No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLUA77-050L4„- 0 50- j LI i P112 ib oai q? S I M N 2 6' /cusp J 7 ius-eit 1 > 7/ c/ :s o,, -.g/ s-i' uo//_7 to 'ui/ s . : ,/o/y god a o MQS'-Z -921'N 1 9 6?IT _...._I ge/ fs w _4'2 6T Z oa+ k n%d 1/ S p 1/ IS H18Z1 '3 9_ ____ 4z/ 9Pii, 1 a/9£S$' r F' o:s 6i/fbs L6//g/05 l• 5 1Z'Bo Z28b/ iti. . Si_i I SL Ss/ t 00,2 3 . ,, (.._ 4).,/, i I Q d2'i i' lb 1' v I ` 0 G Z 9d i x,1 i 06• N 4 Pk I I N I CI i.z N 1, ivt o I 7f1 1- ` e z2 0 --- O 1 et di°.e 6 e• c: Z diP F S I li0 j Si., SL W s•9 •ys'£' - s 20 'af•OC o'n2E" iWI Z 6ZF H cb Es..., 22 tki- 1 1( Al\ III I 7-e i I N r LiI 1 c) I. j N 4° i,- R Let 0 I cb e 6 93 fZF 1 26 IVm fy ° s,, a O 1,--- N I w QV a 14 m44 r hQ ,4 I N Yrr/ 0 .rrV 6 1 N t tr 7` Z 1• R, SO O 1 IiiiI Z NI 1 ZS '>G 1 t 2B f Zt zr ,7° S14 ,111 Ai. P40.1.Ng D'9 fws.Sr 0.'., 6r 9 sws,S'/ oSi -—. yc•-,// AA L /` RECEIVED Z .c c 14A\44 CITY Z, It'6 OF RENTON e I -' 0 L HEARING EXAMINER I , o i e7 51977 c„ 1 .c„AM PM I N ,' 1 4 w T w it ITEM NO. /f- o 5 - 7 7 1j1 \ 21 •"•-••••••,- ..,.... 1 rt...a.3)ti, .4., ‘,... 5. .....r._,_ 1 fl x, I a......•••>..,..•1 1 2 ,s:. R.6.5... I . I, ..,....._....,, 1)4, , i •., . ? s_.. . , 1: , , . 3 , • ,• i 7 '- ..; i-- , .,•,;!•..1A•:. 1 1- '-r - • .1 ' 't - ,V•,, ----, -. I J ': j • 16 - -i. R., 1.,•,,„ —_ „,„, -, 1-: I 1 ' 7 ,-('5 I\'. ,_::21,,',' • .• ' '_, " i 1' ''''',.'i''' TL:''L-' 1-,Xg, -•-) 2"--112,,p, 1"2-j •'_,':':'''.,7., ,...-; t:; TA,, ,,y.kri,,,',.:,,„ „fTE :i G . 3' l t,I,r .. ..,,,i: 1, i0 •i 1 1 I I i•. C,,,.,..,.: 0 ,._. .. , .. ...‘ ,. .• '- .,,. -...-1 i :•''' :-'.'' ,- L L ,'", .-'.S1'..t, u, 1 . '.'' ... .. 11''' .,.:'' •1 1 . 1 is¢ciiiitUfe -•C• 5 al • V,,a% -. ; • ,-,. .,1 i- .0 ' , 7 ' --M• , j• 1!"- i i •li,.' ''-'"'"IA --- '' '.:, ...:-. '\'.:1', ' ' j., t' 4 ',il.,4,•, . • I.q 1 I I, i- - • - - •'-• '•-' V .•'• i-v:-..••=•17.'. • ,'r,•.J--1•,.1.j li••csi•9, li 7 i I; ....•"„li. s.;', * 4 ..- '' • .... -..1S•'' .' t' I i 1 i t • I :' •' ' '• • • • — 'I • . I. 23.14• . N. ''.°o + I V 7.' l • ' • ' ' . ..-". .. ' • . SR I 0 .1 1,, .,--,(.,,..,.._/,, .. z... .,.. t, . J;j ii 1 R 11--- 1 . . 1:1T'1._,„', _,, i' ' ‘''. •', 1 - -, ; GS"Ii L.i,- I 2 . .,1v,i• , El _. , 1 v1 4:.,-. .,.• ; .r. T" - L-141Atart i 1._ .2_:,! • . 6:'. 9 :,') ,,,---- •-•• '4--G-720 0 1. -, '4i, ' •1 k, N..E..1,1't ST_ I;if.f,a11-.1,, T. _ ItD I:,3i.1,,T I T -I , c I- • L , i',,:, I k_Jt._J j_ T N'...., =•e 1 r4 a ,.. , > 17a . . •,,•‘ ". .. . z s ••T IT-._r.:.'..1...1_,' ..Ti; k2..)-:„.„..-/ ,T i, ,3 ,,, •TT . d A r t I'-,,,'„,' c:' 19;•_h0,..'_,•,1',t1:'.,,.11,_'.;.1_i. 1l:..,"L,'i.L-_,'‘".! s•'''- f''_1.,'„''71'.-1'' 4••' i'i-•i iE" 1. TI'-.'0V 1i:72•1" i 11. : I I:• iT T_. t az(''- i'•''-• r• i. I'.'iL:F.,T"..‘•.._ R•:.•.•iu, r''':- t: lL,- 1T/f- 1" 7,:-i,'!i i!rI, - -----.-..9.- r:.-.....,. 1'.•;1 r.,..... .•_1I1 . . r FT • GS.1 Sc-1 4---- - •--- . ..-.. 4, 4 li i'' 1 i, il 11 I r .,,r R-3R-3 . ., .. 1 1 Q. 2. I 1,".... .. --'.....\•,_,' I 0 I 1"-- 1 El ZI•,.. I I 01 ‘... I , 1--,L11 -11-1- / z ',.. T 1 or; 'I J L.. ... 3 i.. ___•,_••• _J. AM.•L•-••INEFAM••!.TIP __ E. 4TH. 5T Irj 7 3--- T-Ti T I 1 ., i 17 1 iiil / i F G 1 I r E.Et\JVVOOD 1_ i-.1.,.A L-..-1-E.R Y 1 IN .34 •1 I t 1 1, 1 IIII I III I t 1 , I 4 I I . I• I I tui I I I I to p. • 4 I 1 I I , G • 1 I P T.TLt TI....1—.......•......--1 I,L 1 I I 11--\Lk."p i-', .! :7 1,., .„,,,4 19 •raTIT-. 1 0 42 • 1 I 1 • ' i\4 .,.• 9 , .•. ' .• '11••• '..-2' I• r• • • • • •'• -1.1 ‘'s. 4, I 1 55:5 t)./ .,,..2's. V''t\cr..V.'''I. - \• 1 .SS f!{ i !'4 ''',,,,) (‘, ,,1'.'•'''' .•'''' ' ',',. 6V i/i) s I . 0. i 1' . ,'• s;:::* 9 „..#',' ' r 1 1)717 `.s. ,,,:' , y, 'se ,,, .•'-'t ,t.' ' . ic:k pfCEIVE1) - 0\ e- JUll 3 1977 ti f...:*/ - , -,...R 4,: iii,),S /..• se\,A4‘,\ ,..'ITV i.j ...).& '• N.:—'' G Di.--v ' --;- / y • . , A' (7-7-k-i-.1cs\ X,,>"/...,'le", 1 1-•• ••/,/, 4''';'. • r--;--grr. ‘. i 2.• ... . i .., 1,.,•7 : ' .Z .-....:' • -T ., , 1 Twi,,,2_ 'd T 1 THE CITY OF RENTON r f" MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, WASH. 98055 o fx CHARLES J. DELAURENTI , MAYOR • LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER ti L. RICK BEELER ° 235 -2593oQ 4IFD SEP-TO July 29, 1977 IE C E OWEE Israel & Evelynn Carue c1 1' Tom Kuramoto JUL 9. 1 Lloyd V. Weber 4312 N.E. 4th Street CITY CLERK Renton, WA 98055 RE: File No. R-050-77 Dear Applicants: This is to notify you that the above referenced request; which was denied as noted on the Examiner's report of July 12, 1977, has not been appealed within the time period set by ordinance, and therefore, this application is being submitted to the City Clerk for permanent filing. Sincepely-; 2 L. Rick Beeler Hearing Examiner LRB:mp cc: Planning Director City Clerk AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING State of Washington) County of King Marilyn J. Petersen being first duly sworn, upon oath disposes and states: That on the l; 444"day of July 19 77 , affiant deposited in the mails of the United States a sealed envelope containing a decision or recommendation with postage prepaid, addressed to the parties of record in the below-entitled application or petition. Subscribed and sworn this \3- day of 19 'T7 . Notary Public in and for the 5. - 14o r: AofWashington, residing at Rentoe;'•-•••.. •";1s Application, Petition or Case: carue/Kuramoto/Weber, R-050-77 The mLnu te,b contain a tbst o f the pcut t ieis of necond)• R-050-77 Page Two roadways was not under the jurisdiction of his department and felt that the adequacy of the easement would require further study. He estimated that if an average of 60 units were placed on the property, a total of at least that many vehicles would be utilizing the roadway per day, thereby creating a demand for a 20-foot easement of 10 feet per lane. In response to the Examiner's inquiry regarding easement requirements for, a potential 210 unit development, Mr. Morgan again referred to the Plat Ordinance which requires a 50-foot right-of-way. Mr. Smith stated that a definite need existed for an additional public access roadway from Union Avenue N.E., but Mr. Morgan indicated his division had not studied the proposal. Mr. Morgan also stated that although the Traffic Engineering Division would not impose restrictions on left turns by vehicles utilizing N.E. 4th Street, such traffic movement would create a potential traffic hazard. Mr. Smith reported that the most recent area-wide land use analysis for the subject area was accomplished in 1968, in response to the Examiner's question. He stated that applications for rezones had been submitted through the 1960's and in 1971 and studies of general land uses in the area had been made at that time. The Examiner noted that the Comprehensive Land Use Plan designates the area as medium density multiple family residential zoning as well as including a substantial commercial node, and asked Mr. Smith the date of that zoning designation. Mr. Smith reported that the change had been made in 1965 and that certain previous rezone requests had been denied because of concerns regarding provision of utilities and proper access. He indicated a preference for a step-down in zoning and density to create less impact on the surrounding areas and allow more flexibility for proper development. The Examiner asked the applicant if he concurred in Exhibit #1. Responding was: Israel Carue 4312 N.E. 4th Street Renton, WA 98055 Mr. Carue stated that he did not understand the recommendation made by the Planning Department in the matter and indicated that the intent in making application for the rezone was not to develop the property but make it more desirable for sale purposes. He noted that because of poor health he was unable to properly maintain the land, and reported that the Planning Department staff had informed him that the property was zoned for multiple living on the Comprehensive Land Use Map. A ten-minute recess was called at 10:00 a.m. The meeting reconvened with everyone present at 10:10 a.m. Mr. Carue continued with his testimony. The Examiner asked the applicant if the three applicants in the subject rezone had entered into an agreement for joint development or were acting on an individual basis. Mr. Carue indicated that the applicants were acting individually but applying for a rezone concurrently. The Examiner noted that the King County Assessor's Map did not designate the 15-foot easement dividing the Carue property from the Jensen property and asked the applicant if he had a record of the easement. Mr. Carue stated that although he had owned his property for 22 years, the adjacent property had changed owners three or four times during that time and he felt certain that the easement was recorded. The Examiner noted that although the purpose of the application for rezone is to allow maximum flexibility for sale purposes, the Public Works Department had reported concerns regarding sewer, water and storm drainage and the potential expense of providing those facilities. Mr. Carue felt that the buyer would investigate such requirements at the time of sale and it should have no impact on the rezone request at the present time. The Examiner asked Mr. Smith to clarify certain points. in the Planning Department staff report for the applicant. Mr. Smith reported that the purpose of the Comprehensive Plan is to designate the zoning possibilities of a particular area, but other aspects contribute to the comprehensive planning of the area. He noted that the plan designates a large majority of the property as multiple family residential, but that is a long- range plan dependent upon adequate utilities and access to the property. Although the request agrees with long range visions for that area, he felt that application for a rezone was premature because of conditions of utilities and easements. He indicated the difference between the zoning map and the comprehensive plan, noting the plan is a long-range document denoting potential use and reported that the possibility existed for a situational change within a short period of time to allow the rezone. He suggested the possibility that a developer might have a contract option on a piece of property to extend utilities and provide proper access, submit a specific development plan, and the rezone might be approved on that basis. However, he indicated that this had not occurred. Mr. Carue felt that the rezone should be granted at the present time because he had no plans for development. Mr. Smith indicated that the request was premature because of the existing single family residences in the surrounding area and felt it would not be compatible with the logical zoning pattern. He noted that receipt of specific July 12, 1977 OFFICE OF THE LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE RENTON CITY COUNCIL. APPLICANT: Carue/Kuramoto/Weber FILE NO. R-050-77 LOCATION: Approximately 600 feet east of the intersection of N.E. 4th Street and Union Avenue N.E. and extending north from that point approximately 1300 feet. SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Applicant requests approval of rezone to medium density multiple family zone, which would permit development of apartments to a maximum density of 30 units per, acre. No specific development plans have been presented with the subject request. SUMMARY OF Planning Department: Denial RECOMMENDATION: Hearing Examiner:Denial PLANNING DEPARTMENT The Planning Department staff report was received by the REPORT: Examiner on June 28, 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 July 5, 1977 at 9:07 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 Site Map The Examiner had previously requested representatives from the Engineering and Traffic Engineering Divisions to attend the hearing. In response to the Examiner's inquiry regarding existing and proposed sewer and water systems on the property, Ron Olsen, Engineering Division, stated that a recommendation would be made for installation of , a pump station and sewer which would run along N.E. 4th Street to Union Avenue N.E. He indicated that final detailed plans for multiple family residential development would be necessary to determine the sufficiency of the existing 8-inch water main. In response to the Examiner's questions regarding potential cost for sewer system provision if the rezone were approved, Mr. Olsen stated that the developer would bear the estimated cost of $20,000 which would be dependent upon the size and nature of the project. He indicated that if development continued to the east, it would be probable that an LID would be formed connecting to Union Avenue N.E. , but he had received no inquiries pertaining to that possibility to date. The Examiner asked Mr. Olsen to explain the impact which might occur to the water system if multiple family development continued in the subject area. Mr. Olsen indicated that because of fire safety demands, a requirement for a new main should be imposed to be financed by the developer or formation of an LID. The Examiner asked the representative from the Traffic Engineering Division to respond to questions regarding access and easements serving the subject property. Mr. Clinton Morgan stated that the main concern of his division was the inadequacy of the existing 15-foot easement as access to a high density development. The Examiner asked Mr. Morgan to explain city ordinance requirements for easement width. Mr. Morgan reported that his estimate was based upon size of the entire property and that the project should be developed in accordance with the Plat Ordinance which requires 50 feet for minimum right- of-way. Later in the hearing, Mr. Morgan clarified this figure and stated that the Plat Ordinance requires a 50-foot street width and a 32-foot improved street width. In response to the Examiner's inquiry regarding the adequacy of the existing 15-foot right- of-way, Mr. Morgan reported that responsibility for setting standards for access r.. R-050-77 Page Four N.E. 4th Street to N.E. 6th Street. 8. The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map indicates Medium Density Multifamily for the southern 3/4 of the subject parcels and Single Family for the northern 1/4. The requested R-3 zoning category would be compatible with the Medium Density Multifamily designation but not the Single Family designation. 9. Adjacent to portions of the subject parcels are, located two areas, one of substantial size, already zoned R-3 since the late sixties. However, these and neighboring properties have been developed in only single family useage. 10. Land use in the vicinity has evidently been contemplated in response to potential and existing commercial development at the intersection of Union Avenue N.E. and 138th Avenue S.E. (Duvall Avenue N.E.) with N.E. 4th Street. Renton has permitted B-1 zoning at the Union Avenue N.E. intersection, and King County has permitted BN at the 138th Avenue S.E. intersection. Apparently the previous rezones to R-3 and the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map were intended to be responsive to the two existing and developing commercial nodes. The last land use analysis of this area was completed in approximately 1968. The R-3 property east of the subject site was rezoned May 19, 1969 (Patas, R-575-69) . While the Planning Commission recommended that only the south 640 feet abutting N.E. 4th Street be rezoned from •G. to R-3, the City Council approved R-3 for the entire parcel (approximately 800 feet) . The property intersecting the subject parcels was the subject of a rezone request from G to R-3 (Jensen, R-668-71) . The Planning Commission on November 24, 1971 denied the application predominantly due to the request being premature and lacking access. No appeal was filed. Existing utilities, access, land use and the Comprehensive Plan were evaluated at several Planning Commission meetings on the application. The R-3 property at the west of the site was rezoned on August 12, 1968 (Lorensen, Jensen, R-448-68) . Both the Planning Commission and City Council agreed that the rezone conformed to the Comprehensive Plan. This parcel had direct, adequate access to Union Avenue N.E. It should be noted that the Lorensen, Jensen property lies well within the area for Medium Density Multifamily indicated on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. However, the Patas property is in the same position relative to the Map as the subject property - 3/4 Medium Density Multifamily and 1/4 Single Family. CONCLUSIONS: 1. Existing utilities to serve the subject properties are inadequate to accommodate the proposed R-3 density of 30 multifamily units per acre. Whoever would develop the property to R-3 standards (or probably a greater single family density or R-2 multifamily density) would incur substantial costs to install the necessary utilities. To date, an LID has not been initiated in the area to install these utilities, but very probably, as pressure for development in this general vicinity increases an LID will be needed. 2. Existing easements serving the two northernmost lots, excluding the parcel abutting N.E. 4th Street, are of insufficient size to serve the proposed R-3 density of development. At ultimate development, the subject properties could contain 216 multifamily units. If each unit generated five vehicle trips per day, a traffic volume of approximately 1,080 trips per day could be expected as a result of the development. Such potential traffic volume warrants expansion of the existing 15-foot easements and further analysis by the Public Works Department Traffic Engineering Division concerning the required roadway widths, interior circulation and traffic control at the access point onto N.E. 4th Street. The point of access onto N.E. 4th Street is a potential traffic hazard and problem and improvement to N.E. 6th Street would appear to be necessary for this proposed development. 3.. Section 4-3014 requires that at least one of the following apply to this application: 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 R-050-77 Page Three development plans would be necessary to determine possible impact in the area. Mr. Carue reported that a rezone had been granted for construction of a trailer court east of the subject property and felt that the impact for that type of development would be greater than in a multiple family development. Mr. Smith stated that the trailer court project would create a lower density than the application request for medium density multiple family zoning. In response to Mr. Carue's concerns regarding the history of inconsistency in rezone approvals in the immediate area, Mr. Smith agreed that the Comprehensive Land Use Plan designates the property as future multiple family zoning, but that the timing was not proper at the present time for such a development. The Examiner explained that appropriate timing for rezones is a land use question that is raised consistently in every jurisdiction, and while the Comprehensive Plan may designate the property as a particular potential zone, the timing of the development must be considered because of necessary improvements. Mr. Smith assured Mr. Carue that he was not being singled out, that many rezones in the area had been denied previously for the same reason, and granting a rezone before proper improvements were made would set a precedent for future applications. The Examiner stated that a decision on the application had not yet been made, and indicated to the applicant that the final decision rests with the City Council upon submittal of the Examiner's report and recommendation. The Examiner asked for further comments. Mr. Smith indicated a desire to modify the staff report, Exhibit #1, in the event the rezone were approved by the Examiner. He felt the Planning Department would require conditional rezoning which would include a step-down in the zone from R-3 in Parcel "B" to R-2 in Parcel "A" and R-1 in Parcel C" which abuts the surrounding single family residential areas. He also indicated a requirement for restrictive covenants to run with the land which would relate to specific site plan approval and include a clause to impose a development time limit. He also recommended that a Planned Unit Development. project would be preferred for the property to allow maximum flexibility in development. The Examiner asked for further comments. Since there were none, the hearing on Item #R-050-77 was closed by the Examiner at 10:55 a.m. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS: Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: 1. The request is for approval of a rezone of three parcels from G (General Classification District) to R-3 (Multifamily Residence District) . 2. The Planning Department report accurately sets forth the issues, applicable policies and provisions, findings of fact, and departmental recommendations in this matter, . and is hereby attached as Exhibit #1 and incorporated in this report by reference as set forth in full herein. 3. Pursuant to the City of Renton's Environmental Ordinance and the State Environmental Policy Act of 1971, as amended by R.C.W. 43.21.C. , a Declaration of Non-Significance has been issued for the subject proposal by Gordon Y. Ericksen, responsible official. 4. Plans for the proposal have been reviewed by all city departments affected by the impact of this development. 5. There was no opposition to the proposal expressed. 6. All existing utilities except sewer and storm sewer are available and in close proximity. Sewer and storm sewer connection would be required at Union Ave. N.E. via construction of pumping stations and extension lines along N.E. 4th Street. The cost of this construction would be borne by the developer of the property. In addition, the existing water line along.N.E. 4th Street may be insufficient to accommodate the demand required by the density of multifamily development proposed. 7. What would be N.E. 6th Street (or what is labeled as S.E. 124th Street) would be required to be enlarged from the existing 15-foot right-of-way. This access road would serve the northern parcel(s) or serve as the northern (back) access through the properties. The existing 15-foot easement (711 feet of which is on the applicant's property) connecting to N.E. 4th Street would require expansion to 20 feet and 32 feet at the street. A parcel, not a part of this application, intersects the subject parcels, potentially preventing expansion of this existing 15-foot, easement to 20 feet and possibly the implementation of complete access through the parcels from R-050-77 Page Six ORDERED THIS 12th day of July, 1977. L. Rick Beeler Land Use Hearing Examiner TRANSMITTED THIS 12th day of July, 1977 by Affidvait of Mailing to the Parties of Record: Israel Carue Ron Olsen Clinton Morgan TRANSMITTED THIS 12th day of July, 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 Ron Nelson, Building Division Pursuant to Title IV, Section 3015 of the City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed in writing on or before July 26, 1977. Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the Examiner is based on erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact, error in judgment, or the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing may make a written request for review by the Examiner within fourteen (14) days from the date of the Examiner's decision. This request shall set forth the specific errors relied upon by such appellant, and the Examiner may, after review of the record, take further action as he deems proper. An appeal to the City Council is governed by Title IV, Section 3016, which requires that such appeal be filed with the City Clerk accompanying a filing fee of $25.00 and meeting other specified requirements. Copies of this ordinance are available for inspection in the City Clerk's office, first floor of City Hall, or same may be purchased at cost in said office. R-050-77 Page Five 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. " The last land use analysis was accomplished in 1968; however, in response to the aforementioned rezone requests adjacent to the subject property, detailed land use, utility, access, and zoning analysis were subsequently performed. Of particular importance was the analysis completed during review of the Jensen proposal in 1971, which seems to be of more detail than in the analysis of the earlier requests. The record established in the hearing before the Examiner did not contain "substantial evidence" that the subject property was not "specifically considered" during the 1968 land use analysis, nor was evidence submitted showing that the property was specifically considered. Since a detailed analysis had been performed on an adjacent parcel as late as 1971 (Jensen) , it appears from the minutes of the Planning Commission that the Comprehensive Land Use Map designation of Medium Density Multifamily was intended for eventual future development. (It was found that rezoning to R-3 in 1971 was premature.) My conclusion is that the subject . property and its adjacent parcels were considered in sufficient detail to permit land use decisions. The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map indicates some justification for the change of land use, but the Map is "a general design for future growth" and the policies must be applied (p.2, Comprehensive Plan) . According to the Comprehensive Plan, page 9, the city is to utilize land use principles to "promote the coordinated development of undeveloped areas." The neighborhood of the subject property is essentially rural in character and not developed to the density allowed by zoning. Several parcels remain undeveloped, some of which have been previously rezoned to R-3. These characteristics indicate that the principle of timing, a fundamental of land use planning, must be applied to this rezone application. The existence of two parcels of already zoned R-3 property which have yet to be developed provides a strong indication that the timing of the subject application is premature and that multifamily development is not yet feasible/marketable for the immediate neighborhood. As witnessed by existing development, it appears that higher density single family is somewhat premature as well. However, given possible changes in the development picture at some future time, the timing of development of the property may become more favorable. In terms of the Objectives of the Land Use Report, Objective number 1 requires protection of residential districts from incompatible uses. It seems that the proposed medium density multifamily would require buffering adjacent to the existing low density single family. Objective number 4 specifies protection of property values. The proposed R-3 zoning category will raise the property value of the subject parcels, but may not so favorably impact the values of adjacent parcels. A scaling down of land use intensity or other adequate buffering techniques would be needed. Objective Number 6 requires development of land to its "highest and best use." In this case, R-3 is probably the highest intensity of land use acceptable in this area. However, R-3 appears to be less than the best use owing to existing development, the timing of the proposal, and the need for a scaling down of land use intensity. Therefore, while the application specifically conforms to the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and generally conforms to the Comprehensive Plan policies which would seem to require scaling down of the proposal for buffering purposes, the proposal is premature in terms of timing for the existing neighborhood. As the area continues to develop, including access and utilities, it is very probable that the timing will become more favorable for a reclassification to multifamily at least along a portion abutting N.E. 4th Street. RECOMMENDATION: Based upon the record, findings and conclusions, it is recommended that the rezone application be denied. RECEIVED CITY OF RENTON HEARING XAMUNER PLANNING DEPARTMENT 1971 AM c PM PRELIMINARY REPORT TO HEARING EXAMINER '7iSi°i(Ui19il2ilii2,3i4i5ifi PUBLIC HEARING JULY 5 , 1977 77 APPLICANT: CARUE/KURAMOTO/WEBER ITEM NO. f_ ODD - 7 7 FILE NO. : R-050-77 , REZONE FROM G , GENERAL CLASSIFICATION DISTRICT , TO R-3 , MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT A. SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Applicant requests approval of rezone to medium density multiple family zone, which would permit development of apartments to a maxi - mum density of 30 units per acre . No specific development plans have been presented with the subject request . B. GENERAL INFORMATION : 1 . Owner or Record : EVELYNN AND ISRAEL CARUE ; TOM KURAMOTO ; AND LLOYD WEBER 2 . Applicant : EVELYNN AND ISRAEL CARUE ; TOM KURAMOTO ; AND LLOYD WEBER 3 . Location : Approximately 600 feet east of the inter- section of N . E . 4th and Union Avenue N . E . and extending north from that point approximately 1300 feet . 4 . Legal Description :A detailed legal description is available on file in the Renton Planning Department. 5 . Size of Property : Approximately 7 . 2 acres . 6 . Access : Parcel B - N . E. 4th Street Parcel A - via a 15 foot private easement from N . E . 4th Street . Parcel C - via a 15 foot private easement from Union Avenue N . E . 7 . Existing Zone : G , General Classification District 8 . Existing Zoning in G , General Classification District ; R-3 , the Area : Multiple Family Residence District ; and SR, King County zoning . 9 . Comprehensive Medium Density Multiple Family Residen- Land Use Plan : tial and Single Family Residential . 10. Notification : The applicant was notified in writing of the hearing date . Notice was property published in the Record Chronicle and posted in six places on or near the site as required by City ordinance . Notice was also mailed to surrounding property owners . C. PURPOSE OF REQUEST: Applicant has indicated the purpose of their request is to allow higher intensity zoning for sale of the property to potential developers . D. HISTORY/BACKGROUND: The subject site was annexed to the City on November 23 , 1966 , by Ordinance 2290 . The existing R-3 zoning was designated in approximately 1968. No development consistent with the existing PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT TO HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING OF JUNE 28, 1977 PAGE TWO RE : CARUE/KURAMOTO , WEBER, REZONE APPLICATION NO. R-050-77 R-3 zoning has been constructed to date. A repair garage use on the site is a legal non-conforming use which was in existence prior to the annexation to the city. E. PHYSICAL BACKGROUND: 1 . topography : The southerly 150 - 200 feet of the subject site con- sists of a drainage swale with an elevation approximately 5 - 7 feet lower than that of N. E . 4th Street. The topography is rela- t;ively level throughout the remaining portions of the site , with a high point near the existing residence on Parcel A. 2 . Soils : Alderwood Gravelly Sandy Loam (AgC) . Permeability is moderately rapid in the surface layer and subsoil . Runoff is slow to medium, and hazard of erosion is moderate . This soil is used for timber, pasture, row crops , and urban development. I 3 . Vegetation : The first one-third of the site adjacent to N . E . 4th Street consists of scrub grasses and shrubs , with some scattered trees ; the remainder of the site is more heavily treed, especially toward the northerly portion . 4. Wildlife : Existing vegetation on the site provides suitable habitat for birds and small mammals . 5 . Water : An intermittent drainage swale appears to transgress the southerly 150 feet of the subject site . Another intermittent stream within the northerly one-third of the site is indicated on the aerial topographic maps . 6 . Land Use : There is an existing single family residence on Parcel B ( Kuramoto property ) . Parcel A contains an existing single family residence and shop building . The site is gen- erally surrounded by low density single family residential uses on the west , east , north and south across N . E . 4th Street. F. NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTERISTICS: Generally low density single family residences are combined with much undeveloped property. Renton School District owns property north of the subject site originally intended for the defunct Apollo Middle School . G. PUBLIC SERVICES: 1 . Water and Sewer : An 8 inch water main exists along the south side of N. E. 4th Street. Sanitary sewers are not available to the site. An 8 inch line exists at the corner of N . E . 4th Street and Union Avenue N. E. The Utilities Division has indicated that a pumping station would be necessary, if it is extended eastward along N . E . 4th Street. Storm sewers exist approximately 300 feet west of the site . 2. Fire Protection : Provided by the Renton Fire Department as per ordinance requirements ; Any future development is subject to the City of Renton standards . 3. Transit : Transit Route 107 operates along N. E. 4th Street approxi - mately one mile west of the subject site. 4. Schools : The site is within one-half mile of Hazen High School , two miles of McKnight Middle School , and within one-half mile of Honeydew Elementary School . 5 . Parks : Subject site is within one-half mile of Kiwanis Park on Union Avenue N. E . PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT TO HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING OF JUNE 28 , 1977 PAGE THREE RE : CARUE/KURAMOTO/WEBER , REZONE APPLICATION NO . R-050-77 I . APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OR OTHER OFFICIAL CITY DOCUMENTS : 1 . Lend Use Report , 1965 , page 17 , Subdivisions . J . IMPACTS ON NATURAL SYSTEMS : The rezoning of the property will not have a direct impact on natural systems . However , eventual development related to subject zoning may have impacts on soil and vegetation , runoff, traffic , and noise . K. SOCIAL IMPACTS Social impacts may occur through resultant incompatibilities in land uses 'created by rezoning and development . 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 Declara- tion of Non-significance has been issued for the subject proposal see attached) . However , this does not preclude the further review of the environmental questions pursuant to SEPA at the time more detailed plans for development are submitted to the City . M. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION : The 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 Utilities Division 4 . City of Renton Fire Department Copies of certain memoranda are attached .. O, PLANNING DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS: 1 . The Comprehensive Land Use Plan indicates medium density multiple family future use for the southerly three-fourths of the subject site and single family residential for the northerly one-fourth . Therefore , the subject request is not entirely compatible with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. 2. Surrounding zoning consists of G, General Classification (single family residence district ) , and R-3 , medium density multiple residence district. However, the R-3 was rezoned in the late 1960 ' s , and no development has occurred on these parcels to date . This could be considered a case of premature zoning , with the existing easterly R-3 zoned property resembling a "spot" zone . 3. The site is presently surrounded by low density single family residential land uses . The only existing higher intensity land use is the existing gas station at the corner of Union Avenue N. E. and N . E. 4th Street approximately 500 feet to the west of the subject site . 4. ) Review of the various departments indicate concern that the 1 rezoning may be premature due to the lack of sewer and water in the area suitable for such development. Substantial exten- sions of these utilities would be necessary. 5.1 Another primary concern is the present access for the subject property . Access is not critical for the Parcel B site , which fronts on N. E . 4th Street . However, it is quite significant PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT TO HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING OF JUNE 28 , 1977 PAGE FOUR RE : CARUE/KURAMOTO/WEBER, REZONE APPLICATION NO . R-050-77 for the remaining Parcels A and C . Parcels A and B are separa- te'd by approximately 35 feet of property not involved in the subject rezone proposal . Therefore , the only access from N . E . 4th Street to Parcel A is by an existing 15 foot easement road along the easterly boundary of Parcel B . The only access to Parcel C is by 15 foot easement road extending from Union Ave- nue N . E . along the northerly boundary of the subject site and entirely within King County jurisdiction . These circumstances indicate generally insufficient access for higher residential density. 6 . No specific development plans have been submitted to date. The applicant has answered question number 7 on the application form relating to the proposed use of site with the statement upgrade to sell . " Significant amounts of fill in the southerly 150 feet will be necessary to properly develop and service the subject site. P. PLANNING DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION: Th' subject rezone request, based on the reasons stated in the above analysis , indicates that the medium density multiple family zoning islinappropriate and premature for the area at this time . However, given proper access , utilities , and development plans in the future , some form of multiple family zoning on portions of the subject site could be an acceptable land use for the site and surrounding area . 1 I li VS 7 ROUTING FOR REVIEW OF ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORMS TO : Finance Department Fire Department Library Department i Park Department 1 Police Department Public Works Department 8 Building Div. Traffic Engineering Div . Engineering Div . Utilities Engineering Div , FROM : Planning Department , (signed by responsible official or his 1 designee) kz,€t 4(4g SUBJ CT : 1 Review of ECF- 52.-77 Application No . : A-050--77 Action Name :Awe - Ku EtMq TO ._ i s - E-zt)..) To fa-3 Please review the attached . Review requested by ( date) : (v /6/7 7 REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : Department : 57 Comments : sue D..Q..._Li-k .)c. .u7 o 6 Ai,7' S e ti AgCcc.,S ice- ,o ci 14OE_ S ; 6ti i € .c 4.. Air i nn PA c—r F,.`C ---t-i-/ A R- - Y'7 E'Oc"=' i,Z/P.a S A.)e-C1) y. 5 y--c -Ot..t it.„-.- 8 c-Qz.. co , c-cro i7 S G' o o J AC c. r.--s1-, - i-c . J Signature irector or Authorized Representative Date f i REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : Department : e) /, 4-es - eAdGe• Comments : A/r17-1.72. .Ativ z,S4.uibb 7AtJ s fie- moo ;A/ G<U64 lci,ill 0V 7 GS A /4, , x f75/e i1 S - 3C en 0241n4t" 2:-. yet 17 0-n /i g7vi i 2-c-0 e, 4,(1,1, Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date 6-76 OVER) t REVIEW BY OTHER CITY - uc.PARTMENTS : Department :_ 77C6-mac ca- Comments : vim' l`-7c-l"i ,., NEed Mare p/e (c' //' UeSf r`i f- n 4071-7 717 I)7/77 Signature of Director or Authori d Repr'esent'ative Date II REVIEW .BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : Department : irE Q .Q r e - Comments : /1" O l2r e - ,ua doc. / / ji/7s l/L I ZrZ 7 Siign .Furs of irector or uthorized Representative Date REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : Department : Comments : Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : Department : Comments : Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date f_p, i I 0 - . Q ff.M1 , riea I GSi— 1 f_I Lt/ 1- e, / e 9.R I. f 1Fla ' TN .T. _ 71, I I ' t fL _ I I io " , +- _.- I'•I,.I.- . U Y 1..J ('4. i q "' y 111 4 1 S TIiiSj, i BAN E.QtBT., I p it O sj(IT e a e! c ,I i. l >_ jf'iZl : 1 ZM 4 se s g'i" i "_ a '-.N.J -- --W- I , I. PLn site.. rin% ~.000@ ag-4. 2,SN's ul tea•• _^P i',r,3,1.4Li:t.3 I _ 1 r..•_• I i I ePOGO . J_ G-$—ii i I wTr• ___ L_. - i i i 0T-r J__ 6 a.-,I I I I 4 EWE 1 1 B I, e ion1I l I I -ILO L r 4 TN $T --- ip I 1 F G I I NWOOD G I ALII IETERY I E NI a. .. I I W D I it--LI 1— ---------- i ----- - r I I a i1 I I I I I i I L_ 4 I---- - ---- I I I f',t_I. i 1 - 1 ; I a Ij i G_T1,1 1 1 I REZONE : CARUE , KURAMOTO , AND WEBER; Appl . No . R-050-77 , Rezone from G , General Classification District , to. R-3 , Multiple Family Residence District ; property located approximately 600 feet east of the intersection of N . E . 4th and Union Ave. N . E . and extending north from that point approximately 1300 feet. APPLICANT CARUE , KURAMOTO , AND WEBER TOTAL AREA ±7 . 2 acres PRINCIPAL ACCESS N . E. 4th Street EXISTING ZONING G EXISTING USE Residential /Undeveloped PROPOSED USE Multi -family Medium Density Multi -family COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN and Single Family COMMENTS I 1 e-050-4 'on° 9N07 3I i$ WV 0)0W4102/ 'one oOrzyv7vs . II I11 GE II 040e1 Ym41m1L _ go W Is I 1 I ' II I I I I I I I I I ' SO4[•o i rep s© I 0Ell I I 0 oer r a a fi 'V N 1 o e e • o o • f 01 eei0°siiic p Y/1 0• io 1 iime••io°c 1 i•• 0 •-•i••0 A40 o s • Aim s A o••• i a •• I ' c e e •• a •• •° c Ir4s A Fitirs • • • o e o 11 11 s • o••SOQ AA 01 0 o i•o e o e I e 0 s i• e•o°0°•e11 11 A fja/6* ••••••o o•e°°•° 1 t o • • • • 0 e 1 0 o• •°• •o i o • • s • • o s 44, o e o°o•o•°•0°•• 1A o e°e°0°o••0•• A o•o•0•o•°i 4/ I gA 0 0 •i i•°•°Oo°0•0° 0 3.71E 7 °SIC g.... y , e ••• • • • oo • oo - s e • o • • • • o 0 0 0 0 . 11 o o • • e•e•e•••••••o•••o 01 o • • 0000 • oeo Q e o4••io0.0• ioer ee - --,.!.:11 o ° s 0 • • • • o o • i.0 • • • • • • e o • • • • rso II r O s • e e • o • • • o o • f 0 • • • e • • • • • I e • o • • • • 4110.104• s • eo • • oa k I O • • • • • 000 !.( 0 • • e • 0 • • • • 00 • s • • • • • • o • e< :F -,II •e • • • 0 • • • i a o • aLI 0 • • 0 • • 0.0 00•"'• 0 iii•'o • • • o• ` °sa 1i•• • • o • o o • o • o o • o • •, eo • e • o • • • 000f 1eo • • • • o • o • e o 0 • • e o`e e • •po/o • ° 0 0 0 6666dddd s • • m • • o • e i o o •o e • • • e • e o • o • o O 9 e • • • O • • o • • o e •' q e • • o • • o e e e.• • • • ! GI a fe0 • o • o0s0••s0• t GG..ii 0 0 o m • o o I o o • o • e • • • o • • ° °, o° 16 ma ma ma om ma ma ea m am ma . moo ma me ap easa 0 0 0 • •• o e o 0 0 • r oo•eoeoo•o o s••Ssoo:000• 1 U • o o • • o a • • e • 0.0 • • • 11 i o • y ° y, •o o!C$ 0 0% • o •°o o*roe ••o••• oO O 0 • •o oe0 o o 0 0 oOff, o.• • 01-J'+,,e, ® w• o64 0'-44.-'.. e .„ h o.w-sr::wr:r --Ma•-ar. *nu,.,-.e+- m**•mx ..,orris ,u•.w, r^,d.,; M.... .... ... _ - ... x,.-. x, y - .x."Sy'i. Imo,. FS' •"r 1 El t PROPOSED/FINAL 1;.LLARATION OF SIGNIFICANCE/ ,..;,V-SIGNIFICANCE Application No . R-050-77 0 PROPOSED Declaration Environmental Checklist No . ECF-252-77 X FINAL Declaration Description of proposal Rezone from G. General Classification District, to R-3 , Multiple Family Residence District . Proponent CARUE/KURAMOTO/WEBER Approx. 600' east of the intersection of N.E. 4th and Location of Proposal Union Ave. N.E. and extending north from that point approx. 1300' . Lead Agency Renton Planning Department This proposal has been determined to ® have x® 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-de 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 : Re-spun-s-ible 0 ficial Gordon---Y-.- Erick-sen Title Planni : . Di ;actor Date June 27 , 1977 Signature /A 1, N r_ City of Renton Planning Department 5 -76 Affidavit of Publication STATE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY OF KING ss. Betty Morris being first duly sworn on oath,deposes and says that.she...is the cha.e.f..c•1•erk of r- h' 1 .o T'NOTICE :: ; ' THE RENTON RECORD-CHRONICLE, a newspaper published four(4) i-;:iFiiiBLICuHEARING x •''}'• times a week.That said newspaper is a legal newspaper and it is now and RENTON LAND`USE ,,.` has been for more than six months prior to the date of publication referred HEARING EXAMINER.'• 0i;to, printed and published in the English language continually as a news- RENTON,WASHINGTON'• paper published four(4)times a week in Kent,King County,Washington, A PUBLIC HEARING,and it is now and during all of said time was printed in an office maintained WILL BE HELD BY THEattheaforesaidplaceofpublicationofsaidnewspaper.That the Renton Record-Chronicle has been approved as a legal newspaper by order of the RENTON LAND U$E, Superior Court of the County in which it is published,to-wit,King County, ' t HEARING EXAMINER AT ,?•:, HIS REGULAR MEETINGly IN THE COUNCIL CHAM=; ' ' Washington.That the annexed is a RCl1 ton_ Land Use. Hearing BERS, CITY HALL, RE NTON,WANON,ON'' JULY 5,1977SHI,AT GT 9:00 Apt . TO CONSIDER THE FOL LOWING PETITIONS: 1 . ISRAEL AND, ,. as it was published in regular issues(and EVELYNN CARUE,RE-'not in supplement form of said newspaper) once each issue for a period ZONE FROM G.TO R=3,` I• File No. R-050-77;prop- erty located on N.E.and ,•, 138th Ave. S.E. Legalone consecutive issues,commencing on theof description on file in Re= 24th June I nton Planning Departdayof19andendingthe1ment.ALL INTERESTED PER, SONS TO SAID PETITIONS•; ARE INVITED TO BE PRE-- , day of 19 ,both dates SENT AT THE PUBLIC ; inclusive, and that such newspaper was regularly distributed to its sub- HEARING ON JULY 5,1977,. scribers during all of said period. That the full amount of the fee at 9:00 A.M.TO FJ(PRES$'.' ' THEIR OPINIONS. charged for the foregoing 16. GORDON Y.ERICKSEN g g g publication is the sum of $ Which PL,gNNING DIRECT,QR'has been paid in full at the rate of per folio of one hundred words for the RENTON; first insertion and per folio of one hundred words for each subsequent G Published in The Renton`.insertion. Record-Chronicle June 24 J'- , 1977.R4418 — chief clerk Subscribed and sworn to before me thi24.th day of June 19....7..7 p•F R y w4, ,44- Notary Public n nd for the State of Was gton, RECFIIIED )c, y i tt p` residing at Kent, Kin ounty. ry n< tr ri' ,1 En t -,•.; ::,'N,,. ..e4,egislature,1955,known as Senate Bill 281,effective June i'_ east •. Telegraph Co. rules for counting words and figures,9 goitf d:by the newspapers of the State. 1V/ eGDETN V.P.C.Form No.87 CITY OF RENTON REZONE APPLICATION FOR OFFICE USE ONLY LAND USE HEARING APPLICATION NO. e D Sa 77 EXAMINER 'S ACTION APPLICATION FEE $ /7./' G APPEAL FILED RECEIPT NO. /619(1/zbc.r) /"d 6(/rarainv Ila) CITY COUNCIL ACTION OQ/ (CTCtru.e.} , ` FILING DATE 13/2'2' ORDINANCE NO. AND DATE HEARING DATE j/, /77 // APPLICANT TO COMPLETE ITEMS 1 THROUGH 10 : U r_ 1a /— /(v tore) - dc15 fU cam o _ 1 . Name1/4'.Zr" 9 d /`[ -- Phone 01 J - o Address .5 74? NC- v r 7,2,,,, t9 wa-r %, D(J- J 3. Property petitioned for rezoning is located on N t---, /71,4Z between and 4 . Square footage or acreage of property a / O 5 . Legal description of property (if more space is required, attach a separate sheet) Tape , /-7 ) OI i - /7 Al ES T- y, AugnS% ys'vv%//v/ws iC a l) i /7'We S f 2.3 i ale i `, t c-w 5" 4--",--- r'1 ,%- /C'.(-i, 7 mod-, 4 a X - EP A(C /?i/ A , ‘a i ,! 6 . Existing Zoning S/N G L t 1 M/LY Zoning Requested Dl -3 NOTE TO APPLICANT: The following factors are considered in reclassifying 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 UP 6.Nr- D `y 4` 8. List the measures to be taken to reduce impact on the surrounding area. 9 . How o mi a ei"/ - rezone is granted do you intend to develop the site? iii b 2/ 10 . , Two 1ppies. of.. .pl "t plan and affidavit of ownership are required. 9 Planning Dept. . %N NG r eP 1-77 AFFIDAVIT I ' ZA.a.ce. i' •idEdbeing duly sworn, declare that Iamtheowneroftprppertyinvolvedinthisapplicationandthattheforegoingstatementsandanswershereincontainedandtheinformation herewith submitted are in all respects true and correct to the best ofmyknowledgeandbelief. Subscribed and sworn before me this '/ day of s 19 7 Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, residing at 021.1,44"--. . Vry-r.,,r-et Name of Notary Public) Sigrure 'Of Owner) AvPri Address) tP j-V-- ddress City) State) Telephone) FOR OFFICE USE ONLY) CERTIFICATION This is to certify that the foregoing application has been inspected by meandhasbeenfounoroughandcompleteineveryparticularandto conform to the a a 4110 lations of the Renton Planning Department governing the 21i.n u pplication. Date Received 3 1977 19 By: Renton Planning Dept . AFFIDAVIT L)Q-F*`c`f\O 1 being duly sworn, declare that Iamtheownerofthepropertyinvolvedinthisapplicationandthattheforegoingstatementsandanswershereincontainedandtheinformationherewithsubmittedareinallrespectstrueandcorrecttothebestofmyknowledgeandbelief. Subscribed and sworn before me this 3j'day of YEA-,' 1977 Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, residing at --ibL--.L- -V1A -1- . 02- cg, Name of Notary Public Si na( g ture o Owner) Address) Address) 4- f City) State) 22 Z ( Z Telephone) FOR OFFICE USE ONLY) CERTIFICATION This is to certify thait..._t_ he foregoing application has been inspected by meandhasbeenfouryd%O bp- rough and complete in every particular and toconformtothe ,,tu4es zfc ations of the Renton Planning Department governing thef4inj / ydh3'àpplicationDateReceivedUN3 19 By: G DE -'P Np Renton Planning Dept . Ill lill AFFIDAVIT I, -- -! 7/ G Ci-%(— L 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 16th day of May 19 77 Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, residing at Woodinville Name of -Notary/Public) i n ure of Owner)(S gn t 21400-73rd Drive S.E. , Woodinville, WA 98072 7O 0Q ge` CL) Address) Address) 60--Lke_LL• L-LAA2_/:_. City) j( State) 985-- .3 5 -3 Telephone) FOR OFFICE USE ONLY) • CERTIFICATION This is to certify that the foregoing application has been inspected by me and has been found .-txrf orough and complete in every particular and to conform to the r ega L* ., lations of the Renton Planning Department governing the f / n 0E$tImu` \ application . Date Received i `> a i, 19 By: 57 i Renton Planning Dept . v Ev s, 7-4X1 b u, . A.' 41. o/ rrYP#W s AA s'ALI 74. 7p1 (72-7-?rg rS i 71aaYd. 71 7(% s I 44 d S I w s d'a 9 s• b _cG / . CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM OF R Eivi, 4.k, (g.\\jh C). . V JUN 6 1917 NI- FOR OFFICE USE ONLY ot 4. Application No.O 6-0 - 77 94 . C Environmental Checklist No.C?/ -4rSa, =77 G PROPOSED, date: FINAL , date : — 0 Declaration of Significance Declaration of Significance 0 Declaration of Non-Significance (="Declaration of Non-Significance , COMMENTS : e 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. I 1 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM I . BACKGROUND J 1 . Name of Proponent CA_R_V_ 0 V fi n/ //)0 727 1 EB R 1. Address and phone number of Proponent : tea 43/a- LE g 7;__`-?2 Y r 61 --- ."'- J ithavt) , 1 74 7 ASv i/fC1- 3. Date Checklist submitted tJNL l 9< 7 11 1 4. Agency requiring Checkl i s tPL/W N/,( •__ a/ 7 5.1 Name of proposal , if applicable : 1 , 7z- ,dJV 7„1,1 -/C IS 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) : - 2- 7. .• Location of proposal (describe the physical setting of the proposal , as well , , as the extent o,f‘ 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 ) : 8. Estimated date for completion of the proposal : I i ' 9. List of all permits , licenses or government approvals required for the plroposal ' federal , state and local --including rezones) :' 10. Do you have any plans for future additions , expansion , or further activi,t.y , related to or connected with this proposal? If yes , explain: 11. Do you know of `any plans by others which may affect the property covered by your proposal ? If yes , explain: ' 12. Attach any other application forum 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 'applicationform: i 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 1 substructures? YES MAYBE 0- b) Disruptions, displacements , compaction or over- covering of _the soil ?I( YES MAYBE NO c) Change in topography or ground surface relief features? ES MAYBE NO d) .The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? DES MAYBE NO e) Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils , either on or off the site? C YES MAYBE NO f) Changes in deposition or erosion o.f 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? • • YES MAYBE au- Explanation: 3- 2) Air. Will the proposal result in: a) Air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? YES MAYBE 0 b) The creation of objectionable odors? YES M BE NO c) Alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? 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? YES 'MAYBE NO b) Changes in absorption rates , drainage patterns , or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? YES MAYBE NO c) Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? YES MAYBE NO d) Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? YES MAYBE NO . e) Discharge into surface waters , or in any alteration surface water quality, including but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? YES MAYBE NO f) Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? K_ YES MB 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? 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 , 1/ or other substances into the ground waters? A YES MBE NO i ) Reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? 1TES M 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)? YES MAYBE NO b) Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of flora? YES MAYBE NO . c) Introduction of new species of flora into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing J species? 1 YES MAYBE•W d) Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? YET— WaE NO Explanation: I• 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)? YES MMAY E , NO b) Reduction of' the numbers of any unique, rare or- endangered ,species of fauna?, . YES MAYBE NO c) Introduction of new species of fauna into an area , or result in a barrier to the migration or movement xoffauna? YES MAYBE NO ! d) Deterioration' to existing fish or wildlife habitat? YES MAYBE NO Explanation: 1 6) Noise. Will the proposal increase existing noise levels? YES MAYBE NO Explanation: 7) Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? YES M-AYYBE NO Explanation: 8) Land Use. Will the proposal result in the alteration, of the present or planned land use of an area? YES - MAYBE fi0 Explanation:o `.—_ --_ 9) Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in : a) Increase in. the rate of use of any natural resources? YES_ MAYBE NO_ b) Depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource? YES M YBE N 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? YES MAYBE NO Explanation: 11) Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distri- bution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? YES- MAYBE N Explanation: 5- 12) Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing , or create a demand for additional housing? J` YES MAYBE NO Explanation: 13) Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in: a) Generation of additional vehicular movement? YES MAYBE NO b) Effects on existing parking facilities , or demand for new parking? . YES MAYBE NO c)(c) Impact upon existing transportation systems? YES -MAYBE NO d) Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? J YES MAYBE NO e) Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? YES MAYBE NO f) Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles , bicyclists or pedestrians? Il YES RUBE NO Explanation: 14) Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas : a) Fire protection? YES MAYBE NO b) Police protection? YES M 0 c) Schools? YES MAYBE O d) Parks or other recreational facilities? YES MAYBE NO e) Maintenance of public facilities , including roads? YES MAYBE N'O f) Other governmental services? YES MAYBE NO Explanation: 15) Energy. Will the proposal result in: a) Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? YES MAYBE 0 b) Demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? YES MAYBE N Explanation: 16) Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? YES RATITE NO b) 'Communications systems? YES MAYBE NO c) Water? YES MAYBE NO 6- d) Sewer or septic tanks? YES MAYBE NO e) Storm water drainage? C YES FITTETr NO f) Solid waste and disposal? YES MAYBE N1 Explanation: 17) Human Health. Will the proposal result in the creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? 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? YES MAYBE NO Explanation: 19) Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? 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? S- MAYBE N6— Explanation: I ' III. SIGNATURE I , the undersigned, state that to the best of my knowledge the above information is true and complete. It is understood that the lead agency may withdraw any decla- ration of non-significance that it might issue in reliance upon this checklist should there be any willful misrepresentation or willf 1 lack of full d isclosure on my part. Proponent: 4/9 / C sig d) ZYCLYNYil( ,Z, `' ,9 H 2 name printed) City of Renton Planning Department 5-76 NJOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ' RENTON LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER RENTON, WASHINGTON A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE RENTON LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER AT HIS REGULAR MEETING IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS , CITY HALL , RENTON , WASHINGTON , ON JULY 5 , 19 77 , AT 9 : 00 A. M. TO CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING PETITIONS : 1 . ISRAEL AND EVELYNN CARIJE , REZONE FROM G TO R-3 , File No . R-050-77 ; property located on N . E. 4th St . , approximately 600 feet east of Union Ave . N. E. , between Union Ave. N. E . and 138th Ave . S . E. Legal description on file in Renton Planning Department. ALL INTERESTED PERSONS TO SAID PETITIONS ARE INVITED TO BE PRESENT AT THE PUBLIC HEARING ON JULY 5, 1977 AT 9 : 00 A. M. TO EXPRESS THEIR OPINIONS. GORDON Y. ERICKSEN PUBLISHED June 24 , 1977 RENTON PLANNING DIRECTOR CERTIFICATION I , MICHAEL L. SMITH HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THREE COPIES OF THE ABOVE DOCUMENT WERE POSTED BY ME IN THREE CONSPICUOUS PLACES ON THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED ABOVE AS PRESCRIBED BY LAW. ATTEST: - Subscribed and sworn to before me, a Not py Public , . on the tot day of AUNe) 19 —11 SIGNED pF R, 4 0 THE CITY. OF RENTONc, .. gip: zl. .`, O MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON,WASH.98055 - 0 milms 4 ` w. CHARLES-J.DELAURENTI, MAYOR • PLANNING DEPARTMENTco- 235-25500, 4P41 4D SFPtt' June 14, 1977 Mr. and Mrs . I . W. Carue 4312 N. E. 4th. Street Renton , Washington 98055 RE: NOTICE OF APPLICATION ACCEPTANCE AND PUBLIC HEARING DATE FOR APPLICATION FOR REZONE FROM G TO R-3 , FILE NO. R-050-77 ; PROPERTY LOCATED ON N. E . 4TH ST. BETWEEN UNION AVE. N. E. AND 138TH AVE. S. E. Dear Mr. and Mrs . Carue : The Renton Planning Department formally accepted the above mentioned application, on June 10, 1977 A publichearingbeforetbeCityofRentonHearingExaminerhasbeen set for July. 5 , 1977 at 9 : 00 a. m. . Representatives of the applicant are asked to be present.All interested persons are invited to attend the hearing.If you have any further questions , please call the Renton Planning Department, 235-2550-, Very truly yours , Gordon Y. Ericksen Planning Director Air/BY: Mi ' hael L. mith Associate Planner MLS :wr cc : Tom Kuramoto Lloyd Weber INTERDEPARTMENTAL REVIEW REQUEST TO : PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR Ij BUILDING DIVISION ENGINEERING DIVISION TRAFFIC ENGINEERING DIVISION I/UTILITIES DIVISION FIRE DEPARTMENT HEALTH DEPARTMENT FROM : PLANNING DEPARTMENT Nic41,1j( Contact Person . R E: ltle..uL- Ku amDTD— bugger? 2 A-°so -77 Please review the attached information regarding the subject proposal and return it to the Planning Department by 7 7 with your written recommend tion . Your response will be included as part of the staff report to the Hearing Examiner. Thank you , PLANNING DEPARTM T Date 7 7 G 07 r ROUTING FOR REVIEW OF ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORMS TO : Finance Department III Fire Department Library Department Park Department Police Department Public. Works Department 8 Building Div. Traffic Engineering Div . Engineering Div . Utilities Engineering Div. FROM : Planning Department, (signed by responsible official or his designee) ks4 4(•t,g SUBJECT : Review of ECF- a52.-77 Application No . : A-050-77 Action Name : (lA.I.UI: - Ku ttolo (n ro—LJ-S &?-- 6.5.-ZTAJG r ID _3 Please review the attached . Review requested by ( date) : 6, 70 7 REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : Department : '23(-bc Comments : cs Di-<_,.-L.-0,t/e..e.-4,14,4_,7 06 14,(p-r s 6,,,t) tie/ PA f C= S a c./ 4/40 S tort// €' i C. A Air AA 94 c-r p Af —7.-)44G' A R-•+a• , err? 0 6c- r./Pc)e'S st) CT. b -.3 7`-zi 4)zn... 9c;oz ,, R- ury its r n"7oJ[>-1 CC. cYS'j, gam . rd-M-e--, _ E - G /a -7 7 Signature irector or Authorized Representative Dater2 REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : Department : U,t. / /%,es ' &ii&e. Comments : M!i;92 .4,v D Q•vi/44 S-W .S /442-e- ki o 7- ¢vAi e,a.64 Iv/7-7Iv/ 6vbJ 4Q A-6 gx4i1S,vrl.S - •f ,n 1.)2A/nCr1f a h 4 0-n /ICE-qvi i Z eo 6 ./1 77 Signature of Director or Authorized Representative bate 6-76 OVER) REVIEW BY OTHER CIT\ .DEPARTMENTS : Department : c JComments : Need &are 6'-.tr /e (e 7' e4OC_S f rti 6- 7/77 Signature of Director or Authori d Representative e REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : Department : 7rE aret.ct`7me.-1-- Comments : ,z/lCA- of jticdier1 6eA _ c`Gi1/4--(a--t6 17 e/r4./ / = i`—Ii71OG /9; i/(S k/7 7 Sign ture of irector or uthorized Representative Date REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : Department : Comments : Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : Department : Comments : Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT TO HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING JULY 5 , 1977 APPLICANT: CARUE/KURAMOTO/WEBER FILE NO. : R-050-77 , REZONE FROM G, GENERAL CLASSIFICATION DISTRICT , TO R-3 , MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT A. SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Applicant requests approval of rezone to medium density multiple family zone , which would permit development of apartments to a maxi - mum density of 30 units per acre . No specific development plans have 'been presented with the subject request. B. GENERAL INFORMATION: 1 . 1 Owner or Record : EVELYNN AND ISRAEL CARUE ; TOM KURAMOTO ; AND LLOYD WEBER 2 . Applicant : EVELYNN AND ISRAEL CARUE ; TOM KURAMOTO ; AND LLOYD WEBER 3 . Location : Approximately 600 feet east of the inter- section of N . E . 4th and Union Avenue N . E . and extending north from that point approximately 1300 feet . 4 . Legal Description : A detailed legal description is available on file in the Renton Planning Department. 5 . Size of Property : Approximately 7 . 2 acres . 6 . Access : Parcel B - N . E. 4th Street Parcel A - via a 15 foot private easement from N . E. 4th Street. Parcel C - via a 15 foot private easement from Union Avenue N . E. 7 . Existing Zone : G , General Classification District 8 . Existing Zoning in G , General Classification District; R-3 , the Area : Multiple Family Residence District; and SR, King County zoning . 9 . Comprehensive Medium Density Multiple Family Residen- Land Use Plan : tial and Single Family Residential . 10. Notification : The applicant was notified in writing of the hearing date . Notice was property published in the Record Chronicle and posted in six places on or near the site as required by City ordinance . Notice was also mailed to surrounding property owners . C. PURPOSE OF REQUEST: Applicant has indicated the purpose of their request is to allow higher intensity zoning for sale of the property to potential developers . D. HISTORY/BACKGROUND: The subject site was annexed to the City on November 23 , 1966 , by Ordinance 2290 . The existing R-3 zoning was designated in approximately 1968. No development consistent with the existing PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT TO HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING OF JUNE 28, 1977 PAGE TWO RE : CARUE/KURAMOTO , WEBER, REZONE APPLICATION NO. R-050-77 R-3 zoning has been constructed to date. A repair garage use on the site is a legal non-conforming use which was in existence prior to the annexation to the city. E. PHYSICAL BACKGROUND: 1 . Topography: The southerly 150 - 200 feet of the subject site con- sists of a drainage swale with an elevation approximately 5 - 7 feet lower than that of N . E. 4th Street. The topography is rela- tively level throughout the remaining portions of the site , with a high point near the existing residence on Parcel A. 2 . ' Soils : Alderwood Gravelly Sandy Loam (AgC) . Permeability is moderately rapid in the surface layer and subsoil . Runoff is slow to medium, and hazard of erosion is moderate . This soil i is used for timber, pasture, row crops , and urban development. 3 . Vegetation : The first one-third of the site adjacent to N. E . 4th Street consists of scrub grasses and shrubs , with some scattered trees ; the remainder of the site is more heavily treed , especially toward the northerly portion . 4 . Wildlife : Existing vegetation on the site provides suitable habitat for birds and small mammals . 5 . Water : An intermittent drainage swale appears to transgress the southerly 150 feet of the subject site. Another intermittent stream within the northerly one-third of the site is indicated on the aerial topographic maps . 6 . Land Use : There is an existing single family residence on Parcel B ( Kuramoto property ) . Parcel A contains an existing single family residence and shop building . The site is gen- erally surrounded by low density single family residential uses on the west , east, north and south across N . E . 4th Street . F. NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTERISTICS: Generally low density single family residences are combined with much undeveloped property. Renton School District owns property north of the subject site originally intended for the defunct Apollo Middle School . G. PUBLIC SERVICES: 1 . Water and Sewer: An 8 inch water main exists _along the south side of N. E. 4th Street. Sanitary sewers are not available to the site. An 8 inch line exists at the corner of N . E . 4th Street and Union Avenue N . E . The Utilities Division has indicated that a pumping station would be necessary, if it is extended eastward along N . E . 4th Street. Storm sewers exist approximately 300 feet west of the site . 2. Fire Protection : Provided by the Renton Fire Department as per ordinance requirements . Any future development is subject to the City of Renton standards . 3. Transit : Transit Route 107 operates along N . E. 4th Street approxi - mately one mile west of the subject site . 4. Schools : The site is within one-half mile of Hazen High School , two miles of McKnight Middle School , and within one-half mile of Honeydew Elementary School . 5'.1 Parks : Subject site is within one-half mile of Kiwanis Park on 1 Union Avenue N . E. PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT TO HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING OF JUNE 28 , 1977 PAGE THREE RE : CARUE/KURAMOTO/WEBER, REZONE APPLICATION NO . R-050-77 I I . APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OR OTHER OFFICIAL CITY DOCUMENTS: 1 . , Land Use Report , 1965 , page 17 , Subdivisions . J . IMPACTS ON1NATURAL SYSTEMS : The rezoning of the property .will not have a direct impact on natural systems . However, eventual development related to subject zoning may have impacts on soil and vegetation , runoff, traffic , and noise . K. SOCIAL IMPACTS Social impacts may occur through resultant incompatibilities in land us ? s„created by rezoning and development . IL. 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 Declara- tion, of Non-significance has been issued for the subject proposal see: attached) . However , this does not preclude the further review of : the ' environmental questions pursuant to SEPA at the time more detailed plans for development are submitted to the City . M. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION : The 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 Utilities Division 4 . City of Renton Fire Department Copies of certain memoranda are attached . 0. PLANNING DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS: 1 . The Comprehensive Land Use Plan indicates medium density multiple family future use for the southerly three-fourths of the subject site and single family residential for the northerly one-fourth . Therefore, the subject request is not entirely compatible with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. 2. Surrounding zoning consists of G, General Classification (single family residence district) , and R-3 , medium density multiple residence district. However, the R-3 was rezoned in the late 1960 ' s , and no development has occurred on these parcels to date . This could be considered a case of premature zoning , with the existing easterly R-3 zoned property resembling a "spot" zone . 3. The site is presently surrounded by low density single family residential land uses . The only existing higher intensity land use is the existing gas station at the corner of Union Avenue N . E. and N . E. 4th Street approximately 500 feet to the west of the subject site. 4. Review of the various departments indicate concern that the rezoning may be premature due to the lack of sewer and water in the area suitable for such development. Substantial exten- d sions of these utilities would be necessary. 5.' Another primary concern is the present access for the subject property . Access is not critical for the Parcel B site , which fronts on N. E . 4th Street. However, it is quite significant PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT TO HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING OF JUNE 28 , 1977 PAGE FOUR RE : ' CARUE/KURAMOTO/WEBER, REZONE APPLICATION NO . R-050-77 for the remaining Parcels A and C. Parcels A and B are separa- ted by approximately 35 feet of property not involved in the subject rezone proposal . Therefore , the only access from N . E . 4th Street to Parcel A is by an existing 15 foot easement road along the easterly boundary of Parcel B . The only access to Parcel C is by 15 foot easement road extending from Union Ave- nue N . E . along the northerly boundary of the subject site and entirely within King County jurisdiction . These circumstances indicate generally insufficient access for higher residential density. 6 . . No specific development plans have been submitted to date. The applicant has answered question number 7 on the application form relating to the proposed use of site with the statement upgrade to sell . " Significant amounts of fill in the southerly 150 feet will be necessary to properly develop and service the subject site . P. PLANNING DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION: Thg subject rezone request, based on the reasons stated in the above analysis , indicates that the medium density multiple family zoning is inappropriate and premature for the area at this time . However, given proper access , utilities , and development plans in the future , some 'form of multiple family zoning on portions of the subject site could be an acceptable land use for the site and surrounding area . 6 %/7 7 ROUTING FOR REVIEW OF ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORMS TO : Finance Department Fire Department Library Department Park Department Police Department Public Works Department Building Div . Traffic Engineering Div . Engineering Div . Utilities Engineering Div. FROM : Planning Department , (signed by responsible official or his designee) ML(g SUBJECT : Review of ECF- a5Z-77 Application No . : A-050--77 Action Name : atz.kie - ru ta4 T'D ._W G' t2- rZ r -co Please review the attached . Review requested by ( date) : 4, 707 REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : Department : Bc--o6 Comments : D.z...,..,,J__O v.e.,,n...,,,,ii 06 Ap7 S d"4) -74-7/-**---5 i an e,4 cT Ea,`t •-t/-.4 A sz- . , 1,-7? 0 617._x Z.' I S J G'1 b '-- S r-o -z,'c.....,. P c-/-e_.. ' P c:-r v /-s C' n''' J L F") < c- c=-- s_, • 2...... --c . e in —7? Signature irector or Authorized Representative Date0' :: 7 REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : Department : 0,4I. 4.es L tirGK'-• Comments : l:c:rZ A tis D .S,q.v u hi S vd-r.i /4-rt' e• ,u o 7 44,A, e.a.64 Gv.77aov7 Si,b,511471 LK4ns.e4S . S 024/iie f a4.n4o__„ i tqv,l2,(7) e, 41,2, jr-7) Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date 6=76 i OVER) REVIEW BY OTHER CIT ; ,.cPARTMENTS : Department : 2 T Y4 Comments : 6 p t/e / G-7 47- .I‘.7 y eCy UeSI 3 6-04--"zt 6 / • 77 Signature of Director or Authori ' d Repr"esentative Date REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : Department : U Comments : /1L' ar .1/v 'Mdi — G `o-'efA. i"S 1:01Qf /2 i//i.S I X5---/z Sign ture of irector or uthorized Representative Date REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : Department : Comments : Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : Department : Comments : j I ' Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date C.Zili 1P. .A. N10 f Jo. r e e Q ° + z I 111+ 1. r r f_—.. 11tRBI s N' M .T.;- -_ ILA 1 eE ",H yE III e s a , rt I;. .I. Q` Z I -b Zip• 1(44r s+r44T— Ld m;ppR. Zo . o lieIfr' IHT j— .1 R-; . . .1 1 UIIlirrIf mil rj 1,,,E_4TM1.-_- I I r - "! r-----. NWOOD;I 1 E_T RY; I I I I P I I D I t— I — I II I i.JI. II I ir A I N 1I I a i ,1,1 REZONE : CARUE , KURAMOTO, AND WEBER; Appl . No . R-050-77 , Rezone from G , General Classification District , to R-3 , Multiple Family Residence District ; property located approximately 600 feet east of the intersection of N. E. 4th and Union Ave. N . E . and extending north from that point approximately 1300 feet. APPLICANT CARUE , KURAMOTO , AND WEBER TOTAL AREA ±7 . 2 acres PRINCIPAL ACCESS N . E. 4th Street EXISTING ZONING G EXISTING USE Residential /Undeveloped PROPOSED USE Multi -family Medium Density Multi -family COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN and Single Family COMMENTS 1 LL-05®-11 'OW VI1QL1! 0i Q mow+ 'On7140) AlcicmJo;r9/) loot.: 1 774,i95' 1 II II 1 G ma ;e I I 0904r i Aa„q NI 0 ell I I I 1 I o II I I I I I I0 EA EnI" L74t I I 9 I 1 Iio®1v.1s 1 I I I 1 r'l9Ut3f$S a,; , • '/ OD MOP • • • ® • Y I1m-0 1 M_Lt • ' rd . I 1 II SIPS I , 1 / I I •0 e 0 0 S 0 ,a Nail L 1 r•oo • aeo • • i® ° ° i leem • e e • • 1 e s o•a•s°••e° 1 r1990j 9 v e° d ° °•• 0° Ears* 17)1* e • 0/ e.00' 0. 1 0 0 .•e spo I re o• ••..•`t•e^1 0 avow fovogotp. gitsi f= 1 4 Elf*, 11fr. O•..•.?,•'" i.iii• 40),•e:' 0,,•:0:-•0•• A,e II o i F4 I••i i i o• Jo; ir i 11 o •°°o°o°a°a yo • o • o oe • o •:I{ 0 . 0000 q 1 n o o°:u°e o e. e 00 e • 0 O •. 1 o•oa •. 0 0, 0 N0 rf itCCB191( i•oso°oaoo°}I orrroo • o •q Gib 0111111 g1 l i i t . •°e°o °w °O•'dr 1 Y! 1 iolli Z SLl$'2 S' ri•00:-m•bi-•o o m`o`e m e 1 o • s • • • o • o o e e o 0 0 • e • It • • • • o e •• •• o •• ••••e O O O•0•• o•• O o•• O k" a r N 11 0 • • 0 000, e e • o • o • • 0 1 oo00 • • • soo • o• iGdd II1 • • oeo • • • • o 11 a '' V" QQooaoa•°•e ms.0000°e°iet e yv, 1 o •m p4•o•e•oe•o o oo•m•d•e•, 4 • o o • • o • • 0 0 o e II 0 • 0 0.01.606.01.060' q jet • O • • • v o e o Cyap y ! 11 o m o • • • o et, o • o • e o-o-++...aa O • • • • 0 0 • • 0 • • I o • o e • o o • • • o • •1 o • • • • • • o I 11o • s o • ;o • • rS 4 1 o • e • • oe m • • '`+' Ir o • • • e e • o o N1r0 0 0 , ..V 1 oo••s•eomoo•e000• omo, j'..'` F1 I o • o e • • o • o • o e o o e 11 eso • • • • eso • '•, o•• II e e+,,, Tv 7 ••m•, x r" I! 1 I m•• • .0 ae°•• •o • • o° °e o f Itemo • • o • • • o • 2 o • 0 • • • • • • •, o e o • • • o • o 0 0 • • o • 1ire I .:e a o.°...p.:,• • 4 O • e • 0 0 0 • 0 e • • e O• m Y o • • e e o • 0 e • o o i 1 o O o 0 0 • • • 0 0 00 000 ((4p y r(, 0 pd q o • o m • • 5 o e s o 0 o p a v e o • o' A Ow.• « _ m a m •—s e -_ ifoo • o • • o o e s e • o • ow o o • • • 10. o • 0 0 • , owes • • V0601. • o 1 o • o • o ° e •i o 0 0 0 o s o 00 0 00 • o • • o o • e;, r S Qs • o • oe o • s c.o0 Y O e 0 o R 0 0 " O • O • O g o • o OOP • o m o 0 o s ao 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o e s o j yV / J, 4 ??76 $ i _ a m I PROPOSED/FINAL' CLARATION OF SIGNIFICANCEN-SIGNIFICANCE Application No . R-050-77 PROPOSED Declaration Environmental Checklist No . ECF-252-77 EX FINAL Declaration Description of proposal Rezone from G . General Classification District , to R-3 , Multiple Family Residence District . Proponent CARUE/KURAMOTO/WEBER Approx. 600' east of the intersection of N.E. 4th and Location of Proposal Union Ave. N.E. and extending north from that point approx. 1300' . Lead Agency Renton Planning Department This proposal has been determined to ® have xD not have a significant adverse impact upon the environment . An EIS ® is x is not required under RCW 43 . 21C . 030 ( 2 ) ( c ) . This decision was ma 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 Di ;Ictor Ar0 Iate June 27 , 1977SignatureJ - ,1 r City of Renton Planning Department 5-76