Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.

No preview available

The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutLUA77-015i El IE\ 1. iNazii Hiiii,,\ Np, y i - i ij BS . r` l. - / 4r7. I . ..,,_,..---- 4E0 3 • 0, o oi rAizij c9 tj B 2 , S. F. ` B, 0 it detitt 0 • B 4 to' -- r. 1 if. Ib g 5 0 1 ci 1 is( INV AN`` 51'161' El u;,:{ IZ I Z Ittr• 1 I, ifirc B i 11 l \ A 8 8 i H ! y- Q sli1 4J Z ' SaGB 3 013 pi 1 1 7$ B Q if— RI NUM. z Ei iS3S0Irii.1O HIS a'.- 6) CS ki LJ 1. FNI%=' r 1. 904.Ad c, it dli . 14PS 44. A,,, ' W. 10 W i . . Qom ® B E Vilaw, Ecc& r•- zi, 1-- ------- u4, 1 E LR 1. rs N% 1' 1 1.'• m m Apr. 22` 7 Ur. 2 N L,22 I( i2.191-. 9Z4 r, I \P •----\ I ' ( F 1 755 y I 6r \ w1.=1i x. Z 2. S. 7 l i >al.aa 1 l54 741 23e 2'23 •- - TN stJ I I 1. y_1• - •' e IcAr.`' 5T 1__r; • t MEN Pc 1 ;t , ,gqT.. ._ r r"' ), N.- ' ATM T. T ! y .. I11-_ ' • a 4 I22l7111f • e • w x• Imo 1 2 253 242 235 224'.' 0 N G 7a_.T r • , , i' t.A V - • It j QI1Ot > / ' 1 l' + • 1 • ratOpt •• 0 - -. . •-•:. ITom,= >fr. 1 6.3_, 52. 249 2 94_ y 225 F-2- ... •. • I 1 1 1 I x-.i+ i }. F '• Ai. • \.,•t Ig,l G „ ,. r 20TH 9: a 1.11 L1 I Gam1 / 00 .1. s • 1 . 1•, .•• .,'-..1.' / 1 , . , , AV i 'i' t- 4 251 244 3 ZI7 208 w{ y'` 1 T I 1 : _.1 tPL zS ®T r .-.` .. t' N ,o. T ,` • 2 a), l 10 .,1 I 77 ram•. ,-f,1 1' 1 I1 t ,_ i4 mil3 ' = sir`•' i a . • f ' i'll'I`, h . 1 25 igi,. Z.>Q r y F 0 , 1' IF17.-11 1 5 pr z` ,I .4'B© 214 [-r-1, 1 I x ,: f. . ,. ..I 11 6=0 I 0',.:'se ., '. Ilil eR073 rGfi.. i i 4 . i i. 249 CI Corn 'I 231 22B 2Q3 710 ra z P. y / 1pp Il 1mujtas : 4'7_,:i.t.i ...: - A4xR-3 A,. ,, ,17" IQ - 47 F„ IJ, etral 247 250- 4429 211• Z ° Apip4.1, 1E{ M I J t. T _ 4 . 1 .I_ A r 11r j I I ', aH t1 Y L;' II"E 12 r.w • I a _ '; i ie rl il- t,t 1 1 b W 1. 1 A L -.-J a/ t r ,•/ • I. 0 A L a o,._nia K___ i I I 11 • i ‘ i A i 3.1algt. . .in 2. F 1 • R Sa l z ' 1 R-3 e _ . , „ „, s r- r ' ' I 6 0 I115' g R C,'f- ) 1 1 . P 35 •t i4,4 /; f q 1 i'* I i®1_l.• ' . M I • nT • J,. r U T 4'i':: ti T. a i.I O- O11 REZONE : STANLEY ' D. 'WOLF.; Appl . No. R-.015-'77 ; rezone from R-2 to R-3 ; property located in vicinity of 1500 Index Ave. N. E . APPLICANT STANLEY D. WOLF TOTAL AREA ±0 . 30 acres PRINCIPAL ACCESS Index Ave . N . E., EXIS) ING. ZONING R-2 EXISTING 'USE Residential Duplex PROPOSED USE Construct a 4-plex with existing duplex . COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN Medium Density Multi -family Residential COMMENTS Li I T\<). n 8: ri 141 . ,.,. - . , U° t: . , • 41tirliC: 1 - 6 ' ' Y 9 - ci`j , [ it g ovi, • 0 1 ,t 1 foi NOIZV H141- 11, ANP 0 ill el q ic , a9 • NA ir., i . te, • , 0, plow- L446 , 4 ‘ • • 1 Ct 4' 4 • . 4, 1 ' a. P 1, ci St M. ' AEA 1101.‘ ei B. 1 R. I L. L , N. 0 iiiti c, B. 00 0 - . g . 0 ln tn ii• isaa 0. = 01 0 rg ait. W. •. _ NO 04A- 11- 1 # 8 B r72. 00 B ... ‹, B .......... 5. 9. him 8 8 .§• a 01: 3 Ent etc ete. ni 2 , o ' N ow an. 7 , pallffl. . . 0 iv bdr. 3111 1 11 z i9131±, 2 15 0 J ' L 1 9 100 0044 • 13 O. , if, pis m a Lj AO NI4 ' 1 I•• .. . L___, Not MIX NA 104- 4#*. r' 1 * t4N i',; dk cp e... Iv 41) , 1 i 2' • 0. ' 5) 8 • 03 BA B I ( 20. Faro&U# 0 ll ' • A a 0 1 1. i R. 1 3 L Amek • i' . .,. . 111 • •• 1/,//' L. .. 1 CD 4.......... N. V. Wil 0 . 1 I ( t• Alt 1" 014- 94, 1 . 1 ' . 4uNir4, 110 ED Antiole- Ormedty a wow XfiNe ha C- ai6-' 77• . . l ' ; '. . BEGINNING OF FILE FILE TITLE ZONF e c ' `y26 aa - 77 SEE 35 t , 34. 6 . 30 i' DRA..\1111 S35mm Fl LPI 0 3.4• i,10 A. .41) SEE 35mm FI 1.14 .c,. 0" ..3 . 4.,,, s_ 1. 10 p i.I '. '': SEE 35mm FILM __.. i • BEGINNING OF FILE FILE TITLE 037 BEGINNING OF FILE FILE TITLE 63F y ri - (D is kt•tch, I- :.•,. based ul,, ii iL :,i1) ,,,,•\ ' iht. prop.•)ly cli-t-.(.1!'“•(11r, ( it.i..•! 1 cc 0 -IT it'• 1 risuran, .• ( orporatioi. It r . form•Inqi with grchar ,. ft.,. ,n locatii4, oe said prt•roises. It (1. not puri.wt to show all roads of ,•,.,., 'wit: ! • , ,.,,,i, :,,,. as:,ornes no liaktoty for inac( uracies t h.( ,..in. e2'6. , 25 A/ \-------... f9r rt./A VS A/1.,./..\ 62),,.'.. ' I i, ,s' 1 I.ts . •••‘„,,,1/ 1' . I` 51 Pi i'%k) 1'1 61:1, ,,,,,,I,/ 113 • t...y. 41. at ' V.\, c1•_\.,,,.. 1 14 l)'I N t \'' 7.''''''''''' -......„ 0 2NtIt, 0. ,.c 4, 0 ‘ 62 6 t..•-i., • 36 9 I 03' 2 I .. •ic..D_ l : 4.•3 I 1-23 . 5 r.--...... 99'. 't,3 c•-• 3-'e: t---.... .,..,.., 70. 1.._ 1 1 qhi - -• 21,52 Cr 13:8.,7 4 iM = 7PS j o c, ;,.., P/ 4• 4::, % j • 1:•-t--‘ -. A-.,'4. x , 1 . 3 8 c 5.:, 0/ ly- i, 0 02.0439k PA 0 AS l '7 r, 46,1 ' 0 i% 1 4., 12,,"-•„, ty 4 oe) a 37 f370. ,, e 2...o__,1 /;:r-67.4:2"' ,c• li, °IP t‘0, 4. 1-,•- ls.., ,i'tN . • 036 NO A' 1 A ‘."' 1 I ''- v t...: b- — 0 r . s., r 1 • \3 5 I 4 i:,•:- ; kJ) 0 fi 74....‹.-1- 1\J tia, •., 7 ii 1 ' r-- 't 1 34 A D. I - I . t' s'''\'''(' r•S‘ N.` , 1'. i,-.'"'-i:.', - 7 1,,,,j1V „.,,,,,,74.;? ____ .„.'1 i c..- I '.‘' 1 i.•1 1/4,.''''',:i' -'•-•k 1 N ,• i P', I q 1 t. H ir'. i -3,. 1 , 1 J.5 .• . U.,.\ . ri ' ' ,_ 1. 4 14 ,__, r,„% ii•NO el' ccajo80r. I t t f 0 o 1 rail Nallierii iii 04HLAN s..* . 112 En 9, •Di vo Ar.04 .St.RE6. R„,, I 1 0 ti c. B 0 tlr'' -*1:•- B 0 S @L 0. .........• 0 A L- 1 6 115 la is 5 to.,a go No 6-04:01•,- id? S.f.it:ft. la 2c B __l Eil 1ff r•izoo 1 Nmra, < El 04,,,, i k B a an I-1 2 MS n U Ne 0411141' 1 z ant pilicn, z BbIL344 r.,, 4' Il A p IL ho I414 k il 13 rrl 4,5) 1 al torQsrei t43113-51: 3 gg gvo:„„e- Ar_ 1 n.11*. 1 ---L-r cl F- N. • ". <9.- 1-1-"I Aril e 7,,, I N 914$1.4G B 66-1PR B 1/ u40 Fl El' 114, j1 R.3 AsegA 11 IBM JVJArr. .2 a] Mr AMIIIMNIM 14.V. 1 -fil 61- 1 I ( RECEIVED CITY OF RENTON HEARING EXAMINER MAR 8 1977 AM PM z\I 718,9110011120 t2.13141516 M,Alt 1'074111 i uJecrof EZI 1 7XHISIT NO ,.',t I'APILAY IX WOIO i gii7A46 Nei 0016-77 ITEM NO. 16' /-s= 77 1 BEGINNING OF FILE FILE TITLE 0166 e-o157-1 qfri ' too avec- -)f? MICROFILMED OF Ft 41.O THE CITY OF RE c\,:p\Orv' 5o,, 2. MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. REN. N, W, SHc 80S cP r) m o) 5 -- - CHARLES J. DELAURENTI , MAYOR • LAND USEI:EP RI,NXINEI `". p+ 4 L. RICK 4).', 593,`I PED SEPei r'. July 5, 1977 Mr . Stanley Wolf RE: File No. R-015-77 3900 ,N.E. llth Street Renton, WA 98055 Dear ,Mr. Wolf: This is to notify you that the above referenced request was approved at the meeting of the Renton City Council of June27, 1977, by Ordinance No. 3144 . Sincerely, L. Rick Beeler Hearing Examiner LRB:mp CICOUNCITON• g _ 0 f C- 7/( . THE- CITY OF REN ,Affidavit of Publication L THE WASHINGTON, 'DO OR- DAIN AS FOLLOWS:i SECTION I:The following flSTATEOFWASHINGTONdescribedpropertyinthe COUNTY OF KING ss' City ,of Renton is hereby IrezonedtoResidenceDis I,', trict (R-3) as hereinbelow Marlys Hoefert i specified,'the Planning Di- rector is hereby authorized being first duly sworn on and directed to change the maps of the Zoning Ordi- shechief clerk 1'nance, as amended,to evi- j oath,deposes and says that is the of dance said rezoning,to wit; THE RENTON RECORD-CHRONICLE, a newspaper published four(4) Lot.34, 1Block46, Cor- times a week.That'said newspaper is a legal newspaper and it is now and rested Plat of Renton. has been for more than six months prior to the date of publication referred I Highlands No.2,an addi- to,printed and published in the English language continually as a news tiort to the City of Renton, paper published four(4)times a week in Kent,King County,Washingtonf • ,. CITY OF according to 'plat re and it is now and during all of said •time was printed in an office maintained carded in"Volume t of the aforesaid place of publication of said newspaper.That the Renton1 , RENTON,WASHINGTONpages •92 to 98 IPPlegalnewspaperbyORDINANCENO.3144 plats,: Superior Court of has been approved it ap news a to-wit,erKing ot \' AN ORDINANCE OF inclusive,in King County,Superior Court of the County in which it is published,Kin County, Washington THE CITY OF RENTON, said property located Washington.That the annexed is a W A S H I N G T 0 N ,on,1500 Index Avenue U• r r CHANGING THE ZON- 'LE:between Index Ave.1 ' ING CLASSIFICATION • N.E.,and Jefferson Av- OF CERTAIN PROPER- enue N.E.,Renton,King ' ! k TIES WITHIN THE CITY County,Washington) OF RENTON FROM RE- HOWEVER, as it was published in regular issues(and 'I SIDENCE DISTRICT(R- . SUBJECT, ITORESIDENCEpis.;. to that certain "DECLARA- not in supplement form of said newspaper) once each issue for a period 'p 2) TION of RESTRICTIVE CO- TRICT(R-3) WHEREAS-under Chapt-, VENANTS" dated May 2 , I elr 7,Title IV(Building Regu- 1977 which is incorporated of one consecutive issues,commencing on the latioris) -of Ordinance No'. herein and made a Part 1628 known as the"Code of hereof as if fully set forth,General'Ordinances of the and which said Declaration day of duly 19....7..,and ending the I City of Renton•,"' •as `is recorded in the office of amended,and the maps and Director of Record and Elea-County reports-adopted in conjuenc- 77ns, Kingi38 tion therewith, the property, day of 19 ,both dates hereinbelow described has SECTION II: This Ordi snribeive, and that 'such newspaper was regularly distributed to its sub approval. effective scribers during all'of said period. That the full amount of tll be he fee heretofore been zoned as uponets passage, aroval Residence District (R-2); and five days after.its publi- and ' eti cation: charged for the foregoing publication is the sum of $.wV.l which WHEREAS a proper P PASSED BY-THE CITY has been paid in full at the rate of per folio of one hundred words for the 4 tion for change of zone first insertion and ; per folio of one hundred words for each subsequent classification of said proper- COUNCIL this 27th day,of insertion. classificationtyhas-been filed with the_ June,,1977Delores A.Mead Planning Department on or City Clerk about February "8,duly19 e APPROVED THE which petition was re- • ferred to the Hearing Exa- MAYOR 1977. s 27th day of miner. for investigation, Charles J.Delaurenti 1•I< clerk study and public hearing,'Mayor Fi rS t and a public'tiearing having •, roved as to form: Subscribed and sworn to before me this dayIofIbeenheldtheerre/on or about Approved Mardi S,and said• Gerard M.Shellan Ibeen duly City Attorney JOY) matter having published in The Renton 19 77 I considered by the Hearing Record-Chronicle July 1, Examiner and said zoning 1 Record-Chronic in conformity R4427 v,a, +tea =,, request being aee-g ..1 with the City's Comprehen-:--,------- 1 w Notary Public ' a fort a State of Washing n, sive Plan,as amended,and:f ' rryc I at Kent, Co t havingresidingKingytheCityCouncilhesduly' j• r' considered all matters relev- , p ''•-u" ' ;y." ant thereto, and all partiesill 'r"r.',°; *ear- ' ssed •° " I having been heard appear- p,. yttbe Legislature, known as Senate Bi11281,effective June ing in support thereof or in91L1a, 1 5f'' ;o_ osition thereto, NOW , s THEREFOREWesternTign'telegraph Co. rules for counting words and figures, 1 Adopted ty,•thg newspapers of the State. V.P.C.Form No.87 fL qggInvoiceNO / CITY OF RENTON 200MILL- AVENUE SOUTH R.ENT.ON,.:.WA',SHINGTON p8055 CITY .cLE,RK Department or Division ' Date ._June 28 1977 M Please make checks r . Stanley D. Wolf payable to 3900 N. E . 11th Street Renton, Washington 98055 Finance Department City of Renton 1 Recording of Declaration of Restrictive Covenants for Rezone No . R-015-77.= at King County Records 3 . 00' Ordinance # 3144 .(copy . a'tt'ac led) Covenants (copy attached) Recording Receipt .(. copy attached ) To t a,1 Due c;ttir'e Renton City Council 6/27/77 - Page 5 OLD BUSINESS (Continued) Public Services Brokaw, Gigli , Evans and Laitila) , referral of 1/10/77, committee Committee recommends the Administration investigate the problem and notify the Report people on the petition. Proposed merger #1-3 KCFD #25/43, referral of 2/7/77, committee concurs with recommendation. L. I .D. 305, Aloha Ranch Undergrounding, referral of 4/4/77 is completed. Transamerica petition for Street Vacation 100th Ave. S.E. and Talbot Road S. , referral of 4/25/77, public hearing held - appraisal now in progress , referred to Ways and Means Committee pending receipt of appraisal and payment of fees. Renton Merchant's Association request for use of public right-of-way, referral of 5/9/77, committee agrees. with Admini- stration and urges cooperation. Street Vacation portion of Thomas Ave. S.W. , referral of 5/23/77, public hearing set for 7/11/77. William McLaughlin request for LCAG - water, referral of 6/6/77, committee recommends concurrence after seeing the plans. MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECONDED BY PERRY, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT AND ENTER INTO THE RECORD. MOTION CARRIED. NEW BUSINESS Councilwoman Shinpoch thanked the Council for sending her to the AWC Convention Association of Washington Cities convention at Ocean Shores as a Ocean Shores delegate; also reporting Mayor Delaurenti received a Special Award for thirty-five years continuous service with AWC. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS Ways & Means The Ways and Means Committee report submitted by Chairman Clymer Committee Report recommended for second and final readings an ordinance changing the Ordinance 3144 zoning classification of certain properties known as the Wolf rezone, Stanley Wolf from residence district R-2 to residence district R-3. Following Rezone - R-2 to readings of rezone ordinance for property located on 1500 Index Ave. N.E. R-3 First Reading between Index Ave. N.E. and Jefferson Ave. N.E. , it was MOVED BY CLYMER, 6/20/77 SECONDED BY GRANT TO ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS READ. Councilman Stred1cke noted that this is a large development for that piece of property and the Hearing Examiner requested removal of existing building or updating and modernizing it to make it compatible with what is being planned and we need to know if Declaration of Restrictive Covenants have been filed with the city. City Clerk Mead responded that the covenants had been filed. MOTION TO AMEND BY STREDICKE, SECONDED BY THORPE, TO INCLUDE ACCEPTANCE OF THE DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS. AMENDMENT CARRIED. ROLL CALL FOLLOWED ON THE ORIGINAL MOTION: 5 AYES, PERRY, THORPE, SHINPOCH, GRANT, CLYMER. 1 NO, STREDICKE. MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED. Resolution 2117 The committee report recommended reading and adoption of a resolution Federal Aid Grant authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute documents in connection Projects with Federal Aid Funding, including the FAM Funds , Section 203 Funds , Section 205 Funds and Section 230 Funds , and deliver unto appropriate governmental agencies any and all documents relating to the allocation and expenditure of Federal-Aid Funding including the following projects : Shattuck Ave. Phase I Improvement; Bronson Way North and South Improve- ment; South Puget Drive/Benson Road Signalization; Duvall Ave. NE/NE Sunset Blvd. Signalization; Sunset Blvd/Langston Road Signalization and Miscellaneous Roadway Paint-Marking Project. Following reading, it was MOVED BY CLYMER, SECONDED BY PERRY, TO ADOPT THE RESOLUTION AS READ. Proposed amendment to the motion by Thorpe, seconded by Grant, to delete the Shattuck Ave. improvement failed. MOTION TO ADOPT RESOLUTION CARRIED. COUNCILWOMAN THORPE VOTED NO. Extension of MOVED BY GRANT, SECONDED BY PERRY, TO CONTINUE 15 MINUTES PAST THE Time 11 O' CLOCK DEADLINE FOR COMPLETION OF COUNCIL BUSINESS. CARRIED. ,. Resolution 2118 The committee report recommended reading and adoption of a resolution Federal Funds for addressed to the Governor concerning available Federal funds for Senior Utility Rate Citizens and low-income, economically disadvantaged people utility tax Relief for Senior relief. Following reading, it was MOVED BY GRANT, SECONDED BY CLYMER, Citizens and Low- TO CONCUR IN THE RESOLUTION AS READ. MOTION CARRIED. Income Resolution 2119 The committee report recommended reading and adoption of a resolution Vacation of Portion 'setting a hearing date of August 1 , 1977 for the vacation of a portion of N. 33rd Setting iof a certain street generally known as North 33rd Place petitioned by Public Hearing on !William L. McLaughlin, Jr. Following reading, it was MOVED BY GRANT, August 1 , 1976 ISECONDED BY CLYMER, TO ADOPT THE RESOLUTION. MOTION CARRIED. i1 Renton City Council 6/27/77 - Page 6 ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS (Continued) Resolution 2120 The committee report recommended reading and adoption of a resolution Communication Act addressed to our Congressional delegates regarding the Communications Act of 1934 Re of 1934, request of Harry Grandstrom, Pacific N.W. Bell . Following read- Telephone Service ing, it was MOVED BY PERRY, SECONDED BY CLYMER, TO ADOPT THE RESOLUTION AS READ. MOTION CARRIED. COUNCILWOMEN THORPE AND SHINPOCH VOTED NO. Resolution 2121 The committee report recommended reading and adoption of a resolution Approving Final approving the final plat generally known as the Parkwood Addition No. 1 , Plat - Parkwood subject to Restrictive Covenants. Following reading, it was MOVED BY Addition PERRY, SECONDED BY CLYMER, TO ADOPT THE RESOLUTION AS READ. CARRIED. Resolution 2122 The committee report recommended reading and adoption of a resolution Authorizing Mayor authorizing the Mayor to execute applications and to file them in the to Sign Documents appropriate State office for the purpose of obtaining Federal and State For Federal & financial assistance under Public Law 92-500, National Water Pollution State Funds Control , and/or including Referendums 26 and 27 of the State of Washington Following reading, it was MOVED BY GRANT, SECONDED BY PERRY, TO ADOPT THE RESOLUTION AS READ. MOTION CARRIED. Downtown Merchants MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECONDED BY THORPE, TO CONCUR IN THE REQUEST OF Sidewalk Sale THE DOWNTOWN MERCHANTS ASSOCIATION FOR USE OF PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY, July 14, 15 & 19 BANNERS AND CONCESSIONS FOR THEIR SIDEWALK SALE IN JULY. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Stredicke commented the downtown merchants were unhappy about parades routed down the main street in front of their business and asked that parades be otherwise routed. Adjournment MOVED BY GRANT, SECONDED BY SHINPOCH, COUNCIL MEETING ADJOURN. CARRIED. The meeting adjourned at 11 :10 p.m. Delores A. Mead, City L erk jt WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE June 27, 1977 The Ways, and,:,Means:. Committee recommends the following: 1: An Ordi:nance, for' second and final reading changing the zoning ;classification from R-2 to R-3 of certain pro- perties known as the Wolf Rezone. 2. A Resolution-;.authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute douments. in connection with Federal Aid Funding, iricludix g the FAM Funds . 3. A Resolution addressed to the Governor concerning available Federal :•funds for Senior Citizens utility tax relief;. 4. A Resolution setting a hearing date of August 1, 1977, for the ;:vacation: of a portion of a certain street generally, known .°,as:_North 33rd Place. 5. A Resolution addressed to our Congressional delegates regarding the Communications Act of 1934 and as re- quested by the ,Telephone Company. 6. A Resolut"ion, approving the final plat generally known as. the: ParkwOod Division No. 1; subject to Restrictive Covenants . 7. A Resolutionauthorizing .the Mayor to sign documents to obtain :Federal., and State financial assistance under Public Law '92-500 ,' National Water Pollution Control,= andjor, including Referendums 26 and 27 of the, State, of Washington. i`/ ` ` Earl Clymer,-; `Y airman Barbara, Shinpoch?; AKKVfff// Bill Grant CITY ,QT:RENTON-, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. . 3144 AN :ORDINANCE 01-THE CITY OF. RENTON , WASHINGTON , . CHANGING.:THE: .ZONINGCLASSIFICATION OF_ CERTAINPR4- PERTIES' WITHIWTHE CITY OF RENTON FROM RESIDENCE. • DISTRICTJR-Z)TTRESIDENCE DISTRICT (R-3 ) WHEREAS under Chapter 7 , title IV (Building Regulations ) of Ordinance No ,1628 known as the "Code of General Ordinances of the City of1RentoWY, as amended„,and the maps and reports adopted in conjunction therewith, the property hereinbelow described . has heretofore been zoned:ras.±:Residence District (k---2).;‘ and WEIEREAS ._a., .pr(45 .,;:"petj'..td:on for change of zone classification ' of said property has- beenfiled :with the Planning Department on or about Februaryl97.7,; ,which Petition was duly referred to the upa:ring Fxaniner for investigation, Study arid public hearing, and apublic hearing . having,'been. held-:thereon on or about March 8 , 1977 , and said matter having oeen duly considered bythe Hearing Examiner and said zoning request being in: Conformity with the City ' s COmp-' rehensive:PTan; -Wamende6;. and the. :City Council 'haVing duly. considered all matters'releVant:thereto,, and' ail ' parties having been •heard appearing in support there6f..or:..in opposition thereto, NOW THEREFORE THE :CIT“OUNCIL •OP.:THE..CITY OF RENTON , WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS; : SECTION The following described. property in the City of Renton' i herebY :rezoned. to Residence District (R-3) as hereinbelow specified ; the 1.,P-Ianning.:DireetoriS hereby authorized, and directed to change the mans of the: ZOning Ordinance , as amended, to evidence said rezoning., Lot 34, iocy 6, Corrected Plat of .Renton Highlands No . 2 , an.-additiOnto-,the , City of Renton, according to plat recOrded in Volume. 57 olf plats , pages 92 to King County, Wa'Thington SaidTrOperty located on 1500 Index Avenue between-iindex-Ave. N.E. and Jefferson Avenue Rehton -Ung:,'COUntY;,:Washington) ea SUBJECT, : HOWEVER; ' to that certain "DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS" .dated May: 23 , 1977 which is incorporated herein and made a part hereof as if fully set forth , and which said Declaration is recordeVin the office of Director of Record t and Elections , King County No. 7706160838 SECTION This Ordinance shall he effective upon its passage , approval and five days after its publication. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this 27thday of June , 1977 . AA14441.1 Delores A. Mea , City Cle.-rk APPROVED BY THE. MAYOR this 27th day of June , 1977 . T Charles .J . Delaurenti, Maynr Approved as to forni: 52,,crt' A.', ileCA Gellard M. Shellan, .city Attorney Date of Publication: 7-1-77 2- DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS WHEREAS , Stanley D. Wolf and Beth Wolf , his wife, are the owners of the following real property in the City of Renton, County of King, State of Washington, described as follows : Lot 34 , Block 46 , corrected plat of Renton Highlands No. 2 , an addition to the City of Renton, accordingC7 Oto plat recorded in Volume 57 of plats , pages 9.2 to 98 inclusively, in King County, Washington. CD r' WHEREAS , the owners of said described property desire 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 use by the undersigned, their successors, heirs and assigns , as follows : EXISTING STRUCTURE No building permit shall be issued for any new construction on the subject site unless the existing duplex is removed from the site or remodeled to existing City of Renton building code requirements and designed to be compatible with any construction on the site. Exterior design shall be approved by the Renton Planning Department . LANDSCAPING/SCREENING A detailed landscape/screening plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Renton Planning Department at the time of application for a building permit for any new construction or remodeling. Such landscape plan shall include, but not be limited .to : a) Provision of an architectural-type screening fence together with a minimum five foot landscape strip along the south and north property lines . b) Provision of an architectural fence together with a minimum ten foot landscape strip along the east property line. Renton City Council Page 3 6/20/77 OLD BUSINESS - Continued Center Funding Mayor Delaurenti noted additional funds received for Senior Citizen Center for total of $94,150, representing $35,000 addition. Community Community Services Committee Chairwoman Thorpe submitted committee Services report re 8,/5/74 referral for sewer service for all plats, reported Committee subdivision ordinance requires sewers if they are within 1000 ft. and Sewers for Plats no further review needed. MOVED STREDICKE, SECOND THORPE, COUNCIL CONCUR. CARRIED. Animals in The committee report recommended no further review for 10/21/74 refer- Annexed Areas ral , animals in newly annexed areas; reporting at the present time, ownership of "farm-type" animals allowed to continue as non-conforming use if no,t found to be public nuisance or health hazard. MOVED SHINPOCH SECOND BRUCE COUNCIL CONCUR. CARRIED. MOVED STREDICKE, SECOND THORPE, Downtown COUNCIL REFER TO PLANNING COMMISSION THE ESTABLISHMENT OF NEW ZONE FOR Improvement FARM AND AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT. CARRIED. The report recommended referral to Administration to report to Downtown Merchant's Association 1 ) Parking in the core area has been eliminated in the zoning ordi- nance; (2) The building code has been revised concerning fire zone requirements in core area; (3) The Planning Department met with and presented proposed parking plan to Downtown Merchant's Assoc. last year. MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECOND THORPE, COUNCIL CONCUR. CARRIED. Group Home/Girls The committee report recommended the matter of a group home for girls, referral of 10/27/75 that the City sponsor an application for Refer- endum 29 monies, be referred to the Administration to determine need and if none exists, then no report back is necessary. MOVED STREDICKE, SECOND BRUCE, COUNCIL CONCUR IN REPORT. CARRIED. Apartments The report recommended no further review of federally funded apart- for Low Income ments for low income families, referred 11/17/75, matter being Families addressed in City's current Community Development Plan. Moved by Clymer, Second Thorpe, concur in recommendation. SUBSTITUTE MOTION BY STREDICKE, SECOND THORPE, COUNCIL REFER MATTER TO PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE. Councilman Stredicke noted need for higher than minimal standards for construction in federally funded apartments. CARRIED. Use Permit The committee report recomended referral to the Board of Public Works re referral of 6/14/76, LaValley use permit for City property. MOVED BY CLYMER, SECOND BRUCE, COUNCIL CONCUR IN RECOMMENDATION. CARRIED. Community Council The committee report re Kennydale Community Council referral of 6/21/76, advised that community councils are allowed under state law only in newly annexed areas according to the City Attorney. The report recom- mended the Council establish a policy of encouraging participation of community/neighborhood associations in the planning process by includ- ing them on lists of parties to be informed of public meetings; and that the City direct the Administration to urge the State Legislature to change existing laws. MOVED STREDICKE, SECOND THORPE, COUNCIL CONCUR IN REPORT. CARRIED. Garbage Contract Letter from Mayor Delaurenti reported meeting with representatives of Awarded to General Disposal and the Public Works Dept. re the garbage disposal General Disposal contract and made the following recommendations which were agreed to by both Contractor and Staff: (1 ) Right of City to terminate contract after 3-year period if Consumer Price Index increased more than 30%, also right to renegotiate by either party. (2) Escalation clause would not apply to eligible senior citizens who are qualified under City ordinance. (3) Escalation clause based on C.P.I . could not take downturn below base bid price. (4) Curbside and alleyside pick-up includes up to 25 ft unobstructed setback; 60 ft. pick-up unchanged. The Mayor's letter recommended Council approve award of contract to General Disposal as of 6/20/77 meeting. MOVED BY CLYMER, SECOND BRUCE, COUNCIL CONCUR IN RECOMMENDATION AND AWARD CONTRACT. MOTION CARRIED, Councilman Stredicke requested his NO vote be recorded. NEW BUSINESS Funding Upon request of Councilwoman Thorpe, Mayor Delaurenti reported funds available from Round II "Planning Target" allocation of $4,003,000 for Local Public Works projects as reported by the Economic Development Administration, listing up-dated costs of resubmittal projects: Renton City Council Page 4 - 6/20/77 NEW BUSINESS - Continued EDA Funding New Main Fire Station $862,100; Talbot Hill Pump Station $371 ,000; Cedar River Trail $1 ,943,900; Subtotal $3,177,000; Balance available for new project: $826,000. Public Works Director Gonnason reported meeting with Renton School District Asst. Supt. Belmondo, that they would be interested in participating in some of balance of funding available and are pursuing various projects. MOVED BY THORPE, SECOND STREDICKE, COUNCIL RECOMMEND SENIOR CITIZEN CENTER BE LISTED AS FOURTH PRIORITY FOR FUNDING. CARRIED. Mayor Delaurenti noted he shall also submit report of priority recommendations. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS Ways and Means The Ways and Means Committee report submitted by Chairman Clymer Committee Report recommended first reading of an ordinance changing zoning classifica- tion of certain properties known as the Wolf rezone, from residence First Reading district R-2 to residence district R-3. Following reading of rezone Stanley Wolf ordinance for property located on 1500 Index Ave NE between Index NE Rezone R-015-77 and Jefferson NE, it was MOVED BY CLYMER, SECOND BRUCE, COUNCIL REFER ORDINANCE BACK TO COMMITEE FOR ONE WEEK. CARRIED. Resolution #2115 The committee report recommended reading and adoption of a resolution Fund Transfer authorizing Director of Finance to transfer $4,400 within the Current Judicial Fund for Judicial Department (Municipal Court) additional personnel , Public Defender, Judge pro tem and Intern. Following reading, it was MOVED BY CLYMER, SECOND SHINPOCH, COUNCIL CONCUR IN RESOLUTION AS READ. CARRIED. Resolution #2116 The committee report recommended reading and adoption of a resolution 6-Yr Street & adopting the Six-Year Street Construction Program as amended earlier Arterial during public hearing. Following reading , it was MOVED BY CLYMER, Construction SECOND BRUCE, COUNCIL ADOPT RESOLUTION AND EXHIBITS THERETO AS MODIFIED Program DURING PUBLIC HEARING. Councilwoman Thorpe noted for record she would vote for resolution because of need for funding which is provided by passage of the resolution, however, disagrees with basic policy of emphasis on construction of new streets and arterials and changing of residential to major arterials rather than maintenance or maintaining certain standards. MOTION CARRIED. (See attached street plan) ADJOURNMENT MOVED BY CLYMER, SECOND, STREDICKE, COUNCIL MEETING ADJOURN. CARRIED. 10:00 P.M. o(-11-61a- Q. Delores A'. Mead, City Clerk JUN-16-77 a .) 5- 7706160838 3.00 I 5ir‘ci \\le C WOW' -(31orM7 11 z • t • 7i, JUN-16-7'1 o 0 5 9 7 7 3 h., • 0 1. RENTON CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting June 6 , 1977 Municipal Building Monday , 8 : 00 P . M . Council Chambers MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Mayor C. J. Delaurenti led the Pledge of Allegiance and called the regular meeting of the Renton City Council to order. ROLL CALL OF GEORGE PERRY, Council President; PATRICIA M. SEYMOUR-THORPE: RICHARD COUNCIL M. STREDICKE, BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH, KENNETH D. BRUCE AND EARL CLYMER. MOVED BY CLYMER, SECONDED BY BRUCE, ABSENT COUNCILMAN WILLIAM J. GRANT. Councilman Stredicke requested his NO vote be recorded. MOTION CARRIED. CITY OFFICIALS CHARLES J. DELAURENTI , Mayor; LARRY WARREN, Assistant City Attorney; TED BENNETT, Deputy Finance Director; DEL MEAD, City Clerk; DICK GEISSLER, Acting Fire Chief; GORDON ERICKSEN, Planning Director; WARREN GONNASON, Public Works Director; DONALD CUSTER, Administrative Assistant; HUGH DARBY, Police Chief. PRESS MARK PELLEGRINO, Renton Tribune; DON SMITH, Renton Record Chronicle, MINUTE APPROVAL Councilman Stredicke requested correction to 5/23/77 Minutes, Page 4, last paragraph - Refer Comprehensive Plan for Northeast Section of the City to the"Planning Commission. " MOVED BY PERRY, SECONDED BY CLYMER, COUNCIL ADOPT MINUTES OF MAY 23, 1977 AS CORRECTED. CARRIED. PUBLIC HEARING This being the date set and proper notices having been posted, pub- Street Vacation lished and mailed, Mayor Delaurenti opened the public hearing con- Mt. Olivet Way cerning the vacation of Mt. Olivet Way located at access to the Mt. Located Olivet Cemetery, public hearing having been continued from 3/28/77 Mt. Olivet and 5/2/77, Letter from Law Offices of Kinzel , Acheson & Marshall Cemetery Inc, PS, Bellevue, advised that the road is used extensively by Metro Sand and Gravel and Rainier Sand and Gravel , recommending against the sale of said road to the cemetery unless of agreement to keep open. Public Works Director Gonnason noted Blaine Ave. N.E, used by the gravel companies in that area, which is not considered for vacation. Public Works Director Gonnason explained letter sent to Mr. Jim Colt of Mt. Olivet Cemetery Co„ requested by Council 5/2/77 for review of access prior to vacation, noting continuation of the hearing for that purpose. June Evans, 817 N. 1st, presented King County Assessor's map and legal description, objecting that Public Works Department map and legal description did not match, asking correction. Gonnason explained area to be vacated: All that portion of Mt. Olivet Way, having width of 60 feet, lying easterly of' the easterly right-of-way of Blaine Ave N. E, (Stoneway Gravel Pit Road) extended; further explain- ing other dimensions, E.B, Roy Brady, 142 Blaine Ave. N,E. , explained his property located adjacent to cemetery, noting he would gain proper- ty in proposed vacation. Councilman Stredicke objected that plan for access had not been presented by petitioning party. MOVED BY STREDICKE, Vacation Denied SECONDED BY THORPE, COUNCIL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. CARRIED. MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECONDED BY CLYMER, REQUEST FOR STREET VACATION BE DENIED. CARRIED. PUBLIC HEARING This being the date set and proper notices having been posted, pub- Dalpay Annexation lished and mailed according to law, Mayor Delaurenti opened the public hearing to consider the 75% petition for annexation of property located south of N. E. Sunset Blvd, , west of Union N.E. and North of N.E. 12th Street, known as the Dalpay Annexation. Letter from City Clerk Mead noted petition for annexation contained signatures representing 100% of the assessed valuation (at least 75% required by law) ; that peti- tion was certified valid by the Planning Department and property owners had agreed to accept the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, zoning and assume any pre-existing bonded indebtedness of the City at the preliminary meeting 4/18/77. The letter explained the City's responsibility to determine whether to accept the annexation as petitioned and, if accepted, the Planning Department should be authorized to prepare a Notice of Intention to be filed with the King County Boundary Review Board as required by law. Councilman Perry received affirmative answer from James Dalpay upon inquiry that petitioners still accepted Comprehensive Plan, zoning and bonded indebtedness (if any Council- woman Thorpe made inquiries and was advised by Mr. Dalpay that the 1\ gi,e4 '. ' 141A01.06dwiew Renton City Coun it Y • 6/6/77 Page 2 Public Hearing - Continued Dalpay purpose of the annexation was development of property to the west of Annexation his office for apartments and plans to utilize city utilities. 6.7 acres) Councilwoman Thorpe requested the record reflect Public Works Direc- tor's reply to her inquiry re capacity of present sewer system, being advised by Gonnason this area served by Sunset lift station which is operating near capacity, that no substantial additions should be made until relief found, that federal funding is pending for May Creek, Honeydew trunk, completion would be within two years. Nick Petruska, 1174 Shelton Ave NE, opposed entrance to proposed development onto N. E. 12th St. , however, did not oppose the annexation, James Volk, 13102 S.E. 112th St. , opposed annexation, denying his signature on petition. Upon Council inquiry, Asst. ' City Attorney Warren explained Mr. Volk has withdrawn his signature and Council may proceed, ,having no connection with any lawsuit between Mr. Volk and any other parties; noting need to determine percentage of valuation represented on annexa- tion petition upon removal of name. Upon further inquiry, Planning Director Ericksen explained three parties involved in annexation, all three having signed petition constituting the 100% representation. MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECONDED BY SHINPOCH, COUNCIL RECESS FOR FIVE MINUTES. CARRIED. Council recessed at 8:50 p.m. ; upon reconvening Roll was called and all Council Members were present as previously shown. Planning Director Ericksen reported Volk property represents 54. 28% of assessed valuation and withdrawal of signature invalidates petition, 75% needed. Ericksen used wall map to point out properties , noting County island would be created by elimination of Volk property and expressed doubt as to acceptance of amended annexation by Boundary Review Bd. James Dalpay noted acceptance of Hazen area annexation with island. Councilwoman Thorpe objected to the small area of annexation being advised by Planning Director Ericksen that petitioners had been encouraged to seek annexation of larger area, but that the staff can- not refuse a valid petition. MOVED BY PERRY, SECONDED BY BRUCE, COUN- CIL CLOSE THE HEARING. CARRIED. MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECONDED BY SHINPOCH, COUNCIL MODIFY ANNEXATION PETION BY DELETING JAMES J. VOLK PROPERTY, 13102 S.E. 112th. ROLL CALL: 5-AYES: PERRY, STREDICKE, Annexation SHINPOCH, BRUCE, CLYMER. ONE NO: THORPE. MOTION CARRIED, MOVED BY Amended and STREDICKE, SECONDED BY SHINPOCH COUNCIL ACCEPT AMENDED ANNEXATION PETI- Accepted TION AND REFER TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO FORWARD TO THE BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD. MOTION CARRIED. CONSENT AGENDA The following Consent Agenda items, previously distributed to all Council members , are considered routine and are enacted by one motion unless removed by Council action -for separate discussion, Approving motion follows Consent Agenda items. Boundary Review Notice from King County Boundary Review Board presented information Board • of proposed annexation to King County Water District #90 (Colasurdo) . Refer to Board of Public Works. LEAA Grant Program Letter from Finance Director Marshall requested resolution changingTransferexpenditurecategoriesrevisingdistributionofgrantandcitymatch- ing funds appropriated by Ordinance No. 3116., $16,596 plus city matching money $874. The letter explained the LEAA Grant #76-C-0199, Juvenile Recidivism Reduction Program and Renton Area Youth Services transfers, enclosed proposed agreement and resolution, requesting auth- orization for the Mayor and City Clerk to execute agreement between RAYS and the city, also requesting referral to the Ways and Means Committee. Transfer Ways & Means Committee. Parkwood Homes Hearing Examiner, Rick Beeler, submitted final plat files No, FP-040-77 Final Plat Parkwood Homes, Inc. , vicinity of Rolling Hills. Refer to Ways and Means Committee for resolution pending signing of restrictive covenants. Rezone Land Use Hearing Examiner R. Beeler, submitted rezone files of Stanley Stanley D. Wolf D. Wolf R-015-77, R-2 to R-3 vicinity 1500 Index Ave. N.E. Hearing Examiner recommend approval with restrictive covenants. Refer to Ways and Means Committee. Appointments Letter from Mayor Delaurenti advised of the formation of the Mayor's Energy Conservation Committee chaired by Del Bennett, Deputy Public i pF R, d s,;,..:.rUt .. THE CITY OF RENTON Z 3ntlata7cz4 MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, WASH. 98055 S o. CHARLES J. DELAURENTI • MAYOR • LAND. USE HEARING EXAMINER Ap c• .. L. RICK BEELER . 235—2593 4544D SEP1C° May 24, 1977 Members, Renton City Council RE: File No. R-015-77 Renton, Washington Dear Council Members: The appeal period for the attached rezone request expired on May 23, 1977, and we are transmitting copies of the Examiner's decision for your review prior to adoption of an ordinance. We request that you include the attached with your Council material for . the Council meeting of June 6, 1977. If you desire additional information regarding the subject application, please contact the office of the Hearing Examiner. Sincerely,: L. Rick Beeler Hearing Examiner LRB:mp Attachments C. pF R4 A 1 „ o THE CITY OF RENTON el Z MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, WASH. 98055 11211.o- P CHARLES J. DELAURENTI MAYOR ® LAND .USE HEARING EXAMINER co- 4 q. L. RICK BEELER . 235-2593 oTED SE PIVv May 24, 1977 Members, Renton City Council RE: File No. R-015-77 Renton, Washington Dear Council Members: The appeal period for the attached rezone request expired on May 23, 1977, and we are transmitting copies of the Examiner's decision for your review prior to adoption of an ordinance. We request that you include the attached with your Council material for the Council meeting of June 6, 1977. If you desire additional information regarding the subject application, please contact the office of the Hearing Examiner. Sin erely. L. Rick Beeler Hearing Examiner LRB:mp Attachments c) Provision of additional landscaping adjacent to the buildings and throughout the site. DURATION These covenants shall run with the land and expire on D e;-•e, ' e7- 31 , 2025 . OD Any violation or breach of these restrictive covenants may he enforced by proper legal procedures in the Superior Court of King CD County by either the City of Renton or any property owners adjoining subject property who are adversely affected by said breach. r— t - Stanley D. Wolf Beth Wolf STATE OF WASHINGTON) COUNTY -OF KING On this day of 1977 , before me personally appeared Stanley D. Wolf and Beth Wolf , the persons who executed the within and foregoing instrument, and acknowledged said instrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said persons for the uses and purposes therein mentioned . IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year first above written . Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, residing at 0 2- DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS WHEREAS , Stanley D. Wolf and Beth Wolf , his wife , are the owners of' the following real property in the City of Renton, County of King, State of Washington, described as follows : Lot 34 , Block 46 , corrected plat of Renton Highlands al No. 2 , an addition to the City of Renton , according C) fl to plat recorded in Volume 57 of plats , pages 92 to CD 98 inclusively, in King County, Washington. CD ti WHEREAS, the owners of said described property desire 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 use by the undersigned, their successors , heirs and assigns , as follows : EXISTING STRUCTURE No building permit shall be issued for any new construction ' on the subject siteunless the existing duplex is removed from the site or remodeled to existing City of Renton building code requirements and designed to be compatible with any construction on the site. Exterior design shall be approved .by the Renton Planning Department. LANDSCAPING/SCREENING . A detailed landscape/screening plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Renton Planning Department at the time of application for a building permit for any new construction or remodeling. Such landscape plan shall include , but not be limited to : a) Provision of an architectural-type screening fence together with a minimum five foot landscape strip along the south and north property lines . b) Provision of an architectural fence together with a minimum ten foot landscape strip along the east property line. c) Provision of additional landscaping adjacent to the buildings and 'throughout the site. DURATION These covenants shall run with the land and expire on December 31, 2025 . 00 Any violation or breach of these restrictive covenants may be CD enforced by proper legal procedures in the Superior Court of King County by either the City -of Renton or any property owners adjoining subject property...who. .ar.e. adversely affected by said breach.CD r Stanley D. Wolf/ Beth Wolf STATE OF WASHINGTON) COUNTY OF KING On this x?" - day of z + 1977 , before me personally appeared Stanley D. Wolf and Beth Wolf, the persons who executed the within and foregoing instrument, and acknowledged said instrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said persons for the uses and purposes therein mentioned. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year first above written. Notary Public in and for the State of W--ashington, residing at ,v 2- vN j(\ DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS WHEREAS, Stanley D. Wolf and Beth Wolf, his wife, are the owners of , the following real property in the City of Renton, County of King, State of Washington, described as follows: Lot 34 , Block 46 , corrected plat of Renton Highlands No. 2 , an addition to the City of Renton, according to plat recorded in Volume 57 of plats, pages 92 to 98 inclusively, in King County, Washington. WHEREAS, the owners of said described property desire 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 use by the undersigned, their successors, heirs and assigns , as follows: EXISTING STRUCTURE No building permit shall be issued for any new construction on the subject site unless the existing duplex is removed from 'the site or remodeled to existing City of Renton building code requirements and designed to be compatible . with any construction on the site. Exterior design shall be approved by the Renton Planning Department. LANDSCAPING/SCREENING A detailed landscape/screening plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Renton Planning Department at the time of application for a building permit for any new construction or remodeling. Such landscape plan shall include, but not be limited to: a) Provision of an architectural-type screening fence together with a minimum five foot landscape strip along the south and north property lines. b) Provision of an architectural fence together with a minimum ten foot landscape strip along the east property line. c) Provision of additional landscaping adjacent to the buildings and throughout the site. DURATION These covenants shall run with the land and expire on December 31, 2025. 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 adjoining subject property who are adversely affected by said breach. f i,/ Stanley D. Wo.Gy Beth Wolf STATE OF WASHINGTON) COUNTY OF KING On this P)111day of ``( z+ 1977 , before me personally appeared Stanley D. Wolf and Beth Wolf , the persons who executed the within and foregoing instrument, and acknowledged said instrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said persons for the uses and purposes therein mentioned. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year first above written. Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, residing at r 1 2- DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS WHEREAS , Stanley D. Wolf and Beth Wolf , his wife, are the owners of ,the following real property in the City of Renton, County of .King, State of Washington, described as follows : Lot 34 , Block 46 , corrected plat of Renton Highlands No. 2 , an addition to the City of Renton, according to plat recorded in Volume 57 of plats, pages 92 to 98 inclusively , in King County, Washington. WHEREAS , the owners of said described property desire 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 use by the undersigned, their successors , heirs and assigns , as follows : EXISTING STRUCTURE No building permit shall be issued for any new construction on the subject site unless the existing duplex is removed from the site or remodeled to existing City of Renton building code .requirements and designed to be compatible with any construction on the site. Exterior design' shall be approved by the Renton Planning Department. LANDSCAPING/SCREENING A detailed landscape/screening plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Renton Planning Department at the time 'of application for a building permit for any new construction or remodeling. Such landscape plan shall include , but not be limited to: a) Provision of 'an° architectural-type screening fence together with a minimum five foot landscape strip along- the south- and north property lines . b) provision -of an -architectural fence together with a Minimum ten foot landscape strip along the east Property line. c) Provision of additional landscaping adjacent to the buildings and throughout the site. DURATION These; covenants shall run with the land and expire on December 31, 2025 . 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 adjoining subject property who are adversely affected by said breach. Stanley D. Wolf, I Beth Wolf STATE OF WASHINGTON) COUNTY OF 'RING On this ..,'" day of t'ta 1977 , before me personally appeared Stanley D. Wolf and Beth Wolf , the persons who executed the within and foregoing instrument, and acknowledged said instrument to be theifree and voluntary act and deed of said persons for the uses and purposes therein mentioned. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year first above written. 1`. c Notary Public in 'and for the State of Washington, residing at 2- DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS WHEREAS , Stanley D. Wolf and Beth Wolf, his wife, are the owners of the following real property in the City of Renton, County of King, State of Washington, described as follows : Lot 34 , Block 46 , corrected plat of Renton Highlands No. 2 , an addition to the City of Renton, according to plat recorded in Volume 57 of plats , pages 92 to 98 inclusively, in King County, Washington. WHEREAS , the owners of said described property desire 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 use by the undersigned, their successors , heirs and assigns , as follows : EXISTING STRUCTURE No building permit shall be issued for any new construction on the subject site unless the existing duplex is removed from the site or remodeled to existing City of Renton building code requirements and designed to be compatible with any construction on the site. Exterior design shall be approved by the Renton Planning Department. LANDSCAPING/SCREENING A detailed landscape/screening plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Renton Planning Department at the time of application for a building permit for any new construction or, remodeling. Such landscape plan shall include , but not be. limited to : a) Provision of an architectural-type screening fence together with a minimum five foot landscape strip along the south and north property lines . b) Provision of an architectural fence together with a minimum ten foot landscape strip along the east property line. r c) .Provision of additional landscaping adjacent to the buildings and throughout the site. DURATION These covenants shall run with the land and expire on December 31, 2025. 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 adjoining subject property who are adversely affected by said breach. Stanley D. Wo'f 7 eViZ/ Beth Wolf STATE OF WASHINGTON) COUNTY OF KING On this 0 day of K.?," 1977 , before me personally appeared Stanley D. Wolf and Beth Wolf , the persons who executed the within and foregoing instrument, and acknowledged said instrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said persons for the uses and purposes therein mentioned. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year first above written. Notary Public in and for the State oflWashington, residing at K g 11 c 1 I . 1 ! I I \1 . 2- DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS WHEREAS, Stanley D. Wolf and Beth Wolf, his wife, are the owners of ,the following real property in the City of Renton, County of King, State of Washington, described as follows : Lot 34 , Block 46 , corrected plat of Renton Highlands No. 2 , an addition to the City of Renton, according to plat recorded in Volume 57 of plats, pages 92 to 98 inclusively, in King County, Washington. WHEREAS, the owners of said described property desire 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 use by the undersigned, their successors, heirs and assigns , as follows: EXISTING STRUCTURE No building permit shall be issued for any new construction on the subject site unless the existing duplex is removed from the site or remodeled to existing City of Renton building code requirements and designed to be compatible with any construction on the site. Exterior design shall be approved by the Renton Planning Department. LANDSCAPING/SCREENING A detailed landscape/screening plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Renton Planning Department at the time of application for a building permit for any new construction or remodeling. Such landscape plan shall include, but not be limited to: a) ,Provision of an architectural-type screening fence together with a minimum five foot landscape strip along the south and north property lines. b) Provision of an architectural fence together with a minimum ten foot landscape strip along the east property line. 4 c) Provision of additional landscaping adjacent to the buildings and throughout the site. DURATION These covenants shall run with the land and expire on December 31, 2025. 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 adjoining subject property who are adversely affected by said breach. 1-&) /iZr'Stanley D. W4)f Beth Wolf STATE OF WASHINGTON) COUNTY OF KING On this .' day of Ft.?1 1977 , before me personally appeared 'Stanley D. Wolf and Beth Wolf, the persons who executed the within and foregoing instrument, and acknowledged said instrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said persons for the uses and :purposes therein mentioned. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year first above written. 41\k ln - Notary' Public in and for the State of Washington, residing at Ki 1 11 III \• 2- pF R,( o THE CITY OF RENTON t% MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, WASH. 98055 8 op CHARLES J. DELAURENTI ,,MAYOR a LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER co- L. RICK BEELER . 235 -2593o TFa SEPj e May 9, 1977 . Mr. Stanley D. Wolf RE: File No. R-015-77 3900 N.E. llth Street Renton', WA 98055 Dear Mr. Wolf: Enclosed is the Examiner' s response to your request for reconsideration on Application No. R-015-77 . We are transmitting the following information to you at this time t;o clarify our procedures and answer any questions you may have regarding possible future action. According to Ordinance No. 3071, Land Use Hearing Examiner Ordinance, any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the, Examiner is based on erroneous procedures, errors of law or fact, error in judgment, or the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available, at the prior hearing may make a written request for appeal to the Renton City Council within fourteen (14) days from, the date of the Examiner' s denial of reconsideration hearing and must be accompanied by a fee of $25. 00. Sincerely, L. Rick Beeler Hearing Examiner LRB:mp Enclosure a, '4;, „-,.. o THE CITY OF RENTON V s`• Z sacs..; MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, WASH. 98055 o . L CHARLES J. DELAURENTI , MAYOR • LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER co-4 t, JAMES L. MAGSTADT , 2 35 - 2 593 FD SEPTA May 6 , 1977 Stanley D. Wolf RE: File No. R-015-77 3900 N.E. llth Street Reconsideration Renton, WA '98055 Dear Mr. Wolf: In response to your letter requesting reconsideration, I contacted the Building Department and asked them to inspect the building in detail and report to me the changes or modifications that would be made if the existing duplex met the Housing Code rather than the Building Code. Mr. Ron Nelson, chief building official, checked the duplex and noted that he could see very little that would need to be done to allow the structure to meet the minimum Housing Code, and without a detailed inspection of the interior, he felt that the existing duplex basically met the minimum Housing Code. I reviewed Mr. Nelson' s input and also the previous cases that were heard by the Planning Commission in regards to rezones of property that contained existing duplex units. After reviewing these applications, reviewing my original staff report , considering the content of your letter , and reviewing the report by the Building Department, it is still my contention that my original recommendation is valid and should remain. It certainly is possible and has been proven in several cases that the existing Highland duplexes can be remodeled and improved into attractive structures. However , in the cases I 'm aware of, the remodeling has been extensive and has basically brought the units up to the existing Building Code. My original recommendation removes the density restriction imposed by the Planning Department and allows you to build to a maximum density allowed by code. It is also your prerogative to remodel the existing structure to improve the interior and exterior so as to harmonize with the existing new structure. The alternative of removing the structure is your choice and should remain so. It is my feeling and opinion that this type of action be perpetuated throughout the Highlands area. . The transformation can be rewarding to the property owners and can convert an older residential area into an attractive medium density multiple family area: Sin -rel Of J. es L. D:. gstadt earing P aininer JLM:mp Stanley D. Wolf Page Two May 6 , 1977 ' cc: Parties of Record Mayor Delaurenti Members, Renton City Council G. M. Shellan, City Attorney GordonY. Ericksen, Planning Director OY flj.. o THE CITY OF RENTON 4 b 7 MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON. WASH. 98055 0 emus A CHARLES J. DELAURENTI , MAYOR • LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER O, 44Q' JAMES 1. MAGSTADT , 235 - 2 593 44D SEP1C_0 May 6 , 1977 Stanley D. Wolf RE: File No. R-015-77 3900 N.E. llth Street Reconsideration Renton, WA 98055 Dear Mr. Wolf: In response to your letter requesting reconsideration, I contacted the Building Department and asked them to inspect the building in detail and report to me the changes or modifications that would be made if the existing duplex met the Housing Code rather than the Building Code. Mr. Ron Nelson, chief building official , checked the duplex and noted that he could see very little that would need to be done to allow the structure to meet the minimum Housing Code, and without a detailed inspection of the interior, he : felt' that the existing duplex basically met the minimum Housing Code. I reviewed Mr. Nelson' s input and .also the previous cases that were heard by the Planning Commission in regards to rezones of property that contained existing duplex units. After reviewing these applications,- reviewing my original staff report , considering the content of your letter , and reviewing the report by the Building Department , it is still my contention that my original recommendation is valid and should remain. It certainly is possible and has been proven in several cases that the existing Highland .duplexes can be remodeled and improved into attractive structures. However , in the cases I 'm aware of , the remodeling has been extensive and has basically brought the units up to the existing Building Code. My original recommendation removes the density restriction imposed by the Planning Department and allows you to build to .a maximum density allowed by code. It is also your prerogative to remodel. the existing structure to improve the interior and exterior so as to harmonize with the existing' new structure. The alternative of removing the structure is your choice and Should remain so. It is my feeling and opinion that this type of action be perpetuated throughout the Highlands area. The transformation can be rewarding to the property owners and can , convert an older residential area into an attractive medium density multiple family area. Sin -rel Of J. es L. ^/g,stadt earing •l am'iner JLM:mp Stanley D. Wolf Page Two May 6 , 1977, cc: Parties of Record Mayor ,Delaurenti Members, Renton City Council G. M. Shellan, City Attorney Gordon Y. Ericksen, Planning Director 4oc f v es, THE CITY OF RENTON MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, WASH. 98055 A I. t'tµ ' o o fii `%CHARLES J. DELAURENTI , MAYOR • LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER co- 0gglf 4®(4, JAMES L. MAGSTADT , 2 35 - 2 593 OSEPI May 6 , 1977 Stanley D. Wolf RE: File No. R-015-77 3900 N.E. llth Street Reconsideration Renton, WA 98055 Dear Mr. Wolf: In response -to your letter requesting reconsideration, I contacted the Building Department and asked them to inspect the building in detail and report to me the changes or modifications that would be made if the existing duplex met the Housing Code rather than the Building Code. Mr. Ron Nelson, chief building official, checked the duplex and noted that he could see very little that would need to be done to allow the structure to meet the minimum Housing Code, and without a detailed inspection of the interior, he felt that the existing duplex basically met the minimum Housing Code. I reviewed Mr. Nelson' s input and also the previous cases that were heard by the Planning Commission in regards to rezones of property that contained existing duplex units. After reviewing these applications, reviewing my original staff report , considering the content of, your letter , and reviewing the report by the Building Department, it is still my ' contention that my original recommendation is valid and should remain. It certainly is possible and has been proven in several cases that the existing Highland duplexes can be remodeled and improved into attractive structures . However, in the cases I 'm aware of, the remodeling has been extensive and has basically brought the units up to the existing Building Code. My original recommendation removes the density restriction imposed by the Planning Department and allows you to build to a maximum density allowed by code. It is also your prerogative to remodel the existing structure to improve the interior and exterior so as to harmonize with the existing new structure. The alternative of removing the structure is your choice and should remain so. It is my feeling and opinion that this type of action be perpetuated throughout the Highlands area. The transformation can be rewarding to the property owners and can convert an older residential area into an attractive medium density multiple family area. Sin rel J es L. D. gstadt oaring aminer JLM:mp Stanley D. Wolf Page Two May 6 , 1977 cc: Parties of Record Mayor Delaurenti Members , Renton City Council G. M. Shellan, City Attorney Gordon' Y. Ericksen, Planning Director r.,,,._.....,...,.,..v..n..a.u..un..4,.l s.t &SVa.Ag...l..;a .,.:..r...ural,.v`i'a..p u;,. nla....a.'.+ae a,LL.fl.:rWMa'a:..'.jabm..\..ata'aa:,L O.3fli.. '..a..r..h."'u3a..'+I wLu£a aa.Wa:..:C,n::.n.;n.y...: ..,.u...<.:• RECEIVED CITY (j F'! 7N CIF "fnv(. , i977 Stanley D. Wolf LM PM 3900 N.E. llth Street 7'h1.311(hll,L?, 1 "213,41:"),6 Renton, Washington 98055 March 28, 1977 James L. . Magstadt Hearing Examiner Renton City Hall .. Renton, Washington 98055 Dear Sir: Re: Stanley D. Wolf, File No. R-015-77 I received your revised report by mail on March 25, 1977 and ,am pleased that you are recommending rezone from R-2 to R-3. I am, however, request- ing that you reconsider your requirement for the restrictive covenant regarding remodeling the existing structure to the Building Code. . Your desire is the same as mine - to rehabilitate this area of the High- lands, thus creating higher land values 'leading to further improvement of this area. The construction of the proposed four-plex will certainly be a start in this direction. I also will make modifications to the exist- ing duplex to make it blend with the new structure and plan to bring this building up. to the Renton Housing Code, as defined by the Building Depart- ment. My specific request is that you reconsider the requirement to remodel the existing duplex to existing City of Renton Building Code and, change it to read Housing Code. • By meeting the Housing Code, the duplex will be brought up to health and safety standards and, as previously stated, I Will modify the 'duplex to be attractive and blend with the new structure. The current building is structurally sound, has an excellent roof, ,two large aluminum windows, solid flooring, and sits on concrete footings. To remodel the duplex ,to 'existing Building Code would require basic structural replacements including a new foundation, .new plumbing, new wiring and re- placing 2" x 2" studded interior walls. Because of these extensive struc- tural changes, I virtually have no option but to remove the duplex. Since the current value of this duplex is in excess of $20;000, I cannot justify its removal . It now provides .good desirable family housing and is easy to rent at $150 per month per unit. Therefore, if. the building code requirement is not replaced with the housing code, I cannot improve the property with a complex of a new four-plex and' an upgraded duplex, as planned. Your reconsideration of this matter is both requested and appreciated. Sincerely, i L• jC ; Stanley D. of f RECEIVED CITY OF i,F''NTON HEARING F. =..1.rJi H 2 i977 Stanley D. Wolf AM PM 3900 N.E. 11th Street 71h19110,1111?11121 314 Renton, Washington 98055 A March 28, 1977 James L. Magstadt Hearing Examiner Renton City Hall Renton, Washington 98055 Dear Sir: Re: Stanley D. Wolf, File No. R-015-77 I received your revised report by mail on March 25, 1977 and am pleased that you are recommending rezone from R-2 to R-3. I am, however, request- ing that you reconsider your requirement for the restrictive covenant regarding remodeling the existing structure to the Building Code. Your desire is the same as mine - to rehabilitate this area of the High- lands, thus creating higher land. values leading to further improvement of this area. The construction of the proposed four-plex will certainly be a start in this direction. I also will make modifications to the exist- ing duplex to make it blend with the new structure and plan to bring this building up to the Renton Housing Code, as defined by the Building Depart- ment. My specific request is that you reconsider the requirement to remodel the existing duplex to existing City of Renton Building Code and change it to read Housing Code. By meeting the Housing Code, the duplex will be brought up to health and safety standards and, as previously stated, I will modify the duplex to be attractive and blend with the new structure. The current building is structurally sound, has an excellent roof, two large aluminum windows, solid flooring and sits on concrete footings. To remodel the duplex to existing Building Code would require basic structural replacements including a new foundation, new plumbing, new wiring and re- placing 2" x 2" studded interior walls. Because of these extensive struc- tural changes, I virtually have no option but to remove the duplex. Since the current value of this duplex is in excess of $20,000, I cannot justify its removal . It now provides good desirable family housing and is easy to rent at $150 per month per unit. Therefore, if the building code requirement is not replaced with the housing code, I cannot improve the property with a complex of a new four-plex and an upgraded duplex, as planned. Your reconsideration of this matter is both requested and appreciated. Sincerely, l! Stanley D. " if RECEIVED CITY OF flENTON HEARING E."As,.1trJE 2;:. 1977 Stanley D. Wolf AM PM 3900 N.E. llth Street 718,91IO,11hI21I ,213,415i6 Renton, Washington 98055 A March 28, 1977 James L. Magstadt Hearing Examiner Renton City Hall Renton, Washington 98055 Dear Sir: Re: Stanley D. Wolf, File No. R-015-77 I received your revised report by mail on March 25, 1977 and am pleased that you are recommending rezone from R-2 to R-3. I am, however, request- ing that you reconsider your requirement for the restrictive covenant regarding remodeling the existing structure to the Building Code. Your desire is the same as mine - to rehabilitate, this area of the High- lands, thus creating higher land values leading to further improvement of this area. The construction of the proposed four-plex will certainly be a start in this direction. I also will make modifications to the exist- ing duplex to make it blend with the new structure and plan to bring this building up to the Renton Housing Code, as defined by the Building Depart- ment. My specific request is that you reconsider the requirement to remodel the existing duplex to existing City of Renton Building Code and change it to. read Housing Code. By meeting the Housing Code, the duplex will be brought up to health and safety standards and, as previously stated, I will modify the duplex to be attractive and blend with the new structure. The current building is structurally sound, has an excellent roof, two large aluminum windows, solid flooring and sits on concrete footings. To remodel the duplex to existing Building Code would require basic structural replacements including a new foundation, new plumbing, new wiring and re- placing 2". x 2" studded interior walls. Because of these extensive struc- tural changes, I virtually have no option but to remove the duplex. Since the current value of this duplex is in excess of $20,000, I cannot justify its removal . It now provides good desirable family housing and is easy to rent at $150 per month per unit. Therefore, if the building code requirement is not replaced with the housing code, I cannot improve the property with a complex of a new four-plex and an upgraded duplex, as planned. Your reconsideration of this matter is both requested and appreciated. Sincerely, Stanley D. olf RECEIVED CITY. OF RENTON • r HEARING EXAMINER • MAR'2 81977 Stanley D. Wolf . AM PM . 3900 N.E. 11 th Street 7,8,Jil01lli12il:i2i314.516 Renton, Washington 98055 • March 28, 1977 James L. Magstadt Hearing Examiner Renton City Hall _ Renton, Washington 98055 Dear Sir:, Re: Stanley D. Wolf, File No. 1i!-015-77 I -received your revised report by mail on March 25, 1977 and am pleased that you ,are recommending rezone from R-2 to R-3. . I am, however, request- ing that you reconsider 'your requirement for the restrictive covenant regarding•remodeling the existing structure to the Building Code. Your desire is the same as mine - to rehabilitate this area of the•High- lands, thus creating higher land values leading to further improvement of this area. The construction of the proposed four-plex will certainly be a start in this direction. I also will make modifications to the exist- ing. duplex to make it blend with the new structure and plan to bring this building up to the Renton Housing Code, as defined by the Building Depart- ment. My specific request is that you reconsider the requirement to remodel the existing duplex to existing City of Renton Building Code and change it to read Housing Code. - By meeting the Housing Code, the duplex-will be brought up to health and safety standards and, as previously stated, I- . will modify the duplex to be attracti've.and blend with' the new structure. . The current building is structurally sound, has an. excellent roof, ' two . large aluminum windows, solid flooring and sits on concrete footings. To' remodel the duplex to existing Building Code would require basic structural replacements including a new foundation, new plumbing, new wiring and re- placing 2" x 2" studded interior walls. Because of these extensive struc tural changes, .I virtually have no option but to remove the duplex. Since the current value of this duplex is in excess of $20,000, I cannot justify its removal . It now provides good desirable family housing and is .easy to rent at $150 per month per unit. Therefore, if the building code requirement 'is not replaced with the housing code, • I cannot improve the property with a complex of' a new four-plex and an upgraded duplex,. as planned. Your reconsideration of this matter is both requested and appreciated. Sincerely, y -L, /1..--_Ki/e/ ';';e' Stanley' D. of f REVISION Revisions denoted by * March 21, 1977 OFFICE OF THE LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE RENTON CITY COUNCIL. APPLICANT: Stanley D. Wolf FILE NO. R-015-77 LOCATION:Vicinity of 1500 Index Ave . N.E. SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Applicant requests rezone from R-2 to R-3 to allow construction of a four-plex on a 13, 00.0+ square foot lot with an existing duplex residential unit. SUMMARY OF Planning Department: Recommend approval subject RECOMMENDATION:to filing of restrictive covenants . Hearing Examiner: *Recommend approval subject to Planning Department conditions excluding density, or removal of the existing duplex. PLANNING DEPARTMENT The Planning Department staff report was received REPORT: 'by the Examiner on March 1 , 1977. PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the Planning Department report, examining available information on file with the application, and field checking the property and surrounding area, the Examiner conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows: The hearing was opened on March 8, 1977 , at 10: 45 a.m. in the Council Chambers of the Renton Municipal Building. Parties wishing 'to. testify were sworn. It was reported that the Hearing Examiner and the applicant had received and reviewed the Planning Department report, and the report was entered into the record as Exhibit #1. Michael Smith, Planning Department, reviewed Exhibit #1 , and entered the following additional exhibits into the record. Exhibit #2: Site Plan, attached to Exhibit #1 . Exhibit #3: Proposed Site and Landscape Plan. The Examiner made a correction to Exhibit #1, Item 0. 4 . , and reported that apartments are no longer allowed in an R-2 zone, with requirements allowing only townhouses and duplexes. The Examiner entered the following exhibits , which were read into the record: Exhibit #4 : Letter from Public Works Department, received February 15, 1977. Exhibit #5: Letter from Fire Department, dated February 17, 1977. Exhibit #6 : Letter from Building Division , dated February 16 , 1977. R-015-77 Page Two The Examiner asked for comments from the applicant on the proposed request. Responding was: Stanley D. Wolf 3900 N.E. llth Street Renton, WA 98055 The applicant entered Exhibit #7 , Elevation Plan for proposed structure. Mr. Wolf also submitted a typed report to the Examiner which contained his comments regarding Exhibit #1. The applicant read his report into the record. Comments included objections to restrictive covenants related to site density, parking requirements , setback requirements , landscape/screening, and compatibility of design and architecture of proposed structure with existing structures . In response to the applicant' s comments regarding Exhibit #1 , Mr. Smith reported that the building design of the structure would be compatible with the character of the area; however, his department was concerned with potential rezone aspects of the request. The Examiner requested additional testimony in favor or opposition to the request. There was no response. The Examiner inquired of the staff if stipulations contained in the letter from the Public Works Department, Exhibit #4 , concerning percolation data based upon a ten year storm plan were a standard requirement. Mr. Smith reported that it was standard, but would clarify with the Public Works Department whether the requirement was a policy statement or an ordinance requirement. The Examiner asked the applicant if he could meet this requirement. Mr. Wolf indicated that no storm sewers exist in the area, and he would ask for a deferral on this matter to install a temporary holding device until such time as the city installed new storm sewers in the area. The Examiner indicated to the applicant that he had visited and reviewed the site several times , and noted that there were several problems with the application due to the background history of the area. He reported that the Planning Commission had previously changed the zoning designation from R-2 to R-3 to increase opportunity of rehabilitating the area through elimination of duplexes built in 1942 . He indicated that after this action was taken, several requests for R-3 zoning were approved with the stipulation that the existing duplex would be removed in conformance with the intent of the change in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. The Examiner indicated that part of his consideration for approval of the request would include the possibility of upgrading the area, with two alternatives being removal of existing duplex on the subject property or rehabilitating existing structure to city code standards . He indicated, that allowing a new four-plex to be built with minor modifications made to the former dwelling would not basically change the character of the area. Mr. Wolf reported that he was unaware of the stipulation of the Planning Commission to remove the existing duplex, and that he would not have undertaken the project if this information had been received. He indicated that upgrading the existing duplex would create a financial hardship and improvements would include replumbing with larger pipes , providing adequate venting, rewiring, and installing solid doors and felt that these improvements would not substantially change the character of the building. His original intent was to maintain the unit in its present state. The Examiner noted that the restrictive covenants were imposed by the Planning Department to guarantee that older duplexes would be brought up to city standards and. new structures would improve the R-3 zone, and part of the restrictive covenants included setbacks and parking requirements . He indicated that his main concern in granting the rezone from R-2 to R-3 was to assure that the area would be upgraded and brought up to city standards . 1 R-015-77 Page Four 3 . There is a single family residence located to the south of the subject property, which is a converted Highland duplex. 4 . Properties to the west and north are older duplexes in various states of repair. 5. The water and sewer facilities are available; however, there are no storm sewers in the immediate vicinity of the subject site. 6 . The request applies to the following sections of the Comprehensive Plan and other official city documents: a. Land Use Report, Residential, page 11. b. Land Use Report, Objectives, Page 17-18 . c. Policy Statement, Comprehensive Plan, Summary, Pages 9 & 10 . It is the plan and policy of the City of Renton, through its physical, economic, and cultural development , to encourage the appropriate use of land throughout the municipality. To this end, the City will encourage proper employment of construction methods and land use principles, and promote the coordinated development of undeveloped areas. It will further give consideration to the prevention of overcrowding of land; the avoidance of undue concentrations of population; and provision for adequate light and air by securing open arrangements of carefully spaced buildings and building groups. " Emphasis added. ) 7 . Ordinance No. 3071, Land Use Hearing Examiner Ordinance, Section 4-3010, (b) 1. states: Conditions , modifications, and restrictions may be imposed but are not limited to additional setbacks, screening in the form of landscaping and fencing, covenants , easements and dedications of additional road right-of-way: performance bonds may be required to ensure compliance with the conditions, modifications and restrictions. " The ending of this stipulation denotes that. conditions may be imposed in order to make a change in zoning appropriate. The property is potentially zoned with the reclassification being requested pursuant to the policies set forth in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan and conditions have been met which would indicate the change is appropriate. " 8 . The duplex on the subject property is in its original condition and does not have any apparent physical changes or improvements. The property directly west of this area also has several duplexes in their original state of repair. These units without improvements have a tendency to detract from those units that have been remodeled. Recent rezone action in this area from R-2 to R-3 has been approved by the removal of existing duplexes. CONCLUSIONS : 1. The applicant is proposing to construct a four-plex on the eastern portion of the property. This structure will have an immediate effect on the surrounding properties. There will be a significant contrast created between the new structure and the existing Highland duplex. 2 . In reviewing previous Planning Commission actions, it should be noted that the change in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan designating this property from low density multiple-family to medium density multiple-family was done to motivate the potential rehabilitation of this area through upgrading existing structures and by creating land values that would make it economically feasible to tear down older units that have depreciated and construct new multiple-family units at a higher density. R-015-77 Page Three The applicant stated that his plans included painting the existing duplex to match the new building, but felt restrictive covenants limiting the units to five rather than the requested six was purely subjective in the Planning Department analysis. He felt that by satisfying all other requirements in the report, he should be allowed the requested six units on the site. The Examiner reported that the parking and setback requirements and number of units on the site will be reviewed by the Building Division as set forth in the city zoning code, and variances would be under that division' s jurisdiction. He indicated that the requirement for upgrading the area under the R-3 zone was the concern of the Examiner, and he felt that either improving the existing duplex or replacing it with a new structure would protect the investment by improving the area and attracting responsible tenants. Mr. Wolf indicated that the equity required to build a new building was invested in his older duplex and that the suggestion was financially unfeasible. The Examiner summarized the previous discussion by listing requirements imposed by the Planning Department, which included landscaping plans and upgrading the existing dwelling to 'the uniform building code. The applicant asked if the referenced code was the housing code or the building code. Mr. Smith reported that the code which would be enforced is the building code and requires that an older structure be compatible with a newer structure to ensure harmonious compatibility and stability in the area. He indicated that in reviewing the rezone request, the department did not object to the R-3 zone but was concerned about granting the rezone in respect to future plans for the existing duplex and general upgrading of the area. , He reported that the requirement for five units instead of the requested six was not subjective on the part of the department, but rather a requirement in the zone, and felt that the applicant' s plan was not compatible with the R-3 zone in the areas of setbacks, landscaping, parking and number of units. The Examiner asked if there were additional comments or information , from the applicant and the Planning Department staff. Neither had further comments. The Examiner asked the applicant if he had contacted residents in the area for information regarding their future building plans. Mr. Wolf reported that a real estate agent had contacted a property owner across the street from the subject site and stated that his intent is to remove his existing duplex and replace it with a multiple-family unit in the. near' future. Mr. Smith noted that the department had worked with Mr. Wolf on his proposal, but felt frustration in reviewing plans because of concern for upgrading and rehabilitating the area. He expressed the hope that the applicant would realize the intent of the city in this matter and would carry out a proposal for rehabilitation either through removal of the existing duplex or remodeling to meet the building code. The Examiner reported that he would review comments made at the hearing, review the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, and previous actions taken in the area to reach a decision. The hearing• on Item #R-015-77 was closed by the Examiner at 11 :50 a.m. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS : Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS : 1 . The applicant requests a rezone from R-2 to R-3 to allow construction of a four-plex on a 13 , 000 square foot lot with an existing residential duplex unit. 2 . The Comprehensive Land Use Plan designates this property as medium density multiple-family which is compatible with the requested rezone. R-015-77 . Page Five The applicant is proposing to retain an existing Highland duplex without undertaking significant remodeling and to construct a new unit. This is in direct conflict with the intent of the Planning Commission' s Comprehensive Plan change. 3. The apparent alternative to the applicant's request appears as follows: a. Grant the rezone from R-2 to R-3 subject to the removal of the .existing duplex. This would then allow the applicant to construct the appropriate number of units as are allowed by R-3 ordinance standards and the City of Renton Parking and Loading Ordinance. b. Improve the existing duplex to City of Renton Building Code, and require provision of a landscape plan that would visually tie the units together and would complement the area. These !two alternatives would meet the objective of rehabilitating this area through new construction. However, the first alternative would be the most desirable since it would provide the greatest amount of flexibility in designing and locating a new !structure and would be replacing the old building with a new !facility that would enhance the environment of this area. 4 . In keeping with the Planning Commission ' s ruling of similar rezones in the area, i.e. Ashmore Rezone from R-2 to R-3 , 2-26-69; Capelo;uto Rezone from R-2 to R-3 , 3-1-67; and Capelouto Rezone from R-2 to R-3 , 8-24-66 , it is the Examiner's opinion that the elimination of the existing duplex as a condition of the rezone would be compatible with recent decisions. However, in order to avoid imposing an unreasonable financial burden on the applicant, the alternative as noted above is recommended, with the final determination to be made by the applicant. RECOMMENDATION: Recommend approval of the R-2 to R-3 zone subject to removal of the existing duplex and rebuild to R-3 density; or approval subject to remodeling duplex to meet Building Code standards and meet landscape and setback: requirements as proposed by the Planning Department, excluding the recommendation regarding density. ORDERED THIS 18th day of March, 1977 . 4405 ' tad Hearing * miner TRANSMITTED THIS 18th day of March, 77 by certified mail to the parties of record: Stanley D. Wolf Beth Wolf Hank Dye TRANSMITTED THIS 18th day of March, 1977 to the following: Mayor Charles J. Delaurenti Council President George J. Perry Councilman Richard M. Stredicke Warren C. Gonnason, Public Works Director Gordon Y. Ericksen, Planning Director Don J. Smith, Renton Record-Chronicle R-015-77 Page Six Pursuant to Ordinance No. 3071, Section 4-3015 , request for reconsideration or notice of appeal must be filed in writing on or before March 22 , 1977. Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the Examiner is based on erroneous procedures, errors of law or fact, error in judgment, or the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing may make a written request for review by the Examiner within fourteen 14) days of the conclusion of the hearing. 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. REVISION Revisions ,denoted by * March 21, 1977 OFFICE OF THE LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE RENTON CITY COUNCIL. APPLICANT: Stanley D. Wolf FILE NO. R-015-77 LOCATION: Vicinity of 1500 Index Ave . N.E. SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Applicant requests rezone from R-2 to R-3 to allow construction of a four-plex on a 13, 000+ square foot lot with an existing duplex residential unit. SUMMARY OF Planning Department: Recommend approval subject RECOMMENDATION:to filing of restrictive covenants . Hearing Examiner: *Recommend approval subject to Planning Department conditions excluding density, or , removal of the existing duplex. PLANNING DEPARTMENT The Planning Department staff report was received REPORT: by the Examiner on March 1 , 1977. PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the Planning Department report, examining available, information on file with the application, and field checking the property and surrounding area, the Examiner conducted a i public hearing on the subject as follows: The hearing was opened on March . 8, 1977 , at 10: 45 a.m. in the Council Chambers of the Renton Municipal Building. Parties wishing to testify were sworn. It was reported that the Hearing Examiner and the applicant had received and reviewed the Planning Department, report, and the report was entered into the record as Exhibit #1. Michael Smith, Planning Department, reviewed Exhibit #1 , and entered the following additional exhibits into the record. , Exhibit #2: Site Plan, attached to Exhibit #1. Exhibit #3 : Proposed Site and Landscape Plan. The Examiner made a correction to. Exhibit #1 , Item 0.4 . , and reported that apartments are no longer allowed in an R-2 zone, with requirements allowing only townhouses and duplexes. The Examiner entered the following exhibits , which were read into the record: Exhibit #4 : Letter from Public Works Department, received February 15, 1977. Exhibit #5 : Letter from Fire Department, dated February 17, 1977. Exhibit #6 : Letter from Building Division, dated February 16 , 1977. R-015-77 Page Two The Examiner asked for comments from the applicant on the proposed request. Responding was : Stanley D. Wolf 3900 N.E. llth Street Renton, WA 98055 The applicant entered Exhibit #7 , Elevation Plan for proposed structure. Mr. Wolf also submitted a typed report to the Examiner which contained his comments regarding Exhibit #1. The applicant read his report into the record. Comments included objections to • restrictive covenants related to site density, parking requirements, setback requirements , landscape/screening, and compatibility of design and architecture of proposed structure with existing structures . In response to the applicant' s comments regarding Exhibit #1 , Mr. Smith reported that the building design of the structure would be compatible, with the character of the area; however, his department was concerned with potential rezone aspects of the request. The Examiner requested additional testimony in favor or opposition' to the request. There was no response. The Examiner inquired of the staff if stipulations contained in the letter from the Public Works Department, Exhibit #4 , concerning percolation data based upon a ten year storm plan were a standard requirement. Mr. Smith reported that it was standard, but would clarify with the Public Works Department whether the requirement was a policy statement or an ordinance requirement. The Examiner asked the applicant if he could meet this requirement. Mr. Wolf indicated that no storm sewers exist in the area, and he would ask for a deferral on this matter to install a temporary holding device until such time as the city installed new storm sewers in the area. The Examiner indicated to the applicant that he had visited and reviewed the site several times , and noted that there were several problems with the application due to the background history of the area. He ;reported that the Planning Commission had previously changed the zoning designation from R-2 to R-3 to increase opportunity of rehabilitating the area through elimination of duplexes built in 1942 . He indicated that after this action was taken, several requests for R-3 zoning; were approved with the stipulation that the existing duplex would be removed in conformance with the intent of the change in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. The Examiner indicated that part of his consideration for approval of the request would include the possibility of upgrading the area, with two alternatives being removal of existing duplex on the subject property or rehabilitating existing structure to city code standards . He indicated that allowing a new four-plex to be built with minor modifications made to the former dwelling would not basically change the; character of the area. Mr. Wolf reported that he was unaware of the stipulation of the Planning Commission to remove the existing duplex, and that he would not have undertaken the project if this information had been received. He indicated that upgrading the existing duplex would create a financial hardship and improvements would include replumbing with larger pipes , providing adequate venting, rewiring, and installing solid doors and felt that these improvements would not substantially change the character of the building. His original intent was to maintain the unit in its present state. The Examiner noted that the restrictive covenants were imposed by the Planning Department to guarantee that older duplexes would be brought up; to city standards and new structures would improve the R-3 zone, and part of the restrictive covenants included setbacks and parking requirements . He indicated that his main concern in granting the rezone from R-2 to R-3 was to assure that the area would be upgraded and brought up to city standards . I R-015-77 Page Three The applicant stated that his plans included painting the existing duplex to match the new building, but felt restrictive covenants limiting the units to five rather than the requested six was purely subjective in the Planning Department analysis. He felt that by satisfying all other requirements in the report, he -should be allowed the requested six units on the site. The Examiner reported that the parking and setback requirements and number oflunits on the site will be reviewed by the Building Division as set forth in the city zoning code, and variances would be under that division' s jurisdiction. He indicated that the requirement for upgradinglthe area under the R-3 zone was the concern of the Examiner, and he felt that either improving the existing duplex or replacing it with a new structure would protect. the investment by improving the area and attracting responsible tenants. Mr. Wolf indicated that the equity required to build a new building was invested in his older duplex and that the suggestion was financially unfeasible. The Examiner summarized the previous. discussion by listing requirements imposed by the Planning Department, which included landscaping plans and upgrading the existing dwelling to the uniform building code. The applicant asked if the referenced code was the housing code or the building code. Mr. Smith reported that the code which would be enforced is the building code and requires that an older structure be compatible with a newer structure to ensure harmonious compatibility and stability in the area. He indicated that in reviewing the rezone request, the department did not object to the R-3 zone but was concerned about granting the rezone in respect to future plans for the existing duplex and general upgrading of the area. He reported that the requirement for five units instead of the requested six was not subjective on the part of the department, but rather a requirement in the zone, and felt that the applicant' s plan was not compatible with the R-3 zone in the areas of setbacks, landscaping, parking and number of units. The Examiner asked if there were additional comments or information from the applicant and the Planning Department staff. Neither had further comments . The Examiner asked the applicant if he had contacted residents in the area for information regarding their future building plans. Mr. Wolf reported that a real estate agent had contacted a property owner across the street from the subject site and stated that his intent is to remove his existing duplex and replace it with a multiple-family unit in the near future. Mr. Smithjnoted that the department had worked with Mr. Wolf on his proposal, but felt frustration in reviewing plans because, of concern for upgrading and rehabilitating the area. He expressed the hope that the applicant would realize the intent of the city in this matter and would carry out a proposal for rehabilitation either through removal of the existing duplex or remodeling to meet the building code. i The Examiner reported that he would review comments made at the hearing, review the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, and previous actions taken in the area to reach a decision. The hearing on Item #R-015-77 was closed by the Examiner at 11 :50 a.m. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS : Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS : 1 1. The applicant requests a rezone from R-2 to R-3 to allow construction of a four-plex on a 13 , 000 square foot lot with an existing residential duplex unit. 2 . The Comprehensive Land Use Plan designates this property as medium. density multiple-family which is compatible with the requested rezone. R-015-77 Page Four 3 . There is a single family residence located to the south of the subject property, which is a converted Highland duplex. 4 . Properties to the west and north are older duplexes in various states of repair. 5. The water and sewer facilities are available; however, there are no storm sewers in the immediate vicinity of the subject site. 6 . The request applies to the following sections of the Comprehensive Plan and other official city documents : a. Land Use Report, Residential , page 11. b. band Use Report, Objectives, Page 17-18 . c. Policy Statement, Comprehensive Plan, Summary, Pages 9 & 10. It is the plan and policy of the City of Renton, through its Physical, economic, and cultural development, to encourage the appropriate use of land throughout the municipality. To this end, the City will encourage proper employment of construction methods and land use principles, and promote the coordinated development of undeveloped areas. It will further give consideration to the prevention of overcrowding Of land; the avoidance of undue concentrations of population; and provision for adequate light and air by securing open arrangements of carefully spaced buildings and building groups. " Emphasis added. ) 7. Ordinance No. 3071, Land Use Hearing Examiner Ordinance, Section 4-3010 (b) 1. states: Conditions , modifications, and restrictions may be imposed but are not limited to additional setbacks, screening in the form of landscaping and fencing, covenants, easements and dedications of additional road right-of-way: performance bonds may be required to ensure compliance with the conditions, modifications and restrictions. " The ending of this stipulation denotes that conditions may be imposed in order to make a change in zoning appropriate. The! property is potentially zoned with the reclassification being requested pursuant to the policies set forth in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan and conditions have been met which would indicate the change is appropriate. " 8 . The duplex on the subject. property is in its original condition and does not have any apparent physical changes or improvements. The property directly west of this area also has several duplexes in their original state of repair. These units without improvements have a tendency to detract from those units that have' been remodeled. Recent rezone action in this area from R-2 to R-3 has been approved by the removal of existing duplexes. CONCLUSIONS: 1. The applicant is proposing to construct a four-plex on the eastern portion of the property. This structure will have an immediate effect on the surrounding properties. There will be a significant contrast created between the new structure and the existing Highland duplex. 2 . In reviewing previous Planning Commission actions, it should be noted that the change in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan designating this property from low density multiple-family to medium density multiple-family was done to motivate the potential rehabilitation of this area through upgrading. existing structures and by creating land values that would make it economically feasible to tear down older units that have depreciated and construct new multiple-family units at a higher density. R-015-77 Page Five 1 The applicant is proposing to retain an existing Highland duplex, without undertaking significant remodeling and to construct a new unit. This is in direct conflict with the intent' of the Planning Commission' s Comprehensive Plan change. 1 3. The apparent alternative to the applicant' s request appears as follows : a. Grant the rezone from R-2 to R-3 subject to the removal of the existing duplex. This would then .allow the applicant to construct the appropriate number of units as are allowed by, R-3 ordinance standards and the City of Renton Parking aid Loading Ordinance. b. Improve the existing duplex to City of Renton Building Code, and require provision of a landscape plan that , would visually tie the units together and would complement the area. These two alternatives would meet the objective of rehabilitating this area through new construction. . However, the first alternative would be the most desirable since it would provide the greatest amount of flexibility in designing and locating a newistructure and would be replacing the old building with a newlfacility that would enhance the environment of this area. 4. In keeping with the Planning Commission' s ruling of similar rezones in the area, i.e. Ashmore Rezone from R-2 to R-3 , 2-26-69 ; Capelouto Rezone from R-2 to R-3 , 3-1-67; and Capelouto Rezone from 4-2 to R-3 , 8-24-66, it is the Examiner' s opinion that the elimination of the existing duplex as a condition of the rezone wouldlbe compatible with recent decisions. However, in order to avoidiimposing an unreasonable financial burden on the applicant, the alternative as noted above is recommended, with the final determination to be made by . the applicant. RECOMMENDATION: Recommend approval of the R-2 to R-3 zone subject to removal of the existing duplex and, rebuild to R-3 density; or approval subject to remodeling duplex to meet Building Code standards and meet landscape and setback requirements as proposed by the Planning Department, excluding the recommendation regarding density. ORDERED THIS 18th day of March, 1977 . i 1 m s L. tad Hearing finer I TRANSMITTED THIS 18th day of March, 77 by certified mail to the parties of, record: Stanley D. Wolf Beth Wolf Hank Dye TRANSMITTED THIS 18th day of March, 1977 to the following: Mayor Charles J. Delaurenti Council President George J. Perry Councilman Richard M Stredicke Warren C. Gonnason, Public Works Director Gordon Y. Ericksen, Planning Director Don J. Smith, Renton Record-Chronicle R-015-77 Page Six Pursuant to Ordinance No. 3071, Section 4-3015 , request for reconsideration or notice of appeal must be filed in writing on or before March 22 , 1977 . Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the Examiner is based on erroneous procedures, errors of law or- fact, error in judgment, or the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing may make a written request for review by the. Examiner within fourteen 14) days; of the conclusion of the hearing. 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. III i i l Affidavit of Publication MAR v 16 1911 o -- 4z 1STATEOFWASHINGTON r eCOUNTYOFKINGss. I Barbara.'•_Cautpag•na being first duly sworn on loath,deposes and says that.she.is the ...c.h.iet•.cherk of THE RENTON RECORD-CHRONICLE, a newspaper published four (4)times a week.That said newspaper is a legal newspaper and it is now and NOTICE OFhasbeenformorethansixmonthspriortothedateofpublicationreferredPUBLICHEARINGto, printed and published in the English language continually as a news- RENTON LAND USEpaperpublishedfour,(4)times a week in Kent,King County,Washington,HEARING EXAMINER •and it is now and during all of said time was printed in an office maintained RENTON,WASHINGTONattheaforesaidplaceofpublicationofsaidnewspaper. That the RentonRecord-Chronicle has been approved as a legal newspaper by order of the A PUBLIC HEARINGSuperiorCourtoftheCountyinwhichitispublished,to-wit,King County, WILL BE HELD BY THE RENTON LAND USE Washington.That the annexed is a Public Hearing HEARING EXAMINER AT HIS REGULAR MEETING IN THE COUNCIL CHAM- BERS, CITY HALL, RE- NTON,WASHINGTON,ON MARCH 8, 1977, AT 9:00 as it was published in regular issues(and A.M. TO CONSIDER THEnotinsupplementformofsaidnewspaper) once each issue for a period FOLLOWING PETITIONS: 1. REZONE FROM' =2 TO : o. R 0ofoneconsecutiveissues,commencing on the at ,1500nInd x Ave.N.E. dth day of.... 0Txll.dy 19.77 and ending the 2.APPLICATION FOR TWO LOT SHORT PLAT APPROVAL;file No. 017-77; property day of 19 both dates located on west side of inclusive, and that such newspaper was regularly distributed to its sub- Union Ave. N.E. adja scribers during all of said period. That the full amount of the fee cent to Kiwanis Park southerly property charged for the fore loin line. g g publication is the sum of $18 3 which Legal descriptions of ap-has been paid in full at the rate of per folio of one hundred words for the plications noted above onfirstinsertionandperfolioofonehundredwordsforeachsubsequentfileinRentonPlanningDe-insertion. partment. ALL INTERESTED PER- r`/ SONS TO SAID PETITIONS ARE INVITED TO BE PRE- SENT AT THE PUBLIC HEARING ON MARCH 8, 1977 AT 9:00 A.M.TO EX- PRESS THEIR OPINIONS. Subscribed and sworn to before me this 2.5 th day of GORDON Y.ERICKSEN' • RENTON PLANNING DIRECTOR February 19.7..7... Published in The Renton Record-Chronicle February 25, 1977. R4210 _ . Notary Public4:26e/lj for the State of Was on, residing at Kent, King nty. Passed by the Legislature,1955,known as Senate Bill 281,effective June9th, 1955. Western Union Telegraph Co. rules for counting words and figures,adopted by the newspapers of the State. March 14 , 1977 OFFICE OF THE LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE RENTON CITY COUNCIL. APPLICANT: . Stanley D. Wolf FILE NO. R-015-77 LOCATION: , Vicinity of 1500 Index Ave. N.E. SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Applicant requests rezone from R-2 to R-3 to allow construction of a four-plex on a 13, 000+ square foot lot with an existing duplex residential unit. SUMMARY OF Planning Department: Recommend approval subject RECOMMENDATION:to filing of restrictive covenants. Hearing Examiner:Recommend approval subject to Planning Department conditions or removal of existing duplex. PLANNING DEPARTMENT The Planning Department staff report was received REPORT: by the Examiner on March 1 , 1977. PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the Planning Department report, examining available information on file with the application, and field checking the property and surrounding area, the Examiner conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows: The hearing was opened on March 8, 1977, at 10: 45 a.m. in the Council Chambers of. the Renton Municipal Building. Parties wishing to testify were sworn. It was reported that the Hearing Examiner and the applicant had received and reviewed the Planning Department report, and the report was entered into the record as Exhibit #1. Michael Smith, Planning Department, reviewed Exhibit #1, and entered the following additional exhibits into the record. Exhibit #2: Site Plan, attached to Exhibit #1 . Exhibit #3: Proposed Site and Landscape Plan. The Examiner made a correction to Exhibit #1 , Item 0.4. , and reported that apartments are no longer allowed in an R-2 zone, with requirements allowing only townhouses and duplexes. The Examiner entered the following exhibits , which were read into the record: Exhibit #4 : Letter from Public Works Department, received February 15, 1977. Exhibit #5: Letter from Fire Department, dated February 17, 1977. Exhibit #6 : Letter from Building Division, dated February 16 , 1977. p.. 015-77 Pace Two' Examiner asked for comments from the applicant on the proposed req':es t. Responding was : Stanley D. Wolf 3900 N.E. llth Street Renton, WA 98055 The applicant entered Exhibit P7 , Elevation Plan for. proposed structure . ; Mr: Wolf also submitted a typed report to the Examiner which contained his comments regarding Exhibit #1 . The applicant read his report into the record. Comments included objections to restrictive covenants related to site density , parking requirements, setback requirements , landscape/screening , and compatibility of design and ''architecture of proposed structure with existing structures . In response, to the applicant' s comments regarding Exhibit #1 , Mr. Smith reported that the building design of the structure would be compatible with the character of the area; however, his department was concerned with potential rezone aspects of the request. The Examiner requested additional testimony in favor or opposition t.o the request. There was no response. The Examiner inquired of the staff if stipulations. contained in the letter from the Public Works Department, Exhibit #4 , concerning percolation data based upon a ten year storm plan were a standard requirement:. Mr. Smith reported that it was standard, but would clarify with the Public Works Department whether the requirement was a policy statement or an ordinance requirement. The Examiner asked the applicant if he could meet this requirement. Mr. Wolf indicated that no storm sewers exist in the area, and he would ask for a deferral on this matter to install a temporary holding device until such time as the city installed new storm sewers in the area. The Examiner indicated to the applicant that he had ..visited and reviewed the site several times , and noted that there were several problems with the application due to the background ,history of the area. He reported that the Planning Commission had previously changed the zoning designation from R-2 to R-3 to increase opportunity of rehabilitating the area through elimination of duplexes built in 1942 . He indicated that after this action was taken, several requests for R-3 zoning were approved with the stipulation that the existing duplex would be removed in conformance with the intent of the change in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan . The Examiner indicated that part of his consideration for approval of the request would include the possibility of upgrading the area, with two alternatives being removal of existing duplex on the subject property or ' rehabilitating existing structure to city code standards . He indicated that allowing a new four-plex to be built with minor modifications made to the former dwelling would not basically change the character of the area. Mr. Wolf reported. that he was unaware of the stipulation of the Planning Commission to remove the existing duplex, and that he would not have undertaken the project if this information had been received. He indicated• that upgrading the existing duplex would create a financial hardship and improvements would include replumbing with larger pipes , providing adequate venting, rewiring, and installing solid doors and felt that these improvements would not substantially change the character of the building . His original intent was to maintain the unit in its present state. The Examiner noted that the restrictive covenants were imposed by the Planning Department to guarantee that older duplexes would be brought up to city standards and new structures would improve the R-3 zone , and part of the restrictive covenants included setbacks and parking, requirements . ' He indicated that his main concern in granting the rezone from R-2 to R-3 was to assure that the area would be upgraded and brought up to city standards . f R-015-77 Page Three The applicant stated that his plans included painting the existing duplex to match the new building, but felt restrictive covenants limiting the units to five rather than the 'requested six was purely subjective in the Planning Department analysis. He felt that by satisfying all other requirements in the report, he should be allowed the requested six units on the site. The Examiner reported that the parking and setback requirements and number of units on the site will be reviewed by the Building Division as set forth in the city zoning code, and variances would be under that division's jurisdiction: He indicated that the requirement for upgrading the area under the R-3 zone was the concern of the Examiner, and he felt that either improving the existing duplex or replacing it with a new structure would protect the investment by improving the area and attracting responsible .tenants. Mr. Wolf indicated that the equity required to build a new building was invested in his older duplex and that the suggestion was financially unfeasible. The Examiner summarized the previous discussion by listing requirements imposed by the Planning Department, which included landscaping plans and upgrading the existing dwelling to the uniform building code. The applicant asked if the referenced code was the housing code or the building code. Mr. Smith reported that the code which would be enforcedlis the building code and requires that an older structure be compatible with a newer structure to ensure harmonious compatibility and stability in the area. He indicated that in reviewing the rezone request, !the department did not object to the R-3 zone but was concerned' about granting the rezone in respect to future plans for the existing duplex and general upgrading of the area. He reported that the requirement for five units instead of the requested six was not subjective on the part of the department, but rather a requirement in the zone, and felt that the applicant' s plan was not compatible with the .R-3 zone, in the areas of setbacks, landscaping, parking and number of units. The Examiner asked if there were additional comments or information from the applicant and the Planning Department staff. Neither had further comments. The Examiner asked the applicant if he had contacted; residents in the area for. information regarding their future building plans. Mr. Wolf reported that a real estate agent had contacted a property owner across the street from the subject site and stated that his intent is to remove his existing duplex and replace it with a multiple-family unit in the near future. Mr. Smith noted that the department had worked with Mr. Wolf on his proposal, , but felt frustration in reviewing plans, because of concern for upgrading and rehabilitating the area. He expressed the hope that the applicant would realize the intent of the city in this matter and would carry out. a proposal for rehabilitation either through removal of the existing duplex or remodeling to meet the building code. The Examiner reported that he would. review comments made at the hearing, review the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, and previous actions taken in the area to reach a decision. The hearing on Item #R-015-77 was closed by the Examiner at 11 :50 a.m. FINDINGS, 'CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS: Having reviewed the record in this matter, •the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: 1. The applicant requests a rezone from R-2 to R-3 to allow construction of a four-plex on a 13,000 square foot lot with an existing residential duplex unit. 2 . The Comprehensive Land Use Plan designates this property as medium' density multiple-family which is compatible with the requested rezone. 0 R-015-77 Page Four 3 . There is a single family residence located to the south of the subject property, which is a converted Highland duplex. 4 . Properties to the west and north are older duplexes in various states of repair. 5 . The water and sewer facilities are available; however, there are no storm sewers' in the immediate vicinity of the subject site . 6 . The request applies to the following sections of the Comprehensive Plan and other official city documents : a . Land Use Report, Residential, page 11 . b. Land Use Report, Objectives, Page 17-18 . c. Policy Statement, Comprehensive Plan, Summary, Pages 9 & 10 . It is the .plan and policy of the City of Renton, through its physical , economic, and cultural development , to encourage the appropriate use of land throughout the municipality. To this end, the City will encourage proper employment of . construction methods' and land use principles , and promotethecoordinateddevelopmentofundevelopedareas. It will further give consideration to the prevention of overcrowdingof . land; the avoidance of undue concentrations of population; and provision for adequate light and air by securing open arrangements of carefully spaced buildings and building groups. " Emphasis added. ) 7 . Ordinance No. 3071, Land Use Hearing Examiner Ordinance, Section 4-3010 (b) 1. states : Conditions , modifications,' and restrictions may be imposed but are not limited to additional setbacks, screening in the formoflandscapingandfencing, covenants, easements and dedications of additional road right-of-way: performance bonds may be required to ensure compliance with the conditions, modifications and restrictions. " The ending of this stipulation denotes that conditions may be imposed in order to make a change in zoning appropriate. The property isp p y potentially zoned with the reclassification being requested pursuant to the policies set forth in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan and conditions have been met which would indicate the change is appropriate. " 8 . The duplex on the subject property is in its original condition and does not have any apparent physical changes or improvements . The property directly west of this area also has several duplexes in , their original state of 'repair: These units without improvements have a tendency to detract from those units that have been remodeled. Recent rezone action in this area from R-2 to R-3 , has been approved by the removal of existing duplexes . CONCLUSIONS : 1 . The applicant is proposing to construct a four-plex on the eastern portion of the property. This structure will have an immediate effect on the surrounding properties. There will be a significant contrast created between the new structure and the existing Highland duplex. 2 . In reviewing previous Planning Commission actions, it should be noted that the change in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan designating this property from low density multiple-family to medium density multiple-family was done to motivate the potential rehabilitation of this area through upgrading existing structures and by creating land values that would make it economically feasible to tear down older units that have depreciated and ' construct new multiple-family units at a higher density. R-015-77 Page Five Thejapplicant is proposing to retain an existing Highland duplex without undertaking significant remodeling and to construct a new unit. This is in direct conflict with the intent of the Planning Commission's Comprehensive Plan change. 3 . The apparent alternative to the applicant's request appear as follows: a. Grant the rezone from R-2 to R-3 subject to the removal lof the existing duplex. This would then allow the applicant Ito construct the appropriate number of units as are allowed Iby R-3 ordinance standards and the City of Renton Parking and Loading Ordinance. b. Improve the existing duplex to City of Renton Building Code, and require provision of a landscape plan that would visually tie the units together and would complement the area. These two alternatives would meet the objective of rehabilitating this area through new construction. However, the first . alternative would be the most desirable since it would provide the greatest amount of flexibility in designing and locating a new structure and would be •replacing the old building with a new facility that would enhance the environment of this area. 4 . In keeping with the Planning Commission's ruling. of similar rezones in the area, i.e. Ashmore Rezone from R-2 to R-3, 2-26-69; Capelouto Rezone from R-2 to R-3, 3-1-67; and Capelouto Rezone from ! R-2 to R-3, 8-24-66, it is the Examiner' s opinion that the elimination of the existing duplex as a condition of the rezone would be compatible with recent decisions. However, in order to avoid imposing an unreasonable financial burden on the applicant, the alternative as noted above is recommended, with the final determination to be made by the applicant. RECOMMENDATION: Recommend approval of the R-2 to R-3 zone subject to conditions imposed by the Planning Department or subject to the applicant removing 'the existing duplex from the requested rezone area. ORDERED THIS 14th day of March, 1977 . I ames L. agsta••' Hearing Examiner TRANSMITED THIS 14th day of March, 1977 by certified mail to the parties of record: Stanley D. Wolf Beth Wolf Hank Dye TRANSMITTED THIS 14th day of March, 1977 to the following: Mayor Charles J. Delaurenti Council President George J. Perry Councilman Richard M. Stredicke Warren C. Gonnason, Public Works Director Gordon Y. Ericksen, Planning Director Don J. Smith, Renton Record-Chronicle R-015-77 Page Six Pursuant tlp Ordinance No. 3071 , Section 4-3015 , request for reconsideration or notice of appeal must be filed in writing on or before March 22 , 1977. Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the Examiner is based on erroneous procedures, errors of law or fact, error in judgment, or the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing may make a written request for review by the Examiner within fourteen 14) days of the conclusion of the hearing. 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. I cd e COMMENTS ON PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT Re: Stanley D. Wolf Rezone Application No. R-015-77 Public Hearing of March 8, 1977 Section 0 - Department Analysis 1. Agree - Rezone request is in agreement with the medium density multi family residential designation of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. 2. Agree - Other locations in nearby:locale are presently zoned R3. 3. Agree - Existing land use consists primarily of a mixture of duplexes; however, I would like to point out that the few single family residences are converted 1942 duplexes. 4. Agree - That the present R-2 zoning would limit usage to 3.3 units. My desire is 6 units total. 5. Agree - R-3 zone, if approved, would allow 30 units per acre or 10 units on the subject site and allow a building height of 60 feet. Since I only want six (6) units and a height of 20 feet my request is well within the requirements of R-3 zoning. 6. ; Comments on four statements. I a. "The proposed development would increase the density from 2 to 6 units". This is still less than the 10 permitted by the R-3 zone. b. "The parking requirement is two stalls per unit". I have provided 8 stalls for the new building and 4 stalls for existing duplex for a total of 12 stalls. c. "The proposed plan does not meet the setback requirement of. R-3 i zone". I can meet the required setback, but I would rather not. If I do meet the, required setback of 20 feet, the new and old I, . buildings will be only 11 feet apart. Since the adjacent property to the east is public use area and separates my property 32 feet from the nearest building site to the east, I would" rather build 10 feet inside the east property line which would allow 21 feet between buildings. ' I feel that 21 feet between ,the buildings not only, looks" better,, but is less of a fire hazard and more condusive to renting to families with children. The Engineering Department states in their approval of this R-3 zone that "Engineering has no objections to the Variance Request regarding setbacks." 2- d. "The proposed plan does not meet the parking requirement". My proposed plan does have the required 12 stalls all designed to city specifications with on-site turn-around for- 10 cars. -Two- cars -will . . . use an .existing. driveway in connection with the present duplex and therefore, still back out 'into the street. The .street is a "loop" street and only used by a few local residents. 8. I believe that the subject proposal is_ compatible with the site, would blend into the surrounding area, will stimulate other redevelopment and will upgrade the area. Even though item F states the neighborhood appears to be in better physical condition than other portions of the _Highlands R-2 area, my insurance company, Allstate, cancelled my fire insurance on the existing duplex last July-after they surveyed the surrounding area. Two months later (September, 1976) after reconsidering I was re-instated with higher premiums.. My four-plex will be an asset to the neighborhood. Those are my;, comments on the Planning Departments analysis, now I would like to address their recommended restrictive covenants. 1. Maximum Site.Density: . The comprehensive Land Use Plan suggests medium density multi-family for the area. This density is defined to mean 30 units per acre or a maximum of 10 units on the subject_ site. My plan -is for only 6-units. There is no need for a restrictive covenant of 5 units. - Require- ments such as setbacks, parking, ,and. coj'vered area, together with density per acre should continue to be the governoring factors. This property should be zoned R-3 at 30. units per acre consistent with the Comprehensive - Land ;Use Plan not R-3 at 15 units per acre. A 5-unit limit would mean I could only build a tri-plex. A tri-plex. would take the same square footage, cost almost as much as a four-plex and only reduce the parking requirements by two stalls. 2. Existing Structures: The-requirement to remodel the existing 1942 duplex toihe current 1977 building code is an unfair financial burden. I do • plan some modifications such as replacing the wooden porches with concrete, re-painting the duplex to- blend with-the new building and making minor improvements for unit compatibility. The investment of capital •to bring the duplex up to code is not justifiable. 3. Landscape/Screening: The. landscape plan I submitted seems to meet all the criteria of the suggested covenant. I don't understand:tthe. necessity -for the landscape covenant. -If there are city ordinances, guidelines,. or building codes concerning landscaping, then there is no need for a restrictive -- convenant. If there are no city guidelines on landscaping, then there is no.authority for the covenant. I think proper landscaping is a necessity and' I fully intend to conform to the plan submitted. If my plan is not satisfactory, then it should be corrected at they time I submit a request for a building permit. 3- 4. ,The :final statement in the report recommends that "the design and• architecture of the proposed structures must be. compatible with the • • character of the area and the above-noted Policy Statement". I submitted design and architecture plans along with a $120.00 landscape plan, but ;there is no reference in any of this report concerning my specific plan.. I would invite the Hearing Examiner out to the subject site at his convenience. Since it.is .my request for rezone, I would like to accom- panY him and answer all questions directly. Is this possible? 77 R tileH 'TM r 1 ITEM NO, /- o PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT TO HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING MARCH 8 , 1977 RECEIVED APPLICANT: STANLEY D. WOLF CITY OF RENTON HEARING EXAMINER FILE NO. : R-015-77 MAR 81977 AM PM 71819r10t11112e1,21314616 A. SUMMARY ,OF REQUEST: Applicant - requests rezone from R-2 to R-3 to allow construction of a four-plex on a 13 ,000± square foot lot with an existing duplex residential unit. B. GENERAL INFORMATION: 1 . Owner of Record : STANLEY D . WOLF 2 . Applicant: STANLEY D. WOLF 3 . Location : Vicinity of 1500 Index Ave . N . E . 4 . Legal Description : Lot 34 , Block 46 , corrected plat of Renton Highlands No . 2 , an addition to the city of Renton , according to • plat recorded in Volume 57 'of plats , pages 92 to 98 inclusively, in King County , Washington . 5 . Size of Property : 13 ,230 sq . ft. 6 . Access :Index Ave . N . E. 7 . Existing Zone : R-2 Residence District 8 . Existing Zoning R-2 , Residence District in Area : R-3 , Residence District 9 . Comprehensive Medium Density Multi -family Land Use Plan : 10 . Notification : The applicant was notified in writing of the hearing date . Notice was properly published in the Record Chron- icle and posted in three places on or near the site as required by City ordinance . C. PURPOSE OF REQUEST: The applicant is requesting the subject rezone to R-3 to provide the proper zoning for construction of a new four-plex together with the existing duplex on the site . The applicant also intends to request variances from the rear yard setback and parking requirements of the R-3 zone , if approved . D. HISTORY/BACKGROUND: The area was originally platted and developed as part of. the Highlands housing project during World War. II . It was annexed to the city in 1946 . The area was rezoned from R-1 to R-2 on March 12, 1962 , by Ordinance No . 1945 . Lot 31 , just south of the subj1ect site on Index Avenue, was rezoned to R-3. by Ordinance No . 2314 on March 27 , 1967 . Other parcels within one to two blocks Of the subject parcel have been rezoned from R-2 to R-3. The imme`diate. property surrounding the subject site remains R-2 zoneld. . PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT TO HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING OF MARCH '8 , 1977 PAGE TWO RE : STANLEY D . WOLF REZONE APPLICATION NO . R-015-77 E o PHYSICAL BACKGROUND: 1 . Topography : The site is relatively. level . 2 . Soils : Amc , Alderwood . The soil is used for urban develop- ment. Its characteristics include moderately rapid perme- ability to a depth of 24 to 40 inches , low available water capacity , and slight to severe erosion hazard . 3 . Vegetation : Lawn and scrub grass . 4 . Wildlife: No wildlife habitat was apparent on the subject site . 5 . Water : Surface water or streams are not apparent on the site . 6 . Land Use : The 13 ,000 square foot site presently consists of an existing duplex structure , related parking , and open space area . The site fronts on to Index Ave. N . E . An existing 30± foot public use area directly abuts the east boundary of the subject property and aPpears to- have been utilized as a driveway access to the rear of the properties abutting it . There is an existing single family` residence directly south of the subject site and a duplex dwelling to the north . There are existing duplex buildings west of the ' site across Index Avenue and east of the site across the public use area . There are several single family residences probably converted duplexes ) scattered throughout the. general vicinity. The nearest existing apartments are located on N . E . 12th Street and along Jefferson Avenue N . E . F. NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTERISTICS : The neighborhood appears to be in better` physical condition than other portions of the Highlands R-2 area . Some duplexes have been converted to single family residences . The area , however, primarily consists of 1945 vintage duplex dwelling units . Go PUBLIC SERVICES : 1 . Water and Sewer: An 8" sanitary sewer main exists along Index Avenue N . E . together with a 6" water main . No storm sewers are available in the immediate vicinity of the subject site . 2 . Fire Protection : Fire protection shall be provided by the Renton Fire Department . Any further development of the site would be subject to City of Renton fire protection requirements , including the location of a fire hydrant within 165 feet of any proposed building .. (See Fire Depart- ment comments attached . ) 3 . Transit: Metro Transit Routes 42 and 242 run in the vicinity of the. subject site along Kirkland Avenue N . E . and N . E . '16th Street . 4 . Schools : The subject site is only one block east of McKnight Junion High School and Hillcrest Elementary School . 5 . Parks : Recreation and open space facilities are available at the abovementioned school sites . PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT TO HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING OF MARCH 8 , 1977 PAGE FOUR RE : STANLEY D . WOLF REZONE APPLICATION NO . R-015-77 2 . A site that is presently zoned R-3 is located approximately 200 feet south of the subject site on Index Avenue N . E . 3 . The existing land use pattern of the area consists primarily of ,a mixture of duplexes . There are also several single family residences in the area , including one directly south of the subject site . 4 . The existing R-2 zoning would permit a townhouse or apart- ments by special permit up to a maximum of 11 units per acre or a total of 3 . 3 units on the subject site . 5 . The R-3 zone , if approved , would allow up to 30 units per acre or a maximum of 10 units on the site , providing the setbacks, lot coverage, and parking requirements are met . The height limit in the R-3 zone is 60 feet . 6 . The applicant ' s proposed development would increase the density on the site to a total of six units , a new four- plex unit together with the existing duplex . The parking requirement is two stalls per unit. The site plan as presented does not meet the setback requirement of the R-3 zone or the parking requirements . 7 . The site is located within the middle of the R-2 zoned block . However, the previous granting of R-3 zoning south of the subject site on the same block has begun to break up the solid R-2 pattern . 8 . While it is beneficial to the overall viability of the area to permit a certain increase in density , thus stimu- lating redevelopment and physical upgrading of the area , it is felt that the subject proposal is incompatible with the site and surrounding area at this particular time . The required setbacks and parking either cannot be met, or can be only after eliminating any area for open space and site amenities . P o PLANNING DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION: Recommend approval of rezone request to R-3 subject to the filing of restrictive covenants specifically relating to the following : 1 . Maximum Site Density : No more than 5 dwelling units shall be permitted on the subject site . e ems.Toii. 2 . Existing Structures : t,Lhe existing duplex shall be remodeled to existingirbuilding code requirements and designed to be compatible with any new construction on the site. 3 . Landscaping/Screening : A detailed landscape/screening plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Renton Planning Department at the time of application for a building permit for any new construction or remodeling . Such landscape plan shall include , but not be limited to : a ) Provision of an architectural -type screening fence together with a minimum 5 foot landscape strip along the south and north property lines . PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT TO HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING OF MARCH 8 , 1977 PAGE THREE RE : STANLEY D . WOLF REZONE APPLICATION NO . R-015-77 H, APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE ZONING CODE: 1 ._ . 4-708., R-2 Residence District 2. 4-709A , R-3 Residence District 3 . 4-725 Amendments 4. Chapter 22 , Parking and Loading I . APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OR OTHER OFFICIAL CITY DOCUMENTS: 1 . Land Use Report , Residential , page 11 . 2 . Land Use Report , Objectives , page 17- 18. 3. Policy Statement , Comprehensive Plan,, Summary , pages . 9 and 10 . It is the plan and policy of the City of Renton , through its physical , economic , and cultural development, to encourage the appropriate use of land throughout the municipality. To this end , the City will encourage proper employment of con- struction methods and land use principles , and promote the coordinated development of undeveloped areas . It will further give consideration to the prevention of overcrowding of land ; the avoidance of undue concentrations of population ; and provision for adequate light and air by securing open arrange- ments of carefully spaced buildings and building groups . J . IMPACT ON NATURAL SYSTEMS: Minor impacts to the natural systems can be expected when the property. is developed . K. SOCIAL IMPACTS: The subject proposal may produce some social impacts through the resultant increase in density . L. 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. 21.C) , the subject proposal is exempt from the threshold determination and. EIS requirements of SEPA. M. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: A vicinity map and site map are attached . N. AGENCIES/DEPARTMENTS CONTACTED: 1 . City of Renton Engineering Division 2. City of Renton Utilities Division 3 . City of Renton Building Division 4 . City. of Renton Traffic Engineering Division 5 . City of Renton Fire Department The above departments approved the applications . Copies of memos from certain departments are attached . O. DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS : 1 . The subject rezone request is in agreement with the medium density multi -family residential designation of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan for the area . PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT TO HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING OF MARCH 8 , 1977 PAGE FIVE RE : STANLEY D. WOLF REZONE APPLICATION NO . R-015-77 b ) I Provision of an architectural fence together with a minimum 1.0 foot landscape strip along the east1 property line . c) Provision of additional landscaping adjacent to the buildings and throughout the site . The above conditions and maximum density recommendations are considered reasonable at the present time due to the specific site limitation and adjacent single family land use . This will be' the first apartment-type structure in this area . Therefore , it is imperative that balanced , aesthetically pleasing , higher density development be encouraged , thus further stimulating physical upgrading of the area . To this end, the Policy Statement quoted earlier in the report is appropriate and reasonable as applied to this case . It is further recommended that the design and architecture -of the proposed structures must be compatible with the character of the area and the above-noted Policy Statement . 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 MARCH 8 19 77 , AT 9 : 00 A .M . TO ,CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING PETITIONS : 1 . 'REZONE FROM R-2 TO R-3 ; file No . R-015-77 ; property located at 1500 Index Ave . N . E . 2 . ;APPLICATION FOR TWO LOT SHORT PLAT APPROVAL ; file No . 017-77 ; property located on west .side of Union Ave . N . E . adjacent to Kiwanis Park southerly property line . Legal descriptions of applications noted above on file in Renton Planning Department. ALL INTERESTED PERSONS TO SAID PETITIONS ARE INVITED TO BE PRESENT AT THE PUBLIC HEARING ON MARCH 8 , 1977 AT 9 : 00 A . M . TO EXPRESS THEIR OPINIONS . GORDON Y . ERICKSEN RENTON PLANNING DIRECTOR PUBLISHED , February 25 , 1977 CERTIFICATION Michael L . Smith HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THREE COPIES OF THE ABOVE DOCUMENT WERE POSTED BY ME IN THREE CONSPICUOUS PLACES ON THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED ABOVE AS PRESCRIBED BY LAW . ATTEST : Subscribed and sworn to before me , a Notary Public , y on thea. e.cklay of e - { Z.SIGNED w... , 19 77 r z (_.;:- P PROPOSED/FINAL DLLLARATION OF SIGNIFICANCE/kur -SIGNIFICANCE Application No . R-015-77 d PROPOSED Declaration Environmental Checklist No . ECF-212-77 O FINAL Declaration Description of proposal Applicant requests a rezone from R-2 Residential District to R-3 Residential District . Proponent STANLEY D. WOLF Location of Proposal Vicinity of 1500 Index Avenue N , E. Lead Agency City of Renton Planning Department This proposal has been determined to [] have © not hay a significant adverse impact upon the environment . An EIS (] is pis not required under RCW 43 . 21C . 030 ( 2 ) (c ) . This decision was male after review by the lead agency of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency . Reasons for declaration of environmental significance : Measures , if any , that could be taken to prevent or mitigate the environmental impacts to such an extent that the lead agency would withdraw its declaration of significance and issue a (proposed/final ), declaration of non-significance : Responsible Official Gordon Y . Ericksen Title Planning D ' ector 7 Date February 28 , 1977 Signature City of Renton Planning Department 5-76 PROPOSED/FINAL L—LARATION OF SIGNIFICANCE/._ __I-SIGNIFICANCE Application No . R•-015-77 0 PROPOSED Declaration Environmental Checklist No . ECF-212-77 o FINAL Declaration Description of proposal Applicant requests a rezone from R-2 Residential District to R-3 Residential District , Proponent _ STANLEY D. WOLF Location of Proposal Vicinity of 1500 Index Avenue N . E . Lead Agency City of Renton Planning Department This proposal has been determined to have Q not have a significant adverse impact upon the environment . An EIS is x is not required under RCW 43 . 21C . 030 (2 ) (c ) . This decision was ma-de after review by the lead agency of a completedLenvironmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency . Reasons for declaration of environmental significance : Measures , if any , that could be taken to prevent or .mitigate the environmental impacts to such an extent that the lead agency would withdraw its declaration of significance and issue a (proposed/final ) declaration of non-significance : Responsible Official Gordon Y , Ericksen Title Planning D ' ector Date February 28 , 1977 Signature City of Renton Planning Department 5-76 of u THF• CITY OF RENTON CHARLES J. DELAURENTI MAYOR 7 o Lk. c` ,,.. FIRE DEPARTMENT HEADQUARTERS 40 co' MUNICIPAL BUILDING • 200 MILL AVE. S._• RENTON WA. 98055 • 235 2642 gjfD SEPZ CHIEF: GEORGE H.WILLIAMS ASST.CHIEF:DICK GEISSLER February 17 , 1977 TO Planning Department FROM: Richard Geissler, Acting Chief SUBJECT: Wolf Rezone R-015-77 We have no object ion .to the proposed- rezone. We do require, however , that the proposed construction of the fourplex shall at his expense, install or cause to be installed ..fire hydrant or hydrants within one hundred and sixty-five feet 165 ) of -any such building or structure, and so no portion •of said building or structure is in excess of three hundred feet 3UO) of any hydrant . The size, type and flow of such hydrants to, comply with rules and regulations of the " Insurance Services Office, " and shall be approved by-the Chief of the- Renton Fire Department. RG:bm f - OF R 1 THE CITY OF RENTON a CHARLES J. DELAURENTI , MAYOR o 0 FIRE DEPARTMENT HEADQUARTERS O P MUNICIPAL BUILDING • 200 MILL AVE. S. • RENTON WA. 98055 • 235 2642 C SEPZ O CHIEF: GEORGE K.WILLIAMS ASST.CHIEF:DICK GEISSLER February 17 , 1977 TO: Planning Department FROM: Richard Geissler , Acting Chief SUBJECT : Wolf Rezone R-015-77 We have no objection to the proposed rezone. We do require, however, that the proposed construction of the fourplex shall at his expense, install or cause to be installed fire . hydrant or hydrants within one hundred and sixty-five feet 165 ) of any such building or structure, and so no portion of said building or structure is in excess of three hundred feet 300) of any hydrant . The size, type and flow of such hydrants to comply with rules and regulations of the " Insurance Services Office, " and shall be approved by the Chief of the Renton Fire Department. RG:bm C RECEIVED CITY OF RENTON HEARING EXAMINER MAR 81977 EXHIBIT AM PEA I Ilo,11112 12,3,4,5I5 ITEM NO. ROUTING FOR REVIEW OF ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORMS TO : Finance Department Fire Department Library Department Park Department Police Department Public Works Department Building Div . Traffic Engineering Div . 4 Engineering Div . Utilities Engineering Div . FROM : Planning Department , (signed by responsible official or his designee ) NICOEL___SM41:14 SUBJECT : Review of ECF- A lZ. -77 ; Application No . : /2-'04r 77 Action Name : STAN II CAJOL.-P ; iett574:$4.)7 ,a - 2- to 4,-.3 Please review the attached . Review requested by ( date) : / 7/1 7 REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : Department : Comments : r Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : nn/' Department : ryaPi/c. r ,<7 tr l.1 Comments : e., 411,- ore 7 Z7 it Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Da e 6-76 OVER) I 4. REVIEW BY OTHER CITY '-uEPARTMENTS : Department : Comments : 1 II Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : i De;partment :__ Comments : 1 Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : Department : Cornmen is : Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date: REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : Department : Comments : 1 i Signature of. Directoror Authorized Representative Date INTERDEPARTMENTAL REVIEW REQUEST T0 : PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR BUILDING DIVISION i--; ENGINEERING DIVISION 1,_.. TRAFFIC ENGINEERING DIVISION r' UTILITIES DIVISION FIRE DEPARTMENT HEALTH DEPARTMENT FROM : PLANNING DEPARTMENT M 1CA L 544 r Contact Person i R-E1------ -&' +J L 1f t ZCZOkig a a-O/s--?7 Please review -the attached information regarding the subject proposal and return it to the Planning Department by jeki 1 1 /9 77 with your written recommelndati on . - Yaur res-ponse will be- included-as part of--the staff report to the Hearing Examiner. I Thank you , PLANNING DEPARTMENT 14,e... 2,5,54Le 1 1 1 Date y/c./47 1 I RFti THE CITY OF RENTON CHARLES J. DELAURENTI , MAYOR AI 1. o r,;. 0' FIRE DEPARTMENT HEADQUARTERS 7 6 MUNICIPAL BUILDING • 200 MILL AVE. S. • RENTON WA. 98055 • 235 2642 Tf SEPtF; CHIEF: GEORGE H.WILLIAMS ASST.CHIEF:DICK GEISSLER February 17 , 1977 TO : Planning Department FROM: Richard Geissler , Acting Chief SUBJECT: Wolf Rezone R-015-77 We have no objection to the proposed rezone. We do require, however , that the proposed construction of the fourplex shall at his expense, install or cause to be installed fire . hydrant or hydrants within one hundred and, sixty-five feet 165) of any such building or structure, and so no portion of said building or structure is in excess of three hundred feet 300) of any hydrant. The size, type and flow of such hydrants to comply with rules and regulations of the " Insurance Services Office, " and shall be approved by the Chief of the Renton Fire Department. RG;bm pF A 41 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT U t BUILDING DIVISION 235 -2540 • MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, WASH. 98055 FO SEPZ - February 16, 1977 CHARLES J. DELAURENTI MAYOR TO: Planning Department FROM: James C. Hanson SUBJECT: Wolf Rezone R-015-77 We have_no objection to_the proposed rezone. JCH/mp P .roBlEa o FFS i 77 ee PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT U a 4- 7, 0 BUILDING DIVISION 235 - 2540 0 I MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, WASH. 99055 O A- 414TfD SEP'E*® February 16, 1977 CHARLES J. DELAURENTI MAYOR I TO: Planning Department FROM: James Co Hanson SUBJECT: Wolf Rezone R-015-77 We have no objection to the proposed rezone. JCH/mp KJ V g, 4IC D EP WOLF FOUR-PLEX Engineering has no objections to the Variance Request regarding setbacks. Developer shall comply with the City of Renton offsite ordinance regarding new curb, gutter and sidewalk and driveways. Developer may require percolation test to assure adequate absorbtion of storm water. Developer shall supply City with percolation data, including all calculations for design of retention system based upon a 10 year storm. All storm water to be contained on private property. PEGS/Ve FLE3 X 5 V.1 G DEPAR; 1 1 WOLF FOUR-PLEX Engineering has no objections to the Variance Request regarding setbacks. Developer shall comply with the City of Renton offsite ordinance regarding new curb, gutter and sidewalk and driveways. Developer may require percolation test to assure adequate absorbtion of storm water. Developer shall supply City with percolation data, including all calculations for design of retention system based upon a 10 year storm. All storm water to be contained on private property. RECEIVED rOF CITY OF RENTOIV RECEIVED . \HEARING EXA;l INE-I t_ MAR. 81977 FEB I51,;AM 11 ffqq PM Ni4, D E P R•y'' EXHIBIT NO. ITEM NO. 1- v i s= 7 OF F 1 U t PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 2 BUILDING DIVISION 235 -2540 0 MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, WASH. 9€3055 o"P 46-O SEP-C - February 16, 1977 CHARLES J. DELAURENTI MAYOR TO: Planning Department FROM: James C. Hanson • SUBJECT: Wolf Rezone R-015-77 We have no objection to the proposed rezone. JCH/mp rrHir RECEIVED CITY OF RENTON HEAEXAMINE MAR 8 1977 R EXHIBIT NO. 6 AM Pik 71819,Io1111121T1213141516 ITEM NO, _ WOLF FOUR-PLEX Engineering has no objections to the Variance Request regarding setbacks. Developer shall comply with the City of Renton offsite ordinance regarding new curb, gutter and sidewalk and driveways. Developer may require percolation test to assure adequate absorbtion of storm water. Developer shall supply City with percolation data, including all calculations for design of retention system based upon a 10 year storm. All storm water to be contained on private property. REPE11/ THE CITY OF RENTONooz MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, WASH. 98055 EA _ 0 p ® CHARLES J. DELAURENTI., MAYOR • PLANNING DEPARTMENT O 235-2550 4lfD SFPZE O February 14 , 1977 Stanley D. Wolf 3900 N . E . 11th St. Renton , WA 98055 Dear Mr. Wolf.: RE : NOTICE 0-F APPLICATION ACCEPTANCE AND PUBLIC HEARING DATE FOR Rezone from- R-2 to R-3,-Ftle No. R-015-77 Gentlemen : The Renton Planning Department formally accepted the above mentioned application on February 8 , 1977 A public, hearing before the City of Renton Hearing Examiner has been set for March 8 , 1977 Representatives of the applicant are asked to be pre- sent . All interested persons a.re invited to attend the hearing . If you have any further questions , please call the Renton Planning Department , 235-2550 . Very truly yours , Gordon Y . Ericksen Planning Director is ae L5mith ic1y Associate Planner wr Stan Wolf 3900 NE llth Street Renton, Wa 93055 228-3154 RE: Variance Request 1. Request setback of proposed four-piex.of 10 feet from back property line: Reason Back propetty line borders a 32 foot public use area and therefore, the nearest building ever to be constructed would be at least 52 feet from the proposed building. This variance would allow 21 feet between the new and existing structures which would be very desireable esthetically and reduce the potential fire hazard and ability of the fire department to fight such a fire should it occur. Without this variance only 11 feet would exist between buildings, leavings my 7 feet between the existing building and the balcony and living room patio of the proposed four-plex. Only 11 feet would exist between the living room glass patio doors and existing older structure. Without the variance a future replacement of the older duplex would be limited to 60 feet rather than a duplicate of the proposed four-plea which measures 68 feet. Secondary considerations are that the parking would be less adequate with less maneuverability room; planting areas in front of older duplex would be reduced; and the planting areas on the south side of property would be minimum and would lack appearance esthetically. pF RTC 7/1-4` ROVED FEB•8 1977 NG CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON R E`Yi, ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 6'6\\IU) O,/, U FEB g 1911 FOR OFFICE USE ONLY 4 7 Application No. r3i "T NING Environmental Checklist No. 1?/ - ?/ '- 77 PROPOSED, date: FINAL , date: Declaration of Significance Declaration of Significance Declaration of Non-Significance Q 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 STANLEY D. WOLF 2. Address and phone number of Proponent: 2,900 NE 11th Street Renton, Wa 98055 Home: 228-3154 Work: 655-4173 3. Date Checklist submitted 4. Agency requiring Checklist Renton Planning Department 5. Name of proposal , if applicable: Wolf Four—Plex 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) : Construct a new 4-plex on large lot 98' x 135' currently containing a blacktopped for on-site parking. Design features of 24' x 68' building include balconies, patios, double—insulated windows, and natural wood siding with shake roof line. 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 ) : Located at 1500 Index Ave NE in Renton Highlands area. Lot is 98' x 135' and is level bounded on east by public use area and fenced on north and south sides. 8. Estimated date for completion of the proposal : September, 1977 9. List of all permits, licenses or government approvals required for the proposal federal, state and local --including rezones) : R-3 rezone, building permit VA AN,Lr /Q/Sr 10. Do you have any plans for future additions , expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain: NO 11. Do you know of any plans by others which may affect the property covered by your proposal? If yes , explain: NO 12. Attach any other application form that has been completed regarding the pro- posal ; if none has been completed, but is expected to be filed at some future date, describe the nature of such application form: NO II . ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required) 1) Earth. Will the proposal result in: a) Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures?X YES MAYBE NO b) Disruptions, displacements, compaction or over- covering of the soil? X Y S MAYBE NO c) Change in topography or ground surface relief features? X YES MAYBE NU— d) The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? X YES MAYBE NO e) Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? X Y S 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— MATEY TO-- Explanation: 3- 2) Air. Will the proposal result in: a) Air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? X VET— MAYBE NO b) The creation of objectionable odors? YES MAYBE N( . 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 RATITE NO b) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns , or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? 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 YES MAYBE N 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?r 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 MAYBE NO i ) Reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? X YES MAYBE NO Explanation: 4) Flora. Will the proposal result in: a) Change in the diversity of species , or numbers of any species of flora (including trees , shrubs , grass , crops , Xmicrofloraandaquaticplants)? Will be adding shrubs and trees)YES MAYBE Ad b) Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of flora?X DES' FIATEr NO c) Introduction of new species of flora into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species?X7114: MAYBE NO d) Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? X YES MAYBE NO Explanation: 4- 5) Fauna. Will the proposal result in: a) Changes in the diversity of species , or numbers of any species of fauna (birds , land animals including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms , insects or microfauna)? X VET— MAYBE PVC' 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 WEE NO d) Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? X YES MAYBE NO Explanation: 6) Noise. Will the proposal increase existing noise levels? X YES MAYBE NO Explanation: Four additional families could raise the noise level but offensive noise will not be tolerated. 7) Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? X Y-E MAYBE NO Explanation: Some light will be generated from the four-plex and some from car movement. 8) Land Use. Will the proposal result in the alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? X YET— M_ YBE NO Explanation: This p roposal is ce aistant with the comprehensive land use plan, but will require a rezone. 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) X in the event of an accident or upset conditions? YE— MAYBE NO Explanation: 11) Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distri- bution, density, or growth rate of the human population Yofanarea? YES MAYBE 0— Explanation: Density will be increased by four families 5- 12) Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? X YES MAYBE NO Explanation: This will provide needed upgraded housing in immediate area. 13) Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in : a) Generation of additional vehicular movement? X Normal associated with four additional families YES MAYBE NO b) Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? YES MAYBE NO c) Impact upon existing transportation systems? X YET- MAYBENO 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? X YES— WAYNE 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 MAY E NO Explanation: 15) Energy. Will the proposal result in: a) Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? YES MAYBE NO b) Demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? YET— MAYBE NO Explanation: 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 MAYBENO b) Communications systems? YES MAYBE NO c) Water? X YES MAYBE NO t 6- d) Sewer or septic tanks? X YES MAYBE i e) Storm water drainage? X YES MAYBE NO f) Solid waste and disposal ? YES MAYBE NO Explanation: 17) Human Health. Will the proposal result in the creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? X YES MAYBE NO Explanation: 18) Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public , or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive 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 of a significant archeological or historical site, structure, object or building? X YES MAYBE NO Explanation: III . SIGNATURE I , the undersigned, state that to the best of my knowledge the above information is true and complete. It is understood that the lead agency may withdraw any decla- ration of non-significance that it might issue in reliance upon this checklist should there be any willful misrepresentation or willful lack of -full disclosure on my part. Proponent: signed) Stanley D. Wolf name printed) Berri .. UX0 4- City of Renton Planning Department 5-76 RECFII/6 oCITYOFRENTON FEES 8REZONEAPPLICATION 1977 I 0 E--. ------..... ..1, For Office Use Only: i' pp G DEPART.. l APPL. NO. l- p i5 - T7 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTIO'` 60-$ FEE; RECEIPT NO. AZIS6S. APPEAL FILED FILING DATE 2-2- 77 CITY COUNCIL ACTION HEARING DATE 3-9- 77 ORDINANCE NO. & DATE APPLICANT TO COMPLETE ITEMS 1 THROUGH 10 : 1. Name STANLEY D. WOLF phone 228-3154 2. Address 3900 NE llth Street, Renton, Wa 98055 3. Property' petitioned for rezoning is located on 1500 Index Ave NE between , Index Ave NE and Jefferson Ave NE 4 . Square footage or acreage of property 13,230 sq. ft. 5. Legal description of property (if more space is required, attach separate sheet) Lot 34, Block 46, corrected plat of Renton Highlands No. 2, an addition to the city of Renton, according to plat recorded in Volume 57 of plats, pages 92 to 98 inclusively, in King County, Washington. 6 . Existing zoning R-2 Zoning Requested R-3 NOTE TO APPLICANT: The following factors are considered in reclass- ifying property. Evidence or additional information to substantiate your request may be attached to this sheet. (See Application Procedure sheet for specific requirements) . Submit this form in duplicate. 7. Proposed use of site. To construct a new four-plex with an existing duplex and provide rental living units for six families and to upgrade the immediate area. 8 . List the measures to be taken to reduce impact on the surrounding area. a. On-site parking b. Landscape screening c. No change of grading d. No change to existing sidewalks e. New building to be of a pleasant design and of an upgrading nature to the immediate area. 9 . How soon after the rezone is granted do you intend to develop the site? Within three months 1 10. Two copies of plot plan and affidavit of ownership are required. Ili i Dept.PlanningDe t. 2-73 AFFIDAVIT Tti I I/</zF I, ( 4//E f/( being duly sworn, declare that I am the owner of the property involved in this application and that the foregoing statements and answers herein contained and the information herewith submitted are in all respects true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Subscribed and sworn before me this,7:4 day of A 19 '7, Notary\ ublic in and for the State of Washing on, residing at ,04,,v sty. C-7- 74/1 9 Name of Notary Public) Signature wner KY 7- 9DD 4./•//T'v 7/t9Ea/ Address) Address) ti7-o/1/ sy City). State) k0,eic' s =4/73 Telephone) FOR OFFICE USE ONLY) CERTIFICATION This is to certify that the foregoing application has been inspected by me and has been found to be thorough and complete in every particular and to conform to the ru egulations of the Renton Planning Department governing the f it roll[ application . 7(3/<\ RECEI/ED o Date Receive 19 By: FEB 8 1977 0 7 7 c ' Renton Planning Dept . G DEO e 2-73 ENDING OF FILE FILE TITLE J 4 -- J _ 7 j 4 0? - 6 7 7 60 MICROFILMED JUi.1-16:11 ou9i 7706160838 — 3.00 9,r A 77Resirc \\le Cove narits i/".; e 1 4•%, JUN-16-77 o u ) 773 RENTON CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting June 6 , 1977 Municipal Building Monday , 8 : 00 P . M . Council Chambers MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Mayor C. J. Delaurenti led the Pledge of Allegiance and called the regular meeting of the Renton City Council to order. ROLL CALL OF GEORGE PERRY, Council President; PATRICIA M. SEYMOUR-THORPE: RICHARD COUNCIL M. STREDICKE, BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH, KENNETH D. BRUCE AND EARL CLYMER. MOVED BY CLYMER, SECONDED BY BRUCE, ABSENT COUNCILMAN WILLIAM J. GRANT. Councilman Stredicke requested his NO vote be recorded. MOTION CARRIED. CITY OFFICIALS CHARLES J. DELAURENTI , Mayor; LARRY WARREN, Assistant City Attorney; TED BENNETT, Deputy Finance Director; DEL MEAD, City Clerk; DICK GEISSLER, Acting Fire Chief; GORDON ERICKSEN, Planning Director; WARREN GONNASON, Public Works Director; DONALD CUSTER, Administrative Assistant; HUGH DARBY, Police Chief. PRESS MARK PELLEGRINO, Renton Tribune; DON SMITH, Renton Record Chronicle, MINUTE APPROVAL Councilman Stredicke requested correction to 5/23/77 Minutes, Page 4, last paragraph - Refer Comprehensive Plan for Northeast Section of the City to the"Planning Commission. " MOVED BY PERRY, SECONDED BY CLYMER, COUNCIL ADOPT MINUTES OF MAY 23, 1977 AS CORRECTED. CARRIED. PUBLIC HEARING This being the date set and proper notices having been posted, pub- Street Vacation lished and mailed, Mayor Delaurenti opened the public hearing con- Mt. Olivet Way cerning the vacation of Mt. Olivet Way located at access to the Mt. Located Olivet Cemetery, public hearing having been continued from 3/28/77 Mt. Olivet and 5/2/77. Letter from Law Offices of Kinzel , Acheson & Marshall Cemetery Inc, PS, Bellevue, advised that the road is used extensively by Metro Sand and Gravel and Rainier Sand and Gravel , recommending against the sale of said road to the cemetery unless of agreement to keep open. Public Works Director Gonnason noted Blaine Ave. N.E, used by the gravel companies in that area, which is not considered for vacation. Public Works Director Gonnason explained letter sent to Mr. Jim Colt of Mt. Olivet Cemetery Co, , requested by Council 5/2/77 for review of access prior to vacation, noting continuation of the hearing for that purpose. June Evans , 817 N. 1st, presented King County Assessor's map and legal description, objecting that Public Works Department map and legal description did not match, asking correction. Gonnason explained area to be vacated: All that portion of Mt. Olivet Way, having width of 60 feet, lying easterly of' the easterly right-of-way of Blaine Ave N.E, (Stoneway Gravel Pit Road) extended; further explain- ing other dimensions, E,B, Roy Brady, 142 Blaine Ave. N,E. , explained his property located adjacent to cemetery, noting he would gain proper- ty in proposed vacation. Councilman Stredicke objected that plan for access had not been presented by petitioning party. MOVED BY STREDICKE, Vacation Denied SECONDED BY THORPE, COUNCIL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. CARRIED. MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECONDED BY CLYMER, REQUEST FOR STREET VACATION BE DENIED. CARRIED. PUBLIC HEARING This being the date set and proper notices having been posted, pub- Dalpay Annexation lished and mailed according to law, Mayor Delaurenti opened the public hearing to consider th.e 75% petition for annexation of property located south of N. E. Sunset Blvd, , west of Union N.E. and North of N.E. 12th Street, known as the Dalpay Annexation. Letter from City Clerk Mead noted petition for annexation contained signatures representing 100% of the assessed valuation (at least 75% required by law) ; that peti- tion was certified valid by the Planning Department and property owners had agreed to accept the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, zoning and assume any pre-existing bonded indebtedness of the City at the preliminary meeting 4/18/77. The letter explained the City's responsibility to determine whether to accept the annexation as petitioned and, if accepted, the Planning Department should be authorized to prepare a Notice of Intention to be filed with the King County Boundary Review Board as required by law, Councilman Perry received affirmative answer from James Dalpay upon inquiry that petitioners still accepted Comprehensive Plan, zoning and bonded indebtedness (if any Council- woman Thorpe made inquiries and was advised by Mr. Dalpay that the Renton City Coun 6/6/77 Page 2 Public Hearing - Continued Dalpay purpose of the annexation was development of property to the west of Annexation his office for apartments and plans to utilize city utilities. 6.7 acres) Councilwoman Thorpe requested the record reflect Public Works Direc- tor's reply to her inquiry re capacity of present sewer system, being advised by Gonnason this area served by Sunset lift station which is operating near capacity, that no substantial additions should be made until relief found, that federal funding is pending for May Creek, Honeydew trunk, completion would be within two years. Nick Petruska, 1174 Shelton Ave NE, opposed entrance to proposed development onto N. E. 12th St. , however, did not oppose the annexation, James Volk, 13102 S.E. 112th St. , opposed annexation, denying his signature on petition. Upon Council inquiry, Asst. ' City Attorney Warren explained Mr. Volk has withdrawn his signature and Council may proceed, ,having no connection with any lawsuit between Mr. Volk and any other parties; noting need to determine percentage of valuation represented on annexa tion petition upon removal of name. Upon further inquiry, Planning Director Ericksen explained three parties involved in annexation, all three having signed petition constituting the 100% representation. MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECONDED BY SHINPOCH, COUNCIL RECESS FOR FIVE MINUTES. CARRIED. Council recessed at 8:50 p.m. ; upon reconvening Roll was called and all Council Members were present as previously shown. Planning Director Ericksen reported Volk property represents 54.28% of assessed valuation and withdrawal of signature invalidates petition, 75% needed. Ericksen used wall map to point out properties , noting County island would be created by elimination of Volk property and expressed doubt as to acceptance of amended annexation by Boundary Review Bd. James Dalpay noted acceptance of Hazen area annexation with island. Councilwoman Thorpe objected to the small area of annexation being advised by Planning Director Ericksen that petitioners had been encouraged to seek annexation of larger area, but that the staff can- not refuse a valid petition. MOVED BY PERRY, SECONDED BY BRUCE, COUN- CIL CLOSE THE HEARING. CARRIED. MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECONDED BY SHINPOCH, COUNCIL MODIFY ANNEXATION PETION BY DELETING JAMES J . VOLK PROPERTY, 13102 S.E. 112th. ROLL CALL: 5-AYES: PERRY , STREDICKE, Annexation SHINPOCH, BRUCE, CLYMER. ONE NO: THORPE. MOTION CARRIED, MOVED BY Amended and STREDICKE, SECONDED BY SHINPOCH COUNCIL ACCEPT AMENDED ANNEXATION PETI- Accepted TION AND REFER TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO FORWARD TO THE BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD. MOTION CARRIED. CONSENT AGENDA The following Consent Agenda items, previously distributed to all Council members, are considered routine and are enacted by one motion unless removed by Council action for separate discussion, Approving motion follows Consent Agenda items. Boundary Review Notice from King County Boundary Review Board presented information Board of proposed annexation to King County Water District #90 (Colasurdo) . Refer to Board of Public Works. LEAA Grant Program Letter from Finance Director Marshall requested resolution changingTransferexpenditurecategoriesrevisingdistributionofgrantandcitymatch- ing funds appropriated by Ordinance No. 3116., $16,596 plus city matching money $874. The letter explained the LEAA Grant #76-C-0199, Juvenile Recidivism Reduction Program and Renton Area Youth Services transfers, enclosed proposed agreement and resolution, requesting auth- orization for the Mayor and City Clerk to execute agreement between RAYS and the city, also requesting referral to the Ways and Means Committee. Transfer Ways & Means Committee. Parkwood Homes Hearing Examiner, Rick Beeler, submitted final plat files No, FP-040-77 Final Plat Parkwood Homes, Inc. , vicinity of Rolling Hills. Refer to Ways and Means Committee for resolution pending signing of restrictive covenants. Rezone Land Use Hearing Examiner R. Beeler, submitted rezone files of Stanley Stanley D. Wolf D. Wolf R-015-77, R-2 to R-3 vicinity 1500 Index Ave. N.E. Hearing Examiner recommend approval with restrictive covenants. Refer to Ways and Means Committee. Appointments Letter from Mayor Delaurenti advised of the formation of the Mayor's Energy Conservation Committee chaired by Del Bennett, Deputy Public L7/4 OF' s„.t.-.,=.k;. o THE CITY OF RENTON U 4$ g3,3 " e 8MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, WASH. 98055 S . L CHARLES J. DELAURENTI , MAYOR • LAND. USE HEARING EXAMINER co- p q" . L. RICK BEELER . 235-2593 454TEO SEP'S*. May 24, 1977 Members, Renton City Council RE: File No. R-015-77 Renton, Washington Dear Council Members: The appeal period for the attached rezone request expired on May 23, 1977, and we are transmitting copies of the Examiner's decision for your review prior to adoption of an ordinance. We request that you include the attached with your Council material for , the Council meeting of June 6, 1977. If you desire additional information regarding the subject application, please contact the office of the Hearing Examiner. Sincerely,-) 04-114% L. Rick Beeler Hearing Examiner LRB:mp Attachments 7e 6 -‘ - 77 OF 4 v o THE CITY OF RENTON MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, WASH. 98055 410 = CHARLES J. DELAURENTI , MAYOR • LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER O Q- L. RICK BEELER , 235-25930, p4TF0 SEP O May 24, 1977 Members, Renton City Council RE: File No. R-015-77 Renton, Washington Dear Council Members: The appeal period for the attached rezone request expired on May 23, 1977, and we are transmitting copies of the Examiner's decision for your review prior to adoption of an ordinance. We request that you include the attached with your Council material for the Council meeting of June 6, 1977. If you desire additional information regarding the subject application, please contact the office of the Hearing Examiner. Sin erely, L. Rick Beeler Hearing Examiner LRB:mp Attachments c) Provision of additional landscaping adjacent to the buildings and throughout the site. DURATION These covenants shall run with the land and expire on De ember 31 , 2025 . ao Any violation or breach of these restrictive covenants may be 03 enforced by proper legal procedures in the Superior Court of King CD AL) County by either the City of Renton or any property owners adjoining subject property whoP are adversely affected by said breach. Stanley D. Wolf Beth Wolf STATE OF WASHINGTON) COUNTY OF KING On this :-/ day of 1977 , before me personally appeared Stanley D. Wolf and Beth Wolf , the persons who executed the within and foregoing instrument, and acknowledged said instrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said persons for the uses and purposes therein mentioned . IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal. the day and year first above written . Notary. Public in and for the State of Washington, residing at 2- DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS WHEREAS , Stanley D. Wolf and Beth Wolf , his wife, are the owners of the following real property in the City of Renton, County of King, State of Washington, described as follows : Lot 34 , Block 46 , corrected plat of Renton Highlands al No. 2 , an addition to the City of Renton , according C'J ODto plat recorded in Volume 57 of plats , pages 92 to D 98 inclusively , in King County, Washington. CD h- WHEREAS, the owners of said described property desire 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 use by the undersigned, their successors , heirs and assigns , as follows : EXISTING STRUCTURE No building permit shall be issued for any new construction ' on the subject site unless the existing duplex is removed from the site or remodeled to existing City of Renton building code requirements and designed to be compatible with any construction on the site. Exterior design shall be approved ,by the Renton Planning Department. LANDSCAPING/SCREENING . A detailed landscape/screening plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Renton Planning Department at the time of application for a building permit for any new construction or remodeling. Such landscape plan shall include , but not be limited to : a) Provision of an architectural-type screening fence together with a minimum five foot landscape strip along the south and north property lines . b) 'Provision of an architectural fence together with a minimum ten foot landscape strip along the east property line. L c) Provision of additional landscaping adjacent to the buildings and throughout the site. DURATION These covenants shall run with the land and expire on December 31, 2025. OD Any violation or breach of these restrictive covenants may be OD enforced by proper legal procedures in the Superior Court of KingCD 40 • County by either -the City-'of ' Renton or any property owners adjoining subject property. who .ar.e adversely affected by said breach.CD f-- Stanley D. Wolf/ Beth Wolf A: STATE OF WASHINGTON) COUNTY OF KING On this-day of Kz+,/ 1977 , before me personally appeared Stanley D. Wolf and Beth Wolf , the persons who executed the within and foregoing instrument, and acknowledged said instrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said persons for the uses and purposes therein mentioned. IN WITNESS- WHEREOF., I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year first above written. Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, residing at Q•v\;-,,, 2- A DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS WHEREAS, Stanley D. Wolf and Beth Wolf ,' his wife, are the owners of the following real property in the City of Renton, County of King, State of Washington, described as follows : Lot 34 , Block 46 , corrected plat of Renton Highlands No. 2 , an addition to the City of Renton, according to plat recorded in Volume 57 of plats, pages 92 to 98 inclusively, in King County, Washington. WHEREAS, the owners of said described property desire 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 use by the undersigned, their successors, heirs and assigns , as follows: EXISTING STRUCTURE No building permit shall be issued for any new construction on the subject site unless the existing duplex is removed from the site or remodeled to existing City of Renton building code requirements and designed to be compatible with any construction on the site. Exterior design shall be approved by the Renton Planning Department. LANDSCAPING/SCREENING A detailed landscape/screening plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Renton Planning Department at the time of application for a building permit for any new construction or remodeling. Such landscape plan shall include, but not be limited to: a) Provision of an architectural-type screening fence together with a minimum five foot landscape strip along the south and north property lines. b) Provision of an architectural fence together with a minimum ten foot landscape strip along the east property line. c) Provision of additional landscaping adjacent to the buildings and throughout the site. DURATION These covenants shall run with the land and expire on December 31, 2025. 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 adjoining subject property who are adversely affected by said breach. ZP Stanley D. Wo.lf% Beth Wolf STATE OF WASHINGTON) COUNTY OF KING On this Z? day of Ay 1977 , before me personally appeared Stanley D. Wolf and Beth Wolf, the persons who executed the within and foregoing instrument, and acknowledged said instrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said persons for the uses and purposes therein mentioned. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year first above written. Notary Public in and for the State[of Washington, residing at 1c r 111 2- DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS WHEREAS , Stanley D. Wolf and Beth Wolf, his wife , are the owners of the following real property in the City of . Renton, County of King, State of Washington, described as follows : Lot 34 , Block 46 , corrected plat of Renton Highlands No. 2 , an addition to the City of Renton, according to plat recorded in Volume 57 of plats , pages 92 to 98 inclusively , in King County, Washington. WHEREAS , the owners of said described property desire 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 use by the undersigned, their successors , heirs and assigns , as follows : EXISTING STRUCTURE No building permit shall be issued for any new construction on the subject site unless the existing duplex is removed from the site or remodeled to existing City of Renton building code , requirements and designed to be compatible with any construction on the site. Exterior design' shall be approved by the Renton Planning Department. LANDSCAPING/SCREENING A detailed landscape/screening plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Renton Planning Department at the time of application for a building permit for any new construction or remodeling. Such landscape plan shall include , but not be limited to : a) Provision of 'ai architectural-type screening fence together with a minimum five foot landscape strip along the south and north property lines . b) Provision of an architectural fence together with a minimum ten foot landscape strip along the east property line. c) Provision of additional landscaping adjacent to the buildings and throughout the site. DURATION These covenants shall run with the land and expire on • December 31, 2025 . 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 adjoining subject property who are adversely affected by said breach. Stanley D. Wolf' Beth Wolf STATE OF WASHINGTON) COUNTY OF KING On this r'1`•=`=day of t-tz,/ 1977 , before me personally appeared Stanley D. Wolf and Beth Wolf , the persons who executed the within and foregoing instrument, and acknowledged said instrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said persons for the uses and purposes therein mentioned. IN WITNESS ,WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year first above written. Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, residing at l.,,,?0; -tj 2- a DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS WHEREAS, Stanley D. Wolf and Beth Wolf, his wife, are the owners of the following real property in the City of Renton, County of King, State of Washington, described as follows : Lot 34 , Block 46 , corrected plat of Renton Highlands No. 2 , an addition to the City of Renton, according to plat recorded in Volume 57 of plats , pages 92 to 98 inclusively, in King County, Washington. WHEREAS , the owners of said described property desire 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 use by the undersigned, their successors , heirs and assigns , as follows : EXISTING STRUCTURE No building permit shall be issued for any new construction on the subject site unless the existing duplex is removed from the site or remodeled to existing City of Renton building code requirements and designed to be compatible with any construction on the site. Exterior design shall be approved by the Renton Planning Department. LANDSCAPING/SCREENING A detailed landscape/screening plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Renton Planning Department at the time of application for a building permit for any new construction or, remodeling. Such landscape plan shall include, but not be limited to: a) Provision of an architectural-type screening fence together with a minimum five foot landscape strip along the south and north property lines. b) Provision of an architectural fence together with a minimum ten foot landscape strip along the east property line. c) .Provision of additional landscaping adjacent to the buildings and throughout the site. DURATION These covenants shall run with the land and expire on December 31, 2025. 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 adjoining subject property who are adversely affected by said breach. i Stanley D. Wo. f% Beth Wolf STATE OF WASHINGTON) COUNTY OF KING On this P)41 day of A 1977 , before me personally appeared Stanley D. Wolf and Beth Wolf , the persons who executed the within and foregoing instrument, and acknowledged said instrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said persons for the uses and purposes therein mentioned. IN WITNESS. WHEREOF, I. have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year first above written. S( -\(},n Notary Public in. and for the State oft Washington, residing at Z,ev "h 1 1 • I 1 1 1 ti 2- DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS WHEREAS, Stanley D. Wolf and Beth Wolf, his wife, are the owners of the following real property in the City of Renton, County of King, State of Washington, described as follows : Lot 34 , Block 46, corrected plat of Renton Highlands No. 2 , an addition to the City of Renton, according to plat recorded in Volume 57 of plats, pages 92 to 98 inclusively, in King County, Washington. WHEREAS, the owners of said described property desire 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 use by the undersigned, their successors, heirs and assigns , as follows: EXISTING STRUCTURE No building permit shall be issued for any new construction on the subject site unless the existing duplex is removed from the site or remodeled to existing City of Renton building code requirements and designed to be compatible with any construction on the site. Exterior design shall be approved by the Renton Planning Department. LANDSCAPING/SCREENING A detailed landscape/screening plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Renton Planning Department at the time of application for a building permit for any new construction or remodeling. Such landscape plan shall include, but not be limited to: a) Provision of an architectural-type screening fence together with a minimum five foot landscape strip along the south and north property lines. b) Provision of an architectural fence together with a minimum ten foot landscape strip along the east property line. f c) Provision of additional landscaping adjacent to the buildings and throughout the site. DURATION These covenants shall run with the land and expire on December 31, 2025. 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 adjoining subject property who are adversely affected by said breach. Ce Stanley D. WC4 2 „,/ „, Beth Wolf STATE OF WASHINGTON) COUNTY OF KING On this ',I,W day of 1977 , before me personally appeared Stanley D. Wolf and Beth Wolf, the persons who executed the within and foregoing instrument, and acknowledged said instrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said persons for the uses and purposes therein mentioned. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year first above written. Notary Public in and for the State ofVVWashington, residing at ,e,,, l;1 1 1 11 1 • 2- F R o THE CITY OF RENTON 4A MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON.WASH. 98055 8 op = CHARLES J. DELAURENTI MAYOR • LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER O L. RICK BEELER , 235 -2593 p4 fb SEPIV4O May 9, 1977 Mr. Stanley D. Wolf RE: File No. R-015-77 3900 N.E. llth Street Renton, WA 98055 Dear Mr. Wolf: Enclosed is the Examiner' s response to your request for reconsideration on Application No. R-015-77. We are transmitting the following information to you at. this time to clarify our procedures and answer any questions you may have regarding possible future action. According to Ordinance No. 3071, Land Use Hearing Examiner Ordinance, any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the Examiner is based on erroneous procedures, errors of law or fact, error in judgment, or the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing may make a written request for appeal to the Renton City Council within fourteen (14) days from. the date of the Examiner' s denial of reconsideration hearing and must be accompanied by a fee of $25. 00. Sincerely, L. Rick Beeler Hearing Examiner LRB:mp Enclosure O F R. F. ii ,.,,,,°;,°_-, o THE CITY OF RENTONM Z MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON.WASH. 98055dscanr, op CHARLES J. DELAURENTI , MAYOR • LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER p k JAMES L. MAGSTADT , 235 - 2593 PI ' May 6 , 1977 Stanley D. Wolf RE: File No. R-015-77 3900 N.E. llth Street Reconsideration Renton, WA 98055 Dear Mr. Wolf: In response to your letter requesting reconsideration, I contacted the Building Department and asked them to inspect the building in detail and report to me the changes or modifications that would be made if the existing duplex met the Housing Code rather than the Building Code. Mr. Ron Nelson, chief building official, checked the duplex and noted that he could see very little that would need to be done to allow the structure to meet the minimum Housing Code, and without a detailed inspection of the interior, he felt that the existing duplex basically met the minimum Housing Code. I reviewed Mr. Nelson' s input and also the previous cases that were heard by the Planning Commission in regards to rezones of property that contained existing duplex units. After reviewing these applications, reviewing my original staff report , considering the content of your letter , and reviewing the report by the Building Department, it is still my contention that my original recommendation is valid and should remain. It certainly is possible and has been proven in several cases that the existing Highland duplexes can be remodeled and improved into attractive structures. However , in the cases I 'm aware of, the remodeling has been extensive and has basically brought the units up to the existing Building Code. My original recommendation removes the density restriction imposed by the Planning Department and allows you to build to a maximum density allowed by code. It is also your prerogative to remodel the existing structure to improve the interior and exterior so as to harmonize with the existing new structure. The alternative of removing the structure is your choice and should remain so. It is my feeling and opinion that this type of action be perpetuated throughout the Highlands area. The transformation can be rewarding to the property owners and can convert an older residential area into an attractive medium density multiple family area. Sin -rel dif J. es L. D. . gstadt earing • aminer JLM:mp Stanley D. Wolf Page Two May 6 , 1977 cc: Parties of Record Mayor Delaurenti Members, Renton City Council G. M. Shellan, City Attorney Gordon Y. Ericksen, Planning Director z'vSiaG7A'Sr.-ttv, t '"ivrx"rf ! Ztirz.."v'.Ym.e. .'.'ti^• i:4avwsmt:..ti s:; :'. +..,.. meay........ , ur_ _-_a.r.,r. OY HP THE CITY OF RENTON cd 0 '' I MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, WASH. 98055 0 • co CHARLES J. DELAURENTI , MAYOR • LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER QO,p O Q' JAMES 1. MAGSTADT , 235 - 2 593 glfpSEP'CO May 6 , 1977 s Stanley D. Wolf RE: File No. R-015-77 3900 N.E. 11th Street . Reconsideration Renton, WA 98055 Dear Mr. Wolf: In' response to . your letter requesting reconsideration, I contacted the Building Department and asked them to' inspect the .building in detail and report to me the changes or modifications that, would be. made if the existing -duplex met. the Housing Code rather than the Building Code. Mr. Ron Nelson, chief building official , checked the duplex and noted that . he could seeHvery . little that would need to be done to allow the structure to meet -'the minimum Housing Code, And, without a. detailed 'inspection of the interior, he felt that the existing duplex basically metthe minimum Housing Code, I reviewed Mr. .Nelson' s input and .also the previous cases . that were heard by the-Planning Commission in regards ".to rezones of ' property that contained existing. duplex units. After reviewing these applications; reviewing my ,original staff report , considering the content • - of your letter, and 'reviewi:ng the report by the Building Department, it is still my contention that my original recommendation is valid and should remain. It cer.tainly' pispossibleand. has been roven in several cases that the . , existing Highland.duplexes can be• remodeled and improved . into• attractive structures. However, in the cases I 'm aware of, the remodeling has been extensive and has . basically brought the units up' to the existing Building Code. My original_ recommendation: removes: the density. restriction imposed by. the Planning Department and allows you .to build .to ,a maximum density allowed by :code. It is also your prerogative to remodel. the existing structure to improve the interior. and exterior so as to. harmonize with the ,existingnew structure.. The alternative of. removing the structure is your choice. and should remain so. I.t is my feeling and•. opinion, that this type , ofj action be perpetuated throughout the Highlands area. • The transformation can 'be -rewarding to .the• property owners and_ .can • convert an older' res{idential 'area into an attractive medium. density multiple family area. I Sin .-rel . J• es L. /g"stadt earing :l aminer JLM:mp Stanley D. Wolf Page Two May 6 , 1977 cc: Parties of Record Mayor Delaurenti Members , Renton City Council G. M. Shellan, City Attorney Gordon Y. Ericksen, Planning Director 4, 0 THE CITY OF RENTON 2 iac ! a:a MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, WASH. 98055 0 oar CHARLES J. DELAURENTI , MAYOR • LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER co- op JAMES L. MAGSTADT , 235 - 2 593 14-0 SEPl •-" May 6 , 1977 Stanley D. Wolf RE : File No. R-015-77 3900 N.E. llth Street Reconsideration Renton, WA 98055 Dear Mr. Wolf: In response to your letter requesting reconsideration, I contacted the Building Department and asked them to inspect the building in detail and report to me the changes or modifications that would be made if the existing duplex met the Housing Code rather than the Building Code. Mr. Ron Nelson, chief building official, checked the duplex and noted that he could see very little that would need to be done to allow the structure to meet the minimum Housing Code, and without a detailed inspection of the interior, he felt that the existing duplex basically met the minimum Housing Code. I. reviewed Mr. Nelson' s input and also the previous cases that were heard by the Planning Commission in regards to rezones of property that contained existing duplex units. After reviewing these applications , reviewing my original staff report , considering the content of. your letter , and reviewing the report by the Building Department, it is still my ' contention that my original recommendation is valid and should remain. It certainly is possible and has been proven in several cases that the existing Highland duplexes can be remodeled and improved into attractive structures. However, in the cases I 'm aware of, the remodeling has been extensive and has basically brought the units up to the existing Building Code. My original recommendation removes the density restriction imposed by the Planning Department and allows you to build to a maximum density allowed by code. It is also your prerogative to remodel the existing structure to improve the interior and exterior so as to harmonize with the existing new structure. The alternative of removing the structure is your choice and should remain so. It is my feeling and opinion that this type of action be perpetuated throughout the Highlands area. The transformation can be rewarding to the property owners and can convert an older residential area into an attractive medium density multiple family area. Sin rel J es L. A gstadt earing aminer JLM:mp Stanley D. Wolf Page Two May 6 , 1977 cc: Parties of Record Mayor Delaurenti Members, Renton City Council G. M. Shellan, City Attorney Gordon Y. Ericksen, Planning Director i.-....... ro::.u..ur4w W1Y.O'abDeW!iM..r.l.:y'r.:......urYt r+N'r.'Ja4'..;'.IM Wa4'a...1.1.:.T'u YLLHI'a.ela uJO.ui.1..tCa 4'Nu,rl dour ."Y-l.r.h.'a.St..':4....ra,.e"ea.w....:f..:n n:n.0 i•'•.. •.e. u.• RECEIVED CITY (.5F- LEfITON IIFt-PING . ... Iv •; 2 . 1971 Stanley D. Wolf AM PM 3900 N.E. llth Street a,hi. ,I),11,L, 11213141.;,i' Renton, Washington 98055 March 28, 1977 James L.. Magstadt Hearing Examiner Renton City hall Renton, Washington 98055 Dear Sir: Re: Stanley D. Wolf, File No. K-015-77 I received your revised .report by mail on March 25, 1977 and 'am pleased that you are recommending rezone from R-2 to R-3. I am, however, request- ing that you reconsider your requirement for the- restrictive covenant regarding remodeling the existing structure to the Building Code. Your desire is the same as mine - to rehabilitate this area of the High-' lands, thus creating higher land values leading to further improvement of this area. The construction of the proposed four-plex.will certainly be a start in this direction. I also will make modifications to the exist- ing duplex to make it blend with the new _structure and. plan to bring this building up, to the Renton Housing Code, as defined by the Building Depart- ment. My specific request is that you reconsider the requirement to remodel the existing duplex to existing City of Renton Building Code and change it to read Housing Code. By meeting the Housing Code, the duplex will be brought up to health and safety standards and, as previously stated, I will modify the duplex to be attractive and blend with the new structure. The current building is structurally sound, has an excellent roof, ,two large aluminum windows, solid flooring and sits on concrete footings. To remodel the duplex .to existing Building Code would require, basic structural replacements including a new foundation, new plumbing, new wiring and re- placing 2" x 2" studded interior walls. Because of these extensive struc- tural changes, I virtually have no option but to remove the duplex. Since the current value of this duplex is in excess of $20,000, I cannot justify its removal . It now' provides good desirable family housing and is easy to rent at $150 per month per unit: Therefore, if the building code requirement is not replaced with the housin,g code, I cannot improve the property with a complex of a new four-plex and an upgraded duplex, as planned. Your reconsideration of this matter is both requested and appreciated. Sincerely, Stanley D. • of f RECEIVED CITY OF PENTON 1IEARINC3 F. 2 : 1977 AM PM Stanley D. Wolf 7,h,91iG,ll,i 1 ,2,:3,4,ii 3900 N.E. 11 th Street Renton, Washington 98055 March 28, 1977 James L. Magstadt Hearing Examiner Renton City Hall Renton, Washington 98055 Dear Sir: Re: Stanley D. Wolf, File No. R-015-77 I received your revised report by mail on March 25, 1977 and am pleased that you are recommending rezone from R-2 to R-3. I am, however, request- ing that you reconsider your requirement for the restrictive covenant regarding remodeling the existing structure to the Building Code. Your desire is the same as mine - to rehabilitate this area of the High- lands, thus creating higher land values leading to further improvement of this area. The construction of the proposed four-plex will certainly be a start in this direction. I also will make modifications to the exist- ing duplex to make it blend with the new structure and plan to bring this building up to the Renton Housing Code, as defined by the Building Depart- ment. My specific request is that you reconsider the requirement to remodel the existing duplex to existing City of Renton Building Code and change it to read Housing Code. - By meeting the Housing Code, the duplex will be brought up to health and safety standards and, as previously stated, I will modify the duplex to be attractive and blend with the new structure. The current building is structurally sound, has an excellent roof, two large aluminum windows, solid flooring and sits on concrete footings. To remodel the duplex to existing Building Code would require basic structural replacements including a new foundation, new plumbing, new wiring and re- placing 2" x 2" studded interior walls. Because of these extensive struc- tural changes, I virtually have no option but to remove the duplex. Since the current value of this duplex is in excess of $20,000, I cannot justify its removal : It now provides good desirable family housing and is easy to rent at $150 per month per unit. Therefore, if the building code requirement is not replaced with the housing code, I cannot improve the property with a complex of a new four-plex and an upgraded duplex, as planned. Your reconsideration of this matter is both requested and appreciated. Sincerely, Stanley D. lf RECEIVED CITY OF RENTON HEARING E:'.A,a.r+F fi m, r, n 2 1977 Stanley D. Wolf AM Pali 3900 N.E. 1 l th Street 7,h1J1IU,11,I2 1121314154i Renton, Washington 98055 A March 28, 1977 James L. Magstadt Hearing Examiner Renton City Hall Renton, Washington 98055 Dear Sir: Re: Stanley D. Wolf, File No. R-015-77 I received your revised report by mail on March 25, 1977 and am pleased that you are recommending rezone from R-2 to R-3. I am, however, request- ing that you reconsider your requirement for the restrictive covenant regarding remodeling the existing structure to the Building Code. Your desire is the same as mine - to rehabilitate this area of the High- lands, thus creating higher land values leading to further improvement of this area. The construction of the proposed four-plex will certainly be a start in this direction. I also will make modifications to the exist- ing duplex to make it blend with the new structure and plan to bring this building up to the Renton Housing Code, as defined by the Building Depart- ment. My specific request is that you reconsider the requirement to remodel the existing duplex to existing City of Renton Building Code and change it to. read Housing Code. - By meeting the Housing Code, the duplex will be brought up to health and safety standards and, as previously stated, I will modify the duplex to be attractive and blend with the new structure. The current building is structurally sound, has an excellent roof, two large aluminum windows, solid flooring and sits on concrete footings. To remodel the duplex to existing Building Code would require basic structural replacements including a new foundation, new plumbing, new wiring and re- placing 2", x 2" studded interior walls. Because of these extensive struc- tural changes, I virtually have no option but to remove the duplex. Since the current value of this duplex is in excess of $20,000, I cannot justify its removal . It now provides good desirable family housing and is easy to rent at $150 per month per unit. Therefore, if the building code requirement is not replaced with the housing code, I cannot improve the property with a complex of a new four-plex and an upgraded duplex, as planned. Your reconsideration of this matter is both requested and appreciated.. Sincerely, r G--i-1 72-- Stanley D. olf RECEIVED CITY OF RENTON HEARING EXAMINER MAR 2 81977 Stanley D. Wolf AM PM 3900 N. E. l l th Street 718,9,10,11,12j1,213,4,5,6 Renton, Washington 98055 March 28, 1977 James L. Magstadt Hearing Examiner Renton City Hall Renton, Washington 98055 Dear Sir: Re: Stanley D. Wolf, File No. R-015-77 I received your revised report by mail on March 25, 1977 and am pleased that you are recommending rezone. from R-2 to R-3. I am, however, request- ing that you reconsider your requirement for the restrictive covenant regarding remodeling the existing structure to the Building Code. Your desire is the same as mine - to rehabilitate this area of the High- lands, thus creating higher land values leading to further improvement of this area. The construction of the proposed four-plex will certainly be a start in this direction. I also will make modifications to the exist- ing duplex to make it blend with the new structure and plan to bring this building up to the Renton Housing Code, as defined by the Building Depart- ment. My specific request is that you reconsider the requirement to remodel the existing duplex to existing City of Renton Building Code and change it to read Housing Code. - By meeting the Housing Code, the duplex will be brought up to health and safety standards and, as previously stated, I will modify the duplex to be attractive and blend with the new structure. The current building is structurally sound, has an excellent roof, two large aluminum windows, solid flooring and sits on concrete footings. To remodel the duplex to existing Building Code would require basic structural replacements including a new foundation, new plumbing, new wiring and re- placing 2" x 2" studded interior walls. Because of these extensive struc- tural changes, I virtually have no option but to remove the duplex. Since the current value of this duplex is in excess of $20,000, I cannot justify its removal . It now provides good desirable family housing and - is easy to rent at $150 per month per unit. Therefore, if. the building code requirement is not replaced with the housing codex, I. cannot improve the property with a complex of a new four-plex and an upgraded duplex, as planned. Your reconsideration of this matter is both requested and appreciated. Sincerely, 1, ;/%1:-- V:;;"/ Stanley D. olf REVISION!///' Revisions denoted by * March 21, 1977 OFFICE OF THE LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE RENTON CITY COUNCIL. APPLICANT: Stanley D. Wolf FILE NO. R-015-77 LOCATION: Vicinity of 1500 Index Ave. N.E. SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Applicant requests rezone from R-2 to R-3 to allow construction of a four-plex on a 13,00.0+ square foot lot with an existing duplex residential unit. SUMMARY OF Planning Department: Recommend approval subject RECOMMENDATION:to filing of restrictive covenants . Hearing Examiner: *Recommend approval subject to Planning Department conditions excluding density, or removal of the existing duplex. PLANNING DEPARTMENT The Planning Department staff report was received REPORT: by the Examiner on March 1 , 1977. PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the Planning Department report, examining available information on file with the application, and field checking the property and surrounding area, the Examiner conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows: The hearing was opened on March 8, 1977 , at 10: 45 a.m. in the Council Chambers of the Renton Municipal Building. Parties wishing to. testify were sworn. It was reported that the Hearing Examiner and the applicant had received and reviewed the Planning Department report, and the report was entered into the record as Exhibit #1. Michael Smith, Planning Department, reviewed Exhibit #1 , and entered the following additional exhibits into the record. Exhibit #2: Site Plan, attached to Exhibit #1. Exhibit #3: Proposed Site and Landscape Plan. The Examiner made a correction to Exhibit #1, Item 0. 4 . , and reported that apartments are no longer allowed in an R-2 zone, with requirements allowing only townhouses and duplexes. The Examiner entered the following exhibits , which were read into the record: Exhibit #4 : Letter from Public Works Department, received February 15, 1977. Exhibit #5: Letter from Fire Department, dated February 17, 1977. Exhibit #6 : Letter from Building Division , dated February 16 , 1977. y R-015-77 Page Two The Examiner asked for comments from the applicant on the proposed request. Responding was: Stanley D. Wolf 3900 N.E. llth Street Renton, WA 98055 The applicant entered Exhibit #7, Elevation Plan for proposed structure. Mr. Wolf also submitted a typed report to the Examiner which contained his comments regarding Exhibit #1. The applicant read his report into the record. Comments included objections to restrictive covenants related to site density, parking requirements , setback requirements , landscape/screening, and compatibility of design and architecture of proposed structure with existing structures . In response to the applicant' s comments regarding Exhibit #1 , Mr. Smith reported that the building design of the structure would be compatible with the character of the area; however, his department was concerned with potential rezone aspects of the request. The Examiner requested additional testimony in favor or opposition to the request. There was no response. The Examiner inquired of the staff if stipulations contained in the letter from the Public Works Department, Exhibit #4 , concerning percolation data based upon a ten year storm plan were a standard requirement. Mr. Smith reported that it was standard, but would clarify with the Public Works Department whether the requirement was a policy statement or an ordinance requirement. The Examiner asked the applicant if he could meet this requirement. Mr. Wolf indicated that no storm sewers exist in the area, and he would ask for a deferral on this matter to install a temporary holding device until such time as the city installed new storm sewers in the area. The Examiner indicated to the applicant that he had visited and reviewed the site several times , and noted that there were several problems with the application due to the background history of the area. He reported that the Planning Commission had previously changed the zoning designation from R-2 to R-3 to increase opportunity of rehabilitating the area through elimination of duplexes built in 1942 . He indicated that after this action was taken, several requests for R-3 zoning were approved with the stipulation that the existing duplex would be removed in conformance with the intent of the change in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. The Examiner indicated that part of his consideration for approval of the request would include the possibility of upgrading the area, with two alternatives being removal of existing duplex on the subject property or rehabilitating existing structure to city code standards . He indicated that allowing a new four-plex to be built with minor modifications made to the former dwelling would not basically change the character of the area. Mr. Wolf reported that he was unaware of the stipulation of the Planning Commission to remove the existing duplex, and that he would not have undertaken the project if this information had been received. He indicated that upgrading the existing duplex would create a financial hardship and improvements would include replumbing with larger pipes , providing adequate venting, rewiring, and installing solid doors and felt that these improvements would not substantially change the character of the building. His original intent was to maintain the unit in its present state. The Examiner noted that the restrictive covenants were imposed by the Planning Department to guarantee that older duplexes would be brought up to city standards and. new structures would improve the R-3 zone, and part of the restrictive covenants included setbacks and parking requirements . He indicated that his main concern in granting the rezone from R-2 to R-3 was to assure that the area would be upgraded and brought up to city standards . c R-015-77 Page Four 3. There is a single family residence located to the south of the subject property, which is a converted Highland duplex. 4 . Properties to the west and north are older duplexes in various states of repair. 5. The water and sewer facilities are available; however, there are no storm sewers in the immediate vicinity of the subject site. 6 . The request applies to the following sections of the Comprehensive Plan and other official city documents: a. Land Use Report, Residential , page 11. b. Land Use Report, Objectives, Page 17-18 . c. Policy Statement, Comprehensive Plan, Summary, Pages. 9 & 10 . It is the plan and policy of the City of Renton, through its physical, economic, and cultural development, to encourage the appropriate use of land throughout the municipality. To this end, the City will encourage proper employment of construction methods and land use principles, and promote the coordinated development of undeveloped areas. It will further give consideration to the prevention of overcrowding of land; the avoidance of undue concentrations of population; and provision for adequate light and air by securing open arrangements of carefully spaced buildings and building groups. " Emphasis added. ) '' 7. Ordinance No. 3071, Land Use Hearing Examiner Ordinance, Section 4-3010 (b) 1. states: Conditions , modifications, and restrictions may be imposed but are not limited to additional setbacks, screening in the form of landscaping and fencing, covenants, easements and dedications of additional road right-of-way: performance bonds may be required to ensure compliance with the conditions, modifications and restrictions. " The ending of this stipulation denotes that. conditions may be imposed in order to make a change in zoning appropriate. The property is potentially zoned with the reclassification being requested pursuant to the policies set forth in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan and conditions have been met which would indicate the change is appropriate. " 8. The duplex on the subject property is in its original condition and does not have any apparent physical changes or improvements. The property directly west of this area also has several duplexes in their original state of repair. These units without improvements have a tendency to detract from those units that have been remodeled. Recent rezone action in this area from R-2 to R-3 has been approved by the removal of existing duplexes. CONCLUSIONS : 1. The applicant is proposing to construct a four-plex on the eastern portion of the property. This structure will have an immediate effect on the surrounding properties. There will be a significant contrast created between the new structure and the existing Highland duplex. 2 . In reviewing previous Planning Commission actions, it should be noted that the change in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan designating this property from low density multiple-family to medium density multiple-family was done to motivate the potential rehabilitation of this area through upgrading existing structures and by creating land values that would make it economically feasible to tear down older units that have depreciated and construct new multiple-family units at a higher density. R-015-77 Page Three The applicant stated that his plans included painting the existing duplex to match the new building, but felt restrictive covenants limiting the units to five rather than the requested six was purely , subjective in the Planning Department analysis. He felt that by satisfying all other requirements in the report, he should be allowed the requested six units on the site. The Examiner reported that the parking and setback requirements and number of units on the site will be reviewed by the Building Division as set forth in the city zoning code, and variances would be under that division' s jurisdiction. He indicated that the requirement for upgrading the area under the R-3 zone was the concern of the Examiner, and he felt that either improving the existing duplex or replacing it with a new structure would protect the investment by improving the area and attracting responsible tenants. Mr. Wolf indicated that the equity required to build a new building was invested in his older duplex and that the suggestion was financially unfeasible. The Examiner summarized the previous discussion by listing requirements imposed by the Planning Department, which included landscaping plans and upgrading the existing dwelling to *the uniform building code. The applicant asked if the referenced code was the housing code or the building code. Mr. Smith reported that the code which would be enforced is the building code and requires that an older structure be compatible with a newer structure to ensure harmonious compatibility and stability in the area. He indicated that in reviewing the rezone request, the department did not object to the R-3 zone but was concerned about granting the rezone in respect to future plans for the existing duplex and general upgrading of the area. He reported , that the requirement for five units instead of the requested six was not subjective on the part of the department, but rather a requirement in the zone, and felt that the applicant ' s plan was not compatible with the R-3 zone in the areas of setbacks, landscaping, parking and number of units. The Examiner asked if there were additional comments or information from the applicant and the Planning Department staff. Neither had further comments. The Examiner asked the applicant if he had contacted residents in the area for information regarding their future building plans. Mr. Wolf reported that a real estate agent had contacted a property owner across the street from the subject site and stated that his intent is to remove his existing duplex and replace it with a multiple-family unit in the near future. Mr. Smith noted that the department had worked with Mr. Wolf on his proposal, but felt frustration in reviewing plans because of concern for upgrading and rehabilitating the area. He expressed the hope that the applicant would realize the intent of the city in this matter and would carry out a proposal for rehabilitation either through removal of the existing duplex or remodeling to meet the building code. The Examiner reported that he would review comments made at the hearing, review the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, and previous actions taken in the area to reach a decision. The hearing• on Item #R-015-77 was closed by the Examiner at 11 :50 a.m. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS: Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS : 1. The applicant requests a rezone from R-2 to R-3 to allow construction of a four-plex on a 13 , 000 square foot lot with an existing residential duplex unit. 2 . The Comprehensive Land Use Plan designates this property as medium density multiple-family which is compatible with the requested rezone. R-015-77 . Page Five The applicant is proposing to retain .an existing Highland duplex without undertaking significant remodeling and to construct a new unit. This is in direct conflict with the intent of the Planning Commission' s Comprehensive Plan change. 3 . The apparent alternative to the applicant' s request appears as follows: a. Grant the rezone from R-2 to R-3 subject to the removal of the existing duplex. This would then allow the applicant to construct the appropriate number of units as are allowed by R-3 ordinance standards and the City of Renton Parking and Loading Ordinance. b. Improve the existing duplex to City of Renton Building Code, and require provision of a landscape plan that would visually tie the units together and would complement the area. These two alternatives would meet the objective of rehabilitating this area through new construction. However, the first alternative would be the most desirable since it would provide the greatest amount of flexibility in designing and locating a new structure and would be replacing the old building with a new facility that would enhance the environment of this area. 4 . In keeping with the Planning Commission' s ruling of similar rezones in the area, i.e. Ashmore Rezone from R-2 to R-3 , 2-26-69; Capelouto Rezone from R-2 to R-3 , 3-1-67 ; and Capelouto Rezone from R-2 to R-3 , 8-24-66 , it is the Examiner' s opinion that the elimination of the existing duplex as a condition of the rezone would be compatible with recent decisions. However, in order to avoid imposing an unreasonable financial burden on the applicant, the alternative as noted above is recommended, with the final determination to be made by the applicant. RECOMMENDATION: Recommend approval of the R-2 to R-3 zone subject to removal of the existing duplex and rebuild to R-3 density; or approval subject to remodeling duplex to meet Building Code standards and meet landscape and setback requirements as proposed by the Planning Department, excluding the recommendation regarding density. ORDERED THIS 18th day of March, 1977 . m s L. tad 6 Hearing 1'T1niner TRANSMITTED THIS 18th day of March, 77 by certified mail to the parties of record: Stanley D. Wolf Beth Wolf Hank Dye TRANSMITTED THIS 18th day of March, 1977 to the following: Mayor Charles J. Delaurenti Council President George J. Perry Councilman Richard M. Stredicke Warren C. Gonnason, Public Works Director Gordon Y. Ericksen, Planning Director Don J. Smith, Renton Record-Chronicle R-015-77 Page Six Pursuant to Ordinance No. 3071, Section 4-3015, request for reconsideration or notice of appeal must be filed in writing on or before March 22 , 1977. Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the Examiner is based on erroneous procedures, errors of law or fact, error in judgment, or the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing may make a written request for review by the Examiner within fourteen 14) days of the conclusion of the hearing. 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. REVISION Revisions denoted by * March 21, 1977 OFFICE OF THE LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE RENTON CITY COUNCIL. APPLICANT: Stanley D. Wolf FILE NO. R-015-77 LOCATION: Vicinity of 1500 Index Ave . N.E. SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Applicant requests rezone from R-2 to R-3 to allow construction of a four-plex on a 13, 000+ square foot, lot with an existing duplex residential . unit. SUMMARY OF Planning Department: Recommend approval subject RECOMMENDATION:to filing of restrictive covenants . Hearing Examiner: *Recommend approval subject to Planning Department ' conditions excluding density, or . removal of the existing duplex. PLANNING DEPARTMENT The Planning Department staff report was received REPORT: by the Examiner on March 1, 1977. PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the Planning Department report, examining available information on file with the application, and field checking the property and surrounding area, the Examiner conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows: The hearing was opened on March 8, 1977 , at 10: 45 a.m. in the Council Chambers of the Renton Municipal Building. Parties wishing to testify were sworn. It was reported that the Hearing Examiner and the applicant had received and reviewed the Planning Department, report, and the report was entered into the record as Exhibit #1. Michael Smith, ,Planning Department, reviewed Exhibit #1, and entered the following additional exhibits into the record. Exhibit #2: Site Plan, attached to Exhibit #1. Exhibit #3: Proposed Site and Landscape Plan. The Examiner made a correction to. Exhibit #1 , Item. O. 4. , and reported that apartments are no longer allowed in an R-2 zone, with requirements allowing only townhouses and duplexes. The Examiner entered the following exhibits , which were read into the record: Exhibit #4 : Letter from Public Works Department, received. February 15, 1977. Exhibit #5 : Letter from Fire Department, dated February 17 , 1977. Exhibit #6 : Letter from Building Division, dated February 16 , 1977. R-015-77 Page Two The Examiner asked for comments from the applicant on the proposed request. Responding was : Stanley D. Wolf 3900 N.E. llth Street Renton, WA 98055 The applicant entered Exhibit #7 , Elevation Plan for proposed structure. Mr. Wolf also submitted a typed report to the Examiner which contained his comments regarding Exhibit #1. The applicant read his report into the record. Comments included objections to restrictive covenants related to site density, parking requirements , setback requirements , landscape/screening, and compatibility of design and architecture of proposed structure with existing structures . In response to the applicant' s comments regarding Exhibit #1 , Mr. Smith reported that the building design of the structure would be compatible with the character of the area; however, his department was concerned with potential rezone aspects of the request. The Examiner requested additional testimony in favor or opposition to the request. There was no response. The Examiner inquired of the staff if stipulations contained in the letter from the Public Works Department, Exhibit #4., concerning percolation data based upon a ten year storm plan were a standard requirement. Mr. Smith reported that it was standard, but would clarify with the Public Works Department whether the requirement was a policy statement or an ordinance requirement. The Examiner asked the applicant if he could meet this requirement. Mr. Wolf indicated that no storm sewers exist in the area, and he would ask for a deferral on this matter to install a temporary holding device until such time as the city installed new storm sewers in the area. The Examiner indicated to the applicant that he had visited and reviewed the site several times , and noted that there were several problems with the application due to the background history of the area. He ' reported that the Planning Commission had previously changed the zoning designation from R-2 to R-3 to increase opportunity of rehabilitating the area through elimination of duplexes built in 1942 . He indicated that after this action was taken, several requests for R-3 zoning were approved with the stipulation that the existing duplex would be removed in conformance with the intent of the change in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. The Examiner indicated that part of his consideration for approval of the request would include the possibility of upgrading the area, with two alternatives being removal of existing duplex on the subject property or rehabilitating existing structure to city code standards . He indicated that allowing a new four-plex to be built with minor modifications made to the former dwelling would not basically change the character of the area. Mr. Wolf reported that he was unaware of the stipulation of the Planning Commission to remove the existing duplex, and that he would not have undertaken the project if this information had been received. He indicated that upgrading the existing duplex would create a financial hardship and improvements would include replumbing with larger pipes , providing adequate venting, rewiring, and installing solid doors and felt that these improvements would not substantially change the character of the building.. His original intent was to maintain the unit in its present state. The Examiner noted that the restrictive covenants were imposed by the Planning Department to guarantee. ,that older duplexes would be brought up to city standards and new structures would improve the R-3 zone, and part of the restrictive covenants included setbacks and parking requirements . He indicated that his main concern in granting Ithe rezone from R-2 to R-3 was to assure that the area would be upgraded and brought up to city standards . R-015-77 Page Three The applicant stated that his plans included painting the existing duplex to match the new building, but felt restrictive covenants limiting the units to five rather than the requested six was purely subjective in the Planning Department analysis. He felt that by satisfying all other requirements in the report, he -should be allowed the requested six units on the site. The Examiner reported that the parking and setback requirements and number of units on the site will be reviewed by the Building Division as set forth in the city zoning code, and variances would be under that division' s jurisdiction. He indicated that the requirement for upgrading the area under the R-3 zone was the concern of the Examiner, and he felt that either improving the existing duplex or replacing it with a new structure would protect the investment by improving the area and attracting responsible tenants. Mr. Wolf indicated that the equity required to build a new building was invested in his older duplex and that the suggestion was financially unfeasible. The Examiner summarized the previous discussion by listing requirements imposed by the Planning Department, which included landscaping plans and upgrading the existing dwelling to the uniform building code. The applicant asked if the referenced code was the housing code or the building code. Mr. Smith reported that the code which would be enforced is the building code and requires that an older structure be compatible with a newer structure to ensure harmonious compatibility and stability in the area. He indicated that in reviewing the rezone request, the department did not object to the R-3 zone but was concerned about granting the rezone in respect to future plans for the existing duplex and general upgrading of the area. He reported that the requirement for five units instead of the requested six was not subjective on the part of the department, but rather a requirement in the zone, and felt that the applicant' s plan was not compatible with the R-3 zone in the areas of setbacks, landscaping, parking and number of units. The Examiner asked if there were additional comments or information from the applicant and the Planning Department staff. Neither had further comments . The Examiner asked the applicant if he had contacted residents in the area for information regarding their future building plans. Mr. Wolf reported that a real estate agent had contacted a property owner across the street from the subject site and stated that his intent is to remove his existing duplex and replace it with a multiple-family unit in the near future. Mr. Smith noted that the department had worked with Mr. Wolf on his proposal, but felt frustration in reviewing plans because of concern for upgrading and rehabilitating the area. He expressed the hope that the applicant would realize the intent of the city in this matter and would carry out a proposal for rehabilitation either through removal of the existing duplex or remodeling to meet the building code. The Examiner reported that he would review comments made at the hearing, review the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, and previous actions taken in the area to reach a decision. The hearing on Item #R-015-77 was closed by the Examiner at 11 :50 a.m. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS : Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS :, 1. The applicant requests a rezone from R-2 to R-3 to allow construction of a four-plex on a 13 , 000 square foot lot with an existing residential duplex unit. 2 . The Comprehensive Land Use Plan designates this property as medium density multiple-family which is compatible with the requested rezone. I R-015-77 Page Four 3. There is a single family residence located to the south of the subject property, which is a converted Highland duplex. 4 . Properties to the west and north are older duplexes in various states of repair. 5. The water and sewer facilities are available; however, there are no storm sewers in the immediate vicinity of the subject site. 6 . The request applies to the following sections of the Comprehensive Plan and other official city documents : a. Land Use Report, Residential , page 11. b. Land Use Report, Objectives, Page 17-18 . c. Policy Statement, Comprehensive Plan, Summary, Pages 9 & 10. It is the plan and policy of the City of Renton, through its physical, economic, and cultural development, to encourage the appropriate use of land throughout the municipality. To this end, the City will encourage proper employment of construction methods and land use principles, and promote the coordinated development of undeveloped areas. It will further give consideration to the prevention of overcrowding of land; the avoidance of undue concentrations of population; and provision for adequate light and air by securing open arrangements of carefully spaced buildings and building groups. " Emphasis added. ) 7. Ordinance No. 3071, Land Use Hearing Examiner Ordinance, Section 4-3010 (b) 1. states: Conditions , modifications, and restrictions may be imposed but are not limited to additional setbacks, screening in the form of landscaping and fencing, covenants, easements and dedications of additional road right-of-way: performance bonds may be required to- ensure compliance with the conditions, modifications and restrictions. " The ending of this stipulation denotes that conditions may be imposed in order to make a change in zoning appropriate. The property is potentially zoned with the reclassification being requested pursuant to the policies set forth in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan and conditions have been met which would indicate the change is appropriate. " 8. The duplex on the subject. property is in its original condition and does not have any apparent physical changes or improvements . The property directly west of this area also has several duplexes in their original state of repair. These units without improvements have a tendency to detract from those units that have been remodeled. Recent rezone action in this area from R-2 to R-3 has been approved by the removal of existing duplexes. CONCLUSIONS: 1. The applicant is proposing to construct a four-plex on the eastern portion of the property. This structure will have an immediate effect on the surrounding properties. There will be a significant contrast created between the new structure and the existing Highland duplex. 2 . In reviewing previous Planning Commission actions, it should be noted that the change in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan designating this property from low density multiple-family to medium density multiple-family was done to motivate the potential rehabilitation of this area through upgrading. existing structures and by creating land values that would make it economically feasible to tear down older units that have depreciated and construct new multiple-family units at a higher density. R-015-77 Page Five The applicant is proposing to retain an existing Highland duplex without undertaking significant remodeling and to construct a new unit. This is in direct conflict with the intent of the Planning Commission' s Comprehensive Plan change. 3. The apparent alternative to the applicant' s request appears as follows: a. Grant the rezone from R-2 to R-3 subject to the removal of the existing duplex. This would then allow the applicant to construct the appropriate number of units as are allowed by R-3 ordinance standards and the City of Renton Parking and Loading Ordinance. b. Improve the existing duplex to City of Renton Building Code, and require provision of a landscape plan that would visually tie the units together and would complement the area. These two alternatives would meet the objective of rehabilitating this area through new construction. However, the first alternative would be the most desirable since it would provide the greatest amount of flexibility in designing and locating a new structure and would be replacing the old building with a new facility that would enhance the environment of this area. 4 . In keeping with the Planning Commission' s ruling of similar rezones. in the area, i.e. Ashmore Rezone from R-2 to R-3 , 2-26-69; Capelouto Rezone from R-2 to R-3 , 3-1-67; and Capelouto Rezone from R-2 to R-3 , 8-24-66 , it is the Examiner ' s opinion that the elimination of the existing duplex as a condition of the rezone would be compatible with recent decisions. However, in order to avoid imposing an unreasonable financial burden on the applicant, the alternative as noted above is recommended, with the final determination to be made by the applicant. RECOMMENDATION: Recommend approval of the R-2 to R-3 zone subject to removal of the existing duplex and rebuild to R-3 density; or approval subject to . remodeling duplex to meet Building Code standards and meet landscape and setback requirements as proposed by the Planning Department , excluding the recommendation regarding density. ORDERED THIS 18th day of March, 1977 . m s L. tad Hearing fniner TRANSMITTED THIS 18th day of March, 77 by certified mail to the parties of record: Stanley D. Wolf Beth Wolf Hank Dye TRANSMITTED THIS 18th day of March, 1977 to the following: Mayor Charles J. Delaurenti Council President George J. Perry Councilman Richard M. Stredicke Warren C. Gonnason, Public Works Director Gordon Y. Ericksen, Planning Director Don J. Smith, Renton Record-Chronicle R-015-77 Page Six Pursuant to Ordinance No. 3071, Section 4-3015, request for reconsideration or notice of appeal must be filed in writing on or before March 22 , 1977. Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the Examiner is based on erroneous procedures, errors of law or fact, error in judgment, or the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing may make a written request for review by the, Examiner within fourteen 14) days of the conclusion of the hearing. 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. 6WZ\) 101 \ 41.. ,UL Affidavit of Publication wa 16 911 STATE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY OF KING ss. NG owe B.arb.ara.!..Campag•na being first duly sworn on oath,deposes and sayis that.s11e•.is the ...c.h.ieg."•01•e rk of THE RENTON RECORD-CHRONICLE, a newspaper published four(4)times a week.That said newspaper is a legal newspaper and it is now and NOTICE OF,has been for more than six months prior to the date of publication referred PUBLIC HEARINGto, printed and published in the English language continually as a news- RENTON LAND USE .paper published four(4)times a week in Kent,King County,Washington,HEARING EXAMINER •and it is now and during all of said time was printed in an office maintained RENTON,WASHINGTONattheaforesaidplaceofpublicationofsaidnewspaper.That the RentonRecord-Chronicle has been approved as a legal newspaper by order of theSuperiorCourtoftheCountyinwhichitispublished,to-wit,King County, WILLA RENTON LAND USE BEPUBLICHELDHEARINGBYTHE• . Washington.That the annexed is a Public Hearing HEARING EXAMINER AT • HIS REGULAR MEETING IN THE COUNCIL.CHAM BERS, CITY .HALL, RE- 1 NTON,WASHINGTON,ON MARCH 8, 1977,1 AT 9:00 as it was published in regular issues(and A.M. TO CONSIDER THEnotinsupplementformofsaidnewspaper) once each issue for a period FOLLOWING PETITIONS: 1. REZONE FROM, 4 T• o. R-.. of one t consecutive issues,commencin on the oi5- . 150000nI lo- g at Index-' Ave.N.E. .S th day of.... ftk2x ll.dXy 19.7 7 and ending the 2.APPLICATION FOR TWO LOT SHORT PLAT APPROVAL;file No. 017-77; property day of 1 19 both dates located on west side of inclusive, and that such newspaper was regularly distributed to its sub- Union Ave. N.E.adja- scribers during all ofl said period. That the full amount of the fee cent to Kiwanis Park southerly property charged for the foregoing line. has paid in full atherte of publication is the sum of $18 3 Q which Legal descriptions of ap-hast been paid and per folio of one hundred words foro the plications noted above on ,per folio of one hundred words for each subsequent file in Renton Planning Re-insertion. partment.rr ALL INTERESTED PER--, J SONS TO SAID PETITIONS . J ARE INVITED TO BE PRE- . SENT AT THE PUBLIC HEARING ON MARCH 8, 1977 AT 9:00 A.M.TO EX- PRESS THEIR OPINIONS. Subscribed and sworn to before me this 2.5 th day of GORDON Y.ERICKSEN' RENTON PLANNING • DIRECTOR February 19.7.7.". Published in The Renton . Record-Chronicle February a S--e 25, 1977. R4210 µµgNotaryPublicindfortheStateofWashion, residing at Kent, King nty. i Passed by the Legislature,1955,known as Senate Bill 281,effective June9th, 1955. Western Union Telegraph Co. rules for counting words and figures, adopted by the newspapers of the State. v March 14 , 1977 OFFICE OF THE LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE RENTON CITY COUNCIL. APPLICANT: Stanley D. Wolf FILE NO. R-015-77 LOCATION: Vicinity of 1500 Index Ave . N.E. SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Applicant requests rezone from R-2 to R-3 to allow construction of a four-plex on a 13 , 000+ square foot lot with an existing duplex residential unit. SUMMARY OF Planning Department: Recommend approval subject RECOMMENDATION:to filing of restrictive covenants. Hearing Examiner:Recommend approval subject to Planning Department conditions or removal of existing duplex. PLANNING DEPARTMENT The Planning Department staff report was received REPORT: by the Examiner on March 1 , 1977. PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the Planning Department report, examining available information on file with the application, and field checking the property and surrounding area, the Examiner conducted a public hearing on the subject as. follows: The hearing was opened on March 8, 1977, at 10: 45 a.m. in the Council Chambers of the Renton Municipal Building. Parties wishing to testify were sworn. It was reported that the Hearing Examiner and the applicant had received and reviewed the Planning Department report, and the report was entered into the record as Exhibit #1. Michael Smith, Planning Department, reviewed Exhibit #1, and entered the following additional exhibits into the record. Exhibit #2: Site Plan, attached to Exhibit #1 . Exhibit #3: Proposed Site and Landscape Plan. The Examiner made a correction to Exhibit #1, Item 0.4. , and reported that apartments are no longer allowed in an R-2 zone, with requirements allowing only townhouses and duplexes. The Examiner entered the following exhibits , which were read into the record: Exhibit #4 : Letter from Public Works Department, received February 15, 1977. Exhibit #5: Letter from Fire Department, dated February 17, 1977. Exhibit #6 : Letter from Building Division, dated February 16 , 1977. w t-015-77 Pace Tw Tn,, Examiner asked for comments from the applicant on the proposed rcqJest. Responding was : Stanley D. Wolf 3900 N.E. llth Street Renton, WA 98055 The applicant entered Exhibit #'7 , Elevation Plan for proposed structure. Mr: Wolf also submitted a typed report to the Examiner which contained his comments regarding Exhibit #1 . The applicant read his report into the record. Comments included objections to restrictive covenants related to site density, parking requirements , setback requirements , landscape/screening , and compatibility of design and architecture of proposed structure with existing structures . In response to the- applicant' s comments regarding Exhibit #1 , Mr. Smith reported that the building design of the structure would be compatible with the character of the area; however, his department was concerned with potential rezone aspects of the request. The Examiner requested additional , testimony in favor or opposition to the request. There was no response. The Examiner inquired of the staff if stipulations. contained in the letter from the Public Works Department, Exhibit #4 , concerning percolation data based upon a ten year storm plan were a standard requirement. Mr. Smith reported that it was standard, but would clarify with the Public Works Department whether the requirement was a policy statement or an ordinance requirement. The Examiner asked the applicant if he could meet this requirement. Mr. Wolf indicated that no storm sewers exist in the area, and he would ask for a deferral on this matter to install a temporary holding device until such time as the city installed new storm sewers in . the area. The Examiner indicated to the applicant that he had .visited and reviewed the site several times , and noted that there were several problems with the application due to the background ;history of the area. He reported that the Planning Commission had previously changed the zoning designation from R-2 to R-3 to increase opportunity of rehabilitating the area through elimination of duplexes built in 1942 . ffe indicated that after this action was taken , several requests for R-3 zoning were approved with the stipulation that the existing duplex would be removed in conformance with the intent of the change in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. The Examiner indicated that part of his consideration for approval of the request would include the possibility of upgrading the area, with two alternatives being removal of existing duplex on the subject property or rehabilitating existing structure to city code standards . He indicated that allowing a new four-plex to be built with minor modifications made to. the former dwelling would not basically change the character of the area. Mr. Wolf reported., that he ,was unaware of the stipulation of the Planning Commission' to remove the existing duplex, and that he would .not have undertaken the project if this information had been received. He indicated . that upgrading the existing duplex would create a financial hardship and improvements would include replumbing with larger pipes , providing adequate venting, rewiring, and installing solid doors and felt that these improvements would not substantially change the- character of the building . His original intent was to maintain the unit in its present state. The Examiner noted that the restrictive covenants were imposed by the Planning Department to guarantee that older duplexes would be brought up to city standards and new structures would improve the R-3 zone , and part of the restrictive covenants included setbacks and parking, requirements . ' He indicated that his main concern in granting the rezone from R--2 to R=3 was to assure that the area would be upgraded and brought up to city standards . y R-015-77 Page Three The applicant stated that his plans included painting the existing duplex to match the new building, but felt restrictive covenants limiting the units to five rather than the 'requested six was purely subjective in the Planning Department analysis. He felt that by satisfying all other requirements in the .report, he should be allowed the requested six units on the site. The Examiner reported that the parking and setback requirements and number of units on the site will be' reviewed by the Building Division as set forth in the city zoning code, and variances would be under that division's jurisdiction: He indicated that the requirement for upgrading the area under the R-3 zone was the concern of the Examiner, and he felt, that either improving the existing duplex or replacing it with anew structure would protect the investment by improving the area and attracting responsible .tenants. Mr. Wolf indicated that the equity required to build a new building was invested in his older duplex and that the suggestion was financially unfeasible., The Examiner summarized the previous discussion by listing requirements imposed by the Planning Department, which included landscaping, plans and upgrading the existing dwelling to the uniform building code. The applicant asked if the referenced code was the housing code or the building code. Mr. Smith reported that the code which would be enforced is the building code and requires that an older structure be compatible with a newer structure to ensure harmonious compatibility and stability in the area. He indicated that in reviewing the rezone request„the department did not object to the R-3 zone but was concerned about granting the rezone in respect to future plans for the existing duplex and general upgrading of the area. He reported that the 'requirement for five units instead of the requested six was not subjective on the part of the department, but rather a requirement in the zone, and felt that the applicant' s plan was not compatible with the .R-3 zone in the areas of setbacks, landscaping, parking and number of units. The Examiner asked if there were additional comments or information from the applicant and the Planning Department staff. Neither had further comments. The Examiner asked the ,applicant if he had contacted residents in the area for. .information regarding their future building plans. Mr. Wolf reported that a real estate agent had contacted a property owner across the street from the subject site and stated •that his intent is to remove his existing duplex and replace it with a multiple-family unit in the near future. Mr. Smith noted that the department had worked with Mr. Wolf on his proposal, but felt frustration in reviewing plans. because' of concern, for upgrading and rehabilitating the area. He expressed the hope that the applicant would realize the intent of the city in this matter and would carry out. a proposal for rehabilitation either through removal of the existing duplex or remodeling to meet the building code. The Examiner reported that he would. review comments made at . the hearing, review the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, and previous actions . taken in the area to reach a decision. The hearing on Item #R-015-77 was closed by the Examiner at 11 :50 a.m. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS: Having reviewed the record in this matter, .the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: 1. . The applicant requests a rezone' from R-2 to R-3 to allow construction of a four-plex on a 13,000 square foot lot with an existing residential duplex unit. 2 . The Comprehensive Land Use Plan designates this property as medium. density multiple-family which is compatible with the requested rezone. 0 R-015-77 Page Four There is a single family residence located to the south of the subject property, which is a converted Highland duplex. 4 . Properties to the west and north are older duplexes in various states of repair. 5 . The water and sewer facilities are available; however, there are no storm sewers in the immediate vicinity of the subject site . 6 . The request applies to the following sections of the Comprehensive Plan and other official city documents : a . Land Use Report, Residential , page 11. b. Land Use Report, Objectives, Page 17-18 . c. Policy Statement, Comprehensive Plan, Summary, Pages 9 & 10 . It is the .plan and policy of the City of Renton, through its physical , economic, and cultural development , to encourage the appropriate use of land throughout the municipality.To this end, the City will encourage proper employment of . construction methods and land use principles , and promote the coordinated development of undeveloped areas . It .will further give consideration to the prevention of overcrowdingof . land; the avoidance of undue concentrations of population; and provision for adequate light and air by securing open arrangements of carefully spaced buildings and building groups . "Emphasis added . ) 7 . Ordinance No. 3071, Land Use Hearing Examiner Ordinance, Section 4-3010 (b) 1 . states : Conditions , modifications , and restrictions may be imposed but are not limited to additional setbacks, screening in the form of landscaping and fencing, covenants, easements and dedications of additional road right-of-way: performance bonds may be required to ensure compliance with the conditions, modifications and restrictions. " The ending of this stipulation denotes that conditions may be imposed in order to make a change in zoning 'appropriate. The property is potentially zoned with the reclassification being requested pursuant to the policies set forth in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan and conditions have been met which would indicate the change is appropriate. " 8 . The duplex on the subject property is in its original condition and does not have any apparent physical changes or improvements . The property directly west of this area also has several duplexes in . their original state of 'repair. These units without improvements have a tendency to detract from those units that have been remodeled. Recent rezone action in this area from R-2 to R-3 has been approved by the removal of existing duplexes . CONCLUSIONS : 1 . The applicant is proposing to construct a four-plex on the eastern portion of the property. This structure will. have an immediate effect on the surrounding properties. There will be a significant contrast- created between the new structure and the existing Highland duplex. 2 . In reviewing previous Planning Commission actions , it should be noted that the change in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan designating this property from low density multiple-family to medium density multiple-family was done to motivate the potential rehabilitation of this area through upgrading existing structures and by creating land values- that would make it economically feasible to tear down ' older units that have depreciated and ' construct new multiple-family Units at a higher density . R-015-77 Page Five The applicant is proposing to retain an existing Highland duplex without undertaking significant remodeling and to construct a new unit. This is in direct conflict with the intent of the Planning Commission's Comprehensive Plan change. 3 . The apparent alternative to the applicant's request appear as follows: a. Grant the rezone from R-2 to R-3 subject to the removal of the existing duplex. This would then allow the applicant to construct the appropriate number of units as are allowed by R-3 ordinance standards and the City of Renton Parking and Loading Ordinance. b. Improve the existing duplex to City of Renton Building Code, , and require provision of a landscape plan that would visually tie the units together and would complement the area. These two alternatives would meet the objective of rehabilitating this' area' through new construction. However, the first alternative would be the most desirable since it would provide the greatest amount of flexibility in designing and locating a new structure and would be replacing the old building with a new facility that would enhance the environment of this area. 4 . In keeping with the Planning Commission' s ruling. of similar rezones in the area, i.e. Ashmore Rezone from R-2 to R-3, 2-26-69; Capelouto Rezone from R-2 to R-3, 3-1-67; and Capelouto Rezone from , R-2 to R-3, 8-24-66, it is the Examiner' s opinion that the elimination of the existing duplex as a condition of the rezone would be compatible with recent decisions. However, in order to avoid imposing an unreasonable financial burden on the applicant, the alternative as noted above is recommended, with the final determination to be made by the applicant. RECOMMENDATION: Recommend approval of the R-2 to R-3 zone subject to conditions imposed by the Planning Department or subject to the applicant removing the existing duplex from the requested rezone area. ORDERED THIS 14th day of March, 1977 . ames L. agsta••- Hearing Examiner TRANSMITED THIS 14th day of March, 1977 by certified mail to the parties of record: Stanley D. Wolf Beth Wolf Hank Dye TRANSMITTED THIS 14th day of March, 1977 to the following: Mayor Charles J. Delaurenti Council President George J. Perry Councilman Richard M. Stredicke Warren C. Gonnason, Public Works Director Gordon Y. Ericksen, Planning Director Don J. Smith, Renton Record-Chronicle 1 R-015-77 Page Six Pursuant to Ordinance No. 3071 , Section 4-3015 , request for reconsideration or notice of appeal must be file& in writing on or before March 22 , 1977. Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the Examiner is based on erroneous procedures, errors of law or fact, error in judgment, or the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing may make a written request for review by the Examiner within fourteen 14) days of the conclusion of the hearing. 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. tI104 COMMENTS ON PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT Re: Stanley D. Wolf Rezone Application No. R-015-77 Public Hearing of March 8, 1977 Section 0 - Department Analysis 1. Agree - Rezone request is in agreement with the medium density multi-family residential designation of the Comprehensive' Land Use Plan. 2. Agree .- Other locations in nearby locale are presently zoned R-3. 3. Agree - Existing land use consists primarily of a mixture of duplexes; however, I would like to point out that the few single family residences are converted 1942 duplexes. 4. Agree - That the. present R-2 zoning would limit usage to 3.3 units. My desire is 6 units total. 5. Agree - R-3 zone, if approved, would allow 30 units per acre or 10 units on the subject site and allow a building height of 60 feet. Since I only want six (6) units and a height of 20 feet my request is well within the requirements of R-3 zoning. 6. Comments on four statements. a. "The proposed development would increase the density from 2 to. 6 units". This is still less than the 10 permitted by the R-3 zone. b. "The parking requirement is two stalls per unit". I have provided 8 stalls for the new building and 4 stalls for existing duplex for a total of 12 stalls. c. "The proposed plan does not meet the setback requirement of R-3 zone". I can meet the required setback, but I would rather not. If I do meet the`.required setback of 20 feet, the new and old buildings will be only 11 feet apart. Since the adjacent property to the east is public use area and separates my property 32-feet from the nearest building site to the east, I would rather build 10 feet inside the east property line which would allow 21 feet between buildings. ' I feel that 21 feet between ,the buildings not only looks better, but is less of a fire hazard and more conducive to renting to families with children. The Engineering Department states in their approval of this R-3 zone that "Engineering has no objections to the Variance Request regarding setbacks." 2- d. "The proposedplan does not meet the parkingrequirement". MyPPq proposed plan does have the required 12 stalls all designed to city specifications with on-site turn-around for. 10 cars. Two- cars .will use an _existing. driveway in connection with the present duplex and therefore, still back out 'into the street. The ,street is a "loop" street and only used by a few local residents. 8. I believe that the subject proposal is_ compatible with the site, would blend into' the surrounding area, will stimulate other redevelopment and will upgrade the area. Even though item F states the neighborhood appears to be in better physical condition than other portions of the Highlands R-2 area, my insurance company, Allstate, cancelled .my fire .insurance on the existing duplex last July after they surveyed the surrounding area. Two months . later (September, 1976) after reconsidering I was re-instated with higher premiums.. My four-plea will be an asset to the neighborhood. Those are my' comments on the Planning Departments analysis, now I would like to address their recommended restrictive covenants. 1. Maximum' Site.Density; . The comprehensive Land Use Plan suggests medium density multi-family for the area. This density is defined to mean 30 units per:acre or a maximum of '10 units on the subject site. My plan •is for only 6 u4ts. There is no need for a restrictive covenant of .5 units. Require- ments such as setbacks, p'arking, ,and- covered area, together with density per acre should continue to be the .governoring factors. This property should be zoned R-3 at 30, units per acre consistent with the Comprehensive - Land,Use Plan not R-3 at 15 units per acre. A 5-unit limit would mean I Could only build a tri-plex. A tri-plex. would take the same' square footage, cost' almost as much as a four-plex arid only reduce the parking requirements by two stalls. 2. Existing Structures: The requirement to remodel the existing 1942 duplex to the current 1977 building code is an unfair financial burden. I do plan, some modifications such as replacing the wooden porches with concrete, re-painting the duplex to blend with'the new building and making minor improvements for unit cmmpatibility. The investment of capital :to,bring the duplex up to code is not justifiable. 3. Landscape/screening: The landscape plan I submitted seems to meet all the criteria of the suggested covenant. I don't understand:kthe. necessity for the landscape covenant. 'If there are city ordinances, guidelines,. or building codes concerning landscaping, then there is no need for a restrictive ' convenant. If there are no city guidelines on landscaping, then there is no 'authority for the covenant. I think proper landscaping is a necessity and' I fully intend to conform to the plan submitted. If my plan is not satisfactory, then it should be corrected at the; time I submit request for a building permit. 3_ 4. The final statement in the report recommends that "the design and architecture of the proposed structures must be. compatible with the character of the area and the above-noted Policy Statement". I submitted design and architecture plans along with a $120.00 landscape plan, but there is no reference in any of this report concerning my specific plan. I would invite the Hearing Examiner out to the subject site at his convenience. Since it.is .my request for rezone, I would like to accom- pany' him and answer all questions directly. Is this possible? aTTTT _G Ym TrU. ITEM NO. /(- o 15-- 7 PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT TO HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING MARCH 8 , 1977 RECEIVED APPLICANT: STANLEY D. WOLF CITY OF RENTON HEARING EXAMINER FILE NO. : R-015-77 MAR 8 1977 AM PM 71819t10t11t12illt2t3e4t 16 A, SUMMARY OF REQUEST:tit Applicant requests rezone from R-2 to R-3 to allow construction of a four-plex on a 13 ,000± square foot lot with an existing duplex residential unit. B. GENERAL INFORMATION: 1 . Owner of Record : STANLEY D . WOLF 2 . Applicant : STANLEY D . WOLF 3 . Location : Vicinity of 1500 Index Ave . N . E . 4 . Legal Description : Lot 34 , Block 46 , corrected plat of Renton Highlands No . 2 , an addition to the city of Renton , according to • plat recorded in Volume 57 of plats , pages 92 to 98 inclusively , in King County , Washington . 5 . Size of Property : 13 ,230 sq . ft. 6 . Access :Index Ave . N . E . 7 . Existing Zone : R-2 Residence District 8 . Existing Zoning R-2 , Residence District in Area : R-3 , Residence District 9 . Comprehensive Medium Density Multi -family Land Use Plan : I 10 . Notification : The applicant was notified in writing of the hearing date . Notice was properly published in the Record Chron- icle and posted in three places on or near the site as required by City ordinance . C, PURPOSE OF REQUEST: The applicant is requesting the subject rezone to R-3 to provide the proper zoning for construction of a new four-plex together with the existing duplex on the site . The applicant also intends to request variances from the rear yard setback and parking requirements of the R-3 zone , if approved . D. HISTORY/BACKGROUND: The area was originally platted and developed as part of the Highlands housing project during World War II . It was annexed to the city in 1946 . The area was rezoned from R-1 to R-2 on March 12 , 1962 , by Ordinance No . 1945 . Lot 31 , just south of the subject site on Index Avenue, was rezoned to R-3. by Ordinance No . 2314 on March 27 , 1967 . Other parcels within one to two blocks of the subject parcel have been rezoned from R-2 to R-3. The immediate property surrounding the subject site remains R-2 zoned. PLANNING DEPARTMENT ' PRELIMINARY REPORT TO HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING OF MARCH '8 , 1977 PAGE TWO RE : STANLEY D. WOLF REZONE APPLICATION NO. R-015-77 E a . PHYSICAL BACKGROUND:. 1 . Topography : The site is relatively. level . 2 . Soils : Amc , Alderwood . The soil is used for urban develop- ment. Its characteristics include moderately rapid perme- ability to a depth of 24 to 40 inches , low available water capacity , and slight to severe erosion hazard . 3 . Vegetation : Lawn and scrub grass . 4 . Wildlife : No wildlife habitat was apparent on the subject site . 5 . Water : Surface water or streams are not apparent on the site . 6 . Land Use : The 13 ,000 square foot site presently consists of an existing duplex structure , related parking , and open space area . The site fronts on to Index Ave. N . E . An existing 30± foot public use area directly abuts the east boundary of the subject property and appears to have been utilized as a driveway access to the rear of the properties abutting it . There is an existing single family` residence directly south of the subject site and a duplex dwelling to the north . There are existing duplex buildings west of the ' site across Index Avenue and east of the site across the public use area . There are several single family residences probably converted duplexes ) scattered throughout the general vicinity . The nearest existing apartments are located on N . E . 12th Street and along Jefferson Avenue N . E . F. NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTERISTICS: The neighborhood appears to be in better' physical condition than other portions of the Highlands R-2 area . Some duplexes have been converted to single family residences. The area , however, primarily consists of 1945 vintage duplex dwelling units . G. PUBLIC SERVICES : 1 . Water and Sewer : An 8" sanitary sewer main exists along Index Avenue N . E . together with a 6" water main . No storm sewers are available in the immediate vicinity of the subject site . 2 . Fire Protection : Fire protection shall be provided by the Renton Fire Department. Any further development of the site would be subject to City of Renton fire protection requirements , including the location of a fire hydrant within 165 feet of any proposed building .. ( See Fire Depart- ment comments attached . ) 3 . Transit: Metro Transit Routes 42 and 242 run in the vicinity of the.. subject site along Kirkland Avenue N . E . and N . E . 16th Street . 4 . Schools : The subject site is only one block east of McKnight Junion High School and Hillcrest Elementary School . 5 . Parks : Recreation and open space facilities are available at the abovementioned school sites . PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT TO HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING OF MARCH 8 , 1977 PAGE FOUR RE : STANLEY D . WOLF REZONE APPLICATION NO . R-015-77 2 . A site that is presently zoned R-3 is located approximately 200 feet south of the subject site on Index Avenue N . E . 3. The existing land use pattern of the area consists primarily of a mixture of duplexes . There are also several single family residences in the area , including one directly south of the subject site . 4 . The existing R-2 zoning would permit a townhouse or apart- ments by special permit up to a maximum of 11 units per acre or a total of 3. 3 units on the subject site . 5 . The R-3 zone , if approved , would allow up to 30 units per acre or a maximum of 10 units on the site , providing the setbacks , lot coverage , and parking requirements are met . The height limit in the R-3 zone is 60 feet . 6 . The applicant ' s proposed development would increase the density on the site to a total of six units , a new four- plex unit together with the existing duplex . The parking requirement is two stalls per unit. The site plan as presented does not meet the setback requirement of the R-3 zone or the parking requirements . 7 . The site is located within the middle of the R-2 zoned block . However, the previous granting of R-3 zoning south of the subject site on the same block has begun to break up the solid R-2 pattern . 8 . While it is beneficial to the overall viability of the area to permit a certain increase in density , thus stimu- lating redevelopment and physical upgrading of the area , it is felt that the subject proposal is incompatible with the site and surrounding area at this particular time . The required setbacks and parking either cannot be met, or can be only after eliminating any area for open space and site amenities . P o PLANNING DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION: Recommend approval of rezone request to R-3 subject to the filing of restrictive covenants specifically relating to the following : 1 . Maximum Site Density : No more than 5 dwelling units shall be permitted on the subject site . 2 . Existing Structures : 17he existing duplex shall be remodeled to existinbuilding code requirements and designed to be compatible with any new construction on the site. 3 . Landscaping/Screening: A detailed landscape/screening plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Renton Planning Department at the time of application for a building permit for any new construction or remodeling . Such landscape plan shall include , but not be limited to : a ) Provision of an architectural -type screening fence together with a minimum 5 foot landscape strip along the south and north property lines . PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT TO HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING OF MARCH 8 , 1977 PAGE THREE RE : STANLEY D. WOLF REZONE APPLICATION NO . R-015-77 Ho APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE ZONING CODE: 1 . .4-7082 R-2 Residence District 2. 4-709A, R-3 Residence District 3 . 4-725 Amendments 4. Chapter 22 , Parking and Loading I . APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OR OTHER OFFICIAL CITY DOCUMENTS: 1 . Land Use Report , Residential , page 11 . 2 . Land Use Report , Objectives , page 17- 18. 3. Policy Statement , Comprehensive Plan , Summary , pages 9 and 10 . It is the plan and policy of the City of Renton , through its physical , economic , and cultural development , to encourage the appropriate use of land throughout the municipality. To this end , the City will encourage proper employment of con- struction methods and land use principles , and promote the coordinated development of undeveloped areas . It will further give consideration to the prevention of overcrowding of land ; the avoidance of undue concentrations of population ; and provision for adequate light and air by securing open arrange- ments of carefully spaced buildings and building groups . J . IMPACT ON NATURAL SYSTEMS : Minor impacts to the natural systems can be expected when the property is developed . K. SOCIAL IMPACTS: The subject proposal may produce some social impacts through the resultant increase in density . L. 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 ) , the subject proposal is exempt from the threshold determination and EIS requirements of SEPA. M. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: , A vicinity map and site 'map are attached . N. AGENCIES/DEPARTMENTS CONTACTED: 1 . City of Renton Engineering Division 2 . City of Renton Utilities Division 3 . City of Renton Building Division 4. City of Renton Traffic Engineering Division 5 . City of Renton Fire Department The above departments approved the applications . Copies of memos from certain departments are attached . O. DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS: 1 . The subject rezone request is in agreement with the medium density multi -family residential designation of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan for the area . PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT TO HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING OF MARCH 8 , 1977 PAGE FIVE RE : STANLEY D. WOLF REZONE APPLICATION NO. R-015-77 b ) Provision of an architectural fence together with a minimum 1,0 foot landscape strip along the east property line . c). Provision of additional landscaping adjacent to the buildings and throughout the site. The above conditions and maximum density recommendations are considered reasonable at the present time due to the specific site limitation and adjacent single family land use . This will be, the first apartment-type structure in this area . Therefore, it is imperative that balanced , aesthetically pleasing , higher density development be encouraged , thus further stimulating physical upgrading of the .area . To this end., the Policy Statement quoted earlier in the report is appropriate and reasonable as applied to this case . It is further. .,recommended that the design and architecture 'ofthe proposed structures must be compatible with the character of the area and the above-noted Policy Statement . 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 MARCH 8 19 77 , AT 9 : 00 A . M . TO CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING PETITIONS : 1 . REZONE FROM R-2 TO R-3 ; file No . R-015-77 ; property located at 1500 Index Ave. N . E . 2 . APPLICATION FOR TWO LOT SHORT PLAT APPROVAL ; file No . 017-77 ; property located on west side of Union Ave . N . E . adjacent to Kiwanis Park southerly property line . Legal descriptions of applications noted above on file in Renton Planning Department . ALL INTERESTED PERSONS TO SAID PETITIONS ARE INVITED TO BE PRESENT AT THE PUBLIC HEARING ON MARCH 8 , 1977 AT 9 : 00 A . M . TO EXPRESS THEIR OPINIONS . GORDON Y . ERICKSEN RENTON PLANNING DIRECTOR PUBLISHED February 25 , 1977 CERTIFICATION Michael L . Smith HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THREE COPIES OF THE ABOVE DOCUMENT WERE POSTED BY ME IN THREE CONSPICUOUS PLACES ON THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED ABOVE AS PRESCRIBED BY LAW . ATTEST : Subscribed and sworn to before me , a Notary Public , on the;.ouklay of tY t, 19 77 . SIGNED Z `., . t.v( PROPOSED/FINAL DLLLARATION OF SIGNIFICANCE/kvil-SIGNIFICANCE Application No . R-015-77 0 PROPOSED Declaration Environmental Checklist No . ECF-212-77 FINAL Declaration Description of proposal Applicant requests a rezone from R-2 Residential District to R-3 Residential District . Proponent STANLEY D. WOLF Location of Proposal Vicinity of 1500 Index Avenue N , E. Lead Agency City of Renton Planning Department This proposal has been determined to have [j not have a significant adverse impact upon the environment . An EIS is x is not required under RCW 43 . 21C . 030 (2 ) (c ) . This decision was ma a after review by the lead agency of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency . Reasons for declaration of environmental significance : Measures , if any , that could be taken to prevent or mitigate the environmental impacts to such an extent that the lead agency would withdraw its declaration of significance and issue a (proposed/final ) declaration of non-significance : Responsible Official Gordon Y . Ericksen Title Planning D,; ector Date February 28 , 1977 Signature A r City of Renton Planning Department 5 76 PROPOSED/FINAL L--LARATION OF SIGNIFICANCE/._ _-1-SIGNIFICANCE Application No . R-015-77 PROPOSED Declaration Environmental Checklist No . ECF-212-77 liJ FINAL Declaration Description of proposal Applicant requests a rezone from R-2 Residential District to R-3 Residential District . Proponent STANLEY D. WOLF Location of Proposal Vicinity of 1500 Index Avenue N . E . Lead Agency City of Renton Planning Department This proposal has been determined to have ® not have a significant adverse impact upon the environment . An EIS 0 is x is not required under RCW 43 . 21C . 030 (2 ) (c ) . This decision was made after review by the lead agency of a completed_ environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency . Reasons for declaration of environmental significance : Measures , if any , that could be taken to prevent or .mitigate the environmental impacts to such an extent that the lead agency would withdraw its declaration of significance and issue a (proposed/final ) declaration of non-significance : Responsible Official Gordon Y . Ericksen Title Plann ' ng D ' ector Date February 28, 1977 Signature City of Renton Planning Department 5-76 of R V , THE CITY OF RENTON 0 CHARLES J. DELAURENTI MAYOR o .IL4, Y`;_ - FIRE DEPARTMENT HEADQUARTERS P,o co. p MUNICIPAL BUILDING • 200 MILL AVE. S._• RENTON WA. 98055 • 235 2642 Teo SEPZ CHIEF: GEORGE H.WILLIAMS ASST.CHIEF:DICK GEISSLER February 17, 1977 TO : Planning Department FROM: Richard Geissler, Acting Chief SUBJECT: Wolf Rezone R-015-77 We have no objection to the proposed_ rezone. We -do require, however, that the proposed construction of the fourplex shall at his expense, install or cause to be instal l-ed ..fire hydrant or hydrants within one hundred and sixty-five feet 165 ) of any such building or structure, and so no portion of said buil-ding or structure is in excess of_ three hundred feet 300) of any -hydrant. The size, type and flow of- such hydrants to comply with rules and regulations of the " Insurance Services Off i c-e, " an-d stal 1 be approved by-the Ch-ief of the- Rerrton Fire Department. RG:bm of R ti THE CITY OF RENTON 41 CHARLES J. DELAURENTI , MAYOR o " °yi,, FIRE DEPARTMENT HEADQUARTERS O MUNICIPAL BUILDING • 200 MILL AVE. S. • RENTON WA. 98055 • 235 2642 41-fD SEPI4' 6 CHIEF: GEORGE H.WILLIAMS ASST,CHIEF:DICK GEISSLER February 17 , 1977 TO : Planning Department FROM: Richard Geissler , Acting Chief SUBJECT : Wolf Rezone R-015-77 We have no objection to the proposed rezone. We do require, however, that the proposed construction of the fourplex shall at his expense, install or cause to be installed fire . hydrant or hydrants within one hundred and sixty-five feet 165 ) of any such building or structure, and so no portion of said building or structure is in excess of three hundred feet 300) of any hydrant . The size, type and flow of such hydrants to comply with rules and regulations of the "Insurance Services Office, " and shall be approved by the Chief of the Renton Fire Department. RG:bm RECEIVED CITY OF RENTON HEARING EXAMINER MAR 8 1971 EXHIBIT NO.AM PM 718,9110,1111211,2.3.41516 ITEM NO. t ROUTING FOR REVIEW OF ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORMS TO : Finance Department Fire Department Library Department Park Department Police Department Public Works Department Building Div . Traffic Engineering Div . Engineering Div. 0 Utilities Engineering Div . 1 FROM : Planning Department , (signed by responsible official or his designee) P4144MOt___5.44/114 SUBJECT : Review of ECF- A J2. -. 77 ; Application No . : /2-'0/,5P-77 Action Name : .51-Atoll wot,40 ; fQszoaUQ A. - 2., to 4,-_3 Please review the attached . Review requested by ( date) : efrifr2 7 REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : Department : Comments : Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : n/' Department : 3r`, 0-7 E' v` !v1 Comments : f Oc P Z: '1 v v/ 5? Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Da e 6-76 OVER) REVIEW BY OTHER CITY JEPARTMENTS : Department : Comments : Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : , Department : Comments : Signature of Director or Authorized Representative REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : Department :__ Comments : Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : Department : Comments : Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date J INTERDEPARTMENTAL REVIEW REOUEST TO : PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR BUILDING DIVISION 4) 2)ENGINEERING DIVISION TRAFFIC ENGINEERING DIVISION UTILITIES DIVISION V.` FIRE DEPARTMENT HEALTH DEPARTMENT FROM : PLAN.NI.NG DEPARTMENT MIC44AE(„ Sititr Contact Person R-E-L---- -611144I.-Er-WO LP.-- Lir Z-&/..5-- 77 Please review the attached information regarding the_ subject proposal and return it to the Planning Department by t‘ki I ? /q 77 with your written j recommendation . - Your res-pon-se will 1b-e- included- as part the staff report to the Hearing Examiner. Thank you , PLANNING DEPARTMENT 4/4147-5 ,54Lie Date yjc/47 lip,of THE CITY OF RENTON CHARLES J. DELAURENTI , MAYOR 4 o .d6p, 0FIRE DEPARTMENT HEADQUARTERS 53 4 MUNICIPAL BUILDING • 200 MILL AVE. S. • RENTON WA. 98055 • 235 2642TfoSEPTO CHIEF: GEORGE.H.WILLIAMS ASST.CHIEF:DICK GEISSLER February 17, 1977 TO : Planning Department FROM: Richard Geissler, Acting Chief SUBJECT: Wolf Rezone R-015-77 We ,have no objection 'to the proposed rezone. We do require, however, that the proposed construction of the fourplex shall at his expense, install or cause to be installed fire . hydrant or hydrants Within one hundred and sixty-five feet 165 ) of any such building or structure, and so no 'portion of said building or structure is in excess of three hundred feet 300) of any hydrant. The size, type and flow of such hydrants to comply with rules and regulations of the " Insurance Services Office, " and shall be approved by the Chief of the Renton Fire Department. RG:bm PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT BUILDING DIVISION 235 -2540 t. rn O E^ MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, WASH. 98055 O Q' tb SEPIVvc5 February 16, 1977 CHARLES J. DELAURENTI MAYOR TO: Planning Department FROM: James C. Hanson SUBJECT: Wolf Rezone R-015-77 We have_ no objection to_the proposed rezone. JCH/mp 1/)\. 7/ -‘ 0ErEIUE.a Ft i .._ . I 11iNG a+ PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT C.) a 2 BUILDING DIVISION 235 - 2540 o rn 0 ® MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, WASH. 98055 Qcb SEP1 February 16, 1977 CHARLES J. DELAURENTI MAYOR TO: Planning Department FROM: James C. Hanson SUBJECT: Wolf Rezone R-015-77 We have no objection to the proposed rezone. JCH/mp rrEl\fr ?() F ,:`_s 1 NG DE?P WOLF FOUR-PLEX Engineering has no objections to the Variance Request regarding setbacks. Developer shall comply with the City of Renton offsite ordinance regarding new curb, gutter and sidewalk and driveways. Developer may require percolation test to assure adequate absorbtion of storm water. Developer shall supply City with percolation data, including all calculations for design of retention system based upon a 10 year storm. All storm water to be contained on private property. OF R4' s RECEIVFh FEB 1`; 2 - dw..n..,__-. i lc DEP IAs • " WOLF FOUR-PLEX Engineering has no objections to the Variance Request regarding setbacks. Developer shall comply with the City of Renton offsite ordinance regarding new curb, gutter and sidewalk and driveways. Developer may require percolation test to assure adequate absorbtion of storm water. Developer shall supply City with percolation data, including all calculations for design of retention system based upon a 10 year storm. All storm water to be contained on private property. 1 RECEIVED roF E/1,CITY OF RENTON f E I/HEARING EXAMINER MAR 81977 FFQ X 5 1AMPMv VG DFPP, EXHIBIT NO. ITEM NO v = 7 7 A. e- PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT C.) 46k 1--11- 7 BUILDING DIVISION 235 - 254028 0 .u..=..,MUNICIPAL BUILDING no MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, WASH. 98055 0 cl- February 16, 1977 CHARLES J. DELAURENTI MAYOR TO: Planning Department FROM: James C. Hanson SUBJECT: Wolf Rezone R-015-77 We have no objection to the proposed rezone. JCH/mp A rrH\ rA:, Pr 1 L i'l.:;3 1 Ib V. . i, 4.4,4i , I S '11///11(3 6 E.?t,-• ' RECEIVED CITY OF RENTON HEARING EXAMINER MAR 8 1977 EXHIBIT NO.6 AM PM 71819110,111121112i3141516 ITEM NO /7 c_ L ______ 77_ _ ____ A WOLF FOUR-PLEX Engineering has no objections to the Variance Request regarding setbacks. Developer shall comply with the City of Renton offsite ordinance regarding new curb, gutter and sidewalk and driveways. Developer may require percolation test to assure adequate absorbtion of storm water. Developer shall supply City with percolation data, including all calculations for design of retention system based upon a 10 year storm. All storm water to be contained on private property. 3 m--- 6--,7 „,------,.. i/ r_j`r-:J 15 In-4. V, - ---.......„...... rL G of 00 Z o TIE CITY OF RENTON MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, WASH. 98055AJio CHARLES J. DELAURENTI. MAYOR e PLANNING EPARTNIENTpoco• I) 235-2550OTf0SFPZ4\<<, February 14 , 1977 Stanley D . Wolf 3900 N . E . 11th St . Renton , WA 98055 Dear Mr. Wolf.: RE : NOTICE OF APPLICATION ACCEPTANCE AND PUBLIC HEARING DATE FOR Rezone from- R-2 to R-3,-File No. R-015-77 Gentlemen : The Renton Planning Department formally accepted the above mentioned application on February 8 , 1977 A public hearing before the City of Renton Hearing Examiner has been set for March 8 , 1977 Representatives of the applicant are asked to be pre-sent . All interested persons are invited to attend the hearing . If you have any further questions , please call the Renton Planning Department , 235-2550 . Very truly yours , Gordon Y . Ericksen Planning Director BY • _ ', J Michael L.,/Smith Associate Planner wr Stan Wolf 3900 NE lith iStreet Renton, Wa 93055 228-3154 RE: Variance Request 1. Request setback of proposed four-plex.of 10 feet from back property line: Reason Back property line borders a 32 foot public use area and therefore, the nearest building ever to be constructed would be at least 52 feet from the proposed building. This variance would allow 21 feet between the new and existing structures which would be very desireable esthetically and reduce the potential fire hazard and ability of the fire department to fight such a fire should it occur. Without this variance only 11 feet would exist between buildings, leavings my 7 feet between the existing building and the balcony and living room patio of the proposed four-plex. Only 11 feet would exist between the living room glass patio doors and existing older structure. Without the variance a future replacement of the older duplex would be limited to 60 feet rather than a duplicate of the proposed four-plea which measures 68 feet. Secondary considerations are that the parking would be less adequate with less maneuverability room; planting areas in front of older duplex would be reduced; and the planting areas on the south side of property would be minimum and would lack appearance esthetically. v RECFIUEfl FEB 8 1977 wNG DE?P 44 1 CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON R ANT ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM U FEB g 1911 FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Application No. pi.s 'l7 N NG DES Environmental Checklist No. •'"CAE PROPOSED, date: FINAL, date: ElDeclaration of Significance 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 STANLEY D. WOLF 2. Address and phone number of Proponent: 8900 NE llth Street Renton, Wa 98055 Home: 228-3154 Work: 655-4173 3. Date Checklist submitted 4. Agency requiring Checklist Renton Planning Department 5. Name of proposal , if applicable: Wolf Four—Plex 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) : Construct a new 4-plex on large lot 98' x 135' currently containing a blacktopped for on-site parking. Design features of 24' x 68' building include balconies, patios, double-insulated windows, and natural wood siding with shake roof line. 1 2- 4 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 ) : Located at 1500 Index Ave NE in Renton Highlands area. Lot is 98' x 135' and is level bounded on east by public use area and fenced on north and south sides. 8. Estimated date for completion of the proposal : September, 1977 9. List of all permits, licenses or government approvals required for the proposal federal, state and local --including rezones) : R-3 rezone, building permit VA ai AIrs4 mac- ® 1 Ca I sfnraNue 10. Do you have any plans for future additions , expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes , explain: NO 11. Do you know of any plans by others which may affect the property covered by your proposal ? If yes , explain: NO 12. Attach any other application form that has been completed regarding the pro- posal ; if none has been completed, but is expected to be filed at some future date, describe the nature of such application form: NO 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 ES MAYBE NO b) Disruptions , displacements , compaction or over- covering of the soil ? X Y S MAYBE NO c) Change in topography or ground surface relief features? X YES MAYBE N- d) The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? X YES MAYBE NO e) Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? X YET- 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 MAYBE Explanation: Al 3- 2) Air. Will the proposal result in: a) Air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? X YES MA BE NO b) The creation of objectionable odors? X YES MAYBE Nb 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 Xtherateandamountofsurfacewaterrunoff? 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 YES MAYBE ii 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? v 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 MAYBE NO i ) Reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? X YES RATITE NO Explanation: 4) Flora. Will the proposal result in: a) Change in the diversity of species , or numbers of any species of flora (including trees , shrubs , grass , crops , microflora and aquatic plants)? X Will be adding shrubs and trees)YES MAYBE WO— b) Reduction of the numbers of any unique , rare or endangered species of flora?X TES- MAYBE NO c) Introduction of new species of flora into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species?X Y MAYBE NO d) Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? YET— MAYBE NO Explanation: 4- 5) Fauna. Will the proposal result in: a) Changes in the diversity of species , or numbers of any species of fauna (birds , land animals including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms , insects or microfauna)? X V M NU— 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 Y AEIYBENO d) Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? X YTS MAYBE NO Explanation: 6) Noise. Will the proposal increase existing noise levels? X YES MAYBE NO Explanation: Four additional families could raise the noise level but offensive noise will not be tolerated. 7) Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? Ems- MAYBE K — Explanation: Some light will be generated from the four—plex and some from car movement. 8) Land Use. Will the proposal result in the alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? X YET— MAYBE NO Explanation: This n roposal is consistaftt with rl c prehens3vc land use plan, but will require a rezone. 9) Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a) Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? X YES MAYBE NO b) Depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource? X YES MAYBE NO Explanation: 10) Risk of Upset. Does the proposal involve a risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil , pesticides , chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? X YES UM- NO Explanation: 11) Population. Will the proposal alter the location. distri- bution, density, or growth rate of the human population Xofanarea? YES MAYBE NO , Explanation: Density will be increased by four families p 5- 12) Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or . create a demand for additional housing? X YES MAYBE NO Explanation: This will provide needed upgraded housing in immediate area. 13) Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in: a) Generation of additional vehicular movement? X Normal associated with four additional families YES MAYBE NO b) Effects on existing parking facilities , or demand for new parking? YES MAYBE NO c) Impact upon existing transportation systems? •X YET— MBE 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? X Yam- MAYBE NO Explanation: 14) Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas : a) Fire protection? 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? YES FATE NO Explanation: 15) Energy. Will the proposal result in: a) Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? YES MBE NO b) Demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? x YET— MAYBE NO Explanation: 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 MBE NO b) Communications systems? YES MAYBE NO c) Water? X YES MAYBE NO 6- d) Sewer or septic tanks? X YES MAYBE FJO e) Storm water drainage? X YES MAYBE NO f) Solid waste and disposal ? X YES MAYBE NO Explanation: 17) Human Health. Will the proposal result in the creation of any health hazard or potential 'health hazard (excluding mental health)? X YES— MAYBE NO Explanation: 18) Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive 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 of a significant archeological or historical site, structure, object or building? X YES MAYBE NO Explanation: III . SIGNATURE I , the undersigned, state that to the best of my knowledge the above information is true and complete. It is understood that the lead agency may withdraw any decla- ration of non-significance that it might issue in reliance upon this checklist should there be any willful misrepresentation -or willful lack of -full disclosure on my part. Proponent : dd signed Stanley D. Wolf name printed) Z(.4el T7-1 J' ldo L' City of Renton Planning Department 5-76. O 1- RAC c, ' a/ltD c) CITY OF RENTON j° REZONE APPLICATION Il 1 FEB 8 1977 For Office Use Only: i'='LNG DEP PR' 4, APPL. NO. / - U /5 - 7'7 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTIO ' FEE; RECEIPT NO. J,/1'S APPEAL FILED FILING DATE 2.-8- 7 7 CITY COUNCIL ACTION HEARING DATE ' ,..3-,p- 7. 7 ORDINANCE NO. & DATE APPLICANT TO COMPLETE ITEMS 1 THROUGH 10 : 1. Name STANLEY D. WOLF phone . 228-3154 2. Address 3900 NE llth Street, Renton, Wa 98055 3. Property petitioned for rezoning is located on 1500 Index Ave NE between Index Ave NE and Jefferson Ave NE I 4 . Square footage or acreage of property 13,230 sq. ft. 5. Legal description of property (if more space is required, attach separate sheet) Lot 34, Block 46, corrected plat of Renton Ifighlands No. 2, an addition to the city of Renton, according to plat recorded in Volume 57 of plats, pages 92 to 98 inclusively, in King County, Washington. 6 . Existing zoning R-2 Zoning Requested R-3 NOTE TO APPLICANT: The following factors are considered in reclass- ifying property. Evidence or additional information to substantiate your request may be attached to this sheet. (See Application Procedure sheet for specific requirements) . Submit this form in duplicate. 7. Proposed use of site. To construct a new four-plex with an existing duplex and provide rental living units for six families and to upgrade the immediate area. 8 . List the measures to be taken to reduce impact on the surrounding area. a. On-site parking b. Landscape screening c. No change of grading d. No change to existing sidewalks e. New building to be of a pleasant design and of an upgrading nature to the immediate area. 9 . How soon after the rezone is granted do you intend to develop the site? Within three months N 10 . Two copies of plot plan and affidavit of ownership are required. Ili Planning Dept. 2-73 i AFFIDAVIT Tti 1 ll I, f/l//ED // , 7,y, -- being duly sworn, declare that I am the owner of the property involved in this application and that the foregoing statements and answers herein contained and the information herewith submitted are in all respects true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Subscribed and sworn before me this/r4 day of 19 °', Notary" ublic in and for the State of Washing on, residing at o'ew stJn, 2'e„ / /e1 /,' ,-.,/ Name of Nott'ary Public) Signature caner Address) Address) 7,4/7- 1/ 6'/-/ City) State) 2/% 2 Z - ./- ei:- 4'/73 Telephone) FOR OFFICE USE 'ONLY) CERTIFICATION This is to certify that the foregoing application has been inspected by me and has been found to be thorough and complete in every particular and to conform to the rum' "- U regulations of the Renton Planning Department governing the f Aleo 01, application . RECEIVED !/'o Date Receive 19 By: 1 .FE8 8 1977 7 A.SCE Renton Planning Dept . ye DEP 11"R 2-73 ENDING OF FILE FILE TITLE4P --075 -77 4 0? - 877 1600 MICROFILMED