Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLUA82-015 (2)e i) 0,) y r} t:, 9i' yrf ,G kate. i.S.ir;•¢`SM. it. 4p. % 1 ti ri; r) ( I, r"; r. ,r,„i 1,:-; 17; f--), r, c- 1 Arid,. Pek-i • 1 1 aGtei,441. b-e_glaktvie q vai areeivite: etv-el 19 fo;46 7 vect. 4, eo' tiz. k0 i'VO-LT2 1 1/ I...: r( / 1- - I I- ! L-1 S-I ,R-1 it I GS-1 1 B-1 H_1 104N....simiiii.orviirowiel16... R- 4. B-lif: ' 0 - I' r GB-I11I ' I R 4 B- I eo..•'i iii L IR_ ilk T R-2 0 7 4. I/ 1 R-3 r 1 e ef i r i I F1-1141 ii R-3 . %JA • 1 R-2 i I ---R-I R-1 ....\ SIT v I N 1 . 0 R-4 e• _ r-----y I SR.- I R-31 a R-3J G-90 I G-72DD 3 t--- I VICINITY SCALE ' MAP 0' 400' BOO' 1600' ii ki I 12TH HOrlillil'ir . piolAT . ,zo 64 R OF yBGTION 20, roWNhHIP A PDFTlON 0P TM y.W. 4 OP y/GTION 20, {. 2i3N., r. 5 D.., w•M. TINGAPORTION.OP PAtzaL, I RECORDED UNO R AUtITO14 LU • e , PM° Ah F0l-LOWO: 2 1IEtZOPyAlnyouTlaw>tit C I1Y Q I2NTON , •KING COUNTY, NMHIN&TON 0 yT AL-ON& THE NORTN LINE N 89.10.20" 79TOAPOINTONTilt. NW CORNER OF 344•88 ROAP; Tl-IENGPi YOUTH 5W%,51G.20,0 5TNII-Y MARGIN OP 723N.,tz.5 . o....... • PD RAM 5ET NAZI. @ INr ET TO THt. TRUE POINT NOT FDUNp) W/EAGLE RII7Gt: JRIV y) fl4 NJ;NGI; CONTINUING o TF349.25 Fait.TO THt; lo VSGIZII, HWZeIN;N` 12aPizetNGga - 6-_ 15.1 0 FD.%"I.P. (15.OFF5ET- OLO R/W) TO ALONG yAID OFf4- 0.05 N C5'OFFSET•NEW Rlw) (TOTAL)f To AN AN6l.t POINT;V--, ee o.05r.I y tz coRl7vn yuszv, 9G SAID MAr2&IN OF R=28(o4.g3 1 i... N 89 Iro'56%4 510.74 (512.20 MO) 2S FuT TO nit- MAP&IN G =5°03'44" \ ROAD ANO PWGl;T PRIVE; 1- =253.12 N.\ ....... I0 58 398.22(I.P. To I P) 17.52 IG yAID MAI2l 1N A • T =I2(o44 \O 'o 413.22.(TOT AL-OLD R/W) 0.07 N • To co o : Ztz=2824.93 L •- 7IORt14t-P-LY MARGIN OF. I-73 FD DgASy GAP. a 40 ZZ.(05 ('(o1PL - LOT I ) i 9'40"EAht Al-ONG yAID L. IN 2" I.P • FF &-3 00 9'' s TO TI-1 1E&INNINN OP Al TO IMP- 121GHT; 1HENG!%cr, (NEW R/W) 11, 1 9s• DUGH AN ANGLE OF p R=2834.93 •. • sz o Wt-STE-RLY P-1(014T-OF-WAY ti \ ! 1= 3'05 04• .. J Fo %z"1.!? (15'oFFSE1 OLD Pfw) 2 3s. \• SF TRAN'MIy 'l0N LtN; x \ L' Z.62 00.01 N NEW R/w) Sy TT /)Pe N>; NORTI•I 42°35 54" W ht o1v ' w)c IANDAPY OF PARCEL. NO.40 Ah s N• vt0\LP 0 . ( 1 o tih !1 7 UNDEiz AUDITOtz 9 FILli NOh s r, \ 0 pF¢y_• lI Rio p i SAID 1 0UNDARY, NORTH O o ` I j hh 20 RE<;T TO THe• TRUE POINT 1- o_: • F; 1 5- CD c' gifp -5% s p IL --ILO-- s 3 u1 i ILl Q a«d%z I"p of i 0.35 h 111 o O 10.13E o! 69 olY i . 10E125IGNI.f t\t2 THE ONNE1 S •/2/¢ B GD.%"i.P. II-. o FD I/2"LP. • PLAT1D IN THIS h-1ORT PLAT, AND F}EF -e'( \ \ • \0.35y 0.3 h At7PITioNAL >zIUNT OF WAY SaOWN HEREON . 38358, ...•;•0"14 --_ 335.00 - 0.15 OF T 75.00 a`g83 23 N 88 .50'40"hl I toI0.00 14, o S I`I 88 50'40 1,1 709.99 FRTAGKINaAD ' 0.37 PUb .T I, IV 50UT1-1 N7ooVEI`ITUtzB FD %s°1.R. 47" 0.l04'S 38./gam4-12=6033.23 O.GI W a = 17'5(0'53 FD.%2 I.R. JAMEb H. W I•I ITE L =l`iS.3(0 0.7 5 y$GRTARY I G N 1 =IOoOo r.00E- y y NOTE: SEE •RscoRA/NG No. 79/2/20507 Fro INDILATES FOUND MONUf1ElVT Ay NOTEDfoR /QESTR/C7/vE COVENANTS v Nry 0 5ET %z"x 30" IRON POD WITH PLA 'IIG GAP 5P-a015 - 82, 5A- ©ISO - 8Z GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY RETAIL/OFFICE COMPLEX NORTHEAST CORNER BENSON ROAD S. AND S. PUGET DRIVE RENTON, WASHINGTON E-1737 FOR INVEST/WEST CORPORATION CITY OF RENTON APR 12 1982 BUILDING/ZONING DEPT. Ail Earth Irlbj4r, Consultants Inc. Geotechnical Engineering and Geology Ear r. NConsu " • Inc. r Geotechnical Engineering and Geology 1805 - 136th Place N.E., Suite 101, Bellevue, Washington 98005 Phone: (206) 643-3780/ Seattle (206) 464-1584 March 31, 1982 E-1737 Invest/West Corporation 301 - 116th Avenue S.E. , Suite 380 Bellevue, Washington 98004 Attention: Mr. Kelly Farrell Subject: Geotechnical Engineering Study Retail/Office Complex Northeast Corner Benson Road S. and S. Puget Drive Renton, Washington Gentlemen: In accordance with your request and within the scope of our proposal dated February 22, 1982 this report presents the results of our Geotechnical Engineering Study for the subject project. The purpose of this study was to explore the subsurface soil conditions in order to provide preliminary recommendations for site preparation, foundation and retaining wall design. The scope of our study included test pits, laboratory tests, geotechnical engineering analyses and the preparation of this report. Our study indicates that the site is underlain at depth by dense glacial till. The proposed buildings may be supported on convention- al spread and/or continuous footings bearing on the glacial till . Deep cuts of up to twenty-eight ( 28) feet are planned to establish design grades. Although we expect that these cuts will extend into competent till soils, we recommend additional subsurface exploration by deep test borings. The purpose of these borings would be to verify the anticipated subsurface conditions and to determine if other soil or groundwater conditions exist which could effect the design or construction of the project. The following sections describe the study and explain our recommendations in greater detail. PROJECT DESCRIPTION At the time our study was performed, the site and proposed building locations were as shown schematically on the Test Pit Location Plan, Plate 1. This is based on an undated grading plan by Milbrandt Architects. Invest/West Corporation E-1737 March 31, 1982 Page 2 It is planned to construct two wood-frame retail/office build- ings. The west building is to be one-story over a basement level. The east building is to be two-stories over a parking level, with a basement level beneath the parking in the southwest corner of the building. Floors are to be slabs-on-grade, with floors at Elev. 252 and 265 for the north and south parts of the west building. The parking level for the east building is to be at Elev. 285, with the basement level at Elev. 273. Paved parking will be provided between the two buildings as well as on the east and west sides. The build- ings will be entirely in cut, with cuts up to twenty-five ( 25) feet for the west building and up to twenty-eight (28) feet for the east building. Maximum retaining wall heights are seventeen (17) feet for the west and twelve (12) feet for the east building. The parking areas will be largely in cut with cuts to twenty-three (23) feet and minor fills of two to three feet. At the time of our exploration, detailed column and wall loads had not been developed. For the . purposes of this report, we assume typical wall loads on the order of four kips per lineal foot and column loads on the order of sixty (60) to eighty (80) kips. I If any of the above design criteria change, we should be con- sulted to review the recommendations contained in this report. In any case, it is recommended that Earth Consultants, Inc. be provided the opportunity for a general review of final design. FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING I Our field exploration was performed on February 25, 1982. The subsurface conditions were explored by excavating twelve (12) test pits to a maximum depth of twelve (12) feet below the existing surface at the approximate locations shown on Plate 1. A dozer was used to provide access for some test pit locations. The locations of the test pits were approximately determined by pacing from existing site features shown on the grading plan. Elevations of test pits were approximately determined by interpola- tion between plan contours. The locations and elevations of the test pits should be considered approximate only. The field exploration was continuously monitored by an engi- neering geologist from our firm who classified the soils encountered, maintained a log of each test pit, obtained representative bulk soil samples and observed pertinent site features. Soils were classified visually in the field according to the Unified Soil Classification System which is presented on Plate 2. Logs of the individual test pits are presented on Plates 3 through 8. The final logs represent our interpretations of the field logs and the results of the labora- tory examination and tests of field samples. Earth Consultants, Inc. jl Invest/West Corporation E-1737 March 31, 1982 Page 3 Representative soil samples from the test pits were placed in closed containers and returned to our laboratory for further examina- tion and testing. Visual classifications were supplemented by index tests such as sieve analyses on representative samples. Field mois- ture determinations were performed on each bulk sample. Results of moisture determinations together with classifications, are shown on the test pit logs included in this report. The results of the 'sieve analyses are illustrated on Plate 9. SITE CONDITIONS Surface The site is a four acre parcel at the northeast corner of Benson Road S. and S. Puget Drive in Renton, Washington. The site is bordered to the north and east by existing apartment buildings and to the west and south, by Benson Road S. and S. Puget Drive. S. Puget Drive is up to twenty (20) feet below the site, with a steep cut between the road and the site. A road graded through the cut pro- vides access to the southeast corner of the site and to the apart- ments to the east. The entire site has been extensively graded at sometime in the past, with a broad bench crossing the middle of the site from north to south. The fill benches were deeply eroded by two gullies up to ten. feet deep, crossing the middle of the site from east to west. The site has since been overgrown with extensive blackberry vines and other brush, including small trees. Fill has recently been placed in the southeast part of the site, west of the access road. There is a sewer and storm drain along the north side of the site. Subsurface The site is overlain by up to eight and one-half feet of loose to medium dense silty gravelly sand fill. The fill, and the topsoil where no fill was found, is underlain by medium dense to very dense silty sand with gravel (glacial till) . Slight seepage of perched groundwater was noted in several locations within the fill, between the fill and the underlying till,. and from sand lenses within the till. The till is underlain at undetermined depths by bedrock, parts of which contain coal in sufficient quantities to have been mined in the past. Mines beneath thearea have been abandoned for a consi- derable length of time. Documented subsidence due to coal mining activities in the Renton area has generally taken place during or shortly after terminating the mining and is generally centered around mine entrances, air shafts, and tunnels. No surface evidence of subsidence was noted on the site. Earth Consultants, Inc. Invest/West Corporation E-1737 March 31, 1982 Page 4 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS General As described earlier in this report, the site is basically under- lain by glacial till at or near the planned footing elevations. This dense overconsolidated strata should provide adequate bearing for the proposed structures supported on conventional footings. Floor slabs may also be supported on grade. The surficial loose topsoil mater- ials and current on-site fills are not suitable for support of build- ing loads. Building loads must, therefore, be extended beneath these materials. Foundations for the buildings will be primarily in exca- vated areas. All footings should be extended through any fills and surficial loose soils to the firm soils below. Footings for the northwest corner of the west building will encounter fills existing uncontrolled at the planned footing elevation. As an alternative to extending these footings through the fills, the fills may be removed and replaced by new structural fill which may be used for foundation support. The new structural fill should extend outside the footings a distance equal to or greater than the thickness of the fill. The following sections of this report present more detailed recom- mendations for various geotechnical engineering aspects of the pro- ject which should be incorporated into the project design and con- struction.This report has been prepared for specific application to this project in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices for the exclusive use of the Invest/West Corporation and their representatives. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. Foundations The proposed structures may be supported on conventional con- tinuous and/or spread footings supported on dense undisturbed till soils or new structural fill. Exterior. footings should be bottomed a minimum depth of eighteen (18) inches below the adjacent final grade.. Interior footings may be at twelve (12) inches below the top of slab. Footings extending into dense undisturbed till or on new structural fill may. be designed for an allowable bearing pressure of four thousand (4000) pounds per square foot (psf) , for dead plus live loads. Continuous footings should have a minimum width of sixteen 16) inches. A one-third increase in the bearing pressures may be used when considering wind or seismic loads. For the above design criteria, it is anticipated that total set- tlements of footings will be about one-half inch, with differential settlements of one-quarter inch. Most settlements should occur dur- ing construction. Earth Consultants, Inc. Invest/West Corporation E-1737 March 31, 1982 Page 5 Footing excavations should be examined by a representative of Earth Consultants, Inc. to verify that encountered conditions are as anticipated. Drains should be placed along all perimeter footings and connected to a positive discharge system. Lateral Forces Short term wind or seismic forces may be resisted by passive pressures, and/or friction between concrete and the supporting sub- grade. The passive resistance may be considered as an equivalent fluid load of three hundred and fifty (350) pcf. This value assumes that all footing or basement wall backfill is compacted in accordance with the Site Preparation recommendations in this report. A coeffi- cient of friction of 0.35 may be considered between concrete and soil. Basement and Retaining Walls Basement and retaining walls should be designed to resist lateral, earth pressures imposed by the soils retained by these structures. Walls that are free to rotate one-thousandth of their height at the top should be designed to resist lateral earth pressures imposed by an equivalent fluid with a unit weight of forty (40) pcf. If walls are restrained from free movement at the top, they should be designed for an additional uniform pressure of two hundred (200) psf. The above pressures assume maximum wall heights of twelve (12) to twenty ( 20) feet and that no surcharge slopes or loads will occur above the walls. If deviations from these criteria are expected,. we should be contacted for the appropriate design parameters. In order to protect the basement from infiltration of ground- water, it is recommended that a drain system be installed around the perimeter of the basement walls and beneath the basement floor slab. This drain system 'should consist of a one-foot thick layer of open graded gravel or crushed rock. A system of perforated drain pipes should be embedded within the gravel drain, and sloped to a suitable positive discharge. The pipe used for the subdrain system should be heavy duty PVC preferably schedule 80) or equivalent, as light duty pipe may be crushed by the weight of the backfill soils or floor slab. Cleanouts should be provided to provide a means by which any clogging could be corrected. The size. of the openings in the perforated pipe should be selected based on the gradation of the drain material, in order to preclude piping of the backfill or subgrade soils into the drain system. A layer of filter fabric may also be required. This office can provide recommendations for the proper sizing of the perforations in the drain pipe, after a suitable drain rock has been selected. Earth Consultants, Inc. InvestA estCorporation E-1737 e 6M. ch 31, 1982 Page__ Construction Excavations Excavations of approximately twenty-eight (28) feet will be required for the footings and basement levels of the proposed build ings. The recommendations contained in this report are preliminary and are based on data obtained from test pits which could not pene- trate the entire depth of the planned excavations. Deep borings should be made prior to final design and construction of the ldings to confirm conditions in the excavation areas. Based on e assumpti-a-n--tlrat--m teria s enco n ered in the test pits extemd to the planned excavation depths, we make the following recommendations. Open temporary cuts to a maximum depth of twelve 12) feet should be sloped at 1:1 (Horizontal :Vertical) , and to a maximum depth of twenty ( 20) feet at 1.5:1. As alternatives to open slopes, the cuts may be made as internally braced excavations or as soldier pile/tieback walls with timber lagging. Detailed criteria for these alternatives wo; ; be developed, if required, after comple- tion of deep borings. Perched groundwater was encountered in several of the test pits at depths ranging from two to eight feet. We believe a perched condition exists above the relatively impervious till and may occur within sand lenses in the till. Where present, groundwater should be controlled as outlined in the following section. Groundwater Control The site contains fine grained soils that will make grading operations difficult during wet weather. For this reason, it is important that groundwater be controlled wherever possible. Seepage should be anticipated from cuts during rainy weather. Surface inter- ceptor ditches may have to be placed along the top of all cuts. Sub- surface drains may have to be placed either along the toe or top of all cuts, whichever location appears to be more feasible. We suggest that appropriate locations of subsurface drains be established during grading operations by a representative of Earth Consultants, Inc. , at which time the seepage areas, which if present, will be more clearly defined. The site should be graded to drain at all times and all loose surfaces sealed at night to prevent the infil- tration of rain into the soils. After a rainfall, equipment should remain off the soils until they have had a chance to dry suffi- ciently. Floor Slabs Slab-on-grade floors may be supported on, the compacted subgrade or on structural fill. In cut areas, the upper twelve (12) inches of Earth Consultants, Inc. 1 - O Invest/West Corporation E-1737 March 31, 1982 Page 7 subgrade should be compacted to 95 percent of maximum density to pro- vide uniform conditions beneath the slab. As mentioned earlier, the slab should be provided with a minimum of twelve (12) inches of free draining sand or gravel and a drainage system. This drainage blanket may also serve as the required compacted subgrade. In areas where moisture is undesirable, a vapor barrier such as a plastic membrane should be placed beneath the slab. Two (2) inches of sand may be placed over the membrane for protection during construction and to aid in curing of the concrete. Site Preparation The building and pavement areas should be stripped and cleared of all slabs, trees, existing utilities, surface vegetation, all organic matter and any other deleterious material. It is anticipated that a stripping depth of approximately six inches will be required. Strip- ped materials should be removed from the site or stockpiled for later use in landscaping, if desired. The stripped materials should not be mixed with any materials to be used as structural fill. Following the stripping operation, the ground surface in building areas and in areas where structural fill is to be placed should be proofrolled under the observation of a representative of Earth Consul- tants, Inc. to reveal loose areas. Any loose areas, if found, should be removed to their full depth beneath foundations and replaced with structural fill to a depth that will provide a stable base beneath the structural fill. The toe of all fills should be keyed into firm ground. Structural fill, if used, should' be placed in horizontal lifts not exceeding eight inches in uncompacted thickness. The fill should be compacted to a minimum 95 percent of the maximum dry density in accordance with ASTM Test Designation D-1557-70 (Modified Proctor) . The site soils contain an excessive amount of fines that will make them difficult to compact or work when wet. An approved granular imported fill may be required if grading operations are performed dur- ing wet weather. Imported fill should consist of a granular material with no more than 5 percent fines, passing the, No. 200 sieve. The proofrolling, structural fill approval, placement and compac- tion of structural fill processes should be monitored, tested and approved by a representative of Earth Consultants, Inc. Additional Services The analyses and recommendations submitted in this report are preliminary and are based upon the data obtained from the test pits. Further study including deep borings extending to below the planned excavation levels should be performed to define conditions within the Earth Consultants, Inc. Invest/West Corporation E-1737 March 31, 1982 Page 8 excavation areas. In addition, the nature and extent of variations between the test pit locations may not become evident until construc- tion. If variations then appear evident, Earth Consultants, Inc. should be allowed to reevaluate the recommendations of this report prior to proceeding with the construction. In any case, it is recommended that Earth Consultants, Inc. be provided the opportunity for a general review of the final design and specifications in order that earthwork and foundation recommendations may be properly interpreted and implemented in the design and construction. It is also recommended that Earth Consultants, Inc. be retained to provide geotechnical services during construction. This is to observe compliance with the design concepts, specifications or rec- ommendations and to allow design changes in the event subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated prior to the start of con- struction. The following plates are included and complete this report: Plate 1 Test Pit Location Plan Plate 2 Legend Plates 3 through 8 Test Pit Logs Plates 9 and 10 Grain Size Analyses We trust the information presented herein is adequate for your requirements. If you need additional information or clarification, please call. BUT Respectfully submitted, VIA Sy/ ` A 4' t. L EARTH CONSULTANTS, INC. et irr o N ICQ Phi $' 1 z0s /ST Anil Butail, P. E.S/ANAL E 11 roil Chief Engineer GK/JSL/AB/jg Earth Consultants, Inc. 1 I I i •1 .1 i • i.......••••••• •1 290 7'. 24C' 245 250 255 260 2E5 270 275 280 285 11.me I r t 1 I i hT7 :' TP-I • ., J TP-6 ,i 11 1 .N TP-7 ."1-Z "TP-2 Property II .2.) Line Approximate Scale l 111111. eli / 1111 N•mm i 0 30 60 120ft• 50:„ TP-10' . LEGEND y„, • TP-7 Approximate Test Pit 2 Story ow TP-3245 --_, I Story ,Location T1:) 9. • - B..1Joilvdeir7 • k BaSernen.t.: , TIDN -4‘' B III up ial dr ikningg ' m-. Over N Proposed BuildingtP. 70.t1 . 1. 1) 250 -- 0 I 1 . / 1 i 1 i 1' i I %t. i 310 Existing Building 1/4 I ! 315 1 X‘W1 I TP-5 320 til 1 . '1 ]ie i i 21 le--- 1 j i i' % r A.•. v11 Reference TP12 Grading Plan C TP-6' Mrandt Architects 325 1itt260 •_' i f - --.--—--ma sm. e__.2______:____- -____.-1 315 7 7:1______ ----7_:-- -6 lt 2 Consuants 260 Inc. ..'• , 265 270 27528;290 25- GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING & GEOLOGY S. PUGET DRIVE Test Pit Location Plan Proposed Apartment Complex ZZ Renton, Washington Proj.No. 1737 Date Mar. b2 I Plate I MAJOR DIVISIONS GRAPH LETTER TYPICAL, DESCRIPTIONSSYMMBBOLSYMBOL O: vb. o: p WELL-GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL-SAND GRAVEL CLEAN GRAVELS 00 a GW MIKTURES, LITTLE OR NO FINES ANDb'4. .4 GRAVELLY ( little or me floes) :A ,41::i: SOILS W.'•• •'•• POORLY-GRADED GRAVELS, - GP SAND MIXTURES, LITTLE OR NO FINES COARSE GRAINED I.'B'' I. w/ SOILS NONE THAN sox 4 1* I s s GM SILTY GRAVELS, GRAVEL-SAND- OF COARSE FRAC- GRAVELS WITH FINES N TTT SILT MIXTURES TION RETAINED (e NrKMAI° el.) e1 ice. OM NO.4 SIEVE fines) /tej CLAYEY GRAVEL!, GRAVEL-SAND- GC CLAY MIXTURES A yi o o o°o d WELL-SRAM SANDS, GRAVELLY SAND o o° o 0 o e SW SANOS, LITTLE OR NO FINES AND CLEAN SAND •°e° o ° e Rule or no fin..) •P. °•SANDY SOILS POORLY-GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLY NONE THAN 50%SP SANDS, LITTLE OR NO FINES OF MATERIAL IS LARGER THAN NO. L e. 200 SIEVE SIZE SM SILTY SANDS, SAND-SILT MIXTURES MORE THAN SOX SANDS WITN FINES OP COARSE FRAC- TION PASSING ,( sooreasNs emeeAl dry. .'NO. 4 SIEVE fines)- SC CLAYEY SANDS, SAND-CLAY MIXTURES NORGANIC SILTS AND VENT FINE ML SANDS, ROCK FLOUR, SILTY OR CLAYEY FINE SANDS ON CLAYEY 1 SILTS WITH SLIGHT PLASTICITY FINE SILTS INORGANIC CLAYS Of LOW TO MEDIUM BRAINED AND LIQUID UNIT OL PLASTICITY, GRAVELLY CLAYS, SOILS CLAYS LESS THAN 50 SANDY CLAYS, SILTY CLAYS, LEAN CLAYS OL ORGANIC SILTS AND ORGANIC SILTY CLAYS OF LOW PLASTICITY INORGANIC SILTS, MICACEOUS OR MH DIATOMACEOUS FINE SAND OR SILTY SOILS MORE THAN 501E SILTS OF MATERIAL IS AND LIQUID LIMIT CH NORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGH SMALLER THAN NO. CLAYS GREATER THAN 50 PLASTICITY, FAT CLAYS 200 SIEVE SIZE OH ORGANIC CLAYS OF MEDIUM TO HIGH CITY, ORGANIC SILTS P) 4 4—' . 4 A PEAT, HMV!, 'r LIP. SOILSHIGHLYORGANICSOILSPTWITHHIGHORGANICCONTENTS Imo.• .. . -- TOPSOIL Humus and Duff Layer Uncontrolled with FILL A*? Highly Variable Constituents NOTE: DUAL SYMBOLS ARE USED TO INDICATE SORDERLINE SOIL CLASSIFICATIONS SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART THE DISCUSSION IN THE TEXT OF THIS REPORT IS NECESSARY FAR A PROPER UNDERSTANDING OF THE NATURE OF THE MATERIAL PRESENTED IN THE ATTACHED LOGS I , 2r"O.D.Split Spoon Sampler 1 Ring or Shelby Sample P Sampler Pushed Earth Sample, Not Recovered Consultants Inc. Water Level (date) Ts Torvane Reading LEGEND qu Penetrometer Readings III Water Observation Well PI'OJ. O. 1737 !Date Mar. 182 r----plate. 2 TEST PIT NO. __I Logged By GK Date 2/25/82 Elev. 294± Depth W ft.) USCS Soil Description 0 •0 2" sod) i•i 11 i•SM Tan to gray and brown silty SAND with gravel and 5 ::: wood debris, medium dense grading to loose, moist to wet (FILL) 14 i tit{{ j•;: SM Tan gravelly silty SAND, very dense, moist (TILL) 10 ::1::r:: 11 Test Pit terminated at 11.0 feet. Slight seepage encountered at 3.0 feet. 15 Logged By GK• - 2s5± Date 2/25/82 TEST PIT NO. ____2.___ Elev. 0 ii i. 2" sod) 0 iii• 12 i•i SM Mixed gray and tan silty SAND with gravel, medium 5 ••*• dense grading to loose, moist to wet (FILL) i i i:i 10 ''.' i-i , SM Gray-tan gravelly silty SAND, very dense, moist 8 f, TILL) 1 Test Pit terminated at 11.0 feet. Slight seepage encountered at 2.5 feet. 15 TEST PIT LOGS PROPOSED APARTMENT COMPLEX Earth RENTON, WASHINGTON Consultants Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING & GEOLOGY Proj. No. 1737 I Date Mar. '82 !Plate 3 TEST PIT NO. Logged By GK Date 2/25/82 Elev. 295- Depth W ft,) USCS Soil Description 0 12" sod and disturbed soil) 14 11 1•:•:•` SM Red-tan to gray gravelly silty SAND, very dense, til moist (TILL) 5 Test Pit terminated at 6.0 feet. No seepage encountered. 10 — 15 Logged By GK TEST PIT NO. _ Elev. 286± Date 2/25/82 0 :4.: 2" sod) 18 SM Gray gravelly silty SAND, loose, wet (FILL) , l:tkE: SM Red-tan to gray gravelly silty SAND, medium 5 }{'dense to very dense below 3.0 feet, moist (TILL) Test Pit terminated at 6.0 feet. No seepage encountered. 10 — 15 TEST PIT LOGS k PROPOSED APARTMENT COMPLEX Earth RENTON, WASHINGTON Consultants Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING & GEOLOGY Proj. No. 1737 I Date Mar. '82 Iate 4 TEST PIT NO. -5_ • Logged By GK Date 2/25/82 Elev. 303— Depth W ft.) USCS Soil Description 0 ••••• SM Gray-tan gravelly silty SAND, with a 2.0 foot 12 diameter boulder at 2.0 feet, loose, wet (FILL) 5 ••• I:4 'f, SM Tan to gray gravelly silty SAND, very dense, moist (TILL) Test Pit terminated at 8.0 feet. 10 — No seepage encountered. Caving encountered from surface to 5.0 feet. 15 Logged By/ 25/82 TEST PIT NO. Elev. 297± Date 0 ••••• 4 SM Gray gravelly silty SAND, loose, wet to saturated 16 FILL) 5 — !:^:: f SM Tan to gray silty SAND with gravel and clay, l• jiik very dense, moist (TILL) AV 8 Test Pit terminated at 8.0 ,feet. 10 --1 Slight seepage encountered at '6.0 feet. Caving encountered from surface to 4.0 feet. 15 I y TEST PIT LOGS. lb i' I', PROPOSED APARTMENT COMPLEX RENTON, C WASHINGTON onsultants Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING & GEOLOGY Proj. No. 1737 I Date Mar. '82 ,Plate 5 TEST PIT NO. - Logged By GK Date 2/25/82 Elev. 257± Depth W ft.) USCS Soil Description 0 •.• 16 ii• iii• SM Brown gravelly silty SAND, loose, wet (FILL) i i• 5 •.SSS ii s.4So SM Gray gravelly silty SAND, very dense, moist (TILL) 10 .. r.`..: f Test Pit terminated at 12.0 feet. Slight seepage encountered from 4.0 to 7.5 feet. Caving encountered from 3.0 to 7.5 feet. 15 — Logged 6 Date• 2/25/82 TEST PIT NO. Elev. 270- 0 13 SM Brown silty SAND with gravel, loose, wet (FILL) 5 r._ SM Tan to gray gravelly silty SAND, very dense, i { '• moist (TILL) 1E• i :l:9 10 Test Pit terminated at 10.0 feet. Moderate seepage encountered at 5.0 feet. 15 TEST PIT LOGS 1 PROPOSED APARTMENT COMPLEX Earth RENTON, WASHINGTON Consultants Inc. ` GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING & GEOLOGY prof. No. 1737 I Date Mar. '82 [plate 6 TEST PIT NO. _ Logged By GK Date 2/25/82 Elev. 265± Depth W ft.) USCS Soil Description 0 SM Brown gravelly silty SAND, loose, wet (FILL) 12 5 SM Tan gravelly silty SAND, very dense, moist (TILL) 10 Test Pit terminated at 10.0 feet. Slight seepage encountered from 3.0 to 4.0 feet. Caving encountered from surface to 5.0 feet. 15 Logged By Date 2/25/82 TEST PIT NO. _1 Elev. 281± 0 v.** 2" sod) SM Brown to gray gravelly silty SAND, loose, wet 10 5 :84 FILL) 13 Tan gravelly silty SAND, very dense, moist 10 "; SM ( TILL) 8 Test Pit terminated at 10.0 feet. Slight seepage encountered at 8.0 feet. Caving encountered from surface to 8.0 feet. 15 - TEST PIT LOGS 40$PROPOSED APARTMENT COMPLEX Earth RENTON, WASHINGTON Consultants Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING & GEOLOGY Proj. No. 1737 I Date Mar. '82 'Plate 7 TEST PIT NO. Logged By GK Date 2/25/82 Elev. 285- Depth W ft.) USCS Soil Description 0 ;`j:j; 'a 3" sod) j 10 l SM Red-tan to gray gravelly silty SAND, medium dense grading to very dense below 2 .5 feet, moist TILL) 8 Test Pit terminated at 6.0 feet. No seepage encountered. 10 — 15 -- Logged By GK 270- Date 2/25/82 TEST PIT NO. -l2- Elev. 0 3.. 3" sod) 1*: SM Tan silty SAND with a trace of gravel, medium 16 f, dense, wet 5 SM Red-tan mottled gravelly silty SAND, very dense, moist (TILL) k Pik; 8 Test Pit terminated at 7.0 feet. Slight seepage encountered at 3.0 feet. 10 — 15 TEST PIT LOGS 0 1 0 PROPOSED APARTMENT COMPLEX Earth RENTON, WASHINGTON. Consultants Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING & GEOLOGY Proj. No. 1737 I Date Mar. 82 Iate 8 SIEVE ANALYSIS HYDROMETER ANALYSIS SIZE OF OPENING IN INCHES I NUMBER OF MESH PER INCH,U.S.STANDARD GRAIN SIZE IN MM N C a CON COO 0 0 0 0 0 O m V Cl N O O O O ON 0 O V M N .- , M In .- M V N V fD - O O O O O O O O 0O0 M 6-1 A 100 A 9i 0iy ril IL'S!, ! — 111111_miiiimlopguM liME H 90 Ib0Z 14 D ID 80 1 \ A 20 z m 70 30 XI m0 2 m m fy 2 xi • 40TI60 I G] 2 Osam m J 50 50 21m W hill cn m o 73 60mao CO 6 2i 30 70 m G.) 17 2 O. 20 80 —I 2 O 9010 H1 It, v p 0 I 1111 1 1 I I 111 1 1 I 1 I1111 11 I I IIII 100 N 8O O O co 0 V Cl N 0 CO to V' Cl N 00 O V Cl N co• o O 0 0 0 CDV Cl N •"' 00 fD V Cl N . y w P Cl N 1 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS 0 00 0 00. H ID FINESCOARSEIFINECOARSEIMEDIUMIFINE co Z COBBLES GRAVEL SAND w po N rt ttn 3 Moisture KEY Boring or DEPTH USCS DESCRIPTION Content (%) LL PL z Test Pit No. at.) mmmm z cn 0 TP-2 3.0 SM silty SAND with gravel 12 d ro co tli TP-6 8.0 SM silty SAND with gravel and clay 8 SIEVE ANALYSIS . HYDROMETER ANALYSIS SIZE OF OPENING IN INCHES I NUMBER OF MESH PER INCH, U.S.STANDARD GRAIN SIZE IN MM N 0 CO N CO Cf 0 0 0 O C9 Cr CI NOpOOO O O O O O O0 O 100- D a C'7 N r CI (] r a 1 N Cr (D OOO O O 0 2• 0 rii v 1.0 90 b 10 1 x 080 20 m M az 14 MI40 070 ' 30 si i T1 60 40 -I" - r z 0 1p m m 50 50 m O0 60 Wm40 j m C 30 70 m 0 2 O. 20 80 -I Z O 910 0 r b 4 I IIII I I I I 111I11 1 I I I I I I I I I I I III 100 o a O O 0 000 {OD M N 0 COCD 'fit fh N r 00 f0 V M N r CO0 CD0 0 0 N O 0O O 0 N O O O O' O O 0 0 00 0 O z M N rGRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS c 0 0 0 0 0 v Z CI H Z COBBLES COARSE 1 FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE FINES cn GRAVEL SAND cn 1-3MoistureBoringorDEPTH co z z o)KEY Test Pit No. (ft.) , USCS DESCRIPTION Content o LL PL H o Z 0 C17 m rrn 0 TP-8 2.0 SM silty SAND with gravel 13 I. t or a--- TP-12 2.0 SM silty SAND with a trace of gravel 16 INVEST 1 CORPORATION 11811 N.E. FIRST STREET • SUITE 204 • BELLEVUE.WASHINGTON 98005 • (206) 454-5035 CITY OF RENTON November 11, 1983 NOV 14 1333 BUILDING/LJMNG DEFT. Mr. Fred Kaufman Hearing Examiner City of Renton Municipal Building 200 Mill Avenue South Renotn, WA 98055 Re: SP-015-82 Request for Review due to errors of fact. Mr. Hearing Examiner: Evergreen Properties is hereby requesting a review of the Findings, Conclusions, and Decision made and entered by you on November 4, 1983 regarding our application SP-015-82. A close examination of the basic information supplied by Evergreen Properties to the City of Renton Planning Department will reveal that an error in fact has been made regarding the interpretation of what we were requesting in the fill and grade application. Whereas it was apparently your understanding that we were simply requesting a fill and grade to modify the slopes thus creating two relativelylevelterraces, in actual fact, we were requesting the fill and grade permit to remove approximately 43,000 cubic yards of fill in order to accomplish the required terracing. We ask that you review the follow- ing documents submitted by us to the Planning Department and entered into the record of our hearing as Exhibit #1, Exhibit #2, and Exhibit 5. Specifically, please read in Exhibit #1 the Environmental Checklist Form - Attachment No. 1 - Section II - Environmental Impacts - (1) Earth. Explanation. This document clearly states our desire to remove excess fill from the site. REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT AND DEVELOPMENT November 11, 1983 City of Renton Page Two Exhibit #2 attempts to show through the existing grade and finished grade lines the amount of material that needs to be removed. This Exhibit includes both a north/south and west/east view. As you can see, all. building elevations are below the existing grade. This was done in order to mitigate potential negative height and grade impacts. Within Exhibit #5 is a response from the Parks & Recreation Department in which the essence of what we are ,requesting seems to have been captured by the respondent. We regret that we didn't bring this to your attention prior to this time, however, we received the Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner and construed the word "excavation" to include removal due to the fact that there were several people in the various.departments who knew what we were doing and nowhere in that report was any mention made of not removing the material. In addition, the posting of a bond for street cleaning specified in the preliminary report seemed tobe in line with our intention of operating dump trucks that would be coming from the dirt environment on the property onto public streets, possibly leaving residue on the roadway that would require removal to insure a safe and clean operating surface for motor traffic. In conclusion we pray for a speedy review of our application and favor- able reconsideration of your Findings, Conclusions, and Decision based upon our presentation of information showing that an error in fact now exists. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Sincerely, rfl 4111116e/t KE Y M FARRELL Assists t Vice President KMF/dp Enclosure cc: Roger Blaylock Planning Department Rocs .e be December 1, 1983 OFFICE OF THE LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER DEC 1 :3 CITY OF RENTON REPORT AND DECISION. APPLICANT: EVERGREEN PROPERTIES, J.V./WESTRIDGE PLAZA FILE NO. SA-016-82 LOCATION: Northeast corner of Benson Road S. and Puget Drive S.E. SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Applicant seeks site approval to allow a retail/commercial and office complex of 61,410 square feet on 3.75 acre site. SUMMARY OF ACTION: Building and Zoning Department Recommendation: Approval. Hearing Examiner Decision: Approval. BUILDING & ZONING The Building & Zoning Department Report was DEPARTMENT REPORT: received by the Examiner on October 18, 1983. PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the Building and Zoning 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 November 22, 1983, at 9:00 a.m. in the Council Chambers of the Renton Municipal Building. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner. The Examiner stated this was a continuation of a previous hearing on this matter which was conducted on October 25, 1983. Roger Blaylock, Zoning Administrator, reported that the subject property is located at the northeast corner of Benson Road South and Puget Drive SE, consisting of approximately 3.75 acres; that a special permit for grade and fill has been approved for the subject site; and that the applicant has submitted a modified site plan for development of the subject property. The following was entered into the record: EXHIBIT #6: Revised site plan showing the subject Evergreen properties, Westridge Plaza site. Mr. Blaylock noted that the primary concerns to be considered are the actual location of the public improvements along Benson Road South and the configuration of parking to be sufficient to meet the needs of the proposed buildings. Plus, since that time, a new ordinance affecting the B-1 zone has gone into effect and the site plan has been revised to comply with the setback and landscaping requirements. He further stated that in looking at the site plan, it is evident that from the as-built drawings of the City of Renton's LID for the improvement of Puget Drive South, the back edge of the sidewalk is 33 feet from the centerline of the street. This would mean that there is 7 feet of landscaping on public right-of-way, to complete the 40 feet of right-of-way, plus the 10 feet required under code, for a total of 17 feet of landscaping along the Benson Road South frontage. On the South Puget Drive frontage, this increases even more because of the design of the street and there is in excess of 25 feet. Mr. Blaylock continued by stating that the subject site will actually be developed in two tiers. The parking area will be lower than the office building section and all of the dimensional requirements have been reviewed and do comply with city code. The new criteria that was imposed in the modificiation of the B- 1 zone in October required that a minimum of five feet of landscaping and a six foot high solid fence be provided where there is commercial activities adjacent to multiple family development and where so designated on the Comprehensive Plan. These two areas do show as medium density multiple family. The applicant has provided five feet of landscaping on top and then a rockery, which still has not been determined to be satisfactory and will be so determined at the building permit stage. If the rockery will not meet code requirements, then a retaining wall will be required. EVERGREEN PROPERTIES, J.V./WESTRIDGE PLAZA SA-016-82 December 1, 1983 Page 2 Mr. Blaylock stated that based upon parking requirements, a total of 300 parking spaces would be required for the 61,400 square foot building. The office building has one level of parking underneath it and all of those stalls comply with code requirements. In effect, there is a four-story office building which is actually sunken into the ground. The retail facility is a two-story retail building with an atrium type effect and elevators for entrance. The concerns expressed at the previous hearing have all been addressed and satisfactorily altered on the new site plan. Site plans will also be required with the building permit application and will be inspected again in detail to make sure it is in compliance during construction. The only concern at this time is what type of solid fence will be used along the top margin of the rockery. If not a rockery, but a retaining wall, it would seem reasonable to just continue with the retaining wall. If a rockery, it would seem feasible that the fence should be very substantial to alleviate any hazard because of the multiple family residences. The ERC has reviewed the application again and have not made any suggestions for changes. The application does seem to be in total compliance. at this time. The Examiner noted with reference to the request for reconsideration, his letter was mailed out yesterday modifying the decision and indicating that there will be spoils removed from the site. The Examiner then called on the applicant or representative for testimony. Responding was: Michael L. Smith 1148 - 140th Avenue N.E. Bellevue, WA 98005 Mr. Smith indicated he was representing Evergreen Properties and introduced Leonard Milbrandt, the Architect for the project Mr. Smith stated the critical data has been summarized by Mr. Blaylock. The area along the adjacent residential uses do have a five foot setback requirement and he understands there will be a six foot screening barrier of some type required at that point. With reference to the rockery, that would be an engineering situation which will be reviewed at time of the building permit application. The applicant understands they would be required to engineer the rockery to city standards. The property was a part of the overall Comprehensive Plan and was determined that at this particular corner, a node of commercial use was a complementary use for the area and the existing uses that have proliferated around the site are primarily multiple family, high and medium density and several apartment complexes surrounding the site. Mr. Smith summarized by indicating they feel the subject proposal is.a very compatible use and a good addition to the area. Mr. Blaylock stated, in answer tb a question from the Examiner, that a corrected legal description has been submitted for the site. The Examiner called for further testimony. Responding was: Pat DeLaHunt 752 Fairmont Way Orange, CA 92669 Mr. DeLaHunt stated he was the.representative for the owners of the Abitare Apartments; their main concern is that the office building on the east side would not block the view of the apartments. He stated he was here today to protest that view blockage should it occur and block the view of the first through third floors of those apartments. The Examiner noted the applicant indicates there should not be any view blockage and Mr. Blaylock confirmed that statement. Mr. Smith also outlined the placement of the buildings and indicated there,would not be any view blockage for the apartment. Some discussion was held with reference to the height of the proposed building. It was concluded there would not be view blockage on the southern portion of Abitare Apartments, but there could be some on the north for the lower levels. EVERGREEN PROPERTIES, J.V./WESTRIDGE PLAZA SA-016-82 December 1, 1983 Page 3 The Examiner called for further testimony. Responding was: Leonard Milbrandt 11811 NE 1st, Suite 204 Bellevue, Wa 98005 Mr. Milbrandt commented that originally this property was short platted by the owner of this property and it was then sold to the people who developed the Abitare. At the time that agreement was entered into, there were some restrictive agreements made between the two developers concerning a "no-protest Agreement" regarding development of this piece of property. Since that time, however, the Abitare has been sold to a new owner and they are not aware of these conditions. There was an agreement entered into with the new owner with reference to a temporary fire lane for that development to enable a certificate of occupancy at the time construction was completed. Mr. Milbrandt stated he was not sure whether these documents were a part of the short plat, but were a part of a separate agreement between the owners at that time. There will be some view blockage of the office building of the lower floors of the Abitare on the northern wing. The Examiner asked for a copy of that agreement to be submitted to him for review, which subsequently was labeled as Exhibit #7. Mr. Blaylock indicated the city is not aware of any easements or legal restrictions on the property and asked if there was a view easement granted for the property. Mr. Milbrandt indicated there was none to his knowledge. Mr. Blaylock then stated the city's codes do not address the issue of views. Mr. Blaylock further pointed out the property has been zoned B-1 since 1970, which would have allowed a 95 foot structure on the site. The Examiner called for further testimony or comments. There being none offered, the Examiner closed the hearing and stated his report and decision would be issued within 14 days. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & DECISION: Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: 1. The applicant, Evergreen Properties, filed a request for approval of site plan for two buildings to be utilized for retail and commercial enterprises. 2. The application file containing the application, the State Environmental Policy Act SEPA) documentation, the Building and Zoning 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 SEPA, a Declaration of Non-Significance has been issued for the subject proposal by the Environmental Review Committee (ERC), responsible official. 4. Plans for the proposal have been reviewed by all city departments affected by the impact of this development. 5. The subject site is located at the northeast corner of Benson Road South and Puget Drive Southeast. 6. The site has slopes ranging to and in excess of 15% from east to west. An approved grading plan will modify the slopes, creating two relatively level terraces. 7. North of the subject site are the Thunder Hill Apartments. West of the site is a gas station and grocery store. The Abitare Apartments are located east of the subject site on a bluff overlooking the subject site. 8. The site was annexed into the city in March of 1961 by Ordinance 1871, at which time it was zoned GS-1 (Single Family). In October of 1963, the site was reclassified to R-4 Multi-family residential) by Ordinance 2059. In January of 1970, it was again reclassified to B-1 (Business/Commercial) by Ordinance 2540. EVERGREEN PROPERTIES, J.V./WESTRIDGE PLAZA SA-016-82 December 1, 1983 Page 4 9. A small parcel of R-3 zoning is located toward the northwest of the subject site, while the site is bounded almost completely by R-4 zoning. 10. The site plans submitted by, the applicant amended the original submission to appropriately include street right-of-ways and the required landscaping buffers and setbacks from arterial streets. The applicant proposes approximately 17 feet of landscaping along Benson Road and in excess of 25 feet of landscaping along Puget Drive. A rockery, if approved.by the city, would range in height from approximately 3 feet to 25 feet. A fence, as required by ordinance, would be located at the top of the rockery to separate the commercial uses proposed and the residential uses, the Abitare Apartments, to the east. 11. The retail complex on the west portion of the site will be two stories in height. The office complex which will be stepped into the hillside will be four stories. The lower story will be enclosed parking, while the upper stories will provide office space. The finished elevation of the office building will be approximately 320 feet. The Abitare Apartments, which are rental apartments offered with a "view", are located in such a fashion that the upper stories of the office tower will block the view to the south and west. The owners of the Abitare Apartments objected to the view loss, claiming the view is a big selling point especially at this time when the rental market is slack. An agreement executed by the previous owners of the property waived objection to building height as long as the building met city codes. CONCLUSIONS: 1. The proposed use of the subject site appears to serve the public use and interest. The combination of retail uses and commercial office space will provide a mix of services to the residents of the adjacent multi-family apartments. 2. The site will provide the necessary buffers from the major arterial surrounding the site. Parking will be adequately provided for by the plans both inside the buildings and outside. 3. The landscaping will blend the site into the hillside and provide an aesthetically pleasing working and shopping environment. 4. Unfortunately, the height of the proposed office building will block the rather Impressive view residents of the Abitare Apartments now have. The city codes do not provide any specific provisions regarding view blockage. Although the Comprehensive Plan could offer some guidance, the agreement of the parties regarding height would seem to govern. That agreement waived the rights of the owners of the Abitare Apartments or their successors to object to the height of any project constructed on the subject site. 5. The applicants are on notice that the proposed rockery may not serve as structural support for the grade difference without explicit approval of the Public Works Department. DECISION: The site plan is approved subject to approval of the landscaping by the City's Landscape Architect. EVERGREEN PROPERTIES, J.V./WESTRIDGE PLAZA SA-016-82 December 1, 1983 Page 5 ORDERED THIS 1st day of December, 1983. Fred J. Kaufr Land Use Hearing Examiner TRANSMITTED THIS 1st day of December, 1983 to the parties of record: Michael L. Smith 1148 - 140th Avenue N.E. Bellevue, WA 98005 Pat DeLaHunt 752 Fairmont Way Orange, CA 92669 Leonard Milbrandt 11811 NE 1st, Suite 204 Bellevue, Wa 98005 TRANSMITTED THIS 1st day of December, 1983 to the following: Mayor Barbara Y. Shinpoch Councilman Richard M. Stredicke Richard Houghton, Public Works Director David Clemens, Policy Development Director Members, Renton Planning Commission Ronald Nelson, Building & Zoning Director Roger Blaylock, Zoning Administrator Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Renton Record-Chronicle The Appearance of Fairness Doctrine provides that no ex parte (private one-on-one) communications may occur concerning land use decisions. This means that parties to a land use decision may not communicate in private with any decision-maker concerning the proposal. Decision-makers in the land use process include both the Hearing Examiner and members of the City Council. All communications concerning the the proposal must be made in public. This permits all interested parties to know the contents of the communication and, would allow them to openly rebut the evidence. Any violation of this doctrine would result in the invalidation of the request by the Court. The Doctrine applies not only to the initial public hearing but to all Requests for Reconsideration as well as Appeals to the City Council. Pursuant to Title IV, Section 3015 of the City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed in writing on or before December 15, 1983. 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 $75.00 and meeting other specified requirements. Copies of this ordinance are available for inspection or purchase in the Finance Department, first floor of City Hall. November 4, 1983 OFFICE OF THE LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER :r ' ' y. CITY OF RENTON NOV. 8 1883 REPORT AND DECISION. APPLICANT: EVERGREEN PROPERTIES, J.V./WESTRIDGE PLAZA FILE NO. SP-015-83 and SA-016-82 LOCATION: Northeast corner of Benson Road South and Puget Drive S.E. SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Applicant seeks approval of a special permit to allow 30,000 cubic yards of grading on a 3.75 acre site and site approval to allow a retail/commercial and office complex of 61,410 square feet on the site. SUMMARY OF ACTION: Building and Zoning Department Recommendation: Approval, subject to conditions. Hearing Examiner Decision: Approval, subject to conditions. BUILDING & ZONING The Building & Zoning Department Report was DEPARTMENT REPORT: received by the Examiner on October 18, 1983.. PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the Building and Zoning 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 October 25, 1983, at 9:00 a.m. in the Council Chambers of the Renton Municipal Building. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner. The following documents were entered into the record as follows: Exhibit #1: Yellow file containing the application, staff report, and other pertinent documents pertaining to posting and publication. Exhibit #2: Grading plan showing the subject site. Exhibit #3: Site plan. Exhibit #4: Office building elevations map from various aspects. Exhibit #5: Comments from the various departments on environmental assessment and proposal. Roger Blaylock, Zoning Administrator, presented the staff report. He indicated the request was two-fold in that the applicant was: (1) requesting a special permit to excavate the property to start leveling the site for the complex; and (2) requesting site approval because there are underlying restrictive covenants requiring such approval, as required in the previous rezone request for this parcel. EVERGREEN PROPERTIES, J.C./WESTRIDGE PLAZA SP-015-82 and SA-016-82 November 4, 1983 Page 2 Mr. Blaylock further noted the Comprehensive Plan designates the subject site as commercial and that the site is located on the corner of two designated arterial streets; the site has been sitting vacant for many years and the grading plan would bring the site down a total of 30 feet from the southeast corner. Further, the traffic situation has been very carefully reviewed by the Traffic Engineering Department and a declaration of non-significance has been issued for the project. Mr. Blaylock noted the Police Department commented on the excavation operation with regard to the impact on the general area and have recommended operation be limited for both the excavation and construction from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. during the week days only. Further, that the applicant post a $5,000 cash bond for cleaning the public rights-of-way if the excavation contractor tracts mud and debris onto them during the excavation process. Mr. Blaylock reported the staff recommends all of the roof-mounted equipment be screened from the adjacent apartment buildings. Also, he noted the site plan would have to be modified with the landscaped areas reduced, since the site plan does not show a 10' dedication to the City that has been dedicated to them previously, nor does it show a 10' landscape setback on S. Puget Drive and on Benson. He stated the applicant was advised of this in August and the City has not yet received the revised site plan. Mr. Blaylock reported the staff recommends approval of SP-015-82, subject to the following two conditions: 1. Posting of $5,000 cash bond to be utilized for street cleanup at the direction of either the Public Works Department or the Police Department. 2. Limitation of working hours from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. In respect to the site plan approval request, File SA-016-82, the Building and Zoning Department recommends that the Hearing Examiner continue the item to a time and date certain to allow the applicant adequate time to re-submit a site plan that specifically complies with city codes and the existing legal property in which the proposal is located. The specific drawings must be submitted to the Building and Zoning Department prior to November 16, 1983. The Examiner called for testimony from the applicant or representative. Responding was: Michael L. Smith 1140 - 140th Avenue N.E. Bellevue, WA 98005 Mr. Smith stated the request is for both the special permit and also the site approval under the restrictive covenants applied to the land at the time of the rezone in 1970; the application itself has gone through a rather lengthy review process over a period of 8 months to 1 year, and much of that time was devoted to review by the Environmental Review Committee and they extensively studied the request. There were tests conducted by geologists to determine there would not be any problems with this type of operation for this particular site. Mr. Smith further stated he believes the use is in conformance with the business zone and is compatible with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan.; that he believes through minor modification, those setbacks can be adhered to (landscape and required setbacks) with site obscuring fencing. The Examiner asked the applicant if he had specific plans to submit today; that if the legal description was incorrect when published, the public hearing should not proceed until that is corrected. He stated he would prefer continuing the hearing until receiving clarification and that he would rule on the special permit request during the next two week period, but would wait on the site approval until receiving the information he needs. Mr. Smith stated he would hope the special permit would be approved subject to certain conditions and feels the new site plan change to conform would be a minor one. The Examiner stated the 20 feet on the western property line (10 feet landscaping and 10 feet on arterials) is substantial enough to allow the staff to review it. EVERGREEN PROPERTIES, J.C./WESTRIDGE PLAZA SP-015-82 and SA-016-82 November 4, 1983 Page 3 The Examiner called for further testimony in support of the application. Responding was: Leonard Milbrandt 18111 N.E. 1st Suite 204 Bellevue, WA 98005 Mr. Milbrandt indicated the site plan now shows 15 ' setback and there will only need to be a change of 5' to comply with the request. Mr. Millbrandt indicated he would get the revised plans to the City within a week. The Examiner stated he would issue a report on the special permit portion of this application and continued the site approval portion to November 22, 1983 at 9:00 a.m., dependent upon the applicant providing the information requested to the city within one week. The hearing was closed at 9:40 a.m. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & DECISION: Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: 1. The applicant, Evergreen Properties, filed a request for approval of a special permit to allow approximately 30,000 cubic yards of grading, together with a site approval for a retail/commercial office complex. 2. The application file containing the application, the State Environmental Policy Act SEPA) documentation, the Building & Zoning 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 SEPA, a Declaration of Non-Significance has been issued for the subject proposal by the Environmental Review Committee (ER C), responsible official. 4. Plans for the proposal have been reviewed by all city departments affected by the impact of this development. 5. The subject proposal met with no opposition from the public. 6. The subject site is located at the northeast corner of Benson Road S. and Puget Drive S.E. 7. The site has slopes ranging to and in excess of 15% from east to west. The proposed grading will modify the slopes, creating two relatively level terraces. 8. The grading will require relocation of approximately 30,000 cubic yards of material but will involve no off-site movement of fill material. 9. The grading will lower the southeast corner of the site by approximately 35 feet. 10. West of the site is a gas station and grocery store. North of the subject site are the Thunder Hill apartments. The Abitare apartments are located east of the subject site. 11. The site was annexed into the city in March of 1961 by Ordinance 1871, at which time it was zoned GS-1 (Single Family). In October of 1963, the site was reclassified to R-4 Multi-family Residential) by Ordinance 2059. It was again reclassified to B-1 Business/Commercial) by Ordinance 2540 in January of 1970. 12. The site is bounded almost completely by R-4 zoning with a small parcel of R-3 zoning located toward the northwest of the subject site. 13. The relatively close residential uses have caused staff to recommend that grading and filling be limited to weekday hours between 7:00 A.M. and 7:00 P.M. EVERGREEN PROPERTIES, J.C./WESTRIDGE PLAZA SP-015-82 and SA-016-82 November 4, 1983 Page 4 14. While trucks will not routinely move material from the site, staff nevertheless recommends the posting of a cash bond to assure that roadways surrounding the site be kept clear of debris. 15. The site plans submitted by the applicant failed to detail a ten foot dedication to the city, was based upon the wrong legal description of the property and omitted details related to landscaping setbacks from arterial streets. The applicant agreed to a continuance of the site plan approval process to permit staff analysis of modified plans while the special permit review process for the grading was decided. CONCLUSIONS: 1. The grading of the rather steeply sloped subject property will permit the applicants to make reasonable use of the site and appears to serve the public use and interest. 2. The grading will create two terraces upon which the applicant can base the complex and associated parking. The grading and filling do not appear to create unreasonable impacts upon adjoining properties and as long as the operations are not permitted to occur during the very early hours nor later than 7:00 p.m., the area should be secure from substantial noise. 3. The posting of a cash bond will permit city street crews to clear the roadways of debris should the applicant fail to provide such cleaning. The amount of $5,000 will provide ' sufficient funds for such purpose. 4. Site plan review has been initiated and is required for this property both as a result of a grade and fill permit, as well as a separate condition imposed when the subject property was reclassified to B-1. DECISION: The special permit to grade the subject site is approved, subject to the following conditions: 1. No grading of the subject site shall be permitted other than the weekday hours between 7:00 A.M. and 7:00 P.M. 2. The posting of a cash bond to allow city street crews to clear the streets of debris if the applicant fails to reasonably accomplish the cleaning. 3. Site plan review before the Hearing Examiner. ORDERED THIS 4th day of November, 1983. Fred J. Kauf n Land Use He g Exa er TRANSMITTED THIS 4th day of November, 1983 to the parties of record: Michael L. Smith 1140 - 140th Avenue N.E. Bellevue, WA 98005 Leonard Milbrandt 18111 N.E. 1st Suite 204 Bellevue, WA 98005 EVERGREEN PROPERTIES, J.C./WESTRIDGE PLAZA SP-015-82 and SA-016-82 November 4, 1983 Page 5 TRANSMITTED THIS 4th day of November, 1983 to the following: Mayor Barbara Y. Shinpoch Councilman Richard M. Stredicke Richard Houghton, Public Works Director David Clemens, Policy Development Director Members, Renton Planning Commission Ronald Nelson, Building & Zoning Director Roger Blaylock, Zoning Administrator Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Renton Record-Chronicle The Appearance of Fairness Doctrine provides that no ex parte (private one-on-one) communications may occur concerning land use decisions. This means that parties to a land use decision may not communicate in private with any decision-maker concerning the proposal. Decision-makers in the land use process include both the Hearing Examiner and members of the City Council. All communications concerning the the proposal must be made in public. This permits all interested parties to know the contents of the communication and would allow them to openly rebut the evidence. Any violation of this doctrine would result in the invalidation of the request by the Court. The Doctrine applies not only to the initial public hearing but to all Requests for Reconsideration as well as Appeals to the City Council. Pursuant to Title IV, Section 3015 of the City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed in writing on or before November 18, 1983. 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 $75.00 and meeting other specified requirements. Copies of this ordinance are available for inspection or purchase in the Finance Department, first floor of City Hall. ti 0364Z CITY OF RENTON LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING OCTOBER 25, 1983 AGENDA COMMENCING AT 9:00 A.M.: COUNCIL CHAMBERS, SECOND FLOOR, RENTON MUNICIPAL BUILDING The applications listed are in order of application number only and not necessarily the order in which they will be heard. Items will be called for hearing at the discretion of the Hearing Examiner. EVERGREEN PROPERTIES J.V. Application for a special permit to allow 30,000 cubic yards of grading on a 3.75 acre site and site plan approval to allow a retail/commercial and office complex of 61,410 square feet on said property, file SP-015-82, SA-016-82; property located at the northeast corner of Benson Road South and South Puget Drive. WASHINGTON TECHNICAL CENTER Application for site plan approval for a modification of the approved site plan, file SA-094-81, by reducing the number of buildings from four to three, allowing an addition to building No. 12 and increasing the parking count to accommodate an increase in the percentage of office use in lieu of warehouse/manufacturing use, file SA-065-83; property located at the southwest corner of S.W. 7th Street and Powell Avenue S.W. b , F.ri,.., i, ,,, ,,, p Affidavit of Publication o t c STATE OF WASHINGTON K` ," COUNTY OF KING ss. Cindy Strupp being first duly sworn on oath,deposes and says that she is the chief clerk of Public Notice THE DAILY RECORD CHRONICLE,a newspaper published six(6)times a Application for a special per.4' week.That said newspaper is a legal newspaper and it is now and has been mit to'allow 30,000 cubic for more than six months prior to the date of publication referred to, yards of grading'oria 3.751 printed and published in the English language continually as a newspaper re acre'site and site'plan ap= published four(4)times a week in Kent,King County,Washington,and it is provat to allow a retail/corn-4 now and during all of said time-was printed in an office maintained at the inertial and office'complex. aforesaid place of publication of said newspaper.That the Daily Record of.61,410.;square-feet on, Chronicle has been approved as a legal newspaper by order of the Superior said_•property;•file:SP-015- Court of the County in which it is published,to-wit,King County, 82,.SA-016-82;priiperty lot' i sated at the northeastcorhet) of Benson Road South anal Washington.That the annexed is a.. Land...Use..Hearing South Puget'Drive.; . • WASHINGTON TECHNIC.:; AL CENTER Application for site plan ap. proval for a modification of: as it waspublished in regular issues(and the approved seducie n, file'. g SA=094-81,by reducing thenotinsupplementformofsaidnewspaper) once each issue for a period number•of buildings from four to three, allowing an addition to building No. 12 ; of one consecutive issues,commencing on the and increasing the parking Count'to accommodate an increase in;the percentage14thdayofOctober1983 ,and ending the of office use in lieu'of warehouse/manufacturing use,file SA-065-83;proper- ly located at the southwest day of 19 ,both dates corner of S.W. 7th Street inclusive, and that such newspaper was regularly distributed to its sub- and.Powell Avenue S.W;,- scribers during all of said period. That the full amount of the fee Legal descriptions of the files noted above are on file in the RentokBuilding and 'charged for the foregoing publication is the sum of $..2.7..O Qvhich Zoning Department..- • ;has been paid in full at the rate of per folio of one hundred words for the ALL INTERESTED PER-first insertion and per folio of one hundred words for each subsequent SONS TO SAID PETITIONSinsertion. ARE INVITED TO BE PRE- SENT AT THE PUBLICF\-,-L HEARING ON,OCTOBER 25,1983 AT 9:00 A.M.TO. Chief C 'erk EXPRESS THEIR OPIN-. NOTICE OF : IONS. PUBLIC HEARING • . • ' Ronald G.Nelson 14th RENTON LAND USE - Building and. Subscribedand sworn to before me this day of HEARING EXAMINER Zoning Director RENTON,WASHINGTON `.:Published in the Daily Re- October 19 8 3 A PUBLIC HEARING WILL cord Chronicle October 14, dare LA BE HELDEYTHEINGEX- 1983:R8760 .. LAND USE HEARING EX- AMINER'AT HIS REGULAR ' Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, ;MEETING IN:•THE COUN- residing at Zak, King County. 'CIL1'CHAMBERS, CITY HAL-L ^-RENTO-N, WASHINGTON•-ON ,OC- Passed by the Legislature,1955,known as Senate Bill 281,effective June :TOBER 25;=%1983, AT 9:00 9th, 1955. A.M. TO CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING PETITIONS: • Western Union Telegraph Co. rules for counting words and figures,EVERGREEN PROPER- adopted by the newspapers of the State. TIES,J.V. VN#87 Revised 5/82 0394Z BUILDING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING OCTOBER 25, 1983 APPLICANT: EVERGREEN PROPERTIES, J.V./WESTRIDGE PLAZA FILE NUMBER: SP-015-82, SA-016-82 A. SUMMARY & PURPOSE OF REQUEST: The applicant seeks approval of a special permit to allow 30,000 cubic yards of grading on a 3.75 acre site and site approval to allow a retail/commercial and office complex of 61,410 square feet on the site. B. GENERAL INFORMATION: 1. Owner of Record: Evergreen Properties, J.V. 2. Applicant: Evergreen Properties, J.V. 3. Location: Vicinity Map Attached) Property located at the northeast corner of Benson Road South and Puget Drive SE. 4. Legal Description: A detailed legal description is available on file in the Renton Building & Zoning Department. 5. Size of Property: 3.75 acres. 6. Access: Via South Puget Drive 7. Existing Zoning: B-1, Business Use. 8. Existing Zoning in the Area: G-1, General; R-3, Residential - Multiple Family; R-4, Residential - Multiple Family; and B-1, Business Use. 9. Comprehensive Land Use Plan: Medium Density Multi-Family and Commercial 10. Notification: The applicant was notified in writing of the hearing date. Notice was properly published in the Daily Record Chronicle on October 14, 1983, and posted in three places on or near the site as required by City Ordinance on October 14, 1983. C. HISTORY/BACKGROUND: The subject site was annexed into the City by Ordinance #1871 of March 8, 1961, at which time it was zoned GS-1. The site was later rezoned from GS-1 to R-4 by Ordinance #2059 of October 23, 1963, and again from R-4 to B-1 by Ordinance 2540 of January 19, 1970. D. PHYSICAL BACKGROUND: 1. Topography: The subject site has slopes in excess of 15% from east to west. Final development will create two terraces. PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER EVERGREEN PROPERTIES, J.V.: SP-015-82. SA-016-82 OCTOBER 25, 1983 PAGE 2 2. Soils: Alderwood Gravelly Sandy Loam (AgC), 6 to 15% slopes. Permeability is moderately rapid in the surface layer and subsoil and very slow in the substratum. Runoff is slow to medium and the erosion hazard is moderate. This soil is used for timber, pasture, berries, row crops and for urban development. Alderwood Gravelly Sandy Loam (AgD), 15 to 30% slopes. Runoff is medium and the erosion hazard is severe. The slippage potential is moderate. This soil is used for timber and pasture.. 3. Vegetation: Scrub brush and native grasses and weeds. 4. Wildlife: Existing vegetation provides suitable habitat for small mammals and birds. 5. Water: No surface water was observed. 6. Land Use: The existing site is currently undeveloped. E. NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTERISTICS: The subject site is surrounded by multiple family developments to the nort, east and south. To the west is a grocery store with self-service pumps. F. PUBLIC SERVICES: 1. Utilities: a. Water - A sixteen-inch water line extends along South Puget Drive adjacent to the south; boundary of the subject site and an eight-inch water line extends north and south along Benson Road South adjacent to the subject site. b. Sewer - An eight-inch sanitary sewer line extends north and south along Benson Road South adjacent to the subject site. b. Storm Water Drainage - Will be required to provide 25 year storm water detention with 5 year release system. 2. Fire Protection: Provided by the City of Renton as per ordinance requirements. 3. Transit: METRO Transit Routes #145 and #146 operates along South Puget Drive adjacent to the subject site. 4. Schools: Not applicable. 5. Recreation: Talbot Hill Park is located approximately 2,100 feet southwest of the subject site. G. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE ZONING CODE: 1. Section 4-722(B); Special Permits. 2. Section 4-711; B-1, Business District. H. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OR:OTHER OFFICIAL CITY DOCUMENT: 1. Southeast Comprehensive Plan. 2. Policies Element, Comprehensive Plan Compendium: Section 5A - Commercial Areas Objectives, and Section 5B - Commercial Structures and Sites Objective, p. 16-17. IMPACT ON THE NATURAL OR HUMAN ENVIRONMENT: 1. Natural Systems: Development of the subject site will require excavation of most of the site. Proper development controls and procedures can mitigate the impacts of vegetation loss. disturbing the soils. increased storm Water runoff and increased traffic and noise levels inthe area. PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER EVERGREEN PROPERTIES, J.V.: SP-015-82, SA-016-82 OCTOBER 25, 1983 PAGE 3 2. Population/Employment: More information is needed to determine the impact development of the project will have on employment. However, development of the project will likely provide some opportunities for employment. 3. Schools: Not applicable. 4. Social: Minor. 5. Traffic: The proposed uses are estimated to generate +3,000 trips per day. Further information is needed to more fully assess the impacts of traffic generated by the proposed uses. J. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT/THRESHOLD DETERMINATION: Pursuant to the City of Renton's Environmental Ordinance and the State Environmental Policy Act of 1971, as amended, RCW 43-21C, a declaration of non-significance was issued by the Environmental Review Committee on September 28, 1983. The appeal period expired October 17, 1983. K. AGENCIES/DEPARTMENTS CONTACTED: 1. City of Renton Building & Zoning Department. 2. City of Renton Design Engineering Division. 3. City of Renton Traffic Engineering Division. 4. City of Renton Utilities Engineering Division. 5. City of Renton Fire Prevention Bureau. 6. City of Renton Policy Development Department. 7. City of Renton Parks & Recreation Department. L. DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS; 1. The applicant is seeking special permit approval to allow the excavation of approximately 30,000 cubic yards of material on a 3.75 acre site. In addition, they are seeking site plan approval to allow construction of a 61,000 square retail/commercial and office complex on the same site. 2. The proposals generally comply with the Comprehensive Plan designation of Commercial for the subject site. SPECIAL PERMIT 3. The special permit application to excavate the site will substantially lower the site to the existing roadway grades on both Benson Road South and South Puget Drive. The result will create a parcel that is substantially lower than the adjacent multiple family complexes. 4. The Environmental Review Committee has issued a declaration of non-significance on the proposed excavation activity, but have informed the applicant that rockeries are generally not acceptable as retaining walls in the City of Renton. This could possibly modify the final site plan in that the eastern rockery would not be permitted. 5. The Police Department was the only department commenting on the excavation operation with concerns about the impact on the general area and the traffic patterns. They have recommended that the operations be limited for both the excavation and construction to a period time of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. during the week days. On the weekends, both the apartment complexes are full and the construction activities would create a major intrusion. They have also recommended that a cash 'bond be filed in the amount of 5,000 for the cleaning of public rights-of-way if the excavation contractor tracts mud and debris on them. PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER EVERGREEN PROPERTIES, J.V.: SP-015-82, SA-016-82 OCTOBER 25, 1983 PAGE 4 SITE APPROVAL 6. The site approval is a two-fold requirement. In 1970, the rezoning of the subject site required site approval because of the sensitive nature and high visibility of the subject site. The site approval is also required as part of the Mining and Grading Ordinance in that use plans must be submitted in that process. 7. The Environmental Review Committee determined that the project was non-significant if the following conditions were imposed: a. A positive left turn barrier (C-Curb) shall be installed on South Puget Drive from the intersection of South Puget Drive and Benson Road South to the easterly access of the subject site; and b. Rechannelization on the Benson Road to accommodate two-way left turns opposite the northwesterly access to the subject site. 8. The proposal, as submitted, shows the construction of two buildings. The westerly building will be a retail complex and the easterly building will be an office complex with first floor parking. The site plan as presented does not comply with the existing legal description created at the time of short platting of the subject site in 1979 (Wirth Short Plat, file Sh. Plat-426-79). In that action, the City required the dedication of ten (10) feet of right-of-way along Benson Road South. The right-of-way is now forty (40) feet instead of thirty (30) feet. Both Benson Road South and South Puget Drive are designated arterials under the City of Renton Six-Year Street Improvement Plan. The site plan does not maintain the ten (10) foot landscape setback from the street property line as required by Section 4-716. Both of the buildings will have to be relocated to the east and north, or reduced in size to conform with the requirements. The Building and Zoning Department has not received a' formal submission revising the site plan request. 9. The departments' comments have been clearly evaluated during the process of the environmental review. The original concerns centered on traffic generation and access, and a supplemental traffic study has been prepared specifically addressing the traffic impacts on the intersection of Benson Road South and South Puget Drive. 10. The applicant has not submitted a building permit request. On October 31, 1983, a new B-1, Business Use Zone Ordinance, will go into effect in the City of Renton. This ordinance has a special condition for B-1 uses adjacent to residential uses so designated on the Comprehensive, Plan and appropriately zoned. A fifteen (15) foot landscaped setback requirement will be required along both the northern and western property lines, or a five (5) foot landscaping area along with a solid six (6) foot high barrier. It appears that a building permit application would be applied for after the new code provisions go into affect and therefore would be specifically applicable at that time. The site plan approval application does not vest the property own with any specific rights. PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER EVERGREEN PROPERTIES, J.V.: SP-015-82, SA-016-82 OCTOBER '25, 1983 PAGE 5 M. DEPARTMENTAL RECOMMENDATION: Based upon the above analysis, it is recommended that the special permit for fill and grade, file SP-015-82, be approved subject to the following two conditions: 1. Posting of $5,000 cash bond to be utilized for street cleanup at the direction of either the Public Works Department or the Police Department. 2. Limitation of working hours from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. In respect to the site plan approval request, file SA-016-82, the Building and Zoning Department recommends that the Hearing Examiner continue the item to a time and date certain of Tuesday. December 6, 1983, to allow the applicant adequate time to resubmit a site plan that specifically complies with city codes and the existing legal property in which the proposal is located. The specific drawings must be submitted to the Building and Zoning Department prior to November 16, 1983. s,„ , - - . i, --. i., ..• . .C---i. .1. . . . •c- ILI IJ , ,i; 1 7 1 1 1 e,, , V 4 L. 1 1 14 : 1 ti w 1 J f_ I- ''- m1. 1 0. 0L as/ i .. 4 11,1 rl 1 eauIL-. .. psi]I i.il( .1 f • 8-1 L Illl l, D IIlTrItillI °' ';,(r !!:1 p 7'I 11 1( „ , 1 5 r---= c III I: I V psy: : ` 1_' i '7 R-4Ili( IO •' ''.' 1 ' - f7"ft •,',r • r I. I 1 1,.-- }— - s -• \` % 1i`. -- \1 I -_ li• 1 . I; L 4 -- --11' f7.-( i 11 -- 1. Bs_____,__ S n qy... ate r i..... Tii „..:,.. . i:i ..., •,,, n 41 - 7 J . !I —'' , -1. , , „ , , T----1- . ° Z6\ a:. 5 R-4 G 9 IF J ^' R-4 , I:kyr II —_ 7 .-:, nl-]-- 1 1 i eo a-11 n6fr- pp "-- 7 ' .+ e o , r 2 . 1 ,--- 7 '. li \ i •3 W W lipl, Q Z,'r y{ rWIN/TA+ a R-4e1— 'b r• t• ti . t,/ L 1 .t r 1 III, 7 ' - I— LT y 1`-C, . i 1 ., I III 6 tom(! 1LL L HILL ^.:a. 1 , •( \ 1— -- — 5C EVERGREEN PROPERTIES, J.V. SP-015-82 SA-016-82 APPLICANT EVERGREEN PROPERTIES, J.V. TOTAL AREA - 3.75 PRINCIPAL ACCESS SOUTH PUGET DRIVE EXISTING ZONING B-1, BUSINESS EXISTING USE UNDEVELOPED PROPOSED USE RETAIL/COMMERCIAL AND OFFICE,COMPLEXES COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN MEDIUM DENSTIY MULTI—FAMILY & COMMERCIAL COMMENTS i .i ; L............: .....: t........: 200 209 AD 2,9 200 2•1 9•9 ITI lc 22.1 ltL. / . - ..) . . 1 H t i x::).'.' 1 . "kik- l'I-1 , i Approximate Scale N.,. FE Elev. . FE Fiva.Elev. 285* s :s A. Inal.11=1.1111.111==1 0 50 60 LEGEND 120ft 52* li s\.. ,,...... I Story WI Approximate Test Pit 2 Story Building • Location 01 e 'Iding1 1 \ .! '.,i .'., . i\3uOvers_ t; . .\ ' ' .... is ' Parking Proposed Building i 01. _ N s: s Existing BuildingAno4 r,„. 1)0 i, F.F.265Eletv. i 1 70 11. - Cross Section Line A _ kA. ( See Plate 2) 1:. ,- i• 1.9 190.---•,..' ... , i 325 f \ ; ... fl. --. '"....:.'‘.....- 4, Reference: Grading Planr. \Ety Milbrandt Architects Undoted L'Is.,,,.... Earth - t Consultants Inc. -, ir 2ts GEOTECNNIG•L ENGINEERING A GEOLOGY K ', -- - - S. 1 PUGET DRIVE Site Plan l,•- 74 ,7 Proposed Apartment Complex Renton, Washington Proj.Pio. fr37 I Date Apr. '83 I Photo I I IE it 320' EXISTING GRADE R-E 310' I FINISH GRADE 300' 6ENsoN etff "/O///O%/%O//O//O //.- /'; 270' ROAD d //////// A// 260' dif. '250' i%/ i%%//%////%/ ,F/ SECTION 'A' t"-30'-0" G P It 320' 0EXISTINGGRADE 3t0' FINISH GRADE 300' P. BENSON j 280' ROAD. i%' i 270' 260' i G SECTION 'BI KEY PLAN 1 30'-0"NO SCALE NI IP_ It EXISTING GRADE FINISH GRADE S. PUGET / 290'DRIVE // 280' i d 270 SECTION 'C' t". 30-0• REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/ ISION : A Approved Approved with Conditions ® Not Approved 0.//Q•,(o R ! vu'4iotS. ARJ7 1' . L_ b'c• // 5 6 1 1. 1 G u U S7JZGCc r>CJ 23' D S DATE: iC gna tune of Dire or-- r Authorized Representative REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: 1 Approved [Approved with Conditions J Not Approved • / //l iA4AI; C%' de/ (2 //$?// 7 y W/ fi.>} ‘ / / . JC%/<' Cc' /l"ll/J l C 17 Zd c/)`7'` ( 77-fY7 X. .`/7i/l J' /j/11J /`S/ r/( i/ l /S'.S Z•k' C'. 5 2 ll-C(f: DATE: j// S nature o D •ector or Authorized Representative REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : POLICE Approved xl Approved with Conditions 0 Not Approved 1) Due to the apartments in the area all work be limited to between 7:00AMand7:00 PM Monday thru Friday with no work allowed on Saturdays & Sundays. 2) Street cleaning cash bond of $5,000 be posted for street cleaning when the site is excavated for building as this area has a clay like soil that causes DATE:, Signature dais cytcir or Authorized Representative the city a real, street cleaning problem if the contractor does not clean the str Lt.- Dom! Pe son 3/31/82 REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : IVIR S '64 RECe....E.Perl0J0 Approved ELApproved with Conditions [] Not Approved l/Jo,e / p,}CT a .v ,i9at°irs 1P&. r,ES G ONly/vows rye i iC 6AJ6, P,v/sjodi) fPr/awes Sire shiouc-D SE 4ELacue1) CPA y) FiPCr73 9Rm 76 9jr, Z:1P 32 . is co P4.erez, , 1120-4L ‘,DATE: M 1 tYt ZSignatureofDirectororAuhorizRepresentative REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : C'5:' *-ea't4--r-IP. Approved ® npwroved with Conditions ® Not Approved 2) e a'q edv '• ei v.1 eil o 4--..Vic...-- gfeS. i S 'Q® %o-f.3 c ' AL5 £' ter- DATE: Aye Signature of Director or Authorized Repres . tive REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: 7r?-C-ETC G/G,Iti Cf`:rztjC Approved ®Approved with Conditions Not Approvedr> Ie e d d C , 1 fr. X , . i FRe. 2 62c/€di 4 cc 6 p a,e_-yy Vq.,34 ac 42 ---"Wir Rio e 0 o y-.-.. DATA:Z Signature of Director or Authorized Repre ent REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : L( i' r ' 5 Approved [Jpproved with Conditions 0 Not Approved 4—.1Nool _tef, 4 ,&., ,/, L.,/ i,.._,_ ri - ,_ I DATE: r, i z Signature of r rector or Authorized Representative 6)7,L ;Tv ,-A;r- . UTILITY APPROVAL SUBJECT TO , --- -_-'-- 5~/"'' ," Z---- LATE COMERS AGREEMENT - WA1E!! (q! - 3,'c ti, /.1,)_, S/ r,!L= LATE COMERS AGREEMENT - SEDER Sj-'? 4Xfi C',[,.") "4T.- /'%,7 SYSTEM DiYE!uPLENT CHARGE • WATER 1 SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE • SEWER 1:!.4 i 'cam a Illy ii e of de,/e/. SPECIAL ASSESSMENT AREA CHARGE - WATER Air SPECIAL ASSESSMENT AFEA CHARGE • SEDER Xj,, APPROVED WATER RAH VE- APPROVED SEWER PLAN APPROVED FIRE t1TDRRANT 1GLATIOES BY FIRE DEPT. FIRE FLOW ANALYSIS k ;,j REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : - -. 00 Approved 13'l'pproved with Conditions ® Not Approved i-t:G5 r // i ` -- /U /Oz '1t f/' i,-/, .. hit 4,././/fr'ave- -'c. A J ter' r i 3^ ,„ DATE: , 0 4.7 Signature o Direc or or Authoriz d Representative FINAL DECLARATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (REVISION) Application No(s): SP-015-82. SA-016-82 Environmental Checklist No.:ECF-013-82 Description of Proposal:Application for special permit to allow 30,000 cubic yards of grading on a 3.75 acre site and site approval to allow a retaiVcommercial and office complex of 61,410 square feet on said property. Proponent; Evergreen Properties J.V. Location of Proposal: Property located at the northeast corner of Benson Road South and South Puget Drive. Lead Agency: City of Renton, Building and Zoning Department This proposal was reviewed by the ERC on March 17, 1982. July 27, 1983 and September 28, 1983. following a presentation by Jerry Lind of the Building and Zoning Department. Oral comments were accepted from: Don Persson. Gary Norris. Ronald Nelson. Richard Houghton. James Hanson, David Clemens. Jerry Lind. James Matthew. Roger Blaylock and Paul Lumbert. Incorporated by reference in the record of the proceedings of the ERC on application ECF-013-82 are the following: 1. Environmental Checklist Review. prepared by: James H. White. DATED February 22, 1982. 2. Applications: SP-015-82 and SA-016-82. 3. Recommendations. for a declaration of non-significance: Public Works Department. Building and Zoning Department, and Policy Development Department. 4. Reotechnical engineering study by arth Consultants. Inc. 5. Traffic analysis by The Transpo Group (Dated July 14. 1983). Acting as the Responsible Official. the ERC has determined this development does not have a 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: Will not adversely, Impact the environment or adjacent properties and that the following requirements shall be complied with: 1. A positive left turn barrier (C-curb) shall be Installed on South Puget Drive from the Intersection Of South Puget Drive and Benson Road to the easterly access of the subject site. 2. Rechannelization on the Benson Road to accommodate two way left turns opposite the northwesterly access to the subject site. FINAL DECLARATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (REVISION) EVERGREEN PROPERTIES J.V. SEPTEMBER 28. 1983 PAGE 2 INFORMATIONAL NOTE: 1. Rockeries are not allowed as retaining walls. 2. No rockeries can be over four(4) feet in height. SIGNATURES: 1/:( ('((/e f Ronald G. Nelson David R. Clemens Building and Zoning Director Policy Development Director 4.t Ri hard C. Houghton (l Public Works Director PUBLISHED: OCTOBER 3. 1983 APPEAL DATE: OCTOBER 17. 1983 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST REVIEW SHEET ECF - 013 - 82 APPLICATION No(s) : SPECIAL PERMIT SP=015-8 2, SITE APPROVAL SA-016-8 2 PROPONENT: EVERGREEN PROPERTIES J.V. PROJECT TITLE: WWESSTRIDGE PLAZA Brief Description of Project : RETAIL/COMMERCIAL COMPLEX OF TWO STORY CONSTRUCTION LOCATION: INTERSECTION OF BENSON ROAD SOUTH AND SOUTH PUGET DRIVE AT NORTHEAST CORNER SITE AREA: 3.75 ACRES BUILDING AREA (Gross): DEVELOPMENT COVERAGE. (%) : IMPACT REVIEW NONE MINOR MAJOR MORE INFO 1) Topographic Changes: X 2) Direct/Indirect Air Quality: X 3) Water & Water Courses: X 4) Plant Life:X 5) Animal Life: X 6) Noise: X 7) Light & Glare: X 8) Land Use; North: MULTIPLE FAMILY East: MULTIPLE FAMILY South: MULTIPLE FAMILY West: MIT1CIAL Land Use Conflicts: NONE View Obstruction: NONE 9) Natural Resources: X 10) Risk of Upset: X 11) Population/Employment: X 12) Number of Dwellings: x 13) Trip Ends (ITE) : 4,200 (WORST CASE) Traffic Impacts: LIMED LEFT TURN MOVEMENTS 14) Public Services: x 15) Energy: X 16) Utilities: X 17) Human Health: X 18) Aesthetics: X 19) Recreation: X 20) Archeology/History: X Signatures: I7-,e3----/-----% -c---;":e.6-'-1 s,......Ze/er/ 7a.ei--7...),( i Ronald G. Nelson David R. Clemens Building & Zoning Director Policy Development Director e i el y</ 4 f PUBLISHED: DBER 3, 1983 R chard C. Houghto APPEAL DATE F1117. 1983 Public Works Director 0365Z 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 OCTOBER 25, 1983, AT 9:00 A.M. TO CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING PETITIONS: EVERGREEN PROPERTIES J.V. Application for a special permit to allow 30,000 cubic yards of grading on a 3.75 acre site and site plan approval to allow a retail/commercial and office complex of 61,410 square feet on said property, file SP-015-82, SA-016-82; property located at the northeast corner of Benson Road South and South Puget Drive. WASHINGTON TECHNICAL CENTER Application for site plan approval for a modification of the approved site plan, file SA-094-81, by reducing the number of buildings from four to three, allowing an addition to building No. 12 and increasing the parking count to accommodate an increase in the percentage of office use in lieu of warehouse/manufacturing use, file SA-065-83; property located at the southwest corner of S.W. 7th Street and Powell Avenue S.W. Legal descriptions of the files noted above are on file in the Renton Building and Zoning Department. ALL INTERESTED PERSONS TO SAID PETITIONS ARE INVITED TO BE PRESENT AT THE PUBLIC HEARING ON OCTOBER 25, 1983, AT 9:00 A.M. TO EXPRESS THEIR OPINIONS. PUBLISHED : October 14, 1983 Ronald G. Nelson Building and Zoning Director CERTIFICATION I, JERRY 'LIND, HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THREE COPIES OF THE ABOVE DOCUMENTS 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 the King County, on the 11th day of October, 1983. Ozzteeeiviegz—_ SIGNED:4;YIOL k' ' 4:.:, ': ., im c:11 : . :,:,,.. 1 ' '' ' U 0 © Z . NOTiCE R9TfD SEP-0'. • , . City ,Land' Use',He4ringof. Renton Examiner will hold a. ' - • s . . ,.. . „ ., in., I . CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS.; _CITY :.HALL ON , nCTOBFR 25, 1983 BEGINNING ;AT , , 9:00 A.M. P.M.-:! CONCERNING: . FILE SP-015-82, SA-016-82 From To -1REZONE CONDITIONAL USE - PERMITXSPECIAL To ALLOW 30,000 CU. mS OF GRADI d. ON •A, . .A1W , SITE I X SITE- :APPROVAL - . ' z . , ,: PLAT/SUBDIVISION ., of LotsSHORT I PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT , VARIANCE FROM . -.,' -Y-- ;-, -.. -- H -. . . '. • - GENERAL LOCATION AND/OR ADDRESS: LOCAI L AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF BENSON ROAD:SOUfH. AND SOUTH. PUGET DRIVE. LEGAL DESCRIPTION ON FILE IN THE RENTON BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT. ' ENVIRONMENTAL . DECLARATION:;_. 0 SIGNIFICANT NON SIGNIFICANT,: FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CALL; THE ,CITY. OF. . RENTON .' BUILDING 8 ZONING DEPARTMENT; 235-2550 THIS NOTICE NOT TO BE '. REMOVED WITHOUT I IM ANLJT III 1ZATION NOTICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE RENTON, WASHINGTON The Environmental Review Committee (ERC) has issued a final declaration of non-significance, with conditions, for the following project: EVERGREEN PROPERTIES J.V. (ECF-013-82) Application for special permit to allow 30,000 cubic yards .of grading on a 3.75 acre site and site approval to allow a retail/ commercial and office complex of 61,410 square feet on said property; File SP-015-82,SA-016-82, located at the northeast corner_ of Benson Road South and South Puget Drive. Further information regarding this action is available in the Building and Zoning Department, Municipal Building, Renton, Washington, 235-2550. Any appeal of ERC action must be filed with the Hearing Examiner by October 17, 1983. Published: October 3, 1983 Affidavit of Publication STATE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY OF KING ss. Cindy Strupp being first duly sworn on oath,deposes and says that she is the chief clerk of THE DAILY RECORD CHRONICLE,a newspaper published six(6)times a week.That said newspaper is a legal newspaper and it is now and has been for more than six months prior to the date of publication referred to, printed and published in the English language continually as a newspaper published four(4)times a weekin Kent,King County,Washington,and it is now and during all of said time was printed in an office maintained at the aforesaid place of publication of said newspaper.That the Daily Record Chronicle has been approved as a legal newspaper by order of the Superior Court of the County in which it is published,to-wit,King County, Environmental Determination Washington.That the annexed is a as it was published in regular issues(and not in supplement form of said newspaper) once each issue for a period N to A m m- «C'y !.7 co al o 01cr tv u50cc a c `° a' m E ac0i . one rU Roc _c..9c_cc oSa o0ofconsecutiveissues,commencing on the Q a.c v o Q (n c N N c- i0 ODN 0 m tj m 0 m N 0 E._ 5 n N 0 t L 3rddayof October 19 83 ,and ending the Z ,,m c u1-1 s- cw 40 ocooc g r d c me eGCO c 'V2 day of 19 both dates LL $ v t7 L.L. W N 3 w°'' n 12 co C°f inclusive, and that such newspaper was regularly distributed to its sub- scribers during all of said period. That the full amount of the fee z ro IVO v rn ¢ ,a n o o , CD W0 ¢too; W 0u > 5.? charged for the foregoing publication is the sum of $ 18 • Q Qvhich Z F 1 z -a0cc o 0 co no c n E`o o f rsthas bnseen lion and id in full at the rate per folio off one hundred words forerfolioofoned each subsequent Z z_ c m v' m m z LL° c.E a a,rnm u) insertion. V ZO°U 3 -•-6 0= W w c o ro ` c° E o r5W8 W onsc (7jmo _ m . . m WZjr cU-' 0w-'a-- o' n ` 61:-.-_---: 0_ OWwz F- wcc. >tAnEv o '- cc >Ngi Wia2' >.m= C Chief Clerk Subscribed and sworn to before me this 3 X'.d day of tv ac_) < z Octo.b..r , 19....8.3 Z w w7 6C 0 cc cD >Z Notary Public in and for the State of Washington,z residing atZjX, King County.l_ W 1\,\C- ^f'`. rorr C ^F"`^s+a Passed by the Legislature,1955,known as Senate Bill 281,effective June sS ` ' 1 "'^^ 9th, 1955. Western Union Telegraph Co. rules for counting words and figures, iiiadoptedbythenewspapersoftheState. 0r VN 87 Revised 5,82 xL9 44CDECLARATION APPLICATION NO. FILE SP-015-82, SA-016-82, ECE-01 _82 PROPOSED ACTION APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW 30,000 CU, VD: OF GRADING ON A 3.75 ACRE SITE AND SITE APPROVAL TO ALLOW A RETAIL/COM"ERCIAL AND OFFI( COMPLEX OF 61,410 SQ1 FT. ON SAID PROPERTY. GENERAL LOCATION AND OR ADDRESS LOCAItB AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF BENSON ROAD SOUTH AND SOUTH PUGS DRIVE. l POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION. THE CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE ( E.R.C.3 HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED ACTION DOES XDOES NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT WILL 4WILL NOT BE REQUIRED. AN APPEAL OF THE ABOVE DETERMINATION MAY BE FILED WITH THE O E N N HEARING EXAMINER BY 5:00 R M., 1/3 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT THE CITY OF RENTON BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT 235-2550 DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZAT 'ZN FINAL DECLARATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (REVISION) Application No(s): SP-015-82, SA-016-82 Environmental Checklist No.:ECF-013-82 Description of Proposal:Application for special permit to allow 30,000 cubic yards of grading on a 3.75 acre site and site approval to allow a retail/commercial and office complex of 61.410 square feet on said property. Proponent: Evergreen Properties J.V. Location of Proposal: Property located at the northeast corner of Benson Road South and South Puget Drive. Lead Agency: City of Renton Building and Zoning Department This proposal was reviewed by the ERC on March 17. 1982. July 27, 1983 and September 28, 1983, following a presentation by Jerry Lind of the Building and Zoning Department. Oral comments were accepted from: Don Persson. Gary Norris. Ronald Nelson, Richard Houghton, James Hanson. David Clemens. Jerry Lind. James Matthew. Roger Blaylock and Paul Lumbert. Incorporated by reference in the record of the proceedings of the ERC on application ECF-013-82 are the following: 1. Environmental Checklist Review. prepared by: James H. White, DATED February 22. 1982. 2. Applications: SP-015-82 and SA-016-82. 3. Recommendations for a declaration of non-significance: Public Works Department, Building and Zoning Department. and Policy Development Department. 4. Reotechnical engineering study by Earth Consultants. Inc. 5. Traffic analysis by The Transpo Group (Dated July 14, 1983). Acting as the Responsible Official, the ERC has determined this development does not have a 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: Will not adversely impact the environment or adjacent properties and that the following requirements shall be complied with: 1. A positive left turn barrier (C-curb) shall be installed on South Puget Drive from the intersection of South Puget Drive and Benson Road to the easterly access of the subject site. 2. Rechannelization on the Benson Road to accommodate two way left turns opposite the northwesterly access to the subject site. FINAL DECLARATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (REVISION) EVERGREEN PROPERTIES J.V. SEPTEMBER 28, 1983 PAGE 2 INFORMATIONAL NOTE: 1. Rockeries are not allowed as retaining walls. 2. No rockeries can be over four (4) feet in height. SIGNATURES: femzis Ronald G. Nelson David R. Clemens Building and Zoning Director Policy Development Director Ri hard C. Houghton Public Works Director PUBLISHED: OCTOBER 3, 1983 APPEAL DATE: OCTOBER 17, 1983 II ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST REVIEW SHEET ECF - 013 - 82 APPLICATION No(s) : SPECIAL PERMIT SP=015-82, SITE APPROVAL SA-016-82 PROPONENT: EVERGREEN PROPERTIES J.V. PROJECT TITLE: WESTRIDGE PLAZA Brief Description of Project : RETAIL/COMMERCIAL COMPLEX OF TWO STORY CONSTRUC`1'ION LOCATION: INTERSECTION OF BENSON ROAD SOUTH AND SOUTH PUGET DRIVE AT NORTHEAST CORNER SITE AREA: 3.;75 ACRES BUILDING AREA (Gross) : DEVELOPMENT COVERAGE (%) : IMPACT REVIEW NONE MINOR MAJOR MORE INFO 1) Topographic Changes: X 2) Direct/Indirect Air Quality: X 3) Water & Water Courses: X 4) Plant Life:X 5) Animal Life: X 6) Noise: X 7) Light & Glare: X 8) Land Use; North: MULTIPLE FAMILY East: MULTIPLE FAMILY South: MULTIPLE FAMILY West : COMMERCIAL Land Use Conflicts: NONE View Obstruction: NONE 9) Natural Resources: X 10) Risk of Upset: X 11) Population/Employment: X 12) Number of Dwellings: X 13) Trip Ends ( ITE) : 4,200 (WORST CASE) Traffic Impacts : LIMT1' LEFT TURN MOVEMENTS 14) Public Services: x 15) Energy: X 16) Utilities: X 17) Human Health: X 18) Aesthetics:X 19) Recreation: X 20) Archeology/History: X Signatures: la/ teetezi Ronald G. Nelson avid R. Clemens Building & Zoning Director Policy Development Director 4.4.41541 PUBLISHED: OCTbBER 3, 1983 R chard C. HoughtoW APPEAL DATErmnivt 17. 1983 Public Works Director 6-83 OF R s, 0 z THE CITY OF RENTON MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE.SO. RENTON,WASH.98055 melL e' BARBARA' Y. SHINPOCH, MAYOR • LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER O,9 T FRED J. KAUFMAN. 235-2593 SO SEPt5M0 Q, MEMORANDUM DATE: October 4, 1983 TO:Finance Department FROM: Fred J. Kaufman, Land Use Hearing Examiner Tefri SUBJECT: Refund to Invest West Corporation For Evergreen Properties) Application SP-015-82; SA-016-82 Please refund to Invest West Corporation the sum of $75 which was paid by them on August 15, 1983 far the above referenced appeal. Said appeal was never processed and. this money should be refunded at this time. CITY OF RENT vN N'o FINANCE DEPARTMENT 2'747 RENTON, WASHINGTON 98055 5 1983RECEIVEDOF _ r, i. 015 1 ERP -D(3-13')- TOTAL OF R4, a® 6 .0 o THE CITY OF RENTON MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON,WASH. 98055 n r> rn BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH, MAYOR 0 LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER 9 T D co FRED J. KAUFMAN. 235-2593 SEP11-1# August 29, 1983 Mr. Kelly M. Farrell Assistant Vice President Invest West Corporation 11811 N. E. First Street Suite 204 Bellevue, WA 98005 RE: Evergreen Properties Application'#ASP:=O15-8274 d",'SA=016 82 -, Dear Mr. Farrell: Please be advised that this office has no jurisdiction over the above appeal request by youuntilreceiptofthefinaldeterminationbytheEnvironmentalReviewCommittee. At that time, you may contact this office to perfect your appeal. Sincerely, Fred J. Ka man Land Use Hearing Examiner FIR:se cc: ERC Building & Zoning Department 1.' INVEST E , CORPORATION 1 11811 N.E. FIRST STREET • SUITE 204 • BELLEVUE.WASHINGTON 98005 • (206) 454-5035 RECEIVED CITY OF RENTON HEARING EXAMINER August 15, 1983 AUG 151983 AM p511 PM 41819, 1 12111213141516 Mr. Fred Kaufman. Hearing Examiner- City of Renton Municipal Building 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 RE: Appeal of Environmental Review Committee Requirement Evergreen Properties Application #'s SP-015-82, SA-016-82 Environmental Checklist #ECF-013-82 Mr. Hearing Examiner: Evergreen Properties is hereby appealing requirement number 2 of the Final Declaration of Non-Significance Document issued by the Environ- ment Review Committee and dated July 27, 1983. In conjunction with our appeal to you, we have also written a letter to the Environmental Review Committee requesting reconsideration of requirement number 2. If the Environmental Review Committee doesn't choose to reconsider requirement number 2 we would like to have a hearing date scheduled so we can present our case as to why that requirement is inappropriate. Our presentation will center on several points. A few of them are as follows: 1. Traffic Analysis by the Transpo Group (Dated July 14, 1983) 2. Completion of a brand new L.I.D. for full traffic, signaliza- tion, sidewalk and lighting improvements at the intersection our property borders. 3. Reduction of traffic volumes at that intersection since the completion of SR 515 (Talbot Road Extension) . 4. The possibility of alternative solutions to accommodate the requirement. 5. Justification from the City as to why a brand new L.I.D. designed and constructed by the City with full knowledge of our property's zoning and contemplated improvements is now obsolete when it appears that none of the criteria that existed at the time of the planning and construction phases have changed. REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT AND DEVELOPMENT August 15, 1983 Mr. Fred Kaufman 1 City of Renton Page Two It is our hope that upon further evaluation by the Environmental Review Committee that a full hearing on this issue will not be necessary. However, if it is, these points will be the focus of our argument. Thank you for your time and consideration, and we look forward to seeing you when our site plan approval application comes before you for final approval. Respectf lly yours, 7 KELLY M. ARRELL Assistant Vice President 4 - CITY OF RENTON o FINANCE DEPARTMENT 2 47 RENTON, WASHINGTON 98055 RECEIVED OF S V mOth eOn i rU k ! QP1)t'u3 o dsA Otto-82- er.P TOTAL S' pO OF I rick PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Z TRAFFIC ENGINEERING DIVISION • 235-2620 p MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE.SO. RENTON,WASH. 98055 90 co. 09' CO SEP E 44P BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH C9iU MAYOR 3'OThi4 i; J1-4 SEP 2September28, 1983 6 1983 11. lrtiC/?i f'fis''' DEP . TO:, Jerry Lind/ERC FROM: Gary Norris, Traffic Engineer SUBJECT : Westridge Plaza - Traffic Analysis Files ECF-013-83, SP-015-83, SA-016-83 Pursuant to your request, I have reviewed the traffic analysis for theisubject development submitted by David Hamlin. Based upon his analysis, I don't believe the cost of lengthening the right turn pocket is justified by anticipated benefits. Therefore, my recommendation is that the extension of the right turn pocket on Puget Drive to Westridge's easterly driveway be removed as a condition of the ERC for that development. 4/1u, GAN:ad Ais INTER—OFFICE MEMO TO: DATE SEPTEMBER 22, 1983 FROM: JERRY LIND RE: WESTRIDGE PLAZA-TRAFFIC ANALYSIS EVERGREEN PROPERTIES FILES ECF-013-83, SP-015-83, SA-016-83 The building & Zoning Department is in receipt of a traffic analysis report submitted by David Hamlin for the above referenced project. Please review this report. We will be discussing this at our next meeting on September 28th. rbrr INTER—OFFICE MEMO DATE SEPTEMBER 22, 1983 FROM: JERRY LIND RE:WESTRIDGE PLAZA-TRAFFIC ANALYSIS EVERGREEN PROPERTIES FILES ECF-013-83, SP=015-8X SA-016783_ The building & Zoning Department is' in receipt of a traffic analysis report , submitted by David Hamlin for the above referenced project. Please review this report. We .will be discussing. .this at our next meeting on September 28th. ' MI, City of Rc oa B ildirg&Zonq Dept Pi ;f flf CC@ELF, SEP 22 1983 Members of The Environmental Review Committee (ERC) City of Renton 200 Mill Ave. S. Renton, Washington 98055 SUBJECT: WESTRIDGE PLAZA, TRAFFIC ANALYSIS, INTERSECTION S. PUGET DRIVE/BENSON RD. S. Gentlemen: This report, submitted at the request of Invest-West, provides a summary of our traffic analysis of the inter- section of S. Puget Dr. and Benson Road S., The report specifically addresses A.M. and P.M. traffic operations with and without the proposed "Westridge Plaza" Retail/ Office Development and examines the need and potential benefits of a new extended westbound right-turn lane at the subject location. The referenced intersection has undergone a recent major reconstruction that included widening, curbs, sidewalks, illumination, and re-signalization. It also included the provision of a small right-turn lane for westbound traffic. The project commenced in March of 1982 and was completed last Fall. We have conducted peak hour manual traffic counts at the intersection. We have used the information from the counts to prepare a capacity analysis for the intersection for both peak hour periods of the day. We also used the information presented in the July 1983 TRANSPO "Westridge Plaza Traffic Analysis" to determine the Level of Service for the intersection following completion and occupation of the "Westridge Plaza" project. Our capacity analysis was conducted using the 1965 Highway Capacity Manual". The intersection was analyzed to determine the ultimate capacity which was then compared with the existing and projected (after "Westridge Plaza") volumes to determine the Level of Service. We also examined the effect on morning peak hour ,level of service that would result from the provision of an extended westbound right-turn lane. We did not assess the impacts Environmental Review Committee Page 2 of an extended westbound right-turn lane on the afternoon peak hour since westbound right-turns are very minor during that period. The following table summarizes the findings of our capacity analysis: level of service Period Existing Existing Projected Volumes (1) Volumes (2) Volumes (1) A.M. Peak Hr. B/C A/B B/C P.M. Peak Hr. A/B B/C 1) Existing Configuration 2) With extended westbound right-turn lane The results of the cpapacity analysis indicate that the intersection should be operating at a very acceptable level of service under todays conditions and that it will continue to do so following development of the "Westridge Plaza" project. The findings of the capacity analysis are 'actually quite conservative (towards the "worst case's condition) since the capacity levels presented in the 1965 Highway Capacity Manual were developed prior to the universal adoption of "right-turn on red" and at a time when traffic signal controllers and detection systems were far less sophisticated than todays equipment. It is my opinion that the intersection should actually be operating at or near Level of Service "A" during both peak hours. If it is not, then I would suggest that controller timings be reviewed to improve the responsiveness to traffic conditions. We have also conducted an analysis of the probable average queue of traffic for the westbound approach to the inter- section. The purpose of this investigation is to provide an estimate of the maximum number of vehicles that may be waiting in the westbound traffic lanes just prior to a green indication for that movement. Our methodology for this analysis was as follows: average queue = total red time per cycle (WB) X veh/hr (WB) 3600 The results of this analysis were as follows: average queue AM peak hour with project 12. 4 vehicles without project 12. 4 vehicles PM peak hour with project 6. 5 vehicles without project 12. 4 vehicles Environmental Review Committee Page 3 The above estimates indicate that the back-up of westbound traffic during peak traffic hours would be very moderate . under todays' conditions and will not be significantly im- pacted by the proposed project. It appears evident from the above analysis that there is no technical justification for an extended westbound right-turn lane at the intersection. While right-turn lanes may add a degree of convenience at almost any intersection, it is also clear that there should be justification, based on proper traffic analysis, before the expense and resources should be committed to construct any traffic improvement. This is especially true when a number of brand-new fixed improvements curb, sidewalk, hydrants, luminaire standards, utilities, etc) would need to be demolished and/or relocated. It is also a simple fact of life that right-turn lanes need to be of significant length to be of noticeable benefit during peak traffic hours. For example, a right-turn lane would have to have a total length of approximately 230 to 250 feet to allow right-turning vehicles to avoid being delayed by a queue of 6 to 8 vehicles in the curb lane. For this reason, it is generally considered far more worthwhile to design an efficient signal system and adequate intersection geometrics when compared to the excessive cost, disruption, and marginal benefits of a right-turn lane. I believe that the preliminary findings of the ERC that called for the construction of an extended westbound right- turn lane on S. Puget Drive east of Benson Road S. as a condition of approval for the "Westridge Plaza" project should be withdrawn. This recommendation is based upon my own analysis and the fact that the need for the lane has been niether suggested nor supported by the Renton Traffic Engineering Division or the developers ' original traffic consultant. I have enclosed figures showing the results of traffic counts and traffic projections that have been used for this analysis. I have also enclosed an excerpt from the Hi hwa Capacity Manual showing the relationship between volume capacity levels and Level of Service. I will be pleased to provide further information on this matter and to meet with the ERC if and when required. Very truly yours, F _\41DIt. 14eP ULl David I. Hamlin, P.E. 111111 0 Yhl ao. PP O Pc EO . . lib 0.\ STROC31 PLAAA" 49, 35 51 2°1 3 41 3 5 a 35 1.5 1 6 3 20$ 314 Ti 52 - 1`3% AM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES EXISTING FIGURE 1 0 P1210 P05-EDfiB61- 1 WESTRID(16 R.1\--Eatk" 49. 1 52.2 13'6 cair 325 loco qo 2.4 224 4UCA 15, 19b3 1 1.6D PIA PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES EXISTING FIGURE 2 s cc S: • 1' P1aa0 n 2a o T- •45 14 y 13 23 I 1 AM PEAK HOUR TRIP DISTRIBUTION WESTRIDGE PLAZA" TRIPS FIGURE 3 1.0 g s, y z PP O PO5 PUcl7,fi'N WC-51-R%D (.E PLA-Ek" 49 i 33 j7o 1N - 2 D 1 ( __ t OUT- 2°5 2(p 32 IV")52 c3°) (- - 13 12. PM PEAK HOUR TRIP DISTRIBUTION WESTRIDGE PLAZA" TRIPS FIGURE 4 ti; So PP O PO5E.D pu wESTR'DCE p 4 A" QZ7 41. 3'1%. 6)314 3 S O 55 X C TO !_ V O L J V tu) "\VESTR1 DL76 PLAN" TRATFI G N OTC :. N 0 AL L D\VA:NI C E FcDR `"1 NTEP,L-EP (E,L)" TRl P5. AM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES EXISTING + "WESTRIDGE PLAZA" TRIPS FIGURE 5 V. 59 PF-lO Poe G vESI i D( E PLAZA 49 T c33 2q 13 4,5cg-1)31.)310 c)) 315 I I* D) I '(5) 9) z3) 2ZI C.2) X Z( TOTAL VIOL-U(NeNt, t( XX) \V€S( ,I Dc E PLAZA° TRAFFIC NO ALLO\VANCE FOR " rP,1 P . PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES EXISTING + "WESTRIDGE PLAZA" TRIPS FIGURE 6 TABLE 10.13—LEVELS OF SERVICE FOR URBAN AND SUBURBAN ARTERIAL STREETS TRAFFIC FLOW CONDITIONS TYPICAL APPROXIMATIONS, NOT RIGID CRITERIA) SERVICE LEVEL VOLUME/ OF AVERAGE° CAPACITY SERVICE OVERALL LOAD'LIKELY RATIO" DESCRIPTION TRAVEL FACTOR PEAK-HOUR SPEED FACTOR MPH) A Free flow 5-30 .0.0 0.70 Z0.60 relatively) 0.80) B Stable flow 525 Z0.1 Z0.80 Z0.70 slight delay) 0.85) C Stable flow 520 Z0.3 R.0.85 0.80 acceptable delay) 0.90) D Approaching unstable flow 515 Z0.7 0.90 Z0.90 tolerable delay) 0.95) . E° Unstable flow.--- Approx. <I.0(0.85 <0.95 Z l.00 congestion;intolerable delay)15 typical)" F Forced flow 15 Not Not Not jammed) meaningful) meaningful) meaningful)r lion offllevels,wiratingthdueconedand sideration giveratioarcenindependent fact that they arc largelyrrat o ice:alizaoth limits lions.Load factor,aflmeameasure ed in o determina-tion intersection level of service,can be used as a supplemental criterion where necessary. b This is the peak-hour factor commonly associated with the specified conditions;in practice,considerable variation is possible.Values in parenthesis refer to near-perfect progression. Load factor of 1.0 is infrequently fond,even under capacity operation,due to inherent fluctuations in traffic Row.Capacity. Demand volume/capacity ratio may well exceed 1.00,Indicating overloading. 50V RC E : 1965 NI Cal-1`VA:e CAP/A fl.`( TAN\ LIA.L. FIGURE 7 OF R r O THE CITY OF RENTONz MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON,WASH. 98055 mil •l.• Ca BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH. MAYOR • LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER 0 FRED J. KAUFMAN. 235-2593 94, 6.0 SE PI August 29, 1983 Mr. Kelly M. Farrell Assistant Vice President Invest West Corporation 11811 N. E. First Street Suite 204 Bellevue, WA 98005 RE: Evergreen Properties Application #SP-015-82 and SA-016-82 Dear Mr. Farrell: Please be advised that this office has no jurisdiction over the above appeal request by you until receipt of the final determination by the Environmental Review Committee. At that time, you may contact this office to perfect your appeal. Sincerely, Fred J. Kau man Land Use Hearing Examiner F J K:se cc: ERC 1/ Building & Zoning Department INVEST E CORPORATION i 11811 N.E. FIRST STREET • SUITE 204 • BELLEVUE.WASHINGTON 98005 • (206) 454-5035 RECEIVED CITY OF RENTON HEARING EXAMINER August 15, 1983 AUG 151983 AM PY PM 1819,T111112111213141516 Mr. Fred Kaufman. Hearing Examiner- City of Renton Municipal Building 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 RE: Appeal of Environmental Review Committee Requirement Evergreen Properties Application #'s SP-015-82, SA-016-82 Environmental Checklist #ECF-013-82. Mr. Hearing Examiner: Evergreen Properties is hereby appealing requirement number 2 of the Final Declaration of Non-Significance Document issued by the Environ- ment Review Committee and dated July 27, 1983. In conjunction with our appeal to you, we have also written a letter to the Environmental Review Committee requesting reconsideration of requirement number 2. If the' Environmental Review Committee doesn't choose to reconsider requirement number 2 we would like to have a hearing date scheduled so we can present our case as to why that requirement is inappropriate. Our presentation will center on several points. A few of them are asfollows: 1. 'Traffic Analysis by the Transpo Group (Dated July 14, 1983) 2. Completion of a brand new L.I.D. for full traffic, signalize- tion, sidewalk and lighting improvements at the intersection our property borders. 3. Reduction of traffic volumes at that intersection since the completion of SR 515 (Talbot Road Extension) . 4. The possibility of alternative solutions to accommodate the requirement. 5. Justification from the City as to why a brand new L.I.D. designed and constructed by the City with full knowledge of our property's zoning and contemplated improvements is now obsolete when it appears that none of the criteria that existed at the time of the planning and construction phases have changed. REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT AND DEVELOPMENT 1 August 15, 1983 Mr. Fred Kaufman City of Renton Page Two It is .our hope that upon further evaluation by the Environmental Review Committee that a full hearing on this issue will not be necessary. However, if it is, these points will be the focus of our argument. Thank you for your time and consideration, and we look forward to seeing you when our site plan approval application comes before you for final approval. I Respec,tf lly yours, 07/ P KELLY M. ARRELL Assistant Vice President f, INVEST EST CORPORATION 11811 N.E. FIRST STREET • SUITE 204 • BELLEVUE.WASHINGTON 98005 • (206) 454-5035 haw:EJ g I"` i 11. Augustt 15, 1983 11 .° y i n fi ; Environmental Review Committee c/o Roger Blalock City of Renton Municipal Building 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 RE: Request for Reconsideration of Requirement Number 2 of Final Declaration of Non-Significance Environmental Checklist No. ECF-013-82 Committee Members: Evergreen Properties would like you to reconsider Requirement No. 2 of the Final Declaration of Non-Significance Document as we feel that this requirement is inappropriate given the circumstances which currently exist at the intersection our property fronts on. As I recited in my letter to the Hearing Examiner, there are certain criteria which deserve further consideration by the ERC before requirement number two is firmly decided upon. These criteria should include: 1. Traffic Analysis by the Transpo Group (Dated July 14, 1983) 2. Completion of a brand new L.I.D. for full traffic, signaliza- tion, sidewalk and lighting improvements at the intersection our property borders. 3. Reduction of traffic volumes at the intersection since the completion of SR 515 (Talbot Road Extension) . 4. The possibility of alternative solutions to accommodate the requirement. 5. Justification from the City as to why a brand new L.I.D. designed and constructed by the City with full knowledge of our property's zoning and contemplated improvements is now obsolete when it appears that none of the criteria that existed at the time of the planning and construction phases have changed. REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT AND DEVELOPMENT d August 15, 1983 Environmental Review Committee Page Two. We sincerely hope that upon further investigation by the ERC that they will reconsider requirement number 2 and dismiss it from the traffic improvements required by Evergreen Properties in order to develop their ' property. Thank you for 'your time and consideration in this matter. Respectf}i11y, i Lr.; REKELLYM. FAR/ LL Assistant Vice President KMF/dp t INVESTESTCORPORATION 11811 N.E.FIRST STREET • SUITE 204 • BELLEVUE.WASHINGTON 9B005 • (206) 454-5035 C5 y3,; - '.P:•'ti7,j aer : 1 ri i 5 1 p3 August 15, 1983 Mr. Roger Blalock Building & Zoning Department Municipal Building 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 RE: Evergreen Properties' Site Plan Approval Application Dear Roger: As of today's date, please address all.. correspondence concerning the application to our new office address which is• 11811 N.E. 1st, Suite 204, Bellevue, Washington 98005. The address is correct for both Evergreen Properties and Invest West Corporation. The telephone number for both of the aforementioned is still 454-5035. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely KELLY M. F LL Assistant Vice President KMF/dp REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT AND DEVELOPMENT OF R4, BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENTUe !. 4 RONALD G. NELSON — DIRECTORZmu. ..,„may m0, 9 MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, WASH. 98055 • 235-2540 co- 094TFo SEP-TvE BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH MAYOR MEMORADUM DATE: AUGUST 3, 1983 TO: FRED KAUFMAN, LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER FROM: ROGER-BLAYLOCK, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR SUBJECT: EVERGREEN PROPERTIES J.V./SP-015-82 and SA-016-82 It has come to our attention during the final review of the legal description for the above subject applications thatthat a significant discrepency exists between the proposed site plan and the underlying short plat. This difference will cause major revisions to the site plan. Therefore, we request that the applications be dismissed without prejudice. A it NOTICE OP 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 AUGUST 9, 1983, AT 9:00 A.M. TO CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING PETITIONS: EVERGREEN PROPERTIES J.V. Application for special permit to allow 30,000 cubic yards of grading on a 3.75 acre site, file SP-015-82, and site approval to allow a retail/commercial and office complex of 61,410 square feet on said property, file SA-016-82; property located at the northeast corner of Benson Road South and South Puget Drive. Legal descriptions of the files noted above are on file in the Renton Building and Zoning Department. ALL INTERESTED PERSONS TO SAID PETITIONS ARE INVITED TO BE PRESENT AT THE PUBLIC HEARING ON AUGUST 9, 1983, AT 9:00 A.M. TO EXPRESS THEIR OPINIONS. PUBLISHED : July 29, 1983 Ronald G. Nelson Building and Zoning Director CERTIFICATION I, ROGER BLAYLOCK, HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THREE COPIES OF THE ABOVE DOCUMENTS 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 the King County, on the 27th day of July, 1983. Prree 1A SIGNED• C Affidavit of Publication STATE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY OF KING ss' CITY O6; i i i 4:. 1 ..._, . .. — 11 ;, .1 '-:-1 it)Cindy Strupp being first duly sworn on LitA SEP 131983 oath,deposes and says that she is the chief clerk of THE DAILY RECORD CHRONICLE,a newspaper published six(6)times a r'r week.That said newspaper is a legal newspaper and it is now and has been for more than six months prior to the date of publication referred to, printed and published in the English language continually as a newspaper published four(4)times a week-in Kent,King County,Washington,and it is now and during all of said time was printed in an office maintained at the aforesaid place of publication of said newspaper.That the Daily Record Chronicle has been approved as a legal newspaper by order of the Superior Court of the County in which it is published,to-wit,King County, Washington.That the annexed is a...Land..Use...He.ari.ng NOTICE.OE..F.:.?,.,.: PUBLIC,HEARING ••. '•_.;:,PUuiIC..NQ ice RENTON LAND,USE' ' HEARING'EXAMINER',,:•H.hearing on August 9,-1982 RENTON,;WASHINGTON;-,:at 9:00 a.m.to express•th@Ir A Public Hearing will be-opini0re''.'` = , ' , as it was published in regular issues(and held-by.-the;'Renton;Land •'' Ronald G:Nelji. not in supplement form of said newspaper) once each issue for a period • UseHeanngExamirierathis.'•Building end Zoning Direct regular meeting in the Coun- cil Published in the Daily P - cocilChambers,City Hall,Re-.! rd ,Chronicle-.July,2 of one consecutive issues,commencing on the nton,Washington onAugust j.1983. R8622• ,..}; ; 9,;'1983,;at,9:06/a.m. to:i consider the follatwing,pati 2 9 t 8 3 tionsi-- E :- .',;,:..' ' ',y of July 19 and ending the EYEflG'REEN PRQ Appl for'.special-•'-' day of 19 ,both dates permit:to'alloW.30,000- inclusive, and that such newspaper was regularly distributed to its sub- cubic yardsof,gradingon ;,J scribers during all of said period. That the full amount of the fee a 3.75 acre site,file SP-.:. 015-82,and site approv al,to allow a:retaiucom- charged for the foregoing publication is the sum of $. 9.r..a,owhich mercial and-office com=: has been paid in full at the rate of per folio of one hundred words for the plex of' 61,410.square first insertion and per folio of o hundred words for each subsequent feet on'said propety,file;;insertion. SA=016-82;'property'•lo-: sated•*-at;the,;northeast,:: comer of?Benson Road South and South:Puget Drive. ,..7.;<• ;;:`; ChiAf..C erk Legal.descriptions.of the tiles noted:-above are on file. 1 in the Renton•Building'';and'-, Subscribed and sworn to before me this 2.9th day of Zoning`Qepartrnent<.'"`!•`•• .! All Interested'persons'to said petitions are:lilted to July., 19...a3. c. c lbe.?pr sentr,:at'rthe.,pilblij w,,,,_07„._. Notary Public in and the State 000ff Washington, residing at Icy(King County. F nr+a 1-Maw-- Passed by the Legislature,1955,known as Senate Bill 281,effective June 9th, 1955. Western Union Telegraph Co. rules for counting words and figures. adopted by the newspapers of the State. VN 087 Revised 5/82 I .,,..-1 .1.1 IPACIFICLANDRESEARCH 1140 140th Ave. N.E • Bellevue, Washington 98005 206) 454-4421 (206) 226-2099 rAUG,5 98; August 2, 1983 TO: LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER 1.- Explanation of Request The Applicant, Evergreen Partnership, is requesting approval of a pro-posed site plan per restrictive covenants recorded with the subjectI- property at the time it was rezoned to B-1 ,. Business. The Applicant ' also requests a special permit to grade the subject site and remove approximately 43,000 cubic yards of material in order to appropriatelypreparethesitefortheproposeduseasdesigned. See attached. plansfordetailsofthesiteplan, buildings, and cut/fill areas. The sub-ject site has previously been disturbed. The proposed use is a planned neighborhood retail complex of approxi- mately 61 ,000+ square feet of commercial space devoted primarily tosmallerretailusers. The proposed site plan consists of two build-ings. . The westerly building is a two-story arrangement with parkingunderneath. The easterly building is a three-story building with". park-ing on the lower story. The buildings have been designed and sited to create a cohesive planned complex-with a pleasing architectural style. Surface parking for 307+ cars4circulation area, together with land- scaping, *utilizes the remainder of the site. See attached plans and environmental checklist with accompanying geology/mine report and traffic analysis for further information. 2. Conformance to Comprehensive Plan and Goals & Policies Element The proposed Business use is compatible with the Comprehensive Plan forthesiteandsurroundingarea. . The ,proposed use will provide convenient limited commercial uses andservicestothesurroundingresidentialcommunity. The area has experi- enced an influx of single-family and multiple-family housing in recentyears, especially in the immediate vicinity surrounding the subject site.This growth, together. with 'the development of a commercial node on thesubjectsite, is in compliance with the original planning for the area, and it has been upheld in subsequent adopted comprehensive planning andzoningstudies. The location of a neighborhood commercial node in close proximity to a residential land use concentration is valid land use concept. Land Use Planning& Feasability • Government Interface • Development Land Use Hearing Examiner 2' August 2, 1983 It' can provide. a convenient variety of services while reducing certain unnecessary vehicle trips because of its convenient, location. Sufficient residential growth has occurred in the surrounding area to provide a sufficient economic base to successfully operate the proposed complex, thus culminating the intent of the Comprehensive Plan and original master zoning plan for the area. The Renton Comprehensive Plan Policies Element appears to support the proposed use as well . Section 5 regarding commercial areas specifically provides guidance regarding such uses. ..-Section 5.A.3 'and 5.A.4 encour- age the location of clusters of commercial _uses to minimize travel and " congestion while improving access. :.The subject site _is" very suitably located at the intersection of two arterial streets with sufficient frontage on both to provide safe and convenient access without significant congestion or safety problems"(see accompanying traffic report) . Puget Drive and Benson Road have just recently undergone a significant improve- ment program (L. I .D. 322) of widening, channelization, and signalization, thereby improving access and circulation to the site consistent with the proposed use. The site is adjacent to and surrounded by significant concentrations of residential uses (i .e. , apartments, condominiums, and single-family subdivisions) . This also conforms to policy 5.A.7 given the general acceptability in planning thought to location of commercialland-use nodes near higher density residential uses as a buffer to the lower density (usually single-family) residential uses. This also provides more immediate access for a greater number of people to a certain amount of retail facilities. The proposed center is providing a variety of goods and services (5.A.9) within a common design theme (5.A. 12) . The' Policies Element of the plan relative to adequate access, circulation, parking, and impacts on adjacent land uses within Sections 5.A. and 5.B. will be discussed further as they relate more specifically with the zoning and specific site planning for the site. 3. Relationship to Zoning and Surrounding Land Uses The subject site plan .is compatible with all ofthe minimum requirements of the B-1 Business zone. The existing B-1 zone does not make distinctions - between types of business uses such as strip commercial from more planned commercial shopping complexes. The proposed planned center meets all. the minimum zoning requirements with respect to setbacks, heights, access, parking, landscaping, coverage, etc. . It goes beyond the Code by providing an architecturally styled commercial center with atrium entries that add aesthetic appeal difficult to legislate 'in a zoning code. Such planning and design features add cohesiveness to the total site concept and reduce potential impacts to surrounding properties. Land Use Hearing Examiner 3 August 2, 1983 The site is surrounded by r elatively high density apartments and condomin- ium developments. Abitare and Rolling Hills Condominiums are located directly east of the site. The Thunder Hill Apartments are located to the north and the Benson Hill/Sunset Ridge Condominiums are located along the south side of Puget Drive across from the subject site.. An existing commercial (service station-snack bar) and office complex is located west of the site across Benson Road. These uses are located in high density, Multiple-Family zoned (R-4) or Business •(B-l) zone classifications..- Such land uses and zoning are quite compatible with the proposed use and site plan arrangement. Building design, character, and placement, together with landscaping amenities, have attempted to provide a pleasing quality to the complex, thereby providing further compatibility to the surrounding area. The proposed use will be a healthy, attractive, functional , and economic benefit to the area and the_city as a whole. ' H,:" tii• , 'i::f mod/ 11.5.. tifi,:':" r c., .,1;:1 E SE T i..S, h'7t j'C y n g:,.E xa.,,,,•._.• ., . ... • o oner i,t l. i 'i;, •;{,;.;:i,.irea:,,. y:,,,. „.....'.. sir 1'i i[f:,'.„7., yJr,. ':rJ`.: 14,7 1,: 1.'.....:...l:'i t,i F.\: C4', i.f. p,ti' n i f' 1 t, i w :h eu t.,. ,...,......,...,, ,, .,....._.. .-,,,... ,:;.4yz,,,,i.a.:, 4, „ .,,,,,,,, , „ ,,....... i 4J,.. ,.,,,,.. : r. a b:.•ti‘,:'',,,S,dt i }. /ft, r el , t 1!A 1 a id'": r9:y,,;llf'.;t i{t t d S ( .r•i t a): 7JM'•titi,ii.,',, • 'tl f,(SLI'tr `r ca r tii-1,.i•r' \A4J,,+, Yfj:. •• • 11.i ii'..,4n,' ,•?•:.6-. i:" :dry'^'c. .f ,,. , lili)rJ); .tiia{Q.•;.,'f, i i t I xr x i'+' d r,. 5,.:,ni'•, 2tr,.a p/., t.,t•. Jf tu;.r-, ..p;,r,t.'.' xy% s4 u.' u rh J frig`::. 11v'nf:r. lx.f:1 t A lf':n: l J,.,jT.1i1 1""i'' S_ r';', 'i i. y. •::s•'- 'Eft:^:', ,,il,, 1j:• .ill,,. f r ' 5..4' { pi F A il.: \h.J I.l:-' ••it,"4r....",,, i' „i. .:fr;,•:,,,t•r": • .lS:T 1:{,.: V ' 'tl, f`;:7.t0:. S'IN '' /1 Ji av „,1'ate , C: N VGA rl{'r to M.1 ' la. C 0 N c E R:, , i ., 7! . ., -'•7* ...7. • • ••1,„••• ••••••':'-,-,•",.• .'• - . • ' t';• • .i,:•.:tl .t7U' k,Pa d-:,'• •,J,- dalt•., 1 tii 1 r. rat,1,nx 1,',,,,..i•-..e",-!`.•,/,'".'',I. "' ', ,F- REZONE ''....:..‘-'..Fri 6 i':',A.;'-'-':',':-;f:',''',. 1,''...'"i''';'•:::-"A".::','....'.:' 1-.. ir'i kJ S..,...„...., •P E••,,,.. , • •C I A• ,L:. /:, •..., . . ... ,,:,_, :,•,,,..,• ..,, .:,,,,,.. r.,..,...,..,..„,,, CONDITIONAL..,.....„:„..,,,......,„„....,„.,.....„. .,:. ,..„.....„., :,,,,,..:.: ..,,.... ...„,,,,,; u,:,.:.....,....,.......,,,,„.,.„.... .•':;‘;.,,,' SE PERMIT i i.; d7d_::.i; -, r,ri•7!'K]!'1" a+`:i\l,._ ;5'( a;; i.J':„. .......;%:::'.'. t.'• •"::: ,.T. . • A i}"c;' rp`!-., e,.: :rq j:`.' ., p;(;:i':tia• sl;.i';:jP° t",:,t, y>it lt,•_:,, r ' . ' tii" i,. '. r'i.7 ,tit a';y,iv;,xi'R::. r a Y. lily' 1T !i';r.:.•:"'i".,iaiiTJ;'f4,.•,l,':.'4,., Y{':+° 'l'i:v::,:':i •)„:f,r.,A,,,Ir r, ''++yy "'fti.r,.,,...fSS':,/:. ,"t,;p.,;i frig;„ arE.'1,. ,,,t;',(j,t.S.,..,t. ,:.`':;?i!•.,}.a.,l.;',-r.;..t?.: rx1 Tj A:,. RCS` & OFFICE COMPLEX OF j. rr^ 1'',: 0i ,u Yo-. r r1 c47{'i'>'i 4:tirt ir\'r:" g a) o- PLATsuBDIvis1oN : ofNot....,...-•.-,.• •••••••, ....- Lots r'"••'• I• Fi!;y'' • etyrlt 4° ,1li1, 1:?yi a 5 a„ .,,lrr.1. k'+, ':. R ay E . PUNITPEVIELQPMENTLANNED : y;a:„ to ' ` .fit%r, "tr. 1t :1^ r.{t. 4'.,a-.>` t.'.,,,a y fi:]'' ';r `F.a t..:el'> : t' t..' ::'. j' Y;4'. a, /.L :f 1•t,,.} i."1.r ,^R:' ..',, t'•lei' ). l..r'.\.'o .,t'`'.;'.! nJ,,l.t'+ r tr:a n;;.ti`rr,d- t.* ir'._ 11S\ ,;y .,t ;jF_?t'•j.,:'.t';v:' ,:, i•t• s...1.. _s„ •t. -a ': : sJ ,t•. s .,<, :,t,.Y. n;.;'.,•. x.} 4, ., it. '7C r,4',:yt ;^`,"a+:fr p• ;,i:.r,:41.,:ti1 r,t;,d",;F`:C1 it."' 1,,rt°.i:( :x' 1," i { {i,i:l,f'.:r: v AR i U c.,v,':f,{. 1,,,1 t IJ,.S„V:..ft7,c:h Y 'y!1:ll>r-: `5 T 714,' t.;'i.• ..IL:i' rn 44F,xY..:h}.;rtjl,%,t,''`+f'tt!:,•fwi?}'((tg,+u:;t+.u,}r,'i}^'S. y.: ;r`.;'.:'' L r:14i'4:;c+'r S.n,,.,::C ;,,:o-kYw,}•.'f:•{ +!"• i,`1+ p'N'-'ia::?':' t,.t";t;:::1, I.,......,...•,..•:;•-,.,...,.,,,..:.,,..-.,,.•..;„„„,.,••.„,•,,,...!....,.-•:'..,,;,.:, s•„:":>,,,',,.•::,,. i,,;.,,".,....,.,•.,•,.'.,,.„.:...„,.,,,, i.•.••:,i'!;:::,:.-,,.,:..,,':..:,...,.,•.,,;,•.• c".:,.i'•,.,':./ u„ s..,-.0,,.•.•,,.,•:,•',•.:.,.:,',„',.''..„,..,..:.•.,•.„,:.'.'..'.'::•„•.••. F,r. Jr ,rr'.r.;n„",,,.,,I1an.,t!iiy Q.!,;,..r<"tl1;l.. JI},:' .p.,.;-,' i pit` f J•i. l''%, tii'.;",: x.ii. fit, r:'-r,., r ..,..., y . u,•:,il:.r''ia'•l• - vM!•'1 - \;i.. 7-f • n'f.Y'"i-;-•`•i1J '):. T A': .,r`;:,'-„1F1.•`.....;•,!i..F•f'w4,-.... ', 'l. ::ItS, a i',r '"a,i l Tr x, i'r pry' k•?...ia t t A Ji 1 i,,r V 11 ii; a'', >.,aft,. •n 4 J' A,..I:'r 1 d,,,r:=::.,.,••`el:,v h.,]vl , ,St r r:M1nr'.R',V' KnrL',,. r} t„t J,y„l. L' ^V 4, i',;:,4,', r.,.,.. r...,.., 4.‘.-.,...?,.:,:..,:',?.,.",.,.:,,..:.'-:,'.',' 1,.l...'••'.‘•'••:".••...•.L:''..'.••.''••..-..':-•......•:,••-...."••;•:.•..•,..••.•.••-••'•..•••'••'‘..,..',:..' .••':••l-::.•.'.•'':.•.'.:,.•.'•'" 3 V ( 4''r = ,`.. Jt:x', .:r l.. t i: GENERAL CATION NOlOR A O= l DRESS: • d;: , . s, :G;,?f'•:, "?':-' 'R4'`r r:?;'. ;i„r'=„.rt T`';' ! LOCATED AD-THE N.E.:' COPIER:OF'BENSOk AD'soun .AND;SOUTH:':PU Ef DRIVE, 5:f....: S,: :i:.i . J i71ti.:i'•:.,'11 Y:.rl r ti,i dhi';n 6 r :t•>,. •'tit; Uy`:ti;,., 1 it'd..''j, w°;is;.. Y't u_'ai;e2J tt.'5 A if: 1,rn. 5 t'xs,I'alit'4r. •\ 11':•r-%j!i t, [.ice. 1"`•;r., LEGAL DESCRIPTION ON ' FILE :IN-THE:REM 'ON: B1l1LD$N ,; i Z NINCa;, DEPARTMENT. ENVI'RONMEN'TAL 1E .': LARATION . 0 'SIGNIFICANT ' r NONSIGNIFICANT FOIE'. FURTHER . INFORMATION:'CALL. THE'';:•CITY•;•OF, RENTON r.,,F, .:. :,,.;.,,- , Bt.d!!IL®IP IG ZONING D PARTME T':::}.23S-2a50 THIS NOTICE NC:I. TO ':SE: - REi DVE®' 'WITHOUT 173P 1.M,..siY'F LJ MS FM{C t! at.`TIOPJ NOTICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE RENTON, WASHINGTON The Environmental Review Committee (ERC) has issued a final declaration of non-significance with conditions for the following projects: EVERGREEN PROPERTIES J.V.(ECF-013-82) Application for special permit to allow 30,000 cubic yards of, file SP-015-82, grading on a 3.75 acre site and site approval to allow a retail/commercial and office complex of 61,410 square feet on said property, file SA-016-82; property located at the northeast corner of Benson Road South and South Puget Drive. _ DALE L. WEHMEYER (ECF-030-83) Application for building permit to allow construction of a self service car wash (S & K Car Wash), file B-291; property located at 225 Sunset Blvd. N. The Environmental Review Committee (ERC) has issued a final declaration of non-significance for the following projects: CHARLES L. DIVELBISS (ECF-039-83) Application for building permit to allow construction of a 5,000 square foot second floor addition to a building to be used for storage, file B-294; propertylocatedat1150RaymondAvenueS.W. Further information regarding this action is available in the Building and ZoningDepartment, Municipal Building, Renton, Washington, 235-2550. Any appeal of ERC action must be filed with the Hearing Examiner by August 15, 1983. Published: August 1, 1983 t FINAL DECLARATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE Application No(s): SP-015-82, SA-016-82 Environmental Checklist No.:ECF-013-82 Description of Proposal:Application for special permit to allow 30,000 cubic yards of grading on a 3.75 acre site and site approval to allow a retail/commercial and office complex of 61,410 square feet on said property. Proponent: Evergreen Properties J.V. Location of Proposal: Property located at the northeast corner of Benson Road South and South Puget Drive. Lead Agency:City of Renton Building and Zoning Department This proposal was reviewed by the ERC on March 17, 1982 and July 27, 1983, following a presentation by Jerry Lind of the Building and Zoning Department. Oral comments were accepted from: Don Persson, Gary Norris, Ronald Nelson, Richard Houghton, James Hanson, David Clemens, and Jerry Lind. Incorporated by reference in the record of the proceedings of the ERC on application ECF-013-82 are the following: 1. Environmental Checklist Review, prepared by: James H. White, DATED February 22, 1982. 2. Applications: SP-015-82 and SA-016-82. 3.Recommendations for a declaration of non-significance: Public Works Department, Building and Zoning Department and Policy Development Department. 4.Geotechnical engineering study by Earth Consultants Inc. 5. Traffic analysis by The Transpo Group (Dated July 14, 1983) Acting as the Responsible Official, the ERC has determined this development does not have a 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: Will not adversely impact the environment or adjacent properties and that the following requirements shall be complied with: 1. A positive left turn batrier (C-curb) shall be installed on South Puget Drive from the intersection of South Puget Drive and Benson Road to the easterly access of the subject site. 2. South Puget Drive shall be widened by lengthening the west bound right turn lane from its present configuration to the easterly access to the subject site. 3.Rechannelization on the Benson Road to accommodate two way left turns opposite the northwesterly access to the subject site. FINAL DECLARATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE EVERGREEN PROPERTIES J.V.: SP-015-82, SA-015-82 JULY 27, 1983 PAGE 2 INFORMATIONAL NOTE: 1.Rockeries are not allowed as retaining walls. 2. No rockeries can be over four (4) feet in height. SIGNATURES: G f 7 Ronald G. Nelson David R. Clemens Building and Zoning Director Policy Development Director Ric and C. Houghton 7 Public Works Director PUBLISHED: August 1, 1983 APPEAL DATE: August 15, 1983 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST REVIEW SHEET ECF - 013 _ 82 APPLICATION No(s) : SPECIAL PERMIT SP-015-82, SITE APPROVAL SA-016-82 PROPONENT: EVERGREEN PROPERTIES J.V. PROJECT TITLE: WESTRIDGE PLAZA Brief Description of Project : RETAIL/COMMERCIAL COMPTFX OF TWO STORY CONSTRUCTION. LOCATION: INTERESECTION OF BENSON ROAD SOUTH AND SOUTH PUGET DRIVE AT NORTHEAST CORNER SITE AREA: 3.75 ACRES BUILDING AREA (Gross) : DEVELOPMENT COVERAGE (%) : IMPACT REVIEW NONE MINOR MAJOR MORE INFO 1) Topographic Changes :X 2) Direct/Indirect Air Quality: X 3 ) Water & Water Courses : X 4) Plant Life:X 5) Animal Life: X 6) Noise: X 7) Light & Glare: X 8) Land Use; North: MULTIPLE FAMILY East : MULTIPLE FAMILY South: MULTIPLE FAMILY West : COMMERCIAL Land Use Conflicts : NONE View Obstruction: NONE 9) Natural Resources : X 10) Risk of Upset : X 11) Population/Employment : X 12) Number of Dwellings : X 13 ) Trip Ends ( ITE) : 4,200 (WORST (CASE) Traffic Impacts : LIMITED LEFT TURN MOVEMENTS 14) Public Services : X 15) Energy:X 16) Utilities : X 17) Human Health: X 18) Aesthetics :X 19) Recreation: X 20) Archeology/History:X Signatures : i onald G. Nelson D vid R. Clemens Building & Zoning Director Policy Development Director PUBLISHED: AUG. 1, 1983 Richard C. Houghton APPEAL DATE:AUG. 15, 1983 Public Works Director 6-83 f ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE AGENDA JULY 27, 1983 THIRD FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM: COMMENCING AT 10:00 A.M. PENDING BUSINESS: ECF-018-83 AUSTIN COMPANY SP-029-83 ECF-033-83 EVERGREEN WEST PROPERTIES CU-037-83 V-038-83 ECF-034-83 VIP'S RESTAURANTS, INC. OLD BUSINESS: ECF-013-82 EVERGREEN PROPERTIES J.V. SP-015-82 Application for special permit to allow 30,000 cubic yards of SA-016-82 grading on a 3.75 acre site and site approval to allow a retail/commercial and office complex of 61,410 square feet on said property; property located at the northeast corner of Benson Road South and South Puget Drive. ECF-030-83 DALE L. WEHMEYBR B-291 Application for building permit to allow construction of a self service car wash (S & K Car Wash); property located at 225 Sunset Blvd. N. ECF-039-83 CHARLES L. DIVELBISS B-294 Application for building permit to allow construction of a 5,000 square foot second floor addition to a building to be used for storage; property located at 1150 Raymond Avenue S.W. ECF-040=83 JAMES ROUTOS B-296 Application for building permit to allow construction of a 11,200 square foot warehouse; property located approximately at the 4200 block of S. 43rd Street. ECF-041-83 BURLINGTON NORTHERN RAILROAD PROPERTIES, INC. SP-048-83 Application for special permit to allow a truck transfer facility for unloading automobiles from rail cars for distribution by truck; property located on the west side of Oaksdale Avenue S.W. at the 3800 block. OF R4, d; k z BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT sal/ RONALD G. NELSON — DIRECTOR o ®MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, WASH. 98055 • 235-25409, 0 co. 0 P gT6D SEPTEMO June. 21, 1982 BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH MAYOR 1Mr. Jame,- Benda.hl Evergreen -Properties-J7.' .. 30.1 - 116th_ Avenue S..E.-, Suite .3.8Q: ' • Bellevue,. Washington 980.07 Subject: Westridge Plaza, 'enton, :Washington ECF-013-82, SP-01'5 82, SA-0t6-82 Dear M,r. Bendahl: • . The City of Renton Environmental Review- Committee has: on file the above listed Special Permit and Site Approval applications. As-. was- mentioned to you in a letter from' the Committee on April 3Q;. 1982, an environmental determi- nation could .not. be•rendered on the .applications until additional .sub-surface exploration was conducted and a study was: done to determine if:mine shafts underlie the site. This project has remained on• the Committee's agenda as- a pending item. However, unless we ...receive some additional information regarding:.our'.request within ten days of this notice we will remove it from the agenda and return the application to you. • Should you have any questions regarding this -matter, please contact'-this department. Sincerely Roger. J. Blaylock Zoning Administrator OF R4A 11, A. 0 BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT RONALD G. NELSON - DIRECTOR o MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE.SO. RENTON.WASH. 98055 • 235-2540 0. 17_6.0 SEPlE*- P BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH MAYOR May 19, 1983 Mr. Michael L. Smith Pacific Land Reserach 1140 140th Avenue N.E. Bellevue, WA 98005 Subject: Westridge Plaza, Files ECF-013-83, SP-015-82, SA-016-82 Dear Mr. Smith: The Environmental Review Committee is in receipt of your letter dated April 28, 1983, regarding mine shafts and a geologic report prepared by Earth Consultants, Inc. for the above referenced project. The committee has reviewed this report, which was sufficient in response to one of two items we originally requested to Evergreen Properties J.V. in our letter of March 22, 1982. The second item we had requested was for a-traffic impact analysis of the site in relation to South Puget Drive and Benson Road South. The study is to take into account a comparison of the proposed retail/commercial and office use with that of a retail only use proposal. Feel free to consult with the City Traffic Engineering Division, if necessary, for assistance on this item. Please submit this additional information at your earliest convvenience so that the environmental determination can be made. Until this is accomplished, the application will remain on our agenda under pending business. For the Environmental Review Committee: c) Roger J. Blaylock Zoning Administrator RJB:JFL:wr 0071N INTEROFFICE M E, 110 , Ici?TO: J DATE m m 5 E, FROM: jam` SUBJECT . ()l. _l s,L l.J"' (Vc.,rrc,1- .. ' S s t,--d r wp r«a. r` n I N T E R O F F. I C E ' , M •E M O .' TO. t lJ v. I 1 , a DATE: Y 1.,.. ! r + FROM: ,'`.. . f ,,!, f • irc• SUBJECT: 1.f< . .. ; ;. i 1 r= ,.. SCJc1S le_ ('C.V Z CA4 r T art' -0 .S tit''la,,`..i'.'', 711 (1S f,,,-2 V.G•k/s -tOVIe::..C.cf. ),,!:;:J '(C'.,,, f e/"-1_.c't. :..V.--A /4`I(lie; (/1..)e?/'k ! 'u Q re"61., V.. ". A O'l t:= t5JD j ,C{4.F` 11,;7 ,-.rIs7 6Gif : . : . ./'-4C f6r1S p `,/^-5 J 7 / rCI)/'/r:9 Csy r 'd! wl i C4(14.1.1 Y [IV" ..) c.. r-, .s w G+0wF . 27s /11.0t.,k. IV,/ -„62:0..-ip. .,'iVdt. .1,f ,S. 4-n. 1,-,"4,2/ /A? ' . . :: G!)n r,..rr.. ir_ } -/•) A. .. 7 - ... 7A ,,:.1" ,,..f,..,{1-. 0Cr:+.1 4 0 n.;E,..i./ (.' a.:5 "+"f6,,:s:1),„„,e, PACIFIC LAND RESEARCH 1140 140th Ave. N:E. • Bellevue, Washington 98005 206) 454-4421 (206) 226-2099 1 I 1 April 28, 1983 t fvl/aY 31983 E.R.C. Carmittee ATTN: Ron Nelson Building Department - Municipal Building Renton, WA 98055 RE: Westridge Plaza Dear E.R.C. Members,. We are transmitting a copy of a report prepared by Earth Consultants as a response to your desire for additional coal mine information regarding the Westridge Plaza special permit for grading and site plan approval application. As you are aware, development of similar intensity has occured virtually on all sides of the subject site with no serious mine related problems. Although we can never be certain that potential problems might occur no matter how much preliminary investigation is accomplished, we agree with the attached report that the relative depth of the mine shafts, the historical information available, and the degree of problem-free development surrounding the subject property indicates a very slight potential for serious mine related problems. We hope that this information will assist you in making your final determination of negative environmental impact for the subject applications. Sinc 1 , M ael . 'th enc MLs/db Land Use Planning& Feasability e Government Interface • Development OF a1?4, o BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT 041 .a RONALD O. NELSON - DIRECTOR 9 MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE.SO. RENTON.WASH. 98055 O 235-2540m Aofio SEPI.E' April 30, 1982 BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH MAYOR Mr. James Rendahl Evergreen Properties J.V. 301 - 116th Avenue S.E., Suite 380 Bellevue, Washington 98007 Subject: Westridge Plaza, Renton, Washington ECF-013-82, SP-015-82, SA-016-82 Dear Mr. Rendahl: The City of Renton Environmental Review Committee is in receipt of the geotechnical engineering study done by Earth Consultants, Inc. for the subject project. The Committee has reviewed this study and would concur with your consultant's recommendation that additional sub-surface exploration by deep test borings should be conducted. This would verify the anticipated sub-surface conditions and determine if any other soil or ground water conditions exist which could affect the project. Also, the Committee is con- cerned about the possibility of mine shafts underlying this site. The study should take into account this possibility and determine their affect to the project. Please submit the above requested information at your earliest convenience so that an environmental determination by the Committee can be made. Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Jerry Lind of this department. Sincerely, 1 ik()& dt- Roger J. Blaylock Zoning Administrator RJB/JFL/mp I)' ' o BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT z RONALD G. NELSON — DIRECTOR4 MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON,WASH.95055 • 235-25409. 0 tb- O4TFOSEPt04% Q, March 22, 1982 BARBARA Y. SHINPOCI- MAYOR Evergreen Properties J.V. 301 - 116th Avenue S.E., Suite 380 Bellevue, Washington 98007 Subject: Westbridge Plaza, Renton, Washington ECF-013-82, SP-015-82, SA-016-82 Gentlemen: On March 17, 1982 the Environmental Review Committee evalu- ated the above mentioned project. It was determined that the following additional information will be required in order for the Committee- to render an environmental determi- nation: 1. Please submit a detailed traffic impact analysis including access to the property in relation to the intersection at South Puget Drive and Benson Road South. The analysis should also -make a com- parison of this retail/commercial and office proposal with that of a retail only proposal. We recommend that you set a meeting up with our City staff and your traffic specialist prior to detailing this analysis. Please contact Gary Norris of the Renton Traffic Engineering Division at 235-2620 for anappointment. 2. A detailed soil analysis of the site will need to be submitted due to the significant topographic changes proposed for this project. Please submit the above information at your earliest conve- nience so that an environmental determination can be "raide. Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please feel free to contact this department. Sincerely, Ronald G. Nelson Building Director RGN/J''L/mp g CITY OF RENTON - - 1 APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL PERMIT FOR OFFICE USE ONLY File No . Sp- 0/ Date Rec' d. 3 -g Application Fee $Receipt No . Environmental Review Fee $ APPLICANT TO COMPLETE ITEMS 1 THROUGH 6 : 1 . Name EVERGREEN PROPERTIES J.V. Phone 454-5035 Address 301 116th S.E. , Suite 380, Bellevue, Washin•ton 98007 2. Property location intersection of Benson Road South and South Puget-Drive, at northeast corner. 3. Legal description (attach additional sheet if necessary) See attached sheet. 4 . Number of acres or square feet 3.75 ac. (163,175.5SFlpresent Zoning ,B-1P 5 . What do you propose to develop on this property? Retail/Commercial complex of two story construction; office complex of two story construction with parking below. C. 30,00D C.V. 6 . The following information shall be s bmitted 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) E. A special permit required by the Renton Mining , Excavation and Grading Ordinance shall submit the information listed in Section 4-2307 . 5 in addition to the above . 7 . LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER' S ACTION: Date Approved Date Denied Date Appealed Appeal Action Remarks Planning Dept. 1-77 CITY OF RENTON CITY OfrtaNTON APPLICATION 2RH SITE APPROVAL FEB. 1982 FOR OFFICE USE ONLY BU:LDING/ZONINGDEPT. File No. SA (' " 8 ' Filing Date c9,` 0 Application Fee $ Receipt No . Environmental Review Fee $ APPLICANT TO COMPLETE ITEMS 1 THROUGH 6 : 1. Name EVERGREEN PROPERTIES J.V. Phone 454.-5035 Address 301 116th S.E. , Suite 380, Belllevue, Washington 98007 2 . Property. location Intersection of Benson Road South and South Puget Drive, at northeast corner. 3. Legal description (attach additional sheet if necessary) See attached sheet 4. Number of acres or square feet 3.75 ac. (163,1.75.5SF) Present zoning B-1P 5 . What do you propose to develop on this property? Retail/Commercial complex of two story construction; office complex of two story construction with parking below. 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 LEGAL DESCRIPTION That portion of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 20 , Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M. , also being a portion of Parcel No. 30 as described in instruments recorded under Auditor' s File Nos. 5959604 and 6150334 described as follows: Beginning at the Northwest corner of said Southwest 1/4 ; thence' North 89°10 '20" East along the North line thereof a distance of 344 . 88 feet to a point on the Northeasterly margin of Benson Road; thence; South 16°16 ' 56" East along the Northeasterly margin of said road a distance of 980 .73 feet to the true point of beginning of said Parcel 30 ; thence continuing South 16°16' 56" East a distance of 349 . 25 feet to the true point of beginning of parcel described herein; thence, continuing South 16°16 ' 56" East along said margin a distance of 28 . 00 feet to an angle point; thence South 21°20 ' 40" East along said margin of Benson Road a distance of 346. 25 feet to the margin of the intersection of Benson Road and Puget Drive; thence South 57°25 ' 58" East along said margin a distance of 138 . 39 feet to the Northerly margin of Puget Drive; thence South 88°50 ' 40" East along said margin a distance of 335 . 00 feet; thence North 21°50 ' 14" . West a distance of 458 . 25 feet to the Southerly boundary of Parcel No. 40 as described in instruments recorded under Auditor' s File Nos . 6517071 and 6517072; thence North 89°16 ' 56" West along said boundary a distance of 415 . 00 feet to the true point of beginning; EXCEPT that portion thereof lying North of the South line of that parcel of land described as Parcel "B" by instrument recorded under Recording No. 710104-0192 ; BEING Parcel 1 of Short Plat No. 426-79 recorded under Recording No . 791212-9004) ; Situate in the County of King , State of Washington. INVE5T1 * E9T CORPORATION 301 - 116th AVENUE S.E. • SUITE 380 • BELLEVUE,WASHINGTON 98004 • (206)454-5035 February 19 , 1982 CITY OF RENTON Planning Department 7 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, Washington 98055 Gentlemen: Invest West Corporation is herewith transmitting to you the necessary documentation required to submit applications for site plan approval and special permit in conjunction with the Westridge Plaza retail shopping center and office complex. For your information, a soils study is now being performed by Earth Consultants and is forthcoming. Should you have any questions regarding these documents, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely yours, Kelly arrell Assistant Vice President CITY OF RENTON KF:jm ilds- % 1HH FE B 2 '4 1982 BU LDING/ZONING DEPT. REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION 410110 AFFIDAVIT y,eing duly sworn, declare that i am the owner f the pr erty in ved bra t is 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 eeef/74,% D. 19 c, Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, residing at )64te 1Name of N ary Public) 400009anare •f„,.wner; ' fi W Address) Address• City) State Telephone) FOR OFFICE USE ONLY) CERTIFICATION This is to certify that the foregoing application has been inspected by mo 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. a-73 PROJECT STATISTICS Project Name:Westridge Plaza Developer: Evergreen Properties J.V. 301 116th S.E. - Suite 380 Bellevue, WA 98007 206) 454-5035 , Location: N.E. corner of the intersection of Benson Road South and South Puget Drive, Renton, WA Acreage: 3.75 acres (163,175.5 sq.ft.) Site Coverage: 19% (30,802 sq.ft.) Paving, Drives, Walks: 54.3% (88,575 sq.ft.) Open ,Space: 26.8% (43,708.5 sq.ft.) Existing Zoning: B-1 Parking Required: 307 (1:200 sq.ft.) Parking Proposed: 62 covered 245 open Total: 307 Construction Type:V-1 HR. Building Height: Rental complex - 2 story Office complex - 2 story over parking Fire Zone: 3 Seismic Zone:3 Occupancy: B-2, B-1 (parking) Applicable Codes: City of Renton Zoning Ordinance UBC, 1979 Edition BUILDING SQUARE FOOTAGE Retail Complex: Upper level - 14,230 sq.ft. Lower level - 13,230 sq.ft. Office Complex: Upper level - 13,640 sq.ft. Entry level - 14,710 sq.ft. Parking level - 19,220 sq.ft. Retail level - 5,600 sq.ft. OF RENTON, WASHINGTON ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM FOR OFFICE 'USE ONLY Application No.' .5 '" /,--/) = G y,/ A /GSc9^ Environmental Checklist No. 2W-`•G743 - e PROPOSED, dater FINAL , date: Declaration of Significance E Declaration of Significance Declaration of Non-Significance Declaration of Non-Significance COMMENTS: Introduction The State Environmental Policy Act of 1971. Chapter 43.21C, RCW, •requires all state and local governmental agencies to consider environmental values both for their own actions and, when licensing private proposals. The Act also requires that an EIS be prepared for all major actions significantly affecting the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist Is to help the agencies involved determine whether or not a proposal is such a major action. Please answer the following questions as completely as you can with the information presently available to you. Where explanations of your answers are required, or where you believe an explanation would be helpful to government decision makers , include your explanation in the space provided, or use additional pages if necessary. You should include references to any reports or studies of which you are aware and which are rele- vant to the answers you provide. Complete answers to these questions now will help all agencies involved with your proposal to undertake the required environmental review with- out unnecessary delay. The following questions apply to your total proposal , not just to the license for which you are currently applying or the proposal for which approval is sought. Your answers should include the impacts which will be caused by your proposal when it is completed, even though completion may not occur until sometime in the future. This will allow all of the agencies which will be involved to complete their environmental review now, with- out duplicating paperwork in the future. NOTE: This is a standard form being used by all state and local agencies in the State of Washington for various types of proposals. Many of the questions may not apply to your proposal . If a question does not apply, just answer it "no" and continue on to the next question. ' ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM I. BACKGROUND 1. Name of Proponent Evergreen Properties J.V. 2. Address and phone number of Proponent: Agent: Invest West Corporation 454-5035 301 116th S.E. - Suite 380 Bellevue, Washington 98007 3. Date Checklist submitted 4. Agency requiring Checklist City of Renton, Planning Department 5. Name of proposal . if applicable: Westridge Plaza 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) : See Attachment No. 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 ) : See Attachment No. 1 B. Estimated date •for completion of the proposal : 9. List' of all permits, licenses or government approvals required for the proposal federal , state and local--including rezones) : Special permit for grading and excavation; site approval; all applicable permits for building construction. 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 yo,u know of any plans by others which may affect the property covered by your ,proposal:? If yes, explain: Yes, City of Renton will improve the streets, sidewalks, curbs and gutters of the site through work planned for South Puget Drive and Benson Road under L.I.D. 322. 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: All applicable applications attached. 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 X substructures? YEr WNW AU- b) Disruptions, displacements, compaction or over- covering of the soil? X m M T'BE N(S' c) Change in topography or ground surface relief X features? YES MAYBE KU— d) The destruction, covering or modification of any x unique geologic or physical features?YEf- MAYBE nU— a) Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils , either on or off the site? X YES M YB 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? X vrr-AU— Explanation,: See Attachment No. 1 3- 2) Air. Will the proposal result in: a) Air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? YE.S MAYBE No— b) The creation of objectionable odors?' YET MAC R15— c) Alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or TEregionally? X S ' MAYBE NU— Explanation: See Attachment No 1 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? TEES • MAYBEM- b,) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? Y E S NA= R c) Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? X YES MAYBE NE- d) Change in the amount of surface water in any water body?YES MAYBE NO e) Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration surface water quality, including but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? X YET MAYBE go— f) Alteration of the direction or 'rate of flow of X ground waters?YET RAMBE g) Change in the ,quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals , or through X interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? YES MMYB—E NO h) Deterioration in ground water quality, either through direct injection, or through the seepage of leachate, phosphates, detergents, waterborne virus or bacteria, X or other substances into the ground waters? Y MAYS N- ii) Reduction in the amount of water otherwise available X for public water supplies?YES' MAYBE Explanation: See Attachment No. 1 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)? X YET MBE go— b) Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or X endangered species of flora? YET MAYBE' 3 c) Introduction of new species of flora into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? X YE3 MAYBE g d) Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? X YET MAYS go— Explanation: See Attachment No. 1 y. 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 , X insects or microfauna)? Trr NATETNN b) Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or X endangered species of fauna? MOB NO c) Introduction of new species of fauna into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of fauna? X TEr MAYBE d) Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? X vrr MAYBE fd Explanation: See Attachment No. 1 6) Noise. Will the proposal increase existing noise levels?X YES MAYBE WU— . Explanation: See Attachment No. 1 7) Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? 77T— MAT WU-- Explanation:See Attachment No. 1 8) Land Use. Will the proposal result in the alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? X VET— MAB NT Explanation: 9) Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a) Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources?X Mr MAYBE Nr- b) Depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource? X MAYBE W Explanation: See.Attachment No. 1 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 MAYBE WU— Explanation: 11) Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distri- bution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? X PEA' MAYBE Air Explanation: See Attachment No. 1 1 5- 12) Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing. or create a demand for additional housing? X vrr M YBE NO Explanation: See Attachment No. 1 13) Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in: a)' Generation of additional vehicular movement? X FT- MAYBE NO b), Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? X Y S€S 'VW NO c) Impact upon existing transportation systems? YES MAYBE Fir _ d) Alterations to present patterns of circulation or X movement of people and/or goods? YE- MAYBE NO e) I Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? X YES' !TOTE rir f) Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, X bicyclists or pedestrians? YES Explanation:See Attachment No. 1 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 RAYBE' NS— b) Police protection? X YEr— MAYBE S c) Schools? X VET— MAYBE' Nb— d) Parks or other recreational facilities? X YES— MAYBE 147— e) 'Maintenance of public facilities. including roads? X YES MAYBE NU— f) ;Other governmental services? X Y S€S MAYBE f5 Explanation: See Attachment No. 1 15) Energy. Will the proposal result in: a) Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? X YES MAYBE 3 b) Demand upon existing sources of energy. or require Xthedevelopmentofnewsourcesofenergy? YES MAYBE 0— Explanation: See Attachment No. 1 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 Fir b) Communications systems? X TES— WATFF 3 c) Water? X YES MAYBE NO 6- d)' Sewer or septic tanks? X YES MAYBE FTT— e) Storm water drainage? X MAYBE WO— f) Solid waste and disposal? X YET— MEB '•3 Explanation: See Attachment No. 1 17) Human Health. Will the proposal result in the creation of any ,health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding X mental health)? Explanation: 18) Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any anysce vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive X site open to public view? Explanation: 19) Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? X ES Explanation: See Attachment No. 1 20) Archeological/Historical . Will the proposal result in an alteration of a significant archeological or historical site. structure, object or building? X Rrirr dD— 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 willful misrepr, •ntation or willful lack of full disclosure on my part. i Proponent: 7 `?} s gnedAilOPF name printed) City of Renton Planning Department 5-76 J ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM ATTACHMENT NO. 1 WESTRIDGE PLAZA RENTON, WASHINGTON I. BACKGROUND 6. This 3.75 acre site is zoned B-1P in the City of Renton. The Proposal is a Neighborhood Commercial Center including retail and office space in two buildings. The site design provides for 307 cars, and a total of 61,400 square feet of usable space. Both buildings provide pedestrian arcades that allow easy circulation throughout the complex. The office complex is a two story building over a basement parking area. The retail complex is a series of four buildings with three buildings connected by pedestrian arcades. Basic structural and finish materials will be concrete founda- tions, concrete and/or steel columns, glu-lam beams with wood floor and roof trusses, wood siding and stucco at exterior walls. Pitched roofs will be metal roofing and flat roofs will be built-up. Insulated glass will be used throughout. 7. The site is located at the northeast corner of the intersec- tion of Benson Road South and South Puget Drive. The site slopes fron east to west approximately 420 feet and drops in elevation 50 feet. Existing vegetation consists of field grass and scrub alder. The site is bordered on the north and east by multifamily development. Across the street to the west is a gas station and office buildings. Across the street to the south is more multifamily developments. II. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 1. Earth b) (c) This proposal will result in some major changes to the topographic features of the site. Particular with regard to the southern portion of the site. From the southern pro- perty line to the existing edge of pavement on South Puget Drive, the topography drops 15 to 25 feet in elevation at a slope of approximately 1:1. Under L.I.D. 332, South Puget Drive will be widened and improved. These improvements will include sidewalks, curbs, and gutters. This improvement will cut into the toe of the slope as it now exists. This propo- sal will cut and remove from the site a significant portion of this high sloping area. This will eliminate the need for extensive rockeries along the R.O.W. improvements and improve traffic sightlines near the intersection of South Puget Drive S ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM ATTACHMENT NO. 1 Page Two 1. Earth (cont.) and Benson South. The proposed grading concept will require removal of approximately 43,000 cubic yards of material. A location for dumping approximately three to five thousand cubic yards of this material will be provided by the firm doing the removal for the City of Renton under L.I.D. 332. The balance of the material to be used as follows: 1. Approximately ten thousand cubic yards could be used on another site owned by the same principles. This site is located across Benson Highway and just north of the subject development. ' 2. The M.A. Segale Company (the general contractor for the Carr Road (SR515) extension) could be a potential user of an unspecified amount of fill. - 3. The remaining excess site material will be placed on an existing fill site owned by B.E.M.P. Associates located along Lind Avenue S.W. , Renton. e) Exposure of soils during construction could entail some risk of wind and/or water erosion but this hazard will be mitigated 3y proper construction techniques, such as optimum compaction of exposed surface soils and temporary drainage controls. 2. Air a) There may be increases in suspended particles during the course of construction. Upon completion of construction, the increase in vehicular traffic will cause related increases in air contaminants. These increases will not have a measure- able affect on the ambient air quality. b) Some odors may be encountered during the paving and roofing phases of construction. 3. Water b) Building and paved areas will alter the absorption rates on the site. Storm run-off will be retained on site and controlled in accordance with the requirements of the City of Renton. g) (h) Groundwaters in the area of the site should not be significantly affected by the proposal. Minor amounts of road- way pollutants will inevitably leach into the soil but not in quantities sufficient to affect groundwater quality in the area. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM ATTACHMENT NO. 1 Page Three 4. Flora a) (c) The site is presently covered with scrub alder, black- berry bushes and the like. There are no significant or speciman trees or tree canopies. Because of the nature of the regrading required on the site, much of the existing flora will not be re- tained. New species of flora will be introduced which will help screen the project from adjacent residential areas as well as enhance the commercial nature of the project. See Landscaping Plan sub- mitted in drawing package. 5. Fauna a) (c) (d) Numbers and species of fauna are very limited at the present time and will be reduced due to the existing flora being disturbed and the extent of construction required. As a result of landscaping proposed for the site, species of fauna may migrate to those portions of the site after construction. 6. Noise Noise levels will be increased short term by construction and over the long term by increased automobile usage. However, given the site's proximity to an intersection of two major roads having access to the City of Renton, Interstate 405 and State Highway 167, any increase in noise will not be significant. Planned landscaped buffers will provide protection for residen- tial development. 7. Light and Glare New light will be produced by the addition of building and parking lighting. Some glare may occur as a result of automobile headlights arriving and leaving from the proposedproject. As most all traffic will occur during normal business hours, this proposal should have a minimal affect on adjacent residential uses. In addition, landscaping has been located to screen poten- tially affected areas. 9. Natural Resources a) The type of construction that is proposed (primarily wood) makes use of renewable resources. Any steel, concrete or glazing, however minimal, comes from raw materials that are mined. JI1 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM ATTACHMENT NO. 1 Page Four 11. & 12. Population/Housing -- As a result of the construction of this proposal, there will be no significant change to the existing population base. However a slight demand for housing in the area may arise if employees of business in the proposal desire a short commuting distance to their jobs. 13. Transportation/Circulation a) (c) Normal business and retail commercial traffic can be anticipated. This consists of passenger vehicles as well as delivery, mail and service vans. Some 3,000 trips per day can be anticipated. Access to and from the site will be at both South Puget Drive and Benson Road South. When the SR515 Carr Road extension is finished, traffic in the area will be lessened by those cars which will bypass this intersection by traveling on SR515. f) With the construction of new sidewalks and the widening of the intersection per L.I.D. 332, most all traffic/pedestrian conflicts should be greatly mitigated. However, with increased vehicular traffic, the number of potential conflicts also in- creases. 14. Public Services The proposed project will increase the tax revenue to all public service departments, and require some attention by these depart- ments. a) (b) Police and fire protection will be required for the health and safety of the residents. d) Persons working in buildings in this proposal may desire to use local parks or recreational areas for noontime or after hours relaxing. Group activities or functions of office person- nel, within the proposal, may be planned for using local facili- ties. e) Some increase in street maintenance may be anticipated due to increased vehicular traffic. However, this traffic will be composed mainly of residents who are now local in nature. f) In addition to potential uses of local parks and recrea- tional facilities, additional use of libraries, health services, etc. may be expected. 0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM ATTACHMENT NO. 1 Page Five 15. Energy a) It is expected that the proposal will be substantially dependent upon electricity for an energy source for lighting, heating and coolinc, and equipment demands. Gas can also be expected to be used as an energy source for heating and cooling. Gas is presently available to the site. 16. utilities a)-(f) All services listed are on site or available to the site. It is expected that alterations to these systems will be limited to project connection and occasional maintenance. 19. Recreation See response to No.14(d) , (f) . 1 f I KT(D37 C09. • I t MD row aacceo AT earl of ANSAMERZCA T;TL ,f1tWSURANCfl COMPANY Mari Awl. 6aAT:Le,WA nip. R O ..J CboN,,l) kLrARTION 9P RESTRICTIV$ COVENANTS f WHEREAS, TRANSAMERICA TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, a I In California corporation, as trustee holding title to the fol- t lowing real property in the City of Renton, County of King, 1 Btato of Washington, described as followa: 5 to Vion of Pu eel 30 re,. ..,9 f.,r 3,,,rp..tt.r} That portion of the Ed 1/4 of Section 20. Township 23H, Range 5E., K.H., 11211 1 4 also being a portion of Parcel No. 30 as described in instruments re- 1 corded under Auditor's File !loin. 5959604 & 6150334 described as follows: Beginning at the NW corner of said SW 1/4; thence N 89°10'200 3 along I i 1 the north lino thereof • distance of 344.88 feet to a point on the northeasterly margin of Benson Road; thence S 16°16'56" 3 along the j northeasterly margin of said road a distance of 980.73 foot to the vm Point of Beginning of said Parcel 30; thence continuing 9 16°16'56" E . 7 a distance of 349.25 feet to the True Point of Beginning of parcel described i heroin; thence continuing 3 16°16'56" E along said margin a distance of f 28.00 foot to an angle point; thenco 9 21°20'400 E along said margin of Benson Road a distance of 346.25 feet to the margin of the intersection of Benson Road and Puget Drive; thence 9 57°25'58' E along said margin a distance of 138.39 feet to.the northerly margin of Puget Drive; thence V, ,,:, ' :;; • "`• 9 88°50'400 E along said margin a distance of 335.00 feet; thence 121°50'14° Y a distance of 458.25 foot to the southerly boundary of i ; ' Parcel No. 40 as described in instruments recorded under Auditor's File Eo'a. 6517071 6 6517072; thence N 89°16'560 W along said boundary a distance of 415.00 feet to the True Point of Beginning.7H.:::-.. Subject to easements of rocord i'' Containing 3.75 acres more or loss.) it t, S. 2-- additional OCT 3 01969 8 3 0 r..,. N. i . , , , r .• .1.. 7...;r• ,.•.. -s G-0,;'r•;: • .-I J: •:' , : . T ,'—J'( . Y:• x- I•!-..--.. ..-. - -.i.__-....._..__ ... end WHEREAS, the paid trustee holding title to said M r described property and being duly authorized by the trustora of said property, desires to impose the following restrictive I. 1, i covenant running with the land as to use, present and future, of the above described real property; i HOW, THEREFORE, the aforesaid trustee hereby eetab- lichee, grants and imposes restrictions and covenants running with the land as to the use of the land hereinabove described with respect to the use by the undersigned, their succeaeora, 3 heirs and assigns, as lollowat That a building site plan for the business develop- ant of said property shall be filed and approved rc , ... .. OCT 3 0 1969-8 3 0 , i f ii,. if, r, '• )1.:y ,-:•,fr, °+:"t:'s=,'Atli-;' . 3 by the Planning Commission of the City of Renton prior to the issuance of any building permits and any building permits shall be in conformance f with the site plan as approved by maid Planning Commission; provided that this restrictive cove- nant shall be null and void if the above-described NO property is not zoned by the City of Renton to p' /' .'r , •y a B-1 Business District effective on or before a.,. February 1, 1971, and provided further that this restrictive covenant shall in any event expire on Pebruary 1, 1990. y Any violation of this restrictive covenant may be enforced by proper legal procedures in the Superior Court of Xing County Y e] by the City of Renton. TRANSAMERICA TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, is Califtrnia corporation,...- J.•....-1 Aasista ice-Preaident y< 2,/-;,,i, eg,,,,,,fre.,0 . . 4,. .:4., Assistant Secretary f 1 . i.1STATEorWASHINGTON ) r• j sm. J County of Icing r :,. . ia" On this 22nd day of October 1969, before p. 1;y. ..;', ., -- ;;;,,s'?' ma personally appeared Ben). C. McDonald and f' Yarn L. Arnold to me known to be the Aasis-t 'i. •'r.t;, ,n•;'? • I' '.• f , tent Vice-Preaident and Assistant Secretary, respectively, of j r 1.--4' the corporation that.executed the within and foregoing instru- meat, and acknowledged the said instrument to be the free and voluntaryact and deed of maid corporation, r':- ;for the uses and y purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated that they were authorized to execute said instrument and that the seal affixed .ia'V." ,.,:, ;.i'••.,^• is the corporate seal of said corporation, 1-;':- 4;4_; ffi WITNESS W EREOY K'..• "• =:^j 3Ihavehereuntosethandand A affixed my official seal the and year first above written. s s,' .f• ' °' tea•. ..4... y r..f •..• r e. Vie } _:7 lroi.'. Vot Public in and for /the State of 1 I'•;'' -" Washington, residing at Seattle. i i t•.'inn .r' t.`%:'., '•2 .: tS 4` i?•.' lc..', t i idr,y irk, '` 4:?'..,egj,. c:.! \ r•'`, ti C ! /'• r t.. 1 , 1 .dv..,' i'^ ,' s''r- 1 OCT 3 01969-8 3 0 ' . . ,..y t d F:.., . • .A,\•"k-• `. _., " ,..Vw" c..".•. ,,..a v d i, rteceipt S_ CITY OF RENTON PLANNING DEPARTMENT NAME 1 DATE PROJECT & LOCATION Application Type Basic Fee Acreage Fee Total Environmental Checklist Environmental Checklist Construction Valuation Fee TOTAL FEES Please take this receipt and your payment to the Finance Department on the first floor. Thank you. t y. s L ? S-: is 0 rL. 3,,. r „l 0 Soggy y.,r Kt r:1 a r, 0 nh 1 L1i1 mar Y Fs 2,, 4' b! i' O .} '.,,. r I y: ..K ''-,.ram. L. ,.T L, Fyn{ ,. S l 4Lr riy + y,T . C µSyt ', F. 7 i. 3 i a.`" • >` j C. ,.: , °k' psi K i?.¢•. •r FIL TITLE S;";/...-- • 1 k. i. v A..: at iT Ittj 4. f. T f i h`ryh ,,g., jr ter' I y/ 4 1 yr ; u;: r 33',74wi.v"o- tY„ai_r..`f i ,:{ _ . a,,. j ,,, c ;'+T KY 4,; r n IV R.4 5" w r+•i.{y{:f4:' rSit• 1 4 P 1 OF I? OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY • RENTON,WASHINGTON O V , L POST OFFICE BOX 626 100 S 1nd STREET • RENTON, WASHINGTON 98057 255-8678 wiLAWRENCE I.WARREN, CITY ATTORNEY DANIEL KELLOGG, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY 09, 0 4D' DAVID M. DEAN, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY ARBER, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY091TEDSEPretl- December 14, 1982 ZANETTABL.FONTES, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY CITY OF RENTON Mr. William Bulchis DEC 1171982AttorneyatLaw Airport Plaza Building #404 POLICY 19415 Pacific Highway So. DEVELOPMENT DEPT. Seattle, WA 98188 Re: Mt. Olivet vs . City of Renton Dear Bill : This letter is to forward to you the original and one copy of Judge Bever's Order requiring service or dismissing this case. Please sign and return the original to me. This letter is also to remind you that the Presiding Judge set a hearing date on your Declaratory Judgment for February 3, 1983 . Very truly yours , Lawrence J. Warren LJW:nd Encl . cc: Mayor Ron Nelson Dave Clemens . eitC41.'\LIAZee 1 . 2 CITY OF RENTON 3Witt' ' A U G 2 3 1882 4 POLICY DEVELOPM EST DFPT. 5 6 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF WASHINGTON FOR KING COUNTY 7 MT. OLIVET CEMETERY, - INC. a Washington corporation 8 NO. 82-2-06075-5 Plaintiff 9 BRIEF IN. SUPPORT OF MOTION vs FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 10 . CITY OF RENTON 11 _ Defendant 12 13 Plaintiff brings this action, ostensibly for declaratory 14 judgment. Plaintiff bases its complaint upon a City ordinance ' 15 rezoning certain property, that City ordinance being dated 16 February 28, 1977. Plaintiff' s action was brought in May, 1982. 17 18 Plaintiff claims that the zoning on the property should 19 have reverted to prior zoning, claims that substantial property 20 rights of plaintiff' s are affected by the refusal to downzone 21 the property, and couches all of this in the complaint as 22 meriting a declaratory judgment. 23 24 The most obvious fault with plaintiff' s complaint is 25 that plaintiff has failed to join in the property owner which . 26 would be the most affected party by such a declaratory judgment. 27 Further, plaintiff by its action seeks to challenge a rezone 28 that is now over five years old, and the complaint should therefore BRIEF WARREN & KELLOGG. P.S. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 100 80..SECOND ST.. P. O. BOX 626 RENTON. WASHINGTON 98057P. 1 255-8678 1 be dismissed due to limitations . Finally, plaintiff seeks a 2 declaratory judgment from this court dealing with what is an 3 administrative determination without exhausting administrative 4 remedies before going to court, and is as well a ministerial 5 action not subject to review by the courts except for violation 6 of a fundamentally protected right , i. e. , a constitutional right. 7 For each of these reasons plaintiff' s complaint should be dismissed. 8 9 AUTHORITIES 10 1. Failure to join a necessary party. Kent Highlands , Inc. 11 is the owner of. the property that was rezoned and which plaintiff 12 now wants to be downzoned. Plaintiff neither named nor served 13_ .Kent Highlands , Inc. or its successors in interest as a party 14 in this suit. That failure removes the jurisdiction of the 15 court and mandates the dismissal of this action. 16 17 A recent case which discusses failure to , join an 18 affected party in a declaratory judgment is Henry v. Oakville , 19 30 Wn.App. 240 P . 2d Aug. 1981) . That case states 20 at page 243 : 21 We turn first to the question whether the trial court had jurisdiction to proceed in a 22 declaratory judgment action challenging the validity of ordinances authorizing the issuance 23 of municipal bonds and providing for their payment in the absence of the bondholder., here 24 the Farmers Home Administration of the United States Department of Agriculture . The failure 25 to join an affected party in a declaratory judgment action relates directly to the trial 26 court ' s jurisdiction. Williams V. Paulsbo Rural Tel. Assn, 87 Wn2d 636 ,643,555 P-= 1173 (1976) 27 28 The court quotes from the Uniform Declaratory Judgment Act , , BRIEF WARREN & KELLOGG. P.S. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 100 SO. SECOND ST.. P. O. BOX 626 P. 2 RENTON. WASHINGTON 98057 255-8678 1 RCW 7 . 24. 110 which provides in part : 2 When declaratory relief is sought , all persons shall be made parties who have or claim any interest3whichwouldbeaffectedbythedeclaration, and no declaration shall prejudice the rights of persons4notpartiestotheproceeding. " 5 CR 19 (a) provides in part : 6 A person who is subject to service of process and whose joinder will not deprive the court of juris-7 diction over the subject matter of the action shall be joined as a party in the action if. . . (2) he 8 claims an interest relating to the subject of the 9 action and is so situated that the disposition of the action in his absence may (A) as a practical • 10 matter impair or impede his ability to protect that interest. . . 11 12 It should go without further argument to state that a 13 downzone in the property owned by Kent Highlands , Inc. would 14 as a practical matter impair or impede that entities ability 15 to protect their interest. Therefore , the court is without 16 jurisdiction and should dismiss this action. 17 18 The City also asserts that Kent Highlands , Inc. is an 19 indispensable party to this action. An indispensable party 20 has been defined as follows : 21 When a complete determination of a controversy 22 cannot be had without the presence of other parties , a mandatory 23 duty is imposed upon the court to bring them in. If a complete 24 determination can be had without the presence of other parties , 25 then the right to bring them in is addressed to the sound 26 discretion of the court . " Williams v. Paulso Rural Tel Assn, supra. 27 ( Numerous other cases and authorities omitted) . 28 E+WARREN & KELLOGG. P.S. BRIEF ATTORNEYS AT LAW 100 90. SECOND ST., P. O. BOX 626 P. 3 RENTON, WASHINGTON 98057 255-8878 1 2. The relief. requested is improper , there is no record 2 upon which the Court can make its decision, and the requested 3 relief would violate the doctrine of separation of powers . 4 The Hearing Examiner of the City of Renton recommended a rezone 5 of this property to the Renton City Council and the Council , 6 thereafter, on February 28, 1977 , by formal ordinance, rezoned 7 the property. Restrictive covenants were adopted and a copy of 8 those restrictive covenants is attached hereto and incorporated 9 . by reference as if fully set forth. The restrictive covenants 10 permit the City of Renton to extend the zoning on this property 11 . . for longer periods of time upon the happening of certain conditions . 12 The City found that those conditions existed and extended the 13 zoning. Plaintiff' s action,,questions the applicability of_ the 14 paragraph in the restrictive covenants with respect to duration , 15 and attempts to downzone the property through use of a declaratory 16 judgment. 0 17'The Court should be aware that a court of law does not have 18 the power to downzone property , as that is a legislative function. 19 The Court could issue a Writ of Mandate to the Renton City Council 20 compelling it to consider an ordinance downzoning a property if 21 the Court found that the City had been arbitrary and capricious 22 or had violated a statute or fundamental right by not considering 23 such an ordinance. However, that relief has not been requested. 24 Plaintiff' s action is a challenge to a decision made by 25 a member of the Administration of the City of Renton. As 26 discussed Lelow, this administrative decision had to be challenged 27 to the Hearing Examiner , so a public hearing , on the record , 28 would be held The decision of the Hearing Examiner could then BRIEF WARREN & KELLOGG. P.S. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 100 SO. SECOND ST.. P. O. BOX 626 P RENTON. WASHINGTON 98057 T 255.8878 1 be appealed by Writ of Review to the Superior Court . That 2 procedure has not been followed. The problem with not following 3 that procedure is that the Court has no record before it to 4 review the actions of the City. The lack of that record is 5 fatal to plaintiff' s action. There being no record, the Court 6 is being asked to intrude into either the administrative or 7 legislative functions of the City, and second guess decisions 8 made by the City with no basis upon which to make that decision. 9 3 . Standing. Plaintiff is without standing to bring 10 this action. RCW 7. 24. 020 discusses standing when it states : 11 A person . . . whose rights , status or other legal relations are affected by a12municipalordinance. . .may have determined any question of construction 13 or validity arising under the. . . ordinance. . . and obtain a declaration 14 of rights , status or other legal relations thereunder. " 15 16 As discussed elsewhere in this brief, plaintiff did not challenge 17 the original rezone ordinance in a timely manner, and is now 18 barred from doing so. Likewise , plaintiff' s property is not 19 affected by the rezone. There is no question of the validity 20 of the rezone ordinance . Therefore , the only question before the 21 Court could be the construction of that ordinance. However, 22 plaintiff' s complaint is not as to the construction of the 23 ordinance , but as to the effect of the restrictive covenants 24 that were required on the property. Reviewing the statute ' s 25 language , plaintiff would have to have an actual right , status 26 or other legal relations affected by the restrictive covenants 27 and would have to convince the Court that the restrictive covenants 28 were an integral part of the questioned ordinance. Plaintiff BRIEF WARREN & KELLOGG. P.S. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 100 SO. SECOND ST., P. O. BOX 626 P . RENTON. WASHINGTON 98057 J 255.8878 1 simply cannot point to the Court that it has a right or status . 2 affected by the restrictive covenants , and can only hope that 3 the Court will find some sort of' a legal relationship held by 4 plaintiff that is affected by the restrictive covenants . Even 5 a cursory review of the complaint will show that there is no 6 such legal relationship involved. In this instance , - there is 7 no legal relationship between the City of Renton and Mt. Olivet 8 Cemetery affected by the restrictive covenants . Rather, plaintiff 9 is a neighboring property owner trying to gain an advantage 10 through the use of Civil Courts . 11 , Plaintiff likewise cannot present a justiciable 12 controversy to the courts . The principal elements of a justiciable 13 controversy under the Washington Declaratory Judgment Act (codified 14 as Chapter 7 . 24. RCW) are as follows : 15 1. The parties must have existing and genuine , as 16 distinguished from theoretical rights or interests . 17 2. The controversy must be one upon which the judgment of the Court may effectively operate , as distinguished 18 from a debate or argument evoking a purely political , administrative, philosophical or academic conclusion. 19 3. The controvert' must be such that a judicial 20 determination will have the .f_orce and effect of a final judgment in law or decree in equity upon the 21 rights , status or other legal relationship of one or more of the real parties in interest. 22 4. The proceeding must be genuinely adversary in 23 character and not a mere debate , but advanced with . sufficient militancy to engender a thorough research 24 and anlysis of the major issues . State ex rel.0'Connell vs. Dubuque, 68 W.2d 553,558,413 P.2d 972 (1966) 25 4. Plaintiff' s action violates the- 'applicable statute 26 of limitations. What plaintiff is attempting to do . is 27 collaterally attack the rezone of this property. Plaintiff 28 should have brought an action immediately •after the rezone BRIEF WARREN.& KELLOGG. P.S. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 100 SO. SECOND ST.. P. O. BOX 626 P. 6 RENTON, WASHINGTON 98057 255-8678 1 of the property. The rules in the City of Renton require 2 application to the Superior Court for the Writ of Review within 3 20 days after the action that is being contested. See Renton 4 City Code Section 4-3017 . 5 The action of the Council, approving, modifying obre rfenea nnd decision ofunhe s Ewahn rt,wh l 20)6 calendar days from the date of the action, an 7 aggrieved party or person obtains a Writ of 8 Review from the Superior Court of Washington for King County, for purpose of review of the action taken. " 9 10 No appeal was taken within the required twenty days . In 11 fact, this action follows two and one-half years after City 12 . Council action. 13 As set forth above , the application was not filed within 14 the twenty days . As set forth in a number of Washington cases , 15 as detailed below, such a filing within the required number of 16 days is jurisdictional upon this Court. 17 Even if the City Code limitations period is not applied 18 by this Court, the same time period would still be required under 19 the case of Vance v. Seattle , 18 Wash. App . 418 , 423 , 424, 469 P. 2d 20 1194 (1977) : 21 In our State , the time within which certiorari must 22 be applied for is determined by reference to the time prescribed by statute or court rule for bringing 23 an appeal. 24 Turning, to the case before us , at all times pertinent to Vance ' s grievance , there was no 25 statute or rule specifically providing for a direct appeal from the City Civil Service Commission rulings . 26 However, appeals to the Superior Court from final decisions of Courts of limited jurisdiction must be 27 taken within twenty days . J. C. R. 73 (a) . By analogy Vance should have applied to the Superior Court for 28 King County within twenty days from the date of the Civil Service Commission decision which he sought WARREN & KELLOGG. P.S. BRIEF ATTORNEYS AT LAW 100 SO. SECOND ST.. P. O. BOX 620 P. 7 RENTON. WASHINGTON 98057 255-8878 1 to reverse. Not having done so, his attempt to review that decision was not timely and was 2 not properly dismissed. . . " (citations omitted) . 3 See also Oden Investments Company v. Seattle , 28 Wash. App. 161 4 - 622 P. 2d 882 (1981) : 5 Only 'very extraordinary extenuating circum- stances ' will justify a relaxation of the timeliness 6 rules for extraordinary writs . Seattle v. Bell , 199 Wash. 441 , 445 , 92 P. 2d 197 (1939) . Despite the 7 temporal proximity of the Vance opinion to the determination of the City Hearing Examiner, the - 8 common law of this State well before Vance recognized that the time limit for an extraordinary writ is 9 limited by the same court rules governing appeals. Pierce v. King County, 62 Wn 2d 324, 333 , 382 P. 2d 10 628 (1963) . . . I' 11 A definitive discussion of municipally imposed time limits 12 on extraordinary writs is contained in Deschenes v. King County, 13 83 Wn2d 714, 716 , 521 P. 2d 1181 (1974) : 14 1) The rule is well known and universally respected that a court lacking jurisdiction 15 of any matter may do nothing other than enter an order of dismissal. 21 C. J. S . Courts 118 16 1940) . 17 2) Although the Superior Court is a court of - general jurisdiction, this is a special proceeding 18 in which the court is acting in an appellate capacity. Under such circumstances , the court has only such 19 jurisdiction as is conferred by law. One of the necessary elements to confer appellate jurisdiction 20 upon a court is the giving of a timely notice of appeal. Stark v. Jenkins, 1 Wash. Terr 421 (1874) ; 21 Cogswell v. Hogan, 1 Wash 4, 23 P. 835 (1890) ; Isom v. Olympia Oil & Wood Prods . Co. , 200 Wash. 642, 9 22 P. 2d 482 (1939) . Although the proceeding herein is .denominated a writ of certiorari , it is also 23 referred to in the same section of the code as an appeal ' ; and a definite time limit is provided.24 Compliance with such time limit is essential for the court to acquire jurisdiction. 25 The constitutional provision giving to the26superiorcourtsjurisdictiontoissuewrits , 27 Const. art 4 s 6 , does not prohibit the' limitation of the time for seeking such a writ. The rule is 28 recognized in R. Anderson , American Law of Zoning , s 21. 15 (1968) , as follows : BRIEF WARREN & KELLOGG. P.S. ATTORNEYS AT LAW P. 8f00 SO. SECOND ST.. P. O. BOX 626 RENTON. WASHINGTON 98057 255-8678 1 The Standard State Zoning Enabling Act contains a provision that a petition to 2 review a decision of a board of adjustment shall be presented to the court within 30 3 days after the filing of the decision in the office of the board. Specific provisions 4 limiting the time within which an aggrieved litigant must perfect an appeal are included 5 in the enabling acts .of about two-thirds of the states . 6 In general , these provisions are included on 7 the assumption that the public interest will be best served by finalizing the decisions of 8 the board and firming up rights to develop land at the earliest moment which is consistent 9 with fair process . . . The time restrictions range from 10 to 60 days . . . 10 The time limitations imposed by statute upon 11 the commencement of proceedings to review a decision of a board of adjustment are regarded 12 as mandatory. Failure to initiate proceedings within the time limited by statute results 13 in loss of the right of review. " 14 From Deschenes , supra, it is clear that the municipalities 15 may impose time limits on the right to obtain a writ of review 16 and that failure to file timely leaves the Court with jurisdiction 17 to only enter an order of dismissal. That view is once again 18 reinforced in the case of North Street Association v. Olympia, 19 96 Wn 2d, 350, 364, P. 2d 1981) , wherein the Court states : 20 When reviewing such statutory writs , the Court is acting in appellate capacity and compliance with 21 any statutorily imposed time limits is jurisdictionally essential. Deschenes v. King County 22 83 Wn 2d. 714, 716 , 521 P. 2d 1181 (1974) . " 23 The Court in North Street Association, supra, then goes 24 into a rather extensive discussion concluding that the parties 25 seeking a writ must make application to the court within the 26 time period set forth by statute or ordinance , but has additional 27 time within which to perfect service. 28 Finally, the Court held that the time period for the filing BRIEFWARREN & KELLOGG. P.S. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 100 SO. SECOND ST.. P. O. BOX 626 P . 9 RENTON. WASHINGTON 98057 255-8878 1 of the application for the writ began at the date that the formal 2 findings and conclusions were entered. The application of this 3 case to the facts before the court mandate a dismissal of the writ. 4 5 5. Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies . The 6 action challenged is ministerial in nature and plaintiff has 7 failed to exhaust its administrative remedies . Once the City 8 Council of the City of Renton adopted the rezone ordinance 9 and the restrictive covenants, the only task to be completed 10 by the City was the ministerial task of determining whether or 11 not the Kent Highlands , Inc. had met the qualifications for 12 extension of the zoning. As such, there was no exercise of 13 discretion or no quasi-judicial action taken by the City which 14 is reviewable by this court. See Federation vs . Personnel Board , 15 23 Wn.App. 142 , 145 ,594 P. 2d 1375 (1979) : 16 A statutory Writ of Certiorari authorized by RCW 7. 16. 040 may only be used to review actions 17 of agencies exercising quasi-judicial functions . State ex rel. Hood vs . Personnel Board, 82 Wn 2d 18 396, 399 , 511 P. 2d 52 (1973) . It may not be used to obtain judicial review of purely legislative ,19 executive or ministerial acts of the agency. . . Our courts have developed a four-part test to20determinewhetherornotanactionofanadministrative agency is quasi-judicial: (1) whether. a court could 21 have been charged with making the agency' s decision; 2) whether the action is one which historically22hasbeenperformedbycourts ; (3) whether the action involves the application of existing law to past or23presentfactsforthepurposeofdeclaringor enforcing liability ; and (4) whether the action 24 resembles the ordinary business of courts as opposed to that of legislators or administrators . " 25 citations omitted) . 26 A review of the questioned action would show that the action 27 was strictly that of an administrator and that the courts are 28 not normally in the business of enforcing unambiguous restrictive covenants . WARREN & KELLOGG. P.S. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1OO SO. SECOND SIT.... P. O. BOX 626 BRIEF RENTON. WASHINGTON 98057 255-8678 in 1 n 1 Even if the City of Renton ' s administrative determination 2 was appealable to the Superior Court , plaintiff would have had 3 to exhaust the administrative remedies set forth in the City of 4 Renton Code. 5 City of Renton Code Section 4-3011(B) states as follows : 6 Appeals from administrative determinations of 7 the City ' s land use regulation codes , and from environmental determinations required by the Renton Environmental ordinance may be taken to8theHearingExaminerbyanypersonaggrieved, or by any officer, department, board or bureau of 9 the City affected by such determination. 10 1. Any such appeal shall be filed in writing with the Examiner within the• following time 11 limits : (b) appeals from an administrative decision pursuant to this Chapter shall be filed 12 within fourteen (14) days of the date that the No action hwass beanent.a13suchaapcpk• en and under the rules set forth 14 in Ackerly Communications vs . Seattle , 92 Wn. 2d 905 , 908 ,602 P. 2d 15 1177 (1979) plaintiff has no standing to maintain this action 16 in Superior Court : 17 We note at the outset that under the rule stated 18 in Lange v. Woodway, 79 Wn 2d 45 , 483 P. 2d 116 (1971) respondents have no standing to maintain an action 19 for declaratory and injunctive relief for they have failed to exhaust their administrative remedies 20 and show conclusively that the ordinance they challenge will harm them. In Lange vs . Woodway 21 • the court applied this well settled rule requiring exhaustion of administrative remedies to a challenge 22 to a zoning ordinance. " 1 23 It is a long established rule that administrative remedies 24 must be exhausted before the courts will intervene. See Wright 25 vs . Woodard, 83 Wn. 2d 378 , 518 , P . 2d, 718 (1974) : 26 It is a general rule that when an adequate administrative remedy .is provided, it must be exhausted before. the courts 27 will intervene. State ex rel Association. of Washington Industries v. Johnson, 56 Wn 2d7+07 , 353 , P. 2d, 881 (1960) ; 28 Sunny Brook Farms v. Omdahl, 42 Wn. 2d 788 , 259 P. 2d, 383 1953) . " WARREN & KELLOGG. P.S. BRIEF ATTORNEYS AT LAW 100 90. SECOND ST.. P. O. BOX 926 RENTON. WASHINOTON 95057 P•. 11 255-8678 1 The Court in Wright v. Woodward, supra, after analyzing 2 the law, dismissed this action finding that an adequate remedy 3 through administrative channels was provided so that the Court 4 erred in entertaining the action. A similar analysis took place 5 in Magruder v. Bellingham School Board, 19 Wn. App . 628 , 576 , 6 P. 2d 1340 (1978) citing Wright vs . Woodward, supra. 7 8 SUMMARY 9 Plaintiff' s action must be dismissed for the following 10 reasons : 11 1. Failure to join a necessary party; 12 2. The relief requested is improper, there is no record 13 upon which the Court can make its decision, and the requested relief would violate the doctrine of 14 separation of powers ; ' 15 3. Standing; 16 4. Plaintiff' s action violates the applicable statute of limitations ; 17 18 5 . Failure to exhaust administrative' remedies . 19 20 Respectfully submitted, 21 Lawrence J. Warren 22 23 • 24 25 26 27 28 WARREN & KELLOGG. P.S. BRIEF ATTORNEYS AT LAW 100 SO. SECOND ST.. P. O. BOX E2S RENTON. WASHINGTON 98057 P. 12 255-8678 1I . Jr i 1 i J ATTACHMENT "II" DECL_ -•`ITION OF RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS ,• WHEREAS, Kent Highlands , Inc . , successor by merger' to Stone- way Concrete , Inc . , a firm incorporated in .the State of Washington , is the owner of real property in the City of Renton , County of King , State of 'Washington ,' described as follows : All that 'portion of. the Northeast one -quarter and of Govern- • anent, Lots 7 and 8 within Section 17 , Township 23 North , Range 5East , W. M. described as follows : Pe Beoi.nnino at the southwest corner of the southeast one-. quarter of the northeast one-quarter of said Section 17 ; thence north along the west line of said subdivision a F distance of 252 . 23 feet to the true point of beginning ; said point also designated as Point "A" ; thence south f•-.• 89°45 ' 17" east a distance 'of 526 . 41 feet ; thence south 88°52 ' 04" east a distance of 799 feet to the east line of Section 17 ; thence south along said east line to the east 'o.ne-quarter, corner of Section 17 ;' thence continuing south along the • east line of said section to an intersec- tion with the northerly right-of-way line of State Road No . .5 ( St . S . R . 0169 ) (Maple Valley Highway); thence in a general northwesterly direction along said northerly right-of-way line to an intersection with a line that ' lies north 89°45 ' 17 " west a distance of 653 . 91 feet from Point "A" ; thence . south 89°45 ' 17" east a distance of 653 . 91 feet to Point "A" and the true point of beginning . • WHEREAS, the owner of said described property desires to impose the following restrictive covenants running with the land as to use , present and future , of the above described real property . NOW, 'THEREFORE, the aforesaid owners hereby establish ,' grant , and impose restrictions and covenants running with the land as to the use of the land hereinabove described with respect to the us.e by the undersigned , their successors ,' heirs add assigns , as follows : DEVELOPMENT Any and all development 'of the subject property shall be subj'ect • to City of Renton approval and shall comply with all the requirements of the Planned Unit Development Ordi - I ;t Hance , Chapter- 27 , Title IV ,' ( Building Regulations ) of . Ordinance 1628 known as "Code of General Ordinances, of the City 'of Renton . " A master development plan for the entire 1 property as described above shall be submitted to and approved by the City of Renton pursuant to the abovemen tioned ordinance prior to preparation of specific develop- ment plans . BUILDING HEIGHT No buildin.q or structure shall exceed a height of thirty- five . ( 35 ) feet when located Within the Westerly 1100 feet of above described property as measured from the northwest ATTACHMENT "II" -. Page. 1 ., k:Wis,c.r•S:w+iG::4uA+1li;.iriaiuliiLLN,w:U.Jiu iJiciuf' ..... ._..._... ................................,. ._........ ,......... ., ..,. .. .. • corner along the,.. girth 'property line ( inclu ; . ..g Parcels A and B , as noted on attached Exhibit A ) . OPEN SPACE The hillside slope area along the south property line northeast of Maple Valley Highway ( SR- 169 ) , indicated a,s greenbelt on the City of Renton Comprehensive Land Use • - . Plan as revised May 17 , 1972 , shall be retained in its natural state . No buildings , • structures ,' roads , drive- ' ways , or parking shall be constructed in said greenbelt NJarea (.Parcel E , Exhibit A) . ACCESS A primary access street shall be provided to the site from N . E. Third Street , subject to City of Renton approval of its design and location as part of the total develop ment plan . Access to existing Blaine Avenue N . E . shall be for emergency purposes only . A suitable barrier and gate . shall be constructed at the existing south terminus of Blaine Avenue N . E . subject to Renton Traffic Division and Fire Department approval . Installation' of appropriate traffic control devices ( including channelization , light ing , signing and traffic signals ) at N . E . Third Street- : will be provided by the property owner and/or developer when required by the City of Renton , DURATION These covenants shall run with the land and expire on December 31 , 2050 . . `It. is ,, further-agreed and . covenanted by the . undersigned : that` if a master plan for total develop- ment of the property is not submitted to the, City of Renton • • • .! pursuant to the Renton Planned Unit Development Ordinance within two ( 2 ) years and substantial construction 'begun within three (3 ) -years of .the filing , of these covenants ,• 0 and said construction and development diligently prosecu- ted toward.- completion thereafter, the zoning of said:. property shal.l ,without further City action revert back to the zoning .which'- existed prior to' the filing of this • docu went, and these restrictive covenants shall become • null and void : Theterrn "su'bstantial construction" shall mean the physical alteration of "the land for construction 'pursu- ant to. City..a.pproved :development plans as per .the .:above mentioned Planned Unit Development Ordinance and '"a valid . building ;per.mit.;:; orcon;struction of.; required .utilities for • such^:develpment. The abovementioned time periods may be extended for reasonable cause updn -written request to and L t•,• 2 - ATTACHMENT. "B - Page 2 , pnk Pwr approval by th_ _.enton Planning Department . Such reason- able cause shall include , but may not be limited to , the requirement of an environmental impact statement pursuant ' to the State Environmental Policy Act of 1971 . Any violation or breach of these restrictive covenants may be enforced by proper legal procedures in the Superior Court of King County by either the City of Renton or any property owners adjoin- iv ing subject property who are adversely affected by said breach . J IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereby affix their hands this 19727...- day o f .•.-.:El,t.t_.q• KENT HIGHLANDS, INC . By p r es'i ti -- Secrett8ry STATE OF WASHINGTON ) COUNTY OF KING On this 6/1' da,y o•f cr,5,c.7,fr?ecr 197`7 . before me personally appeared__ -.)_/:2_ c.11t_6.; and to me known to be the__ LL _1[? :L—_____-- and respectively , of KENT HIGHLANDS , INC . , the corporation that executed the within and foregoing instrument , and acknowledged said . instrument to be the free and voluntary act of said corporation for the .uses and purposes therein mentioned , and on oath stated that they were authpr- ized to execute said instrument and that the seal affixed is the corporate seal of said corporation . IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year first above written . 7 Not ry Pu is in nd for theState o . washingt , resi ing at e•477 r 3 ATTACHMENT "B" - page 3 . OF 1 OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY • RENTON,WASHINGTON di ' O V ` ©, z POST OFFICE OOx 626 100 S 2nd STREET • RENTON,%ASMINGTON 98057 255-8670 p LAWRENCE I.WARREN, CITY ATTORNEY DANIEL KELLOGG, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY O DAVID M. DEAN, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY09P gTFO SEPIE O MARK E. BARBER, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY ZANETTA L.FONTES, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEYAugust13, 1982 Mr. Bob Zeigler Acting Habitat Program Manager State of Washington Department of Game 509 Fairview Ave. North Seattle, WA 98109 Re: Your letter of August 5 , 1982 addressed to Mr. Dave Clemens , Renton Planning Department Dear Mr. Zeigler: A copy of your August 5 letter has been forwarded to me. I was most surprised by your letter as I did not know that the Department of Game was particularly interested in theMt. Olivet cemetery property; nor am I aware that any sort of Environmental Impact Statement or other document would have been_:circulated to your office for comment. This causes me,-to-wonder what -motivates your letter to the City at this .time. Mr. Colt, the owner of Mt: Olivet cemetery, has been most active in representing his interests recently before the City; however, all of the actions have already been taken and your letter arrives after the fact and can be of little benefit to the City: Could you please identify for me what project or application pending before the City that will be aided by your letter. Your letter also seems to indicate that the City of Rentonshouldtakeanumberofsteps. Can you tell me upon what statutory or administrative grounds you rely? Your letter is particularly problematic for the City as it suggests steps in very, very general terms that very -likely are outside the City' s jurisdiction and authority to implement. Does the Department of Game intend to exercise its jurisdiction and assist the City? Do you have funding to assist the City?Lastly, why are you attempting to further the interests of one specific property owner within the City, a property owner that has dedicated his property to cemetery purposes , hardly a use that can be described as valuable urban wild. Very truly yours , Lawrence J. WarrenLJW: ds cc: , Frank Lockard, Director of Game cc: Dave Clemens , Mayor Shinpoch OF R THE CITY OF RENTON POLICY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT • 235-2552 mu. NAL MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON,WASH.98055 9.0 Pam,0,9" so SErc • BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH MAYOR MEMORANDUM DATE: August 9, 1982 TO: Ronald G. Nelson, Building & Zoning Director Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney FROM: David R. Clemens, Policy Development Director SUBJECT: DEPARTMENT OF GAME CORRESPONDENCE ON MT. OLIVET CEMETERY It appears that Mr. Colt is at it again. The attached letter from-Bob Zeigler is ambiguous as to its ultimate intent, but it certainly shows that Mr. Colt continues to rattle whatever sabers he can find on the water rights issue. There doesn't seem to be anything that we can do immediately, but being forewarned may help us in some future crisis. cc: Gene Williams Attachment STATe O k•dS Ei:9r w JOHN SPELLMAN n::::: FRANK LOCKARD Governor 889 tr'Director STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF GAME Seattle Regional Office—509 Fairview Avenue North. Seattle 93100. Telephone: N{-`704 August 5, 1982 CITY OF RENTON AUG - ri 1982 Mr. Dave Clemens POLIO Renton Planning Department DEV OPMCtJT FPT. Municipal Building 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, Washington 98055 Re: Fish and Wildlife Potential in and around Mount Olivet Cemetery in Renton, King County Dear Mr. Clemens: Urban wilds are an important component of any livable city. The ability to observe fish and wildlife at or close: to people's homes enhances the quality of life. Planning for urban wilds is an important component of city and county land use planning. Mount Olivet Cemetery holds potential to be developed into an extremely valu- able urban wild. With its stream corridors, ponds and wetlands it is already serving in that capacity. The area where gravel is being mined holds potential for enhancement. However, unless care is taken, development of this area could eliminate most or all the wildlife potential that is present. Should the gravel operation further lower the water table, ponds and wetlands could dry up. This has already occurred on some of the ponds on the property. See photos that show alder growing in areas that were recently under water. The existing wetlands provide important wildlife habitat. Ducks with young have been observed in the ponds. In general , wetlands and stream corridors are critical areas for fish and wildlife. These are the areas that contain food, water and provide migration routes to other open space areas. These critical sites are heavily used for breeding and rearing of young. Wetlands and naturally vegetated stream corridors help control stormwater, remove pollutants from these waters and control flooding. They have important public values in ,addition to their capacity for fish and wildlife. Near sensitive areas, impervious surfaces would need to be controlled. In a Renton study, EPA discovered an inverse relationship between the percent of urbanization and percent of important fish food organisms in a drainage basin. They conclude that the greater the increase in urban acres, the fewer fish the drainage area could support. u:G >3 r Mr. Dave Clemens August 5, 1982 Page 2 Buffers of at least 100 feet of vegetation should be left on both sides of streams and around wetlands to preserve their public values. This would retain the most critical habitat and would remove much of the silt from the storm- water.; We hope that care will be required of developments and land uses near your urban wilds. We would be happy to visit the site with your staff. If you have any questions, please call us at 464-5874. Sincerely, THE DEPARTMENT OF GAME Bob Zeigler Acting Habitat Program Manager BZ:td cc: Bill Pedersen Jim Colt, Mt. Olivet Cemetery Betsy Wolin Wetlands and Ponds Currently Found on the Property 04 tom_A r Ponds That Have Dried L!p. Note the drains that indicate that water was once at least three feet deep here. iir t,4 'A, , t r, yY t 9litiv- *, . _ 4 t, « - s t ,O ` one^ S.r N r" r S., a . " Jat „.„,„, r.- .. . f- •.• a - 41• C' I tir. t jiJ k; N v•T .R. ..^'.••Ie-c ,. 7.:.•-'- 4.jV. •:•;y-.•'. t•S a.. ,.. ' i 4 f `.. -' `i:rt -.— r i • ' M al s s' •• j r ! rE s Z:• r t:• .4. a 'eV. •4-- CITY OF RENTON JUL 3 01982 POLICY DFVFLOPME!.T DFPT. RENTON CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting July 26 , 1982 Municipal Building Monday , 8 : 00 P . M . Council Chambers MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Mayor Barbara Y. Shinpoch led the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag and called the meeting of the Renton City Council to order. ROLL CALL OF EARL CLYMER, Council President; ROBERT J . HUGHES, RANDALL ROCKHILL, COUNCIL MEMBERS RICHARD M. STREDICKE, JOHN W. REED, NANCY L. MATHEWS AND THOMAS W. TRIMM. CITY STAFF BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH, Mayor; LAWRENCE WARREN, City Attorney; MICHAEL IN ATTENDANCE PARNESS, Administrative Assistant; MAXINE E. MOTOR, Acting City Clerk; DAVID CLEMENS, Policy Development Director; CAPT. JAMES BOURASA, Police. PRESS GREG ANDERSON, Renton Record Chronicle MINUTE APPROVAL Addition by Mayor Shinpoch to page 4, item 3: No additional cost to City on Work Experience Employment Program, minimum wage for two to three hours weekly previously budgeted in Parks. Council President Clymer inquired regarding omission of New Business (there was none) . MOVED BY CLYMER, SECOND BY MATHEWS, THE MINUTES BE APPROVED AS AMENDED. CARRIED. PUBLIC HEARING This being the date set and proper notices having been posted and pub- West Hill lished according to law, Mayor Shinpoch opened the public hearing to Pump Station consider annexation of approximately 12,000 square feet of contiguous Annexation city-owned property including street right-of-way located at the junction of Renton Avenue and Renton Avenue Extension for location of future pump station site. Policy Development Director Clemens outlined the proposed annexation, noting the building may be several years in the future, de- pending on finances available for extending the system. Mr. Clemens described unsuccessful attempt to include two other parcels. There being no audience comment, it was MOVED BY CLYMER, SECOND BY ROCKHILL, PUBLIC HEARING BE CLOSED. CARRIED. MOVED BY CLYMER, SECOND BY REED, AUTHORIZE POLICY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT TO PROCEED WITH ANNEXATION AND FILING OF DOCUMENTS WITH KING COUNTY BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD. CARRIED. AUDIENCE COMMENT Wyman K. Dobson, P. 0. Box 59, Renton, attorney representing Emma Cugini , Appeal by requested the matter of the appeal by Mt. Olivet Cemetery be advanced. Mt. Olivet MOVED BY ROCKHILL, SECOND BY HUGHES, SUSPEND THE REGULAR ORDER OF BUSINESS Cemetery AND DISCUSS THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE REPORT THAT WAS TABLED SP 012-82 ON 7/19/82. CARRIED. Planning and Development Committee report of 7/07/82 was read. MOVED BY HUGHES, SECOND BY REED, THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF MT. OLIVET CEMETERY BE REMOVED FROM THE TABLE. CARRIED. Following the discovery of a discrepancy in report copies received, it was MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECOND BY ROCKHILL, SUBJECT MATTER BE TABLED FOR A FEW MINUTES UNTIL PARTIES HAVE REVIEWED DISCREPANCIES IN THE MATERIAL. CARRIED. One-Half John Ellis, 13445 SE 141st, Renton, operations manager at Sears in the Percent Renton Shopping Center, addressed the Council regarding one-half percent Optional sales tax. MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECOND BY ROCKHILL, SUSPEND THE RULES Sales Tax AND ADVANCE THE ORDER OF BUSINESS TO THE WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE REPORT REGARDING THE ONE-HALF PERCENT SALES TAX. CARRIED. Mr. Ellis, repre- senting larger merchants belonging to the Chamber of Commerce, spoke against Renton being the first (and/or possibly the only) community in the vicinity to impose this tax, stressing that the Christmas shopping season was approaching and this would drive consumers to other areas not collecting this one-half percent tax. Mr. Ellis sympathized with the city's financial difficulties, but urged Council to thoroughly consider the impact of this action. He suggested postponing imposing the tax until after the Christmas season or until actions of surrounding cities could be determined. Renton City Council July 26, 1982 Page 2 Audience Comment continued One-Half Dave Oxley, manager of J. C. Penney Company, Renton Shopping Center, Percent also spoke against imposition of the tax, stating that a high percentage Optional of his customers come from areas surrounding Renton and these people Sales Tax would, he felt, go elsewhere to shop to save the extra tax. Mr. Oxley also urged Council to consider possible loss of jobs due to decrease in sales as well as less city revenue from less tax collected. King Parker, 4608 NE Sunset Blvd. , Renton, representing smaller and independent businesses, suggested Council seek other alternatives to the half-percent sales tax, possibly a Business and Occupation Tax on merchants. Mr. Parker agreed that consumers would avoid Renton in order to save the half-percent tax. Mayor Shinpoch stressed that this proposal was thoroughly considered before being proposed and was thought to be the best alternative. All aspects had been considered and reconsidered, but the urgency of the city' s problems had dictated action. Revenue requirements demand an immediate action with allowances being made for public input and affirmation. Mayor Shinpoch explained there was not time to determine King County/ other cities ' decisions and delaying imposition of this one-half percent tax until January would mean revenue would not be received by the city until April . With options so limited , Mayor Shinpoch welcomed any suggestions without cutting health, safety and welfare provisions to the public. Following discussion, it was MOVED BY ROCKHILL, SECOND BY HUGHES, this subject be tabled. Motion failed. MOVED BY MATHEWS, SECOND BY TRIMM, recommend implementation of this ordinance (one-half percent sales tax) for first reading and further request suspension of the rules and advance to second and final readings. Councilwoman Mathews noted this is a motion and not the Ways and Means Committee recommendation. ROLL CALL: 3 AYES: TRIMM, MATHEWS AND STREDICKE; 4 NOS: CLYMER, REED, ROCKHILL AND HUGHES. MOTION FAILED. MOVED BY ROCKHILL, SECOND BY STREDICKE, PERTAINING TO SECTION 9, THIS ORDINANCE SHALL TAKE EFFECT 10/01/82 AND EXPIRE 12/31/83. ROLL CALL: 5 AYES: TRIMM, MATHEWS, REED, STREDICKE, ROCKHILL; 2 NOS: CLYMER, HUGHES. MOTION CARRIED. Council was reminded that, should King County adopt the tax prior to Renton, Renton citizens would pay the tax to First Reading King County. King County implementation is not anticipated until after One-Half Percent fall elections. Ordinance was read as amended. MOVED BY TRIMM, SECOND Optional Sales BY MATHEWS, SUSPEND THE RULES AND PLACE THIS ORDINANCE ON SECOND AND Tax FINAL READING. ROLL CALL: 4 AYES: TRIMM, MATHEWS, REED, STREDICKE; Ordinance 3647 3 NOS: CLYMER, ROCKHILL, HUGHES. MOTION CARRIED. Ordinance was read. MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECOND BY TRIMM, COUNCIL ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS PRESENTED, EFFECTIVE 10/01/82 AND EXPIRING 12/81/83. Councilman Stredicke stated that if no adjacent jurisdiction has adopted the one-half percent sales tax within 30 days, he reserves the right to call for reconsidera- tion and review of the tax. ROLL CALL: 4 AYES: TRIMM, MATHEWS, REED, STREDICKE; 3 NOS: CLYMER, ROCKHILL, HUGHES. MOTION CARRIED. Appeal by James L. Colt, President, Mt. Olivet Cemetery Company, stated he had Mt. Olivet reviewed the differences in the Planning and Development Committee Cemetery reports and all parties reached agreement concerning any discrepancies SP 012-82 in report. The Planning and Development Committee report found the Hearing Examiner in error in three instances and recommended modifi - cation of Conclusions 3, 5, 7 and 8. Mr. Dobson spoke against the appeal , citing no evidence of error in law, fact or judgment in the Hearing Examiner' s decision. Councilman Reed explained the intent of the committee report was to protect all downstream owners' water rights. Councilman Rockhill noted that he was in minority (not approving) Planning and Development Committee report. Mr. Colt stated that no restriction on development of the Cugini 's property was implied, but control of run-off from parking lot or building. Following discussion, it was MOVED BY HUGHES, SECOND BY REED, Council concur in recommendation of the Planning and Development Committee Report with regard to the Renton City Council July 26, 1982 Page 3 Appeal by Mt. Olivet Cemetery Appeal . ROLL CALL: 3 AYES: TRIMM, REED, HUGHES; Mt. Olivet 4 NOS: CLYMER, MATHEWS, STREDICKE, ROCKHILL. MOTION FAILED. SUBSTITUTE Cemetery MOTION BY REED, SECOND BY HUGHES, Refer the matter back to the Hearing SP 012-82 Examiner for review of the Colt Appeal in light of the Segale*decision. continued ROLL CALL: 3 AYES: TRIMM, REED, HUGHES; 4 NOS: CLYMER, MATHEWS, STREDICKE, ROCKHILL. MOTION FAILED. MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECOND BY CLYMER, TO DENY THE APPEAL AND UPHOLD THE HEARING EXAMINER' S DECISION. Mr. Colt called attention to Councilman Clymer's statement that all applicable city ordinances would be in force and enforced. ROLL CALL: 4 AYES: CLYMER, MATHEWS, STREDICKE, ROCKHILL; 3 NOS: TRIMM, REED, HUGHES. MOTION CARRIED. `Segale Decision (SP 032-82) Audience Comment continued Marian Jordan, 13265 - 89th Avenue South, addressed the Council to West Hill oppose the West Hill Pump Station Annexation explaining prior unsuccess- Pump Station ful attempt to annex residence. Public Hearing having been closed, Ms. Annexation Jordan was instructed to contact the King County Boundary Review Board Opposition for further information. CONSENT AGENDA The following items are adopted by one motion which follows the items included: South Talbot Utilities Engineering recommended project and final pay estimate be Hill Pump approved and retainage of $18,433.85 be released after 30 days if all Station Final taxes have been paid and no liens have been filed on W-600 (CAG 017-81 ) Payment South Talbot Hill Pump Station - Teem Ventures, Inc. Council concur. Zoning and Policy Development Department submitted a preliminary analysis of cost Subdivision of processing zoning and subdivision applications recommending revisions Fees to the fee structure commensurate with the city' s actual cost of pro- viding the service. Refer to Planning and Development Committee. DAV "Forget Proclamation from Mayor Shinpoch delcared period of August 5-7, 1982 , Me Not" Days as "Disabled American Veterans Forget-Me-Not Days". Consent Agenda MOVED BY CLYMER, SECOND BY HUGHES, ADOPT THE CONSENT AGENDA AS PRESENTED. Approved CARRIED. CORRESPONDENCE AND CURRENT BUSINESS Planning Letter from Planning Commission Chairman Michael G. Porter (by David Association Clemens) requested Council approval to proceed with sponsorship of the 1983 Fall 1983 Fall Conference of the Planning Association of Washington. MOVED Conference BY CLYMER, SECOND BY STREDICKE, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE REQUEST OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. CARRIED. OLD BUSINESS Utilities Utilities Committee Chairwoman Mathews presented committee report Committee approving the transfer of $20,000 from May Creek/Honey Creek/Kennydale Honey Creek Sanitary Sewer Reserve Account to current working funds to obtain Surveying professional land surveying services for the Honey Creek Sanitary Sewers. Committee also recommended referral to Ways and Means Committee for proper ordinance. MOVED BY MATHEWS, SECOND BY TRIMM, CONCUR IN THE RECOMMENDATION OF UTILITIES COMMITTEE. CARRIED. 1983-89 Utilities Committee Chairwoman Mathews presented committee report Capital approving the proposed Capital Improvement Programs and recommended Improvement a public meeting be held to accept public comments. MOVED BY MATHEWS, Program SECOND BY CLYMER, CONCUR IN THE UTILITIES COMMITTEE REPORT AND SET AUGUST 23, 1982, AS THE DATE OF THE PUBLIC MEETING. CARRIED. Cascade Sewer Utilities Committee Chairwoman Mathews presented committee report District - approving Administration' s recommendation to provide oversite on city ULID 62 residents and property owners affected by this ULID, to review assess- Renton City Council July 26, 1982 Page 4 Utilities Committee continued Cascade Sewer ments and LID formation, and, if approved, to issue right-of-way District construction permits and develop an interagency agreement to provide ULID 62 for transfer of the completed sewers within Renton. MOVED BY MATHEWS, continued SECOND BY TRIMM, CONCUR IN UTILITIES COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. Water Utilities Committee Chairwoman Mathews presented committee report District 58 recommending directing the Administration to investigate transfer of water service from Water District 58 to Renton in the vicinity of Rolling Hills/Tiffany Park neighborhoods by negotiation with Water District 58. MOVED BY MATHEWS, SECOND BY TRIMM, CONCUR IN UTILITIES COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. CHG Councilman Stredicke inquired regarding citations and/or fines issued Citations in connection with the CHG/Sunpointe operation. City Attorney Warren responded that the paperwork is being processed and will be filed with the court with a possibility of 40 citations including fines of up to 500 per citation. Mr. Stredicke noted this developer is having similar problems in other developments near Renton and urged close developer supervision in the future. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTION Ways and Means Ways and Means Committee Chairman Stredicke recommended second and final Committee readings of the following ordinances: Ordinance 3648 An ordinance was read approving and confirming the assessments and LID 317 assessment roll of Local Improvement District 317 for the construction Assessment Roll and installation of an eight-inch water line and appurtenances in the vicinity of South 132nd Street and South Langston Road. MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECOND BY ROCKHILL, ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS PRESENTED. ROLL CALL: ALL AYES. CARRIED. Ordinance 3649 An ordinance was read imposing an excise tax on sale of real estate, Real Estate providing for the collection thereof, limiting the use of the proceeds Transfer Tax therefrom and fixing penalties for violation of. Tax to be one-quarter of one percent of the selling price. MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECOND BY ROCKHILL, ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS PRESENTED. ROLL CALL: ALL AYES. CARRIED. First Readings The Ways and Means Committee recommended first reading of the following ordinance: McWilliams An ordinance was read changing the zoning classification of certain Rezone properties within the City of Renton from General Classification (G) 030-82 to Residence District (R-3) . MOVED BY REED, SECOND BY ROCKHILL, CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT AND REFER ORDINANCE BACK TO COMMITTEE FOR ONE WEEK. CARRIED. VOUCHER APPROVAL The Ways and Means Committee recommended approval of Vouchers 40845 through 41100 in the amount of $582, 183. 13 having received departmental certification that merchandise and/or services have been received or rendered. Vouchers 40840 through 40844 machine voided. MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECOND BY CLYMER, CONCUR IN RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE VOUCHERS. CARRIED. NEW BUSINESS Political Councilman Stredicke inquired regarding the city sign code as it con- Signs cerns political advertising. City Attorney Warren responded that political signs are classified as temporary and have a duration of 60 days, but must be removed ten days after the election unless it was a primary election. Mayor Shinpoch reported that policing of political signs would hold a priority directly relative to city staff and time available. Renton City Council 7/19/82 Page 4 Old Business - Continued Renton Area Councilman Stredicke requested the record reflect only 3% of Multi-Service total amount of private funds has been raised, that $163,286 Center needed to make project viable. Free Trees The Mayor thanked Ed Hayduk and Bob Bergstrom, Engineering Supervisor, for acquiring 500 trees from the National Forest Service which were planted along the Cedar River Trail . Renton School Ways and Means Committee Chairman Stredicke recommended Council District authorize the Mayor' s staff to conclude agreement with Renton Work experience School District re work experience/employment program for Employment developmentally disabled students. Committee also recommended Program Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to sign agreement. MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECOND HUGHES COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE REPORT AND AUTHORIZE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO SIGN AGREEMENT. CARRIED Councilman Clymer inquired re; cost, Mayor explained none to City. Councilman Trimm left the chambers. Appeal Mt. Planning and Development Committee Member Hughes recalled Olivet Cemetery the appeal by Mt. Olivet Cemetery of Special Permit 012-82 SP 012-82 on 7/12/82 had been tabled for one week and the matter needs to be continued one week. MOVED BY HUGHES, SECOND STREDICKE THE APPEAL OF MT. OLIVET BE REMOVED FROM THE TABLE, CARRIED. MOVED BY HUGHES, SECOND REED THE APPEAL OF MT. OLIVET BE TABLED FOR ONE WEEK. CARRIED. Councilman Trimm returned to chambers. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS Ways and Means Ways and Means Committee Chairman Stredicke presented committee Committee report recommending second and final readings on the following ordinance. Ordinance #3645 An ordinance was read adding a new subsection of the Building Zoning Class- Regulations amending Zoning Classification for G-1 General . ification MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECOND HUGHES, ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS PRESENTED. ROLL CALL: ALL AYES. CARRIED. First Readings The Ways and Means Committee recommended first reading of the following ordinances; Earlington Woods An ordinance was read vacating a portion of streets and alleys CF/CHG, Int. in an area south of SW Sunset Blvd. and North of Milwaukee Sunpointe Railroad Line within Earlington Addition including portions VAC 1-79 of Maple Avenue SW, SW 5th Streets & Stevens Ave. SW (VAC 1-79) MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECOND HUGHES REFER ORDINANCE BACK TO THE COMMITTEE FOR ONE WEEK. CARRIED Assessment An ordinance was read approving and confirming the assessments Roll LID and assessment roll of Locat Improvement District No. 317 for 317 the construction and installation of an 8" water line in the vicinity of S. 132nd Street and S. Langston Road. MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECOND HUGHES REFER ORDINANCE BACK TO THE COMMITTEE FOR ONE WEEK. CARRIED. Interim An ordinance was read to provide funds for interim financing Financing of LID No. 325, located South of S. 43rd, East of SR 167. One LID #325 Valley Place. Upon Council discussion concerning interest rates it was MOVED BY TRIMM, SECOND CLYMER, ADVANCE THE ORDINANCE TO SECOND AND FINAL READING. CARRIED. Following reading it was MOVED BY CLYMER, SECOND TRIMM ADOPT ORDINANCE AS PRESENTED. Renton City Council 7/19/82 Page 3 Consent Agenda - Continued Bid Opening Acting City Clerk Motor submitted report re; 6/29/82 bid open- 1982 Asphalt ing for asphalt resurfacing; three bids received. See attached Resurfacing tabulation. Refer to the Public Works Department and Trans- portation Committee. (See Transportation Committee Report) Bid Opening Acting City Clerk Motor submitted report re; 6/13/82 bid open- NE 12th St. ing for NE. 12 Street Improvements, Edmonds Ave. NE to Kirkland Improvements Ave. NE, ; seven bids received. See attached tabulation. Refer to Public Works Department and Transportation Committee (See Transportation Committee Report) Consent Agenda MOVED BY CLYMER SECOND TRIMM CONSENT AGENDA BE ADOPTED AS Approved PRESENTED. CARRIED. CORRESPONDENCE AND CURRENT BUSINESS Water Line Letter from Public Works Director Richard Houghton requested Crossing authorization for Mayor and City Clerk to sign agreement re; Agreement widening of SW 43rd St. The agreement between the Cities of Renton and Kent, Puget Power and Union Pacific Railroad allows Puget Power to punch a large conduit beneath the tracks. MOVED BY TRIMM, SECOND REED MAYOR AND CITY CLERK BE AUTHORIZED TO SIGN AGREEMENT. CARRIED. Parking Ticket Letter from Margaret Fay, 11508 SE 76th protested parking ticket and 2 hour parking limitation on downtown streets. MOVED BY TRIMM, SECOND STREDICKE REFER MATTER TO THE ADMINISTRATION. CARRIED OLD BUSINESS Transportation Committee Chairman Trimm recommended Council 1982 Asphalt accept the low bid of M. A. Segale, Inc. in the amount of Resurfacing 84,202. 50. The Committee also recommended that the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to execute the contract document. Contract MOVED BY TRIMM, SECOND REED COUNIL CONCUR AND AUTHORIZE MAYOR Award AND CITY CLERK TO SIGN CONTRACT DOCUMENT. CARRIED NE 12th St. Transportation Committee Chairman Trimm recommended Council Improvements accept the low bid of West Coast Construction Co. in the amount Contract of $237,505.05 for NE 12th Street Improvements, Edmonds Ave. NE to Kirkland Ave. NE. The Committee also recommended that the Award Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to execute the contract docu- ments. MOVED BY TRIMM, SECOND REED, COUNCIL CONCUR AND AUTHORIZE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO SIGN CONTRACT DOCUMENT. CARRIED. Councilman Trimm noted this would eliminate any future flooding at Tony Go' s Restaurant. Renton Area Community Services Committee Chairman Reed presented report of Multi-Service their review of the Renton Area Multi-Service Center project. Center Members of the Board of Directors presented an update on the project. A private, non-profit corporation was formed receiving tax exempt status. Purchase agreement was signed to acquire Snoqualmie Falls Substation building with $5,930 in private funds raised and $92,00 in applications pending. Structural reports and cost estimates are completed. An application was filed for 1983 Block Grant Joint Monies in the amount of $132, 485 requesting the City, along with King County, endorse the project to be used for Phase 2A (exterior restoration and struct- ural repairs) . Ed Hayduk, Housing and Community Development Coordinator, explained the use of City Block Grant money and upon inquiry, advised proposed total project cost is $400,000 or $56 per square foot. The report noted Phase 1 Project re- ceived $100,814 to acquire historic structure. The Committee recommends endorsement of Renton Area Multi-Service Center, Phase 2A, as a 1983 Joint Project. MOVED BY REED, SECOND MATHEWS, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED Renton City Council July 12, 1982 Page 6 Planning and Planning and Development Committee Chairman Rockhill presented committee Development report recommending matter of the amendment of the G-1 Zoning Ordinance Committee to provide for zone classification of property being annexed to the city, G-1 Zoning be referred to Ways and Means Committee for drafting of proper legisla- Ordinance Change tion. MOVED BY ROCKHILL, SECOND BY HUGHES, COUNCIL CONCUR IN RECOMMEN- DATION OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE. CARRIED. Appeal by Planning and Development Committee Chairman Rockhill presented committee McWilliams report recommending City Council reversal of Hearing Examiner' s decision R 03-82 of June 20, 1982 and grant the rezone of approximately 500 Union Avenue PP 031-82 NE from "G" to "R-3". MOVED BY ROCKHILL, SECOND BY REED, Council concur in recommendation of Planning and Development Committee. Councilman Stredicke spoke against the motion noting this type of action places the city in the position of spot zoning. Councilwoman Mathews spoke against the motion noting need for additional time for review of the issue. SUBSTITUTE MOTION BY STREDICKE, SECOND BY MATHEWS, MATTER BE TABLED FOR ONE WEEK. CARRIED. Appeal by Planning and Development Committee Chairman Rockhill announced that he Mt. Olivet had received a request that the matter of the appeal by Mt. Olivet Cemetery Cemetery of the Emma Cugini Special Permit Application (SP 012-82) be delayed for SP 012-82 one week because Mrs. Cugini and/or her representatives would be unable to attend tonight' s meeting to respond. James L. Colt, President , Mt . Olivet Cemetery Company, addressed the Council saying he would have no objection to a one-week delay, agreeing with the Committee report as written with the exception of inserting the word "all" to precede the word "precipitation" in paragraph five (center) as stated in paragraph three of the Conclusions. MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECOND BY MATHEWS, MATTER BE TABLED FOR ONE WEEK. CARRIED. Mayor Shinpoch requested Assistant City Attorney Kellogg notify Mrs. Cugini ' s attorneys. Public Safety Public Safety Committee Chairman Hughes gave an informal committee report Committee stating the committee had met with the Fire Marshall regarding fire code Fire Code enforcement and smoke detector systems in daycare centers. The Fire Enforcement/ Marshall had explained fire code enforcement inspections, common infrac- Smoke Detector tions and procedures. No formal committee action had been taken on this Requirements matter. The Fire Marshall also explained the Washington Code contains provision for newly licensed day care centers to have smoke detectors on premises. The requirement for existing day care centers is being investigated further, along with fireworks control legislation. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS Ways and Means Ways and Means Committee Chairman Stredicke recommended second and final Committee readings of the following ordinances: Ordinance #3643 An ordinance was read providing for appropriation and transfer of funds H&CD Block to the 1982 Housing and Community Development (H&CD) Block Grant Program Grants in the amount of $351 ,534. MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECOND BY ROCKHILL, ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS PRESENTED. ROLL CALL: ALL AYES. CARRIED. Ordinance #3644 An ordinance was read amending a portion of Section 9-1108 of Title IX Rights-of-Way Public Ways and Property) of Ordinance 1628 relating to rights-of-way Widths & Radii/ widths and radii and street radii . MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECOND ROCKHILL, Street Radii ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS PRESENTED. ROLL CALL: ALL AYES. CARRIED. First Readings The Ways and Means Committee recommended first reading of the following ordinances: Zoning An ordinance was read amending Section 4-704 of Title IV (Building Classification Regulations) of Ordinance 1628 relating to zone classifications (G-1 ) . G-1 MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECOND BY ROCKHILL, REFER THE ORDINANCE BACK TO COMMITTEE FOR ONE WEEK. CARRIED. Utilities Ways and Means Committee Chairman Stredicke requested this ordinance Service be placed on first reading a second time since it had been revised since Connection Fee the first reading of June 28, 1982 meeting. Councilman Stredicke also Revised requested those people of record inquiring regarding this ordinance be notified of final reading of July 19. Renton City Council 6/28/82 Page 3 CONSENT AGENDA The following items sdop;::, ' by one motion which follows the items included: Final Payment Letter from Public Works Department, Traffic Engineering Division, Signal Gary Norris Traffic Engineer, recommended acceptance of signal Improvements improvement project CAG 005-82 located at NE Sunset Blvd. at Harrington Ave. NE, NE 10th St. and NE 12th St. File No. HES 0005(28) . The letter requested approval of first and final payment of 531 ,080.60 and release of retained amount of $3,453.40 subject to required clearances and no liens or claims have been filed against project. Council concur. Final Payment Letter from Public Works Dept. , Utilities Engineering Division Talbot Hill requested approval of project W-599 CAG 019-81 Talbot Hill Pipeline, Pipeline Renton Construction Co. Also recommended release of retainaae in the amount of $31 ,564.02 after 30 days if all taxes have been paid and no liens or claims filed. Council concur. Parking and Letter from Policy Development Director Clemens recommended referral Loading to the Planning and Development Committee the subject of code Ordinance definitions of parking lot and storage yards , as well as development regulations for inclusion in the Parking and Loading Ordinance. Council concur. Credit Union Letter from the Executive Department requested consideration of pro- Lease Agreement posed City of Renton Credit Union lease agreement and authorization for the Mayor and City Clerk to sign the document. Refer to Ways wnd Means Committee. Bid Opening City Clerk Mead submitted report of 6/16/82 bid opening for One LID #325 Valley Place LID #325; seven bids received. See attached tabulation. Refer to the Public Works Department and the Transportation Committee. LID 325: street improvements and appurtenances located south of S 43rd St. , east of SR 167) Damages Claim Claim for Damages was filed by Lon R. Ledvina, 12008 SE 157th P1 . , Ledvina in the amount of $24.22 for windshield damage allegedly caused by rock thrown by street sweeper at Puget Sound Dr. S. Refer to City Attorney and Insurance Carrier. Appeal by An appeal was filed by James L. Colt, President , Mt. Olivet Cemetery Mt. Olivet Company of the Land Use Hearing Examiner 's decision on Special Permit Cemetery of No. SP 012-82 for filling of site south of NE 4th St. and south- Special Permit easterly of NE 3rd St. , in the amount of 150,000 c.y. over a five Ema Cugini dba to ten year period a excavation of approximately 30,000 cu.yds . T & E Investment Refer to Planning and Development Committee. Appeal of Appeal was filed by Donald E. McWilliams of the Land Use Hearing McWilliams Examiner's decision of 6/20/82 regarding McWilliams Rezone R 030-82 Rezone R 030-8? located on the east side of Union Ave. NE between NE 4th St. and NE 6th St. extended. Examiner recommended denial . Refer to the Planning and Development Committee. Appeal of Appeal has been filed by Donald E. McWilliams of Hearing Examiner's McWilliams decision of 6/15/82 regarding the McWilliams Preliminary Plat PP- Preliminary Plat 031-82. Area located on the east side of Union Ave. NE between NE 4th St. and NE 6th St. extended. Refer to Planning and Develop- ment Committee. Consent Agenda MOVED BY CLYMER, SECOND STREDICKE, ADOPT THE CONSENT AGENDA AS Approved PRESENTED. CARRIED. CORRESPONDENCE AND CURRENT BUSINESS Group W Cable Letter from Group W Cable, Subsidiary of Westinghouse Broadcasting Rate Increase and Cable Inc. , James R. Robinow, General Manager, declared intent Request to raise its basic service rates, effective 10/1/82, from $8.95 to 9.95 per month plus city taxes. The letter noted basic rate has been in effect almost seven years without increase. MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECOND CLYMER, DISPENSE WITH READING OF LETTER (COPIES DISTRIBUTED) AND SET DATE OF 8/9/82 FOR PUBLIC HEARING ON RATE INCREASE .AS REQUESTED BY GROUP W. CARRIED. MT. OLIVET CEMETERY COMPANY, INC. P.O. BOX 547 RENTON, WA 98055 206) 255-0323 RECEIVED May 28, 1982 CITY OF RENTON HEARING EXAMINER MAY 2 1982 APB Hearing Examiner 718I9IIDlJhl2s1.i2,sae r.:7r. City of Renton 200 Mill Avenue, So . Renton, Washington 98055 Dear Mr. Kaufman, To further clarify our letter of May. 18th , we are request- ing that first, the hearing on the Emma Cugini Property be re- opened so that new evidence and testimony, which was not avail- able at the time of the hearing, can be submitted. Specifically, we wish to introduce evidence with regard to the extent of damage that could be caused by the filling of this property, which acts .a a collection basin for water which re- charges the aquafier contributing directly to the Olivet Creek. Further evidence will be provided indicating that this project should be considered in light of the cumulative affect it will have with similar projects i'n the area in reducing the quantity an'd quality of water available under Mt . Olivet ' s Water Rights . Testimony will also be submitted regarding the storm drainage . plan for. the Cugini project and its affect on the Water Rights . We further request that the Hearing Examiner reconsider his conclusions and finding and decision in this matter. Spe- cifically, the accuracy and completeness and conformity of the SEPA domumentations and the Building and Zoning Department ' s incomplete analysis of the cumulative affects this project will have have on our Water Rights . The Hearing Examiner ' s conclusion #2 , in which you found that the water on the site serves no useful purpose, when in fact it serves to collect and store storm water and provide for recharging of the ground water system (as noted in the prelim- inary report attached as Exhibit A-1 . ) We further request re- consideration of conclusion #3 and decision #5 so that the tributary areas, drainage courses and present• ground water sys- tems are properly evaluated and approved in conjunction with SERVING KING COUNTY SINCE 1875 MT. OLIVET CEMETERY COMPANY, INC. P.O. BOX 547 RENTON, WA 980,55 206) 255-W23 May 28 , 1982 Hearing Examiner Page 2 . those other projects in the area for which the cumulative affects with regard to water, storm drainage and Mt. Olivet ' s Water Rights must be 'considered . We also feel that the removal of 30, 000 yards of porous material which h.elp make up the Watershed aquafier only to be replaced with. .150, 000 yards of fill of which the storage capacity is unknown and then the development of the subject site for what- ever purpose, without proper provision of •drains and storm run- off into the Olivet Watershed aquafier will substantially reduce the ground water recharging and with the resultant effect of po- tential damage to the quality and loss of a specific quantity of available water. These issues and others raised in our discussion surrounding this permit and others as noted by the DOE, we feel , provide ample justification for reopening the Cugini Hearing and your re- consideration of the questions raised regarding your decision. l, S ' : : colt Pr sident M . Olivet Cemetery Co . , Inc . JLC : dkc attachments SERVING KING COUNTY SINCE 1875 APPENDIX A SITE INSPECTION EMMA CUGINI FILL SITE PERMIT APPLICATION SP-012-82 This site is a former sand/gravel pit which lies south of NE 3rd Street, is bounded on the west by another former sand/gravel pit, now partially a wetland, bounded on the south by the McMahon pit, now operated by M. A. Segale, Inc. , and bounded on the east by King County Department of Parks shops. The Cugini pit has been partially filled with both clean fill and some inorganic debris, but a 120,000 CY (cubic yard) pit remains. The pit walls are partially vegetated by oix2o grasses, Scotch Broom bushes, and small Douglas-fir trees. nc , ,-is of uneven topography and a portion of it is covered by water with an apparant maximum depth of approximately two feet. This standing water supports colonies of filamentous algae and a surface-scum forming blue-green algae. Portions of the pool are clear though, and two male Mallards and a female Bufflehead are resting on the pool . (6 May 1982) The standing water observed here should be considered an ordinary occurance for the season, and a reflection of the local groundwater table elevation. By the summer dry season, this water table would be expected to have dropped below the bottom of the pit floor. In its present state this 8-acre site merely represents some loss of groundwater reservoir storage capacity, but it does permit'the infiltration of rainfall into the groundwater system. Al- rn1• DON5•IC)Vd hr.')'• tau..,lu' STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY 4350-750th Ave.N.E. o Redmond, Washington 98052 0 (2akk)885-7900 I'.iay 20, 1982 Mr. Ron Nelson, Building Official Lui.l ding f, Zoning Department of Renton 100 - 2nd Ave. , Bldg. , W: shingt.on 98055 Pc;sr Mr. Nelson: 1, preliminary investigation following a complaint by James L. Colt, indicates ih-_t past cumulative actions permitted by the City of Renton may be causing e.etr:imental effect to the quality and quantity of water used by the Mt. Olivet t;c;:entaiy Co. , Inc. , for their domestic and irrigation needs . The complainant ha7, a recorded claim to a -vested right to water dating back to first use during is year 1890. This right is entitled to protection under 90:03 RCW. My initial investigation indicated that some change in the direction of the rc:'ulid water flow, probably caused by gravel excavation, has already occurred. evidence of this was seen on the bluffs along the 1••iaple Valley 1 iirhway ere I observed increased s.iepage and evidence of recent slide occurrence. I understand that the City presently has a number of applications pending which i.u:+:natively, if approved, would have an effect on ground water recharge and sn15- f:,f the projects could cause a more severe change in the direction of the g7 curd wa Ler flow. .Known projects which could effect the ground and surface water in thisis area are: ERADGO - PUD Cugini, SP-012-82 Rainier Sand Gravel, SP-099-80 M.A. Segale, Inc. , SP- 032-82 Anna MU'lahan Property 1-lomecraft Property The Terrace Condos Property Ron Nelson 20, 1982 Pngc two As you are aware, the final decision for approval of such projects rests with y::,u, the city, but with that decision also rests the responsibility for any l"'.'tciit .in11y detrimental effect such decisions could cause. In reviewing pro- k ct : under the State Environmental Policy Act, the local governing authority h:i s The best opportunity to evaluate emulative effects of numerous projects i,n its jurisdiction. I am confident that any decision made by the city he done only after carefully weighing the potential , cumulative effect. a. more complete follow-up on the complaint registered by the Mt. Olivet Co. , Inc. We would appreciate working with you in this matter, to you in any way possible; and to ask for your assistance in helping us ii;, . % Liu: State waters. 1ensc: advise us further on this. li i y J/1 r. r Roy Bishop Resource Management RCB:sb cc.:Chnrlie Roe, WLXJE, Assist. Attorney General James L. Colt, Pres. , Mt. Olivet Cemetary Co. , Inc. City Council, City of Renton 01' k& a 0 THE CITY OF RENTON V ` MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON,WASH. 98055 BARBARA' Y. SHINPOCH, MAYOR 0 LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER 09,0 co- FRED J. KAUFMAN, 235-2593 QOR1? SEPWsi May 24, 1982 Mr. James L. Colt, President Mt. Olivet Cemetery Co. , Inc. P.O. Box 547 Renton, WA 98057 RE: File No. SP-012-82; Emma Cugini ; Request for Special Permit. Dear Mr. Colt: It is not clear from your letter of May 18, 1982 whether you are requesting reconsideration, appealing the decision, or requesting that the public hearing regarding this matter be reopened. Therefore, we ask that you clarify your intent in writing to allow review by the Examiner of any appropriate action to be taken. If you are requesting the hearing be reopened, you must submit your justification to this office no later than 5:00 p.m. Friday, May 28, 1982. If this office can provide further information or assistance, please call . Sincerely, Fred J. Kaufman Hearing Examiner MT. OLIVET CEMETERY COMPANY, INC. P.O. BOX 547 RENTON, WA 98055 206) 255-0323 k May. 18, 1982 Hearing Examiner City of Renton 200 Mill Avenue , So . Renton, Washington 98.055 Dear Mr. Kaufman, This letter constitutes Mt . Olivet ' s formal notice of appeal from the Hearing Examiner ' s decision granting the Emma Cugini Special Permit #SP-012-82 . As was noted at the public hearing , water does exist on the subject site and this pit lies within the area which contributes to the ground water re- charge, surface water runoff and which could adversely effect the water rights of Mt. Olivet Cemetery . Sufficient . supporting data, which was not available at the time of the public •hearing, will be provided at the appeal hearing, in addition to expert testimony and maps supporting the potential damage that could be caused by this permit with- out provision for proper safeguards to this area ' s potential for storm runoff and elimination of the ground water rechar- ging ability. This permit is included in that area covered by our letter of May 13, 1982 regarding the cumulative effect that insufficient drainage control and proper safeguards not being applied would have on the water rights of Mt . Olivet and poten- tial storm water drainage problems and diversion of runoff in this watex''shed area. S i r ee C E E,E MikaxAmllvER AM MAY 7982 flames L. Colt Ra8,91j0l PMPresident111211121r iMt . Olivet Cemetery Co . , Inc . 4016 L / JLC : dkc 4 cc : Wfn. Bulchis SERVING KING COUNTY SINCE 1875 OF OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY • RENTON,WASHINGTON x= O t' i, 4 POST OFFICE BOX 626 100 2nd AVENUE BUILDING • RENTON, WASHINGTON 98055 255-8678 ri 00 LAWRENCE J.WARREN, CITY ATTORNEY DANIEL KELLOGG, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY DAVID M. DEAN, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY 0grF0 SEP P MARK E. BARBER, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY May 21, 1982 CONFIDENTIAL CITY OF RENTON i 1i%Y 2 4 1982. TO: RON NELSON and DAVE CLEMENSPOLICY FROM: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney DEVELOPMENT DEPT RE: Unlawful solid waste disposal at Mount Olivet Cemetery I was contacted by Greg Bishop, the Supervisor of the Solid Waste Program for the Department of Public Health about Mount Olivet Cemetery.. He forwarded me a copy of King County • Rules and Regulations No. VIII, dealing with solid waste : disposal. . I initially checked the State law and found that RCW 70 . 95 .080 requires the City to prepare and deliver to the County Auditor its own solid waste management program for integration in the comprehensive County plan, or enter into an agreement with the County in which the City will participate in preparing a joint City-County plan for solid waste, or authorize the County to prepare a plan for the City's solid waste management. Unless I miss my bet, the City chose the third alternative and let the County prepare the plan. If that is the case, then the plan applies to. the City by State law. That brings us to our real problem. If I recall Mr. Colt 's permit correctly, he was allowed to put tree stumps and construction debris in his landfill as long as it was not within six feet of the surface. That authorization apparently violates King County Rules and Regulations No.. VIII. Since I do not have a copy of Mr. Colt 's permit in front of me , I have the following questions : 1. Does Mr. Colt ' s permit allow both tree stumps and construction debris in his landfill? 2. When does his permit run out? 3. Have we contacted him to require that he get a solid waste disposal permit? d Page 2 Ron Nelson and Dave Clemens May 21, 1982 . If Mr. Colt takes his usual course of action and simply refuses to cooperate in any fashion, then I would suggest that we consider holding a hearing before the Hearing Examiner to change the conditions of his permit. We also should put Mr. Colt on notice that he needs to obtain the solid waste disposal permit. Let me caution you that this is an attorney/client correspondence and is not subject to disclosure to Mr. Colt or anyone. In the same context, let me caution you to put all things in writing to Mr. Colt as he has developed a rather nasty habit of bringing a companion with him everywhere who remembers each and every conversation in whatever context Mr. Colt wishes him to remember it. The County is having problems with Mr. Colt as he and his companion remember conversations entirely different than the County people who., are involved. Usually he remembers conversations in the fashion that the County Inspector or employee told him he could continue to operate, or if he was told in writing to, quit operating in some fashion, he was told by a superior or different department that the original department criticizing him has made a mistake. No oral decisions should be made and communicated to Mr. Colt. We should not permit Mr. Colt to make oral inquiries of the City that are answered, but should require him to put everything in writing so that we can establish a solid documentary trail on everything that is said and done . Lawrence J. Warren LJW:ds - cc : Mayor OF R THE CITY OF RENTONle. POLICY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT • 235-2552 imIL MUNICIPAL BUILOING 200 MILL AVE.SO. RENTON,WASH. 98055o o9A co- 09, SEPZ- BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH MAYOR CONFIDENTIAL ME ORANDUM DATE: May 20, 1982 TO: Larry Warren, City Attorney 1. FROM: David R. Clemens, Policy Development Director ' SUBJECT: COLT/ERADCO LITIGATION The following is a chronology of the events surrounding the review of the development plans for the subject proposal. On February 28, 1977, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 31.13 rezoning certain properties owned by Stoneway adjacent to Monterey Terrace. As a part of that rezone ordinance, restrictive covenants establishing the approval process for the specific development of the property and duration of the zoning were established. The covenants specify in part "that if a master plan for total development of the property is not submitted to the City of Renton. ..within two (2) years and substancial construction begun in three (3) years. . .the zoning of said property shall without further City action revert back to the zoning which existed prior to the filing of this document." The covenants further provided for extension of these two durations by the Planning Department for good cause which may include the requirement for an EIS. On October 18, 1978, ERADCO requested an 18 month extension of the time limitation specified in the restrictive covenants. On October 28, 1978, the Planning Department did grant an extension for a period of one year' specifying that a master plan PUD be submitted by February 28, 1980, and construction commence by February 28, 1981. On February 28, 1980, ERADCO submitted MP-PUD-021-80 in conformance with the City's extension granted October 28, 1.978. By mutual agreement, the applicant and the City had concluded that an Environmental Impact Statement would be required. On March 19, 1980, the City granted an extension_for the purpose of preparing an Environmental Impact Statement and setting a. time schedule estimating a public hearing on the master plan by December 9, 1980. The time schedule specified in the March 19th letter required payment for the draft EIS in two deposits which were received by the City by ERADCO in accordance with the schedule specified. LARRY WARREN COLT/ER ADCO LITIGATION MAY 20, 1982 PAGE TWO On January 15, 1981, ERADCO requested an extension to February A, 1982, in order to provide ample time for the review of the environmental documents and timely review of the application. Since the City had found that preparation of the draft EIS had. taken longer than previously anticipated the requested extension to February . 1, 1982, was granted. On January 30, 1981, a draft Environmental Impact Statement was issued by the City of Renton. On February 1, 1982, the City concluded that ERADCO had complied with all requirements for submission of revised and updated plans in conformance with the Enrivonmental Impact Statement, and provided that construction in accordance with the covenants should commence by February 1, 1983. From May 1980, until late June of 1981, the City and the proponent worked nearly continuously _ on the preparation of the required environmental documents and establishing mitigating measures_required for .the project. The revised plan submitted on February 1, 1982, in conformance with the City's established extensions of time pursuant, to the covenants substancially meet the requirements of the environmental document. Certain details remain to be resolved in the approval process, however, it is my conclusion that the applicant and the. City have proceeded in good faith to accomplish_ submission of an adequate application in conformance with the covenants and the time periods established by the covenants and the extensions granted by the City pursuant to the covenants. cc: Fred Kaufman, Hearing Examiner Ronald G. Nelson, Building & Zoning Director Roger J. Blaylock, Zoning Administrator Renton City Council 5/10/82 Page 3 Consent Agenda - Continued Proclamations Proclamation of Mayor Shinpoch declared Renton Health Fair Renton Health 82 Days to take place on the MiniMall at the Renton Shopping Fair 82 Days Center and provide screening tests, education exhibits, as well as 5/14/82 being community effort to improve health and health awareness. Damages Claims Claims for Damages were filed by: Durwood ta& 1 ) Durwood Blood, 1201 N 37th St. , in amount of $122,798 claim- James Murphy ing zoning error in failure to amend zoning map resulting in King T. P. Kennedy County Superior Court permanently enjoining City from issuing a building permit for other than R-1 single residence . Blood claimed City' s liability also arises in false representations that parcel was zoned R-2. 2) James Murphy, 709 SW Sunset Blvd. , in amount of $150.89 tire/muffler damage alleging rocks in access road running east and west off SW Stevens in the Earlington area. 3) T. P. Kennedy, 13005 SE 204th P1 , in amount of $95.70 alleging tire damage from hole on 180th/SW 43rd St. Refer Claims to the City Attorney and Insurance Carrier. Court Case Superior Court Case was filed by Mt. Olivet Cemetery, Inc. vs 82-2-06075-5 City concerning Ordinance 3113 changing the zoning classifica- Mt. Olivet tion of property located east of SR 169 (Maple Valley Hwy. ) Cemetery, Inc. south of Monterey Terrace and Mt. Olivet Cemetery and west of Bonneville Power right of way,alleging rezone of property adjacent to cemetery in 1977 to be null and void and reverted to prior zoning. Refer to City Attorney. Consent Agenda MOVED BY CLYMER, SECOND HUGHES ADOPT THE CONSENT AGENDA AS Approved PRESENTED. CARRIED. (Several items considered removed by motion and considered earlier. ) CORRESPONDENCE Letter from James Benishek, 22731 SE 184th, Maple Valley, Special Olympics requested the Cabaret License Fee be waived for a benefit to Benefit raise money in support of the Washington State Special Olympics. Fees Waived The benefit is planned to be held at Jimmy Barei ' s Tavern on Sunday, 5/23/82 12:00 noon until 6:00 p.m. ; last year's benefit resulted in $3,500 donation to Special Olympics. Local musicians will donate time and talents for entertainment. MOVED BY REED, SECOND TRIMM, WAIVE CABARET FEES AS REQUESTED. CARRIED. Proposed Changes Letter from Del Bennett, 18004 SE 147th; James Magstadt, Dean to Zoning Code Bitney, James Dalpay, Alex Cugini , Charles Owen and James da Silva, re R-3 and R-4 submitted comments regarding proposed changes in the R-3 and R-4 Zones zones. The letter noted the proposed ordinance will not permit professional offices in the R-3 and R-4 zones, even by special permit and expressed disapproval . The letter submitted City of Bellevue Zoning Code pertaining to Multifamily Residential Dis- tricts, noting inclusion of offices in both office and multiple family zones. The letter also noted Renton' s proposed development of office use zone and questioned division of land between the multiple family zones and new office zone, claiming both appropriate. The letter requested reevaluation of proposed changes and retention of professional offices in the R-3 and R-4 zones, that betore any change, the City consult with property owners affected. MOVED BY ROCKHILL, SECOND STREDICKE, REFER LETTER TO PLANNING AND DEVELOP- MENT COMMITTEE. CARRIED. Committee Chairman Rockhill noted the subject of R-3 and R-4 revisions was referred to the Ways and Means Committee and requested the matter be held pending further study of the matter. OLD BUSINESS Ways and Means Committee Chairman Stredicke presented committee Ways and Means report recommending authorization for the Mayor and City Clerk Committee to sign agreement with Wang Industries, including conditions set Wang Computer forth in their letter of 4/23/82, for the purchase of a Wang VS 80 computer. Authorization subject to contract approval by City Attorney. MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECOND REED, CONCUR IN COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. MEMO FROM: CITY CLERK'S OF E 1011 `beAi cTn rnt U RE: W tart t 1.Me„, — rvlt olive 02metex , kk\i MEMO: Vp1f' V'el)I P1 a t 0,) THANK YOU, JIVE) 4z.:.• Wi it‘ 4 s s C, F Ak4\•idt. '14. sr tr RECEIVED 4 CITY OF RENTON 1 MAYOR'S OFFICE 3 4 S IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OE THE STATE OF WASHINGTON FOR KING • COUNTY 6 MT. OLIVET CEMETERY, INC, a Washington Corporation, 8 NO,, 52 _ 2 - O6Plaintiff , ) SUMMONS O V9 2o — Day)vs . 10 CITY OF RENTON 11 CITY OF RENTON, MAYv 1982 1 2Defendant POLICY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 13 14 TO THE DEFENDANT : CITY OF RENTON 15 A lawsuit has been started against you in the aboveentitledCourtbyMT. OLIVET_ CEMETERY, INC. 1G Plaintiff ' s claim is stated in the writtencomplaint, a copylooftttiltwhichisserveduponyouwiththisSummons .17 In order to defend against this lawsuittothecomplaintb stating you must respond 18 y your defense in writing , and serve acopyuponthepersonsigningthisSummonswithin20daysafterthe 19 service of this Summons upon you , excluding the day of service , oradefaultjudgmentmaybeenteredagainstyouwithoutnotice. A 20 default judgment is one where Plaintiff is entitled to what heasksforbecauseyouhavenotresponded . If you serve a Notice 21 of Appearance on the undersigned person you are entitled to noticebeforeadefaultjudgmentmaybeentered . 22 You may demand that the Plaintiff file this lawsuit withthe 'Court . If you du so, the demand must be in writing and must be 23 served upon the person signing this Summons . Within 14 days afteryouservethedemand , the Plaintiff must file this lawsuit with 24 the Court , or the service on you of this Summons and Complaintwillbeviod . 25 If you wish to seek the advice of an attorney in thismatter , you should do so promptly so that your written response , if 26 any, may be served on time. This Summons is issued pursuant to Rule 4 of the Superior 27 Court Civil Rules of the State of 'Washington . 28 DATED: May 3 , 1982 . i29c,3O RESPOND TO: BULCHIS & GARRISON WILLIAM F. BULCHIS 31 of BULCHIS & GARRISONAttorneysatLaw Attorneys for Plaintiff 32 194,15 Pacific Hwy So. , Suite #112 ISeattle, Washington 98188 t vL roR GARRISONN--- 206 ) 878-5990 nrc i AIRPORT PLAZA B AT LAW BUILDING, a 112 SUMMONS 19415 PACIFIC HWY.SO. 20 - (Jays) SEATTLEQ®SHINGTON 1206)676.3990 a.1 1 11 M+}Iu k d 7M 1{9iW ilCfg 731t6S •t•l• k4 s•y tWBYk iF:aL ry,' I i m1 .it '111 :I n i I c ii M Timmifi'i t. 7 r.Iit:d i > r 411 Rom, E : , 1, .; 1, f.. „;: ,._ L-:,{.I:'s r. . 1, I^R",.:,, ; IA1.i,:, lui{iilOdYbi'id'_'riL.v6i ddit L'Y wa.YWx..... ,.. . gin. r , rr r..,t .. t.t,,.ttx.Blip,.(tr4:St,,40.NC.l,,,,,,,,,.,,,,, 4 ,t ILL'tM'.. ,.,,II ,A;.lt',.a i id.M 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON FOR KING COUNTY 7 8 MT. OLIVET CEMETERY, INC, ) a Washington Corporation, ) NO. 9 ' n 6 0 7 ,9 Plaintiff , COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY 10 JUDGMENT . v. 11 CITY OF RENTON, 12 Defendant. 13 14 15 COMES NOW the Plaintiff , by and through its attorney, 16 WILLIAM F. BULCHIS of BULCHIS & GARRISON, and for its cause of 17 action, complains and alleges as follows: 18 19 I . 20 Plaintiff is a Washington Corporation and is in all ways 21 authorized to commence this action. 22 23 II . 24 • The Defendant is a City under the Laws of the State of 25 Washington. 26 27 III . 28 Both Plaintiff and Defendant are residents of King County 29 Washington . 30 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT -1 . BULCHIS & GARRISON ATTORNEYS AT LAW AIRPORT PLAZA BUILDING.•112 19418 PACIFIC HWY.SO. SEATTLE.WASHINGTON 98188 206)878.8090 a°i„ '—""" 18 ui i€It IWi lti CUil dli Y i Ginuuutu w a aaaal s I U aua 1 1,, tB91 HUi ttr i tt]i=1I H1:'f3 i;9 J }''1 r;4,., ,, s:1f`: ;t l, : aaustAiiik Auks I II?, r° f 01 iP.. 2, L Lt I . i{ . 1 iv. 2 On or about the 28th day of February, 1977, the City Council of the City of Renton passed an Ordinance, Ordinance #3113 4 a copy of which is attached hereto as Attachment :. "A" and incorpor 5 ated herein by reference. The purpose of the Ordinance was to 6 re-zone some property which is adjacent to the Plaintiff ' s property 7 Incorporated by reference through said Ordinance was a Declaration 8 of Restrictive Covenants , attached hereto as Attachment "B" and 9 incorporated herein by reference , which in part provided: 10 These covenants shall run with the land and 11 expire on December 31 , 2050 . It is further agreed and covenanted by the undersigned that 12 if a master plan for total development of the property is not submitted to the City of Renton 13 pursuant to the Renton Planned Unit Development Ordinance within two ( 2) years and substantial 14 construction began within three (3) years of the filing of these covenants , and said con- 15 struction and development diligently prosecuted toward completion thereafter, the zoning of said 16 property shall without further City action revert back to the zoning which existed prior 17 to the filing of this document, and these re- strictive covenants shall become null and void. 18 The term "substantial construction" shall mean the physical alteration of the land for con- . 19 struction pursuant to City approved develop- ment plans as per the abovementioned Planned 20 Unit Development Ordinance and a valid build- ing permit, or construction of required 21 utilities for such development. The above- , mentioned time periods may be extended for 22 reasonable cause upon written request to and approval by the Renton Planning Department. 23 Such reasonable cause shall include, but may not be limited to, the requirement of an 24 • enviromental impact statement pursuant to the State Enviromental Policy Act of 1971 . 25 Any violation or breach of these restrictive 26 covenants may be enforced by proper legal proced- ures in the Superior Court of King County by 27 either the City of Renton or any property owners adjoining subject property who are adverse- 28 ly affected by said breach. " 29 30 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY BULCHIS & GARRISON JUDGMENT -2 . ATTORNEYS AT LAW AIRPORT PLAZA BUILDING,s 112 19418 PACIFIC HWY.SO. SEATTLE.WASHINGTON 98188 208)8784990 aw(wnYa--—i+r-r tyr: _-uca+u aul.aae4.xuirJrfwwck t. t,• 'rpl.•Biz 1t I .. f' ... ...+ e I : 1 , If I' : i .!I. r „ / t e•e 1' I; :ri vr, ffitS.U.".;l'443Clii lif»'affHD Cs.ien .:nl/111l/72=1A77111 tt_ NWrrrna r'.-+ I•tr', n ice.= 1 v. 2 On repeated occasions over a period of four (4) years, 3 JAMES COLT, President of MT. OLIVET CEMETERY, INC. , has maintained 4 that the zoning as set forth in Paragraph IV hereinabove , has S reverted back to the zoning which existed to the filing of the 6 Restrictive Covenants (Attachment "B") . During some periods of tin. 7 prior to the filing of this action, officials of the City of Renton 8 had indicated that he was, in fact, correct in his assertion. 9 However, approximately the last two months prior to the filing of 10 this cause of action , the City of Renton has changed its position 11 and has indicated that the zoning has not reverted back to the 12 zoning which existed prior to ' the filing of Restrictive Covenants . 13 14 vi . 15 Plaintiff maintains that the zoning has reverted back to 16 the zoning which existed prior to the filing of the Restrictive 17 Covenants . The determination as to what the status of the zoning 18 of the property ,which is described in Ordinance #3113, and in the 19 Restrictive Covenants, has direct impact upon the property owned b; 20 Plaintiff which is adjacent to the aforementioned property and affect 21 substantial rights of Plaintiff in its ability to use and develop 22 its property in an orderly and economic manner . 23 24 • WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for relief as follows: 25 26 1 . A Judgment of this Court declaring that the zoning of the 27 property described in the aforementioned Ordinance and Restrictive 28 Covenant has reverted back to the zoningwhich,,, existed prior to thr 29 filing of Restrictive Covenants and that the Restrictive Covenant: 30 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT -3 .BULCHIS & GARRISON ATTORNEYS AT LAW AIRPORT PLAZA BUILDING.•112 19416 PACIFIC HWY.SO. SEATTLE,WASHINGTON 98188 2061878`6990 pr"'r""""—" .,pyYIWY(19iiiidtliGli ,a. vu eias aier iailWBFtil Ikl al 9 e i iWxi`a iuuGs t{!v[ Fr ifF 1 Ii;r. idl.eYwui'::irYal.{IY111iWxN•" i _ - ----ii Ufi11{'9f#fGfbiitlsitiBii 4" '°aty.•- are null and void; 2 3 To receive its costs and disbursements herein; and 4 3 . For such other and further relief as this Court may deem 5 just and equitable under the circumstances. 6 7 y r' DATED this i day of May, 1982 . 8 10 WILLIAM F. BULCHIS of BULCHIS & GARRISON 11 Attorneys for Plaintiff 12 STATE OF WASHINGTON ) 13 ss . COUNTY OF KING 1 14 15 JAMES COLT being first duly sworn upon his oath, deposes 16 and states as follows : 17 I am the President of MT. OLIVET CEMETERY, INC. the 18 Plaintiff in the above entitled action; I am authorized to act 19 on behalf of said Corporation and therefore state that I have read 20 the within and foregoing Complaint for Declaratory Judgment, know 21 the contents thereof and belie - •e sam- o be true. 01111rfl23 24 •COLT, bresi•ent LIVET CEMETERY, INC. 25 q 26 SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to be • e me this s)day of May, 1982. 27 28 NOTA Y PUBLIC in and for the State of 29 Washington, residing at Kent. 30 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT -4 .BULCHIS & GARRISON ATTORNEYS AT LAW AIRPORT PLAZA BUILDING.•112 19418 PACIFIC HWY.SO. SEATTLE.WASHINGTON 98188 208)878.8990 8t 5Niiii44411NFll4M111€4YEIBta sununkawmu(w;, ruaaua ut wJW 61i:i IEWE1ii8l tiro ,lini{lf jg l j i a' 'Sari,: i `-t"Y IluicLuYrltkwatodA044dlfkikoYMrniii t'y' : .f''-"- ita r:::3.Sii•" i aI i i a. Yse..t, ."(I•.;', era• i`' is J.li. i l' r 7. ';.' r•w' ,' j MIV ATTACHMENT "A" CITY or 1..EN'roN , )A ._!'..'.,'T',:;11 ORDIN!„•!CE NO'. 3].13REIVT• 1. E /y AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON , WASHINGTON ,CF CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF CERTAIN J 9 PROPERTIES WITHIN THE CITY OF RENTON FROM MPS 4 1Z1 F- RES1 DENCE ' DISTRICT (R-1) !1 1D SUBURBAN RESIDENCE r w DISTRICT (S-1) TO RESIDENCE DISTRICT (R-1, R_2 , is and R- t ) k°e ...--------- WHEREAS under Chapter 7 , Title IV (Building Regulations) of Ordinance No. 1628 known as the "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton" , as amended , and the maps and reports adopted iI, conjunction therewith, the property her••rinbelow described has lt':Ir•etofor'e been zoned as Residence District (R-1) and Suburban Reside; i.;istrit (S-1) ; and WIIEREAS a proper petition for change of zone c1assi,f icatic o: said rroperty has been filed with the Ci ;:y Clerk on or about O:'tob 1 , 1q7t , whit.:lh petition wau duly r'•'f'n't ed to the Planning Commission r .inve:_ t i.;-atio,I , study and public huarin.', , and a public hearing; Iv :i:: boun hc'-i.:1 'thereon on or about Hovem;,er• 10 , .1276 , and which f,atier l.',:;, c:.mti.nu,.'.d to January 19 , 11)77 , ,ind having been duly cons1C.' b : .:nc i)alerting (:maission and sdid :Zoning request being in conformii with ti.e City'City ' s Coml,rohensive 1'laIA , a;; amended , and the City Council hiving (.ulv considered all matters relevant thereto, and all parties i; nj rr;.:n heard appearing in s':pport thereof or in opposition r . . (-tit , ;;')r; THi:RlEFOA: ii: t;1'i i !'OUNCTI. UI THE CI?? o1' RENTON , WASHINGTON , DO i'tl!.LOWS : i;t T. E The .followi.•r;; wI;; i.]„:d property in the City n;:C;,t:t _ -:1): :.c.:..cr.e'd to ;,esi',le2c! J' i..; tri.ct (R-1, R-2 , R-3 ant, • I j ..'r'el::.;L'i .. .. t•`r '..t led the [VAL. works Director and the 1..i ;. ; rirek. o`•' :1fe h'::.r ehy i ;;thor''r .;i;'d an ':ir'ected to change the 1'.;, of t 'tc Zorin17.. „i'di.Ilance , as ame,rt'lr'•l , to evidenc': said re'zonlnf , See Exhibit "A" act.:chid her!::'t o -And made a part her :c t as if fully s€t: I er'tn hhe''ein• 2- ATTACHMENT "A" -Page 1 . 41. J.._CrdQy S 1 • t,r i }ya -' 4 Properlylocated east of ;R-169 (Maple ValleJHighway) south of Monterey Terrace and Mt. Olivet Cemetery and west ci Bonneville Power Right of Right)ti-y{pp SUBJECT, HOWEVER, to that certain "DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS" dated February 2 , 1977 which is incorporated t:c:i" in and made a part hereof as if fully set forth, and which said Pe(Aai ation is recorded in the office of Director of Records and Elections , King County Receiving No . SECTION II : This Ordinance shall Le effective upon its jassge , approval and five ( 5) days after .its publication. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this 26th day of February, 1977 Delores A. Mead , City C rx APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this 28th clay of February, 1977 . Charles 'Ctrsf)elaurenti, Mayor r(v ?d a:: to L :L'.:I: 7.:4,";•p.j n l an, City ttorney li<+tn: March 4 , 1977 ATTACHMENT "A" - Page 2 . 2- IIR' i45;U., I7 + f_ ':t 'i141 E/II Vl l , \ 4kg. I'ro N C t. I hIittry rk.tnlry 11.fiel Q./. - ,...1;7 4.?..,-„,.....,. , 41 2„,,-.,, ,..„....i r,- • I itiolv r----........,..., ..,,, . , ,,A.,... / , r,4-1,;,„ c-„., r- •j ' c .\ (10 t. C•• • • u'" ,. I n ur tvl f tr:Al 11 ICY J :1 ')" Al 41 lll/ `'' s U"1 1; PIIb L4 Pc 10, 11 . 4 1 I' rw 41 L "' i r. 4j . w `•uT,-.c?IIVE(.0 M7JERY &: 01}JTL'fi* 1Y _FRB _ t•1 iJ I. 11.'5„ i '^y r ttIC:IYII II i WIN y0J '• IAA 0 ' I .1 1 P.c i' et '' I•: t• Oa 1 t . I S dc. i R 1` sy I 1 1 tr l I. I 1 1.r , FlPop, i, f acu a T AI• to 1„.. .,•-• 4`,. 1 a 4,-, q 1` 11 .. t 1' AY. err U. t n,t plans . BUILDING HEIGHT No building or structure shall exceed a height of thirty-five ( 35 ) feet when located within the westerly 1100 feetofabovedescribedpropertyasmeasuredfromthenorthwest ATTACHMENT "A" - Page 3 . - A EXHIBIT "A" PARCEL "A" q r The west 850 . 32 feet of the north 100 feet , ( the west 850. 32 feet being measured along the North line , and the north 100 feet being measured at right angles to the North line ) of the following described main tract : MAIN TRACT : All that portion of the Northeast one-quarter and of Government Lots 7 and 8 within Section 17 , Township 23 North , Range 5 East , W. M . described as follows : Beginning at the Southwest corner of the Southeast one- quarter of the Northeast one-quarter of said Section 17 ; thence north along the West line of said subdivision a • distance of 252 . 23 feet to the true point of beginning ; said point also designated as Point "A" ; thence south 89045 ' 17 " east a distance of 526 . 41 feet ; thence south 88052 ' 04" east a distance of 799 feet to the East line of Section 17 ; thence south along said East line to the East one-quarter corner of Section 17 ; thence continuing south along the East line of said section to an intersec- tion with the Northerly right-of-way line of State Road No . 5 ( St . S . R . #1.69 ) (Maple . Valley Highway) ; thence in a general Northwesterly direction along said Northerly right -of-way line to an intersection with a line that lies North 89045 ' 17" west a distance of 653 . 91 'feet from Point "A" ; thence South 89°45 ' 17" east a distance of 653 . 91 feet to Point "A" and the true point of beginning . Except any portion of said Parcel "A" lying within the Green- belt area as shown on the Comprehensive Plan revision dated May 17 , 1972 , said Greenbelt area also known as Parcel "E" . PARCEL " B" • The west 1180. 32 feet , as measured along the North line , of the following described main tract : MAIN TRACT : All that portion of the Northeast one-quarter and of Government Lots 7 and 8 within Section 17 , Township 23 North , Range 5 East , W. M. described as follows : Beginning at the Southwest corner of the Southeast one- quarter of the Northeast one-quarter of said Section 17 ; thence north along the West line of said subdivision a distance of 252 . 23 feet to the true point of beginning ; said point also designated as Point "A" ; thence south 89°45 ' 17 " east a distance of 526 . 41 feet ; thence south 88°52 ' 04" east a distance of 799 feet to the East line of Section 17 ; thence south along said East line to the East one-quarter corner of Section 17 ; thence continuing south along the East line of said section to an intersec- tion with the Northerly right-of-way line of State Road No . 5 (St. S . R . #169 ) (Maple Valley Highway ) ; thence in a general Northwesterly direction along said Northerly right-of-way line to an intersection with a line that lies North 89°45 ' 17" west a distance of 653 . 91 feet from Point "A" ; thence South 89°45 ' 17" east a distance of 653 . 91 feet to Point "A" and the true point of beginning . . ATTACHMENT "A" - Page 4 . 2t 'V Except any portion of said Parcel . " B" lying within' thenorth100feetofthewest850. 32 feet , as measured at rightil ;` angles to and along the North line thereof. This exceptionorII. also known as Parcel "A" . ALSO except any portion of said • Parcel "B" lying withintheGreenbeltareaasshownontheComprehensivePlanrevisiondatedMay17 , 1972 , said Greenbelt area also known as ParcelE" . PARCEL " C" The east 799 feet as measured along the North line of thefollowingdescribedmaintract : MAIN TRACT : All that portion of the Northeast one-quarter and ofGovernmentLots7and8withinSection17 , Township 23North , Range 5 East , W . M . described as follows : Beginning at the Southwest corner of the Southeast one- quarter of the Northeast one-quarter of said Section 17 ;thence north along the West line of ,said subdivision adistanceof252 . 23 feet to the true point of beginning ;said point also designated as Point "A" ; thence south89°45 ' i7" east a distance of 526 . 41 feet ; thence south88°52 ' 04" east a distance of 799 feet to the East lineofSection17 ; thence south along said East line to theEastone-quarter corner of Section 17 ; thence continuingsouthalongtheEastlineofsaidsectiontoanintersec- tion with the Northerly right-of-way line of State Road -No . 5 ( St . S . R . #169 ) (Maple Valley Highway ) ; thence in a general Northwesterly direction along said Northerlyright-of-way line to an intersection with a line thatliesNorth89945 ' 17" west a distance of. 653 . 91 feet from Point "A" ; thence South '8944'S '•'17"••-e a-st`-•a distance of 653 . 91 feet to Point "A" and the true point of beginning : Except any portion of said Parcel "C" lying within the Greenbelt area as shown on the Comprehensive Plan revision dated May 17 , 1972 , said Greenbelt area also known as Parcel E ALSO except the area known as Parcel "D" and more partic- ularly described as follows : Beginning at the Northeast corner of the above described main tract : Thence southerly along the easterly line thereof a distance of 300 feet to the true point of beginning ; thencelwesterly parallel with the North line of the main tract herein described a distance of 300 feet to an intersection with a line which is parallel with and 300 feel westerly of , as measured at right angles to , the east line of said main tract ; thence southerly along said parallel line to an intersection with the northeasterly.,.line of the Green- belt area as shown on the Comprehensive Plan revision dated May 17 , 1972 , said Greenbelt area also known•ias Parcel " E" ; thence southeasterly along the northerly line of said Greenbelt area to an intersection with the East line of said main tract ; thence northerly along the East line thereof a distance of 800 feet more or less to the point of beginning . ATTACHMENT "A" - Page 5 . PARCEL " 0" _. Beginning at "the NE corner of the MAIN TRACT at describedbelow: Thence southerly along the easterly line thereof A' distanceof300feettothetruepointof -beginning ; thence westerlyparallelwiththeNorthlineofthemaintracthereindes-cribed a distance of 300 feet to an intersection with alinewhichisparallelwithand300feetwesterlyof , as measured at right angles to , the East line of said main tract ; thence southerly along said parallel line to an intersection with the northeasterly line of the Greenbelt area as shown on the Comprehensive Plan revision dated May 17 , 1972 , said Greenbelt area also known as Parcel E" ; thence southeasterly along the northerly line of theGreenbeltareatoanintersectionwiththeEastlineof said main tract ; thence northerly along the East- line thereof a distance of 800 feet more or less to the point,of beginning . MAIN TRACT : All that portion of the Northeast one-quarter and of Government Lots 7 and 8 within Section 17 , Township 23 .North , Range 5 East , W. M. described as follows : Beginning at the Southwest corner of the Southeast one- quarter of the Northeast one-quarter of said Section .17 ; thence north along the West line of said subdivision a distance of 252 . 23 feet to the true point of beginning ;said point also designated as Point "A" ; thence south 89°45 ' 17" east a distance of 526. 41 feet ; thence south 88°52 ' 04" east a distance of 799 feet to the East line of Section 17 ; thence south along said East line to the Est one-quarter corner of Section 17 ; . thence 'continuing ,south along the East line of said section to anintersec- tion with the . Northerly right-of-way line of State Road No . 5 ( St . S . R. #169 ) (Maple Valley Highway ) ; thence' in aAeneral Northwesterly direction along—Said •Northarl'y right-of-way line to an intersection with a line that lies North 89°45 ' 17 " west a distance of 653 . 91 feet from Point "A" ; thence South 89°45 ' 17 " east a distance ' of 653 . 91 feet to Point "A" and the true point of beginning . PARCEL " E" All that portion of the following described main tract designated as a Greenbelt area as shown on the Comprehensive • Plan revision dated May 17 , 1972 . MAIN TRACT : All that portion of the Northeast one—quarter and of Government Lots 7 and 3 within Section 17 , Township 23. North , Range 5 East,, W . M . described as follows : Beginning at the Southwest corner of the Southeast one- quarter of the Northeast one-quarter of,,,said Section 17 ; thence north along the West line of said subdivision a distance of 252 . 23 feet to the true point of beginning ; • said point also designated as Point "A" ; thence south 89°45 ' 17 " east a distance of 526 . 41 feet ; thence south 88°52 ' 04" east a distance of 799 feet to the East line of Section 17 ; thence south along said East line to the East one-quarter corner of Section 17 ; thence continuing south along the East line of said section to an intersec- tion with the Northerly right-of-way line of State Road , No . 5 ( St . S . R . # 169 ) (Maple Valley Highway ) ; thence 3- ATTACHMENT. "A" - Page 6 . v 1 " ATTACHMENT, "B" DELL, ATION OF RESTRICTIVE COVLIr TS WHEREAS, Kent Highlands , Inc . , successor by merger to Stone- Way Concrete , Inc . , a firm incorporated in the State of Washington , is the owner of real property in the City of Renton , County of King . State of Washington , described as follows : All that 'portion of the Northeast one-quarter and of Govern- Ainent Lots 7 and 8 within Section 17 , , Township 23 North , Range 5 East , W. M. described as follows : Beoinnina at the southwest corner of the southeast one- CD ' quarter of the northeast one-quarter of said Section 17 '. thence north along the west line of said subdivision a distance of 252 . 23 feet to the true point of beginning ; Fes- said point also designated as Point "A" ; thence south 89°45 ' 17" east a distance of 526 . 41 feet ; thence south 88°52 ' 04" east a distance of 799 feet to the east line ` of Section 17 ; thence south along said east line to the east one-quarter corner of Section 17 ; thence continuing . south along the east line of said section to an ;intersec- tion with the northerly right-of-way line- of - State Road No. 5 (St. S . R. 0169) (Maple Valley . Highway ) ; thence in a general northwesterly direction along said northerly right-of-way line to an intersection with a line that lies north 89°45 ' 17" west a distance of 653 . 91 feet from Point "A" ; thence south 89°45 ' 17" east a distance of 653 . 91 feet to Point "A" and the true point of beginning . WHEREAS, the owner of said described property desire's. to impose the following restrictive covenants running with the land as to use , 9resent and futu-re , of the above described real property . NOW, THEREFORE, the aforesaid owners hereby establish ,' 1 . grant , and impose restrictions and covenants running with the land r as to the use of the. land hereinabove described with respect to the use by the undersigned , their successors , heirs and assigns , as follows : DEVELOPMENT, Any and all development of the subject property shall "be subject • to City of Renton approval and shall comply with all the requirements of the Planned Unit Development Ordi - nance , Chapter 27 , Title IV ,' (Building Regulations ) of Ordinance 1628 known as "Code of General Ordinances of the • City of Renton . " A master development plan for the entire property as described above shall be submitted to and approved by the City of Renton pursuant to the abovemen- . tioned ordinance prior to preparation of specific develop- vent plans . i. a. BUILDING HEIGHT No building or structure shall exceed a height of thirty- five ( 35 ) feet when located within the westerly 1100 feet of above described property as measured from the northwest ATTACHMENT "B" Page l , ' ON d''; '' corner along the __ . rth property line ( incluc.,_ . Parcels A and R , as noted on • attached• Exhibit A) . OPEN SPACE ' The hillside slope area along the south property line northeast of Maple Valley Highway ( SR- 169 ) ,- indicated as .:. greenbelton the City of Renton Comprehensive Land Use Plan as revised May 17 , 1972 , shall be retained in its natural state. No buildings , structures , roads , drive ways , or parking shall be constructed in said greenbelt fV area ( Parcel E , Exhibit A) . t ACCESS A primary access Street shall be provided to the site from N . E. Third Street , subject to City of Renton approval of its design and location as part of the total develop. ment plan . Access to existing Blaine Avenue N . E . shall be .,' ;; for emergency purposes only . A suitable barrier and ; gate ';; :;: : : shall be constructed at the existing south terminus of , . ' H! ' Blaine Avenue N . E . subject to Renton Traffic Division and Fire Department approval . Installation of appropriate traffic control devices ( including channelization , light ing, signing and traffic signals ) at N . E . Third Street: : ` will be provided by the property owner and/or developer .. when required by the City of Renton . 4 +" ' DURATION These covenants shall run with the land and expire on December 31 , 2050 : 'It. Is :ifurther. .,agreed. and.!..covenanted. by,1:Ithe.?;u,nders gned`. "th•a t if a master plan for total develo ment of the property is not submitted to the City of. R,entor ' pursuant to the Renton Planned Unit . Development Ordinance within two (2 ) . years and substantial iin.constructi begun ;- c within:three ; (3 ); years :of:,the. filing,of ,.these ,co,venants ;; . and 'said cons:tr,uction., and devel omen t di1i gent ly; ;prosecu+ . t.e',0d.to'wardi."comp-letion ,therea•fter; the.`:'zoning' 0.f;f'0'1d`• tp '.oper'ty. ,sh:al,.l ,wi,thout ..fur.therc.c.i.ty;iac,tlon ,rever,t.;0,SC k .to, ' thCili .n,tn"gi*hl 0 h''i;e'xlste`d `pr1'or,;;jto?`ttie .'filing, •0f•Itth',1s., d'ocu1 ,. str.imenut, and, the.se ctiwe 'covenant's"..' "shal l;..become,.nul1 andvoi•,d. Theilterm, "substa'ntial d•, construction"r'1,sh l;1 .:,nedn , the; phy;s_ical"•alteration';'ofthe,,:l,and;,;for. ;construct.ion: pursu=', ' . ran,t,, to' :Ci t j'approved"development pt ans as per. ;the. i.bove= rW- mentioned Planned Unit Deelopment . Ordinance an 'a .valid', 4buildin ermit t ucti9:':p o'r. cons r.on':'uf requj red; uti;l;i ties• for. suh°; deve`l;o,pmen.t . The abovementioned time periods may be extended for reasonable cause upon written request to and •'. : 2 - ATTACHMENT "II" - Page 2 , is 410 , approval by the nentonPlanningDepartment . Such reaso -- . . able cause shall include , but -may not be limited to , th'e'.. requirement of an environmental impact statement pursua`n,t- . to the State Environmental Policy Act of 1971 . Any violation or breach of these restrictive covenants may be` . ; .` enforced . by proper legal procedures in the Superior Court of. king , . County by either the City of Renton or any property owners adjoin ing subject property who are adversely affected by said breach . . D IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereby affix their hands 'thi•s j - _ .,) "- day o f .. . .e.e_.r_y,!..__.........._, 1'9 7 7 A• KENT HIGHLANDS , INC . L',• .. Y`. ...,- rest en t Y.. • -'c/ os... .. f , By r`_ ee c r e t4i‘ry i I STATE OF IJASHING70N) COUNTY OF KING I': ''' ` On this_.22!' day o•f_ frc).i r0 ' 1,9.,r7,7: ,,,'1 , befo__re mew personally appeared_ f-.11 opn.; e`1'd'' a.... _._ .!.c.te1.ni'__.--. ___-.____ to;'m'e • known to be the...._ L.'1t'.L:...i-.r_1tvc,d z and c'i.•-;TvA' I r respectively , of KENT HIGHLANDS , INC . , the corporation that eiiie`cuted the within and foregoing instrument , and acknowledged 'said instrument to be the free and voluntary act of said corporation for the ' us; .s and. purposes therein mentioned , and on oath stated that they. w:eta-uthor- ized to execute said instrument and that the seal affixed is'`'04; corporate seal of said corporation . IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and . af•fixed my official seal the day and year first above written. bl•••+' Not ry Putjl ic inAnd for.• the State `o' . r-; -, f;,': Washingt•{ , residing at.' e.;o :ce- y•:•4 .•• 3 - ATTACHMENT "B" - page 3 . LAW OFFICES LARRY L.BAROKAS,P.S. BAROILAS & MARTIN ANCHORAGE OFFICE MICHAEL D. KRAFT 738"H"STREET,SUITE 300 DALE R.MARTIN,P.S. 1422 BELLEVUE AVENUE ANCHORAGE,ALASKA 99501 DAVID W.SCHIFFRIN 907)276-8010 KENNETH A.SHEPPARD SEATTLE,WASHINGTON 98122 TELEX 26-681 LIV K.SVENDSEN 206) 621-1871 R. R. DE YOUNG* ADMITTED IN JOYCE E.BAMBERGER WASHINGTON ONLY ADMITTED IN ALASKA ONLY ADMITTED IN ALASKA AND WASHINGTON April 28 , 1982 Mr. Ronald Nelson CITY OF RENTON and Hearing Examiner APR 2 1982BuildingDepartment Mayor' s Office POLICY City of Renton DEVELOPMENT DEPT, 200 .Mill Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 Dear Mr. Nelson and Mr. Examiner : This office represents American Memorial, ' Inc. in a variety of matters . We have sued Kent Highlands, Inc. under King County Cause No. 81-2-16311-4 for Kent Highlands ' failure to build a road over the eastern boundary of the American Memorial property. Kent Highlands owned the property to the south of American Memorial property. American Memorial granted Kent Highlands an easement across its property in return for a promise to construct a road which conformed with City of Renton requirements. Kent Highlands sold its property to ERADCO and has not constructed this road. Kent Highlands has joined ERADCO as a third party defendant in this action, alleging that ERADCO, as the present owner of the property, is responsible to American Memorial for building this road. The City of Renton has taken many conflicting positions over the past several years with regard to this roadway. The City has approved and disapproved construction of the roadway. It has also taken conflicting positions with regard to the zoning of the ERADCO property. It is our understanding that the zoning for the ERADCO property reverted from highrise use to general use in February, 1982 . Most recently, ERADCO applied for a rezone of the property to revive the highrise use. This application was dropped by the City of Renton. Currently a hearing is set for Tuesday, May 4 , 19.82 to approve the development of the ERADCO property, which currently has no approved access , and no other proposed access. It is obvious that the City of Renton must decide prior to this hearing whether or not the City will allow the Mr. Ronald Nels RORAS & MARTIN City of Renton April 28 , 1982 Page Two immediate construction of this road. As a neighboring property owner and as a plaintiff in a lawsuit against Kent Highlands, American Memorial must be made aware of the City of Renton' s position with regard to the construction of the roadway across the Kent Highlands ' easement. We request the City of Renton to delay the hearing now set for May 4 , 1982 until the City has taken a position with regard to the construction of the roadway. American Memorial must be given this information before it can take a position with regard to the planned unit development. You should also know that American Memorial feels that the City of Renton has committed itself, pursuant to Ordinance 3113 , to enforce the Declaration of Restrictive Covenants dated February 2 , 1977. In light of the above, we formally request the City of Renton to continue the hearing set for next week until the City has taken a position with regard to the construction of the roadway so that American Memorial can properly respond to the proposed development. Without such a continuance, and without knowing the City ' s position with regard to the proposed roadway, American Memorial will not have had sufficient notice to prepare for the hearing. As a member of the public , and as ERADCO' s neighbor, American Memorial will be harmed by any action taken by the City of Renton to approve the development without the approval of the access roadway. Thank you very much for your cooperation this matter. Sincerely yours , BAROKAS & MARTIN Liv Svendsen Finne LSF :lz r i7 e v . i s ° s r\`'{. a. 3 r t yrvtt.l a, r, u:yr " '• n It .p. jir Rr', i "r`,' 1 t y,-+.y..'l l AIM f 1" i` tiT r;, f y b• 7k a.Z 4111.111". ' r!• 1 c T , 6•,• i . e i 7. I .m cs """' ifs a'lf t tJ 1. JZ ; i' y