HomeMy WebLinkAboutLUA79-324BEGINNIAG
OF FILE
FILE TITLE
4: [ CR3FILMED
1, 0 ova,4
OF RA,A
o THE CITY OF RENTON
U y
MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON,WASH. 98055
oNIL k CHARLES J. DELAURENTI , MAYOR • LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER
90 O FRED J. KAUFMAN. 235-2593
0,
9gT
42-
1) SEPTE;
O
May 16, 1979
Mr. Eugene Horbach
550 S.W. 7th Street
Renton, WA 98055
RE: File No. SA-324-79; Central Puget, Inc.
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 1, 1979, has not been appealed within the time period established
by ordinance. Therefore, this application is considered final and
is being submitted to the City Clerk effective this date for
permanent filing.
Sincerely,
Fred J. Kaufman
Hearing Examiner
cc: Planning Department
City Clerk
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 1st day of May 19 79 , 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 '
1
day of
19 11
A5c,,A '-\r\
sA
Notary Public in and for the State
of Washington, residing at Renton
Application, Petition or Case: Central Puget, Inc. ; SA-324-79
The minutes contain a £Lst ot5 the patti.eb 06 necond)
r
May 1, 1979
OFFICE OF THE LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER
CITY OF RENION
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION .
APPLICANT: Central Puget, Inc. FILE NO. SA-324-79
LOCATION: 550 S.W. 7th Street
SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The applicant seeks site plan approval for a 60,000 square foot
two-story office building over parking at 550 S.W. 7th Street in
an M-P zone.
SUMMARY OF ACTION: Planning Department Recommendation: Approval with conditions.
Hearing Examiner Decision: Approval with conditions.
PLANNING DEPARTMENT The Planning Department preliminary report was received by the
REPORT: Examiner on April 18, 1979.
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 April 24, 1979 at 9:00 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, and the report was entered into the record as Exhibit #1.
David Clemens, Associate Planner, reviewed Exhibit #1, and entered the following
additional exhibits into the record:
Exhibit #2: Site and Elevation Plan as Submitted
Exhibit #3: Site and Elevation Plan with Staff Comments
The Examiner asked the applicant if he concurred in Exhibit #1. Responding was:
Eugene Horbach
550 S.W. 7th Street
Renton, WA 98055
Mr. Horbach indicated his concurrence in the report. Referencing Section L.4 of Exhibit
1 regarding provision of a five-foot landscaped separation from the railroad spur on the
westerly boundary of the property, he objected to provision of the landscaping on site
due to the consequence of further reduction in parking spaces and building size. Mr.
Horbach noted that city building codes do not currently reflect the landscaping
requirement, and he indicated previous objections from railroad company representatives
due to interference of landscaping with visibility and safety. He stated that other
developments in the surrounding vicinity had not been required to provide a similar
landscaping strip to buffer railroad spurs, and in view of existing necessity to reduce
building size as a result of other landscaping requirements on the site, consideration
should be given to delete the additional buffering requirement on the westerly portion.
The Examiner requested testimony in support or opposition to the request. There was no
response. Referencing Section I.5 of Exhibit #1 regarding impact of proposed traffic
on the environment, the Examiner inquired if the proposed 36% increase in traffic could
be adequately accommodated by existing streets in the area. Mr. Clemens advised that
review of the matter by the Traffic Engineering Division indicated that one-half of the
capacity of the streets would be reached by proposed and existing generation of traffic
on S.W. 7th Street and Lind Avenue S.W.
The Examiner referenced Section L.4 of Exhibit #1 regarding requirement of additional
landscaping, and inquired if preliminary review of the site plan indicates whether the
requirement can be accommodated. Mr. Clemens advised that additional landscaped areas
containing 1200 square feet will reduce the number of parking spaces and necessitate
reduction of building size by approximately 2200 square feet.
K
SA-324-79 Page Two
1.
The E aminer inquired if the site plan accommodates the Comprehensive Plan objective to
provi e large, interior landscaping islands. Mr. Clemens indicated departmental concern
regar ing expanse of parking areas within the site; however, the applicant has provided
some 'nterior landscaping which generally meets the objectives of the plan. He indicated
that he primary concern relates to provision of landscaping separation between the
unatt active uses on the site and provision of screening from the hillside view from the
north
The E aminer referenced the applicant's comment regarding establishment of a precedent
by re uirement of landscaping adjacent to the railroad spur. Mr. Clemens advised that
other developments in Earlington and Orillia Industrial Parks have provided landscaping
to ac ommodate the general objective of screening. The Examiner inquired if the required
scale of landscaping would be incompatible with railroad requirements. Mr. Clemens felt
that a blend of landscaping which would be satisfactory for screening as well as
maintenance of safety could be achieved.
The Examiner requested an explanation of Fire Department concerns. Mr. Clemens indicated
that concerns relate to specific details of physical building design criteria rather than
site planning.
The aminer referenced Section L.5 regarding exterior building materials, and asked the
applicant to clarify the intent of the final design. Mr. Horbach advised that precast
concrete finished panels attached to a structural steel frame similar to the existing
Collins building to the east would be provided. The Examiner requested clarification of
previous discussions between the applicant and Burlington Northern officials regarding
landscaping along the spur. Mr. Horbach indicated that during previous developments in
the area, screening had been provided along the railroad spur and met with objection by
railroad crews for reasons of visibility and safety, and the railroad representatives had
requested that only low-growing shrubbery be installed. He suggested that provision of
landscaping on the railroad right-of-way will accomplish the purpose of aesthetics and
visu 1 screening, and reduction of building size by elimination of additional parkingwoul4beprevented. The Examiner inquired regarding the impact of installation of a
five foot landscaping strip within the westerly property line. Mr. Clemens designated
on E hibit #3 the location of a parking stall bank containing 16 stalls which is
recommended to be deleted and would reduce the allowable building area by an additional
appr imate 3200 feet. The Examiner inquired if the site plan conforms to landscaping
requirements along S.W. 7th Street. Mr. Clemens indicated that a proposed 10-foot strip
alone the right-of-way conforms to requirements.
The Examiner requested a final recommendation from the Planning Department representative.
Mr. Clemens indicated that the recommendation contained in Exhibit #1 would remain as
submitted.
The Examiner requested further comments. Since there were none, the hearing on File No.
SA-324-79 was closed by the Examiner at 9:40 a.m.
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & DECISION: Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner
now makes and enters the following:
FINDNGS:
1. The request is for approval of the site plan for a 60,000 square foot office building
on two acres in the M-P zone.
2. The Planning Department report accurately sets forth the issues, applicable policies
and provisions, findings of fact, and departmental recommendations in this matter,
and is hereby attached as Exhibit #1 and incorporated in this report by reference as
feet forth in full therein.
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
See Exhibit #1) .
4. Plans for the proposal have been reviewed by all city departments affected by the
impact of this development.
5. 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 requirements of Section 4-730 (M-P) of Title IV,
Ordinance No. 1628, Code of General Ordinances; except for compliance with the 20-foot
building setback along the easterly property line (Section 4-730.030.3) . The applicant
SA-324-79 Page Three
agreed to move the building to conform with this setback.
8. The proposal does not comply with the parking regulations of Chapter 22 (Parking and
Loading Ordinance) . Staff has determined that 285 parking stalls are required, but
the application (Exhibit #2) features only 279 parking stalls. Additional parking
space does not appear available on the property. The applicant agreed to reduce the
building area in order to conform to the parking requirements.
Required landscaping per Chapter 22, Resolution No. 1923 and Green River Valley
Comprehensive Plan has not been provided. Along the westerly property line landscaping
is proposed off-site within railroad right-of-way.
9. Exterior treatment of the building will be of tilt-up construction type of material.
10. A State Flood Zone Control Permit is required from King County.
11. Fire Department requirements for emergency access into the building and storm water
drainage plan approval by the Public Works Department will be reviewed with the
building permit application.
CONCLUSIONS:
1. The proposal generally conforms to the zoning regulations and Green River Valley
Comprehensive Plan; however, a few major changes must be made. These changes are:
a. Location of the building an additional three feet westerly of the easterly
property line to comply with the required 20-foot building setback.
b. Reduction of the building floor area to comply with the parking ratio required
and space available on the site.
c. Addition of landscape screening along and inside the westerly portion of the
property.
d. Revision of the landscape plan to provide adequate wildlife habitat mitigation.
Of major impact upon the site plan is the decision regarding landscaping along the
westerly property line. If it is required and if it must be located within the
applicant's property, several parking stalls will be lost along the westerly portion
of the property. This will require revision of the site plan to attempt to make up
for the loss of parking stalls. The resultant number of parking stalls will
determine the amount of area allowed within the building.
2. Within Exhibit #1 was provided an excerpt from the adopted zoning map which indicates
that the subject site is almost entirely surrounded by M-P zoning, except for
approximately the westerly 160 to 200 feet. Along the entire westerly perimeter of
the site is located a railroad spur and right-of-way. Immediately westerly of the
railroad right-of-way is the G-zoned Earlington Golf Course.
Page 6 of the Green River Valley Comprehensive Plan (June, 1976) states:
A landscaped buffer should be established. . .between areas of incompatible
land use to minimize differences. . .
Page 7 includes the following objective:
Large amounts of landscaping scattered throughout the site including
along property lines are encouraged to provide a pleasant environment,
minimize the impact of the development and enhance the visual experience
from the adjacent properties, including hillsides.
The record does not clearly establish that the proposed M-P use is incompatible
with the adjacent private recreation facility or northwesterly vacant M-P property.
Clouding the issue is the intervening railroad right-of-way. However, it appears
that while the three land uses may not be entirely incompatible, landscaping per
the aforegoing objectives would appropriately serve to lessen any incompatibility
that might occur. Certainly the railroad use may on infrequent and short duration
basis more directly and adversely impact the three land uses. But it seems that
the intent is clear in the Comprehensive Plan to reduce impacts through landscaping
as much as possible. Therefore, in this instance the landscaping will serve to
reduce the impact of the proposal upon the recreation use and vacant M-P property
and of the railroad upon the proposal.
Adequate landscaping is necessary along the westerly property line. It is not
SA-324-79 Page Four
reasonable that this landscaping be provided on the railroad property since the
applicant is introducing additional impact into the area via the proposal. In the
normal and reasonable application of zoning regulatins and land use principles the
landscaping that is required should be provided on the site.
T e amount of landscaping or its dimension is not specified in Section 4-730 (M-P) ,
t erefore, the Examiner must interpret the Comprehensive Plan. It appears reasonable
t. require a minimum of five feet of continuous landscaping and screening along at
1-ast 200 feet of the westerly property line and less dense landscaping along the
r-mainder of the property line until it merges with the easterly property line. (The
westerly property line curves northerly to intersect the easterly property line.)
S reening-type landscaping along the westerly 200 feet will reduce visual impacts
f om and upon the proposal. Less dense landscaping along the remaining portion of
t e arched westerly property line will enhance the aesthetics of the proposal as
v'ewed from the northerly M-P zoned property and northerly hillside.
3. Staff should review the total landscaping plan, as revised by this decision, for
pfroviding adequate wildlife habitat mitigation. Since this determination involves
bbth area and types of landscaping, the Planning Department possesses the appropriate
ekpertise for this decision.
4. D e to the requirement for additional on-site landscaping in Conclusion No. 2, the
s'te plan will need to be revised. Very little flexibility appears available on
t e site since the proposal actually oversaturates the site with parking and building
i excess of zoning requirements. Changes that can be made will no doubt be confined
to the southwesterly corner of the site to as much as possible make up the loss of
parking along the westerly property line and comply with Chapter 22. Also of
nlecessity will be consideration of the resultant loss of building area. While the
needed changes very closely approach requiring resubmittal of the revised landscape
and site plan, it appears that the Planning Department can adequately review these
plans for conformance with this decision. If staff encounters difficulty or lack
of clarity in enforcing this decision, the plans can be submitted to the Examiner
flor review outside of a public hearing to determine if a public hearing is required.
Furthermore, if more than the southwesterly corner of the site is substantially
changed the revised site plan should automatically be resubmitted for review in a
public hearing by the Examiner.
5. The applicant should submit details of screening of roof-top mechanical equipment
for review and approval of the Planning Department for conformance with the Green
River Valley Comprehensive Plan. These details were not submitted into the record.
6. Specific details of conformance with the Uniform Fire Code and other ordinances
and regulations applicable to the building permit will be adequately reviewed in
the permit process.
DECII ON:
Approval of the proposal subject to review and approval of a revised site plan to be
submitted by the applicant per Conclusions No. 1 through and including 4. Particular
emphasis is given to the criteria for the Department's determination of whether or not
the revised site plan is to be resubmitted to the Examiner. This decision is predicated
upon approval of the State Flood Zone Control Permit by King County. In addition,
roof-top mechanical equipment screening details are to be reviewed and approved by the
Planning Department for compliance with the Green River Valley Comprehensive Plan.
ORDERED THIS 1st day of May, 1979.7
41111910i
L. R c' Beeler
Land Use Hearing Examiner
TRANSMITTED THIS 1st day of May, 1979 by Affidavit of Mailing to the party
df record:
Eugene Horbach, 550 S.W. 7th Street, Renton, WA 98055
r
SA-324-79 Page Five
TRANSMITTED THIS 1st day of May, 1979 to the following:
Mayor Charles J. Delaurenti
Councilman Richard M. Stredicke
Warren C. Gonnason, Public Works Director
Gordon Y. Ericksen, Planning Director
Ron Nelson, Building Division
Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney
Pursuant to Title IV, Section 3015 of the City's Code, request for reconsideration must
be filed in writing on or before May 15, 1979. 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.
RECEIVED
CITY OF RENTON
HEARING EXAMINER
PLANNING DEPARTMENT APR 2 4 1979
PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINERAM PM
7,8,9,10,11112,1,2,3,4,5,E
PUBLIC HEARING
APRIL 24 , 1979
APPLICANT : CENTRAL PUGET , INC . EXHIBIT ~
FILE NO : SA-324-79
ITEM NO. 5 ,2 79
A . SUMMARY AND PURPOSE OF REQUEST :
The applicant seeks site plan approval for a 60,000 square foot
two-story office building over parking at 550 S .W . 7th Street in
the M-P Zone . (Site Development Map Attached )
B . GENERAL INFORMATION :
1 . Owner of Record :CENTRAL PUGET , INC .
2 . Applicant : CENTRAL PUGET , INC .
3 . Location : 550 S .W. 7th (Vicinity Map
Attached )
4. Legal Description : A detailed legal description is
available on file in the
Renton Planning Department .
5 . Size of Property : 2 acres
6. Access : Via S .W. 7th
7 . Existing Zoning : M-P . Manufacturing Park
8 . Existing Zoning in the Area : M-P , Manufacturing Park ; "G" ,
General Classification District.
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 Record Chronicle on April
13 , 1979 and posted in
three places on or near the site
as required by City ordinance on
April 11 , 1979 .
C . HISTORY/BACKGROUND :
The subject site was annexed into the City by Ordinance #1745
dated April 14 , 1959 . The current M-P zoning was adopted by
Ordinance #2205 on January 17 , 1976 .
D . PHYSICAL BACKGROUND :
1 . Topography : The site is essentially level .
2 . Soils : Urban land (Ur) . The erosion hazard is slight to
moderate . No capability or woodland classification .
3 . Vegetation : The site consists principally of scrub grass and
a few blackberry bushes .
4 . Wildlife : Existing vegetation on the site may provide suitable
habitat for birds and small mammals .
5 . Water : No surface water was observed on the subject site .
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER
PUBLIC HEARING : CENTRAL PUGET , INC . File No : SA-324-79
APRIL 24, 1979
PAGE TWO
6 . Land Use : The site itself is presently undeveloped . Adjacent
properties are either existing or developing industrial park
uses , with the Earlington Golf Course to the west .
NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTERISTICS :
The site is within the Earlington Industrial Park .
F . PUBLIC SERVICES :
1 . Water and Sewer: A 12" water main extends north-south along
Powell Avenue S .W. and a second 12" main runs east-west on
S . W. 10th Street . A 24" sanitary sewer runs north-south on
Powell Avenue S . W. and an 8" sewer extends east-west on S . W .
10th Street .
2 . Fire Protection : Provided by the Renton Fire Department in
accordance with ordinance requirements .
3 . Transit : Metro Transit Route #240 and 161 operate along S . W.
Grady Way to the south of the subject site .
4. Schools : Not Applicable .
5 . Parks : Not Applicable .
G . APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE ZONING CODE :
1 . Section 4-730 , Manufacturing Park .
H . APPLICATIONS SECTIONS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OR OTHER
OFFICIAL CITY DOCUMENT :
1 . Green River Comprehensive Plan , June 1976 .
I . IMPACT ON THE NATURAL OR HUMAN ENVIRONMENT :
1 . Natural Systems : Minimal .
2 . Population/Employment : Employment for this building is estimated
at 264 persons (4 . 4 employees/1 ,000 sq . ft . times 60 ,000 sq . ft) .
3. Schools : Not Applicable .
4 . Social : Not Applicable .
5 . Traffic : The proposed development will generate approximately
1 , 230 trips per day (653+9. 63/1 ,000 sq . ft . times 60 ,000 sq . ft) .
1 , 230 trips will increase traffic on S . W . 7th from 3 ,383 trips
to 4 ,613 trips , a 36% increase .
J . ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT/THRESHOLD DETERMINATION :
Pursuant to the City of Renton ' s Environmental Ordinance and the
State Environmental Policy Act of 1971 , as amended , a declaration of
negative impact has been issued for the subject proposal . This
declaration is further based on the provision of suitable landscaping ,
screening , and other development standards which reduce visual and
other impacts of the development and are consistent with M-P zone
standards and Comprehensive Plan objectives .
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER
PUBLIC HEARING : CENTRAL PUGET , INC . File No : SA-324-79
APRIL 27 , 1979
PAGE THREE
K. AGENCIES/DEPARTMENTS 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 .
L . PLANNING DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS :
1 . The applicant proposes to construct a 60 ,000 square foot
two-story office over parking on 2± acres in an area zoned
M-P , Manufacturing Park . The proposed use is consistent with
both the zoning and comprehensive plan designations of Manufacturin
Park .
2 . The parking requirements for the proposed building is 1 space
per 200 square feet , or 282 spaces (57 ,000 square feet : 200 ) .
The submitted site plan indicates a total of 279 spaces which
would allow a building of 55 ,800 square feet . The proposed buildin!
must be reduced to 55 ,800 square feet to comply with the
Parking and Loading Ordinance .
3 . The proposed development provides the required 10 ' landscaped
setback , and the minimum 60 ' building setback from S . W . 7th
Street. The building is located within 17 ' ± from the east
property line which is less than the minimum 20 ' sideyard . The
building can be shifted slightly to the west to conform to
the side yard building setback . This will place the building
within 10 ' ± of west property line which is a railroad spur track .
No setback is specified for property lines adjoining railroad
rights-of-ways .
4. The proposed site plan indicates 5250 square feet of on-site
landscaping . The Parking and Loading Ordinance required 5% of
the paved area to be landscaped (4450 square feet ) and Res .
1923 requires 2% of the total site (1950 square feet) to be
landscaped for wildlife habitat preservation . This additional
landscaping is required .
Further, the Green River Valley Comprehensive Plan sets forth
under objectives :
Landscaping and Open Space -
A landscap ( ing ) . . . . should be established to
provide habitat for wildlife and to promote aesthetics .
e A landscaped buffer should be established . . . .
to create a favorable imaoe4 between areas of
incompatible land use to minimize differences ;
Under site objects :
Parking -
e Adequate screened and landscaped parking should be
provided for employees and visitors .
o Large interior landscaping islands or a series of
smaller parking lots should be used to breack up the
large areas of paving .
Landscaping and Open Space -
o Large amounts of landscaping scattered throughout the
site including along property lines are encouraged to
provide a pleasant environment , minimize the impact of
the development and enhance the visual experience from
the adjacent properties , including hillsides .
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER
PUBLIC HEARING : CENTRAL PUGET , INC . File No : SA-324-79
APRIL 27 , 1979
PAGE FOUR
Based upon these objectives , the proposed development should
provide a landscaped separation from the railroad spur , and
provide adequate landscaping to provide visual enhancement
to the building and grounds from the Earlington Woods
residential development on the hill to the north . The applicant
proposes to provide these areas through a 5 ' landscaping
easement along the railroad spur . Although the easement concept
meets the general objective of screening the site , it has the
disadvantage of increasing the intensity of use of the subject
site (both building area and paved surfaces ) . Since the railroad
spur will always be undeveloped space , the benefit of the
landscaping easement accrues to the applicant and not to the
general public . Verticle evergreen trees should be incorporated
in the landscape design to visually lower building height .
4: The exterior building materials are unspecified , however ,
the submitted elevation sketch depicts a finish which would be
generally compatible with the M-P District and Green River
Valley Comprehensive Plan requirements .
4,,5. The Engineering Division indicates that :
a . Off-site improvements including curb , gutter , sidewalk ,
storm drainage , paving and street lighting are required on
S . W . 7th abutting the site .
b . Storm water retention/detention is required with on-
site improvements .
1i. The Fire Department advises that the development must meet
fire flow and fire hydrant requirements , emergency vehicle
access , and Uniform Fire Code requirements . The Fire Department
also indicates that the proposed building access is not acceptable .
i J. The Utility Engineering Division notes that water service
plans must be reviewed and approved and that standard fee charges
will apply .
98'. A Flood Zone Control Permit is required for the subject
development .
0)9 . Other comments are attached for consideration .
M . DEPARTMENTAL RECOMMENDATIONS :
Based upon the above analysis , recommend approval , subject to the
following conditions :
1 . Revision of the site plan to reflect :
a . Provision of all landscaped areas within the subjectsite .
b . Reduction in total building area to conform to the reduced
parking (building area not to exceed 200 sq . ft . per parking
space ) .
c . Revision of building locations to meet the minimum 20 '
side yard building setback (east property line ) .
d . Revised access per Fire Department review and approval .
e . Revision of the landscape plan per Planning Department approval
to include vertical evergreen trees per analysis #4 .
2 . Approval by the Public Works Department for plans of all
public improvements in accordance with City codes and ordinances .
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER
PUBLIC HEARING : CENTRAL PUGET , INC . File No ; SA-324-79
APRIL 27 , 1979
PAGE FIVE
3 . Planning Department review and approval of screening
for roof top equipment and trash enclosures .
4 . Approval of a state Flood Zone Control Permit by King County
Hydraulics and Department of Ecology .
6.11
6
1
i IP.
Olij•46
N , , ,
A
isAiNieArIP1"
Afiitel;4
I list
4,•. .
4
1
r.:.,.• -
i
1
4:
iiiii
I
ip .... 4
t• ti
e.
4
a .•
r Li.
or: „ 4r.. , ..-•.. , 5, -'
6. I. 6:.• 1 ...-•!.: '
0
1:-...•-•45.4,r .t.
vp_5 to
1....... 1 r- !.;4 i semsommimm
4:
liFtn, 1.1410''.ft!,tifi• •". F4 II
rP
1-4.r
Ai".
OttY ARS...X.• !..'',,,i! "1--Lis 4.1 e. :" F
rt - r.A,:...r.; Ay...,LA
I
ir,1,..... uZi. _.•s...f.op
z +00154 0 a
witikt, pviirc 04901144
t'fc
I ', P+ f i-7i irIt 1 rLNO5-all I Q-
NI
4.4 , .iii,
f .- R-Zr' I NI ,
i.-- - Ili . oblef • __LI.'- .:_,,-!, T,""•Cilillit ,, 1.7...op, , •
FR
I i•
a /
i
A . 0
04,/ 7-.- - I,,.'.' 0,
7.7 +...Trit rf t___ ,, ' T ' I )
l• I
4 , 1,"of.44,-, 1,„ ..„# -,_. . 4.,,,./. ,-0, ,-,-, ;._!::.___ -.---_ __
I______r—--- ..---' - -....,‘ o' 4). ,,V ifit g ''• .1I NI A ' , , :"•:-- !• j ,-.•.
r iS1., `
fir r t •111111°Ali \ e,t,
O
4,,,,,,,.:
G, ,C
SET DCVO
i, ,,.
r,
Z4, ,
i:: _.•.le f vsa
44.4,, ,
I, ..• ' .111., IP.ti /
i., . OW!
4\•
s
s
acci - ".. !.. . k .1„,..Ni i Et,-
alealw- _.m.-;:,-..
101r---:--
11-!-.°:- :
Ai
44*-
4,144&-- -**'°•‘!"" _,_... S I
70` Sul3,ec.T I
I SITE !G s_Iv 7771 —J I
74;,1;..‘,. ! ......[,..._.___it._''''' _ :
I,: 2----
I
i ----I-Iii
N
1
p P t:a 2
R p
c:., N: ',:
i.'''''‘' -
P 1
p' 1 IIIUllllgllU ., I
C `` R In IIIIIII IIIINiIII
N
I , I L
N A •IIIIIN JIIIII11' . 1 001#7'
iALNCRylluii.
RNORM . • N1119, II ( Icy C z I yIJpl
ml 110 'III i, -
Clot...ToNpl.' i di • m,
p p Nh Ji
3'lit 11...)1111SulI dll/
IIIIII` h ,y I >.
NI
I
J Mil
s\\. —
T iii. )'\,.._.../ //ji: --IL -- g
Aar - 1111 if.: ipiim. _, mi.4.77.. 'la. rem:,.... _.-"1"- im PI_Low
7- ,,,.\.‘"
A uI Y!l1Vs
CENTRAL PUGET
SA-324-79
APPLICANT CENTRAL PUGET, INC. TOTAL AREA ±2 acres
PRINCIPAL ACCESS Via S.W. 7th Street
E X I S1 l NG ZONING
M-P, Manufacturing Park
EXISTING USE Presently undeveloped
PROPOSED USE
Two story office building
COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN__
Manufacturing Park
COMMENTS
i
rsrs:.-".,eau,c+m.amr-••----s-c s,:........— .,..
r_-.ar s........... . ......... . .
ROUTING SCHEDULE FOR APPLICATION
TO : O Finance Department
8 Fire Department
Library Department
OPark Department
Police Department
O Public Works Department
Building Div.
OEngineering Div . (Please verify legal description )
Traffic Engineering Div .F)Utilities Engineering Div .
FROM: Planning Department , ( signed by responsible official or
his
dei4io
ee )
e eectvaiATE : ,4Ø/
PLEASE REVIEW THIS APPLICATION FOR :
APPLICANT : 4Al 'd/' ,'
LOCATION : 510 f . 7e..4
APPLICATION(S) : 4f &f U,y i'r,,4% 4,00,f1 WY
IN ORDER TO BE INCLUDED IN THE REPORT TO THE HEARING E IN ,
RETURN ANY COMMENTS TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT BY : 4f /N
REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS :
Department :c(- A ) (-
EZIApproved r] Not Approved
Comments or conditions :
0/7//
I ,- . 7c_t
Signature director or Authorized Representative Date
f.
REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS :
Department :
Approved Not Approved ,uS,— /r4-&;— /.=?'L fe --,
Comments or conditions : qu,fi.Yex;—S• , />,?.e //w.3,e- T ,"t- e
1I_-,, /,,t3 ess /-i iv Gz"rl-L SS A-5 I f//2C' e.iy'ii9c /Pc 4 u/` 5
itiS ,11_,0 /•,e /i Y/.)2 i3' 7, !/c ,.5% ',,,,
aiZ /,
r o t, c:7/i s r- _> z /--r-y t s72&ec -/ic,s-cam , i`-7u S-% A-i -; G7 Vic:
i P/4..<r t2d i"1e. -?S ice/` Ocr_ca r-3,fl,--c y iy/'G . /0 0 a s:6 a /4fl cs S i'-S rcz.,(-)d-s.C'
ri/
z _
e-;- ri-cc_(.1,,r,;-"3 e-2.,:--- /
c ice
c /.7 %
Signature Director or Aut orized epresentative Date
REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS :
Department :
Approved Not Approved
Comments or conditions :
i
Signature of Director or uthorizedlepresentTtiv ; Date
REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS :
Department : Ur1LIV
Approved 1:=3 Not Approved
Comments or conditions :
c„;,4 JL't7 Apio,t&N'V) Z 2 lit/a.,i S tam F.& N.:0/ 1( r lzcz .'i41.'iu'
S,rS31st1- 1 T-/5k1 FT ,rTc•2_ a- 14. /soar SLR-Cit_
4' 3/79
Signature of Di ector or Authorized Representative ate
REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS :
Depa tment : 7a ill F4'11 HE 1 \
JApprovedCZ] Not Approve
Comme s or conditions :
co{. L 7
Signature of Director or Authorized Representative G9 Date
ROUTI NG FOR REVIEW OF ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORMS
TO : O Finance Department
IIIFire
Department
Library Department
Park Department
Police Department
Q Public Works Department
Building Div .
Engineering Div .
OTraffic Engineering Div .
0 Utilities Engineering Div .
FROM: Planning Department , ( signed by responsible official or his
designee ) 42,L4LMeVI_
e_ 0 /
71 ; A l ication No . : ', .. W.'"7,
SUBJECT : Review of ECF- Pp
Action Name : __4,dy.
5jrt2 49 'uz/- a¢-ie
Please review the attached . Review requested by (date) : dorm I
Note : Responses to be written in ink .
REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS :
Department :
SIGNIFICANT IX,NON SIGNIFICANT
Comments :
C 7
Signaturg p Director or A thorized Representative Date
REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS :
r
Department : 7- / (`__
SIGNIFICANT I/ NON SIGNIFICANT
Comments : G
c,.vr e- /1 '/' '/c.7
Signature of Director or Authoriz epresentative
ROUTING FOR REVIEW OF ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORMS
TO: O Finance Department
IIIFire
Department
Library Department
Park Department
olice Department
Public Works Department
BW Iding Div .8/e
Engineering Div .
OTraffic Engineering Div .
0 Utilities Engineering Div .
FROM: Planning Department , (signed by responsible official or his
ie
design e )
6-efhe 0rl
Application No . : ,I 0 '7
SUBJECT : Review of ECF-
Action Name :
e 1
5512 // ' /Pd— fie¢-71
Please review the attached . Review requested by (date) : igpriv 1____ _ ____ _
REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS :
Department : 1 i,-4tc„r, „
SIGNIFICANT NON SIGNIFICANT
Comments :
Signature of Director or Authorized epresentat}ive Date
REVIEW 3Y OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS :
Department : UPL«y
SIGNIFICANT NON SIGNIFICANT
Comments :
0Vti -
413/7;
Signature of Direc or or Authorized Representative ate
REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS :1/ . L:- cp , , , Eci- ;21Department :_ ___ _ /7" `— e
J
SIGNIFICANT NON SIGNIFICANT
Comments :
2. ;e / -------f-.- e
V/V2 2
n„thnri7Pd Representative
Date
PROPOSED/FINAL DECLARATION OF SIGNIFICANCE/NON-SIGNIFICANCE
Application No . SA-324-79 0 PROPOSED Declaration
Environmental Checklist No . ECF-446-79 FINAL Declaration
Description of proposal Site Plan approval for a 60,000 square foot two-story office
building over parking at 550 S.W. 7th in the M-P Zone.
Proponent CENTRAL PUGET, INC.
Location of Proposal 550 S.W. 7th Street (In Earlington Industrial Park)
Lead Agency CITY OF RENTON PLANNING DEPARTMENT
This proposal has been determined to 0 have ® not have a
significant adverse impact upon the environment . An EIS is
is not required under RCW 43 . 21C . 030 ( 2 ) (c ) . This decision was
made after review by the lead agency of a completed environmental
checklist and other information on file with the lead agency .
non
Reasons for declaration of environmental /significance : A declaration of
negative impact has been issued for the subject proposal . This declaration .is further base
on the provision of suitable landscaping, screening, and other development standards which
reduce visual and other impacts of the development and are consistent with M-P Zone
standards and Comprehensive Plan objectives.
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 PL' or G i ' CP' _do/ Date APRIL 18,1979
Signature f
City of Renton
Planning Department
5-76
OF R4,4
a ,; o THE CITY OF RENTON
o 0 MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE.50. RENTON,WASH.98055
CHARLES J. DELAURENTI MAYOR o PLANNING DEPARTMENT
P"°
o
co. 235- 2550
P
4.
4TE0 SEP1°
4-
April 12 , 1979
Central Puget , Inc .
550 S . d . 7th Street
Renton , Washington 98055
RE : NOTICE OF APPLICATION ACCEPTANCE
AND PUBLIC HEARING DATE FOR APPLICATION FOR SITE APPROVAL IN
LM ZONE ; FILE NO : SA- 324- 79 ; property located in Earlington
Industrial Park .
Dear Sirs :
The Renton Planning Department formally accepted the above
mentioned application on March 26 , 1979 A public
hearing before the City of Renton Hearing Examiner has been
set for April 24 , 1979 at 9 : 00 am
Rerresentaives of the applicant are asked to be present .
All interested persons are invited to attend the hearing .
If you hove any further questions , please call the Renton
Planning Department , 235-2550 .
Very truly yours ,
Gordon Y . Ericksen
Planning Director)//
7-
B y: ( >
i/0/E/ei4
David R . C emens ,
Associate Planner
cc : John Rushmore & Associates , Architects
206 J . S . Ditty Building
Bellevue , Washington 98004
CITY OF RENTON OFCREN?
o
APPLICATION a , NU)
v
SITE APPROVAL MAR 26 19W
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
10FileNo. SA- 3 - Filing Date9'_
Application Fee $ //G, . CC. Receipt No.
Environmental Review Fee $ .&6/ 0O
APPLICANT TO COMPLETE ITEMS 1 THROUGH 6 :
1 . Name Central Puget, Inc. Phone
228-1560
Address 550 S.W. 7th, Renton WA 98055
2 . Property location Earlington Industrial Park
3. Legal description (attach additional sheet if necessary)
Please see attached.
4. Number of acres or square feet 96,819 Present zoning
LM
5 . What do you propose to develop on this property? Office and warehouse
building
6 . The following information shall be submitted with this application :
A. Site and access plan (include setbacks ,
Scale
existing structures , easements , and other
factors limiting development) 1" = 10 ' or 20 '
B. Parking, landscaping and screening plan . . . . 1" = 10 '
C. Vicinity map (include land use and zoning
on adjacent parcels) 1" = 200 ' to 800 '
D. Building height and area (existing and proposed)
7. LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER ACTION :
Date Approved
Date Denied
Date Appealed
Appeal Action
Remarks
Planning Dept .
Rev, 1 -77
AFFIDAVIT
I ,Central Puget, Inc. 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 29th day of January 1979 ,
Notary Public in and for the State of((
Washington, residing at JegZ77'
1 A-PL;4a t-t-a.„'„4a P46 ;
Nam of Nota y Public) S gna re of Owner)
8- r're. it-az/ / . n/ 550 S .W, 7th
Address) Address)
Renton WA 98055
City) State)
22R-15h
Telephone)
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY)
CERTIFICATION
This is to certify that the foregoing application ha een'iaspected by me
and has been found to be thorough and complete in ytpart,ic ar and to
conform to the rules and regulations of the Rento P nhg, D'e tment
governing the filing of such application . a ` ', -,
U 2d6 1919
Date Received 19 By:
Ni',NGDs ON
Renton Planning Dept .
2-73
CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON
fisRIEQENVIRONMENTALCHECKLISTFORM
MAR 26 jg7v
Is 11.
iF
we
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
G DEPn
Application No.
Environmental Checklist No.
PROPOSED, date: FINAL, date:
Declaration of Significance Declaration of Significance
Declaration of Non-Significance Ei 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 propcsal . 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 (/LT%Lt
J j/V
2. Address and phone number of Proponent:
5.-se, psi 7 ' oEA ' ear,
3. Date Checklist submitted 7e,
4. Agency requiring Checklist / 4, A.//t, - 4 /
5. Name of proposal , if applicable:
E7 4 'L,4.'LTv4,r //%
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) :
Cr(c t ZC//f L' r 7, e' e /
351 30_ 2-
S,A
ee LbV 'of pkdp sal (describe the physical setting of the proposal , as well
as the extent oft he land area affected by any environmental impacts, including
0, evWAformi ion needed to give an accurate understanding of the environ-
m'ttal setting oT the proposal ) :
Cr
t. .'. ice` - - it) /41z). -i c- 7 f Gi E.s : /r ,'77
8. Estimated date for completion of the proposal :
422Y /97,'
9. List of all permits , licenses or government approvals required for the proposal
federal , state and local --including rezones) :
4/
1‘' /
3?i/
10. Do you have any plans for future additions , expansion, or further activity
related to or connected with this proposal? If yes , explain:
ll. Do you know of any plans by others which may affect the property covered by
your proposal? If yes, explain:
2. 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:
Ai err/
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 NO—
d) The destruction, covering or modification of any
unique geologic or physical features?
V- MAYBE N5—
e) Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils ,
either on or off the site?
YES M YBE NO
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?
V— MAYBE 0—
Explanation:
3-
2) Air. Will the proposal result in:
a) Air emissions or deterioration of ambient air
quality?
YES MAYBE iU
b) The creation of objectionable odors?
YTS— MAYBE WU—
c) Alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature,
or any change in climate, either locally or
regionally?
U
va- MAYBE 0—
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?
YES MAYBE NV
b) Changes in absorption rates , drainage patterns , or
the rate and amount of surface water runoff?
YES CBE NO
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?
Y€S 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 M
f Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of
ground waters?
YET— MAYBE
g) Change in the quantity of ground waters , either
through direct additions or withdrawals , or through
interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations?
L
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?Ym MAYBE NO
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 MST NO
t ) Reduction of the numbers of any unique , rare or
endangered species of flora?
YE3T MAYBE NO
Introduction of new species of flora into an area, or
in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing
species?
PEA— MAYBE WO—
c) Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop?
YEy Mr NO
E;.pl anati on:
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)?t
Y E NO
b) Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or
endangered species of fauna?L/
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 NU-
d) Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? 1/7-
YET- MAYBE N
Explanation:
6) Noise. Will the proposal increase existing noise levels?
YES MAYBE No--
Explanation:
7) Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or L/
glare?
YES MAYBE NT-
Explanation:
8) Land Use. Will the proposal result in the alteration of the
present or planned land use of an area?v
YES M NO
Explanation:
9) Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in:
a) Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources?
YES MAYBE NO /
b) Depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource?
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?
V- MBE N
Explanation:
11) Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distri-
bution, density, or growth rate of the human population
of an area?
VT MAYBE 0-
Explanation:
5-
1?) Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or
create a demand for additional housing?
YES MAYBE NO
Explanation:
13) Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in:
a) Generation of additional vehicular movement?F/
YES MAYBE NO
b) Effects on existing parking facilities , or demand
for new parking?
YES MAYBE NO
c) Impact upon existing transportation systems?
YES— MAYBE (TO--
Id) Alterations to present patterns of circulation or
movement of people and/or goods? 1/
YE MAYBE NO
e) Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic?
Yam— RATTE NO
f) Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles ,
bicyclists or pedestrians?
yr MAYBE Fib
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? L/
r
YES MAYBE
b) Police protection? G''
YES MAYBE NO
c) Schools?
YES MAYBE NO/
d) Parks or other recreational facilities? i.
YES MAYBE NO
e) Maintenance of public facilities , including roads? G/
YES MAYBE NO
f) Other governmental services?
YES MMAYbE NO
Explanation:
15) Energy. Will the proposal result in :
a) Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy?
YES MAYBE Fir
b) Demand upon existing sources of energy, or require fthedevelopmentofnewsourcesofenergy?
YET— MAYBE 0—
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 M YBE NO
b) Communications systems?
YES RATITE NO
c) Water?
YES MAYBE NO
6-
d) Sewer or septic tanks?
YES MAYBE NO
e) Storm water drainage?
VAS
f) Solid waste and disposal? O/
YES MAYBE NO
Explanation:
17) Human Health. Will the proposal result in the creation of
any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding
mental health)?
YES MAYBE ND--
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? f
YES MAYBE NO
Explanation:
19) Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the
quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities?L
YES- MAYBE W
Explanation:
20) Archeological/Historical . Will the proposal result in an
alteration of a significant archeological or historical
site, structure, object or building?
E- 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: JA6 4
ned)/
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 ,
WASHINCTON , ON APRIL 24 19 79 , AT 9 : 00 A. M. TO CONSIDER
THE FOLLOWING PETITIONS :
1 . CENTRAL PUGET , INC. ; APPLICATION FOR SITE
APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT OFFICE/WAREHOUSE BUILDING
IN M- P ZONE , File SA-324-79 ; property located on
S . W . 7th St . , west of Hormel Company , in Earlington
Industrial Park .
2 . GLIEGE CORPORATION FOR RENTON MEDICAL JOINT
VENTURE ; APPLICATION FOR SITE APPROVAL TO
CONSTRUCT TWO MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDINGS ( RENTON
MEDICAL CENTER) IN P- 1ZONE , File SA- 325-79 ;
property located in the vicinity of 3713 Talbot
Road South immediately south of South 37th Street .
Legal descriptions of all applications noted above
are on file in the Renton Plaining Department .
ALL INTERESTED ' PERSONS TO SAID PETITIONS ARE INVITED TO BE PRESENT AT
THE PUBLIC HEARING ON APRIL 24 , 1979 AT 9 : 00 A . M. TO
EXPRESS THEIR OPINIONS .
GORDON Y . ERICKSEN
PUBLISHED April 13 , 1979 RENTON PLANNING DIRECTOR
CERTIFICATION
I . STEVE MUNSON 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_ 11thday of April
19 79 . SIGNED GGyr ,
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER
PUBLIC HEARING
APRIL 24 , 1979
APPLICANT : CENTRAL PUGET , INC .
FILE NO : SA-324-79
A . SUMMARY AND PURPOSE OF REQUEST :
The applicant seeks site plan approval for a 60 ,000 square foot
two-story office building over parking at 550 S . W . 7th Street in
the M-P Zone . (Site Development Map Attached )
B . GENERAL INFORMATION :
1 . Owner of Record :CENTRAL PUGET , INC .
2 . Applicant : CENTRAL PUGET , INC .
3 . Location : 550 S . W . 7th (Vicinity Map
Attached )
4. Legal Description : A detailed legal description is
available on file in the
Renton Planning Department.
5 . Size of Property : 2 acres
6. Access : Via S . W . 7th
7 . Existing Zoning :M-P . Manufacturing Park
8. Existing Zoning in the Area : M-P , Manufacturing Park ; "G" ,
General Classification District.
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 Record Chronicle on April
13 , 1979 and posted in
three places on or near the site
as required by City ordinance on
April 11 , 1979 .
C . HISTORY/BACKGROUND :
The subject site was annexed into the City by Ordinance #1745
dated April 14 , 1959 . The current M-P zoning was adopted by
Ordinance #2205 on January 17 , 1976 .
D . PHYSICAL BACKGROUND :
1 . Topography : The site is essentially level .
2 . Soils : Urban land (Ur ) . The erosion hazard is slight to
moderate . No capability or woodland classification .
3 . Vegetation : The site consists principally of scrub grass and
a few blackberry bushes .
4 . Wildlife : Existing vegetation on the site may provide suitable
habitat for birds and small mammals .
5 . Water : No surface water was observed on the subject site .
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER
PUBLIC HEARING : CENTRAL PUGET , INC . File No : SA-324-79
APRIL 24 , 1979
PAGE TWO
6 . Land Use : The site itself is presently undeveloped . Adjacent
properties are either existing or developing industrial park
uses , with the Earlington Golf Course to the west .
E . NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTERISTICS :
The site is within the Earlington Industrial Park .
F. PUBLIC SERVICES :
1 . Water and Sewer : A 12" water main extends north-south along
Powell Avenue S . W . and a second 12" main runs east-west on
S . W. 10th Street. A 24" sanitary sewer runs north-south on
Powell Avenue S . W. and an 8" sewer extends east-west on S . W .
10th Street .
2 . Fire Protection : Provided by the Renton Fire Department in
accordance with ordinance requirements .
3 . Transit : Metro Transit Route #240 and 161 operate along S . W.
Grady Way to the south of the subject site .
4. Schools : Not Applicable .
5 . Parks : Not Applicable .
G . APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE ZONING CODE :
1 . Section 4-730 , Manufacturing Park .
H . APPLICATIONS SECTIONS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OR OTHER
OFFICIAL CITY DOCUMENT :
1 . Green River Comprehensive Plan , June 1976 .
I . IMPACT ON THE NATURAL OR HUMAN ENVIRONMENT :
1 . Natural Systems : Minimal .
2. Population/Employment : Employment for this building is estimated
at 264 persons (4 . 4 employees/1 ,000 sq . ft . times 60 ,000 sq . ft) .
3. Schools : Not Applicable .
4 . Social : Not Applicable .
5 . Traffic : The proposed development will generate approximately
1 , 230 trips per day (653+9 , 63/1 ,000 sq . ft . times 60 ,000 sq . ft) .
1 , 230 trips will increase traffic on S . W. 7th from 3 , 383 trips
to 4 ,613 trips , a 36% increase .
J . ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT/THRESHOLD DETERMINATION :
Pursuant to the City of Renton ' s Environmental Ordinance and the
State Environmental Policy Act of 1971 , as amended , a declaration of
negative impact has been issued for the subject proposal . This
declaration is further based on the provision of suitable landscaping ,
screening , and other development standards which reduce visual and
other impacts of the development and are consistent with M-P zone
standards and Comprehensive Plan objectives .
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER
PUBLIC HEARING : CENTRAL PUGET , INC , File No : SA-324-79
APRIL 27 , 1979
PAGE THREE
K. AGENCIES/DEPARTMENTS 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.
L . PLANNING DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS :
1 . The applicant proposes to construct a 60 ,000 square foot
two-story office over parking on 2± acres in an area zoned
M-P , Manufacturing Park . The proposed use is consistent with
both the zoning and comprehensive plan designations of Manufacturinc
Park .
2 . The parking requirements for the proposed building is 1 space
per 200 square feet , or 282 spaces (57 ,000 square feet : 200) .
The submitted site plan indicates a total of 279 spaces which
would allow a building of 55 ,800 square feet. The proposed buildinc
must be reduced to 55 ,800 square feet to comply with the
Parking and Loading Ordinance .
3 . The proposed development provides the required 10 ' landscaped
setback , and the minimum 60 ' building setback from S . W . 7th
Street. The building is located within 17 ' ± from the east
property line which is less than the minimum 20 ' sideyard . The
building can be shifted slightly to the west to conform to
the side yard building setback . This will place the building
within 10 ' ± of west property line which is a railroad spur track .
No setback is specified for property lines adjoining railroad
rights-of-ways .
4. The proposed site plan indicates 5250 square feet of on-site
landscaping . The Parking and Loading Ordinance required 5% of
the paved area to be landscaped (4450 square feet ) and Res .
1923 requires 2% of the total site (1950 square feet) to be
landscaped for wildlife habitat preservation . This additional
landscaping is required .
Further , the Green River Valley Comprehensive Plan sets forth
under objectives :
Landscaping and Open Space -
A landscap ( ing ) . . . . should be established to
provide habitat for wildlife and to promote aesthetics .
A landscaped buffer should be established . . . .
to create a favorable imager between areas of
incompatible land use to minimize differences ;
Under site objects :
Parking -
Adequate screened and landscaped parking should be
provided for employees and visitors .
Large interior landscaping islands or a series of
smaller parking lots should be used to breack up the
large areas of paving .
Landscaping and Open Space -
Large amounts of landscaping scattered throughout the
site including along property lines are encouraged to
provide a pleasant environment , minimize the impact of
the development and enhance the visual experience from
the adjacent properties , including hillsides .
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER
PUBLIC HEARING : CENTRAL PUGET , INC , File No : SA-324-79
APRIL 27 , 1979
PAGE FOUR
Based upon these objectives , the proposed development should
provide a landscaped separation from the railroad spur , and
provide adequate landscaping to provide visual enhancement
to the building and grounds from the Earlington Woods
residential development on the hill to the north . The applicant
proposes to provide these areas through a 5 ' landscaping
easement along the railroad spur . Although the easement concept
meets the general objective of screening the site , it has the
disadvantage of increasing the intensity of use of the subject
site (both building area and paved surfaces ) . Since the railroad
spur will always be undeveloped space , the benefit of the
landscaping easement accrues to the applicant and not to the
general public . Verticle evergreen trees should be incorporated
in the landscape design to visually lower building height .
4 . The exterior building materials are unspecified , however ,
the submitted elevation sketch depicts a finish which would be
generally compatible with the M-P District and Green River
Valley Comprehensive Plan requirements .
5 . The Engiheering Division indicates that:
a . Off-site improvements including curb , gutter , sidewalk ,
storm drainage , paving and street lighting are required on
S . W. 7th abutting the site .
b . Storm water retention/detention is required with on-
site improvements .
6. The Fire Department advises that the development must meet
fire flow and fire hydrant requirements , emergency vehicle
access , and Uniform Fire Code requirements . The Fire Department
also indicates that the proposed building access is not acceptable .
7 . The Utility Engineering Division notes that water service
plans must be reviewed and approved and that standard fee charges
will apply .
8. A Flood Zone Control Permit is required for the subject
development .
9 . Other comments are attached for consideration .
M . DEPARTMENTAL RECOMMENDATIONS :
Based upon the above analysis , recommend approval , subject to the
following conditions :
1 . Revision of the site plan to reflect :
a . Provision of all landscaped areas within the subjectsite .
b . Reduction in total building area to conform to the reduced
parking (building area not to exceed 200 sq . ft . per parking
space ) .
c . Revision of building locations to meet the minimum 20 '
side yard building setback (east property line ) .
d . Revised access per Fire Department review and approval .
e . Revision of the landscape plan per Planning Department approval
to include vertical evergreen trees per analysis #4 .
2 . Approval by the Public Works Department for plans of all
public improvements in accordance with City codes and ordinances .
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER
PUBLIC HEARING : CENTRAL PUGET , INC . File No ; SA-324-79
APRIL 27 , 1979
PAGE FIVE
3 . Planning Department review and approval of screening
for roof top equipment and trash enclosures .
4 . Approval of a state Flood Zone Control Permit by King County
Hydraulics and Department of Ecology .
011110$6 1:91?0,3 ov.i.im
bi..--r,4- v ,
No
1.7
v-e-1•19 7...14,7,-"re;
eT-t*
11 NI',11,1 --21-", 9
min 6411111161
11 .1.11.11111.11.
t3 t n' 1-, :
l''
1 ''‘ 'C''' al ri r• ' . t 1 41 cors....4 5_11114 fp0.1111111111111•10 :
1
u-6141': '''''17,4:;Viiiti oa .• y +:1,.. -t.IPts- x"-1,•,,,v-k.
co ‘. '4--1-: 14-4- ... . -ks....
I CI 1 v
3,7 .
4
IS 4.:. . ?4, ir.' Af
4
Pt
j •
I
1-3
1 . e
II t--1--...
1/2
J
I
I
1 1
I
I
Ll
r,
1 i
1
10 i
1 1
4' --:
4--
r i
91.14V
I mM
4:4JWiidtirl 4110111" -
4434 lir 4/4 • d A A"
1
I* 10
4 Mt
i ' '--,•40
I '
ir-
400
lit--- --L--1.4,..p., ..,:.
1• -. S , _,.„:( / 5
11
L..
si ..::
L 3 - -p-_L- -- 3 . _,.., . ,B-11
4 , , • iall1IIftV '.16.0.1.
1141,1/.4' •
i.'' '.•"' . t7--1 C.
4.'a lit 1 77..•,* - - ---- ;, - --,
rw.
r /
s. r
w , •/
ai w. U.
y
r `
G '
I I l
yr
r° 1. . •
ate 0 \ G
vNSET 8LV0
t piroil A \
si,1
N- tit , . !. ;:-,0,7. 2- ' • \ A
44k134wUi-': . •: et., - — &''7.' 4f"..' , 9 .-1
1 , ...... ,.,,,...
I())1°
c‘\,
T —
S uQ1ecT I
SITE
w— —, _ ,ff----7 ,
8,
titi• Alt I
I
F tI 0
I
1..
i
i.j.P.,..,1. ,::, ,...c,.,,...• 1
L-1z
z
1 I
1L______ -,
NAG R. III IIIIIII/!3 IIIINIIIIII'. if
To .I,,I,
4 A L
Rt,,ca . 0110i1'1II '',IIIIIIII oNj1.1 l 1.14.11;j I .•\
a 1
I
III f: =.JA017 S I 1
oil'
ici
4111101611
t. 4111 :•1 IIY° ,..22NLd in1.1
Ri IINII :MhM..11 I% I' lh,.,!11 I
w *
i III Atli'I
140 ,1100_,:-_r1
s•
ic in , I
11111llll, HI 00,• •,,..1 111H1_ 1 ---- --
3/46,
AC"' 1 "-- ---------- .--- =---. :.-. '
so'.- W-IIW. 1-•-•1111"tei it-ii411. • ..' Ili giikliji1111rh- ! m a n ,
I L.
N'.
ter_
CENTRAL PUGET
SA-324-79
1•
APPL 1 CANT
PRINCIPAL
CENTRAL PUGET, INC. TOTAL AREA ±2 acres
ACCESS
E X I S1 ING ZONING
Via S.W. 7th Street
M-P, Manufacturing Park
EXISTING USE Presently undeveloped
1
I,
PROPOSED USE Two story office building
COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN Manufacturing Park
COMMENTS
i
a..'-r.usmaailasarara-.csA.a zz:swa..as=,a<.z- aos.r.m,:v=amn.
ROUTING SCHEDULE FOR APPLICATION
TO : O Finance Department
8 Fire Department
Library Department
OPark Department
OPolice Department
Public Works Department
4) Building Div.
OEngineering Div . (Please verify legal description )
Traffic Engineering Div .I?)Utilities Engineering Div .
FROM: Planning Department , ( signed by responsible official or
his desi nee )
49 4/_,0 leATE : /Ø1
PLEASE REVIEW THIS APPLICATION FOR :
APPLICANT : 6/ad #t
LOCATION : 5 2 J•f(/• 9(.4
APPLICATION(S) : *et 4//d ( 4011gwixel446?"
IN ORDER TO BE INCLUDED IN THE REPORT TO THE HEARING E IN ,
RETURN ANY COMMENTS TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT BY : 1f//
REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS :
Department :l`)C1
S_Approved tm Not Approved
Comments or conditions :
2'-:7 6.71t-------
L/- ". --2( 1
Signature of—Director or Authorized Representative Date
L
REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS :
Department : --/
Approved Not Approved MuS; ,Tc‘--7 %i'Y' Ae.'‘,../
Comments or conditions : r. u,ii.Y x..s , "ii?.. //)-r. i? T J2
i, AvG-e SS MI 4(,--1SS A 5 /°Le j>/-C!' C if r`y`S /Pc Cl cc /ie.E/"f
Otis / .i?7 fr,,ee /, Yia/2irx.-;" 7, !c i 7 p//ems r':.-io "if
l /
4,0 PIj4., i c u> Z /-r-y C.,".s72u c i/c,,yc., . Met S.:;" Ai -7- G7 >c"
F
C.
c WO a sv, /Cl fs S rS ( '.1/''d Cr)E
1 ‘ ,
0 /7
Signature o Director or Aut orized epresentative Date
REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS :
Department : c ,,c.zt
Approved Not Approved
Comments or conditions :
D P./3' 3
Ste_ z
j
Ai,-o ..
zi./...'
6“--e---‹ L,77-7
2) ..c./6-13.4- 4,ja--G,t.-- Z-,_ C;YL -,i'-:- --/a/ae-,:-14-C"---- - - 2Q..
j_
c-i...4...--L-A-...e 4,4/Le'-`*--
41 (1' 13:4){4,aI 44‘,..7 If c_____... --;:" it„,
Signature of Director or uthorized "Representative Date
REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS :
Department : ADLI'
Approved Not Approved
Comments or conditions :
403,WGC1 4 AM.Cli`- ) 4-,,A ii;-Z- PC/uv S tOt.a. Flat- 04L;01r.r' 7 .12etzu 1/11c-,.^/4."Z(
Su6)1:Cct I ' 194 Fr L,frcf 4- 4 /SO Fr c c4._-
ZI:)0 1 i/
Signature of Director or Authorized Representative ate
r
REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS :
Depa tment : r . tf e 2q/ 4-.E 1) i
Approved D Not Approved
Comme is or conditions :
LIKE e— - c9- ex /A/ 7Y
r Authorized Re resentative U -- DateSignatureofDirectorop
ROUTING FOR REVIEW OF ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORMS
TO: O Finance Department
IIIFire
Department
Library Department
Park Department
Police Department
0 Public Works Department
Building Div .
Engineering Div .
OTraffic Engineering Div .
Q Utilities Engineering Div .
FROM: Planning Department , ( signed by responsible official or his
designee )
eetiv1
SUBJECT : Review of ECF-_ Application No . : wi__9 ili:._,.._
Action Name .__/
5 t1,ted-- 00¢7. A'
Please review the at tached . Review requested by (date) :4121r °
Note : Responses to be written in ink .
REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS :
Department : t _\ ) (_ •
VSIGNIFICANT NON SIGNIFICANT
Comments :
ti_ -`2_-__ --
2cl7
Signaturf- Director or A thorized Representative Date
REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS :
Department : 7 //t/_
SIGNIFICANT I, NON SIGNIFICANT
Comments : G
4vr_/ & 7.) , '/-,at..7 7'
J -24----(f- _ _ Date
Signature of Director or AuthorizRepresentative
ROUTING FOR REVIEW OF ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORMS
TO: ® Finance Department
IIIFire
Department
Library Department
Park Department
lice Department
Public Works Department
B tTding Div .
Engineering Div .
OTraffic Engineering Div .
O Utilities Engineering Div .
FROM: Planning Department , ( signed by responsible official or his
designe )
D it eewv1
SUBJECT : Review of ECF-4-79 ; Application No . : 1,01"';71,
Action Name : 4Q41_ 4e___ete.......Atity
54 /fiord- 00-11
Please review the attached . Review requested by (date) : 1
REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS :
Department :
SIGNIFICANT NOG'
z
NSIINIFICANT
Comments :
C-L-
1-AT "7-1-!(__ A,t,
5,
Signature of Director or Authori ed epresenta ive Date
REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS :
Department : Uilc.icy
SIGNIFICANT NON SIGNIFICANT
Comments :
O(L—_______3/.21/:
Signature of Direc or or Authorized Representative ate
REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS :
d/,
Department :
SIGNIFICANT ANON SIGNIFICANT
Comments :
e-ez7,_____J___. i...2_,;,., , _____, (//
7/7 2
d uc.nresentative
Oat
PROPOSED/FINAL DECLARATION OF SIGNIFICANCE/NON-SIGNIFICANCE
Application No . SA-324-79 PROPOSED Declaration
Environmental Checklist No . ECF-446-79 FINAL Declaration
Oescription of proposal Site Plan approval for a 60,000 square foot two-story office
building over parking at 550 S.W. 7th in the M-P Zone.
f roponent CENTRAL PUGET, INC.
Location of Proposal 550 S.W. 7th Street (In Earlington Industrial Park)
1 ead Agency CITY OF RENTON PLANNING DEPARTMENT
I
This proposal has been determined to 0 have 15 not have a
Significant adverse impact upon the environment . An EIS is
is not required under RCW 43 . 21C . 030 ( 2 ) (c ) . This decision was
made after review by the lead agency of a completed environmental
checklist and other information on file with the lead agency .
non
Reasons for declaration of environmental /significance : A declaration of
negative impact has been issued for the subject proposal . This declaration is further base
on the provision of suitable landscaping, screening, and other development standards which
reduce visual and other impacts of the development and are consistent with M-P Zone
standards and Comprehensive Plan objectives.
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 PL' uf G CTO' Date APRIL 18,1979
Signature Agur
ler City of Renton
Planning Department
5-76
nNDING
OF FILE
FILE TITLE