek s-entirely plant which is entirely,Qg. -t- so there is no rea ly no flood problem by our development 'affecting adjacent property ' ,,, ner. �We have Metro plant on one side, we haveI existing industrial, .Earlington(. ,ndustr al-fark on th other sideoar �dn Tile flood waters will come through the existing iarlington" ark onto our property and ewe- off of our property as fast a? possible. The existing P-1 pump station• and there was testimony to this to various reports was currently operating about 10 percent of its capacity. Our system as designed for our 1st phase is to carry the flood water up towards the north and then overDhe existing P-1 -16- e 0 w-- area to avoid goi g into. '" _areas o'f Springbrook reek so the areas where we talk about concern 0A...t:-8- P-1 channel we think that given the rezone we have the abili to go out and solve those flooding problems. In 1979, when we came before yo what we received was a conditional rezone. TheiPrettonA. s- that we go out an perform substantial environmental impacts statements of studies and when we get a]l that done come back to the city and we deal with you at that point. Thats what we are here for now. The preliminary plat has been approved based on the studlles that have been recommendaed for. approval, based on studies that have been run based, on our conditional rezone) so I think what we are asking for this evening is a similar situation where the' rezone is' granted and as my partner stated, we still cant develop, on that unitl we me back and prove the issue o flooding, litaherefore we request that the rezone be approved. Mayor Thank you.+ Question& • Madam Mayor, Mayor : Mr.� Stredicke Stredicke: �I thili k�that the council would be taking a very serious wring move in going against ,he H. 'S.Srecommendation. and the -lanning,Dept out' (12- " involvement of th drainage channel. . The property owner that petiitioned for the rezone 4. k �2. property owner of record for better than three years and has not develope lany material to convince me`we should stand that danger of letting one development 1 t go t.1..kb that valley before we consider whether or not we really need to have a drainage channel. I think the city is going to be incurring more li bility if every single gereex-that-petit efted- 'permit thats issued down there as far as the name only type-a€-zene-gave-the-pfepertp title that the gentlema gave the propertylrzone4) that�s a bunch of hogwash. There is a reason for the rezone and a reason for it now, . from the developer..l+kas to do . with finances. a&d. 4ll it would do for the city is in rease that possibility of liability until w know whats coming. tuu:1...Ga2 eyes closed. -ire-8treel ek- Mayor Mr. Stred ou have in � spoken against a motion that- ntet ict _- is not before the co° cil. Stred: That is correct. Madam MayW. Mayor: Mr. Rockhill Rock: I would li e to make a comment in answering that to this extent that if it is agreed by a 1 parties concerned that if P-1 wes there there is no reason for not chat the gest. So then the only thing that P-1 does is t take care�drainage. Now, is there only one way to take care of the . drainage? That is the question. Can they take care of the'drainage? Not whether they are going tout more buildings down there . That has already been decided because ' said if we got P-l)we'll develop it) because P-1 handles the drainage. The qu stion is drainage and I think that is a technical problem and should be handled by technicians. ladam Mayor.I would like to just.get something on the floor. I would like to move - that the council •rant the appeal of the 1st city eq. regarding the rezone of the roperty of Earli gton4ndustrial' ark and refer this matter• to' the Gays and Means Vommittee. . Second. //11 It has been move• by Mr. Rockhill, seconded by Mr.Shane)that the eityaouncil grant -17- the appeal of the 1.t city eq. prop. owner.and refer the matter to the Uys and Keans ommittee. T e effect of this motion is to allow the rezone. Ready for the question. Madam Mayor. Mayor: Mr. Clymer, then Mr. Stredickee Clymer: Madm May s•eaking against the motion this particular case)I believe the Vt.Q. is correct in his decision. .The.Ci.ty douncil were to i. rezone this ` porperty and I dorit think that two council members agree on Mr. Rock- c�- but I dont see that. That was a decision by all people present which were plannersd'the develo ers and so forth The Councils responsibility whenever these things come iie to find out there is an error in law or an error in fact and regardless of that if we • by right the zoning comes in the zlipnis by the fact that does it need alltthe criteria in t the long ange planhinge In this particularOistanceitLat if the city has- thi_-s. t gas now is the time for MP to go into that area) we are giving it our OK to go. If we say there are problems there as indicated, ®ices up to you to solve them, And- 6ut, we're goi g to give you the redone as suggested but the . of identifying the. � roblem and up to ydu to solve it. Tha oesnt really get the city off t hook, ' oint that ,I would like to:make is that what if they cant solve the and they sell the property to a second owner. Then he comes in with a idea tha here it is and then our solution is we have to buy back' the property at a highe density and a higher value. We have done that before. We chang ethe zoning prematurely and end6d up having to bey purchase back property where we have given! the zoning only a .year or two before, at a higher rate. We . dont know what the engineering is going to .be in this area. Ail. we have is a plan, we dont knowI what the facts are. So I support) aae3 therefore.I am voting against th-_lIl Lproposal. Mayor: Mr. Stred, ou asked for the floor. fr^L. Stred: Madam Mayor I just want to point out that the motion" made simply was to grant a rezo e and not to necessaryby the way it was made to overturn -''f1ie H.E. and 4ts b en my recollection th7E whenever the council has been in a position wheIQthey are overturning the H.E. they were supposed to be able to state A B C why we were overturning the H.E. and I did not hear ant A B C. Mayor: Mr. Stredi ke)I am going to restate the motion to make sure that -the . itAtaQh,agrees. T e motion was to 'grant the appeal of 1st city eq. and to allow the rezone and to efer the matter to the ways and Means ( om. T ats right ( ./ Madam-Mayes- Rockhill: Mad. May Reekklll Mayor/ mr. Rock Cep. The- Rock: The reason you do not have ABC is a matter of grevity?? If you wish I can read off the whole thing but they state what we have been talking about the whole time. Mayor: (several voices -18- Rockhill: They are hated- th-re in the appeal, by saying the appeal they are all listed in there. 49 .Mayor: The council Im sure understandsthe intent. The Question a La for, All those in- members of council in favor of the motion, say aye. and those oppose, say no. Chair is in doubt and roll call has been, requested. City Clerk: Stred-No Rock-aye _ Hughes-no clymer no trim aye ,. shane aye reed no 3 ayes 4 nos O° E9 L�'�"- May: Motion loses. W� Lir �. Mr. Shan k Sba e: I would jut like D C -Planning krector running this town. I am tired of it. Mayor: Mr--S13ane- I guess Mr. Shane every time youV on the short end of the vote) we have to reorgan"ze the city Shane no mad. mays isten I can say certain things on this council. But I get in seeing people here in trying to stop growth in this town. Mayen Point of Order. May State your point of order Mr. Stred. Stred: The action of the council was to (several voices) May The action of the council was in effect to deny the rezone, ..0.041- arIAALei . Stred: j that is the council action. May: That is the Council action. That is correct. tpa. Mad. Mayor. Mayor: Mr. Rock pp Rockhill: We had two reports from the$lannin and Ibvelopment�e�ommit e. I would like to move that the council concur with the-Manning and Oevleopment Committee on the second report regakding the preliminary plat. Seeeaded- Seconded. Mayorl Its been m ved by Mr. Rockhill, seconded by Mr. Reed that the council concur in the Planning and pevelopment committee report with regard to the preliminary plat. -19- Mayor: Is there a question? All those in-fever members of the council in favor of the planning and glev aom report, say aye. 611 those oppose? The ayes have it 'and the motion carries. Mr. Leppo) Do you understand the effect of the second motion so you can explain it to your client? Leppo: yes • nn Mayor: We are still under the 4udience (Comment. Mr Kellogg, Kellogg Mad. Mayl oThe recommendation of the planning kept to the-� -C(_d1^� the4lanning and ®ev. (lom. was that the matterbin effect $2 tabled or . te denied without prejudice ; in other words, it could be raised. If_you 41 recall our zoning code requires a one year eriod of time a in which apIication can be renewed and I think the Manning Director join me in urging 'that the Council deny the appeal without pr.ejudice41/9 filing a new application ltn the event that the P-1 channel is constructed or other developments occurkthin the one year period which might make it an appropriate development at that time. Mayor: The effect of the motion was tiita. it lost so it tS in limbo at this time. I think it ould be appropriate for another motion then to or the understanding simply .,�is that this rezone is held in abev e in effect. Perhaps the suggestlIion of the matter simply be tabled so that a whole another hearing process is \not required. I f the matter. . .he c � wLe vA, Mayor: -0 motionto deny the rezone. (unknown voice'y_ ��� the fecct of t 5 Mad. May. The motion made was to overturn the }1.g.. decision.That lost. The matter is in limbo. The council hasnt voted (voices) The point now islC ouncil to table, remand, deny. It still hasnt been settled. Thats whykthe possiblity tabling it until II t , µl\ ttit%eis * � lAse1Q �Mayor: t is my understanding that this would offer some relief then to the petitioners. Is that correct? Unknown: Absolutely. Mayor: It simply has� not. . . . Unknown .4.fe matter was not finally adjudicated (sp) at this point , then the matter of the rezone11in the orange property there would simply be in limbo. They would be able to complete their prelim plat but would not have to go thru the H.E. process again if the circumstanceslchanged. qtabe Mayor: Mr. Stred. y ju have a questions. Stred; Mad May I mole that the matter of the rezone ai-lington'ark be remanded to the H.E. office. (Seconded.) Mayor: It s been movied and seconded that the matter fie- +egeaaA- of the rezone be remanded limeit to the H.E. office. Mad. May. Mayor, Mr. Shane . `J0.4..om0 `Q y`D . 111Q14:4.%fil: ) 6/1/ C - nta l 1 ; Sgane; _ The council is just playing games. -.tlai ghiLa- • May: Mr. Shane/�ee�council is doing exactly what they are here for, a glirAvairmtr body trying to fihd.an equitable solution for petitioners (voices) There is a motion before the council at this time, if the makers 'still wish to go with it-. Unknown voice4o-----the motion is out of order. Mayor: State your point of order Mr. r • c LAAAAC 1 tJos^ Unknown: _ Mad. May. i - at the time, you made a ruling on'the motion and the motion was to overturn the-examiner. • Q� " r 0 • . Mayor: _ No. 4ieresated it and tip-did not include that phrase . It was to 4- interrruptions Unknown:- 5therefore, no action has been taken on the 'Examiners o' recommendtion. Is that correct? ' . , - • Yes. (unknown voice) -. Stred; Mad May I move- that this matter- be tabled. Mayor: You are going to- have. to :get- someone to withdraw the- second from the • previous motion.: - . Second withdrawn. . - . . ' May: It has'now been moved and seconded that and this is -a nondebatable matter hat the matter be -tabled. Ail those members of the council in faVor say. . . nterruption by shave) Mad. May. -Mayor: Its undebateable. Shane: I would just like to ask... Call. . - 1,(,*at;+'-C10"- //o Le.._ .Ca4-C.L- . Mayor: All those ;counci.l members :in favor in tabling this subject say aye. all oppose. - . . The ayes have it and the' subject matter is tabled. . • May: . 'Mr. Leppo: Do 'you understand what we just did? - • Mayor:_ -its been' moved and seco ale at w - have a five. minute recess. -The chair is going to assume,i cAkraid-yam° ►'s'r a torneys to speak to your attorneys in attorney language o All those, in favor say aye and those oppose') Ayes have it. Recess. - • - i . Invoice No 35 2 CITY OF RENTON 200 MILL AVENUE SOUTH RENTON, WASH I NGTON 98055 CITY CLERK'S OFFICE 235-2500 Department or Division Date August, 6, 1981 r First City Equities ' Please make checks 3818 Bank of California Center payable to 900 Fourth Avenue Finance Department Seattle, WA 98164 City of Renton L Attn: Barbara Moss ' Re: Verbatim Transcript of June 15, 1981, Renton City Council Meeting First City Equities Hours July 22 * 3 (2 overtime hours) July 23 3 (2 overtime hours) July 28 1 July 30 3 (2 overtime hours) August 4 4.5 August 5 5.5 August 6 2.5 • Total hours 22.5 22.5 hours @ $8.0712 per hour $181.60 *Overtime hours equal time and a half of pay rate. To't4,I .Du.e _$181 .60 a VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT RENTON CITY COUNCIL MEETING June 15, 1981 1 RE: FIRST CITY EQUITIES, REZONE, R-057-80, Earlington Park 2 AUDIENCE COMMENT 3 Mr. Leppo stepped forward to the podium. 4 Leppo: My name is Jeffrey Leppo and I am here as attorney for First City 5 Equities. My address is Bogle & Gates, Bank of California Center, Seattle, 6 Washington 98164. I would request at this time that the Council advance the agenda to consider the First City Equities Earlington rezone and preliminary 8 plat. 9 Mayor: This is the Planning and Development Committee report? 10 Rockhill: Madam Mayor. 11 Mayor: Mr. Rockhill. 12 Rockhill: I move we suspend the order of business and move to the report of 13 the Planning and Development Committee on this subject. 14 Second. 15 Mayor: It has been moved by Mr. Rockhill, seconded by Mr. Hughes, to suspend 16 the order of business and advance to the Planning and Development Committee 17 report on this subject. All those members in favor say 'aye. ' And those 18 oppose4e. The ayes have it and Ms. Mead, if you would read the Planning and 19 Development Committee report. 20 (Ms. Mead, City Clerk, read the rezone report of the Planning and Development 21 Committee. Copy attached.) 22 Madam Mayor. 23 Mayor: Mr. Stredicke. 24 Stredicke: Could I inquire on the correspondence on the agenda that deals 25 with the Earlington Park rezone appeal is pertinent to the Committee's report 26 and whether it should be read at this time? 27 Mayor: Do you understand Mr. Stredicke' s question, Ms. Mead? 28 Ms. Mead: (Seeking correspondence) 29 Mayor: Correspondence regarding the Earlington, is that connected with the 30 First City Equities appeal? 31 Unknown: Yes it is, Madam Mayor. 32 Mayor: I think that at this point--Mr. Clemens (Acting Planning Director) 33 do you have something to add that would help everyone move this thing along 34 or would it be more appropriate after this correspondence Mr. Stredicke has t -2- 1 requested to be read? 2 Clemens: I think that the correspondence is appropriate. While Ms. Mead 3 is reading that, I will put up these exhibits. 4 Mayor: O.K. (unintelligible) Ms. Mead, would you read the correspondence 5 Mr. Stredicke referred to? 5 Madam Mayor. 7 Mayor: Yes, Mr. Leppo. 3 Leppo: I also suggest that at this time we consolidate the consideration of the preliminary plat as they are very closely related. 1J Mayor: O.K. Mr. Clemens, is that appropriate, do you believe? ? 1 Clemens: I would think that one is alot simpler than the other so it would be possible for discussion. Mayor: The point of everyone in this room is to get it cleared up. If you 4 would like to be seated (referring to Mr. Clemens) , we will proceed. Ms. Mead, do you have the correspondence? Ms. Mead: Yes, I do. (Ms. Mead read the correspondence. Copy attached.) 17 Madam Mayor. 18 Mayor: Mr. Rockhill. 19 Rockhill: I question whether this letter should be read because I don't see 20 any new information there and when the Planning and Development Committee hears 21 an appeal, we do not take any new testimony unless it is bringing information 22 which could not be presented earlier and I would like a ruling from the attorney 23 on whether this should have been allowed to be read. 24 Attorney (Mr. Kellogg) : Madam Mayor and the members of the City Council: I 25 think Mr. Rockhill's point is well taken in principle. I think if the Council 26 considers the letter an argument and does not consider the facts as to be testi- • 27 mony in and of itself, now there is maybe a slight distinction there but every- =3 thing that is said here tomight is merely argument and it is not necessarily fact in and of itself and I think one can construe certainly that if it was 30 advanced as evidence, it would not be admissable, because the evidence was all 31 given at the hearing. Butlit is advanced as argument, then I think the Council 32 should take it for what it is worth, as argument. 33 Madam Mayor. 34 Mayor: Mr. Leppo. • -3- • 1 Leppo: I think the distinction the Council raises is somewhat elusive. 2 Lauri Johnson spoke at the original public hearing. She was also present at 3 the Committee's consideration of this matter last Thursday at which time she 4 did not speak. I think that the letter which was not submitted to us in advance, 5 is more than argumentative in that it serves a number of facts that were not 6 raised by Ms. Johnson during her numerous opportunities to raise that on the 7 record and that it should not be admissable. 8 Madam Mayor. 9 Mayor: . Mr. Stredicke. 10 Stredicke: If anyone in the audience wanted to speak tonight on audience 11 comment which comes before this matter would be before the council, whatever 12 they say could be heard by all members of the council. This matter was on the 13 agenda as an agenda item and would have been read prior to any action on this 14 thing anyway. Now if somebody wants to think that is going to really sway new 15 evidence into the thing and everything, that is fine. I think that someone is 16 a little scared when they are talking that way. 17 Mayor: Mr. Stredicke, refrain from editorializing, but your point is well 18 taken. Both under Item No. 6, Audience Comment, and Item No. 8, Correspondence 19 and Current Business, this could have been heard by the council. Either that 20 woman could have came to read it herself or stated or asked the clerk to read it. 21 So it could have been. . . Mr. Kellogg, you jumped up, would you care to add 22 to this? 23 Kellogg: I think Council is struggling with the thing that all the attorneys 24 do to try to keep a record clear and at least it's a fact that in these types 25 of proceedings, it is very difficult to keep the record clear since for the most 26 part this body has not, I suspect any of them, actually has read the entire 27 record. I think the burden should shift to the opponents of the materials that 28 have been put forth as argument if he can show us that there is a fact alleged 29 in the letter that is not in the record--in other. words--pretty important new 30 evidence, not just merely arguing about things that are already in the record. 31 If he can show us that it is not in the records and the burden is on him as 32 the appellent, then of course, you would have to disregard it. A judge would tell ' 33 you to disregard the question. Now whether you could do that or not, it's up 34 to you but that's your function. So I think the burden is on the appellent • -4- • 1 to tell us if there is something in the letter, in a sense, that is inadmissable. 2 Madam Mayor. 3 Mayor: Mr. Rockhill. 4 Rockhill: In an effort which I hope won't be futile, to try and avoid alot of 5 arguing over points which I don't think is important, I wonder if we could get 6 to the point that was important, what really came down to what we disagreed 7 upon--what the committee did not agree upon--let's say that, we didn't disagree, 8 we just didn't agree at the meeting and that is basically it was agreed upon 9 by everyone present, that if P-1 existed, there is no problem for rezone. Now 10 that was agreed by everybody present, the City and everyone, that P-1 does not 11 exist, P-1 may or may not exist. So the question is if P-1 exists, what does it 12 do? It takes care of drainage from this property. The appellent claims that if 13 it is rezoned then that puts them in a position where they can hire engineers 14 to try and prove that they can take care of the drainage from this property. 15 Then it becomes a technical problem. If it becomes a technical problem, then 16 it has to be solved by technicians here in the City, not by the City Council. 17 It's out of our hands. It is a technical problem because I don't think the 18 City Council should be the ones to determine that whether this plan for drainage 19 is a good one or that plan for drainage is a good one. That basically is the 20 whole question and the appellent feels that unless it is rezoned, he is not in 21 the position to put the money into this gamble. I find it should be rezoned-- 22 he can take the gamble--if he loses it, that's up to him. If he doesn't want 23 to take the gamble, he can wait for P-1. I think he has the right because there ?4 is nothing holding up the rezoning except the drainage. That was agreed upon. 25 If there is another solution to drainage than P-1, let him find it. That is his 26 problem, not our problem.. I think he should have the privilege of trying to 27 find it if he wants to. and that was really the harder thing. Should we rezone 28 it, let him find it, and let the technicians decide did he get a good system 29 or not. If he doesn't, they can chop him off and say don't build. If he does, 30 that is the heart of the whole thing. 31 Mayor: Council will bear with me, my log reads (unintelligible) (laugh) 32 Mr. Reedm you were the other half of this committee? Has that been stated, 33 not that you agreed, but has it been fairly stated that that was the problem? 34 Reed: Essentially. -5- 1 Mayor: Mr. Clemens, is this the time for you to get on the white horse and 2 come out here and help out? 3 Clemens: I am not sure I can express. . . (interruption) 4 Mayor: I think that what is needed is that all council members who were not present to the testimony at the appeal have some laymen's notion of what 6 occurred there so they can make a reasonable judgement in this matter. Clemens: The question relates to the property that is shown in orange. (Referring to the exhibits) The current Springbrook Creek alignment is approxi- mately in this fashion. Springbrook Creek currently floods all or portions of, 0 significant portions of, this rezone area. The question that Mr. Rockhill, 1 I believe, currently stated was should the decision on this rezone proceed before . 2 or after the decision on the P-1 Channel? The staff, the Planning Department 3 staff, is auditing the Examiner's decision, felt that it is policy question, i4 that related not only to this property, but to other properties in the valley, L5 that if the P-1 Channel is not constructed, that the Council would be faced 6 with a much bigger policy that not just rezoning 25 acres, but what to 'do 7 with development with the remaining 1,200 acres in the valley. Mr. Rockhill's 8 contention was that the applicant has stated that he can find an on-site solution 9 to that problem and I believe that with enough engineering and enough money, 0 he is probably correct. Our difficulty was a much larger policy issue in argue 1 and that is as simple as I can state it. Mayor: Mr. Clemens, , a portion of the pump station or the P-1 Channel will be 3 . . . .. (End of tape 1) Clemens: (unintelligible) . . . and extends southerly to Grady Way which 5 frankly would affect this property in a very positive fashion, if it was 6 constructed. '7 Mayor: Mr. Reed, do you care to add anything at this point? 8 Reed: Madam Mayor, correct'me if I am wrong. If the pump station, if P-1 9 Channel is put in Tract A, it would be definitely (unintelligible) . 0 Clemens: Substantial portions of Tract A are part of the detention pond, 1 that is correct. '2 Mayor: I need to give the Attorney a chance at this point. Is that your 3 understanding that Tract A will in effect be the holding pond or detention 1 pond for standing water? -6- 1 Attorney: Seventeen acres of it, Madam Mayor, will be as you can see from the 2 preliminary plat. P-1 Channel is designed to go like this (pointing to map) 3 and this portion from hereon is on First City Equities property. Here's 4 Tract A, right here (pointing to map) so all this portion of the property is 5 the detention pond and this portion is not and is developable if the rezone 6 is granted in this area. I might add that this entire area (unintelligible) 7 . . . dedicate this for the purpose of the P-1 Channel. So it is this portion 8 (unintelligible) and not the entire Tract A. 9 Madam Mayor. 10 Mayor: Mr. Shane: 11 Shane: Madam Mayor, (unintelligible) What bothers me is that we received a 12 letter tonight that made me kind of laugh because I thought to myself we save 13 shorelines and all that stuff and this is just something (unintelligible) of 14 what you come up with. Is it -- our own Planning Director says it's going to 15 be relined and it would have to be drenched out so (unintelligible) . Aren't 16 you going to have a 400 feet strip in there, is what our Planning Director is 17 asking here. 18 Mayor: I have a great deal of (unintelligible) . .we are going to have a channel 19 140 feet wide. 20 Shane: (unintelligible) . . . 200 feet on each side so I don't figure how you 21 get more than 400 out of there or less. . . (unintelligible) Now to my knowledge 22 before when God made that river down there he didn't have a 400 feet wide river 23 either. and (unintelligible) . . . all this planning stuff what we have in 24 here all of a sudden, (unintelligible) and so what I am getting at Madam Mayor 25 is this. If the Planning Department can come up here, they just use an arbitory . 6 figure all the time, I would like to know this, on this Channel, I read that 27 Black River Pump Station would alleviate the water problems. Now I 'm wondering 28 if we add Black River Channel in there, where is this big water problem we got 29 if it is going to be alleviated when we put the pump station in, I mean something 30 doesn't add up to me all the time. 31 Mayor: Somewhere in there, there is a question and I 'm going to take a shot at 32 an answer. Once upon a time because they expect a -- what amounts to a 100-year 33 flood in the valley -- they designed a channel system that is going to be 34 300 feet wide and almost twelve miles long. That was aesthetically unacceptable • -7- 1 to everybody that looked at it. They redesigned it and made it 140 feet wide 2 and it meanders instead of taking a straight shot. A 140 feet wide (I did 3 learn something about hydrolics) when you take 300 feet down to 140, the water 4 moves alot faster which changed the alignment of the channel. A 140 feet 5 strip will go through their property. If I understand the attorney, they have 6 dedicated them some 200 feet. (interruption) 7 Attorney: What will be dedicated is the absolute channel and the detention 8 pond that is on the property which .amounts to slightly over 17 acres, but we 9 are not talking about anything other than the actual channel itself and detention 10 pond. 11 Madam Mayor. 12 Mayor: Mr. Stredicke, then Mr. Rockhill. 13 Stredicke: Mr. Shane's information is God didn't have a 400 feet river there 14 but God had easement for flooding over a lot bigger area than that. 15 Mayor: We could have done without that, Mr. Stredicke. 16 (Laughs) 17 Madam Mayor. 18 Unknown Voice: I've been waiting for the appellent to have someone explain 19 tonight.the way he did the other day which I thought was rather well about 20 how. . . as I have said the question, if P-1 is builtlthere is no problem. If 21 P-1 is not built that is the problem, whether they can find another way to handle 22 this water. They showed us the other day, I thought, a possibility. I have 23 heard them say nothing about that tonight and . . . (many/voices speaking) 24 Voice: We intend to. 25 Mayor: Now, are we agreed Mr. Reed, (and you have to help with this, Mayor 26 said to someone) the contention of the committee is if P-1 was built, no problem, 27 the rezone would be acceptable. 28 Voice: Yes. 29 Mayor: If possible prospect of P-1 won't be built, then an alternative to provide 30 for drainage would have to be made acceptable before a rezone was acceptable to 31 you as a committee member? It's easy for me to say . . . (laughs) Is that 32 about right? 33 Voice: Yes, Madam Mayor, my contention was that this rezone is premature because 3' -8- 1 the P-1 Channel. . . (unintelligible) My feeling was that these guys might be 2 wasting their money and they might not be and it comes out to a question of 3 whether they want to go ahead and waste their money and not know whether the 4 P-1 goes in. I guess that's a council decision. 5 Mayor: Was this meeting prior to the Thursday meeting that we had on the 6 P-1 Channel? ] Voice: It was about 4 hours prior. 8 Mayor: All right. Was direction given to the Council. . the Council gave to 9 the mayors at that time are. . is this gentleman aware of that direction? 10 Voice: I wouldn't know. 11 Mayor: I think it should be stated now, and help if I overstate it gentlemen, 12 the mayors of the valley were given exclusive instructions by their council to 13 talk to the property owners down there and by July 2, we have been told by the ' n corp of engineers that if we don't have an answer by October 1 that project is 5 dead so for a timing thing you should probably be aware of that. And the mayors are going to proceed and follow paths of instruction to discuss the P-1 on July 30. Now, Council, you want to hear what the proposal is for alleviating the flooding problem in the event the channel is not built. Is that correct? Madam Mayor. Mayor: Would you identify yourself for the Clerk? Schuman: Yes, my name is David Schuman and I am a partner with First City Equities and I would like to address the;Council if I •may. There seems to be 23 a little bit of confusion. If I could just take a moment, hopefully, to try 24 and straighten things out. There were two issues that came before the Hearing 25 Examiner originally. One was a request for a rezone of the area that is outlined 26 ) in the orange (referring to map) which is approximately 25 acres of land. The 27 second thing that came before the Hearing Examiner is a preliminary plat approval. 28 on the development as its shown there, Phase 1 into the lots with a Tract A 29 and Tract B. The Hearing Examiner came forth with two decisions. The denial 30 on the rezone and the approval of the preliminary plat with the provision that . ` 31 we provide a 200 feet strip on each side of Springbrook Creek and the abandoned 32 Black River Channel. We appealed both of those decisions, the rezone and the 33 preliminary plat approval. There is a number of conditions on the preliminary 34 plat approval. We only appealed one. The 200 feet setback. -9- • 1 Mayor: As an error in fact or law or . . . 2 Schuman: Yes, both. 3 Mayor: And you cited? 4 Schuman: We cited numerous instances where we felt the Hearing Examiner errored. 5 The planning sub-committee on Thursday evening voted 2 to 0 to overturn the 6 Hearing Examiner's decision on the 200 feet setback on the preliminary plat. 7 And as Mr. Rockhill said one to one on whether to overturn the Hearing Examiner 8 on the rezone so that is where I think some of the complications are coming 9 in. The 200 feet setback on either side of Springbrook Creek was a condition 10 of the preliminary plat approval so . . . (interruption) 11 Voice: Madam Mayor. I wonder if we should not have the other half of the 12 Planning and Development Committee report read. We keep on referring to it and 13 the people out here have no idea what he is referring to. 14 Mayor: Is the matter that council could consider now and in no way telegraphs 15 their feelings on the other matter? 16 Rockhill: I feel that the two things are wrapped together, John. How do you 17 feel? 18 John: They are Madam Mayor. It was my feeling that the second appeal (unintelli- 19 gible) could be held by our Planning Department as far as the setback issues 20 are concerned. The Planning Department recommended that we concur with their 21 request and again it was my understanding the Planning Department could handle 22 any limitations or any restrictions they needed in regard to this setback. '3 Mayor: Mr. Clemens, is that the Planning Department's decision that the fact that your department could handle those conditions appropriately? Clemens: The applicant agreed with our recommendation to the committee that 26 the dedication, rather than beinga dedication for an unknown purpose or an 27 (unintelligible) purpose, for specific purpose and that is the P-1 Channel. 28 The applicant has agreed that the dedication should be for the P-1 Channel. At 29 such time there are permits adjacent to the Springbrook Creek or the P-1 30 Channel if anyone wishes a place at that time the application is made. Shoreline 31 permit and site plan approval through the Hearing Examiner both are required 32 and both would be scrutinized appropriately. 33 Mayor: Since the Planning Department agrees and two members of the Planning 34 and Development Committee agree, is it your belief that council could act on -10- • • 1 that portion without impacting or giving up their right to act on the rest of 2 it independently? 3 Madam Chairman. (voice unknown) 4 Mayor: I'm going to ask my Planning Director if he would like to answer that 5 first and then . . . 6 Clemens: I believe that it would be satisfactory but the Council may feel that 7 there are some undertying pieces but the plat appears to be essentially a 8 separate issue from a question of the rezone. 9 Mayor: All right. Mr. Leppo. 10 Leppo: The reason that I think there is a concern here is the plat is for 11 the entire piece of property right now and we are talking about including the 12 rezone and. that if council proceeds prior to the rezone then we have to 13 determine which piece of property we are talking about. 14 Mayor: So, we will save the best for last, only there appears to be . . . 15 (interruption) 16 Madam Mayor. 17 Mayor: Mr. Shane. 18 Shane: I would like to ask one question. I would like to know what the word 19 'blackmail' means? I'm aware here . . . ; 0 Mayor: Mr. Shane, even the Attorney is appalled at that. I 'm not going to 21 allow that. Rephrase your question. Shane: Madam Mayor, there's been a question at the back of my mind. If one 23 person has a piece of property where they say is going to be the P-1 Channel, 24 another person isn't on that, he gives up nothing. But the person who is trying 5 to get his property sold, he has to (unintelligible) so now, what I 'm wondering ; 6 about, everybody here is a taxpayer--one man has his property condemned by an act of planning, you might say. Another person can get his property zoned. 28 Something doesn't add up to me. (unintelligible) . . through a condemnation ?9 process, not through a planning process and . . . (unintelligible) s0 Madam Mayor. Mayor: Mr. Leppo. 32 Leppo: I think that to be helpful to begin with, a little background--as you 33 can see, that's the preliminary plat we are talking about is our acreage 34 -11- 1 surrounded by the black line (referring to map) . The green there is not 2 primarily on the . . . Mr. Clemens can indicate where the line is there. That 3 is the (unintelligible) property line right there. In 1979, First City Equities 4 obtained a rezone for 73 acres, which is the rest of the property that is not 5 orange or brown up there. All that property that is white and that part of 6 it is also part of the detention pond of P-1 Channel in Tract A, is all rezoned 7 M-P already, manufacturing park. We are solely concerned with the rezone with 8 that strip of approximately 25 acres running along the western boundary of the 9 property. Subsequent to the rezone in 1979, First City Equity obtained title 10 to that property. It is important to be aware that title was obtained at 11 the request of the City. It was realized at that time if the project proceeded 12 as it was currently planned, there would be an undevelopable island--piece of 13 property between the access road running along the property line and the proposed 14 Valley Parkway. It was therefore suggested by the City to First City Equity 15 that they purchase this property to permit a more logical development to occur. 16 They did in fact do that and are here now to obtain the rezone for that portion. 17 I think it is also important to understand that the addition of this 25 acres 18 provides additional flexibility in the development as the Hearing Examiner i9 recognized in his own decision. This isplanned to be a g quality development with 20 open space, landscaping and aesthetic sensitivity and the elimination of 25 21 acres seriously jeopardizes the flexibility that is impairing the project as 22 it is planned. We would suggest that the same considerations that led the City 23 to request First City Equity to enlarge this parcel are still applicable today 24 and suggest that this rezone be approved. Now, (interruption) 25 Mayor: I think that we should be very careful that we are not getting into 26 deciding whether or not this is a quality development and all that. As I 27 understand, Mr. Rockhill and Mr. Reed, they agreed that the problem is the timing. 28 Leppo: Right. Turning to what was the sole issue of contention at the committee 29 meetings, I think Councilman Rockhill properly characterized what the issue is. 30 We all agree that the rezone is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. We 31 all agree that the rezone is in what is known as the flood way branch. We all " 32 agree that if the P-1 Channel is built, then the flooding problem is alleviated. 33 We all agree that the rezone does not permit development within this area but 34 without a permit according to the ordinances of Renton, we all agree that • -12- 1 without the P-1 development, --can'only occur if First City Equity can engineer 2 a storm water (unintelligible) system that is acceptable to the City. Where 3 we disagree with the planning staff is that it is our belief that the sufficiency 4 of an engineer (unintelligible) system is a technical issue and one to be decided 5 by the planning staff in granting a permit under the Renton Flood Control 6 Ordinance. It is not a legislative decision whether a storm water drainage system 7 be engineered without the P-1 Channel. It is a technical issue. 8 Mayor: It could become a political issue. You understand that (unintelligible) 9 if for any reason the channel fails, it isn't built, then this council and that 10 of Kent and Tukwila and everyone else in the valley is going to have to decide 11 how many people are going to build, how much more down there when we cannot 12 'guarantee any kind of protection against flooding. 13 Leppo: I understand and what I'm saying is that the consideration of whether 14 any property--this property can be developed is a decision that is most logically 15 made by the planning staff based upon their ability to convey water to the P-1 16 pump station through an engineering system if the P-1 Channel is not built. 17 It does not affect other properties nor is it_in effect a policy decision on whether 18 development should occur that is subject to flooding because development cannot 19 occur on this rezone property unless we can demonstrate to the City that there 20 is no flood potential and it will not harm other properties. Granting this 21 rezone will have no effect whatsoever on First" City Equity's obligation to make 22 that kind of demonstration.• 2 3 Mayor: I have a question to ask if you do not construe it as argumentative 24 simply to move this thing along. 25 Leppo: Sure. 26 Mayor: I fully understand that time is money. There is I presume great ob- 27 jection by your clients to waiting until the issue of the P-1 Channel is resolved 28 and I would not ask--I know this thing has been going on for twenty years-- 2 9 but they have truly. .the gauntlet is thrown down, a decision must be made by 30 October. If possible, a decision will be made in mid July. Now, is that 31 onerous for your client to. . . 32 Leppo: May I respond to that? When we originally acquired this property in 33 1979 and came before the City for the first time, it was in February, 1979. 34 We were told that a decision was going to be made by July of 1979 on the P-1 ! . -13- 1 Channel or it was going to die. We were then told in 1980 that a decision was 2 going to be made on the P-1.Channel by a certain date, or it was going to die. 3 We are now two years later being told again that a decision was going to be made 4 on the P-1 Channel so our reluctance to wait is based on the last 212 years of 5 being told that a decision was immediately forthcoming on the P-1 Channel and 6 to this date, not having one. 7 Mayor: I guess about the only thing I can say is that you have been talking • 8 to technical people up until now and two city council members who have the 9 power and the authority of the council to make this decision gave us the direction 10 on Thursday night following this meeting. 1.1 Leppo: Madam, the question is nevertheless that development in this area is 12 not one to occur--is not dependent upon a decision on the P-1 Channel and this 13 rezone should not be dependent upon it. If the P-1 Channel does go forward and 14 a decision is made in October, then we can all agree that there is no problem 15 with flooding here. The only situation is that if it doesn't go forth. If it ' 6 doesn't go forth and First City Equities cannot demonstrate to the City that it can convey storm water to an engineered system, then it cannot develop in ' this rezone area and only First City Equities is out of money. It is their I �l money out of pocket and there is no damage to the City or to other property • owners. 21 Mayor: Mr. Kellogg? 22 Kellogg: Madam Mayor and members of the City Council. Speaking in support 23 of the recommendation of the Planning Director, I think if the 1979 rezone 24 were back here before the council, the Planning Department would make a 25 different recommendation then they did at that time. Their recommendation 26 at this point is that this matter be deferred until the matter of the drainage 27 be finally determined, that it is premature to make this decision right now. 28 Council is correct that there will be a second tier of decision making as to 29 whether the development will occur within the orange boundary and within the flood 30 (unintelligible) , excuse me, and that will be the substantial development 31 (unintelligible) as part of the shoreline management program. The recommendation 32 of the Planning Department is grounded on the fact that why should we allow the 33 increasing of the densities to M-P uses at this time when we know very well at 34 least there is no showing of the record, of engineering possibilities to allow • , -14- • 1 the development to M-P standards. Now let's take another example. If this were 2 not in the flood fringe area, and this rezone were before the council, this would 3 be the last step before the applicant applied for his building permit. Once 4 he had the rezone, he would get his building permit. Therefore the council could 5 not afford to say well let's wait and see how it turns out. If you rezone 6 property to B-1 tomorrow you could have a B-1 use there. Now this situation is 7 unique in that tomorrow you are not likely to have M-P use there because they 8 will have to get their substantial developer's permit and that process has not 9 touched the council. They go from staff to Hearing Examiner to court. But 10 the potential liability which would adhere from a mistake or error in judgement 11 from that process will land right square in your laps for the big lawsuit for 12 damages. It would be the position of the Planning Director. Now at this point 13 why should the City take that risk? What is the City getting to induce it to 14 take that risk? There is nothing stopping the applicant from going ahead with 15 his architect drawings and engineer plans and whatever he has to do and if 16 he would come back to the Hearing Examiner with a substantial technical showing 17 that there is no danger to surrounding properties, then I presume that the 18 Hearing Examiner would say, that is fine, zone it M-P. But you see the applicant 19 must show and the Hearing Examiner must find, that the proposed intensity of use 20 will have no material detrimental effect on surrounding properties. And that's 21 the finding that Mr. Kaufman made that this proposed development would have 22 material and detrimental effect on other properties because if it was developed 23 to M-P standards it would tend to shift the flood water under the properties. 24 The simple question for the council to answer is yes or no. Does the proposed 25 rezone or the increase of the uses allowed within that area, would that have 26 a detrimental impact on the surrounding properties? If you say, yes, M-P uses 27 in that area would have a detrimental effect, then you have to affirm the Hearing 28 Examiner. And that does not stop the plat. They can record the plat as a mixed- 29 zone plat. So that is the simple question. Does it have materially, detrimental 30 impact on the surrounding properties? 31 Mayor: Mr. Kellogg. Without prolonging this, how can council simply substitute • 32 its judgement as to detrimental impact on the surrounding properties? The Hearing 33 Examiner has said it is his belief that it is detrimental. Yes. . .I see, this 34 is not just the committee appeal process, the council can simply say we do not -15- 1 agree with you. 2 Kellogg: No. The Council and the committee have the same rules. Neither body 3 may substitute its judgement. In order for you to reverse the Hearing Examiner, 4 you must find affirmatively that he was in error in saying that this proposal would 5 be materially detrimental to other properties. 6 Mayor: Make sure that is clear to council. 7 Madam Mayor. 8 Mayor: Mr. Shane. 9 Shane: Now that I hear all of this, let me ask two questions. One question is, 10 Mr. Attorney, can the city issue councilmanic bonds unless it affects the whole 11 community? . 12 Mayor: (unintelligible) . . .pertinent to what is before us now. 13 Shane: I would like to get an answer. 14 Kellogg: Madam Mayor. I don't think it pertains to the issue. I don't care 15 to answer that question. 16 Shane: What he means to the issue is this, Madam Mayor. 17 Chair makes a ruling. (Unknown voice) 18 Mayor: I'm going to agree with the attorney, Mr. Shane. 19 Shane: You mean the attorney doesn't know if the councilmanic bonds is the ; 'U issue? That it doesn't pertain to the whole community? 21 Mayor: I guess I'll go way out on a limb. Do you construe that councilmanic ?2 bonds led to the senior citizen center (unintelligible) . 23 Shane: That affected the community. Councilmanic bonds, Madam Mayor, what 24 I'm trying to bring up here tonight, I think that is what is germane to the 25 question of zoning and so forth is under what form will you go aht:ad and develop 26 the Black River Channel? If the issue of councilmanic bonds is the only form and 27 it can't be done unless it pertains to the whole community and half the City has 28 nothing to gain, then every landowner that lives on the hillside will be paying 29 the taxes for this Black River Channel situation down here. So what is germane, 30 is will the City ever go ahead and finance the P-1 Channel? And the man is 31 asking and we have people saying yes we are going to do it. I have my doubts. 32 (unintelligible) 33 Mayor: Your question is in view of the Thursday night meeting, Mr. Shane, and 34 I guess you were there at least at the time I was and I detected not one bit of • -16- 1 sympathy on the part of this City Council to use councilmanic bonds in any 2 fashion for this project. 3 Stredicke: Madam Mayor, I don't see any point in discussing councilmanic 4 bonds. 5 Mayor: I think you're right, Mr. Stredicke. I think Mr. Kellogg has stated 6 this as (unintelligible) and this will go on very simply if the council agrees 7 with the Hearing Examiner that the rezoning of this property at this time may 8 have detrimental effects on other properties down there then I think you have to 9 affirm the Hearing Examiner. If the council does agree. . . Have I stated that 10 correctly? On the contrary, if the council doesn't feel that has been a 11 (unintelligible) then you are entitled to overturn the Hearing Examiner. 12 Mayor: Mr. Clymer. 13 Clymer: Madam Mayor, I have had the feeling all evening we haven't allowed these 14 people to make their presentation because every time they start to talk, 15 someone interupts. Do you have the feeling that you have not had the chance 16 to state your case or . .? 17 Leppo: We do have some additional comments we would like to make, yes. 18 Clymer: I would like to hear their comments and then get on with a decision 19 the council has to make. 20 Leppo: We do have some additional comments we would like to make yet. 21 Clymer: I would like .to hear their comments and then get on with a decision the ?2 council has to make. 23 Leppo: Madam Chairman and Council, I would like to just summarize my own 24 presentation here in response to council's comments. It should be clear to 25 council that the rezoning of this property does not in and of itself increase the 26 density of this property. Nor does the rezone permit development to occur in this 27 area. Council has said if this were another type of property and if it was another 28 kind of rezone then that tomorrow they could go out and develop it. But its not. 29 The fact is that if the rezone is granted, First City Equities cannot go out and 30 develop this property until it can demonstrate to the city satisfactorily that it 31 can engineer a storm water conveyance system that alleviatel any possibility of 32 flooding or damage to other property and that is the issue and therefore the rezone 33 cannot materially detrimentally affect any other property because development does 34 not occur as a result of the rezone. Now I would like to permit an opportunity for -17 Verbatim transcript Renton City Council Meeting June 15, 1981 1 for other members of First City Equities to speak. 2 Barry Gilmore: My name is Barry Gilmore and I am a general partner in First 3 City Equities. My address is 900 Fourth Avenue, Suite 3818, Seattle, Washington. 4 I might take a moment just to review the planning commission's wording on a 5 particular area because I think that the word that she used, Madam Mayor, may in 6 terms of the finding that the Planning Commission had in terms of what 7 (Mayor interrupts) 8 Mayor: Just be careful, Planning Commission, Planning Committee, Planning 9 Department. 10 Gilmore: Planning Department, excuse me. We have a word that they are using 11 that would have substantial detrimental effects on properties and of two properties 12 of other persons located in the vicinity of the site, which I feel is a very definite 13 statement that has (unintelligible) demonstrated at all by any one. I would 14 like to make a number of observations on the Planning Department's division in terms 15 of flooding. Personally, we are unaware of any such evidence in the record showing 16 that any detriment let alone substantial detriment by virture of granting this ; 7 requested rezone would take place. Secondly, the rezone is a change of designation which allows us not to develop anything at all and that the evidence as to the way _ 9 of the development on this property would affect or be affected by other properties : 0 is in our belief a subject properly addressed at the stage when a request for building permit is made by ourselves and at that time the burden of providing responsible development plans and calculations and engineering drawings would 23 fall on us as it does with anybody else that comes in to the City of Renton to 24 attempt to construct a project. There is no hard data in fact as to what will 25 be built here on this property and hence what its effects would be and we don't 26 feel that it is available for a very good reason. We have owned this property ?7 for a little over a year and the reason that we own it is that the same Planning 28 Department that is telling us that we shouldn't be rezoned right now, asked us 29 to acquire it. They asked us to acquire it so that it would aid all of us in ?0 flexibility of planning for the eventual alignment of the P-1 Channel and the 1 Valley Parkway. We feel that we have acted responsibly. We have been before you 32 now-off and on for over two years. We own the property before you put a rezone 33 in; we can't plan our unzoned property to prove or disapprove the Hearing 34 Examiner and sub-committee's position. It wouldn't make sense for us to go out -18- 1 and create in-depth studies to demonstrate First City Equities development on 2 this property whether it could adequately handle water runoff or whether it 3 could flood or any of the other issues that we feel are properly a concern of 4 the planning. We understand that the P-1 Channel has been trying to happen for 5 a long time. We have been suffering through it with all of you. I think that 6 we have demonstrated it with or without the P-1 Channel that the entire develop- 7 ment can take place with the flexibility of either way with or without it and 8 we are to the point in terms of the rezone request that rezoning this property 9 doesn't create any flooding, rezoning this property doesn't create any detrimental 10 situations to anyone because it is a name change and a name change alone. One 11 ' of the process steps that we have to go through in order to demonstrate whether 12 it floods or not is we have to hire civil engineers, soils engineers, structural 13 engineers, architects and do alot of calculations based on what is going to be 14 built on this rezone property. I don't think that anybody here at the council 15 knows what is going to be built. I don't think the Planning Department has 16 addressed what is going to be built and yet they make the statement that 17 there is substantial detrimental hazard in calling the property M-P instead of 18 B. We don't agree. We feel that a denial of this rezone would be a denial for 19 us to demonstrate or have the ability to demonstrate that this property can be 20 developed properly. The development process that we are talking about is 21 covered by the City of Renton and the state statutes and we are constructed 22 specifically to guard against allowing a project to go ahead that is substantially detrimental to itself and other properties. We purchased this property per the c4 City's request and cooperated in every manner that we know of with the City of 25 Renton in planning the property to be a quality first-class development. We 26 would appreciate the City rezoning this property to allow us a logical and 27 financial ability to answer the issues which in our opinion have been assumed 28 in the total absense of any hard data. I mean rezoning this property is a 29 name change and therefore could cause no detrimental affect on any property including 30 onto itself regarding flooding. The proof of flooding is incumbent on a large 31 number of studies, none of which have been conducted towards the property and 32 we would certainly appreciate the ability to conduct these studies with some 33 confidence. Therefore, we are reporting this evening asking for an approval on 34 a requested rezone. Thank you. -19- 1 Mayor: If council doesn't have a question, Mr. Clemens, could you please 2 enlighten us on the three separate times it's been stated the Planning 3 Department asked Mr. Gilmore to purchase the property that is now issued 4 for rezone? I am fully aware that you were not the director at that time 5 but why would we ask someone to buy property? 6 Clemens: I am not sure who made this statement. I personally did not make 7 that statement. The logic, however, is very good. The applicant's proposal 8 was to construct, what continues to be, a (unintelligible) warehouse area in 9 this (unintelligible) t-shaped property with lot spacing on Powell Avenue S.W. 10 and a street to be constructed west of (unintelligible) of both sides of this 11 area. Because of the location of the bridge under 405, Valley Parkway would 12 be forced to be located at approximately this alignment which the applicant 13 is now well aware of (unintelligible) . However, at the time that, before they 14 purchased the property, their roadway in order to achieve their design that they 15 sought, would have been located in this location separated by very narrow and 16 very difficult to use strips from a new roadway in Valley Parkway so there is 17 benefit on both sides, obviously from the City's standpoint and the development 18 standpoint having a single road serving the same purpose makes alot more sense 19 than two parallel roads serving the same purpose. 20 Madam Chairman. 21 Schuman: Once again for the record, my name is David Schuman. I am a partner 22 in First City Equity and my address is 900 Fourth Avenue, Seattle, Washington. 23 I would just like to touch •on a couple of issues that were left out. First of 24 all, when we- first came before the City, Mr. Gonnason, who was the Public Works 25 Director, Mr. Erickson, who was the Planning Director, when we first came with 26 the original 85 acres that we first had, 73 of which we had rezoned were the 27 gentlemen who made the request that we acquire additional property in order to 28 facilitate a better plan. We did do that obviously so that is one thing I 29 wanted to point out. Item No. 2, the Hearing Examiner is referring to a number 30 of places concerned about flooding on adjacent properties. I don't think that 31 it has been pointed out by anybody that surrounding the western boundary of our 32 property is the Metro sewerage plant which is entirely levied so there is no 33 real flood problem by our development affecting adjacent property owners. 34 We have Metro plant on one side, we have the existing industrial, Earlington • -20- 1 Industrial Park on the other side. The flood waters will come through the 2 existing Earlington Park onto our property and off of our property as fast as 3 possible. The existing P-1 pump station and there was testimony to this in 4 various reports was currently operating about 10 percent of its capacity. Our 5 system as designed for our first phase is to carry the flood water up towards 6 the north and then over into the existing P-1 area to avoid going into Spring- 7 brook Creek so the areas where we talk about are concern without the P-1 Channel. 8 We think that given the rezone, we have the ability to go out and solve those 9 flooding problems. In 1979, when we came before you what we received was a 10 conditional rezone. The rezone was condition that we go out and perform sub- 11 stantial environmental impact statements of studies and when we get all that done 12 come back- to the City and we deal with you at that point. That is what we are 13 here for now. The preliminary plat has been approved based on the studies that 14 have been recommended for approval, based on studies that have been run, based 15 on our conditional rezone, so i think what we are asking for this evening is a 16 similar situation where the rezone is granted and as my partner stated, we still 17 cannot develop on that until we can come back. and prove the issue of flooding. 18 Therefore, we request the rezone be approved. 19 Mayor: Thank you. Questions? 20 Madam Mayor. 21 Mayor: Mr. Stredicke. 22 Stredicke: Madam Mayor, I think that the council would be taking a very serious 23 wrong move in going against the Hearing Examiner's recommendation and the Planning 24 Department's discussion about the involvement of the drainage channel. The 25 property owner that petitioned for the rezone and being the property owner of 26 record for better than three years and has not developed any material to convince 27 me that we should stand that danger of letting one development let go into that 28 valley before we consider whether or not we really need to have a drainage channel. 29 I think the City is going to be incurring more liability if every single permit 30 that is issued down there as' far as the name only title that the gentleman gave 31 the property if it was rezoned, that is a bunch of hogwash. There is a reason 32 for the rezone and a reason for it now from the developer. It has to do with 33 finances. All• it would do for the City is just increase that possibility of 34 liability until we know what's coming. (unintelligible) . . eyes closed. " - -21- 1 Mayor: Mr. Stredicke, you have in effect spoken against a motion that is not 2 before the council. 3 Stredicke: That is correct. 4 Madam Mayor. 5 Mayor: Mr. Rockhill. 6 Rockhill: .I would like to make a comment in answering that to this extent 7 that if it is agreed by all parties concerned that if P-1 were there, there 8 is no reason for not rezoning. That's the gest. So then the only thing that 9 P-1 does is take care of the drainage. Now, is there only one way to take .0 care of the drainage? That is the question. Can they take care of the drainage? Not whether they are going to put more buildings down there, that . 2 has already-been decided because they said if we got P-1, we'll develop it, . 3 because P-1 handles the drainage. The question is drainage and I think that is a technical problem and should be handled by technicians. Madam Mayor, I would like to just get something on the floor. I would like to move that the council grant the appeal of the First City Equity regarding the rezone of 7 the property of Earlington Industrial Park and refer this matter to the Ways 8 and Means Committee. 9 Second. 0 Mayor: It has been moved by Mr. Rockhill, seconded by Mr. Shane, that the 1 City Council grant the appeal of the First City Equity property owner and refer 2 the matter to the Ways and Means Committee. The effect of this motion is to 3 allow the rezone. Ready for the question. 4 Madam Mayor. ' 5 Mayor: Mr. Clymer, then Mr. Stredicke. '6 Clymer: Madam Mayor, speaking against the motion, this particular case, I 7 believe, the Hearing Examiner is correct in his decision. If the City Council 8 were to rezone this property and I don't think that two council members agree 9 on Mr. Rockhill's (unintelligible) but I don't see that. That was a decision 0 by all people present which were planners and the developers and so forth. The , 1 Council's responsibility whenever these things come is to find out if there is ;2 an error in law or an error in fact and regardless of that if we (unintelligible) 3 by right the zoning comes, changing in the zoning, is by the fact that does it 4 need all of the criteria in the long range planning? In this particular I, ... - -22- 1 instance, if the City says this is, now is the time for M-P to go into that 2 area. We are giving it our O.K. to go. If we say there are problems there 3 as indicated, and it's up to you to solve them, but we are going to give you 4 the rezone as suggested but the idea of identifying the problem and then 5 saying its up to you to solve it. That relief doesn't really get the City off the hook. The point that I would like to make is that what if they can't 7 solve them and they sell the property to a second owner. Then he comes in 8 with a idea that here it is and then our solution is we have to buy back the 9 property at a higher density and a higher value. We have done that before. 10 We change the zoning prematurely and end up having to purchase back property 11 where we have given the zoning only a year or two before, at a higher rate. We 12 don't know what the engineering is going to be in this area. All we have is 13 a plan, we don't know what the facts are. So I support, therefore, I am voting 14 against the proposal. 15 Mayor: Mr. Stredicke, you asked for the floor. 16 Stredicke: Madam Mayor, I just want to point out that the motion that was made 17 simply was to grant a rezone and not to necessarily by the way it was made to 18 overturn. the Hearing Examiner. It has been my recollection that whenever the 19 council has been in a position where they are overturning the Hearing Examiner, 1'.C1 they were supposed to be able to state A, B, C, why we were overturning the 21 Hearing Examiner and I did not hear any A, B, C. 22 Mayor: Mr. Stredicke, I am going to restate the motion to make sure that the 23 maker agrees. The motion was to grant the appeal of First City Equity and to 24 allow the rezone and to refer the matter to the Ways and Means Committee. 25 Stredicke: That's right. 26 Madam Mayor. 27 Mayor: Mr. Rockhill. 28 Rockhill: The reason you do not have A, B, C, is a matter-of grevity. If you 29• wish, I can read off the whole thing but they state what we have been talking 30 about the whole time. 31 (several voices) 2 Rockhill: They •are all there in the appeal, by saying the appeal they are all .33 listed in there. • 34 Mayor: The council, I'm sure, understands the intent. The question has been -23- 1 called for. All those members of council in favor of the motion, say 'aye. ' 2 And those oppose, say 'no. ' Chair is in doubt and roll call has been 3 requested. 4 Ms. Mead: 5 Stredicke: No. 6 Rockhill: Aye. 7 Hughes: No. 8 Clymer: No. 9 Trimm: Aye. 10 Shane: Aye. 11 Reed: No. 12 Ms. Mead: Three ayes, four nos. 13 Mayor: Motion loses. 14 Madam Mayor. 15 Mayor: Mr. Shane. 16 Shane: I would just like to point out something here. You know I'm getting 17 tired of having the Hearing Examiner and the Planning Director running this 18 town. I am getting tired of it. 19 Mayor: I guess Mr. Shane every time you're on the short end of the vote, we have 20 to reorganize the City. 21 Shane: No, Madam Mayor, listen, I can say certain things on this council. 22 But I get (unintelligible) in seeing people here in trying to stop growth in 23 this town. 24 Point of order. 25 Mayor: State your point of order, Mr. Stredicke. 26 Stredicke: The action of the council was to (several voices) 27 Mayor: The action of the council was in effect to deny the rezone. Is, that 78 correct? 29 Stredicke: (Unintelligible) that is the council action. 30 Mayor: That is the council action. That is correct. 31 Madam Mayor. 32 Mayor: Mr. Rockhill. 33 Rockhill: We had two reports .from the Planning and Development Committee. I 34 would like to move that the council concur with the Planning and Development -24- 1 Committee on the second report regarding the preliminary plat. 2 Seconded. 3 Mayor: It has been moved by Mr. Rockhill, seconded by Mr. Reed, that the council ' 4 concur in the Planning and Development Committee report with regard to the 5 preliminary plat. 6 Mayor: Is there a question? All those members of the council in favor of 7 the Planning and Development Committee report, say 'aye. ' All those oppose? 8 The ayes have it and the motion carries. Mr. Leppo, do you understand the 9 effect of the second motion so you can explain it to your client? 10 Leppo: Yes. 11 Mayor: We are still under Audience Comment. Mr. Kellogg. 12 Kellogg: Madam Mayor, the recommendation of the Planning Department to the 13 Planning and Development Committee was that the matter be in effect tabled or 14 denied without prejudice; in other words, it could be raised. If you will 15 recall our zoning code requires a one-year period of time in which a rezone appli- 16 cation can be renewed and I think the Planning Director would join me in 17 urging that the Council deny the appeal without prejudice to filing a new 18 application in the event that the P-1 Channel is constructed or other 19 developments occur within the one-year period which might make it an appropriate 20 development at that time. 21 Mayor: The effect of the motion was it lost so it is in limbo at this time. 22 I think it would be appropriate for another motion then to --or the understanding 23 simply is that this rezone is held in abeyance in effect. 24 Kellogg: Perhaps the suggestion of the matter simply be tabled so that a whole 25 another hearing process is not required. If the matter. . . . 26 Mayor: You should have jumped up earlier because the effect of the Motion was' 27 to deny the rezone. 28 Voice: Madam Mayor, the motion made was to overturn the Hearing Examiner's 29 decision. That lost. The matter is in limbo. The council has not voted 30 (voices) The point now is for council to table, remand, deny. It still hasn't •1 been settled. That's why Mr. Kellogg and I were discussing the possibility 32 of council tabling it until (unintelligible) 33 Mayor: It is my understanding that this would offer some relief then to the 34 petitioners. Is that correct? -25- 1 Voice: Absolutely. 2 Mayor:. It simply has not . . . 3 Voice: The matter was not finally adjudicated at this point, then the matter 4 of the rezone in the orange property there would simply be in limbo. They 5 would be able to complete their preliminary plat but would not have to go 6 through the Hearing Examiner process again if the circumstances are changed. • 7 Mayor: Mr. Stredicke, do you have a question? 8 Stredicke: Madam Mayor, I move that the matter of the rezone Earlington 9 Park be remanded to the Hearing Examiner's office. 10 Seconded. 11 Mayor: It has been moved and seconded that the matter of the rezone be 12 remanded to the Hearing Examiner office. 13 Madam Mayor. 14 Mayor: Mr. Shane. 15 Shane: The council is just playing games. I think when you vote no on 16 something, it's no. 17 Mayor: Mr. Shane, I think the council is doing exactly what they are here 18 for, a body trying to find an equitable solution for petitioners (voices) 19 There is a motion before the council at this time, if the makers still wish 20 to go with it. 21 Voice: I think the motion is out of order. 22 Mayor: State your point of order Mr. . . . (interruption) 23 Voice: Madam Mayor, I asked at the time that you made a ruling on the motion 24 and the motion was to overturn the examiner. 25 Mayor: No. I certainly restated it and did not include that phrase. It was L6 to grant the appeal and allow the . . . (interruption) 27 Voice: So therefore, no action has been taken on the examiner's recommendation. Is that correct? 29 Voice: Yes. 30 Stredicke: Madam Mayor, I move that this matter be tabled. 31 Mayor: You are going to have to get someone to withdraw the second from the 32 previous motion. 33 Second withdrew. 34 Mayor: It has not been moved and seconded and this is a non-debateable matter, =26- 1 that the matter be tabled. All those members of the council in favor say. . . 2 (interruption by Shane) 3 Shane: Madam Mayor. 4 Mayor: It' s non-debateable. Shane: I would just like to ask . . . 6 (interruption) 7 Voice: Roll Call. 8 Mayor: All those council members in favor in tabling this subject, say 'aye. ' 9 All those oppose. The ayes have it and the subject matter is tabled. 10 Mayor: Mr. Leppo, do you understand what we just did? 11 (Voices) 12 Mayor: It's been moved and seconded that we have a five minute recess. The 13 chair is going to assume the intent is to allow our attorneys to speak to your ! 4 attorneys in attorney language (speaking to Leppo) . All those in favor say .5 'aye' and those oppose. Ayes have it. 16 Recess. • 7 (End of subject matter) 1i) 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 • 31 32 33 34 i' ' OF . R4 / A IP / .t ° BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT 4$ z • RONALD G. NELSON - DIRECTOR Z o o �' MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE.SO. RENTON, WASH.98055 • 235-2540 ' 9,0 c3. ,917. SEPS ' BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH MAYOR MEMORANDUM . DATE: January 14, 1986 0 TO: Files (All Holvick, deRegt and Koering (HDK) and First city Equity Files) erJ. Blaylock. Zoning Administrator FROMa?..j-*" • SUBJECT: DEVELOPMENT OF TRACT 'B' OF SPRINGBROOK TECHNICAL CENTER . The ERC conditions at the time of plat approval. required the dedication and construction of Oakesdale Avenue (2 lanes) along the west side of Tract 'B' from S.W. Seventh Street to S.W. Grady Way prior to the development of .Tract 'B'. Development of the parcels adjacent to Tract''B' by First City Equities and Hoivick, deRegt and Koering (HDK) have been short of parking spaces on existing lots. In order to accommodate proposed parking; lot line adjustments have been approved in which a portion of Tract 'B' is added to the adjacent lots. These lot line adjustments' for parking lot areas raised the question. of whether Oakesdale needed to be constructed. On October 30, 1985, the ERC upon review of a new traffic analysis determined that "... parking lots can be constructed on Parcel B without the implementation of the condition to construct Oakesdale Avenue. This interpretation does not include the construction of • any buildings." �'{OLU I 7 ck koetmg. • RJB:JSM:ss 5�•� FCE FP•Q(p.gt -V1 1 • SA. I-?5A Wh 2156Z SR - 41--85. Fa 0 so - G-a3 1401A S • gh-g5e SA.eis-gI Rol -02to-8S F(;t': 3poov I sA.018`'&6 N�Uh i Nd.1 • SAL W4�, \ .. C- . . !� L. OF R4,11, A 0OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY• RENTON,WASHINGTON V `$ `` - POST OFFICE BOX 626 100 2nd AVENUE BUILDING • RENTON.WASHINGTON 98055 255-8678 2 eilL r `�O ,'c` ^' LAWRENCE I.WARREN, CITY ATTORNEY DANIEL KELLOGG, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY 9,0 `O SUSAN R. IRWIN, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY 094T�D SEP�EM��P July 22 , 1981 TO: Richard Houghton David Clemens FROM: Daniel Kellogg, Assistant City Attorney Re: Earlington Industrial Park Attached you will find a copy of a letter we have received from Mr. Leppo, attorney for' First City Equities . Would you please advise if there is an objective. event or act establishing the final approval of the P-1 Channel to trigger the dedication of P-1 Channel areas as required by the preliminary plat of Earlington Industrial Park (PP-056-80) . Please call me if you have any questions . We will be happy to contact Mr, Leppo concerning the City's needs in this regard. Daniel Kellogg DK:nd Encl. . . cc: Mayor . City Clerk • ' ',\7 P • r / LAW, OFFICES .1 ., BOGLE; & GATE S • A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS ROBERT W.DRANAM.P S. JONN F.BOESPFLUO.JR STEPHEN P.JONNSON THE BANK OF CALIFORNIA CENTER CHARLES F.OSBORN.P.S. JAMES F.TUNE RICHARDJ.WAL10 • MAX KAYINOFF.P.S. MAMAS LALSTON LENTS TAYLOI EGAN J.TI ER MULL►.S •••DOUOLAS&RIOOS RICHARD D.VOOT SEATTLE,WASHINOTON 98184 ARTHUR E..GRuMKE.P.MCKIN!TRT. SPENCERRR, .CL FLI ANDRLASEW CILN EY • CABLE"BOOLE SEATTLE" RONALD C.YI:LE.P.SY,P.S. µTI HAEL YOUNO N ANDREW CLA EDWARDC.BIELEP.S D.FR DE IC/POUN WILLIABRYCE HOLLAN RICHARDRK N LREIGER UE.P.S DEAN A.MESSIERYU9SEN LNEDESTEINDJR. (206) 682-5151 TELEX 32-1087 WIUL .STE RE.vS. DEAN ROBERT GAS LYNNE JEFFREY R.MA5I DAFT ►ON W.STEE CK E. R RSOM •RUC EY KIMG ...ROBERT A$TEWART J.PETER SHAPIRO BRADS A.EIMO ROBERT LJONNART KELLY PL. JAPESBRADL Y&BELLATTING R DONALD LJONNSON ELAINE L.SPENCER JAPES T.LETTING D E{\���/�///F SUITE 725 DON RAUIMWLEY,P.S GUY P. S •••EDWARD ICKEY \YJ •PETER QQ WRNES CHRISTOPHER J.BARRY ••ANNE E.D LIMNER v l� �J 1575 EYE STREET N.W. DERNARDT YORRISON.P.S JAMES Y.JEROE JAPES H.LOWE 'ASHINO JOHNT.PIPER RICHARD A PEPSIN THOY wort OTT HODOE TQN,D.C.Q0006 THOMAS J,MOKEY WILLUY E.VAN VALEENRERO JEFFREY W.LEPPO 628-0486 TELEX:80-7410 EDWARD Y LOWRY III RICHARD A MONTGOMERY ROBERT NOLAWRD RWS 1•-A 1 JOHN P.SULLIVAN PATRICIA H.CHAR JUDTM A.ENDE LA I L,J/uV DUSTIN C.YRCREARY RICHARD TOUTS N ANNE V.MRCLELUN I •I RONALD T.SCNAPS CHRIS ROBERT T GEOROE E.OREEN MIKE LILES JR. TERRENCE L EGVANAUGH CELESTE ETER YULNER SUITE 626 DAN P.Y L.MREER HERRE P.YURPNY CELESTE Y NORRIS DAM ATE . HELEN A.HARVEY ERIE R.UEO 900 WEST FIFTH AVENUE JOHN C.COUOHENOUR WIILIAY F.CROWN LAVEEDA GARLN10TOM•YATNEWS PETERPE M.µDERSON LUCY P.SISAEI DUNE O .O FIT2ERALD ANCHORAGE,ALASKA 99601 gyROBERT Dk ILAPLAN ANN R YUSEEN BRUCE Y.BLUME WARPcN&KELI OGG (a0,) E76-4667 DALE B RAYERMAN ROGER,Y TOLBERT E.YCDUFF ARCHIBALD RICHARD O WOOD Counwl RICHARD Y.CLINTON SUZANNE MILLER KOESTNER By - MICHAEL S COURTNAGE KEITH M.KORENCNUK STANLEY S.LONG KARL J.EOE CAROLYN AROEBER EDWARD O DOBBIN MICHAEL W.DUNDY LLEN P.BCHREIER FRANK L.MECHEM •CHARLES R.BLUYENFELD ROBERT J.THOMAS ORLO R KELLOGG • ' JAMES ASMITH JR. SUSAN EBOYLE THOMAS LMORROW THOMAS C.00RkS DENNIS D.STENSTROM ROBERT V.HOLLAND PLEASE REPLY TO SEATTLE OFFICE KIMBERLY W.OSENMUDH SALLY KLAXON M.BAYARD CRUTCNER •WUHNO•OSC OµC OMU BA RC OUYA PARS •••ALASKA STATE BAR ONLY ALL OTHERS WASHINGTON STATE BAR ONLY FILE NO.: 9 7 2 0/210 4 5 July 20, 1981 Lawrence J. Warren,. Esq. City of Renton Municipal Building • 200 Mill Avenue South . . Renton, Washington 98055 Re: Earlington Industrial Park • Dear Larry: , ' Our client, First City Equities, is in the process ' of modifying the preliminary plat for the above-referenced project (PP-056-80) pursuant to the City Council 's recent decision. As you may recall, the Council's decision requires First City Equities to dedicate the area of the P-1 Channel within the project site to the public. Dedication of the P-1 site will occur upon approval and funding of the P-1 project. In order to avoid any possible confusion, we have suggested that the occurrence of some objective event or act establishing final approval and funding of the P-1 Channel be adopted as the mechanism for triggering the actual dedication. After determing the appropriate trigger for the dedication, this information may be included . directly on the preliminary plat to ensure a clear under- standing of the dedication requirement and timing. ` In this regard, we would appreciate your assistance in selecting an objective act or event, which meets First City- Equities ' -and the City's needs. It is our hope that your familiarity with the P-1 project will enable you or your staff • pA� • I,` Lawrence J. War�.�°ii, Esq. BOGLE & GATES July 20, 1981 Page Two a to easily identify such a suitable act or event. As First City Equities hopes to submit the revised preliminary plat in the near future, we would appreciate hearing your thoughts on this matter in the next week or two. Please let us know if our request is unclear or if any additional information is needed. Your attention to this matter is sincerely appreciated. Very truly yours, BOGLE & GATES J •ffr y . Leppo cc: David Schuman Barry Gelbart Loren Davis Charles R. Blumenfeld Renton City Council 5/18/81 Page 2 Audience Comment - Continued FAI-405 HOV Lanes Sandy Webb, 430 Mill Ave. S, expressed concern over future plans and Ramp Metering by the Highway Department regarding 1-405 stagnation of traffic in the City and noted his letter in Record Chronicle re this subject. (See later motion..) Versie Vaupel , 400 Cedar Ave. S, also expressed concern in this matter. Proclamation Proclamation of Mayor Shinpoch declared the month of May 1981 as American Legion POPPY MONTH and 5/22-23/81 as POPPY DAYS urging community support. Poppy Days Lana Taylor, American Legion Fred Hancock Post, was presented and accepted the proclamation. MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECOND ROCKHILL, CONCUR IN PROCLAMATION. CARRIED. CONSENT AGENDA The following items are adopted by one motion which follows the business items included: Cascadia City Clerk Mead requested ordinance completing the Cascadia Annexa- Annexation tion. Area: Union Ave. to 140th SE, Honeydew School to SE 128th. Refer to Ways and Means Committee. Public Works Public Works Department requested project acceptance, final pay Project CAG 056-80 estimate, begin 30-day lien period for release of retained amount upon receipt of proper documents; CAG 065-80 Signal Electric Inc. , NE 4th Street and Union Ave. NE roadway widening and signalization. Council concur. Dr. David Woodcock Land Use Hearing Examiner recommended approval subject to conditions Rezone R-015-81 as modified by reconsideration for Rezone R-015-81 and Special SP-016-81 Permit SP 016-81 ; Dr. David Woodcock property located at 123 Pelly Ave..;; N. R-2 to R-3; Special Permit to serve existing dental clinic (parking lot). Refer to Ways and Means Committee. First Cities Appeal has been filed of the Hearing Examiner's recommendation of Equities Appeal 4/28/81 First Cities Equities, Earlington Park Preliminary Plat PP-056-80 PP-056-80; simultaneous approval of, rezone and preliminary plat requested. Refer to Planning and Development Committee for recommendation. LID #321 Finance Department requested acceptance of low bid of Peoples Sewers NE Sunset National Bank (12% interest) to provide interim financing of LID and Duvall NE No. 321 in the amount of $70,000 for sanitary sewers in vicinity of NE Sunset Blvd. and Duvall Ave. NE. Refer to Ways and Means Committee for ordinance. Damages Claim Claim for damages was filed by Santa J. Wierzbicki , 765 S 27th St. , Wierzbicki for water damage loss in amount of $340.62. Refer to City Attorney and Insurance Carrier. Proclamation Proclamation of Mayor Shinpoch declared May 23 and 23, 1981 as VFW. Poppy Days Poppy Days and May as Poppy Month for Veteran of Foreign Wars to honor the dead by helping the living, raising funds by selling poppies. Council concur. Consent Agenda MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECOND CLYMER, ACCEPT THE CONSENT AGENDA AS Approved PRESENTED. CARRIED. CORRESPONDENCE AND CURRENT BUSINESS Wheel Chair Ramp Mayor Shinpoch reported a note of thanks was received by the Mayor and members of the City Council from residents of Cedar River Terrace thanking them for the wheel chair ramp installed at the corner of Burnett Ave. "Controlled Letter from Michael Porter, Chairman, Renton Planning Commission, Growth" was read requesting further information and clarification concerning ' Council Policy the City Council referral of 4/20/81 ° of the Renton Chamber of Commerce letter asking specific guidelines for annexations and nton City Council 1 �; /15M1 Page 2 FIRST CITY EQUITIES considered the appeal of the denial decision of the REZONE Hearing Examiner dated April 14, 1981 . The Committee Continued was unable to make recommendation as the two members present were unable to agree whether the Hearing Examiner was correct in finding that the change of zone classifi- cation from G to MP would be detrimental to other properties located in the vicinity of the site until completion of the P-1 Channel ; Barry Gelbart and David Schuman of First City Equities urged rezone recalling city mandate of initial acquisition. MOVED BY ROCKHILL, SECOND SHANE, to grant the appeal and refer the matter to the Ways and Means Committee. Roll Call vote was requested and resulted as follows: 3-AYE: ROCKHILL, TRIMM, SHANE 4-NO: STREDICKE, HUGHES, CLYMER, REED. MOTION TO REFER FAILED. iJpon City Attorney's remarks and further discussion of Council action, it was determined that First City Equities Earlington Park Rezone was presently in abeyance needing further attention. Following proposed motion to remand the matter back to the Hearing Examiner and subsequent withdrawal of second, it was MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECOND REED, TO TABLE THE MATTER. MOTION CARRIED. (Rezone Tabled) FIRST CITY EQUITIES PRELIMINARY PLAT The Planning and Development Committee considered the PP-056-80 appeal of the decision of the Hearing Examiner dated Earlington Park April 28, 1981 , of the preliminary plat of First City Equities and recommended to the Council that the Hearing Examiner was in error in concluding in Conclusion No. 22 that the public interest requires dedication to the public of an area on both sides of Springbrook Creek and along the southern bank of the Black River Channel 200 feet in width and including the stream bed. The Committee recommended that the Council find that the area of dedication should be confined to the legal description of the P-1 Channel and that' the Council modify Condition No. 1 accordingly, and as modified, adopt the recommendation of the Hearing Examiner. It was MOVED BY ROCKHILL, SECOND REED, THAT THE COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT REPORT IN REGARDS TO THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF FIRST CITY EQUITIES. CARRIED. Recess MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECOND REED, COUNCIL RECESS. CARRIED. 10:01 P.M. Council reconvened at 10:09 P.M. All Council Members were present as previously shown. COMMUNITY SERVICES A. J. Ladner, Executive Director for City of Renton COMMITTEE REPORT Housing Authority requested that the report of the Community Services Committee be presented. It was MOVED BY REED, SECOND CLYMER, TO SUSPEND THE ORDER OF BUSINESS AND ADVANCE TO THE COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. The Committee reviewed the proposal to construct 30'units of subsidized family housing on N.E. 16th and Kirkland Avenue and recommended that the Council approve the Housing Authority's request to waive that section of the Housing Action Plan which states that construction of assisted housing for non-elderly households 'are not permitted within one-quarter mile from any permanently assigned project. The Committee also requested that the Housing Authority meet with this Committee as soon as final design plans are avail- able for further review of the development. It was MOVED BY REED, SECOND HUGHES, THAT THE COUNCIL CONCUR WITH THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED.. CONSENT AGENDA The following items are adopted by one motion which follows the business matters included: PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE REPORT TO : Renton City Council FROM: Planning and Development Committee RE : First City Equities Preliminary Plat 056-80 The Planning and Development Committee has considered the appeal by First City Equities of the Land Use Hearing Examiner ' s decision dated April 28 , 1981 , concerning the Preliminary Plat for Earlington Park. The Committee finds , and recommends that the Council find that the Hearing Examiner is in error in concluding in Conclusion No . 22 that the public interest requires dedication to the public of an area on both sides of Springbrook Creek and along the southern bank of the Black River Channel 200 feet in width and including the stream bed. The Couniiittee finds , and recommends that the City Council find that the area of dedication should be confined to the legal description of the P-1 channel as legally described, if any. The Couuuittee recommends that the Council modify condition No . 1 to the recommendation of the Hearing Examiner accordingly , and as modified, to adopt the recommendation of the Hearing Examiner . , •K-• Randy Ro khill ;rohn Reed Ili ,For. se By ,Cit&,Clerk's Office Only A. I . # i 6�P. AGENDA ITEM RENTON CITY COUNCIL MEETING SUBMITTING Dept./Div./Bd./Comm. City Clerk's Office For Agenda Of May 18, 1981 (Meeting Date) Staff Contact Del Mead, City Clerk (Name) Agenda Status: SUBJECT: Appeal of Hearing Examiner' s Decision Consent Earlington Park - PP-056-80 Public Hearing Correspondence Ordinance/Resolution Old Business Exhibits: (Legal Descr,. , Maps, Etc. )Attach New Business Study Session A. Appeal Other B. Hearing Examiner' s Decision 4/28/81 C. City Clerk' s Letter Approval : COUNCIL ACTION RECOMMENDED: Legal Dept. Yes No N/A Finance Dept. Yes No. N/A Refer to Planning Other Clearance FISCAL IMPACT: Expenditure Required $ Amount $ Appropriation- $ Budgeted Transfer Required SUMMARY (Background in:formation, prior action and effect of implementation) (Attach additional pages if necessary. ) Appeal filed by Charles R. Blumenfeld and Jeffery W. Leppo, Attorneys for First City Equities. Preliminary Plat PP-056-80. Received 5/12/81 . L ?,115/1jA .01 /g /� PARTIES OF RECORD/INTERESTED CITIZENS TO BE CONTACTED: ,v,i SUBMIT THIS COPY TO CITY CLERK BY NOON ON THURSDAY WITH DOCUMENTATION. NE COPIES TO: SENT X CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE X RECORD CHRONICLE (PRESS) X MAYOR' S OFFICE x CITY COUNCIL II �( FINANCE DEPARTMENT X HEARING EXAMINER X PLANNING DEPARTMENT - )( PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR — PARK DEPARTMENT PERSONNEL DEPARTMENT POLICE DEPARTMENT Miithe L A A)/S Pjoy_ Co m /J‘ (AO," OP]sQn - 8141 J � 1__ .�• _ T L.-_ �. THE CITY OF RENTON MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE.SO. RENTON,WASH.98055 0 o BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH, MAYOR • DELORES A. MEAD 0'9 � CITY CLERK • (206) 235-2500 0,9gT�D SEP1°* May 13, 1981 CERTIFICATE OF MAILING STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss. COUNTY KING { DELORES A. MEAD, City Clerk of the City of Renton, being first duly worn on oath, deposes and says that she is a citizen of the United States ankd a resident of the State of Washington, over the age of 21 and not a panty to nor interested, in th is, matter. II That on the 13th day of May, 1981 at the hour of 5:00 p.m. , your affiant duly mailed and placed in the United States Post. Office at Renton, King County, Washington, by first class mail , to all parties of record, 4 true and correct NOTICE OF APPEAL OF THE HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION1FILED BY CHARLES R. BLUMENFELD AND JEFFERY W. LEPPO, ATTORNEYS FOR FIRST CITY EQUITIES. Preliminary Plat PP-056-80. dl Delores A. Mead, C.i y Clerk Ik II SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE me this 13th day of May, 1981 Notary Public in -and for the State II of Washington, residing' in King County ss JfY fti II �'• • OF RA, 16 ® z THE CITY OF RENTON MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE.SO. RENTON,WASH. 98055 o o BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH, MAYOR • DELORES A. MEAD -Po Pam' CITY CLERK • (206) 235-2500 1 TFD SEPT00 May 13, 1981 APPEAL FILED BY CHARLES R. BLUMENFELD AND JEFFERY W. LEPPO, ATTORNEYS FOR FIRST,; CITY EQUITIES RE: Appeal of Land Use Examiner's Decision Dated April 14, 1981 , Earlington Industrial Park - Preliminary Plat Appeal File No. PP-056-80 To Parties of Record: II II Pursuant to Title 4 Chapter 30, City Code, written ap peal of. Land Use Hearing Examiner's decision has been filed with the City Clerk, along with the proper fee of $25.00. NOTICE ISHEREBY GIVEN. that the written appeal and other pertinent documents :will be reviewed by the Council 's Planning -and Development Committeeand will be considered by the City Council when the matter is .reported out of Committee. Please contact the:Council Secretary 235-2586, for date and time of the committee and council meetings, should you desire to attend. Yours very truly, CITY OF RENTON 4€"6 Delores A. Mead, C.M.C. City Clerk DAM/ss . w • ' LAW OFFICES BOGLE & GATES A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS , ROBERT W.GRAHAM,P.S. JOHN F.BOESPFLUG,JR. STEPHEN P.JOHNSON THE BANK OF CALIFORNIA CENTER CHARLES F.OSBORN,P.S. JAMES F.TUNE RICHARD J.WALLIS MAX KAMINOFF,P.S. THADDAS L.ALSTON LEWIS TAYLOR EGAN J.TYLER HULL,P.S. •••DOUGLAS A.RIGGS RICHARD D.VOGT SEATTLE,WASHINGTON 98164 ARTHUR G GRUNKE,P.S. SPENCER HALL,JR. DOUGLAS 0 MOONEY RONALD E.MCKINSTRY,P.S. ARTHUR C.CLAFLIN ANDREW A.GUY CABLE"BOGLE SEATTLE" EDWARD C.BIELE,P.S. D.MICHAEL YOUNG WILLIAM G.CLARK RICHARD S.SPRAGUE,P.S. FREDERICK T.RASMUSSEN BRYCE L.HOLLAND,JR. (200) a82'51 rJl TELEX 32-1087 IRWIN LTREIOER,P.S DEAN A.MESSMER LYNN EDELSTEIN Du BEY PAUL W.STEERE,P.S., ROBERT C.GRAYSON JEFFREY R.MASI ••ROBERT J.BLACKWELL J.PETER SHAPIRO BRUCE A.KING ROBERT A.STEWART KELLY P.CORR BRADLEY S.KELLER DONALD LJOHNSON ELAINE L.SPENCER JAMES T.LATTING SUITE 725 DON PAUL BADGLEY,P.S. GUY P.MICHELSON •••EDWARD L.MINEfl 1575 EYE STREET N.W. •PETER D.BYRNES CHRISTOPHER J.BARRY ••ANNE E.MICKEY GERHARDT MORRISON,P.S JAMES M.JERGE JAMES H.LOWE WASHINGTON,D.C.20005 JOHN T.PIPER RICHARD A.BERSIN THOMAS SCOTT HODGE THOMAS J.McKEY WILLIAM E.VAN VALKENBERG JEFFREY W.LEPPO (202) 628'0466 TELEX:89-7410 EDWARD III PATRICIA H.CHAHARD ROOMERV JUDITHTAH NDAEJAN LAIS DUSTIN C.MCCREARY RICHARD A.ALCORN ANNE V.McCLELLAN RONALD T.SCHAPS CHRIS ROBERT YOUTZ GEORGE E.GREER SUITE 525 MIKE LILES JR. MICHAEL E.CAVANAUGH J.PETER MULHERN WILLIAM L.(ARKER TERRENCE P.MURPHY CELESTE M.NORRIS DAN P.HUNGATE HELEN A.HARVEY ERIK R.LIED 900 WEST FIFTH AVENUE JOHN PETER M.ANUSERSONUR WILLIAM LUCY P.SFISA I DIANE G.FILaVEEDA ITTZ-GERALD-MATHEWS ANCHORAGE,ALASKA 99501 DELBERT D.MILLER ANN E.KRUSE BRUCE M.BLUME ROBERT D.KAPLAN DAVID R.MILLEN (907) 276-4557 DALE B.RAMERMAN ROGER M.TOLBERT Counsel E.MCDUFF ARCHIBALD RICHARD G.WOOD RICHARD M.CLINTON SUZANNE MILLER KOESTNER MICHAEL S COURTNAGE KEITH M.KORENCHUK STANLEY B.LONG KARL J.EGE CAROLYN A.ROEBER EDWARD G.DOBRIN MICHAEL W.DUNDY ELLEN P.SCHREIER FRANK L.MECHEM •CHARLES R.BLUMENFELD ROBERT J.THOMAS ORLO B.KELLOGG JAMES A.SMITH JR. SUSAN EBOYLE THOMAS L.MORROW THOMAS C.GOR�S DENNIS G.STENSTROM ROBERT V.HOLLAND PLEASE REPLY TO SEATTLE OFFICE KIMBERLY W.OSENBAUGH SALLY H.SAXON M.BAYARD CRUTCHER •WASHINGTON STATE AND DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA BARS ••DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA BAR ONLY ALASKA STATE BAR ONLY ALL OTHERS WASHINGTON STATE BAR ONLY FILE NO.: 9720 21045 q „.May 12 , 1981 The Honorable Barbara Shinpoch, Mayor ; , , The Honorable Randy Rockhill, Chairman ' �,g�% 116. Planning and Development Committee �� ��c` � City of Renton , ' .p. Municipal Building �� ���1\ ' . 200 Mill Avenue South ' \ .G� a ,C.� � ' . Renton, Washington 98055 •- ��.�R� ,c,,, -,gyp : ' � �, Re: Earlington Industrial Parkf> ...0 Preliminary Plat Appeal •File No. PP-056-80 Dear Mayor Shinpoch and Chairman Rockhill: Please find enclosed First City Equities ' letter of appeal on the above-referenced matter. We did want to alert you to a related matter. On April 14, 1981, the Hearing Examiner denied the Applicant' s request for a rezone, from "G" to "M-P" , on 25 . 89 acres of the subdivision which is the subject of this appeal. While the Applicant, by this letter is not appealing that decision, it is clear that unless the rezone is granted, the preliminary plat will require some modification. Applicant, therefore, requests that the Council take steps to ensure the simultaneous consideration of Applicant' s rezone request and preliminary plat application. By of way of explanation--on March 26 , 1981, the Examiner held consecutive public hearings on the Applicant's rezone request and preliminary plat application. The Examiner' s Report and Recommendation denying the rezone was issued on April 14 , 1981. On April 28 , 1981, within the statutory 14-day period, the Ap- plicant requested that the Examiner reconsider his decision based upon substantial errors of fact and law. The Examiner has in- I B O GLE & GATES The Honorable Barbara Shinpoch, Mayor The Honorable Randy Rockhill, Chairman May 12, 1981 Page 2 dicated that his decision on the reconsideration will be issued on or before May 18 , 1981. , The Examiner's Report and Recommendation granting the preliminary plat with conditions was issued on April 28 , 1981. Pursuant to Section 4-3016 the Applicant was required to file the attached appeal by May 12, 1981, which is prior to the is- suance of the Examiner' s decision on the rezone reconsideration. In the event that the Examiner affirms his denial of the rezone, the Applicant will immediately appeal that decision to the City Council. Because the City Council 's consideration of the preliminary plat appeal, which is attached, would be premature prior to the Examiner' s rezone reconsideration, the Applicant respectfully requests that the Planning Committee defer consideration of this appeal until its May 28 , 1981 meeting, at which time the two related matters can be con- solidated, if necessary. Very truly yours, BOGLE & GATES Charles R. Blumenf d Enclosures / ,--,, • ' LAW OFFICES BOGLE & GATES A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS ROBERT W.GRAHAM,P.S. JOHN F.BOESPFLUG,JR. STEPHEN P.JOHNSON THE BANK OF CALIFORNIA CENTER CHARLES F.OSBORN,P.S. JAMES F.TUNE RICHARD J.WALLIS MAX KAMINOFF,P.S. THADDAS L.ALSTON LEWIS TAYLOR EGAN J.TYLER HULL,P.S. •••DOUGLAS A.RIGGS RICHARD D.VOOT SEATTLE,WASHINGTON 98104 ARTHUR 0 GRUNKE,P.S. SPENCER HALL,JR. DOUGLAS G.MOONEY RONALD E.McKINSTRY,P.S. ARTHUR C.CLAFLIN ANDREW A.GUY CABLE"BOGLE SEATTLE" EDWARD C.BIELE,P.S. D.MICHAEL YOUNG WILLIAM G.CLARK RICHARD S.SPRAGUE,P.S. FREDERICK T.RASMUSSEN BRYCE L.HOLLAND,JR. IRWIN L.TR EIGER,P.S. DEAN AMESSMER LYNN EDELSTEIN Du BEY (200) (382-5151 TELEX 32-1087 PAUL W.STEERE P.S. ROBERT C.GRAYSON JEFFREY R.MASI ••ROBERT J.BLACKWELL J.PETER SHAPIRO BRUCE A.KING ROBERT A.STEWART KELLY P.CORR BRADLEY S.KELLER DONALD L.JOHNSON ELAINE LSPENCER JAMES T.LATTING SUITE 725 DON PAUL BADGLEY,P.S. GUY P.MICHELSON •••EDWARD L.MINER 1575 EYE STREET N.W. •PETER D.BYRNES CHRISTOPHER J.BARRY •*ANNE E.MICKEY GERHARDT MORRISON,P.S. JAMES M.JERGE JAMES H.LOWE WASHINGTON,D.C.20005 JOHN T.PIPER RICHARD A.BERSIN THOMAS SCOTT HODGE THOMAS J.McKEY WILLIAM E.VAN VALKENBERO JEFFREY W.LEPPO (202) 628-0485 TELEX:89-7410 EDWARD G.LOWRY III RICHARD A.MONTGOMERY ROBERT HOWARD BLAIS . JOHN P.SULLIVAN PATRICIA H.CHAR JUDITH A.ENDEJAN DUSTIN C.MCCREARY RICHARD A.ALCORN ANNE V.MCCLELLAN RONALD T.SCHAPS CHRIS ROBERT YOUTZ GEORGE E.GREER MIKE LILES JR. MICHAEL E.CAVANAUGH J.PETER MULHERN SUITE 525 WILLIAM DAN P.HUNpGATE ARVE ER HELEN AHUY ERIK B.LIED PHY NORRI9 900 WEST FIFTH AVENUE JOHN C.COUGNENOUM WILLIAM F.CRONIN LDVEEDA GARLINGTON-MATHEWB PETER M.ANOERSON LUCY P.S.(SAKI DIANE S FITZ-GERALD ANCHORAGE,ALASKA 99501 DELBERT D.MILLER ANN EKRUSE BRUCE M.BLUME ROBERT D.KAPLAN DAVID R.MILLEN (907) 276-4567 BE E.MC DDAL U F ARCH BALD RICHARD G.RAMERMAN ROGER WOODT Counsel RICHARD M.CLINTON SUZANNE MILLER KOESTNER - MICHAEL S COURTNAGE KEITH M.KORENCHUK STANLEY B.LONG MICHAEL W DUNDY ELLEN P SCHREIERR FRANK MECHEM •CHARLES R.BLUMENFELD ROBERT J.THOMAS ORLO B.KELLOGG JAMES A.SMITH JR. SUSAN E.BOYLE THOMAS LMORROW THOMAS C.GOR�S DENNIS G.STENSTROM ROBERT V.HOLLAND PLEASE REPLY TO SEATTLE OFFICE KIMBERLY W.OSENBAUGH SALLY H.SAXON M.BAYARD CRUTCHER •WASHINGTON STATE AND DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA BARS ••DI•.T.ICT OF COLUMBIA BAR ONLY ALASKA STATE BAR ALL OTHERS WASHINGTON STA NLY E BAR ONLY FILE NO.: • • File No. 9720/21045 May 12, 1981 The Honorable Barbara Shinpoch, Mayor The Honorable Randy Rockhill, Chairman Planning and Development Committee City of Renton Municipal Building 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, Washington 98055 . Re: Earlington Industrial Park - Preliminary Plat Appeal (File No. PP-056-80) -Gentlemen: We are writing as counsel for First City Equities, the Applicant for the above-referenced preliminary plat. Pursuant to Title IV, Section 3016 of the Renton City Code, First City Equities hereby appeals portions of Examiner Kaufman' s April 28, 1981 Report and Recommendation to the Renton City Council. The Examiner' s decision grants the Applicant' s requested preliminary plat subject to conditions. The Appli- cant submits that a number of these conditions are based upon substantial errors in fact and law. I . INTRODUCTION The Examiner' s Report and Recommendation approves the Applicant' s preliminary plat, but imposes a number of substan- tial conditions. Those conditions include: (1) dedication to the City of a 400-foot wide corridor encompassing the existing location of Springbrook Creek and the Black River Channel; (2) expansion of planned cul-de-sacs on Powell Avenue and west of 2 BOGLE & GATES The Honorable Barbara Shinpoch The Honorable Randy Rockhill May 12, 1981 Page 2 Powell Avenue to 80-foot wide right-of-ways; (3) use of oil separators, settling ponds and temporary detention systems dur- ing construction; (4) construction of sidewalks along S.W. 7th Street east until they connect with existing sidewalks in the commercial sections of the city; (5) construction of an 80-foot wide right-of-way coinciding with the location of the proposed Valley Parkway from S.W. Grady Way at the southern boundary of the site to Monster Road, which is 1,200 feet beyond the north- west boundary of the site. * While all of these conditions are based upon substan- tial errors in law and fact, the Applicant appeals to the Coun- cil only condition (1) above. II . THE EXAMINER' S REQUIREMENT FOR DEDICATION OF A 400-FOOT WIDE CORRIDOR IS ERRONEOUS The primary focus of the Applicant' s appeal is the Examiner' s requirement that the Applicant dedicate a 400-foot wide corridor of greenbelt encompassing the existing location of Springbrook Creek and the Black River Channel. (Conclusion 22) . This confiscatory and unjustified condition is the result of substantial errors in fact and law. Specifically, the con- dition is founded upon an erroneous interpretation of existing greenbelt areas based upon the planned development of the P-1 Channel and construction of the Valley Parkway, and the condi- tion is contrary to existing zoning and Shoreline Master Pro- gram designations. A. The Examiner' s Conclusion is Based upon an Erroneous Interpretation of the Comprehensive Plan' s Greenbelt Designation. Perhaps the most significant factor underlying the Examiner' s 400-foot corridor condition is consistency with the greenbelt designation of the Comprehensive Plan (Conclusions 12, 14 and 22, and Finding 20) . This issue is admittedly com- plex and potentially confusing. However, a careful examination of the Comprehensive Plan demonstrates: *While the Applicant is not appealing this condition, for the record the Applicant does not own this property. Therefore, satisfaction of this condition may depend upon the City' s willingness to exercise its power of eminent domain. • BOGLE & GATES The Honorable Barbara Shinpoch The Honorable Randy Rockhill May 12, 1981 Page 3 (1) Only a very small portion (rather than major por- tions) of the subdivision is currently designated greenbelt. Specifically, only a small segment of Springbrook Creek, in its current location within the subdivision, is designated green- belt. The remainder of Springbrook Creek and all of the Black River Channel is designated Manufacturing Park. (2) The greenbelt area was intended to "float" with the path of the proposed P-1 Channel, not to follow the loca- tion of Springbrook Creek or the Black River Channel. Consis- tent with this intent of the Comprehensive Plan, the Applicant has reserved nearly 20 acres of its property as open space. Unlike the 400-foot corridor imposed by the Examiner, this reserve coincides with the path of the proposed P-1 Channel, which is located almost exclusively within the property zoned M-P. (3 ) While awaiting a final decision on construction of the P-1 Channel, the Applicant is bound to hold in reserve the designated location of the Channel and detention pond for a reasonable period of time. Therefore, contrary to the Exam- iner' s Conclusion 19, no conflict exists between the P-1 Chan- nel and the subdivision. (4) In the event the P-1 Channel is not constructed, the Applicant does not propose to realign Springbrook Creek. Furthermore, the existing creek and perimeter areas will be preserved as open space and buffered with landscaping and walk- ways consistent with the Shoreline Master Program, the condi- tions imposed by the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) and the CC&Rs imposed upon the subdivision by the Applicant. 1 . Only a Small Portion of Springbrook Creek is Designated Greenbelt. In its existing location, Springbrook Creek cuts across a small segment of the south portion of Tract B and then exits the property. Springbrook Creek reenters the subdivision at the southeast corner of Tract A and extends north until it intersects with the Black River Channel at the north boundary of Tract A. The Black River Channel flows west along the north boundary of Tract A and exits the subdivision in the northwest corner of Tract A. The majority of Springbrook Creek and all the Black River Channel is designated as Manufacturing Park in the Comprehensive Plan and is currently zoned M-P. Only a / . BOGLE & GATES The Honorable Barbara Shinpoch The Honorable Randy Rockhill May 12, 1981 Page 4 small portion of Tract B surrounding Springbrook Creek, as it flows through the southwest corner of the subdivision, is cur- rently designated greenbelt in the Comprehensive Plan. As the Examiner correctly noted in Finding 20, the appropriate designation for land used for flood control devices is greenbelt. Thus, the greenbelt strip here, which occurs primarily along the western boundary of Tract B and the south- ern boundary of Tract A, was intended to approximate the loca- tion of the P-1 Channel as it was planned when the Comprehen- sive Plan was completed. At the time the Plan was completed, a 300-foot wide greenbelt was planned to coincide with the P-1 Channel. This greenbelt, which totaled approximately 25. 3 acres adjacent to the subdivision, did not follow the path of Springbrook Creek or the Black River Channel except in those limited areas where the P-1 Channel was expected to include existing portions of Springbrook Creek. (See Exhibit 1) . 2 . The Greenbelt Designation was Intended to Follow the P-1 Channel. Since completion of the Comprehensive Plan, the loca- tion of the proposed P-1 Channel has been settled. As first planned, the P-1 Channel will follow the western boundary of Tract B; however, contrary to the initial route of the P-1 Channel flowing directly west to the P-1 pump station, it is now settled that the Channel will extend north into Tract A and then flow west to the pump station. As a result, much of the land on which the P-1 Channel and associated detention pond will• flow, is designated Manufacturing Park. Consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan, the Applicant has indicated that it will reserve over 17 acres within Tract A as greenbelt pending a decision within a reason- able time on construction of the P-1 Channel. This reservation coincides with the location of the P-1 Channel and detention pond. Together with the approximately 180 foot P-1 Channel right-of-way running along the western boundary of Tract B, the greenbelt area totals approximately 26. 9 acres (See Exhibit 2) . Thus, the reservation of land by the Applicant implements the Comprehensive Plan' s intent that the greenbelt designation "float" with the location of the P-1 Channel. As proposed by the Applicant, this greenbelt would include 1.6 acres more than the Comprehensive Plan originally designated as greenbelt. BOGLE & GATES The Honorable Barbara Shinpoch The Honorable Randy Rockhill May 12, 1981 Page 5 By contrast, dedication of a 400-foot wide corridor surrounding the existing location of Springbrook Creek and the Black River Channel, as imposed by the Examiner, does not implement the intent of the Comprehensive Plan for several sig- nificant reasons. First, by focusing on the existing location of Springbrook Creek and the Black River Channel, the 400-foot wide corridor does not correspond with the proposed location of the P-1 channel. (See Exhibit 3 . Additional areas necessary for the P-1 Channel and detention pond, but not included by this condition are indicated by hatch marks) . The permanent dedication of this corridor would ensure that the greenbelt does not "float" with the location of the P-1 Channel as intended in the Comprehensive Plan. Because portions of Springbrook Creek will be realigned upon construction of the P-1 Channel, the Examiner' s requirement would result in green- belt around a creek that no longer exists. Second, the 400- foot corridor imposed by the Examiner, requires the dedication of 28.2 acres of the Applicant' s property (9 . 6 acres of Tract B, 17.2 acres of Tract A, and 1 .4 acres of Phase I ) . Excluding road rights-of-way this is 1.3 acres less than the greenbelt in the Comprehensive Plan and 2 . 9 acres less than the greenbelt reserved in the Applicant' s proposed preliminary plat. There- fore, while the Examiner purports to implement the Comprehen- sive Plan, the Examiner' s condition has the anomalous result of defeating the intent of the Comprehensive Plan by preventing a "floating" greenbelt by reducing the total greenbelt acreage. 3 . The Applicant will Hold Open Space in Reserve Pending a Decision Within a Reasonable Time on Construction of the P-1 Channel. As indicated in the previous subsection, pending actual construction of the P-1 Channel or a decision not to construct the P-1 Channel, the Applicant will reserve as green- belt the areas indicated in Exhibit 2 . Despite this substan- tial reservation, all of Phase I, virtually all of Tract B and two significant areas within Tract A are available for develop- ment during this interim period. These areas do not include any portion of the existing Springbrook Creek or the proposed P-1 Channel and are not included within the greenbelt designa- tion as intended by the Comprehensive Plan. BOGLE & GATES The Honorable Barbara Shinpoch The Honorable Randy Rockhill May 12, 1981 Page 6 4. If the P-1 Channel is not Constructed, Springbrooke Creek will be Protected Under Existing Ordinanes. In the event the P-1 Channel is not constructed, development consistent with the Comprehensive Plan would be permitted, subject to the restrictions set forth in the Zoning Code and the Shoreline Master Program, as well as the condi- tions imposed by the ERC and the conditions imposed by the Applicant' s CC&Rs. B. The Examiner' s Conclusion is not Consistent with the Renton Shoreline Master Program The Examiner' s Report indicates that the 400-foot wide dedication is imposed in order to insure consistency with the Renton Shoreline Master Program. (Conclusions 12 and 17) . In fact, this excessive loss of developable property is contrary to the Urban designation of Springbrook Creek and the Black River Channel (Section 5 .03 ) and is inconsistent with the guidelines for Industrial Development (Section 7. 07) . Under the Shoreline Master Program, the Urban Environ- ment "is an area of high-intensity land-use including residen- tial, commercial, and industrial development. " Furthermore, the designation is "particularly suitable to those areas pre- sently subject to extremely intensive use pressure, as well as areas planned to accommodate intensive urban expansion. " Thus, the the objective of the Urban Environment "is to insure opti- mum utilization of shorelines within urbanized areas" by pro- viding for intensive use and development. The guidelines for industrial development require a 25 foot setback from the edge of Urban waters. At the outset, it should be noted that the Shoreline Master Program is administered by the Renton Planning Commis- sion and that the Applicant is required to obtain a substantial development permit from the Commission. Therefore, while it is clear that the Examiner' s decison should generally conform with the requirements of the Shoreline Master Program, his decision is not the proper forum for imposing specific conditions desig- nated to implement the policies of the Shoreline Master Pro- gram. It is the Applicant' s position that conditions designed to carry out the provisions of the Shoreline Master Program should be imposed during the substantial development permit /. BOGLE & GATES The Honorable Barbara Shinpoch The Honorable Randy Rockhill May 12, 1981 Page 7 proceedings, not in the preliminary plat proceedings. This is particularly true here where the Examiner' s findings and con- clusions are not based on the record. In addition, it is the Applicant' s position that the 400-foot corridor imposed by the Examiner is inconsistent with the urban designation and the setback requirements of the Shoreline Master Program. The Act regulates development within 200 feet of the water' s edge through design standards requiring sensitive development. The Act does not require or intend no development within 200 feet of an urban shoreline. III . THE HEARING EXAMINER' S CONCLUSIONS ARE UNSUPPORTED BY THE RECORD The Examiner is required by Section 4-3014 and the common-law of Washington to reach his decision based solely upon the facts entered into the record. The Applicant there- fore vigorously objects to the following conclusions which are totally unsupported by the record. 1. Conclusion 20 - There is no support in the record for the conclusion that the subdivision, as radically altered by the Examiner, is suitable for rail service and heavy ware- housing. 2 . Conclusion 9 - There is no evidence in the record on the appearance and visual quality of the Black River wet- lands. 3 . Conclusion 15 - There is no evidence in the record on the C.H.G. International development. The failure of the Examiner to limit his consideration to the record before him supports the Applicant' s position, detailed above, that the Examiner' s decision in this case is clearly erroneous. IV. SUMMARY As detailed above, the Applicant submits that the con- dition imposed in Conclusion 22 is based on substantial errors of fact and law, as follows: BOGLE 8e GATES The Honorable Barbara Shinpoch The Honorable Randy Rockhill May 12, 1981 Page 8 1 . The Examiner erred in concluding that "the land, or goodly portions thereof" are designated Greenbelt under the Comprehensive Plan and that development as proposed in the preliminary plat would not implement the generalized or floating greenbelt designation in the Comprehensive Plan. (Conclusions 12, 14, 22 and Finding 20) . 2 . The Examiner erred in concluding that the prelim- inary plat is inconsistent or does not comply with the Urban designation and industrial development require- ments of the Shoreline Master Program. (Conclusions 12, 17, 22) . 3 . The Examiner erred in concluding that imposition of the 400-foot wide dedication surrounding Spring- brook Creek is reasonable, necessary or comparable to Alternative Three in the Environmental Impact State- ment. (Conclusions 12, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23) . 4. The Examiner erred in concluding that the sub- division as proposed would involve any diversion of Springbrook Creek independent of the P-1 Channel and that the subdivision conflicts to any extent with the P-1 Channel. (Conclusion 19 and Findings 12, 37) . In addition, the above conclusions are inconsistent with the Examiner' s other Findings. (Findings 13, 19) . 5. The Examiner erred in concluding that heavy ware- housing or rail services will still be available or appropriate for development of the subdivision as altered by the conditions imposed. (Conclusion 20) . 6. The Examiner erred in imposing conditions which eliminate heavy warehousing and yet concluding that heavy warehousing is appropriate because "the project makes use of the site' s unique location adjacent to the rail spurs and just north of I-405 and the Valley Freeway (SR-167.) . " (Conclusions 5, 20) and Finding 37 . 7. The Examiner erred to the extent the decision purports to make determinations which are the subject of the substantial development permit proceedings pur- suant ,to the Shoreline Master Program. (Conclusions 12, 17, 22) . BOGLE 6C GATES The Honorable Barbara Shinpoch The Honorable Randy Rockhill May 12, 1981 Page 9 8. The Examiner erred in basing his decision to any extent upon the circumstances and facts relating to the dedication of open space by C.H.G. International. (Conclusion 15) . 9. The Examiner erred in concluding that "virtually the entire development" is located outside the one and one-half mile fire service radius for first response engine company and the two mile radius for first response ladder company, and that the Fire Department cannot currently provide adequate service to the sub- ject property. (Conclusion 20 and Finding 35) . 10. The Examiner erred to the extent the conditions imposed are based upon the Examiner' s denial of the applicant' s rezone request, which is currently under appeal. (Conclusions 1, 2, 12 and Finding 17) . In summary, the applicant appeals in whole or in part the fol- lowing conclusions and findings: Conclusions 1, 2, 5, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23; Findings 12, 17, 20, 35, 37; and Recommendations 1 and 3 . V. CONCLUSION Based upon the above, the Applicant submits that the conditions imposed by Conclusion 22 is based upon substantial errors of law and fact. First City Equities therefore requests that the City Council approve the preliminary plat as proposed and modify the Examiner' s Findings and Conclusions accordingly. Very truly yours, BOGLE & GATES Charles R. Blumenfeld Jeffrey W. Leppo Attorneys for the Applicant First City Equities cc: Members of the City Council Mr. Roger Blaylock, Planning Department Lawrence J. Warren, Esq. , City Attorney Fred J. Kaufman, Esq. , Hearing Examiner • EXHIBIT 1 7 • / • ,• • 47%1*--2_%,.. t • •. I , ..,4", ,Le i 1 r . • ---/ • •6.. -- - • - , • i4;! lib .. • \•� • ♦�2 . W,1•V... r > Yn. • :. N j ? ` , 1�V : ,n- .- •• ' • .4.188, ....YOMifs. vi ' ���.— t • • /• ". ` • /-• wurlJ` . ts'• ' ) ' I it 11 • qy.. r . _ o ••R` I �'1 Cji. IJ . ,,,� 1p , . .9 . .. . . d;. . ..:C%r..,;' ' s J -:, ,: . $4: •::: ..)4071 ,, 'apsuip::: • -.. • ••Qc.. ..f.)_;. (ANY •,ii ' ...: .••• .teT,.) ,WiR.,A00.1' Y..:'. . . : ..-•• .. . ., . ..• . VP fa%1 -.7ml:41PP „ 4et 2 A ; ' ;1.- 4101*k• .;'' p//� ,1 3}� L -,`'d:., 'QI ti ,fir}/J A"-.* 17. .4.�.d 1 t f iF'`q 444 9a, G..�—;"••,'CC.��-,1 11p- �I�'ya�_i•-. 2Pi •. ., I \\. '64%'5..4.4. l'. ' " ' ' • "121.2:if , .-1., .. . p: "I ! ;,.,s — _ . .,._.„.,...\,.1... • .....N..., .,,,,,, .. .. 4 \iii& 1 .„.-..4.1 .,-i ;1.1 - • , . , ' ‘`,. ' Igilk Wit •• al % ' ? • •?888‘, M14•1;•."..)ill 'to If , ,.. i Ai'?:4 . 0 / 'Jo- i 0 ..•t•.4..L• -. I 'c:..,,s11,77'... . . : • la: 1 FIirRG TRGAT11Pur PLANT • + \ t Y•,r. Y• 1,; ."L•'!�� 1 a •I. 'mast /Ap . AikL* 1 w,. - .. r �. ` , .. —.•, I ' . s1 hirimail . :,..,,,....: . ,\ , \ . . . . .4,-, •41. .. , . .. .. . , ,. r rrr .1 .1 ;%i(1 ,� '� 1 — :(ter.-7'gin �:_ VIi401 . fr t 1'j. 1 �, ^ ` �," _ , • ►..�.� t � • .41N 9a..r'.71• ♦b375t�'\• } .� `. .• J..11 . L•• 4k II •- op. M 181 1 "pad ,Gt'Ji?' , '. K7; 'a •tom. 1� 1 it ti l _r j L ..•.,... 1Itii.t il( 'f. 1 I , owl_ z • i • 1, iLlil1� • t ' •/ ,'r j. 2+ �t. t tic - _ , _rs..L�s•,..>•-� / I ! �_'� P 'i171_(3♦`11 S i' :fa i • �' �(i�,,'„ iWC� wn�.r or �+ '�►IIr , i. IS"�� - I - Wu SM IP?UW • - 4 ^ � ..e:ESi19!' �_. �.._.. • ," ' , ,;�, ; �� j(I" r: EARLINGTO-P ='=�..= =J� .R •• r!Orlini A1 I� PARK � itx�s�.. �_ - • t? •, . '{ In Q r r RENTCNV.WASHINGTON ,.....•...,... .'r " ` ,: &we Oil�L� OWNERS• �^•+• • • � i� /, ' FIRST CITY Eou1T1© '7LY" y _ ,' visiiiipatis_ aliat RANK OF CALIFORNIA CENTER u y W :' l_'-- _ ._ SEAT TtE,WASH/NOTON .� : �..� . . •.••-- . .. ^�,M4j _ - y '-. ENOINEE RS• w y4y .:��:�.^-• �•� „, I" •t•!'T.—..--• —� .lpt .4K. � ----- 3 BI13N ROE()I.HITCNINGS,I$C,P.S •.."".r.C,,._ �•T,��+r•"�'� I' .n � ,I= .��� - ./ SEATELE.WASNINOTON ,_ r".�......... _ .)• ,j.' 1'' , i .�. c ARCHITECTS. L'M � •.•.SI'••1:=.,=..." , ,,'i.. , I,Ij '.%.i'• .) - LANCE MUELLER I ASSOCIATES •. Y,'..... J' :5�.''.., ....':7 +' F I/.A :Ill.j- .• , 1 , - _ �.tuidl - 6EATTLE.WASNINOTON I, c..i 'I ... EXHIBIT 2 • 1 f" �__--� r • t. A •,.,.,.1�. 4 I /�. 1� 1 F q, lk,. / , �l `�` y 01 C„ .Yas.aA w t.,• .1 CuoO,Y I.Y w,r.wY deof 4it _ ,� 4 C ' ' .•,�.��., .ate) 1.M .�^.,. �..' r t • • a < �: eT' i ! l 4I r Jul .. , ,4' %+ , , ,, _ 4 ••----oi- � ...�..-•.+R� v v it 'I �' [� •� MIS I alt‘71.9.• • '. Y �` ' .�wM " , .. ... ... 4 ; '. :Y.(' k .,./5.,,,\.,,, • „......4,-. J • . . ,. , 5' ' "- ' • d- 1. A.,L'I ‘ fl• ' % ,„igi ..4 4.4 Ail, .,.,..,tc:,.., ........... - 5'''"4 ' ''- - il .\� iwrq {" �1.�� + ••• -4.~'q • 1i IfE . +9, ,II • _ (..,,, . . .YR - I NS , illit 1,, , . -v i 4 • * . . 4 iflit--‘-." • /r %. 14 , 1 .,► a .Y M•Te 1 'I it f > 'i le'sft , •--NANI, •' N4:..• ••A 4 •'t'u• ' '' • ' 1 \• '.,.: E,..7 ,i • ` ' \\• • , •kl,....1.:•,..• • • .'...••••• :, , • ..•.. Cz...,° ').• • ... li ir, :i. nirRo TRGATITPNt PLnNT• 1 •f:'Y.T.a ,. 1 ` .. ."G"'� • t- i h 4 ' j f II ,t0J*61 NIA ww•"" } � -/ice J �!'lL'. 1.�i.. a .. • .. . I __ r \` c .Sl1 " ! ,, • •}.` to Q 4.J /I l 4 67uM:n --- 4Sl0i.`. ,a 4,.•..4!,..y..,,,k`n 4 1A. ,I. M / s !,..i1 311! I+ s /i. _\ 111,/,:tilr•-,•,......101 ,' emu-r.mt.i1i. 1. i Ja- • VIVI 0lNR1FT10y ,�.^ ' ,/ .�11•r! tom• ./7�i��19. ^ — .._....,.�-�-_:: :._ 2'i1=: :e ��. ���" ' EARLINGTO.1S • r• �da - = ;.„ a0 ii!J1 , 'A� I{ PARK e „".--• 7 a 1 �. �I = r Ylli. r REfYTt7iV.W4SI IINGTCNV ..,....w......,...„..:."....r "A��� getill OWNERS. • • • n J° FIRST CITY EQUITIES C - r R;.�.y�; • .•al- -filial /� RANK Of CALWORMA CENTER _ ,��,�� . • • 6EATTLE,WASNWOTON •.' �...•' - r- .3 '�'r - r /:` ENGINEERS* ..I:F."" '— _ .. I••.,.•� - a Wa•„+C-•r.- ,- —�- • . D113N ROE0►HITCHINOS,INC,P.1 j'+"�'���/p.e ��I _ _ SCAITIE.WASNINOTON .�.."�.. ...^.C,_J".'."' :I,. .1. 1!�Yo• ,A. i? . .\. _ I ARCHITECTS. . "*....... ..... w ..' • T .•, .11:+,••Y'i: •:I ti 'S MO •�� _ - I q �� UNCE MUElLE11\ASSOWAT[S a...r.C:5::..""C.„.w .....•. .1' •tr..,,•, • F + •r.lt••O , 1 •\ �- ._�� SEATTL[.WASHINOTON '•-"'•r•7-"ii'n.:.•�'•.I41:w :.Txr'�P'�. • •:i.' ;•.r..•`•1 `•„�1�i�.`. I '1, 1��� t- . -.a. .��J 'fl_ ;t •9.St4Sti.1.i�.�l'Ytw•1.". , ` ' ..a • 1,,;.:•:).• ;•.;`k,,i.1■ .,- :or tyro-:' a-- ' 1,c t ff EXHIBIT 3 t � i —� t ! I I' :sr' r•'� t • tDI/ •vw •l S,, •,ram 1'* ` 4 F q t f I I r•t L. .. '1 Rf4 � .1 �! /: ; NIi ` � C • • • �►w� . t, ., t.i tom- ,. /. /i r K v <..,sr r M w.r..•..v rwa ra wr• 1 saw— ��/vs-- / w urn �. t,! A • .' • . *•• Nt , ,g..9-4Kri • la. •/. r • • • ••.1...,,,,i.ciii lit.. , :,,,,, ., 1 < , .,,,,‘, :. - . ,... . • a . . � ' . . .`� - .. �� . 4 A • ./ I t. �Q .. 1tI A:+l� . . _ •L!' 1\ ; \ . l y ' 1 \ .. iy; ` . • � f 14 ' % � - \ ,`•, C ti- — . "... Vim--�' � v` S _ • _ __ _► ' 1. .1A. _• v . 416 \it E I .....•...„ .. "Ns. Avoi.:, , li,. !IA -, I.. ,..-; . ....: . . •,. 1 .tram,.. ,� -1i •V"? j.'..I`r-)a, .N. , E ` i 0. S ' I ...Iw•.t 1 I, ! • I / a N. J I; ►� f s' f' "'Ili\• 11 \ •,til..:. .. . :...-.1'.. • ..177,.::, :. 1 il: r Y.. .1 • (` �\.• ,j 41 C t tarn. TRGATr1PNr PLAur \ �� ..• • .•• i, I , ,"G.'T 20 ,. naaAT ap A•i wy � W7" „ .. it . tY� Ac � �Nrtlaod 1i mama.. `=•••-}, a -g). i , A L't�1`•i . . . . a IIi 1 fl • I'Jr'tL{� 1t7.a.Y�J� r '' �.•g:1i. ,;1}[ ‘.1 \2" ;• • 1 y' lima 1, ..•t•�• ... ,.�... �I [MiN ?r..-"AVr !�1 , t`•• `.4. 1..•V A p, _! _ `• _ `Ilri ..:1� - " "- i , ;r . Imp . - , - I . 0- .,PIPE-• . . _ - �N ils.. i_.R • /•• �Lamm-r.mar I II`.• I . ��� � 03 Lf�Otr4I TWI .__.4 •.ata.=i "1, ../ ; *r_. t •Ir!, O •'.-' J o ir/g',I _ • �.s , 1111.411 ��.-.�`.r`•�e' !1P=� ' �, EARLINGTO-P = _ -= . ..._:._ +a � ,f�It t ii--jf , ,„., , --- PARK CV xiS•: -..rapt d ( AV,11 Ili 11 cp 4i t RENTON.WASHINGTON .. .:�'�11 .'�.... I��� } �] r� /�Ia�l�i1 •'�'/ ' L. ,�• OWNERS. ���`�•��r• - J � , �j�l �j111"-�_ - FIRST CITY EQUITIES • BANK OR CALIFORNIA CENTER .-..i17.wa'L:r" �l ,�����jo geC�t SEAT TLE,WA.3NINOTON yr.. Welmiliffillaildlill • ��a�.=ra mew.^� ?6�� • • EN6/NEERS. - ..+ ..r.. ..w.".:. _ 1 �• py BV3N ROED l NITCHING3,INC„V.S ,�_ ...:'w7•' • •I3. n�� row• .�\�1 • r• SEATTLE.WASNINOTON .."!'� ▪ r ,=w 11��'�I =1��. p� A •- ,\‘.-. - ` ARCHITECTS. 'y,� • • Ng LANCE MUELLER 1 ASSOCIATES r�•i'�•r�w'........+�.r.-. ... - ,1 •I.•- I,N4•, A :.t yh 6EATTLf,WASMiNOTON , T. :.:?'s:.1...• '1Y:.'L.� . ,I' ..okra <t • fits. f•t�____ mar, , 'f I ' 139+ "A, ', ./:;:01:Gi -.Ili iilra , 1 a-_-. • 1 •r,4.;'5.0.ily.f.. .I is t ----•------- •— II.. ,-Mar :;.':?, • - j 1 — r• II ram— —I l- . xrxt gr , • . ..".,i�',. - '' • . t s..... ..•imam r••'. LAW OFFICE S - BOGLE & GATES A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS ROBERT W.GRAHAM,P.S. JOHN F.BOESPFLUG,JR STEPHEN P.JOHNSON THE BANK OF CALIFORNIA CENTER CHARLES F.OSBORN,P.S. JAMES F.TUNE RICHARD J.WALLIS MAX KAMINOFF.P.S. THADDAS L.ALSTON LEWIS TAYLOR EGAN J.TYLER HULLP.S. •••DOUGLAS A.RIGGS RICHARD D.VOGT SEATTLE,WASHINGTON 98164 ARTHUR EL GRUNKE,P.S. SPENCER HALL,JR. DOUGLAS G.MOONEY RONALD E.McKINSTRY,P.S. ARTHUR C.CLAFLIN ANDREW A.GUY CABLE••BOGLE SEATTLE" EDWARD C.BIELE.P.S. D.MICHAEL YOUNG WILLIAM O.CLARK RICHARD S.SPRAGUE,P.S. FREDERICK T.RASMUSSEN BRYCE LHOLLAND.JR. IRWIN L.TREIGER,P.S. DEAN A.MESSMER LYNN EDELSTEIN Du BEY (208) 682-5151 TELEX 32-1087 PAUL W.STEERE,P.S. ROBERT C.GRAYSON JEFFREY R.MASI ••ROBERT J.BLACKWELL J.PETER SHAPIRO BRUCE A.KING ROBERT A.STEWART KELLY P.CORR BRADLEY S.KELLER DONALD LJOHNSON ELAINE L.SPENCER JAMES T.LATTING SUITE 726 DON PAUL BADGLEY,P.S. GUY'P.MICHELSON •••EDWARD LMINER •PETER D.BYRNES . CHRISTOPHER J.BARRY ••ANNE E MICKEY 1575 EYE STREET N.W. GERHARDT MORRISON,P.S. JAMES M.JERGE JAMES H.LOWE WASHINGTON,D.C.20005 JOHN T.PIPER RICHARD A.BERSIN THOMAS SCOTT HODGE THOMAS J.MeKEY WILLIAM E.VAN VALKENBERG JEFFREY W.LEPPO EDWARD G.LOWRY III RICHARD A.MONTOOMERY ROBERT HOWARD BLAIS (202) 028-0485 TELEX:89-7410 JOHN P.SULLIVAN PATRICIA H.CHAR JUDITH AENDEJAN DUSTIN C.MCCREARY RICHARD A.ALCORN ANNE V.MCCLELLAN RONALD 7.SCHAPS CHRIS ROBERT YOUTZ GEORGE E.GREER MIKE LILES JR. MICHAEL E.CAVANAUGH J.PETER MULHERN SUITE 526 WILLIAM L.'ARKER TERRENCE P.MURPHY CELESTE M.NORRIS DAN P.HUNGATE HELEN A.HARVEY ERIK R.LIED BOO WEST FIFTH AVENUE JOHN C.COUGHENOUR WILLIAM F.CRONIN LAVEEDA OARLINGTON-MATHEWS PETER M.ANDERSON LUCY P.S.ISAKI DIANE G.FITZ-GERALD ANCHORAGE,ALASKA 99501 DELBERT D.MILLER ANN EKRUSE BRUCE M.BLUME ROBERT D.KAPLAN DAVID R.MILLEN 007 276-4667 DALE B.EFF RAMERMAN ROGER MA-WOODi Counsel RICHARDF ARC. RICHARDG.WOOD RICHARD COURTNAGE CLINTONTON SUZANNEEITH M.MILLER KOESTNER MICHAEL 9 COU KEITH M.KORENCHUK STANLEY B.LONG KARL J.EGE CAROLYN A.ROEBER EDWARD CLDOBRIN MECHE MICHAEL W.DUNDY ELLEN P.SCHREIER FRANK L.MECHEM •CHARLES R.BLUMENFELD ROBERT J.THOMAS ORLO B.KELLOGG JAMES ASMITHMITH JR. SUSAN EBOYLE THOMAS L.MDRROW THOMAS C.GORES DENNIS G.STENSTROM ROBERT V.HOLLAND PLEASE REPLY TO SEATTLE OFFICE KIMBERLY W.OSENBAUGH SALLY H.SAXON M.BAYARD CRUTCHER •WASHINOTON STATE AND DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA BARS ••DI STRICT OF COLUMBIA BAR ONLY•••ALASKA STATE ^7 ALL OTHERS WASHINGTON S TAR A ENLY BAR ONLY FILE NO.: 9 / 20 21045 May 12 , 1981 • The Honorable Barbara Shinpoch, Mayor • The Honorable RandyRockhill, Chairman -"' Planning and Development Committee ���� � � City of Renton 45' Municipal Building 4� � ������ a-, 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, Washington 98055 g RECEIVED c `®. 'CM of RENTON pt Re: Earlington Industrial Park /'QCURIO MICE Iry I Preliminary Plat Appeal �6492 9Zg2®1'' -. File No. PP-056-80 Dear Mayor Shinpoch and Chairman Rockhill: • Please find enclosed First City Equities' letter of appeal on the above-referenced matter. We did want to alert you to a related matter. On April 14, 1981, the Hearing Examiner denied the Applicant's request for a rezone, from "G" to "M-P" , on 25 . 89 acres of the subdivision which is the subject of this appeal. While the Applicant, by this letter is not appealing that decision, it is clear that unless the rezone is granted, the preliminary plat will require some modification. Applicant, therefore, requests that the Council take steps to ensure the simultaneous consideration of Applicant' s rezone request and preliminary plat application. By of way of explanation--on March 26 , 1981, the Examiner held consecutive public hearings on the Applicant's rezone request and preliminary plat application. The Examiner' s Report and Recommendation denying the rezone was issued on April 14 , 1981. On April 28, 1981, within the statutory 14-day period, the Ap- plicant requested that the Examiner reconsider his decision based upon substantial errors of fact and law. The Examiner has in- BOGLE 8c GATES The Honorable Barbara Shinpoch, Mayor The Honorable Randy Rockhill, Chairman May 12 , 1981 Page 2 dicated that his decision on the reconsideration will be issued on or before May 18 , 1981. , The Examiner'.s Report and Recommendation granting the preliminary plat with conditions was issued on April 28, 1981. Pursuant to Section 4-3016 the Applicant was required to file the attached appeal by May 12, 1981, which is prior to the is- suance of the Examiner's decision on the rezone reconsideration. In the event that the Examiner affirms his denial of the rezone, the Applicant will immediately appeal that decision to the City Council. Because the City Council's consideration of the preliminary plat appeal, which is attached, would be premature prior to the Examiner's rezone reconsideration, the Applicant respectfully requests that the Planning Committee defer consideration of this appeal until its May 28, 1981 meeting, at. which time the two related matters can be con- solidated, if necessary. Very truly yours, BOGLE & GATES a 44) e Charles R. Blumenf d Enclosures LAW OFFICES BOGLE & GATES A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS ROBERT W.GRAHAM,P.S. JOHN F.BOESPFLUCAJR. STEPHEN P.JOHNSON THE BANK OF CALIFORNIA CENTER CHARLES F.OSBORN,P.8 JAMES F.TUNE RICHARD J.WALLIS MAX KAMINOFF,P.S. THADDAS LALSTON LEWIS TAYLOR EGAN J.TYLER HULL,P.S. •••DOUGLAS A.RIGOS RICHARD D.VOOT SEATTLE,WASHINGTON 98164 ARTHUR O GRUNKE,P.S. SPENCER HALL,JR. DOUGLAS CL MOONEY RONALD E.MCKINSTRY,P.S. ARTHUR C.CLAFLIN ANDREW AGUY CABLE"BOGLE SEATTLE" EDWARD C.BIELE,P.S. D.MICHAEL YOUNG WILLIAM GCARK RICHARD S.SPRAOUE,P.S. FREDERICK T.RASMUSSEN BRYCE L.HOLLAND,JR. IRWIN LTREIGER,P.S. DEAN AMESSMER LYNN EDELSTEIN Du BEY (206) 082-5151 TELEX 32-1087 PAUL W.STEERE,P.S. ROBERT C.ORAYSON JEFFREY R.MASI ••ROBERT J.BLACKWELL J.PETER SHAPIRO BRUCE A.KINO ROBERT A.STEWART KELLY P.CORR BRADLEY S.SELLER DONALD LJOHNSON ELAINE LSPENCER JAMES T.LATTING SUITE 725 DON PAUL BADGLEY,P.S. GUY P.MICHELBON •••EDWARD LMINER •PETER D.BYRNES CHRISTOPHER J.BARRY ••ANNE E.MICKEY 1576 EYE STREET N.W. GERHARDT MORRISON,P.S. JAMES M.JERGE JAMES H.LOWE WASHINGTON,D.C.20005 JOHN T.PIPER RICHARD ABERSIN THOMAS SCOTT HODGE THOMAS J.MCKEY WILLIAM EVAN VALKENBERG JEFFREY W.LEPPO (202) 826'0485 TELEX:89-7410 EDWARD G.LOWRY III RICHARD A.MONTGOMERY ROBERT HOWARD BLAIB JOHN P.SULLIVAN PATRICIA H.CHAR JUDRH A.ENDEJAN DUSTIN C.MCCREARY RICHARD&ALCORN ANNE V.MCCLELLAN RONALD T.SCHAPS CHRIS ROBERT YOUTZ GEORGE E.GREER MIKE LILES JR. MICHAEL E.CAVANAUGH J.PETER MULHERN SUITE 525 WILLIAM DAN P.HUNGATE R.LIED ER HELEN A.HARVEY TERRENCE PHV ERIK CELESTE NORRIS BOO WEST FIFTH AVENUE JOHN C.COUGHENOUR WILLIAM F.CRONIN LAVEEOA GARLINGTON•MATHEWS PETER M.ANDERSON LUCY P.S.ISAKI DIANE G.FITZ-GERALD ANCHORAGE,ALASKA 98801 DELBERT D.MILLER ANN EKRUSE BRUCE M.BLUME ROBERT D.KAPLAN DAVID R.MILLEN (907) 278-4857 DALE B.RAMERMAN ROGER M.TOLBERT Counsel E.MCDUFF ARCHIBALD RICHARD EL WOOD RICHARD M.CLINTON SUZANNE MILLER KOESTNER MICHAEL S COURTNAGE KEITH M.KORENCHUK STANLEY B.LONG KARL J.EOE CAROLYN A.ROEBER EDWARD G.DOBRIN MICHAEL W.DUNDY ELLEN P.SCHREIER FRANK LMECHEM •CHARLES R.BLUMENFELD ROBERT J.THOMAS ORLO B.KELL000 JAMES A.SMITH JR. SUSAN EBOYLE THOMAS LMORROW THOMAS C.GORES DENNIS G.STENSTROM ROBERT V.HOLLAND PLEASE REPLY TO SEATTLE OFFICE KIMBERLY W.OSENBAUGH SALLY H.SAXON M.BAYARD CRUTCHER •WASHINOTON STATE AND DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA BARS ••DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA BAR ONLY •••ALASKA STATE BAR ONLY ALL OTHERS WASHINGTON STATE BAR ONLY FILE NO.: • File No. 9720/21045 May 12, 1981 The Honorable Barbara Shinpoch, Mayor The Honorable Randy Rockhill, Chairman Planning and Development Committee City of Renton • Municipal Building 200 Mill Avenue South . Renton, Washington 98055 Re: Earlington Industrial Park •- Preliminary Plat Appeal (File No. PP-056-80) Gentlemen: We are writing as counsel for First City Equities, the Applicant for the above-referenced preliminary plat. Pursuant to Title IV, Section 3016 of the Renton City Code, First City Equities hereby appeals portions of Examiner Kaufman' s April 28, 1981 Report and Recommendation to the Renton City Council. The Examiner' s decision grants the Applicant' s requested preliminary plat subject to conditions. The Appli- cant submits that a number of these conditions are based upon substantial errors in fact and law. I . INTRODUCTION • The Examiner' s Report and Recommendation approves the Applicant' s preliminary plat, but imposes a number of substan- tial conditions. Those conditions include: (1) dedication to the City of a 400-foot wide corridor encompassing the existing location of Springbrook Creek and the Black River Channel; (2) . expansion of planned cul-de-sacs on Powell Avenue and west of BOGLE & GATES The Honorable Barbara Shinpoch The Honorable Randy Rockhill May 12, 1981 Page 2 Powell Avenue to 80-foot wide right-of-ways; (3) use of oil separators, settling ponds and temporary detention systems dur- ing construction; (4) construction of sidewalks along S.W. 7th Street east until they connect with existing sidewalks in the commercial sections of the city; (5) construction of an 80-foot wide right-of-way coinciding with the location of the proposed Valley Parkway from S.W. Grady Way at the southern boundary of the site to Monster Road, which is 1,200 feet beyond the north- west boundary of the site. * While all of these conditions are based upon substan- tial errors in law and fact, the Applicant appeals to the Coun- cil only condition (1) above. II . THE EXAMINER' S REQUIREMENT FOR DEDICATION OF . A 400-FOOT WIDE CORRIDOR IS ERRONEOUS The primary focus of the Applicant' s appeal is the Examiner' s requirement that the Applicant dedicate a 400-foot wide corridor of greenbelt encompassing the existing location of Springbrook Creek and the Black River Channel. (Conclusion 22) . This confiscatory and unjustified condition is the result of substantial errors in fact and law. Specifically, the con- dition is founded upon an erroneous interpretation of existing greenbelt areas based upon the planned development of the P-1 Channel and construction of the Valley Parkway, and the condi- tion is contrary to existing zoning and Shoreline Master Pro- gram designations. A. The Examiner' s Conclusion is Based upon an Erroneous Interpretation of the Comprehensive Plan' s Greenbelt Designation. Perhaps the most significant factor underlying the Examiner' s 400-foot corridor condition is consistency with the greenbelt designation of the Comprehensive Plan (Conclusions 12, 14 and 22, and Finding 20) . This issue is admittedly com- plex and potentially confusing. However, a careful examination of the Comprehensive Plan demonstrates: *While the Applicant is not appealing this condition, for the record the Applicant does not own this property. Therefore, satisfaction of this condition may depend upon the City' s willingness to exercise its power of eminent domain. . ) BOGLE & GATES The Honorable Barbara Shinpoch The Honorable Randy Rockhill May 12, 1981 Page 3 (1) Only a very small portion (rather than major por- tions) of the subdivision is currently designated greenbelt. Specifically, only a small segment of Springbrook Creek, in its current location within the subdivision, is designated green- belt. The remainder of Springbrook Creek and all of the Black River Channel is designated Manufacturing Park. (2) The greenbelt area was intended to "float" with, the path of the proposed P-1 Channel, not to follow the loca- tion of Springbrook Creek or the Black River Channel. Consis- tent with this intent of the Comprehensive Plan-, the Applicant has reserved nearly 20 acres of its property as open space. Unlike the 400-foot corridor imposed by the Examiner, this reserve coincides with the path of the proposed P-1 Channel, which is located almost exclusively within the property zoned M-P. • (3) While awaiting a final decision on construction of the P-1 Channel, the Applicant is bound to hold in reserve the designated location of the Channel and detention pond .for a reasonable period of time. Therefore, contrary to the Exam- iner' s Conclusion 19, no conflict exists between the P-1 Chan- nel and the subdivision. (4) In the event the P-1 Channel is not constructed, the Applicant does not propose to realign Springbrook Creek. Furthermore, the existing creek and perimeter areas will be preserved as open space and buffered with landscaping and walk- ways consistent with the Shoreline Master Program, the condi- tions imposed by the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) and the CC&Rs imposed upon the subdivision by the Applicant. 1. Only a Small Portion of Springbrook Creek is Designated Greenbelt. In its existing location, Springbrook Creek cuts across a small segment of the south portion of Tract B and then exits the property. Springbrook Creek reenters the subdivision at the southeast corner of Tract A and extends north until it intersects with the Black River Channel at the north boundary of Tract A. The Black River Channel flows west along the north boundary of Tract A and exits the subdivision in the northwest corner of Tract A. The majority of Springbrook Creek and all the Black River Channel is designated as Manufacturing Park in the Comprehensive Plan and is currently zoned M-P. Only a $OGLE 8c GATES The Honorable Barbara Shinpoch The Honorable Randy Rockhill May 12, 1981 Page 4 small portion of Tract B surrounding Springbrook Creek, as it flows through the southwest corner of the subdivision, is cur- rently designated greenbelt in the Comprehensive Plan. As the Examiner correctly noted in Finding 20, the appropriate designation for land used for flood control devices is greenbelt. Thus, the greenbelt strip here, which occurs primarily along the western boundary of Tract B and the south- ern boundary of Tract A, was intended to approximate the loca- tion of the P-1 Channel as it was planned when the Comprehen- sive Plan was completed. At the time the Plan was completed, a 300-foot wide greenbelt was planned to coincide with the P-1 Channel. This greenbelt, which totaled approximately 25 .3 acres adjacent to the subdivision, did not follow the path of Springbrook Creek or the Black River Channel except in those limited areas where the P-1 Channel was expected to include existing portions of Springbrook Creek. (See Exhibit 1) . 2 . The Greenbelt Designation was Intended to Follow the P-1 Channel. Since completion of the Comprehensive Plan, the loca- tion of the. proposed P-1 Channel has been settled. As first planned, the P-1 Channel will follow the western boundary of Tract B; however, contrary to the initial route of the P-1 Channel flowing directly west to the P-1 pump station, it is now settled that the Channel will extend north into Tract A and then flow west to the pump station. As a result, much of the land on which the P-1 Channel and associated detention pond will flow, is designated Manufacturing Park. Consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan, the Applicant has indicated that it will reserve over 17 acres within Tract A as greenbelt pending a decision within a reason- able time on construction of the P-1 Channel. This reservation coincides with the location of the P-1 Channel and detention pond. Together with the approximately 180 foot P-1 Channel right-of-way running along the western boundary of Tract B, the greenbelt area totals approximately 26. 9 acres (See Exhibit 2) . Thus, the reservation of land by the Applicant implements the Comprehensive Plan' s intent that the greenbelt designation "float" with the location of the P-1 Channel. As proposed by the Applicant, this greenbelt would include 1.6 acres more than the Comprehensive Plan originally designated as greenbelt. $OGLE & GATES The Honorable Barbara Shinpoch The Honorable Randy Rockhill May 12, 1981 Page 5 By contrast, dedication of a 400-foot wide corridor surrounding the existing location of Springbrook Creek and the Black River Channel, as imposed by the Examiner, does not implement the intent of the Comprehensive Plan for several sig- nificant reasons. First, by focusing on the existing location of Springbrook Creek and the Black River Channel, the 400-foot wide corridor does not correspond with the proposed location of the P-1 channel. (See Exhibit 3 . Additional areas necessary for the P-1 Channel and detention pond, but not included by this condition are indicated by hatch marks) . The permanent dedication of this corridor would ensure that the greenbelt does not "float" with the location of the P-1 Channel as intended in the Comprehensive Plan. Because portions of Springbrook Creek will be realigned upon construction of the P-1 Channel, the Examiner' s requirement would result in green- belt around. a creek that no longer exists. Second, the 400- foot corridor imposed by the Examiner, requires the dedication of 28.2 acres of the Applicant' s property (9 . 6 acres of Tract B, 17.2 acres of Tract A, and 1. 4 acres of Phase I ) . Excluding road rights-of-way this is 1.3 acres less than the greenbelt in the Comprehensive Plan and 2 .9 acres less than the greenbelt reserved in the Applicant' s proposed preliminary plat. There- fore, while the Examiner purports to implement the Comprehen- sive Plan, the Examiner' s condition has the anomalous result of defeating the intent of the Comprehensive Plan by preventing a "floating" greenbelt by reducing the total greenbelt acreage. 3 . The Applicant will Hold Open Space in Reserve Pending a Decision Within a Reasonable Time on Construction of the P-1 Channel. As indicated in the previous subsection, pending actual construction of the P-1 Channel or a decision not to construct the P-1 Channel, the Applicant will reserve as green- belt the areas indicated in Exhibit 2 . Despite this substan- tial reservation, all of Phase I, virtually all of Tract B and two significant areas within Tract A are available for develop- ment during this interim period. These areas do. not include any portion of the existing Springbrook Creek or the proposed P-1 Channel and are not included within the greenbelt designa- tion as intended by the Comprehensive Plan. BOGLE & GATES The Honorable Barbara Shinpoch The Honorable Randy Rockhill May 12, 1981 Page 6 4. If the P-1 Channel is not Constructed, Springbrooke Creek will be Protected Under Existing Ordinanes. In the event the P-1 Channel is not constructed, development consistent with the Comprehensive Plan would be permitted, subject to the restrictions set forth in the Zoning Code and the Shoreline Master Program, as well as the condi- tions imposed by the ERC and the conditions imposed by the Applicant' s CC&Rs. B. The Examiner' s Conclusion is not Consistent with the Renton Shoreline Master Program The Examiner' s Report indicates that the 400-foot wide dedication is imposed in order to insure consistency with the Renton Shoreline Master Program. (Conclusions 12 and 17) . In fact, this excessive loss of developable property is contrary to the Urban designation of Springbrook Creek and the Black River Channel (Section 5. 03 ) and is inconsistent with the guidelines for Industrial Development (Section 7.07) . Under the Shoreline Master Program, the Urban Environ- ment "is ari area of high-intensity land-use including residen- tial, commercial, and industrial development. " Furthermore, the designation is "particularly suitable to those areas pre- sently subject to extremely intensive use pressure, as well as areas planned to accommodate intensive urban expansion. " Thus, the the objective of the Urban Environment "is to insure opti- mum utilization of shorelines within urbanized areas" by pro- viding for intensive use and development. The guidelines for industrial development require a 25 foot setback from the edge of Urban waters. At the outset, it should be noted that the Shoreline Master Program is administered by the Renton Planning Commis- sion and that the Applicant is required to obtain a substantial development permit from the Commission. Therefore, while it is clear that the Examiner' s decison should generally conform with the requirements of the Shoreline Master Program, his decision is not the proper forum for imposing specific conditions desig- nated to implement the policies of the Shoreline Master Pro- gram. It is the Applicant' s position that conditions designed to carry out the provisions of the Shoreline Master Program should be imposed during the substantial development permit BOGLE SC GATES The Honorable Barbara Shinpoch The Honorable Randy Rockhill May 12, 1981 Page 7 proceedings, not in the preliminary plat proceedings. This is particularly true here where the Examiner' s findings and con- clusions are not based on the record. In addition, it is the Applicant' s position that the 400-foot corridor imposed by the Examiner is inconsistent with the urban designation and the setback requirements of the Shoreline Master Program. The Act regulates development within 200 feet of the water' s edge through design standards requiring sensitive development. The Act does not require or intend no development within 200 feet of an urban shoreline. III . THE HEARING EXAMINER' S CONCLUSIONS ARE UNSUPPORTED BY THE RECORD The Examiner is required by Section 4-3014 and the common-law of Washington to reach his decision based solely upon the facts entered into the record. The Applicant there- fore vigorously objects to the following conclusions which are totally unsupported by the record. 1. Conclusion 20 - There is no support in the record for the conclusion that the subdivision, as radically altered by the Examiner, is suitable for rail service and heavy ware- housing. 2. Conclusion 9 - There is no evidence in the record on the appearance and visual quality of the Black River wet- lands. 3 . Conclusion 15 - There is no evidence in the record on the C.H.G. International development. The failure of the Examiner to limit his consideration to the record before him supports the Applicant' s position, detailed above, that the Examiner' s decision in this case is clearly erroneous. IV. SUMMARY As detailed` above, the Applicant submits that the con- dition imposed in Conclusion 22 is based on substantial errors .of fact and law, as follows: BOGLE & GATES The Honorable Barbara Shinpoch The Honorable Randy Rockhill May 12, 1981 Page 8 1. The Examiner erred in concluding that "the land, or goodly portions thereof" are designated Greenbelt under the Comprehensive Plan and that development as proposed in the preliminary plat would not implement the generalized or floating greenbelt designation in the Comprehensive Plan. (Conclusions 12, 14, 22 and Finding 20) . 2. The Examiner erred in concluding that the prelim- inary plat is inconsistent or does not comply with the Urban designation and industrial development require- ments of the Shoreline Master Program. (Conclusions 12, 17, 22) . 3 . The Examiner erred in concluding that imposition of. the 400-foot wide dedication surrounding Spring- • brook Creek is reasonable, necessary or comparable to Alternative Three in the Environmental Impact State- ment. (Conclusions 12, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23) . 4.'. The Examiner erred in concluding that the sub- division as proposed would involve any diversion of Springbrook Creek independent of the P-1 Channel and that the subdivision conflicts to any extent with the P-1 Channel. (Conclusion 19 and Findings 12, 37) . In addition, the above conclusions are inconsistent with the Examiner' s other Findings. (Findings 13, 19) . 5. The Examiner erred in concluding that heavy ware- housing or rail services will still be available or appropriate for development of the subdivision as altered by the conditions imposed. (Conclusion 20) . 6. The Examiner erred in imposing conditions which eliminate heavy warehousing and yet concluding that heavy warehousing is appropriate because "the project makes use of the site' s unique location adjacent to the rail spurs and just north of I-405 and the Valley Freeway (SR-167.) . " (Conclusions 5, 20) and Finding 37. 7. The Examiner erred to the extent the decision purports to make determinations which are the subject of the substantial development permit proceedings pur- suant ,to the Shoreline Master Program. (Conclusions 12, 17, 22) . BOGLE & GATES The Honorable Barbara Shinpoch The Honorable Randy Rockhill May 12, 1981 Page 9 8. The Examiner erred in basing his decision to any extent upon the circumstances and facts relating to the dedication of open space by C.H.G. International. (Conclusion 15) . 9. The Examiner erred in concluding that "virtually the entire development" is located outside the one and one-half mile fire service radius for first response engine company and the two mile radius for first response ladder company, and that the Fire Department cannot currently provide adequate service to the, sub- ject property. (Conclusion 20 and Finding 35) . 10. The Examiner erred to the extent the conditions imposed are based upon the Examiner' s denial of the applicant' s rezone request, which is currently under appeal. (Conclusions 1, 2, 12 and Finding 17) . In summary, the applicant appeals in whole or in part the fol- lowing conclusions and findings: Conclusions 1, 2, 5, 12,. 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23; Findings 12, 17, 20, 35, 37; and Recommendations 1 and 3 . V. CONCLUSION Based upon the above, the Applicant submits that the conditions imposed by Conclusion 22 is based upon substantial errors of law and fact. First City Equities therefore requests that the City Council approve the preliminary plat as proposed and modify the Examiner' s Findings and Conclusions accordingly. Very truly yours, BOGLE & GATES AV;62) /ei Charles R. Blumenfeld Jeffrey W. Leppo A1ttorneys for the Applicant First City Equities cc: Members of the City Council Mr. Roger Blaylock, Planning Department Lawrence J. Warren, Esq. , City Attorney Fred J. Kaufman, Esq. , Hearing Examiner EXHIBIT 1 . • p -.' . • 1 . , - - - 0 ---� 1 1 C • ..i - 4:400" r?) /1' 1 . f: i!, r .�•raAwn I / 10 i • • I _ A , M.Na.�a..1a•1.p1 ' •j -�' �,j • Y ./. n v w u7o I a. �.l a • • • • '-}r 4 c.nor: .. : �2'r;sc: / ,At �,j\U w.sotf �►InI ; +l: 1 q . . ��. _ �., c.:P'W. a.:l- �i, l- 1;�`3= • 'a _ _ "�.c , •"/01 • \. -+eF;i_ . II,i•CvJI I. • li'••4 / .. t I. ;----:-: - ' ...' 4 1; -'7' 11014%1(1 •::„ . _ , ....I...,'t „ •,,, •--e•-,s7---,.., -,..- 04---"\I 7' v7*(i, I.-..-*;iS,tV9 11.. ••• •-. -------cso edal;2 P i i ... p:;7- 1/4 / • .,F. r 1-r/a ei Ql.• • - . • • : .1.—,...::---- r 2.- •._ _ .-4_,,.,..AN, .,,.. .._ A h4f 4 iiii, , Ait 0, Nkr% < ••• - • p , ,,- • .. , . - • 1 , r a 1:„ --� - \�v 1 �. ' '• • . , . t•Ea r11_ !1 1 •. Ir„. —f ':- '�.__ - • T.r � —T -r"+ � l i `.'• A o `. I� . �I III �1 I • �. IL. :� . �•.; 'J��' +y ..rcr aT•�IiL`i._ V�'Fi" �•F I •••'•'�, ` III I • , • lax• '��'w�s'L • ))s��•�-.-- deb 7 • II 11 • t ., 44/ .r'k J C.'�sii..t wL7 •k'_•`6..-w.'t-k` y��!, •,J.•• ,.�..\I_J ,. ;.'`- -,+t, !• I ti • • S • :L« .. -_ ` f •' .,, ` i•• Y • L. lr • PIETRO TirgaTnPur pv uT }• ' , � Y .. 1.' G...� 1[DJ.LT w `MiI. •.. • � ` 1.. :7�, • • it I- At . �•T 'i t_} • -•.‘��: .,.;e i 5 }i :s : •��••�1�•l ,}I0•.. .. .. . .. . I 'it :-...-= 7/...--''-''-".* .:-.::‘tt* '&14 4 - IN . ••.....;t::•.:.:::::1 v` 34V \ 1\ - ,���fff44p re.—r 7#t.i i�1 i •: S.•;.!•:4,:r. g , 1 i. `i / • t_ 1- - ._V P. - '�i-••.... ... 3p e.n Y�t��1[�{'ii..1\ �r 11,01 1 ti:..0 I .1; I ii'j„, T - /p►1• - �i, ,' _. �_...�._ �WIII� ."...:b311QLii I i..- J ,,•. . t, ,.,,,, -3,.. . ‘..- ......-. -• ,,„„oso,. p. _ vep- . . . . 1 I I AYWc6ij ••• _� Ianao•r'Aran, _._ ,- -.v, ��p \ e `ram .ra>��/ -- -▪ _�_ .._ _ ..�. :' 8!� ��A�gal-Pa �. EARLINGTOI r , ;. \ - �,�a •• roll' log �,1 i 1 '�0 I{_• PARK • - R4 ▪ = � 1} I1 . r r RENTC7N.WASHINGTON ...._......._....•..9^LY.� ` �����p�'ifa,,I_� �� •-1-' OWNERS. _ -- T▪.L7:.. a• _ 1.f _ FIRST CITY EWITId f • ,` .�•�,� 'I- BANK OF CALIFORNIA CENTER __ _ — __• _— . _-_�_ - _ • SEAT TLE•WASHNIOTON • :,.-^I;;;" �. "'�1�::' - 7.. • I I 0 qTr�• _ �.---- U BUSH ROED L HITCHING],INC."! _t •"_y._=• •fi• •; i,''� � - - - `I • � SEAL TLE.wA]HINOTON "�. .�._....i-^�,� •)- 'i• :. it a. '`- _ ARCHITECTS. . i • ,�:�r 'I�',�,„I Ala _ -' LANCE MUELLER .AS]OGATC] -.+.-.....,.' Jr.:�.. .._.. •'fI ,••1j!'�'01 ,, 1 .- _ - OEATTLE,MA]MINOTOfI ....._-;�� ._ '-..7 '1.'-'. .t `'.• I�•t. 1�'•I�'6 •.••• ' _ _ram.-'• _-_- . It.(—:., Cl ('%'':`fir` ;Fr`% ij 7. [ �v0 .11 s_• •I f =_����`N` • • T a I - t•�r— -- r [— 7i�ri� —� .. •...... JR•r.• EXHIBIT 2 • • • • '- •. - I� -"\`t ' r • • • J #fir. '{' • . •>•,., , t Vri f' . j r✓ . 1. i • �• 4 o.w•Mo..�N l� ,, r'�13r�.�' TMa€'tr .s+- i , a :Aw9-fa ,-7 k' �mg `Y—•.,...., . ...,,..._....„, • -if _ %• .,/ rn•v►, ut.M ,i-,,•'C_ Ji a ! rS:11.1,G I. 1' 'ltr`,• sc=���. ;K. �'�..� �C t• '�z VI.. F-_a=.:, •`` �• a,,,• .. _ . 1 moo•..... •,-_ r - 1 C'U" r,- - �• ' .,�' ! L\\IJ••. M/J .. 4 , • _ t •_ %+.N. //..'ty.M- {. _ ` • 4 ..t: V Y�.. y 2 Q i'�[Q-5 i iyt �.., -• • }/F II r }(;,T'7. . .1. I. . �''''i . }i:.a'..11 • �rT L • . Jo • IJ ,_, uAc Fey.. /` • A\• •.__ < -��� . /,.' 7" �` -▪ --:off , ' ;: I •14 �,, 'r ••�F,144' ,og..'; - ` • '• a, : `I ". /\{ ��\ • js.(CF.....�' // �t .. �� 'ate,••J, a - 11[ C • yiiii,10(•, I `•Md .`. .•I. I••' i 111 . ..1 - •- si,...,,,,, v ._-_..:4...,,....,,,• (,-. : . ,,,..,, ,4., „ )., • • :.� t �t ' . • t_. .• `a'-.IFS, +& ':<_-• '-- -- �L`�rv_.. I ..�-�} • g•,�:- ' : 1,�,• L, e . / ' �t�i �m:.W• •.tom. 4 _ r 'I' '{u 2• I - . r`lii % . " .: - -''.' '-'*-7-4-1 7 ' :!, : .- s� •S5iirr .1. • t ._ _ 2a,. •� _ a norlLo 7R�ATneur pu+uT' • i,P, •f' • Y.Y. .. 1,',. `"` G.�y • ..,...,.. ,,,,,„,„..1„, ,,,A2m27-...c.,.... . . , sq,.....,. ...4. var. t' . . „ .. . .. , Li . . • "all 4 - 7` • — • II'i:ii,:' 't ?� " 1 ` _ _ .r� ,r_a•q .._ awnIT-glit. a i is' )' Srawi" •7 V1Ifi ': . .. ,:..�" : y •• I � •. V- � AbN9�R . Or-k t t...:• o u � ,. • � �n.q.:,_« Tir.„-...\:" • rfism ,1.•; • .;,ti''.,n• t.f .' .\ r �rMl 3� I ' ' .r.. } t . - • • ' ' • 1114110#113fLeaitsT•61.btiiy.Tel S9/l� , ! tot f� • •y t'"; _j IJr — -__...._ e.•= .•_..._ r ;'•'lam°�,� 11�o+ ' EARLINGTOr _,.�. �=.«,FS' . • . +>■, '' . ..4 1:fal r -. PARK • s i;. .. ;14. ; . /_ 1Of 1. +i REN ON.WASI-UNGTON -,�� ii:lQf S t L. `I OWNERS' • _• { ��• ��I d .- FIRST CITY EQUITIES t^�: a .-.�__-,�. -__-. BANK OF CALIFORNIA CENTER MMO.re! --- = ^..5,_,�, • •' ••'i`_L �..���/ _- - SEATTLE,wASHwOTON +..: fir` •�•. p�►��- w r !'� EH6IHEER3• _ -" .1+ e=�ej.;�4 ..-• • pn� ,' BUSH ROED I.HITCHINOS,INC,P.S ._~2 ,� ..,�... • •' . ^' Ar' -- IC •\ •- •C..i f SEATTLE.WASHIMOTON .� .'_. -: :-•-- • ��, I 0' A y" .� `.- ARCHITECTS. y -- •"-Wit-=:- .'T ;:' 'a.."':.•i' iI a SO - IJy f LANCE MUIELLERIL ASSOCIATES '=r^ ••-' = •• .1' '1'� .I ' ��"'•'I _ �] , '- LJ4- •.1 BE ATTLE,WASHIN OTON • _r., in,,01 •� •jg e� �����_t 4_ • L •- ,i! {•,,�31a'1){l' �,1 �1 BLit E' _ U\ ` (� g��a_ I� 7 .~.:.1;.17 Y'1."""i • , J1i,�', } •4i' try. • • .'..7•; '7.': i. 1 1 -- -- 11II •- . •';.4'. _ say.j; f __"'--t.- �--.• �- • ._ 7i!=7i,YL-." 1`. ' EXHIBIT 3 • • Ra.:; Y . — • J , •1 ' ��.�• . /-• •i/,•:• �_. it .;/. A(�.•..,�s a.w•.o.at N YiN N • • '\ 'S ��R •4 ��• ;a)-\, � • t• U �� ...4.. • i �1•{I'•.• �, .i r ��.��•-•�..•v,.�,//`!'....'•'.•I.L L.:), • —� •�l • ~' tz o:- 1 _•_• �� ° ••f• •,n •-h ✓ I1, {J • •i(� 1'.r /:� ft s. 7 ' ." -'' '.. l'''S••'.' -` A .. ?.1 ilifiti'a%ti '°L.%P's1144T3 1?•1.':'. ' ' • i: ;TD...".."'"--•`-• • ./T--i '- � ,�� -- - • P�'// • `"u • #. T A ' _ tr • . , .. .. • i , ` ,.' � .�.a -.. 1.--4,7.--...p- . si ■ IV ' ' ' , . • , Ws' s , r r .- :_ - �: te^ —=-- —— � _ — % . . _ ,..e.\ \lit • • ip.,'. 1 - r :• •• ii P • \ . I •)'s: • F . . -. . .... \10„, , ....,,„ , • / ,,,.,../.. . ,,,.. .... I. b. I. II. :1, . . �' purr° TrcATrwur pLAUT +, Y •. 1; 4 ,°E^ •• 110111111.„14 if" � � mo•o �I�� a • " .w•M _ - II� I '��•r!i • lit. •t•1' " it, 32 . I; - • _ • • + -•►•p �'.,?. ` . ~ -• r - t14111NY.�^ .. i'.1• i.?.., I , M ~ ~ ort rj T � 4.! �JI .ii'` a w `: , R .t. . , . -' — 16•'. ''' • s''" MAU.r•m •/ l:-•i .PSI dt.�K'?�!1 . .. } `�- _ Y•:¢la .�� ia+r •- sa+,an-T.mrw _ '"w' _ •— _„ s 1 ., ' ,�.-- I��'t' ;, — EARLINGTOI =. _ • 'f•'':'r //,no.^r. li 1 (I. PAR sy'^'� 'a'_'_�.... I1�� Qf/! • r �I l�Ig 4ror 1 +Ir RFMON.WASHING'TDN ▪ w............... - - � �1 • �1 � • OWNERS. . -` � a�'1 I1�.�1 =-•�. FIRST CITY EOUITIE9 1 - BANK OF CALIFORNIA CENTER r•.� _ , _ lFJ1TTLE,WASMINOTON 'L_ .�.. M - .`.a :•. ti ENGINEERS• ~_'� '.... ~~ s.•l ' y_�.s a F .g— py' ' BUSH ROEO L HEMMINGS,ING•P3 ,..--„— . ' • •. ,.:• ..,,;,:•:.••,N*:•.,:.I...'.•.„.i..,....•.....•.:. •I I•,...,•.., L ,. .. :r••. ..."'• ....=.:.. ..•."•. .. • `,.i•%y•_ . COI^ .��1 ' Y._. f SEATTLE.WASRINOTON .,._. ._....ACC.r. 1 !!'. 1 , lf.• - r _..::.d::-'• ,..1, •i, �♦ ,4 .. \_.0.�. _ ' • ARGKTECTS• -▪•r•'•• �,,,�• ,L ,� ;1:i . 1• . 111. ti s. , _ _ LANCE MUELLER 1 ASSOWATE3 __ _ _ 1' 'i•' y '�''•' ■■■ _ _t► IEATTLE,WASMINOTON • rl f• f • CITY OF RENTON FINANCE DEPARTMENT No. 18242 RENTON, WASHINGTOON 98055 S'_ /c37 19 2/ RECEIVED OF I\ cr7 ( -e • • yrua. 025 Q . 0 - _eayat.Arityr‘ ,y1t4A. • • TOTAL 019,0 a GWEN E. MARSHALL, FIN CE DIRECTOR BY q(I ) „ ) PS'" • ( AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING State of Washington) County of King Marilyn J. Petersen , being first duly sworn, upon oath disposes and states: That on the 28th day of April 81 , 19 , affiant deposited in the mails of the United States a sealed envelope containing a decision or recommendation with postage prepaid, addressed to the parties of record -in the below-entitled application or petition. • Subscribed and sworn this 2it ' day of 1! r. J ma 19 S\ . Q . • \c\O,VA \CVh_Qi Notary Public in and for the • of Washington, residing at Renton e Application, Petition Or CaSe: First City Equities (Ea r l i ngton Park) ; (The minuted contain a .Zia. o6 the pwi.ti.ea o6 necond) PP-056-80 April 28, 1981 OFFICE OF THE LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE RENTON CITY COUNCIL. APPLICANT: First City Equities FILE NO. PP-056-80 (Earlington Park) LOCATION: That property line west of Powell Avenue S.W. , north of the extension of S.W. 10th Avenue, east of the proposed P-1 Channel and south of the Milwaukee Railroad property. SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The applicant requests approval of a 25-lot industrial subdivision on 109.3 acres of which 83.41 acres has been previously rezoned. The remaining 25.89 acre parcel is under rezone consideration, File No. R-057-80. SUMMARY OF Planning Department: Approval RECOMMENDATION: Hearing Examiner: Approval subject to conditions PLANNING DEPARTMENT The Planning Department preliminary report was received by the REPORT: Examiner on March 26, 1981 . • PUBLIC HEARING: . After reviewing the Planning Department report, examining available information on file with the application, and field checking the property and surrounding area, the Examiner conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows: The hearing was opened on March 31 , 1981 at 11 :00 a..m. in the Council Chambers of the Renton Municipal Building. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner. It was reported that the Hearing Examiner and the applicant had received and reviewed the • Planning Department report. Roger Blaylock, Associate Planner, presented the report, and entered the following exhibits into the record: Exhibit #1 : Application File containing Planning;:,Department report, other pertinent documents,' anda. letter to Roger Blaylock from Loren Davis, First City Equities, dated March 27, 1981 Exhibit #2: Proposed Preliminary Plat with staff comments • Mr. Blaylock reiterated revisions to the Planning Department report contained within the letter from Mr. Davis as follows: In Item B.7, the statement should be revised to state that the existing zoning should be changed to indicate that 83.41 acres are zoned M-P and 25.89 acres are zoned G with that acreage being under consideration for rezone to M-P; In Exhibit A, Tract B on that exhibit should be revised to indicate the actual area shown on the preliminary plat, i .e. Tract B's northerly boundary is the southern boundary of Lot 16 and Lot 17. The Examiner referenced Section F.3 of the staff report, which states that transit service is not applicable to the proposal , and noted that review of service to the site may be pertinent. Mr. Blaylock advised that appeal of the mitigation measures established by the Environmental Review Committee is no longer available, and those conditions must be imposed on the preliminary plat approval . He corrected the word, "site," on line 14 in Section L.6 of the staff report to "sight." The Examiner requested testimony by the applicant. Responding was: . Charles Blumenfeld Bogle & Gates Bank of California Center Seattle, WA 98164 Mr. Blumenfeld, counsel for the applicant-, indicated the applicant's position that the staff report demonstrates the requirements for preliminary plat approval have been met for , approval , specifically under Section 9-1106.2.E.1 , which requires that the prel.i.minary plat conform to the Comprehensive Plan and other adopted standards. In addit4on,-' he noted, SEPA superimposes its requirements on all other requirements for consideration of the preliminary plat, and the staff report demonstrates compliance.with SEPA regulations. He . t PP-056-80 Page Two advised that a detailed Environmental Impact Statement was prepared, and the staff report lists conditions which were established to mitigate the impacts of the preliminary plat. Both the applicant and the city have expended extraordinary effort in meeting to discuss potential impacts of the project, and the applicant has accepted every one of the mitigation measures with the exception of a few for, which modification is requested. He submitted a letter for the record (see later action) from Roger Blaylock, Planning Department, to Loren Davis, First City Equities, dated March 16, 1981 , in response to Mr. Davis' letter of March 10, 1981 , included in Exhibit #1 ; and referenced the last paragraph in which Mr. Blaylock advises that further discussion of one of the conditions required by. the ERC will have to occur either in the public hearing scheduled for March 31 or through an appeal filed against the decision of the ERC. Mr. Blumenfeld felt that the letter further enforces and documents the right of the applicant to request modification of the established conditions by the Hearing Examiner. Mr. Blumenfeld indicated the desire to discuss two major, issues, the first being the relationship of the preliminary plat to the proposed P-1 Channel. He noted that the proposal for construction of the channel has been designated but there are funding questions which must be resolved before construction commences. He emphasized that neither Phase I nor Phase II of the preliminary plat is dependent on construction of the P-1 Channel , and although it would impact how development takes place on Tracts A and B, it would not affect the platting of either of those tracts. Mr. Blumenfeld referenced Mr. Blaylock's comments, which he felt were in error, that construction on the site without the P-1 Channel is not adquately addressed in the EIS and should be addressed in a supplemental EIS; and referred to page 38 of the Final Environmental Impact Statement, which states that the "current Soil Conservation Service plans require Springbrook Creek to be relocated where it crosses the southeast portion of the site. Development of Tract B in Phase II anticipates this relocation. The proponent is not independently planning for such a realignment. As shown in Figure 5 on page x, the development of Phase II can be accomplished ip the absence of a drainage project and without Creek relocation." Mr. Blumenfeld felt that the EIS covers both options whether Springbrook Creek is or is not realigned. Referencing comments related to the development of the Valley Parkway, Mr. Blumenfeld advised that the plat is 'not dependent on the construction of that parkway, nor does it make it any more or less likely to occur. The two-lane road construction which First City Equities has agreed to undertake on the west side of the property will be built in such a way as to be compatible if Valley Parkway is constructed, but the plat will be constructed with or without Valley Parkway, he stated. He noted that the staff report • makes reference to the fact that the applicant is building two lanes of the Valley Parkway, but the applicant has interpreted that to mean that they are meeting requirements of constructing a two-lane road the alignment of which should be consistent with Valley Parkway plans. The Examiner inquired if the plat is dependent upon construction of the remainder of Valley Parkway for traffic movement to and from the area. Mr. Blumenfeld responded that it was not dependent upon construction, and the two-lane road with signalization and other improvements is designed to mitigate traffic impacts from the proposed project. Responding was: Loren J. Davis First City Equities 900 4th Avenue, Suite 3818 Seattle, WA 98164 Mr. Davis, Project Manager for First City Equities, indicated that he is responsible for coordinating the engineering and architectural design of the project. Concerning the location of the P-1 Channel and the retention pond, he advised that at the beginning of the project, the retention pond was located to the westerly border of the property, but early in 1980, it was revised to its current location as a result of meetings with the City of Renton, sponsors of the Eastside Watershed Project, and the Soil Conservation Service, and incoporated into Phase I of the proposed preliminary plat as denoted on the Master Landscape Plan. The Examiner entered the plan and the letter from Mr. Blaylock referenced earlier as follows: Exhibit #3: Letter from Mr. Blaylock to Loren J. Davis, dated March 16, 1981 Exhibit #4: Earlington Park Master Landscape Plan Mr. Davis advised that Phase 1 and Phase II are defined on Exhibit;#4, with boundaries of. property contained in Phase' II of the development outlined in red. He stated that Phase has been designed so that it remains away from the areas to be incorporated in the P-.1 , . Channel and its associated retention pond, and Phase I•I has been left in two large tracts. . so that the applicant can continue to work with sponsors of the project to jointly determine an exact location. He noted that relocation of Springbrook Creek is being " PP-056-80 Page Three proposed by the sponsors of the Eastside Watershed Project and not First City Equities. Mr. Davis referred to an additional map which shows the retention pond in more detail and is displayed with an overlay designating Springbrook Creek in its natural position and how the site would appear if the creek is not aligned in the location of the proposed P-1 Channel . The overlay was entered into the record by the Examiner as follows: Exhibit #5: Landscaping Plan Overlay Mr. Davis stated that Exhibit #5 also shows how the site relates to the proposed P-1 Channel if it is not constructed, and all setback requirements of the Shoreline Substantial Development Permit will be met in locating the buildings on site. He encouraged approval of the preliminary plat as indicated, and noted that any further development of the P-1 Channel can easily be accommodated into the design of the project. Responding to the Examiner's inquiry regarding location of the riparian forest and to what extent it is going to be preserved on the property, Mr. Davis designated its location along the northern boundary of the light warehouse business area and along the drainage easement. He advised that the outflow of storm water will flow into the old Black River Channel and this route has been taken into account in the design of the project. Mr. Davis advised that of the 15 mitigation conditions required by the ERC, modification of three is being requested by the applicant: 1) Preserving the area for the retention pond on the northern portion of Tract A. He requested that a two-year time limit be specified for the reserve which would allow ample time for the sponsors of the Eastside Watershed • Project to finalize their plans. He felt that construction of the project is probably not imminent, and may be under consideration for many additional years. 2) Holding of open space for continuation of the archaeological investigation on the site. Mr. Davis stated that a dig on the site had previously been funded by the applicant, but the last contact with Mr. James Chatters, Project Director at the University of Washington, indicated that retention of the site is no longer necessary and no funding is available for the dig. He requested that the Planning Department verify this statement and strike that requirement from the list of mitigation measures. Responding to the Examiner's request, Mr. Davis designated the location of the archaeological site on the map, noting that it is contained within Lot 2 and measures 60 by 75 meters in size. 3) Traffic impacts on the site and extension of the two-lane road from the western property line in Tract A to Monster Road. Mr. Davis advised that a representative of Transpo Group, a traffic consulting firm, would address this concern later in the hearing. Responding was: Lance Mueller President, Lance Mueller Associates, Architects 130 Lakeside Seattle, WA 98122 Mr. Mueller indicated that his firm, architectural and planning consultants, has been involved in the project for over two years. He advised that the project plan is a result of reviewing established surrounding elements including the industrial uses to the east and across Powell Street and north of S.W. 7th Street. He noted that the extension of S.W. 7th and the possibility of S.W. 10th Street are logical connections to a future two-lane road along Tract B. Mr. Mueller stated that rail service which abuts the site is limited to the far northeast corner where one rail line is shown between Lots 1 and 2, and Lots 4 and 5, and the applicant proposes limiting rail service buildings to the property on the west side of Powell Avenue S.W. , south of S.W. 7th, and the property in Tract B at the time that tract is developed. He advised that rail service is somewhat predetermined by its entrance into the project site and by maximum radius of 480 feet as indicated through Lots 7 and 8. Its optimum depth, about 350 or 360 feet, is also predetermined in industrial park development and places the rail behind Lots 18 through 22 on the west side of those lots as indicated by the double black lines on Exhibit #2. In reviewing various site configurations, Mr. Mueller indicated that the lighter warehouses and smaller industrial uses would be proposed on the north side of S.W. 7th Street with a decrease of the intensity of use in a westerly direction towards open areas which are not finalized in the vicinity of Springbrook Creek and the related retention area. Therefore, he noted, the master landscape plan and preliminary plat exhibited show a light warehousing transition into a business park area and very low density office use on that property which becomes ultimately developable; and the heavy warehousing would be limited to the area that has rail service. Mr. Mueller advised that the buildings indicated on the master landscape plan are schematic in nature and show the type of buildings, uses and approximate sizes which have been developed in. this ,type of park throughout the valley, although no commitment to specific, tenants has been. made to date. Referencing Mr. Blaylock's comments regarding covenants, conditions, and restrictions (CC & R's) submitted for review, Mr. Mueller indicated that they have been prepared as an attachment to the property; are binding to all owners and occupants; and define standards of development for all uses, setbacks, lot coverage, PP-056-80 Page Four height, parking and loading, screening, landscaping, materials and colors , utilities, restrictions on pollutants, exterior lighting, signs and required maintenance. He concluded by stating that the CC & R's in general are far more restrictive than those required by the City of Renton Zoning Code. Responding was: Colie Hough Richard Carothers Associates, Landscape Architecture 814 E. Pike Street Seattle, WA 98122 Ms. Hough presented a series of 51 slides depicting proposed landscaping treatment on the site in compliance with the covenants , conditions and restrictions imposed for development. She discussed various proposals for landscaping on major collectors and arterials as well as interior parking areas, and showed slides illustrating proposed walkways and jogging trails. Ms. Hough noted that the responsibility for interior zoning fencing and screening will remain with individual property owners- and the type of landscaping materials to be provided must conform with established landscape guidelines. Responding was : David Markley Transpo Group 23 148th Avenue S.E. Bellevue, WA 98007 Mr. Markley, partner in the Transpo Group, a northwest based traffic and transportation/ engineering consulting firm, advised that the firm is responsible for providing consulting services to both private and public clients on a wide range of projects extending from long range area-wide transportation planning- to short range transportation and transit planning and operations through signal design and the design of specific improvements. He noted that one of the activities within the firm's range is the preparation of transportation and circulation elements of environmental impact statements, and over 400 have been prepared by the firm. Mr. Markley reviewed the process utilized in developing the impact statement, noting that the process follows generally acceptable methodology and commences with the definition of existing conditions including inventories of the street systems, traffic control devices, traffic volumes and accident conditions, and results in assessment of the existing level of operations. Traffic volumes are generally defined in the form of levels of service, he noted, which is a concept which has been developed to try to integrate different road conditions, traffic volume conditions, and traffic pattern conditions into a reasonably identifiable scale which runs from A, good rating, to F, poor rating. Mr. Markley advised that under current conditions, most of the major arterials such as Rainier Avenue and Grady Way and their intersections which are controlling points to the roadway system operate at levels B and D, and some range down to level of service E which is considered capacity. Without this project, he stated, in future years, most of the intersections will operate at level of service D, anti probably the majority at level of service E, which is capacity level . He reviewed the next step taken which was to forecast what the traffic volume will be relative to volumes generated by the subject proposal . First, definition of the character of the development is accomplished, and in the case of the proposal , information regarding exact building spaces and functions was not available, so as a consequence, the approach was conservative in attempting to take higher than average use upon which to base the forecast of traffic volumes. Mr. Markley indicated that the results of the analysis show that if this project is developed to capacity to the worst case conditions, it would generate approximately 19,800 vehicles per day and about 2,650 vehicles per hour during evening peak hours. He felt that the majority of the traffic will be oriented to the south to access onto the major arterial system at Rainier Avenue and Grady Way and ultimately onto 1-405 and SR-167 to the south. The next step, he stated, was to superimpose these volumes on the existing volumes, integrating into the analysis traffic growth that will occur irrespective of the project between today and the time the development is fully occupied, and assess the final impact. He advised that if no improvements were made, most, if not all , of the intersections in the area would operate at capacity, which will cause some increased delay at these intersections and may extend the peak hour to more than an hour in terms of a capacity level of service. Far More likely, however, he noted, is that people will shift modes, including shifts to carpools, vanpools, public transit, and shifts of routes to seek less congestion. Mr. Markley indicated that as a result of the identification of traffic impacts, an elaborate list of mitigation measures was established, a majority of which have been outlined in the staff report. The first is the extension of S.W. 7th Street west from Powell Street to ultimate connection with the two-lane road that would extend along the western edge of the proposal ; and the second is to build Powell from 10th to Grady which wouild relieve some of the traffic problems on Rainier in providing a second access. He PP-056-80 Page Five . " noted that the applicant has also agreed to contribute to the signal construction costs at the intersection of Grady and Powell , and in the construction of a signal at 7th and Edwards. Agreement to provision of an alternative through route in this area in constructing a two-lane road from 7th Avenue where it 'would be extended through their development up to Grady Way had also been made as well as assistance in the signalization of that intersection when and if it occurs. Mr. Markley reviewed the two mitigation measures for which the applicant requests modification, the first relating to the two-lane road which extends from 7th to the west and connecting to Monster Road. Primary among the applicant's concerns regarding this requirement is that it will not significantly reduce the impacts anywhere else because the major direction of traffic flow will be to the south, not to the north. Mr. Markley also advised that much of the property over which these roads would be built is not controlled by the applicant and it would be very difficult from a practical standpoint to implement them. Additionally, the majority of the benefits would be derived by either adjacent landowners, other people who will utilize the two-lane road and the parkway, if constructed, and property owners located along Monster Road, and not by the applicant. He noted- the applicant 's willingness to participate in an LID to make these improvements provided that a section of road adjacent to their property is given some credit in the formula for that LID. Mr. Markley reviewed the second mitigation measure for which the applicant requests modification which relates to the attachment to the staff report where the Traffic Engineering Division has requested that an additional impact analysis be prepared and new conditions be established as a result of that analysis. He indicated that the detailed analysis which was presented in the impact statement identifies all reasonable impacts under worst case conditions, and follows generally accepted procedures relative to transportation planning and traffic engineering. He noted that the applicant does not disagree with the Traffic Engineering Division that some transportation planning in this area of the city and the city as a whole is needed, but it appears that all of the reasonable impacts have been identified and it is not appropriate that this development be responsible for preparation of an area-wide transportation planning analysis for the city. The Examiner inquired whether there would be a substantial number of people using the Monster Road/Sunset Boulevard S.W. connection as an alternative to I-405. Mr. Markley responded that some people would be utilizing that route; however, the traffic volume would be distributed among the other access points, and the difference in volume would . not significantly be observed by the average driver and would not change the level of service at any of those other locations. He noted that there would be a greater likelihood of people utilizing that route to travel west rather than to the north, but that also would be a very limited number as it i,s spread over the primary access system. The Examiner inquired if, in Mr. Markley's opinion, Alternative No. 3 of the EIS, which eliminates development on Tract A, would have an effect on the traffic impact from the development. Mr. Markley advised that he is unfamiliar with that alternative. The Examiner advised that although he is uncertain whether he has the jurisdiction to modify or alter the conditions previously imposed by the ERC, he believes he has the ability to impose further conditions. He then requested testimony by the Traffic Engineer. Responding was: Gary Norris Traffic Engineer City of Renton Responding to Mr. Markley's comments regarding the additional traffic analysis proposed by his office, Mr. Norris noted that many of the intersections in the area of the site operate at levels of service E and D, and the impact statement failed to present a detailed intersection analysis evaluation of possible mitigation measures which would improve on a minor scale traffic flow from an additional 19,000 vehicle trips per day in the area. His second concern related to the conclusion drawn from the analysis that the traffic would be routed to the freeways, which are currently congested to the extent that the State Highway Department is contemplating installation of meter ramps. As a result of this congestion, Mr. Norris indicated that traffic will circumvent the freeway and use local arterials. He advised that the analysis also stated that people would shift to transit and carpools, but failed to establish any underlying framework by which this can occur, and if abundant parking space is provided on site, there will be little incentive to utilize other modes of travel . He also noted that the ability of the transit system to meet the demands that are placed on regional cities tend to limit the opportunity to provide transit service to these areas. Mr. Norris requested that the proponents identify minor operational improvements at the intersections surrounding the proposed development in terms of major capital improvements as well as plans for implementation of transit service. - He also requested that a detailed traffic analysis of the critical intersections surrounding the area be provided and a more thorough analysis of plans to route traffic extensively to the south when all '. logic assumes that it will not be possible in the future. PP-056-80 Page Six Mr. Markley referred to page 21 of the EIS which outlines levels of service; page 23, Table 3 which lists 1984 traffic projections with or without the project; and Figure 7 which illustrates 1984 traffic volumes with or without the project, and stated that these figures reflect that substantial traffic volumes are assigned to facilities which are not just limited access freeways. He noted that there are mitigation measures contained in the analysis in the EIS which address mechanisms by which the applicant has agreed to coordinate with and through the Seattle-King County Computer Pool and to work with Metro Transit regarding possible rerouting of coaches through the area including specific routes which have been addressed in some detail . He appreciated the desire of the Traffic Engineering Division to want as much detail as possible, but he felt it is not the intent of SEPA or the EIS process that the type of operational detail requested at the preliminary design stage be incorporated into this type of a planning document. The Examiner advised that the information may be required as part of the platting process to determine whether the plat can serve the public use and interest. Mr. Blumenfeld made two general observations regarding Mr. Norris' testimony: One is that certainly conditions can be imposed on the plat to determine whether something is in the public interest, but he felt those conditions have to be reasonably related to the impact of the project for the Hearing Examiner, and not to be required to provide a general traffic study for the City of Renton; the other is regarding the Traffic Engineering Division staff comment in the Planning Department report which suggests conditioning approval "subject to conditions determined by the city from the traffic impact analysis which is yet to be submitted." Mr. Blumenfeld concluded that the condition is not a standard which is definitive enough to be attached to a preliminary plat. Finally, he stated, the impact statement which is being criticized is the city's own and it appears there may be an intra-departmental breakdown in communications which is not appropriate at this point-and should have been resolved prior to issuance of the EIS by the city. Mr. Blumenfeld summarized by stating that the staff report and additional testimony support approval of the preliminary plat with the conditions attached with the exception of the following four: 1 ) Requirement to permanently reserve the area in Tract A for the retention pond is unreasonable since the P-1 Channel may never be constructed; a time limit of two years should be proposed; Open space for the archaeological excavation is no longer needed, and that requirement should be deleted; 3) Extension of the two-lane road from S.W. 7th to Monster Road is an unreasonable condition although participation in an LID for the entire two-lane strip of the road is acceptable if that contribution would be credited to construction of the remainder of the roadway; and 4) Traffic impact analysis apparently being required is not definitive enough to be attached as a condition and goes beyond the impacts generated by this project. Mr. Norris advised that he had transmitted a letter to Transpo Group on February 19, 1981 , specifically defining additional required information for a further impact analysis. The Examiner requested a copy of the letter for purposes of review. Mr. Blumenfeld voiced his concern that the letter not be a part of the preliminary plat record, noting that it was not attached as a condition in the staff report. The Examiner questioned the mitigation measures listed in the final EIS, a number of which are not being implementbd on site. He noted that some are required by ordinance such as provision of maneuvering space. He also indicated interest in the water quality issues contained on page 71 of the EIS relating to retention/detention, siltation, and oil separation which are basically unresolved. Responding to the Examiner's concerns on the subject was: David Morency Entranco Engineers 1515 116th Avenue N.E. Bellevue, WA 98004 Mr. Morency was affirmed by the Examiner. Mr. Morency indicated that two separate issues should be addressed, the first being hydrology or flood control aspects and drainage from the site, and the other being water quality protection. He advised that contained within the EIS was a suggestion by the Public Works Department that runoff from the site be discharged to the P-1 pump station as quickly as possible in order to maintain as much storage at that location as possible for upstream runoff that would come to that site. He stated that most of that provision has been retained; however, for the sake of water quality protection, most of the runoff from the site will be diverted to the old Black River Channel , which is currently serving a function of providing wetland treatment to runoff from an existing 60-inch storm drain which comes from portions of south Renton now. In the process of traveling through that wetland area, runoff receives rather substantial physical , chemical and biological treatment as is demonstrated by the water quality monitoring that was conducted as part of the studies performed for the applicant, he noted, and it has been recommended that a couple of gabions be placed to increase the surface area of sedimentation/detention in that wetland area to allow it to continue to serve for water quality protection and to provide for temporary construction erosion control and long term protection against accidental spillage of toxic compounds. In summary,, Mr. Morency stated that his analysis indicates that with that type of PP-056-80 Page Seven mitigation, the site should have no significant adverse impacts to Springbrook Creek or • its existing uses including fishery. The Examiner inquired if there would be a limitation on the capacity of the Black River wetlands to absorb the potential pollutants generated by the applicant's proposal and the Earlington Woods development. Mr. Morency stated that there would be some limitation of capacity to the wetlands, but at this point only its capacity to absorb and treat runoff from the subject site added to the existing storm drainage has been calculated. Other projects for which calculations have been made in conjunction with APWA criteria indicate that 2,000 square feet of sedimentation area is required per cubic foot per second of runoff from the site, he advised, and the APWA criteria are relatively conservative in that they do not account for the beneficial effects of the present wetland vegetation, but relate more to an open unvegetated sedimentation pond. Mr. Morency indicated the likelihood that the treatment proposed is far more than is found in the typical industrial type of development which provides a conventional oil and grease trap normally found in catch basins. The Examiner inquired if drainage were separated prior to dumping it into the channel , would it help supplement the ability of the wetlands to provide treatment. Mr. Morency stated that it would provide minimal additional treatment, and one of the upper gabions contains a floating absorbent boom which would absorb the oil and grease prior to flowing downstream. Responding to the Examiner's inquiry regarding discussion of the gabions in the supplemental final EIS, Mr. Morency indicated that the information is found in Appendix B. The Examiner noted that the information is not contained within the summary of mitigations in the final statement which may possibly be an editorial oversight. The Examiner invited further testimony in support of the application. There was no response. He then requested comments in opposition. Responding was: Lauri Johnsen Green River Study Group P.O. Box 772 Kent, WA 98031 Ms. Johnsen supported the proposed examples of landscaping enhancement which represent a quality industrial development in the city. She advised that the concerns of the Green River Study Group with the proposal are two-fold: First, its proximity to the environmentally sensitive areas of Springbrook Creek and the Black River Forest; and second, impact to an already deteriorating traffic situation in the area. In discussing the first concern, Ms. Johnsen advised that the Black River Forest which borders the north property line has been identified by King County as the best and most significant example of riparian forest that still remains on the valley floor, and Springbrook Creek is an important fish habitat; ' therefore, the Green River Study Group supports protection of these areas from further deterioration by buffering and assurance of water quality. She questioned Section 1 .6 of the Planning Department report which refers to storm drainage and proposed wetland treatment, and noted that the water quality study supplement to the final EIS states that uncertainty exists that the post development site runoff is totally treatable by wetland treatment alone. Regarding the traffic situation, she felt that alternate routes could not be used when most roads are already at capacity. To summarize, Ms. Johnsen indicated support for conformance by the applicant to all of the mitigation conditions recommended by the city. Mr. Blumenfeld clarified that it is the applicant 's intent to implement all of the mitigation measures indicated in the water quality study. Mr. Morency advised that in his professional opinion, the proposed wetland treatment will ensure that no significant degradation will occur to Springbrook Creek or its existing and potential uses. He also noted that although the area does not provide habitat for desirable fish species, it does provide fish passage, and with the level of proposed treatment, there will be no measurable increase in any of the pollutants which have been measured. Therefore, it will not significantly impact the area. The following exhibits were entered into the record by the Examiner: Exhibit #6: Slide Presentation Exhibit #7: Letter to Transpo Group from Gary Norris, Traffic Engineer, dated February 19, 1981 Mr. Blaylock addressed the three mitigation conditions imposed by the ERC. The first, regarding construction.of Valley Parkway, can be justified because the city has determined that the roadway is an industrial collector, and therefore, 80 feet of right-of-way is • designated rather than 60 feet which normally would be required. He noted that chronology of construction is questionable, but the alignment for Valley Parkway has been established for future connection. Regarding connection to Monster Road, Mr. Blaylock indicated that because Tract A is more than 500 feet from the end of 7th Street (maximum cul-de-sac length) , the connection must go through or an exception applied for to allow the extended length of the cul-de-sac (Section 9-1108.24.A.6) . The second condition, retention of the PP-056-80 Page Eight archaeological site, was discussed and Mr. Blaylock advised that the applicant need only provide documentation from Mr. Chatters that reservation of the site is no longer required. Responding to the applicant's objection to reserving the area on the plat for the retention pond on the northern portion of Tract A, Mr. Blaylock advised that the city feels that reservation is a necessity and establishment of a time period inappropriate since the ultimate result might be that if the channel is not constructed, the elevation of all building sites would be required to be raised, thereby increasing the cost of construction of the project. Responding to Mr. Blaylock's comments regarding the time reserve on the P-1 Channel , Mr. Schuman stated that planning processes for construction of the channel have been ongoing for the past 16 years, and development of over half the applicant's property, Tracts A and B, must be delayed until resolution of the P-1 Channel funding and planning occurs. He noted that the purpose of the request for a time limit for the reservation is to allow orderly development of those two tracts of land. The Examiner requested further comments. Responding was: Herbert W. Young Department of Public Works Surface Water Management Division 976 King County Administration Building Seattle, WA 98104 Mr. Young complimented the applicants for their cooperation in proceeding with the project layout, and particularly in the manner in which they incorporated the requirements for the holding pond in the P-1 Channel . He stated, however, that he would object to setting a time limitation on the reserve on the plat because if the holding pond were not constructed, although King County and the Soil Conservation Service are working diligently towards commencement of construction as early as this year, then it would be necessary to set aside a much larger area there as a natural holding area for flooding which takes place under natural conditions. He indicated that the impact that Mr. Blaylock had discussed would be far more serious• on the project plans than the holding pond itself. Mr. Young advised that the National Flood Insurance Map now shows a fairly large area which is subject to flooding, and at least a considerable portion of that would have to be set aside for natural ponding as a holding pond. Responding to the Examiner' s inquiry regarding the impact on the subject proposal if the P-1 Channel is not constructed, Mr. Young stated that the impact would be disastrous from the point of view of First City Equities, and he felt that the only option would be to proceed with the holding pond as expeditiously as possible and the County is in the process of doing that. The Examiner requested an additional 14 days in which to make a recommendation to the City Council regarding the matter, and stated that his report would be published within 28 days from the date of the hearing. Since there was no objection, the hearing regarding File No. PP-056-80 was closed by the Examiner at 12:55 p.m. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS: Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: 1 . The request is for approval of a preliminary plat on 109.3 acres. 2. The application file containing the application, SEPA documentation, the Planning Department report, and other pertinent documents was entered into the record as Exhibit #1 . 3. Pursuant to the City of Renton's Environmental Ordinance and the State Environmental Policy Act of 1971 , R.C.W. 43.21 .C. , as amended, an Environmental Impact Statement was prepared for the project. 4. Plans for the proposal have been reviewed by all city departments affected by the impact of this development. 5. All existing utilities may be extended to the site. 6. The subject. site is located in the Earlington Flats area of the city in the location. of the Earlington Golf Course. The site is. roughly bounded by the Black River and Milwaukee Railroad tracks on the north, the Springbrook Creek/P-1 Channel on the west, S.W. 10th Street on the south and Powell Avenue on the east. = 7. The subject property was annexed into the city by Ordinance No. 1745 in April of 1959. The property was zoned G (General ; Single Family Residential ; Minimum lot size - • S.. PP-056-80 Page Nine 35,000 square feet) . Initially, in 1966, 10 acres of the site were rezoned to M-P (Manufacturing Park) . Approximately 73 acres of the site were then rezoned to M-P in May of 1979. The remaining acreage, approximately 25 acres, is the subject of a separate rezone application pending before the City Council . The Hearing Examiner recommended that that rezone be denied. 8. The site is essentially level with a slight slope downward in the northerly and easterly portions of the property. Since much of the subject site serves as the Earlington Golf Course, vegetation consists of lawn grass and scattered trees. 9. The Black River runs east to west through the northerly portion of the subject property. Springbrook Creek flows south to north near the western perimeter of the property and empties into the Black River Channel . 10. Runoff of water from the subject site is slow, and the erosion hazard in this level area is generally slight. The flood hazard is severe, and flood protection is indicated. 11 . The areas to the east of the site have been undergoing conversion to manufacturing and office park types of uses within the last number of years. The Metro Treatment Plant is located southwesterly of the site. North of the site is an undeveloped area, and north and east of that is the proposed Earlington Woods multifamily residential planned unit development. 12. The plat consists of 22 lots and two larger tracts, Tracts A and B. These latter tracts would be reserved for future subdivision and development after the final construction of the proposed P-1 Channel and associated ponds. 13. The EIS prepared for the project reviews the impacts of different levels of development on the subject site. The alternatives selected range from no development, considered non-viable, to total development of the entire subject property in the two phases. Development would occur over about four years during which development would proceed first on the easternmost properties and then to Tracts A and B. Modifications of this phasing may be required as the current route selection for the P-1 Channel and detention pond would occupy a large percentage of Tract A. Potential development of Tract B, lying to the extreme southwest of the subject site, would depend somewhat on the realignment of Springbrook Creek. The applicant is prepared to work around the creek if it is not realigned to the P-1 Channel . 14. The applicant proposes construction of an 80-foot right-of-way in a location which would coincide with the northerly alignment of the Valley Parkway. The internal circulation would be provided by an 80-foot wide right-of-way extending westerly from S.W. 7th Street to its intersection with the above roadway. Sixty-foot wide cul-de-sacs with 75-foot radii turnarounds would provide access to parcels north of S.W. 7th Street. The two westernmost, cul-de-sacs would serve as temporary turnarounds with possible extensions to serve separately owned parcels to the north. Powell Avenue would be extended to serve as a connection from S.W. 7th to S.W. Grady Way, and would provide 'access to the southeastern parcels. The 80-foot right-of-way on the western portion of the property adjacent to the proposed P-1 Channel would provide access to the westerly portions of Tracts A and B. 15. A significant archaeological site was discovered on the subject property near the northeast corner. The site would coincide approximately with Lot 2. While excavation is probably completed, the State Department of Public Archaeology has not released the site. 16. The project as originally proposed would have consisted of heavy warehousing served by rail . This would be completed in two phases with those lots east of the rail line to be developed in the earlier phase. Those lots on Tract B would be developed in 1983-1984. Phase I aspects of the heavy warehousing would cover approximately 412,000 square feet or about 50% of the approximate 19 acres. Phase II would cover about 16.66 acres with about 362,000 square feet of construction, again about 50% of the site area. Light warehousing would be concentrated in the northeast portion of. the site and would be served mainly by trucks. This aspect of the project would be constructed during Phase I . Approximately 19 acres would be used for this purpose. Lot coverage would be limited by the applicant to no more than 45% of the site area or about 377,340 square 'feet. In addition, the various warehouse functions would have reasonably related office uses associated with them in their respective compounds. PP-056-80 Page Ten The business park would be constructed in two phases. Phase I would cover about 233,265 square feet of the 15.30 acres (35% coverage) with structures. Phase II would ' be on 6.9 acres of which 105,200 square feet would be covered. The Phase II portion would be on proposed Tract A. The office park would be constructed in one phase in the most extreme northwestern portion of the site as part of Phase II construction. Approximately eighteen and three- quarter acres would be covered with about 245,386 square feet (30% coverage) . These buildings would be generally two stories. 17. Modification of the office park portion of the proposed plat will be required if the P-1 detention pond is constructed on the northern portion of Tract A. Similarly, all phases of the project might require some modification if the requested reclassification of the western portions of the subject property is denied by the City Council . 18. Approximately 220,000 cubic yards of fill will be required to raise the subject property or those portions lying below the 100-year flood level up to a safe level . Filling will occur in phases timed with the project, about 80,000 cubic yards for Phase I and the remaining 140,000 for Phase II . In addition, 7,000 cubic yards of fill may be necessary for road construction. 19. The applicant does not propose to relocate Springbrook Creek independent of the sponsors of the P-1 Channel . King County in conjunction with the Soil Conservation Service has proposed relocation of Springbrook Creek as a flood control measure. The P-1 Channel , which would be located along the west perimeter of the subject site, would receive the waters of Springbrook Creek and carry them to the Black River Channel and there to the pump station. • 20. The Comprehensive Plan and the Green River Valley Comprehensive Plan both designate the eastern portions of the subject site for manufacturing park type uses. The remaining westernmost portion buffering the creek and the Black River are designated for Greenbelt. The Green River Valley Comprehensive Plan defines Greenbelt as an area: 1. with 4eveh.e topagnapluc, ground waters, slide potentLae on athet phy&Lca.t conditions which .cmpa,vi development and .c,a intended to be developed -Ln extteme.ty tow density y 4.Lngte 4ami ey, necua ,i.on, open space, w.i,2d.?,i.be habitat on others compati to tow density use; an 2. designated az permanent w-itdL,L e habitat; on 3. cow6.us ,ing of tow intensity open matipte uses that .Lnce.ude, but is not .timited to, w-i tage habitat, tecicea ,Lan, maintenance roads and good conttot devices. 21 . Section 9-1104(3) requires that land which is intended for industrial subdivisions be zoned for such purposes. 22. Both Springbrook Creek and the Black River Channel are considered shorelines under the jurisdiction of the Shoreline Master Program (Section 3.03) . They are further categorized as Urban Environments (Section 5.03.03) , and additionally classified as environmentally sensitive areas by the Renton Environmental Ordinance (Section 4-2807) . 23. The site is contained within the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency nona(ttainment area for carbon monoxide, oxidants, and particulate matter secondary standard. The source of such pollution is generally automobile useage. Carbon monoxide and hydrocarbon emissions are approaching or exceeding Washington State ambient air quality standards. • 24. Longacres Race Track is located south of the site. The track generates heavy traffic during the racing season. The project will likely increase truck traffic and conflict with inbound Longacres Race Track traffic. 25. Currently, most of the intersections operate in the range from LOS D to LOS E. LOS A is a very good level of service and LOS F is start and stop traffic. 1-405 is currently at a level of service of E to F during both the morning and evening peak hours. Most levels of service will move toward LOS E and some may move to F, that is, the level of service will drop to capacity. PP-056-80 Page Eleven 26. Traffic accidents are characteristically highest on those roads with the highest traffic volumes, and this is borne out by the fact that 167 accidents occurred at the intersection of the East Valley Road and 1-405, followed by 130 accidents at the intersection of Interurban Avenue and 1-405, followed by 65 accidents at the intersection of S.W. Grady Way and Rainier Avenue S. This represents the accidents over the period from 1976 to 1978. 27. Much of the congestion in Renton is the result of people using arterial streets for through travel as an alternative to severe freeway congestion they now experience during the morning and evening peaks. Congestion has reached the capacity levels (page 27, Final EIS) . 28. The EIS points out that the western perimeter road is a vital link in the internal and external access for the subject site. (Constructed as indicated, its only link would be to the south and the already congested 1-405 and Grady Way. ) 29. The current traffic on the various roads surrounding the subject site is depicted in the chart below. A traffic count map appearing in the Final EIS with additional maps is attached to this report. The first number is the 1980 average weekday traffic, and the number in parenthesis (999) is the PM peak hour traffic. The subject proposal will generate additional traffic on these and other adjacent roadways. In addition to the traffic generated by the proposal summarized below, other new sources of traffic will undoubtedly locate in the area. There is also an historical increase in traffic which cannot be assigned to any particular project, but is due to region-wide development. The historic growth is about 5% to 10% per year. These numbers are depicted in brackets [999], the third number the average traffic, and the fourth number the PM peak traffic. 1980 Pk Hr 1984** Pk Hr S.W. 7th between Powell and Lind 3990 (520) [4350] [540] S.W. 7th between Lind and Rainier 12980 (1340) , [14670] [1500] S.W. Grady Way between Interurban and Lind 13370 (1480) [15110] [1570] - S.W. Grady Way between Lind and Rainier 14060 (1480) [16310] [1750] Lind Avenue between S.W. 7th & Grady Way 9770 (1160) [11040] [1230] Lind Avenue between Grady Way and I-405 10240 (1150) [No figures] Lind Avenue south of I-405 6440 (860) [7730] [990] Empire Way (Sunset SW) west of Rainier 18450 (1980) [20850] [2100] Rainier Avenue north of S.W. 7th 38820 (3190) [43870] [3380] Rainier Avenue between S.W. 7th & Grady 37650 (3470) [No figures] • Rainier Avenue between Grady &.I-405 48500 (4460) [56260] [4820] SR-167 (Rainier) south to I-405 56000 (*) [No figures] I-405 east of Rainier 68000 (*) [No figures] I-405 west- of Rainier 79000 (*) [No figures] *1979 traffic counts **Anticipated useage without Fa rlington Park 30. Projected traffic for the proposal was based on a mix of uses. Included in the mix were office park uses, generation of heavy automobile traffic; business park uses, generation of mixed auto and light delivery truck traffic; light industrial uses, generation of truck traffic; and heavy industrial uses, generation of rail and truck traffic. The number of trips the subject proposal will generate was based on a forecast which predicts the number of trips each type of use will generate based on the square footage of that use. Again, the first number is the average daily traffic and the number in parenthesis (999) is the peak hour traffic. Heavy Warehousing: Phase I 2060 (370) Phase II 1815 (325) Light Warehousing: Phase I 2265 (340) Phase II 0 (0) Business Park: Phase I 2335 (305) Phase II 1050 (135) Office Park: Phase I 0 :(0) Phase II 10300 (1175) PP-056-80 ' Page Twelve The total number of traffic trips generated by full operation of Phase I will be 6,660 trips per day and about 1015 per peak hour. Phase II will generate 13,165 and 1 ,635, respectively. The entire project as proposed would generate 19,825 and 2,650, respectively. Most of the trips generated by the proposal will be generated by Phase II }of the development with the office park expected to generate the most single occupancy vehicle trips because of the greater number of employees working at office functions; whereas the more intense warehouse uses will generate fewer trips but trips by larger vehicles. Similarly, a considerable percentage of the air pollution expected to be generated in and around the subject site will be automobile related. 31 . Transit, pedestrian and bicycle uses are not expected to make up any noticeable portion of travel to or from the subject property, both because of its remote location and the lack of much residential development in the area. The area also lacks sidewalks. Carpools may provide some relief but 'because of the unrelated nature of the expected occupancies, carpools are not expected to provide much benefit. 32. About 35% of the trips generated by Earlington Industrial Park will travel west from the development, and 30% of the peak load trips generated by the proposal will head in that direction. During the average day, approximately 5% will have destinations to the north, and about 10% during the evening peak. Approximately 25% will generally travel south with about 20% adding to the peak hour. Finally 10% of the daily generation of traffic from the proposal will be traveling to the east and southeast with a similar load during peak hours. The remainder will travel east/northeast. 33. There is some legal question as to the status of Hardie/Edwards Avenue as a dedicated public right-of-way north of S.W. 7th between the railroad right-of-way and Empire Way. 34. The project sponsor expects to release storm water without any retention/detention on- site and without any pretreatment to remove contaminants. The plans for the P-1 Channel expect water generated on the subject site during floods to be processed through the P-1 Pump Station early in any flood period. Then up river flow could be processed when it later reaches the pumps without "local" water competition. The wetlands of the Black River are to provide pretreatment of any oil and sedimentation carried by water leaving the subject site. No estimate was available about the capacity of the Black River wetlands to provide pretreatment of waters generated by the subject proposal , the Earlington Woods residential proposal , the proposed Black River office park, plus the already existing discharges to the east. The Storm Drainage Ordinance requires that the subject site hold and release water in manner which approximates the natural characteristics of the subject site (Section 4-2909) . 35. The Fire Department has indicated that virtually the entire development is located outside the one and one-half mile service radius for first response engine company and the two mile service radius for first response ladder company. Fire Station 13 (Benson Road S.) service would not improve these times The expected hazards contained within anticipated uses will be of a high hazard classification with either high piled stock or substances of a highly flammable nature. The accessibility of the area to other fire services is limited by both natural and man-made obstacles. The average response time would be about one minute over the minimum required under the Renton Fire Department Master Plan. The adequacy of the subject site's 5,000 gallons per minute (gpm) would depend on size of buildings, type of construction, and occupancy of buildings. 36. The applicant proposes controlling the type of development and the design of that development by requiring tenants and/or purchasers to accept certain controls. These will be executed in the form of covenants, restrictions and conditions. 37. The EIS, as required,: provides some background and basis for evaluating alternative proposals. Alternative Threewould limit development to a more clustered arrangement concentrated on the easterly portion of the site and preserving the remainder as open space. The impacts of such limited development would be up to a third less in areas of traffic and the related areas of air and noise pollution. Less fill material would PP-056-80 Page Thirteen be needed, and diversion of Springbrook Creek would be unnecessary. This alternative eliminates heavy warehousing, but the alternative actually indicates another possible mode of development and is not a precise plan for development. Alternatives One and Two present intermediate range proposals with different planning and land use mixes. 38. The Black River wetlands are oil slicked as a result of upstream pollution and the effects of a drainage system which enters near the north end of the subject site. Sedimentation also occurs as the water flow slows down when it encounters the level gradient of the wetlands and its associated vegetation. CONCLUSIONS: 1 . While a major portion of the proposed subdivision appears to serve the public use and interest, those portions of the proposal which involve land adjacent to Springbrook Creek and the Black River Channel should be excluded. More specifically, those areas bounded by the proposed reclassification (File No. R-057-80) pending before the City Council should be excluded from the industrial subdivision proposed by- the applicant. 2. The proposed subdivision, except as modified, will add appreciably to the tax base of the city and generate new employment opportunities in a well-designed industrial park. A variety of jobs in all skill levels will be created by the approximately 85 acre industrial park. 3. The term "subdivision," as it is referred to hereinafter, will be limited to the approximately 85 acres currently zoned M-P and will exclude those portions which are subject to the reclassification identified above or adjacent to the Black River. 4. The subject proposal is compatible with those portions of the Comprehensive Plan and the Green River Valley Comprehensive Plan which indicate that the subject property is suitable for the development of manufacturing park uses. The mix of uses, as the applicant may modify them to comply with this decision, such as, heavy warehousing, light warehousing, and business and office park, are all compatible with a manufacturing park. They are generally compatible with the goals of the Green River Valley, especially as limited by the applicant 's proposed covenants, conditions and restrictions. 5. The project makes use of the site's unique location adjacent to the rail spurs and just north of 1-405 and the Valley Freeway (SR-167) . The rail spurs will be extended to service heavy warehousing uses,and large industrial access roads and collectors will be extended to service the site. 6. The applicant plans on constructing a perimeter road along the west property line to coincide with channel selection for the P-1 Channel . This project is still in the planning stage and there is no guarantee that it will be constructed. This road would continue the northerly alignment of the proposed Valley Parkway. The applicant proposes an 80-foot wide right-of-way with limited access. The roadway, as proposed by the applicant, would be temporarily closed at the subject property's north property line. • The Environmental Review Committee has conditioned the project on the connection of this roadway with Monster Road on the northwest. Such a connection would help mitigate the traffic impacts which the project will generate and will provide one of the limited alternate routes to the west from the site. Currently, many vehicles bypass the heavily congested corridors of 1-405 and S.W. Grady Way, and alternatives in this area are extremely limited at present. A Monster Road connection would provide such a necessary link. Also, since the public status of Hardie/Edwards Avenue is in doubt, additional access is necessary to the north and eventually to the west. This road should be a publicly dedicated right-of-way and constructed as an 80-foot right-of-way. 7. The applicant proposes providing a cul-de-sac turnaround as a northerly extension of Powell Avenue and another cul-de-sac west of Powell . These cul-de-sacs would serve as a potential link to the property to the north. As such, these roads would not be merely industrial service roads, but industrial collectors, and they should be constructed as such; therefore, they should be 80-foot wide right-of-ways with provisions to permit truck traffic to turn on and off them without impeding through traffic. Therefore, driveways with access to them should be 34 feet wide•or as otherwise determined by the Public Works Department to provide safe, efficient traffic flow. While-the applicant should attempt to minimize site area dedicated to streets, adequate access which can safely and efficiently handle the anticipated vehicles must be provided (Green River Valley Comprehensive Plan, page 6) . 8. The industrial design standards, as evidenced by the covenants, conditions and restrictions, appear to guarantee high quality development. The project will be PP-056-80 Page Fourteen phased, and only those areas to be developed should be stripped of vegetation and overlayed with fill (Ibid, page 6) . All development in the M-P zone is subject to site plan approval . 9. Certain further measures to mitigate the impacts of this rather large development on both the natural and man-made environment seem reasonable. The Final EIS enumerated a wide range of impacts and possible mitigations. Some measures listed may be required by the general developmental codes and regulations of the city, while others should be implemented as a means of reasonably minimizing the anticipated impacts. Even though the proposal is immediately adjacent to Springbrook Creek and the Black River Channel and pump station, it is not automatically exempt from the requirements of the storm drainage requirements. The applicant in keeping with the P-1 sponsors' needs, should still be required to limit the potential sediment and other pollutants which enter the natural areas. While the wetlands may be capable of treating the polluted and sediment laden waters generated by the subject proposal during the course of storms and cleaning and flushing of the asphalt surfaces, there does not appear to be any reason why the natural wetlands should be burdened with this treatment. They already show the oil-slicked surfaces of other pollutants added to the system by properties to the east of the subject site. There is the additional burden they will bear when Earlington Woods comes on line, and the potential Black River Office Park is realized. • The applicant should provide on-site oil separators and settling ponds. In addition, temporary detention systems should be employed during construction phases. As indicated above, the subdivision appears to serve the public use and interest. It is well designed for its location. Design control appears to provide for an environmentally and aesthetically sensitive location in which people can work. Landscaping will break up the higher intensity uses. Lots will be bounded by large amounts of landscaping. Internal landscaping will soften the effects of large • expanses of asphalt and general development. 10. The lack of pedestrian traffic in the subject area is directly related to the lack of sidewalks in the area. Therefore, the applicant should construct sidewalks along S.W. 7th Street east until they connect with existing sidewalks in the commercial sections of the city. This will provide a method of allowing potential pedestrian traffic access to the numerous restaurants and service stores during lunch hours without having to necessarily resort to cars. 11 . Those conditions imposed as a result of a review of the subject proposal by the ERC were subject to appeal within limits established by ordinance. Rather than attempting to expand the jurisdiction of this office during the current hearing and review, the applicants are left with whatever rights to appeal those conditions which may still exist. Those conditions will help mitigate the proposal and should only be modified as they may otherwise be affected by this recommendation. 12. While the subdivision of the 85 acres is a reasonable use of the M-P zoned property, the use proposed for the remaining 25 or so acres is not in the public interest. The land, or goodly portions thereof, is designated as Greenbelt on the Comprehensive Plan and the Green River Valley Comprehensive Plan. Also, a good portion of the land is under the jurisdiction of the Shoreline Master Program. And while that program allows development of the shorelines within certain clearly defined limits and even allows industrial development within the shorelines, development in those areas is generally limited to water-related or dependent uses. ' Further, there is the general proviso contained within Section 4.01 .02(3) which indicates that planning, zoning and capital improvements should not increase the density or intensity of shoreline developments, except on a demonstrated need. The applicant has failed both during the rezone hearing and the current hearing to illustrate the demonstrated need to develop the shorelines of either Springbrook Creek or the Black River Channel . 13. Section 9-1108(19) requires that "due regard shall be shown for all natural features such as large trees, watercourses, historical spots, and similar community assets which, if preserved, will add attractiveness and value to the property." These two water courses are "an extremely valuable resource" and as such are regulated by the Shoreline Master Program (Sections 3.01 and 3.03) . 14. The designation of "Greenbelt" by both the Comprehensive Plan and the Green River Valley Comprehensive Plan generally would, as that definition states, limit development to extremely low density single family uses,. other compatible low density uses, or open space and similar uses. This would appear to exclude even low density office - parks which cannot contribute as minimal an impact as low density residential uses. PP-056-80 Page Fifteen 15. C.H.G. International dedicated a large portion of open space to the public to preserve a pond on the western portion of their property. The applicant, in this case, should dedicate to the public, land adjoining the two water courses and those portions of the water courses within the applicant 's control . 16. As a further limitation on developing these shoreline areas, Section 9-1108(18) limits the jurisdiction of the Hearing Examiner and provides that approval of the State of Washington is required before consideration shall occur on lands subject to flooding. Further, the Hearing Examiner is required to disapprove the preliminary plat or that portion of the subdivision so affected. Dedication of lands so affected would provide to the public, not only a unique and important open space, but would be in the interests of the public health, safety and welfare. Development on this land would remove the natural absorptive qualities of the land and further cover the land with impermeable surfaces , adding to the flood potential of the site and surrounding vicinity. • 17. The characterization of shorelines as urban, as opposed to conservancy, is a characteristic generally confined to intensity of use. Conservancy is generally reserved for activities of a non-consumptive nature, whereas, the urban environment is for more active uses such as developed parks, trails or water dependent uses. The distinction appears to be based on the area's location and proximity to urban uses, and whether it or neighboring properties have yielded to uses of a more urban character. Again, the proviso not to increase the density should be followed as better representing the policies and goals of the entire shoreline program. 18. In addition to preserving the areas of the site designated Greenbelt, the limitation on development will have a beneficial effect on the noise and air pollution which are closely associated with the traffic impacts full development of the subject site would generate. The proposal , as modified, tends towards Alternative Three denoted in the Environmental Impact Statement.: The effect would be to lessen by about one-third the traffic and air pollution which would have been generated. Daily traffic would decrease by about 30% and peak hour traffic by about 35%, The apparent decline would be even more sizable as much of the heavy truck traffic would decline. 19. This alternative would also eliminate any need to divert Springbrook Creek and avoids any conflict with the P-1 project. Preservation of open space would place less pressure on remaining wildlife and would reduce impacts on the riparian forest located north of the Black River Channel . 20. The possible adoption of the concept envisioned in Alternative Three would not necessarily mandate the uses specified in that alternative but are mentioned to provide some basis in which to determine what impacts would be lessened by an open space alternative. The applicant may still provide for heavy warehousing and rail service as well as the other mixes originally intended. Such matters may be better decided at the site plan review stage which is required prior to development of property which is zoned M-P. 21 . Also, limiting the scale of the proposal will place less. pressure on the Fire Department, which cannot currently serve the subject property within the limits of its master plan. Limiting the scope of the subject property's uses may also be a factor which should be considered specifically during site plan review. Limiting the potential number of sites with hazardous materials could help the Fire Department's ability to respond to emergency calls in this location. 22. As indicated above, not only is open space compatible with the Comprehensive Plan designation of this area as suited for Greenbelt, but it will lessen the otherwise tremendous impacts of the proposal on many areas of public service including the Fire Department, roads and streets. Therefore, the applicant should dedicate to the public an area on both sides of Springbrook Creek and along the southern bank of the Black River Channel . This area, where possible, should be 200 feet wide on each side of the respective waterways, and should include the stream bed of these two waterways. 23. As the scale of the project is reduced, the applicant's participation in other improvements should be reduced with the exception of those improvements for which the applicant is the predominant generator of need, such as the westerly extension of S.W. 7th Street and the southerly extension of Powell Avenue S.W. to Grady Way, and the connection of the western perimeter road to Monster Road on the northwest. PP-056-80 Page Sixteen RECOMMENDATION: • The City Council should approve the subject preliminary plat subject to the limitations and conditions enumerated above which include but are not limited to: 1 . The dedication of 200 feet on either side of Springbrook Creek and the Black River Channel and including the stream beds thereof. 2. Compliance with the conditions imposed by the Environmental Review Committee. 3. Submission of a new preliminary plat which is consistent with the recommendation contained within this report which shall include only those properties zoned M-P and shall exclude those properties to be dedicated to the public. 4. Installation of sidewalks along S.W. 7th Street. 5. Installation of such storm drainage controls and devices as may be required to remove pollutants, contaminants and sediments before water existing the site enters natural waters. 6. Provision of arterial collector streets to service the property to the north of the subject site. 7. Compliance with all other requirements of the code and regulations of the City of Renton. ORDERED THIS 28th day of April , 1981 . 1;::410C: K31%1, Fred J. Kau an Land Use Hea ing Exam ner TRANSMITTED THIS 28th day of April , 1981 by Affidavit of Mailing to the parties of record: Charles Blumenfeld, Bogle & Gates, Bank of California Center, Seattle, WA 98164 s— Loren J. Davis, First City Equities, 900 4th Avenue, Suite 3818, Seattle, WA 98164 . Lance Mueller, Lance Mueller Associates, 130 Lakeside, Seattle, WA 98122 — Colie Hough, Richard Carothers Associates, 814 E. Pike St. , Seattle, WA 98122 — David Markley, Transpo Group, 23 148th Avenue S.E. , Bellevue, • WA 98007 • Gary Norris, Traffic Engineer, City of Renton David Morency, Entranco Engineers, 1515. 116th Avenue N.E. , Bellevue, WA 98004 Lauri Johnsen, Green River Study Group, P.O. Box 772, Kent, WA 98031 -.. Herbert W. Young, Department of Public Works, 976 King County Administration Building, Seattle, WA 98104 Robert Thorpe, R.W. Thorpe & Associates, 815 Seattle Tower, Seattle,-WA 98101 '-- Larry Brown, 33838 Pacific Highway S. , Federal Way, WA 98003 TRANSMITTED THIS 28th day of April , 1981 to the following: Mayor Barbara Y. Shinpoch Councilman Richard M. Stredicke Richard Houghton, Acting Public Works Director David Clemens, Acting Planning Director Michael Porter, Planning Commission Chairman Barbara Schellert, Planning Commissioner Ron Nelson, Building Official Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Jim Matthew, Fire Marshall PP-056-80 Page Seventeen Pursuant to Title IV, Section 3015 of the City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed in writing on or before May 12, 1981 . Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the Examiner is based on erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact, error in judgment, or the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing may make a written request for review by the Examiner within fourteen (14) days from the date of the Examiner's decision. This request shall set forth the specific errors relied upon by such appellant, and the Examiner may, after review of the record, take further action as he deems proper. An appeal to the City Council is governed by Title IV, Section 3016, which requires that such appeal be filed with the City Clerk accompanying a filing fee of $25.00 and meeting other specified requirements. Copies of this ordinance are available for inspection in the Finance Department, first floor of City Hall , or same may be purchased at cost in said department. . • PP-056-80 Page Eighteen • AllA ... , r 4.A: .,• in :. JX!' •- -04 .. "5.--- L-mr. II. 'gii. . ,. -----,_k. .. „ ../L ,... [I., . Del%1\,,f-i !IL. i . Id' • 0• • 40uM•w 1 SITE PLAN i i . ''' I . I 1_ 11 i 1 0 i 1 1 _. i Inn gi P , \‘-*L....17..... • I - r ,, ...:: . . . ~ � 7077.. -1 _ rw......rr i seer I..I .PM Om *)...,\\L. ....v................N. ••••••=. • °, :..• 0000001000. —. I OQQI �+—.. Fi n n . ; r , . OEVELOPNENT PHASING(square Foot of Floor Area) ...room.. 3 , • w oo Tom rx Heavy Light Nosiness Office I! Phut Warehousing Warehousing /.rk Park I 112.0S0 377.340 233.270 -O. II 362.e60 -0- 105.200 490.530 Total 774.940 377.340 318.470 490.500, Vstr7MTY MAP • EARLINGTON PARK WO.TM ..0 W.TOP.. a 414n0c.Nr{1.' • -- FIGURE 1 The EARLIi GTON PARK VICINITY MAP, SITE PLAN, ) ( �� . .. C AND DEVELOPMENT PHASING crrovp a -2- . PP-056-80 Page Nineteen • • c LEGEND: 1 S1 XXXX _1980 AVERAGE m It m r WEEKDAY TRAFFIC • 2 ;►. m 0P PM PEAK HOUR m c�: © �� (YYY) -TRAFFIC D� * 4 �o �I' * -1979 DATA .07 • ..--J =` At h m 41:.� '', 0 7 ,!: W. VALLEY RD • o `• ° g 4 13370 o< y (1480) m 4-1 VALLEY PWY L: `PROJECT i POWELL AVE SW SITE r O 0 1 • /N O • RAYMOND AVE •SW y . -S. THOMAS AVE. SW Z \\‘'i4 15170 ° m SENECA AVE SW (1680) o oh. 'I m r '— 6440 10240 9770 LIND AVE SW G (860) (1150) (1160) MAPLE AVE SW r N ,- .• N cri 2510 * t 03 w O (280) s- : j" In,Z N4. o o . 2 v mo o �0. = r o N ✓ 1 5� O al ..4 N� 24 80 5 -� r N (210) �� 4630 • AVE SW A (465) VALLEY HwY HARD I=, .5 S'A' 56p00* VALLEY FWY • 48500 k9 N�� • (4460) C. $520 22600 13901 (2320) °Do • N N�'�- 37650 o - NO p• (3470) \ • t . -. / Figure 2 11.- e EARLINGTON PARK 1980 T ' _ S_ M TRAFFIC VOLUMESr �;�� J' J • -5- • • PP-056-80 Page Twenty /r ., -. sN LEGEND Ca S PERCENT DISTRIBUTION r tii XXX - DAILY TRAVELm 35x tr (YY%) — PM PEAK HOUR TRAVEL4.-V;----\ . k -* (lox) Ask \\.,. W. VALLEY RD. '" / 1 400. VALLEY PWY ; •.,K • `'. i,� = , *3� ♦ PROJECT POWELL E SW .,. 25% - SITE (20%) 1- o� THOi,, '1, S. M AVE. SW' ` RAYMOND AVE SW NN Z SENECA AVE SW $ - i V.; m f. —1 LIND AVE SW 1 , �'~•1. \-... OMAPLE AVE SW t. 7'• f .NN� .4 ilk. N �'4�• AVE SW E VALLEY HwY • n� E: HARDIE \ • • - .F1NY �, �'Zt i� 25% _ .._ - . 10% - • -.. • _. _ C 30%) • .._. : - •:. (10X) - - - a . . - • Figure 6 EARLINGTONPARK EARLINGTON PARK TRr"BSO TRAVEL DISTRIBUTION ) m\s. rwc ' -20- 1. • . PP-056-80 Page Twentylne LEGEND: • • XXX — 1984 DAILY TRAFFIC WITHOUT PROJECT P '1 (YYY)-1984 PM PEAK TRAFF I C '- WITHOUT PROJECT Q2 . m • / )11: • • '1,1* .• -� ON W. VALLEY RD �i £ r- ✓ Z_ Y' o 0 o n . Yy4_ Zy'4ir I }IL VALLEY PWY PROJECT , POWELL AVE SW SITE 't 0• � THOMAS AVE. SW Cn RAYMOND AVE SW C � m Z t \-11. 00 W o00 SENECA AVE SW o QcorLIND AVE SW 7730c 11040(990). ( 1230) 0 MAPLE AVE SWN • X h, a r r Z 0 0 .. co ' N A N N -1 • O N 1. �.�P� p AVE 'SW E VALLEY HWY 1k - .. HARD IE `9c0 ,le S41. VALLEY FWY , NW- •1 56260 • (4820) �' ° c 0ir W: �35 * 00 -. ,.........._____....) ( Figure 5 • I! Ua EARLINGTON PARK 1964 TRAFFIC VOLUMES .MANS S / WITHOUT EARLINGTON PARK , ,--p -14- e PP-056-80 Page Twenty-Two . ( LEGEND: EARL INGTON TOTAL. 1984 m TRAFFIC WITH ONLY EARL I NGTON rii XXX aaa DAILY Q0• • VVV ZZZ PM PEAK �4t-I y N/A NOT AVAILABLE t z it: I990 5000 • 180 600 VALLEY PWY . • 5950 110000 795 1400 PROJECT sr POWELL AVE SW SITE of THOMAS AVE. SW a RAYMGNO AVE SW I �A ti �- 1980 9750 SENECA AVE Sw 1980 11680 �8 N w 130 1150, 260 1330 I LIND AVE SW r .1: (o (.a MAPLE AVE SW N A K a • 99 .� l _4 r 0 ro' 2cssp '� a " '� N� la = ovNi 0 N• i P 04313 AVE SWN V" 1 ' p- � � .► 9eo E VALLEY Hwy HARDIE 54 P4 0 60000 VALLEY FWY ' 69000 63150 to , 9P11419 ae`'o • 990. N/A 1 92 0 79 ®� 990 w "5-' m • H Figure 7 of C1984 TRAFFIC VOLUMES TrRA S EARLINGTON PARK PROJECT GENERATED AND 1 TOTAL VOLUMES WITH PROJECT ( -ak-7, -22- gl kelV O THE CITY OF RENTON MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE.SO. RENTON,WASH.98055 o BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH, MAYOR . • PLANNING DEPARTMENT 9,0 to' 235- 2550 o �P 9iTFD SEP1'. RECEIVED CITY OF RENTON HEARING EXAMINER MAR 31 198.1 March 16, 1981 AM PM 71819,10111A1 t2t3t41516 A Mr . Loren Davis First City Equities Bank of California Center 900 Fourth Avenue/Suite 3818 ® �'•' E NO. ., Seattle, Washington 98164 ITEM 1�T®. a- 05`6 - .870 Dear Mr . Davis : In response to your letter of March 10 , 1981, we would like to take the opportunity to clarify several points. The first one under Item B is that the preloading of the building sites for future construction would be required to follow • the special permit procedure for filling and grading. This can only be done .concurrently with the construction of the raodways under the preliminary plat approval , if th.e special permits have been granted. • Therefore, we would recommend that you begin application for those as soon as possible to allow them to proceed in a timely manner . The only major disagreement that we have concerning your letter is in reference to Item D-1 . The Environmental Review Committee ' s determination to require the construction of two lanes of the Valley Parkway to Monster Road remains . The connection is to provide a permanent point of access to Monster Road . The Environmental Review Committee does not feel that this condition can be changed. 9 Letter to Mr . Loren Davis First City Equities Page Two March 16 , 1981 Further discussion of this item will have to take place either in the public hearing scheduled for March 31 or hrou h a`n a peal that' ou would fie on t e decision of t e Environmen al Review Committee. Sincerely , 45t41641. Roger J . Blaylock Associate Planner RJB :gh cc : Mayor Shinpoch City Attorney Bob Thorpe Public Works Director Building Director Planning Director OF R&I :0 ° PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT TRAFFIC ENGINEERING DIVISION e 235-2620 pImmor' ^ MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200MILL AVE. SO. RENTON,WASH.98055 .p,O co. 01 7. .E0 SEP1°MO BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH MAYOR February 19, 1981 RECEIVED Mr. David D. Markley CITY OF RENTONHEARPNG EXAMINER The TRANSPO Group 23 148th Avenue SE APR 1 1981 Bellevue, WA 98007 AM PM 71819pl0,llrl211'2138415,6 Subject: Earlington Park Traffic Analysis s Dear Dave: Pursuant to your letter of February 10, 1981 , we have prepared an outline of the specific items we would like presented and discussed in the supplemental traffic analysis for the subject project. Primarily, the intent of the analysis is to provide a traffic operational overview of the existing situation and the specific impacts of the proposed development. To this end we request the following: 1 . AWDT at locations indicated on the enclosed mapsfor the following time frames: a) existing b) horizon year without development c),, horizon year with development 2. Peak hour directional and intersection turning movement counts at locations indicated on enclosed mapsfor: a) existing AM and PM counts b) , horizon year AM and PM without development c) horizon year AM and PM with development 3. Level of Service Analysis at locations indicated on enclosed map for AM and PM peak hours during: a) existing conditions b) , future year without development c) future year with development EXHIBIT NO. 7 _. ITEM NO. Pic ..gs.° Mr. David D. Markley Page 2 February 19, 1981 4. Identification of mitigating measures necessary to as a minimum maintain existing LOS at intersections below LOS C and not allow those above to go below LOS C. If you have any further questions, please contact me at 235-2620. Very truly yours, Gary A.' Norris, P.E. Traffic Engineer GAN:ad Enclosures cc: Dick Houghton Dave Clemens Clint Morgan ' . ' • - , . , . . . , . . . i is...., ,...•1 .•‘,., • •-...., t. ., . ° . . : . . ° . . . . . ..'' -• • A . IV , . , •. . . . .• i . , . . . , •••••'' ; ..... • 7 ... .,., , ' 4 • .°' . 4,:*''''' '.N ,.., 7 , . 4 . .' • 4 t 'Clis. t ? Nt. 4... -4 L • ..4.—__.4. ' . , , Oa• ''''...mie , 1 ''. Pr '4 - vkitwAy PIGAIY A • • , ' . ,1,— J.. • , ,-..,,„,,.........., ,..,,....,-,4,..°4.w.44,°.All•.., :::° -•••40144„, • 14 , '‘k 1.' -4•..-- ,p• -— 15, ., 5 ri'M 1 -f, .,-.• . tol, . i • . 4 i* .• ' 4 4.-1 y' CP , , 4 .'a'' •I •I'LI "'•1 ': , I ,4 .6"...--- .. +i . r LIND AV SW . t g , ti , en • I ip 0 to, X , . , 4rti 0 . .. . , . .... t:''' (,. •, • . Amos ',1,,,t, • 4.. . 14% \-,) • li,s.. --r At It •,° e' ,.. ' .•;i",rt.',1°i•W.•',"*. '''''''''"h'''':''''.4' ,, 1.. \ NM,4 A. .44-,P.,4••':..•.°..""'''''''''"""m'''"'''"''''''- ••.et•-• `t. V ...r-...--,sr 4----'r . 7' Ji. FIN, • Ni d • rk ' V v, • , 41.,,• ,_1.,,,- P, 1A• it 0 -• 4. ,t4 EARL I NGTON PMX N FUTU Re C ON D news ArA I PN .. , . , . c. (..il pi\c(ris /I iv i,,. r . , ., . . •. , ... . , . • • t , . 2 . 1 ' 2 . . 4 . • ' 4 • , , . 2, A i y.k.„ 4110' . .., /41 .01 sorE , rf 4 t ,4111.4.6y pwy ., -..t. , ) ,.,, .‘,.. ....... .:-. # ) 4!\;11,..4. •i• ..,____,t. 0.1.i- ti LIMO AVE. SW 4 -,A P 1 I'%1 SL G• ,% -,. licuid- 7'4 ' (11 t wo 4i = 4 ' ws, X 7.. •4 . f - 4\ . --b. l 1 et, n . _ .,A: .• eV Aril <.• * .• • ' to _i: ,. , • ..b. Q1Ail A.- ,- '•1'. • v + I A . Etr 14,, ,/ : .1, s____, ;:,..„'x i '.'• N.- ; ' 0114 1 f,., A ki EARL IP6TON PARt .1, minor ExisTiNdr CO CI D iTta itg i PM 1 xx A tot 4 PM . • i ) CIA (..Ai: t t.7 ;)/,..0 L./ •-, ( ., 0, ,,u1 eslistitsi A RENTON PLANNING DEPARTMENT DEVELOPME T APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET Application: :41•1 .. ® , ; : ..4® , ® 4 r' � ;a 7 „. ,r ; : .. m t I ' , soul �,,r�V 41- Location: r rj ' • Applicant: 1 fr tErep -*bi ro • ®Public Works Department 0Engineering Division OTraffic Eng. Division SCHEDULED HEARING DATE: ®Utilities Eng. Division LI Fi re Department Parks Department ®BuiyLi-nl Department IffPolice Department ®Others: COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITING. PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT BY 5 :00 P.M. ON wai 4:1 • REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: POLICE DEPT. ®:Approved El Approved with Conditions ® Not Approved I) All off site improvements be installed Impact on the intersection of Lind S.W. & Grady Way be addressed Lt. D. . PIrsson ! DATE3/25/8l Signature of Director or Authorized Representative REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: ®Approved ®Approved with Conditions ®Not Approved h S , • DATE: Signature of Director or Authorized Representative _ — ii=cuza euzsi ea.t..as cgana =co ma= rhazim vw-Kil tgazgi entigi ivism Mai NMI Will NM Mg IngtO MN Win i . I , • - ..-.., ...s' . t „•••• • ,i.1, • • . I I _-- A . 6' 'pi -4, -.- - _- il 1--- .V• . --- _ F.IPARIAN Por-rasT -- - . i ' II.; • 4 '"'''S's 1.4'. ."''''''. --..' ....'';'''. ',,,,,.1. 0:46r. Rivalg. varri..A.Hcr • ..,.,. .:, Or TRACT A ci ----:` . —17— • I • 1 ':' iti II 1 i-------- 1 1 ... ,. .... , '-'Z'-,,, 1 I 1 s>,_ ..., - -1 • ; 1111r. li ' • SE 1 , ,-, , . ,..,-.- - :::;, • p .2 ,el/i ar tA w /Title-A( .- • ' 'e. .3r_z_____ .. --- : . 9 /.... ••\\ ---... ./ ; ; I ',.....• -401„.• . 41' . . ,.-' 17 1 ..,• :'• .. ---- - f , ..' H _ , .. ... - -__ —_ _ __--— _ --- - ... ' fl----1 .191 V • -. s:••.„ , ., .' i It •• - , -.41.'"--....7".• • . • •.--d ,.. .,.....„ ...**•., ^,r, . i . . N. N. . e .. r. ., ..,.'_, PHAS: 2 i • _ le, ' ) - • Elklull . HEAVY vt ,tioir-.11•46 1144-T.le; . 1-•• . • \ s.1... ; . . framer" v- i M rf.002460 P L i fa• 6 - - -1,.._._.;,:, HO/WI ' . ".Ma-- j . , . 1 .., .:. 1 12 t- % .t '7. 64 Y. I , . Z• , . p samo E la • N . 4 t, 101 . ' .• t . * 2 C1121 M 1°l' il. • M WI< QS * • • . -. ! \ ' : I op In nr X inia J - ,..----------- • aq w •C ''CI,i60031111111'n . o s_ , k\ . P gmnSI , . z. / 1111>I'M. • --------- BITE PLAN ,--------- ‘,..4\ g ):02151 _ . . I.- 5. ja2 m . sins itort.pc•c+ I FoiXreZ •••,*.a MKS IL Low412.4vi ••••••••••••• r•I obt4.-to..I.RVVea-410-1 • • _l kt �- p 17 ,C'= 9/7. 47, „ \ �a = 27 �� \ 677.>J :p \ vl`,4-2B3.3ja" ‘ \ P1 A .. 4\` Z9O N ;NCC) N kiN . _ v E 290 s ' = Y �� -4',r/.r ..r -- i az.yG .. s`;Q oL "1'• i`%: y �/--'—G z. v •, ,e= 481. /s ,,../ , \ ' li .,. �. v � .Q- 5.i"J 6 f • V Q = 6/''jD I'., ��' \ • �• � o I I , �^• sti r ' , .5 7S 2S,i4"k/ V • i.- t' I i, v, o0 • . -?/ • / qP1\ ' �/ 1 I1'\, it',',•• M, 19L0 e,11 k1 �, `-1 '• ��1NG DE��'�' `� th ° • o h _ - , . BUSH, ROM C''i!.'.'�i, INC. P.S. ~° T_ .___..... �_ B-�� '�/w — C1�'ll Ei;� -;i:. .._ 'l 1:{!; .1: l'!'cYOFi i -'—� 280.0.E S. 770Zs'�3„164 20C.9 i ., 1 AVE. EAST 1 SEAMY._, V.IA uJ1U.2 �__ l 32:,'.4144 2 L - --- — A. 0)/ _ r ` • — PZd7- PAN • . / Ali • =,V J • a Y • �:•1^"t f. 5 9 ' rt`• ��l/iI,„.st4.,''B'•.".a 4„A„,,,, Iya 1.n4' a©o.' l A, I t%1% .4 N4!tl'I� 4 1 „.. , ..., . , ,,,,7,,, , ,,,,,,„„„,,,, ., „ „„,„ ,,,,, :,..,,,,,,,,,, .i., ,A„ w;.._ .. i E°�14,041�;�7:1* s ,00 ''''-4.111 ;;,it// ��� �//�U���� I Ili` i.'1$,lr iiiiii�/1��,�� i. I 1 "11*. '. INIMIPI•V isM,',4%.,,A.". !WV 5 , 4 ., t . ,� .; LI ,� '. C �.-..,..- I tts.•<«,w;. '�' „ .s Ir I/�t��� �1�'�t',b�II ��i to ,�" '> :,. ;nr ti\ ... t: ,S,VN _ hl,kaii�`i� ,d ' .. .. .. ... , L.. ,:::.. ,. ,,„„:, ..,..- _ , . . . . ,. ,,,,,,,,.., ,,,,,r,„„,,... , „.-. . Ki I , ir; :::.,.L.::1-.: ••.••: ,,,"".....:...: ....... , it T .... .. , ,- . , . .,-,„„-„,.,„,,.,z,:_, ,f,,,,-14,•f I i VO.W, o 4,s �, I " r 21 , ? � I. " , , Z.4,4��e•Vuv}r_ � ,24 ` r• e5K ED ,r ,- im _____ 6- . ' . I I 1 t r$\; . IL 'il------'--r— : --' ' . ...:11.''.:'r,:°.:-:-.-:•::-.--it-",--. ' — ' E T R ti) - ,,A,:' \ I R, , . , , - °it P kt4C-1.(7.1.4 R. , .;; our 1t.�� 1\44.4. ., .. , lk ili ., `!! , i , �IIIU III ��-'JI°�. --- ---,;0 •"::'ikk.70101.; giattPLiiro ifii ii fur, „0,..„,„„0.01:. *, , ;,i" °®f,, ► ' T iilllll "''jl I� �Illilllll �1 n��U.. .I 1 k \ f , /t• '.. / Iy III . ����graq . ,, T =x y'�I=--li i11„ • i J4�f _� J�_ • Id kinfoky !,ra •ahu'. ■tom 'i 1�.t, , •!it ,f t � .`��ilikur t2ei lfii�� e 1 _ _ it t�\`��� fi�e.��! f f f I FIRST CITY EQUITIES (EARLINGTON PARK) PP-05,6-50 k 1 • . APPLICANT First City Equities (Earl i ngton Park)TOTAL AREA 109.3 acres PRINCIPAL ACCESS Via S.W. 7th Avenue and S.W. 10th Street i i . EXISTING ZONING G, General Classification District EXISTING USE Existing Golf Course with Undeveloped Property PROPOSED USE Industrial Park 1 COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN Manufacturing Park t 1 4. COMMENTS 4 i t 1 I • 0 f • 1 �I j oIfi " o 1 I f _. _tit),,_ . .__ . o 2 P 4.L 1 et' '44114: is: ♦ i • i s 1 t ill. .-§ t .� 1 0 r 1�IVIIirw1u get��towaoioote��RAA�me t 4 u1scq "- !tua¢'ap i i ( )• ( 1� ; • PLANNING DEPARTMENT • s ' PRELIMINARY REPORT TO -7E HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING MARCH 31 , 1981 PAGE TWO C . HISTORY/1:ACRSGfl8OflyND : The subject site was annexed into the City of Renton by Ordinance No. 1745 dated April .14, 1959. In 1966 ten acres of the subject site was rezoned to M-P , sub- sequently in 1979 an additional 73 plus acres was re- zoned to M-P , Manufacturing Park from G, General Classi- fication . The remaining 25. 89 acres is presently under consideration for a rezone request to M-P from the G Classification. • D. PHYSICAL BACKGROUND: 1. Topography: The site is generally level except for some very slight downward slopes in , a north-south direction in the northerly and westerly, portions of the property . S 2. Soils: Beausite gravelly sandy loam, 6-�15% slopes (BeC) . Permeability is moderately rapid, runoff is medium and the erosion hazard is moderate. This soil is used for timber and pasture and for urban development . Puyallup fine sandy, loam (Py) . Permeability is moderately rapid, runoff is slow and the erosion .hazard is slight. Stream overflow is a slight to severe' hazard depending on the amount of flood protection provided. This soil is used for row crops and pasture and for urban development . Tukwila muck ,(Tu) . Permeability is moderate. There is a seasonal high water table at or near the surface. Runoff is ponded, and the erosion hazard is slight. If drained, this soil is used for row crops . It is also used for pasture. Wood- inville silt loam (Wo) . Permeability is moderately slow. There is a seasonal high water table at or near the surface . Runoff is slow and the erosion hazard is slight. Stream overflow is a ;severe hazard unless flood protection is provided. This soil is used for row crops, pasture and urban development . 3 . Vegetation: The site consists of a blend of deciduous trees and blackberries scattered along the fairways of an existing golf -course. 4. Wildlife : Existing vegetation on the site provides suitable habitat for birds and small mammals. 5 . Water : The drainage channel of the Black River runs through the northerly portion of the site. Other than this , no standing water was observed on the subject site. 6. Land Use : The subject site consists of an existing golf course with the remainder of the property undeveloped. • E . I EICHAORHOOD CHARACTERISTICS: ' . The surrounding properties area is in a transitional state from undeveloped to mixed industrial , warehousing and commercial uses. F . PIJ: LIC SERVICES: 1 . Water and Sewer : Twelve inch water mains extend north-south on Powell Avenue S.W. and east-west on S .W. 7th Street approximately 1 , 250 feet east of the subject site. A 10 inch sanitary sewer runs north-south along Powell Avenue S.W. and an 8 inch sanitary pipe extends east-west on S .W. 7th Street approximately 600 feet ease- of the sub- . ject site . • PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRELIMIINARY REM '. TO THE HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING MARCH 31 , 1981 • APPLICANT : FIRST CITY EQUITIES (Earlington Park) FILE NUMBER : PP-056-80 A. SUMMARY & PU r POSE OF REQUEST: The applicant requests approval of a 25 lot industrial subdivision on 109. 3 acres ; 83.41 acres has been rezoned in the past. The remaining 25. 89 acres. is under rezone consideration , File No. R-057-80. B. GENERAL INFORMATION . 1. Owner of Record : DAVID M. SCHUMAN • 2. Applicant : FIRST CITY EQUITIES ' (Earlington Park) ' 3 . Location,: (Vicinity Map Attached) That property line west of Powell Avenue S.W. , north of the extension of S.W. 10th Avenue,: east of the proposed P-1 Channel and south of the Milwaukee Railroad land. 4. Legal Dedription: A detailed legal description is available on file in the Renton Planning Department. 5. Size of Property: 109.3 acres 6. Access : Via S.W. 7th Avenue and S.W. 10th Street 7. Existing 'Zoning : "G" , General Classification District • 8. Existing Zoning in the Area: "G" , General Classification • District ; M-P, Manufacturing Park 9. Comprehensive Land Use Plan: Manufacturing Park 10 . Notification : The applicant was notified in writing of the hearing date. Notice was properly published in the Daily Record . Chronicle on March 16, 1981 and posted in three places on or near the site as required • by City Ordinance on March 13, 1981. PLANNING DEPARTMENT , - PRELIMINARY REPORT 1 fHE HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING MARCH 31 , 1981 PAGE' THREE \ 2. Fire Protection : Provided by the Renton Fire Depart- ment per ordinance requirements . 3. Transit : Not applicable 4. Schools : Not applicable 5. Recreation: Not applicable G . APPLICAM LE SECTIONS OF THE ZONING CODE: ' 1 . Section 4-729 , G9 General Classification District Z. Section 4-730, M-P , Manufacturing Park District H . APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE CUIP PREI1IENSPIIE PLANT OR °THME�' OFFICIAL CITY DOCUMENT: . 1. Comprehensive Plan , Land- Use Reports, 1965, Objectives , Pages 17 and ' 18 . 2. Green River Valley Comprehensive Plan, June, 1976. 3. Comprehensive Plan , Policy Statement, February , 1981 . 4. Subdivision Ordinance, Minimum Standards for Industrial Design, Section 9-1108(24) . I . IMPACT ON TIE NIATWAL OR DdI1Dff)AII& ENVTMONIMENIT: The environmental impacts of the proposed development have been evaluated and a final Environmental Impact Statement has been prepared and accepted by the City of Renton. The Environmental Review Committee in accepting the final impact statement has specifically placed mitigating measures upon the project . As part of the devlopment of the Earlington Park project, the proponents shall : 1 . Plat Phase 2 into Tracts A and B during the first subdivision process . 2. Show as ; "reserve" on the face of the plat that area required for permanent right-of-way of the East Side Watershed Project . • 3 . Dedicate to the City of Renton as public open space and a storm water detention area that portion of the site between Springbrook Creek and Black River north of the extension of the east segment of the northern' property line. (See attached Exhibit . A) . 4. Preserve in a natural condition the first 1600 feet of the old Black River channel - and associated ' riparian vegetation upstream of the confluence of Sprin'gbrook Creek and Black River. (See attached Exhibit A) . • PLANNING DEPARTMENT • ' PRELIMINARY REPORT TO HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING MARCH 31 , 1981 PAGE FOUR 5. Dedicate an easement for storm drainage along the north property line from the northeast corner of the site to the Black River Channel. (See attached Exhibit A. ) 6. Direct all storm drainage from the site' east of Springbrook Creek to the upstream end of the old Black River channel for the purpose of wetland treatment (as per the Water Quality Impact Assessment) . 7. ' Extend the existing' storm sewer line on the site (in an appropriate size) northwestward to the up- stream end of the Old Black River Channel. 8. Preserve Springbrook Creek and Black River in their natural condition and existing locations until such time as the Environmental Review Committee determines that relocation to conform to the East Side Watershed Project is necessary. 9. Retain as open space that portion of 'the site deter- mined to have cultural significance by the Office of Public Archaeology until such time as the Environ- mental Review Committee determines that, the site is no longer needed for archaeological Purposes . Prior to the development of Phase 1, the proponents shall : 1. Extend Powell Avenue to S .W. Grady Way , I1with final intersection location to be determined by the Public Works Department. - • 2. Participate in the signalization of the intersection of Powell Avenue and S.W. Grady Way by contributing 35 percent of the costs of this signalization. 3 . Participate in the signalization of the intersection of Edwards Avenue and S .W. 7th Street by contributing 20 percent of the costs of this signalization. Prior to the development of Tract B, Phase '2, the proponents shall : . 1. Construct Valley Parkway (2 lanes) along the west side of Tract B from S .W. 7th Street to !S.W. Grady Way . 2. Participate in the signalization of the intersection of Valley Parkway and S.W. Grady Way. Prior to the development of Tract A, Phase 2, the proponents shall : 1. Construct Valley Parkway (2 lanes) from S.W. 7th Street to Monster Road. K . AGENi(CIES/DEPARTMENTS ONT'-s CTED: 1 . City of Renton Building Department 2. City of Renton Engineering Division 3 . City of Renton Traffic Engineering Division 4. City of Renton Utilities Division 5. City of Renton Fire Department •PLANNING DEPARTMENT , PRELIMINARY REPORT ' THE HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING MARCH 31, 1981 PAGE FIVE L . PLANNING DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS : 1 . The proposed 25 lot preliminary .plat of Earlington Park complies with the Comprehensive Plan designation of Manufacturing Park for the subject site. Of the total 109.3 acre site , 83 .4 acres are zoned M-P , Manufacturing Park ; while the remaining 25.89 acres is under consideration for a rezone from G , General Use Classification , to M-P , Manufacturing Park . The G zoning affects Tracks A and B along with Lots 15 and 16 . The minimum lot size of the G zone is 35 ,000 square feet. Therefore, the proposal does comply with the standards of the G zone but the City of Renton would not be able to issue building permits for industrial buildings on Lots 15 and 16 until they were' rezoned . 2. The preliminary plat as submitted shows compliance with- seven of the fifteen conditions placed upon it by the Environmentallieview Committee. The other eight conditions are specific improvement requirements that will be included in the final on-site and off-site improvement plans. 3. Under Section 9-1108(24) of the Subdivision Ordinance minimum standards for industrial design are established , the applicant has complied `with all of the conditions of this section . It should be noted that the Valley Parkway is designated as an industrial collector and 80 feet of right-of-way has been provided. The other internal streets are all designated at 60 feet . 4. Tracks A and B will undoubtedly undergo further s`ubdivision *in the future and should be considered at that time. However , the Environmental Impact Statement and the required mitigating conditions would still apply unless development of the sites was substantially different than the typical manu- facturing park design proposed and covered by the alternatives of the Environmental Impact Statement . • 5. The lot design and access to public streets appears adequate for all of the proposed functions except in the case of Lot 11 where because of the requirement to preserve the natural vegetation along the northern property line, the buildable area on the site is severely reduced and limited in shape . This will mandate a special design for the site using a long narrow building with possible ground level parking. It does not create an unbuildable lot but would suggest that there may be a better lot configuration than the one proposed. 6. The applicant has presented a declaration of covenant conditions and restrictions along with landscape. guidelines for the proposal . Both of these are extensive and propose greater limitations than the City would require upon the actual development of the site. The landscaping guidelines are at a level that has not been presented to the City before . These guidelines will help present a uniform and aesthetically pleasing design for the entire park . The only concern that the Planning Department • has would be in relationship to specific building designs and possible modifications of the landscaping guidelines as a result of those building designs. These concerns would typically include site clearance for vehicles accessing onto public streets, utility repair and maintenance in the case where berms were established over utility easements resulting in greater costs or repairs , and cases of fire access conflicting with landscaping areas . PLANNING DEPARTMENT --- PRELIMINARY REPORT TO E HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING • MARCH 31, 1981 PAGE SIX M . DEPARTMENTAL REC®MIMENR ATIIDE: Based on the foregoing analysis , it is recommended that the preliminary plat for Earlington. Park , PP-056-80, be recommended for approval by th.e. Hearing Examiner to the City Council . • • • . i nev,s,on s/ wsl l®zta® . _ RENTON PLANNING DEPARTMENT DEVELOPME T APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET Application: ,� ' �' .4„;,1.0 6) A` ,. L.171 a "' �� }, i1'' �{ a M ® •+��r rr�yr'' ! © t,.' �� ,C��. . Ir `�.� .�9�`. Y��< >V'..i. S." `P` .i V lj i � O I � .�111,r iJ 0 Location6 'repo �{ /i P® - ' R¢�, %� ', R�.> , 14e Eittide + . atoltRawst Applicant: / G°17 : r,61:,(,.0 ®Public Works Department ®Engineering Division • +.` '—+, 'a" : ; �• Ju.nr# [Traffic Eng. Division SCHEDULED HEARING DATE: WV/0 Utilities Eng. Division ®Fire Department ®Parks Department siding Department ® Police Department Others: • COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITING. PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT BY 5 :00 P.M. ON guat 41=49 REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: (; Approved ( Approved with Conditions [] Not Approved I1 g- DATE4. --2.(A)91 Signature of rector or\'Authorizes Representative \1 REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: ®Approved ❑Approved with Conditions ONot Approved • DATE: Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Revision 3/1981 71/Thy RENTON PLANNING DEPARTMENT DEVELOPME T APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET Application: RE eArg(p.es7`010 it M ii Miff1y &AT tri fp6.54•S-a asyets 4, toil vita A / , eft.rife oyisi • Location: O p 9re, ,sJ f J ",M ``, 8ee2e Great4 4 �t r B/i €L R. Cites.attAsti Applicant: I 1y : ift/ie'eS • ID: ®Public Wgr—"Department ngineering Division { „ ,1-0 m •• • [Traffic Eng. Division SCHEDULED HEARING DATE: Wifiti ®Utilities Eng. Division ❑Fire Department Darks Department ®Building Department ® Police Department [D Others: COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITING. PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT BY 5 :00 P.M. ON {a1113/64, REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: Approved 01 Approved with Conditions ® Not Approved r#,("7....(f‘ DATE: 31/9// Signature of Director or Authorize Representa-tiv REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: ['Approved ®Approved with Conditions Not Approved DATE: Signature of Director or Authorized Representative RUV I lOrl if Tde RENTON PLANNING DEPARTMENT DEVELOPME T APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET Application: E ® o® 7s . P P/is'ta e.:., sig eic 45, ,tiu Aediv lefitire _I Location. ,r : r't0,4.1 tea` * ,� f�' �t� ..;_} x ®r 1 � , l� .j `•�;�;;���� a "'.=• � ; 814d . Gk Applicant:_1St • • TO: Public Works Department En g iring Division raffic Eng. Division SCHEDULED. HEARING DATE: w 0 1 ®Utilities Eng. Division ®Fire Department ®Parks Department ['Building Department O Police Department ®Others: . COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITING. PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT BY 5:00 P.M. ON REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: r.Z /iv eE3(7 /NCB ®Approved ®'Approved with Conditions ® Not Approved • I J `V C� .Z t'IBC Y �1~B ti1. (p la, lil 31 L j S S l7J 1 la Is t ; t � �. _ �U��l 1 -4 IIrrTE:tl Signature of Director orAuthorized Representative / /g/ REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: ®Approved ®Approved with Conditions ®Not Approved DATE: Signature of Director or Authorized Representative OF THE CITY OF RENTON MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, VJASH. 98055 olea sm. o BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH, MAYOR e PLANNING DEPARTMENT 4 co- 235- 2550 0 9RTEo SEPtE�?)(<'P March 13, 1981 Mr . Loren Davis First City Equities Bank of California Center 900 Fourth Avenue/Suite 3818 Seattle, Washington 98164 Re: 1 ) Application for rezone of 25.9 acres from existing C classification to M-P ; and 2 ) Application for preliminary plat approval of 25 lot industrial subdivision, located on the Earlington Golf Course . Deara Mr . Davis : The Renton Planning Department formally accepted the above mentioned applications on June 11, 1980 . A public hearing before the City of Renton Hearing Examiner has been set for March 31, 1981 , at 9 : 00 a .m. Representatives of the applicant are asked to be present . All interested persons are invited to attend the hearing. If you have any further questions, please call the Renton Planning Department , 235-2550 . Very truly yours , , 7794-1. Roger J. Blaylock Associate Planner RJB:gh 1 , ' l' . I. 0.:%,. ,;,i-i •Iiqe {!1 II Ij ?• ty ; N r :F r f' • r • 1I ,g o- r' a ,1 l I ,� ..t, . ,,, .. ,„, ,.. t ;tt -1{.:. I , I I; x'n "� pia `t° � 't.. .h .. Gel N LOCATION: AID, OR ADDRESS: � PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE EARL I NGTON GOLF 'COURSE l LEGAL DESCRIPTION: ' ON FILE IN THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT . II • 1 j , I S P®STED TO NOTIFY PROPERTY OWNERS OF 'ter ., rr r- 5 . i '.-• 17N�✓ ' ' •'v '� ,v x3x�I" • TO BE HELD . IN CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, MUNICIPAL = UILDING ON MARCH 31, 1981 BEGINNING900 AT : A.M. P. A. ,I . CI: NCERNI4G ITEM I?! . k�� ,, , 4Ft ZO. hq . R-057-80 . . , E SP : . F. - 'D 1 '": ::, i' ll" SITt aLY a'x y , {". S, YL �. 4 yl Dy ^ `ft • ),+ k� fi u : • { N , !�ty • 0 , at. ^ I. a HI Eff: ' I r .=" k :r1.. NAGEBU NT PERR41! x„r ii !'�' PRELIMINARY PLAT PP-056-80 • I' i FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CALL 235 2550 THIS NOTICE NOT TO BE REMOVED WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING RENTON LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER RENTON , WASHINGTON A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE RENTON LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER AT HIS REGULAR MEETING IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL , RENTON , WASHINGTON , ON MARCH 31, 1981, AT 9 :00 A .M. TO CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING PETITIONS : 1 . 1ST CITY EQUITIES Application for rezone of 25.9 acres from existing G classification to M-P, file R-057-80 ; a band of property approximately 300 feet in width lying immediately east of the proposed P-1 Channel . 2 . EARLINGTON PARK Application for preliminary plat approval of 25-lot industrial subdivision, file PP-056-80 , property located on the Earlington Golf Course , which lies east of Powell Avenue S.W. and west of the proposed P-1 Channel . 3 . MICHAEL A. BUMSTEAD Application for conditional use permit to construct 9600 square foot machine shop with asphalt parking lot and landscaping, file CU-019-81 ; property located at 3500 N.E . 4th Street . 4. DOMINIC J. COLASURDO Application for special permit for fill and grade in B-1 zone, file SP-024-81 ; property located on the south side of N .E . 4th Street approximately 160 feet east of Union Avenue N.E . • Legal descriptions of files noted above are on file in the Renton Planning Department . ALL INTERESTED PERSONS TO SAID PETITIONS ARE INVITED TO BE PRESENT AT THE PUBLIC HEARING ON MARCH 31, 1981, AT 9 :00 A .M. TO EXPRESS THEIR OPINIONS. PUBLISHED: March 16, 1981 DAVID R. CLEMENS ACTING PLANNING DIRECTOR CERTIFICATION I , STEVE MUNSON, HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THREE COPIES OF THE ABOVE DOCUMENT WERE POSTED BY ME IN THREE CONSPICUOUSPLACES ON THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED ABOVE AS PRESCRTeED BY LAW. ATTEST : Subscribed and sworn to before me, a Notary Public , in and for the State of Washington residing in King County , on the , 13th day of March, 1981 . Tr SIGNED: .� A ��r� OF THE CITY OF RENTON r U ®gyp Qm MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE.SO. RENTON,WASH.98055 BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH, MAYOR • PLANNING DEPARTMENT 99gT � February 25, 1981 235- 2550 Fp SEP1E Loren Davis-- First City Equities ° _ 900 Fourth Avenue, Suite 3818 Seattle, Washington 98164 RE: EARLINGTON PARK - REQUIRED MITIGATION Dear Mr. Davis Pursuant to Section 2810 (c) of the Renton Environmental Ordinance (Chapter 28, Title IV) , the Environmental Review Committee has reviewed the Earlington Park proposal, the Draft EIS, and Final EIS to determine reasonable conditions necessary to mitigate or avoid the adverse impacts of the project. The Environmental Review Committee finds that adverse environ- mental impacts identified in the Draft EIS and in comments and responses to the Draft EIS (contained in the Final EIS) will occur as a result of the development of the project. These include adverse impacts to open ,space and recreation, storm drainage, flood control, water quality, flora, archaeo- logical resources, and transportation/circulation. Accordingly, the Environmental Review Committee has determined that mitigating measures are necessary and that the following conditions shall apply to any approval given by the City to the Earlington Park project. A: As part of the development of the Earlington Park project, the proponents shall: 1 . Plat Phase 2 into Tracts A and B during the first subdivision process. 2. Show as "reserve" on the face of the plat that area required for permanent right-of-way of the East Side Watershed Project. 3. Dedicate to the City of Renton as public open space and a storm water detention area that portion of the site between Springbrook Creek and Black River north of the extension of the east segment of the northern property line. (See attached Exhibit A. ) Loren Davis First City Equities February 25, 1981 Page Two 4 . Preserve in a natural condition the first 1600 feet of the old ' Black River channel and associated riparian vegetation upstream of the confluence of Springbrook Creek and Black River. (See attached Exhibit A. ) 5. Dedicate an easement for storm drainage along the north property line from the northeast corner of the site to the Black River channel. (See attached Exhibit A. ) 6. Direct all storm drainage from the site east of Springbrook Creek to the upstream end of the old Black River channel for the purpose of wetland treatment (as per the Water Quality Impact Assessment) . 7. Extend the existing storm sewer line on the site (in an appropriate size) northwestward to the upstream end of the old Black River channel. 8. Preserve Springbrook Creek and Black River in their natural condition and existing locations until such time as the Environmental Review Committee determines that relocation to conform to the East Side•Watershed Project is necessary. 9. Retain as open space that portion of the site deter- mined to have cultural significance by the Office of Public Archaeology until such time as the Environ- mental Review Committee determines that the site is no longer needed for archaeological purposes. B. Prior to the development of Phase 1 , the proponents shall: • 1 . Extend Powell Avenue to S.W. Grady Way, with final intersection location to be determined by the` Public Works Department. 2. Participate ,in the signalization of the intersection of Powell Avenue and S.W. Grady Way by contributing 35% of the costs of this signalization. 3. Participate in the signalization of the intersection of Edwards Avenue and S.W. 7th Street by contributing 20% of the costs of this signalization. I " r ) Loren Davis First City Equities February 25, 1981 Page Three C. Prior to the development of Tract B, Phase 2, the proponents shall: 1 Construct Valley Parkway (2 lanes) along the west - , side of Tract B from S.W. 7th Street to S.W. Grady Way. 2. Participate in the signalization of the intersection of Valley Parkway and S.W. Grady Way. D. Prior to the development of Tract A, Phase 2, the proponents shall: 1 . Construct Valley Parkway (2 lanes) from S.W. 7th Street to Monster Road. The above conditions are applied by the Environmental Review Committee acting as the Responsible Official for the City of Renton in order to mitigate and avoid adverse environmental impacts of the proposal. These conditions are final unless appealed within fourteen days to the Land Use Hearing Examiner. If you have any questions or need further clarification, please contact the Planning Department at 235-2550. Very truly yo r D id R. Cleme Acting Planning Director if Rchard C. Houghto r°471: • Acting Public Works Director Ronald G. Nelson • Building Director cc: Barbara Y. Shinpoch, Mayor Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney R. W. Thorpe and Associates . - 1 . • . . 1 . , . . . . . . .. . At, alcietixa . , . . . . •tcs 'e9 . gioliffil, i . 1 I • . ,---'—''—'----- t I \Ii • . t . ,....) i . •-, 1 .c.$... . I- . . . . I - . I 2 .pv-ii_ : t .. I 1 1 , . •-. a/v• : 1 .. i i.: 1 . 1 .1 T • y#C-— g..... i .)svilci i . . 1 1 ....C /\14c'c )liimitd°14.-1 . L.. 1,72.1 1 V 'F' • ...i.' . (.....) . ----_.-- . -------•-- Sitiliiiiiiiitylinliftiiilliiinilitrn ''' ."' -',I ' • 1.4.1.7X4 I4,011.torapp 2 Ii0.1/.9:1420 '4344 E tfoy.lipuo, - - . N0/Art.40.2 - • • ! „„;?,-, _ ___ 77 . . _ _ ili -- . . , -..... ,„....._ % - CITY OF RENTON SHORT PLAT PLAT APPLICATION FILE NO. Pg -.°. V.MAJOR PLAT ��" _ DATE REC' D. -//��0 /. TENTATIVE ® °� APPLICATION FEE $ '/j 47b� a� 6\1Et) PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL FINAL 1i�$� �/ VIEW FEE $ AOREaEIPT NO. / f902-, 'd ,e l SM NO. 4//tjni. s / PUD NO. �)0�.3 /{64es — '19/ �°) G OE_�o�s t-Kezd,r.e,- li' 0.6-780) APPLICANT TO COMPLETE ITEMS 1 THROUGH 7 : • 1. Plat Name & Location Earlington Park; SW 7th Avenue .& Powell Avenue SW 2 . No. Lots 25 Total Acreage 109.3 Zoning M.P. & G. 3 . Owner 1st City Equities Phone 624-9223 . Address Bank of California Center, Seattle, WA 98164 • • 5 . Underground Utilities : Yes No Not Installed Telephone ( ) ( ) ( X ) Electric (. . ) ( ) ( X ) Street Lights ( ) ( •) ( X ) Natural Gas ( ) ( ) ( X ) TV Cable ( ) ( ) ( X ) 6 . Sanitation & Water: • ( X ) City Water ( X ) Sanitary Sewers ( ) Water.: District No. ( ) Dry Sewers .._ , ( ) Septic Tanks 7 . Vicinity and plat maps as required by Subdivision Ordinance. 8 . DATE REFERRED TO: ENGINEERING PARKS BUILDING . HEALTH • TRAFFIC ENG. STATE HIGHWAY FIRE COUNTY PLANNING , BD. PUBLIC WORKS OTHER 9 . STAFF ACTION : • TENTATIVE PLAT APPROVED DENIED APPEALED EXPIRED 10. LAND USE -HEARING EXAMINER'S ACTION: SHORT PLAT APPROVED DENIED PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVED DENIED FINAL PLAT APPEALED EXPIRED 11 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVED DENIED FINAL PLAT APPEALED EXPIRED 12. DEFERRED IMPROVEMENTS : DATE DATE 'BOND NO . AND TYPE GRANTED EXPIRES AMOUNT Planning Dept . Rev. 1/77 • - AFFIDAVIT I, David M. Schuman, Partner, First City Equitiesbeing duly sworn, declare that I am the owner of the property involved in this application and that the foregoing statements and answers herein contained and the information herewith submitted are in all respects true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Subscribed and sworn before me this / )-/" day of 91AZc— , 19 GO , Notary Public in and for the State of A.0 ,..nr,e.0Washington, residing at • FIRST CITY EQ lES Acc."eL--7i < ,�, , (Nameof P �� By��4%-*/ Notary ublic}) (Signature o Owner) David M. Schuman, Partner /� 3818 Bank of California Center /6E-", A. A. . 900 Fourth Avenue (Address) (Address) Seattle WA 98164 (City) (State) (206) 624-9223 (Telephone) (FOR OFFICE USE ONLY) CERTIFICATION This is to certify that the foregoing application has been inspected by me and has been found to be thorough and complete in every particular and to conform_ to the rules and_r_egul-adons—of the Renton Planning Department governing the filin ,--o: s ch;, application . • • Date Received I ; 9 By: . • • Renton Planning Dept . 2-73 I- AFFIDAVIT I, J. J. Gordon , being duly sworn, declare that I am the owner of the property involved in this application and that the foregoing statements and answers herein contained and the information herewith submitted are in all respects true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Subscribed and sworn before me this'. 10 day of June , 1980 , Notary. Public in and for the State f Washiriiton, residing at /2u,,,/ BURLINGTON IRTIIE'. INC. /"/ i/ (`ame f Notary P ^ �. : ��` � • 9r Y lic) ( -.ture of Owner • g•r-Property Management �!, ‘02/ �G Lobby 2, Central Building (Address) (Address) Seattle, Washington 98104 (City) (State) • 625-6422 (Telephone) (FOR OFFICE USE ONLY) CERTIFICATION This is to certify that the foregoing application has been inspected by me and has been found to be__thorough and complete in every particular and to conform to the rules and regulations of the Renton Planning D_epa_rtment governing the filing of such application . Date Received % ••• . 1.9 ' By: 1 "J , Renton Planning Dept . 2-73 y _ `� C 1 a9 !kl y o)' . . £ 9/7• .A7 \ !J. 2 .�4 = 27"5a'sb \ \\\=6 27/J A \ =28:3$7p„ l'1 4I - i Z' . N N roec_i •_ �. 0 N w � co Nv,_ 0,5�-/� R\ • '' 1,1 0 U Z o' r Q =G G 3.� �3 i' oh �. � ' T� _ 9 /� s �p ,, > P ._:,_ ..."_____ •G � `r6�i`� 1 l tO �ZS' A8 hi Q ,� - __ 3 ,s �9�0¢ 2 , - i FG-• ,e_ ,181 /6 -. \ of \ 1 /0= 5 / �, • � i N\ o J 6; Oo OF RED/ �� \ r REcF�itEo r `, i`\ �l1 g '\)N \I t\I JUN Y��4• n'''%s",vassomosoomma*Antr.n.I 4". ..,,. . "9 �� 0 1:7/ N 441\\\ Fte \ kll - v, 1 `n (; M 0 1. 0 : .�4 '`'/ram'° BUSH, fRUEi <<': ! ' i, :i, INC.lf %. P.S.P.S, ---CiVIL Ei,:i::.-.._ -. 'LAY!; 1IEYORS 2g0.05- ,51 i77a,ZS'i 3 '. 20C9 :1 AVE. 'LAST SEA1'i'._. YJA 98102 ----" 323-4144 4 • --- ps • P WA)/ __-- _�- _— - - 6 --- . • PLOT P/A°/ \ • - - . DECLARATION OF COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS • THIS DECLARATION, made this 17 day of March by 1981 by First City Equities, hereinafter referred to as "Grantor"; W I T N E S S E T H: WHEREAS, the Grantor is the Owner of (or has an equitable interest in) real property described in the Declaration; and WHEREAS, Grantor is desirous of subjecting said real property to the protective covenants hereinafter set forth, each and all of which is and are for the benefit of said property and for each subsequent Owner and Occupant thereof; NOW, THEREFORE, Grantor hereby declares that the real property herein referred to as Earlington Industrial Park elsewhere identified in this Declaration as "Earlington", located in Renton, King. County, Washington, and more particularly described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof by reference, shall be held, transferred, sold, conveyed, leased, subleased and occupied subject to the conditions , covenants, restrictions , easements and reservations hereinafter set forth. The following restrictions and requirements are imposed on the property subject to this Declaration and are binding on all Owners and Occupants , and may be enforced against such Owners and Occupants jointly and/or severally. 1. PURPOSE OF THIS DECLARATION This Declaration is made to require development, Improvement and use of Earlington so as to: a) protect the Owners and Occupants of Building Sites against such use of neighboring Building Sites as might depreciate the value of their property; . b) encourage the erection of attractive, permanent Improve- ments appropriately located to insure harmonious appearance and functions ; c) assure adequate off-street parking space and off-street ` truck loading and maneuvering facilities; d) encourage the-development of aesthetic architectural and engineering design, including compatible landscaping, and, in • general, provide a harmonious development that will promote the general welfare of the Owners and Occupants of Earlington. • -1- II. DEFINITION OF TERMS The following terms and words are defined for use herein as follows: a) Building - shall mean and include; but not be limited to the main portion of a structure built for permanent use and all projections or extension thereof, including but not limited to garages, outside platforms and docks, storage tanks, carports, enclosed malls and porches ; b) Building Site - shall mean a tract of real property within Earlington as determined by'the legal description in a conveyance or lease from Grantor. ' If fee simple title to two (2) or more adjacent Building Sites, as defined hereinabove, , is acquired by the same Owner, such commonly-owned Building . Site may, at the option of said Owner, be combined and treated as a single Building Site for the purposes of this Declaration, provided that the location of the Improvements on such combined Building Site shall be subject to prior written approval by Grantor; c) Declaration - shall mean this Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions , together with all of the provisions contained herein; d) Improvements - shall mean and include, but not be limited to, Buildings,- out Buildings, driveways, exterior lighting, fences, Landscaping, Lawns, loading areas, parking areas , railroad trackage, retaining walls, roads, screening walls , Signs, utilities and walkways located on a Building Site; e) Landscaping - a space of ground covered with Lawn and/or ground cover combined with shrubbery, trees and the like which may be complemented with earth berms, masonary or similar materials, all .harmoniously combined with themselves and with other Improvements on the Building Site; f) Lawn - a space of ground covered with grass, kept neatly mown and maintained; g) Occupant - shall mean an entity, whether it be an individual, corporation, joint venture, partnership or association, which has purchased, leased, rented or has otherwise legally' acquired the right to occupy and use any Building or Building Site, whether or not such right is exercised; h) Owner - shall mean an entity, whether it be an individual, corporation, joint venture, partnership or association, which is record owner of any fee simple estate, or which has an equity of redemption in a Building Site; -2- i) Sign - shall mean and include every advertising message, announcement, declaration, demonstration, display, illustration, insignia, surface or space erected or maintained in view of the observer thereof for identification, advertisement or promotion of the interest of any person, entity, product or service. The definition of Sign shall also include the Sign structure, supports , lighting system and any attachments , ornaments or other features used to draw the attention of observers . This definition does not include any flag, badge or ensign of any government or governmental agency erected for and used to identify said government or governmental agency; j) Street —shall mean any public street or highway, whether presently constructed, dedicated by plat map or contemplated . in the future, under a street plan approved by any public authority. III. LAND USE Building Sites within Earlington shall be used for high quality rail-served and non-rail served commercial and industrial , and business and office park purposes. The foregoing shall not, however, prevent Grantor from constructing, owning, operating, leasing or conveying real property within. Earlington for facilities consistent with the purposes of this Declaration. IV. RESTRICTIONS AND REQUIREMENTS ON IMPROVEMENTS The following restrictions and requirements are imposed on the property subject to this Declaration: • a) Temporary Structures - No temporary Buildings or other temporary structures shall be permitted on any Building Site; provided, however, trailers, temporary Buildings and the like shall be permitted for construction purposes during the con- struction period of a permanent Building. Such structures shall be placed as inconspicuously as practicable, shall cause • no inconvenience to Owners or Occupants of other Building Sites, and shall be removed not later than thirty (30) days after the date of substantial completion for beneficial occu- pancy of the Building(s) in connection with which the temporary structure was used; b) Building Setbacks - All Buildings shall be setback from appropriate property lines as follows I) Front Yards - all Buildings shall setback from front yard property lines a minimum distance of 60 feet. 2) Side Yard on Flanking Street of Corner Lot - All build- ings shall setback from the side yard on a flanking street of a corner lot a minimum of 60 feet from the property line; 3) Side Yards - All Buildings shall be setback a minimum of 20 feet from all side yard property lines except where greater side yard setbacks are imposed by Grantor to comply with building or fire code requirements ; • -3- 4) Rear Yard - All Buildings shall be setback a minimum of 20 feet from the property line; 5) . Rear Yard, Rail-Served Sites - All Buildings shall be setback 30 feet from the centerline of lead track to comply with railroad operational, building or fire code requirements or as may be required by other provisions of this Declaration.. c) Lot Coverage - Buildings and structures , but not parking areas, • shall not cover more than the following percentage of the total area of a building lot: 1) Rail-Served Sites - fifty percent (50%) 2). . Non-Rail Light Warehousing - forty-five percent (45%) . 3) " Business Park - thirty-five percent (35%) . . 4) Office Park- fifteen percent (15%) . d) Height - No building or structure shall exceed a height of 1 forty (40) feet unless otherwise approved by the Grantor. e) Parking, Loading and Unloading- Areas - No parking shall be permitted on any Street or drive, or any place other than parking areas located upon Building Sites . Each Owner and Occupant shall be responsible for compliance by its employees and visitors. Parking ' count shall comply to City Ordinance, except Business Park use shall provide a minimum of one car per 375 square feet of gross building . area.. . Landscaped Earth Berms shall be constructed to be consistent with the Landscaping Guidelines around all parking areas visible from - :public roads, also said parking areas shall be buffered as well as practicable by the use of other Landscaping materials. All driveways and areas for parking, maneuvering, loading and unloading. shall be paved with asphalt, concrete or similar materials. Off-street loading space shall be designed to include an additional . area or means of ingress and egress which shall be adequate for maneuvering; f) Screening of Service Facilities and Storage Areas - Garbage and refuse containers shall be contained within Buildings , or shall be concealed by means of screening walls of materials similar to and compatible with. that. of the Building. Fuel and other storage tanks shall be installed underground. Such Improvements shall be integrated with the concept of the Building Plan, be designed so as not to attract attention,, and shall be inconspicuously located. Unless specifically approved in writing for.display and similar purposes, no materials, supplies or equipment shall be stored in any area on a Building Site .. except inside a closed Building, or behind, a visual barrier which screens such areas so they are not visible from neighboring Building Sites or Streets; the materials used for said screening barriers shall be wood, concrete or masonary in type and must be similar to and com- patible with those materials used on the Building. Outside screened s-torage areas must not project beyond the front face of the principal Building on any site, or into any required Building setback area.. Outside stored materials shall not exceed a height of twelve (12) feet. ' -4- . g) Landscaping - No construction or installation of any Landscaping may be commenced without written approval by Grantor of the plans for such construction or installation. Grantor shall either approve or disapprove plans submitted in writing within thirty (30) days from the date on which they are received, and failure to either approve or disapprove within this period shall constitute approval of said plans. • All Building Sites shall be Landscaped in conformance with the Landscape Guidelines and Masterplan prepared by Richard Carothers Associates and attached as Attachment A. h) Exterior Materials , Colors - Architecturally and aesthetically suitable building materials shall be applied to or used on all sides of a Building which are visible to the general public and to be harmonious and compatible with colors of the natural surroundings and other adjacent Buildings . Building design and colors shall be approved by the Grantor, and meet the following requirements: 1) Exterior walls shall be of concrete or masonry. 2) No raw concrete unless sandblasted or textured. 3) No wood except at soffits, as entry accents, or in protected locations. 4) All colors are to be of a earth tone "Natural" range. Primary or accent colors may be used with restraint. 5) Prefabricated metal buildings are prohibited. i) Utilities - Mechanical Equipment - Roof Projections - All utility lines including electrical shall be underground. Pad-mounted transformers , switch gear and similar equipment which must be installed above ground line, shall be screened with suitable Landscaping con- sistent with safety and other regulations of the utility companies . , 'All mechanical equipment shall be located or screened so as not to be visible from the street view of the general public or from the ,front view of other Building Sites. Penthouses and mechanical equipment screening walls shall be of design and materials compatible with those of the Building. Antennae shall'be visually masked to the extent practicable and consistent with electomagnetic considerations; j) Pollutants - No trades , services or activities shall be conducted in Earlington, nor shall anything else be done therein which may be or become an annoyance or nuisance to the Owners or Occupants by reason of unsightliness or excessive emission or fumes , odors , glare, vibration, gases , radiation, dust, liquid wastes, smoke, debris or noise. k) Exterior Lighting - All exterior and security lighting shall have underground service and shall be designed, erected, altered and maintained in accordance with plans and, specifications approved in writing to the end that lighting shall be compatible and harmonious throughout Earlington. • • • -5- 1) Signs - Design and placement of signs shall meet the following criteria: 1) Individual development signs shall identify only the name and/or product of the establishment. 2) No bare bulb or neon illumination of signs shall be allowed. Indirect illumination, floodlighting or internal illumination shall be the only allowable means of illumination of signs . 3) No flashing or animated signs shall be allowed. . 4) Each individual development shall be limited to one free standing sign with a maximum total area for all faces of one hundred (100) square feet and a maximum height of eight (8). feet. 5) Each individual development shall be limited to building face signs as specified below: aa. Where a single building or development site contains a single tenant, signs on building faces shall be limited to a single sign for each building face, which shall not extend above the wall line of the building, nor more than one (1) foot from the face of the building. Each building face sign shall be allowed a maximum total area of one hundred (100) square feet. The maximum total area of all building face signs on a single development site shall not exceed two hundred (200) square feet. bb. Where a single building on a development site contains multiple tenants , each tenant may have a single building face sign which shall not extend above the wall line of the building, nor more than one (1) foot from the face of the building. Each sign shall. be limited to a maximum total area of thirty (30) square feet. 6) Graphics or supergraphics utilized for advertising purposes shall meet the size limitations specified for building face signs herein. Graphics or supergraphics utilized for aesthetic enhancement or decoration shall not be restricted by the provisions herein. 7) Private traffic signs, direction signs, and public convenience signs may be allowed where a public need is served. m) 'Fences - All fences shall be erected behind the landscaped areas required in Paragraph g) . n) Maintenance - Each Owner and Occupant of Earlington shall be responsible for keeping its Building Site or Sites, whether or not Improved, Buildings and other Improvements including Lawn and Land- scaping to street curb, maintained in a safe, clean, neat and orderly condition and shall prevent rubbish, dunnage, replaced equipment or machinery and the like from accumulating on its Building Site. Such maintenance shall include all spur and lead track areas and track areas within Building Sites and to each Building Site that may not be maintained by the governing body in jurisdiction. All exterior painted surfaces shall be maintained in sound condition and shall be repainted . at least once every seven (7) years . -6- • • If in the event the Owner or Occupant fails to comply with the maintenance provision of this Declaration (at the sole discretion of the Grantor) Grantor shall notify said Owner or Occupant of such conditions, in writing, and shall detail, in writing,' any and all work which must be performed by said Owner or Occupant to bring'said Building or Building Site into compliance with the maintenance provision of this Declaration and Grantor shall allow sixty (60) days from said date of notification in which said Owner or Occupant must perform said work. If said Owner or Occupant fails to perform said work within sixty (60) days, then in that event, Grantor may perform or cause to be performed any and all necessary maintenance work and submit all charges pertaining thereto to said Owner or Occupant for prompt payment. If said Owner or Occupant fails to promptly reimburse the Grantor for said work performed, the Grantor may collect said charges through any appropriate proceeding at law or in equity or may ,fi-le against the property of, said Owner or Occupant a real property lien in an adequate amount to recover damages incurred by Grantor in connection with said maintenance work performed. V. APPROVAL OF PLANS No construction or exterior alterations of any Building or other _ Improvements including Signs may be commenced without written approval by Grantor of the plans for such construction or alteration. Grantor shall either approve or disapprove plans submitted in writing within thirty (30) days from the date on which they are received, and failure to either approve or disapprove within this period shall constitute approval of said plans. Wherever approval in writing is required by the terms of this Declaration, such requirement shall mean written approval of Grantor in the following manner: a) All applications to Grantor shall be addressed as follows: First City Equities S Bank of California Center 900 Fourth Avenue, Suite 3818 _ - Seattle, Washington 98164 or to any such address as the Grantor shall hereafter designate in writing, addressed to Owners and Occupants; b) Grantor shall exercise its best judgment to see that all Buildings and Improvements constructed within Earlington conform to the purposes and requirements of this Declaration; provided, however, Grantor and its employees or agents shall not be liable to any Owner or Occupant or to anyone submitting plans for approval, or to, any other party by reason . of a mistake in judgment, negligence or non-feasance arising out of or in connection with the approval, ,disapproval or failure to approve any such plans; ' c) Upon receipt of approval of plans, Owner or Occupant shall diligently proceed with the commencement and completion of all approved construction. Unless work on the approved construction shall be commenced within one (1) year from the date of such approval and diligently pursued thereafter, then the approval shall automatically expire, unless Grantor has given a written extension of time; d) Approval of plans by the Grantor may be secured prior to acquisition of a Building Site pursuant to the terms of a sale contract . • VI CONFLICTS Zoning ordinances, building codes and regulations , and any other governmental restrictions and requirements shall be observed. In the event of any conflict between this Declaration and any such governmental codes, regulations, restrictions and requirements , the more restrictive standards shall apply. Any approval of Grantor required in this Declaration, does not in any way relieve Owners and Occupants from obtaining approvals . • required by any governmental body having jurisdiction. VII NOTICE TO BE GIVEN BY OWNERS Any Owner of Building Site within Earlington who shall transfer to another entity, whether such entity be an individual, corporation, joint-venture, partnership or association, any title, interest in or right of occupancy to such Building Site or portions thereof, shall give actual notice of the requirements of this Declaration of Covenants , Conditions and Restrictions to such entity. VIII ENFORCEMENT Enforcement of the provisions of this Declaration shall be by any appropriate proceeding at law or in equity against any person, corporation or other entity violating or attempting to violate said provisions, either to restrain such violation, to enforce liability, or to recover damages, or by any appropriate proceeding at- law or in equity against the land to enforce any lien or charge arising by virtue thereof. Grantor shall not be liable for enforcement of or for failure to enforce said provisions and failure of Grantor or of any Owner or Occupant to enforce any of the provisions of this Declaration shall in no event be deemed a waiver of the right to do so thereafter. IX MORTGAGES - DEEDS OF TRUST Breach of any of the foregoing convenants.=shall not defeat or render'. invalid the lien of any mortgage or deed of trust made in good faith and for value within Earlington but said covenants shall be binding upon and effective against any Owner of said premises whose title thereto is acquired by foreclosure, trustee's sale or otherwise. X DURATION, MODIFICATION AND TERMINATION The Conditions, Covenants, Restrictions and Reservations set forth . in the Declaration shall run with and bind the land within Earlington and shall be and remain in effect, and shall inure to the benefit of, and be enforceable by Grantor or the Owner of any property subject to this Declaration, their heirs, successors and assigns for a term of twenty (20) years from the date this Declaration is recorded; provided, however, that this Declaration may be amended or terminated by Grantor by an instrument in writing, property executed, acknowledged and filed with the King County Recorder; and provided further that such amendment or termination shall not adversely affect any Owner's or Occupant 's rights to use its Building Site for purposes consistent with this Declaration. . -8- XI • SEVERABILITY Invalidation of any one or more of the provisions of this Declaration by judgment or court order shall in no affect any of the provisions which shall remain in full force and effect. XII LIABILITY Grantor shall exercise its own judgment to insure compliance of the provisions of this Declaration. The Grantor and its employees or agents shall not be liable to any Owner, Occupant or to any other party by reason of a mistake in judgment, negligence or non-enforcement of any of the provisions of this Declaration. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Grantor has caused this instrument to be signed by the duly authorized officers on the date first above written. FIRST CITY EQU ES, shington State Partnership BY: fi/ c• David M. Schuman, Partner • • -9- N ACKNOWLEDGMENT - •INDIVIDUAL STATE OF SS: • COUNTY OF .c I, (:a/:'c�-- `J. / , a Notary Public in and for the county and state aforesaid, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that L)A i,; ,> ,' 7• 6c7 Nc.'infl/L:` and of _ r C /T y �Q 6;,, ,z E__5 who (is) f are} -- personally known to me to be the same person(s) whose name(s) (is) ( 3--. subscribed to the foregoing instrument appeared before me this day in person and acknowledged that (he) (they) signed, sealed and delivered 'the said instrument as (hx..$ ) (4h-e ' free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes therein set forth. Given under my hand and notarial seal, this / ',7) 7- day of 1981. Notary Public • Y , • Landscape Guidelines for • EarIington Park Renton, Washington First City Equities • by RICHARD CAROTHERS ASSOCIATES Planners/Landscape Architects/Urban Designers 1 1 .0 LANDSCAPE GUIDELINES The landscape consists of elements that give form to exterior spaces. Thus, the character of the landscape is created by elements such as streets and building setbacks, the variety and placement of elements such as signing, site lighting, walkways, and plant materials, and the arrangement of major functional elements such as project entrances, parking lots, buildings, ser- vice areas, etc. Given that project architecture and building sites within Earlington Park will most likely be of varying types and sizes, landscaping as a design ele- ment will play the key role in creating and conveying the overall character of Earlington Park as a "park-like" working environment. The purpose, then, of these Landscape Guidelines, is to provide design criteria which will help to insure that Earlington Park achieves an image that is distinctive, clearly understandable and unified. 1 .1 INTRODUCTION TO THE EARLINGTON PARK LANDSCAPE CONCEPT As a part of the Earlington Park master plan, a master landscape plan has been conceived to organize, unify and create a distinctive character for the whole of Earlington Park. The master landscape plan recognizes that Earlington Park consists of two prominent zones, namely, the streetscape zone and the interior zone. An understanding of the nature of these two zones is important to under- standing the landscape guidelines and their intent. `< a ,3..E "^ it k $ w : * nz, ' 5.�.7. Ale. W::4: .11 174,:41,1 S.W. +h Ave, 1: --vors, -{,,,,,,,,, i4mir • 1111 17 ",., az".'d��rsa�: Q VI a'NP ' 0.v g 9,W Y WAS v�Y 1/ Gib ii, �e1 AIDE ZONE- INT RIOT ZON- 1 .1 .1 Streetscape Zone The streetscape zone is the primary image setting zone and it includes all arterial and collector roads. All improvements within this corridor will have the greatest degree of control . Attributes within this zone include:. 1 . The Landscape Easement - This easement begins at the back of the curb and extends inward for a distance of 30 feet along all arterial and collector roads. The first 13 feet minimum to 24 feet maximum are designated as a public parkway. This parkway includes a 5 foot walk- way/jogging trail . The remaining 6 feet minimum to 17 feet maximum shall be a transition zone, permitting Owner and Occupant site/land- scaping improvements. Common elements within the Landscape Easement include walkways, jogging trails, par course, planting, irrigation, street lighting, project signing and project entries. pAt2Ki C AU,-i,ANDsGAp'l 11.\1t-1- IL____ ,MIN. o�Up '�'OWNE#2 i1rLt1I I 5 �A V wAT lleirmaingr. :'tom: , , ..1rl/. ;1/ _� `1_! \ ,� roW LAN s.W. 6mt --LAV4NL MAL G-TIRT. PUe-uG FARK AY FLANTCN4 1 .1 .2 Streetscape Zone Design Concept The streetscape within Earlington Park will consist of a unified single image, namely: a single row of street trees planted approximately 5 feet from the curb line on a landscaped berm, on both sides of the street, except on the west side only of Powell Avenue Southwest and on the east side only of the proposed Valley Parkway, and on the north side only of Southwest 7th Avenue, east of the Powell Avenue Southwest and Southwest 7th Avenue inter- section. Informal tree, shrub and groundcover plantings will occur behind the single row of street trees. ~ i1, Ij"Y> ji;}<1 / `; 7�.11 L� � l 1 2� 1 1. �. - i V 'MAMW***M . -—AiM 141011:...1111111101111.11L 2's: e-TR - ---T.-i-Ra • • 1/� •W. 7 AVENUE 1,11:...„',..wripiwgripripAP.;:. .,,1 ..._ .....„ _.... AS:, Z.A. A: 1. .,vti.y, y#....:. L� I N>' PLA T Ot�M A '45- Wi1.;),vaVo:;;r!`A m'iVii;7/4,,30....„.. 4:::,lig "Mg SHRUtfe.tr. 16:::.1....',01*•;! ..-!1:41..''A. 0164 ai,i,i,:datig GIROuNbcoVER. :<i:: '.2j.. Y'iNot,,,,m Individual project entries will punctuate these plantings providing high- lighted corporate identification. The major Earlington Park entry monuments will be provided at three inter- sections, namely: the intersection of Southwest Seventh Avenue and Powell .Avenue Southwest, Southwest Seventh Avenue and the proposed Valley Parkway, and Valley Parkway and future to Phase II, Tract A. A jogging trail and parcourse will meander through the public parkway pro- viding an added dimension to the overall Earlington Park streetscape scene. Z frar LT— MIN). NIA . Olf i ok..4.-ir il l4V. K6 VW FU5LIG A1Z RIAL-OR PA..KWA`I' col_Llz'fo{ 1NMoN 1 .1 .3 Interior Zone The interior zone encompasses all exterior elements from the 30 foot Land- scape Easement to the building setbacks. This zone is subject to the needs of each Owner and Occupant and, thus, is meant to have a greater degree of flexibility than the streetscape zone. Common concerns within this zone include: parking lot arrangements and landscaping, site lighting, regula- tory and directional signing, and service area screening. �. ...'l.=s',^ ^' • .v40,1-, �;': G .7-vnAve. nO Y 'rY tl fa, a CAF•ADYWA'' 1► INTR IoK zoN� 1 .1 .4 Interior Zone Design Concept It is intended that the interior zone of Earlington Park, consisting pri- marily of parking lot landscaping, be planted in geometric patterns. (Refer to Section 1 .2.5.c for plant types. ) Subtle light levels, restrained graphics and screening of service areas will all contribute to reinforcing the Earl- ington Park landscape design concept. 1 .2. LANDSCAPE DESIGN GUIDELINES 1 .2.1 Assessment District Installation and Maintenance Agreement 1 . All landscape improvements within the public parkway will be installed by the Grantor. 2. The Grantor has entered into a five year maintenance agreement to main- tain the public parkway. Landscape maintenance will be paid for through Assessment District revenues. Following the expiration of the five year maintenance period, all maintenance will be assumed by the Owner and Occu- pant of individual development parcels and will be paid for through the continuation of an Assessment District. 3. The 30 foot Landscape Easement (public parkway and transition zone) landscaping and irrigation will be installed as a continuous linear. • system. Demolition of this system at vehicular access points will be necessary during the process of the access drive installation. It is a responsibility of the Owner and Occupant to maintain the flow of the irrigation system during construction, and to re-establish the planting, grading and final irrigation layout that has been altered. Pgi\in&Kr MIRY , Q T1N� Ii C�. INC^� 1 .2.2 Maintenance of Unimproved Sites 1 . Sites that are not improved or built upon shall be maintained in a clean and neat appearance by the Owner and Occupant. Weeds, brush and trash will be removed twice a year, once in the spring and once in the fall , or more often as required to maintain an 'high quality appearance. The Grantor and their representative have the right to perform the nec- essary maintenance and charge the individual Owner and Occupant as nec- essary. 1 .2.3 Landscape Coverage 1 . A minimum of fifteen (15) percent of the area within the property lines of a development site shall be devoted to landscape materials unless otherwise approved in writing by the Grantor. 1 .2.4 Street Frontage Zone Design Guidelines 1 .2.4.a Definition of Street Frontage Zone 1 . The street frontage zone is defined as that portion of the site which fronts on the Landscape Easement and/or is visible from the street. • e\tr) /.1Nr1- FZWR `i'ARID5 �� I . 1 .2.4.b Specific Design Limitation within the Street Frontage Zone 1 . Grading: Finish grading for each site shall meet the existing grade at the Public Parkway boundary. Transition slope in this zone shall not exceed 4:1 . 2. Service Areas: Service areas within this zone are to be enclosed with solid walls and screened with the appropriate landscape material . See landscape material list for "screening shrub" types., 3. Parking: All berms within the Landscape Easement zone shall be 3 feet minimum above the surface parking elevation within the street, frontage zone. 12ANIS1110N ZONE 114,� `����i4:I MAX. sl o J 1,�; . V4 R� RAP I J �I�/ m GNANG 5 .1 125qOImP N 0 5 J . \IF 1 , i firemN 7 t— TO 17)4Z 1NGI eU5c.IG 6 ► LeoAgrg-L R I' � PAEKWAY 4. Screening Shrubs: The following shrubs, in combination with walls or fences, have been selected to aid in eye level screening of service areas. Planting areas shall be a minimum width of 4 feet. All plant- ing areas exceeding 4 feet shall also conform to these landscape guide- lines. The shrubs should be planted at a size to achieve a minimum height of 5 feet within a 3 year period from the date of planting. Plant Name Maximum Spacing Comments Photinia fraseri. 5' on center Cotoneaster franchetii 4' " Cotoneaster lactea 4' " " Viburnum tinus 4' " " Viburnum rhytidophyllum 4' " " Mahonia aquifolium 3' " " Vaccinium ovatum 3' " " Prunus lusitanica 5' must be clipped Arbuteus unedo 4' Pieris japonica 3' " I' Ligustrum japonicum 3' 'Texanum' Thuja occidentalis 2' " Buxus sempervirens 3. must be clipped . Rhododendron varieties 1 .2.5 Parking Lot Landscape Requirements 1 .2.5.a Tree Planting Requirements 1 . Two (2) types of trees are identified for the parking lot planting. (Refer to Section 1 .2.5.c Plant Material List. ). Type A: End o'f Parking Column Planting Type B: Interior Parking Lot Planting L PL ANm NCB AT ICI ct N D. T•ii p A s • i C� O , •4 ...... .. .... ....::.... :...:: eirlit 011e it • P iM -r - n-) 5 p Cl Type A: These trees shall be planted at the ends of parking columns. A single tree specie, with a minimum height of 12 feet shall be planted throughout the Owner and Occupant's entire parking lot compound. Type B: These trees shall be planted in the parking lot interior. A single tree specie, with a minimum height of 8 feet shall be planted every third stall . The tree specie may be different in separated parking lots within the compound. Trees must be planted in the immediate vicinity of parking stalls; credit will not be given for perimeter edge tree planting. Nt7 ,oI GO!-UMN PLANTiNej, srT 'A:(1)spt:c n us TR.ou&moOT 1Nm cOMPOOMP. . 1 t•Nr : R ®i 1 II GoMpou 17 ar INT , Oj� I�.,a►NTl r �-- =� "[``I'P S -GIB ., I belay VAKY FROM ILWT #v-I 1 Z, OEZ,3. 2. Tree wells and planter areas within paved parking areas shall provide a minimum 4 foot clear planting space. .. 3. Planting areas shall have a 6 inch curb on all sides. /17, / 4%r \ , darn ihk ' .: :11•10. if% :,00 � 1,I 11 �J.1 , 11 h Air t .-..-.7.2,,, ) gam f---)iditiaiiiiii‘ c)...ic - On COS, Ai OUI'V P►ANTNCi Pi s 1 .2.5.b Parking and Pedestrian Circulation 1 . Parking location and layout should facilitate, easy and safe pedestrian circulation. 2. If the parking layout is more than one row deep., walking space with a minimum width of 4 feet between stalls should be provided at key locations. -rnp A lP re 4 ti km k( /o,1 WALKAY W it 14 tr—,..10,..im IngoTal al SI IIII P -7\1 - Z Ale oK i_e 3. If parking lots exceed two rows in depth, the alignment of the aisles should be in the direction of the pedestrian movement. AA H 6110k Oa /Alse I VP 5- IliNa lir T PeP TRIANT icoRRlcoRs ,D. , III III Llk p, �0 AISL. . 2 e 2 OF 1,ice %OF im 11 2 A iSI. oK Molz 1 .2.5.c Parking Lot Plant Materials List 1 . Tree species are to be selected from the following lists. If special soil or site conditions prevent the use of the recommended trees, the Owner and Occupant should recommend an alternative to the Design Review Committee. Tree Lists for Parking Compounds The following lists of trees have been selected to create a park-like appearance in the parking compound. Type A Trees: End of Parking Column Planting Plant Name Minimum Size Comments Acer platanoides 12' ht Limb to 6' minimum Acer rubrum 12' ht Limb to 6' minimum Acer pseudoplatanus 12' ht Limb to 6' minimum Liquidambar styraciflua 12' ht Limb to 6' minimum Tilia cordata 12' ht Limb to 6' minimum Liriodendron tulipifera 12' ht Limb to 6' minimum Quercus coccinia 12' ht Limb to 6' minimum Quercus borealis 12' ht Limb to 6' minimum Fraxinus pennsylvanica 12' ht Limb to 6' minimum lanceolata Gleditsia triacanthos 12' ht Thornless varieties only, 'Skyline' , 'Shademaster' Type B Trees: Interior Parking Lot Planting Plant Name Minimum Size Comments Magnolia grandiflora 8' ht Limb to 42' minimum Styrax japonica 8' ht Limb to 42' minimum Pyrus calleryana 8' ht Limb to 41/2' minimum Crataegus lavallei 8' ht Limb to 42' minimum Crataegus phaenopyrum 8' ht Limb to 41/2' minimum Mallus floribunda 8' ht Limb to 41/2' minimum Cercidiphyllum japonicum 8' ht Limb to 42' minimum Prunus sargentii 8' ht Limb to 42' minimum Prunus serrulata 8' ht Limb to 42' minimum ' Kwanzan' Prunus subhirtella 8' ht Limb to 41/2' minimum 'Autumnalis' 1 .2.6 Vehicular Access Drive Design Guidelines 1 .2.6.a Location Criteria 1 . Major access drives are to be located as described in Access and Drive Location Guidelines. 2. Access drives for "right turn only" ingress and egress should be located by the Owner and Occupant according to city standards. - _ . . ' 1 '2.6'b Limited Use Area at Primary and Secondary Access Drives l . The "limited use area" is defined as the area extending 70 feet On either side Of an access drive and in that area Of the first lO feet extending from the curb line Of the public street' \0 //} t CV R F--7 Oq ON 2' All objects higher than 30 inches above the top of the curb at the access drive curb opening, including but not limited to' shrubs, trees, signs and earth berms shall be located outside of the limited Use area. 1 .2.7 Guidelines for Interior Property Lines and Landscape Areas 1 '2.7.d Side and Rear Yard Requirements l ` A 5 foot minimum planting strip is to be provided continuously along and adjacent to al] interior property lines' 2' All site drainage shall be directed away from the 5 foot zone. 3. A maximum slope of 2:1 is allowed within the 5 foot planting zone. A 1 foot minimum flat transition shall be provided at the top and bottom of all slopes within this zone. DC I /,;.\+ I$4, 4 61 r 4. Where the two properties adjoin, there shall be a l0. foot minimum zone created by the two 5 foot minimum required landscape planting strips on each side of a property line. All planting areas exceeding - the 5 foot minimum shall also conform to these landscape guidelines. 5. No walls or fences exceeding 30 inches in height shall be permitted within a required 5 foot minimum planting zone. Walls or fences separating adjoining parcels may be permitted when located at the property line. 1 .2.7.b Side and Rear Yard Landscape Requirements 1 . Either shrub or tree planting shall be required in the 5 foot zone. Where two properties adjoin, shrub plantings with groundcover • is required on one side of the property line and tree plantings with groundcover is required on the other. The first Owner and Occupant to receive plan approval shall be required to plant the required trees with groundcover. The second Owner and Occupant must then plant the required shrubs with groundcover. INTERIORoffNm R.. e P flrtzi sHRU .61ROUNrcaiM 6' 5' 1 .2.7.c Plant Material Requirements -. Interior Property Lines 1 . Trees: Shall be located 4 feet from curb or 1 foot from the property line. The trees selected for interior property lines must be species that have been used somewhere else on the Owner and Occupant' s property. .Refer to Section 1 .2.5.c Plant List. 2. Shrubs: Shall be located 3 feet from the property line or 2 feet from • the curb, and planted with a maximum spacing of 5 feet on center. 3. Groundcover: Shall be placed 24 inches on center maximum spacing, covering. all ground surfaces. If the Owner and Occupant selects lawn, as a groundcover, sod must be installed. 1 .2.7.d Planting and Irrigation Details and Specifications 1 . All planting and irrigation details and specifications shall conform - to City of Renton, Washington Design /Standards and the highest standards of the American Association of Nurserymen, the American Landscape Con- tractors Association, and the irrigation industry. -2. It shall be the Owner and Occupant's responsibility to provide a 1 year guarantee against all defects of materials and workmanship for all plant- ing and irrigation. The Owner and Occupant shall replace plants not in normal , healthy growing condition at the end of the guarantee period with same species and size. The guarantee period shall begin when the Owner and Occupant, and Grantor or their representative has accepted the work as 100 percent complete. OF R4). THE CITY OF RENTO'N tO MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE.SO. RENTON,WASH. 98055 y } ' o 6 IT:, BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH, MAYOR • PLANNING DEPARTMENT 9•0 �' 235- 2550 09T�0 SEP1°1‘ May 21, 1980 Mr . David M . Schuman First City Equities Bank of California Center 900 4th Avenue/Suite 3818 Seattle, Washington 98164 RE : PROPOSED PLAT OF EARLINGTON PARK • Dear Mr . Schuman: • We have received a set of preliminary drawings for the proposed plat of Earlington Park from Bush, Roed & Hitchings , Inc . , as well as proposed site development plans from Lance Mueller . After a brief review, we note that there are a number of items that must be changed, added or resolved before a preliminary plat application can be accepted . Our preliminary comments are indicated ' on the attached drawing. Issues to be clarified include the following. It appears that Burlington Northern Railroad is the owner of some of the property involved in the proposed plat ; if this is the case, then the railroad will need to ,be involved in the process as a joint applicant . Also, the relationship between parcels owned by First City Equities and the legal description of the plat should be clarified. All portions of a legal parcel must be involved in a plat if any portion of the parcel is affected . Items that must be changed or added include : Both of the future access streets to the north will need- to be shown on the preliminary plat as full sixty (60 ) foot streets , with easements for temporary cul-de-sacs until the streets are extended northward. The two legs of Valley Parkway (or frontage street) bordering lots 15 and 16 should be dedicated as part of Phase I , so that these rights-of-way are not part of Tracts A or B. A temporary hammerhead cul-de-sac should be shown for Phase I circulation . Powell Avenue S.W. between S .W. 10th Street and Grady Way will need to be eighty (80 ) feet in width to allow for a full range of turning movements . Letter to David Schuman May 21 , 1980 Page -2- Utility easements should be shown for all lots, or as specified by the Public Works Department . Lot square footage should also be indicated. To avoid confusion throughout the environ- mental review and subdivision process , any discrepancies between site development plans and the proposed plat must be resolved (e . g. the extension of S.W. 10th Street is not indicated on site design plans) . Two additional items that may affect the plans as submitted for Earlington Park should be mentioned. As of May 16, the Green River Technical Committee and the Soil Conservation Service have determined the location of the storage pond/detention basin behind the P-1 pump plant . As you will note on the attached drawing , this location. includes a large portion of Tract A. It is possible that minor changes in location or configuration of the detention pond may still occur during the engineering stage of the East Side Project. However , you may need to adjust lot configurations and/or access to lots 11 through 15 and the unaffected portion ofTract A in order to provide for efficient site design . The other item to be brought to your attention is a recent State of Washington Attorney General opinion concerning replatting • previously platted property . According to this opinion, further subdivision of platted lots , regardless of the number of new lots proposed, requires the submittal and approval of both a preliminary plat and final plat . For example, to divide lot 10 into two lots at some future date, a. major subdivision, not a short plat , would have to be filed . All of the above items are noted for your information so that these and any other issues that arise may be resolved at an early date. If you will submit revised drawings at your earliest convenience, we will be happy to circulate copies to other departments in order to receive informal comments . This process will enable us to take care of as many concerns as possible so that the preliminary plat application may be formally accepted at the conclusion of the EIS process . We look forward to receiving the revised draft EIS shortly. If you need further clarification of any of the above , please contact Roger Blaylock or Gene Williams . Very truly yours , Gordon Y. Ericksen, Planning Director AV.4-1/6 14a444/td---- . Gene N. Williams , Assistant Planner Attachment - flNW c h BUSH, ROED & HITCHINGS, INC., P.S. 2009 Minor Avenue East Seattle, Washington 98102 Area 206 / 323-4144 May 13, 1980 Mr. Gordon Y. Ericksen, Planning Director The City of Renton 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 Re: Proposed Plat of Earlington Park BRH # 79269 Dear Mr. Ericksen: Attached herewith are prints of what we presently consider the final configuration for the above proposed plat, along with the proposed site improvement plans by Lance Mueller's office. The E.I .S. will be forthcoming by separate- cover"-.from R.W. Thorpe's office. As you may know, the plat will be phased into two parts as shown. Phase I is to be developed immediately. Tracts A and B will be held for future development as Phase II. They will probably be redivided at that time by either long or short plats. It is proposed that all street improvements in Phase I, including the extension south of Powell Avenue Southwest to Grady Way, be constructed immediately upon approval of the plat, with the exception of the westerly extension of Southwest 10th Street. This extension would be made in conjunction with the future development of Tract B. Southwest Seventh Street would be extended west to a temporary hammer head turnaround which would eventually become a part of the proposed Valley Parkway or in lieu of the parkway, access roads to serve Tracts A and B. It is assumed that the remaining area, now owned by-Burlington Northern, lying between the proposed plat and Metro to the west, would provide for the proposed P-I drainage channel. . Please review these plans and make comments to either this office or the owner- developers at your 'earliest convenient date. Ver . trial your - ®TF Arthur L. Hit ings �E��f�r �� Enclosure / 0 cc: Dave Schuman, First City Equities MAY 13 1980 Lance Mueller 4//k/NG DBPgL CIVIL ENGINEERS/LAND SURVEYORS THE CITY OF RENTON to ..� Z. MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE.SO. RENTON,WASH.98055 o - BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH, MAYOR ® PLANNING DEPARTMENT 4 co- May 5, 1980 235- 2550 917OSEP�E�O Deborah Krouse R . W. Thorpe & Associates 815 Seattle Tower 3rd and University Seattle, WA 98101 RE: EARLINGTON INDUSTRIAL PARK - PERMIT PROCEDURES Dear Deborah: This is in response to your letter of April 30 requesting information pertaining to permit procedures and approximate timing of applications for Earlington Industrial Park . As you note , applications for rezone , preliminary plat, shoreline management substantial development, final plat, site plan and special permit to fill and grade should be submitted by the owners - First City Equities - or their acting agents. The following time frames for application review and approval are only approximate. They may be slightly compressed in some instances if local review and approval can be expedited, or they may be substantially lengthened if appeals are filed or unforeseen problems develop . In many cases , the time intervals are established by local or state legislation. In the environmental review process, there is a thirty-five. (35 ) day comment period following issuance of the Draft EIS. Then there will be a period of unknown length for responding to comments received and for preparing the Final EIS. At the end of this period the Environmental Review. Committee for the City must declare that the EIS is final . From the date of, issue of the Final EIS, seven (7) days must elapse before any action can be taken . Applications for the rezone, the preliminary plat and the special permit for filling may be submitted somewhat prior to the issuance of the Draft EIS , so that this office will officially accept the applications when the Final EIS is completed. A public hearing will be scheduled no later than twenty-one (21) days after acceptance which will allow time for public notice and preparation of staff reports to the ' Hearing Examiner. These three applications - rezone, preliminary plat and special permit - can probably be processed concurrently. However, they will remain as three distinct proposed actions and be addressed accordingly by City staff and the Examiner. Deborah Krouse R . W. Thorpe & Associates May 5, 1980 Page Two After the public hearings , the Examiner has fourteen ( 14) days within which to issue his decisions. This is followed by a fourteen (14) day appeal period . The rezone and preliminary plat are then placed on the City Council agenda for consideration within seven (7) to fourteen (14) days. Final Council action will be effective about twenty-one (21) days later . However, before any action or construction on project improvements may begin, a thirty (30 ) day review period specified under the Shoreline Master Program must occur . (See, discussion below. ) At this point in the process , improvements called for in the approved preliminary plat will need to be installed or bonds posted for the improvements. Upon satisfying this requirement , an application for final plat approval may be accepted by the Planning Department . Interdepartmental staff review will take fourteen ( 14) to twenty-one (21) days. The application is then sent to the Hearing Examiner, who has fourteen (14) days in which to issue a decision on the final plat (no hearing is required) . A fourteen (14) day appeals period follows . The final plat is placed on the City Council agenda and is then acted upon by the Council, requiring periods of about seven (7) to fourteen (14) days and twenty-one (21 ) days , respectively . Application for a Shoreline Master Program substantial develop- ment permit for the preliminary plat should be submitted in approximately the same time perid as the preliminary plat application submittal . The substantial development permit requires fourteen (14) days for public advertisement and . thirty-five (35 ) to forty-five (45) days for local review. This permit is administered and issued by the Planning Department . Issuance of the shoreline permit will be timed to coincide with final City Council action on the preliminary plat. As mentioned above , the Shoreline Master program specifies that no other permits or construction work may be approved until a thirty (30 ) day review period has elapsed from the date of substantial development permit approval . Site plan approval for individual building sites is also handled by the Planning Department . Timing for site .plan review can overlap the final plat process. Within twenty-one (21) days from acceptance of a site plan application, a public hearing before the Examiner should take place . The Hearing Examiner then has fourteen (14) days in which to make his decision ; this is followed by the usual fourteen (14) day appeal period. The above discussion presents an approximate timeline for application submittal and local review and approval. We • • • Deborah krouse R . W. Thorpe & Associates May 5 , 1980 Page Three will be glad to work closely with the proponents and your office in facilitating this process . Please be advised , however, that other permits from the City of Renton and from other agencies may be required for the proposal . The processing time for these permits is unknown but may be significant . If you need further clarification of any of the above , please contact this office at 235-2550 . Very truly yours , Gordon Y. Ericksen Planning Director Ge a 1N . Williams Assistant Planner GNW:wr R.W. • horpe & Associ. es ❑ Planning • Environmental Analysis • Economics Associates: Len Zickler April 30, 1980 Deborah Krouse 4 r i�,I Mr. Gene-_.Williams ' eiTI y!ED Renton Planning Department City of Renton MAY 2 1980 Municipal Building 200 Mill Avenue South a -•••- Renton, Washington 98055 �9 Re: Earlington Industrial Park Dear Mr. Williams: Mr. David Schuman, proponent of the Earlington Industrial Park proposal, has requested that I investigate the procedures and timing involved in securing the appropriate permits necessary prior to construction of Phase 1 of the 100-acre development. I understand that the following permits are within the jurisdiction of the Planning Staff: rezone, preliminary plat approval, shoreline manage- ment substantial development permit, final plat approval, site plan approval and grading approval. I would greatly appreciate any information pertaining to which party (developer, architect, etc) is responsible for initiating applications for these permits, and to whom the applications are made. In addition, if at all possible, could you inform me of the approximate timing of each application in order to insure a smooth flow with approval of the EIS documents? If any of the above requests needs clarification, please call me at 624-6239. Thank you. Sincerely, Deborah Krouse DK/wk • Seattle: B1 5 Seattle Tower• 3rd&University• Seattle, WA 98101 •(206) 624-6239 Anchorage: Suite 503• 1 1 1 0 West Sixth Avenue• Anchorage,AK 99503• (907) 276-6846 OF I 0 THE CITY OF RENTON MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON,WASH. 98055 BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH, MAYOR • PLANNING DEPARTMENT CCr 235- 2550 4)4 SEP1 '��P • MEMORANDUM April 10, 1980 TO: FILES FROM: Gene N. Williams, Assistant Planner RE: EARLINGTON PARK PRELIMINARY PLAT and DRAFT EIS Roger Blaylock, Associate Planner, and I met today with the following people concerning the abovementioned Earlington Park: Dave Schuman, First City Equities Gary Gelbart, First City Equities Art Hitchings, Bush, Roed, and Hitchings Lance Mueller, Lance Mueller and Associates • Michael Glanz, Lance Mueller and Associates Deborah Krause, R. W. Thorpe Associates We discussed the ,proposed project and three alternative site plans as prepared by Lance Mueller and Associates, per our request for consider- ation in the EIS. Discussion particularly focussed on phasing of the project and the method of platting. We stressed our concerns that uses be mixed within each phase and that lots be platted only on the easterly portions of the site. This would leave large unplatted tracts to the west which seems particularly critical since the locations and configurations of the P-1 Channel and Valley Parkway are uncertain. Messers Gelbart and Schuman expressed concern that these issues may still be unresolved when future platting on these tracts in Phase III is proposed. Timing of the EIS process and preliminary plat approval was also reviewed. After considering reworking and publication of the draft EIS, public review period, final EIS, appeal period, public hearing on the preliminary plat, decision by the Hearing Examiner, appeals period, and City Council action, a tentative projection was for completion of the process sometime in September 1980, provided no major problems occur. This is, of course, a "best case" timeline. MEMO TO FTT.FS RE: EARLINGTON PARK PRELIMINARY PLAT AND DRAFT EIS APRIL 10, 1980 PAGE TWO It was understood that Mueller and Associates would supply any information on alternative site plans that might be required for Thorpe Associates to revise the Draft EIS. Also, First City Equities will supply an updated proposal which will probably contain some revised plattling, phasing and mix of uses. GNW:mas • cc: Gordon Y. Ericksen, Planning Director RE FIRST CITY ° \�o IyT o EQUITIES V 1961 January 16, 1980 Mr. Gordon Y. Ericksen 9/1/A1NG � Planning Director THE CITY OF RENTON 200 Mill Ave. So. Renton, WA 98055 Re: Schematic Site Plan and Preliminary Plat EARLINGTON INDUSTRIAL PARK Renton, Washington Dear Mr. Ericksen: We are pleased to submit for your review and comment our schematic site plan, as well as our preliminary plat drawing. In your review of the enclosed information, I feel it's important to point out to you a number of areas that First City Equities studied and took into account in preparation of its site plan and plat drawing. In preparing the schematic site plan, there were a number of geographic constraints that we felt it necessary to plan around. These points are not necessarily in the order of importance, but all were significant in our planning process. 1 . P-1 Channel and Valley Parkway: As you are aware, our planning effort has had to take into account the potential for both the P-1 Channel and the Valley Parkway to be facts of life that we are going to have to live with. We have had a number of conflicting reports as to whether, in fact, either of those two projects, i.e. , the P-1 Channel or the Valley Parkway, will ever happen. It is, therefore, necessary for us to plan for what would happen if the Valley Parkway and P-1 Channel become a reality, as well as to create an orderly plan in case neither of those two things happen. Without the P-1 Channel or Valley Parkway, it would be necessary for us to have a road or street on our western property boundary in order to provide adequate ingress and earee to our development to and from Grady Way and Seventh Ave. 2. Extension of Seventh Ave. : The extension of Seventh Ave. was studied in a variety of ways and we feel it is in its best possible alignment as shown on our plan. Bank of California Center • 900 Fourth Avenue/Suite 3818 Seattle,Washington 98164 • 206/624-9223 Real Estate Development• Investments J° Mr. Gordon Y. Ericksen January 16, 1980 Page two This extension gives the plat the best possible connection from its existing location to the "Valley Parkway", or street on the western boundary of the property. In addition, the proposed location of Seventh Ave. will provide a buffer between uses within the proposed development. 3. Extension of the Rail Spur: In the early planning stanes,_we looked at the possibility of extending the rail spur totally in an east to west direction along our northern property line, rather than the radial curve that brings it to a north to south direction as is currently proposed. In our early discussions with the Planning Department, it was indicated that the original rail spur line, i.e. , east to west, was not the most beneficial in that it would provide for rather large and deep rail-served buildings on the north end of our plat, and would not provide a gradual transformation of the uses from the heaviest uses to the lighter uses to the lightest use. By swinging the rail spur line to a north/south direction, we are able to orient the heavy rail-served buildings adjacent to the existing rail-served buildings in the Earlington Industrial Park, as well as provide for an attractive transformation from use to use. With these geographical considerations taken into account, it was then possible to plan what we believe will be an attractive and economically-viable development. It is important to note that the site plan is schematic only, and the building footprints are only intended to show potential building layout. Prior to actual development, we are sure that these buildings and their footprints will move around within the plat. It is our intent with the schematic site plan that it be used to define uses, i.e. , heavy warehousing, light warehousing, business park and office park, as well as density, i.e. , buildable area. Under the MP zoning within the City of Renton, we would be permitted to develop a plan that would greatly increase the density. We chose not to try to maximize allowable density because we felt that that would be an aesthetic and architectural detriment to the proposed development, even though it may be permitted by code and much more economically viable. Within our proposed development, given the geographical constraints and the buildable area and density, we then looked at the best-possible ways to maximize the open space. Included in that study was reviewing the possibility of saving any or all of the existing golf course. It is our feeling that if we attempted to retain part of the golf course for open space, that open space would be centered around one particular part of the plat and would not be an advantage to the entire plat, but rather one small portion of it and would result in the crowding of all other improvements to accomodate the single central open space. 1 Mr. Gordon Y. Ericksen January 16, 1980 Page three We felt that the more prudent approach in planning this project would be to create a set of Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions to govern such things as landscaping, building setbacks, types of buildings allowed and not allowed, and various other control items. (A copy of our draft C.C.R. is enclosed for your review.) It is important to note when reviewing these C.C.R.s that the C.C.R.s are much more restrictive than what is applicable in the existing MP zone requirements. As an example, we are proposing twenty feet of street landscaping, which will be required to be in lawn, with berms planted with decidious and conifer trees. All buildings will have to be approved by First City Equities, this will ensure control of planning and construction of all improvements. We feel that the project as planned has met and exceeded current city requirements regarding open space and general land use in two major areas; first by virtue of our plan's significant reduction in allowable building density and, secondly, those criteria in our C.C.R.'s requiring minimum twenty foot landscaping as opposed to the ten feet that the City of Renton requires. When these two important elements, i.e. , reduced density and increased landscaped areas and setbacks, are taken into account, the current plan expands and spreads the increased open space homogeneously throughout the project, rather than allocating a single central open area. In studying the street extensions and building layouts, we made a survey of the existing substantial landscaping on the site and we believe have maximized the saving of as many of those major tree areas as is possible. As a matter of fact, a number of our cul-de-sacs off of Seventh Ave. have been rearranged from previous plans to make sure that we don't disturb those existing trees worth saving:.. It is also important to note that if the P-1 Channel in fact becomes a reality.,, then most, if not all, of the existing vegetation on the western end of the property will be destroyed with the spoils being dumped on our western property boundary. It is, therefore, obviously difficult to plan around saving: vegetation in our western property area when, in fact, that vegetation is probably going to be destroyed by the spoils coming out of the P-1 Channel. However, in our planning we have maximized the amount of vegetation that we do save if, in fact, the P-1 Channel never does happen. You can also note in our plan that on our northern property boundaries we have attempted to move our buildings as far away from the existing tree line as is possible, once again attempting to save the maximum amount of vegetation. In' summary, we feel that when taking into account all of the knowns and unknowns that are present, that this site plan will provide the City of Renton with an aesthetically and architecturally attractive development. The development addresses,:andwe believe answers, in a satisfactory way the major problems regards traffic, ingress/egress, ease of getting in and out of the development, the best-possible- use l . Mr. Gordon Y. Ericksen January 16, 1980 Page four of open space, as well as having developed a plan that indicates building density through a use and site-specific study as opposed to city code. In addition, by developing our park in phases, starting with the eastern portion of our property and moving west, we believe it is possible to not only have development going on, but keep the golf course in operation as long as possible and with a minimum amount of disturbance. We have had a number of discussions with our tenants who operate the golf course, and they feel that they could work around our proposed development and keep the golf course open on a modified basis. We feel that our planning effort has taken into account all of the various concerns that have been expressed by a variety of public officials and will provide the City of Renton with a development that is can and will be proud of. We would appreciate your prompt review and comment on the enclosed information so that we may proceed with the next appropriate steps in the development process. I look forward to hearing from you. Very truly yours, FIRST CITY EQUl S David M. Schuman DMS :qaw Partner Encl. //2 • DECLARATIO,.: _F COVENANTS., CONDITIONS AND RL_:r2ICTI0NS 1 THIS DECLARATION, made this day of . , by 1980 by First City Equities, hereinafter referred to as "Grantor"; WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the Grantor is the Owner of (or has an equitable interest in) real property described in the Declaration; and . WHEREAS,. Grantor is desirous of subjecting said real property to the protective covenants hereinafter set forth, each and all of which is and are for the benefit of said property and for each subsequent Owner and Occupant thereof; NOW, THEREFORE, Grantor hereby declares that the real property herein referred to as Earlington Industrial Park elsewhere identified in this Declaration as "Earlington" , located in Renton, King County, Washington, and more particularly described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof by reference, shall be held, transferred, sold, conveyed, leased, subleased and occupied subject to the conditions, covenants, restrictions, easements and reservations hereinafter set forth. The following restrictions and. requirements are imposed on the property subject to this Declaration and are binding on all Owners and Occupants, and may • be enforced against such Owners and Occupants jointly and/or severally. I. ' ' PURPOSE OF THIS DECLARATION This Declaration is made to require development, Improvement and • . use of Earlington so as to: a) ' protect the Owners and Occupants of Building Sites • against such use of neighboring Building Sites as might • • depreciate the value of their property; • b) • , encourage the erection of attractive, permanent 'Improve- . ments appropriately located to insure harmonious appearance ' and functions; • . c) assure adequate off-street parking space and off-street . truck loading and maneuvering facilities; -1- / d) encourage the development of aesthetic architectural and engineering design, including compatible Landscaping, and, in general , provide a harmonious development that will promote • the general welfare of the Owners and Occupants of Earlington. II . DEFINITION OF TERMS . . . • The following terms and words are defined for use herein as follows: • a) • Building - shall mean and include, but not be limited to the main portion of a structure built for permanent use and all projections or extension thereof, including but not limited to garages, outside platforms and docks, : storage tanks, .carports, enclosed malls and porches; b) Building Site - shall mean a tract of real property within Earlington as determined by- the legal description in . '• a conveyance or lease from Grantor. If fee simple title to two (2) or more adjacent Building Sites, as defined hereinabove, is acquired by the same Owner, such commonly-owned Building. Site may, at the option of said Owner, be combined and treated as a single Building Site for the purposes of this Declaration, provided that the location of the Improvements on such combined Building Site shall be subject to prior written approval by Grantor; • c) Declaration - 'shall mean this Declaration of Covenants , Conditions and Restrictions, together with all of the provisions contained herein; d) Improvements• - shall mean and include, but not be limited to, Buildings, out Buildings, driveways, exterior lighting, fences, Landscaping, Lawns, loading areas, parking areas, railroad trackage, retaining walls, roads, screening walls, Signs, utilities and walkways located on a Building Site; - e) Landscaping - a space of ground covered with Lawn and/or • ground cover combined with shrubbery, trees and the like which may be complemented with earth berms, masonary or similar materials, all harmoniously combined with themselves and with other Improvements on the Building Site; f) Lawn - a space of ground covered with grass, 'kept neatly mown and maintained; . -2- • ._ . • 2 ' ' ' . ' .- . ' . . . y) Occupant - shall mean an enLi t.y , ' whether it be an individual, . corporation, :joint venture , partnership or association, which has purchased, leased, rented or has otherwise legally acquired the right to occupy and use any Building or Building" Site, whether or not such right is exercised; h) Owner- - shall mean an entity , whether it be an individual ,. corporation, joint venture, partnership or association, .which ' • • is record owner of any fee simple estate, or which has an • • equity of redemption in a Building site:. i) Sijn '- shall mean and include every advertising message, ' announcement , declaration, .demonstration, display, illustration, - insignia, surface or space erected or maintained in view of • the observer thereof for identification, . advertisement or . promotion of the interest of any person, entity, productOr service. The definition of Siyn shall also include the Sign ' structure, supports , lighting system and any attachments , . . ornaments or other features used to draw the attention of observers. This definition does not include any flag , badge or ensign of any government or governmental agency erected - for and used to identify said government or governmental . agency; • • . , j) Street - shall 'mean any public street or highway , whether, presently constructed, dedicated 'by plat map or Contemplated in- the future, ' under a 'street plan approved by any public authority. III. LAND USE . ' . Building Sites within Earlington shall be used for high quality rail-served and non-rail served commerical' and industrial , and business and . office park purposes. The foregoing shall not, however, prevent Grantor from . constructing, owning, operating, leasing or conveying real property within , Earlington for facilities consistent with the- purposes of this Declaration. IV. RESTRICTIONS AND REQUIREMENTS ON IMPROVEMENTS . • The following restrictions and requirements are imposed on the property subject to this Declaration: ' a) Temporary Structures - .No temporary Buildings or other . temporary structures shall be permitted on any Building -Site,; ' . provided, however, trailers, temporary Buildings and the like shall be permitted for construction purposes during the con- . struction period of a. permanent Building. Such structures . ' shall be placed as inconspicuously as practicable, shall cause no inconvenience to Owners or Occupants of other Building . Sites, and shall be removed not later than thirty (30) days after the date of substantial completion for beneficial occup- • . • ancy of'the .Building(s) in -connection with which the temporary structure was used; �. • . -3- 4 b) Building Setbacks - All Buildings shall be setback from appropriate property lines as follows: • 1 ) Front Yards - all Buildings shall setback from front yard property lines a minimum distance of 60 feet. • 2) Side Yard on Flanking Street of Corner Lot '- All build- ings shall setback from the side yard on a flanking street of a corner lot a minimum of 60 feet from the property line; • 3) Side Yards - All Buildings shall be setback a minimum of 20 feet from all side yard property lines except where greater side yard setbacks are imposed by Grantor to comply • with building or fire code requirements; 4) Rear Yard - All Buildings shall be setback a minimum' of 20 feet from the property line; 5) Rear Yard, Rail-Served Sites - All Buildings shall be setback 30 feet from thect e rline of lead track to comply - ' - with railroad operational , building or fire code requirements or as may be required by other provisions of this Declaration. c) Lot Coverage -Buildings and structures, but not parking areas, shall not cover more than the following percentage of the total area of a building lot: 1 ) ' Rail-Served Sites - fifty percent. (50%) . 2) Non-Rail Light Warehousing - forty-five percent (45%). 3) Busines Park - thirty-five percent (35%) . 4) Office Park - fifteen percent (15%). d) ' Height - No building or structure shall exceed a height of thirty-seven (4 4 feet. ; e) Parking, Loading and Unloading Areas - No parking shall be • permitted on any Street or drive, or any place other than parking areas located upon Building Sites. Each Owner and Occupant shall be responsible for compliance by its employees and visitors. Parking count shall comply to City Ordinance, except Business Park use shall provide a minimum of one car per 375 square feet of gross building area. ' Landscaped Earth Berms shall be constructed to a minimum of three (3) feet above surrounding elevation around all parking areas visible from public roads, also said parking areas shall be buffered as well , as practicable by the use of other Landscaping materials. All driveways and areas for parking, maneuvering, loading and unloading - shall be paved with asphalt, concrete or similar materials. • -4- Off- ,...'eet loading space shall be desisiled to include an . additional area or means of ingress and egress which shall be adequate for maneuvering; f) Screening.of Service Facilities and Storage Areas - Garbage and refuse containers shall be contained within Buildings, or shall be concealed by means of screening walls of materials similar to and compatible t,ith that of the Building. - Fuel and other storage tanks • shall be installed underground. Such Improvements shall be integrated with the concept of the Building Plan, be designed so as not to attract attention, and shall be inconspicuously located. Unless specifically approved in writing for display and similar purposes, no materials, supplies or equipment ,shall be stored in any area on a Building Site except inside a closed Building, or behind a visual barrier which screens such areas so they are not visible from neighboring Building Sites. or Streets; the materials used for said .screening barriers shall ' be wood, concrete or masonary in type and. must be similar to and com- patible with those materials used on the Building. Outside screened . storage areas must not project beyond the front face of the principal . Building on any site, or into any required Building setback area. Outside stored materials shall not exceed a height of twelve (12). feet. g) Landscaping - No construction or installation of any Landscaping may be commenced without written approval by Grantor of the plans for such construction or installation. Grantor shall either approve or - disapprove plans submitted in writing within thrity (30) days from • the date on which they are received, and failure to either approve or diapprove within this period shall constitute approval of said plans. All Building Sites shall be Landscaped in the following manner: 1) Adjacent to Street Right of Way - A strip of land being a minimum of twenty (20) feet in width adjacent to all Street rights of way shall be completely Landscaped and maintained - by the Owner or Occupant. In addition thereto such Landscaping shall extend to the Street curb or sidewalk line where applicable. . The nature of said Landscaping strip must be that of a lawn interdispersed with suitable plantings, consisting of indigenous deciduous and conifer trees. Said lawn must be established by use of a high quality sod and not by the means of seeding. Any deviation therefrom must be approved in writing by the Grantor, prior to installation of said Landscaping; A five (5) foot wide concrete walk shall be constructed' by the Owner or. Occupant along all street rights of way between the property line and street curb; 2) Side Yards - A strip of land being a minimum of fifteen (15) feet in width or the equivalent thereto, (determined by the Grantor at its sole discretion) shall be completely Landscaped and maintained by the Owner or Occupant; -5- A • 3) Rear Yards - Areas not covered by rail or rail bed shall be planted with indigenous field grass and plantings that comply with the City of Renton Wildlife Food Source Recommendations and Requriements; 4) Parking Lots - In addition to the yard landscaping described in IVg(1),. (2) & (3) , parking lots or paved areas • 10,000 square feet or greater shall have minimum of five percent (5%) of landscaping within the paved area, dispersed to reduce the barren appearance of the area. Minimum planter size shall be one hundred (100) square feet. • 5) . Outside Storage - In addition to screening as required • by Section IV.f. , sides and fronts of outside storage areas shall be landscaped with a minimum of ten (10) feet width of suitable screening plant material . . 6) Installation and Maintenance - All landscaped areas except natural food source areas shall be irrigated by under- ground sprinkling systems. • . h) Exterior Materials, Colors - Architecturally and aesthetically suitable building materials shall be applied to or used on all sides of a Building which are visible to the general public and to be harmonious and compatible with colors of the natural surroundings and other adjacent Buildings. Building design and colors shall be approved by the Grantor, • and meet the following requirements: • 1) . Exterior walls shall be of concrete or masonry. 2.) . No raw concrete unless sandblasted or textured. 3) No wood except at soffits, as entry accents, or in protected locations. • . 4) All colors are to be of a earth tone "Natural" range. • Primary or accent colors. may be used with restraint. . 5) Prefabricated metal buildings are prohibited. • i) Utilities - Mechanical Equipment - Roof Projections - All utility lines including electrical shall be underground. Pad-mounted transformers, switchgear and similar equipment which must be installed above ground line, shall be screened with suitable Landscaping con- sistent with safety and other regulations of. the utility companies. All mechanical equipment shall be located or screened so as not . to be visible from the street view of the general public or from the front view of other Building Sites. Penthouses and mechanical equipment screening walls shall be of design and materials compatible with those of the Building. Antennae, shall be visually masked to the extent practicable and' consistent with electomagnetic considerations; . -6 - 4 • a / . • j) Pollutants - No trades, services or activities shall be conducted in Earlington, nor shall anything else be done therein which may be or become an annoyance or nuisance to the Owners or Occupants by reason of unsightliness or excessive emission or fumes, odors, glare, vibration, gases, radiation, dust, liquid wastes, smoke, debris or noise; k) Exterior Lighting - All exterior and security lighting shall have underground service and shall be designed, erected, altered and maintained in accordance with plans and specifications approved in writing to the end that lighting shall be compatible and harmonious throughout Earlington;. 1) Signs - Design and placement of signs shall meet the following criteria: 1 ) Individual development signs shall identify only the name and/or product of the establishment. 2) No bare bulb or neon illumination of signs shall be allowed. , Indirect illumination, floodlighting or internal illumination shall be the only allowable means of illumination of signs. . 3) No flashing or animated signs shall be allowed. 4) Each individual development shall be limited to one free standing sign with a maximum total area for all faces of one hundred '(100) .square feet and a maximum height of eight (8) feet. 5) Each individual development shall be limited to building face signs as specified below: aa. Where a single building or development site contains a single tenant, signs on building faces shall be limited to a single sign for each building face, which shall not extend above the wall line of the building, nor more than one (1) foot from the face. of the building. Each building face sign shall be allowed a maximum total area of one hundred (100) square feet. The maximum total area of all building face signs on a single development site shall not exceed two . hundred (200) square feet. • bb. Where a single building on a development site contains multiple tenants, each tenant may have a' single building face sign which shall not extend above the wall line of the building, nor more than one (1) foot from the face of the building. Each sign shall be limited to a maximum total area of thirty (30) square feet. 6) Graphics or supergraphics utilized for advertising purposes shall meet the size limitations specified for building face signs _ herein. Graphics or supergraphics utilized for aesthetic enhancement or decoration shall not be restricted by the provisions herein. . . 7) Private traffic signs, direction signs, and public convenience signs may be allowed where a public need is served. -7- 4 m) Fences - All fences shall be erected behind the landscaped areas . required in Paragraph g), n) Maintenance - Each Owner and Occupant of Earlington shall .be responsible for keeping its Building Site or Sites, whether or not - • Improved, Buildings and. other Improvements including Lawn and Land- scaping to street curb, maintained in a save, clean, neat and orderly • condition and shall prevent rubbish, dunnage, replaced equipment .or machinery and the like from accumulating on its Building Site. Such. maintenance shall include all spur and lead track areas and track • areas within Building Sites and to each Building Site that may not be • maintained by the governing body in jurisdiction. All exterior painted surfaces shall be maintained in sound condition and shall be repainted at least once every seven (7) years. L. • 11 i :r the. event the owner- or occupant fails to comply with .the maintenance provision ut this Declaration (;et the sole dis— cret ion of the Grantor ) Grantor shall not i t y said 1 ant of Such conditions, in wr i t i rn Owner or OccuFr- - _ 1 , and shall detai l ,• inf wr-itincl ,any and all work which must be pert or me•d by said Owner or Occupant to .bring said Building or Building Site into compliance- with the,mairIte:n,cnee provision of this Declaration and Grantor shall allow sixty (60) days from said date of not i t ication in which said Owner or Occupant must pert orm 'said work, fails to perform said work within sixty 60) days, thenl Said Owner orUccupant in that • event, Grantor may perform or cause tcobee�p . necessary maintenance work and submit all charges performed. a al l pertaining thereto to said Owner or Occupant for prompt payment. If. said .• Owner or Occupant fails to promptly reimburse the Grantor for said work performed, the Grantor may collect said charges through any appropriate proceeding at law or in -equity or may file against ' • the property of said Owner OF Occupant a real property lien in an adequate amount to . recover damages incurred by Grantor in• connection with said maintenance work performed, . . • V. • AI'PitO'✓AL OF PLANS No' const ruction or ' exter:for alterations of any Building or other Improvements including Signs may be commenced without written approval by Grantor of the plans for such construction or alteration. Grantor shall . either approve or disapprove plans submitted in writing within thirty ,( 30) days from the date on which they are received, • - and failure to either approve or disapprove within this period • shall constitute approval of said plans . •Wher.ever .approval in writing is required by the terms of this Ireclaration, such re— . quirement shall mean written approval of Grantor in the following manner: • • • • • • -8- •ee . ___ . . Y,..Ilt.::1 CU (15 rol [Ot'!S: V. First City EL----' ties , ' . Bank of Cali .,'lia Center. _ 900 Fourth Ave. ,. Suite 3818 Seattle, Washington 98164 Or to any such address as the Grantor shall hereafter designate writing, addressed to Owners and Occupants;. 9 in • b) Grantor shall exercise its best judgment to see that all and Improvements constructed within Earlington conform to the purposesngs and requirements of this Declaration; provided, however, Grantor and its employees or agents shall not be liable to any Owner or Occupant . to anyone submitting' plans for approval , or to any. other party b • or reason of a mistake in judgment, negligence or non-feasance arising of or in connection with the approval , disapproval or failure to ao of any such plans; p e • c) :Upon receipt of approval of plans, Owner or Occupant sh�,1.1 diligently proceed with the commenre'nleclt ' and completion pl of all approved construction. Unless work on the approved 1e.Lion Const'r Out ion shall be commenced within one ( 1.) year from the date of such approval. and diligently the approval shall automaticall , y pursued thereafter, then given a written Y , taPire, unless Grantrar 'has oxtension of time; d) Approval of plans by the Grantor' may be secured prior • acquisition of a Building Site pursuant to the terms of •a to • sale contract . VI . CONFLICTS - •• Zoning ordinances, building codes and regulations - � other governmental restrictions and requirements shall be segovernmentals . In the event of any conflict between this Declaration and anyervec}, such governmental codes, regulations, restrictions and require - ments, the more restrictive standards shall apply. 'Any e approval of Grantor required in this Declaration, does not in any way _I relieve' Owners and Occupants from obtaining approvals required by .any governmental body having jurisdiction. VII . NOTICE TO BE GIVEN BY OWNERS Any Owner of Building Site within Carlin(lton, who. shall • transfer to another entity, whether such entity be an individual, corporation, joint venture; ual, • interest in or right of occupancy etohsuchorBuildingtSite oryportionso� thereof, shall give actual notice of the requirements of ths Declaration of Covenants , Conditions and Restrictions to such uc.h entity. V I I I .. ENFORCEMENT ' Enforcement of the provisions of this Declaration shall by any appropriate proceeding at law or in equity 'against anyperson, n, corporation or other entity violating or attempting to violate said provisions, either to restrain such violation, to enforce liability, or to recover damages, or by ate at law or in equity against the land to erforcer any llienhorceeding charge arising by virtue hereof. Grantor shall not be liable for enforcement of or for failure to enforce said provisions and failure of Grantor or of any Owner or Occupant to enforce any of the ' provisions of this Declaration shall in no event be deamr.ri waiver of thn ri ..►.i. ..� • • 1 X. MUi:'IGAt;I.:S - I4:1:0:: OP TRUST �_ • • Breach of ,any of the tcrre'luini; c•,,nvenants shta11 not defeat or' render invalid the lien of any mortgage or . deed of trust made in good faith and for value within Earlington but said covenants • shall, be binding upon and effective against premises whose title. tt)CrL'ti) is ,a.rciui red b , ore fora,Owner Hof said • sale or otherwise. . • } Iosure_, trustee's X. . DURATION, MODIFICATION,; AND TERMINATION .. • The Conditions, -Covenants, Restrictions and Reservations set forth in the Declaration shall run with and bind the land. within _ Earlington and shall be and remain in effect, and shall inure to the benefit of, and be enforceable by Grantor or the Owner of any property subject to this Declaration, their heirs, successors and • assigns for a term of twenty (20) years from the . date this Declaration is recorded; provided, however, that this Declaration' may be amended or terminated .by Grantor by an instrument in writing, executed, acknowledged and filed with the Kin. CountyRecorder;Recrdr and provided further that such amendment or termination shall not adversely affect any Owner ' s or Occupant' s rights to use its Building Site for purposes consistent with this Declaration. . XI, SEVERABILITY Invalidation of any one or more of the provisions of this Declaration •by judgment or court order shall 'in no way affect any • of the provisions which .shall remain in full force and effect. X I 1 . LIABILITY - • Grantor shall exercise its own judgment to insure compliance of • the provisions of this Declaration. The Grantor and its employees oragents shall not be liable to any Owner, Occupant- or to any other .- party by reason of a mistake in judgment, negligence or-non-enforcement • of .any of. the provisions of this Declaration. • IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Grantor has caused this instrument to be signed by • the duly authorized officers on .the date first above written. . , FIRST CITY EQUITIES . • • BY AT7'L:5'1`: — • - -- --hresidcrat ASsistant'Secretary --- - - - • -10- - . 4