Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
LUA83-002
BEGINNING OF FILE FILE TITLE ICROFILMED SA #10 / /fto, 000T..83 ' L. 5 0 RECE• Y W. f;f�i� f;QUNT7 SUPENjUp 2 ` 3 4 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON FOR KING COUNTY 5 RENTONITES, INC. , a Washington corporation, NO-8 3 ® 2 - 06 4 6 4 m 6 Plaintiff, WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR 7 REVIEW AND ORDER vs. 8 CITY OF RENTON, a Municipal 9 corporation; RONALD G. NELSON, its Building and Zoning Director ; 10 DAVID R. CLEMENS, it Policy Development Director ; RICHARD 11 C. HOUGHTON, .its Public Works I I 9 Director ; and FRED J. KAUFMAN, 12 its Land Use Hearing Examiner . '��•a® .ef 13 Defendants. 14 15 STATE OF WASHINGTON TO: 16 THE CITY OF RENTON , a Municipal corporation; RONALD G. 17 NELSON, its Building and Zoning Director ; DAVID R. CLEMENS , it: 18 Policy Development Director ; RICHARD C . HOUGHTON , its Public 19 Works Director ; and FRED J . KAUFMAN , its Land Use Hearinc 20 Examiner , respectively. 21 WHEREAS THE VERIFIED PETITION of Plaintiff has beer 22 presented to the above entitled court and based upon the ground: •`u 23 stated in said petition , and it appearing from said petition tha 24 this is a proper cause for the issuance of such a writ , note 25 therefore : • 26 YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED to certify and file in this 27 court,- • and with. Plaintiff herein, on or before the I6Nay of 28 V L(, Dge__, 1983 , the complete city record, including a verbatir 29 transcript of the proceedings , together with. all notes anc 30 correspondence, memoranda , minutes, documents , records and other 31 writings , relating to the final declaration of non-significance 32 with conditions attached dated February 2 , 1983 , and any other DOBSON, HOUSER 4 DOBSON 1 • ATTORNEYS AT LAW 229 WILLIAMS AVE. SO. P. O. OOX 59 RENTON. WA. 99057 255.0041 f.�-•,-. • 1 material , records or documents relating to any aspect of this 2 matter , that the same may be reviewed by this court and this 3 court may cause to be done what appears of right ought to be 4 done. 5 A conformed copy of this Writ may be served upon 6 Defendants in this action and have the same effect as a certified 7 copy. 8 DONE IN OPEN COURT this 9 day of May, 1983 . 9 MAURICE M. EPSTEIN 10 COURT COMMISSIONER 11 PRESENTED BY: 12 DOBSON, HOUSER & DOBSON asuM4131104.441)ZA.-4.. 13 B TurWyman K. Dobson 14 Attorney for Plaintiff 15 • 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 • 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 2 DOBSON. HOUSER & DOBSON ATTORNEYS AT LAW 220 WILLIAMS AVE. 0O, P. O. OOX 59 RENTON, WA. 00057 255.0041 / 1,7 .EGV D O T. I G?PF1S CUUIfTF SUpIfplgp. Mel• Caf • 'S QFFd'U (Receipt for Copy) (Cleric's Date Stam)) �.. .,..v�.�.•.'w ._ . ON THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE 4FW r3f. SHINGTON IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF KING RENTONITES, INC. , a Washington corporation, 3 3 Plaintiff, vs. SUMMONS (20 days) CITY OF RENTON, a Municipal corps ; RONALD G. NELSON, its Building and Zo ng T'rt - m. Director; DAVID R. CLEMENS, its Policy °, y..t,c .. L:i�,-e s`)~ m�� Development Director; RICHARD C. HOIXl3TON its Public Works Director; and nick -• - FRED J. KAUFMAN its Land Use Hearing .I,: ) i'JO'' . ' Examiner, Defendants r.i I , • • , ; • 0 r; I . Ti) 'lilt•: DEFENDANT: A lawsuit has been started against you in the above entitIed�ciiiih"gr- RENTONITES INC., a Washington corporation plaintiff. Plaintiff's claim is stated in the written complaint, a copy of which is served upon you with this summons. In order to defend against this lawsuit, you must respond to the complaint by stating your defense in writing, and serve a copy upon the undersigned attorney for the plaintiff within 20 clays after the service of this summons, excluding the clay of service, or a default judgment may be entered against you without notice. A default judgment is one where plaintiff is entitled to what he asks for because you have not responded. IF you serve a notice of appearance on the undersigned attorney, you are entitled to notice before a default judgment may he entered. You may demand that the plaintiff file this lawsuit with the court. If you do so, the demand must be in writing and must he served upon the plaintiff. Within 11 clays alter you serve the demand, the plaintiff must file this lawsuit with the court, or the service on you of this summons and complaint will be void. If you wish to seek the advice of an attorney in this matter, you should do so promptly so that your written response, if any, may he served on dune. This summons is issued pursuant to Rule 4 of the Superior Court Civil Riles of the State of Wash- . ington. t DOBSON, HOUSER & DOBSON • Dated •May. 92 1983 (Signed) )/n`------ Y------ L--- • •a jWymail K. Robson �/(Print or Typo Namo) ( ) Plaintiff (x) Plaintiff's Attorney P.O. Address P.O. Box 59, Renton, WA 98057 Telephone Number255-8641 Summons LMI-SM-104--•tlov. 12/110 N . 2 •• 4 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON FOR KING COUNTY 5 RENTONITES, INC. , a Washington corporation, NO _ 6 4 - 3 6 Plaintiff, PETITION AND AFFIDAVIT 7 FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI , vs. WRIT OF REVIEW 8 CITY OF RENTON, a Municipal • 9 corporation; RONALD G. NELSON, its Building and Zoning Director; 10 DAVID R. CLEMENS, its Policy Development Director; RICHARD 11 C. HOUGHTON, its Public Works Director; and FRED R. KAUFMAN, 12 its Land Use Hearing Examiner . 13 Defendants. 14 15 PLAINTIFF respectfully petitions the court for a Writ of 16 Certiorari , Writ of Review, and in support thereof, alleges as 17 follows; 18 I. 19 Plaintiff , Rentonites , Inc . , is a Washington ' 20 corporation. 21 II . 22 Defendant , City of Renton is a Municipal corporation 23 organized and existing under the laws of the State of 24 Washington. 25 III . 26 Plaintiff, submitted an application for site approval to 27 allow construction of a 100 foot by 38 foot commercial building 28 upon real property owned by Plaintiff located at Northeast 3rd 29 Street in approximately the 2800 block in Renton and legally 30 described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. 31 IV. • 32 On February 2 , 1983 , the City of Renton Environmental DOBSON. HOUSER & DOBSON ATTORNEYS AT LAW 220 WILLIAMS AVE. SO, P. O. BOX 39 RENTON, WA. 90037 233.0041 \,:. 1 Review Committee issued a final declaration of nonsignificance 2 subject to a number of conditions, a copy of which is attached as 3 Exhibit "B" and incorporated herein by this reference. 4V V. 5 On March 11 , 1983 , Plaintiff submitted an appeal .to the 6 Land Use Hearing Examiner , Fred J . Kaufman , a copy which is 7 attached hereto as Exhibit "C" and incorporated herein by this 8 reference. 9 VI . 10 On April 18 , 1983 , the Land Use Hearing Examiner 11 affirmed the decision of the Environmental Review Committee . A 12 copy is attached as Exhibit "D" and incorporated herein by this 13 reference. 14 VII . 15 In bringing this action the Plaintiff alleges the 16 decision of the Land Use Hearing Examiner as it relates to 17 conditions 1 and 5 was based upon errors of law or fact and 18 errors of judgment in that: 19 1 . It is unreasonable ; arbitrary and capricious to 20 require one driveway for ingress and egress; 21 2 . It is unreasonable , arbitrary and capricious to 22 require Plaintiff to pay 1% of the cost of items listed in 23 condition number 5 which is contained in the final declaration of 24 nonsignificance. 25 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests the following relief : 26 1 . That this court order and issue a Writ of Certiorari 27 and Writ of Review directed to the Defendants City of Renton , 28 Nelson, Clemens, Houghton, and Kaufman, requiring said Defendants 29 to promptly return and certified to this court a full and 30 complete record of the actions taken by said Defendants with 31 32 • DOBSON, HOUSER & DOBSON ATTORNEYS AT LAW 220 WILLIAMS AVE. SO. P. O. UOX 59 RENTON, WA. 90057 255.0041 • • • • 1 regards to the Defendants issuance of the final declaration of 2 nonsignificance , together with all notes and correspondence , 3 memoranda, minutes, documents , records , and other writings and 4 other material relating to any aspect of any and all actions 5 taken on this matter. 6 2 . That this court, upon return of the Writ, and after 7 a review of said Defendant ' s actions , the proceeding herein and 8 such extresinc material facts as it may not appear of record , 9 find and declare that the City of Renton ' s Environmental. Review 10 Committee' s condition of restricting access to one driveway along 11 NE 3rd Street was unreasonable, arbitrary and capricious and the 12 requirement that the Plaintiff contribute 1% of the cost of items 13 listed in Exhibit "A" condition 5 is arbitrary and capricious 14 and that both conditions be striken. 15 3. For . Plaintiff ' s costs and fees , including reasonable 16 attorneys fees, incurred herein. 17 4 . For such other and just relief as the court may find 18 to be appropriate and equitable. 19 DATED this 9th day of May, 1983 . 20 DOBSON, HOUSER & DOBSON 21 BY 22 Wyman1 K. Dobsn Attorney for Plaintiff 23 AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR WRIT 24 STATE OF WASHINGTON ) 25 )ss. COUNTY OF KING 26 27 , first being duly sworn on 28 oath, deposes and says: 29 I am an officer of ;Rentonites , Inc , a Washington 30 corporation; I make this affidavit and verification on behalf of 31 32 DOBSON. HOUSER & DOBSON ATTORNEYS AT LAW 220 WILLIAMS AVE. 00. P. O. OOX 50 RENTON, WA. 90057 255.0941 ., • • 1 the Plaintiff and I am duly authorized to do so. I have read the 2 above Petition , know the contents thereof , and believe the same 3 to be true and correct to the best of my knowledge . Each and 4 every statement set forth in said Petition is incorporated be 5 reference and made a part of this Affidavit. 6 • 7 8 SUBSCRIBED and SWORN to before me this _ day of May, 1983 . 9 • NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of 10 Washington, residing at 11 12 13 14 • 15 16 • 17 • 18 19 • 20 • 21 • 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 DOBSON. HOUSER Cc DOBSON ATTORNEYS AT LAW 229 WILLIAMS AVE. SO. P. O. SOX 59 RENTON, WA. 90057 255.0041 4 EXHIBIT "A" • Tract il 1.7-4=ttad=74.- of Short Plat No. 384-79 , recorded under King County Recorder' s No. 791018-9001, situated in King County, Washington. • e 4.1,.\•,;!1!.'7-il.V:.V:f.:•,1:` :!•„, • u aaaaiull L FINAL DECLARATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE Application No(s): SA-002-83 Environmental Checklist No.: ECF-003-83 Description of Proposal: Application for site approve] to allow the construction of a 100 foot by 38 foot commercial building. Proponent: Louis Peretti (Rentonites, Inc.) Location of Proposal: Located on the north side of N.E. 3rd Street at approximately the 2800 block. Lead Agency: City of Renton Building and Zoning Department. This proposal was reviewed by the ERC on February 2, 1983, following a presentation by Jerry Lind of the Building & Zoning Department. Oral comments were accepted from: Ronald Nelson, Richard Houghton, Robert Bergstrom, Roger Blaylock, David Clemens, -G Norris and Jerry Lind.. Incorporated by reference in the record of the proceedings of the ERC on application ECF-003-83 are the following: 1. Environmental Checklist Review, prepared by: Louis Peretti, DATED January 25, 1982. 2. Applications: Site Approval (SA-002-83). 3. Recommendations for a declaration of non-significance: Fire Prevention Bureau, Building and Zoning Department, Utility Engineering Division, Traffic Engineering Division, Design Engineering Division. Acting as the Responsible Official, the ERC has determined this development has a non-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: The Environmental Review Committee issues this final declaration of non-significance subject to the following conditions: 1. Access is to be restricted to one driveway along N.E. 3rd Street and only right in and right out turning movements arc to be permitted. 2. A median barrier is to be constructed in the center of N.E. 3rd Street fronting the subject property. 3. Lighting is to be of directional type to mitigate light and glare for neighboring multi-family and vehicular traffic on N.E. 3rd Street. 4. -A landscape buffer consisting of evergreen trees and shrubs shall be required along the north and west property lines to screen the commercial development from the adjacent multi-family. 5. The assessment value of the above-referenced development is as shown below: 1% cost of listed improvement project's cost — N.E. 3rd St. & Sunset Blvd., $120,000 @ 1% $1,200.00 N.E. 3rd & Edmonds Avenue N.E., $100,000 @ 1% $1,000.00 Monroe Avenue N.E. & N.L. 4th St. 200 linear feet @ $184.00/L.F., $36,800 @ 1% $368.00 Monroe Avenue N.E. & N.E. 4th St. signal Opticom, • pedestrian improvement, $32,000 @ 1 % $320.00 Total Amount $2,888.00 FINAL DECLARATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE LOUIS PERETTI (RENTONITES, INC.): ECF-003-83 FEBRUARY 2, 1983 • PAGE 2 SIGNATURES: Ronald G. Nelson David It. Clemens Building and Zoning Director Policy Development Director Richard C. Houghton Public Works Director PUBLISHED: February 28, 1983 APPEAL DATE: March 14, 1983 Date circulated : January 26, 1983 Comments ments due : February 1, 1983 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST REUIEL, SHEET E C F - 003 - 83 APPLICATION No(s ) . SITE APPROVAL (SA-002-83) PROPONENT : Louis Peretti (Rentonites, Inc. ) PROJECT TITLE : N/A ° Brief Description of Project : Application for Site Approval to allow the construction of a 100 foot by 38 foot commercial building. LOCATION: Located on the north side of N.E. 3rd Street at the 2800 block. SITE AREA: .} 38,000 sq. ft. BUILDING AREA (gross ) 3,800 sq. ft. DEVELOPMENTAL 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 : Undevloped south: Undeveloped west : Multiple Family Land use conflicts : Possible with adjacent multi-family. View obstruction : Minor 9 ) Natural resources : X I . : 10 ) Risk of upset : x 11 ) Population/Employment : I X 1 1 12 ) Number of Dwellings : X l I 13 ) Trip ends ( I TE ) : 115/1,000 sq. ft. @ 3.8 = 475 ADT truffi'c impacts : Unacceptable driveway configuation. 14 ) Public , services : I X 1 1 15 ) Energy : X 16 ) Utilities: X ll----- 17 ) Human health: X 18) Aesthetics : X 19 ) Recreation: X 20 ) Archeology/history : X 1 COMMENTS : Signatures: /# 7,.(//;V//-/:4?,7V/ , onald G. Nelson avid R. Clemens Building Official Policy Development Director e(e/ Richard C. Houghton, I / EXHIBIT "C" DOBSON, MOUSER 13c DOBSON • ATTORNEYS AT LAW JOHN W. DOUSON JPAULOHN W. HOIJSLI7 2u WILLIAMS AVE. SO. TELEPHONE DAVID C. DOUSON P. O. UOX :i • (ZOO) WYMAN R. DOUSON I1`NTON, WAIIINGTON 0U0:i7 • 200.OG41 1'AUL, W. (UUD( 110USCR, J14. 'HANK V. DAVIDSON March 11 , 1983 RECEIVED CITY OF RENTON HEARING C;(AMINli(I Fred Kaufman • MAR 1 1. •1983 • • Office of Hearing Examiner AM PM 3rd Floor , Municipal Building 7ifi(JeIQ,11112i] i21:3,�I,;i,ti 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 • RE: Appeal of Final Declaration of Non-Significant- Application Number SA-002-83 , Environmental Checklist ECF-003-83 Dear Mr . Kaufman : • We represent Rentonites, Inc. , the proponent of a project located on the northside of Northeast 3rd Street , approximately 2800 block . Rentonites has made application for site approval to allow construction of a 100 foot by 38 foot commercial building . The Environmental Review Committee determined the development has a nonsignificant impact on the environment subject to certain conditions . A copy of the report is attached . The proponent hereby appeals the following conditions : ( 1 ) "Access is to be restricted to one driveway along Northeast 3rd Street and only right in and right out turning movements are to be permitted" . The plan submitted by the proponent proposes •that there be an entry driveway on the east of the development and an exit driveway on the west of the development . Those driveways are already constructed and in place. One of the principal owners of Rentonites , Inc„ is Emma Cuyi.ni who just recently completed the plat of the property in. that area . At the time of the platting of that property t:he driveways proposed by proponents were put in . A parcel which was platted included some curbing , black topping , sidewalks , driveways , street work , and in 8 inch water . lane. All of those items were at that time inspected by the City and approved by the City. Although this specific development was ' not contemplated at that time , the future development of this property was and the City approved the two driveways as proposed by proponent. Other businesses located in the same general area • �Y �1 1 11 FN ;` "' J�7• > r,, '•,i''r' 'v5'!•^;o." .•i. u:,AJ(J �'Yi • have no standard plan of: ingress or egress . Some of • them have one driveway , some of them have two driveways and there are others who have open access for the whole of the property. There is a building up the street that was constructed within the past year that has two driveways . Proponents feel that a separate entry and exit driveway would provide speedier access on and off Northeast 3rd Street and safer access on and off of Northeast 3rd. Street. Proponent requests that this condition be eliminated . (2 ) "A landscape buffer consisting of evergreen trees and shrubs shall be required along the north and west property lines to screen the commercial development from any adjacent multi family" . Proponent proposes to construct a brick building which will have approximately a 14 foot high wall along a major portion of the west line of the property. Proponent sees no need to provide any greenery buffer zone over this portion of the property . Proponents plan proposes green shrubbery from the street north to the edge of the building. The northerly portion of the property is earmarked for future development and proponent feels that the buffer zone in this area should be left till the future development of the property. With respect to the northerly line of the property the adjacent property owner has evergreens placed thereon to act as a buffer zone . The proposed placement of evergreens on the southerly part of the west line and the back of the building which would he like a 14 foot high fence will provide a sufficient huller for screening of noise and provide .a barrier or buffer zone of the adjacent multi family housing from : the project. ( 3 ) "The assessment value of the above referenced development is total amount $2 , 888 .00" . The proponent objects to the proposed assessment because those improvements listed at too far removed from the site to give any significant benefit to the proposed building site . The developer of the property who platted the property constr. uc:'ted significant improvements thereon , many of which benefited other adjoining • property owners but none of which were contributed to by other . property owners . • • 1 �tt+,a ' •v ° Nz', yr.i ; t'�`•1'FI �'.l The proponents plan shows just north of the east entry to the property a curb and greenbelt area . Proponent proposes to eliminate that curb and greenbelt area and provide direct access into the parking lot area'. • Proponent respectfully requests that the conditions be modified as requested above and that they be authorized to eliminate the curb and shrubbery area .which is located just north of the east entry. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, • • DOBSON, HOUSER & DOBSON BY: Wyman K. Dobson • RENTONITES INC. BY: • • • • • } ' J u•: � sty s•5 • 4 • s� :�«iJsa EXHIBIT "D" �•'U April 18, 1983 el'9'HE LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON REPORT AND DECISION. APPLICANT: LOUIS PERETTI FILE NO. AAD-019-83 (RENTONITES, INC.) LOCATION: Located on the north side of N.E. 3rd Street at approximately the 2800 block. SUMMARY OF APPEAL: Applicant is appealing Final Declaration of Non-Significance on Application No. SA-002-83, ECF-003-83. DECISION OF EXAMINERt: The decision of the Environmental Review Committee is affirmed. 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 April 5, 1983, at 9:45 a.m. in the Council Chambers of the Renton Municipal Building. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner. The Hearing Examiner entered the following exhibits into the record: Exhibit #1: Building and site plan for the proposal. Exhibit #2: Photograph of the subject site. Exhibit #3: Photographs of various businesses in the subject area having more than one access for ingress and egress. Exhibit #4: Photograph of Benton Realty property on Sunset Blvd. N.E. Exhibit #5: Photograph of Dalpay and Associates property on Sunset Boulevard. Exhibit #6: Photograph of businesses on Park Avenue N. Exhibit #7: Photographs, (2) of property on N.E. 4th, showing sites of ingress and egress. Exhibit #8: Application file containing documentation and correspondence relative to the Environmental Review Committee's decision. The Examiner stated that the appellant has the burden of demonstrating that the determination of the Environmental Review Committee was incorrect. The Examiner called for testimony from the applicant. Testifying was: Mr. Wyman Dobson Attorney at Law 229 Williams Street S. Renton, WA 98055 Mr. Dobson reported his client is appealing the conditions imposed by the Environmental Review Committee in their Final Declaration of Non-Significance in the following areas, all of which are referred to in the letter of appeal dated March 11, 1983: \ / Louis Peretti (Rentonites, Inc.) A A D-019-8 3 April 18, 1983 Page 2 1. (Condition #1 - Final Declaration of Non-Significance) Access is to be restricted to one driveway along Northeast 3rd Street and only right-in and right-out turning movements are to be permitted. 2._ (Condition ##4 - Final Declaration of Non-Significance) A landscape buffer consisting of evergreen trees and shrubs shall be required along the north and west property lines to screen the commercial development from the adjacent multi-family. 3. (Condition #5 - Final Declaration of Non-Significance) The assessment value of the above referenced development is $2,888. Mr. Dobson asked that his client's letter of appeal be incorporated as a part of these proceedings. He stated his client believes the Environmental Review Committee made an error and incorrectly imposed conditions to modify the proposed project. Mr. Dobson stated that the subject property was recently platted by Mr. Cugini and during that process, the City required a number of improvements to the plot plan; resulting in there being constructed for this parcel, two access roads; one on the east and one on the west side of the property. .The plan is being submitted for this development, proposing that the access road on the right be limited to ingress to the property and the access road on the west be limited to egress. He stated there is no standard plan with respect to the number of access roads to the property for other surrounding businesses; some having one, two, or three, and some having general ingress and egress to the whole site. It is the applicant's feeling that by providing two separate sites, it would be much safer for those entering and exiting the property. The Hearing Examiner made reference to a recent newspaper article addressing the safety along M.E. 3rd and N.E. 4th, and stated that he wanted the applicant to take notice of the fact the City is considering various alternatives in dealing with the high accident rate along this street; that one of the alternatives would be C-curving in the center of the street. He noted he is aware of the City's concerns about those issues at this pont when he makes his decision. Mr. Dobson stated that Condition #2, which they are not appealing, provides for a barrier in the street which will eliminate any left-turn access into the property. They are not opposing that condition, but are opposing the fact that they now have to change construction and put in only one access which they feel would be much more dangerous than the two. Mr. Dobson further stated Condition #2 requires that there be a landscape buffer consisting of evergreen trees and shrubs along the north and west property lines to screen the commercial development from any adjacent multi-family residences. .To the west and north of this property is located the recently constructed low income multi-family housing submitted by the applicant proposes that shrubbery to provide a buffer zone be placed up nplan the westerly boundary of the property from the roadway back to the edge of the building. The building itself is to be constructed of brick and the applicant has a number of other buildings located in this area, many of which are constructed with concrete block exterior on the rear portion of the buildings and brick on the front. They propose in this instance to construct the building on the rear side out of brick because of the aesthetic value to the adjoining property, and they see no need to place greenery or shrubbery in that area. It would seem to be unnecessary to continue the buffer to the rear of the building. With respect to the balance of the west line and north line of the property, it would seem to be premature to landscape this area since it is not developed at the present time and the plans are uncertain. Mr. Dobson indicated the applicant is not opposed to placement of greenery on the west line from the roadway back to the building. The third condition being appealed is Condition #5, the requirement to pay for certain other improvements in the area. The applicant feels this particular development has relatively no impact on the surrounding area with respect to traffic, considering the hundreds of businesses and thousands of residents in the area and to assess the applicant a 1% charge on the four particular developments is excessive. These developments do not benefit the subject property. • (77N., Louis Peretti (Rentonites, Inc.) AA1)-U19-83 April 18, 1983 Page 3 The Examiner called for further testimony in support of the applicant. Testifying was: Louis Peretti 115 Monterey Place, N.E. Menton, WA 98056 Mr. Peretti indicated he has been an appraiser for the past 33 years, as well as having been involved with real estate and right-of-way organizations and feels he is well qualified in knowing what is a good access and what isn't. He stated he has also checked approximately 25 businesses in the City and most of them do have double access to the streets. He feels it is imperative that from a safety factor, he be allowed to utilize an ingress and an egress on this particular piece of property. With reference to lighting, Mr. Peretti stated there is no lighting to the east on that parking lot. Mr. Peretti then identified Exhibits 3 through 7 which were previously entered into the record. With respect to Condition 114 (landscaping), Mr. Peretti stated he felt the brick structure would be aesthtitically pleasing and some small shrubs and grass could be placed between the,building and the chain link fence at the multi-family housing project. Mr. Dobson indicated it is the applicant's desire to make one change to the proposal and that is with reference to curbing and the greenbelt area proposed just to the north of the ingress road (south of the building). The applicant proposes to eliminate the curbing and the greenbelt area which is located to the north of the entryway to provide quicker access to the property and would ask that removal of that particular facility be allowed. The Examiner inquired if there was sidewalk contemplated for the triangular portion between the actual building line and the street. Mr. Peretti indicated there would be a 10' walk on the east side around the building itself and a 4' walk on the south side of the building. A walk is already installed on N.E. 3rd. The Examiner informed the applicant that he is not considering the merits of the actual proposal, merely the challenge to the conditions imposed; that actual site plans are not a concern at this hearing. Mr. Dobson summarized the applicant's contentions that: 1. Separate ingress and egress would be much safer and much faster; 2. They feel an error was made by imposing a condition to establish a greenbelt on the west and north side; the building itself is constructed out of brick and provides an ample aesthetic view. • 3. To say that this property is directly benefited from the four separate improvements is an untrue statement. It is small in size and the access will be limited access from the east; to assess this property owner 1% of those development costs is exorbitant considering the number of businesses and residences in that general area who will be directly benefited by them. • The Examiner called on representation from the City. Testifying was: David Clemens Policy Development Director City of Renton • Mr. Clemens reported that he, in part, feels the Environmental Review Committee's action may have been premature, or the action of the Committee resulted in a number of changes to the applicant's proposal which may or may not have realized what the conditions would have been. The ERC's concerns for this proposal were as follows: 1. With regard to driveways, the Committee saw two conflicts when it reviewed the plans. The first was with the turning movements onto and off of N.E. 3rd which the appellants have proposed to resolve by providing ingress and separate egress driveways from N.E. 3rd. Louis Peretti (Rentonites, Inc.) AAD-019-83 April 18, 1983 Page 4 2. The second problem deals with on-site traffic conflicts as a result of the locations of the two driveways and the location of the parking lots within that area. Initially, there were a number of turning movements going in various directions due to the location of a driveway that is actually within the parking lot area not lining up with driveway approaches at the street. The second being a number of turning movements involved with the four parking spaces that are located along the west property line between the building and the street; also, backing into that travelway area is a concern. Mr. Clemens indicated that although the applicant's proposal to realign the driveways may reduce some of the conflicts, it does not alleviate the problems on-site. The Fire Department was concerned about not being able to align their emergency vehicle movements between the central drive that is within the parking lot and the street frontage. The on-site driving area in the parking lot does not align with the driveway curb cuts. 3. Another level of concern is that as this property develops, both the parcel behind and the adjoining parcels to the east are going to provide more instances of driveway within the parking lot area that will be coming up to the street curb cut. The result will ultimately be a lot more driveways along the frontage of this relatively small parcel. Mr. Clemens stated that at the time the short plat application was considered, one of the primary reasons the Hearing Examiner required site plan approval was that this relatively large parcel could easily have been designed as one integrated development; with the parcels broken up, a number of conflicts are possible. The ERC believes that the two driveway concept simply is not in the best interest of the general public. With regard to buffer zone, Mr. Clemens expressed his concern that this is a 14'x100' wall and • feels some softening of landscape materials would be appropriate. With regard to the area to the north of the building, the parking area will be used at all hours and there will be noise from the movement of vehicles. Consequently, there needs to be some separation provided from the parking areas and the residential areas to the north. The 75' or so between the proposed parking lot and the buildings is not sufficient to adequately mitigate that aspect. Regarding traffic fees, Mr. Clemens reported the Committee's review of the amount of traffic trips that would be generated by a development of this size would be approximately equivalent to 80 multiple family dwelling units and that kind of an impact is clearly one that is not significant, but cumulatively would create greater problems. As a result, the City has tried to be consistent in assessing all developments within that entire corridor along N.E. 3rd and N.E. 4th for the improvements at the intersection to assure that access for both business and personal use of the street along that area are available and adequate. Testimony was then heard from: Mr. Gary Norris Traffic Engineer • City of Renton Mr. Norris stated he believes it is important to point out what the condition of the N.E. 3rd and N.E. 4th corridor is. Approximately 20,000 to 25,000 cars use•this corridor each day; it is a major arterial to the City, providing major east-west movement for residential and commercial areas on the hill to downtown Renton, to 405, and to the business and commercial community in the valley. Therefore, it has been the City's intent to restrain access to the major arterial system as much as possible so that we might promote through movement. Mr. Norris stated he believes it is pertinent to also point out that the City did deny access to N.E. 3rd to the low income housing development to the west of this subject site. Mr. Norris pointed out some indications given to the City by national studies with reference to access to arterial systems by citing excerpts from "Access Management for Streets and Highways", Federal Highway Administration, June, 1982 issue. The article, in essence, indicates ' that the number of potential conflict points among vehicles rises as a result of an increasing number of driveways, causing the capacity at a specific level of service to diminish; where maximum efficiency of traffic movement is achieved, direct access to roadway is limited and, conversely, minimal restraint on roadway access severely reduces the safe, efficient movement of through traffic. The Examiner asked Mr. Norris to make a copy of this information available for the record in this matter. Louis Peretti (Rentonites, Inc.) AA I)-019-8 3 April 18, 1983 Pages Mr. Norris stated with respect to the trip generation rate fee that was assessed, the assessment was related to percentage of traffic that any particular development added to that location; what the City has done in carrying out that policy direction is to uniformly require all developments in that corridor arnorlgst those improvements to be charged with a percentage equivalent to the amount of traffic they are going to generate at the intersections. Mr. Clements again presented an overview of the ERC's concerns with this development. The Examiner called for further testimony or rebuttal. Mr. Dobson stated with reference to the access road, that they are proposing there be a separate ingress and separate egress; it is not two separate roads that provide ingress and egress at each location. They feel it would be much safer to have this separated rather than combined. Further, Mr. Dobson noted that this property was platted recently and the plans submitted showed two separate entries to the subject property and the City had no comments at that time to eliminate them. The developer since spent considerable money developing the plans approved by the City and to come in now and ask them to redevelop to one curb is unreasonable. With respect to the 5th condition regarding assessments, they feel that if there is a use of 80 multiple family dwelling units for this particular site, some 25,000 cars that use the roadway each day, they would submit that it is not 1% of the improvements. With respect to the corridor as it runs to the cast, and the assessment for this improvement, this piece of property will be the only parcel that will have a median barrier that will prohibit access from the west to this particular piece of property. The only access will be from the east. All of the other properties in the corridor have open access, most of them multiple ingress and egress. They again state there was an error made by the E1tC and feel that the conditions should be modified per the request. The Examiner asked Mr. Norris what the restrictions are on driveways within certain front footage that apply to commercial development or industrial development. Mr. Norris stated within commercial or industrial development, there is a maximum limit that can be placed on the space between them. The Examiner called for further testimony in support of the a being none offered, the Examiner closed the hearing at 10:40 a.mnpeal or from the City. There FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & DECISION: (laving reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following: • FINDINGS: • 1. The appellant, Rentonites, Inc., filed a request for site plan approval (SA-002-83) for the first phase of a small shopping center. An environmental checklist was submitted and the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) issued a Declaration of Non-Significance (DNS) for the project subject to certain conditions. Thereupon, the appellant filed this appeal. 2. The appellant objected to the imposition of certain of the conditions and alleged that the conditions are not reasonably related to the impacts of the proposal. 3. The specific conditions objected to were Numbers 1, 4 and 5 (see Exhibit #1 for the ERC's declaration). These conditions generally relate to the number of driveways serving the site; the requirement that the western boundary of the site be buffered by landscaping; and the assessment of certain costs for a variety of roadway improvements. 4. The subject site is located on the north side of N.E. 3rd Street, just west of Index Avenue N.E. as extended. The site was part of the Tito Cugini Short Plat #2. Other lots of that short plat are now occupied by the low cost housing complex immediately north and west of the subject site. 5. The appellant or its successor in interest was required to install certain improvements when the plat was approved. The site now has two driveways to N.E. 3rd Street. Under the proposal, the east drive would provide entry to the site's parking lot, while the westerly drive would permit exiting back to N.E. 3rd Street. The original plans submitted by the appellant indicated that both drives would provide both in and out access, but the plans have been modified to provide the one-way circulation. • Louis Peretti (Rentonitcs, Inc.) AA l)-019-8 3 April 18, 1983 - Page 6 • G. The proposed building would be the first phase of development on the site. This phase would develop the westernmost portion of the site with additional buildings on the northerly portion of the site, or the eastern portion, or both. The ultimate complex would be "U" shaped. Parking for the complex would be located in the central portion of the site, surrounded on three sides by buildings. 7. The western wall of the building now being proposed would be constructed of brick and would be 14 feet high by 100 feet long. This wall would face the low income complex to the west. The north wall of the building would also be in evidence to the complex, as would the parking lot. 8: '1'hc project is expected to generate approximately 475 vehicle trips per day, which is equivalent to an 80 unit multi-family development. 9. The N.E. 3rd/N.E. 4th Street corridor, a designated arterial, carries between 20,000 and 25,000 vehicles per day. This street serves as a major route from the residential Highlands area of the City to the Central Business District (CBD) and I-405. 10. The appellant submitted for the record, photographs and the locations of numerous sites which had more than one driveway for access to an arterial street. These sites were located along N.L. 3rd/N.E. 4th and along Sunset Boulevard N.E. City stuff indicated that most of these sites were developed without regard to protecting the integrity and functions of arterial streets. These concerns are the safe and efficient movement of large numbers of vehicles with little or no conflicting turning movements. The low income housing complex, after site plan review, was not permitted access to N.E. 3rd Street. The complex has access to the north via a collector street, which then connects to the arterial corridor. 11. Staff cited a federal report published in June of 1982 (see Exhibit #2) which, in part,provides insight into the factors that impact the efficiency and safe functioning of arterial streets. The primary impediments to efficiency and safety are curb cuts and intersections. Reducing and/or limiting the number of new curb cuts was a critical factor • in reducing accidents and improving the level of service on arterial streets. 12. The report also indicated that courts have found that abutters, that is, owners of property fronting upon a certain street, are not entitled to unlimited access to that street, but only reasonable access. They have further indicated that reasonable access may be circuitous; that is via a collector street or series of streets, if the situation, i.e., public safety or convenience, warrants. 13. The lire Department has indicated that the current configuration of the entry drives will not provide suitable emergency access, especially if the remaining portions of the pro psal are constructed. The drives are not aligned with the aisle of the parking area. Additional maneuvering is necessary to enter the actual parking aisle. Emergency vehicles and cars will have to maneuver off of N.E. 3rd into a small entryway and then into the main parking area. The parking lot will not permit a "clean" turn out of traffic — a pause capable of impending traffic may be necessary. 14. The Environmental Review Committee imposed the landscape buffer requirement to "soften" the visual impact of the western wall upon the adjacent residential complex pursuant to policies of the Comprehensive Plan, which requires screening between differing uses and zones.. • Landscaping was also required along the northern property line to minimize the impacts of the parking lot upon the northerly residential units. The EltC indicated that until and unless some additional structures are constructed in the north central portion of the site, the parking lot will be visible and the noise, light, glare and odors emanating from the parking lots will adversely affect the residences. • 15. The Environmental Review Committee has assessed the appellant to provide roadway improvement costs in the amount of $2,888. The fee was assessed for the improvements of the N.E. 3rd and Sunset Blvd. N.E. intersection ($1,200); the N.E. 3rd and Edmonds intersection ($1,000); and linear and intersection improvements for Monroe Avenue N.E. and N.E. 4th Street ($688). • Louis Peretti (Rentonites, Inc.) • AAD-019-83 April 18, 1983 Page 7 The assessments were based upon the estimated impacts of the proposal upon the total activity on the above roads and intersections. The Traffic Engineering Department indicated the percentage increase to be approximately 1 %. Since left turns will be precluded to and from the site, the ERC reasoned that both employees and patrons of the proposed complex would be passing over or through the various intersections cited. CONCLUSIONS: 1. The determination of the Environmental Review Committee, the City's responsible official, is entitled to receive substantial weight when reviewed in an appeal procedure pursuant to RCW 43.21C.090 (SEPA) as outlined by the court in Mentor v. Kitsap County, 22 Wn. App. 285,289 (1978). The appellant, therefore, has the burden of demonstrating that the decision of the Environmental Review Committee was erroneous. The courts of Washington have further defined the burden as showing that the decision of the responsible official or agency is arbitrary and capricious (Short v. Clallarn County, 22 Wn. App. 825,829, 1979). That is, whether the decision was a "willful and unreasoning action in disregard of fact and circumstances" (Stemperl v. Department ' of Water Resources, 82 Wn. 2nd 109, 114, 1973). 2. The decision of the Environmental Review Committee to require the elimination of one driveway, the provision of landscaping buffers, and the payment for a percentage of roadway improvements is not arbitrary and capricious under the standards enunciated above. 3. While the appellant has referenced other sites with more than one driveway, the Environmental Review Committee, in reaching its decision in this case, evaluated new studies and applied that new learning to the subject site. The site is located along a curve on a major arterial street and the Environmental Review Committee reasoned that the minimization of curb cuts will improve arterial safety and efficiency based upon a new understanding of traffic safety and engineering principles. The decision is not unreasoning action in disregard of the circumstances, as the appellant still has reasonable access to N. E. 3rd Street, unlike the adjacent housing complex which must enter and exit to the north. • The Environmental Review Committee indicated that while there are a number of existing offending driveways, they have limited resources to correct past errors, hut have the ability to prevent additional problems by now limiting the number of access drives on arterial streets. 4. The Comprehensive Plan's goals and policies indicate that differing uses be effectively screened from one another and especially where one•of the uses is residential and the adjoining use is non-residential. While the intent of the brick wall was to be more aesthetic than concrete block construction, the large expanse of wall, 14 feet high by 100 feet long, will still present a relatively unaesthetic appearance to the adjacent residential complex unless it is softened and broken up somewhat with landscaping in the form of trees and shrubs. Similarly, the parking area and the light and glare of vehicles, especially hours of winter, will infringe on the residential complex. These effectsn canebevenin more effectively screened by the use of landscaping. Landscaping can also serve to absorb some of the noise of the parking area and break the impact of odors on the residential complex. 5. The decision of the Environmental Review Committee to require landscaping is not unreasoning. The decision was based upon policies found in the Comprehensive Plan and the Environmental Review Committee has only attempted to effectuate those policies. 6. While certain improvements were installed as part of the platting process, the additional fees imposed by the Environmental Review Committee are intended to mitigate the specific impacts of the proposed development upon the transportation system of the City. When the short plat was approved, general improvements were required. Since the development options open to the applicant were varied under the site's zoning, the City could not anticipate the precise nature of the proposed development and, therefore, could not assess costs relative to impact. The information is now available and it permitted the liItC to analyze the potential impact on the roadways and assess costs. • f . Louis Peretti (Rentonites, Inc.) AAD-019-83 April 18, 1983 Page 8 The percentage assessed for the proposal, 196, is based upon a reasonable expectation of the traffic which will be generated by the development. The record discloses that the proposal will generate the equivalent of an 80-unit apartment complex that is approximately 475 vehicle trips per day. Based upon this estimate, the Traffic Engineering Department calculated and the Environmental Review Committee imposed the $2,888 fee. Other development has been similarly assessed based upon a similar analysis. 7. The formulation and calculations appear to be based upon reasonably anticipated impacts of the development upon the streets and intersections along the N.E. 3rd/N.E. 4th corridor. These intersections may be remote from the site, but the limitations upon turning movements and other criteria indicate that these intersections will be affected by the proposal, as patrons and employees of the site must very well use some, if not all, of the cited intersections. 8. The imposition of the fee is not arbitrary and capricious and the decision of the Environmental Review Committee on this issue was correct. 9. The various conditions imposed by the Environmental Review Committee were based upon a reasonable examination of the proposal and its reasonably anticipated impacts on the roads and adjoining development and the decision of the Environmental Review Committee is therefore affirmed in its entirety. DECISION: The decision of the Environmental Review Committee is affirmed. ORDERED THIS 18th day of April, 1983. Fred J. Kau m i Land Use Heari Examine• TRANSMITTED THIS 18th day of April, 1983 by Affidavit of Mailing to the parties of record: Wyman Dobson Attorney at Law 229 Williams Ave. S. Renton, WA 98055 Louis Peretti 115 Monterey Place, N.E. Renton, WA 98056 TRANSMITTED THIS 18th day of April, 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 Ron Nelson, Building and Zoning Director Roger Blaylock, Zoning Administrator Gary Norris, Traffic Engineer Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Renton Record-Chronicle 477) Louis Peretti (Itentonites, Inc.) A A D-019-8 3 April 18, 1983 Page 9 Pursuant to Title IV, Section 3015 of the City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed in writing on or before May 2, 1983. Any ugg►rieved 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 a 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. Any appeal is governed by Title IV, Section 3011, which requires that such appeal be filed with the Superior Court of Washington for King County within twenty (20) days from the date of the Examiner's decision. • • • • • • • • • -J 1'r' aF. .'i4 `a:.. — 1 r,":. ..I�y"� r c@ YB ..f.^ ay' rF' . i - - . • " •: i.,...fi.t .I� •.^ 'r:,—• -:: • • .i .;:' .'•:.:.?.r....r"..'s."i.s• n`v-: :,�:.- ...rr' . .�z ti:. — _ - ._ } . d A : t j `:�/i CO S- - �, / • / CO Ca l;cui0n Building&Ruing Bent. r Affidavit of Publication C GGOWE . • STATE OF WASHINGTON ss. - '?r.'• tibIlC�# AltrAb l' COUNTY OF KING APR 8 1983 1"`'LOuit`PERETTI'(RENT®-: ' NITES, INC:)- :, :•••';. Appeal by Louis Peretti for Cin.dy....Strupp being first duly sworn on i,'Rentonites;1Inc. :File:AAD .• 019-83,,of,a•_decisionof_the • • '':Environmental I-Revie,w•; oath,deposes and says that..s.he is the c.hief...clerk of Committee to;(1,)'°tillow"only.? THE DAILY RECORD CHRONICLE,a newspaper published six(6)times a one,curb:out;-(2)'require.e-' week.That said newspaper is a legal newspaper and it is now and has been -.1andscapk buffer along`the3 for more than six months prior to the date of publication referred to, !•northern and,wester:pro; printed and published in the English language continually as a newspaper ,Petty lines;'and(3)pa'ment . published four(4)times a week in Kent,King County,Washington,and it is :of'-$2,888.00 for ,specific, now and during all of said time was printed in an office maintained at the ;traffic-impact.'irnprovements ' aforesaid place of publication of said newspaper.That the Daily Record ,,regarding a site app,oval: Chronicle has been approved as a legal newspaper by order of the Superior rapplication, FileCSS--002 <th - Court off the County in which it is published,to-wit,King County, 'located one:northside'el,„ i,N.E. 3rd•Street;at approxi ti Washington.That the annexed is a Notice of Public Irately the'2800•block::'.:H . g :.•:Legal descriptionsu_of ill files,noted above are on.fil,O.; Hearing :in'the.Renton_Building and 1 'Zoning Department:',.,..,'-•'* ALL'INTERESTED 1'PER SONS TO SAIb PETI+ION$•a as it was published in regular issues(and ;'ARE;INVITED TO,BE.PRE:^) not in supplement form of said newspaper) once each issue for a period . i,SENT:.AT'„T,HE:,,PU,BLI0.4 • HEARING',ON April5i;t 983;�, . nsh;k AT., AT 9:00 A:M..TO,EXPRESS;' of one. consecutive issues,commencing on the I` NOT/CE,t THEIR OPINIONS ;•.'' 7 it)°kiditiVing01. ,$''' ::,RonaldiG::Nelson�l .',.RENTON LAND USE:;; ; •-„°.I,. .Building'andiZoning'i 2 Stiday of Na>lr Ch' ,19..83...,and ending the HEARING,EXAMINER'/'.;a;,,; ,;•: :'',•: 19irector:, RENTON,,WASHINGTON_.: -,Published in the Daily Re=; ;'A�PUBLIC`HEARING:,WILL cord',Chronicle -, , ;`r i BE HELD BY THE RENTON: ,1980.:41849 x ><. day of ,19 ,both dates il �" k" inclusive, and that such newspaper was regularly distributed to its sub- LAND,USE;HEARING,EX- scribers during all of said period. That the full amount of the fee f?;' ' ' :.•i IS•RE• • MEETING-IN THE;•couN--, 1'CIL;`CHAMBERS,:.CITY; charged for the foregoing publication is the sum of $.32..l3Owhich -H,A L L' R E N T;O'N;`, has been paid in full at the rate of per folio of one hundred words for the WASHINGTON ON April'5,;; first insertion and per folio of one hundred words for each subsequent ;1983AT9:00A.M.T000N insertion. ,, 4 ' SIpER'•.THE'�FOLLOWING - - ''PETITIONS: :>','',,,: ,,,:sj: ,l ' . i'.PUGET SOUND POWER '( ci__, •::-....,N.�t, �..�i•" -v." • ' LIGHT COMPANY i','; Application for•special _Chief_Clerk•Clerk r'permit;to'allow fill and grad-, .,ing.of approximately 2,377 i • j;cubic.yards-of•fill'material', Subscribed and sworn to before me this....25•th da of plus;,1,,70t)'oubic yards;of.; y i preload material,for a,new,® i•substetion'that isto be—con,-1 March 1983.... / i'structed on,th®;site File;SP-; :004?83;_`:,located at',1i101�, ;M, , -- :Lake;W.ashington Boulevard l 'North':':,.", . Notary Publi in an r the State of Washington, SIGI;ULLRICH ' '',;;.'-'%° ; residing at KkeRtxKing County.Fe ;',1,Ap'plicaton to rezone 0:85 r k'acro n G.1 to.R R 2;File -rl 1 0Q e,f.8.83;and short platapppli t cation t®.divide property;into;: —Passed by the Legislature,1955,known as Senate Bill 281,effective June :.four,tots •File SP-009=83; , 9th, 1955. ,;arid avarfanceapplicatignto, :r Altai cif tot width: —Western Union Telegraph Co. rules for counting words and figures, adopted by the newspapers of the State. !,° FitE?-V-010-83;loeateildn'•p i••the east.side o1,Union by.i l Iy,! VN#87 Revised 5/82 _.L "' . ...' :)• .fit: ,..•g. t;:i ' fib4, a $ 1c .yw.f c. r•:I: xiI ,t� , i +.t _fir; �14''?t i' ,�. � F pa�;". S ;.y�:,A :�•,.-.:.:.:r ": r ., _!". Jl..— t r_ .r of ' r, , �^ dip. �^: .S iF:•' �t• 1' i;i^ d 1' s. c` .r 7„ r•}::� r�"# a r�.T- •�3'4"` '-'1 s• ..ki�" ?eT. �^ ,t �•.. ,•tn •';Y^�, ;: .r ,ae.:'•�;.9,�`•�.,. Y�fk`r�w'n'.:�'';.��{[i,� 3s�., r�}' ., !'3. 4', �p.�T�`��'r�,�: ..t�,�-f•'ntwrr.:?o-.-•}�:�,•fr��. .J✓£.;'`.5, %tira, j� : .:d :�,�� , fy,� �...�'f�v.?dx's,.a.�.�,�:3'YV.�fY�:,4:smU1,Y`Fe�w '�Lh}ky el3���.� t��� �.�.a.r°ya•.�M1.5t.�(9��Str't 4:f'.,. i � li:�r H"�,1;;{U; t�'g�ak2 i?.1 ._ �?.: 7. �wG.�,d.•�._.. _"'i.•; • e�i':f .i OF R4r� •� �- ° BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT ,r U o® � �r 40 ' RONALD G. NELSON - DIRECTOR it ,`' o © ` MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTCIN,WASH.98055 00 235-2540 ,9,0 CO' • BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH MAYOR DATE: February 28, 1983 TO: Files . • FROM: Jerry F. Lind, for the Environmental Review Committee SUBJECT: Louis Peretti Site Approval, File SA-002-83 (ECF-003-83) The Environmental Review Committee today republished and posted the final Environmental Declaration of Non-significance with conditions for the above referenced application, with an appeal period expiring on March 14, 1983. It was necessary to republish and post this declaration due to a delay in finalizing it°s conditions. This will now therefore allow the applicant the full two week appeal period to voice any concerns. - JF L:se 0016N FINAL DECLARATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE Application No(s): SA-002-83 Environmental Checklist No.: ECF-003-83 Description of Proposal: Application for site approvel to allow the construction of a 100 foot by 38 foot commercial building. Proponent: Louis Peretti (Rentonites, Inc.) Location of Proposal: Located on the north side of N.E. 3rd Street at approximately the 2800 block. Lead Agency: I City of Renton Building and Zoning Department. This proposal was reviewed by the ERC on February 2, 1983, following a presentation by Jerry Lind of the Building & Zoning Department. Oral comments were accepted from: Ronald Nelson, Richard Houghton, Robert Bergstrom, Roger Blaylock, David Clemens, Gary Norris and Jerry Lind.. Incorporated by reference in the record of the proceedings of the ERC on application ECF-003-83 are the following: 1. Environmental Checklist Review, prepared by: Louis Peretti, DATED January 25, 1982. 2. Applications: Site Approval (SA-002-83). 3. Recommendations for a declaration of non-significance: Fire Prevention Bureau, Building and Zoning Department, Utility Engineering Division, Traffic Engineering Division, Design Engineering Division. Acting as the Responsible Official, the ERC has determined this development has a non-significant adverse impact on the environment. An EIS is not required under RCDV 43.21C.030(2)(0. 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: The Environmental Review Committee issues this final declaration of non-significance subject to the following conditions: 1. Access is to be restricted to one driveway along N.E. 3rd Street and only right in and right out turning movements are to be permitted. 2. A median barrier is to be constructed in the center of N.E. 3rd Street fronting the subject property. 3. Lighting is to be of directional type to mitigate light and glare for neighboring multi-family and vehicular traffic on N.E. 3rd Street. 4. A landscape buffer consisting of evergreen trees and shrubs shall be required along the north and west property lines to screen the commercial development from the adjacent multi-family. 5. The assessment value of the above-referenced development is as shown below: 1% cost of listed improvement project's cost — N.E. 3rd St. & Sunset Blvd., $120,000 @ 1% $1,200.00 N.E. 3rd & Edmonds Avenue N.E., $100,000 @ 1% $1,000.00 Monroe Avenue N.E. & N.E. 4th St. 200 linear feet @ $184.00/L.F., $36,800 @ 1% $368.00 Monroe Avenue N.E. & N.E. 4th St. signal Opticom, • pedestrian improvement, $32,000 @ 1% $320.00 Total Amount $2,888.00 FINAL DECLARATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE LOUIS PERETTI (RENTONITES, INC.): ECF-003-83 FEBRUARY 2, 1983 PAGE 2 SIGNATURES:L., .)(e4-) e- Ronald G. Nelson David R. Clemens Building and Zoning Director Policy Development Director Richard C. Houghton Public Works Director PUBLISHED: February 28, 1983 APPEAL DATE: March 14, 1983 • Date circulated : January 26, 1983 Comments due : February 1, 1983 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST REVIEW SHEET E C F - 003 - 83 APPLICATION No(s) . SITE APPROVAL (SA-002-83) PROPONENT: Louis Peretti (Rentonites, Inc. ) PROJECT TITLE: N/A Brief Description of Project : Application for Site Approval to allow the construction of a 100 foot by 38 foot commercial building. LOCATION : Located on the north side of N.E. 3rd Street at the 2800 block. SITE AREA: It 38,000 sq. ft. BUILDING AREA (gross) 3,800 sq. ft. DEVELOPMENTAL COVERAGE ("o) : 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 : Undevl oped south: Undeveloped west : Multiple Family Land use conflicts : Possible with adjacent multi-family. View obstruction : Minor 9 ) Natural resources : X 10 ) Risk of upset : X 11 ) Population/Employment : X 12 ) Number of Dwellings : X 13 ) Trip ends ( ITE ) : 115/1,000 sq. ft. @ 3.8 = 475 ADT traffic impacts : Unacceptable driveway configuation. 14 ) Public services : X 15 ) Energy : X 16) Utilities : X 17 ) Human health: X 18) Aesthetics : X 19 ) Recreation: X 20 ) Archeology/history : X COMMENTS : • Signatures: 7,) • 1463 ((e)// (( onald G. Nelson avid R. Clemens Building Official Policy Development Director • 2. R 'chard C. Houg ton, Public Works Director , — ,• ••••'' ••- .-.=;,F• . • : " • - • ' •, "v%'^'• ; " .,;. r .; •-,,t,kir •Itr, 4-C 1.••`•:5Y ""• • - • ;'-'1/4;=:!; • : • - . .C. • ' • : : n . '1, 1. - ' , • " • •, . , • , •-• • ' , P " ' '" ' ; 3''s" ''2 ' •• OF RA, • • ' C) PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT tf• TRAFFIC ENGINEERING DIVISION • 235-2620 •,,, o MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE.SO. RENTON,WASH.98055 0 CO' 0 ). tsit 4.41/4 0 SEP BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH MAYOR February 15, 1983 Ciri CP ru'SNION TO: Jerry Lind FEB 15 1983 BUILDING/ZONING' DEI'-r. FROM: Gary Norris SUBJECT: Assessment/Renton i tes Property Louis Peretti The assessment value of the above-referenced development is as shown below: • 1% cost of listed improvement project 's cost -- NE 3rd St. & Sunset Blvd. , $120,000 @ 1% $1 ,200.00 NE 3rd St. & Edmonds Ave. NE, $100,000 @ 1% $1 ,000.00 Monroe Ave. NE & NE 4th St. 200 linear feet @ $184.00 per L.F. , $36,800 @ 1% $ 368.00 Monroe Ave. NE & NE 4th St. signal Opticom, pedestrian improvement, $32,000 @ 1% $ 320.00 Total Amount $2,888.00 fNe)/oriAl._ CEM:ad . _ NN' •:i: _ .'L. _ f - i' A$t i';,r~+: '=•i," %'i:,+ •,:�.Jr- a .w 4: }rt ti W,.yyj�sr r,•4. „3 ''fr'2;::- -->'.!: A.' - c1�"� .,.i=.. 5� � .{:x ..•{t 'l^e� T�,Y- .�.. Y,{1 +.1"9'c. a-F�. ,,y:<;%,r,jrr.'% -!a. .... .�.d:=:ia•, .c:�s,.. S..�+• ;,,:n as-i"'�t.' ^."v,X%i.:i:u;:.."}.'.' t• ';"}.>i N,'�'n. ,�+. `i`x' �7t' •1.,•^ec.4: ✓,.;?,:'e,i:•r",r� y;Zvt F`-'''x:s;i':=t.. „1,,.,;:�:. ..ti. ,,y,,r. ::G:�. a''r-52,,. .??��.a'!'3.,�.;:roc e2':. ti`."ir.;. _ .- 't d: : r,2 a -d• .ti':t. :'x:•.r• - • vr, .,f , _y ..1, •tt.. -r.• rr •i. 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: LOUIS PERETTI (RENTONITES, INC.) (ECF-003-83) Application for site approval•to allow the construction of a 100 foot by 38 foot commercial building, file SA-002-83; located on the north side of N.E. 3rd Street at approximately the 2800 block. SEA PORT DOZING, INC. (ECF-587-80) Application for building permit for the construction of a 31-unit apartment complex, file B-236; located on the east side of Monroe Avenue N.E. and south of N.E. 12th Street. The Environmental Review Committee (ERC) has issued a final declaration of non-significance for the following project: THE ANDOVER COMPANY (ECF-007-83) Application to construct a single story office building of approximately 5,006 square feet, file B-286; located on the north side of S.W. 43rd Street, approximately 147 feet east of West Valley Road. 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 March 14, 1983. Published:February 28, 1983 0076Z • I DE . .. „ " 6 •.6 • ;SA 0 ,40`f;' (ECF,=0 83)• APPI.�CA'f1UN IdO. � � � , . . ' . PROPOSED ACTION ppPl iCAT1f1i'FOR,STTF`APPRti1AL TO Al LOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 100, FrTh•BY.38 OOT tthERCIAL BUIU�If : 'GENERAL ;'.LOCATION`=ANC , OR:'ADDRESS I WATT fN THEJL)RTH SIDE OF N.E. 3RD ,STREET ATAT.0110kIMAIELY.TIE 2800 BLOCK,' . ,1.: • `: POSTED TO k NOTIFY. ' INTERESTED PERSONS • OF -AN : ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION:' Lk 1 ,SSA .� , • r . � �� • 6 • THE CITY. OF, '.REISI ON:•'.ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE .'tE.P.C.9 HAS" DETERMINED THAT THE :PROPOSED ACTION:, ''• ' , , 000ES'' . ; ,DOGES . NOT • HAVE A' SIGNIFICANT-, E, , 'ADVERS ' :IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT AN ENVIRONMENTAL• ''IMPACT .STATEMENT DWILL E JWILL NOT BE REQUIRED., , AN APPEAL OF 'THE 'ABOVE' DETERMINATION MAY BE FILED WITH THE' 'RENTON HEARING EXAMINER • BY 5:00 P.M., MARCH L4, 1983 • • FOR , 'FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT THE CITY' OF RENTON BUILDING'& ZONING'DEPARTMENT 238 2550 DO'` NOT *REMOVE THIS NOTICE ' ' WITHOUT ,,PROPER ,AUTHORIZATION • • • N AL rw o-•C>. NVIR . NM ' r r . ,,, •, .„ Y R1 Appuggpi NO.`: -SITE,PLAN` APPROVAL (SA-002- 83) PROpO ED;;``'''ACTION APPLICATION FOR SiTF PI AN APPROVAl TU ALLOW THE'•CONSTRUCT ION OF A400 FT. X 38 FT. COMMERCIAL BU i I D I Nr,. GENERAL' LOCATION .AND OR ADDRESS LOCATFD ON THE THE NORTH Siil OF N, F___:_: �Rfl STREET AT APPROXIMATELY THE 2800 BLOCK. • POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION. • THE CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE ( E.R.C.J HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED ACTION ®DOES ®DOES NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE ' IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT • OWILL IWILL NOT BE REQUIRED. AN APPEAL OF THE ABOVE DETERMINATION MAY BYBE �:®®®PMITi� F���iRl� 1���V HEARING EXAMINER • FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT THE CITY OF RENTON BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT 23S-2550 • DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE WITHOUT, PROPER AUTHORIZATION _ .,t..• - ter, - _ • • • iN r• ''Si k• +X ,.ar. f f, i,•. P. .r.- .'i'i^ 'y'""i1:i�,. ,#•,q.'x..v ^�s.�'v�';a.,; ka'.n r ,•.a a.s- .•y�..• .u i'S`� •,s, ,.,!, tit i'a.'`. ,�!•»s 1,y.qro, �$x• eM.,: .:•`•G•;r.•:;�" "1f,,.k"' w++ ^i�Sa`.� li:s vi 'L^i�` ..�_ :�.:6.' G=: �i'•i;F: r"a -::�....; 'ie'Y.• `�'-ra.:..:,,.rq .�I F :w���.:•.. .-''-" r+c3 t.ii-,'.x'• .r.<��s, .r:• oE.>,.. 1 •:,'{A,..:.: ..9,'':. �t:F'::=F�;e ,.M.7;S ,;5' r�.„].,ft.' r'ri:•�'':`. ':}+:'li. �-s ,s: .:,:. .:�%;.stir�r�.,�r.4...r+�,r4•r... ;'1•;,:.-•:«- r•-,i' .N..:S'' i�iN:..w, a yj. _ IJ•. - ity7-x-.K• - • T' ':i :4r _ err E: - ...•..• a-• .r ••.. .. .. :.,'" - 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: LOUIS PERETTI (RENTONITES, INC. ) (ECF-003-83) Application fOr site approval to allow the construction of a 100 foot by 38 foot commercial building, file SA-002-83; located on the north side of N.E. 3rd Street at approximately the 2800 block. 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 February 21 , 1983. Published: February 7, 1983 Su•_ e 4• 4 tit:.wc-?•_.�' - ;.1^ _,F:. S.1 II "'! L .,) i' sw'6`: 'a'ff-i' "4:... .�``ti %i': .L ..•'i':c�, 2,', {: ':i." xt=1" ?,•+ r `•gy .Rk. i!'+^'..?f 3 ',"9. ';�`•.' .4 -"kz w .3 r` ,r' ;r.}tru �ti'f :�t''• gh � [�I�<'xm�.> r;':,.�r ,t??3.� >`s =—a`:,.r ...r's•. "�': .sue'«,, ��• 'ta:1�•`. 7: 'r.• .�.• •., v,•Y� �....rJ,�kx„�i. ,� ,�• a,.xr _ .'� ''" �{.,rr- [„°^s!t�' r, ^i i!i:'`• ,;'a.«a .,;��'.., I.�x:.,,• v s :''f: ,t ,;«.'fs:«•,. ..��:r:t. s.:....y„,-!^� _>S�s' .�'r--^. Ea^Y'Y=�e°-�`'?. sue.. ^s •.:;;-,";5:'�0=.,�'V.;�ar.,� r.::;i* >,r.. , ..�, a^, '�^•"., ';.�... ;t `ra.-;.b. _ a'., _:� .,r-..,. -,,s. ...%4_ •e./.. ,iF,,' I.�i' ��:.cn:v .a .;± ^•.r..:2.,e.. ,v ..aZ.,.... :..k'f-. ti..._- .'rT:''• .,r;•,. z,Y,.... ?sv,�s:5`r..=:::q'�',:is,+�p,..y:' • 4x cis.'.'`^;�;•. P_C• zf .:i „ rr • i ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE AGENDA February1983 THIRD FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM: COMMENCING AT 10:00 A.M. OLD BUSINESS: NORTHWARD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY Rezone of approximately 62 acres from G-1 to R-1 , R-2, R-3 and B-1 to permit future construction of a mixed-use development - Preliminary Fi nal Environmental Impact Statement. ERC i s to impose precise conditions. NEW BUSINESS ECF-003-83 LOUIS PERETTI (REN.TONITES, INC. ) - SA-002-83 Application for site approval to allow the construction of a 100 foot by 38 foot commercial building; located on the north side of N.E. 3rd Street at the 2800 block. ECF-004-83 JAMES LEAR CONSTRUCTION COMPANY - MR FRANK PIERSON AND CAMBELL B-285 ASSOCIATES Renton Plaza Office complex. Present (Phase One) design and construct one five-story - 34,679 square feet office building including required parking and landscaping. Future (Phase Two) design and construct one additional five-story - approximately 30,000 square feet office buildings, expanding parking and landscaping as required; located at the northeast corner of Talbot Road and S. Puget Drive. Ir:3 y , U, t s1. I I Y U1 .KENTc"' I FILE NO(S): f+;`A. l __DING & ZONING DEPARt-; .-NT _ ° ' MASTER APPLICATiON NOTE TO APP LICANT: Since this is a comprehensive application form, only .use items related to your specific type of application(s) are to be completed. (Please print or type. Attach additional sheets if necessary.) APPLICANT 1 I TYPE OF APPLICATION AME Louis Peretti FEES DDRESS CDREZONE*(FROM TO ) 1033 N . First Street EJ SPECIAL PERMIT* ITY ZIP C� TEMPORARY PERMIT* Renton, Washington 98055 0 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT* ELEPHONE 123 SITE PLAN APPROVAL o. (2 0 6) 2 5 5-2 4 8 4 ED GRADING AND FILLING PERMIT No. of Cubic Yards: CONTACT PERSON Q VARIANCE From Section: AME * Justification Required Louis Peretti DDRESS SUBDIVISIONS, 1033 N. First Street ❑ SHORT PLAT ITY ZIP ❑ TENTATIVE PLAT Renton, Washington 98055 ❑ PRELIMINARY PLAT ELEPHONE ❑ FINAL PLAT (206) 255-2484 (D WAIVER i (Justification Required) OWNER • NO. OF LOTS: 4ME PLAT NAME: Rentonites, Inc . DDRESS PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT: 1033 N . First Street ITY C] PRELIMINARY ZIP ❑ FINAL Renton, Washington 98055 ELEPHONE P.U.D. NAME: (206) 2552484 ❑ Residential ❑ Industrial I ❑ Commercial ❑ Mixed LOCATION MOBILE HOME PARKS: 20PE ATN E 3 ADDREN SS s4 ❑ TENTATIVE �(ISTING USE PRESENT ZONING I(::] PRELIMINARY 'None Co Htit2Lt —I LJ FINAL 20POSED USE PARK NAME: Commercial Building NUMBER OF SPACES: lEi ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE SQ. FT. ACRES REA: ± 38 , 000 S q . Ft TOTAL FEES 37 5� (I"r-\ ;-;:i (7.) r.1 In 71p-STA1 FUSE ONLY •- ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESSING %TE S1M$P� i 1.i Ur s�, !li �VvII APPLICATION RECEIVED BY: �' J A N 2 5 1983 APPLI TION DETERMINED TO BE: Accepted BUIL,ir IIT.11/ `'.iiVli`O .P f, 0 Incomplete Notification Sent On By: (Initials) 1TE ROUTED ADDITIONAL MATERIAL RECEIVED BY: 1 — 2..te— E,B APPLICATION DETERMINED TO BE: ❑ Accepted ® Incomplete Notification Sent On By: )UTED TO: (Initials) 0 Building Design Eng. ( Fire ❑ Parks ' Ef Police El Policy Dev. 1 Traffic Eng. Er Utilities • REVISION. 511982— r Legal description of property (If more space Is required, attach a separate sheet). Cugini Short Nat No. 2 as recorded October 18, 1979, No . 7910189001 , Vol . 20, Page 214 . • AFFIDAVIT • Lo t.ri.f ?k' P.741`i , be ing duly sworn, declare that I am • Dauthorized representative to act for the property owner,[Downer of the property Involved in this application and that the foregoing statements and answers herein contained and the information herewith submitted are in all respects true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME THIS 0, 4-e, DAY OF p t.)V v, • . 19v5 NOTARY PUBLIC IN AND FOR THE STATE OF WASHINGTO RESIDING. . AT 0-?-ta-e A., (Nam • •f otary Public) . (Signature of Owner) . a As'A c)%0 55 no 2-- B 20 1- .f [v&7 A l& (Address) (Address) • (City) " ' (State) (Zip) : s's , v1y (Telephone) Acceptance of this application and required filing fee does not constitute a complete application. Plans and other materials required to constitute a complete application are listed In the "Application Procedure." ' • COrlERCIA L BU I LD1p4:- . .,••,•••*-5.-t, , FOR ,•,,,,,..2. „ • .. RENTON IT E S • • . ... . •. .. .. . $ Pa TU RE veye=pmewr .1 • . . si- i' Iwo. le0" I t e I r.0 ' GOV.0" + le,.w.. REFU4E AREA 4i, Vs LE; cohic.s Like ---. ' - ' ,--PAN/e 01 1.1414 Araotipit7 EST HT MIMI" WITH GATE S 62 PHASE I t I us --. - . vIveLorAFAT i A,- . I? . ._, • . : 05, ! ' 1M ' l'• t•• ..._.., , 4ti 1/1.1;1 -N jA 4, t q -61 • el •IGIMIllit _• Ikt7wao *9 gr;f*. f 5 P.'' 1 _AA?6400•A 0 0° 5 9 !. li 144'.0" ' i • t+---r- • 0'1 % • gi• N'---•' Z i . Ss . ! t FUTURE: , ; 12EYELOFP/AEsT _ . 0 12 IP to • 19 .19 • • ., W & lNa . I V • li C.e? It.I- • __ z 0- . • J i a : FA.111.170-4C2 • < I • 17R IV& 6 7 f )• • s i. ( 'xi ' ) W 1 nito4v (2:2) I u 4 .r_______ 4 tit et gs • .. 1 1 1,-,> , XI, 1 • : 1 o t4-7i . IC--CUR°a it+ . -z 1----;-- •.1 10.1 ifs z.., ' i ‘ i ,*5 .,, ! ., i -•• #9 4e-P--• -• -• IA • .,1.•-ro':i... ' ' 1.104 in • .. _ ..%6*MiinSigilyil-alAt 2 NIO -^ev, • • `,-:... A! .. . *5 . ,‘ ., 1 I rea *\ 0 I pa. al \ ‘,/-•-:...*cum; f'S Irok-1 - / . :Ai. ,%.--4 •= It4-----/- is ,, C.0. /.02- -/" 1011K FI I REYC / • - to I CI / VI --- . f .,• VIZNE . • • I ...ik.• •• 0 ..---- 0 lig-; .1 I -PARK.ING (4) 4cD• olliii'-`• AA AO O. 'T ,,-.4,--"... - .. - \ IF.1: iak 6 \ \ --•c:\.7 . ie,• 4f 2 ''' 01 .. ..•-•-'01..8.:..c2 '•P‘i". ) ,e' " i lip irs. t. _,, §4c* flit., 4,;,-.1---.Nsilr-• / \ g( i 4' 1):0:TOZ" Z • ....•6.0. 'a ' i 4 k • 0 04 . - 01%w 0 ., \ i., C•AA-4:4 _________ I- .• " --- ° —- - • 0 51,_ VI. • . 4) , - Pe' ag;•C2 --------- --- .-- - • r-• \ --- col'S ----- ' ' • ---------- 0-e' ,f4 CO ,-- • .t•I' . . 11 r0 i 0 ) JAN 25 1983 . - ,-------- Bt_ .cir. ..„ .. :...:-J.--i-. .-•- ...._----- . _ - • ,,c ?, ! 7 E.- FLN 1 NOTE : ‹..1 TG 1,2AiNtstE -Cox-4 FORK TO CI TV oF Rewrof--4 REGu iczEmer-ms• • ITV OF RENTON, WASHINGTON ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM • aT'Y OF ri'MTO? €6 1 1F o 'li 11 FOR OFFICE USE ONLY JAI 25 1983 '"`s Application No. � A- 002-- bS Environmental Checklist No. O1 '-Ds'E, PROPOSED. date: FINAL , date: ODeclaration of Significance ® Declaration of Significance EiDeclaration 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 RENTONITES, INC. 2. Address and phone number of Proponent: 11.0S. H•. FIRST STREET Q„).e A 1 o At/ by R/o, RENTON, WASHINGTON 98055 (206) 255-2484 3. Date Checklist submitted 4. Agency requiring Checklist CITY OF RENTgN , 5. Name of proposal . if applicable: COMMERCIAL BUILDING 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) : CONSTRUCTION OF A 100' x 38' COMMERCIAL BUILDING INCLUDING PARKING AND REQUIRED LANDSCAPING. -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 ) : THE PROPERTY IS FLAT, IS LOCATED ON THE EAST HILL OF RENTON ON THE NORTH SIDE OF N.E. 3rd STREET (CEMENTARY ROAD), JUST LESS THAN ONE ACRE IN SIZE. • 8. Estimated date for completion of the proposal : • SUMMER 1983 9. List of all permits, licenses or government approvals required for the proposal (federal , state and local--including rezones) : CITY OF RENTON BUILDING PERMIT AND RELATED PERMITS 10. Do you have any plans for future additions , expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes , explain: POSSIBLE FUTURE EXPANSION OF PROPOSED BUILDING 11. Do you know of any plans by others which may affect the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain: NO 12. Attach any other application form that has been completed regarding the pro- • posal ; if none has been completed, but is expected to be filed at some future date, describe the nature of such application form: II. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required) (1) Earth. Will the proposal result in: (a) Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? X YES" MAYBE NT- (b) Disruptions, displacements, compaction or over- covering of the soil? YES MAYBE NO (c) Change in topography or ground surface relief X features? YES— MAYBE WU— (d) The destruction, covering or modification of any X unique geologic or physical features? YES MAYBE NO (e) Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils , X either on or off the site? YES MAYBE NO • (f) Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands , or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? X YES MUTE KU— Explanation: -3- 45 (2) Air. will the proposal result in: (a) Air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? X YEE— M YB NO , (b) The creation of objectionable odors? X YES MATT[ fl (c) Alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature,- or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? X YES MAYBE NO Explanation: • (3) Water. Will the• proposal result in: (a) Changes in currents, or the course of direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? X YES MAYBE NO (b) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? X YES MAYBE NO (c) Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? X • YES MAYBE NO (d) Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? 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 FED MA a N O (f) Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? X YES MAYBE NO (g) Change in the quantity of ground waters , either through direct additions or withdrawals , or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? X • YES MAYBE NO (h) Deterioration in ground water quality, either through direct injection, or through the seepage of leachate, phosphates, detergents, waterborne virus or bacteria, or other substances into the ground waters? . X YES M YB 0— (i ) Reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? X YES MAYBE rfl Explanation,: BUILDING AND PAVED AREA WILL BE ADDED (4) Flora. Will the proposal result in: (a) Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any microflora andecies of raquatica uplang nts)?ees, shrubs, grass , crops ,X YES MAYBE NO (b) Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of flora? X ES MAYBE F1 (c) Introduction of new species of flora into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? X YES urrr iru— (d) Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? YE MAYBE rr Explanation: BUILDING AND PAVED AREA WILL BE ADDED. r/// • 410 ® -4- (5) Fauna. dill the proposal result in: (a) Changes in the diversity of species , or numbers of any species of fauna (birds , land animals including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms , insects or microfauna)? X YES WYE NO (b) Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of 'fauna? X YES MAYBE NO (c) Introduction of new species of fauna into an area , or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of fauna? X YES MAYBE NO (d) Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? X YES MAYBE NO Explanation: BUILDING AND PAVED AREA WILL BE ADDED. (6) Noise. Will the proposal increase existing noise levels? X YES MAYBE NO Explanation: BUILDING AND AUTO TRAFFIC WILL BE INTRODUCED (7) Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? X YES' MAYBE 0-- Explanation: SIGHT LIGHTING FOR COMMERCIAL BUILDING WILL BE ADDED. (8) Land Use. Will the proposal result in the alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? X YET— MAYBE ?i0 Explanation: (9) Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: (a) Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? X YES MAYBE NO (b) Depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource? X YES MAYBE NO Explanation: (10) Risk of Upset. Does the proposal involve a risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil , pesticides , chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? X YET— MATEE N0 Explanation: (11) Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distri- bution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? X YES MAYBE IF' Explanation: -5- ( 12) Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing , or X create a demand for additional housing? YES MAYBE NO Explanation: (13) Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in: (a) Generation of additional vehicular movement? X YES MAYBE NO (b) Effects on existing parking facilities , or demand for new parking? X YES MAYBE NO (c) Impact upon existing transportation systems? X YES MAYBE NO (d) Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? X YES MAYBE NO (e) Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? X • YES MAYBE NO (f) Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles , bicyclists or pedestrians? YES WET NO Explanation: (14) Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: (a) Fire protection? X YES MAYBE NO (b) Police protection? X YES MAYBE NO (c) Schools? X YES MAYBE NO (d) Parks or other recreational facilities? X YES MAYBE NO (e) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? X YES MAYBE NO (f) Other governmental services? X YES MAYbE NO Explanation: (15) Energy. Will the proposal result• in: (a) Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? X YES MAYBE NO (b) Demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? X YES MAYBE lT- Explanation: ELECTRICAL POWER FOR RUNNING BUSINESS. (16) Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or alterations to the following utilities: (a) Power or natural gas? X vr-t MAYBE NO (b) Communications systems? X YES MAYBE NO (c) Water? X YES MAYBE NO -6- (d) .� Sewer or septic tanks? X YES MAYBE NO (e) Storm water drainage? X YET- MAYBE (f) Solid waste and disposal? X YES MAYBE NO Explanation: • (17) Human Health. Will the proposal result in the creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? X YES MAYBE NO Explanation: (18) Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any any scenic 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? YES MAYBE NO Explanation: - (19) Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? X YES MAYBE NO Explanation: (20) Archeological Historical . Will the proposal result in an alteration of1a significant archeological or historical X site, structure, object or YET- MAYBE 0— Explanation: III. SIGNATURE I , the undersigned, state that to the best of my knowledge the above information is true and complete. It is understood that -the lead agency may withdraw any decla- ration of non-significance that it might issue in reliance upon this checklist should there be any willful misrepresentation or willful lack of full disci ure on my part. Proponent: 44.40_ (signed) Louis Peretti - Rentonites, Inc. (name printed) City of Renton Planning Department 5-76 1 Affidavit of Publication STATE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY OF KING ss. Cindy...Strupp being first duly sworn on oath,deposes and says thatBhe...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 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 Notice of Environmental Deternjyatio4 Or - - F .�blic Notice Public INK e as it was published in regular issues(and - not in supplement form of said newspaper) once each issue for a period NOTICE OF otreet. ENVIRONMENTAL The Environmental DETERMINATION view Committee (ERC) .las ENVIRONMENTAL issued a final declaration of of one consecutive issues,commencing on the REVIEW COMMITTEE non-significance for the fol- RENTON, WASHINGTON lowing project: 2 8 th dayof February 19 8 3 and endingthe The Environmental Re- THE ANDOVER COMPANY view Committee (ERC) has (ECF-007-83) issued a final declaration of Application to construct a non-significance with condi- single story office building of tions for the following pro- approximately 5,006 square day of ,19 both dates jects: feet, file B-286; located on inclusive, and that such newspaper was regularly distributed to its sub- LOUIS PERETTI RENTO- the north side of S.W.43rd scribers during all of said period. That the full amount of the fee NITES, INC.) (ECF-003-83) Street, approximately 147 Application for site approval feet east of West Valley charged for the foregoing publication is the sum of 92 5 2 0, which to allow the construction of a Road. has been paid in full at the rate of per folio of one hundred words for the 100 foot by 38 foot commer- Further information re- first insertion and per folio of one hundred words for each subsequent cial building,file SA-002-83; garding this action is avail- insertion. Cs•—•1\•-•""' \ located on the north side of able in the Building and N.E. 3rd Street at approxi- Zoning Department, mately the 2800 block. Municipal Building, Renton, SEA PORT DOZING, INC. Washington,235-2550.Any (.. r.j\)./s-il (ECF-587-80) appeal of ERC action must • Chief lerl� • Application for building per- be filed with the Hearing mit for the construction of a Examiner by March 14, 31-unit apartment complex, 1983. file B-236; located on the Published in the Daily Re- Subscribed and sworn to before me this 2.a h day of ea�st side of Monroe Avenue cord Chro,,.,;t; -uary 28, N.E. and south of r�.E.12th� 1983. R8464 ...February , 19...8.3 f rvd,,,e, ____ _ __, Notary Public and the tt,4te@,�of Washington, residing at4Q6tft, King County. City of C;nton - - ree.' 1s3Y D Building F un g ) MEM��jj —Passed by the Legislature,1955,known as Senate Bill 281,effective June U�� 9th, 1955. —Western Union Telegraph Co. rules for counting words and figures, adopted by the newspapers of the State. APR 8 1983 VN#87 Revised 5/82 • OF FILE FILE TITLE ' ' 4, .17 • / • P✓