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 AboutLUA77-022RECEIVED 1 are OF RENTON HEARING EXAMINER FIGURE 2: MAR ). 5 1977 AM PM RECOMMENDED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 7180110111112aa2s:3oh'I. 16 EXHIBIT NO• 1 1t.... 0 i‘e lam• 1 1 NORTH Is,O. ii Ih. ?3' um asz vir, cEiRF+7 t p vii: Misty Cove T. 162 Apartments 4 • • ' ,;•.:•.:•:•:::.:::::.::::::•:.:::.:1:.?';•:•::.:::::::::.:::::':::'::'•::.': 1:. 4::::::::.:*':•:::•-:-:::•::::•:'::.: 1;•,::::.*:•-• Ile:, il i/ . ... . . .. .. . .ii i 1 ,8 1fo3 a Iii\11\1 r.'• t 5 I Z 1 4ill RIPLEY LANE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REVIEW LEGEND : Single Family it..,. ":".....;...:: Low Density iiiin: .i.i..;":; ; Multi Family Medium DensityHeavyIndustrial4IMultiFamily rCA"r,..7 Recreation CITY Of RENTONl'.i'• t {rr c_r^?r• ' z.e• PLANNING DEPARTMENT t. air 4/ 3•':'.•:-., - ' . - • 4-,-,---.. _ : ' I 1--,a- t • 1.6 r. 7 d•7 i,.:-":-.'',-A :•-.1 :-,-:-....,_, --'-.--4 ---. 1 .-.1 ..., ,.._•--.7. ....7.---. r•... c•4) ., . ; ; -A/ ci--,..--.- grA.•--7: r.:" ''-. • 3 1'ii i'--- t--C•) ;''''' 4 .' i.',:,.,...:":...--; 0;•. A e- t.„4' 1," 4-!7____ i..', .._ r......si ,its.:;•s 7.^..1 .7.744, i v 4... ..---- D1' l'414‘. i s., 1-7', - •'`,1' I'-; ".. I.L...,-. 1.-••_:.c.-_,...-.--_,:----- r•-•0.- a7..•;••:,1,., • ___....- 2-.‘ :- ' I I ,.. 1/ 1. ' 1.-.4tV 0 otiN 39,..-5,- 4.*: t..!..z.‘__./.- 1...... ...._.f',/ I- 4 .- 1 \ i --, __-•-......:Ze 5----- 75 iPOI _'sr I .... N.,.. N. -dPiky, 44,: ii 1 i 1 . 4 17 S :.3:Zr... :. . i N, i.,....,....... . i /.....1. i.• A„.,-. k.i ,::_S• t. - c-fec>130 I 4.. I'\, e i . -...'• . RECE1VE:.— D ' s, 4 i , . , - As cs„L_ ,-- --, CITY- -0FLAE j - NION0i,. HEAttiNii*EXAM(61E.Fil'7.-..;';`:-,._"-..;.' ; = 11: \\••1‘ trE A n-irritY1 5 1977rAM PM vRENtr, e-' 3'.•171$.191 11 12 2 '3 4 5 A Xc) 4/L1 i ....9, , .1 a .i -‘ ' i.-.;:-:‘,-..,.! r, ,_-.. ,-;:.,...,./ , • 1---. N\ • 15.0 7.11 s 6 ' V (1 ,\.1 CI L ' LA k v 1 * -. 4 1 , iis/vi blio 13-1Virje‘ N i 1.-gii fri-s""*Zhfteel1 1 i Clii t * ss. N‘ • N,., 7--- yL.,7)-- 7 i 1, IL 4 . • .1, 0,1)H vvili. 144-,; :yq CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON - iORDINANCENO.312ANORDINANCEOAffidavitofPublicationTHECITYOFRENTON WASHINGTON , AMENDING THE CITY'S COMPRE- I STATE OF WASHINGTON HENSIVE LAND USE COUNTY OF KING ss. I FLAN AND MAPS AND DATA IN CONJUNC- TION THEREWITH RE-Betty Morris EATING TO CERTAIN PROPERTIES IN THE ' being first duly sworn on GENERAL VICINITY OF RIPLEY LANE, NORTH ShA chief clerk 1 OF AND THE MISTYoath,deposes and says that is the of COVE APARTMENTS, ' THE RENTON RECORD-CHRONICLE, a newspaper published four(4) RENTON, WASHING- times a week.That said newspaper is a legal newspaper and it is now and has been for more than six months prior to the date of publication referred I WHEREAS the Planningto, printed and published in the English language continually as a news Commission of the City of paper published four(4)times a week in Kent,King County,Washington, Renton and the City Councilanditisnowandduringallofsaidtimewasprintedinanofficemaintainedhaveheretoforeadoptedattheaforesaidplaceofpublicationofsaidnewspaper.That the Renton and filed a"ComprehensiveRecord-Chronicle has been approved as a legal newspaper by order of the I Land Use Plan" as evirSuperiorCourtoftheCountyinwhichitispublished,to-wit,King County, idenced by Resolution No.', Ord 3126 1240, and Ordinance No. 2142, and as same haveWashington.That the annexed is a been implemented and amended from time to time,j together with the adoption oef, various codes, reports and records, and as it was published in regular issues(and I WHEREAS since said not in supplement form of said newspaper) once each issue for a period adoption the Planning Com- mission has heretofore duly recommended to the CityoneICouncil, from time.to time;of consecutive issues,commencing on the certain amendments to said 24th April 77 City's ':Comprehensive Land Use Plan";anddayof19andendingthe WHEREAS the PlanningICommissionheldapublic hearing on or about October pi: day of 19 ,both dates 27, 1976, and said hearing inclusive, and that such newspaper was regularly distributed to its sub having been continued from scribers during all of said period. That the full amount of the fee time to time, and WHEREAS the Planning73.20 Commission has made cer- charged for the foregoing publication is the sum of $ which Main findings and recommen- has been paid in full at the rate of per folio of one hundred words for the dations to the City of Renton, first insertion and per folio of one hundred words for each subsequent and insertion. WHEREAS the City Council held a public hear- i j/ Cam/ ing on this matter on Feb- ruary 7,1977 and which said Chi e Clerk hearing was duly continued to February 28, 1977 and April 4, 1977,and all parties 24th appearing in favor of or in Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of opposition to said amend- ment to the City's, Com- prehensive Land Use Plan iApril 19 ]] having been duly heard at such public hearing,and WHEREAS the City IgeU,62-Z j Council has duly deter-Notary Pub c ' and for the State of W ington, mined, after due considera- residing at Kent, • County. l fiat) of the testimony and evidence before it to modify , the recommendations of the I Passed by the Legislature,1955,known as Senate Bill 281,effective June i City's Planning Commis- sion,and9th, 1955. I WHEREAS it is advise- ' Western Union Telegraph Co. rules for counting words and figures, ble and appropriate to , adopted by the newspapers of the State. amend and modify the City's i I_ Comprehensive Land Use j Plan"and such amendment and modification being in the i best interest of the City andV.P.C.Form No.87 for the public benefit Nnui WASHINGTON, DO OR- ' DAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I:The afores- . tated findings and'recitals are hereby found to be true and correct in all respects. SECTION II:The City of Renton's "Comprehensive, Land Uge Plan" and-maps, J data and reports in conjunc- tion therewith are hereby modified and amended,pur- suant to the public hearings held in connection therewith as hereinabove specified, which amendments and modifications relate to the following described proper- ties,to-wit: See Exhibit"A"attached hereto and incorporated he- rein and said properties de- scribed in said Exhibit are hereby designated as"Sing- le Family Residential"for the area abutting Ripley,Lane located north of the Misty Cove Apartments and ex-. tending to the northerly City Limits and that area of the Misty Cove Apartments 1 being designated as "Low d Density Multiple Family"on said "Comprehensive 1.Land Use Plan"and records i pertaining thereto. SECTION III:The Plan- ping Director is hereby au- , thorized and directed to make the necessary changes on said City's Comprehensive Land.Use , Plan" and the maps in con- junction. therewith.to evi- dence"the aforedescribed amendment. SECTION IV: The City Clerk is further authorized and directed to file this Ordi- nance as provided by law, and a complete copy of said document likewise being on .,, file with the office of the City Clerk,City of Renton. SECTION V: This Ordi- nance shall be effective upon its passage, approval and five days after its publi- cation. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this 18th day of April, 1977. Delores A. Mead, City Clerk, APPROVED BY THE , MAYOR this 18th day of , April, 1977. Charles J. Delaurenti, Mayor APPROVED'as to Form: Gerard M:Shellan, City Attorney • Published in The Renton Record-Chronicle April 24; 1977. R4315 v Letter sent to : 110 Mr. & Mrs . Lou Bergan 5029 Ripley Lane No . Renton, WA. 98055 Mr . & Mrs . Rod Crawford 11815 S . E . 165th Renton, WA 98055 Mr. Rich Imus 5636 - 123rd Ave. S . E. Bellevue, WA 98006 Mr. John O 'Neil 4018 East Mercer Way Mercer Island , WA CITY OF RENTON. Mr. Robert ! Gerend HIDING 200 MILL AVE: SO.'RENTON;WASH. 98055 14877 S . E. 50th s Bellevue, WA ENTI MAYOR DELORES "A. MEAD CITY CLERK Mr. Joel Haggard ie ' 15 , 1977 900 Hoge Building Seattle, WA Mr. & Mrs : Thomas C . Buckingham I'' 50.25 Ripley Lane No . Renton, WA. 98055 G. Hearin2 Exam nAfo'rney,v ounce} PRES .I' i ayo,r, Finance Dir . 7.:. 7.','..'',,*:',,.- z.022-77 , Rezone. G-6000, to.. t 3 :.Denied; : Thomas'' C . . Buckingham , ppeal , Council Committee . Report T o .'All Parties:, :a£3`.°'Re.e o.ir, EREBY' t—.0 ,,N.":"•;t,ha ':committee.' 0 regn r.ev:iousl t" b"a;-`'r;e"par:ted` :`ou't ;'_un regarding` thes-c,Tiea-u ,e'`a-;. o,;;' i o.n J, e 2 0 Buckingham<";a:. ea:]'`':" has:;';be:e'n', 'exten-ded to June; :27 . , fl aYton f or all parties3ven';'for° I 'ormi Ston4-30 . 16 . This Fnoti s` ` Ordinance #3071 , f ord ursuan to'o : rec F' truly,S'•:,, 1?4. C.x T:X !O.,F R E N T O N 1P dz4u1Q iR4'.:.:e sew c., lC• U.eacores A. . Mead DM b h" C;i t'y Clerk fit.„ OF RFCti THE CITY OF RENTON rfn 8 MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, WASH. 98055 o CHARLES J. DELAURENTI , MAYOR DELORES A. MEAD o CITY CLERK o lF SEP1 June 1, 1977 Re: R. 022-77 , Rezone G-6000 to R-3 Denied;Thomas C. Buckingham Appeal To All Parties of Record: NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that appeal has been filed with the City Council by Mr. Thomas C. Buckingham requesting review of Hearing Examiner' s decision denying rezone. The appeal has been referred to the Planning and Develop- ment Committee of the Council for review and recommendation. The matter will be reported out of committee during the regular City Council meeting on June 20, 1977 . Regular City Council meetings are held each Monday at 8 p .m. in the Second Floor. Council Chambers, Municipal Building . This notice is given for information of all parties of record pursuant to Ordinance #3071-Sec . 40 . 30. 16 . Yours very truly, CITY OF RENTON Abuta a. 711.1"L Delores A. Mead DM:bh . City Clerk cc: Hearing Examiner City Attorney Council President Mayor G. Marshall 1 ct CITY.OF" RENT- JN , a.e THE fF ' } 1,• ! MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200.ML1 L AVE:So:'-,RENTON;WASH 98•05 ; I t;' t ' .• ` pEI..QRES 'A',.'MiEADysZ CHARLES J. DELAURENTI MAYOR ,.', , CO' + CITY CLERK , 9 g,:. 5 ry, itmihaBiickaMhog h(rttie'04Y1eZaR2 Y,5''0'5. YR• 05 r nton. ashington=:' ' 98Re 5 ai 1nmn`E a earias"Exaof_ HeReAppeal.a lPP R:, 3'from'', Qofrezone` vik 'n haBucir:ar Me g meet'i.n Oitsrehe .Renton' Cit, Council, atTY a ea•1 of1977has:>xeferred • y our :letter` :,.of, pp. a n=i n and ,`De=decision to' the. P'];an ,g'.,.Hear;in Examiner a. and':,of the',.Cout`'-Committe•e • k::f` v,e1`a ••meri..P k.pact,. F'•' a Councilman George Perry, 'the Committee Chairman;:, ':has set' June, .20 as. :the ••date ,the matter will be 'reported out. ,o f,..committee' rt Y 4( f ay be ontacted throughR,the City Council.Mr;.:; .Perry. .may be `c M' i re ar;di ' ;;meetings>'orBillieDun1gSecMrs'P yY f •r mat io n PH 2 25 8 6;;0fth.e r. infor- ur ul.''Yours ver.i, tr y'i CITY OF RENT ON i: Deloes.''''''4. City Clerk ri,, DM:bh.,,: f k y f. . '.........•.. i .-.,., .. ,....::.-.,. ,+.. ,,,-. lr i. Letter sent to : 410 Mr. & Mrs . Lou Bergan 5029 Ripley Lane No . Renton, Wn. 98055 Mr. & Mrs. Rod Crawford 11815 S .E . 165th Renton, WA 98055 Mr. Rich Imus 5636 - 123rd Ave. S .E . Bellevue, WA 98006 Mr. John O'Neil 4018 East Mercer Way Mercer Island, WA Mr. Robert Gerend 14877 S .E. 50th Bellevue, WA Mr. Joel Haggard 900 Hoge Building Seattle, WA Renton City Council 5/23/77 Page 3 Consent Agenda - Continued Claims for Claim for Damages was filed by Lynn P. Keith, 124 E. Utsalady Rd. , Damages Camano Isl . for auto damage allegedly due to airplane exhaust from L.P.Keith Renton Airport causing pock marks. Claim in amount of $479.97. Refer to City Attorney and Insurance Carrier. Renton School Claim for Damages wa's filed by Transportation Supv. , Walter L. District Ballard, for damage to school bus allegedly due to manhole cover on S. 27th St. striking frame of school bus, Claim in amount of 895. , Refer, to City Attorney and Insurance Carrier. Street Vacation Letter from City Clerk Mead reported petition filed by The Austin Portion of Co. requesting vacation of a portion of Thomas Ave. SW lying between Thomas Ave. SW SR-405 and SW 16th St. ; $100 filing fee received. The Public Works Dept. has certified the petition as valid and that it represents 100% of the property abutting the proposed street vacation, The Clerk's letter recommended referral to the Board of Public Works for determination regarding retention of utility easements, to the Public Works Department for determination regarding appraisal and payment of fees, to the Public Services Committee and to. the Ways and Means Public Hearing Committee for resolution setting 7/11/77 as date of public hearing, 7/11/77 Council concurrence recommended. Consent Agenda MOVED BY PERRY, SECONDED BY CLYMER, COUNCIL APPROVE CONSENT AGENDA Approved i AS PRESENTED. CARRIED. CORRESPONDENCE AND CURRENT BUSINESS Buckingham Appeal 'Letter from Thomas C. Buckingham, 5025 Ripley Lane N, , registered of Hearing appeal of Land Use Hearing Examiner's determination concerning Examiner Decision R-022-77, rezone from single family residence district (G-6000) to R-022-77 R-3, medium density multiple family residence district for property Denying Rezone located between Lake Washington and Ripley Lane N. adjacent to and north of Misty Cove Apartments, Mr. Buckingham's letter enclosed appeal fee of $25.00 and copies of the Hearing Examiner's determina- tion dated 4/13/77, Examiner's response of 5/6/77, as well as Buckingham's appeal of 4/19/77 covering the main issues of contention. Appeal based on .erro.r in judgement by Examiner, due to change in Examiners at crucial time; contending outgoing Examiner's conclusion based on-- recent Council action to change the Comprehensive Plan did not permit a fair determination regarding request for rezone, MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECONDED BY SHINPOCH, COUNCIL REFER APPEAL TO THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE. Committee Chairman Perry estab- lished date of June 20, 1977 to bring the recommendation back to the Council . The City Clerk was requested to so notify Appellant. MOTION CARRIED. Council President Perry reminded Council members to leave printed agenda material regarding appeal in the folder and it would be returned to their desk, or if removing correspondence, to assume responsibility for keeping materials for review, Hearing Examiner Letter from Hearing Examiner, L. Rick Beeler, presented material Buckingham Rezone for review of appeal of the Hearing Examiner's decision on.. Thomas R-022-77 C. Buckingham request for rezone R-022-77 including Examiner's denial of rezone and denial of reconsideration, MOVED BY PERRY, SECONDED BY SHINPOCH, COUNCIL REFER MATTER TO THE PLANNING AND DEVEL- OPMENT COMMITTEE. CARRIED. EDA Funding Letter from Mayor, Delaurenti explained extension of Title I portion Priorities of Public Works Act of 1976 to reduce unemployment by funding local j public works projects in high unemployment areas nationwide, and that regulations as previously submitted may be updated or withdrawn. The letter restated priorities established and submitted (highest to lowest): new main fire station, building of new pump station and installation of new water lines on Talbot Hill and construct portions of Cedar River Trail System. The Administration proposed to update cost estimates for the original applications and if so desired by Coun- cil, requested Council review and report back 6/6/77, applications to be certified before 6/15/77. MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECONDED BY GRANT, COUNCIL STAY ON RECORD MAINTAINING PRIORITY AS PREVIOUSLY ESTABLISHED AND AUTHORIZE SUBMITTAL OF EDA FORMS. Councilwoman Thorpe asked Administration to consider placement of fire station south of railroad tracks. MOTION CARRIED. 7 Renton City Council 5/23/77 Page 4 Correspondence and Current Business - Continued Bid Opening City Clerk Mead reported 5/23/77 bid opening for surplus trackage, Surplus ties and switches, located at the Lake Washington Beach Park; two Railroad Track bids received as shown in attached tabulation. MOVED BY CLYMER, SECONDED BY BRUCE, COUNCIL REFER BIDS TO THE PARK BOARD. CARRIED. Cedar Center Letter from Planning Director Ericksen/Housing & Community Develop- Park -- Designed ment Coordinator Baker, requested transfer of funds from Cedar for the Center Park Professional Services to Personal Services in amount Handicapped of $3,489 in order to continue design work. The letter noted con- currence by King County Housing & Development staff. MOVED BY STREDIC.KE, SECONDED BY SHINPOCH, COUNCIL CONCUR IN RECOMMENDATION . AND REFER MATTER TO WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE. CARRIED, Mini-Computer/ MOVED BY PERRY, SECONDED BY BRUCE, THAT THE REPORT RE BIDS FOR MINI- Data Storage Unit COMPUTER/DATA STORAGE UNIT AND HARD COPY PRINTER BE TAKEN FROM THE Hard Copy Printer TABLE AT THIS TIME. (Bid award tabled 5/16/77) MOTION CARRIED, Bid Award Letter from Data Processing Director Torkelson recommended the City accept the low bid of IBM Corporation for a 3741 data storage and retrieval system; that the machine meets all the City's specifica- tions for a data storage unit with hard copy printer. Councilman Stredicke noted letter from City Attorney stating need to determine whether or not the bid specifications had been met; Stredicke noted Data Processing Director's affirmative declaration. MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECONDED BY PERRY, COUNCIL CONCUR IN 5/16 COMMITTEE REPORT ACCEPTING LOW BID OF IBM CORPORATION. Letter from Computer Sales , Inc. , Seattle, was distributed by Dan Hartley, Manager, claiming mini-computer specified by bid call and that company alone has complied. Mr. Hartley protested bid award, asking the City examine bid call notices carefully not causing undue burden on small businesses. MOTION CARRIED. OLD BUSINESS BY COUNCIL Public Services Public Services Committee Chairman Bruce submitted committee report Committee Report re meeting with property owners 5/17/77 to discuss deficiencies in Cedar Ave. So. concrete work on Cedar Ave. So. (LID 293) and recommended: (1.) . The LID 293 contractor, Moss Construction Co. , proceed with correction of the Street deficiencies in the water meter boxes and refinishing of weepholes Improvement in the curbs throughout the project; detailed list to be supplied to the contractor. (2) The cracked curbs and gutters at the several driveway approaches are still substantially in their constructed posi- tion; no settlement, displacement or spalling of concrete and are generally sound structurally. The City will provide letters to the abutting property owners indicating property owners will not be responsible or liable for replacement of these.cracked curbs and gutters should they become dangerous and defective as result of work performed under this contract; City assuming responsibility for the replacement as here indicated; Contractor warranting to the City he will replace cracked curbs and gutters within two year period of this date if becoming dangerous and defective, (3) The City staff will investigate and work with abutting property owners regarding drainage behind their private retaining walls; if individual problems cannot be worked out these matters will again be referred to this committee.. MOVED BY PERRY, SECONDED BY BRUCE, COUNCIL CONCUR IN RECOMMENDATION OF COMMITTEE. CARRIED. Aviation Aviation Committee (Public Services) report submitted by Chairman Committee Report Stredicke presented insurance quotation from Dan B. Hauff & Assoc. for liability coverage 6/1/77 - 5/31/78, and recommended $5,000,000 single limits on premises; $60,000 hangarkeepers ' legal liability for one aircraft and $300,000 for one loss. The report noted total annual premium $3,234 approximately $2,000 less than total premium for $1 ,000,000 last year. MOVED BY PERRY, SECONDED BY BRUCE, COUNCIL CONCUR IN AVIATION COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. Comprehensive Councilman Stredicke noted testimony by Public Works Department at Plan Review public hearing before the Land Use Hearing Examiner re capabilities of sewer lift station at Sunset and Union to the extent no additional multiples should be allowed in that area without improvements, Area development questioned by Stredicke. MOVED STREDICKE, SECOND PERRY, COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR N.E. SECTION OF CITY BE REFERRED TO PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE. CARRIED. w OF 4 V eti 0 THE CITY OF RENTON U Q MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON,WASH. 98055 o7,13 CHARLES J. DELAURENTI , MAYOR • LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER L. RICK BEELER , 235-2593D,Q, dttO SEP-1E1.4O May 23, 1977 Mayor. Charles J. Delaurenti Members, Renton City Council Dear Mayor Delaurenti and Members of Council: Attached for your review is an appeal of the Hearing Examiner's decision on Thomas C. Buckingham request for rezone, File No. R-022=77. The subject appeal was received by the City Clerk on May 20, 1977 and is scheduled for the City Council agenda on May 23, 1977. Also attached for your review is the Examiner's letter of denial of reconsideration, dated May 6, 1977; the applicant's letter requesting reconsideration, dated April 19, 1977; and the Examiner's report and recommendation to the Renton City Council, dated April 13, 1977. Sincerely, L. Rick Beeler Hearing Examiner LRB:mp Attachments (4) RECEIVE® CITY' .OF. RENTON. :.. HEARING'EXAMINER AM MAY:2 0,1977-' L,. P`; PM rt p D c.-- f . .),(..- e -1-'41''''''''''' '''':'1•''''''''.:::'''''''1:".-'::::j'i.:1-1-';-',•.: i!..0''.--R.E-C '.1 V 17-9 -1-k, .--::',.,',•....',..:. '-' .-.L.,,,..- -..„,....-. „, f. tim,--. 1 . • ' • ' 6:. ),...2 - ,,,..,..);',..-71,..t..- .. ,.>:.:;'.„•-,:•:,,,,;..:;:.:, -::,.,-,,-•-:..,: i.,.;••-•% I.,.., Ip•,illi'apt k...-1'`, y r L.--.:.ter, s} rr. G. S. : 1)91'-,',,,6:-'2..-. -,,,:.-, ,':,',', -,.......' ,.- -.: .. - , . , • .. 7 '(_-Ge1 L r(- _. ` % f C 1. . ..tit.t f 5 l L ,. t.,/,::,,:. j,::„....,ii.,...,,,c., .,„:„.::,. 77:,,,,;:,„•,,•,...• :.•,/,-,,,,•-;;;[...-.::....••••,,-...,2•.....,.,,,, •., , f- c, )-• f, L. ' LL-....77-7,-..'..:'.:',-, :-.LY„..:::,,:•..!:.....;.-• .., L,.::-„:-.,L7: :,-,,:i-L:,:::',, J.:•-J..-7..--;,L,....-L.,,.,;..,:,,:•.:::- L,L.--,..L:L'L,.,:.L.L:..., .. .. • rs .:,.,. . ,.......:.,....... .. .:::_,.... ,. 7.-,..._ -;....-..,.,...:_,. ... ..,._..„::,.:,-_.. : .,...,... , Aa:_z_t_ii-.,?,.._2111 •..‘„_,..•-;:.;._,:.,... :.:•,,. d2..,. ti—i_-__-,,_ek-7L---: "`"k7-- :... ,..- '''•-_-_.'...'f•'•. H.:':.....1.:,:,::.'-:,:..',,,...:,,:::;.:...:...,.:,,,,,,.,'..:,,i,:•.,..•7,-.:::: 2,:::',:::::,,..'::.....,..',',,,: i:,.,".. a-,:.',.::: :•.:::•.',!•.:::,•.Q;_it..,,--,.:.,' .A____ 6:: ,,.' 6,.1<_,,(1. e. ' -1-...'17:::-,_:''',...-•••.::::`'...'cL.,i, , . .: __,,k ..„1.4....•A-k_., ./v-L.,-1:-.-0---.. ! ...'..'•,' .•',..,:,.';'::::..:;-::::,. y.'::: :.."--.•.,:c.!` '-:.':•.....,-,1,:':,....,1".... i,„,• 31-..11,/ ••:4-c•;0.. :, ..,,..,.:., •.;.:: ,:;.:.',..,: r,'.•A-••c_x--• ..• '. ... '''CA-. 2---'-'.:' .., •':-.:„.•''',.:-.::,:. i: ,;:::':::•.--i.:''''•':'.,',1.:.: .".:1.,'''. .*,: •'-::-:•. .j.-: :.: . .-,-. • • •.- . 7 . : • ..„--;.:-..,,- i J r M_'.a-/L _ r=-4;62 2.yt t t (k".. C 'C—. ..(,c ?— ^ r',:, .", , . . . • •_ ' , . - i,:,,,'.::::.,',.'.::,,.„.'.',,.. f,',:.:,-.:'. i.-.,:::,,,,,,.::::,.,:--.: 7:::.,-:•.,..!,::,'..,!-.,,., s..: ..,::...,, s7:..,. , ., ... 7 ..-..:':;.;-;, i' C.--''.', ,:-.'•‘,:-. .., 7:.:,-.-',',.."',. i..:'.:"';'''.::' -.... Y1-..: f.:":.:::-,. .: 1,-i•.--::::,..--...:,..''•;::--..'''.',',:,...,::: . ',' . -. ._ y':',......::';'[::•'... .• 2:•':-., '..-•:•"•,', "/-,•::',,'... r.?..::: F. - : 7) ' ..• -::.'. '- •::.::-:; ..-•''',-'•- .:, 7,'.,,':::.--:',.. 0q-,-,,: i.,. t., , 7., j.: : . 7::- , rt...., , .. ,. . ..... . . ... . . 7 . ..... . 1. • • . .• •. ' N. t1r7. 7: 7 0••.•: 1:, f N. T, 7'‘''..' 7' 1 : N;' .', '. p. C. 4 7 -? r- 7'''-',''.' Th,'- -,.','";'...•"'•,;-,..-,..•-"••,•- L'-'...,-'-' 1' 7•-,:,q,2,,'.?.‘,•:.:• r,•7,•,, 7: Y,,,•,,-:. 7.0?- 6—., 1.—:°'-,..... r.:,, 7/: 7‘,'7..,.?: r,........•.' A' 1" L,—•''. Nr, r'- 7,,•- z,,-. b 2.. V C i r , __ _ Y 7) p- -/ 2 - , 0..j._ 1-,;;: w.- 2..' -,.':':' tel - '....:-:.:•--..: •- •• i-,......„,----,,,,-- . 1)- 7?- 7-- 7).-? 2- ii. '- 0,..,..:.•:•..'., ,--/.. 4, 4 -,'...‘,,, y,,,....' ••-• :-, r,-;,. '...- •- ,. : , i 1----. ,:• 1 ....,.',::-,.' : -. ' ': ./ : C/ f -•, : T 1, t. -, '' t.-- n/-)- , .. -„'- e--'.. :-- 7 - r'',/:•'''''''''' 1:-..: ' - ' .• ' • • - A 1 Th. f4" r,.- .,. .. ,'.. _.--,,. ./ -, ....- - i . - c/- , ThAyo .-.-.'.:..., r• Tr?-..•, ' ,,_ v_-,—, 0/-..?• ..,.„ ....,....,...„.., .,,,,_ „ 0,,,,,,, „ ,,- , •• , . r ' A of R.. , i A.o THF CITY OF RENTON Z o MUNICIPAL BUILDING- 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, WASH. 98055 op Ycz CHARLES J. DELAURENTI 1 MAYOR • LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER ra p 0 L. RICK BEELER , 235 -2593 grf0 SE PI" May 9„ 1977 Mr. Thomas C. Buckingham RE: File No. R-022-77 5025 Ripley Lane North Renton, WA 98055 Dear Mr. Buckingham: Enclosed is the Examiner ' s response to your request for reconsideration on Application No. R-022-77 . 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, T ' N m IF. I,. ...,_ L. Rick Beeler Hearing Examiner LRB:mp Enclosure o THE CITY OF• RENTON 471 2 MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, WASH. 98055 milopr1CHARLESJ. DELAURENTI , MAYOR • LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER O,0Q' JAMES L. MAGSTADT , 235 - 2593 qlf SEPIC- May 6 , 1977 Mr. Thomas C. Buckingham RE: File No. R-022-77 5025 Ripley Lane North Reconsideration Renton, WA 98055 Dear Mr. Buckingham: After careful deliberation of your letter , I have addressed your reasons point by point for the rezone application No. R-022-77 as follows : 1. The word "strongly" is subjective and can be eliminated from this statement which then can read, " . . .was opposed. . . " 2. My recommendation does not deny the fact that a lower density multi-family zone can serve as a buffer or transition zone between the existing Misty Cove Apartments and the residential area to the north. My intended emphasis was that the request is premature at this time and should be reconsidered at such time as the adjacent property owners concur in the land use change. A change of land use of your property would have an effect on the adjacent property which, if also changed, would have an effect on the adjacent properties to the north and so on. 3. Mr. Haggard' s testimony was considered accordingly along with the testimony of all participants . I publicly informed Mr. Haggard that a requested rezone can be reduced to lower intensive land use at the request of the property owner or upon the recommendation of the Hearing Examiner or City Council; however , the reverse is not true in that a rezone request cannot be amended to a more intensive zone such as from R-2 to R-3 or B-1, etc. 4. I noted in finding No. 5 that the request is compatible with the Comprehensive Plan. The rezone application would not have been executed if it did not agree with the Plan. Subsequent recommended changes by the Planning Commission to the City Council are still compatible with your revised requested rezone change of R-2 (low density multi-family) . My decision did not relate to the change of Comprehensive Plan , but rather related to creating a harmonious designation that would be compatible to the existing residential uses in this area. 5. I agree that conclusion No. 1 is obvious; however, I still felt it was necessary to state this conclusion so that all parties could hopefully follow my reasoning process. I have visited the area several times, both during the day and in the evening. It is Mr. Thomas ,C. Buckinc m Page Two May 6 , 1977 certainly possible to screen the intended uses from the Bergan property; however, the effect eight additional units would have on the adjacent property is a matter of opinion and could be debated extensively. The "domino" effect this use would have was a concern of mine and also of opposing parties to the requested land use. 6. Use of the word "strongly" was covered in point no. 1; however, considering there are only three property owners between your property and the railroad overpass (the area primarily considered as adjacent) , and all three parties contested and opposed the action, this opposition could be considered as strong opposition since it represented all of the adjacent property owners. I have attempted to answer your statements point by point to clarify my intent in reaching my final decision. The transition between hearing examiners did not, in my opinion, alter the resulting conclusion. I spent the same amount of time that is required to review and evaluate your applications through the typical hearing process and I ' can assure you that this effort is not superficial, but rather is reached after a considerable amount of time and deliberation. I 've had 14 years of previous planning experience and five years of university training which is all used in my decision and evaluation process. I feel the key statements you should consider are conclusions no. 2 , 3, and 4 in 'which I do not philosophically disagree with your request, but in which my basic concern is maintaining compatibility among the existing residential uses until such time as there is a reconsideration among a majority of the residential property owners in this area. Whenever a decision is made, there is inevitable opposition and disagreement. It has always been my objective to evaluate, the application request in relation to adjacent land uses and to maintain, whenever possible, harmony and compatibility of uses. This objective not only relates to physical entities, but also includes the rights and opinions. of adjacent property owners and/or users. Although you may not agree with my rationale, I hope my recommendation process has been clarified. Sincer- et,i --,- , Fames L. _ stadt Hearing .miner JLM:mp cc: Parties of Record Mayor Delaurenti Members, Renton City Council G. M. Shellan, City Attorney Gordon Y. Ericksen, Planning Director 19 April, 1977 RECEIVED CITY OF RENTON CITY OF RENTON Hearing Examiners Office HEARING EXAMNE1 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 APR 1y77 AM PM 71819110,t1,1?i? 12-`?c !Fn6 Attn: James L. Magstadt Hearing Examiner Dear Sir: The undersigned requests 'reconsiderati.on of your decision concern- ing the Rezone application File No. R-o22-7.7. The reasons are due to the following: 1 . Finding number 1. Citizens Service Corp. withdrew its rezone application .for economic reasons and the uncertainty of obtain- ing City of Renton and Shoreline Management approval. See the second paragraph of the enclosure. There was opposition to the rezone, of course, as there always is, but to state that was etrongly opposed just is not true. 2. Finding number 8. Good planning does not permit R-4 zoning to serve as a reasonable and, just buffer between R-1 zoning to the north and what is planned on the Quendall properties ( not heavy commercial) . Pursuant to your decision, my property becomes the buffer regardless of what you choose to designate the zoning. 3. Finding number 12. Mr. Haggard was "nit-picking". I contest that the conflicts he cited to defeat the rezone request really exist. He also stated as fact that the Hearing Examiner has no legal right to grant R-2 zoning when R-3; is requested. If you disagree with this statement of fact you must also question MM'r. Haasard' s other statements. 4. Finding number 13. The rezone requeeu was submitted before the City Council had taken action to change the Comprehensive Plan., At the time of the rezone request the Comprehensive Plan designated the area as R-3. I believe this is the only aspect of the Comprehensive Plan that you should consider. My opinion is that you based your decision primarily upon subsequent actions of the City Council. What would your decision have been had the question of changing the Comprehensive Plan not come up at this time? 5. Conclusion number 1. The statement that a change in land use, whether the subject property or any other properties in any other areas, would have an immediate effect on adjacent property is so obviously true that it hardly needed to be stated as a conclusion. I believe the question that should be addressed is the degree to which the change would adversely affect sur- rounding properties. If you have actually visited the area I believe you will agree that construction and inhabitation of 9 duplex type units on this property will have no adverse effect on any properties except possibly the Bergens and, excluding the fact there would be more traffic generated by the addition of families. So far as the Bergens are concerned all the ad- verse situations can be effectively mitigated by proper screen- ing to the point that the Bergens would hardly be aware that 9 families lived next door. To reiterate: a.View would not be affected. b. Noise can partially be screened but this contamination has been over-emphasized. I think you will agree that normal day-to-day living activities of 9 families would have absolutely no adverse effect. The objectionable noises are mainly nig noises such as those creC _ i by barkA.ng dogs , for which there are city ordnances, and raucous parties which are more likely to occur in single family residences where more; space can accommodate more people and engender, a lack of concern for others living in your same building (as would be the case in a duplex or triplex) . Car noises are minimal unless you have a hot-rodder in your ' midst and people who live in multi-family units have no corner on hot-rodders. c. Night lighting is no problem as it would hardly exist in the development as planned; however, any lighting from such a development that might be objectionable could be softened by proper screening. . d. ' Water run-off. There is no reason to believe this would be any more of a problem than now exists, but also proper drain- age would have to be addressed for approval of a building plan. e. Other contaminants are in reality hardly extant. 6. Conclusion number 2. To say there was strong opposition to the rezoning is considerably misleading and in fact untrue. True, the opposition. had a petition signed by a number of property owners, many of whom don't live within the confines of Renton including the Imus' and the Crawfords, I daresay people are inclined to sign anything so long as , it doesn't cost them. Good examples are the many petitions that are circulated for action by the state legislature. These contain thousands of names but if the truth were known, probably no more than 5% know precisely what a particular petition is all about. I believe the proof of strong or weak opposition is demonstrated by the number 'of people who are interested enough to appear and be heard at the public meeting. On this basis, there were three families present; namely, Imus, Bergen and •Crawford. Is that strong t opposition? I believe your decision is in error and that you should reconsider and reverse it. I believe the transition between hearing examiners was an unfortunate circumstance occurring just when action was required on my request. Under the circumstances, I cannot help but feel that you could give my request only superficial consideration and have taken the easy way out by a determination that is not in conflict with the recent action of the City Council to revise the Comprehensive Plan for the area to R-1. Frankly, I don't believe the Council has the fortitude to reverse your decision so, unless you execute the authority granted you, I feel I will have lost th1.s stage of my request. Excluding my right to appeal to the City Council and the possibility of their reversal, it appears there are two further avenues left open for my recovery. One is described in step 13 of the Planning Departments "Application Sequences" the other, I have been advised, is litigation to recover my loss due to the degradation of property value caused by city action. What results from your decision may leave me no alternative but to pursue one or both of these possibilities. I trust you will seriously consider this appeal and will carefully review the facts and fancies that led to your earlier decision. If I can be of any help in clearing up any question still unanswered I will be glad to respond, upon request. Yours very truly 1 encl. Thomas C. 131iC1rinE;ha. . EDERAL SAVINGS&LOAN ASSOCIATIC 201 WILLIAMS AVE.SO. P.O.BOX 239 RENTON,WASH.98055 BA 6.1800 August 21, 1974 Mr.• & Mrs. Thomas C. Buckingham 5025 Ripley Lane North Renton, Washington 98055 Dear Mr. & Mrs. Buckingham: We wish to notify you that the Board of Directors have requested we abandon further effort on the Lake Washington Shore Condominium project. Therefore, we will not be exercising an option on your property. The reason for this decision is economics and the uncertainty of obtaining City of Renton and Shoreline Management approvals. We wish to thank you for your help and assistance during six difficult months. We are very sad to have to halt this quality project in a city which is in such desperate need of a project such as the one we proposed. 4441, c, 6/1144,/-•OSS E. WOODWARD, JR. Vice President/Manager Citizens Service Corporation REW:mh 19 April, 1977 RECEIVED CITY OF RENTON CITY OF RENTONHearingExaminersOfficeHEARINGEXAMINER 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 APR 2 01977 AM P? ' 718a3el01llel2e1 e2e3s!':5:0- Attn: James L. Magstadt Hearing Examiner Dear Sir: The undersigned requests reconsideration of your decision concern- ing the Rezone application File No. R-o22-77. The reasons are due to the following: 1. Finding number 1. Citizens Service Corp. withdrew its rezone application for economic reasons and the uncertainty of obtain- ing City of Renton and. Shoreline management approval. See' the second paragraph of the enclosure. There was opposition to the rezone, of course, as there always is, but to state_ that was etrongly opposed just is not true. 2. Finding number 8. Good planning does not permit R-4 zoning to serve as a reasonable and just buffer between R-1 zoning to the north and what is planned on the cuendall properties (not heavy commercial) . Pursuant to your decision, my property becomes the buffa' regardless of what you choose to designate the zoning. 3. Finding number 12. Mr. Haggard was Unit-picking". I contest that the conflicts he cited to defeat tie, rezone request really exist. He also stated as fact that the Hearing Examiner has no legal right to grant R-2 zoning when R-3 is requested. If you disagree with this statement of:, fact you must also question Mr. Haggard' s other statements. G - 4. Finding number 13. The rezone request was submitted before the City Council had taken action to change the Comprehensive Plan. At the time of the rezone request the Comprehensive Plan designated the area as R-3. I believe this is the only aspect of the Comprehensive Plan that you should consider. My opinion is that you based your decision primarily upon subsequent actions of the City Council. What would your decision have been had the question of changing the Comprehensive Plan not come up at this time? 5. Conclusion number 1. The statement that a change in land use, whether the subject property or any other properties in any other areas, would have an immediate effect on adjacent property is so obviously true that it hardly needed_ to be stated as a conclusion. I believe the question that should be addressed is the degree to which the change would adversely affect sur- rounding properties. If you have actually visited the area I believe you will agree that construction and inhabitation of 9 duplex type units on this property will have no adverse effect on any properties except possibly the Bergens and, excluding the fact there would be more traffic generated by the addition of families. So far as the Bergens are concerned all the ad- verse situations can be effectively mitigated by proper screen- ing .to the point that the Bergens would hardly be aware that 9 families lived next door. To reiterate: a.View would not be_ affected. b. Noise can partially be screened but this contamination has been over-emphasized. i think you will agree: that normal day-to-day living activities of 9 families would have absolutely no adverse effect. The objectionable noises t i 3 - are mainly night noises such as those created by barking dogs, for which there are city ordnances, and raucous parties which are more likely to occur in single family residences where- more space can accommodate more people and engender a lack of concern for others living; in your same building (as would be the case in a duplex or triplex) . Car noises are minimal unless you have a hot-rodder in your midst and people wholive in multi-family units have- no corner . on hot-rodders. c. Night lighting is no problem as it would hardly exist in the development as planned; however, any lighting from such a development that might beobjectionable could be softened by proper screening. d. Water run-off. There is no reason to believe this would be any more of a problem than now exists, but also proper drain- age would have to be addressed for approval of a building plan. e. Other contaminants are in reality hardly extant.. 6. Conclusion number 2. To say there was strong opposition to the rezoning Is considerably misleading and in fact untrue. True, the opposition had a petition signed.. by a number of property owners, many of whom don't live within the confines of Renton including the Imus' and the Crawfords,. I d.aresay people are inclined to sign anything so long as it doesn't cost them. Good examples are the many petitions that are circulated for action by the state legislature. These contain thousands of names but if the truth were known, probably no more than 5% know precisely what a particular petition is all about. I believe the proof of strong or weak opposition is demonstrated by the number of people who are interested enough to appear and be heard at the public meeting. On this basis, there were three families present; namely, Imus, Bergen and Crawford.. Is that strong 4 - opposition? I believe your decision is in error and that you should reconsider and reverse it. I believe:: the transition between hearing examiners was an unfortunate circumstance occurring just when action was required on my request, Under the circumstances, I cannot.. help but feel that you could give my request only superficial consideration and have, taken the easy way out by a determination that is not in Conflict with the recent: action of the :City Council to revise the Comprehensive Plan for the area to R-1. Frankly, I don't believe the Council has the fortitude to reverse your decision so, unless you execute the authority granted you, I feel I will have lost this stage of my request. Excluding my right to appeal to the City Council and the possibility of their reversal, It appears there are two further avenues left open for my recovery. One is described in step 13 of the Planning. Departments "Application_ Sequences" the other, I have been advised, is litigation to recover my loss due to the degradation of.property ' value caused by city. action. What results from your decision may leave me no alternative but, to pursue .one or both of these possibilities. • i trust you will seriously, consider this. appeal and will carefully review the facts and fancies that led to your. earlier decision. If I can be of any help in clearing up any question still unanswered I will be glad to respond::, upon request. Yours very truly 1 encl. Thomas C. Buckingha y iTizENsf FEDERAL SAVINGS&LOAN ASSOCIATION 201 WILLIAMS AVE.SO.I P.O.BOX 239 RENTON,WASH.980551 BA 6-1800 I August 21, 1974 f I r Mr. & Mrs. Thomas C. Buckingham 5025 Ripley Lane North Renton, Washington 98055 I Dear Mr. & Mrs. Buckingham: We wish to notify you that the Board of Directors have requested we abandon further effort on the Lake Washington Shore Condominium project. Therefore, we will not be exercising an option on your property. The reason for this decision is economics and the uncertainty of obtaining City of Renton and Shoreline Management approvals. We wish to thank you for your help and assistance during six difficult months. We are very sad to have to halt this quality project in a city which is in such desperate need of a project such as the one we proposed. S inc- !, C ;: ifji' 4' OSS E. WOODWARD, JR. Vice President/Manager Citizens Service Corporation REW:mh yea ff;' ''`-'r.. 0; t'!•J ii• I - x'i,cr,x,',.:•.'rF!,i ry 0 U o OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY • RENTON,WASHINGTON POST OFFICE BOX 626, 100 2nd AVENUE BUILDING • RENTON,WASHINGTON 98055 255-8878 0 t, q- GERARD M.SHELLAN,CITY ATTORNEY LAWRENCE J.WARREN, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY gTED SEPlt April 2 , 1977 RECEIVED CITY OF RENTON HEARING EXAMINER MEMORANDUM APR 51977 AM PM 71839110,11:12A1121314e516 TO: Mr., Jim Magstadt, Hearing Examiner FROM: Mr. Gerard M. Shellan, City Attorney RE: Thomas C. Buckin.gham Request for Rezone File No. R-022-77 . Dear Jim: This is to acknowledge receipt of your memo dated March 30, 1977 together with attachments regarding the above matter. As we understand the documents in question, the applicant' s request was filed with the City on February 17, 1977 at which time the Comprehensive Land USe Plan showed the area to be designated 'fnedium density-multiple family' although that designation was subject to change or at least public hearings . The Planning Commission had recommended a reduction to '7ow density-multiple family" which apparently was approved by the City Council, although orally, on February 28, 1977 and subject to further hearings and the adoption of the possible ordinance. Apparently the matter is in a state of flux at the present time. The property to the south is zoned R-4 and used for said purpose at this time while the property North of Petitioner is still designated G-6000 . We do not believe that this matter involves any particular legal issue,b ut, primarily matters of policy and factual determination. It seems fairly obvious that an R-1 zoning next to an R-4 is not good planning and a proper buffer would be advisable. You did not forward to me your final recommendation or report since the hearing apparently was continued to March 29 , 1977. The Planning Department apparently recommends approval of an R-2 zoning with a special permit and certain restrictive covenants . From a planning standpoint this appears to be reasonable and logical. The Brief in Opposition to the proposed action indicates that you may not alter the request of the Petitioner from an R-3 to an R-2 zoning. This Is ordinarily true unless the Petitioner consents or acquiesces in any such change in which case. ;you would have authority to proceed. If Mr. Buckingham objects to any R-2 .zoning and insists on R-3 zoning and you believe that it is not in the best interest to grant an R-3 zoning, then the request, of course, should be denied. The Brief further relates to the requirements of SEPA but I do not believe that this is a major issue which would require a full blown report. The total usable land area is less than an acre, next to an R-4 development and it is highly doubtful whether an EIS is required. The two Supreme Court cases referred to by counsel' can be easily distinguished from the present proposal. If you need any further assistance in this matter, please advise. We remain Very truly. yours , C41 Gerard M. Shellan GMS:bjm 6 et lit), 7. THE CITY OF RENTON MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, NNASH. 98055 CHARLES J. DELAURENTI , MAYOR ® LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER o, E JAMES L. MAGSTADT , 235 - 2593 4 DSEPIO March 30 , 1977 TO: Gerard M. Shellan, City Attorney FROM: . Jim Magstadt, Hearing Examiner RE: Thomas C. Buckingham Request for Rezone; File No. R-022-77 Attached is a brief pertaining to Thomas C. Buckingham request for rezone, file no. R-022-77 , which was presented by Joel Haggard, attorney for .Lou Bergan, a • resident in the area in opposition to the application, at a public hearing held on March 29 , 1977. I would appreciate your review of the subject brief and any comments you have regarding the legal implications in the subject rezone. Your legal opinion will be necessary in establishing findings of fact in this case. It is my opinion that the opposition was establishing documentation for a potential court appeal if the application or a modification of the application is granted. We are in the process of transcribing minutes from the hearing and will forward those to you upon completion. Sincerely, Jim' Mags dt 7 ' J JM:mg BEFORE THE LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON In Re Petition for Rezone App. No. R-022-77 by BRIEF IN OPPOSITION T. C. BUCKINGHAM Pursuant to Section 4-725 of the Renton Zoning Code, a petition for rezoning property used for a single family residence was filed with the City. The Rezone Petition requested a change from G-6000 to R-3, which if granted would cause a significant change in the land use by permit- ting lip to 23 units to be constructed on the site. 1. Approval of Petition for R-2 Zoning Precluded by Zoning Code. The Planning Department' s report dated March 15, 1977 recommends approvals of R-2 zoning for the residential property. This would permit petitioner to construct eight dwelling units on the site; not the 18 he requested or the 23 permitted in an R-3 zone. The applicant did not request an R-2 zoning classification. The Planning Department has no right under Section 4-725 of the Zoning Code to petition for a change in zoning. Consequently, all matters in the record dealing with R-2 are irrelevant and the Lana Use Hearing Examiner is without authority to approve an R-2 zone reclassification. RECEIVED CITY OF RENTON HEARING EXAMINER MAI' 2 fl977 AM 2. A Private Recreational Facility Is Prohibited In An R-1, R-2 or R-3-Zone: The petitioner proposes to establish a recreation facility for the use of tenants of the Misty Cove Apartments as one alternative under the rezone. Such a use is not permitted in an R-1 or R-2 Zone (See § 4-707, Renton Zoning Code) . In an R-3 Zone, clubs or fraternal societies are permitted to locate facilities for their use. Misty Cove Apartment dwellers are neither. A community club house is also permitted in an R-3. Zone.. The common and ordinary signification of that term excludes a private recreational clubhouse as proposed by petitioner. The Land Use Hearing Examiner should deny the petition for rezone insofar as the intended use of a recreational facility for Misty Cove is not permitted in an R-3 Zone as requested by petitioner. 3 . Remand For Adequate SEPA Compliance Is Required Before Further Processing of The Petition. Petitioner is required by the State Environmental Policy Act Guidelines (adopted by City Ordinance 3060) to provide a complete Environmental Checklist for the total proposal. The total proposal (See WAC 197-10-060 (2) ) in this case includes the rezone, the construction of the dwelling units, and access road improvements. The latter aspect, even though called to the City' s attention by Burlington-Northern on November 12, 1976, is ignored in the 2. Environmental Checklist and the Planning Department' s Report of March 15, 1977. Due to the instrinsic deficiency, the Hearing Examiner should remand the matter to the Planning Department for action in accordance with WAC 197-10-330 . There does not even exist adequate information regarding the principal features of the addition to Misty Cove Apart- ments intended by petitioner. Without this information the Department' s Declaration of Non-Significance is clearly erroneous since without such information there cannot be information reasonably sufficient to determine the environ- mental impact of the proposal. See WAC 197-10-320 (1) , 320 (2) (c) . As discussed in Attachment A, the Environmental Checklist contained an abundance of misleading and false information. For example, the access road relocation and air quality impacts of increased traffic was totally ignored. It is of little help in this matter for the Planning Department to argue that the Declaration of Non-Significance was based on other information on file. For its report dated March 15, 1977, which sets out some aspects regarding environmental impacts, clearly ignores many of the adverse impacts that have been identified. Further, that report, with no analysis or evidence in the record, has dismissed totally the impacts it has admitted will result, for example, storm water runoff, traffic and noise. 3. The SEPA Guidelines specifically require a "complete" Environmental Checklist. If the checklist is inadequate, the Guidelines require the Department to gather further information so that the impact can be reliably identified. WAC 197-10-330. But this was not done. The Declaration of Non-Significance is "more than a simple finding of fact because the correctness of a non-significant impact determination is integrally linked to the Act' s [ed: SEPA] g ndated public policy of environmental consideration. " See Norway Hills Preservation & Protection Association v. King County Council, 87 Wn. 2d 267, 273 (1976) . As such, the Hearing Examiner' s review of the petition requires a determination as to, whether it is clearly erroneous, that is, has a mistake been committed. See Norway Hills, supra at 275. And a mistake has been made because the Department has not actually considered all relevant environmental facts before its determination of non-significance. See Norway Hills, supra at 275 , 276. 4 . An EIS Is Required For The Total Proposal. Our Supreme Court last July handed down two cases which establish that an EIS is required for a proposal whenever it has the probability of more than a moderate impact on the environment. See Norway Hills, supra at 278; See Swift v. Island County, 87 Wn. 2d 348, 358 (1976) . As such, an EIS is 4. clearly required here because of the Planning Department' s admission in paragraph 0. 3 of its March 15, 1977 report that: a significant impact on adjacent properties could be anticipated in view of the maximums allowed by the R-3 zone. " Since the proposal is for a R-3 rezone with no height or bulk restrictions other than as applicable to an R-3 zone, an EIS is clearly required before the Hearing Examiner proceeds with this matter. The Norway Hills case clearly rejects any argument if made by the Planning Department that this admitted impact will be mitigated and therefore an EIS is not required. nor does the imposition of conditions nullify, for SEPA purposes, the otherwise significant effects of a project Norway Hills, supra at 279. 5 . Applying Criteria For Zoning Amendments Requires Denial Of The Petition. Section 4-725 of the Zoning Code. (as amended by Ordinance No. 3101) specifies the findings which the Hearing Examiner must make if a rezone is to be granted. The burden is upon the petitioner to establish that each of the criteria in Section 4-725 are satisfied. As discussed below, the criteria cannot be satisfied and the rezone petition must be denied. A. The Rezone Is Not Advisable. The rezone petition must be denied if the change is not 5. advisable. The common and ordinary signification of that term indicates that the issue here is whether the change is proper5to be advised" . The Planning Department indicates it is, on the theory that there should be a progressive reduction in use intensity northward from the Misty Cove Apartments into the existing single family residences. This is backwards and logically establishes that when you start with a bad condition you should make things worse in adjacent areas. It is not advisable to approve further intrusion into the existing single family residential area north of the Misty Cove Apartments. If there should be a buffer it should be on the south side of the Misty Cove Apartments to protect those residents from the more intensive uses planned there. It is not suitable, right or proper as "advisable" means to cause deterioration to the existing single family residential area north of Misty Cove Apartments. Last December the Land Use Committee acknowledged that the Misty Cove Apartments were a mistake. Yet now the Planning Department urges that this mistake be extended into the single family residential area. The Department appears to minimize the intrusion because the area is largely undeveloped. There are 8 platted single family lots north of Misty Cove Apartments . There are three residences on those lots and a building permit was recently requested for a fourth by 6. Mr. Crawford. Of the remaing four lots, Messrs. Imus , Crawford and Fox all intend to construct single family residences. The area is not "undeveloped" . Its zoning as G-6000 should be maintained throughout. B. The Rezone Is Not In The Public Interest. The difficulty with applying this criteria is identifying the component group of the public that has an interest affected by the rezone. Certainly it includes that segment of the public which supports the integrity of land use controls actually established by the zoning code. Permit- ting a more intensive use in such a zone is contrary , to the interest in maintaining the single family residential character of the area. The R-3 rezone is particularly inconsistent with Goals 1 and 2 in the 1965 Lane Use Goals cited by the Planning Department in its March 15, 1977 report. Further deteriorating intrusions are contrary to their interest. But the public interest does not include the private interests of the petitioner. It is not in the public interest to sanction increased noise, access problems and parking sprawl in the shoreline area. Expansion of apartment units within 200 feet of the shore is contrary to the public interest as set out in the Shoreline Management Act which has been implemented by Renton. See RCW 90. 58. 020. 7 . C. The Rezone Is Materially Detrimental To The Property Of Other Persons Located In The Vicinity. The Planning Department stated in its March 15, 1977 report that the proposal will have a significant impact on adjacent properties due to height and bulk changes permit- ted under the rezone. In addition to noise, traffic and land use problems, this will materially be detrimental to Mr. Lou Bergan' s single family residence located immediately north of the rezone area. Mr. Bergan' s property is 2 to 3 feet lower than the petitioner ' s property. Surface runoff can be expected to cause him problems unless handled. But the loss of privacy and the aesthetic impacts are material and detrimental to Mr. Bergan' s property. It is bad enough with the Misty Cove Apartments without sanctioning greater intrusions admitted to be significant. D. The Rezone Is Out Of Harmony With The Purposes And Effect Of The Overall Plan Of Established Use Classifications And Boundaries. The proposed rezone would increase the density of use beyond that now established by the G-6000 classification. The purpose of a G-6000 zone is to prevent the intrusion of uses which would be in conflict or incompatible with existing or planned uses and which would constitute nonconforming intrusions into areas best suited for protected residential uses. Yet the rezone petition here is directly opposed to 8. this purpose of the established zoning. The area north of Misty Cove Apartments including petitioner' s property has S been or intended to be used for single family residences. The G-6000 zone protects the existing and planned land use; granting the rezone would remove this protection and permit further intrusion into this area. The Planning Department also admits in its March 15, 1977 report that the R-3 zoning is not consistent with the revised Comprehensive Plan approved by the City Council on February 28, 1977. E. The Standards Governing A Rezone Are Violated If It Is Granted. Section 4-725 provides that a "thorough" study of the rezone petition must be done before recommending it. Yet not only is the total proposal ill-defined but admitted impacts are not studied at all. This hardly amounts to a thorough" study. Section 4-725 spells out the criteria governing a rezone. As discussed in the previous subsections, these criteria as applied here require a finding that the rezone petition be denied. Dated this 28th day of March, 1977. Respectfully submitted, 11 GJoel Haggard'/ Attorney fain Mr. Lou Bergan 9 . ATTACHMENT A COMMENTS REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST When dwelling units are constructed as intended by petitioner (See #9, Petition for Rezone) there will be displacements of soil. Yet petitioner said "No" (II. l.b of Checklist) . Depending upon the location and construction there could be changes in topography (II. l. c of Checklist) . Yet the petitioner answered "No" . The Planning Department affirmed all of this in Section E. l and J of its March 15, 1977 report. There appears no evidence that the Planning Department assessed these impacts. The increased automobile traffic and CO emissions associated with auto startup will result in a deterioration of ambient air quality. This is due to increases in traffic which have not been estimated or considered (See II . 2 of Checklist) . The parking areas associated with the potential development will change surface water runoff (See Section E- 1 and J of Planning Department Report) . Yet the petitioner said "No" (II. 3.b of Checklist) . Notwithstanding this, the Planning Department has provided no basis in the record for concluding that the change in surface water runoff will have the probability •of less than a moderate impact. Both the Planning Department and the petitioner ignored the impact of 1. oil runoff from parking areas, Both the Planning Department and the petitioner acknow- ledge that the proposal will increase noise levels. Yet there is no evidence in the record indicating that this will have the probability of less than a moderate impact on the environment. The Planning Department has not evaluated the nature or extent of this impact. The proposal will specifically permit and is functionally related (See WAC 197-10-060 (2) ) to petitioner' s intent to develop the area within 6 to 18 months by an addition to Misty Cove Apartments. But petitioner notes that there will be "No" alteration of the present or planned land use. The Planning Department clearly admits in Section 0. 1 of its report that "R-3 zoning is not consistent with the revised Comprehensive Plan approved by the Council on February 28, 1977. " The petitioner identifies the probability of impacts in four areas related to "Transportation/Circulation" (II. 13 of Checklist) ; but no assessment whatsoever of this adverse impact in a shoreline area has been made by the Planning Department. The petitioner also notes that there is "no" new or altered governmental services required for the proposal. This is obviously in error; yet the Planning Department did not assess the impacts associated with providing adequate 2. fire protection or access. As noted in the attached letters, implemention of the total proposal would require relocation of access roads entirely off of the Burlington-Northern right-of-way. In addition, expansion of the underpass is required. The impacts from such activities have been totally ignored in this matter. Acting Chief R. Teissler of the Fire Department has related these problems to he public safety concerns and this has been ignored. Obviously the proposal will require electricity though Petitioner says "No" and the Planning Department ignored this. 3. MEMORANDUM February 17 , 1977 TO : GARY KRUGER Senior Planner FROM: WARREN GONNASON Public Works Director RE :ACCESS TO RIPLEY LANE PLANNING AREA Our Traffic Engineering Division has reviewed the area in the vicinity of Ripley Lane presently under review by the Planning Department. The present access to the undeveloped parcel of property as shown on the attached plan would not be adequate for R-3 develop- ment. It would appear, however, that proper access could be provided to accommodate the proposed R-3 zone , since access through the trestle or over the railroad tracks could be developed to city standards . Ripley Lane in its present configuration could accommodate the increased volume from an R-3 zone . DCB : cah FpTar ///,,„ RS 4(- 0 J. fFT, 1. f5 BURLINGTON NORTHERN Lobby 2 Central Building INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AND Seattle, Washington 98104 PROPERTY MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT Telephone (206) 624-1900 Mr. Gary R. Kruger, Senior Planner November 12, 1976 The City of Renton Municipal Building 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, Washington 98055 RE: Comprehensive flan Review - Ripley Lane Area Dear Mr. Kruger: Please refer to your letter of October 29 to our Director of Engineering ' concerning the City of Renton's reviewal of its Comprehensive Plan in the Ripley Lane area. In 1960 the former Northern Pacific Railway Company granted a permit to the City for a public road access from 108th S.E. through our existing railway Bridge No. 61 and then along the outer edge of our right of way to serve several private residences within the area. This was done at that time so that the City could have a public road into the area and yet not have to conform to certain requirements for public roads since it was on a permit basis. The present Medium Density Multi-Family R-3 zone would generate a public use of the crossing of our right of way and if this continues to be the case, we would expect the City or a developer to plan public roads off of our right of way entirely, and if it would be necessary to go beneath our bridge structure, a wider opening structure with proper clearances must be constructed. We would expect the City or developer to absorb this expense to allow traffic to pass beneath the bridge with proper clearances. In addition to the expensive cost of a new bridge structure, the right of way itself would have to be negotiated on an easement basis for public roadway purposes and it would be expected that the City of Renton would make the usual application and absorb this expense for the development of a public roadway across our property. Very t ly yours,. C(o F Rti pordon RECFII/Eb )6. n ger - Property Management 16 1976 JJG:ek tv,,,,, File: RE-488 - Renton, WA MEMORANDUM from the desk of'ASSISTANT CHIEF GEISSLER 2/23/77 TO: GARY R. KRUG'ER, SENIOR PLANNER SUBJECT: YOUR MEMO OF 2/14/77 RE RIPLEY LANE PLANNING AREA THE PRESENT ACCESS TO THE AREA IS WEST OF THE RAILROAD ON THE SOUTH SIDE AND FOR THE NORTH AREA WE WOULD HAVE TO GO EAST OF THE RAILROAD AND THROUGH THE UNDERPASS. IF THIS AREA IS DEVELOPED INTO AN APARTMENT COMPLEX, WE WOULD HAVE A PROBLEM OF ACCESS UNLESS THE ACCESS WAS DEVELOPED WITH THE PLANS FOR THE TOTAL AREA. WE WOULD NEED 45° TURN AROUNDS, HYDRANTS APPROXIMATELY EVERY 300 FEET AND HARD SURFACE ACCESS TO 3 SIDES OF ALL BUILDINGS IF THEY WERE OVER 3 STORIES. WE-WOULD -NEED._STA-NDRLRES TO-=A-fD -IN =F I REFI G+IT1.NG AS WELL AS THE BUILDING CODE REQUIREMENTS. E prITIVEN iji R. GEISSLER, ACTING CHIEFFEE; 1. "••••••••••••••...................., ,:ity r - 1 R-022-77 Page Two The Examiner asked the applicant if he concurred in the Planning Department report. Mr. Buckingham indicated that he had objections. Responding was: Thomas C. Buckingham 5025 Ripley Lane N. Renton, WA 98055 Mr. Buckingham referred to Item 0.1. of Exhibit #1 , and indicated that the request for rezone was entered and accepted before the City Council took action on February 28 , 1977 , passing a motion to revise the Comprehensive Land Use Plan to R-2. The applicant' s request was submitted on February 17 , 1977 , and the Council rescinded its action of February 28 , 1977, on March 7 , 1977 , and is presently studying the area. Mr. Buckingham explained that his proposal was to construct nine townhouse units or to modify the existing structure for recreational purposes and parking. He indicated that he had learned that the value of the property would increase two to three times in an R-3 rather than an R-2 zone. He stated that R-2 zoning is acceptable but he would prefer the R-3 zoning for the property, and that the Misty Cove Apartments were zoned R-4 and did not feel it was reasonable to require an ' R-1 or G-6000 zone abutting that particular type of construction. The Examiner asked Mr. Buckingham if he could meet the restrictions regarding setbacks, density and height restrictions imposed by the Planning Department. The applicant indicated he would allow Mr. O'Neil to speak on the matter. The Examiner asked if there was additional testimony in favor of the application. Responding was: Naomi Buckingham 5025 Ripley Lane N. Renton, WA 98055 Mrs. Buckingham felt that the abutting apartments were poorly planned, undesirable in a residential neighborhood and had created an adverse situation. She indicated that the proposed construction would not be a duplication of the Misty Cove Apartments, and felt that a natural barrier was necessary. The Examiner asked for testimony in favor of the application. Responding was: John O'Neil 4018 East Mercer Way Mercer Island, WA Mr. O'Neil reported he was half-owner of the Misty Cove Apartments. He indicated that two alternatives exist for the property, a nine-unit townhouse or a recreation area for present tenants of Misty Cove Apartments. Determination of the alternative has not been made and the agreement for the purchase of the property has not been finalized. He asked Mr. Smith how the setback on the west side of the property was determined. Mr. Smith indicated that the setbacks were determined to attain and assure a gradual transition from the Misty Cove Apartments to residences on the north and to create more open space on the subject site. Mr. Smith also reported that the Shoreline Master Program requires a 25 foot setback from the water' s edge. Mr. O'Neil questioned the limit for moorage to one boat per one town- house unit and asked if resistance would be shown by the Planning Department if more moorage were requested. Mr. Smith stated that it would be reasonable to allow adequate moorage , but not to accommodate the overflow from the Misty Cove Apartments'. The Examiner asked for additional comments or testimony in favor of the application. Responding was: April 13, 1977 OFFICE OF THE. LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE RENTON CITY COUNCIL. APPLICANT: Thomas C. Buckingham FILE NO. R-022-77 LOCATION: Property located between Lake Washington and Ripley Lane North adjacent to and north of Misty Cove Apartments. SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Applicant requests rezone from G-6000 , single family residence district, to R-3 , medium density multiple family residence district. SUMMARY OF Planning Department: Recommend approval with RECOMMENDATION: restrictive covenants. Hearing Examiner: Recommend denial. PLANNING DEPARTMENT The Planning Department staff report was received REPORT: by the Examiner on March 8 , 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 15 , 1977 , at 10:30 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 : Assessor' s Map. Exhibit #3 : Site Map. Exhibit #4 : Recommendation by Planning Commission for Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Mr. Smith reported that the Planning Commission has studied the area surrounding the site and has recommended a revision in the ComprehensiveLandUsePlanwhichhasbeenreferredtotheCityCouncilforfurther study. The Examiner asked Mr. Smith for clarification of the definition of townhouses , duplexes and apartments in an R-2 zone. Mr. Smith reported that townhouses, duplexes or other structures sharing a common wall or a common roof not to exceed 35 feet in height are allowed by the existing zoning ordinance. The Examiner asked if Mr. Smith had additional comments or information to present. Mr. Smith indicated he had no additional comments at that time. R-022-77 Page Four line, 20 feet from the north property line, and 20 feet from the east property line versus 5 foot setbacks usually required by the Planning Department together with the shoreline setback requirement would limit development of the property to one-half of the total square footage of 34 ,000 square feet. He reported that Misty Cove apartments are zoned R-4 and the structure complies with the 5 foot setback requirement. Mr. Buckingham asked if the dock and the lake are controlled by setback requirements. He indicated that setbacks would mandate that the access road be located on the north side of the development and expressed objections to increased noise, obstruction of views , clutter, traffic, and odors, which he felt would not be relieved by the location of the structure on the property because of setback requirements. He felt that by requiring a 50 foot setback from the lake, the staff was limiting the use of the property to best advantage. The Examiner asked Mr. Buckingham to point out on the site map his preferences for setbacks. Mr. Buckingham pointed out his preference for a 25 foot setback from the water which he felt would not block views compared to the proposed 50 foot setback. The Examiner inquired about other setbacks. Mr. Buckingham reported a preference for a 10 foot setback on the north property line. Mr. Buckingham expressed objections to the moorage limit which he felt was discriminatory since the adjacent apartment building has no limit per apartment. He indicated that the present recommendation limits the number of moorage stalls to one per unit if nine units are built on the property, but if property were utilized for recreational area and no units built, no moorage would be permitted. He felt that 18 moorage spaces should be permitted and the number of units in the structure should not be specified at this time but should be determined by zoning requirements. The Examiner indicated that the density would be regulated by the underlying zone and that the Planning Department had recommended an R-2 zone rather than R-3. He asked Mr. Buckingham if he concurred in the Planning Department recommendation. Mr. Buckingham indicated that although he had mixed feelings , he would accept the R-2 zoning. The Examiner asked Mr. Smith to report the density requirement under the R-2 zoning. Mr. Smith reported that 14 units would be allowed in 1. 3 acres at 11 units per acre. Mr. Buckingham felt that restrictions had been imposed because of the water area which should be included. Mr. Smith stated that the water area had been discounted, limiting the units to from 9 to 11 units. The Examiner asked if Mr. Buckingham concurred with the restrictions on the number of units. Mr. Buckingham indicated his preference for determination of density according to zoning codes. The Examiner asked Mr. Buckingham if he had other objections to Exhibit #1 other than setback requirements , density and moorage. Mr. Buckingham stated that he had no further objections. The Examiner asked for further comments in support of the application. Responding was: Naomi Buckingham 5025 Ripley Lane N. Renton, WA 98055 Mrs. Buckingham asked if her comments were on record from the previous hearing. The Examiner indicated that they were part of the record and reported that copies of the previous meeting minutes were available to the audience. The Examiner asked for testimony in opposition to the application. Mr. Joel Haggard presented a legal brief which listed objections to the application. The brief was labeled Exhibit #5 by the Examiner. R-022-77 Page Three Robert Gerend 14877 S.E. 50th St. Bellevue, WA Mr. Gerend reported that he was the other half-owner of the Misty Cove Apartments and indicated concurrence with Mr. O'Neil' s statements. The Examiner asked if there was testimony in opposition to the application. Mr. Lou Bergan responded and was sworn in. Lou Bergan 5029 Ripley Lane N. Renton, WA 98055 Mr. Bergan reported that he is the adjacent property owner north of the requested rezone. He indicated that all property owners north of the Buckingham property feel very strongly that the area should remain an R-1 zone and that R-3 multiple dwellings on the property would be an encroachment on single family residences and would increase density, traffic and noise that accompanies multiple family residences. The area south of the Misty Cove Apartments will become R-3 and R-4 zones in the next five to ten years and for that reason he felt the subject property should remain in its present zone. He inquired about an environmental impact statement and the Examiner reported that a Declaration of Non-Significance had been issued by the Planning Department. Mr. Bergan stated that the area had not been posted or posting had been vandalized or blown from the proper posting areas. He indicated that all property owners would have been in attendance at the hearing if they had received notice. The Examiner stated that to ensure that all parties are notified and have ample opportunity to speak on the request he would continue the hearing and have the area reposted. The hearing on Item #R-022-77 was closed by the Examiner at 11 :15 a.m. and continued until March 29, 1977 , at 9 :00 a.m. in the Council Chambers of the Renton Municipal Building. CONTINUATION: The continued hearing on Item #R-022-77 was reopened by the Examiner at 9 :00 a.m. on March 29, 1977, in the Council Chambers of the Renton Municipal Building. Mr. Smith, Planning Department, briefly summarized Exhibit #1, Planning Department report, which was entered at the previous hearing on March 15 , 1977. The Examiner asked if Mr. Smith had additional information or exhibits to present. Mr. Smith indicated he had no additional information at that time. Parties wishing to testify were sworn. Mr. Joel Haggard, attorney, reported he was representing Mr. Lou Bergan, resident of Ripley Lane N. , as legal counsel. Responding was: Joel Haggard 900 Hoge Building Seattle, WA The Examiner asked Mr. Buckingham, the applicant, if he wished to speak on the application. Mr. Buckingham stated that at the previous meeting he had indicated he would accept all restrictive covenants as written, but after reviewing covenants he wished to withdraw his acceptance. Mr. Buckingham indicated that setback requirements were restrictive and arbitrary and reported that Shoreline Management Act policies require a 20 foot setback from the water versus the 50 foot setback requirement imposed by the Planning Department. . He also reported that setback requirements. of 10 feet from the south property R-022-77 Page Six Responding was: Elizabeth Crawford 11815 S.E. 165th Renton, WA 98055 Mrs. Crawford reported that schools utilized by residents in the area are overcrowded and that students are currently bussed to schools in other areas. She expressed concern about fire protection and access to the area because of railroad tracks. The Examiner asked for further testimony in opposition. Mr. Joel Haggard made a request to cross-examine Mr. Bergan in regard to the brief, Exhibit #5. Mr. Haggard asked Mr. Bergan if he had read the brief; if he was familiar with the matter and if the brief contained factual comments; and if Mr. Bergan were to testify to each comment in the brief, would his testimony be the same. Mr. Bergan responded affirmatively. The Examiner asked the applicant if he had further comments in rebuttal. Mr. Buckingham indicated that since he had not read the brief, he could , not comment on it. He reported Mr. Bergan' s attempt to maintain the area as R-1, but the Comprehensive Land Use Plan currently designates the area as R-3 which was the zoning designation when the opposing residents purchased their property. Mr. Buckingham stated that Mr. Bergan and Mr. Imus had expressed an interest in a rezone several years ago in conjunction with a rezone considered by Citizens Service Corp. for construction of a condominium. The applicant felt that the permit for access from Burlington Northern was not the concern of the residents but of the applicant. For the record, Mr. Buckingham indicated his acceptance. of the proposed R-2 zone. He took exception to the statement made by Mr. Imus that all boats belong to property owners and stated that a boat owned by a Mercer Island resident had been moored on Mr. Bergan' s property last summer. The Examiner asked for further comments in support of the application. Mrs . Naomi Buckingham stated that she took exception to Mr. Bergan' s statement that a four-story apartment building is a logical buffer for a residential area. The Examiner asked for testimony in opposition to the application. Mr. Rich Imus reported that the incident involving Citizens Service Corp. , Mr. Bergan and himself was instigated because of the corporation' s influence in gaining a rezone. When the rezone did not occur, the property owners made a decision to continue to utilize the property as single family residential. Mr. Bergan indicated that one reason the property was built to R-1 specifications was because of strong opposition to R-3 zoning in the neighborhood. The Examiner asked Mr. Smith to illustrate on the Comprehensive Land Use map the boundary for R-3 designation. Mr. Smith pointed out the north property line of the Crawford property on the map. The Examiner reported that the City Council is reinvestigating the zoning, holding a public hearing on April 4 , 1977 , and that unless a change is recommended the Planning Commission recommendation is in force. Mr. Smith stated that though the Comprehensive Land Use Plan designates the property as medium density multiple family zoning, other aspects such as timeliness and compatibility with the surrounding area affected the staff recommendation from R-3 to R-2 zoning which was felt to be a proper transition and buffer for the area. He reported height controls and density had been restricted for compatibility with surrounding properties. Mr. Smith stated that setback requirements were established to create a corridor and provide recreational open space. He indicated that screening fences , parking areas, drainage, and traffic controls were all established in the Planning Department report to reduce the intensity of the development and create a step- down in the zoning to establish a logical buffer. R-022-77 Page Five The Examiner asked for further testimony in opposition. Responding was : Lou Bergan 5029 Ripley Lane N. Renton, WA 98055 Mr. Bergan reported that he is the resident immediately to the north of the Buckingham property. He submitted a petition signed by seven property owners , reporting opposition to any further multiple family residential development in the area. The petition was labeled Exhibit #6 by the Examiner. Mr. Bergan stated that the proposed rezone was inconsistent with existing land use of single family residences. Among other objections were blight associated with higher density, noise impact, increased traffic, clutter and garbage, invasion of privacy and disharmony with the residential environment in regard to family life and raising children. He also objected to the possibility of boats and disabled vehicles being parked on the right-of-way, possible closing of Burlington Northern right-of-way, and reported that the present access was not adequate for increased traffic. He reported reading a letter from Burlington Northern to the Planning Department which indicated they had taken a stand against further increase in residential development of the property. He indicated concern for surface water runoff because of lower grade of his property, and possible impact on children' s safety in high Er density because of traffic and undesirable tenants. He felt that the Misty Cove Apartments should remain a natural buffer for the property owners to the south. The Examiner asked Mr. Bergan if he concurred with the R-2 zone. Mr. Haggard indicated that Mr. Bergan's opinions were contained in the legal brief, Exhibit #5. The Examiner asked Mr. Bergan if he had spoken with Burlington Northern in regards to the access road and Mr. Bergan responded that he had not. The Examiner asked for further testimony in opposition. Responding was : Rich Imus 5636 123rd Avenue S .E. Bellevue, WA 98006 Mr. Imus reported that in regards to moorage mentioned by Mr. Buckingham, the five boats mentioned belonged, to seven property owners 'to the north. He indicated on the site map six lots which provide a buffer for his property and felt that the staff report was requiring a buffer for an already existing buffer. He pointed out two lagoons containing eight existing single family home sites and felt that the view from the sites would be obstructed by the construction of a multiple family dwelling which would destroy a beautiful area. Responding was: Rod Crawford 11815 S.E. 165th Renton, WA 98055 . Mr. Crawford pointed out his property on the site map which is located at the top of a lagoon and objected to blight created by construction of an apartment building. He also expressed objections to the possibility of disabled vehicles parking on the access road and invasion of privacy created by tenants of multiple family dwellings. Responding was: Leslye Bergan 5029 Ripley Lane N. Renton, WA 98055 Mrs. Bergan objected to potential noise, increased traffic at night, and parties and parking lot lighting disturbing children' s sleep. R-022-77 Page Eight Mr. Haggard indicated that Mr. Buckingham did not agree with several aspects of Exhibit #1, and asked if the rezone application was adequate when submitted and asked about accompanying documents. Mr. Smith reported that the application was adequate upon receipt, and contained an affidavit of ownership and maps , including a vicinity map. However , he indicated that the details of the development were not part of a rezone application. Mr. Haggard quoted Mr. Bergan' s statement of incompatibility of the proposed development and its impact upon community and residential environment and asked Mr. Smith if such impact had been reviewed. Mr. Smith reported that the information was contained in Exhibit #1. Mr. Haggard expressed objection to the staff finding in this regard and referred to the Land Use Report, 1965 , and the State Environmental Policy Act. He also felt that the Planning Department findings were made on the basis of a request for R-3 zoning, not for R-2 zoning. The Examiner clarified the matter and stated that the staff may recommend a lower density than an applicant requests, noting that the staff report is strictly a recommendation. He asked Mr. Haggard to clarify his intent in the cross-examination and asked that if specific errors existed in the report they should be designated. Mr. Haggard stated that no declaration of environmental significance was provided on the rezone since the staff had changed the zoning request from R-3 to R-2, and felt that the total impact was not complete as access road changes had been ignored in the staff report. He referred again to the letter from Burlington Northern to the Planning Department. Mr. Smith responded that he was aware of access problems noted in the letter from Burlington Northern because of previous rezone requests in the area. Mr. Haggard questioned whether plans for the structure had been submitted to the city. Mr. Smith reported that final building plans were not required as part of the rezone request. Mr. . Haggard inquired if R-3 , R-2 and R-1 zones had been examined for recreational uses in the zones. The Examiner noted that such examination was not part of the rezone request and that the City Attorney would review the brief as to its legality in the rezone request. Mr. Haggard asked if the recreational use would be related to clubs or fraternal societies. Mr. Smith reported that it would not be related unless there is an existence of a homeowners ' association or apartment association. Mr. Haggard requested permission to cross-examine Mr. Buckingham. He noted that Mr. Buckingham' s earlier statement indicated that the restrictive setbacks on the proposed rezone would not relieve the problem of noise, views , clutter, traffic and odors, and that there is. a significant impact as a result of an R-2 zone as proposed by the Planning Department. Mr. Buckingham stated that the comment was taken out of context and declined to answer further questions. The Examiner asked for further testimony. Since there was none, the hearing on Item #R-022-77 was closed by the Examiner at 11 :10 a.m. FINDINGS , CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS : Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS : 1. The applicant, Thomas C. Buckingham, requests a rezone from G-6000 , single family residential, to R-3, medium density multiple family residential. The purpose of the request is to permit construction of approximately 9 multiple family townhouse units. An alternative use would be to renovate existing house and use this structure as a recreational facility for Misty Cove Apartments . 2 . The property has been subject to previous rezone requests dating back to 1974. These requests were strongly opposed and resulted in the rezone withdrawal. R-022-77 Page Seven The Examiner asked for further testimony. Mr. Joel Haggard requested permission to cross-examine Mr. Smith and Mr. Buckingham. The Examiner indicated his concurrence in the request. Mr. Haggard asked Mr. Smith if he were familiar with the Declaration of Non-Significance attached to Exhibit #1, and asked if by reviewing the Declaration and the environmental checklist submitted by the applicant he should be able to discern why an environmental impact statement was not required. Mr. Smith answered affirmatively. Mr. Haggard asked Mr. Smith if he had difficulty with the suggestions made by the applicant, specifically in regard to displacement of soil and capacity of the access road to the proposed development. Mr. Smith stated that soil displacement would be addressed upon actual development of the site and that certain improvements would be necessary for the access roadway in the form of paving. Mr. Haggard reported that a letter had been sent to the Planning Department from Burlington Northern on November 12, 1976 , asked Mr. Smith if he were familiar with the correspondence, and if it would have any impact on the, Planning Department evaluation of environmental impact. Mr. Smith responded that he was unfamiliar with the letter and it would not have directly affected the environmental statement. He reported that consideration would be made for access via the Burlington Northern roadway and that in previous rezone attempts Burlington Northern had coordinated an agreement with property owners for access. Mr. Haggard inquired about the width of the access road to. the Buckingham property and the width of the actual traveled portion of the road. Mr. Smith reported a width of 50 feet with 12 feet being the actual portion of the road traveled. Mr. Haggard asked whether consideration had been made for possible difficulties with the turnaround_ area or parking on the property. Mr. Smith reported that the Parking and Loading Ordinance would specify sufficient aisle and maneuver space on the site. Mr. Haggard asked what the distance was between the access point on the east side of the Buckingham property and the west side of the Burlington Northern right-of-way. Mr. Smith indicated that the properties abut and the easement is not a public right-of-way. Mr. Haggard made the following inquiries of Mr. Smith in regard to Exhibit #1: would the proposed development create increased clutter in the area; what is the maximum number of allowable units on the property. Mr. Smith responded that because of the landscape buffer and screening fence along with the location of the parking area, there would be no clutter; and in response to the maximum number of units proposed for the property, Mr. Smith indicated nine total units. Mr. Haggard presented a copy of Renton City Council minutes of July 12 , 1976, which contained a statement made by Planning Director Gordon Y. Ericksen in regard to problems in the subject area of access , soil conditions and impact along the shoreline. The minutes were entered as Exhibit #7 by the Examiner and read into the record by Mr. Smith. Mr. Haggard made the following inquiries regarding the application: if the proposed rezone is suited for water uses or activities; if an affidavit of ownership had been filed; would the rezone as permitted increase the density of shoreline uses or activities; if there is a need for increased density; what uses in an R-3 'rezone are not water related - He referred to the Shoreline Master Program as not being an applicable city document in the particular rezone and did not feel that the Shoreline program should apply since none of the development was water related; and if the development would protect the privacy of Mr. Bergan. In regard to suitability for water uses and activities, Mr. Smith indicated that suitability would be dependent upon the design for the development. In regards to an affidavit of ownership, Mr. Smith indicated one had been filed at the time of application. Regarding the need for increased density, Mr. Smith reported that the density would increase and should be permitted not necessarily from a shoreline standpoint, but for overall zoning for the area. In response to the question regarding privacy, Mr. Smith stated that privacy would be assured by restricted density, setbacks, landscaping, height control and screening. R-022-77 Page Ten CONCLUSIONS: 1. A change in land use of the subject property would have an immediate effect on the adjacent property located to the north that is occupied by single family residential units. 2 . There are several contiguous properties that form the area which is unique and separated from adjacent residences located north of the street right-of-way presently utilized by the Renton Sailing Club. This right-of-way area is heavily vegetated and acts as a transition use between the properties to the south and the residential units to the north of this right-of-way. A change in zone to create a buffer from the Misty Cove Apartments , as stated previously, would have an influence on adjacent property owners. The question then rises as to where the multiple family units cease in order to provide a smooth transition. An amended request for R-2 zoning appears to be realistic due to the proximity of the Misty Cove Apartments. However, due to strong opposition, this request would not be in harmony nor would it be in compliance with the wishes of adjacent single family residential owners. It is also apparent, that the majority of property owners located on properties between Misty. Cove and the street right-of-way favor single family residential use of their property. Any action contrary to indicated land use designation would be in cbnflict to this residential area. If a villain exists, it clearly would be the Misty Cove Apartment structure that is not in harmony with the character of the area. 3. It is the Examiner' s opinion that the preference of the majority of property owners in this area for a stipulated land use must be taken as a prime indication of future rezone requests. The property can continue to exist as single family residential or if requested by a majority of the property owners could be- designated as a low density multiple family area that would 'serve as a natural buffer between the Misty Cove Apartments and the street right=of- way. However, such a request should only be considered& and granted when approved by the majority of the property owners in this ,area. 4. The Hearing Examiner therefore recommends that the amended requested rezone to R-2 be denied and recommends that the City Council review this area in detail in contemplating a Comprehensive Land Use Plan change and clearly designate the area as low density -, multiple family zoning at such time as a majority of the property owners concur in this designation. This then would provide an adequate transition between an existing apartment use and single family residential use that exists to the north of the street right-of-way. RECOMMENDATION: Denial of the request. ORDERED THIS 13th day of April, 1977 . ames L. agstadt Land Us Hearing Examiner TRANSMITTED THIS 13th day of April, C977 by certified mail to the parties of record: Thomas. C. Buckingham Naomi Buckingham John O'Neil Robert Gerend Lou Bergan Joel Haggard Rich Imus Rod Crawford R-022-77 Page Nine 3. . There is an existing single family residence on the site, Misty Cove Apartments are located directly to the south, and two single family residences are located adjacent to the north. The area consists of a mixture of high density multiple family, existing single family residential and open space in undeveloped areas. 4. Gordon Y. Ericksen, responsible public official, pursuant to the City of Renton Environmental Ordinance and the State Environmental Policy Act of 1971 as amended• R.C.W 43. 216 , has issued a Declaration of Non-Significance for the subject proposal. 5. The subject request for an R-3 zoning is compatible with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan that was adopted and, on file at 'the.. date of the application submittal. Since the applicant' s request, the Planning Commission has recommended to the City Council that this area be designated as low density multiple family which would allow the 9 units as requested. 6. The applicant, Mr. Thomas Buckingham, stated that the Planning Department staff recommendation of R-2 zoning for his ' subject property was acceptable although he would prefer the requested R-3 zoning. He noted that it was not reasonable to require an R-1, residential district, abutting an R-4 zone that has been designated for the Misty Cove Apartments. 7. Mrs. Buckingham testified that the abutting apartments were poorly planned, undesirable in a residential neighborhood, and, had created an adverse situation. 8. Mr. Lou Bergan, owner of the property directly north of the Buckingham property, maintained a strong feeling that the area should remain as R-1 and noted that the Misty Cove Apartments serves as a buffer between the single family residential units located to the north of Misty Cove and the industrial or potential heavy commercial uses proposed for the Quendall properties located to the south of Misty Cove. 9. Mr. Smith, Planning Department representative, noted that an R-2 designation would. allow 14 units in the 1. 3 acres or a density of 11 units per acre. Discounting the water area would limit the maximum density from 9 to 11 units for the Buckingham property. 10. The applicant indicated his preference for determination of density based according to the zoning requirements. 11. A petition was submitted that was signed by 7 property owners of properties located directly north of the Buckingham site.. The Petition reported opposition to any further multiple family residential development in the area. The petition was designated as Exhibit No. 6. 12 . A brief was submitted by Mr. Joel Haggard,, representing Mr. Bergan. In summary, the brief denoted several areas that Mr. Haggard felt were in conflict with the rezone request relating to environmental impact assessment, propriety in regards to the Shoreline Management Program, etc. 13. The request is primarily predicated on the fact that an apartment house was allowed to be developed in an area that was formerly inhabited by single family residential units. This apartment house is clearly out, of harmony with the character of the adjacent areas. This action was taken due to the rezone request granted October 17 , 1966. The Comprehensive Land Use Plan has since been revised from high density multiple family to medium density multiple family to a proposed low density multiple family as recommended in the recent action by the Planning Commission to the City Council. There 'is an obvious concern by the adjacent property owners to the Buckingham site that the adverse effects of the Misty Cove Apartments on the adjacent properties would be intensified by the construction of additional multiple family residences. R-022-77 Page Eleven Leslye Bergan Elizabeth Crawford TRANSMITTED THIS 13th day of April, 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 Pursuant to Ordinance No. 3071, Section 4-3015 , request for reconsideration or notice of appeal must be filed in writing on or before April 20 , 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 issuance of the report. 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. PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT TO HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING OF MARCH 15 , 1977 PAGE TWO RE : THOMAS C . BUCKINGHAM for R-3 zoning , which included the entire area from the Bergan property north to 52nd Street. This also met with much citizen opposition and was withdrawn by the applicant . The adjacent property to the south was rezoned to R-4 by Ordinance No . 2280 on October 17 , 1966 . The Comprehensive Land Use Plan for the area was approved to Low Density Multiple Family on February 28 , 1977 , subject to final approval of ordinance . E m PHYSICAL BACKGROUND: 1 . Topography : The subject site is relatively level . 2 . Soils : Seattle Muck (Sk ) and Bellingham silt loam ( Bk ) . Seattle Muck - an organic soil with moderate permeability and seasonal high water table at or near the surface . The Bellingham silt loam has a low permeability and runoff with seasonal high water table . 3 . Vegetation : The site consists primarily of lawn and vegeta- tion installed by man . 4 . Wildlife : Wildlife is primarily waterfowl and small mammals . 5 . Water : Surface water is apparent on the site . However, the water table may be relatively high in this area . 6 . Land Use : There is an existing single family residence on the site, together with landscaping and open space . The Misty Cove Apartments are located directly to the south with the Baxter Pole Yard and Barbee Mill located farther to the south . Two single family residences are located adjacent to the north . There are several acres of undevel - oped property north of the existing single. family residences to the North 52nd Street street-end. Single family resi - dences are located along Ripley Lane north of 52nd Street . Fa NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTERISTICS: The area consists of a mixture of high density multiple family , existing single family residences and open space/undeveloped areas . G. PUBLIC SERVICES: 1 . Water and Sewer: A 12" water main and 8" sanitary sewer main are available to the site . 2. Fire Protection : Provided by the Renton Fire Department . Any future construction shall be subject to Renton Fire Department standards . 3 . Transit : Metro Route No . . 240 operates along Lake Washington Boulevard N . E. to the May Creek interchange and onto FAI405 . 4 . Schools : The site is within close proximity to both Hazel - wood and Kennydale Elementary Schools . McKnight Junior High is approximately three miles southeast of the subject site. 5 . Parks : The site is within one-half mile of the King County May Creek Park , within one mile of Kennydale Beach Park , and within two miles of Lake Washington Beach Park. RECEIVED CITY OF 1"):' 'TTON HEARING Ei ER MAR 1 5 107 7 PLANNING DEPARTMENT AM PM PRELIMINARY REPORT TO HEARING EXAMINER '718°9°lloj8°L°1° °;1,415°6 PUBLIC HEARING MARCH 15 , 1977 EXHIBIT NO. APPLICANT: THOMAS C. BUCKINGHAM ITEM NO , - D 2 ? - 7 FILE NO, : R-022-77 , REZONE FROM G-6000 TO R-3 A. SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Applicant requests rezone from G-6000 , single family residence dis- trict, to R-3 , medium density multiple family residence district . B. GENERAL INFORMATION: 1 . Owner of Record : THOMAS C . BUCKINGHAM 2. Applicant: THOMAS C . BUCKINGHAM 3 . Location : Property located between Lake Washington and Ripley Lane North adjacent to and north of Misty Cove Apartments . 4 . Legal Description : Portion of Block D of C . D. Hillman ' s Lake Washington Garden of Eden No . 3. Detailed description available on file in the Renton Planning Department. 5 . Size of Property : Approximtely 1 . 3 acres total , approxi - mately 1/2 acre of which is within Lake Washington . 6 . Access : Via Ripley Lane North and across Burling- ton Northern right-of-way by permit agree- ment. 7 . Existing Zoning : G-6000 8 . Existing Zoning R-4 High Density Multiple Family adja- in Area : cent to the south and G-6000 north of the subject site . 9 . Comprehensive Previously Medium Density Multiple Family .Land Use Plan: Planning Commission recommendation for proposed revision to Low Density Multiple Family approved by City Council Febru- ary 28, 1977 (subject to approval of ordinance) . 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: To permit construction of approximately nine multi -family town-house units . Alternative use would be to renovate existing houseanduseasarecreationalfacilityforMistyCoveApartments . D. HISTORY/BACKGROUND: Previous attempts have been initiated to rezone the property to the north of the subject site to multi-family marina purposes ,but were denied. The latest rezone attempt in 1974 was a request PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT TO HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING OF MARCH 15 , 1977 PAGE FOUR RE : THOMAS C. BUCKINGHAM rationale for a lower density multiple family residential zone to the north . The existing conditions cannot be con- sidered as proper land use. The, application of sound plan-ni'hg and zoning principles should provide for a pro- gressive reduction in use intensity from the high density Misty Cove Apartments northward to the single family resi - dential area to avoid land use conflicts and create a reasonable transitional area . 3 . The R-3 zone permits a maximum 30 units per acre and a maximum height limit of 60 feet , or 40 feet if adjacent to a developed single family residence district. Even the 40 foot height limit could result in a structure higher than the existing Misty Cove Apartments . The existing Misty Cove Apartments are approximately 35 feet in height at the east end and 43 feet at the west end. Recognizing the height and bulk of height structure , a significant impact on adjacent properties could be anticipated in view of the maximums allowed by the R-3 zone . Height and density lim- itations would be necessary to provide a reasonable trans- ition from a R-3 multiple zone to single family residential use . 4 . The access problems as a result of the Burlington Northern right-of-way will require further review and coordination , when specific development plans are prepared . (See Traffic Division and Fire Department comments . ) 5 . Any development of the site other than for single family residence purposes will require a Shoreline Management Substantial Development Permit from the city. 6 . The Misty Cove Apartments contain approximately 50 units . Utilizing the gross density ratio of 30 units per acre for the R-3 zone , the maximum gross density permitted would be approximately 38 units , providing all other require- ments including parking can be provided . If the 21 , 500± square feet of lake area is not computed as part of the site area , the maximum gross density would be approximately 23 units . The applicant proposes a possible future develop- ment of approximately nine townhouse type units . This could be considered a reasonable transitional use for the subject site , given the size , location , and configuration of the property. The development as proposed by the applicant would be allowed in. an R-2 zone by special permit. 7 . Utilities are available to the subject site . P. DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION : Recommend approval of R-2 zoning for the subject site subject to the following conditions established as restrictive covenants to be filed and to run with the land: 1 . Development shall be by special permit. Gross density - limited to a maximum of nine townhouse units . 2. Maximum Height Limit - two stories or 21 feet from the existing grade of said property. 3 . Development Plans , including site plans , design and loca- tion of buildings , parking , and landscaping , shall be sub- ject to review and approval of the Planning Department , in view of creating a buffer between the existing apartment complex and the single family residential area . Design and development shall be compatible with the single family residential character of the properties to the north . I PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT TO HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING OF MARCH 15 , 1977 PAGE THREE RE : THOMAS C . BUCKINGHAM H. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE ZONING CODE: 1.. 4.-729 , G , General Classification District 2 . 4-706 , R- 1 , Single Family Residence District 3 . 4-725 , Amendments 4. 4-708 , R-2 Residence District 5 . 4-709A, R-3 Residence District I . APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OR OTHER OFFICIAL CITY DOCUMENTS: 1 . Renton Shoreline Master Program. 2 . Land Use Report , 1965 , Objectives , 1 . , 2 . , 4 . , 5 . , and 6 . , pages 17- 18 . J . IMPACT ON NATURAL SYSTEMS: The rezoning of the subject property will not have a direct impact. on the natural systems . However, eventual development of the site will remove soil and vegetation , increase storm water run-off, and have an effect on traffic and noise levels in the area . Some fill may be required for development purposes . K. SOCIAL IMPACTS : The subject request will have minimal social impacts except for those caused by minor population increase and the new relationships that will be the result of such an increase . L. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT/THRESHOLD DETERMINATION: Pursuant to the City of Renton Environmental Ordinance and the State Environmental Policy Act of 1971 , as amended (RCW 43 . 216 ) , a Declaration of Non-significance has been issued for the sub- ject proposal (see attached ) . M. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION : A vicinity map and site map are attached . N. AGENCIES/DEPARTMENTS CONTACTED: 1 . City of Renton Building Division 2 . City of Renton Engineering Division 3 . City of Renton Traffic Engineering Division 4 . City of Renton Utilities Division 5 . City of Renton Fire Department Various comments are attached at the end of this report. 0. DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS: 1 . The subject request for R-3 zoning is compatible with the Comprehensive Plan at the date of submittal of the subject application . However, R-3 zoning is not consistent with the revised Comprehensive Plan for the area approved by the City Council on February 28, 1977 . Also , the applicant ' s proposed maximum development density of nine units would be compatible with the revised plan designating the subject site as an R-2 low density multiple family transition zone . 2. The existing Misty Cove Apartments to the south and the R-4 zoning in which they are located provide a logical PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY, REPORT TO HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING OF MARCH 15 , 1977 PAGE FIVE RE : THOMAS: C. BUCKINGHAM 4. Minimum building setbacks : South property line - 10 ' — north property line - 20, — /O ' east property line - 20 ' aD g V from high water line, west side --58'- — 2 1 5. Setback areas to be landscaped in accordance with a detail landscape plan approved by the Planning Department . Limited exceptions in the plan may be allowed for ingress and egress to parking areas through the landscape areas . 6 . Exterior Light - Lighting to be of low height level and intensity. 7 . Use of water portions of property Water portions of said property shall be limited to direct use of tenants of said property . Moorage, if allowed , shall be limited to one boat per townhouse unit and shall be in accordance with the Shoreline Master Program. 8. All development plans are subject to the review and approval of the appropriate city departments . 9 . Covenants Duration - The covenants shall run with the land and expire on December 31 , 2050 . It is further agreed and covenanted by the undersigned that if substantial construc- tion is not begun within three (3 ) years of the filing of these covenants , and said construction and development dili - gently prosecuted toward completion thereafter, the zoning of said property shall without further city action revert . back to the zoning which existed prior to the filing of this document, and the covenants shall become null and void . The term "substantial construction" shall mean the physical alteration of the land for construction pursuant to city approved development plans . The above recommendation is considered to be compatible with the revised Comprehensive Land Use Plan as recommended by the Planning Commission and allows reasonable use of said property while protecting adjacent single family property owners to the north . vr.. n II J. I y 1 1! r . \ 1 ti1_ "i 7 \ n.7.4_-601017 SUBJECT Kt ii1a - 142111 JI 55 144 .57 .50 I G5 f 1 ii/ 46 43 ,52 7' I 154 151 li /. 1'4 T//)/ l les lax I wa s 1;,I zs 14e ss !z 4 G L4 LS 24 e rN . s,:,. j- to L9!n to 11IH—I 2. i to 5c 1 I . IeD .44 . i.: 114'' • 150 , 149 9 ` ii...5}y i I ail4' .f 4fl455 : Jill f Tmt•' .. 2 1__ I 2 I tI i z 5 , 4 I-- Mr. X L..AI @... VJM. i 1'•:,.:: ' -I 13 4. L-Jd T l l x,. 7 is Iw w REZONE : i THOMAS C: 'BUCKINGHAM,; File NO. R-022-77 ; property located between Lake Washington and Ripley Lane North adjacent to and north of Misty Cove Apartments . I 1.25 acres including APPLICANT THOMAS C . BUCKINGHAM TOTAL AREA 21,500 sq. ft. in, Lake PRINCIPAL ACCESS Ripley Lane North EXrS ING ZONING R- 1 ,' Single Family Residence EXISTING USE. Single Family Residence • Renovate house and use as recreational facility to complement Misty PROPOSED USE Cove Apts or add approx. 9 units to Misty Cove Apt. complex (duplexes i and/or townhouse) COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN Medium Density Multi -family i COMMENTS .. 1 r i i,tab4J,Z in, , Q 7 . , 1 '., OP 3 e d 2 I 0 w I hi i r 13 'lb 1 J M AM • •Wti• RENTON I 1 4140 DOC' AM IL.)A di r DeoeIIIP 0 4,, E -J • •, 0010011.&w s I--- fr -.ter., 1' Q i-- . 11.4 i • f© exrI r A r0S • OP • A 5 A f LE. \/A-V-! Z f Q, 01 I 144100 r I i E btN . sr.. 1 1 I I 1 I 40 ill:q1.It. LCiiiiimAla_.. ..1_:;_ rit7. 72.00. v/.. 4_,. ,, . 1 K1 Appbe..,4w4- T,,C, BucktNtt+AM ZI R.Ezot m- t4,.• R ozz-77.. WI fit PROPOSED/FINAL lltLLARATION OF SIGNIFICANCEI ..-;N-SIGNIFICANCE Application No .. R-022-77 PROPOSED Declaration Environmental Checklist No . ECF-217-77 X FINAL Declaration Description of proposal Applicant requests rezone from G-6000 , single family residence district, to R-3, medium density multiple family resi - dence district. Proponent Thomas C. Buckingham Between Lake Washington and Ripley Lane North adjacent Location of Proposal to and north of Misty Cove Apartments. Lead Agency . Renton Planning Department This proposal has been determined to 0 have ® not have a significant adverse impact upon the environment . An EIS 0 is pis not required under RCW 43 . 21C . 030 ( 2 ) (c ) . This decision was ma e 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 Pla , ing Direc. or Date March 7 , 1977 s dr Signature o/ : a r0( City of Renton Planning Department 5-76 t BEFORE THE LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON In Re Petition for Rezone App. No. R-022-77 by i BRIEF IN OPPOSITION T. C. BUCKINGHAM Pursuant to Section 4-725 of the Renton Zoning Code, a petition for rezoning property used for a single family residence was filed with the City. The Rezone Petition requested a change from G-6000 to R-3, which if granted would cause a significant change in the land use by permit- ting up to 23 units to be constructed on the site. 1. Approval of Petition for R-2 Zoning Precluded by Zoning Code. The Planning Department' s report dated March 15, 1977 recommends approvals of R-2 zoning for the residential property. This would permit petitioner to construct eight dwelling units on the site; not the 18 he requested or the '23 permitted in an R-3 zone. The applicant did not request an R-2 zoning classification. The Planning Department has no right under Section 4-725 of the Zoning Code to petition for a change in zoning. Consequently, all matters in the record dealing with R-2 are irrelevant and the Lana Use Hearing Examiner is without authority to approve an R-2 zone reclassification. RECEIVED CITY OF RENTON 4Eht=,g1/4NU EXAM crt 1. Pi 2 ` 1977 AM a- 6 e / 7 718(911011111211121314,5 2. A Private Recreational Facility Is Prohibited In An R-1, R-2 or R-3-Zone. The petitioner proposes to establish a recreation facility for the use of tenants of the Misty Cove Apartments as one alternative under the rezone. Such a use is not permitted in an R-1 or R-2 Zone (See § 4-707, Renton Zoning Code) . In an R-3 Zone, clubs or fraternal societies are permitted to locate facilities for their use. Misty Cove Apartment dwellers are neither. A community club house is also permitted in an R-3 Zone. The common and ordinary signification of that term excludes a private recreational club house as proposed by petitioner. The Land Use Hearing Examiner should deny the petition for rezone insofar as the intended use of a recreational facility for Misty Cove is not permitted in an R-3 Zone as requested by petitioner. 3 . Remand For Adequate SEPA Compliance Is Required Before Further Processing of The Petition. Petitioner is required by the State Environmental Policy Act Guidelines (adopted by City Ordinance 3060) to provide a complete Environmental Checklist for the total proposal. The total proposal (See WAC 197-10-060 (2) ) in this case includes the rezone, the construction of the dwelling units and access road improvements. The latter aspect, even though called to the City' s attention by Burlington-Northern on November 12, 1976 , is ignored in the 2 . Environmental Checklist and the Planning Department' s Report of March 15, 1977. Due to the instrinsic deficiency, the Hearing Examiner should remand the matter to the Planning Department for action in accordance with WAC 197-10-330 . There does not even exist adequate information regarding the principal features of the addition to Misty Cove Apart- ments intended by petitioner. Without this information the Department' s Declaration of Non-Significance is clearly erroneous since without such information there cannot be information reasonably sufficient to determine the environ- mental impact of the proposal. See WAC 197-10-320 (1) , • 320 (2) (c) . As discussed in Attachment A, the Environmental Checklist contained an abundance of misleading and false information. For example, the access road relocation and air quality impacts of increased traffic was totally ignored. It is of little help in this matter for the Planning Department to argue that the Declaration of Non-Significance was based on other information on file. For its report dated March 15, 1977, which sets out some aspects regarding environmental impacts, clearly ignores many of the adverse impacts that have been identified. Further, that report, with no analysis or evidence in the record, has dismissed totally the impacts it has admitted will result, for example, storm water runoff, traffic and noise. 3. The SEPA Guidelines specifically require a "complete" Environmental Checklist. If the checklist is inadequate, the Guidelines require the Department to gather further information so that the impact can be reliably identified. WAC 197-10-330 . But this was not done. The Declaration of Non-Significance is "more than a simple finding of fact because the correctness of a non-significant impact determination is integrally linked to the Act' s [ed: SEPA] gileandated public policy of environmental consideration. " See Norway Hills Preservation & Protection Association v. King County Council, 87 Wn. 2d 267, 273 (1976) . As such, the Hearing Examiner ' s review of the petition requires a determination as to whether it is clearly erroneous, that is, has a mistake been committed. See Norway Hills , supra at 275 . And a mistake has been made because the Department has not actually considered all relevant environmental facts before its determination of non-significance. See Norway Hills, supra at 275 , 276. 4 . An EIS Is Required For The Total Proposal. Our Supreme Court last July handed down two cases which establish that an EIS is required for a proposal whenever it has the probability of more than a moderate impact on the environment. See Norway Hills, supra at 278; See Swift v. Island County, 87 Wn. 2d 348, 358 (1976) . As such, an EIS is 4 . clearly required here because of the Planning Department ' s admission in paragraph 0. 3 of its March 15, 1977 report that: a significant impact on adjacent properties could be anticipated in view of the maximums allowed' by the R-3 zone. " Since the proposal is for a R-3 rezone with no height ,or bulk restrictions other than as applicable to an R-3 zone, an EIS is clearly required before the Hearing Examiner proceeds with this matter. The Norway Hills case clearly rejects any argument if made by the Planning Department that this admitted impact will be mitigated and therefore an EIS is not required. nor does the imposition of conditions nullify, for SEPA purposes, the otherwise significant effects of a project Norway Hills, supra at 279. 5 . Applying Criteria For Zoning Amendments Requires Denial Of The Petition. Section 4-725 of the Zoning Code (as amended by Ordinance No. 3101) specifies the findings which the Hearing Examiner must make if a rezone is to be granted. The burden is upon the petitioner to establish that each of the criteria in Section 4-725 are satisfied. As discussed below, the criteria cannot be satisfied and the rezone petition must be denied. A. The Rezone Is Not Advisable. The rezone petition must be denied if the change is not 5. 1 advisable. The common and ordinary signification of that term indicates that the issue here is whether the change is properito be advised" . The Planning Department indicates it is on the theory that there should be a progressive reduction in use intensity northward from the Misty Cove Apartments into the existing single family residences. This is backwards and logically establishes that when you start with a bad condition you should make things worse in adjacent areas. It is not advisable to approve further intrusion into the existing single family residential area north of the Misty Cove Apartments. If there should be a buffer it should be on the south side of the Misty Cove Apartments to protect those residents from the more intensive uses planned there. It is not suitable, right or proper as "advisable" means to cause deterioration to the existing single family residential area north of Misty Cove Apartments . Last December the Land Use Committee acknowledged that the Misty Cove Apartments were a mista =e. Yet now the Planning Department urges that this mistake be extended into the single family residential area. The Department appears to minimize the intrusion because the area is largely undeveloped. There are 8 platted single family lots north of Misty Cove Apartments . There are three residences on those lots and a building permit was recently requested for a fourth by 6. Mr. Crawford. Of the remaing four lots, Messrs . Imus, Crawford and Fox all intend to construct single family residences. The area is not "undeveloped" . Its zoning as G-6000 should be maintained throughout. B. The Rezone Is Not In The Public Interest. The difficulty with applying this criteria is identifying the component group of the public that has an interest affected by the rezone. Certainly it includes that segment of the public which supports the integrity of land use controls actually established by the zoning code. Permit- ting a more intensive use in such a zone is contrary to the interest in maintaining the single family residential character of the area. The R-3 rezone is particularly inconsistent with Goals 1 and 2 in the 1965 Lane Use Goals cited by the Planning Department in its March 15, 1977 report. Further deteriorating intrusions are contrary to their interest. But the public interest does not include the private interests of the petitioner. It is not in the public interest to sanction increased noise, access problems and parking sprawl in the shoreline area. Expansion of apartment units within 200 feet of the shore is contrary to the public interest as set out in the Shoreline Management Act which has been implemented by Renton. See RCW 90. 58. 020. 7 . C. The Rezone Is Materially Detrimental To The Property Of Other Persons Located In The Vicinity. The Planning Department stated in its March 15 , 1977 report that the proposal will have a significant impact on adjacent properties due to height and bulk changes permit- ted under the rezone. In addition to noise, traffic and land use problems, this will materially be detrimental to Mr. Lou Bergan' s single family residence located immediately north of the rezone area. Mr. Bergan' s property is 2 to 3 feet lower than the petitioner' s property. Surface runoff can be expected to cause him problems unless handled. But the loss of privacy and the aesthetic impacts are material and detrimental to Mr. Bergan ' s property. It is bad enough with the Misty Cove Apartments without sanctioning greater intrusions admitted to be significant. D. The Rezone Is Out Of Harmony With The Purposes And Effect Of The Overall Plan Of Established Use Classifications And Boundaries. The proposed rezone would increase the density of use beyond that now established by the G-6000 classification. The purpose of a G-6000 zone is to prevent the intrusion of uses which would be in conflict or incompatible with existing or planned uses and which would constitute nonconforming intrusions into areas best suited for protected residential uses . Yet the rezone petition here is directly opposed to 8. this purpose of the established zoning. The area north of Misty Cove Apartments including petitioner' s property has s been or As intended to be used for single family residences. The G-6000 zone protects the existing and planned land use; granting the rezone would remove this protection and permit further intrusion into this area. The Planning Department also admits in its March 15 , 1977 report that the R-3 zoning is not consistent with the revised Comprehensive Plan approved by the City Council on February 28, 1977. E. The Standards Governing A Rezone Are Violated If It Is Granted. Section 4-725 provides that a "thorough" study of the rezone petition must be done before recommending it. Yet not only is the total proposal ill-defined but admitted impacts are not studied at all. This hardly amounts to a thorough" study. Section 4-725 spells out the criteria governing a rezone. As discussed in the previous subsections, these criteria as applied here require a finding that the rezone petition be denied. Dated this 28th day of March, 1977. Respectfully submitted, k,;;^lip Joel Haggard/ Attorney for Mr. Lou Bergan 9 . ATTACHMENT A COMMENTS REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST When dwelling units are constructed as intended by petitioner (See #9, Petition for Rezone) there will be displacements of soil. Yet petitioner said "No" (II. l.b of Checklist) . Depending upon the location and construction there could be changes in topography (II . l. c of Checklist) . Yet the petitioner answered "No" . The Planning Department affirmed all of this in Section E. l and J of its March 15 , 1977 report. There appears no evidence that the Planning Department assessed these impacts. The increased automobile traffic and CO emissions associated with auto startup will result in a deterioration of ambient air quality. This is due to increases in traffic which have not been estimated or considered (See II . 2 of . Checklist) . The parking areas associated with the potential development will change surface water runoff (See Section E- 1 and J of Planning Department Report) . Yet the petitioner said "No" (II . 3. b of Checklist) . Notwithstanding this, the Planning Department has provided no basis in the record for concluding that the change in surface water runoff will have the probability •of less than a moderate impact. Both the Planning Department and the petitioner ignored the impact of 1. oil runoff from parking areas, Both the Planning Department and the petitioner acknow- ledge that the proposal will increase noise levels. Yet there is no evidence in the record indicating that this will have the probability of less than a moderate impact on the environment. The Planning Department has not evaluated the nature or extent of this impact. The proposal will specifically permit and is functionally related (See WAC 197-10-060 (2) ) to petitioner' s intent to develop the area within 6 to 18 months by an addition to Misty Cove Apartments. But petitioner notes that there will be "No" alteration of the present or planned land use. The Planning Department clearly admits in Section 0. 1 of its report that "R-3 zoning is not consistent with the revised Comprehensive Plan approved by the Council on February 28 , 1977. " The petitioner identifies the probability of impacts in four areas related to "Transportation/Circulation" (II. 13 of Checklist) ; but no assessment whatsoever of this adverse impact in a shoreline area has been made by the Planning Department. The petitioner also notes that there is "no" new or altered governmental services required for the proposal. This is obviously in error; yet the Planning Department did not assess the impacts associated with providing adequate 2 . fire protection or access. As noted in the attached letters, implemention of the total proposal would require relocation of access roads entirely off of the Burlington-Northern right-of-way. In addition, expansion of the underpass is - required. The impacts from such activities have been totally ignored in this matter. Acting Chief R. Teissler of the Fire Department has related these problems to he public safety concerns and this has been ignored. Obviously the proposal will require electricity though Petitioner says "No" and the Planning Department ignored this . 3. MEMORANDUM February 17 , 1977 TO : GARY KRUGER Senior Planner FROM: WARREN GONNASON Public Works Director RE :ACCESS TO RIPLEY LANE PLANNING AREA Our Traffic Engineering Division has reviewed the area in the vicinity of Ripley Lane presently under review by the Planning Department . The present access to the undeveloped parcel of property as shown on the attached plan would not be adequate for R-3 develop- ment . It would appear, however, that proper access could be provided to accommodate the proposed R-3 zone , since access through the trestle or over the railroad tracks could be developed to city standards . Ripley Lane in its present configuration could accommodate the increased volume from an R- 3 zone . 2 DCB : cah Ak FF PEE n DEPA r`,,, BURLINGTON NORTHERN Lobby 2 Central Building INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AND Seattle, Washington 98104 PROPERTY MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT Telephone (206) 624-1900 Mr. Gary R. Kruger, Senior Planner November 12, 1976 The City of Renton Municipal Building 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, Washington 98055 RE: Comprehensive flan Review - Ripley Lane Area Dear Mr. Kruger: Please refer to your letter of October 29 to our Director of Engineering • concerning the City of Renton's reviewal of its Comprehensive Plan in the Ripley Lane area. In 1960 the former Northern Pacific Railway Company granted a permit to the City for a public road access from 108th S.E. through our existing railway Bridge No. 61 and then along the outer edge of our right of way to serve several private residences within the area. This was done at that time so that the City could have a public road into the area and yet not have to conform to certain requirements for public roads since it was on a permit basis. The present Medium Density Multi-Family R-3 zone would generate a public use of the crossing of our right of way and if this continues to he the case, we would expect the City or a developer to plan public roads off of our right of way entirely, and if it would be necessary to go beneath our bridge structure, a wider opening structure with proper clearances must be constructed. We would expect the City or developer to absorb this expense to allow traffic to pass beneath the bridge with proper clearances. In addition to the expensive cost of a new bridge structure, the right of way itself would have to be negotiated on an easement basis for public roadway purposes and it would be expected that the City of Renton would make the usual application and absorb this expense for the development of a public roadway across our property. Very t ly yours, F R Jordon RFCFI16 °xo. i ger - Property Management 1 o i976 JJG:ek File: RE-488 - Renton, WA cGr' nFr I MEMORANDUM from the desk of ASSISTANT CHIEF GEISSLER 2/23/77 TO: GARY R. KRUGER, SENIOR PLANNER SUBJECT: YOUR MEMO OF 2/14/77 RE RIPLEY LANE PLANNING AREA THE PRESENT ACCESS TO THE AREA IS WEST OF THE RAILROAD ON THE SOUTH SIDE AND FOR- THE NORTH AREA WE WOULD HAVE TO GO EAST OF THE RAILROAD AND THROUGH THE UNDERPASS. IF THIS AREA IS DEVELOPED INTO AN APARTMENT COMPLEX, WE WOULD HAVE A PROBLEM OF ACCESS UNLESS THE ACCESS WAS DEVELOPED WITH THE PLANS FOR THE TOTAL AREA. WE WOULD NEED 45j TURN AROUNDS, HYDRANTS APPROXIMATELY EVERY 300 FEET AND HARD SURFACE ACCESS TO 3 SIDES OF ALL BUILDINGS IF THEY WERE OVER 3 STORIES. WE_ WOULD NEED STANDPIPES TO -AID IN FIREFIGHTING AS WELL AS THE BUILDING CODE REQUIREMENTS. f5'76-1E--- TAX R. GEISSLER, ACTING CHIEFjtv15.77 17, I yys C . RECEIVED CITY OF RENTON HEARING EXAMINER March 28, 1977 MAR 2 9 1977 AM TM 718f911011111211 o2e3,415,66 TO:Renton City Hearing Examiner FROM: Residents of Ripley Lane North; Renton, Washington SUBJECT: Petition r -BTFv NO. Dear Hearing Examiner; The residents of Ripley Lane North have, in the past, expressed opposition to the construction of apartments on Lake Washington north of' the existing Misty Cove Apartment Building. We wish to again express our opposition to the requested R-3 rezone for apartments north of the Misty Cove Apartments. For years, the area north of the Misty Cove Apartments has been a single family residential neighborhood; and we wish to see it remain that way. We believe that the waterfront properties north of the Misty Cove Apartments are best suited for the lowest density residential use. Additional single family homes are in the planning stage and at least one Building Permit has recently been applied' for in this area. Because our properties are on a dead-end road, they are served by very re- stricted access roadways on Burlington Northern right-of-ways over and under the railroad, tracks and traffic is very restricted. Therefore we feel that all of the properties should remain single family. Also increased density such as R-3 will endanger our right-of-way privileges from the Burlington Northern Railroad. All the undersigned feel that increased density to R-3 zoning will cause SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT due to increased traffic, congestion, parking, boat- ing and noise in a R-1 neighborhood. NAME __ - / ADDRESS feet t/r-*e., i712u" T..,. I;rzs:cPL:q Sr'z IU!(l zy iv 11c. /z: ,cj(J s.+'S's63" l.-,:r I J S ,-, .%/i n / '.. ( )A,?‘; 1 ) .,a 4-6, /2- •- e- S _ e- l1 'vie 0LO;I r LoiT. /4-Z- IVcr7t °/1L/iJsy Coves v i / it G c Zi9/ / /iPLF/ L/,/ iV E-A., ,/./ 960-5 a R i S / 5" )2.e.r G4 t 7O 7 i Pfp1;i7 1--1 I'll G Gv 7 .1 f:. a R'ENTO,N`-CITY COUNCIL Regu::lar Meeting July ',12 , `1976 Municipal Building io.nday 8; 00. 'R:M:: Council Chambers M hN U T E •S ,• . CALL TO ORDER Mayor Charles- J.: Delaurenti ;;.pr•esiding, .led the Pledge of 'Allegiance and :cal led' t he:;regul• ar meeting. of the 'Renton City Council to •order. ROLL CALL 'OF RICHARD M.• STREDICKE °•Council :President; ROBERT. E.. McBETH, KENNETH D. ,BRUCE, COUNCIL • EARL CLY.MER,'GEORGE J:.` PERRY AND PATRICIA M:. SEYMOUR-THORPE.. MOVED BY McBETH,` SECONDED. BY:BRUCE,.•.ABSENT COUNCILMAN WILLIAM J. GRANT BE .EXCUSED. CARRIED: -.Councilman :;Grant':arrived. shortly after Roll was called. CITY •OFFICIALS" CHARLES J.:, DELAURENTI,_ Mayor; . G. M. SHELLAN, City Attorney; 'GWEN MARSHALL; • IN ATTENDANCE Finance Director-;. DEL MEAD, •City Clerk; WARREN GONNASON, Public Works Dir- ector; GORDON ERICKSEN, Planning Director; LAWRENCE WARREN,.Asst.. City Attorney-; DONALD CUSTER, 'Administrative Assistant; RICHARD GEISSLER, Asst Fir",e`Chief, :HUGH D•ARBY,: Police Chief; VERN CHURCH; Purchasing Agent. PRESS MARK PELLEGRINO,`. Greater. Renton News; DON CREW, : Renton Record Chronicle. Council President Stredi'cke•„introduced Mr. Crew and he was welcomed. as the offici.al '•press,";representative for the Record Chronicle.. HINUTE APPROVAL Coujcil ,Presi"dent' Stredicke noted spelling correction of June 28, 1976 Minutes, Page3,.:"Appointment to Fire 'Station Advisory Committee, Robert Hi .Bard: .-MOVED, B.Y STREDICKE, SECON-DED BY McBETH, COUNCIL. APPROVE COUNCIL . MINUTES OF .6/28/76:.-AS :WRITTEN.: CARRIED. 3UBLIC HEARING This• being:the`•date!,set and, proper" notices having .been„published,. posted Cenyon anddistributed-;, Mayor Delaur.enti 'opened the• Public Hearing to consider, Annexati on. = the 75° peti:ti,on.:.for ;annexation as filed by Arthur R.. Kenyon -et•••al for tlorthern L-shaped :ar"ea°in: the ';vicinity,::of114th Ave. .SE and NE 33rd Street, petition portion of City certified `valid.•':by, -the` Planning :Department as: representing 86.8% of the • East of FAI405 assessed valua:tion:, ;-:Property owners agreed to accept •the Comprehensive N. of May Creek Plan; zoning'..and assumption of any pre-existing`"bonded indebtedness' of Along. "the city. at the:prelimina.rytmeeting on April 19, 1976. Letter from City . Rufus Buck Rd. -Clerk „Mead noted ':Council's. .,r,.espons.ibility to determine whether to accept the annexa-tio.n :as•:petitioned and-.`i:f acceptable, the Planning Department should be a•uthorized. to'prepare- ,a Notice of Intention to be filed.:-with the King County.Boundary,'Rev`iew Board •for' further procedure as required by law. Planning-,Di-rector.::Er.icksen outlined the area using wall:map, noting five . parcels oprf"; operty: i.nvolv,ed,. explaining Mr. Kenyon' s property located both; i.n and out of city and• that•annexation initiated in order for. all , property: to'' belocated::wi.thin ' the city and obtain building permits accord- i ng ly: Councilman icBeth i nqui red whether or' not.area •served with city water . andsewer'.lines, be::ing. advised by Public Works Director Gonnason • that',.it.was not .;and would: no"t. be•obligated to service the •area. . McBeth . inquired if attempt;'h• ad been-,made to annex a larger. area, and was advised by `the.;Planning Di rector: tha:t 'there was' no :interest on the part of others i n:the ,area,.'when' attempt'•was:"made for larger annexation, Mr.. Arthur R. Kenyon, ' 1202":N. •1s3t:,"St ,• was: present-and explained annexation. MOVED BY, BRUCE,. SECONDED BY,.;McBETH. ".CLOSE HEARING. CARRIED.. MOVED- BY .STREDICKE, SEC- ONDED: BY BRUCE, ;`000NCIL. CONCUR IN'ANNEXATION..AND AUTHORIZE PLANNING DEPT. TO: PREPARE ',NOTICE OP 'INT"ENT: FOR. ANNEXATION FOR PROC SSiNG WITH bUNDARY REVrEW. BOARD. _..'CARRIED ' • . UBLIC' HEARING is:"';being ."the.:•date:s,et; andproper notice having been 'posted.; pub] ished and • ocal " mailed, Mayor De;laurenti .openedthe •Public 'Hear"i.ng to consider the Final: Improvemen.t` • Assessment ;R-ol-l:;for. L:1.4D:•':•:#291 in amount:of.$416,181 .05 .for the sarict #291 construction and.-.installa:tion• of water mains .and appurtenances. thereto; Final in.;and;"nea"r Leke:. Washington - May Creek t Kennydale area, hearing being. Assessment.,conti:nued'..from J'une`.21, -.1.976 Letter from Public Works Director Gonnason reported. ven otes.ts hade :pr been received on "final ;assessment roll whichs Dater Mains amounted, to--5..4%-:pr,otest,-.` :Letters: of protest were .read: .'Donald- L. • Fox, • Kennydal e etc. 5710•,Whi techuck pr Everett:,•'WA property .,owner Lots #9 and...10, Hi l imans' Lake;Was:hington,'Gar:den. of::Eden;. Barry Palmer,.. 5031 Ripley Lane :N..; -S. Reid Imus 5021 Ripley,..Lane N :'#8' ::Tar.ee,, Inc. , P..0. Box 88237, Seattle by Richard: L Imus.; Manager; ."Leslye & -Lou Bergan, .5029, Ripley Lane. N. ;. and Ray.. I.fCrawford for.: Lots." 5;6;7,8, Blk.D Hillmans Lk WN .Garden "of Eden Dv 3 Letter -was";presented from .King ,County Water District #107, Sam Marcri , .Mgr, explained ' the..water district would maintain, repair or replace. in:'order to maintainser-.vi:ce•;in. this •area. Persons :present making comment: Barry Palmer, Rich 'Imus, .Reid Imus' T.: Buckingham. 5 Z 74:C .7"Y 1W/ 4/ r . RECEIVED • 2 CITY F it 0 RENTON 7 HEAMNG EXAMINER'tom:f _1:. U entgn'Ci ty `Counci 1;` 1/, . 9 19711:2:76 Page -2 f AM ubl'i c- Hearing - Continia.M ' N:. ` '.0-2, - 7 7 PM 7i3o9r10t1102111213141516, D 291: Public.Works-• and. Transportation Committee Report noted 6/21 76 referral eater Mains for review of protests :against.:assessments by owners of proprty already. ontinle-F served by an existing'.water main_.of Water District 107. The report noted properties, in .,ques,tion are;l-ocated north of the Misty Cove Apartments and south 'of $E 72nd,`St'. The Committee recommended that those properties be credited $3:.,20 per::foot: for.Ahe property abutting.the new .8-inchwater_main representing approximately:_-7.5% of the original, cost for the installation of:. the;;existing ,line:,' Publi:c.Wor.ks'. Director. Gonnason, explained the district and the. duplicate line, showing Moser property which was divided and sold after' the.:LID.:had.,been initiated; Moser not having protested:-at time of pre- liminary: assessment:and 'as.'`multiple residence proposed for area, - larger line was;: ..installed to facilitate fire-protection. Councilman Clymer recalled the hearing to consider preliminary assessment wherein certain properties were deleted, noting: that if protests had been received on this area to the north, deletioncould' ,have been made. Upon inquiry, Planning Director Ericksen reported •.problems :exist in development of apartments in area north of Mis.ty Cove Apts.: but .development` not precluded; noting problems of access , soil conditions and impact along shoreline; apartment applications- had been before he iPlanning Commission on three occasions. In order to determine assess- ments, length "of life of District #107 line was discussed, along with Compre- hens-iv•e Plan.for,area :•• Protesting property owners present ,reported plans for.sin•l.e :fami'l residence's: and' oi Posed;reduction of' $3.20 per foot as insufficient MOVED BY SE_YMOUR-THORPE, SECONDED BY McBETH, COUNCIL CLOSE oilAd,iusted HEAR!IN..G. CARRIED:: ' 'MOVED BY.. STREDICKE, SECONDED BY SEYMOUR-THORPE, L. I .D. or, Ripley Lane #291:' BE APPROVED WITH ASSESSMENTS AS PRESENTED EXCEPT FOR SIX PROTESTING PROPERTIES:IN NORTHERN:`PORTION:OF L. I .D. 'AND. THOSE .ASSESSMENTS BE PAID BY - THE'WATERW.,OR.KS.,UT,.IL I_TY :FUND:;AND. A LATECOMER'S .AGREEMENT 'EQUAL TO THOSE ASSESSMENTS BECOME; EFFECTIVE.`UPON •HOOK UP. Upon inquiry by Councilman McBeth;:_'.Pub'lic,':Works: DirectorGonnason noted this adjustment to the Roll . Final would •be:paid;.„from;funds r.equested in utility_ tax :increase. MOTION CARRIED. Assessment Roll B. Y =TH P N BY PERRY THAT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ON Revised Total AREA; IN QUESTION,:,(NORTH OF'MISTY COVE APTS. .BE- REFERRED TO THE PL N 405,389. 59 . DMMIS ON':FO R :V WAND RECOMMENDATION. CARRIED. MOEC- ONDED BY: PERRY; COUNCIL 'REFER .L. I . D. #291 TO LEGISLATION COMMITTEE FOR PROPER ORDINANCE. .`CARRFED. MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECONDED BY McBETH; COUNCIL RECESS CARRIED . Council; .recessed at. 9:30 p.m. and reconvened at 9:40 p.m. All Council memberspresent dt roll call UBLIC HEARING, This being the date `set and..proper notices having been posted and published ix Year. Street as quired. by law,;Mayor .Delaurenti opened the Public Hearing to consider onstruction the x:.Year Construction= Pro.gram for city streets and arterials , 1977- lan 1982,,. d; Five: Year -Phan; for:,Street Maintenance, 1977-1981 , hearing contin- ued` from ne' 28;:; 1976.':,'Letter from Public Works Director Gonnason •pres- ented revise.d. copies':`of the. proposed program incorporating a,mendp roject descriptions :a's requested by the Public Works and Transportsa,ti n Committee. For the benefit of .those persons present, Mayor Delaureni,-"announced the hearing .covered'.:the:enti re:_.6-.Yr. Program of city streets not SR-515, State extension :of Benson Rel ; affecting present Talbot.y , and noted special. hearing would• be called :the 'event of SR-515 ;a tivities. Following dis- cussion,. IT;•WAS MOVED .-BY GRANT, SECONDED BY $- YMOUR-THORPE, CITY COUNCIL GO ON,`RECORD OPPOSING SR-.515;:kAND REFER TFIL'41ATTER TO THE LEGISLATION COMMIT- TEE, FOR PROPER RESOLUTION ASKINGTHATf„ACL PENDING ENGINEERING, ACQUISITION OF RIGHT-OF-WAY AND:FUTURE CONSTRUOPTON WITHIN THE CITY OF RENTON BE DELETED FROM THE STATE HIGHWAY BIMJ ET. Councilman McBeth felt this action was premature, that State Hi w y Dept:,, should 'be present for SR-515. hearing. ROLL CALL: 4-AYE:: STREDI:C ', GRANT, PERRY, SEYMOUR-THORPE; 3-NO: McBETH, • BRUCE AND CLYMER MOTIOVCARRIED. Persons present making inquiries: Ron Keller, 1Q21 S. 30.th Ct., and Glen Garrett, 1006 S. ,,,,i th Ct. , re- SR-515. Joe Venera;',.6.22 S. 16th, objected to widening "Tal of Rd:. -to 4lanes. Homer Venishnick ,,518: S. :17th, objected to speed: on•, bot, noting need for walkway for school `chil'dren without changing c racter of neighborhood., H. Klein,. 504 BurnettaS._, and Dennis Stremi;ck 2532: Smithers S. , objected to city spending $122,60Q for Talbot Rd, ex nsion (S.. :Grady:to: S. 7th) , Public Works Director expining purchase of r. t-of-way ,included . : Douglas Spencer, 814 S. 27th, objectedto widen- in of Talbot Rd.', noting need for sidewalks and resurfacing, and o 'ected extension of that ;portion ',S•trander Blvd:/SW; 27th St. from E.Valley`°Rd. to Talbot Rd.:S.' , C/ r . 1'6'z1-4sCOOIVC / L s . . . 7 — / z _ 76 INTE FFICE CORRESPONDENCE DATE Alaska Airlines SUBJECT TO 72"t f i ®y jq A j C () FROM A 7 I ,pis i 71,s E d 4)&e. ve 174/4-7- :ii-,06,-/e) 7/4_5 ArrdoR 6 t C--4 ,4 77E--T/i1Ok) U> 0 7 Re 0 Thop64-771 I p ld? L lee 1%A9 30 57. h p i t ZONE USE MIN LOT ZONE USE MIN LOT ' 5[AL[ l ''=800' R-1 Sing. Fam' Res. 7200 SR-2 Two Fam' Res' 10000 1 SECTION SR-1 Sing. Fam' Res'7500 R-3 Mulit-Fom' Res.5000 " G Sing. Fam. Res. 35000 0 R-4 Multi-Fam' Res' 5000 9 G-6000 Sing' Fam' Res'6000 P-1 Public Use G-7200 Sing' Fum' Res. 7200 B-1 Business G-8400 Sing. Fam' Res' 8400 BP Business Parking P m'G-9600 Sing' Fa Res' 9600 L-1 Light Industry PAGE GS-1 Sing' Fam'' Res' 35000 H-1 Heavy Industry 03-1 Sing. Fam. Res' 40000 T Trailer Park b R 2 T*n -Fam, Res' 7200 ^ M P Manufacturing Park II fff C,' I I i y crn q1 ' 1 I•: . w ° I 1 `' f I, S^! 1 I - i1 1 I I. I if': 5' P1 I f• I Jul, 1 I r • ' C f l '. F Ir1 C, 11 1 '`' ti Ji ' t i I I or, • y la t''. 1' i1 1. - rt prff A r t' ti. t i J.. .• •. .' 1-..••- j; • • • 1 '..•:••% 13 C Q. . r„,.. 1 1, 1 1 1 ' r If / is • 1 r" 4 I' I 1' f f f 7 y' 1 /. ..." 4%,. 1'! ` ., t. I.. I i i. j • J. i --• ' li 1 . rt,'.!!', V i 0' i,: s r af,. s;#; y 1j' } h .+ .•,• .. '•+„ cV f1. a Ct' i41 b 11. 4 1/4 j I t i r tij/ f. j I 7,, Ittta tea' r, i 1 rt I I I .+ et 1 IA . i ' r trii. ' ' tt* L" r si, ZEI e vi sc O ior 1' 1 It j ; I i, ICI Q u C. . ' ..// • , , eNs .. . . •./.., 0 (:: itti. ii \.,, f I I I, 1 ............ / 9'. 1-. I I I( i j N, i 11 ‘ 1 I A 111) 4); I 1 I 1 L'. I tie, et i I 1 1 k, l c P.... gCI tI'''..". c. 1 r) G f 1'MA . AVM NON _ Z v .._ .. FA - I { tl g\?Ht w\,I1 1 s.R' ti r.cltle '`P n _ e _tateLev-ni V-t fee w a7. sx He,H _ e C a ^loon iv s[1 C o•= a vt 'A1• • s. 1,414l p As. IOB00 3^p s I, .v, .T • F As lams Avs! c AM+tu i C =Ia AV F,1/,X M's` MeJ lnn m d tl / 1:1- ' 1_— y s ktoreRwt o AVN!z Je 0 7 0, •t NAr4 .l•, E N'NGTON " n,°f" rAv in 11 'mu v E<fa sy A I ww, •• p z go_^ r /v• AV _.. B'v IIN N •rN I A Sfy AlR- P.,'M f1 = f \ ' P a•. a • 11 -1• qq Eb 5 lt°"'" AVV Nf Ok 1 w ISNCPN v..'_. D s E a =rl riN,Y Cr e $ ' 0 1 rN.ner•n Rs' v /' } n AO n' au tNv I" - V5). 1 ',y I t 1° 10111 M - vN"J 1 5[J_ P V > I{ ! 8 r• IS00 Ne o r^ uvH A n ^: = y1^ 5 N ^ '" PS E ' a sC set e ,. I C•NI . 1 M rDt[N T r ZNAteK AV Nt tC ;y i'Ny L 'y j 8 .. b N to O P C4 t I. I ,' e/lt' ." ,--.',i •s a_f", - Q . 'rA skit Ns 7 'r i' 1% '3 yJ;_. -t a '; O 7 o sE:• rH Arr 11'H IA'f• µxsoi .'a i I I I R 1-4141444 1 !1" nntyy f J III. " fj 4 q I F.NONsvn ,. f, 4 rs; MAI 7e .$l 1 ,: ..9 a cAANF : ; o•VION AV/ • N I I• JAY rm `7 t Y r `4 a ') AV r w 1 { 1 I+ i. V s E O g[[[t1 11 4 M .11 y g gz DknoN " y n mn IfNHAvs r Av'se 32 : fusty; nsF "K s w 0 ay i 15 H> .1•; •0 A a Y.. 4 .•,•NO 3 iier..:r'J" M N A IIr AV SS old WASHING e Y 15` . -" r'. F, iS{ii::JJ t ;r ... A AA oNA IA A7 fm.0 'I SP.0 y ez t ' 5,i a Mr E k,.,i IN': 41:!-$11;: 4\\ sF oN "D sr ` r. S G ..0 o' z o z 116604 zi n 1X1v N[ N.M ,1 114'' 'lid. gg a w.r.i it o1e.e r 0 n 1 iA4 lusty_-.... T' y zF6 t .,'_ ( nIH 3' E 3 'r A ,. FI Avs[.g sAkevewN 1P i n O I I - I.1 O y svrra , i n Av e^ p:Ft+s.+ " 4• N l ?'sp44 v !-•' n n,nNO'•" I AVSFIn.+fl NVA AN11111_AA DOOM St 11,,ttnnny 0 p, r I "arj to°e9"F ar % s Ne Ia KIWION V N! Ari4NNNlwroN ' A. 5 y9 A4 s " At sF c 5 n ` d e I:°`nf o..• 7 'a .. 11 UIUNION 4 IWNNOSnN AV 0 h • ; 3 ,tf oy.5Nl ._, N1s1AV;sr t ; Isla?se ursr „Avtr4 " 'i3 sly/ t..wo Yt 12000 ,'''I 'syin ; sp =,,Fstor f f „t F may, Av Ht 'y,NDtz e,Nr A J1•ti c' Xm li km N•. y L • IJlss AV st i ri"a. t v II ^ V A Rn'u°, 6 • rY ( . fi, 4 _, tie--7swHs-O 19 1 qq. r a a„:3•D My ! J.rN AV sF IJ t , I M, I B ,? „s ,Hain Mf• 't'+l salvo v•Na la-nJND CI SF f fie KNk q 9,r y o1JJN0 AV sf i'JJ„y,5 31€ie.vN n y•a Z. .7 s se Ala;r. 9 •7• F F IJrtH I,. Av se I s d' n A ^+ slrnMON} C. }' Av rr 'It y n n 3:t'r'2 .:... rtsro 0 = a 1x%o AV S F a S T I>.rx IAv N c s soF a iy IIy6 yyhJ av M" if I%IH AV St •' . o '. S~ IIT' 1~ '11 t> I V3 N. ...,. lg AV N!SV.."°'I AV Nt tI. i 0 O Hft\ Ay,0 3 •"'^ - >p TP - 1%M AVSE " ,,.•.:' '.", 7% € is ( Y q$ F )""L I 'V i 2 I y zz z zNotoot ^AVM! . S= S G IINH AY"^ J>IH ISe,H=a st .1 4 VAN "•WM..: V ft '+\ a+Gl at; oi:r:;r. y r.. a°P 0 A• s si• m nSHeTi, f•_'_. j:? yT .yl. s ,.2, : ^.?.. 1 ae o " nAYN J'L nr,6Y o" nt 1 I+o. n.'. L ixeup+'-' ?f a e a..to lt• y ryn.. r r : , ' N IN!(IGN AV Ntl -I TACAIM AV N[ -- AVN,z,I B b yryp AV I[1 'OO t r• 4 N 1 r' I 2 y•NY, I I M 5 AV Jr- fE]b•- • I y wa DC O M..J union tMW4ZA 1 N z-' yn nil t 1,pp slip! it Vs 5!'40'NIw Av ^yM 1F1 M 1 N r INION Ij'v Hq nNf IJ:rb•V fF IS ONLt C H m I G x P SIV°1rrJ11 J° tStH a=. Y1riln';1"A5'TF a Nr ^OP 4.40 n u°ea+`d'" J" IAv st Irss1H n e• Otr9y ^F I I y x` z 1 A.V S N J't Y.Z' d dlr D5+ ^ 1. 1 , Av1sf IVIH se N M1fIND.,AV CI NiA INM AV Sf 1 D, S,50 E ° AV 5! •-J A' .f pIR 1l Ietl" / 2vI%fH ilt •".. •^ 13500'n r^ tatty I Ax r a'/ 1 fl N a t_ s n'" M'Ns 4 V e^`+ tt 3r13200J1Y M !%IR_v. A m s Av 3t s+ +s HNS\[I N t lea A::,,7 I IsnH .ly,J .y' AA'' . V ti 1 P/ n aAV az^yz I%lx kid,'5 5 v R s.y Ii I Im°' 6 It `^A . H. 1 6 P of JJ3N tr. / 5 i I •:I71o"P wAvs +`'n Avr a u Zs " sir. yrsl'Jr tt 'L. 3.:weo .q N. e,se sl K. t tll IIrIN '[ xv 4,t o :„,,,,,,,,,,,T,,yea nbTJIl +y3 .K r, g^'N xtR /' _. I i• 11e, ' f^ ' S• S etl'• SA HFw rOt N0 y 4rd n s' 3 r IwH Av se E Ot 9 f T 1 trl Oq,AI,-{•,vtf^3i •J s 3}Av S'E I EtySlt`1 A? ntl r E 7 IJETH yAV S! aA • I r T 4041 t " s___ r.I r.l Inf h Ham•, Irp _ 1_ mo dd'e tK'.' NBERRDO { V51iNtH a "•4"' AV fl IM.I Y 3 I AV SAVSFL r Y..v,+` ... NO AVSFt Ot b^. A5, p p-..---.'. (NEWCASTLE RD), 1ss[' I 11°w•-x•+se a -y o,,,,, Tsir y si^,„tl- , N +i "y.• „•? w ..tom 1^ y t I tlfiz _ y^_" + A i MIN"AV to ^ I i B 8 a • c.+ a - Fes? _ vil 1 L "•r • utw a^ s r. I,atn ft Ii .. ^tm..nl )/ 00 a"I pv+~vD a ti D i' s r tI 7 - J 1.ti _ _•/\ a`'T.t€T }- y I.,s,.v'N.Y'-_'_; 6 a I It.f WWKAo iv t I"v sE j n'/s 1 Jp,...+.i K 1S &N n AJ',!i IIItf I Av '{ _ g I Js A13U11 Ft o a 1_ yl•vn L• it I Ie!}ry A:,;‘,E.yl ' .* '"rs4uD0^ 9^ ngy0 I4N Avse bl I_ yDIv I r ° 1 ss o_ 8. r.'t14 1' ' wf 01.n". IINpp AV fl y fl I U 6 1N C• V S I41H;AV3! ,•ld v' ••• I.n n/a.Devl.y_ I Ir.1 a C, Iu, 1 y 6}iJ,v xlalr°g_" a . '•nH ?'Avs sa,..f'• a / C o i'• = C LIT-".. F7 M I{ o urH R I s. s s ev Jr of } A y. e!' ! 1 i bi 11 Ns (q i I + w AV fl p] 1q HMI AV F • 1 1 10 '\t. of tl•r•Jh Ilf r' RAv+J J++<' i l .y fseeg E.n" €,Juv ileaTN'-• JAIx fl 1 I151N AV/F t Y " I 1418 SE tfEly _.(•eM n S['MiyA•A 10 1 INOF R1 tl , ei ^I.H. 7 47 I H lxn•N w~Av7 ppp _ 4 HMI AA: t I b i / 8 f e,H ,. sD 9 +1H A J° rljY1" 1 IIYM AV IO 141M AV i 14/H A'SE rH" AV ]! 0 4V 5r 160V HYrwti AV E i N f•1 1 OM i 5 0 11 I ' AV 11 S. M S! 141M AV 12 y I R.• 1 y Y , i S 76 iv t t ^•'I5151 SE' d J O O £ 5151 I liinMiNI` by s i r i ' I_ ..sf~. N nyy I a'wASt M.AV 1! az n ,+ ? Ka a c Zr M 1 s]AD .• V 1! N yly IH H Imw 0H N 7 n n I i - Ism A II1-0" r a " ` k •D.J J!tbISlsl :vS y ^ rJJNDa•V5 y I n.rH -•vsEI•r uvso As6 } ii9 J A E Y V i E p } IASI Av II y I OHtSf R..sr II (K:r r J t st i " tismo °1 , I1'w 1r t Jr1510Qdr y n'. r. l rAKAvrtD ,emso.vs t J°> N ss1H =rssE.^b'nf41s•ns/ a 15000 ...Avi yy i Q E 4° i•0'4" '. '15600 e A, sE 4'".,„,. yRR rwne• IStrO J'€ i n Z°153 MIHAVVSFf r j m - ISlIN I 3 I NR.rM l Av 1e °? elf.`'S C'°'" , v.1H yt. v% iu _sseTN IMM OT LI fy S O /.i ```+ VAV S-- j 1[:- '• MTH so AV S mos 1 AV II A l7 ISNw n s F^: t "tVyt A't+t 1 O .. ` > 1%M n 11 7}, w RI v NlIOt IM1NL.v Sfo 1 SJ vl -}.st ._ 4Mr1.**—}_ y.'.+- ISNN AV IF M y 1C + m 9YAn.I'C. 'Fi$ 47m °IIU Av 3tTt(. 1aA. A J•=Va,.•ti wc ill Now rE'." _ IN'1 `` + '^ X T4 i "} G 6IA e lealo a n . rr .I - i I N ' n = 15800 I^ w ^ n Itl1M AV 11 2 o 'F AV]f01I3,35H } A I! L. Ftlj G p e D- ^ I•TD Ai n°sF N J0. "1 51 N 4 -O O 1111t AV fl >' ,N S lr O O1 G S '.4 OAS.St " O v it•1 "47 M T`IIII5•lS O! yl B ^ y Iy IuuD AV se'iy • -..'•' e o C V 9 = ! L.K N" H^ V.I HMO Av II IeaoAv/! t• 5•` Cr;n 16,100 ItsIN A'sEa " Isnx AV st eaaIes01 +sF sn• ' ar' nl, s' s4r= y v:) Jv AV Nfn L yi'n14SH AAvse _ 3 ', 1 , iwt551ncAv11 II le%0 Av I s 1NTH AV 1 J O n R ";^uG 3 4 t• rrc. ,F6 6. . n_V NAB I a X p'+ } 3 7s q Av y sE 2 n ^ ' H H.+ le.lnn I, A1 a ° It710AVN v+ i c 11 A Mx Yf w€ A t• u.,NnN IMNIIV 11 still 8 d Nuof e/r nse M"n4y b ( n11f1w X'' I4tN AV 11{ Si • cr m O IS 'AV we' ^ y r N ; tN yF 1j,' AV 1'f 1 1 7 q e t F1 IA1M n Sf JAB .+ ISI v sE =uI, g-A ANn.r.- IMiNs pg^ ^ l I i iJ 1 Y rs N o.' O y -./I Ay,t r" N . 2 yrld Nk% 16 a00Y jZ Ham AV II IMN AV if ek 1 / Z G I t 1 s _ a Al ? L Tip'__ _ Av O ' IM AV f! ;y .IMN AV i! f! rN r I 4 I nrH.vn N 1, c z..i:.+-.. ..'a l c g N; r D 1rs i. eSC' bJ y :Up al • r I z N To North Bend 6 r AI'IS in n W F. 811mM AV SI yC 1 PO relH AV 11O ImN AV 11 iIrVToI.ISODCH To Lake Nelhl.en s N ND D Merle Vella! N J O o Port Angel N W N To Solial, y o z D o To Vaughn o 'o' o C ' ' o O re4 a i i. nn r Cuv S V.'s/ n d y+ p;:® 4 i .11 1C yvI' o..... •, Clear H : & ':<; Gme4 7.1: J / \/ _. p1 t CITY OF RENTON RuCE1ILDl o FEBREZONEAPPLICATION17in For Office Use Only: A. 2 4i4,/,,,lAPPL. NO. r - a ,.? 2 -7 PLANNING COMMISSION ACT i DEPA j/` '—$5$P ; RECEIPT NO. '/,ij -7/ APPEAL FILED FILING DATE i / - %"/ CITY COUNCIL ACTION HEARING DATE ORDINANCE NO. & DATE APPLICANT TO COMPLETE ITEMS 1 THROUGH 10 : 1. Name T. C. Buckingham phone 255-7474 2. Address 5025 Ripley Lane North 3. Property petitioned for rezoning is located ziac Between Lake Washington AM$X and Ripley Lane adjacent to and north of Misty Cove Apartments. 4 . Square footage or acreage of property 54,700 incls. 21,500 in lake 5. Legal description of property (if more space is required, attach separate sheet) See attached 6 . Existing zoning t /,r t,000 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. (1) Renovate house & use as recreation facility to com- plement Misty Cove Apts. , or (2) Add approximately 9 units to Misty Cove Apartment project (duplexes of townhouse design approx. 1200 sq. ft. with fireplaces and enclosed garages) . 8 . List the measures to be taken to reduce impact on the surrounding area. 1) Fence north property line 2) Route traffic down existing driveway so as to reduce noise to neighbors to the north. 9 . How soon after the rezone is granted do you intend to develop the site? Six months to one and one-half years. 10 . Two copies of plot plan and affidavit of ownership are required. Planning Dept. 2-73 ITI ia; _ * V " p`7 3 21533E FIRST HALF MUST BE PAID BY AP REAL ESTATE TAX STATEMENT OR ENTIRE TAX BECOMES DELINI KING COUNTY TREASURER KING COUNTY — STATE OF WASHINGTON 2N0 HALF DELINQUENT AFTER O M.J.R. WILLIAMS, DIRECTOR TAX UNDER $10.00 MUST BE PAID II 6TH FLOOR KING COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BLDG.OF ALL STATE. COUNTY. MUNICIPAL, . INTEREST DUE ON DELINQUENT T SEATTLE, 98104 SCHOOL AND ROAD TAXES PHONE 344-3850 FOR INTEREST AMC a"1` ,,t, .:13;gf sT i".. J`,,:,Q 1,..TQ %;Fito4 .ti-0'U,R E ., T74.E.0, ; .1 V `, et, . ' 313 ..•.,5 ,' J '• jig.., ACCOUNT NUMBER LAND BUILDING TOTAL LEVY RATE GENERAL TAX SPECIAL TAX 13,500 9,250 22 , 750 50.78I 1 , 155 .24 I 334330-2E80—C 1973 FULL FULL TAX I— YOUR TAX DOLLARS WILL BE DISTRIBUTED TO THE FOLLOWING TAX DISTRICTS: NOTE STATE COUNTY PORT SCHOOL DISTRICT TAX AMOUNTS LISTED BELOW X XXXX X X)( )I)(X X1 74. ES 105.79 32.08 749 .831 403 NOT INCLUDED IN CURRENT.TAX ' HALF HALF TAX GW •CITY OR ROAD LIBRARY FIRE DIST. SEWER & WATER OTHER CC 179 .. 12 0.00 1.82 025 0.0C 11 .13 1973 BALANCE DUE 571 .1 ZO 3''T,a' ' D. ;a 'c m5 Y thyo + l''''.o_j5`.-,,L tl.' ty ,jb''?!1:77 O NAME AND ADDRESS LEGAL DESCRIPTION r7;rt@;;. ,.i. :`x -,6;4%,4 .O t ,e • r 1 W LOT BLOCK CODE SEC.,TWP RG—ROLL—OMIT TAX AMOUNT, INTEREST— YEAR YEAR P U R C I 2.1511 cc SEATTLE FIRST NAIL BANK HILLMANS LK WN CARDEN CF EDEN 4 3 D BUCKINGHAM 1 C POR BLK D E CF C L 3-4 OF SEC L.L. FL 3CX 539 29-24-5 BEG 156 FT S CF NE CCR SD RENTLN WA 98055 C L 4 TH S 58 DEG 20 M.IN 00 SEC E 56 .40 FT M/L TO t LY LN OF N P R/W TH NLY ALG R/W 1 .8 FT TC TPOE TH x NLY ALG R/W 45. 2 FT TF N 49 CEG a 48 MIN 00 SEC W 433.81 FT TH N 58 OEG 20 MIN CC SEC In 181 .02 FT ACCTI 19651 M/L TO INNER H8F LN TI- SLY ALG SD NOTICE• LIB: TC PT N 5 8 L' E C 20 MIN 0 0 SEC W TOTAL AMOUNT TOTAL INTEREf RETAIN TOP COPY FOR YOUR RECORDS CF BCG TH S 58 CEG 20 MIN 00 SEC SEND 2ND COPY WITH REMITTANCE E TC BEG YOUR CANCELLED CHECK WILL BE RECEIPT NO RECEIPT RETURNED. CHAP. 35 LAWS 1971. t e • MAKE NAME AND ADDRESS CHANGE ON 2ND COPY. TAX ACJUSTEC PER SUPREME CCLRT EXAMINE DESCRIPTION OF YOUR PROPERTY CAREFULLY AFFIDAVIT I , T. C. Buckingham 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 15th day of February 19 77 , Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, residing at Seattle, WA g&13.//‘11:49'y -- Name of Notary Public) Signature of Owne )) ' 5;agle., Address) Address) I. id 4 gao City) State) c 5_ 7V71 Telephone) FOR OFFICE USE ONLY) CEPTIFICATION This is to certify that the foregoing application has been inspected by me and has 'been found ea. rough and complete in every particular and to conform to the r s _ e. ` u Naha e, rations of the Renton Planning Department governing the f s Ong of-1 ; c:h.bya , lication . L_ , C Date Received FEB 1? .06 r l9 By : N DEP Acnfnn D7anni nrr• ilnnt ROUTING FOR REVIEW OF ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORMS TO : Finance Department Fire Department Library Department Park Department Police Department2PublicWorksDepartment OIS Building Div . 0111:0 Traffic Engineering Div . ed Engineering Div . e Utilities Engineering Div . FROM : Planning Department , (signed by responOble official ,or his designee) i I, • ' 1 , I SUBJECT : Review of ECF- 17 77 ; Appl i cati oii No . : Action Name : r20,c,44 0 tr14,f40.4, , 4 -0 rag'' Please review the attached . Review requested by ( date) : i I REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS :1 1 I f. Department : . 7 '2- 2 1/ . / /---( ec7/-7(---:('' ir./f.-21,I i . Comments : 1,1,-,:•- c E,E-, 1-6 72. yje_y-/Le} 1 i ! 7. 0 ed LA'.s 1 c:. 0( P -=-?/)e 5 -/ 4:2, ,-- Z.25 ay,- -a+) -1(.-- - ..1 1 -e : n c — /)4,—, s, - 1- 1/ 1 71 71 /7:'/ 14 1;:y‘w. ,k-.7.1-'1-L. ....../ .D.,,, _ • 4%, --:-_2:2•• ,---,,, ----______'-'1----,._. , 7-7 Si gnature of Di rector or u liori zed Representi ve .IIIDa e z REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : Department : ,.:.:-.•„.. ,• -",; ,---.. / 2.1): i Comments : /14 e%(<-1/Cil 7/ " / /41i t1'''-7 (/?'"" ff. i/eS)JA-9 tiLic..tiic_. .i/-,c,,-ea-:.;e2( AA t e c2 i-, L.-,' c/ j-1/ ;.`-'-'1 --'';'/ ' 11'4'17161/ l'"U P1-•— 7/ 7/7, a,/ ,-..5,:?/.,,,,,,,74,2_.) Z.C.,/,,:i-LA.4/ - .- i 2,-7. -1/' ''Cli. Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date 6-76 OVER) REVIEW BY OTHER CIT• ..dEPARTMENTS : Department : Comments : i• 11 j-...,i'..L., ..)i c„..,.-. ,4 i c•c c..-..:., .... .,-...1,._• - . j,/ -- (-Ai -,---,',2---.).• ' i.--, 4, 1 . h., ., ,..., . ,.,.,,,,/,/. • 0 ,2z.,,./ ./ ,,./.. / ,..., 1-• I .,....,7A1 :_, S'',.7 c.-. 2 ."' I C:C:":"..vE t:.,0<':c._:(' 1 S s-,•.'-!_i-L-,-- t,' ) 7 •• •• -• -/-;--::5•'..-.!.. Y.,..‘7,,w,;• ;;;•477,3u.../.../(-:----,-;---:.......,,....Z4... i -'77' / 6! /A /...;•0 Ck7.i 'k-; d- S C L Lie-ii-''' -,' .' L ,,- .: 1, 4 76.--, 6_,)y-ri-efr2.:15- 7e...'&:, 6/P.o4../ 41-7)- -/c_Ai 1;9 E K'/(--/-t-12. 7 1 , Si gnature of Di rectoor Authorized Representative i - 1 Date r : 1 1 • I REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : H Department : 0 ( 1, H - Comments : 1--- - 2--,-"f - • / 1 , 7, , l .— 7 1 ''. ?' ' / Si gnatur,e<.-o'f- Di rector or Authorized Representati ve - — , 7Da te-- 1 i• REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : 1 1 1 1, Department : 6e 1 • , ; .. 1 - 7- C o m m e n t s : /-txe -2- /-iie,-_-.----7- _7. S'.,0. ,k6-4--/6.(t,t,--e-tx---roL,---s. / r i"-----/ ‘/(,__ oic-, 4." d r/t /)/i}U/:"Z.)-S/?'C:._< -- Fl/.-T5 t'Y 1/4---)/7-1. 7 . 1Pg4-21,e/l1- - --) , .../ ( 3 .(., S S . --///,%.C.. A1%-: / )/(-- ir// iv) At..r /:-. t'e'len:J.) gy C///re-----/--, j //6 1--)/i/ L/d---S ;2) Al 67 (-- nzz._ /.,75.6"(..!(7C2,7;4-.-(Z:A.L7-5' .‹,/,//cii F,/er-T: Si gnature of Di rector or Aid hori zed Representative Date REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : Department : Comments : i gnature of Di rector or Authori zed77-RepresenT:ati-v-T---- i CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM FOR OFFICE USE ONLY AA Application No. 6-7,7 - 77 Environmental Checklist No'. eir -,,'/'-7j PROPOSED, date: FINAL, date: Declaration 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 T. C. Buckingham 2. Address and phone number of Proponent: 5025 Ripley Lane North Renton, WA 98055 Telephone: 255-7474 3. Date Checklist submitted 4. Agency requiring Checklist 5. Name of proposal , if applicable: 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) : 1) Renovate house and use as recreation facility to compliment Misty Cove Apts. , or (2) Add approximately 9 units to Misty Cove Apartments project (duplexes of townhouse design approximately 1200 sq.ft. with fireplaces and enclosed garages) . 2- 3 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 ) : Unknown at this time. Refer to Item 6 above. B. Estimated date for completion of the proposal : 6 to 18 months -- estimated ate 9/1/78 9. List of all permits, licenses or government approvals required for the proposal federal , state and local --including rezones) : Unknown except must be rezoned. 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: None 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 YES MAYBE NO c) Change in topography or ground surface relief features? X YES MAYBE N6— d) The destruction, covering or modification of any X unique geologic or physical features? YES MAYBE NO e) Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, X either on or off the site? 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 MAYBE W Explanation: 4- 5) Fauna. Will the proposal result in: a) Changes in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of fauna (birds , land animals including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms, insects or microfauna)?X YES- MAYBE 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 YES MAYBE NO d) Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? X' YES MAYBE NO Explanation: 6) Noise. Will the proposal increase existing noise levels? X YES MAYBE NO Explanation: To the extent that increase indensity will increase noise levels. This to be offset by building a fence and/or additional land— scaping. 7) Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? X YES MAYBE NO Explanation: 8) Land Use. Will the proposal result in the alteration of the present or planned land use of an area?X* ES MAYBE NO Explanation: *Per _present Comprehensive Plan as R-3. 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 M YBE NO Explanation: 11) Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distri- bution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? X YES MAYBE NO Explanation: Under optional development plan; approximately 5 duplexes would be built. J. 3- 2) Air. Will the proposal result in: a) Air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? X YES MAYBE NO b) The creation of objectionable odors? X YES MMAYBE NO c) Alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? X YES MAYBE NO Explanation: 3) Water. Will the proposal result in: a) Changes in currents , or the course of direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? X YES MAYBE NO b) Changes in absorption rates , drainage patterns , or 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? X YES MAYBE NO e) Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration surface water quality, including but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? X YES MAYBE O— M Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? X YES MAYBE NO g) Change in the quantity of ground waters , either through direct additions or withdrawals , or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? X YES MAYBE NO h) Deterioration in ground water quality, either through direct injection, or through the seepage of leachate, phosphates , detergents , waterborne virus or ,bacteria, or other substances into the ground waters? X YES 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 , microflora and aquatic plants)? X YES MAYBE b) Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of flora?X TES MBE NO c) Introduction of new species of flora into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? X YES MAYBE NO d) Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? X DES MAYBE NO Explanation: 6- d) Sewer or septic tanks? X YES MAYBE NO e) Storm water drainage? X YES MAYBE NO f) Solid waste and disposal? X YES MAYBE NO Explanation: 17) Human Health. Will the proposal result in the creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? . X YES MAYBE NO Explanation: 18) Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or, will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? X YES MAYBE 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 o,f 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 re .mc-e—u• on this checklist should there be any willful misrepresentation or willful lack of full disclosure on my part. , Proponent: i signed) T. C. Buckingham name printed) City of Renton Planning Department 5-76 ti I 5- 12) Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? X YES MAYBE NO Explanation: May increase existing housing. See #11 above. 13) Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in: a) Generation of additional vehicular movement? X YES MAYBE NO b) Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? X YES M YBE NO c)• Impact upon existing transportation systems? X Yam- MAYBE NO d) Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? X YES MAYBE NO e) Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? X YES MAYBE NO f) Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles , bicyclists or pedestrians? TES— MAYBE NO Explanation: Answers to (a) , (b) , (c) and (f) based on alternate development described in #lliabove. 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 MAYTE NO b) Police protection? X YES AWYTE NO c) Schools? X - YES MAYBE NO d) Parks or other recreational facilities? YES , MAYBE NO e) Maintenance of public facilities , including roads? X YES MAYBE NO f) Other governmental services? . X ' YES MAYBE NO Explanation: 15) Energy. Will the proposal result in: a) Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? X YES MAYBE NO b) Demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? X YES MAYBE NN 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 MAYBE NO b) Communications systems? X 1 YES MAYBE NO c) Water? X YES MAYBE NO 1BL .}NG e m,,r 9 "`<( S :: i!: \", ::i'.1 f C '! ?il 98.104 1•e(e .'s:: rl ( C6) MA 3-5560 April 9, 1970 Mr: and Firs. T. C. Buckingham 5025 Ripley Lane North Renton,Wash. 98055 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Buckingham: Enclosed for your records is an executed copy of Permit No. 101805 covering your continued use of a road crossing our right of way at Renton (Quendall siding). We wish to acknowledge receipt of your check for $45 in payment of rental for the first 5-year period. Yours very truly, RICHARD D. LARSON Manager Real Estate Ni 4v y: Katherine G orth Lease Clerk N PRIVATE ROAD CROSSING P r , IT Rod;_ ';t. _ Car.--- _—__--- No Form R.W. 49A 4-65 NORTHERN PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY o Wisconsin corporation, hereinafter called Railway Company, in corl-sfderafion of the agreements herein contained, hereby permits BUCKINGHAM, ,his wife T. C. BUCKINGHAM and hereinafter called Permittee, to an existing I",T'!r'Jv >follows: u. rjiaintain private road crossing over its right of wa at the location described as CoCrossingsg RailwayCompany's 100400t right of way for its Belt Line in Government31tofSection29, Township 24 North Range C. of Renton, King County, State of Washington at Quendall sidin 'M' in the CitysaidroadintersectingthecenterlineofRailwayCi g' nttra' nternowe ofconstructedataa. main':traypointthereindistant3285.8 feet northerly -mean mow centerline, Trot Mile Post 6 (which mile post is 1161.8 feet southwester .me•as along said centerline from the south line mod' rt said section). y,ured Subject to the following terms, conditions, and'provisions; 1. Permittee will pay in advance forty-five andperiodtwenty-five andy no/100/ 5 dp c5) year ) the first fns in . e'provision for paymen for each fives (5) years no way impairs 39 , Railwa'y Coomfrvem_pa ny's rightghi to terminatet this permit pursuant graph 8 hereof. No portion of the payment made hereunder will be funded upon termination aofPhii tat this permit remains in effect. ermit. 2. The crossing and all drainage facilities made necessary thereby shall be constructed and maintained at the expense to Para mittee in a good and workmanlike manner, and the crossing shall 'be made and kept as safe for travel as possible,3. Should the right'of way be fenced of the location described, Permittee shall construct and maintain crossin penss a of PePermit-Tee's expense. Said gates shall be constructed in accordance with RailwayCompany'sbekept,closed and locked excepting when necessary to,be opened for travel,'Permittee agrees to,assume a g . of everyar pkindstandardplanshownbeloworequalandshallwhatsoeverresultingfromPermittee's'failure to keep gates closed and locked as agreed in this paragraph,4. Permittee agrees to remove and keepIl;damages.rrf kind , , trains being seen for a distance of not less than five hundred feet in each direction from anremovedofPermittee'seetsoleexpenseanyvegetationthatwillinterferewithapproachingingatadistanceofnotlessthanfiftyfeetfromthenearestrail.Y point in the road approaching said cross-•5. Permittee shall limit the use of said private road crossing to Permittee and Permittee's employees, agents, invitees, or li-censees for the purpose of access. 6. Permittee agrees to indemnify and hold harmless Railwayincludingdeath or to property Company from any and all loss, cost, damage, or injury to persons,Company's property resulting arising therefrom, growing out of saidprivate roadr crossing out Railwayex arising a out of the existence Company's use ofc said private road upon Railwaycost, damage, injury, or death may arise, and notwithtanding that it may arise in whole or in part from the negligenceCompany's employees, agents, or servants, track, regardless of how such loss, g gents of Railway7. It is agreed that the provisions of paragraphs 3 and 6 are for the equal protection of any other railroad company or companiesheretoforeorhereaftergrantedthejointuse. of paragraphsf party y Company's property upon which said private road crossing is located,its 8. notice to Either p r mayi n terminate thissiplpermit at any timeDeportmenton thirty o Railway ' written P 3 days' Companynn notice to the other argiveitsnoticeinthesamemannertoPermitteeatbyUnitedStatesmail; RaPlweytCompany miay5025RipleyLaneN.personally on Permittee, or post on the premises, Renton, Washington 98055 or may serve same al Lbu O.D.Tobin.N s ' im. N.31ut. D. b'n: h111al _ et1 I 4--- ell 4--11 ir - JIJ!! ir?L + g II jllt 11e1.50 . I AL°.1 .,,,..:11 .`:,,, 4,?\",N, • i FEB 1 1976 mmm ` - mew. A, DEP P r• iL LUi4„L:7t:.:' i.> 1', *JK1'- '3> .h:•'.f-:cx`,:+i:.ty.. `;% r+?ki^tia;?:!'M yam}j ,s,tr.' is"%-' , wi't'>•"; V„ ' 9. Permittee shall not assign or transfer this permit without the written approval of Railway Company. 3.0 ' `:Railway'C,o, afY,reservess the right to permit other parties'to use said roadwayprovidred';that- it'°requires such other parties to be bound jointly and s everallywith'Peac ittee,here3n by the obligations of this permit. t c- a F!,,,, u;:'• li>'l• .A YH.r. .,.`.`Y:'Lr '"Stt .... ...... -, . .. 1 ..• i r•Sr:'`.R'd':' y' 1 l.l'., h;; .rzi' .!'s C.k tla?':i'%C+. T>i,d n'' .,- onm,;..t iq' iz S'.4ttµl' ..:F ,,aa:.rS,r.... ''2•.145-..gip,` a it,. IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have executed these presents in duplicate this let day of, , 19 79nuax'y 70• NORTHERN PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY Witnesses to ex.cution;by P,errni,ttee:, •. T _ a h A-[ i t :'_>ISUH • his wife 1 ' v G DES M,7Z.Tie e,:)„i-. ; ,:.:' - ,. alba trUNEW , I- 176 EAST FIFTH STREET j PAUL, MINNESOTA 55101 t• 1$DEP ikit 6tiCKIN,GHAMI T C E NAOMI M 011 oil 75 701247 5025 RIPLEY LAN NO DATE NUMBER RENTON WASH 98055 REMIT TO TREASURER AT ABOVE ADDRESS LEASE OR CO RACT NO. DESCRIPTION OF LEASE OR CONTRACT AMOUNT NT s\ I 101805 001 ROAD XING AT RENTON WASH 2500 FOR PERIOD ENDING 1/ 1/80 1 1:-1-/-) ‘ 51.-- NNOTICE OF PUBLIC NEARING 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 15 19 77 , AT 9 : 00 A . M . TO CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING PETITIONS : 1 . APPLICATION FOR TWO LOT SHORT PLAT APPROVAL ; file No . 018-77 ; property located in vicinity of 3011 Mt . View Ave . No . 2 . APPLICATION FOR EXCEPTION TO SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE ; file No . E-019-77 ; property located in vicinity of 3011 Mt . View Ave . No . 3 . WAIVER OF OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS FOR TWO LOT SHORT PLAT; file .No . W-020-77 ; property located in vicinity of 3011 Mt . View Ave . No . 4 . REZONE FROM G-6000 TO R-3 ; file No . R-022-77 ; property located between Lake Washington and Ripley Lane North adjacent to and north of Misty Cove Apartments . 5 . SITE APPROVAL IN M-P ZONE ; file No . SA-021-77 ; property located on north side of S . W. 7th St . west of Hormel Co . facility and east of the Earlington Golf Course and railroad spur track . 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 15 , 1977 AT 9 : 00 A . M . TO EXPRESS THEIR OPINIONS .~ GORDON Y . ERICKSEN RENTON PLANNING DIRECTOR PUBLISHED March 4 , 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 2 to before me , a Notary Public , on the 1st day of March Z. 1977 . SIGNED of THE CITY OF RENTON MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, WASH. 98055 0 CHARLES J. DELAURENTI , MAYOR 0 PLANNING DEPARTMENT 041.fo SEPSESt-235-2550 February 25 , 1977 T. C . Buckingham 5025 Ripley Lane No . Renton , WA 98055 RE : NOTICE OF- APP-LI-CATION ACCEPTA.N-CE AND PUBLIC HEARING DATE FOR Rezone Application File No . R-022-77 Gentlemen : The Renton Planning Department formally accepted the above mentioned application on February 17 , 1977 . A puplic hearing before the City of Renton Hearing Examiner has been set for March 15 , 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 : Mi hae L . Smi Associate Planner wr ROUTE SCHEDULE PLANNING DEPARTMENT DATE ROUTED ZIA VI?I II PLEASE REVIEW THIS APPLICATION FOR:J c2EZ0!--Z T.C., 14,,)04.114(.74,44V,A I MAJOR PLATI ! SITE APPROVAL SHORT PLAT ; SPECIAL PERMIT WAIVER H ISHORELINEMANAGEMENT PERMIT OR EXEMPTION I AND RETURN TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT 4WITHANYCOMMENTSYOUMIGHTHAVE , ! EFORE_2, 140,57 ! 1 1 . SIGNATURE I I OR INITAL / / DEPARTMENT I APPROVAL QENIAL . DATE I it - Q3 U I L-DT V 7 7-1, ,4, r-1 M c e 7/3 (FAT FI c Eo. ,. ..%,., c.,,,...., A-, e-_,Y3) V 1 CENZINEE:IN cc& (,--/,9-krriec,t7-{ NiV.? RI:i2/_.., HEALTH I Yra4 ii SS, I REVIEWER ' S COMMENTS OR APPROVAL CONDITIONS : PLEASE SIGN THE E . I . W . : te-c . wi,axi. -nu rys 71-zenAto e77:7,r-irg41717 ze-trd o ff-, Ai. 7" 144b6 :6'''')41--: ' k_ '0+THE CITY OF RENTON 7 MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO._ RENTON,WASH. 98055 p a ,.a; CHs. ARLES: J•. DELAURENTI f MAYOR DELORES A. MEAD pA O CITY CLERK IPA?,fD P, O June 15 , 19 7 7 SE Re : R. 022-77 , Rezone G-6000 to f' R-3 Denied; Thomas C . Buckingham Appeal, Council Committee Report T a All Parties- ,.oaf R'e c:o r,_d • NOTICE IS';'HE1 E;BY, i'GI:VEN: ,that 'committee action previously schedul',ed,•t'o;:,;'b;e';:report ed , ou,t. on June 20 regarding the` Buckingham app l.ea ,; has, been extended to June 27, This notice is g ,en for information for all parties, of record .p'ursu,an.t`::`,t. 'Q,rdi.nance #3071 , Section 4=3..0-.-16 . Yours v"ery truly CITY„OF REN.TON O e' Delores A. Mead DM:bh City'. Clerk 1 tr Letter sent to : Mr. & Mrs . 5029 Lou Bergan Ripley Lane No .Renton, WA. 98055 Mr. & Mrs . Rod Crawford11815S . E. 165thRenton, WA 98055 Mr. Rich Imus 5636 - 123rd Ave. S . .EBellevue, WA 98006 Mr. John- O 'Neil 4018 East Mercer WayMercerIsland, WA Mr.Robert Gerend14877S ..E. 50th Bellevue, WA Mr. Joel Haggard900 1 1IHogeBldg. Seattle, WA j E CITY OF R.ENT.O. v' Mr. & MrRiple y Lane No Thos . C. Buckingham5025p I BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, WASH. 98055 Renton, WA 98055 I JRENTI ; MAYOR 0 DELORES A. MEAD CITY CLERK cc : Hearing Exaam oiner Attorne Line 1 , 1977 y 1, e. Mr. John O'Neil 4018 East Mercer Way Mercer Island, WA Mr. Robert Gerend ' 14877 S .E. 50th I-77 , Rezone G-6000 to 1 Bellevue; WA ienied. Thomas C. Buckingham iI Mr . Joel Haggard 900 Hoge Building Seattle, WA. appeal has been filed with the C. Buckingham requesting s decision denying, rezone . d to the Planning and Develop- i.l for. review and recommendation . w,,,,,--t repoite-a out of committee during the regular City Council meeting on June 20, 1977 . Regular City Council. ,.meetings are held each Monday at 8 .p .m.. in the :Second Floor Council Chambers, Municipal Building . This notice' .is„ given for information of all parties of record., pursuant to-Ordinance #3071-Sec , 40 . 30 . 16 . Yours very truly, CITY OF RENTON Renton City Council 5/23/77 Page 3 Consent Agenda - Continued Claims for Claim for Damages was. filed by Lynn P. Keith, 124 E. Utsalady Rd. , Damages Camano Isl . for auto damage allegedly due to airplane exhaust from L.P. Keith Renton Airport causing pock marks. Claim in amount of $479.97. Refer to City Attorney and Insurance Carrier.. Renton School Claim for Damages was filed by Transportation Supv. , Walter L. District Ballard, for damage to school bus allegedly due to manhole cover on S. 27th St. striking frame of school bus, Claim in amount of 895. Refer to City Attorney and Insurance Carrier. Street Vacation Letter from City Clerk Mead reported petition filed by The Austin Portion of Co. requesting vacation of a portion of Thomas Ave. SW lying between Thomas Ave. SW SR-405 and SW 16th St. ; $100 filing fee received. The Public Works Dept, has certified the petition as valid and that it represents 100% of the property abutting the proposed street vacation, The Clerk's letter recommended referral to the Board of Public Works for determination regarding retention of utility easements, to the Public Works Department for determination 'regarding appraisal and payment of fees, to the Public Services Committee and to the Ways and Means Public Hearing Committee for resolution setting 7/11/77 as date of public hearing, 7/11/77 Council concurrence recommended. Consent Agenda MOVED BY PERRY, SECONDED BY CLYMER, COUNCIL APPROVE CONSENT AGENDA Approved AS PRESENTED.. CARRIED. CORRESPONDENCE AND CURRENT BUSINESS. Buckingham Appeal Letter from Thomas C. Buckingham, 5025 .Ripley Lane N, a registered of Hearing appeal of Land Use Hearing Examiner's determination concerning Examiner Decision R-022-77, rezone from single family residence district (G 6000) to R-022-77 R-3, medium density multiple family residence district for property Denying Rezone located between Lake Washington and Ripley Lane N. adjacent to and north of Misty Cove Apartments. Mr. Buckingham's letter enclosed appeal fee of $25.00 and copies of the Hearing Examiner's determina- tion dated 4/13/77, Examiner's response of 5/6/77, as well as Buckingham's appeal of 4/19/77 covering the main issues of contention. Appeal based on error in judgement by Examiner, due to change in Examiners at crucial time; contending outgoing Examiner's conclusion based on recent Council action to change the Comprehensive Plan did not permit a fair determination ,regarding request for rezone, MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECONDED BY SHINPOCH, COUNCIL REFER APPEAL TO THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE, Committee Chairman Perry estab- lished date of June 20, 1977 to bring the recommendation back to the Council . The.City Clerk was requested to so 'notify Appellant. MOTION CARRIED. Council President Perry reminded Council members to leave printed agenda material regarding appeal in the folder and it would be returned to their desk, or if removing correspondence, to assume responsibility for keeping materials for review, Hearing Examiner Letter from Hearing Examiner, L. Rick Beeler, presented material Buckingham Rezone for review of appeal of the Hearing Examiner's decision on Thomas R-022-77 C. Buckingham request for rezone R-022-77 including Examiner's denial of rezone and denial of reconsideration, MOVED BY PERRY, SECONDED BY SHINPOCH, COUNCIL REFER MATTER TO THE PLANNING AND DEVEL- OPMENT COMMITTEE. CARRIED. EDA Funding Letter from Mayor Delaurenti explained extension of Title I portion. Priorities of Public Works Act of1976' to reduce unemployment by funding local public works projects in high unemployment areas nationwide, and that regulations as previously submitted may be updated or withdrawn. The letter restated priorities established and submitted (highest to lowest): new main fire station, building of new pump station and installation of new water lines on Talbot Hill and construct portions of Cedar River Trail System. The Administration proposed to update cost estimates for the original applications and if so desired by Coun- cil, requested Council review and report back 6/6/77, applications to be certified before 6/15/77. MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECONDED BY GRANT, COUNCIL STAY ON RECORD MAINTAINING PRIORITY AS PREVIOUSLY ESTABLISHED AND AUTHORIZE SUBMITTAL OF EDA FORMS. Councilwoman Thorpe asked Administration to consider placement of fire station south of railroad tracks. MOTION CARRIED. Renton City Council 5/23/77 Page 4 Correspondence and Current Business - Continued Bid Opening City Clerk Mead reported 5/23/77 bid opening for surplus trackage, Surplus ties and switches, located at the Lake Washington Beach Park; two., Railroad Track bids received as shown in attached tabulation. MOVED BY CLYMER, SECONDED BY BRUCE, COUNCIL REFER BIDS TO THE PARK BOARD. CARRIED. Cedar Center Letter from Planning Director Ericksen/Housing & Community Develop- Park -- Designed ment Coordinator Baker, requested transfer of funds from Cedar for the Center Park Professional Services to Personal Services in amount Handicapped of $3,489 in order to continue design work. The letter noted con- currence by King County Housing & Development staff. MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECONDED BY SHINPOCH, COUNCIL CONCUR IN RECOMMENDATION AND REFER MATTER TO WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE. CARRIED, Mini-Computer/ MOVED BY PERRY, SECONDED BY BRUCE, THAT THE REPORT RE BIDS FOR MINI- Data Storage Unit COMPUTER/DATA STORAGE UNIT AND HARD COPY PRINTER BE TAKEN FROM THE Hard Copy Printer TABLE AT THIS TIME. (Bid award tabled 5/16/77) MOTION CARRIED, Bid Award Letter from Data Processing Director Torkelson recommended the City accept the low bid of IBM Corporation for a 3741 data storage and retrieval system; that the machine meets all the City's specifica- tions for a data storage unit with hard copy printer. Councilman Stredicke noted letter from City Attorney stating need to determine whether or not the bid specifications had been met; Stredicke noted Data Processing Director's affirmative declaration. MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECONDED BY PERRY, COUNCIL CONCUR IN 5/16 COMMITTEE REPORT ACCEPTING LOW BID OF IBM CORPORATION. Letter from Computer Sales, Inc. , Seattle, was distributed by Dan Hartley, Manager, claiming mini-computer specified by bid call and that company alone has complied. Mr. Hartley protested bid award, asking the City examine bid call notices carefully not causing undue burden on small businesses. MOTION CARRIED. OLD BUSINESS BY COUNCIL Public Services Public Services Committee Chairman Bruce submitted committee report Committee Report re meeting with property owners 5/17/77 to discuss deficiencies in Cedar Ave. So. concrete work on Cedar Ave. So. (LID 293) and recommended: (1 ). The LID 293 contractor, Moss Construction Co. , proceed with correction of the Street deficiencies in the water meter boxes and refinishing of weepholes Improvement in the curbs throughout the project; detailed list to be supplied to the contractor. (2) The cracked curbs and gutters at the several driveway approaches are still substantially in their constructed posi- tion; no settlement, displacement or spalling of concrete and are generally sound structurally. The City will provide letters to the abutting property owners indicating property owners will not be responsible or liable for replacement of these cracked curbs and gutters should they become dangerous and defective as result of work performed under this contract; City assuming responsibility for the replacement as here indicated; Contractor warranting to the City he will replace cracked curbs and gutters within two year period of this date if becoming dangerous and defective, (3) The City staff will investigate and work with abutting property owners regarding drainage behind their private retaining walls; if individual problems cannot be worked out these matters will again be referred to this committee.. MOVED BY PERRY, SECONDED BY BRUCE, COUNCIL CONCUR IN RECOMMENDATION OF COMMITTEE. CARRIED. Aviation Aviation Committee (Public Services) report submitted by Chairman Committee Report Stredicke presented insurance quotation from Dan B. Hauff & Assoc. for liability coverage 6/1/77 - 5/31/78, and recommended $5,000,000 single limits on premises; $60,000 hangarkeepers' legal liability for one aircraft and $300,000 for one loss. The report noted total annual premium $3,234 approximately $2,000 less than total premium for $1 ,000,000 last year. MOVED BY PERRY, SECONDED BY BRUCE, COUNCIL CONCUR IN AVIATION COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. Comprehensive Councilman Stredicke noted testimony by Public Works Department at Plan Review public hearing before the Land Use Hearing Examiner re capabilities of sewer lift station at Sunset and Union to the extent no additional multiples should be allowed in that area without improvements, Area development questioned by Stredicke. MOVED STREDICKE, SECOND PERRY, COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR N.E. SECTION OF CITY BE REFERRED TO PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE. CARRIED. in mej CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO . 3121 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, AMENDING SECTIONS, 4=.30 14, . 4-30., 15 and 4-30 . 16 of CHAPTER 30 , TITLE IV (BUILDING REGULATIONS) OF ORDINANCE NO. 1628 ENTITLED "CODE :OF GENERAL ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF RENTON" RELATING TO .THE. ".LAND, USE HEARING EXAMINER" . SECTION I Existing Section 4-30. 14 of Title IV (Building Regulations) of Ordinance No. 1628 is hereby amended to read as follows : 4-30 , 14 as amended EXAMINER' S DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION- FINDINGS REQUIRED. When the Examiner renders a decision or recommend- ation, the Examiner shall make and enter written findings from the record and conclusions therefrom which support such decision , provided that in any case where a reclassification of property is recommended , at least one of the following circumstances shall be found to. apply : A) That substantial evidence was presented demonstrating the subject reclassification appears not to have been specifically considered at the time of the last area land use analysis and area, zoning;; or B) That the property is potentially zoned for the reclassification being requested pursuant ..to the policies set forth in the Comprehensive Plan and conditions have been met which would indicate the change is appropriate ; or C) That since, the last previous land use analysis of the area and area. .zoning of the subject property , authorized public improvements , permitted private development or other circumstances affecting the subject property have undergone significant and material change. Within fourteen (14) calendar days of the conclusion of a hearing, the Examiner shall render a written decision, including findings and conclusions , and shall transmit a copy of such decision by regular mail , postage prepaid, to the applicant and other parties of record in the case .requesting same . The person mailing such decision , together with the supporting documents , shall prepare an Affidavit of Mailing , in standard form, and such affidavit shall become a part of the record of such proceedings . In the case of applications requiring Council approval as set forth in Section 4-3010 (B)2 , the. Examiner shall file a decision with the City Council at the expiration of the fourteen (14) day period provided for a rehearing , or within five (5 ) days of the conclusion of a rehearing , if one is conducted. Thereupon theCity Council shall cause to be prepared the appropriate legislation.' SECTION II . Existing Section 4-30 15 of Title IV (Building Regulations ) of Ordinance No. 1628 is hereby amended to read as follows : 4-30 15 as amended - RECONSIDERATION. Any aggrieved party feeling that the decision of. the Examiner is based on an erroneous 1- procedure , errors of law, or fact, error in judgment , or the discovery of new evidence which could riot be reasonably available at the prior hearing, may make a written request for review by the Examiner within fourteen (14) days after the written decision of the Examiner has been rendered. 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. SECTION III,. Existing Section 4-30 : 16 of Title IV (Building Regulations ) of Ordinance No. 1628. is hereby amended to read as follows : 4. 30 16 as amended APPEAL OF EXAMINER' S DECISION. Any party to the proceedings and aggrieved by the Examiner' s decision may submit an appeal in writing to the City Council , by filing same with the City Clerk,, within fourteen (14) calendar days from the date of the Examiner' s written decision , requesting a review of same. Such appeal shall be accompanied by a fee of Twenty Five Dollars ($25 . 00 ) paid to the, City Clerk. Thereupon the. Examiner shall cause to be forwarded to the members of the City Council all -of , the pertinent documents , including his written decision , findings , conclusions .Cnotice of appeal. If after the examination of such record the Council determines that a substantial error in fact or law" may exist in the record , it shall remand the proceeding to the Examiner for reconsideration as provided in Section 4-30 . 15 , or it may modify or reverse the decision of the Examiner accordingly. The Council' s consideration shall be based upon the record only.. The cost of transcription of the hearing record shall be borne by the ' appellant unless otherwise determined by the City Council. Notice of the filing of. an' appeal 'shall be made to all parties of record to the hearing, and said notice shall give the time and date when the Council will consider such appeal'. Whenever a.'. decision of the Examiner is reviewed under this Section, other parties of record may submit letters or reports in support of their position, but .no public hearing shall be held and no new evidence or testimony need be taken by the City Council ; however the Council may allow any new or additional evidence from any of the affected parties if a showing is made by any party offering such new or additional evidence that same could not have been reasonably available at the time of such hearing before the, Examiner. The City Council shall accept , modify. or reject any findings or conclusions or remand the decision of the Examiner for further hearings provided , however, that any decision of the .City Council shall be based on the record of the hearing Conducted by the Examiner. The Council' s decision shall be in writing and shall specify modified or amended findings and conclusions whenever such findings or conclusions are different from those of the appealed decision, which may be incorporated or included by reference in any resolution or ordinance , as the case may be. Each material finding shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. The burden of proof shall rest with the appellant. 2- SECTION IV. All other provisions and terms of Chapter 30 , Title IV (Building Regulations ) of Ordinance No. 1628 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of .the.• City of Renton" , unless expressly modified hereinabove , shall remain in full force and effect. SECTION V This Ordinance shall be effective from and after its passage , approval and five ( 5 ) days after its publication , unless otherwise provided for hereinabove: PASSED BY THE .CITY COUNCIL , this 4th day of April 1977 . Delores A. Mead , City Clerk APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this 4th day of April 19.77 . Charles Delaurenti , Mayor Approved as to form: Ge . rd M. S-hellan, City 'Attorney Date of Publication: ' 4-8-.77 3- 0 THE CITY OF RENTON: tA Z • MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, WASH. 98055 CHARLES J. DELAURENTI , MAYOR 0 LAND USE HEARING -EXAMINER. 'L . "• c I L. RICK BEELER . 235-259:3O, P r O SEP1* May 23, 1977 Mayor Charles 'J. Delaurenti Members, Renton City .Council Dear Mayor Delaurenti and Members of Council: Attached for your review is an appeal of the.Hearing Examiner's decision on Thomas C. Buckingham request for rezone, File No. R-022-77. ' The subject appeal was received by the City Clerk on May 20,. 1977 and' is 'scheduled for the City Council agenda 'on May 23, 1977: , 1:... Also attached for your review is the Examiner's letter of denial of reconsideration, dated May"6, 1977; the applicant's letter-, ' requesting reconsideration;;. dated April 19, 1977;, and the ,Examiner's report and recommendation to the Renton City Council, dated April •l3, 1977. Sincerely', L. Rick Beeler . Hearing Examiner; , LRB:inp Attachments (4) ' l. \. . . u.rr::i: n::isiue ss"axii9at:n:.•;a..,dti.tirt.edd,'¢uArbSstCK:i89dir N 4awuw.¢iaAwno:,N..k.tiw^-.sin+urtanaw,naYriw aV.#xco--M'(,a9luk dtrai Mr', 4 CITY OF R.EN,TON No. 9°6 FINANCE DEPARTMENT RENTON, WASHINGTON 980,55 O 19 77 RECEIVED OF __ "l2 YLC C, :'L _ /'J , Ccidp-s1--C-, lea )') c.•;').5 0(.1 TOTAL 4‘j" CC j GWEN E . MARSH,ILL FINANCE DIRECTQ R BY C t1 1. ( 1). .,/Y-Y7,•a., 2erv.*.‘-' 1'- Yr.,.,,- . 6'''‘'-' 7- ?"-..,---- - 1-- ' 4...._..;_... r ,_,,,._.,„..... _. ,_......., );._—> 1.-- z--.-- e,),- e-- „ ,. ,,. .:,,,, :..:,...,.,..„,,..,...,,, ..,...... .,. ., ),..., ._. N'"` '--\-•` j? J"_„ T,.':.',-,', l}/ 71m. 7.- 1.<- 0- 7) , : 7- v71 . 4: t..: , k--/- , ' II:, ..-, , , ,-) 1 J 2).,,.. .,,,,_.;., -,<-... 1.,.,.. 1, ,,, .. 72-' 7_ .,/,-. 12- r . 7c r5r: 14..... y_ f, r- t),.-.-( p-. 7 ... ..„..,..,..._:-,..„(, .,..„_ ,,...,:: , . y \.:. i 4 , . y , yam / 7 i 4 ',.... i,*:'..,-;, ,, Tim•••, . .:-- t;,-" T.,"" S. A. A ‘,.•----- 1" yy: om t:'`' t :• 1 : r, err' i-,,,.-:• - ey;..). ri;.:. r,... i,i(:.....-,.-.•.......) -.„,.;, t. ------,,, r- y-- v i 1. j/ l, rvfY l y 1 v ` is• V 0.. .. r-, .,.-.:„:.,...,-: 1' 2::; -:.,: . -• ,,,.'•, t•.,:',.' •„, •• 1, v1 r - 11/, Y,). / i L.., -- •'., 7-.,,,,',.,( .--- 4 - 2,-- 1, 7,--- -'). 4,--,? It?- 1,- M... -- y."',.../.. ,,,, N., v7>- r.' 7., 4 sp a;, . 0 a y rf z,;:„..., I, r,„„ , (.., 2 ?.::,....: 1241 )'` r. art,• Y. r!,.. is TV ) i I1 fP r 1/ rJ tea- .. `. vt. y L l 142,,,,.:,\' Y ' 1,. : 7'' 1 1N- .'..--, r • jG f vs,-)- . 7,' 7-.,' S/ Y/ V • 1 Z/ • 4 l/ L ' Y yam" i! . F r. ' ll'. r: V'' J of IZ, 0 f ,,... . 0 THE CITY OP i ENTON V zumilk A 2 MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON,{MASH. 98055 o . L '‘ 1;,' 'CHARLES J. DELAURENTI , MAYOR • LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER 13 co. 40 JAMES L. MAGSTADT , fp SEP1 2 35 - 2 593 gl May 6 , 1977 Mr. Thomas C. Buckingham RE: File No. R-022-77 5025 Ripley Lane North Reconsideration Renton, WA 98055 Dear Mr. Buckingham: After careful deliberation of your letter., I have addressed your reasons point by point for the rezone application No. R-022-77 as follows : 1. The word "strongly" is subjective and can be eliminated from this statement which then can read, " . . .was opposed. . . " 2. My recommendation does not deny the fact that a lower density multi-family zone can serve as a buffer or transition zone between the existing Misty Cove Apartments and the residential area to the north. My intended emphasis was that the request is premature at this time and should be reconsidered at such time as the adjacent property owners concur in the land use change. A change of land use of your property would have an effect on the adjacent property which, if also changed, would have an effect on the adjacent properties to the north and so on. 3. Mr. Haggard' s testimony was considered accordingly along with the testimony of all participants . I publicly informed Mr. Haggard that a requested rezone can be reduced to lower intensive land use at the request of the property owner or upon the recommendation of the Hearing Examiner or City Council; however, the reverse is not true in that a rezone request cannot be amended to a more intensive zone such as from R-2 to R-3 or B-1, etc. 4. I noted in finding No. 5 that the request is compatible with the Comprehensive Plan. The rezone application would not have been executed if it did not agree with the Plan. Subsequent recommended changes. by the Planning, Commission to the City Council are still compatible with your revised requested rezone change of R-2 (low density multi-family) . My decision did. not relate to 'the change of Comprehensive Plan , but rather related to creating a harmonious designation that would be compatible to the existing residential uses in this area. 5. I agree that conclusion No. 1 is obvious; however, I still felt it was necessary to state this conclusion so that all parties could hopefully follow my reasoning process. I have visited the area several times, both during the day and in the evening. It is Mr. Thomas C. Buckinc n Pa e Two May 6 , 1977 certainly possible to screen the intended uses from the Bergan property; however, the effect eight additional units would have on the adjacent property is a matter of opinion and could be debated extensively. The "domino" effect this use would have was a concern of mine and also of opposing parties to the requested land use. 6. Use of the word "strongly" was covered in point no. 1; however, considering there are only three property owners between your property and the railroad overpass (the area primarily considered as adjacent) , and all three parties contested and opposed the action, this opposition could be considered as strong opposition since it represented all of the adjacent property owners. I have attempted to answer your statements point by point to clarify my intent in reaching my final decision. The transition between hearing examiners did not, in my opinion, alter the resulting conclusion. I spent the same amount of time that is required to review and evaluate your applications through the typical hearing process and I can assure you that this effort is not superficial, but rather is reached after a considerable amount of time and deliberation. I 've had 14 years of previous planning experience and five years of university training which is all used in my decision and evaluation process. I feel the key statements you should consider are conclusions no. 2 , 3, and 4 in which I do not philosophically disagree with your request, but in which my basic concern is maintaining compatibility among the existing residential uses until such time as there is a reconsideration among a majority of the residential property owners in this area. Whenever a decision is made, there is inevitable opposition and disagreement. It has always been my objective to evaluate the application request in relation to adjacent land uses and to maintain, whenever possible, harmony and compatibility of uses. This objective not only relates to physical entities, but also includes the rights and opinions of adjacent property owners and/or users. Although you may not agree with my rationale, I hope my recommendation process has been clarified. Sincer- 0games L. . •'stadt Hearing :miner JLM:mp cc: Parties of Record Mayor Delaurenti Members, Renton City Council G. M. Shellan, City Attorney Gordon Y. Ericksen, Planning Director 19 April, 1977 RECEIVED CITY OF RENTON CITY OF RENTON Hearing Examiners Office HEARING EXAMINER 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 APR ;? 1977 AM PM 71819110111.11?0i2A ,0 Attn: James L. Magstadt Hearing Examiner Dear Sir: The undersigned requests reconsideration of your decision concern- ing the Rezone application File No. R-o22-77. The reasons are due to the following: 1. Finding number 1. Citizens Service Corp. withdrew its rezone application for economic reasons and the uncertainty of obtain- ing City of Renton and Shoreline Management approval. See the second paragraph of the enclosure. There was opposition to the rezone, of course, as there always is, but to state that was strongly opposed just is not true. 2. Finding number 8. Good planning does not permit R-4 zoning to serve as a reasonable and ,just buffer between R--1 zoning to the north and what is planned on the Quendall properties (not heavy commercial) . Pursuant to your decision, my property becomes the buffet resardless of what you choose to designate the. zoning. 3. Finding number 12. Mr. Haggard was "nit-picking" . I contest that the conflicts he cited to defeat the rezone request really exist. He also stated as fact that the Hearing Examiner has no legal right to grant R-2 zoning when R-3 is requested. If you disagree with this statement of fact you must also question Haggard' s other statements. G - 4. F'Inding number 13. The rezone request, was submitted before the City Council had taken action to change the Comprehensive Plan. At the time of the rezone request the Comprehensive Plan designated the area as R-3. I believe this is the only aspect of the Comprehensive Plan that you should consider. My opinion is that you based your decision primarily upon subsequent actions of the City Council. What would your decision have been had the question of changing the Comprehensive Plan not come up at thl.s time? 5. Conclusion number 1. The statement that a change in land use, whether the subject property or any other properties in any other areas, would have an immediate effect on adjacent property is so obviously true that it hardly needed to be stated as a conclusion. I believe the question that should be addressed is the degree to which the change would adversely affect sur- rounding properties. If you have actually visited the area I believe you will agree that construction and inhabitation of 9 duplex type units on this property will have no adverse effect on any properties except possibly the Bergens and, excluding the fact there would be more traffic generated by the addition of families. So far as the Bergens are concerned all the ad- verse situations can be effectively mitigated by proper screen- ing to the point that the Bergens would hardly be aware that 9 families lived next door. To reiterate: a.View would not be affected. b. Noise can partially be screened but this contamination has been over-emphasized. I think you will agree that normal day-to- day living activities of 9 families would have absolutely no adverse effect. The objectionable noises are mainly nig noises such as those creC i by bark'.ng dogs, for which there are city ordnances, and raucous parties which are more likely to occur in single family residences where more space can accommodate more people and engender a lack of concern for others living in your same building (as would be the case in a duplex or triplex) . Car noises are minimal unless you have a hot-rodder in your ' midst and people who live in multi-family units have no corner on hot-rodders. c. Night lighting is no problem as it would hardly exist in the development as planned; however, any lighting from such a development that might be objectionable could be softened by proper screening. d. Water run-off. There is no reason to believe this would be any more of a problem than now exists, but also proper drain- age would have to be addressed for approval of a building plan. e. Other contaminants are in reality hardly extant. 6. Conclusion number 2. To say there was strong opoosition to the rezoning is considerably misleading and in fact untrue. True, the opposition had a petition signed by a number of property owners, many of whom don't live within the confines of Renton including the Imus' and the Crawfords, I daresay people are inclined to sign anything so long as it doesn't cost them. Good examples are the many petitions that are circulated for action by the state legislature. These contain thousands of names but if the truth were known, probably no more than 5% know precisely what a particular petition is all about. I believe the proof of strong or weak opposition is demonstrated by the number of people who are interested enough to appear and be heard at the public meeting. On this basis, there were three families present; namely, Imus, Bergen and Crawford. Is that strong opposition? I believe your decision is in error and that you should reconsider and reverse it. I believe the transition between hearing examiners was an unfortunate circumstance occurring just when action was required on my request. Under the circumstances, I cannot help but feel that you could give my request only superficial consideration and have taken the easy way out by a determination that is not in conflict with the recent action of the City Council to revise the Comprehensive Plan for the area to R-1. Frankly, I don't believe the Council has the fortitude to reverse your decision so, unless you execute the authority granted you, I feel 1: will have lost this stage of my request. Excluding my right to appeal to the City Council and the possibility of their reversal, it appears there are two further avenues left open for my recovery. One is described in step 13 of the Planning Departments "Application Sequences" the other, I have been advised, is litigation to recover my loss due to the degradation of property value caused by city action. What results from your decision may leave me no alternative but to pursue one or both of these possibilities. I trust you will seriously consider this appeal and will carefully review the facts and fancies that led to your earlier decision. If I can be of any help in clearing up any question still unanswered I will be glad to respond, upon request. Yours very truly ink ') /.1 ((\ 1 encl. Thomas C. 13uClri.11tha . taw rim :,-,,, EA r Nil EDERAL SAVINGS&LOAN ASSOCIATII 201 WILLIAMS AVE.SO. P.O.BOX 239 RENTON,WASH.98055 BA 6.1800 C August 21, 1974 Mr.. & Mrs. Thomas C. Buckingham 5025 Ripley Lane North Renton, Washington 98055 Dear Mr. & Mrs. Buckingham: We wish to notify you that the Board of Directors have requested we abandon further effort on the Lake Washington Shore Condominium project. Therefore, we will not be exercising an option on your property. The reason for this decision is economics and the uncertainty of obtaining City of Renton and Shoreline Management approvals. We wish to thank you for your help and assistance during six difficult months. We are very sad to have to halt this quality project in a, city which is in such desperate need of a project such as the one we proposed. Sine- - 1r, 41dads f OSS E. WOODWARD, JR. Vice President/Manager Citizens Service Corporation REW:mh 44 i•':4'f•L•2:4t.',',,7,.-,.'..6 : .•;:k•..;,-••.''4...;‘,J•••.;,..•;,:;,.'-";••;..;'-':•,'.: ''•-•,'1''•,, 1 '''..'. '.:,'";'4•;;;...;.;..'•.-'?.'.,••;!,-•.•- ';. . • - 47,,,•,.:•:.,,,-.: 4,.2,,..„•,..,'...,,i,..,,,,k--,,•-..!„.•.---,,f,,-.,.;,..'j4,24.,., ,-..:-.,-...4.,.`f,•,',.... ,:::.•.''z;',.•.'... •. '-..'.,••,•.;::,;1•'•,.4,--,.... , •.•-„••• .„. ;'';'••,....- ' ,•,- . - 4,!„,. ,, !,.,,,,,...!..„:.,4,1.. -••!! ,'. ' •,;`!'-_,,,•,,,::,,,•.,•,1.'''J:.,_'! "'M';`,,,.',514''''',"Y•,.!.-',IC''k•4-'4.4;k7;,i5,;,'!'',..t':'''''' ''t•!.'•'i'''':••''{'• ''1'!:''•:!!-';';';'':''''..'-''','•';•'''''''•!' --.....•;':.:'•/.Vt!'!":"''.';,'•'''''' '.'-.-!''•,':.„,"''' • ,-, ' ' ! '• - . '..' 1„,'„„;.•,..••.• !,.-', '',....''',...,!„;:-i' . '..,•'',,..;?. „,-•-'.'-."'.','.',::,•'!•,,', ".1,',41,'!,''' ,:„„''':•!' 1„,,,,t,,,i,,,,,,:,,54,tb.,,,,,0;.:,4„:y,:,,,---,' •,,,,,,•.1'3','::,',:.:,!,.'.',!!,,!':,:r,t;';'!!',:,-1.1F--',.;!,;.•-",:.i.:,.!•, •2.'::',..-,::,,4••;•••,,„?,'''.'2'''::':!..;:',,i.•;:!'•r!...... ':. ,''. •2!•4',,,..'' ;1,•!, A.,',,,•,.. :,,,,,;, '.;,,-!..!',!,,,',,,•!:',,V.,,:,•!,‘,..! .. ',;•,!,',1*.::,•;?•1,,,:!,;•4.;;*)•,0,.?,°,,14;!.^34'!..'',•,,','!..i..!!„•,5'!: iigi;4''''''':';':"•''''''-:::'•••4'''''',..?,•••'''';'''','•!,','•','",'S''r: t:',:•.'•,-;:!..,V• i',r,'.i.:,•';',Y.,''''';',..';;•:':'''...7.•'.'.',7'-':,!,, . -', ,,,': „'..:,;;.,,,4*,,,V1.,j-,•-;,q,-,•;'f,,,,!•;;;;;;4•q,,S,;:i•.X!,!..!•!'•:'.'„:„,•:_.'"-`,,','•',..;.;.;;',-,.:',.;;.,‘'/.1‘.•!!''," .,':'','-,,':.-:''.';i, :•,.;•1 •• .,!,•',!-•!,.' ,'";,'.'•.',,'' • 0, .;• !•, ••••' .. ., . -, ••!:;.••' .' •'"::•,:.'1,',:',,,!!'}'•••.:..!,',;: r'AY`:,,-'4"-,',',•f:;„ ,t:' • '',' ' ,0. ,!,• :,..!;•,!,„... ,i;,,''',;;"--,','',•,';.;:•Z•;Z•.-'f'gh,2)';,•r:.: I,;',, ,,:` ,r4'.,7;,: :I;',..,•,1'' '':'••,'',•.?...‘:ii".2:::;15.':1,V.'-';'.;/,'•, ','•'::‘,;';1;, )':',.:1,- .,!:!''.;.;;, :;.;'„'•',i•••q;•:-."?'.'..,17:,•...-`•:' ,,',•:.';''.d.''''.•':%'S•-•.'':•-,"•-''.:••'‘!•:, . • • • •'''''''''''' •-1. ':•' '•';•''' ''' ''''''' • ' '''' '''''''''''''''•' 4'1''''''r'''''''i,•,,,,,,t,,'„....,,..;,..:,,,,''', ,...,-,.",,,,-..1.-1;•'••-' ',..,','.•,',,:,•,.'•••"Li61;.:.:, ??,,,,':,.,1'n?Y'''',"?, 21.,:i'l'!:'.::/..-',! '.;‘!''''4•1'''''•I'"'-4'!•:•';;•'`'''''''• ..7.:'• "';''''• ••-'•'•''''''' s - ''''•'''''' ;' 4''''•:4''''••4 ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''April' '11,. -1 9,7 7;:''',-. .:-., ••: -,',... ',-.,..:::-.. .1,-...'-_,-- ,' .;!;,,,r. :.- k:.:,•,;..,cf., ;,;,;.;:y.;;.,.,,,,:.-•,;:',,-,,,,,',,,,,."-;.::".-,_:-•.,-;':,.,;:ii,,:;-;:;;;:r, 1,:r.;1•-,,. • ,.; ••,r•- ,, ,..,;_4,-,,,;.1,V...:,,,..5,•?;::::::f.,,.•.'..:f-w,.• '':..:.;:fi,"',..2‘.',";;'I.':c';$2,')'_';;',f,';e,'',':;'-,'..;',.f"-.:;;',-.::-;..,''• '''','",'' ; .-, a 1 r n• -, • -,,„ ,,.,•:. fp.:•' , ',,p.,,p •. p-•,•,.;•..., ., ..,;. 4-..,..1,:o;-.,.• -,,, ,'':'7'''t.'''',-,-; . ..t,, ''-:''' : '•'••••,..-'•;',''''''''''''' ' ''''''''''' OFFICE'"OF•THE LAND USE HEARING t-XAMtlittc.,,, _,„:.;,....:..;,„..,--. ,.... -. •-•.•,-.•_,,,,...•,.,,,,i: i.q.:2,•,.-:..,..'.',,,.,.;.,...,.-2.,,.•:-..;,.:,. ,,,•,,,,... -•,,,: ,. .1,.. :• ..,.....,.,..-,,....,: -...,:,..::::....,.4',,,:•(,,..f.••••;,:;'•:.,:.,'1.1•_ ::,'' • ' • 7, -';::•••••-•,:;-'•::-.-' CITY:'0E'RENTON , . •I:.:;.;.:, ‘•,::- • ' ..:-.,,, • •.,1,.:,•.4n-:,,,:,, ,, ,,,,,,,,•:,••., -.',.--.•,-"' ',.',,,,;(,-.•:, ,,,„:,..,!.. -.,•,:i ,,,, ,-• . -.'„ 2.. --.:•-•;::•-•..:!:,',,i,,/,,,,..,n..,-,.„;:.:•,,.;•...,:11.,,...,;;;'.-,,•',.;: f.,-;:' ,.-:".,.... .- ',...... " f" ''' ''':.:7'.'"-;'' '' '. ;• 1-2-'';', 1 • '';• '':',;;% •P'' ,,.'''',',:•.:.•:1:*',:,:''.;`,r,-;:, f'...',"'.:',.:-.C..,!?...i.',,'Z'l. ;,''ir.',-'; -,',1' •'" ,,- ...,.,':-,'''!:':-',.',:'•,;','',,`,4;,•t'.'''.3,..1.;';..,!.,:,:•,-;:,'"2-)..>.:.,7:Z''..',',ZF''.,'''ii-.;;I'S:1-.'•.',,,,::,:'‘,.. ''.'.' '...';', :'''.. ''.'''". :••• 1,,'•:';'''',..:;;,..::'''' '';';',.'''"4.:..,?..,;e:'*7 p,}',,c-...;;;,,:;',!,,i'7,...*,•,.:,'...',..i,,,'1..,,,•-..,.'. .., ,, , ,, REPORT LI TY l,0 U N C'I L.: -• ','-;'.....,,,,•;;;:..,:,:,:;.,:;..,:;.,.:.', ...,•.'..-,,'"!,,,,•;,':-::::',.,•,..si;:,,,..; .-,';.::,.',:'!:[.t,..`,:,,,,,,,',',;,,;',,,'.':,.1.,',';:!,';',,, ,,i-: i:;,,:),,,i.•,„.,,,..,-,...„,..,..,,,...:,...„-.„..., „,..,,,,; „..-.„,.. ,,,•,,,,,,,,,,,„,,.,,, , ., , .KEPdlil:.,:iki41.'1}t:Y.R.''''•EC0ti'l''..M.'''ENDA17.;':i614;',.'',.'7-20;,',...')`,.',,.q1.,,::.R EN 1:0 N,, Li - .; .:;,......_,,,,:.,*;,,,.,,,,..: 1,,..,. ,,,.";;;- -:',,,,,,:,,•,,•,,,7;,..;=,;,.,,':,...;;,,..',',.f,-,. ,,; ; :,...- ;;.,,, ;.-,,!-;„. ,,..;.;, --:, ,..,;;',,,.'::-,,;','',.. A:,;.•,,•;, ,:;,;,-;,',...,....;' '.,.-:'•',',.•;?:.,,,..'.'!':'',14. ..' 'a'S-;,'-C ''..Buck APPLICANT::•••,,.-•"-,,:,.''. •-:-,'.,,, ..,..,,,...•-.',,,,,,,',.;,,.Thomas v.4.;-;,,,,,„,,,,,,,?„.,v1,..:. .,... -.:•••-„•..- .,, .. .. - Buckingham FILE., NO.. R--.0,!%)27,;"."7 7.,, I.,,.,.,:.,.,,:.',.,.;,.:3,,..,,',:. i,,:,',',"',,;.: t.,, ,.' 4•;',..17,i,,.i,,,,,,,,,,.:::... f„,...,,..,,,,,,,,,,,,,',!!',''‘.,;•.?,!„-.',',-X,Y;.-.''Ar,-,1;....;,•!'''',C.'''-','•'''',.:',"'''.4.•"r!•••'•-:••••'-!,!'' ''' - LOCATION: ..,:,!':'- i%: t.0...''•;,.. y•.;.1.,.; 0•.,‘'-, 4-.,,',i`:,,'..'t.:.'!- r'.-. i''-4,'1N',,':.;..,,,y-';'••,,'`.-...,-,:':,:':'. S-',.',,.'..',,':','',,,'',,•,.'",•:.;, L;'. 4,'',;,,'..•1',.„,C..,., 4.._. p.,.,„-...,„..r•-.•- c..,`,0- o:•'••,,pprf-, .'.._,•..-,,.-.,,i6...,.,. ,...-• 'e•. d• •.- between Lake Washington• .-. .•,.•„ 1.,..:,,•: a.,,•-,n--,,.1d,,-.-•Ripley Lane North adjacent to and north of Misty Cove 6•, i.l..,s,:..'.:,,,..,.,,..,',,., i,',,• p',,,,1p,)-:.,::.,•,'-,',.,..,.„,!..",'„..,1.,:•.•. • -... . -..--,,,,.:--,,,, Apartments. 4.-.7.,•••,:-.,-.*.-'...-•,,'.f.y.....,, ,,'P:.,, :.-?p•:4:;,-.,-.:,,,,,../.-,.-t„.„-,:',.,...!--••,i•,--,--.,,,..,,:,-,-;.-fii......:::,A ••,,,,,, • . ,p.,,,,,,,,,L4.,v,..,,,, ,,,,,..-,,....--,-,,,,---..,,.••0,,...F.,,0,-,,I.,.....,',,...,.,,i,J?;•,'...."-,'X,,.:,.::..•,., ,, , -''. 1,''•."-.-•-, " ''';P'•''.-....;-•,1 '.1•.•)';',-,;.,;..t;i•;;;!F:,-",••,'. '..''•;• .,,, . - i,;!,-...;.',,,_,,,-.. .., m G-6 000.,i,. single ' .,.,,.,.„,„ ,,,...!.,......., L. .-... ,,,,..,,. P.• , , , .,-,;:::.,.-',,,•,•,,-,.....,-.'•; t1'2.}7.,-..-..-„..•.:•,..".'••;,..,,,-...;.,•4.,••••••.2..•---i•te.;:•.t-,LA2.-'trequests: rezone..,rro , , • . , ..,. ••••••.--.,..... - .• - -.,,I,-,-..#,,,Nv,-••: .Ippla.Cant,,-;, . medium ctens.ity.„.„;,,,,,,,.,„,„..,,,,,,,,bi,.•itt-ouEsTi!?:',1, = -.-,,,,, ,,---,,,,.,•. .-- to• .R-3 i7•L'.•-, f,''• SUMMARY.., .y,..• . . . ••. ,•...-.,...,•-•••:, ,„family.,••residence; district,. y,A..1i; residence.:..idistrilct.J.:;';..-.,-_,,,,,'.',.-:..-,,p,,,,,;-..:;...,„ -;.:•i-:...,,,4-,„.,,,,,,,,,,;::,.a,_„,•;.;-:,,f,',..„,,,,- ;,,,,,>,•,.:, ?„ ,,,,,,multiple family, : ,... : , ;.•:,.„.-;:;.,•,,,.,..!..; ,.,• •:,:,..,.;,.3.1'3,i'V_:,,1.1,,, f•-;';:,;,,,T..'-.'• „..;,',V,•,•4',',...,/,,,.•.,:‘• '!;!,!,i-?,'!,•:;•,..'.;'Irt-k,!;fa' ' ` ':.•.,.•.!,'"'"--77 •!..•ri....';r1t,t11,;•1,..iv.;...i,','..,, . :„• -1-.-,..12,f•:;':;,;;f,'..:;,'.:.•. +14$':F..;...'.'P'1'.',,...;,f).:,,qi n''''.4,.=.'FA3:',',itY,;*.i.“4."'i.'.4,;';,.;;1:.:-.'''•'''in -•','.:'P.: : ' . •, '.'- ':' •,, . ,,-'. •',.,'.',H,;,,,;.,..,..,',,,.,.;;E-2,...c',';,;'.7-:-.;. .'•••,, ,,';.',t':'•.f.,C.IY'..'..,'k •••••'...t').,-'',..'",..- r•",,,,.::-.,,.. ''''',:Al-Wtti.0...,',:lifg;:'''-',....,, ,,g'it.:',:.•,:,:,';';',..'':!-?!.';',.,„..•;,-Ith.;'4,..•1;',:i.,(;;Q.,,,,',:.`,„*...,„" .....;4•1:,:',',.j.iilk*:.,...;:ts,‘•,,X,''.).11'''1..rt,';',' 't'...•...,.• • ‘...,,,,-•''••" ••.•''..''•-:-•'• •,--.•'i•:-.‘-';,;'::.',';''::'••''';,-•","•••,•,-,,•,' J-,',., l- 4.,,v''",i4.,;.',':,.".L41, 4:'.•,,'',,',,'','•, 4,,', i-'•t.'. 7.'.,,,'-'. 1',-;',, i''', I.,;,'.: P,,"',, e. i',:' t,:-;'',:..ii,•,,,,"-.,.:-,:,,'.',tSUMMARY i;t; e:•, t;":? ik', YK; it;. 4; 4.!;-`,•',;;,:'.: i: 4, 1;.„•3:,'-•ti,.'.,> LOi'..;•.',„•,,,VV.C;t•ti•=Ve4.. 1;:: O:,:•':.,;,,; 7,1';; S., 0:' t,,..ra' 1.J. 0i.41'.,.; s.•,•i.:,.: 9. 1, ti",,ij•,,:'j. p: N.; g:,•' M,.., if'.•!•-•?:W;--',,',•;,,A"). i;,, t'.;.', 4;. s.::,,' 1',,.;,11Vi1.•,4, i.-, f.•.-: 1},,:,,:.••!•. l'‘“. 1,!,. z..!.,. 1.-., 1"' 4.y1•,!'1,'':,V44;,-.,!•4.'„;„',, ii•; t: k,,.:, ft-, v••-‘. 1-, W4,!it,''•; 0," 4.,..,-,,..' g-•,": t,:„! 0it,,. ,•„•-;•,,t4!,...:..' D',':. 1''._.„,‘,,,,'.:•'.:,•-•.. r•. e-:,.,:::, pa, T':,:•:,'1'•,'' r_-••,'•• t!..;,,' m'•.': t1p'.'.',• e.•„''.,•,,...„_•',.•t•- n• R,• e,.,,.•-,•c:.,.••..,,o; ,.m,,•,•„(.m..,,.'.'•e,......,.n.'.„.d•.,-,,-',',.. t,..•., a:p'....p•...-........r,-:,. o...v,.- -, - 4,.,.-,,,,,.,,,,,,•„:,,,:,,,3,.,...,., b,,.,,,.- e,,..,,-.,,..-,•..;,,,',,,.i RECOMMENDATION: • k-,.. ? • g : , restrictive covenahts- ,-.,„,.,,-•.,,,„.,'--,.,,.., c..-:_•:,„.;,,',,..„,•, 0.,.''-......,-.,,•.,•-;,,.•i,-',,,,-•,,i,••,:,.„:',„.,•,,,,• t..,„,.,-.,,„,,.,';,,,;,.,:,,t..,.,.„.,,,1,•,:,.,;,-;,.„ x,,,.',,.,..,,,.•..,,.•.,., i;.•v!,,,-.,.,;_,,....,.,-,,:'.-,,,,;•,,. s,,.,.,,-,,,-,,.,,,,•-,,.,,.,,;,...;•;,,,.•.&,,,',,;,:,•.,!..;,,,.;_,,,,,:,,,.., 1 ".. •. ! •!,.' ,.-•! --,r!..•••, 1.'..:•...•,' !!41••:1'..::,!-!•,,:,--,•••,1,,-.4:-..i?::!,',‘;;;•:•••`.14,13,,,;•-t•vr,•,,•,..‘,.., I'"•.•'•ii t-'•'..•6 '',• - • ‘ • "-, ,, :"...•,•/•,. ....ii•,t,-:`,.,,, s,','..:•.:Ptit.1:e.-.49.':•:•'A,:••A?t,'T'._='.‘,''.''•-r,'4• • '',' • ' ' ''•:' P '"•?;•..:‘,.,'1;-: 1'-''.''':,7.' P'.-•,;•- 1•,'';;' r'':'::'',,'':'!•; 1'',''.:P,',,„,' q•' 5''.2'' f',-',,'''0;' A';''.."'-U;'* 0•',2,':-.',.:T'I,•dP, 1. f.:[.;,,'! 2-' i,;•i'-'', P.';';P',•'''''%',''!..;,;,(;•'•AP-'4- 4',4.. V0P'R,..'V Hearing Examiner:Recoinnlefld denial.! , ..,T.t..;.:,-,•,,q,;,„i,.,:;;.-;,,_„..;;.;,.;,•,,,,,,?,,,,;.?,.;,;,-4!;,,:,;:,,i,;,;-.;s;;;,;;-;,;p;'; ,:, 1,,,,;,;;,,;,4',,,';i,,.r,,..,.;..',..;;•:,,,,;..,(,,,4,,.;.,,.-,.,5.,-,-L.,-„,",-..,:,,-.'.,‘-`,,..":..,-, ...',:,,.•.:..,,,---,....,, P,..,..14:,;;),..,',,“,'„,-41,-,-,;,-'•;:-:,,,,,,&,,,o,-Avi;,1,..c,,,5;040.•:?....,..,;-,,,,,-:f,,,,;:,-,•...,:..,,,,.--,:,,,,,,,,,;,,,, .-,•,,•,'-,,,,,,,.,-,„,,,,,,,,,,..-.,,,,,,,,,..-1-,•-,,,,,,-,,I.,.,,k.,,,,J,;,,,t,;,:,i,;t..f2,- •,....,• ';",„0,,i,,,,,.„„...:,,,,,z,,,,,,,.,,i..4--.,,it.,,,,,:.,•,•),,,„.4],,,,..,. ..;,,..,;•,:,,',f•.p.:,,..,,;:.1,,,.. :,./.i.. .; • •...,-...',-,••,---.;•,,:,,,-;',,,'-.../.;',-;,,',.,:',,,_" c.......,.;1!.."-.. ..,..5.,,,,:',,,--,i.,'_,.:ii,,,vcc=',..2?). •,.. .,',Teili,..,%k7,..4!..'„,;?;,!, L,.... -.-.-,:_,:$,..: .:•-.•::;,..,,.:'.,, TLI:-.'..1•.-f.,,•-,.:,,,,,.,„tv.,?,.. !,•';,-..:,,,-,,:...r,v,'.;c...-.,',.c,..7L,•:v...,-,..,,,t- i,',--.i.,•,•,.4....,v,,,.:.,---Liw,•,-y.•,-;,...,;•,' - . • :•-•-',x-'•::.;;LL,_',,',., •..,•••••,-.'-• ,,;.,'••-:- 4'.•,'.!(4,V,'0:.-•[•.,1w.-,,•::,',.•-,:v.,1,4.u...,-i•.,',,,....1.-.,. ..•;:f4i.,,,,,,,.L,,,0,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, „„,,,,,:4,-,.,,,,,,,:..„.v.,,,,,,,•,,,-.4,..4m.to,--,, ,,ev:r.,,(..4,4-,,\.,4,c,!...:•.n.,.. .:,:.: - :'•,.". •..,..:,--:,,,,..,..,...,,,,..--,.',.•-•,-,...,,,,,;,..,.•,...,,,,,,,,,,,... L,-,,,,f,n,,::.,..,,,„...:„1,-,,Nyi,,,,,,,,I. ,..A,.....,..,v...-:,-;_p:..-;.. 7i:•:,,,i.„..:. •,,,[.....*.,.•:.",:,,i'..,--;,',,--;01'.,;-k%.,..`J's.;.1',,,A,Y;•,)::',,-1,-,..40',,;,.v..,';--,?,,,,l'W• L,-:.,,,,,,,.. 1,,,,,c,,,,y.,,i„,A,„-,,,,o,,tv,,,o.,-..,,,„0,,,,,,,,,,,,.,-,,,,,,,,„,,,,,,,„,„,,,...,,,,. - ., „. ,,,,... .,,,,...,..„,,.,.„..,.,.,•,-,,,,,,..,;,,,,,,,,,,,,,...f,,f,,,v,,,,..,;,K;,','A,fopi,...,hq.-Aw,,,:„4,;.,,,,,,:•„..,.,,,,,,,,kci....,,'„,..;•:',AW:-:,,,.., '''',. ,',,b,,,..•i,,:•,.'„:_,..Mil:,',,M. ".-6.,,it,...:gy.',',,„:.4.14,I:3"1,,i,i'',..;;;,..4.3.q,,,,,,N,Wiga.„'c';' .',i-L,Aq. ..:,-',':(•.',.`;';',.` :-,::.•'•••• L.P '.'• •'•'''',',,.',.'-',• ,',-.1:','-,-:,-.,'*'-'„'. i.'.',-';:'1t„•'',,-','';;•',1.',',,.‘,,:`,,,',1P;%,',. b' P., 9' c;'' 4:, P;!',.","•' 5P,;„'',;'.'‘:„:,'‘..','„'',;.,'.:'.-''';,„• Pi:'.,.''•',,,•,,:'.,', i''',;.;,,,',•:''•',•':,.'''.'.'.,,- P'..;'.'.,".,•., r.•..., i.,.•.,.", 1.•,,'.•,",••.'"..',.•''.'_• 0,,' .,_A.'•- L.. 1';„-'_ i'.i,iZ:, l,,i,,'' C•,',, i,,,-.'.,"t`'' d. 1.',,,,i.',,"...'....1i,' 4,„,. 2.,,'•,,• 4,',-, 4,..,,;.,. 4,,,!.;•,';.',.'',-'cQ... 4'"• t':•.'.•'•:''' 4' t''`.';?'-,'.-.:' 4' r,'•,'•,,'"••)..: E0' I-•••',i:.•. 1• t'.'::.', 1' 4--,',•'''- L,, 2I", s' i?'',..:'•,;L;, T: fo'.''1_„,.", r.,!.4,'. 1.;'.',...-3;.-''-.',-!'.,..'.' a:',,!'',;;.-" 1.-', r.,•.;.•:,Y,,!',.?,;,,3,•? i-''', 9",-;..::',1, G'' 6,.! ' T•, i' 5'1•,.,. L'%,; Y:;';• 1;,:,. 0,-.•,,.%•.•,•.! i, f•:••. 1',.:, f', 6.;",•:., 4' 4' A.''•':;,.';','‘,•}.'i, T,' i,, 1l0,'";;• i r'..;','.', e:' 1i- r..'"-"-'.-':;' a;- 1'.,:• g.'-,'-•, n'•'";' r;''",•. 7.. 4,•' 4; I, l•:'f'•''':''-e.,'p.,'.''',''.•.att•'•^••t''•••e. n t•' ."•staff; „•;. P'', W;,. report i'.":, P: 1...''‘-;;•.,f'.:•'.':.: I,',, w:,'. V;:':''''.,'•'';;';'.;, a',''''. 6..!_-.' s-„;';''- “received ; REPO :,0 i„ 6he2lithiitek on par-4 8 .? 19177 i'',,',.,,,•• i',•,,',,i'wg,,'. k.,,,.,'!.,p, TP4,.•.''),f''. r,,.:,';.,:':;'';,;' 4.;,,,''' 0„;.,';*„:,.,,,,'.,-,;,.'.,„,\',:, P:,';-,,.; 4' C,,, 0,' 1,'';;.'„;.':: •'.;''•;', - •''','..,.-.4.:,1;9`.7,',-,;1; ''.;;',''..-. ''',";.t.r;;;i:',V'''1",,i '•,,','''''.3''''.';',1,3.":11',-..?0';;4,,,,Or,;":!;;7.'ki",int,:'ti.,...,:,,..„,. .,.,,,..1.-....-•=7.77,-..,,,,.,.. i5,...:,.:414g,,,?,,,-.,,, ,i',"?,;,9.-4,-;,,,;:;..W.,,47,vii.z.-Af.,:i.-,14,,k,o4t...At),,4;gtNi;;i;;.i".,;,,,I‘Cii,',.,,Q;::iti't.‘:•:,-';,.ii:''',' - .,:,f-".;;1'.;',./.';','",r,"T;•',.:,'''•";',,,,,P21''.'.:''.'',...,--'''!':'"';'':';:''.i4.'''.';-r".''' P,'',,!,',,,;,•;-[;,„'.:,''',,..,,-,,.V;..''.:,, s'.,-..,•* c,,,''! 4',,,....",'',:' A'.„;,.,;''- f,"‘'*`.,.,'`,`,''.:,•,.!`., fi:;,; 3,,: 6'-,''; i',,', 4,•,,.',.-,, f;,: i,•'")-:,'':,,,;,:' r',.,,. 4;; i-,,`''., 4.' 1".-•,. s.,:,,s0•'..',.'",. 9.,,,;,, 1•:,;-';!,;, i.,,.,;:';''],; 4,,,',', q',.,-':•',; I',!." r„.. f',.,„,,%'..,,. c,'.",.,; 1.,;...';''•''.,-'-,,.:;'',',,.,?,;;'.:;•;,, 4J•'-,'::'!,,,.?;• 1.":.'''„;•?.- V„.•,„:';..'.,.,..," u'- A",;;;;,•;-:.••.'•-.',,,•,•.?','• B•;,:...'...'..'‘: t0,..,,.l.>;, V,.": j'!.,'•,,', iA,'!..,...' t''.,,,.?qc:'-. c;.,`,,,;- 1, i• i;-'. rP.-,., t,•','ai,,,''',2,;,' f,,;'',.,., W:?',, 1,':,; o. L:, I;; i1'y•',':.: Y. t,.. v.•', 1r; i•- i,,.'' t..,:,' 7'''„;,','',,.',: i,..,, t.-!, V,, 714. i-. A!'),',.' Z,,'-.;.;-.''..." r'. P', i,,-:' q-,:;:,: i•..:'rdP,-t, i'' l.:;';.:.-/;; i.; I,,. N4';,•,,!,, iq,'., FN,•..,:i'; 4:' 4• 4',,:?:,:;:'•,, 1, 4': L.',,,,,, 74,' V.,!;. 4.- 1. 01-;, Vt. I,,,!V,'•„ 11;it*,,.M4.,Z9....,;g,, a'',"'..,.,. 4.'' i.,• k', i•,' t'••-',•0"', A• l„: 4.', i1, 4', 1,', 4', 7i1'1t1, 1t,' t. i,'' 2, 1'.-'-:' 0; N,.--.`''' 2.'''.•' 6,, i%. N;'( k',4ftt'...: r,,,! 1•.;'.; k- i4:', i,'i,' S4, P. z',.',.;ii.-. i,' e::30i. J:.,- r:.°,,: i,,'-,-,,,•g=, 1, re, P•;, s, i,-, I,' f;,;; y;,.,•: 5.:) f,,.• 1-:.,':;/,_',-.',-.. A".P,; i. f,..';. f'!, N: 4ti.,.,.- iq1,i•,...,- It,,,;',,,,` 1,•,;',,,'•,;:,• ti,.,':.e4',••i-(,•.:, i•.',.,...',. 6„.41:;,:!'`„a; j. 4-, 2, 3i,„.';:..,,. l,•',,,.,„; 1-•.:':,.,•F.,,,,,-.-.ti,o•„ tRg,!!',;,'•.. A$ 41ei'- 3-,„-,•..,., aq,',,', Y:-:",--.'::•.,.„,,, n; i* 1,',,-,1,:,'•.ig''."; 5.' t„' L'.?,.•!. n,• 1_'-•,..• e Planning'' L': 7'•;-..-',::_.''. t,.;`,' n.;,'--;.;..';:.';•;'‘ 6,.•t.•'..-..'„.;t‘.,.n.,".....,'..,.''e'',',..'.ft., 1,„,, ' report,„,'-.`,,,,,! P-• 4;,,.':' t4 • .* 4, 113ng,avaiiabie iifOrMa-iun on f3iekw • 4L4the application and field checking he' srbprt4, 40 4iiiaioclograrFAi- the Examiner: cordip .p„ r rtbliOZnt013n3, 0n- 1 ,= .-- J „ n- ,a ' f011Ois S, 1, i'-.!,•'.::, A',.;,'".:;.1c, 1;:. 2-., g",';;.•".*..'',- t,t,' i,- a.,-,' f?:,,;,. l0,',,:,,,;',, p.',;.,., i4cv':,',.'.- 4l!4s,i, A,. e- 4,:, 4,;:; 44,/:;,,,,4,,'',',, 1r;,'..,.i2W,4P,.'.,,.,, 2.,:'.,",,:.. t-,,;.,,,.tki., d? r, i: P, W,.%.,: r;, 4;, 4',.,.-,,'",-.-,,;,, i,•,;:*•f?„.,, 11-,.:..,':,c,,' 4,, i,..,!. q-,,-,,.;;,-,1:',, ,.' y.;,,.„.''..,-,i;..,'4'-.;`,b,,1--,',;','.,iz.:- :•`;',,,t,An`,/:'(1,:;?0,C--:1;', ',,.=';',4.1i'''1$:'N:': 4.:4"1;,..,;,.':!wl.':,...2,44,- ;:l.i'i,, :,YT,',,,A,11,16::*;,,T,•if.,ii,i'ir.,;:14,,fikL,,,3;-;04,,T,N,:Mkfislz7-0,i'A,,.;;-„,x";ktFotWV.p4,,,k-i!'ig,,P;0•4•Ic!;VV,_!.,i,-,;, :;-,:,.;,', ',;. .; ,:. ; ..-,;•.,,,:.;:,.?,;;;,•;;:,,,;!;'t,:'-.;:,;•'-."-,-''..Z4 1:3:"O'r'':','.0.,V,r1.1 :'1,14.2,;',.:'j,.., ',I,:;V::.it,fiticlil.;:-.1 ..;,;-,L'Ni';ch,-.4":;.:.*;r7;:4•:;,:','Fi,,::',-.,,A.,':;',,,;!.,,,9?i.,,,,, l'i,',7,-':(;;.-1-;q64:46.--Vkg4r1;,..4.c;VA,40,5-4.7e..74,:fiNVM7ifiVii,,,,,V,v...,V,...;;;‘,',"'?•-;;',',';;' ,:', '.., '.9 M.....4i...':'.'.',:..,•,,;"';:.:,',.; ,'T .,;!,,i.',C, .,",;,/"Aitei11,1.:V.:W;".1,9';';','3,T;',',,1'p',.:...'4,',...,2,1:';;...",.,4;.* P, itSL"'N.Ng-f.P;Kg14.,"-L9.F,1•At;,<A,''r-ig-ceiliP.:'-'NW`VitiAdVd7''', . -... .,' ,'', , , 4.L, .10 1.,3 Au,,,,r'a.rw,„y:.,in..,,,,,.,1,-3..,!. .:„...i,..177,,,, 11.77,,,,:,4,1,,,,,,,..r.igq,„",,Atc,:h-i.„,q.,,• ••,-1,,,-.,„-',,•.;::::-,1-?.•;- •:;-z.„:•:;,, ,-:-.i.„0,,,,,,,,,,,,,;,;),,, ,,,744:515ki,,,-,kii!•,,,tr,,,,,:-,,ilft.f•-,4,,,i0a,..,;;;;; ,i„,,,,,2,4,,,,,,i,!.,ihy:4-:•15,#;_ ,.L.:,1•„, , •,. a.....-:-,-.,.:. ,,-7,,,,,,.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,-,,...,;:•••,,,,,,,,,,,,i,„:.t,1,4k,,$•-i-,,,.. .:;?i,,,,.1,;),- .,;0,11,20.(4.„•,11.,,,,,,,,t,„vp.i.ti-,:.,, ,,'12,V4.,:.--it,',:-'1,•;4'.,f;-9.A,i:. heit"-kriogsktS/aM!A•OP,P.PA4. Mf 7fr.-'.- ".• - ' .' ,„.-.;`'...,:;',,,.`,;...-4',1':,;:..:Pj..4:1`;•;41,,-..'„r..-41"!:;<.,i,)'0 ,11.4eVi,i, ..P1,;',F,Ii;i1cri4,Vii`tp4);f1:::0-4'.'1..4. .74-11p.-.;:..4„ 4„..,,..R.,r, Building,4_ ,-:,,,;t._:.,t.$u.giis;:kdina-LA• 4...L.-,;,,,f,;,,,-1,,,,..-_,,,,,..,•„:4..,,,,:„1,;,..,,,.,,,•,,,,.,ri,:,,,,..0,,,,,,,',,,:,,,,,v,;,,,,,,;::,..,,,;,.?!;,.;.4,-.s.Arl,,,,,,4,,,i,„_,T,1,,,,mi,;,,,,,,eliiiiiii,-;4ii;::,, ofF.,t,ttx04:,, .-, kt, ,, . g.;,,,-,:,:pp.,.,,,,:,;:,:-..::,..-.,.,..',-,-- ..,,-,'„:,..,4'.,':..-:;rt.2.- ,,,.."-;'...,•;,.,,,;-;N:-,..',5!.,,,Y.'7.:*.i,,,140,:;:.16,;,,,g,4•;;,,..-,f,i.,',:gfAkiii:76-7.V.ih.?•:1,,T.77:2q,,.,.,;,,,- "'$,:::4Y'01."°:;01:4‘NOE.Pg44''''ili4AW,APV'k')''-')A''--4:bir:M;:,,.:'it':'..i';'•••'-',-• •• • '':':,',•'1.•••••,; .',•!, ,...;;'.'.,'•I' '„'''.,; :;-,..M.:5',•.?1::,,,'-':-Y!!::!0.7i,CiP::Vc.rh'f';.'•:.'e, ,i',',.‘i,,:.14,,(K1'4:,.P.;••*,'Af,t'-,4,,,t;,',;-•,'L„,,•;:.•.,--;,;:•`,.•,`,..-..‘,.....,, ,,,,,•4,i,-,,,,,'?:,,,,,,4;•,6.,,M,Ii.,i,i„isjp.,„.,.,..,„41,,, P,..,.,,., y..*(1..:,:-44,3,,,:;.,,;;.,ir.t,,7,,...,,F11,..;.,, ;, .worn.,•.,..;.-. ; :- '..'..-,....,.,,!::,,,,,,',,,,,-,;;;,c'.,...',,..,1-1,1,,:,•;,,:,-,,- ,, #,;:.,;1!,,g004;;,),;;?p,,...;,c;;;,,f,,:',.„,;40.9:-.'„,,5,,i,, ia,-,,,,u.-•,-Keis.ot,e{, .2t.ywe4-,- .-14.,,. , 1,..... .:.- '.., . .-,.',' '.-.',.,.,.',...,,,....,--.',.....,-' . -,,,,',/,.,A;',i,,,,.,,,,u.,74'4,,,,otw....' ,•-ep.,.' ,;,k1=;:3'..,',i,..v.,!fr„,.f,',--'.-.:),:.,-..:./F.--':;-•-,Pari.:0-o-i.:;44-1,PikikA.,,,71,F.,,:f• -•••.,,,,...4-,,-...;-•;•.;$.,,,,i'Klif!..-•,,,V-Li''.';'•.1;<;:tf,` •-„,,Ii.,,,,,',4',,Y.-[,•-'''....; -.'.'•',.'',',','•• ..: ::. •';,,,::,'';..-„••;'•••,',,,,,,•:,.if',',.,,,,...••;:p1;',.:;••::;•. 1,•',.,,'-,,• 1-:.-'•,,'',;•"'-,.'.,;• t,',•.''',,',:,' 1',,,',,',;,.'.:-,'''';,,•,'.•, V'.,• t,,'''',', I,,,.s2,,' P;:-.' 5..„ t'':• 7'.''';'.,--.',%,',:,.. J•!.••-:'•..,,.,,'''','',-,'"••!;„...•...;''-,,..;.,',.,',,..'-.-,.:..`-'•;:'.', 4-",.',:-..•',,'••-,‘••'',- p,'.':.:'•;,.-•':,:,• f''.'-.---''.,,. S•-•..•t..,',.'•';,.':..::'.',-.. S•„,.,• 1,.'':',.,,.--,,,''',','','',',..''. v.'''•''.';''.• I,''.,,,'.•-'.,...,t.•••'•,•'•) f'.;,:-'„, t... t.'' m,,!,,•,',,,.,,,,,',•.,_•,'-,', n'•'',',.',.•.';:.' a%'- i''-.;''..•, 7;., i.-',',•.',,,:",.,. t'.,',:. sv-',v',', 7',.,,r'-''•'.,,'',.,';,-' t.,:, A,' i-'.',, tc',„, a•,',-; X, l•.•.,-.'i,..- y,.'','-. f--' p;,,. p' S'..-. 4'• e.''.'.,',,,„.:,. 1•„.;,.•,,• 4.; Y; k, 4; k-•;., 2.:,• 1. s. e'•.:, 5-/'..-'-•! i: t•--•i;,„.,.6A,'-,,".-iit..•,- W,! r.•,-`•';:,-- y-‘.,.4V. Y,.. rt;,,':. n;•,,:; r11e,„'•, c- 03.,.,•:" e",!•• k' 1;' i,,,`•‘-; i` d\, 5-,.,,= 1!,,' fK,,,,;,•t' v•.; 4, Y•.',,,: A',,.- t.',;-.-/''• t;.,,,:-./-i.; 1' t-• z'-- 4V".t,,",,-,, 34h•.-..',(, t''0t;t:.,t1',..a,,!,„,; l,:"''.,••:;-,:•';f;...;k''!. T, t•.:.,., P i.,.-. t58,..''., s,,-,., 4„' a”- a'..*•; vc''/• M,':'".'.-.;`.,-'' t,,-;t:".,.it':; 2.•..4qO1.;. i. i.-:' i•, N,.'.:'. 2, t,• r' 1',., O-,!;' 2t,;,,,.,0'',,,,, t.:,.'' N,',,'',, 4,, f,' Yt,, 4'•.,'',, 4'.,., t-`,,•,t'./-,.;'r,. 1.! I:,.,-:;'.'..-;-',vf.:..•:'•.:-rth,; l... 1,-' k.- c'..,-;;'-.,:•:.-,;;;. b. 4...,.•;,'•. i'." t,.; t-,.•-'';."-:;-,-'''.;•: 1'?9,:': 74,'',: 1" 9,-',.,, 1‘ i',.--':.' 4'• V,,.,'''"/•. I.-.- e, t-"„• 9.•.•".;- 4..::•*,''".. 1r.,;•,o''..'.-,.44e%,.",.,.,i•,,',,?.‘-;:'..,.,;-'.'.,-. P,., 1:.:''-.2.-'','',"',-'''. i'•P•".•,',",•'-••„,-'•'• ,'•.'P- and;.'-,;';".‘,,•;... tt-p tt,,•;p'-.,•, h.,'-,•..-.;.,.,.,..,.•.‘.,e....,.:,•.-••-•..--:.,''..•;...-.,.,,.applicant. n,..,.•,., r,..;,;!;t- t•., t..,,.;.,,',.'.6i,,•:;,,! y,.::,,.,?,,• A•,-,...;•;;,?,;',..-.,;.:•...;;•.:••'....;.,;•,;. 4•.,,,', 1. a,,,., 4,..;,,.: k. c.,.;,.(,.,.?>,.,,;::,,,!5r?:,, y;•• 1;.. r?::,;.: 10,,, i,,,.,,;.,),.';,',..,;.,;..-'"., 1,,;,..,-,!•.1,:,•,.,,; i.:,.:,. li-,:,,4•;,.,::-..;,•..;..; p;.• 1.,,.,''; v,,„, I,,,-,:,/.„,:. k„:;,....,‘,,, 1,,,,,,.'.-,';:,,,,•..,,..,' u;•,,„,,: 27,;.-i.•,:;,6i...,, p,: t. 1.,--. r,;::-,.,-,„,f''.,, 1.,• p,,,,.,' i.•,.,;, i•,;,;, v,,..,', 5. i,,,::., 1,', c,., i,' f.,,:,'.,'.;..,:i,',,:; i,,,,,. ik•,: f,,..1_, P4; q.;.,. g;,., q: d ani; ; Vieiil ,theNPlar40giFfd4*t- repgr'' 'a71' :7 . F4p6i ? 4Azp1 ,r1i:, 1,, c:,:;.,,q1'•r, 4„,,,of,,,,,,", W,, r" i,,. q',,- 4,, p:,,, e,, ri,.,,,• i-,, b`,„ 4.:-,,;,,: i, i. t, i. i4,,...ri..i, i.,,,.;,., i,',, i 4"* ,% ÷ he, rec!oro ]ap: i„hjblibi41I MichaelyDM4 . 1%1rafning !Department, reviewed Exhibit .li and entered the-followinT„Additivi&k,4xfiiti 0 into the record: k,,:.,, li• z• 1.%., 4i.. 4,;;, 1,1,,,•„:,: f:., 0.,,,,,,.,-„,...11:,.:'.i„.„:;:';,',:.`'..,;,;,,,..7,,;;.:::;,'",''.. 1,k.,6,:'.;;::,;,!,;,••,:-.;;:„.i.:;...-:,',':';;-,'".-.'E'... idi;:i:-&,;,::44;,`-;:',:.;;Assessor' s-,Map., ..[.•'..' '.:;':::.;;;',:;;;',:,,,;:;',,';',,,.. .;f'::•-:••,.;:l q.',.;''','',' ;'.';I:',..;.?,;;.;',.(4,;.4,-.f.';'!,•::, i, ,,,J...... -,,,,-;„•,.;„-, ,,-;,-,;:;.,;_;,,,,,,,,...,/,,,,,-,; 4 1: ''..r.'"i;'' PP:`,-'.' ''.''' ,::•.. ii',,;',..]',,.',‘ P,. 1;"9.' . . tichibit,-,if 31 .',. Site Map. by Planning. L.,...., .'..,••••.,.-,-..-..,,,,.!,,,,,"'1:',', P P ' • ', 2 •.'. ijiiiii)ii-,,"..fat t: ' *Recommendatifoorn Commission 4„.:.;,,..g...;.,;;; ;;,..t,:,,,',..,-;.f..A,Land Use Plan. c-. .,,,- •••• 1!'V,..r.,:;;" :•-•,' '. r,44:., Comprehensive N.;;,,,-..;::,,i;;.....a,,,,,.-..,,,,,,,,,„,/,...;-,-...;v?7,,,,..;•;;;N:',,,,,,,,,,f.,•-.;...,-,:.....;.A;:,,-,,,,::::.„-,,,,,,,.,r,,,;•,„.,.•,..4.,;;..),-..,,,,-.,,, , ,,,-,...:,.. ,., .-,•,, . • ,. . . .,.,..:. .;;•,- •,.. • .:;., .,,,, • .,,..,..,,,,, .„, ;•,, I:..,,,,-:'.''',,,i,,•!“;.;',.J.t.: !-Ni, •,i,",i.:?''‘''': Commissionstudied' ' 7'.. *j;thd"4tPAAf4 in the ' • 1'',' . !".' ''' Z'•!':.'''j'f''..,!•.,-'141;''•,',".‘''''.4.4.,!`•''''',"'`.1•••-:•-r-!''''`•:''',‘:• -•':',K1-:"!';',,44!••',',.'•.41'`,' t.!",/,' 1..-- '.... - i„2 on' hasL,'1:;,- a;.:,,thi-,eA!the' Planning •L'. ' Mr.:r-Smith,;,..-irepOr,44 ,. .,• ,,,... „•-• -..--..y,-• for :,further,.,., „..,,,I.',.•;.';.,:,`,;,:;• ';',,:i;surrounding,..; .„e,., .,, . ,, ref, , th' site;:;!;fand::lias---iOc erred to the City Council ,... ,,-,‘,.. -,,,,;•,;1;.-;,,,.:,.;„...:,,, ,,,,,,, recommended a revision , , ,., Compr,eb, ,1!'..it, !..,. ..7,i,?,1',„•;-;.,,),. 4', ,•,..•,. , p.•.;•,„"i,:olif.:::•,,,';',,,,,..,..';,. p,i•1'.',. .q p.,4,. - • ' Land Useuse:•;':15,1'.iii',1,,ill• ii0",:t1„4.'P,'.:•) 9, •;n::;:,. t,:,,'...,,-,7•-..;:,-"I'-..`;',. ..„,•;, • ., .. ,•..,,„..,, -.,..,..: ,;:,.,,,,,,.,„;.,;.,.:-;„..-„,, ;',..;,,•;..i,...!., of ' the;.definition:,_„ ,;,-,, .,•,k;,,':1,-,. ',.:;,,,•:,,..,=. The: Examiner,, Mr.... ,.. ,•,, , .,.., .;-••.. an R-2 zone.. . r... _.,.,.. ......, • , . .-. •‘:::.;!:„,....4,,,.•,.. asked. " ,,',-,Smith ,fOr-••,clarification, . 7, . ..:,, dOrru-tion w.all.;):',,,,;;,;...:;...,,,,,,.,.., i4.' " 'Smith• reported- townhoiiee6.;.;,:silti,01.0*!s,';',f•.4p,..„1,-'. .,1?!,3,apartments structurestureg sharing •a ,,.,,..,.. .„ - , •,...„•••.,:.,,,,, ,..,,:z,.. allowed ,-the-,.,:-.N'',,,t'!,':•,',:',4!,/tht.'.tO,,,iiiii"C'U'S.:eS,.:'':.d., uplexe,.,:si;.:,iprLiothe . f in ,height • are. .IT., ..-,...-•.:,:,,,,,,,,• .•,,,..,..„„.,,L o-91ra,.-90.%r„-i-D.,9, ,...,,,r,10.t....-...t? c,.,,e7..7?- ,-..35. , 7-E existing.•zoning•::.ord.x.n4p,„.,•.,,,,„,:„ .. .,.,,,„•,,4; , ,ex The 1 E..--;':a'''.i"n:'.i,=' •ie:'' i , 4`...)sie :...i...'.* :-,0 .iit.-,:•'...$1'•It1'':'h ad additional. comments,..,.,o,,..--r,•,._..-•:i.‘?n_-....,.f•',.';'. oY,,.,-.•,. r,..•.-,',m.,.:a:'.•,,:'t..,...:`.•i.•,,.,.:o to present. Y1T, itith41ndiOa ‘4he had no additional conm1is 'a€- tbat.:..,'.;.:.," 0'',•.„''...,„ f;,, i,,,,,,-'„.,-.,',,,.,„.?..,..i..',.,.,'? 1/;''''; ';,:',';,•'!-:-.-'• ' time .' '' •--.;.!:,,',. i'.'t,)•!''''•::';.,'::':i':: P''',.i', 4;:'.. t.•;','1:',.:'..:;‘," :”.'3,..,\'''',4,-,',;',.';,';:•',-,•;"'.'1!":,'•",r.:;', •• •.: ' . •. • l`z e. L' ." .::. :. p'., •• -:?:,,.,.!-..-,:.....,:.:1:• ••'..'..•':', :•,. .;.'...!,';'-i`,,i'.:',::tt,'',::';:':,,..:-: p.....,, ,,-i,,,,..!,,,,,..,..,-......;,-,,,...!,,.:-.,,,,,T,‘,.. .L....,,,,,,., :,- . , . i - . :•.., •-..:. -,. . . •.....•,,.. ..-,,,..:,,,. -,;,..,:..,,...,.-:::.f:, 1„,..,... .,., i s t.,Yt. S i.j• 1 t::• :' I' e.i5 R-b 2 7 '•P•a`g s inPnnd 'in the lasked'-'the:`'a 1 :can'f, if he cated. te-gTheeExamine"r,'.a pP f' is ted that''he had objections.,.....„ ,,,,,D'e a`rtme'nt.,'report'.'">`:,Mr.• ..$pck;i,ngli im',-`';ind a Res' ondiri was', :,;:f mr ;c t tt' S r:3 faknhT'hom` : .ni;Buca's S.y. di=F+• 1 r i.;'R I5:02:5°: i y 1 y,.Ren J'r t, •eYY.f ski':, F,;3'gqi" t Lfa' r.r. ri2*r` y'ti arc.. :,,+ wi rr n,l a r,,.y Ya=a•.t 7... at ed haicrindi1- s : an dhib #efer retlw'ti,<.,tiezi'`-Ex t•'Mr` -Suck 'ri: Yiain i-:r, r. Sij'.`Fsibs.1n 1:he C 't Cou ceed:'be:f'ore tacct Ye` ' 'e s ,o'r,":,re:zein'.e was`« .n ' . Pthe': it j,,,,,'a'y..s is s hee'r t`o vin+ 'a motsk,' `•ct ` ri':on:_._ebru •t ,,.:_.,9:too a p.. ., Y':.. P S a,,:,,,:a ;;.s.r u e trieT- 1 c t,-2: h,a qf •', :,.,..:,;Com .rehens.zve :7Gand'1?3'i ..' :•. PP, r, yam': 3 s` act oh"e'ounc 1: 'sc nd ed ' t.su'bmtte`d,on:..`Ee'b' ua '- 1,.:,.., rt. in>' s 'udt`eseri 1nd `is:' "r tra i977'' gE'1 Y>c Y'2`8"aFebx. f::,,,. j w s t 'on stru Ctala'd."osh,:. r-Bck: rr' 'ham,=;e':h i'1. e P P 1 e" for-t r;s. ruc ulieeXistin• talb;;_y :'i e.,:',townho,u t. Y`', r 'e::,}' ha" ea nhehierdta.,, d:-.d tli ,E ei n case-s no f3T't o.-••thee m e sro' r:ease`.vay due. o,. ;t tee';.:; l tab'`. ,.„r_,;:,; e ,,. han>-an::>-R-:2:c,:or.e' ;. ',e ,s.tated tti'at, _': g.: p le ,r> • M t i`n ,t Yiaf th e ist :aor` t r eri., buts ''he 'woulde•'`".red r-=th g .t`P u{,,• a bl o.fe el' .1 t was e asorie';A" 'artmerit-s,'caie:e : o'h r,,.di r not' t' ar, `u lar t: e. f60`bU,.'zorie'<<a t YPr'e' ure' `ari,:'R:• 1r' 'iar`.:G';`:, r., 9` P kn kctios'trucon r,r ir S ,do ns-.s reheth" o l•d m e e.t'.:t e'`'re ''c uThe .ExamnerF: 'a'sked,:Nir.-=i uC r9' , ei ht rest'rictions 'lim osed' by' .the ti to ar n. .'set:,a,Gke,,..deris;i.t..-. arid';;h 9.. P Planning Department The applic'a it'-`:indicated he would allow;'Mr 0'Neil i at trkonmatoh. IPr. i. y,:.r n r•,; 4,"f5. s -'a itional testimon .in' favor. o fr `theThe' Examiner::ask`ed'," j ' t,;there.•'.wa ,dd Y s'n d' ', a.sa lc"anion: Re o ?fir` c Ir I.Yi'r!. i.(I t. ti is rr:,,',+ r Sri• 2 r trki ":hcga 5Nnn .>'i5' 2'5 R e :La e r r 0 R Y' nto ill.. 5ReA; it,:n e Iund=:f, la nte'nts' erthe-.'abt°t't n a arm P Y PE'1 - 'Mrs.: ,'Huc'kin 'ha'm•_;z:f'e`;',„,',that g Pg ,}. eated. an adverse. ;;:; ..:'.,'re den'ta >ne hbox.hood and had, -eruridesfrabl,e in'"a`;: g Y. ed"' 'ha"'£` tle`'`' ro osed construction''wo'u'l'd`, not".'be; ,,,.,sia.iiat.lon`.' She _::•4.ni"cat t P. P artments and 'fel`t that" a:.natural. ,'. •,,,=:5yx;. - lca'tn'''o,f..the :'I'hS°',;:Cove':,:AP. .. I r reces'sawa`' l ,ry; si Mti:•Y. ii• s"oa o}of the" 'a 1'icatit 'mcin': " n•''f PP t:•,'f.Tl a':Examiner AFaslt 'cl,<tt °r; te y'. Re s' d in" •Wads' g.P. rf lrx. John.: p:,Ne' '1<`:, . ?; st•, P.lercer Wa'4018"'E'a y, er •cer,'::Isl;and,, WA Mr . 0.'Neil reported he.. wa;s,"ha`l=f-owner of the Misty Cove Apartments •' :.`', ' He .indica'ted: that ; two'';;alte,r'n'a''tives exist for the ,property,: a mine-'unit. townhouse 'or a r'ecreartion;:;:area, for present tenants of Misty. Cove Apartments. Determination 'of •the alternative has not been, 'made. and' ` _ i; r the agreement for the. purchase 'of the property has not been finalized. Iie asked Mr. Smith .how 'the,':setback on the west side of the property. : .was determined. Mr.' Smith indicated :that the setbacks were determined' to attain and assure a gradual transition from the Misty Cove Apartments ' 'r to resident.es.`.on`:`:the:'''n'o,rth':;andr •to create more open .space . on the ,sub'j;ec'ty;,;":t. : r site.'} Mr: .Smith.'alo 'reported:';'that the Shoreline Master Program ': requires a 25 foot °'s.etback ,,from, the water' s edge. Mr. O'Neil questioned the-:` li;m' `t; for moorage to one boat per onetown ,r;r : :' ;' house unit' arid,:. asked..:•ifr;resista'nc:e wo•uld 'be shown by the Planning' ..; Department if. more ''moorag.•e,, were requested. Mr. Smith stated that': : t',:'' :'' ,.?. ;. would be- reasona'ble; to allow adequate moorage but not to .accommodate' the overflow. from':.the:;(.M sty. Cove Apartments . The Examiner a'sked.'`fo;r_r:additional- comments or tes•timony in favort:.of'i .. the application Responding;was:• r• . R-022-77 Page Three Robert Gerend• 14877 , S.E: . 50th -St'. , , Bellevue, : WA.. ..• Mr. Gerend reported.. that he was .the other half-owner of the .Misty Cove Apartments and. indicated. concurrence with Mr. O'Neil' s statements. The Examiner asked if there, .was ' testimony in opposition to the applications. . Mr•. Lou Bergan , responded and was sworn in. Lo,u- Bergan' : : 5029 Ripley .Lane' .N. Renton,. WA ,.98055 . ' Mr. Bergan reported that- he'. is the adjacent property owner north of the requested rezone: • He indicated that all property owners north of the Buckingham proper-ty;,feel very strongly that the area should remain' an R-1. zone 'and that. :R-3 'multiple dwellings on the property - . . would be an .encroachment on' single family residences and would increase density, traffic- and :noi's'e that' accompanies multiple family residences. _ The area. south .-o'f`.the. Misty._,Cove Apartments will become R-3 and • R-4 zones in the'.-next' five: to ten 'years and for that reason he felt the subject property, :should remain in its present zone. He. inquired about an environmental impact :statement and the Examiner reported that a Declaration of Non-Significance -had been issued by the Planning Department. N. Mr. Bergan stated: that ttie••.area had not been posted or posting had been vandalized or blown -from. the proper posting areas. He indicated' ' that all property owners would have been in attendance at the hearing if they had received notice. The- Examiner stated that to ensure that all parties are notified. and have ample opportunity to speak on the . request he would continue .the •hearing and have the area reposted. The hearing on Item #R-022-77 was closed by the Examiner at 11 :15 a.m. and continued until` March 29, 1977 , at 9 :00 a.m. in the Council Chambers of the Renton Municipal Building. CONTINUATION: The continued hearing one Item #R-022-77 was reopened by the Examiner at 9 :00 a.m. on March ,2,9, •.1977,. in the Council Chambers of the Renton Municipal Building. - Mr. Smith, Planning Department, briefly summarized Exhibit #11 Planning Department report, which was entered at the previous hearing on March 15, 1977. . The Examiner asked if Mr. Smith had additional information .or exhibits . to present. Mr. Smith indicated he had no additional information at that time. Parties wishing to testify were sworn. Mr. Joel Haggard, attorney, reported he was representing Mr. Lou Bergan, resident of Ripley Lane N. , as legal counsel. Responding was: Joel Haggard 900 Hoge Building Seattle, WA The Examiner asked Mr . Buckingham, the applicant , if he wished to speak on the application. Mr. Buckingham stated that at the previous . meeting he had indicated he would accept all restrictive covenants as . written, but after reviewing covenants he wished to withdraw his acceptance. Mr. Buckingham indicated that setback requirements were restrictive and arbitrary and reported that Shoreline Management Act policies require a 20 foot setback from the water versus the 50 foot • • setback requirement imposed by the Planning Department. He also reported that setback requirements of 10 feet from the south property . S7 Y •f' J YY' 3y,' J,1,yJ. 3/•tit a a•'4i zx'rj'f f.4 F:.r- h, r i•'R '0 a'it Si is. c. i 'f Ah' Lr f' fir',: t:i r. xi,.:fy,,l"i r r,r r:ri.Y'd"t d.f X-e a d:`e e•t' 'om•'•tfie ''ea.7't I: fr`omt'ke',nort ro ';e tline20`'"feet:': 4,;. P-,..:P. Y:< b ;the, Plannin. ,,,...r 5 f+o ta t':: s`.e.t-ba'cks iisuall re ux.ed y', g`p,roperty;;..line,',ve Y ,q i:rement' .Would limit,,:'De a' "n :'to' et'her- wi _' tleshore°line;: seaback, requ o :o ie-ha'lf`of the "total 's uare' foots ed.eve l.o •ment,,'of;tt%e{,prog erty', t q g, - a art'ments `'aree::.,:fee t.' 'He.,,r.e` orted<ahat •Mist Cove p N.. e'.. St`'rf of :setback,:re uirementzoned' `R'=4, and--she;:s,,tr ic,t compl' es.:;with •th o q i'' 4., y.yi r t x t y'; rf t.broilontk .a 'e cMr Buck'iri- ham,asked':: ,t a e rii,, is ,•, .15',' 4!<%'.. s 4 , e, t:,' t hcat'i :setbacks:''would:• ma'nd'as.e b 'e a ur'ementS:v, e:h=T ' d cated :fhat I:1 A t 'develo m erit'arilcat'ed+'oii' the:;•nrth"`s•ide o•f`: he' F- "the .acce,ss.rroad:'be, lg P,._ s` cl t.tera`sed`':rioi`se'- -obstrurct"ion'`-ofview ,'` uexpres'sed'`ob`-:''Ci'orist'o; 0-.'.,o ationtr •affic:.` and;`o:dos s' wl } sc.h J,he :'felt••,would`'•'not .be:relived by4.the 1 c of he:'`structure';on L':the:''. r, ert:.,,,,,bec•'a'use. :of :setback:,;requirements, He. ,' f was . .e=la'ke •'the .stafin ,::sS;OhN:f: t:_:a.etback'.'from ahfe'ht:;th`at''b 'reu%r :f. -4 0- n`•'aaat<,o f t e:-_."ro dlmtn' =;.tlre ..ti A,t g.P Y= 7 riY6'F.u' 1r i? 1 -c' I r'h 1. l sahlsi• e •m r;dint• out :onJ' t Yie tThe.`Examner ]ted:Mr:;;•,;,duck'°an 'ham r'to o P. n ham ointed:.out, his reference're ference's'`:f• or`•,s,etbiakit::,, :;Mrs f=° Buck-; ,g p P 5 blockwoldnote?`: :a'per-:which he'fel't u1:-:for'''a -'25''"ti5i5eF'6'etback'•:frcm.:,.rt',i W. t r.= 4 etback:: The .Examiner', .in uiredv- ews„:'eom `:ared,.•tithe . ro.';osed ;5:,6. foot: s q y'Y ` k° n ham' a orted:'a reference':for';a :,1about 'otlxer` „setbacks°: ',-::•,Mr--..,. $:u'c 9 x' .P P,. L':.n'e.. 1nrtthe'; foot` t=ba P. p'. Y:;- J*,.111•t 7 5, it i,.,t i•usrl: vF 1 i ;whi`c h: h•e' felt`e e s sed';---db-:''e,c:t'i:• o`•s°' to:••the moors e !limitMr. , Buek'iri:gham_. xpr y., ,a.• .g. Was 'discYr'iI1 inator-" `l:espee;>r,the''ad: °acent'; apartment:'bui"lding :has .no limit': `a;.. ' Der apartment't:;; :He;in,d'i+ca:tea that;;;=the present' .r'ecommendat.io.n • .imi'ts the asst}a°1rl.ss:to one;::'per:.unit' if nine::-units lHateailt ,on: the '-`'number 'o.f'`moor.a9e Q:,- t.. a:, i`f' ro ,ert'. wer:es;-utii',lized :for:-: re'cr;eat•ional''- area,:''an,d:`no ,,units r ',property',`'.butt; .:.P. ,+P. .z Y'<:. .., t. 'j.• y. acesbuilt',' no 'moor'a•ge° w:ou l;,=A-be'>permtted•• :` 1He feltthat' 18 moorage :sip should•• - permit:ted,.:and thez;;'n-umber; o'f';'units in `;t'he"structure should,`no.t be speci:fied.,at this_:';time;;but'.'should,be determined by', zoning+ requirements'.; 4 r ed byart he'h'''t ;'t e`-`.:densit would be re ulatTheEx`arii•ineti',:' nd- :cat;ed< t a t , y:9 and;,`:that::'`t` e` :h1`a nin De artmen't`'::had recommended' 'anunderlying .zone',,,. q P e::'`'aske Mr'. 'Buckingham, if he, concurred. ir..•R-2 zo.ne' ratYier .YtY a. .ii .::3, . zH d' a indic.at'ed that-, J;,:'the: E1'arin'i.n' De' artmet:' r'e.ciinmenda`t'i,ori. Mr. Buckingh m l' a the 'R-2' zoninlthou "h.' He had;`'mx'ed,:..f`ee sri"'s :he :would acc pt. g.• u,;: a g g, ort the densit re uire ent';,under'The 'Examiner.as]cede, Mr:: „Srti1'th:'.:,to ,rep Y q I i. i1f-i, _ •.t "• f•I. i'• d'.,'in'Nr a'" ``o d what 14 units w.ould`. b'e 'al,lowethe,.-;R:;2'•.zon n'' ` :Mr'::.,'sm th..,,re` rte ictions;gin'kin ham fel•t': Ghat restsnts..,. '-'e'x`z<::acre c' `Air`. :Buc 5' g,(; 1,-.',3,; •acres.';at<.,•3•. :u,P ,,,. should: be'. . ncluded 'ose.d'''+ eca,use:=,.of--:th ;:water' 'area which . _- 1.. `Yiad ;li,eez inp„tli•.,••: : .i,:^.x•; :', : r, hat :':t'he'.:wa:ter''':ia'rea. had been discounted, l; mit 'ng'.'the;:,,,F.;„%:;,Mr 15,e,e4'4 7.4* ati`ed• :t r'r:` i'f Mr.;.. Buck'i'n hamrom'k9':0,:^•1 1"-,un t s;:s:,.,.Tlae>;;:Examiner asked_if,-J:,;units;,;;,-to';';f c'ki.n 'ham :he number .ofunits'. .. Ir;: ' Buconcur'red!''w 4.. :'the;:`are'str -t• yo4' e•''r, t g. r'. i n of densit acc,ord`in to'` {;.in i'cated` ,h 's': referene.e, 'Ears. de'terminat o Y 9,. A i od e s.•zon •n c if he had other ob ecti:ors,. to "The Examiner':^-aked ,,M, :.,:;B;uc,kingham j Exhibit '#'1' other. tha•n'.'se'tback ,requir.ements , density and, moorage Mr. Buckingham 'stayed`, 't'hat :he:''`had:,no. '.further objections.. The. Examiner.° asked:,'forurthe:L:,`comments in support of the .applicatio Responding _ wa5'.r. Naom' 'Buck ingham 5025`;:`Ripley,,Lane N. Renton L . WA 9 f3 0 5 5 Mrs . Buckingham asked if her .comments were on record from the previous hear n The"Examie. ;,'ind': ':oa't'ed-;F:that ''they were par't_,'.of the record',:.:and re orted`;:that;`'copies 'of,';.:th'e'?,previous meeting minutes' were' :available;`!. o i' " ',, the audience;,. sked=''for'"'t'estimon" ,.in' o osition 'to the applic,atio'n.The Examiner,tie'.•'a y,;':-.PP r' Mr. Joel Haggard' .pre •sente'dr'a-:legal •brief which listed objections to' r` the application::•' T'lie' br' ef.: was. 'Tabeled Exhibi_y #5, by the Examiner,; i' sr !a1 aC"' R-022-'i ,: Page Six Responding was : Elizabeth •'Crawford 11815 S.E. 165th Renton, WA ,98055 Mrs. Crawford reported' .that.. schools utilized by residents in the area are overcrowded, and' that students are currently bussed to schools in other areas. She: expressed concern about fire protection and access to the area because of; railroad. tracks. The. Examiner asked:'.for 'fur_ ther• testimony in opposition. Mr. Joel . . . - Haggard made a request to •cross-examine Mr. Bergan in regard to• the brief,. .Exhibit #5..• •Mr: .Haggard' asked Mr. Bergan if he had read the brief; if he was familiar:'with• the"matter and if• the brief contained factual comments ; and if Mr. Bergan were to testify to each comment • in the brief, 'would • his testimony be • the same. Mr. Bergan responded affirmatively. The Examiner asked the applicant ' if he had further comments in ' rebuttal. Mr. Buckingham • indicated' that since he had not read the brief, he could • not comment on...it..-' He '.•' reported Mr. Bergan' s attempt to maintain the area as R-1 ," but the Comprehensive' .Land Use Plan currently designates the area as •R-3.which was>•the . zoning designation when the opposing residents purchased their:.:property. Mr: Buckingham stated. that Mr. Bergan and Mr. Imus' 'had expressed an interest in a rezone several years ago in conjunction with arezone •considered by Citizens Service Corp. for construction of 'a condominium: The applicant felt that the permit for access from, Burlington Northern was not the. concern of the residents but of the applicant. For••the record, Mr. Buckingham indicated his acceptance of' the proposed R-2. zone. He took exception to the statement made by Mr. Imus that all. boats belong to property owners and stated . that a boat owned by a 'Mercer Island resident had been moored on Mr. Bergan's property •last summer. The Examiner asked for further comments in support of the application. •' • Mrs . Naomi Buckingham stated that -she took exception to Mr., Bergan's statement that a four-story apartment building is a logical buffer for . a . residential area. The Examiner asked' for •testimony. "in opposition to the application. Mr.'. . Rich • Imus reported that the .incident involving Citizens Service Corp., Mr. Bergan 'and 'himself was:• instigated because of the corporation' s influence in gaining, a' rezone.'. •When the rezone did not occur , the . . property Owners- made •:a decis,ion'to continue' to utilize the property as single family 'residenti'al. Mr. Bergan indicated that one reason the property was built to R-1 specifications was because of strong opposition to R-3 zoning in the neighborhood. The .Examiner asked Mr. ' Smith to illustrate on the Comprehensive Land Use map the boundary for R-3 designation. Mr . Smith pointed out the north property line of the Crawford property on the map. The Examiner reported that the City Council is reinvestigating the zoning, holding a public hearing on April 4 , 1977 , and that unless a change is recommended the Planning Commission recommendation is in force. . Mr . Smith stated that though the Comprehensive Land Use Plan designates the property as medium density multiple family zoning , other aspects such as timeliness and compatibility with the surrounding area affected . , • the staff recommendation from R-3 to R-2 zoning which was felt to be a proper transition and buffer for the area. He reported height controls and density had been restricted for compatibility with surrounding properties. . Mr. Smith stated that setback requirements were established to create a corridor and provide recreational open space. He indicated that screening fences , parking areas, drainage, and traffic controls were 'all established in the Planning Department report to reduce the intensity of the development and create a step- down in the zoning to establish a logical buffer. 1. I t f l b` 1,ist.a;f'y•I r, a fir•'.S.e4: 2 .7:7 a• r if; l-i- rr• it`.i:, r a' 1.di ' t 46 h2 A 1. FIIi r e uest_da'rd''',,,TNi` ked'%'fo.r-'.r<furthe:r ,tfesti'mon Mr ,. •Joe1.Ha qe•:Ex`am- rier•:`as,- Y gg erm' " i o. `cr'oss-:examin;e'`Mr" '`Smth'.,and Mr Bucka n ham. :The. Examiner'p s s on;;a d ice 4:in`'=the.;r'e uest. .N indca ted N Y '•s'.coricu-rre q i. 1F r F' 1!ti ei) y.;i De 1 a ration.Yi h c'rw t e•Mr :-: m`i=tk'• 'i':f ..he"'.wer.e::•'famil 'ar.:; t 1 ' Mr 'Haggard'•; asked' S i a't-'ached'::t'o •Exhibit• #1 ''a'nd '.asked if b, •-review nof.;•Nori:-S 'iir .f`icance,., t _ Y"., g' j '/. "firthe•- a '"vro •hn' Fu• en',tal `ch•ecklist` submitted 'b .the-the D.e'c.Yaara'ti'dii,:and r e'.0: ,0:P . .T1 wh an•,;envi 'onmeti,,0':.im acta1:' :can;t=.'he' ''shaii Td;:.liea bl, s er y r P Mr.nswe ff i• e.;,:, e` ,,,,,{,:, .M .:, mth'.a red;.,la rmat vs'tatemerit`-was:no't ';re' to r ,d,... :5':. r,Y, i th ' Y f:,..he l''ad `;d'ifficult wtti` the su -e'sa ionsHaggard`:asil ed:;::Mr:.`-S,m ry. Y' gg made b h applicant,`' `s, ec- ficall :in'°regard to dis lacement....o'f soil ' and .ca tacit- a of_'''thet';access :road °,to;:.:the ',proposed. development ; Mr. ._ ;° ,. . 7 . '-`'''''- `• '- i•1,'d` s -1a`cement would. be addressed. u on actual'.,Smia'h;;:saated:' t'Yiattso .,, ,.I? p h a• 'c;ertan rovements-"wo.uldh'b 1dee`1:o'••ment'•af `,t'he s;' :t:e:{`an`d ct . iP Sri.- [,S i,,i,• Y 7 ,a n,: a d-e'' "ccess.•icoadwa'. ! n ah e•form':o vi'n M H arriecessa:r. f'orr`.'ah t. a yR: P g• g9 ent f o m"he -P 'arin'i'n De .artm reort'e d :that' :'a' 1:e:titer?:':.haa'-=b'eeri,:,sent'': to`t 1 prpzit;':, g r.: 0, i M' Smith` if',.he, ,wereY;••;Burlin: t'o'n-:';Northerri' ;on;°Novemb'er 12;:-197:6;, 'ask'ed" r'. i' have an im ac.t'..on'y'r •il 'a .wit•h'.'ah'e='-corres"bndeiicel a'ndd-' if.. it would yt p- o' vir nmen'.tall' i• m actt' .Mr Smith;.the::-P ari ' :n De .artmen:t' eralua' :`i•on` f. en o , p. . w k,'with the 'lett`eriaiid'-_it:'would riot have:Y -responded.-a ha t_':'h'e;_ atnfa'm i; statement He.i:re orted'','that,`d reed' atifected:,t2''e ^'v '''ronmer. :, : p ces's> via:. the~ Burlin' .ton Nor."thern1:• consderat` ;ori,;'would;'be.-:•made- 'fo:r;,.'ac • g, n ,.N h had'.roadwa -and-:-'aFrats's' i, : r,ev bus":rezone '' ''-• 'ts 'Burl rice o.rt e`rn coordnat"ed`` ari.'a.'greement ;w.i;th;';;property, .owners .•for:',access: ,Mr Haggardi :' tt '' i'n' •uired`'-%about`.the''` d'th1Of:':`the'-access road to';'the'::Buckingham property '..' ;•,-,; and, the: width o'f_'ahe:.actua'1' ;traveled portion. of;:,the';road. ,r''Mr. Smith: 7: re orted'- a wadt'h:`'of,,.;50 .feet,,'=:w th'I_i`2-''feet' bein :'the'<: actual 'portion; ofp9 s•'h d beenwhether` coi •si:derat' on aheroad `travel'ed:r :,Mr a ard;a"sked; in n:`.i N.`,rk 'oe t• r.na'roun d• area• '.o amade`'';for oss }b'..e dltf. c+,,, :`wa't.-,-.h u tip;.,,: ha' the Parkin .'aid Lo'ad 'ri' t:.the 'proper'ty-;. , r-' :`Smt`h'.,r,e:port'ed'.'rt t g.i g, 1. :r - 'L,.nr. on then;:I1 site:Ord'inaiice .,would'-speci'fk s=uf'f- rc-ient."aisle and 'maneuver. space... 4•i`=ry lenthe;• •acces's''' .o rit• '- ',on; Mr.' ,Hra 4':ard-asked ::what,'tl -:;distance was betwe p, f;1.:....5:' nd a 'west" side .of'.•.the.e' st':''s a ;cif•'the'.<'Bckn: ham' : ro er.t' a tht'he; a d P Y 1• -.:1; •ii'Norther:ri''.'r,..3, ht-of-wa :Mr. Smith ' ndica.ted thatthe..Bur,l' 'ngto r g.., ,_.,,.Y. ies_:abut'':andt'he ea ement'.°rs:'not a ubli.c, 'right. o'f=way.i.:.',:...:::.',.',1::'_.proper`t P 1 ri` r,ear .;:...:d to,ithM Smisofr:'`;•.,. it eMr:, Ha ard.:"made":;,th 1. o.. g'.', q 9 er ' neincreased-,cl:utttiT'e• .w' 'iil'd:--aher,r'o'' o s`ed, develo meet' Great , a ;ro e•r.t ., ,.f+• • wha tr,' 's°•the''maxmum, riumb'er''o•f allowali'le;-unts'I on r'°.th :'P: Y :',<.Mx-the ._areaa;.;' f+>., n a e buf fer ':and`..screen'i;n''i, ;`Mr.' Smith':res' onded '.t'h'at,;,"because...:-- the laand p Q e here' •wou' .,d`:be: 'or° ,; tY`->the ^1,oc'a't`•on .f ahe arkin ar a'. a i ark - .,'f '''' rat: - I,' x':•„ p .g r,.,,r.. :'r::- s' c-'- .th:e.. maximum number ;of units. ro' ..77} .7.zir . ..,' c'lutter,,and:;>.;sn``,'re s,pon .e<t 1? P G..,...,.'ii ,•:. ,. •:.:::- Y..j.' i.l .,.r t;;'f> ;:h.,!znd Gated"`,nine =total uri'i.'ts=;: a;,;j',ahe: ro e'rt' .Mrr: :SmkI, 1 : I .}:ld lM•i;L1 ;+•;,.: d, I.fir: rrrY7,yr. s b,., -g 4 1' 4 i 'e s a.it C unc,il"' m nut. :of, Mr! .Ha• 'ard''';.`*re'sent-ed',a' o' of.-'-t,' nade C y o.Y ' Dir-ector 'Gord'on::.t, ':;,, •,' yr,rt,1976;.".'which`'':.coast`a=i'riled•: a,•s ateinent;''`made.. by Planning 7.''_ ri>°' `ard :to'.'p rob,l;ems:,' n;:the. sub,'ect.:area ''of access; 'so l:°Ericksen'. r;eg P,. condition's ,and.'':' mpact' along;: 'the;-,.shoreline. The minutes ,were .ente'red:has, ,' Exh th'e`:'.Examineand;` read .into' the record by'' Mr;, 'Smith: in -till ui'ries' re ardin the a` licationMr . Haggard :madse':''the,:• follow g; g• g g' P.P if, the proposed; :rezone`-,: s ,Suited:.;.for Water uses'''or. activ, t e's, .if a i''. ': ;;; ' affidavit of `.'ownersh' " Yiadr..been,;..filed, would „the'' r'ez.one,'aspermitted increase 'the.;"'density";of.'::storeline:-,u •ses or. activities, if there•: is ,a :; ,;:``` '. need for increased. dens ty:;;',what •uses in an :R-3, rezone are. riot water related = He referred 'to'.`t'he 'Shoreline Master Program 'as not. •being. an: _ applicable city document an the •particular r ezone and did not feel. . ',' .- the -Shoreline ,;grogram';,-shou'ldr .apply since .:none of. the.,:deve.lopment:_'' a.. b f,east'.: woul`d' `ro,t c e' was water related : and ;' ttr ',dev:el.o'pm p P Y, Mr.. :Bergan•'- 1;K' egard;,;to s itab lity .for water uses and` act:i'vi't'ies Mr. 'Smith indicated!:"that==,suitability would be.-dependent •upon",'the designh for the.development:" :.;I;n`';re.g.a'rds! to an affidavit of ownershi.p, 'Mr': ' Smith indices't•ed; '.on'e`,,;had;;been' filed 'at the time. of application Regarding the. need.:for:` 'n'cre'ased density :. 'Mr Smith reported .that: the.....,.....ensity.;:' ",,.,•;,,, ;.r,, would. increase'' andi.,:sh'ou',1'di4'be".,permitted not necessarily"from.,a sho•rel`ino::;`: .,'-' standpoint,':.but.: for• overall•:zoning' for' the area. _ 'In. response:.to;,,the:,-'.• ": question.,.regarding ;-pr vacy,.',Mr'. ;.smith stated, that.-privacy, would "be-;`• ` v,. .: ;..'.,,,'''. assured by::restricte,d .,density, setbacks, -'landscaping , " height control: r and screenin n %M1l- - - Jib:' • ,4•r ',! Ii t 4 +(" J' a•2 t rr r' Ma ri! a jt 1%Ir. it:' r'• eri_ 7 y- 4: ti ifin, 3''3'ht.9 ran'• rl.9 9 pun a,i_ s:; s;:L• 1.i. ti 1 1'I:: Fh' "i•}. LS^.. 1!:1' S''I ii,..'.'= "1;'.r.tr> :i3 k '1A5'v:-k+a' r';yr. C. 2., Mr ,,, and..i'ndi•cate4.,!•th'a't'`fMr srBuck'' "nghain'' d•id `'not 'agree' wit 'evera'T;' cis:: z'„ d':.of'. Xhb .t:,a'`#1;'`:F`'•'a ri ask'e a ne`- one' wear;,`;; ;: p. :,• e.,.ti d - f:'t'he•'r.e o 'app.l i.cat adequate when';'s. ''ki' rich':::a'sk" ';boy'u m tt,„.,,0.-, a ed0'a u.t accompanyingdocuments. Mr'. Sm t'ti: re F' t'ta'ti.3':t is o wa-s`.?ade uat.e'4u on'.;`rec'ei t and'-'=•con.P, PP,;., p P p. -,,.' taine.'d`; .. an ''af£id`a` wne`rs''' nv; t:'o£;':o t ,.p:>Fa dw:ma's' :ncludn :'a',•vcnit ma - :Howev• er. he indicated'••, that' the <;d'e;ta'rls;- O.f.--. he '•development ,were not a'rt O rez`one: p.j:ar'wi•:zrii:':r" .4 .< is :,,",7 f• 7•w l'15''.4 1:1,•, y, .fir"• t.• _ l-11., a` 'a a; "o'ted er`1:r .,u n..,'s e: o:state nt f `uncom and.-r :it ..o'f :h Cr.,ro s` e -t-.•aar` - - `t'a .ed''d'ewe1_o 'm r d;'' s. im` ace- u"ori• .;communist; and 'resi dentialP . P P, t:`:,r,,,, t: .:•;- i P Y; • ti environme•nt a'`.d ,`as'ked'.`'Mr Sm• tti':'` i' ,:s to 'im `ac 'had: 'been wez? - f tic p t rev , d. Mr• ', Smith,'`reported;'•'.ta't -thew. 'n:florm:at'ion,,-:was'•contained '•iri Exhibit:, • l Mr•. l,•fi};,". .,ll.,i {'«'`'f,a,:'...._ 'i(s•j:r'„i-n; r"...y.• '7'l;',. r' Ha r'd- '.e re °sed ob' e'ct' 'on,. t.„'.gg;a Xp O 3.. to`::'the:' staff f nd n.` at this-•r.e e.• ,and du e,r.,t,,C'esf.refer'r.ed`a.o'=,'theY;,Land-;Us .:. re 'or 965':'.:':and the`;':State Environmental t(i,,. ,r;l t-.ir,'•'• }^;tit''. nlr:Pol` c,' "Act . e:• 1 :f'el'"{'-ri 'De' artmentl-•..:f a ';1 . ..!.. •9 Y:,'+ter-th"at•:l,;t;e.:'P'1'arin g., -p i nd i•n gs<:W r'e - a e. .' ,s .a:=,m de` ori,''tli ,bas f<-a:.•t:re ue'st -f'or R-3• •'zo°nin' ;`not:-for:" R`.''2-'zori'i`n h:T e. Ex a i l:ar! 7fi:e _ h he` q m ner`:c d->'t h >ma t-te-r:'an'd stated .,that `,t staf:f:!'ma' 1eoa •low d` n:'r c mm'end ' r°, a s ;t((.// .than, a'n:a l.icant.'',r'e'.uests•' no'ti-n'' t' 'at::'a'he:-,=;>,,, '-•` Itaf: `e s`:s` - f'-r. o rt,5',tr ct•1,'' : ::::r.ecomm`endation. He'i-:asked Nlr': `H'a ard- ,to •_ 1r: pchar _ .,- -,.,:-.:in e'n :.' 'n,.; k h .-. : s f:1c:f:y .t., t ,, the:...,cross"=examnation•.'and' 'as ed- t at.'. f' pec 9'f,Li1er 'rs'exi ted: th'e':<.re 'o'-'t: 'he • •should .be des: na 'e g: 3.'97: y.,i k:' I: s ice` rr er' a" `a- d ta ,•t Yi a' Frio>,i`: r-en' i' i.c nc e;:Ii r d`; t-:. dec'l:ar-at o i.=-of , v ronmental: si `n f a was - -; ided:'-on:;fhe` e'zo" 's e a s' ff h n d h zoni fir, P. . v . r ri.,. nc :th to ad';;cha g e . .t e:•,° ri9• :.. R. 2requestfrom., ;9''.to''-R::. _an°d':'f.eTt=,chat' the total. 'im act' was.:• iiot i` a`com lete'';a•s::7a'c,cess`',road'=:clean' :es had been i po• red in :the;'staff.,:re ora:.: "; s•: He referr,ed' a a'in`:to':'='the;;,:;l.e,a;terfr:om`Bu'rlin ton''Northern". to '.the--:'':r',':';','.. L"' ; ,g. 9 r k= :.,,Plann-'in" •De .artinent` U Siiithres onded', that'„he',•=wa's' 'awar'e'::.o`f'`::°.asses rob'lems:not;e'd,.`i :,the'. t':te'r..':f rom`';Burh•i'h ton, •Nortfie'rn':'becau s: s''. ' s' n :;whet her'• '': `::,previous"'{re'z:oie; 7:':: r:eque t,. i'n;.'tte•:;ar:ea. Mr. Haggard que trio ed. h. r s he'•`stir; `tu` e:,.,.h`"`d-l:been•''s'ubmi ted to the.•:cit Mr.. Sm'it'h'• lap ;f.;', p or :t _ ;:,. ue. r. . a„ t, Y•.,. x .s,_,.;,. l i r 's.:were' not required; ': R ,„ZOnef• t :-;--`reported';`',tl `at:4,:'"-tn'a'i=:-'bu •,d n.9<P, an P . Jt,: f and' R-1 zones• hadrezorie::'.re ue :t° :I ir;: H.a' a';rd;;:.ii ' i red =i R-3,' R=2:q gg,. 9 been ,`exami'nedc>:';for;recreat' on''al'°: xs`es 'iri_.the, zones. . . The Exami•ne•r • noted tha•t such..exam:in'aton• :..was.;;not',:,part' of".the: rezone 'request and that`.the '. City 'Attc rney:: would, reviewi,..=:the,..br of a•s• 'to its ,legality--in the 'rezone: `i:S, r,; re uest:,. '`Mr' ;1Ha' aid- asked'`.' #_°::th'e' r•ec.reational::'use 'would,,) be'. rebated.':.; ,;'q 99 to •c'lubs'`or: fraternal::societies ,'`t':'Mr:: Smith re orted 'that ,i.t, would not -`',,; . 3 a wne s• association o.,Abe;',re•lat:ed'-.'.u'ri':l"e'Ss,.tFe re`is s:tence ,of a hom o r ia*t'o`n• a.' artm• of cP f:- r, J 1Fr14.' Hey ;'d :e uested'':' ermsa:.on'to ,cross examine Mr Buck in 'h'ain.Mr' ,Hag:gar r9, :,;. pt. 9. 6'.. 5 i t• he'.ted fiat=':Mr,`. =B:uc:k-in ki'am' 's eaa,ier 'statement ind sated aha,t. 1,e one •wo 1d no e liev ha'c: ives.e`tback`s,..on: ahe;::-ro os d':'rez u t r S he .e :isiandsand .'t at_ robhemref:' -no; s'e.v1'w.i`ews• c'Ti%tt;er :traf.f c odor a 's`i` hii'i'fi c'aii•t'•;:i'm' `ac"t .asr, .a=--r'esuht of An- R- •2 zone• ' as r osed.-.P th,e<,;; Plana ng. ;Department: Mr- :Buck n,g•ham '-stated that the comment,,.`wa's .:taken' out o:f':co tt•ext-,`and declined' ,to;;`answer furtherquestionsq The .Examen'er.'a'skedjti:f•or••'further' te's,timot y. Since •there was: none , `'the ,, heari•ng, on ''Item #R=;02'2-77`:''was :c-lo'sed by• the Examiner` at .11 10 a.m: FINDINGS,. CONCLUSIONS &...:RECOMMENDATIONS : Having reviewed the,: re-co•rd in this .matter the Examiner:,now'.makes and enters the following : FINDINGS . 1. The applicant , Thomas' C..'.'Buckingham, requests a rezone from G-6,000 ; single family..,•residential:,;, to,..R-3 ,.,_medium density multiple family: e- of: the ,re quest- :._ ,. ,'o. ermi't:' ons.tu.cti'on;'reside'n4-1 A- 1 .. The:.p;urpo's ,. 1-,,' q. P of approximately' 9"''multiple''family' townhouse `units. Ari; .a'lternat`: ve. .;; . Use' wo.ul'd-::be ' t`o `renav,ate:':exstng house and use this structure as a 'recreartional tfacility r` f.or= .Misty Cove Apartments, 2 . The property has;,r been(.;s;ub:ec• t to previous •rez.one requests:,dat'ing, ",'; {,',.,.: . back °to 1974. These r'equests'`.'were ,.strongly opposed and :resulted %; in :the rezone 'w' thdraw`al SA,. P• :.):: R-02- 7 Page Nine 3. There is :an existing'. single family residence on the site, Misty Cove "Apartments ar.e,. located directly to the south, and two sing] e family 'residences , are''.located adjacent to the north. . The area consists' of a mixtureof high density multiple family, existing single family residenti•al, and .open' space in undeveloped areas. 4. Gordon.Y: - Ericksen, responsible public official , pursuant to the City of .Renton',Envi'ronmenta'l Ordinance and the State Environmental Policy. Act ';of'.,1•.971" as .Amended' 'R.C.W. 43.216 , has issued a Declaration of 'Non-Significance for the subject proposal. 5: The subject request. 'for ""an R=3 zoning is compatible with the Comprehensive 'Land Us'e...P.lan 'that was adopted and on file at the date. of the' application' submittal. Since the applicant's' request, the-Planning Commissioii .has recommended to. the. City Council that this' area• be. designated :as low. density multiple family which would allow 'the 9 'units ' as 'reque•sted:• 6. . The "applicant, - Mr:' Thomas Buckingham, stated that the Planning Department staff" recommendation of R-2 zoning for his subject property was acceptable _although he would prefer the requested. R-3 zoning: ' 'He noted that' it was. not reasonable to require •an R-1 , residential district,. "abutting an R-4 zone that has been designated for the Misty .Cove_."Apartments. 7. Mrs. Buckingham testified that. the abutting apartments were poorly planned, undesirable ,in a residential neighborhood, and had created an adverse situation., . _• • 8. Mr. ' Lou Bergan,. .owner' of the property directly north of the Buckingham property', maintained a strong feeling that the area should remain .as_ R-1. ,and noted that the Misty Cove Apartments serves as. a. buffer between :the single family residential units located to the north. Of Misty Cove and the industrial. or potential . . heavy commercial uses -proposed for .the Quendall properties located to. the south of Misty Cove. 9. Mr.' Smith; Planning Department' representative, noted that an R-2 designation- would allow 14. units in the 1. 3 acres •or a density Of '11 .units per acie:j Discounting the water area would limit the. maximum•density',. mfro 9 to .11 units for ,the Buckingham property. 10. The applicant.,•`indicated ;his.. preference for determination of density • based according to the zoning requirements 11. A petition was': submitted 'that was signed by' 7 property owners of properties located directly north of the Buckingham site. The petition 'reported opposition to any further multiple family residential ' development in the area. The petition was designated as Exhibit :No.. 6.- . . ' 12 . A brief was submitted by Mt. Joel Haggard, representing. Mr. Bergan. In summary, the. brief denoted several areas that Mr. Haggard felt were in conflict with the rezone request relating to environmental . impact assessment, propriety in regards to the Shoreline Management Program, etc. 13 . The request is primarily predicated on the fact that an apartment house was allowed to be developed in an area that was formerly inhabited by single family residential units. This apartment house is clearly out of 'ha'rmony' with the character •of the adjacent areas.... . ....This action was taken due to the rezone request granted October 17';' " 1966 . The Comprehensive Land Use Plan has since been revised from . high density multiple family to medium density multiple family to• a. . proposed low density multiple family as recommended in the recent ., .. action by the Planning Commission to the City Council. There is an obvious concern by the adjacent property owners to the Buckingham site that the adverse effects of the Misty Cove Apartments on the adjacent properties would be intensified by the construction of . additional multiple family_ residences. R-022-77 Page Ten CONCLUSIONS: : - 1. „ -A change' in 'land' use of ,,the-.subject property would have an immediate effect' on the adjacent,,property located to the north that is occupied by ,.single ..fami'ly res,identi,al units. 2. There'are',several eontiguo"us, properties that'. form the area which is' . unique' and separated from, adjacent residences: located .north of the , . Street right-of-way presently utilized. by the Renton Sailing Club. ' This right-of,-way :area ' is heavily vegetated and acts as a transition use between the properties to the south and the residential units , t'o the "north' of this' right-of-way. A change in 'zone- to ,create a Y,.,.: .;., . . buffer .from the. Misty,".Cove Apartments, as "stated previously, would ,.;, . have an, influence on -adjacent, property owners. The question then - rises' as to,where the multiple family units cease in order to provide, a 's_mooth transition. An amended request for -R-2 zoning appears,,.to be realistic 'd'ue, to, the proximity of the, Misty Cove. Apartment's.,. :However,, due to strong opposition, this request would not =be in harmony nor Would it be in compliance with the wishes -of adjacent .single family residential owners. It is ,also apparent, apparent ,that the 'mma j;ority ;of property owners located on properties- betweeisty Cdve, :and the: -sn. Mstreet right-of-way favor single family residential use .of 'their property.- Any action contrary to indicated land use designation would be in conflict to this " residential area. " If'-"a ,villain exists, it clearly would be the Misty Cove Apartment- structure that is not in harmony with the character of. the area. , 3. ' It is the'-Examiner's,.'opinion that the preference of the majority of property, owners 'in" this area for a stipulated land use must be taken as a, prime indication of future rezone requests. The w property_ can continue:!.to'exist as single family residential or if ' ,` requested by,a majority of the property owners. could be designated - as 'a low density multiple family .area that would serve as a natural` buffer between the' Misty Cove Apartments and the street right-of- way. However, such a request should only be considered and granted ,;y''' when approved by the majority of the property Owners in: this area. .;, 4 . ', The 'Hearing Examiner -there-fore recommends that the amended' requested rezone -to R-2 be, denied and recommends that the City Council review this 'area. in detail in contemplating a Comprehensive Land' Use Plan change:. and . clearly designate the area as low density , multiple family 'zoning •.at 'such time as a majority of the property owners concur: in th`i's, designation. This then 'would provide an adequate, transition between an existing apartment use and single - , family ' residential use that exists to the north of the street right-of-way. ' . - RECOMMENDATION: Denial- of the request. ' ORDERED THIS 13th day of April, 1977 . ames L. agstadt Land Usee' Hearing Examiner TRANSMITTED THIS 13th day of April, -1977 by certified mail to the parties of record: Thomas C. Buckingham Naomi Buckingham John O'Neil Robert Gerend Lou Bergan Joel Haggard Rich Imus Rod Crawford R-022-77 Page Eleven y. Leslye Bergan Elizabeth ':Crawford TRANSMITTED THIS ' 13th';day of, April, 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 tDon ''J. ,Smith, Renton Record-Chronicle , F' Pursuant to Ordinance ;,No., '3071; Section 4-3015, request for reconsideration,.''or.; notice.,of'. appeal must be filed in writing on or before'April 20 '`19'77 ,• Any, aggrieved person feeling that the decision 'of .the ,°Examiner "is"; based,on erroneous procedures, errors of law or fact,',;error_° in;-)udgm[ent, or the discovery of new evidence ' . which could not:'c bereasonally 'available at the prior hearing may 9 make:'a' written`reques.t: for, review :by the Examiner within fourteen , I' 14) days ofthe ',issuance'°;of; ;the,:"report. This request shall, set forth the specific :errors'4.elied ''upon by such appellant, and the Examiner may, after, 'reviewof the record, take further action as he deems proper. y`••Y l 0 2 i NOTICE OFO R NB IC DING' 1-(.1 J\/Lu (\HEARING EXAMINER L ,, r RENTON,.WASHINGTONAffidavitofPublicatAPUBLICHEARING MA R( ` s WILL BE HELD BY THEyn , RENTON- LAND •USE STATE OF WASHINGTON 1 HEARING EXAMINER AT COUNTY OF KING ss• j HIS REGULAR MEETING IN THE COUNCIL CHAM-9/ L H'•; t BERS, CITY HALL, RE- G D E P R% NTON,WASHINGTON,ON MARCH 15,.1977, AT 9:00 Bsrvara Cs:.lpagna being first dulysworn o`nJ A.M. TO CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING PETITIONS: 1. APPLICATION FORoath,deposes and says that.h.e..is the c•h•ie•s•••c•i•erk of TWO LOT SHORT THE RENTON RECORD-CHRONICLE, a newspaper published four(4) PLAT APPROVAL; filetimesaweek.That said newspaper is a legal newspaper and it is now and property 018-77 has been for more than six months prior to the date of publication referred ovate to, printed and published in the English language continually as a news- vicinity of 3011 Mt. paper published four(4)times a week in Kent,King County,Washington, View Ave. No. and it is now and during all of said time was printed in an office maintained 2. APPLICATION FOR -' at the aforesaid place of publication of said newspaper. That the Renton EXCEPTION',TO Record-Chronicle has been approved as a legal newspaper by order of the SUBDIVISION Superior Court of the County in which it is published,to-wit,King County, DINANCE; 'file Nor E-019-77;. property • located in vicinity ofWashington.That the annexed is a ;if:?.t.].C.£...0.f...P.112.1,t.c 3011 Mt. View Ave. No. Zl sl;j-ng 3. WAIVER OF OFF- SITE IMPROVE- MENTS FOR TWO as it was published in regular issues(and LOT SHORT PLAT; not in supplement form of said newspaper) once each issue for a period file W-020 Tinpropertylocatedin vicinity of 3011 Mt. " View Ave. No. of o n e consecutive issues,commencing on the 4.. REZONE FROM G- 6000 TOTO R-3;file No. prorty4t11dayofMarch1977 ,and ending the we betwee n Lake Washington and Ripley •Lane • day of 19 both dates North adjacent to inclusive, and that such newspaper was regularly distributed to its sub- and north of Misty scribers during all of said period. That the full amount of the fee S Apartments. 5. SITETE APPROVAL IN M-P ZONE; file No. charged for the foregoing publication is the sum of $..32...9$kvhich SA-021-77;property has been paid in full at the rate of per folio of one hundred words for the located on north side • first insertion and per folio of one hundred words for each subsequent of S.W.7th.St.west• insertion. of Hormel Co.facility i and east of the Ear-. .• lington Golf Course , r' : U and railroad spur lJ track. Legal descriptions of ap- plications noted above on file in Renton Planning De- Subscribed and sworn to before me this 4 th day of partment. •• • • ALL INTERESTED PER-• SONS TO SAID PETITIONS Ic3L•C:1 19....7.7 ARE INVITED TO BE PRE- ENT AT THE PUBLIC.. HEARING ON MARCH 15,-' 1077 AT 9:00 A.M.TO EX- residing Notary Public; and for the State of L , ington, PRESS THEIR OPINIONS. residing at Kent, g County. GORDON Y. ERICKSNE RENTON PLANNING DIRECTOR Published In The Renton .Passed by the Legislature,1955,known as Senate Bill 281,effective June Record-Chronicle March 4,9th, 1955. 1977. R4224 Western Union Telegraph Co. rules for counting words and figures, adopted by the newspapers of the State. PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE REPORT June 27, 1977 Re Buckingham Appeal from denial of Rezone The Committee has duly reviewed all of the findings ,, 'conclusions and decisions of the Land Use Hearing Examiner, including the testimony of the various witnesses involved, and the total file of said proceedings . The Committee cannot find any substantial error in law or in fact or any indication of a sub- stantial . error in judgment made by the HearingExaminerregardingsaidproceedings . Recommendation: The Committee-, in view of said determination, recommends that the decision of the HearingExaminerstand. - orge rry, airma 0.)14,41,3,24, Barbara -Shinpoch Grant Renton City Council Page 2 - 6/27/77 AUDIENCE COMMENT (Continued) TO HAVE THE CITY CLERK NOTIFY THE SCHOOL DISTRICT THAT THOSE PERSONS SO NAMED WILL BE THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE CITY COUNCIL TO DISCUSS THE SUBJECT OF PRIORITIES. AMENDMENT CARRIED. ORIGINAL MOTION, AS AMENDED, CARRIED. Recess MOVED BY SHINPOCH, SECONDED BY CLYMER, COUNCIL RECESS FOR TEN MINUTES. CARRIED. Council recess at 9:30 p.m. and reconvened at 9:40 p.m. with all Council members present as previously listed. Buckingham Appeal MOVED BY SHINPOCH, SECONDED BY GRANT, TO ADVANCE FOR READING AGENDA from Denial of LETTER FROM JOEL HAGGARD ON THE BUCKINGHAM REZONE APPEAL. CARRIED. Rezone from Clerk read letter from Joel Haggard, Attorney for Petitioners against G-6000 to R-3 the T. C. Buckingham rezone appeal stating that multiple procedural and substantive grounds exist for denying the appeal . Planning and Development Committee Chairman presented committee report on subject of appeal which stated the matter had been reviewed and committee couldn' t find any substantial error in law or in fact or any indication or a substantial error in judgment made by the Hearing Examiner and recommended the decision of the Hearing Examiner stand. MOVED BY PERRY, SECONDED BY SHINPOCH, TO CONCUR IN THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE COMMITTEE. Some discussion ensued regarding the proposed use of the property for recreational facilities and restrictive covenants. MOTION CARRIED. Naomi Buckingham, 5025 Ripley Lane, expressed her disappointment in the Council ' s decision. PUBLIC HEARING This being the date set and proper notices having been posted, pub- Preliminary Assess- lished and mailed, Mayor Delaurenti opened the public hearing to con- ment Roll - L. I .D. sider the preliminary assessment roll for Local Improvement District 306, Sanitary No. 306 to construct and install sewer lines and appurtenances thereto Sewers , Sunset in and near N.E. 7th St. between SR405 and Sunset Blvd. N.E. Assess- Blvd. NE north ment roll total - $38,588.49. Letter from Deputy Public Works Director of N.E. 7th St. Del Bennett stated no protests had been received to date. Mr. Bennett explained the background of the project and the area was shown on a map, petitioners representing 68% of the square footage and 66% of the front footage had signed the petition and an additional signature had been received, zone termini method used in assessing the area. As there was no comment from the audience, it was MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECONDED BY PERRY, THE HEARING BE CLOSED. MOTION CARRIED. MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECONDED BY SHINPOCH, THE MATTER BE REFERRED TO THE WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE AND THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT TO PROCEED WITH THE L. I .D. MOTION CARRIED. PUBLIC MEETING This being the date set and proper notices having been posted, pub- 10% Letter of lished and mailed, Mayor Delaurenti opened the public meeting on Intent to Annex the 10% Letter of Intent to annex to the city of an area adjacent Area Adjacent to to Heather Downs on Union Ave. S.E. and S. E. 2nd Place. Petition Heather. Downs presented by J & F Investment Co. , representing 100% ownership of J & F Investment the area. Letter from City Clerk was read explaining the 10% letter of intent to annex was presented to the Council on 6/20/77 at which time the preliminary meeting was set for this date, further noting that pursuant to RCW 35A. 14. 120 et seq, the Legislative body' s need to determine whether to accept the letter of intent; require the adoption of the City' s zoning regulations and Comprehensive Land Use Plan; require assumption of pre-existing bonded indebtedness , if any; and whether to authorize circulation of the 75% petition. Robert Ferguson, 3014 N.E. 164th Place, Bellevue, on behalf of petitioners stated there was no objection to these conditions. MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECONDED BY PERRY, THAT THE MEETING BE CLOSED. MOTION CARRIED. MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECONDED BY PERRY, THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT BE AUTHORIZED TO PROCEED WITH THE ANNEXATION AS OUTLINED BY THE CITY CLERK. 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 consideration. Advance Travel Letter from Police Chief Darby requested Council to authorize police Funds - Police officers James E. Phelan and Donald I . Dashnea to attend the Confronta- Department tion Management Seminar in Spokane on July 6, 7, 8, 1977 and authorize advance travel funds in amount of $75.00 per officer for a total of 150.00, funds having been included in the 1977 budget for this meeting. Council approval recommended. RENTON CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting June 27 , 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 J. PERRY, Council President; PATRICIA M. SEYMOUR-THORPE, COUNCIL RICHARD M. STREDICKE, BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH, WILLIAM J. GRANT AND EARL CLYMER. MOVED BY PERRY, SECONDED BY CLYMER, THAT COUNCILMAN BRUCE BE EXCUSED BECAUSE OF ILLNESS. MOTION CARRIED. CITY OFFICIALS IN CHARLES J. DELAURENTI , Mayor; GWEN MARSHALL, Finance Director; DEL ATTENDANCE MEAD, City Clerk; G. M. SHELLAN, City Attorney; HUGH DARBY, Police Chief; GORDON Y. ERICKSEN, Planning Director; DON CUSTER, Administrative Assistant; SHARON GREEN, Personnel Director; DEL BENNETT, Deputy Public Works Director. PRESS DON SMITH, Renton Record Chronicle; MARK PELLEGRINO, Renton Tribune. MINUTE APPROVAL MOVED BY CLYMER, SECONDED BY SHINPOCH, COUNCIL ADOPT MINUTES OF JUNE 20, 1977 AS WRITTEN. MOTION CARRIED. AUDIENCE COMMENT Frank Cenkovich, 2625 Benson Road So. , said the architect for the Senior Citizen new Senior Citizens Center was asked to come to the Center and explain Center the dimensions of the proposed new center of 17,000 square feet and they felt satisfied it would provide a much larger facility than the present one and hoped the Mayor would take some action on it. Ellen Delaurenti , 2100 Lake Washington Blvd. N. , staff member at Senior Citizens Center, asked the support of the Mayor and Council that the project get started as soon as possible. Sarah Johnson, 1485 Hillcrest Lane N.E. , requested application for the $800,000 grant for the Center. Katherine Mooney, Staff Member, Senior Citizen Center, expressed con- cern that the present plans for the Center would not have adequate space for their needs. At the Mayor' s request, the City Clerk read School District 403 correspondence on EDA funds. Letter from Harold E. Kloes , Acting Priorities on EDA/ Superintendent, Renton School District 403, noted the school district's LPW Funds priorities were listed as numbers 4, 5 and 6 and endorsed the city' s projects as priorities 1 , 2 and 3. The school district listed their projects as follows : Elementary School Covered Play Area, a series of five covered play areas to be built at five different locations, 250,000; a new building to house the Home and Family Life Program at Renton Vocational-Technical Institute, $476,000, and a new building to house the Parent Education and Day Care Center at the Renton Vocational- School , $100,000.00. Letter from Leland Pumel , Chairman, Senior Citizens Planning Committee requested the Mayor and City Council submit the Senior Citizens Center as the fourth priority project for EDA funding. Louise Puffert, 10415 S. E. 174th St. , remarked that more and more senior citizens were attending the Center and there would not be room for them all . Councilwoman Shinpoch complimented City Clerk Del Mead, as Presi- dent of the Renton Soroptimist Club, on the fine party for the Senior Citizens held at the Renton High School on June 26th and what a fine job all of the service clubs had done putting the party together. Kathryn Fuller, 223 Park Ave. N. , explained need for larger quarters for senior citizens. Upon inquiry from Councilman Grant, Administrative Assistant Custer explained the city's priorities , new main fire station, building of new pump station and installation of new water lines on Talbot Hill and construction of portions of the Cedar River Trail System. and that projects that had been submitted previously and not funded would have priority over new projects , cooperation with the school dis- trict in endorsing all projects considered factor in obtaining funds. After considerable discussion, it was Moved by Grant, seconded by Thorpe, that priority No. 4 re Senior Citizens Center be ranked as No. 2 on the list and the Talbot Hill project as priority No. 7. After further dis- cussion the motion resulted in a tie vote and the Chair voted no. Motion failed. The Mayor announced the School Board was having a special meet- ing on July 5th to make a decision on the list. MOVED BY GRANT, SECONDED BY CLYMER, THAT COUNCIL PRESIDENT PERRY AND COUNCILMAN STREDICKE BE INCLUDED IN ALL MEETINGS BETWEEN THE SCHOOL DISTRICT AND THE CITY AND THAT THEY URGE THAT THE SENIOR CITIZENS CENTER BE INCLUDED ON THE PRIORITY LIST AS NO. 4. MOVED BY PERRY, SECONDED BY GRANT TO AMEND THE MOTION R JOEL HAGGARD Attorney and Counselor at Law 2424 The Financial Center 1215 Fourth Avenue Seattle,Washington 98161 TELEPHONE 206 624-5606 June 13, 1977 N6\11819?0 Ms. Delores A. Mead N 1 1` City Clerk ti AV o, City of Renton J 200 Mill Avenue South CD Renton, Washington 98055 V °, e o v Re: R022-77; Rezone Appeal 9sk£zv C Dear Ms. Mead: On behalf of my clients who were parties to the proceedings involving a petition for rezone sited by Mr. Thomas C. Buckingham, we submitted the following comments for Council consideration in review of the appeal from the Hearing Examiner' s decision. We believe the Council may, upon reviewing the entire record, including the brief we filed therein, properly decide to reject the appeal. Multiple procedural and substantive grounds exist for denying ,the appeal. We would be avail- able to the Council should it desire any further informa- tion on this matter. Sinc yours, oel Haggard JH: st cc: Mr. Louis Bergan 5029 Repley Lane North Renton, Washington 98055 f _ JOEL HAGGARD Attorney and Counselor at Law 2424 The Financial Center 1215 Fourth Avenue Seattle, Washington 98161 TELEPHONE 206 624-5606 June 20, 1977 Office of the City Clerk 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, Washington 98055 Dear Sir: Please change my address as noted above for further mailings with respect to R.022-77,. the rezone appeal by Mr.' Thomas Buckingham to the City Council. Sincerel yours, d EL HAGGA jk JH/nn co1, i PROCLAIM LIBERTy4. 1, Law Offices of i_ A"'''" 1:''`‘ 0_, • ' i,'-:- USA13.c71" 7 tc: JOEL HAGGARD 2424 The Financial Center tiln I VSeattle, Washington 98161 01 Office of the City Clerk 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, Washington 98055 Renton City Council 6/13/77 Page 3 Correspondence and Current Business - Continued Communications duplication of telephone industry facilities in existence. The letter Continued explained costs of providing residential telephone service are "rate averaged" from profitable optional services and long distrance revenues; noting that if profits are eroded by large businesses who could sub- scribe to Specialized Common Carrier" services, the cost of basic tele- phone service will be increased and hit hard at low and fixed income families. The letter noted 90 bills introduced to Congress entitled the Consumer Communication Reform Act and encouraged full hearing by Congress to determine National Telecommunications policy. The letter enclosed bill by Lloyd Needs and copy of resolution of Aberdeen City Council forwarded to their Congressman. The Pacific Northwest Bell letter encouraged similar action by the City. Councilman Stredicke asked the Mayor urge added assist by Pacific Northwest Bell for area wide emergency system. MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECOND BRUCE, COUNCIL REFER ' MATTER TO THE WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE FOR DRAFTING OF RESOLUTION, CARRIED. Glencoe Park Letter from Mayor Delaurenti informed Council that, by law, the park Fund must acquire the two lots from the Waterworks Utility Fund if the two city-owned lots in the Glencoe area are to be used as a neighbor- hood park. The letter recommended that Council authorize the City to purchase the lots from the Waterworks Utility Fund at the total appraised value of $13,000 on a lease-option basis and recommended 100 a month payment for a period of two years with total paid as a down payment in amount of $2,400, the balance of $10,600 then to be paid in lump sum (if funds available) or pay balance on 5-yr. contract at 5% interest. Councilman Perry inquired whether Utility Department could sell property to the Park Department for $1 .00. Councilwoman Thorpe requested lease only; both being advised by City Attorney Shellan of the requirement for transaction reflecting fair market value. Upon further discussion, it was MOVED BY PERRY, SECOND THORPE, COUNCIL REFER MATTER TO THE PUBLIC SERVICES COMMITTEE FOR REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION. CARRIED. OLD BUSINESS MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECOND BRUCE, COUNCIL REMOVE THE MATTER OF THE Refuse Disposal GARBAGE CONTRACT FROM THE TABLE. (TABLED 6/6/77) CARRIED. Council President Perry submitted letter from Mayor Delaurenti re 6/10/77 meet- ing with General Disposal reviewing proposed garbage contract and recommended that the contract be awarded to General Disposal with following revisions : (1 ) The Contractoragreed to definition of curbside pick-up to be those cans within 25 ft. not behind fence, etc. ; 60 ft. pick-up would remain unchanged. (2) The escalation clause providing for adjustment to collection charge related to Consumer Price Index would be modified to provide .for a reduction in cost should the CPI take a downturn but not below the base rate which was bid. (3) Stan- dardization of containers would involve freedom of manufacturers and be considered restraint of trade. (4) Comparable prices for two can curbside pick-up: Renton $3. 55; Eastside- Disposal , Bellevue $4,25; Jim's Disposal, Fairwood $4. 05; Auburn $2. 95; Kent (2 yr old contract) 2.60; Mid-Cities Disposal , Midway $3.90; Mercer Island $3.35. The letter further explained reasons the seven companies picking up specifi- cations did not respond to call for bids. Discussion ensued regarding possibility of raising customer prices several times during the year, raising of County dump fee rates and consequences thereof. MOVED BY PERRY, SECONDED BY BRUCE, COUNCIL GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION. Mayor and City Attorney were invited. MOTION CARRIED. Council went into executive session at 9:25 and reconvened at 9:35 p.m. Roll Call : All Council members present as previously shown. MOVED BY PERRY, SECONDED BY THORPE, COUNCIL CONTINUE GARBAGE CONTRACT MATTER UNTIL NEXT WEEK. CARRIED. Six-Year Street Council President Perry noted 25 organizations had been notified by Plan letter from himself as directed by Council 6/6/77 of the 6-Year Street Construction Plan public hearing June 20, 1977,- City Clerk having pro- vided addresses. Buckingham Appeal Council President Perry asked City Clerk Mead to again notify all of Hearing parties of record in the Buckingham appeal of Hearing Examiner decision Examiner Decision regarding rezone of Lake Washington property, that date the matter will be reported to Council from the Planning_Development Committee has been changed from June 20, to June'27, 1977. Renton City Council 6/13/77 Page 4 Old Business - Continued Committee of the Committee of the Whole report presented by Council President Perry made Whole Report the following recommendations : (1 ) Council concur in the Staff report Renton District dated 6/8/77 (from Del Bennett) re proposed lease agreement with the Municipal Court Renton District Court authorizing additional 535 sq.ft. requested. Locations 2) Council authorize relocation of the Renton Municipal Court opera- tions to the Second Floor Lunchroom area. (3) The lunchroom kitchen be converted for use as a lunchroom area. (4) The kitchen equipment be retained for future use in the Renton Senior Citizens ' Center. (5) ' The City retain the present Municipal , District Court Judicial system. MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECONDED BY PERRY, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT WITH FOLLOWING ADDITIONS: ADMINISTRATION REPORT TO COUNCIL OF COST INVOLVED IN CHANGE OF LOCATION FOR MUNICIPAL COURT AND COST ESTI- MATES FOR SECOND FLOOR RESTROOM WITH PUBLIC ACCESS, MOTION CARRIED, Wetlands The. Committee of the Whole report noted for information only that the committee heard a brief report from Mayor Delaurenti in regards to funding for Wetland acquisition. Mayor Delaurenti reported drafting of letter to each organization where there is possibility of funding, noting letter from Washington State Representative Shinpoch, Open Space Council President Perry noted meeting with Liaison Committee of the Planning Commission with discussion of open space or land available for parks within new developments, recommendation as to guidelines antici- pated from August meeting of Liaison Committee. Community Services Community Services Committee Chairwoman Seymour-Thorpe submitted com- Committee Report mittee report recommending the Administration survey and obtain an appraisal of the Burlington Northern right-of-way in area of proposed BN R/W - In House Senior Center adjacent to the City Shops, preliminary to the city's Appraisal acquisition of the property for the Senior Citizen Center and Cedar Center Park. MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECOND BRUCE, COUNCIL CONCUR. CARRIED. Wetlands The Community Services Committee recommended that Council request the Appraisal Administration to survey and stake the area the City wishes to acquire and than an appraisal be obtained prior to the City's acquisition, Councilman Stredicke noted request was for outside appraisal . Mayor Delaurenti noted Public Works Director Gonnason has been instructed to survey wetlands property. MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECOND BRUCE, COUNCIL CONCUR. CARRIED. Earlington Park The Community Services Committee report recommended that the matter of the Earlington Park be referred to the Park Board for the purpose of meeting with citizens of Earlington Hill and preparing plan for develop- ment of the park for Council approval . MOVED BY BRUCE, SECOND SHINPOCH, COUNCIL CONCUR IN RECOMMENDATION. CARRIED. Smoking in Recalling the history of banning smoking in the Council Chambers, Coun- Council Chambers cilman Stredicke moved, Seconded by Councilman Bruce, that Resolution No. 1985 be repealed and the matter be referred to the Ways and Means Committee. City Attorney Shellan noted Resolution No. 1985 adopted the State Health Department Directive banning smoking in certain public places, noting lack of penalty in the State Regulation, Roll Call ; 2-Aye: Stredicke, Bruce; 3-No: Perry, Thorpe and Shinpoch, FAILED, ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS Ways and Means Ways and Means Committee Member Shinpoch submitted committee report Committee Report recommending first, second and final readings of an ordinance providing Ordinance . 3141 for the issuance of 1977 Water and Sewer Revenue Refunding Bonds for 3,095,000 the purpose of obtaining a part of the funds to retire the outstanding Water & Sewer "City of Renton Water and Sewer Revenue Refunding Bonds, 1976;" Revenue confirming sale and providing delivery of refunding bonds to Seattle- Refunding Bonds Northwest Securities Corp. of Seattle. The report also noted attached agreement with Peoples National Bank and requested authorization for the Mayor and City Clerk to execute same. Following first reading, it was MOVED BY PERRY, SECONDED BY THORPE, COUNCIL SUSPEND RULES AND ADVANCE ORDINANCE TO SECOND AND FINAL READINGS. CARRIED, Following readings it was MOVED BY PERRY, SECOND THORPE, COUNCIL ADOPT ORDINANCE AS READ, ROLL CALL: ALL AYES. CARRIED. MOVED BY PERRY, SECOND THORPE, COUNCIL AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE AGREEMENT, CARRIED. JOEL HAGGARD Attorney and Counselor at Law 2424 The Financial Center 1215 Fourth Avenue Seattle, Washington 98161 TELEPHONE 206 624-5606 June 13, 1977 Ms . Delores A. Mead 4 City Clerk City of Renton j 4 ; .. ti t` 200 Mill Avenue South t r Renton, Washington 98055 Cs,!;A ar -,`k Re: R022-77, Rezone Appeal Nss z Dear. Ms. Mead: On behalf of my clients who were parties to the proceedings involving a petition for rezone sited by Mr. Thomas C . Buckingham, we submitted the following comments for Council consideration in review of the appeal from the Hearing Examiner ' s decision . We believe the Council may, upon reviewing the entire record, including the brief we filed therein, properly decide to reject the appeal . Multiple procedural and substantive grounds exist for denying the appeal. We. would be avail- able to the Council should it desire any further informa- tion on this matter. Sincere-1y yours, fl 7Z t h e' 1 Haggard JH: st cc : Mr. Louis Bergan 5029 Repley Lane North Renton, Washington 98055 4!` CIF,,:`k y T •-I. ; CI•TY 'OF `RENTON t MUNICIPAL BUIL;DING:' 200 MILL AVE.SO. RENTON;WASH. 98055 D CHARL S J. DELAURENTI MAYOR,DELORES A. MEAD d0 4 i f$ xs CITY CLERK 0pr k K , June 15 ,. `1971 ' Fa SEP'IE" t ' icy ',.,,,F•w,,;'r "xv._'w i,', r j x, 'S 4 ,} t xk f'n ti x •.: f' y j n Re Rc,022F-77 , ,Rezone G-•6000 to sf - R-3 b.eni•ed, Thomas C. B.uckingham. r t r Appe'al, Council` Committee Report NOTTCE TS" HEREBY' GIVENS, that k committee action previously sched•;uled'„ tro i"bet report'ed taut, on June' 20. re'ga'rding' Buckingham apxpe 1, h s;, een e t••ended to June- 27 This notice isM1given f'or information for ' al• 'l 'parties v'f record purs iant to .:Ordinance,=#3071, Section: ,4-30... 16 v; Your's very 'truly, die`dui`T' RCT ,Xs N r t 2i4 €'1Q eD',,3.ox s' , l.c. Mead fi e"h`, t' 3 r Y t.'' Ott+,`; fi'' P ,Of RPM z THE CITY OF RENTON MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON,WASH. 98055 riao CHARLES J. DELAURENTI MAYOR DELORES A. MEAD o Q CITY CLERK AllfD SEP1C- June 1 , 1977 Re: R. 022-77 , Rezone G-6000 to R-3 Denied;Thomas C. Buckingham Appeal . To All .Parties of Record: NOTICE IS• HEREBY GIVEN that appeal has been filed with the City Council by Mr. Thomas C. Buckingham requesting review of Hearing Examiner ' s decision denying rezone. The appeal. has been referred to the Planning and Develop- ment Committee of the Council for review and recommendation. The matter will be reported out of committee during the regular City Council meeting on June 20, 1977 . . Regular City Council meetings are• held each Monday at 8 p.m. in the Second Floor Council Chambers, Municipal Building . This notice is given for information of all parties of record pursuant to Ordinance #3071-Sec. 40 . 30 . 16 . Yours. very truly, CITY OFRENTON Afreiv. Delores A. Mead DM:bh City Clerk cc: Hearing Examiner • City Attorney, Council President Mayor Finance Director i; pF R• v gib T H E CITY OF RENTON C> " 7_ MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, WASH. 98055 o o 4 CHARLES J. DELAURENTI , MAYOR 0 . DELORES A. MEAD 4 CITY CLERK f0 SEP1-May 24, 1977 Mr. Thomas C. Buckingham 5025 Ripley Lane North Renton, Washington. 98055 Re : Appeal of Hearing Examiner ' s denial of rezone from G-6000 to R-3 Dear Mr . Buckingham: The Renton City Council, at its regular meeting of May 23, 1977 , has referred your letter of appeal of ' Hearing Examiner' s decision to the Planning and De- velopment Committee of the Council for review and report back. Councilman. George Perry, the committee Chairman, has set June 20 as the date the matter will be reported out of committee. ' Mr. Perry may be contacted through the City Council Secretary, Mrs . Billie Dunphy, regarding meetings or for further information, PH: 235-2586 . Yours very truly, CITY OF RENTON Delores A. Mead DM:bh City Clerk Renton City Council 5/23/77 Page 3 Consent Agenda - ,Continued Claims for Claim for Damages was filed by Lynn P. Keith, 124 E. Utsalady Rd. , Damages Camano Isl . for auto damage •allegedly due to airplane exhaust from L.P.Keith Renton Airport causing pock marks. Claim in amount of $479.97. • Refer to City Attorney and Insurance Carrier. Renton School .. Claim for Damages was filed by Transportation Supv. , Walter L. District Ballard, for damage to school bus allegedly due to manhole cover on S. 27th St. striking frame of school bus. Claim in amount of 895. Refer to City Attorney and InsuranceCarrier. Street Vacation Letter from City Clerk Mead reported petition filed by The Austin Portion of Co. requesting vacation of a portion of Thomas Ave. SW lying between Thomas Ave. SW SR-405 and SW 16th St. ; $100 filing fee received. The Public Works Dept, has certified the petition as valid and that it represents 100% of the property abutting the proposed street vacation, The Clerk' s letter recommended referral to the Board of Public Works for determination regarding retention of utility easements, to the Public Works Department for determination regarding appraisal and payment of fees, to the Public Services Committee and to the Ways and Means Public Hearing Committee for resolution setting 7/11/77 as date of public hearing, 7/11/77 Council concurrence recommended. Consent Agenda MOVED BY PERRY, SECONDED BY CLYMER, COUNCIL APPROVE CONSENT AGENDA Approved AS PRESENTED. CARRIED. CORRESPONDENCE AND CURRENT BUSINESS Buckingham Appeal Letter from Thomas C. Buckingham, 5025 Ripley Lane N, , registered of Hearing appeal of Land Use Hearing Examiner's determination concerning Examiner Decision R-022-77, rezone from single family residence district (G-6000) to R-022-77 R-3, medium density multiple family residence district for property Denying Rezone located between Lake Washington and Ripley Lane N. adjacent to and north of Misty Cove Apartments. Mr. Bucki,ngham''s letter enclosed appeal fee of $25.00 and copies of the Hearing Examiner's .determina tion dated 4/13/77, Examiner's response of 5/6/77, as well as Buckingham's appeal of 4/19/77 covering the main issues of contention. Appeal based on error in judgement by Examiner, due to change in Examiners at crucial time; contending outgoing Examiner's conclusion based on recent Council action to change the Comprehensive Plan did not permit a fair determination regarding request for rezone, MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECONDED BY SHINPOCH', COUNCIL REFER APPEAL TO THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE. Committee Chairman Perry estab- lished date of June 20 1977 to bring the recommendation back to the Council . The City lerk was requested to so. notify Appellant. MOTION CARRIED. Council President Perry reminded Council members to leave printed agenda material regarding appeal in the folder and it would be returned to their desk, or if removing correspondence, to assume responsibility for keeping materials for review, Hearing Examiner Letter from Hearing Examiner, L. Rick Beeler, presented material Buckingham Rezone for review . of appeal of the Hearing Examiner's decision on Thomas R-022-77 C. Buckingham request for rezone R-022-77 including Examiner's denial of rezone and denial of reconsideration, MOVED BY PERRY, SECONDED BY SHINPOCH, COUNCIL REFER MATTER TO THE PLANNING AND DEVEL- OPMENT COMMITTEE. CARRIED. EDA Funding Letter from Mayor Delaurenti explained extension of Title I portion Priorities of Public Works Act of 1976 to reduce unemployment by funding local public works projects in high unemployment areas nationwide, and that regulations as previously submitted may be updated or withdrawn. The letter restated priorities established and submitted (highest to lowest): new main fire station, building of new pump station and installation of new water lines on Talbot Hill and construct portions of Cedar River Trail System. The Administration proposed to update cost estimates for the original applications and if so desired by Coun- cil, requested Council review and report back 6/6/77, applications to be certified before 6/15/77. MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECONDED BY GRANT, COUNCIL STAY ON RECORD MAINTAINING PRIORITY AS PREVIOUSLY ESTABLISHED AND AUTHORIZE SUBMITTAL OF EDA FORMS. Councilwoman Thorpe asked Administration to consider placement of fire station south of railroad tracks. MOTION CARRIED. Renton City Council 5/23/77. Page 4 Correspondence and Current Business - Continued Bid Opening City Clerk Mead reported 5/23/77 bid opening for surplus trackage, Surplus ties and switches, located at the Lake Washington Beach Park; two Railroad Track bids received as shown in attached tabulation. MOVED BY CLYMER, SECONDED BY. BRUCE," COUNCIL REFER BIDS TO THE PARK BOARD. CARRIED. Cedar Center Letter from Planning Director Ericksen/Housing & Community Develop- Park -- Designed ment Coordinator Baker, requested transfer of funds from Cedar for the .Center Park Professional Services to Personal Services in amount Handicapped of $3,489 in order to continue design work. The letter noted con- currence by King .County Housing & Development staff. MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECONDED BY SHINPOCH, COUNCIL CONCUR IN RECOMMENDATION AND REFER MATTER TO WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE. CARRIED. Mini-Computer/ MOVED BY PERRY, SECONDED BY BRUCE, THAT THE REPORT RE BIDS FOR MINI- Data Storage Unit COMPUTER/DATA STORAGE UNIT AND HARD COPY PRINTER BE TAKEN FROM THE Hard Copy Printer TABLE AT THIS TIME. (Bid award tabled 5/16/77) MOTION CARRIED, Bid Award Letter from Data Processing Director Torkelson recommended the City accept the low bid of IBM Corporation for a 3741 data storage and retrieval system; that the machine meets all the City's specifica- tions for a data storage unit with hard copy printer. Councilman ' Stredicke noted letter from City Attorney stating need to determine whether or not the bid specifications had been met; Stredicke noted Data Processing Director's affirmative declaration. MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECONDED BY PERRY, COUNCIL CONCUR IN 5/16 COMMITTEE REPORT ACCEPTING LOW BID OF IBM CORPORATION. Letter from Computer. Sales, Inc. , Seattle, was distributed by Dan Hartley, Manager,'.claiming mini-computer specified by bid call and that company alone has complied. Mr. Hartley protested bid award, asking the City examine bid call notices carefully not causing undue burdemon small businesses. MOTION CARRIED. OLD BUSINESS BY COUNCIL Public Services Public Services Committee Chairman Bruce submitted committee report Committee Report re meeting with property owners 5/17/77 to discuss deficiencies in Cedar Ave. So. concrete work on Cedar Ave. So. (LID 293) and recommended: (1 ). The LID 293 contractor, Moss Construction Co. , proceed with correction of the Street deficiencies in the water meter boxes and refinishing of weepholes Improvement in the curbs throughout the project; detailed list to be supplied to the contractor. (2) The cracked curbs and gutters at the several driveway approaches are still substantially in their constructed posi- tion; no settlement, displacement or spalling of concrete and are generally sound structurally. The City will provide letters to the abutting property owners indicating property owners will not be responsible or liable for replacement of these cracked curbs and gutters should they become dangerous and defective as result of work performed under this contract; City assuming responsibility for the replacement as here indicated; Contractor warranting to the City he will replace cracked curbs and gutters within two year period of this date if becoming dangerous and defective, (.3) The City staff will investigate and work with abutting property owners regarding drainage behind their private retaining walls; if individual problems cannot be worked out. these matters will again be referred to this committee. MOVED BY PERRY, SECONDED BY BRUCE, COUNCIL CONCUR IN RECOMMENDATION OF COMMITTEE. CARRIED. Aviation Aviation Committee (Public Services) report submitted by Chairman Committee Report Stredicke presented insurance quotation from Dan B. Hauff & Assoc. for liability coverage 6/1/77 - 5/31/78, and recommended $5,000,000 single limits on premises; $60,000 hangarkeepers' legal liability for one aircraft and $300,000 for one loss. The report noted total annual premium $3,234 approximately $2,000 less than total premium for $1 ,000,000 last year. MOVED BY PERRY, SECONDED BY BRUCE, COUNCIL. CONCUR IN AVIATION COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. Comprehensive Councilman Stredicke noted testimony by Public Works Department at Plan Review public hearing before the Land Use Hearing Examiner re capabilities of sewer lift station at Sunset and Union to the extent no additional multiples should be allowed in that area without improvements, Area development. questioned by Stredicke. MOVED STREDICKE, SECOND PERRY, COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR N.E. SECTION OF CITY BE REFERRED TO PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE. CARRIED. 410 pF Rv he o z THE CITY OF RENTON elr MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON. WASH. 98055 o op . L CHARLES J. DELAURENTI , MAYOR • LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER L. RICK BEELER . 235-2593O,Q' reD SEPI" wO May 23, 1977 Mayor Charles J. Delaurenti Members, Renton City Council Dear Mayor Delaurenti and Members of Council: Attached for your review is an appeal of the Hearing Examiner's decision on Thomas C. Buckingham request for rezone, File No. R-022-77. The subject appeal was received by the City Clerk on May 20, 1977 and is scheduled for the City Council agenda on May 23, 1977. Also attached for your review is the Examiner's letter of denial of reconsideration, dated May 6, 1977; the applicant's letter requesting reconsideration, dated April 19, 1977; and the Examiner's report and recommendation to the Renton City Council, dated April 13, 1977. Sincerely, it L. Rick Beeler Hearing Examiner LRB:mp ' Attachments (4) F. 4. . W024,A 4 % i&ikt_ityy Ztd, e,,,,,,,e__Le k) IAIRY 1977 ROO S10;aj aM, Jc,),tA Med fiEf5311 ,-d- 31:1 RECEIV9 •- °: vot. Lti 7 8 0 s- s'-- krol UM'S OF1-aq 49:<<RIS3_0: q_12, ' /----CIL 1--e • 0 1 2. — 7 7 e.Q.,k_,,,A,L-(- _ .2., j_- _,,:bk,,...,,nPt/G 44,,..„,„ TN, eotC-ruo 1 61c.,2_, alt-12-`;--QH. 6&>4=q1 • a."..., J, ___„,.„ 024 (4_oi iq-..„.), t i- • j4 ., . c7: •-,: t. i 1 ii, . Ne' . 1 r 1 . 3z. ii rl Ai 1 I I 1 1 ' 1 c I ' , i 1 I1 I I I i , I I I Alto : 1 , I I i 1 I I , I t • 11 I I I • I 1 1 •..._, , 1 1 1 lobo . e9),.. y 1,) 1 . al I • I II • 1 I r I I i I I ' I I ! I I 1 1 I"••••.,. 1 I I 1 1 i I I 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 1 I • — . 1 s-.•-)„ I I 1 i I I I 1 1 I ' I I i i procedure , errors 'of ' law or fact , error in judgment , or the discovery of new evidence which côuld' 'not be 'reasonably available at the prior hearing , may make a written .reqüest 'for review by the Examiner within fourteen (14,) "days " after :the written decision of the Examiner has been rendered. 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. SECTION III . Existing,. Section 4-30 ; 16 of Title IV (Building Regulations ) of Ordinance No.. 1628 is hereby amended to read as follows : 4 . 30 - 16 as amended - APPEAL OF EXAMINER' S DECISION. Any party to the .proceedings and aggrieved by the Examiner' s decision may submit 'an appeal ' in 'wr'i.ting .tb' the' City Council , by filing same with the City Clerk, within fourteen (14) calendar days from 'the date of the Examiner' s written decision , requesting ,a review of same. Such appeal shall be 'accompanied `by a fee of Twenty Five Dollars ( $25 . 00 ) paid to the City ,Clerk. : Thereupon the "Examiner shall cause to be forwarded to the members of the City, Council all of the pertinent documents , including his written decision, findings , conclusions & notice of appeal. If after the examination of such record the Council determines that a substantial error .in" fact or law may exist in the record , it shall remand the proceeding to the Examiner for reconsideration as provided in Section• 4-30 . 15 ," or it .may 'modify or reverse the decision of the Examiner accordingly. The Council' s consideration shall be based upon the record only. ' The cost of transcription, of the hearing record shall be borne by the appellant unless otherwise determined by the City Council. Notice of the filing of an. appeal shall be made to all parties of record to the hearing, and said notice shall give the time and date when the Council will consider such appeal. Whenever a.-decision • of the Examiner is reviewed under this Section, other parties of record may submit letters or reports in support of their position,' burt, no public hearing shall be held and no new evidence or testimony need be taken by the City Council ; however the Council may allow any new or additional evidence from any of the affected parties if 'a showing ' is; made by any party offering such new or additional evidence that, same' could not have been reasonably available at the time of such hearing before the Examiner. The City Council. shall accept, modify or reject any findings or conclusions or remand the decis"ion of the Examiner for further hearings provided , however, that any decision of the City Council shall be based on the record of the hearing conducted by the Examiner. The Council' s decision shall be in writing and shall specify modified or amended findings and conclusions whenever such findings or conclusions are different from those of the appealed decision, which may be incorporated or included by reference in any resolution or ordinance , as the case may be . Each material finding" shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. The burden of proof shall rest with the appellant. 2- CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. 3121 AN, ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, AMENDING SECTIONS 4-30 > 14 , 4-30 , 15 and 4-30 16 of CHAPTER 30 , TITLE IV (BUILDING REGULATIONS) OF ORDINANCE NO. 1628" ENTITLED "CODE .OF 'GENERAL._ ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF RENTON" RELATING TO THE "LAND. USE HEARING EXAMINER" . SECTION I Existing ;Section 4-30 14 of Title IV (Building Regulations) of Ordinance No: <1628; is hereby amended to read as follows : 4-30 -,14. as amended - EXAMINER' S DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION- FINDINGS REQUIRED. When the Examiner renders a decision or recommend- ation, the Examiner shall make and enter written findings from the record and conclusions therefrom which support such decision , provided that in any case where a reclassification of property is recommended , at least one of. the following circumstances shall be found to" apply : A) That substantial evidence was presented demonstrating the subject reclassification appears not to have been specifically considered at the. time of the last area land use analysis and area zoning ; or B) That the property is potentially zoned for the reclassification being requested pursuant to the policies set forth in the Comprehensive Plan and conditions have been met which would indicate the change is appropriate ; or C) That since the last previous land use analysis of the area and area zoning of the subject property , authorized public improvements , permitted private development or other circumstances affecting the subject property have undergone significant and material change. Within fourteen (14) calendar days of the conclusion of a hearing, the Examiner shall render a written decision, including findings and conclusions , and shall tr.ansmit' a copy of such decision by regular mail , postage prepaid , to the applicant and other parties of record in the case requesting"-same'. The person mailing such decision , together with the supporting documents , shall prepare an Affidavit of Mailing , in standard form, and such affidavit shall become a part of the record of such proceedings . In the case of applications requiring Council approval as set forth in Section 4-3010 (E) 2 , the -Examiner shall file a decision with the City Council at the expiration of the fourteen (14 ) day period provided for a rehearing, or within five ( 5 ) days of the conclusion of a rehearing , if one is conducted. Thereupon the City Council shall cause to be prepared the appropriate legislation. SECTION II . Existing Section 4-30 15 ' of Title IV (Building Regulations) of Ordinance No. 1628 is hereby amended to read as follows : 4-30 15 as amended '- RECONSIDERATION. Any aggrieved party feeling that the decision of the Examiner is based on an erroneous 1- Litter sent to : III Mr. & Mrs . Lou Bergan 5029 Ripley Lane No . Renton, WN. 98055 Mr. & Mrs . Rod Crawford 11815 S .E . 165th Renton, WA 98055 Mr. Rich Imus 5636 - 123rd Ave. S .E. Bellevue, WA 98006 Mr. John O'Neil 4018 East Mercer Way Mercer Island, WA Mr. Robert Gerend 14877 S .E. 50th Bellevue, WA Mr. Joel Haggard 900 Hoge Building Seattle, WA rrr+Aitiw isiUi.STti ct 'dS Y `:'`'SldtlC f d v 1f%'>.iRSV`.C7- kickxsdl:'oiffx1-.4,4,,,rg'atFviJbZ 4M4.444 444izsii iiv: • CITY OF RENTON No.- 9°6 ANANCE DEPARTMENT RENTON, WASHINGTON 98055 5-020 19 /7 RECEIVED OF b'Yt• _!) G'1 a, -> u •;C,c ./2Q he 1 I ti ,4-1iti!%L I TOTAL ^45- 66 GWEN E e MARS HALLj' FINANCE DIRECTQR BY (/‘ J Olt-7Y rL L J SECTION IV. All other provisions and terms of Chapter 30 , Title IV (Building Regulations) of Ordinance No. 1628 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton" , unless expressly modified hereinabove ,. shall remain in full, force and effect. SECTION V. This Ordinance shall be effective from and after its passage, approval and five ( 5 ) days after its publication , unless otherwise provided for hereinabove. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this 4th day of April 1977 . Delores A. Mead , Crty Clerk APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this 4th day of April 1977 . Charle /J Delaurenti , Mayor Approved as to form: Ge rd M. Shellan, City Attorney' Date of Publication: .' 4-8-77' 3- t, o THE CITY OF RENTON 2 o MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, WASH. 98055 a CHARLES J. DELAURENTI , MAYOR • LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER o, P Q' JAMES L. MAGSTADT , 235 - 2 593 9TFO SE PI May 6 , 1977 Mr. Thomas C. Buckingham RE: File No. R-022-77 5025 Ripley Lane North Reconsideration Renton, WA 98055 Dear Mr. Buckingham: After careful deliberation of your letter , I have addressed your reasons point by point for the rezone application No. R-022-77 as follows: 1. The word "strongly" is subjective and can be eliminated from this statement which then can read, " . . .was opposed. . . " 2. My recommendation does not deny the fact that a lower density multi-family zone can serve as a buffer or transition zone between the existing Misty Cove Apartments and the residential area to the: north. My intended emphasis was that the request is premature at this time and should be reconsidered at such time as the adjacent property owners concur in the land use change. A change of land use of your property would have an effect 'on 'the adjacent property which, if also changed, would have an effect on the adjacent properties to the north and so on.' Il 3. Mr. Haggard' s testimony was considered accordingly along with the testimony of all participants. I publicly informed Mr. 'Haggard that a requested rezone can be reduced to lower intensive land. use at the request' of ' the property owner or upon the recommendation of the Hearing Examiner or ,City Council; however, the reverse is not true in that a rezone request cannot be amended to a more intensive zone such as from R-2 'to R-3 or B-1, etc. 4. I noted in finding No. 5 that the request is compatible with the Comprehensive Plan. The rezone application would not have been executed if it did not agree with the Plan. Subsequent recommended changes by the Planning Commission to the City Council are still compatible with your revised requested rezone change of R-,2 (low density multi-family) . My decision did not relate to the change of Comprehensive Plan , but rather related to creating a harmonious designation that would be compatible to the existing residential uses in this area. 5. I agree that conclusion No. 1 is obvious; however, I still felt it was necessary to state this conclusion so that all parties could hopefully follow my reasoning process. I have visited the area several times , both during the day and in the evening. It is Mr. Thomas C. Buckingham Page Two May 6 , 1977 certainly possible to screen the intended uses from the Bergan property; however, the effect eight additional units would have on the adjacent property is a matter of opinion and could be debated extensively. The "domino" effect this use would have was, a concern of mine and also of opposing parties to the requested land use. 0 6 . Use of the word "strongly" was covered in point no. 1; however. , considering there are only three property owners between your property and the railroad overpass (the area primarily considered as adjacent), and all three parties contested and opposed the action, this opposition could be considered as strong opposition since it represented all of the adjacent property owners. I have attempted to answer your statements point by point to clarify myintentinreachingmyfinaldecision. The transition between hearing examiners did not, in my opinion, alter the resulting conclusion. I spent the same amount of time that is required to review and evaluate your applications through the typical hearing process and I can assure you that this effort is not superficial, but rather is reached after a considerable amount of time and deliberation. I 've had 14 years of previous planning experience and five years of university training which is all used in my decision and evaluation. process. I feel the key statements you should consider are conclusions no. 2 , 3, and 4 in which I do not philosophically disagree with your request, but in which my basic concern is maintaining compatibility among the existing residential uses until such time as there is a reconsideration among a majority of the residential property owners in this area. Whenever a decision is mad•e; Ithere is inevitable opposition and disagreement. It has always been my objective to evaluate the application request in relation to adjacent land uses and to maintain, whenever possible, harmony and compatibility of uses. This objective . not only relates to physical entities, but also includes the rights and opinions of adjacent property owners and/or users. Although you may not agree with my rationale, I hope my recommendation process has been clarified. Sincer- . Ocr ames L. Istadt Hearing .miner . JLM:mp cc: Parties of Record Mayor Delaurenti . Members, Renton City Council G. M. Shellan, City Attorney Gordon Y. Ericksen, Planning Director Ltter sent to : I Mr. & Mrs . Lou Bergan 5029 Ripley Lane No . Renton, WA 98055 Mr . & Mrs . Rod Crawford 11815 S . E. 165th Renton, WA 98055 Mr . Rich Imus 5636 - 123rd Ave. S . E . Bellevue, WA 98006 Mr. John O 'Neil 4018 East Mercer Way Mercer Island, WA Mr . Robert Gerend 14877 S . E . 50th Bellevue, WA Mr . Joel Haggard 900 Hoge Bldg . Seattle , WA Mr . & Mrs . Thos . C . Buckingham 5025 Ripley Lane No . Renton, WA 98055 c 19 April, 1977 CITY 0 RENTON Iiearint; Examiners Office 200 i'.11.l Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 Attn: James L. t;asstadt Hearing ;xaminer Dear Sir: Th0 undersignned requests recons iderat'. on of your doc?.slon concern- ins the Rezone application File No. R-o22-77. Ale reasons are due to the following: 1. Finding number 1. Citizens Service Corp. withdrew its regono application for economic reasons and the uncertainty of obtain- ing City of Renton and Shoreline Management approval. See the second paragraph of the enclosure. There was opposition to the rezone, of course, as there always is, but to state that t,t` -4. was.;..etronp ly opposed , ust is not. .true., f'-t c •d: 2. Find s; number 8. +'good lanniyns does not permit -4 w. '`p H zoning ' to serve as a reasonaalo and x; ust, bu.f:f'er between i -1 ,ors' n ; to the north and what Is planned on the cuend•a 11 properties (not heavy commercial) . Pursuant to your decision, my property becomes the buffer ro,.,ardless of what you choose to des?grate the zoning. 3. F;.nding number 12. 'Mr. Ha ;. ard was "n;.t-pidkIng", 1 contest that the conflicts he cited to defeat therrezone request really exist, ' He also stated as fact that the Hearing Exa liner has no legal right to grant R-2 zoning when Ft-3 is requested. If you disaree w'..th this statement offactt you :lust also question -r. ha ard' e other statealenta. April 13, 1977 OFFICE OF THE LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE RENTON CITY COUNCIL•. APPLICANT: Thomas C. Buckingham FILE NO. R-022-77 LOCATION: Property located between Lake Washington and Ripley Lane North adjacent to and north of Misty Cove Apartments.. SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Applicant requests rezone from G-6000 , single family residence district, to R-3 , medium density multiple family residence district.. SUMMARY OF Planning Department: Recommend approval with RECOMMENDATION: restrictive covenants. Hearing Examiner.: : Recommend denial. PLANNING DEPARTMENT The Planning Department staff report was received. REPORT: by the Examiner on March 8 , 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 15 , 1977., at 10: 30 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 : Assessor' s Map. Exhibit #3 : . Site Map. Exhibit #4 : . Recommendation by Planning Commission for Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Mr. Smith reported that the Planning Commission has studied the area surrounding the site and has recommended a revision in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan which has been referred to the City Council for further study. The Examiner asked Mr,. Smith for clarification of the definition of townhouses, duplexes and apartments in an R-2 zone. Mr. Smith reported that townhouses, duplexes or other structures sharing a common wall or a common roof not to exceed 35 feet in height are allowed by the existing zoning ordinance. . The Examiner asked if Mr. Smith' had additional comments or information to present. Mr. Smith, indicated he had no additional comments at that time. R-022-77 Page Three Robert Gerend. 14877 S.E. 50th St. Bellevue, WA Mr. Gerend reported that he was the other half-owner of the Misty Cove. Apartments and indicated concurrence with Mr. O'Neil' s statements. The Examiner asked if there was testimony in opposition to the application. Mr. Lou Bergan responded and was sworn in'. Lou Bergan 5029 Ripley Lane N. Renton, WA 98055 Mr. Bergan reported that he is the adjacent property owner north of the requested rezone. He indicated that all property owners north of the Buckingham property feel very strongly that the area should remain an R-1 zone and that R-3 multiple dwellings on the property would. be an encroachment on single family residences and would increase density, traffic and noise that accompanies multiple family residences.. The area south of the Misty Cove Apartments will become R-3 and R-4 zones in the next five to ten years and for that reason he felt the subject property should remain in' its present zone. He inquired about an environmental impact statement and the Examiner reported that a Declaration of Non-Significance had been issued by the Planning Department. Mr. Bergan stated that the area had not been posted or posting had been vandalized or blown from the proper posting areas. He •indicated that all property owners would have been in .attendance at the hearing if they had received notice. The Examiner stated that to ensure that all parties are notified and have ample opportunity to speak on the request he would continue the hearing and have the area reposted. The hearing on Item #R-022-77 was closed by the Examiner at 11 :15 a.m. and continued until March 29 , 1977 , at '9 :00 • a.m. in the. Council Chambers of the Renton Municipal Building. . _ CONTINUATION: The continued hearing on Item #R-022-77 was reopened by the Examiner at 9 :00 a.m. on March 29, 1977, in the Council Chambers of the Renton Municipal Building. Mr. Smith, Planning Department, briefly, summarized Exhibit #1, Planning Department report, which was entered at the previous hearing on March 15, 1977. The Examiner asked if Mr. Smith had additional information _or exhibits to present. Mr. Smith indicated he had no additional information at that time. Parties wishing to testify were sworn. Mr. Joel Haggard, attorney, reported he was representing Mr. Lou Bergan, resident of Ripley Lane N. , as legal counsel. Responding was: Joel Haggard 900 Hoge Building Seattle, WA The Examiner asked Mr. Buckingham, the applicant , if he wished to speak on the application. Mr. Buckingham stated that at the previous. meeting he had indicated he would accept all restrictive covenants as written, but after reviewing covenants he wished to withdraw his acceptance. Mr. Buckingham indicated that setback requirements were restrictive and arbitrary and reported that Shoreline Management Act policies require a 20 foot setback from the water versus the 50 foot setback requirement imposed by the Planning Department. He also reported that setback requirements of 10 feet from the south property I R-022-77 Page Two The Examiner asked the applicant if he concurred in the Planning IDepartment report. Mr. Buckingham indicated that he had objections. Responding was: Thomas C. Buckingham 5025 Ripley Lane N. Renton, WA 98055 Mr. Buckingham referred to Item 0. 1. of Exhibit #1 ; and indicated that the request for rezone was entered and accepted before the .City Council took action on February 28 , 1977 , passing a motion to revise the Comprehensive Land Use Plan to R-2 . The applicant' s request was submitted on February 17 , 1977 , and the Council rescinded its action of February 28 , 1977 , on March 7 , 1977 , and is presently studying the area. Mr. •Buckingham explained that his proposal was to construct nine townhouse units or to modify the existing structure for recreational purposes ' and parking. He indicated that he had learned that the value of the property would increase: two to three times in an R-3' rather than an R-2 zone. He stated that R-2 zoning is acceptable . but he would prefer the R-3 zoning for the property, and that the Misty Cove Apartments were zoned R-4 and did not feel it was reasonable to require an R-1 or G-6000 zone abutting that particular type of construction. The Examiner asked Mr. Buckingham if he could meet the restrictions regarding setbacks, density and height restrictions imposed by the , Planning Department. The applicant indicated he would allow Mr. O'Neil to speak on the matter. i The Examiner asked if there was additional testimony in favor of the application. Responding was: Naomi. Buckingham 5025 Ripley Lane N. Renton, WA 98055 Mrs. Buckingham felt that the abutting apartments were poorly planned, undesirable in a residential_ neighborhood and had created an adverse situation. She indicated that the proposedconstruction would not be a duplication of the Misty Cove Apartments, and felt that a natural barrier was necessary. The Examiner asked for testimony in favor of the application. I Responding was: John O'Neil 4018 East Mercer Way i Mercer Island, WA Mr. O'Neil reported he was half-owner of the Misty Cove Apartments. He indicated that two alternatives exist for the property, a nine-unit townhouse or a recreation area for present tenants of Misty Cove 1 Apartments. Determination of the alternative has not been made and the agreement for the purchase of the property has not been finalized. He asked Mr. Smith how the setback on the west side of. the property was determined. Mr. Smith indicated that the setbacks were determined to attain and assure a gradual transition from the Misty Cove Apartments.- 1 to residences on the north and to create more open space on the subject i site. Mr. Smith also reported that the Shoreline Master Program - requires a 25 foot setback from the water' s edge. Mr. O'Neil questioned the limit for moorage to one boat per one town- house unit and asked if resistance would be shown by the Planning Department if more moorage were requested. Mr. Smith stated that it would be reasonable to allow adequate moorage , but not to accommodate . the overflow from the Misty Cove Apartments . The Examiner asked for additional comments or testimony in favor of 1 the application. Responding was: 1 ' R-022-77 Page Four line, 20 feet from the north property line, and 20 feet from the ea:At property line versus 5 foot setbacks usually required by the Planning Department together with the shoreline setback requirement would limit development of the property to one-half of the total square footage of 34 ,000 square feet. He reported that Misty Cove apartments are zoned R-4 and the structure complies with the 5 foot setback requirement. Mr. Buckingham asked if the dock and the lake are controlled by setback requirements. He indicated that setbacks would mandate that the access road be located on the north side of the development and expressed objections to increased noise, obstruction of views , clutter, traffic , and odors , which he felt would not be -relieved by. the location of the structure on the property because of setback requirements . He felt that by requiring a 50 foot setback from the lake, the staff was limiting the use of the property to best advantage. The Examiner asked Mr. Buckingham to point out on the site map his preferences for setbacks. Mr. Buckingham pointed out his preference for a 25 foot setback from the water which he felt would not block views compared to the proposed 50 foot setback. The Examiner inquired about other setbacks. Mr. Buckingham reported a preference for a ' 10 foot setback on the north property line. Mr. Buckingham expressed objections to the moorage limit which he felt was discriminatory since the adjacent apartment building has no limit per apartment. He indicated that the present recommendation limits the number of moorage stalls to one per unit if .nine units are built on the property, but if property were utilized for recreational area and no units built, no moorage would be permitted. He felt that 18 moorage spaces should be permitted and the number of units in the structure should not be specified at this time but should be determined by. zoning requirements . The Examiner indicated that the density would be regulated by the underlying zone and that t'he Planning Department had recommended an R-2 zone rather than R-3. He asked Mr. Buckingham if ,he concurred in the Planning Department recommendation. Mr. Buckingham indicated that although he had mixed feelings , he would accept the R-2 zoning. The Examiner asked Mr. Smith to report the density requirement under the R-2 zoning. Mr. Smith reported that 14 units would be allowed in 1. 3 acres at 11 units per acre. Mr. Buckingham felt that restrictions had been imposed because of the water area which should be included. . Mr. Smith stated that the water area had been discounted, limiting the units to . from 9 to 11 units. The Examiner asked if Mr. Buckingham concurred with the restrictions on the number of units: Mr. Buckingham i indicated his preference for determination of density according, to zoning codes. The Examiner asked Mr. Buckingham if he had other objections to Exhibit #1 other than setback requirements , density and moorage. Mr. Buckingham stated that he had no further obJections. The Examiner asked for further comments in support of the application. Responding was : Naomi Buckingham. 50.25 Ripley Lane N. Renton, WA 98055 . Mrs . Buckingham asked if her comments were on record from the previous hearing. The Examiner indicated that they were part of the record and reported that copies of the previous meeting minutes were available to the audience. The Examiner asked for testimony in opposition to the application. Mr. Joel Haggard presented a legal brief which listed objections to the application. The brief was labeled Exhibit #5 by the Examiner. R-022-77 Page Five . The Examiner asked for further testimony in opposition. Responding was : Lou. Bergan 5029 Ripley Lane N. Renton, WA 98055 Mr. Bergan reported that he is the resident immediately to the north of the Buckingham property. He submitted a petition signed by seven property owners , reporting opposition to any further multiple family residential development in the area. The petition was labeled. Exhibit .#6 by the Examiner. Mr. Bergan stated that the proposed. rezone was inconsistent with existing land use of single family residences. Among other objections were blight associated with higher density, noise impact, increased traffic, clutter and garbage, invasion of privacy and disharmony, with jthe residential environment in regard to family life and raising jchildren. He also objected to the possibility of boats and disabled vehicles being parked on the right-of-way, possible closing of Burlington Northern right-of-way, and reported that the present access was not adequate for increased traffic. He reported' reading . a letter from Burlington Northern to the Planning Department which indicated they had taken a stand against further increase in residential development of the property. He indicated concern for surface water runoff because of lower grade of his property, and possible impact Ion children' s safety in higher density because of traffic and undesirable tenants. He felt that the Misty Cove Apartments should remain a natural buffer for the property owners to the south. The Examiner asked Mr. Bergan if he concurred with the R-2 zone. Mr. Haggard indicated that Mr. Bergan' s opinions were contained in the legal brief, Exhibit #5 . ' The Examiner. asked' Mr. Bergan if he had spoken with Burlington Northern in regards to the access road and Mr. Bergan responded that he had not. I The Examiner asked for further testimony in opposition. Responding was : Rich Imus 5636 123rd Avenue S .E. ' Bellevue, WA 98006 Mr-. Imus reported that in regards to moorage mentioned by Mr. Buckingham, Ithe five boats mentioned belonged to seven property owners to the north. He indicated on the site map six lots which provide a buffer for his property and felt that the staff report was requiring a buffer for an already existing buffer. ' He pointed out two lagoons containing eight existing single family home sites and felt that the view ,from the sites would be obstructed by the construction of a multiple family dwelling which would destroy a beautiful area. Responding was': Rod Crawford 11815 S .E.' 165th Renton, WA 98055 Mr. Crawford pointed out his property on the 'site map which is located at the top of a lagoon and objected to blight created by construction of an apartment building. He also expressed objections to the possibility of disabled vehicles parking on the access road and invasion of privacy created by tenants of multiple family dwellings. Responding was: Leslye Bergan 5029 Ripley Lane N. Renton, WA 98055 Mrs. Bergan objected to potential noise, increased traffic at night, . and parties and parking lot lighting 'disturbing children' s sleep. 1 I R-022-77 Page Six Responding was :. Elizabeth Crawford 11815 S.E. 165th Renton, WA 98055 Mrs. Crawford reported that schools utilized by residents in the area are overcrowded and that students are currently bussed to schools in other areas. She expressed concern about fire protection and access . to the area because of railroad tracks. The Examiner asked for further testimony in opposition. Mr. Joel Haggard made a request to cross-examine Mr. Bergan in regard to the brief, Exhibit #5 . Mr. Haggard asked Mr. Bergan if he had read the brief; if he was familiar with the matter and if the brief contained factual comments ; and if Mr. Bergan were to testify to each comment in the brief, would his testimony be the same. Mr. Bergan responded affirmatively. The Examiner asked the applicant if he had further comments in rebuttal. Mr. Buckingham indicated that since he had not read the brief, he could not comment on it. He reported Mr. Bergan' s attempt to maintain the area as R-1 , but the Comprehensive Land Use Plan currently designates the area as .R-3 which was the zoning designation when the opposing residents purchased their property. Mr. Buckingham stated that Mr. Bergan and Mr. Imus had expressed an interest in a rezone several years ago in conjunction with a rezone considered by Citizens Service Corp. for construction of a condominium. The applicant felt that the permit for access from Burlington Northern was not the concern of the residents but of the applicant. For the record, Mr. Buckingham indicated his acceptance of the proposed R-2 zone. He took exception to the statement made by Mr. Imus that all boats belong to property owners and, stated that a boat owned by a Mercer Island resident had been moored on Mr. Bergan' s property last summer. The Examiner asked for further comments in support of the application. Mrs . Naomi Buckingham stated that she took exception to Mr. Bergan's statement that a four-story apartment building is a logical buffer for a residential area. The Examiner asked for testimony in opposition to the application. Mr. Rich Imus reported that the incident involving Citizens Service Corp. , Mr. Bergan and himself was instigated because of the corporation' s influence in gaining a rezone. When the rezone did not occur , the property owners made a decision to continue to utilize the property as single family residential. Mr. Bergan indicated that one reason the property was built to R-1 specifications was because of strong opposition to R-3 zoning in the neighborhood. The Examiner asked Mr. Smith to illustrate on the Comprehensive Land Use map the boundary for 'R-3 designation. Mr. Smith pointed out the north property line of the Crawford property on the map. The Examiner reported that the City Council is reinvestigating, the zoning, holding a public hearing on April 4 , 1977 , and that unless a change is recommended the Planning Commission recommendation is in force. . Mr. Smith stated that though the Comprehensive Land Use Plan designates the property as medium density multiple family zoning , other aspects such as timeliness and compatibility with the surrounding area affected the staff recommendation from R-3 to R-2 zoning which was felt to be a proper transition and buffer for the area. He reported height controls' and density had been restricted for compatibility with surrounding properties. Mr. Smith stated that setback requirements were established to create a corridor and provide recreational open space. He indicated that screening fences , parking areas, drainage, and traffic controls were all established in the Planning Department report to reduce the intensity of the development and create a step- down in the zoning to establish a logical buffer. R-022-77 Page Seven The Examiner asked for further testimony. Mr. Joel Haggard requested permission to cross-examine Mr. Smith and Mr. Buckingham. The Examiner indicated his concurrence in the request. , Mr. Haggard asked Mr. Smith if he were familiar with the Declaration of Non-Significance attached to Exhibit #1, and asked if by reviewing the Declaration and the environmental checklist submitted by the . applicant he should be able to discern why an environmental impact statement was not required. Mr. Smith answered affirmatively. Mr. Haggard asked Mr. Smith if he had difficulty with the suggestions made by the applicant, specifically in regard to displacement of soil and capacity of the access road to the proposed development. Mr. Smith stated that soil displacement would be addressed upon actual development of the site and that certain improvements would be necessary for the access roadway in the form of paving. Mr. Haggard reported that a letter had been sent to the Planning Department from Burlington Northern on November 12 , 1976 , asked Mr. Smith if .he were familiar with the correspondence, and if it would have any impact on the Planning Department evaluation of environmental impact. Mr. Smith responded that he was unfamiliar with the letter and it would not have directly affected the environmental statement. He reported that consideration would be made for access via the Burlington Northern roadway and that in previous rezone attempts Burlington Northern had coordinated an agreement with property owners for access. Mr. Haggard inquired about the width of the access road to the Buckingham property and the width of the actual traveled portion of the road. Mr. Smith reported a width of 50 feet with 12 feet being the actual portion of the road traveled. Mr. Haggard asked whether consideration had been made for possible difficulties with the turnaround area or parking on the property. Mr. Smith reported that the Parking and Loading Ordinance would specify sufficient aisle and maneuver space on the site. Mr. Haggard asked what the distance was between the access point on the east side of the Buckingham property and the west side of the Burlington Northern right-of-way. Mr. Smith indicated that the properties abut and the easement is not a public right-of-way. Mr. Haggard made the following inquiries of Mr. Smith in regard to Exhibit #1 : would the proposed development create increased clutter in the area; what is the maximum number of allowable units on the property. Mr. Smith responded that because of the landscape buffer and screening fence along with_ the location of the parking area , there would be no clutter; and in response to the maximum number of units proposed for the property, Mr. Smith indicated nine total units. Mr . Haggard presented a copy of Renton City Council minutes of July 12 , 1976, which contained a statement made by Planning Director Gordon Y. Ericksen in regard to problems in the subject area of access , soil conditions and impact along the shoreline. The minutes were entered as Exhibit #7 by the Examiner and read into the record by Mr. Smith. Mr . Haggard made the following inquiries regarding the application : if the proposed rezone is suited for water uses or activities ; if an affidavit of ownership had been filed; would the rezone as permitted increase the density of shoreline uses or activities; if there is a need for increased density; what uses in an R-3 rezone are not water related - He referred to the Shoreline Master Program as not being an applicable city document in the particular rezone and' did not feel that the Shoreline program should apply since none of the development was water related; and if the development would protect the privacy of Mr. Bergan. In regard to suitability for water uses and activities , Mr. Smith indicated that suitability would be dependent upon the design for the development. In regards to an affidavit of ownership, Mr. Smith indicated one had been filed at the time of application. Regarding the need for increased density, Mr. Smith reported that the density would increase and should be permitted not necessarily from a shoreline standpoint, but for overall zoning for the area. In response to the question regarding privacy, Mr. Smith stated that privacy would be assured by restricted density, setbacks ; landscaping, height control and screening. R-022-77 Page Eight Mr . Haggard indicated that Mr. Buckingham did not agree with several aspects of Exhibit #1 , and asked if the rezone application was adequate when submitted and asked about accompanying documents. Mr. Smith reported that the application was adequate upon receipt, and contained an affidavit of ownership and maps , including a vicinity map. However, . he indicated that the details of the development were not part of a rezone application. Mr . Haggard quoted Mr. Bergan' s statement of incompatibility of the proposed development and its impact upon community and residential environment and asked Mr. Smith if such impact had been reviewed. Mr. Smith reported that the information was contained in Exhibit #1. Mr. Haggard expressed objection to the staff finding in this regard and referred to the Land Use Report, 1965 , and the State Environmental Policy Act. He also felt that the Planning Department findings were made on the basis of a request for R-3 zoning, not for R-2 zoning. The Examiner clarified the matter and stated that the staff may recommend a lower density than an applicant requests, noting that the staff report is strictly a recommendation. He asked Mr. Haggard to clarify his intent in the cross-examination and asked that if specific errors existed in the report they should be designated. Mr. Haggard stated that no declaration of environmental significance was provided on the rezone since the staff had changed the zoning request. from R-3 to R-2 , and felt that the total impact was not complete as access road changes had been ignored in the staff report. He referred again to the letter from Burlington Northern to the Planning Department. Mr. Smith responded that he was aware of access problems noted in the letter from Burlington Northern because of previous rezone requests in the area. ' Mr. Haggard questioned whether plans. for the structure had been submitted to the city. Mr. Smith reported that final building plans were not required as part of the rezone request. Mr. Haggard inquired if R-3 , R-2 and .R-1 zones had been examined for recreational uses in the zones . The Examiner noted that such examination was not part of the rezone request and that the City Attorney would review the brief as to its legality in the rezone request. Mr. Haggard asked if the recreational use would be related to clubs or fraternal societies. Mr. Smith reported that it would not be related unless there is an existence of a homeowners ' association or apartment association. Mr. Haggard requested permission to cross-examine Mr. Buckingham. He noted that Mr. Buckingham' s earlier statement indicated that the. restrictive setbacks on the proposed rezone would not relieve the problem of noise, views , clutter, traffic and odors , and that there is . a significant impact as a result of an R-2 zone as proposed by the Planning Department. Mr. Buckingham stated that the comment was taken out of context and declined to .answer ' further questions. The Examiner asked. for further testimony. Since there was none, the hearing on Item #R-022-77 was closed by. the Examiner at 11 :10 a.m. FINDINGS ,. CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS : Having reviewed the record in this matter , the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS : ' 1. The applicant, Thomas C. Buckingham, requests a rezone from G-6000 , single family residential , to R-3 , medium density multiple family residential. The purpose of the request is to permit construction of approximately 9 multiple family townhouse units . An alternative use would be to renovate existing house and use this structure as a recreational facility for Misty Cove Apartments . 2 . The property has been subject to. previous rezone requests dating back to. 1974 . These requests were strongly opposed and resulted in the rezone withdrawal. R-022-77 Page Nine 3. • There is an existing single family residence on the site, Misty Cove Apartments. are located directly to the south, and two single family residences are located adjacent to the north. . The area • consists' of a mixture of high density multiple family, existing single family residential and open space in .undeveloped areas. 4. Gordon Y. Ericksen, , responsible public official , pursuant to the City of Renton Environmental Ordinance and the' State Environmental Policy Act of .1971 as amended R.C.W. 43.'216 , has issued a Declaration of Non-Significance for the subject proposal. 5: The subject request for an R-3 zoning is compatible with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan that was adopted and on file at the... date of the application submittal. Since the applicant' s request, the Planning. Commission has 'recommended to the. City Council that this area be designated as low density multiple family which would allow the 9 'units as requested. 6,. The applicant, Mr: Thomas Buckingham, stated that the Planning Department staff recommendation of R-2 zoning for his subject property was' acceptable although he .would. prefer ,the requested. R=3 • zoning. He noted that it .was not reasonable to require an R-1; residential district, abutting an R-4 zone that has been designated for the 'Misty .Cove Apartments. 7. '. . Mrs. Buckingham testified that, the abutting apartments were poorly planned, undesirable in a residential neighborhood; and . had created an adverse situation. 8.• Mr. Lou Bergan, owner of the property directly north of the . Buckingham property,• maintained a strong. feeling that the area should remain 'as R-land noted that. the Misty Cove Apartments serves as a buffer .between the single family residential -units located to the north of Misty Cove and the industrial or potential heavy commercial uses proposed for the Quendall properties ' located to the south of Misty Cove. 9, Mr. Smith, Planning Department representative, noted that an R-2 designation would allow 14 units in the 1. 3 acres or a density of 11 units pe,r acre. Discounting the water area would limit the maximum density from 9to 11 units for the Buckingham property. • 10. The applicant indicated his preference for determination of density , based according to the zoning requirements. It 11. A petition was submitted that was signed by 7 property owners of properties . located directly north of the Buckingham site. The petition 'reported opposition to' any. further multiple family residential development in the area. The petition was. designated as Exhibit No. 6. 12 . A brief was submitted by Mt. Joel Haggard, representing Mr. Bergan. • • In summary, the. brief denoted several areas that 'Mr. Haggard felt were in conflict with the rezone request relating to environmental impact. a'ssessment-, propriety in regards • to 'the Shoreline Management Program, etc. 13. The request is primarily predicated on the fact that an apartment house was allowed to be developed in an area that was formerly inhabited by single family residential units. This apartment house is clearly out' of harmony with the character of 'the adjacent. areas. This action was taken due to the rezone request granted October 17 ; 1966. The Comprehensive Land Use Plan has since been revised from I . high density multiple family to medium density multiple family to a. ' proposed low density multiple family as recommended in the recent action by the Planning -Commission to the City Council. There is an obvious concern by the adjacent' property owners to the Buckingham site that the adverse effects of the Misty Cove Apartments on' the adjacent' properties would be intensified by the construction of additional multiple family residences. • R-022-77 Page Ten CONCLUSIONS: 1. A change in land use of the subject property would have an immediate effect on the adjacent property located to the north that is occupied by .single. family residential units. • 2. There are several contiguous properties that form the area which is . unique and separated from adjacent residences located north of the street right-of-way presently utilized by the Renton Sailing Club. This right-of-way area is heavily vegetated and acts as a transition use between the properties to the south and the residential units to the north of this right-of-way. A change in zone' to create a buffer .from the Misty Cove Apartments , as stated previously, would• have an influence on adjacent. property owners . The question then rises as to where the multiple family units cease in order to • provide a smooth transition. An amended request for R-2 zoning • appears to be realistic due to the proximity of the. Misty Cove Apartments . However, due to strong opposition, this request would not be in .harmony nor would it be in compliance with the wishes of adjacent single family residential owners. It is also apparent that the majority of property owners located on properties between Misty .Cove and the street right-of-way favor single family residential use of their' property. Any action contrary to indicated land use designation would be in conflict to this residential area. If a villain exists , it clearly would be the Misty Cove Apartment structure that is not in harmony with the character of the area. 3. It is the Examiner' s opinion that the preference of the majority of property owners in this area for a stipulated land use must be taken as a prime indication of future rezone requests. The property can continue .to exist as single family residential or if requested by. a majority of the property owners could be designated as a low density multiple family area that would serve as a natural buffer between the Misty • Cove Apartments and the street right-of- way. However, such a request should only be considered and granted;,.:,r`.. when approved by the majority of the property owners in this area.' 4 . The Hearing Examiner therefore recommends that the amended' requested rezone to R-2 be denied and' recommends that the City Council review this area in detail in contemplating a Comprehensive Land Use Plan change and clearly designate the area as low density multiple family zoning at such time as a majority of the property owners concur in this designation. This then would provide an adequate transition between .an existing apartment use and single family residential use that exists to the north of the street right-of-way. • RECOMMENDATION: Denial of the request. ORDERED THIS 13th day of April, 1977 ames L. agstadt Land Use Hearing Examiner TRANSMITTED THIS 13th day of April, `-1.977 by certified mail to the parties of record: . Thomas C. Buckingham' • Naomi Buckingham John O'Neil • Robert Gerend Lou Bergan Joel Haggard Rich Imus Rod Crawford R-022-77 Page Eleven Leslye Bergan Elizabeth Crawford TRANSMITTED THIS 13th day of April, 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 Pursuant to Ordinance No. 3071 , Section • 4'-3015 , request for reconsideration or notice of appeal must be filed in writing. on or before April' 2.0 , 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 issuance of the report. 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 iii-,/4'-.: 1 ' /---. e -.. li )1, jii LA/ A : t7.)44.1 .rr LAW OFFICES OF t HILLIS, PHILLIPS, CAIRNCROSS, CLARK & MARTIN' , SUSAN R.AGID A PROFESSIONAL SERVICE CORPORATION PETER L.BUCK H.'RAYMOND CAIRNCROSS ' •403 COLUMBIA_ STREET .' 623-1745 MARK.S.CLARIS AREA CODE 206 JEROME L.HILLIS SEATTLE,WASHINGTON 98104 GEORGE W.MARTIN,JR. LOUIS D.PETERSON, JOHN E.PHILLIPS, April 8, 1977 STEVAN D.PHILLIPS RICHARD R.WILSON r. Gerard M. Shellan- Mr. Shellan & Pain l Q 'South Second Street' Building Renton; Washington. .- 98055 ' • - ' - Re:• Proposed, Change •i'n Comprehensive • Plan of the City of: Renton s. Dear. Jerry: Asr,you knew---we represent. the Barbee-Baxter-Quendall properties- on 'certain' matters with respect to. their proposed development.. It is our understanding that the City Council, at its , meeting of April 4,,, 4977, ,,proposed to change the Comprehensive Plan designations for property to the -north of the Barbee- Baxter-Quendall 'pieces. • We understand the site of the Misty Cove Apartments• will. be. changed -to medium 'density• residential and -the area extending north to the. city limits will be changed to single family residence for -that property. The area to be changed is. north 'Of '.our- clients'' .property; however, we have been -informed .that the motion forwarding this matter to one of the committees included 'a portion of the Port Quendall site, more particularly the northern' piece commonly referred to as the Baxter property. - It is ourunderstandingthat the City Council did not .intend to 'include the Baxter or Quendall sites and therefore :we, request that -the final minutes and/or resolu- tion. 'exclude any of :the- Port Quendall properties from the F .- " . Comprehensive Plan change.--• ., If it -is the City Council's intention to include any of- the Port Quendall property, .we,would appreciate being so informed so that we have-ample opportunity to present a case. on behalf of our 'clien.ts. Thank you for your attention to this matter. If you1(have any questions; please do -not to contact us, e ':.tru - yours, JEP/dh : : r n B. Phillip - cc ' Port Quendall . Renton City Clerk n O 4. FL ndin3 number 13. The rezone request was submitted• befo:?e the City Council had taken action to change the Comprehensive. Plan. At the time of the .rezone request the Comprehensive Plan designated the area as 1 -3. . 1 believe this is the only aspect . of the Comprehensive ?&an that you should consider. My opinion Is that you based your decision primarily upon subsequent actions of the City Council. What would your decision have been had the question .of. clean ;ing: the: Comprehensive. Plen not come up: at this. time? 5. Conclusion number 1. The statement that a change In land use, • whether the subject property or any e't,her properties in any Other areas o would h.tzve an immediate effect on adjacent property ,is so o bv"iously true that It hardly needed to be stated as a conclusion. x believe the ,question that should be addressed is the dezree to .which the change would adversely afOeot sur- rounding properties. If you have actually visited the area 1 believe ,,cu will agree that construction a. 1 ' p 4 b w t t; ory 9 duplex typO u.n9.ta 94 thie, property will have no adverse effect, osexcvt,axi,-_ <?roper;3. p oss.ib1 r o s and,. olual the fact there would be more traff'la e:'ter. ated by .... e of families. So far as the ;,;er,soi'"ks are aono r;iod all the ad- verso si tu•a.t :ons. can. be effectively mitl.wr=tted pry praopop screen,- . ing to the point that the Dergens would hardly be aware that 9 families lived next door. . To reiterate: a,View would not be affected. b. Noise can pOrtially be screened but( this conta".',. natI on has been over-emphasized. I think you will agree that normal day -to-day living activities of 9 families would have absolutely no adverse effect. The objectionable noises are mainly nigt nelson such as those created by barkIng dogs, for which there are city ordnances, and. raucous parties which pre more likely to occur in. single family residences where • . more space can accommodate more people and engender a lack of concern for others living in your same building (as would be the case in a duplex or triplex) * Car noises are minimal unless you have a hot-rodder in your Amidst and people who live in multi-family units have no corner on hot-roddors, co 1.q1ght 1htin3 Is no problem az It would. hardly exist An the development as planned; however, any li. httni from_sueh a development that mi:Lht be objectionable could be softened by proper screealn3o do Water runoff, There is no reason to believe this would be any' more of a problem than now exists but .also proper drain- age would leve to be addressed for approval., of a building plan* o. Other 'contaminants are . in reality hardly extant, • . 6• • Conclusion number 2AT1') say, there was stronr!' opositton to the rezoning,. s considerably:. mi.al eadin,c' and in fact untrue• True, the 77 Opposit 1-6n,"had s p tiOri ntGnedby number of prop orty- owners, many of whom don't live .vIthin the confines of Renton includIn7 the 7rmAs' ' and the Crawfords, 1 darosay poople. are inclaned to sim anything so lone as it doesn't cost them« Goo examples are the many petitions that are circulated for action by the state leeLslatureo These contain thousands of names but if the truth were known, probably no more than 5 know precisely what a particular petition is all about. H believe the proof of strong or weak oppesitIon is demonstrated by the number of people who are interested enoush to appear and be heard at the public. moetingo. On this basAs„ there weo• three families present; ' namely, imus, Bergen and Crawford* Is that strong 4 ..., Opposition? I believe your decision is in error and that you should reconsider and reverse it. I believe the transition between hearing examiners ' . . was an unfortunate circumstance occurring just when action was . required on my request. Under the circumstances, I cannot help but fool that you could ,;ive my request only superficial consideration and have taken the easy way out by a determination that i not in denflict:with .the reeont action of the: City: Council to revise the Comcrehensive Plan for the area to R-1. Frankly, 1 don't believe the UOuncil has the fortitude to reverse your-- - decison so, unless you execute the authority L;ranted you, I feel ., • I will -have lost th',.s stage:Of my request. Excludpng my rioht to appeal to the City Council and the possibilityr . of .their reversal, iX apoars thero' are two further avenues left ' open for my recovery. One is doscribod in step 13 .o1 the Planning Departments "ApplicaLion EAquences" the other, has been advised, is litlGatLon to recover 4 loss due:to the deradation of property value caused ,i'y city actn. What results from your decision may T . leave me -nc .alternative bu'Vto,pursue .ono or both. of:those .:,'. ,' `'''i'-•-"''''',••'','.'l '• • • . ' '',,'• '-!'', ‘;',•'' .•...,• -:" , ',' i',''''.'''- .••,:'•'••1': .',',1-:' L'.,1'.:::":,•',.-.''-'.-!•;•; -:-:-: .-t‘-''-'.. ':'• ''''''''..•'' ' .r:".,'''•:-:..-•;•':•'..,:.•:•.'';',.=:.,',::.•,•:::i .'40:k. :':possibilities, 1 trust you will seriously consider this ap.::eal and will c<lrofully ' review the facts and fancies that led to, your earlier, decision. if I can be of any help in clearing up any question still unanswered I will be glad to respond, upon request. Yours very truly 1 encl. . • Thomas C. Buckingham