Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLUA77-043BEGINNING OF FILE FILE TITLE P,NCROFILMED 04.,3 ,77 f. pc ESA 4;, o THE CITY OF RENTON V / , i 7. ow , MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON,WASH. 98055 o53 CHARLES J. DELAURENTI ) MAYOR • LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER O O Q. L. RICK BEELER . 235-2593 p4T D SEP1E• May 20, 1977 Mr. Eugene Horbach RE: File No: SA-043-77 550 S.W. 7th Renton, WA 98055 Dear Mr. Horbach: This is to notify you that the above referenced request, which was approved subject to conditions as noted on the Examiner' s report of May 5 , 1977 , has not been appealed within the time period set by ordinance, and therefore, this application is considered final and is being submitted to the City Clerk effective this date for permanent filing. Since ely, _ L. Rick Beeler Hearing Examiner LRB:mp cc: Planning Department City Clerk tea,.;,. 4v. s. 4 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 6th day of May 19 77 , affiant deposited in the mails of the United States a sealed envelope containing a decision or recommendation with postage prepaid, addressed to the parties of record in the below-entitled application or petition. C/P7 GG7,47:_,„" Subscribed and sworn this day of 19 11 . Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, residing at Renton Application, Petition or Case: H. and H. Enterprises, SA-043-77 The minuted contain a .dust o6 the paAtieo os necond) i May 5, 1977 OFFICE OF THE LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, APPLICANT: H. and H. Enterprises FILE NO. SA-043-77 LOCATION: 550 S.W. 7th Street. SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Applicant requests approval of an addition to an existing office/warehouse building. The proposed addition is a two- story structure consisting of a total of approximately 21,800 square feet of gross floor area. SUMMARY OF Planning Department: Recommend continuance. RECOMMENDATION: Hearing Examiner: Recommend approval with conditions. PLANNING DEPARTMENT The Planning Department staff report was received by the REPORT: Examiner on April 26, 1977. PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the Planning Department report, examining available information on file with the application, and field checking the property and surrounding area, the Examiner conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows: The hearing was opened on May 3, 1977, at 11:30 a.m. in the Council Chambers of the Renton Municipal Building. Parties wishing to testify were sworn. It was reported that the Hearing Examiner and the representative for the applicant had received and reviewed the Planning Department report, and the report was entered into the record as Exhibit #1. Michael Smith, Planning Department, reviewed Exhibit #1, and entered the following additional exhibits into the record: Exhibit #2: Site Plan. Exhibit #3: Floor Plan. Exhibit #4: Building Elevations. Exhibit #5: General Landscaping Plan. Mr. Smith corrected Exhibit #1, Section 0.3, regarding parking stall requirement, substituting 29 stalls for 27 stalls. The Examiner asked Mr. Smith to report on the procedure followed to ensure that ordinance requirements for parking would be enforced. Mr. Smith indicated that the Hearing Examiner would have prerogative to allow Planning Department staff to negotiate requirements with the applicant and also consult with the City Attorney. He reported that reduction of the building dimension would increase additional space for parking and reduce the parking requirement. The Examiner asked Mr. Smith for additional information or exhibits. Mr. Smith indicated he had no further information. The Examiner asked the representative for the applicant if he concurred with Exhibit #1. Responding was: Eugene Horbach 550 S.W. 7th Renton, WA 98055 f' SA-043-77 Page Two Mr. Horbach indicated concurrence in Exhibit #1, and reported that he is the owner of both the existing H. & H. building and the I.B.M. building. He stated that tenants in the I.B.M. building had terminated their lease, would lease on a month-to-month basis, and that a six-month notice would be given upon vacation of the building. Because of the proposed change in occupancy, Mr. Horbach felt that the need for parking stalls would be substantially decreased. He reported a lease commitment with The Boeing Company for space on the first floor of the new addition to be commenced within 90 days. He requested approval of the application to allow construction of the addition in order to meet the lease deadline subject to the parking provision. He reported that office space could be reduced and warehouse space increased to meet the parking requirement and that he would make every effort to, acquire additional parking. In response to an inquiry by the Examiner regarding a replacement tenant for the I.B.M. building, Mr. Horbach reported that he planned to lease to a business involvediin light manufacturing which would utilize limited office space, and indicated that undesirable space presently exists in the buildings because of depth dimensions. The Examiner asked Mr. Smith if he wished to amend the Planning Department report. Mr. Smith reported that the purpose for the Planning Department recommendation to continuelthe hearing was to allow the applicant to finalize parking plans prior to the Examiner's decision. He indicated that if the Examiner approved the application, the Department would recommend approval of the site plan subject to provision of sufficient off-street parking to meet code requirements which may require provision of a joint agreement with Stanley Home Products, Inc. and possible reduction of expansion of the.building to maintain,a reasonable balance for the parking requirement. He suggested that approval be subject to utilization of the entire first floor for warehouse purposes only and imposing a provision to ensure that the existing I.B.M. building, when vacated, would utilize a certain portion for warehouse purposes. He also noted provisions for suitable on-site storm drainage, departmental approval of provision for dumping refuse, and suitable landscaping. The Examiner asked Mr. Smith if the city would maintain control over potential use for the Ilbuildingswhen vacated. Mr. Smith indicated that for new construction, an occupancy permit would be required, and a building permit would be required if remodeling occurred. The Examiner asked Mr. Horbach if he had inquiries regarding the staff recommendations. Mr. Horbach indicated his concurrence with all restrictions and conditions. The Examiner asked if a possibility existed to reduce the square footage of the proposed addition. Mr. Horbach stated that because of the space requirement for the proposed Boeing lease, a reduction would not be possible. He noted that a possibility existed to remove present tenants from buildings when leases expired, one to expire in one year and another in two years. Mr. Smith stated that specific plans designating office and warehouse areas in the existing buildings would be required by the Planning Department to conform with the Parking and Loading Ordinance. The Examiner asked if the applicant could accomplish the construction and meet the 90-day deadline if a condition were applied to the application which specified that a parking plan was to be developed with the Planning Department and subject to its approval. Mr. Horbach indicated a desire to resolve the issue after construction in order to proceed. expeditiously at this time but that he would make every effort to supply the additional required parking stalls. Mr. Smith stated that the Department would cooperate with the applicant in every way to ensure conformance with the ordinance. The Examiner asked for further comments. Since there were none, the hearing on Item #SA-043-77 was closed by the Examiner at 12:15 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 the site plan for an addition of some 21,800 square feet of gross floor area for office and warehouse use to an existing office/ warehouse building. This review is required by Section 4-730-040 of the Code. 2. The Planning Department report accurately sets forth the issues, applicable policies and provisions, findings of fact, and departmental recommendations in this matter, is uncontested, and is hereby attached as Exhibit #1 and incorporated in this report by reference as set forth in full herein. SA-043-77 Page Three 3. Pursuant to the City of Renton's Environmental Ordinance and the State Environmental Policy Act of 1971, as amended by R.C.W. 43.21.c. , a Declaration of Non-Significance has been issued for the subject proposal by Gordon Y. Ericksen, responsible official. 4. Plans for the proposal have been reviewed by all city departments affected by the impact of this development and no adverse comment was expressed. 5. The application was advertised and the property was posted in three conspicuous places near the subject site. There was no opposition to the proposal expressed. 6. All existing utilities are available and in close proximity. 7. The proposal is compatible with the required setbacks, lot coverage and height requirements of Section 4-730 of the Code. No plans were submitted showing provision for exterior storage containers per Section 4-730.030(5) , (7) . Every indication is that the Standards of Performance of Section 4-730.040 are met. 8. A deficiency of approximately 29 parking stalls exists in the proposal according to Chapter 22, Parking and Loading. The applicant is pursuing leasing off-site parking to resolve this deficiency. In addition, the applicant indicated the possibility of reducing office space in the addition. 9. Utilization of the unimproved Lind Avenue extension for parking by the applicant continues under a Supplemental Quit Claim Deed and agreement dated April 24, 1974, until May 1, 1984 if the extension has not been constructed. Otherwise, the extension property will revert to the applicant. 10. The building design is the same as the existing building. 11. A general landscape plan was submitted but of unsufficient detail for review. CONCLUSIONS: 1. The proposal conforms with the Land Use Report and Comprehensive Plan. 2. The building design is compatible to and integrated with the existing H. & H. Enterprises building and will form a development similar to the adjacent H. & H. Enterprises building currently occupied by the I.B.M. Corporation. 3. Users of the building must meet the requirements of Section 4-730 and the ground floor would be used for warehousing and the second floor for office and possibly some warehousing. 4. A detailed landscape plan, including screening of exterior containers, is required for approval by the Planning Department for conformance with Section 4-730.030 and Chapter 22 prior to issuance of a building permit. 5. A parking plan showing off-site parking is required per Chapter 22, Sections 4-2201.3.c. and 4-2209 to be submitted to the Planning Department, for approval by the Planning and Public Works Departments according to the criteria of Chapter 22 prior to issuance of a building permit. 6. Any lease agreements for off-site parking are required to meet the criteria of Chapter 22 and approval by the Planning Department and City Attorney prior to issuance of a building permit. 7. In the event that the Lind Avenue extension is completed prior to the Supplemental Quit Claim Deed and agreement, dated April 24, 1974, the site plan and parking for the entire site, i.e. both sides of the Lind Avenue: right-of-way, will require review by the Examiner for conformance to Chapter 22. RECOMMENDATION: Recommend approval of the application subject to the conditions mentioned in the aforementioned conclusions #3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 in order to comply with the Code, Land Use Report, and Comprehensive Plan. ORDERED THIS 5th day of May, 1977. L. Ric Beeler Land Use Hearing Examiner Y - SA-043-77 Page Four TRANSMITTED THIS 5th day of May, 1977 by Affidavit of Mailing to the parties of record: Eugene Horbach TRANSMITTED THIS 5th day of May, 1977, to the following: Mayor Charles J. Delaurenti Council President George J. Perry Councilman Richard M. Stredicke Warren C. Gonnason, Public Works Director Gordon Y. Ericksen, Planning Director Pursuant to Ordinance No. 3071, Section 4-3015, request for reconsideration or notice of appeal must be filed in writing on or before May 19, 1977. Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the Examiner is based on erroneous procedures, 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 of the date of the report. 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. RECEIVED CITY OF RENTON PLANNING DEPARTMENT HEARLNG EXAMINER PRELIMINARY REPORT TO HEARING EXAMINER mi MAY 3 19 7 7 PM PUBLIC HEARING 71819,10,1111211 i2t31415 6 MAY 3 , 1977 k.4Y5. F, HIEIT NO.J / APPLICANT : H. AND H. ENTERPRISES ITEM NO. 54 _ 77 FILE NOS : SA-043-77 ; SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR OFFICE/WAREHOUSE EXPANSION TO AN EXISTING BUILDING IN AN M-P ZONE A. SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Applicant requests approval of an addition to an existing office/ warehouse building . The proposed addition is a two-story structure consisting of a total of approximately 21 ,800 sq . ft . of gross floor area . B. GENERAL INFORMATION : 1 . Owner of Record : H. AND H . ENTERPRISES 2 . Applicant : H . AND H . ENTERPRISES 3. Location : 550 S . W. 7th Street 4 . Legal Description : Detailed legal description available on file in the Renton Planning Department . 5 . Size of Property : Approximately 1 . 6 acres . 6 . Access : Via S . W. 7th Street . 7 . Existing Zone : M-P , Manufacturing Park . 8 . Existing Zoning M-P , Manufacturing Park. in Area : 9 . Comprehensive . Manufacturing Park Land Use Plan : 10 . Notification : The applicant was notified in writing of the hearing date . Notice was properly published in the Record Chronicle and posted in three places on or near the site as required by City ordinance . C. PURPOSE OF REQUEST: To allow an addition to an existing office/warehouse building for expansion of similar uses . D. HISTORY/BACKGROUND : The existing building was approved by the Planning Commission on February 27 , 1974 . The existing IBM Building , together with the parking area between the IBM Building and the existing H . and H . Building , are all owned by the applicant. The parking within the Lind Avenue extension area is utilized for conformance with ordinance requirements as per Quit Claim Deed dated August 5 , 1968 , and supple- ment thereto dated April 25 , 1974 . The area was zoned to M-P as part of the original Earlington Industrial Park plat approved Jan . 17 , 1966 . F . PHYSICAL BACKGROUND: 1 . Topography : The site is level . 2 . Soils : Urban Land . 3 . Vegetation : Vegetation on the site consists of landscaping material introduced to the site by man . PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT TO HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING OF MAY 3 , 1977 PAGE TWO RE : H . AND H . ENTERPRISES REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL IN AN M-P ZONE 4 . Wildlife : The existing vegetation on the site may provide limited habitat for certain small birds . 5 . Water: Surface water and streams are not apparent on the subject site . 6 . Land Use : The subject site is within an existing manufacturing park area which consists of office/warehouse , manufacturing park type uses . F. NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTERISTICS : Manufacturing park type uses . G. PUBLIC SERVICES: 1 . Water and Sewer: An existing 12" water main and an existing 8" sewer main are located along S. W. 7th Street. 2 . Fire Protection : Provided by the Renton Fire Department as per ordinance requirements . 3 . Transit : Metro Transit Route No . 155 operates along Rainier Avenue South and Route 161 operates along S . W. Grady Way. 4 . Schools :, Not applicable . 5 . Parks : Not applicable . H. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE ZONING CODE: 1 . 4-730 , M-P , Manufacturing Park District . 2 . Chapter 22 , Parking and Loading . I . APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OR OTHER OFFICIAL CITY DOCUMENTS: 1 . Land Use Report , 1965 , page 11 , Industrial , page 17 , Objectives , numbers 3 , 4 , 5 , and 6 . 2 . Policy Statement , Comprehensive Plan , Renton Urban Area , 1965 , G, Industrial Development, pages 7 , 8 , and 9 . J . IMPACTS ON NATURAL SYSTEMS: Further development of the site will increase storm water runoff and have an effect on traffic and noise levels in the area . K. SOCIAL IPMIPACTS : Not applicable . L. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT/THRESHOLD DETERMINATION: Pursuant to the City of Renton Environmental Ordinance and the State Environmental Policy Act of 1971 , as amended ( RCW 43 . 216) , a Declara- tion of Non-significance has been issued for the subject proposal see attached ) . M. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION : A vicinity map and site map are attached . 3 PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT TO HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING OF MAY 3 , 1977 PAGE THREE RE : H. AND H . ENTERPRISES REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL IN AN M-P ZONE N . AGENCIES CONTACTED: 1 . City of Renton Building Division 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 0, PLANNING DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS: 1 . The proposed addition is for expansion of the existing office/ warehouse building approved by the Planning Commission on February 27 , 1974 . 2 . The existing building and the existing I . B .M. Building located directly east of the subject site are owned by the applicant and share joint parking facilities , including the area within the unimproved Lind Avenue extension . This area is utilized for parking for the two buildings by Quit Claim Deed dated August 5 , 1968, and Supplemental Quit Claim and agreement dated April 24 , 1974 . Said covenant allows the applicant utilization of the area for parking purposes and established a date of May 1 , 1984 , whereby the property will revert back to the ownership of the applicant, if the Lind Avenue extension has not been constructed by such date . 3. The parking requirement for the existing I . B. M . Building is 211 spaces . The requirement for the existing H . and H . , Inc . , Building is 97 spaces . The proposed expansion will require 56 additional parking spaces , provided the entire lower floor is utilized for warehouse only as stated by the applicant. There- fore , the total parking requirement for the existing buildings and proposed addition is 364 parking stalls . The site plan indicates a total of 337 stalls provided throughout the combined sites . This indicates a need for an additional 27 stalls with the building floor area as proposed . The applicant is presently • in the process of reviewing alternatives to resolve this prob- lem . 4 . The appli at has indicated general landscape areas . A detailed landscap will be required as part of the building permit process, The landscaping will be similar to that which has been installed for the existing buildings . P. PLANNING DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION: Recommend continuation of hearing to allow applicant sufficient time to resolve the parking problem as indicated above. 0' l 3 ? i 2/ f rc.s7 L ri 24'l - . , 71 20 -- _y f" Gov't L®# \swiwiikiwiii''.•',..•• 4/ t.... 140;4I.; 1.. o.,N as v ® r! p_ tree A c Se i 1. 3 O• PL G M. ST P. P R R R,O! r a J plrOPENO0 6 ,s 413 43 VI•\ Pp. Sr i CC MIS UK 7ROPaSED GNILAGO •/• 4DDl'/ON s _ a r •• G/ i • • •ioret --r P V* 1:1247 0.55 AC• e/ GEO. A HORMEL & $. TRACT g°`' r.aMr ww.M+wM i M EUGE E H.RBAGK. ..,'` 9' LENTO gNORE p3. Ao!.!r,,.n'..t5.wr ff.4rw c sett' fete!Te d. eA• Rrr...... .......,..vw t 1STH .O E lww• Aft'tiAniar" riiiim" '"' '.w ROBERT L EDWARDS 1 w 4 71 Ac ' a,run n r'M 96,4 / u.253 T.L.254 it t i wwww,.www L252 .• y y i l w 71 sr . s. Yt-- s tAa9//6Q s° r Jr BI I STORES ENE,C. fti. . M lost iz 5 q• :No S:P:.REMO SNORE ANDSI. Gov't Lot AVIo H. oo ' • 39.85 ' cre z, GHIGK 0, ,,b Sige".gyp? 97-. T L k . Vr STANLEY 40ME P PRODUTS NC •eaa 9 loft., 24 7L SO OCY-41ARI GTON tf ARLINGTO#J EVANS PRODUCTS aAtAN 6, PARK ASSOC,. Os A N HTIS 77''.., CP M GOV-1AART 6AU C.' J `Zr 12itt 2.22kW 7 y c, M TL 64 • i I P l a t 1 127 I R t. C:i?SCALE I"=200' SUgJEcrpre J 0 AND tf rts'iz SrrE A-PPILD 4L. : N®. 5A- - 043-77 I ' / i r J1z. ty. rJ .f- / 110'a a e :. / .® izi, R ,\ 5[NOOL SCH 77,- i II ti„Dipta.. : - ',. ---- I — :7w FIE'S IRP,12 - - ' 11 '.,Idyl 1• ra' c.'Li Ie" r- i . r . ,a• III*. :li GS-r ,,- .- ' 7ZMb /Z \ u I S rfB4L D L elpLJ1 p0.+ a•=ito°-" ' \ 1 . 1 jI A Lr f, atil e I L'. c MA; r, ' , sue, 3— I i Q 1 1 LN.„,..., R LAN vAG F,G r/1 E'III Illllu . I g1111111111 C 5, RENTO,. sNERN 1111411111 IIIlIII IIIIIIII- - .Ilulll_Udll III NOR s %-•, 1.0.0 11: 1 ' Sf1@it': .. III I re,, , ,:,„,,--..,,,„„,. III' ,.•I I,.. IIII_ Iglk r. s eeilillltlll l.. i ill{I 1 I llllll.I i iHN_______ Ili111,, Oil , °,•..,,RIll itl 1IIU,•al lit !IMII Ni u`=,dll{jIlilll IEII IIIIIII jladjt.luul.Ii,s.0 I al IIlII6_II . owl!" ir.=M"' s= Ee illlll a Mil 11(I. 4..1INT itAity..- 'F4MAIM IgraM VI• .1:%ilm iw pa, s„,.,,,„,„,r 7,,,_, .. ::. Eg=6. .:II"' ''', ----* . all A. a- .-' 1 - 11F4. T. II tin I WI' •. 1. ' ta x, .'' -...51• i------F . P— it /_t.---- ear •.u` SITE APPROVAL : . H. AND H . ENTERPRISES ; Appl . No . SA-043-77 ; Site Approval for con- struction of Ian office/warehouse in an M-P zone ; property located at 550 S . W. 7th St . APPLICANT H. AND H . ENTERPRISES TOTAL AREA ±1 . 6 acres ' PRINCIPAL ACCESS S. W. 7th Street EXISTING ZONING M—P EXISTING USE Office/Warehouse Building PROPOSED USE Addition of wing to present structure . COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN Manufacturing Park COMMENTS PROPOSED/FINAL DECLARATION OF SIGNIFICANCE/.._.1-SIGNIFICANCE Application No . SA-043-77 PROPOSED Declaration Environmental Checklist No . ECF-243-77 X FINAL Declaration Description of proposal Applicant requests approval of an addition to an existing office/warehouse building. The proposed addition is a two-story structure consisting of a total of approximately 21,800 sq. ft. gross floor area. Proponent H . AND H . ENTERPRISES Location of Proposal 550 S . W . 7th Street Lead Agency Renton Planning Department This proposal has been determined to 0 have x0 not have a significant adverse impact upon the environment . An EIS 0 is is not required under RCW 43 . 21C . 030 ( 2 ) (c ) . This decision was ma- a after review by the lead agency of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency . Reasons for declaration of environmental significance : Measures , if any , that could be taken to prevent or mitigate the environmental impacts to such an extent that the lead agency would withdraw its declaration of significance and issue a (proposed/final ) declaration of non-significance : Responsible Official Gordon Y . Ericksen Title Planning Director Date April 26 , 1977 Signature di%mac/ Lr0,nc,,v 2!Lis, City of Renton Planning Department IMO CITY OF RENTON APPLICATION F 1 '' SITE APPROVA V yRECE u O APR 11 1977 FOR OFFICE USE ONLY File No. SA- 0-/3 - 77 72Filing Dat c? r- rf- 77 APPLICANT TO COMPLETE ITEMS 1 THROUGH 6 : 1. Name 74' H "-//7c.ePiie/e,s Phoneo2`?' Address ,5$ O < ,j'J, 7i , M/0', /,/f7s4°a 9 os 2 . Property location dS,9-2L 3 . Legal description (attach additional sheet if necessary) FT'%-C,L/A:/ ic*1 92 'L-f C/77©1 4 . Number of acres or sq. ft. / ‘13. , e cTresent zoning . /17, 5 . What do you propose to develop on this property? .077-",47e-,1-tiPiec4eCa.,(c' b.)i77a/v 722 A"/67'iVt‘. 1 1)/414 6 . The following information shall be submitted with this application: Scale A. Site and access plan (include setbacks , existing structures, easements, and other factors limiting development) . . . . . . . . 1"=l0 ' or 20 ' B. Parking, landscaping and screening plan. . . 1"=10 ' C. Vicinity map (include land use and zoning on adjacent parcels) 1"= 200 ' - 800 ' D. Building height and area (existing and proposed) 7 . PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Date approved Date denied Date appealed Appeal action Remarks Planning Dept. 2-73 0 11, AFFIDAVIT I , z6-4-z-,ti'I" . 4" i9c-/ 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 / ( day of 19 7 7, Notary Public in an for the State of Washington, residing at Lz_gZi-t( Ck D ex r,xi NO Se4-=7(71Ko ,, &c) (7 : Name of Notar Pub") 1 A6147--- 1 d(A\ Si ture of Owner) S Address) Address) f City) • / State) a2e / 6'p Telephone) FOR OFFICE USE ONLY) CERTIFICATION This is to certify t• ' e foregoing application has been inspected by me and has been foun tCjo beR i ` %ugh and complete in every particular and to conform to the As Kffte ,u` ` tions of the Renton Planning Department governing the f ngR b u h - lication . AM 1 '77 Date Received 19 By: Renton Plannino Dent _ I K , 1 1 ROUTING FOR REVIEW OF ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORMS TO : Finance Department Fire Department Library Department Park Department Police Department Public Works Department Building Div . Traffic Engineering Div . Engineering Div . Utilities Engineering Div. FROM : Planning Department, (signed by responsible official or his designee) 411.L.4) st4 SUBJECT : Review of ECF- .293-77 ; Application No . : dip •0i3 -77 Action Name : N 4 (4 Gorr/ruffs, .,/TE QC.A,...) A ov At /A.) AA./ /‘i -fir, <3a. Please review the attached . Review requested by ( date) : REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : Department : i ,1) b Comments : 711 cl 7 D .,„. ._„;( ,-- -., /c A I,e C 0-7-2 G-t--___ _ 2 Z—. ) Signature irector or Authorized Representative Date 1 REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : Department : /,:Liy _ Comments : `i j 1 1 1 o..; -?-1.Ai. ..-a 4/. 17 7 Signature of Director orL;Authorized Representative Date 6-76 OVER) I 1 REVIEW BY OTHER CIT , DEPARTMENTS : Department : 7//G" 6 f /- h/. 75- /-A--/SG c- 7 Comments : /74t5. f16677- /. S. O. / /(/ 7,,%S C2,/' i%,C t G-G/ c/S. it/L(,'—$C77. of /-772 //%/J2/(. / S //S eca//'mac:'' /J Y '/ec r-'G/ ? 6- 1,//ieG j 4 z.OG^ /3G/7 S moo/: 44)4)/-;a.ci7)G. i ' u//E..-zC.L i=5- J •;,J ,C,c-7c`J i l z.• t 7 7/77 Signature of Director o Authorized Representative Date REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : Department : lottiViLL Comments : g, Aji/4440/4"41 ...4414.664 01a—-- 4.- 2p-77 Signatu e of Director or Authorized Representative Date REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : Department : Comments : Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : Department : Comments : signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 7v F1 •!, f, 1 f11 FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Application No.of.— C dl. - -J% Environmental Checklist No. PROPOSED, date: FINAL, date:1 Declaration of Significance D Declaration of Significance DDeclaration of Non-Significance Declaration of Non-Significance COMMENTS: Introduction The State Environmental Policy Act of 1971, Chapter 43.21C, RCW, requires all state and local governmental agencies to consider environmental values both for their own actions and when licensing private proposals. The Act also requires that an EIS be prepared for all major actions significantly affecting the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to help the agencies involved determine whether or not a proposal is such a major action. Please answer the following questions as completely as you can with the information presently available to you. Where explanations of your answers are required, or where you believe an explanation would be helpful to government decision makers , include your explanation in the space provided, or use additional pages if necessary. You should include references to any reports or studies of which you are aware and which are rele- vant to the answers you provide. Complete answers to these questions now will help all agencies involved with your proposal to undertake the required environmental review with- out unnecessary delay. The following questions apply to your total proposal , not just to the license for which you are currently applying or the proposal for which approval is sought. Your answers should include the impacts which will be caused by your proposal when it is completed, even though completion may not occur until sometime in the future. This will allow all of the agencies which will be involved to complete their environmental review now, with- out duplicating paperwork in the future. NOTE: This is a standard form being used by all state and local agencies in the State of Washington for various types of proposals. Many of the questions may not apply to your proposal . If a question does not apply, just answer it "no" and continue on to the next question. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM I . BACKGROUND 1. Name of Proponent 14/ EiFi ic=-k:7/1:)e tr-E- 2. Address and phone number of Proponent: s60 3. Date Checklist submitted 739 /20J 4. Agency requiring Checklist 5. Name of proposal , if applicable: 6. Nature and brief description of the proposal (including but not limited to its size, general design elements , and other factors that will give an accurate understanding of its scope and nature) : / 4- Ai mac'17 © hie).) ) ©-t./ Teo erg s-s-0 S'4,) 711-, 2- 7. Location of proposal (describe the physical setting of the proposal , as well as the extent of the land area affected by any environmental impacts , including any other information needed to give an accurate understanding, of the environ- mental setting of the proposal ) : GI 6'7 E/9 4_ ic:)/yR . B. Estimated date for completion of the proposal : g40 9. List of all permits, licenses or government approvals required for the proposal federal , state and local--including rezones) : ii >.! PdP/y e 10. Do you have any plans for future additions , expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes , explain: V4P 11. Do you know of any plans by others which may affect the property covered by your proposal ? If yes , explain: tie 12. Attach any other application form that has been completed regarding the pro- posal ; if none has been completed, but is expected to .be filed at some future date, describe the nature of such application form: II . ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required) 1) Earth. Will the proposal result in: a) Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? YES MAYBE NO b) Disruptions, displacements , compaction or over- • covering of the soil? YES MAYBE NO c) Change in topography or ground surface relief features? YES MAYBE NU— d) The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? YES MAYBE NO e) Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? YET- MAYBE N f) Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? Yam- MAYBE Explanation: 3- 2) Air. Will the proposal result in: a) Air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? r YES MAYBE NO b) The creation of objectionable odors? YES MAYBE NO c) Alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? l,/ YES MAYBE NO Explanation: 3) Water. Will the proposal result in: a) Changes in currents , or the course of direction of water movements , in either marine or fresh waters? ZJ YES M YBE NO b) Changes in absorption rates , drainage patterns , or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? YES MAYBE A- c) Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? YES MAYBE NO d) Change in the amount 'of surface water in any water body? YES MAYBE NO e) Discharge into surface waters , or in any alteration surface water quality, including but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? YES MAYBE N f) Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? YES MAYBE NO g) Change in the quantity of ground waters , either through direct additions or withdrawals , or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? YES MAYBE NO h) Deterioration in ground water quality, either through direct injection, or through the seepage of leachate, phosphates , detergents , waterborne virus or bacteria , . or other substances into the ground waters? YES MAYBE NO i ) Reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? YES MAYBE WO-- Explanation: 4) Flora. Will the proposal result in: a) Change in the diversity of species , or numbers of any species of flora (including trees , shrubs , grass , crops , microflora and aquatic plants)? YES MAYBE AO b) Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of flora? YES' MAYBE NO c) Introduction of new species of flora into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? YES MAYBE NO d) Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? YET— TITTNE NO Explanation: i 4- 5) Fauna. Will the proposal result in: a) Changes in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of fauna (birds , land animals including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms , insects or microfauna)? YES MAYBE TO— b) Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of fauna? YES MAYBE NO c) Introduction of new species of fauna into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of fauna? YES MAYBE WO— d) Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? YES MAYBE NO Explanation: 6) Noise. Will the proposal increase existing noise levels? l YES MAYBE NO Explanation: 7) Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? YES MAYBE NO Explanation: _ 8) Land Use. Will the proposal result in the alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? yES MAYBE NO Explanation: 9) Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: I a) Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? YES MAYBE NO b) Depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource? AZ. 1 YES MAYBE NO Explanation: 10) Risk of Upset. Does the proposal involve a risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil , pesticides , chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? YES M YBE N.0 Explanation: 11) Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distri- bution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? YES MAYBE W Explanation: 5- 12) Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing?r YES MAYBE NO Explanation: 13) Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in: a) Generation of additional vehicular movement? YES MAYBE NO b) Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? YES MAYBE NO c) Impact upon existing transportation systems? YET- RAITE NO d) Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? YES MAYBE NO e) Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? YES MAYBE NO f) Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles , bicyclists or pedestrians? V YES MAYBE NO Explanation: 14) Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? YES M YBE NO b) Police protection? YES MAYBE NO c) Schools? t/ YES MAYBE NO d) Parks or other recreational facilities? YES M YBE NO e) Maintenance of public facilities , including roads? C,' YES MAYBE NO f) Other governmental services? YES MATE NO Explanation: 15) Energy. Will the; proposal result in: a) Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? YES MAYBE NO b) Demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? YET- MAYBE WU-- Explanation: 16) Utilities . Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? YES MAYBE NO b) Communications systems? YES MAYBE NO c) Water? YES MAYBE NO to . 6- d) Sewer or septic tanks? L./ YES i6E NO e) Storm water drainage? YES MAYBE NO f) Solid waste and disposal ? YES MAYBE NO Explanation: 17) Human Health. Will the proposal result in the creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding l mental health)? YES MAYBE NO Explanation: 18) . Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? t./ YES MAYBE NO Explanation: 19) Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? YES MAYBE NO Explanation: 20) Archeological/Historical . Will the proposal result in an alteration of a significant archeological or historical site, structure, object or building? YES MAYBE NO Explanation: III . SIGNATURE " I , the undersigned, state that to the best of my knowledge the above information is true and complete. It is understood that the lead agency may withdraw any decla- ration of non-significance that it might issue in reliance upon this checklist should there be any willful misrepresentation or willful lack of full disclosure on my part. Proponent : , 7signed EZG Z=7"1/Z— 41.4 - name printed) City of Renton Planning Department 5-76 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 MAY 3, 19 77 , AT 9:00 A. M. TO CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING PETITIONS : 1 . APPLICATION FOR FINAL PLAT APPROVAL ; file No . FP-040-77 ; property located south of Puget Drive S . E . and east of the Benson Hill Apartments between Bonneville Power Transmission Line Right-of-way and Aberdeen Place S . E. 2 . REZONE FROM G-7200 TO R-2 ; file No . R-041-77 ; property located at 3916 N. E. 12th Street. 3. SITE APPROVAL IN M-P ZONE; file No . SA-043-77 ; property located at 550 S. W. 7th St. Legal descriptions of applications noted above on file in Renton Planning Department. I ALL INTERESTED PERSONS TO SAID PETITIONS ARE INVITED TO BE PRESENT AT THE PUBLIC HEARING ON MAY 3 , 1977 AT 9 : 00 A. M. TO EXPRESS THEIR OPINIONS. GORDON Y. ERICKSEN PUBLISHED April 24 , 1977 RENTON PLANNING DIRECTOR CERTIFICATION I , Michael L . Smith HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THREE COPIES OF THE' ABOVE DOCUMENT WERE POSTED BY ME IN THREE CONSPICUOUS PLACES ON THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED ABOVE AS PRESCRIBED BY LAW. ATTEST: ;Subscribed and sworn to before •me, . a Notary Public, on the -2Istday _of._ April r/ 19 77 77-- SIGNED th F THE CITY OF RENTON z o_ MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE.SO. RENTON,WASH..98055 am. CHARLES J. DELAURENTI MAYOR • PLANNING I)EPARTNiE`TO, fl4T e O SF 235-2550 April 21 , 1977 H. & H. Enterprises 550 S. W. 7th Renton , WA 98055 Gentlemen : RE : NOTICE OF APPLICATION ACCEPTANCE AND PUBLIC HEARING DATE FOR SITE APPROVAL APPLICATION NO. SA-043-77 Ger.tl even: The Renton Planning Department formally accepted theabovementionedapplicationonApril18, 1977pu:iic hearing before the City of Renton Hearing Examinerhasbeensetfor9:00 A.M. , May 3, 1977 . Representatives of the applicant are asked to be pre-sert. All interested persons are invited to attend thehearing . If you have any further questionstheRentonPlanningDepartment , 235-2550. please call Very truly yours , Gordon Y . Ericksen Planning Director By : M c ae m Associate Planner wr INTERDEPARTMENTAL REVIEW REQUEST TO : PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTO ` BUILDING DIVISION ENGINEERING EILJILD TRAFFIC ENGINEERING DIVISION Al • UTILITIES DIVISION FIRE DEPARTMENT HEALTH DEPARTMENT FROM:. PLANNING DEPARTMENT JgkAdN( Contact Person RE 14 t y 5 , stig AiratIAL 4 FiLE irk-043. Please review the attached information regarding the subject proposal alnd return it to the Planning Department by 172411 with your written recommetion . Your response will be included as part of the staff report to the Hearing Examiner. Thank you , PLANNING DEPARTMENT olfze, Date ' 01 77 1 OF „.sfILE FILE TITLE f' j: t• yaw Yr 2. i :,/ F' i' i Al ' 3.' 0 ishi.31; 4' . 777 rtr