Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLUA80-053BEGINP110161 OF FILE FILE TITLE MICROFILMED O R o THE CITY OF RENTON MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, WASH. 98055 o rn BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH, MAYOR ® LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER 90 co FRED J. KAUFMAN, 235-2593 OgTQ SEP1o$, Q July 24, 1980 Mr. Joel Benoliel Jack Benaroya Co. 5950 6th Ave. S. Seattle, WA 98108 RE: File No. SA-053-80; Jack A. Benaroya Co. Site Approval . Dear Mr. Benoliel : This is to notify you that the above referenced request , which was approved subject to conditions as noted on the Examiner's report of July 9, 1980, has not been appealed within the time period established by ordinance. Therefore, this application is considered final and is being transmitted to the City Clerk effective this date for permanent filing. Sincerely, A1.4.1. Kgookkr* Fred J . Kaufman Hearing Examiner cc: Planning Department City Clerk AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING State of Washington) County of King being first duly sworn, upon oath disposes and states: That on the 72'day of 19re , 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 (AO . k(10,1( )r)( 1- Notary Public in and for the State, of Washington, residing at Renton Application, Petition or Case: a- The nu nwtea contain a t i aat o, the paa t i.ea off• necond) OF 4 ® o PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT TRAFFIC ENGINEERING DIVISION • 235-2620 sill MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE.SO. RENTON,WASH.98055 co- 0 09 TED SEPSEt' BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH 1 ; MAYOR 0 `\'! t. s r ; . June 30, 1980 SP rf- e eq;NliadG ' To: Steve Munson, Planning Department From: Paul Lumbert, Traffic Engineering Division Subject: Benaroya Building No. 4 Conversion to Office Space at S.W. 41st St. and Valley Parkway I The revised parking plan for seven Benaroya buildings under lease to the Boeing Company on S.W. 41st from Valley Parkway to Lind Ave. S.W. meets code, however, those driveways not being used as driveways should be permanently closed (replaced with curb, gutter, sidewalks) and the remaining driveways marked and signed for fire access. Aatolif44141/44toity& PL:jt RECEIVED CITY OF RENTON HEARING EXAMINER JU L 11980 E $//Q j( p k . ' AM PM Y I©$911ri9ill 121162;a 141516 ITEM NO. 5k- 0s3 -Ya INTEROFFICE CORRESPONDENCE Date June 12, 1980 TO: Steve Munson, Planning Department FROM:Donald G. Monaghan, Engineering Department SUBJECT: Benaroya conversion to office space of Building 4 at S.W. 41st and Valley Parkway With regards to the revised parking plan for the seven Benaroya buildings leased by the Boeing Company at S.W. 43rd and Lind Avenue S.W. , it is recommend that those driveways not currently used for permanent or emergency access be removed and replaced with standard curb, gutter and sidewalk. 7 ,,c: c-,---a-,- 7(1A-( 4,-----I., e..'N ' ,r ..<' s.\* 0-\:\ 0 r" , Donald G. Monagh E. 7_ Q `a a G 7 RECEIVED CITY OF RENTON HEARING EXAMINER JUL 11980 AM PM 71819110111112111213,41516 A EXHIBIT NO. ITEM NO. 5,, o5 -ff 111111111.July 9, 1980 • OFFICE OF THE LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON REPORT AND DECISION . APPLICANT: Jack A. Benaroya Company FILE NO. SA-053-80 LOCATION: Vicinity of 1012 S.W. 41st Street. SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The applicant requests site approval for conversion of Building No. 4 of the Benaroya Business Park from warehouse to office use (approximately 68,400 square feet) . SUMMARY OF ACTION: Planning Department Recommendation: Approval with restrictive covenants. Hearing Examiner Decision: Approval with conditions: PLANNING DEPARTMENT The Planning Department preliminary report was received by the REPORT: Examiner on June 25, 1980. 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 July 1 , 1980 at 9:30 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. Steve Munson, Planning Department, reviewed the report, and entered the following exhibits into the record: Exhibit #1 : Application File containing Planning Department report and other pertinent documents Exhibit #2: Site Plan as submitted Exhibit #3: Site Plan with staff comments Responding to the Examiner's inquiry regarding the parking requirement for Building No. 4 prior to the requested conversion, Mr. Munson advised that 40 to 45 spaces had been required, and conversion to office use would require 342 spaces or an approximate 300 stall increase. Mr. Munson advised receipt of two memoranda from the Public Works Department regarding a recommendation for removal of driveways not currently utilized, and replacement with curbs, gutters and sidewalks with remaining driveways to be marked and signed for fire access. The letters were labeled as follows by the Examiner: Exhibit #4: Letter to Planning. Department from Don Monaghan, Engineering Department, dated June 12, 1980 Exhibit #5: Letter to Planning Department from Paul Lumbert , Traffic Engineering Division, dated June 30, 1980 Roger Blaylock, 'Associate Planner, clarified requirements of the Traffic Engineering Division for installation of traffic signals as denoted in Section L.6 of the Planning Department report. He advised that the intersection of Lind Avenue S.W. and S.W. 41st Street will be impacted by increased traffic due to additional employment in the area, and the Traffic Engineering Division has requested that the applicant participate in funding for signalization of that intersection at an appropriate future date. Mr. Blaylock requested that the record remain open to allow submission or written confirmation of the request from the Public Works Director. He stated that preliminary estimates indicate that the applicant 's participation would be 25% of the total cost , and a representative of the Traffic Engineering Division would testify regarding the matter later in the hearing. 11111111SA _3-80 Page Two The Examiner requested clarification of the requirement contained in Section M. 1 of the report, which pertains to accumulated numbering of individual parking spaces on the sit ..' plan. Mr. Munson indicated that although proposed stalls had been counted several time: _ on the submitted site plans to arrive at the estimated 1641 traffic spaces, an exact number could be established by consecutively numbering the stalls on the plan. The Examiner inquired if the possibility exists to provide the required number of parking spaces if the building is converted to office use. Mr. Munson advised that based upon the estimated count, a shortage of 15 spaces exists. The Examiner inquired, regarding the square footage the stall shortage represents in office space. Mr. Munson indicated that 3,000 square feet is represented. The Examiner noted that during previous site review, 300 surplus parking spaces were provided which may mitigate the current shortage, and inquired regarding current maximum utilization of existing parking spaces . Mr. Blaylock indicated that Buildings No. 1 and 2, leased by the Boeing Company, serve as large storage facilities utilizing few employees, and the entire parking lot adjacent to those buildings is vacant a majority of the time. However, he noted that reduction of the required number of spaces isla matter for review by the Board of Adjustment following request for a variance of the ordinance requirements. The Examiner requested clarification of the number of excess parking spaces over the requirement which existed prior to review of the subject application. Mr. Blaylock advised that 117 surplus parking spaces exist. He also indicated that reversion of the buildings to their original warehouse use would require evaluation off parking requirements of the entire site. The Examiner requested testimony by the applicant. Responding was: Joel Benoliel Jack Benaroya Company 5950 6th Avenue S. ' Seattle, WA 98108 Mr. Benoliell'Ibriefly reviewed development of the site since 1978,, and noted the original intent of th'e business park for a speculative warehouse, multi -tenant project, utilizing approximately 5% of the buildings for office use. However, he advised that due to a critical need for additional office space by the Boeing Company, leasing of the entire business park facility by that company has occurred. An overall review and redesign of the parking area has occurred including provision of striping to meet strict ordinance requirements', he indicated, and according to analysis by the Boeing Company, parking areas will not be fully utilized due to employee carpools and ownership of compact cars . Mr. Benoliel requested the opportunity to review and comment regarding the letters from the Public Works Department, as well as additional correspondence from the Public Works Director upon receipt. The Examiner' requested testimony from a representative of the Traffic Engineering Division regarding requirement of installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of S.W. 41st Street and Lind Avenue S.W. Responding was: Paul Lumbert Traffic Engineering Division Mr. Lumbert stated that a result of the conversions which have occurred in the business complex, traffic flow at the intersection of 41st and Lind would be substantially impacted which would require signalization in the near future, and the developer should participate in the amount of 25% of the total cost of the project. The Examiner inquired if the 25% participation would be in addition to the existing Lind Avenue S.W. LID. Mr. Lumbert responsed affirmatively. Mr. Lumbert also advised that the traffic signalization project at S.W. 43rd Street and Lind will occur in the. fall of 1980, and an additional project at 43rd and Valley Parkway is scheduled for 1981 which will be funded partially by LID, and supplemented by federal and state funding. The Examiner inquired regarding proposed impact on the East alley Freeway on the west side of the project . Mr. Lumbert stated that the signal at S.W. 43rd Street will mitigate traffic problems in the area in the immediate future, although at a later date upon full development of Valley Parkway, traffic impacts could occur to justify additional signalization. The Examiner requested clarification of the recommendations contained in Exhibits #4 and 5 regarding closure of unutilized driveways and subsequent installation of curbs , gutters and sidewalks. Mr. Lumbert reviewed the intent of the recommendation. Responding to the recommendation of the Traffic Engineering Division for installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of Lind Avenue S.W. and S .W. 41st Street, Mr. Benoliel advised that the subject intersection is the nearest intersection in the entire 500 acre Burlington Northern Industrial Park in proximity to the freeway exit, and may warrant signalization due to heavy traffic. However, he felt it was inconceivable that conversion of a 68,400 square foot building to office use would justify requiring 25% SA 3-80 Page Three I participation of the applicant in provision of that traffic signal . Had participation been determined upon front footage as was the Lind project, the applicant 's share would be approximately 5%, he advised, and the proposed signal may have, in fact, been excluded ii from the Lind project as a cost factor and added at this time as the responsibility of the applicant. Mr. Benoliel requested that comment be reserved until receipt of the memorandum from Mr. Gonnason, Public Works Director. The Examiner advised that the hearing would not be held open for receipt of the letter since clarifying testimony had been entered• by Mr. Lumbert. Mr. Benoliel reviewed the final recommendations contained in the Planning Department report as follows: . concurrence in Conditions No. 1 and 2 regarding provision of numbering .on, the site plan and inclusion of nine additional parking stalls; objection to Condition No. 3 which requires developer participation in any future traffic signal requirements; and concurrence 'in Condition No. 4 regarding execution of restrictive covenants to ensure conversion of the 12,000 square feet of office use to storage if the railroad tracks are activated. 'He concurred in the analysis that all available parking space has been utilized in the development. Although Mr. Benoliel concurred in the recommendation for provision of signing of driveways for emergency access, he objected to closing unused driveways by provision of curbs, gutters and sidewalks which he felt was a needless expense since reversion to driveways may occur in the future. The Examiner requested testimony in support or opposition to the application. There was no response.' He then requested final comments from the Traffic Engineering Division representative. Mr. Lumbert clarified that unutilized driveways create problems resulting from vehicles turning around and parking in those locations which interferes with pedestrian and bicycle access. The Examiner, requested final comments from the Planning Department representative. Mr. Blaylock reiterated previous comments regarding review of the entire site plan and accessory parking upon release of any of the buildings by the Boeing Company or any requests for building permits. He also modified Condition No. M.3 of the Planning Department report to suggest that restrictive covenants be executed to require future participation of the applicant in an LID for traffic signalization, but eliminate the specific percentage of participation. Mr. Benoliel objected to enforcement of the condition in the form of restrictive covenants, and advised that participation in an LID is automatically required of all property owners without need for the legal document. Mr. Blaylock stated his intent to preclude the applicant from being assessed a specific percentage of participation, but the Environmental Impact Statement had been issued subject to conditions to mitigate traffic impacts resulting from the development, and assurance of participation is necessary. He noted that the LID process allows the opportunity for objection during formulation of cost distribution even if restrictive covenants have been filed. The Examiner: requested further. comments. Since there were none, the hearing regarding File No. SA-053-80 was closed by the Examiner at 10:22 a.m. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & DECISION: Having reviewed the record in this matter., the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: 1 . The request is for approval of site plans for the conversion of a 68,400 square foot warehouse to office space. 2. The application file containing the application, SEPA documentation, the Planning Department report, and other pertinent documents was entered into the record as Exhibit 1 . 3. Pursuant to the City of Renton's Environmental Ordinance and the State Environmental Policy Act of 1971 , R.C.W. 43.21 .C. , as amended, a Declaration of Non-Significance has been issued for the subject proposal by the Environmental Review Committee, responsible official . 4. Plans for the proposal have been reviewed by all city departments affected by the impact of this development. 5. All existing utilities are available and in close proximity. 6. The proposal is compatible with the required setbacks, lot coverage and height requirements of Section 4-730 (M-P; Manufacturing Park) of Title IV, Ordinance No. 1628, Code of General Ordinances. 7. The subject property is located in the Orillia Industrial area of the city in the vicinity of S.W. 41st Street. i SA-Gw-80 Page Four 8. The subject site is level and is currently occupied by the subject warehouse and other warehouIses and offices as well as the associated parking lots. 9. The conversion of the warehouse to office space will occur within the existing structure and the external appearance will generally remain unchanged. The conversion will necessitate a larger parking area. The existing uses require approximately 1 ,650 parking spaces. While a precise count is unavailable, approximately 1 ,641 spaces are provided. 10. The conversion of the existing warehouse will require one parking space per 200 square feet of floor space or 342 spaces. The warehouse required 46 parking spaces. Therefore, the' applicant must provide an additional 296 parking spaces. 11 . The conversion will require most of the remaining unused space in the complex to be used fIr parking, precluding further such conversions. 12. The traffic analysis of the proposal indicates that approximately 800 additionalYPPPPY vehicle trips will be generated by the complex after conversion. This will increase the traffic load on adjacent roadways by about 25% at this time. This figure represents the current conditions and does not reflect the potential traffic which may beIlgenerated when the entire 500 acres are occupied. The applicant 's contribution may be less than 5% of the total . 13. As indicated above, existing development of the site and the proposed conversion will constrain any further development or conversions. The activation of the existing railroad spur would eliminate additional parking stalls which would necessitate a shrinkage of the floor space of the complex. Such activation or further conversion will again have to be subject to further site plan review. 14. The Traffic Engineering Division recommended the closure of the excess and unnecessary driveways because of hazards to pedestrians, bicycles and vehicles. 15. Certain existing parking spaces indicated on Exhibit #3 do not meet city standards. CONCLUSION : 1 . The plans submitted by the applicant meet the requirements of the M-P zone in which the subject building is located., The plans indicate the use is compatible with the objectives and goals of the Green River Valley Comprehensive Plan for an integrated manufacturing park. 2. The conversion will not affect the exterior treatment of the structure in any sizable manner. The site appears to have the capacity to provide the number of parking spaces required by the conversions. 3. An accurate account of the total number of parking spaces is lacking, and sequential numbering of stalls would provide this information. 4. The applicant should eliminate any unnecessary driveways, as false turning movements can jeopardize the public health and safety as vehicles back out of closed off driveways across sidewalks, bike paths and into traffic lanes . 5. The anticipated additional traffic generated by this proposal may, in fact, create 25% greater demand than this site previously generated, but in relation to the total traffic demand generated by the eventual occupation of the entire industrial park, the increase is slight. The intersection of S.W. 41st Street is, in fact, the S.W. 43rd Street exit from the East Valley freeway, and the applicant will not substantially add to the load which normal growth of the area is anticipated to generate. When an LID is formed to provide additional signalization of the intersection, the applicant can be included as is routine in such matters. DECISION: ' Exhibit #3 , is approved subject to: 1 . Installation of curbs , gutters and sidewalks to replace closed driveways subject to approval of the Public Works Department. 1 2. Sequential numbering of all parking stalls on the site. 3. Elimination of the nine non-standard parking spaces. 4. Provision of the correct number of parking stalls as determined by the Planning Department. I I 1 s SA-053-80 Page Five 5. Emergency access signing of gated driveways. ORDERED THIS 9th day of July, 1980. mac Fred J . fman Land Use Hearing Examiner TRANSMITTED THIS 9th day of July, 1980 by Affidavit of Mailing to the party of record: Joel Benoliel , Jack Benaroya Co. , 5950 6th Ave. S. , Seattle, WA 98108 TRANSMITTED THIS 9th day of July, 1980 to the following: Mayor Barbara Y. Shinpoch Councilman Richard M. Stredicke Warren C. Gonnason, Public Works Director Gordon Y. Ericksen, Planning Director Michael Hanis, Planning Commission Chairman Ron Nelson, Building Division Supervisor Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Paul Lumbert, Traffic Engineering Division Pursuant to Title IV, Section 3015 of the City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed in writing on or before July 23, 1980. 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. Qe ai T PLANNIING DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINIER PUBLIC HEARING JULY 1 , 1980 APPLICANT : JACK A. BENAROYA COMPANY FILE NUMBER : SA-053-80 A . SUMMARY & PURRPOSE OF REQUEST: The applicant requests site approval for conversion of Building #4 o.f the Benaroya Business Park from warehousing to office use (approximately 68,400 square feet) . B. GENERAL INFORIMATIONJ: 1. Owner of Record : JACK A. BENAROYA CO. 2 . Applicant : JACK A. BENAROYA CO. 3. Location: Vicinity Map Attached) Vicinity of 1012 SW 41st Street 4. Legal Description: A detailed legal description is available on file in the Renton Planning Department 5 . Size of Property : Portion of t58.6 acres (Building #4 site) 6. Access :Via S.W. 41st Street 7. Existing Zoning: M-P , Manufacturing Park 8 . Existing Zoning in the Area : M-P, Manufacturing Park 9. Comprehensive Land Use Plan: Manufacturing Park 10 . Notification : The applicant was notified in writing of the hearing date. Notice was properly published in the Seattle Times on June 18, 1980 and posted in three , places on or near the site as required by City Ordinance on June 17, 1980. C . HISTORY/BACKGROUND: The subject site was annexed into the City by Ordinance 1745 of April 14, 1959 and rezoned from "G" to M-P on December 24, 1969 and December 8, 1975 by Ordinance 2533 and 2992 respectively. Site approval was granted for the subject warehouse structure as part of SA-216-78 on November 9, 1978 by the Hearing Examiner . Prior to the site approval , the area had been filled . t PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE HEARING. EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING: JACK BENAROYA CO. , SA-053-80 JULY 1 , 1980 PAGE TWO D. PHIYSICAL ACKG@BOIUNI®: 1 . Topography: The site is relatively level . 2 . Soils : Urban land (Ur) is soil that has been modified by disturbance of the natural layers with additions of fill material several feet thick to accommodate large industrial and housing installations. The erosion hazard is slight to moderte . 3. Vegetation : New landscaping consisting. of evergreens and flowering shrubs have been planted on site as part of the warehousing project. 4. Wildlife : The recent landscaping on site provides suitable habitat for birds and small mammals . 5 . Water : No surface water was evidenced on the site June 19, 1980) . I 6. Land Use : The subject site has been used for a warehouse-storage facility. E. NJEIGWO63HOOIID CHARACTE\ISTICS : The general area is developing into a warehousing , commercial and industrial center. F . MAWLIC SERVICES : 1 . Water.. and Sewer : A 12" water main runs east-west on S .W. 41st Street. with 10" stubs routed northward to the subject site . An 8" sanitary sewer has been installed on Longacres Parkway adjacent to the westerly boundary of the property. 2 . '.Fire Protection : Provided by the Renton Fire Department per ordinance requirements. 3. Transit : Metro Transit Route #155 operates along S .W. 43rd Street within ? miles to the south of the subject site . 4.. Schools : Not applicable. 5 . Recreation : Not applicable. G. APPLICAA.E SECTIONS OF. THE ZONIING. CODE: 1 . Section 4-730, M-P , Manufacturing Park. 2 . Section 4-711 , 8-1 , Business Use. H. APPLICALE SECTIONS OF. THE COMPREHENSIVE PLANT. OR OTHER OFFICIAL .CITY DOCUMENT! 1 . Green River Valley Comprehensive Plan, June 1976. I . IMPACT OF THE NATURAL OR mum ENVIRONMENT : 1. Natural Systems : Minor. 2 . Population/Employment: The conversion to office use will result in increased employment and people utilizing the general area. 3 . Schools: Not applicable. 4. Social : The greater numbers of people will provide increased opportunities for social interaction . PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE HEARING. EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING : JACK BENAROYACO . , SA-053-80 JULY 1 , 1980 PAGE THREE 5. Traffic: Conversion of the structure to office use will result in 800 additional vehicle trips per day to the subject site. This increase in traffic was deemed to be a significant increase which can be mitigated by improvements to S.W. 43rd. J. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT/THRESHOLD DETERMINATION: Pursuant to the City of Renton Environmental Ordinance and the State Environmental Policy Act of 1971, as amended , RCW 43-21C, the Environmental Review Committee issued a declaration of non-significance on June 16, 1980 subject to developer participation in improvements to S .W. 43rd Street to mitigate the adverse traffic impacts identified in I-5 above. 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 proposal is consistent with the M-P zoning and Comprehensive Plan designation of Manufacturing Park for the subject site . 2 . The proposal is to convert the 68, 500 square foot warehousing use of Building #4 of. the Benaroya Business Park to total office use . The existing building is a permanent structure and the proposed conversion is a major modification of the approved site plan. Therefore, a new site approval is required. The proposed coversion will double the amount of office use on the property as compared to the original approval . 3. Parking requirements for Buildings 1-7 of the complex can be summarized as follows : BUILDING PARKING REQUIRED I . (a ) Storage 359,938 sq. ft. 240 spaces b) Office 11 ,132 sq . ft. 56 spaces 296 spaces II . (a) Storage 220,158 sq. ft. 14.7 .spaces b) Shops 209, 661 sq. ft. 142 spaces c) Office 12, 264 sq. ft. 61 spaces d) Dispatch 320 sq. ft . 2 spaces 352 spaces , III . (a) Storage 179,124 sq. ft. 119 spaces b) Shops 188, 476 sq. ft. 188 spaces c) Office 2,024 sq . ft. 32 spaces 339 spaces IV. (a) Office •68,400 sq . ft . 342 spaces PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING : BENAROYA CO. , SA-053-80 JULY 1 , 1980 PAGE FOUR V . (a) Storage 98, 24 sq . . ft . . 65 spaces b) Office 2 ,016 sq . ft . 10 spaces 75 spaces VI . (a) Office 39, 800 sq. ft . 199 spaces VII . (a) Storage 75,576 sq. ft . 50 spaces b) Office 624 sq . ft . 3 spaces 53 spaces 1656 spaces required ] 4. Staff computations of parking spaces shwon on the submitted site plan indicate that 1641 legal spaces have been provied (9 have been removed as unaccountable under the standards of the Parking & Loading Ordinance) . This leaves a discrepancy of 15 spaces . 5 . In the original site plan approvals , the maximum office space indicated was 5% of the building area. The planned conversion of this application to office use results in a total of 136, 260 square feet being utlized for this purpose . This represents 9 . 7% of the 1 , 406, 710 square feet contained in the overall complex . This increase would result in a 94% increase in traffic volume for office use based upon 11 .7 vehicle trips per day per 1 ,000 sq . ft . of gross floor area (823 trips per day at 5%) (1594 trips per day at 9 .7%) . 6. The Traffic Engineering Division advises that S .W. 43rd Street will. be improved as an Urban Arterial Board project commencing in the fall of1980 with completion anticipated in 1982. As part of this , traffic signals will be installed at S.W. 43rd and Lind Avenue S.W. and at S .W. 43rd and the Valley Parkway about fall of 1981 . The cost of any future traffic signal requirements in this area will be proportionally shared by individual property developers . The declaration of non-significance issued by the ERC required participation by the applicant as mitigation of the traffic impacts of #5 above. 7. If the railroad spur extending north from Building 1 to Building #4 is activated, 49 parking spaces will be eliminated . In order to meet the standards of the Parking & Loading Ordinance , therefore , approximately 12,000 sq . ft . of office use will have to be converted to storage. 8 . The proper number of exits for change in use will be required as well as fire lanes as per Fire Dept . comment . A pre-use conference with the Fire Marshall is also necessary . 9. In the review of the area remaining on the site it would appear that there is little opportunity for providing any additional parking within the development . Based upon this analysis , it would appear that no additional conversions of the floor space can occur to office or similar intensityofuse. PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING : BENAROYA CO . , SA-053-80 JULY 1, 1980 PAGE FIVE M. DEPARTMENTAL RECOMMENDATION: Based upon the foregoing analysis, recommend approval of the site plan subject to: 1 . Accumulated numbering of individual parking spaces on the site plan to determine compliance with parking standards . 2 . Revision of site plan to include 9 additional parking stalls per #4. 3. Developer participation in any future traffic signal requirements. as per #6 and the declaration of non- significance. 4. A restrictive covenant providing for conversionofthe12,000 sq. ft . of office use to storage if the railroad tracks are activated. 1li BENAROYA SITE APPROVAL SA-053-80 4 yea Ii.: 15 LWIIl _ NIT, , 1 C . . OFFICES Is:::::: /). f.-...,:.:: /,.• - . FE oFrcto 1 a it 1. : ..K ;. , 11 11I. qiI i I iii : . r gees ten.. 1 w-•r.•,:: i j ;. IIYi1 ! I-'. I '1, ; i 11i, 4 i1,"i1• 0; i,• i- 11 11 1I1. 1 , , . J g t 111I a' 11 I1''. 6' ! 1'I ':. ! 1`_ ': !'1 I rII ' eV;., 1: 1• :... , f'-' 1' `' T'_: fly•,_ _•. I.iv,1....- i..'t' 110' '24Y-9'.3?l'. lor,--3ie ,.. .- - -, _ 132.94._ !DI® Z I I ey• t.1 i I 1 _ 1 .. _..._ .. U..j 1 STORES STORES err_.. 4%ear . ;:.!sve. I ' i iy i t I if? 1 —1 i Li: d 6TOR eavxgKA°re, I r. 1', L.•1 _. 1 ..-t! N, I I j ' „'li I' , I .. o • ' 1.,, : I I I I' 7s, 1 1 i I I 1 I I I ,!I 1 .11t1 ; 1 , . . I\ ; . , , ; 1 : ___::__,_ ___ - - ogo A Nlitigilititir ptigilil PrIti lint1101) • 14 r 1 IiiI Co/Dief or Planning 12-1979 RENTON PLANNING DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET Application: S17g" A PPA t5h'd.C. f9® --r eet.r. tt of fir MCd Q rt A. tit 40v,ail ,• _ scLocation : Beinttrov,_ Rvamessc rt •• os , ttfj S '. Applicant: I:Ade A % f3 . reJytt ., Co .Bettareyet ., TO: Parks Department SCHEDULED HEARING DATE : 0 Police Department A.R.C. MEETING DATE : Publi c ks Department zgeco •Q Q • 42) Engineering Division Traffic Engineering Building Division Utilities Engineering Fire Department Other) : COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITI G FOR THE APPLICATION REVIEW CONFERENCE (ARC) TO BE HELD ON is AT 9:UO A.M. IN THE THIRD FLOOR CONFERENCE .ROOM. IF YO x "I MENT/DIVISION REPRESENTATIVE WILL NOT ABLE TQ A TEND THE ARC, PLEASE R VIDE THE COMMENTS TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT BY :OU P.M. ON REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : 4 Approved Approved with Conditions Not Approved Signature of Director Authoriz d R presentative Date REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : POLICE Approved xxxxx Approved with Conditions Not Ap proved 1) Consisteration should be given to a traffic signal at S.W. Ord Lind, and/or.S.W. 43rd & Valley Pkwy. Our concern is that the increased traffic flow that will be generated will not be able to get out onto S. rd at Ltnd S.W. or the Valley Pkwy at rush hour. Lt4V ersson r d; Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date 6/6/:Plannini t2-1979 RENTON PLANNING DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET Appli cation : APPALMI.. (54'oS3'O®) 74; eorivtogifipypsefrzi Location: s Air o m Ski c'i'e Applicant: l'acte A . 43 &arty & P Q 1TO: Parks Department SCHEDULED HEARING DATE : -'* *„' Police Department A.R.C. MEETING DATE : I. .; <. Public Works Department E p ( I,a as "ago Engineering Division Traffic Engineering Bu ' lding Division tilities Engineering f , Fire Department Other) : COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITI G OR THE APPLICATION REVIEW CONFERENCE tARC) TO BE HELD ON AT 9:UO A.M. IN THE THIRD FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM. IF YO A MENT DIVISION REPRESENTATIVE WILL- NOT ABLE TQ A TEND THE ARC, PLEASE R VIDE THE COMMENTS TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT BY 7:OU P.M. ON REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : 7-.1- Approved ,,/' Approved with Conditions Not Approved T,C,C = tiU,-//`S OF Dc/ rS C" -'f77WlG Wit;4,/, 9//c' Z///t4; c it-e7 13 f 2 '/7/ J,'0 , _ u,5 (ate-es-e/t/Gt,254 4-i// 6,•ij// i-/ 7/71(' /-L 1`../ Signature of Director or ' uthorized Representat ve Date REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : l ( 7_ Approved Approved with Conditions Not Approved r 10',-,---- 7 / ! 6- Signa o Director or K h rized Representative Date f . AIt i FINAL DECLARTION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE Application No(s) : PAILA.02171113 Environmental Checklist No: ECF-574-80 Description of Proposal : Conversion of present warehousing use of Building #4 to office use Proponent :ya , tl' E`:i 0. Location of Proposal : Vicinity of 1012 S.W. 41st Street Lead Agency: PLANNING DEPARTMENT This proposal was reviewed by the CRC on June 11 , 1980 following a presentation by Roger Blaylock of the Planning Department. Oral comments were accepted from: Gordon Y. Ericksen, inquired regarding traffic flows on . S.W. 41st. Written comments received from Police Department, Engineering Division, Traffic Engineering Division and Building Division. Incorporated by reference in the record of the proceedings of the ERC on application ECF-574-80 are the following: 1). Environmental Checklist Review Sheet, prepared by: Steve Munson, Assistant Planner, June 6, 1980 2) Applications: SA-053-80 3) Recommendations for a declaration of non-significance: Moved by Gordon Y. Ericksen, concurred Warren G. Gonnason and John E. Webley. Acting as the Responsible Official, the ERC has determined this development, does not have significant adverse impact on the environment. An EIS is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2) (c) . This decision was made after review by the lead agency of a complete 'environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. Reasons for declaration of environmental non-significance: Declaration of non-significance issued subject to. developer participation in improvements to S.W. 43rd Street. natures: Si_ ,, A., F._ Lk) h E . Webley, Par rector or .on c • en, Planning hector i Warren C. Gonnason, Director Public Works Department DATE OF PUBLICATION: June 16, 1980 EXPIRATION OF APPEAL PERIOD: June 33 , 1980 Jack A. Benaroya Company 5950 Sixth Avenue South, Seattle, WA 98108 (206) 762 4750 l f May 30, 1980 City of Renton Planning Department Municipal Building Renton, Washington 98055 Attention: Roger Blaylock Re: Application for Site Approval Enclosed is our Application for Site Approval and supporting Affidavit in connection with the conversion of Building 4 in our Renton Park to 100% office use. Pursuant to a our telephone conversation today, you confirmed receipt of our parking, landscaping and screening plan required in paragraph 6(B) of the enclosed Application. You also confirmed that it was not necessary for us to submit the information requested in paragraphs 6(A) , (C) and (D) of the Application as this information was previously submitted with our prior site approval applications (see SA-216-78 and SA-150-78) . If you have any questions or require any additional information, please let me know. 61\494:4-4 Sylvia Otani P.S. Also enclosed is our check for $125.00 to cover the filing fee. INDUSTRIAL PARKS/WAREHOUSES/OFFICE BUILDINGS/SHOPPING CENTERS AND SPECIALIZED MERCHANDISE MARTS FINAL DECLARTION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE Application No (s ) : SA-053-80 Environmental Checklist No : ECF-574-80 Description of Proposal : Conversion of present warehousing use of Building #4 to office use Proponent : JACK A. BENAROYA CO. Location of Proposal :Vicinity of 1012 S .W. 41st Street Lead Agency : PLANNING DEPARTMENT This proposal was reviewed by the ERC on June 11 , 1980 following a presentation by Roger Blaylock of the Planning Department . Oral comments were accepted from: Gordon Y. Ericksen, inquired regarding traffic flows on . S.W. 41st . Written comments received from Police Department , Engineering Division , Traffic Engineering Division and Building Division. Incorporated by reference in the record of the proceedings of the ERC on application ECF-574-80 are the following: 1 ) Environmental Checklist Review Sheet , prepared by: Steve Munson , Assistant Planner, June 6 , 1980 2 ) Applications : SA-053-80 3 ) Recommendations for a declaration of non-significance : Moved by Gordon Y. Ericksen, concurred Warren G . Gonnason and John E . Webley . Acting as the Responsible Official , the ERC has determined this development does not have significant adverse impact on the environment . An EIS is not required under RCW 43.21C .030 (2) (c) . This decision was made after review by the lead agency of a complete environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency . Reasons for declaration of environmental non-significance : Declaration of non-significance issued subject to. developer participation in improvements to S.W. 43rd Street . Signatures : E_ Lk) 4. E . Webley , Par rector or on Y. , c en, Planning L / Director J 2i' Warren C . Gonnason , Director Public Works Department DATE OF PUBLICATION : June 16, 1980 EXPIRATION OF APPEAL PERIOD : June 30 , 1980 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 JULY 1 , 1980 , AT 9 :00 A .M. TO CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING PETITIONS : 1 . JOEPETE McCASLIN , APPLICATIONS FOR TWO-LOT SHORT PLAT APPROVAL , File 034-80 , EXCEPTION TO THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE REGARDING USE OF AN EASEMENT FOR ACCESS AND UTILITIES, File E-035-80 , AND WAIVER OF OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS, File W-036-80 ; property located on the west side of Union Avenue N.E. approximately 1820 feet south of N.E. 4th St . 2 . JACK A. BENAROYA COMPANY , APPLICATION FOR SITE APPROVAL TO ALLOW CONVERSION OF BUILDING 4 OF THE BENAROYA BUSINESS PARK FROM WAREHOUSING TO OFFICE USE (APPROXIMATELY 68 ,400 SQ . FT. ) ; File SA-053-80 ; property located in the vicinity of 1012 S .W. 41st St . ' Legal descriptions of files noted above are on file in the Renton Planning Department . ALL INTERESTED PERSONS TO SAID PETITIONS ARE INVITED TO BE PRESENT AT THE PUBLIC HEARING ON JULY 1 , 1980 , AT 9 :00 A.M. TO EXPRESS THEIR OPINIONS . PUBLISHED : June 18 , 1980 GORDON Y. ERICKSEN, 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, in and for the State of Washington residing in King County , on the 12th day of June , 1980 . 1 SIGNED: ,456:47714GLIA.4-cArL NOTICE THIS PROPERTY GENERAL LOCATION: AND, OR ADDRESS: Property located inthe vicinity of 1012 S .W. 41st Street . LEGAL DESCRIPTION: A detailed legal description is available on file in the Renton Planning Department . S POSTED TO NOTIFY PROPERTY OWNERS OF A PUBLIC HEARING TO BE HELD IN CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, MUNICIPAL BUILDING ON .- :July 1 , 1980 BEGINNING AT 9 :00 AM A.M CONCERNING ITEM tI ' 7 REZONE H SPECIAL PERMIT VSITE A P P R tVAL APPLICATION FOR SITE APPROVAL TO ALLOW CONVERSION OF BUILDING 4 of the Benaroya Business Park warehousing to office use I \WAI\FER LI SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PERMIT Declaration of Non-Significance Issued ; direct appeals Cto the Hearing Examiner . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CALL 235 2550 THIS NOTICE NOT TO BE REMOVED WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION OF R- 14 y © ° THE CITY OF RENTON MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON,WASH. 98055 o BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH, MAYOR • PLANNING DEPARTMENT 9A t' 235- 2550 O944-0 SEPl° tte- June 12 , 1980 Jack A. Benaroya Company 5950 Sixth Ave . So . Seattle, Washington 98108 Re : APPLICATION FOR SITE APPROVAL. TO ALLOW CONVERSION OF BUILDING #4 OF THE BENAROYA BUSINESS PARK FROM WARE- HOUSING TO OFFICE USE , File SA-053-80; property located in the vicinity of 1012 S .W. 41st St . Gentlemen : The Renton Planning Department formally accepted the above mentioned application on May 27, 1980 . A public hearing before the City of Renton Hearing Examiner has been set for July 1 , 1980 , at 9 :00 a .m. Representatives of the applicant are asked to be present. All interested persons are invited to attend the hearing. If you have any further questions , please call the Renton Planning Department , 235-2550 . Very truly yours , Gordon Y. Ericksen , Planning Director By : , Rog r J . Bla lock Associate Planner RJB :wr NOTICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE RENTON, WASHINGTON- The Environmental Review Committee (ERC) has issued a final declaration of non-significance for the following project: 1. JACK A. BENAROYA COMPANY (ECF-574-80) , application for site approval to allow conversion of Building 4 of the Benaroya Business Park from warehousing to office use (approximately 68, 400 sq. ft . ) ; property located in the vicinity of 1012 S.W. 41st Street. Further information regarding this action is available in the, Planning Department, Municipal Building, Renton, Washington, 235-2550. Any appeal of ERC action must be filed with the Hearing Examiner by June 30, 1980. Published : June 16, 1980 I f - ENVIROINIMENTAL REVIEIY COMMITTEE JUNE 11 , 1980 AGENDA COMMENCING AT 10 :00 A.M. : THIRD FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM 1 . OLD BUSINESS : SP-050-80 FIFTH AND PARK PLACE CO . , INC . ECF-572-80 Application for special permit to allow use of property located at following addresses for parking : 400, 430 , 533 , and 601 Park Avenue North and 538 Pelly Avenue North 2 . NEW BUSINESS : SP-051-80 GREENWOOD MEMORIAL PARK ECF-573-80 Application for special permit to allow removal of approximately 50 , 000 cubic yards of earth material to provide for expansion of an existing cemetery ; property located on the southwest corner of N .E . 4th St . and Queen Ave . N . E . extended) SA-•053-80 i JACK A. BENAROYA COMPANY ECF-574-80 Application for site approval to allow conversion of Building 4 of the Benaroya Business Park from warehousing to office use approximately 68,400 sq . ft . ) ; property located in the vicinity of 1012 S .W. 41st Street . Date circulated : e/fjlge)Comments due : e:////9Q ENVIRONMEINTAL CHECKLIST REVIEW SHEET ECF - FAD APPLICATION No (s ) .SA-OS3-eo PROPONENT : act rT. ge-,/a 'Ora PROJECT TITLE : Sete 4pprenLt Brief Description of Project :(-OtI.S(erSibn cSTptcSe444-GUGtteA0USini Esc_ de 814g t 76 O «Us? . LOCATION : A, s o-F SGti. ' ` 71%/1,81arOyQRa5//leS5 dPk (/D/a sloSl/f_i„ SITE AREA : 1rrtoln 0-( ± 58,(otu^`6UILDING AREA (gross ) DEVELOPMENTAL COVERAGE (%) : IMPACT REVIEW NONE MINOR MAJOR MORE INFO 1 ) Topographic changes : 2 ) Direct/Indirect air quality : 1/ 3 ) Water & water courses :v ' 4 ) Plant life : 5 ) Animal life : 6) Noise : izV'' 7 ) Light & glare : 8 ) Land Use ; north : UJevclot- east : Wet retool. ; south : t' west : to'tclanGres PL4V Land use conflicts : Ortve /to ytatr. View obstruction : go to V9 ) Natural resources : 10 ) Risk of upset : 11 ) Population/Employment : I/ 12 ) Number of Dwellings : 13 ) Trip ends ( ITE ) : .200-{rix0 traffic impacts : 14 ) Public services : se Le? 15 ) Energy : 16 ) Utilities : 17 ) Human health : 18) Aesthetics : 19 ) Recreation : 20 ) Archeology/history : l/ COMMENTS • qOep( 0,S eksetill i ew f Ot/ k C e in v-S e t'D r irvek_kvt4eitati.se TO tri tut tlfa eke 1•7'0 1'c Pf' 'eC /-a e e$ cjQ- ee i v 0.- a,. t1.Gree 1 T - I j l G`tl < (h646'el Par IC;rtS /IP I Recommendation : DNSI DOS More Information Reviewed by : 64elie f7u/ISQ/l Title : A,5,5'754 ")6/p/1 er Date : 4/0r) faPt C C-,...( Sr'S 4 /t J { 1 cj/I; /i-+' f FORM: ERC-06 1r-Y • v6\10 V CITY OF RENTON G lCJ APPLICATION MAY 198u SITE APPROVAL v2l FOR OFFICE USE ONLY 9yN'NG DES" File No. SA- 125 -40 Filing Date ..01,02b pApplicationFee $ /, c-92 Receipt No. 3d9 Environmental Review Fee $ APPLICANT TO COMPLETE ITEMS 1 THROUGH 6 : 1 . Name Jack A. Benaroya Company Phone 762-4750 Address 5950 Sixth Avenue South, Seattle, WA 98108 2 . Property location Benaroya Business Park, Renton, Washington 3. Legal description (attach additional sheet if necessary) See legal description attached hereto 4 . Number of acres or square feet approx. 58.6 acres Present zoning M-P 5 . What do you propose to develop on this property? Conversion of Building 4 to _ 100% office use, including installation of interior division walls, plumbing, lavatnriPc and other amenities in accordance with local code affecting office use; and designation of additional parking per local code requirements. 6 . The following information shall be submitted with this application : A. Site and access plan (include setbacks , Scaleexistingstructures , 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 1 pF RF/1,x Cfl\1E LEGAL DESCRIPTION MAY 30 1980 BENAROYA BUSINESS PARK - RENTON a 9ti NG DEp . PARCEL B-1 : THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 36 , TOWNSHIP 23. NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST , W. M. , IN KING COUNTY , WASHINGTON ; EXCEPT , THAT PORTION OF SPRINGBROOK CREEK ( DRAINAGE DISTrRICT NO. 1 ) , LOCATED IN THE NORTHWESTERLY POTION THEREOF AS DESCRIBED IN KING COUNTY CAUSE NUMBER _ 32912 ; EXCEPT THE SOUTH 30 FEET THEREOF CONVEYED TO KING COUNTY FOR ROAD PURPOSES AS RECORDED UNDER AUDIT-OR ' S FILE NO. 266064 8; EXCEPT THE PORTION THEREOF CONVEYED T3 KING COUNTY DRAINAGE DISTRICT NUMBER 1 , BEING THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PROPERTY: THAT PORTION OF SAID NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 36 LYING NORTH OF. THE SOUTH 30 FEET THEREOF , AND SOUTH OF A LINE 48 FEET NORTH OF THE PROPOSED CENTERLINE OF S.W. 43RD STREET, WHICH PROPOSED CENTERLINE BEGINS AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE CENTERLINE OF EAST VALLEY HIGHWAY t lTH THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 31, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST , IN KING COUNTY , WASHINGTON , AND RUNS THENCE WESTERLY IN A STRAIGHT LINE TO THE INTERSECTION OF THE CENTERLINE OF WEST VALLEY HIGHWAY WITH THE SOUTH LINE OF GOVERNMENT LOT 2 , SECTION 36, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, N.M. , IN KING COUNTY , WASHINGTON ; EXCEPT THE WEST 90 FEET THEREOF. PARCEL B-2: GOVERNMENT LOT 1 , SECTION 31 , TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 , EAST, W .M. / IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON; EXCEPT THE SOUTH 30 FEET THEREOF DEEDED TO KING COUNTY FUR ROAD PJRPOSES UNDER DEED RECORDED UNDER AUDITOR' S FILE NO, 2660650; EXCEPT THAT PORTION OF SAID PROPERTY LYING EAST OF THE WEST LINE OF LIND AVENUE AS DESIGNED UNDER CITY OF RENTON LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 302, SAID WEST LINE OF LIND AVENUE BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID GOVERNMENT LOT 1, LYING NORTH 89°03' 54" WEST 159 . 29 FEET FROM THE SOUTHEAST CORNER THEREOF; THENCE NORTH 25°O5' 34" EAST 160.33 FEET TO THE WEST LINE OF THE EAST 94.04 FEET OF SAID GOVERNMENT LOT l. ; THENCE NORTH 1 °04 ' 45" EAST ALONG SAID WEST LINE 973 . 81 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT OF 2040 FOOT RADIUS ; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO ITS INTERSECTION WITH THE NORTH LINE OF SAID GOVERNMENT LOT I AND THE NORTHERLY TERMINUS OF THIS DESCRIBED LINE ; AND EXCEPT THAT PORTION THEREOF RETAINED BY KING COUNTY DRAINAGE DISTRICT NUMBER 1, BEING THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PROPERTY: THE WEST 10 FEET OF THAT PORTION OF SAID GOVERNMENT LOT 1 OF SECTION 31, LYING NORTH OF THE SOUTH 30 FEET THEREOF, AND SOUTH OF A LINE 48 FEET NORTH OF THE PROPOSED CENTERLINE OF S.W. 43RD STREET, WHICH PROPOSED CENTERLINE BEGINS AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE CENTERLINE OF EAST VALLEY HIGHWAY WITH THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST . QUARTER OF SECTION 31, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, W.M. , IN KING * COUNTY, WASHINGTON, AND RUNS THENCE WESTERLY IN A STRAIGHT LINE TO THE INTERSECTION OF THE CENTERLINE OF WEST VALLEY HIGHWAY WITH THE SOUTH LINE OF GOVERNMENT LOT 2, SECTION 36, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4, EAST , W.M. , IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. TOGETHER WITH Tracts A and B of Burlington Northern Industrial Park Renton II , according to. the plat. recorded in Volume. 111 of plats, pages 42-44, in King County, Washington. EXCEPT portion thereof for S.W. 41st Street, Valley Parkway and Raymond Avenue South. Jack A. Benaroya Company 5950 Sixth Avenue South, Seattle, WA 98108 (206)762 4750 RED . c///::: Pg\\IED ma so 1980 May 30, 1980 R r City of Renton Planning Department Municipal Building Renton, Washington 98055 Attention: Roger Blaylock Re: Application for Site Approval Enclosed is our Application for Site Approval and supporting Affidavit in connection with the conversion of Building 4 in our Renton Park to 100% office use. Pursuant to a our telephone conversation today, you confirmed receipt of our parking, landscaping and screening plan required in paragraph 6(B) of the enclosed Application. You also confirmed that it was not necessary for us to submit the information requested in paragraphs 6(A) , (C) and (D) of the Application as this information was previously submitted with our prior site approval applications (see SA-216-78 and SA-150-78) . If you have any questions or require any additional information, please let me know. 1- 4"1441-' Sylvia Otani P.S. Also enclosed is' our check for $125.00 to cover the filing fee. INDUSTRIAL PARKS/WAREHOUSES/OFFICE BUILDINGS/SHOPPING CENTERS AND SPECIALIZED MERCHANDISE MARTS. AFFIDAVIT RiI IED ®, WY 0 1M90 I, Jack A. Benaroya Company being duly sworrn's clgc>=..e 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 May 19 80 , Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, residing at04.1iLL, Jack A. Be roya Company att-C. - ,/a1-4-NC-- B 2, SO..(2,Lckt.- Name of Notary Public) Signature of Owner 5950 Sixth Avenue South Address) Address) Seattle WA 98108 City) State) 762-4750 Telephone) FOR OFFICE USE ONLY) CERTIFICATION This is to certify that the foregoing application has been inspected by me and has been found to be thorough and complete in every particular and to conform to the rules and regulations of the Renton Planning Department governing the filing of such application . Date Received 19 By: Renton Planning Dept . 2-73 f.CF Eb 0 CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM NW 27 1980 FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Application No. S4 O. 3 10 Environmental Checklist No. PROPOSED, date: FINAL,. date: Declaration of Significance E Declaration of Significance EjDeclaration 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 no.t 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 Jack A. Benaroya Company (for occupancy by The Boeing Co. ) 2. Address and phone number of Proponent: 5950 Sixth Avenue South Seattle, WA 98108 762-4750 3. Date Checklist submitted May 23, 1980 4. Agency requiring Checklist Planning Department, City of Renton 5. Name of proposal , if applicable: Boeing offices, Building 4, Benaroya Business Park, Renton 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) : Conversion of Building 4, Benaroya Business Park, Renton, from existing ware- house use with accessary offices to 100% office la5_e, including i nstal l ati on of interior division walls, plumbing, lavatories, and other amenities in accordance with local codes affecting office use. Original Site Plan Approvals were based upon 95% warehouse with estimated 5% accessory office use for entire 7-building Park. This conversion will affect overall development by devoting more than 10% to office use. See SA-216-78 and SA-150-78 for prior related site approvals. 1 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 ) : Building 4, Benaroya. Business Park, Renton 1012 S.W. 41st Street Renton, Washington 8. Estimated date for completion of the proposal : . To be completed in phases; fully complete at September 1 , 1980 9. List of all permits , licenses or government approvals required for the proposal federal , state and local --including rezones) : City of Renton building permit 6,4 10. Do you have any plans for future additions , expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes , explain: No - 11. Do you know of any plans by others which may affect the property covered by your proposal? If yes , explain: No 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? X YES MAYBE NO b) Disruptions , displacements , compaction or over- X covering of the soil? YES MAYBE NO c) Change in topography or ground surface relief features? X ES MA BE NO 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? YES MAYBE NO f) Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands , or changes in siltation , deposition- or erosion which Xmaymodifythechannelofariverorstreamorthe bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? - YES FATIff NO Explanation: 3- 2) Air. Will the proposal result in: a) Air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? X YES MAYBE NO b) The creation of objectionable odors? X YES MAYBE NO c) Alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? X 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? X YES MAYBE NO b) Changes in absorption rates , drainage patterns , or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? X YES MAYBE NO c) Alterations to the -course or flow of flood waters? X YES MAYBE NO d) Change in the amount of surface water in •any water body? X 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? X YES MAYBE NO f) Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? X 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? X YES MAYBE NO h) Deterioration in ground water quality, either through direct injection, or through the seepage of .1•eachate, ' phosphates , detergents , waterborne virus or bacteria, or other substances into the ground waters? X . YES MAYBE NO i) Reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? X YES 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 , Xmicrofloraandaquaticplants)? YES MA1B NO b) Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of flora? X YES' MAYBE NO c) Introduction of new species of flora into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species?S X YES MAYBE NO d) Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? X YES MAYBE NO Explanation: 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)? X YES MAYBE NO b) Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or Xendangeredspeciesoffauna? 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? X YES MAYBE NO d) Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? X YES MAYBE NO Explanation: 6) Noise. Will the proposal increase existing noise levels? X YES MAYBE NO Explanation: 7) Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or glare?X YES MAYBE NO Explanation: 8). Land Use. Will the proposal result in the alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? X YES MAYBE NO Explanation: Existing use of Building 4 is warehouse, storage and distribution with some offices. Proposal will convert to office use. 9) Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a) Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? X YES MAYBE NO b) Depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource? X 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? X YES MAYBE NO Explanation: 11) Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distri- bution, density, or growth rate of the human population Xofanarea? YET— MAYBE NO Explanation: No significant impact is seen. However, additional employees could be located in Renton due to this proposal . ti 5- 12) Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? X YES MAYBE NO Explanation: See paragraph 11 , above. 13) Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in: a) Generation of additional vehicular movement? X YES MAYBE NO b) Effects on existing parking facilities , or demand for new parking? X YES MAYBE NO c) Impact upon existing transportation systems? X YES MAYBE NO d) Alterations to present patterns of circulation or X movement of people and/or goods? YES MAYBE NO e) Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? X YES MAYBE NO f) Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles , X bicyclists or pedestrians? YES MAYBE NO Explanation: See paragraph 11 , above. 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? X YES MAYBE NO b) Police protection? X YES MAYBE NO c) Schools? X YES MAYBE NO d) Parks or other recreational facilities?X YES MAYBE NO e) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? X YES , MAYBE NO f) Other governmental services? X YES MAYBE NO Explanation: 15) Eneray. Will the proposal result in: a) Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? 1(_- YES MAYBE. NO b) Demand upon existing sources of energy, or require X the development of new sources of energy? YES MAYBE NO Explanation: Slight increases in energy consumption could result from proposal . 16) Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or alterations to the following utilities : a) Power or natural gas? X YES MAYBE NO b) Communications systems? X YES MAYBE NO X c) Water? YES MAYBE NO 4 ti 6- d) Sewer or septic tanks? X YES MAYBE NO e) Storm water drainage?X YES MAYBE NO f) Solid waste and disposal ? X 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)? X 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? X YES MAYBE N0 Explanation: 19) Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities?X YES MAYBE NO Explanation: 20) Archeological/Historical . Will the proposal result in an alteration of a siynificant archeological or historical site, structure, object or building?X YES MMAYBE 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. CK A. BB/E? tOYA COMPANY Proponen . signed) Joel Benoliel name printed) City of Renton Planning Department 5-76 e K w 4- , +w . 0 :ILE FILE TITLE Z / If 2 2 Z J / y i ,. , ! y. 2 4\\w \ z . 0. , mod' z 7 ` Z i ®