No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLUA78-219OF Fq, 6 es a. oZ LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER r 200 Mill Avenue South RECEIVED 4ks. @ Renton, Washington 98055 CITY OF RENTONfFUSEPIEMHEARINGEXAMINER SEP261978 AM PM 7,8t9i10111112t 11213141516 EXHIBIT- NO. 5 ITEM NO.o. K_ / / -- 7 s7 irrof4my41 vimatid3C SEP 29 ii7, IIl1`II eaira-v ,r u *wig ho) \\-\-i hi" 1)) 9-3 wq_s,jj,4141, 494 E9 9E—A96 LJ7 Li> 0-6)E-1AM s 7,/ y2Ay2 To Date Time WHILE YOU WERE OUT of Phone TELEPHONED PLEASE CALL CALLED TO SEE YOU WILL CALL AGAIN WANTS TO SEE YOU RUSH I RETURNED YOUR CALL I Message Operator 4; S' e ., . 47 41. ' t. r.' S';','"..';'.` 11:':', 11; ',. 1.'; 1:':-.. V''. ::. 4. 704:464'1''''';:'::...: 1'07":' ( i W rz i s a 4 ,'. • . : . . 40; 9, 11: 4' 11 "• , 42_ fr,.‘ 141k- ',-, L,-- •''‘ 4 ', LL F— s j J s L , Y a y . Y - t yr y44.. d Rn. r P: tk, Yr} r`' { +>. yr.\ r....,... - - . 4.,, .., 4„,..„- ,, ,,„,.., •,:„. . .. .„, ,.,. ,. .. 1 .,.... 4' r i S —• '. 00 k. ‘•,.'.• . 1-" aC4,";/.-' . . ti ee t Itl f '" 1" jy i r 7 T. i f . 1‘.‘. r> t, ` . 1 • ' C } h . Ir w4 •• • y, 1 . i` r J / 7. f+.- r 7„. el'`: r I u a wf 1 ' IY/' +• h i' '.';',..:- 1.-.., o fi ' ~. 1 ' ..' I % b I. r, a . i LG t a:. ' y l 1.... 14 y # k s " kF y4" s..", Vw 7 d- ` - t 11- r R 5- j}, jc±'. f z + ' r , n t • tea, '' sa • • 1'. '# p I'.^.. ' r µ , R i> M` f.(,' k f' iv' ,..- 7• t, r i,- L d - - l .'. t4.' f- V• r.:. N` . S x;} It 4 4. r " f'; d, y , r.,.., ; Y rat. •• .^ J_ r j`! r: F " fa- # i. d , ` '# y , i" i41, \\\•/// f/ %, r''' 0`•" s,., ~ "`;,' {.' • i I i 1../ r A N, , q+ tif 1 - r{ y 4, s. j + 0 0. a I U I • • a . 1 it y ' \ 1 f C JF t! { 7 0' . l: K x~ 4'{ i ' jl 1 a• f a 3 • J SP 1 l{ Y V ' S A J t ": .•. I 7 $ , s' ] m. 1 ri . Ail•! 1 1 .} Ys'. S J` e ! r C•' v' i tY S ' ': F w f tF $' rl !+ 1 r _. t Sig - r g j 0 ; : Y • n 4, 4' r I,- ,• y 3+ 4 x. I' 1, 1` m . 3 .:. y• 4 :` y, ' f 41‘ u' ere / .} I 3' 4 •; 1• i" i Y' rr j Y 3., ,> ;•.' r J: . S T 4 -.-%_, } Y I f J 1• a 0 i1' t ," I I! • n. 3 7 t F 1+-• k 4., A.,-.‘ A. j IS 5 • 4 J . r, 11 f s1 ,. •:' y„ .•,$ 40 Ir• i .• a} { '•• .• f, 4" . Y4 x., t ,,.+ y „, r F. Y. • 1 -- c'^ i c i it i}•' y ._,} . i a S, p ta y. fit Tw w 1 e 4'^ n d: i •'. aE * ti7• i . . ..• y1 j' : i' ` 7 •.,, ,, a yr b•' ' i,,. 0 i , 1I 1 IQ, ••' F` 1, t$` ' • C: t. i„• 1 • e` Y j'. '' l ' a z 11+ 5bt' f-'".•:•-•. 1,- e. , { i± i t• ,, , ' r f.'. - r... : •' 1• if.'' t- /;/' 1 4. 7" 4 i 4t 4 n I] srr, Ji. 6=:. 1,•. K x,'. I •'",),\ ' ,, fir F N' j f ,. .: liw' ;{,•".' sy JS! j', k r ,. 415. r yP y A# t j' d Sw' i b .' k;* r¢ .-: R• Fy, Y k" y1 ' fir.% a g• . / A '`• ' t ; ^.! t/.. ' r' •! r rY" tY ryYl ' - Y• i s:^, e ' t" Y°' x - 1 10.` . r Y! t a. 4! r Y,- 114.‘It\ x•~ t( j ,,. A• n, < e{' r 1/ q1 n ili ! M - d i 4 8, 7 t <+ r.• ti t< ,, T 1 r* a 1 t11 ' x x„'. 4 N7. .-, 0! i' ... 1‘.,....' Sb ,/, f, 1*;;*:..,,, i,, . j•,;.'''''' v,...„.-.,.:,.. 1„. ,,.... i,•.„,„,...,,„,... • . . . 11"/' 4" 414'• 4 l' ''''-"--" a' le'''." e,-* • ;, A\. ..• jp- 4, (.. t.....,....,:::;,' f'''. t..•..:•.),.. 4 .- 7....- f.' ';` , I f- e? 4.,'..„,,,`. 1 7-..., s....;...., to,,/' ' 41 .„,,, A, . ;,. t. t ,.., 3. i Tu ioirtti,:- 0 A,' i ' 11%, I"' 47 t ^ ` ! t • a` r J' ' ` yam ! }' ! 1. {/(• R-• wig'• 4` 4.' e. 7 t '. ... I.' r ,. 1 •„ rY PR 4 - 1••. 1' a „. 111 1 r r; p4 raJ• 4 11. 9s^ ,' o x 3r'' u' #., r ®' -, s i yj t, , , a . 1T 1.• k s • ', w . I i A r' 11 ri iwf • + , i1i0piltiVpr s1 x y N. ., r: 4,, h inili i > S. A. , S„ r , s .+ :"",'} t r A r• }¢. w. i-,. If— Int } . ' 1P t. L(^ ly, :. 0 t•,«• ,'` ) ' j 1. « ,":• .., t; ',..... •#' 7' #_", .;.' r ".'."'.,-. lw+' tt r • a f '' a 4444 a1• r ` - rA .}. ,` f:. 1.4( 4 Si/.., ' r•'. J. °> r :; j< '' • . „ s" , p', '.. a I` •••'• • 4... iyilk, ,. a.- V*'• ; 1f r _ yl • , 4\!! : 4" 1 7- i' ' M / ." {• ~ JillI r . ` f c ' l, r '^ y.."!'.' 7 R. y-•^^'., ._ . 4 ,- Ai t I mo, I k V - iH l_„ xii 4 I., ' k 4 s;.. .,,..„,„„, ,,,, ...,,.., • ,,,, i '', y Ii t ., l o" i a # Ip: z ^ s ; r taf„ z 3 9 1 .' •' 1 1. A,; 4 A• t R'.:'' i{ ' i. 1. 1 rr ' k Ayy , l? s` w w 4ZP,"`IV' s. it n MI'= VGa•• 1 r• i i y I. I'. . tl Al r.- may y. °' h • 0 P iir. jt,, I , ,,,.•.- 1,,,,,. 4, 0, 4,, ,,,: ii, ,, 10 lilt! : 1 , 0 . 1, ..:„... k 1 R• A: a r / - ' ei s7rs;,'-,....,,_ r { ' p• - • A , ,' ri f o Z • N,•'• L4 w , i .. . . k 4, , f ... E b. • •. % r, :• 1 t t• L • F., I r y41 1rU a xy ' x rr) ortg... 1 r .:, , lit,- . . 3 ) . z , s !„ f it i ' i•,. II -'{ E yy,+ i t 4, a4 i" i' )' t* ' / '' r w._<. a . i l{ ! fie 4 • Ew. , .,' j; '_ 1' T; F i. 6 "'.!. ''. , i ' L 1 . Jd l l `. k R., ` ' k s - _ Sit #, 1• l^ F _ . , , 1 • b iI f rilt" t a• t. l o 1( r V f 1 • . ,' I: j, i= 1 •..• 1 rye{' 1'. - 1Y d J I ..... 1lllllll 3 AA. ddS 1 Y tt 4.;, 2E Ir'. rt. • 1 ' 1 t' C.>• fir `' i—, , r 4 ' . , a+ A', a x . r. , 4. . rlrw ter t. • y t I 1 (. ' 1." N » A, 4 1, i.- 7*:> 45 I 1 Fi L < v itria i µ1 YAIG . 1 MKI '' 1. 6" I vtfF} 1.. remitt - itt , k 7ft` I- 7"' f1J•'= d . c... ' 44: - I+,-"" _ •:{. t 1. tP, qt.., r.`.,,,, '„ cl T } r a, lot. ,,,,,,./ fi• t- A t, r ' 5 i7yt1 , Ay_ . ! r 0441. aeeP 11., r ,,•-.;. {` ` IT. 1, t 4 lit. t 1`'• f' ry ; n ` t, 4P1ti( a )•, ..,. , J h , 1! l. y1 n, IC ' - yl/" Fc- f, r e T{ ` d t L Yr i"' yt.` J i':: yi' ji Y ' lR '. Il - , t.. "' I 144, x mi i , 40 , 5.:,.,:: ,.. 4 - 0. 744, 443711. -- - t. , ., s:::: 4'' i macc.: 11 frt• lfr. 4 el '.- ' t°';:$•`;. f' '): ' II/ glitft T q, lla 1 x fi e 1* M L rg, list.q v t u r 4 a Y i.' b • I . •.., • yyt 1 j p'.. i. , 4,^` . r yl fY` lT," +, it fi r• 1. r. r ,„ R{'' t ri , c 1 i J, ! r q. "•< `•( t• Iw& t.' a a, i'# t ";> s. 1 '' fir r, 14. ,`: , Vl • ht, k• 1 • • A. rye} `, a 7. r f - f/ sS' Y' r./ r„} r p,. 4. t,.. p., t r. ij 41. 4.. r Y' . 11i)• 1 J f' a ' f t 1 M"` 7. li$ 1 R , dye ' T Y }: r f. t; a . E iiiJ 1>\_.. Iy •"< ` r d , ' f { S r r , tAa ; A;.',.,$•'^ Ne-‘• C', 0X.,',. 4',, i'•' pr r 46i4 71 Y4 r!+ / ! k • l'°..'::... 1:: 4: l r 4 ,,:. „. A k i . r1 J G. r. • ' • t Iii' i pc . A t d t r t+ t ; 7r ib d / ' i, T: ! j' 4: II t it,# ii7 4 ' AD • W 74 kr , // 4 •- •`/. If` -• s :, rr'° i Er? ., a 1 i ` ' 1 y. A- f" I T r / r 4t4y.. a. , 5 • r •,,.! y sZt rt Ar . r,+' f[ S yTr• Y, / 1/ •' ,; x. -.• • . j :: fi j " 6 47,..-'' t 14::%':,....- r g'' J., w " i //, 4(, 1 _- i•' r` 7., ' Jr r 1' „. : otit e' # t•,, flit 4 I A. sus,. ' , y f r a tvi 7 I. r / r 1. 3 ,, yrjq• 7p ' ` F ^ yy .^' '. A 4,'' `" r St O ifs nil ),. + •' s YY ' 412 }. 7N'• * c. 1 r y It* III ir r r' r, , ylk':•: p. iµJ/ a a,,,:: y s fT ) iyt . 1, .• - •'', 4.... 4yr to-.. y+ !' 4:: 1.4,.. c. 4,,,, tie,: - 4) j,; 14, 1, ' 0`. • '' ?''':.. ': 1 10,' '%':' 4F1—.. ‘„, il I 14 lVii 4$ 4 e. 1, ow ' r „ „., ., . 4, i . 4,, , ,: sill i1t#.' Y 6 •. • i1iz ilk: . • 4 , y' j y ? 1 JI mow' --'-'. r': .•' iJR" + 4 7. k _•. ' i':. 1pLissim 2_ tiff r...„,: ii_ 9r a, . HI \, ;<. 1" i' ";.. r •' li w. er Irv- --». R; ' i`` ... riY VI?' ,' ay„ r I . •; p - 9 Rr'+ V1 1, i t"' i a K' obi. + E . z: a' ,„4. Z •!"' rw, aee 1 o f y, e.. rot. 44 - < t. / rrn+', - ate, y 1 j , t,. t.It ° . Y: r 4 est4Yt vf, lti^: n erns• t CC jok Ilost-ii .. mos a n LL t. w r. t. . .. 4 1' fr ? . . ai i l . i f, _,, 4 iii-' 1. it,,,,,, t7416,.. ' 1'.'": 4... ir . r* -,, gi -; - r"..- 1-- ' -. - u • Illit_ g n sb iiy. f` syr q 4., . t, a., 4, ' 6: 1. \ 4~ 4,# rPF It • fir i4 irl.: - 14. 41, i,, ,,,, o. w- e, t.&. 1 Yr ST S t. 1/ k S I/ ' t r I , t r t j r ' 4 i ` w. nia.....:$ „ r-. 4 '• ... ..-,....••• I jilt ".--"-- 1 I Z,,, 1. t T. I. P' 464WM Il / RV ' PP Ia g. - a a . s • a: N i . ',. r I - b, I ill!` ` r5 1r b\ te " t ", '•. Ma to . 1 y r,- q \` 1 Y - x . J1 t tr i. 4 . ie 1y ra1 lb 1 \ ' hil l r k0 +, 111r4 41/ r k ., 41 iy 1 .. r y0 Z C«.. .° eN.2 cs' .: 2- 3C:l eik Tr- A ra, k. a y' p-• t1 t...,._ .,.._.. -, T, Q r.\ tedyni , , , i. r".. a' t. i: r . a r'`` J if r'• Y'. t.+ . v i I F MeAlt 1 taiep ii. '. } 1 t\ r__ i Ktyr, 4/ Az CITY OF RENTON Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney L Daniel Kellogg - David M. Dean -Mark E. Barber -Zanetta L. Fontes -Theodore R. Parry Assistant City Attorneys February 20 , 1987 TO: Kathy Keolker, Chairman Ways and Means Committee FROM: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney RE: Renton Hill Rezone - Interpace Corporation Dear Kathy: You called me recently concerned about the Interpace Corporation rezone.. I had proposed that the Ordinance be adopted with deletion of language requiring restrictive covenants. I made that recommendation because Interpace and Puget Power were apparently refusing to sign the restrictive covenants and the rezone ordinance had not been adopted because there were no restrictive covenants. In the meantime the property remained in its existing H-1 Heavy Industrial zoning. The restrictive covenants tried to accomplish four things: 1. Establish a greenbelt area 2 . Prohibit removal of vegetation in the greenbelt area 3 . Prohibit structures or modification or expansion of existing structures within the greenbelt area, and 4 . Prohibit excavation and filling within the greenbelt area. The ordinance that was eventually adopted, Ordinance No. 3353, down-zoned the property from H-1 to a mixture of R-1, P-1 and MP, subject to the findings, conclusion and decision dated October 23, 1978 , except that the requirements for restrictive covenants being deleted. The Hearing Examiner' s report largely mirrors what was being required by the restrictive covenants. For example, Recommendation 1 of the Hearing Examiner' s report creates a hundred foot landscape barrier along property lines Post Office Box 626 - 100 S 2nd Street - Renton, Washington 98057 - (206) 255-8678 abutting single family zoned property, prohibits clearing, grading and land fill operations except as approved by the Hearing Examiner and requires approval of development site plans and landscape plans by the Hearing Examiner. Condition 4 likewise prohibits clearing, grading and land fill operations for a portion of the site and requires approval of development site plans and landscape plans by the Hearing Examiner. The Hearing Examiner' s report does discuss that restrictive covenants might be difficult to obtain from the owners, but does state in Recommendation 5 that the conditions be implemented in approp- riate restrictive covenants. When the restrictive covenants were not forthcoming, and while the property remained in H-1 zoning, it appeared appropriate to delete Recommendation 5 and impose the restrictions recommended by the Hearing Examiner as a condition of the rezone. It would appear that that has been done . If the Ordinance rezoning the property was recorded without the Hearing Examiner ' s report and recommendation being attached, I would suggest that it be re-recorded with the Hearing Examiner ' s report and recommendation attached. Thereafter, the conditions would appear on the public record. If the conditions contained in the Hearing Examiner ' s report and recommendation are not broad enough to satisfy you, then the City staff should review the matter and make further recommendations to the City Council on how to proceed. It might be necessary to have another rezone hearing and impose conditions if they have not been adequately spelled out to date . My feeling would be that the conditions would not be adequately spelled out if there is a discrepancy between what was being required in the Declaration of Restrictive Covenants and what the recommendations were in the Hearing Examiner ' s report on page 18 . If I can provide you with any further information, please feel free to contact me . Lawrenc J. Warren LJW:nd cc: Mayor m NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING RENTON LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER RENTON, WASHINGTON A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE RENTON LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER AT HIS REGULAR MEETING IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, RENTON , WASHINGTON, ON SEPTEMBER 26 , 19 7$ , AT 9:00 A. M. TO CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING PETITIONS: 1. CITY OF RENTON , FILE NO. R-218-78, APPLICA- TION FOR REZONE FROM R..3 , MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT , TO R- 1 , SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT ; property located on the west side of Cedar Avenue South between South 6th Street and South 7th Street. 2. CITY OF RENTON , FILE NO. R-219-78 , APPLICA- TION FOR REZONE FROM H-1 , HEAVY INDUSTRY , AND P-1 , PUBLIC USE , TO S- 1 , SUBURBAN RESIDENCE DISTRICT , AND R-1 , SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT; property located east of the existing Renton Hill single family residence neighborhood and north of South 7th Street in a northeasterly direction to the center of the Cedar River. Legal descriptions of applications noted above on file in the Renton Planning Department. ALL INTERESTED PERSONS TO SAID PETITIONS ARE INVITED TO BE PRESENT AT THE PUBLIC HEARING ON SEPTEMBER 26 , 1978 AT 9:00 A.M. TO EXPRESS THEIR OPINIONS.-` PUBLISHED September 15 , 1978 GORDON Y. ERICKSEN RENTON PLANNING DIRECTOR CERTIFICATION I , STEV.E MUNSON HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THREE COPIES OF THE ABOVE DOCUMENT WERE POSTED BY ME IN THREE CONSPICUOUS PLACES ON THE PROPERTY 'DESCRIBED ABOVE AS PRESCRIBED BY LAW. ATTEST: Subscribed and sworn to before me, a Notary Public, on the 13th day of September , 1978 4 , ti SIGNEQ ,AgLeA1(444.4.4101.1 I I nolo--M I.-- 1 .......40. 'C'SN. 3 ill P 1 01` I r-rj, -..-...• I 4---' cl o ‘,53 - `4,_,>,..,.....„...._.___ JILIi_ LI A . a.—., rla01:10 13 12 -140 1-11 0 i 4 4141t1. 7 i - IN TER 'AT H _.._..-4 5--1 rs_ Vfi I 0-I ! it] 0 I 11-6 In Cji:i 01:1110L C.I 4° 1:11411 kjt DI 1 3 est . C.°t Off 2 A Ye- o_ / 14 6 m!n— I 1 s I I II111FT130C0nUn : ) MJIDI CL I of f1 I I I I I 1 Ii 1 0 I I a_ It")73 *0 a a CD 0 ra LI n U 10 1 I I C3 El In D1110 DID II:1 1(7 a ti 3Z 0, Rvit TaA AVE S_ 4 P__ 2... . t. T 7 1 a 11 fl 9 13I 1140:111-I e /i' l` 1 t, /4 1 I 0 ! l I III i d --i 0/ Di0 : F7=--I i .I I I I 1r1 a 1 •1 t 1tJDE..___________ wirp... m P : 90P D s,I 1 r2 r tri 611 ter ram 1111 u ,: c at; 46E 4:› E, G11 oi_ iiiiii" I I: Q . I C ii 44 riiiiD . liiiia nir PE E 4 impA 8441E1A e - r do . 111111 d 0 0 p 01 t., 1 1 an 0 1 0 Di O % Or ; O Doti 8. _ . ' .`,' q L• -, 1' 1 1 F r - - 1 14 Opp' r 1 DIt3 ill Q® ta , d Dali 0 . 1 , a ea: a Q al r011 r iii‘\ d _ !, 1, 0 1 r r t I 1 r i A - r 1v 1 1 ' Q 1 r r .. r il. 0Sliiiis: rill 1 CM Lr. IIIIIII il 4 2.% Nsi.: Se 46%,\ I% los ov • f g.. _ ly.=/ JOW: • 9fri$ jLo' tooe 4' 0.. 1 " - 2t sk . . • ir_ fr: Al 4:..." 0: 11: 1 A . 4:/.-- 5„..,.. 7.; . 440 ,i, , in..,,,..::.-,..:_„,...,,.,. 4,, ,./. 0tit U / p .- . 1 Agile P. Min ,(/ • ***''''''-' • 1 . ,'; ,- i..\-:%. ,, iti s Si ` 19 Iiigio 1....' 7- .., E i 1 h))%. fr% i • V Qp i . i i r, OF RA, THE CITY OF "RENTONo CJ `$ ® z MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON,WASH. 98055 mil rc; CHARLES J. DELAURENTI, MAYOR • PLANNING DEPARTMENT 090 co- 235-2550 O94, SEPSE P MEMORANDUM September 12 , 1978 TO : Steve Munson , Assistant Planner FROM : Ola Shajuyigbe, Planning Intern RE : Renton, Hill Rezone Sound Measurements and Other Field Activities (Phases II & III ) Sound readings were taken on September 12 , 1978 , at different locations on Phase II and III areas of Renton Hill to gather data for the proposed rezone of the Hill . Although eleven 11 ) sites were pre-selected for measurement, only six (6 ) measurements were taken . In order to avoid trespassing on the other pre-selected sites , every effort was made to obtain permission from the property owner but all efforts proved futile. The six (6 ) measurements taken were recorded at different times as seen on the survey sheets . Principal noise sources , highest , lowest, average, and ambient - levels of each site were recorded on different occasions . Finally , photographs were taken at the sites to support the data collected . OS ;sh y ''. " '''''. .1:://;;;%t/ VII. 1./iii.41;i1111 t 1 ../kk 1 ill I '° j11,11 EH iiiljjjjj)\.../,, /4/_/:, // 4/ / (... 1 ( f C ,..._:. 9:1J1J : a r III ._,..• I. •it41 k k il • r lit : 4 - I : / i V ' • 1 J ti: sr r .E117 4444 ., r •sleep ik'•\.t::" 1'- Ian • • w , Vii i jer 1 e q!p.i Of ig N7gtrYl I io i. WI Vii I ia- nor. Ifa 11,',.:sti.N. 4. y tip.• t 'map /U ty.l 7.e/1 844 / I.-+,, i 1 t•{ .fl fir;•' f8I• - il% 4. 11,'-' 4' E --.-.11 z„,. , • ,.. :.e ...-• • -2...,..• 1 _1 k..r. NW 1.11. ,,Zt /••••} iw. 1 I oircit...itil ii[14.'4 E ti ..,?bSt • •14 0 •.. ef•e• •e. is o.] < I; s L (' I:?;` i) •ilti to 1•••• ! •I• •• . r,. 0.r r..l'aria•:f'•: °4 1 1•I•1•t 1:.• t,/4 I t••• ` g Iy.' .' i} vrr>> .1 ..• gI1•fq:tr° ' •1 • i• rfi,1.4 s. l,ry 4:: :: 1 . 1+-' 7 j „r' aL'`:, r';i , ' . . fir' I• Y/ w I 1 • '' 1Plllti' " i?,-1.— — x ram, 1 ••• .. s,' s :.,':, .,'' , slj.: '•yYyi.*v• •.a..w 1 I x : 14_4; I ,I !::•:, 2,3, • •;`' FTV i. ; •. 1.' f1`V, ;,Y.'_^• r4,1,,. •n,,q.+; .1 1 'ti.' 1.,f—T7-T7 R• •• 2' 1p, r„, . r%.' 1• '\'!•H C 4r i ,4,N-..4%1 ,' ,•t`i INA:'.1• . . r Lli-1/-- 4 t•No'ti 4,,,• i- ..,''j.i4i,,-..i.:I.;,:,,,v,‘. ...,. i A, . y ...:_.: . t , 1• pi rth...__ w. •. Q' i•-'.•a''.. i,t i:."J ri•.y 91d h,t> r}rt si i.n:q 7 „ u VA t; :,1• •..•••.6: f..i•...fin R"' .:L:A4 a . V 7, g1g, E Q+OC! '''' T 140!)S r om ; A / z ill ipmg1E0111:;:t;l'•• N.'40iiime—• ....!, 0,1_ t I • MM k., ../ le t1fr.));, . •-.-.• li. ).YC:' ' IJ•1 e t l. te•r/ A Q 7$•: :r' ie"i 4. . f tr,-.,..' r. 1 , . 1 M b -l. ' ,. I};. +• + *• '','' w ,• '+- gtLtQJ N f f f• • • 1 , •.: p L•/r ply' tareo.,••••••••'°• -0$tir,,....."60 . . •6 ty , Mad.5. PO4 1. V ii Ofts/......_.,,ferE" .. 0.,...,„,....-.• I r. :-.0 5 if ofF.7 1 \ %,, 1 . • is. %• •.4.1,4IE , ; 14401r I.,, r Ir O . s. s..,:1 .. M j. II at .),4,.T. . • _____,0 • Z . . pe , so .. . .• ir, NW •., J • •e• 4 i; sigelo... ,, ,. g ,h, . or G.-4 Llic-g, . 11.__ I. iir• 1 . 11:'e• i . '-'.. "."— ' 4Vd#'- Oilk . Co 1PRENENS I UD PLAN — RENTON HILL AREA DESCRIPTION; THE RENTON HILL AREA IS THAT AREAGENERALLYROUNDBYFAI.405 ON THE WEST CEDAR RIVERONTHENORTH, THE HILLSIDE AND UNDEVELOPED AREA ONTHE :'EAST, AND THE POWERLINE RIDHTIOF-WAY ON THE SOUTH. ) LEGENDS r MEDIUM-DENSITYGREENBELTRECREATIONALMULTI-FAMILY 1 i\ KO SE EXHII °T A . s' MEMORANDUM TO . Files DATE 9/15/78 FROM W. Roberts SUBJECT Distribution of Notices 96 notices provided Kathy Keolker, President , Renton Hill Community Assn . , for distrib ution to residents . Notices provided each owner. A V* Std/ 4CM 140 20 i a • r 04, E y- s , " iv al,- t J y ftve)* Avid 8 E et -- j?° u7 fyat 41100jAV' PIA rows' r+ vA, 2s' 1 a• se ye /, of. 7vA+ j/ ivirrylv sky ko cc - qop. A. 61• 41. 7. 3A/ 49, 9 to % kr OA r; r 7. S40115. . "' 1# 4 IP # 111 s. 01 s- Sea r w42409 O 31( ( IttS Y . G/ ` 3 '' 1l , . S` s y Ehil isltft iONwavEgo el ' w sr710" r• y7i• 9 i," •) tr /• # , N ' Air £'° 19, Avis • yi) Ij• 3" / 44 IV 7+ VId - rvi "°' - of . 0 • s,.® sw• 7 Awn - 11, 016nAlige trip 14 : I, •' U ° '.; 31.° • J., o , ,°• tfiv ypri7: 1 r$ V- 11 " 91 '°) 17t• 7 rN4. s+&" d oI°°°- Qr.. yI4F , IfJ7 ink 67 i0. c/ . a. e,. y 47. 3/ 3l a : rispip $ z pw $. • mutt aolS' " r02 ' 7f foJ i 1' 9 ch'- v7 warlY 4- 4' Id T" 1 eh/. ESth 4' A f 3. 4 hvi a- 4" V cri# 7 0• 1/ if Kiri o r" tI pe •) Q41U? QeL oweasaq ,, r i aO cs8ffi E- # I 11w' Nat gray fkivelwyY fir. Nr, rra. a Uea/ 1 14 a Oh dI 170i,;iit"Cl. 14• 4, ;ow 4.3 ocu.se we 30s7.-ss-le S t s•ech 6•44-.847-stl, *9€ '01 ° °'°°-t) .5% pos‘E ..is wit/ rd7 04.4e "9 fj .14031.14/ o o-f)-4.st en seecoatiV ,6.54 _3 00-h r 8 wo1.'9e4/1 ock•ei-ts '# .4" 4S.Z9 itsvadolg.Aity 4 ibe-000f -1•0114,Aas p•Iplipw ,1414,00 „to cp.49cf:ics, ipAnn 11ais 79 lave vesevriptia" a Poloargy Lo-S 4g= 594 9/4 14dro••ivEll 741."‘") abc7 w 47./Jew "44 7^11 oi 7;dr#751 ply(.5) Own) seas iscor c i 479ftlei4 A A etregv) 4.9 4 ac) wq •s isz% iwarvary -AP ww9 Dorm °iv/s) fr")ifix4f 4r. laq 9 Al, 7.17 s-od ).0 'op•5 g 0 q-bf v'Tti 677, 1/ 4 ranT4'4en"let 1XA 0/74 bv/>c•e/•se W 40. 0.4) 1V sr/ 'ref 0E 7)7 u•shi •si y.4 CIE ..? 1-1. • sa siy vocv -ary.i ,g7lv f241 r dIa0 1 * Id IT '42 7cm 86 eigniewitm 041 AO 44.,/n144.CP 409- 7 Q 3sP °490/it"1/ W Oeb 6417a H ow co AT coorti Cv 0,1 cif awv 07-- we 7 tI 05507 9E1 s S10 1=47144017, 9 ivitoON 7•9S' • 73s ; . A . . . f 1 0' 1 e--. r,l Ihra 0 i f9 - 9 • , 11 Ia was t/1F/ p--dE oil I4P/ /"t1'a,9 7,9 r 37 r./a "le 4e-id d 11I I s DS16' /41111110,11'e -' . Q1 04C-L 1 cr 1 7 r 37 I jam p . 7 1 I•• v 7 II ' --- 7p.L 1 PS' 17 00"ii . 1 do.I 0 I r r I r r`5' . = a r17 y a 1 i 3 _ • 7 i S a . tit ell rr, rn vtd tittota PlivAi 71 is 107 r41/41)1tIA e•i / reSS V vi Tv 1 . 1 3 ci 110 -E.1.4 IS 111 7 MN dO d Q8 10 Al AU vus-1,1 ate s ilo fro, )14s .v•o woz ieeiSil ad if aci 9nOf 47 :0, A R5IdO 404405 tri mir ary 341 a.0 N 7 A75' k17j d0 475` 67d1U51S Oe di 9 a if 6- 4)) C s mief iteo, 47,4,04 f IWGP fir) 47S A0174/ do A79L4QR. /417 d 0 A79 ,ks I"-, VI giP 21 ae sicE t.) 1d bds ..S$N1Ve, A7 41.3Sla7 4401,15 Voli 31 4 9‘)Poi larr(C1) b 4r1VEI gfilt/0410447 41C3E-Nftii° 4it -1911923 V 7 s ofsp.i.s, A, 7 II ZPVill A7 619 o Woe /OM :* 7p do o-E( Ohl• 00,0f.ate r-inif/7 A jp., 7794,:afg 5' 79 Groti div/ 'WO 441'9 J)7S d IW4F :1.40E• '9 Y747.i: "Vir."5.F4aif C7aeci •ser.,s..330 atom ./ lao •at/3 .03 f410 1 ` rit, SA,blig elL.' 1,06/.11,, # If•104, '0'37 id-,34( 3 4 5( l,,,„ p6* opocoE6 , o . r,v 4.0.4vo(W.t. lifer( b P 14414.1 COP. O P-r'x 43 I-PI —V t> .,v P. ! 1R e m roN co-op colt& Co-s 3 zi®©TAs .1 H wioe'. .T 1 . 8 Tff, ° Fr s :i- g d t ; is ..': . f M1,,i n'. , p ^.te'y y'Pf yam l: ii t t d rl 11 4d i •s - i''.— _. I CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Application No. R-21 9-78 (Phase III ) Environmental Checklist 'No. ECF-384-78 PROPOSED, date: FINAL, date: 1 Declaration of Significance . Declaration of Significance Declaration of Non-Significance O 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 bring 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 dogs not apply, just answer it "no" and continue on to the next question. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM I. BACKGROUND 1. Name of Proponent CITY OF RENTON 2. Address and phone number of Proponent: MUNICIPAL BUILDING RENTON , WASHINGTON 98055 206) 235-2550 3. Date Checklist submitted 4. Agency requiring Checklist City of Renton , Planning Department 5: Name of proposal , if applicable: Renton Hill Rezone Proposal - Phase III 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): The proposal is to rezone the . 75+ acre site from H-1 , heavy industry and P-1 , public use districts to residential use districts which are compatible with the existing comprehensive plan , natural . characteristics of the area and the existing single family residence community (Renton Hill ) . 2- 7. Location of proposal (describe the physical setting of the proposal . as well as the extent of the land area affected by any environmental impacts, includinganyotherinformationneededtogiveanaccurateunderstandingoftheenviron-mental setting of the proposal) : SEE ATTACHMENT . 8. Estimated date for completion of the proposal : NA. No specific development intended . 9. List of all permits, licenses or government approvals required for the proposalfederal , state and local--including rezones) : This is a rezone proposal only. No additional permits are anticipated at this time. 10. Do you have any plans for future additions. expansion. or further activityrelatedtoorconnectedwiththisproposal? 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: 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 TES- MAYBE NV b) Disruptions, displacements, compaction or over- Xcoveringofthesoil? . YET- MAYBE NO c) Change in topography or ground surface relief features? X vrs- MAYBE MT- d) The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? X YES MAYBE Ais- e) Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? X YES RAM- 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 Xbedoftheoceanoranybay, inlet or lake? YET" MAYBE Al- Explanation: . This application will not result in immediate development or physical impacts . The proposal may ultimately reduce impacts by the resulting reduction in development intensities and incompatibilities with adjacent land uses , zoning , and public improvements , and natural characteristics of the area . 3- 2) Air, Will the proposal result in: a) Air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality?X vry- MAYEI 3 b) The creation of objectionable odors? X vrr MAYBE Wa c) Alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature, or any change In climate, either locally or I X regionally? YES' war AU- Explanation: . The proposal . may reduce potential impacts to air quality by reductions in development intensity and types of land uses allowed by the existing Heavy, -Industrial zoning which would create greater air quality impacts . 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 b) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or Xtherateandamountofsurfacewaterrunoff? Vrr MAYBE Ai c) Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? X vry- MAYBE I- d) Change in the amount of surface water in any water Xbody? VET- MAYBE NO e) Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration surface water quality, including but not limited to X temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? VI MAY B au- f) Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters?Try- MAYBE ff g) Change in the quantity of ground waters , either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through X interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations?VET- MAYBE FU— h) Deterioration in ground water quality, either through direct injection, or through the seepage of leachate, phosphates, detergents, waterborne virus or bacteria. , Xorothersubstances, into the ground waters? MAYBE FU 1) Reduction in the amount of water otherwise available X for public water supplies? Try- HATUE NU- Explanation: The proposed rezone would not have a direct effect on drainage and ground water. uevelopment of the subject properties would result in a change in the natural drainage system. Hnwever, cperifir dpvelnpmpnt is tint proposed as a part of this rezone proposal and ultimate impacts on drainage and water may be 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)? VET- MITE KU- b) Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of flora? Try- MA YBF Fb- c) Introduction of new species of flora into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? VII-ia- d) Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? X VIET- MIT NU- Explanation: The proposal for residential rather than Industrial uses may have a positive impact of providing future development which is more compatible with the existing natural vegetation, 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, benchic organisms , X ESinsectsormicrofauna)?Y - MAVir Pit)— b) Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of fauna? X VT 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-- Ems MAYBE NO d) Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? X YES' WEE N Explanation: ' The proposal may have a similar effect on fauna as mentioned in #4. 6) Noise. Will the proposal increase existing noise levels? X YES MAYBE NU— Explanation: The potential for increased noise levels will be less with the subject proposal than the existing industrial zoning . 7) Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or X glare? T- iM" W Explanation: 8) Land Use. Will the proposal result in the alteration of the, X present or, planned land use of an area?Yes Miff NO Explanation: The proposal. would result. in less intensive develop- ment of the area . Less intensive development may result in a re- duction in the• potential environmental impacts , land use in- 9) Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a) Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? X 1 MAYBE NO b) Depletion of any 'nonrenewable natural resource? X vrr- 'MAYBE MD Explanation: Renton Hill has underlying coal deposits. Should the energy situation require that the remaining coal be mined, potential conflict with developed areas could occur. 10) Risk of Upset. Does the proposal involve a risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil , pesticides , chemicals or radiation) X in the event of an accident or upset conditions? X TES MAYBE N Explanation: 11) buPopulation. Will h proposalho alter ion, density, orgrwtrateof h location,e thehumanpopul ri- ation of an area? yl'r" MAYBE A6— Explanation: The proposal could result in an increase in the number of housing units in the subject area, 5_ 1?) Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or Xcreateademandforadditionalhousing? i YES MAYBE NO Explanation: The adjacent developed land uses consist primarily of detached single family dwellings, This proposal could reduce the degree of impact_on the existing single family structures, by establishing a zoning pattern more compatible with such existing uses, the comprehensive plan, and the natural characteristics of 13) Transportation/Circulation, Will the proposal result in: the sits a) Generation of additional vehicular movement?X YES MAYBE NO b) Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand Xfornewparking? YES MAYBE' NO GO Impact upon existing transportation systems? X YET— MAYBE Kb— d) Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? X YES MMYBE NO . e) Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? X YE- WAY B E NO f) Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, X bicyclists or pedestrians? YES MAYBE WO-- Explanation: The proposal will provide land use more compatible with existing conditions , and sound planning and development principles . 14) Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? X YES MAYBE N3— b) Police protection?X YES RUFF NO c) Schools? X YES MAYBE NO d) Parks or other recreational facilities? X YES WIT NO e) Maintenance of public facilities , including roads? X YES WET NO f) Other governmental services? X YES MAYBE NO Explanation: Demand upon public services may be less with the proposed zoning than the potential under the existing zoning category, 15) Energy. Will the proposal result in: X a) Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? YES MAYBE NO b) Demand upon existing sources of energy, or require Xthedevelopmentofnewsourcesofenergy? YET— MAYBE t76— 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 MITE NO b) Communications systems? X YES MAYBE NO c) Water? YES MAYBE NO 6- d) Sewer or septic tanks? X YES MAYBT NO e) Storm water drainage? X Yrs— war• f) Solid waste and disposal? X YES MAYBE NO Explanation: Demand upon utilities will be potentially less with the proposal than the existing zoning. 17) Human Health. Will the proposal result in the creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding Xmentalhealth)?• TM MAYBE Fb 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 MTIY'BE NO Explanation: The proposal will substantially reduce the potential for aesthetically offensive and obstruction of views and scenic vistas by zoning the site to categories more compatible with existing uses, natural characteristics, and the comprehensive plan. 19) Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the Xqualityorquantityofexistingrecreationalopportunities? YET— MAYBE N Explanation: 20) Archeolo Lical Historical . Will the proposal result in an alteration of a significant archeological or historical X site, structure, object or building? Yl S MAYBE NU Explanation: III. SIGNATURE I , the undersigned, state that to the best of my knowledge the above information is true and complete. It is understood that the lead agency may withdraw any decla- ration of non-significance that it might issue in reliance upon this checklist should there be any willful misrepresentation or willful lack of full disclosure on my part. Proponent: signed) Planning Director •. Gordon Y . Ericksen name printed) City of Renton Planning Department 5-76 Attachment - Environmental Checklist Form R-219-78 (Phase III ) 7 . Location of proposal : The subject site is located east of the existing Renton Hill single family residence neighborhood and north of South 7th Street in a northeasterly direction to the center of the Cedar River. The westerly portion of the site consists of a very steep average 60% slope ) heavily wooded hillside with small areas of relatively level ground near the northeast corner of Renton Avenue South and South 3rd Street, and near the southerly portion of the site east of the intersection of South 7th Street and the City of Seattle Cedar River pipeline right-of-way. Directly adjacent to the toe of the steep hillside is the Interpace Comapny, a brick and tile manufacturing facility. The Milwaukee Road Railroad tracks cross the site just north of the main Interpace buildings , and extend westerly under FA1 405 and into the Renton Central Business District and in an easterly direction along the Cedar River toward Maple Valley. A relatively level undeveloped plateau exists between the railroad tracks and the Cedar River near the northeast corner of the site . A strip of dense trees and vegetation exists along the east side of the railroad tracks , along the bank of the Cedar River and in portions of the plateau area . CITY OF RENTON RE7ONE APPLICATION R OFFICE USE ONLY LAND USE HEARING PPLICATION NO. R-219-78 (Phase III ) EXAMINER 'S ACTION PLICATION FEE $ APPEAL FILED sCEIPT NO.CITY COUNCIL ACTION ILING DATE 9-7-.78 ORDINANCE NO. AND DATE TARING DATE 9_26_78 PLICANT TO 'COMPLETE ITEMS 1 THROUGH 10 : Name CITY OF RENTON Phone 235-2550 Address Municipal Building , Renton , Washington 98055 Property petitioned for rezoning is located on Please See Attachment between and Square footage or acreage of property +74, 58 acres Legal description of property (if more space is required, attach a separate sheet) All that portion of S 1/2 of Sec. 17 Twp. 23 N. R. 5 E. , W.M. , described as follows: W 1/2 of SE 1/4 of said section lying south of the centerline of the Cedar River; together with that portion of the SW 1/4 of said section lying cast of the plat of Renton Cooperative Coal Company's Acre Tracts, Plat No. 1, as recorded in Vol. 9, Page 29, of Plats records of King County Washington south of the centerline of the Cedar River and east of the east margin of I-405, and except that property which lies south westerly of a line drawn from the northwest corner of tract 38 said plat to the southeast corner of tract 26 said plat. H- heavy lneUstry T c..,. Existing Zoning P-1 Public Use Zoning Requested S-1 , R-1 TE 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. Proposed use of site to rezone site to zone classifications compatible with the existing adjacent zoning and land use ( single family residence , R-1 ) , the existing comprehensive plan, and the natural characteristics of the site . List the measures to be taken to' reduce impact on the surrounding area. The proposed rezone will provide for conformity of the zoning with . the natural. features of , the site and the Comprehensive Plan. It will also have an ultimate effect of reducing potential impacts of development on the existing sinyle fanil ly residential 'community. How soon after the rezone is granted do you intend to develop the site? N .A . Development plans are not proposed as a part of this action ' to conform the existing zoning to the designation specified in the comprehensive plan . Two copies of plot •plan and affidavit of ownership are required. Planning Dept. 1-r77 19 ATTACHMENT TO REZONE APPLICATION R-219-78 , Phase III 3. Property petitioned for rezoning •4s located on : The subject site is located east of the existing RentonHillsinglefamilyresidenceneighborhoodandnorthofSouth7thStreetiRanortheasterlydirectiontothecenteroftheCedarRiver. The westerly portion of the site consists of a very steepaverage60% slope ) heavily wooded hillside with smallareasofrelativelylevelground" near the northeast cornerofRentonAvenueSouthandSouth3rdStreet, and near the southerly portion of the site east of the intersectionofSouth7thStreetandtheCityofSeattleCedarRiverpipelineright.of.,way. Directly adjacent to the toeofthesteephillsideistheInterpacecomapny, a brickandtilemanufacturingfacility. The Milwaukee RoadRailroadtracks_ cross the sitejust north of the mainInterpacobuildings, and ectend westerly under FA1 405 and into the Renton Central Business District and in an easterly directign along the Cedar River toward Hanle Valley.A relatively level undeveloped plateau exists between therailroadtracksandtheCedarRivernearthenortheastcornerofthesite, A strip of dense trees and vegetationexistsalongtheeastsideoftherailroadtracks, alongthebankoftheCedarRiverandinportiensoftheplateauarea. L .. is,. u= 2_o! + 6,. -- i ( oFoSt o T R-A1"}C,'•R.:f la SOUTHTN 4 ,JE:a1 O A (-4 iv. ' mO`I, A Fr:1 1'AT L CATF..D ON 11-1-E Nil_' i. b. fk1f)R-V4 GOM Ew G i :A517- OF---€H-t_.-w.,(jtr.,sr°' k )Ax)c2 As,4 t A cC V,. `"C:1 -D ,c"-1`N ,: i 1..1 e L T'[)AJ of E ( p 4-4 4- 200 ,tD p.00F A PA2'.r.1 L'OP LA/VC) I DEt #11- ,4-kle rib tiv __._ 1 Nlt1 \8`7 -P-r .t'3' G 1)F-:=UO1k1A'YY -P .7 .t-k- -jA1 .•E- .v. ae,; 0, 9.76 "Fi G : z-cati .7,-- Cq ,..'7ivi?i%v ik-l t_; (NHS TTl Sob` I 3c` knJ l i rr RECEIVEDN ._:. _ g`' --_ ; -- - -- CITY OF RENTOfV' .. v --- • Ot J \t'g. TSH 1; 1 ;CC_ r^ t :'. P. v 't ACT 1 1978 1' 7I8r9i10!1L12rTI2i3,4i5,i6 i Sl..._ 1rt1 = I 8' c .. ITEM . 9- I 4., 3 , --_-___.1th_.----,3,•-j, - - -.4, --- - ,--• - ._, . I ' 1 r i rkk\s-,Fe-)e-I-Ao.,_. o.--z. .i-..F---.,_ L... .-. --1-• -A-c--- •: .."_,_ ,. 1 Ci RECEIVED CITY OF RENTON HEARING EXAMINER ADDENDUM nCT l 01978 PLANNING DEPARTMENT AM PM 7t8t9110e11s12tit2t3e4t PRELIMINARY REPORT TO HEARING EXAMINER t6 EXHIBIT NO e / APPLICANT : CITY OF RENTON ITEM NO. FILE NUMBER: R-219-78 - RENTON HILL , PHASE III RECOMMENDATION : 1 . Rezone from H- 1 to R-1 parcels 113 and 187 of the Tobin Dona- tion Claim based upon : a . Proximity to existing single family homes on the west and south . b. Lack of access except at South Third Street and Renton Avenue . c . Steep slopes to the north and east . 2 . Rezone from H- 1 to S- 1 parcels 1 , 16 , 112 , and 182 of the Tobin Donation Claim and that portion of tax lots 15 and 142 described in attached Exhibit "A" based upon the following and the additional information and testimony of the previous hearing : a . Steep slopes extending generally from south to north . b. Potential for highly unstable slope conditions . c . Poor to minimal access to the subject area . 3. Rezone from H- 1 to M-P that portion of tax lot 15 described in attached Exhibit "B" along with tax lots 27 and 110 subject to restrictive covenants running with the land or open space easements in favor of the City containing the following : a . Establishment of buffer areas including restrictions on removal of material and vegetation . b. Prohibit construction of new structures within the open space buffer areas . c . Restriction of grading or filling operations in order to preserve and enhance open space areas . Recommendation number 3 is based upon discussions with Interpace and their intention to agree to restriction of development within the steep slope and buffer areas . Should Interpace not desire to continue with the proposed development restrictions , the Planning Department would recommend that its previous recommendation of rezoning all Interpace properties to S- 1 would apply . October 9 , 1978 EXHIBIT "A" (REZONE H-1 TO S-1) That pontti.o n 06 the Tobin Donation Land Cta.i.m No. 37 .yang within the S 1/2 o6 Section 17, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M. deAch i..bed ass Uo•P(ows: Beginning at the S 1/4 connen 06 said Section 17, thence wens-etty along the s0uth. tine'theteo6 to an inteAsection with the . outhen.ey extension 06 the eaa-eAty tine ob Tnacts 38 to 42 Lnceuz.ive 06 P.'.at #1 Renton Co-op Coat • Company's Acne Tracts az necotded .in Volume 9 06 P- atz, page 29 tecond4 06 King County Washington; Thence nonthehey along said eaztetty tine and its southeney extension a distance 06 525 beet mote on te44s; Thence southeasteAty a,eong a tine to a point on the south tine 06. said - ec ,i,on said point being 1200 Ut. easten,ey 06 the S 1/4 cornet 06 said 4ec ti.on; Thence westeAty a-tong the south tine 06 said section a distance 06 1200 beet mote on te/s4, to .the S 1/4 cornet and the point 06 beginning. Except any portion theteo6 tying southweste'c•ey ob the Cedar Rivet P.ipaine tight-oU-way; And also except the west 70 feet thereof. t - r 91 r EXHIBIT "B" (REZONE H-1 TO M-P) That portion of the OJ 1/2 o the SE 1/4 g Section 17, Township 23 Non th, Range 5 Ea4-t W.M. de a Lbed ass 4o! owJs: Beginning at the SE connen g the Gle.t 1/2 o{y the SE 1/4 o4 said zecti.on 17; Thence not thetey a ong the east tine ob said 4ubdLvizion a distance os 750 Thence weste.' y on a Line pang te.. with and 750 ket nonthenty az meazuned at night ang2.ez room south tine g zaLd zubdiv.us-ion a distance of 600 5eet mote on .&s-; Thence nonthwe&-tenty aeong a tine to a point on the west tine o4 the SE 1/4 g said Section 17, said paint being 1400 feet nontheney g the Sur connen g 4at,d section; Thence zouthe ty along the west tine of the SE 1/4 a distance o{y 1400 Ueet mane an to z to the SW connen the/Leg; Thence ea-ste/Lty along the zouth line. g the SE 1/4 o Section 17 to the SE connen g the W 1/2 o the SE 1/4 the/Leg and the point g beginning; Except -theneiSnom the 4ottow-Lng dezcn,ibed pance2: Beginning at the SW connen g SE 1/4 o{y said isecti-on 17 thence nonlhehey along the west tine ;heneo.6 a distance g 500 4eet mote on i es4; Thence zoutheazteney along a tine to a point on the -south tine g the SE 1/4 g za.id Section 17, which point £Les 1200 feet mote an .tees east o{S, az meazuned along the south tine g 4a.id zubdiviz ion {ynom the Sw connen g said SE 1/4; Thence weztehey along the -south tine oU the SE 1/4 o4 Section 17 a distance g 1200 4eet mane on teas to the SW connen the/Leg and' the point g beginning. CREA PROPOSED FOR REZONE AREA PROPOSED FOR REZONE 1 to R- 1 Single Family H-1 to S- 1 Single Family TDC j P7' 11 0 Lat,:. BOUNDARY PHASE III CP) tIP\ ‘‘` k •au'.18.17t.1411 i- DC k. f 113 TDC TL# 33 Ili 1\ portion T L# • 4 °g°_ ':'`:: 15 phi II\\ V 1 ‘ AREA PROPOSED FOR REZONE H- 1 to MP with restrictions on development 41 r. 1 i 1.1 rfl TD C oQ182CD -41 7 Z 4:§§:::ggnin:ES:?..:..3:E::;::#;*:0gitil ro cnc+ 00-rti /IA. -N-avr E. 3/4\;•-•.:-‘ 1":1.0fli -.I = TDC Tobin Donation CC'lfaaim RENTON HILL REZONE PHASE III-R-219-78 TL# Tax Lot Number BURLINGTON NORTHERN Lobby 2 Central Building INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AND Seattle,Washington 98104 PROPERTY MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT Telephone (206) 625-6682 Hearing Examiner September 25, 1978 City Hall Renton, Washington 98055 Dear Sir: RE: File No. R-219-78, Application for Rezone from H-1 and P-i to S-1 and R-1 Reference is made to the above application to rezone property southerly of the Cedar River and east of I-405 in Renton, Washington, hearing to be on September 26, 1978, at 9:00 a.m. Please be advised Burlington Northern Inc., successor to the Pacific Coast Railroad, is against the rezoning of this right of way as proposed. ifr Past similar instances indicate the railroad right of,way is not com- patible to a residential zone and should be zoned industrial9as a transportation corridor or left unzoned to allow for continued railway operations on said railway-owned land. Please remove our railway right::.of-way property from the rezone appli- cation. Very truly yours, 6 J. J Gordon Manager - Property Management RECEIVED CITY OF RENTONHEARINGEXAMINER SEP 2 51978 t 2P, P,M IHf 1111i ITEM NO. az/ y_ 78' a Firm"luml C, 44/ i N, O f c9' / 'I 111 1/ , r d i VS a i i , , ) l : RECEIVED r CITY OF RENTON 1 I I asf HEARING EXAMINER 1 SEP261978 Al PM 7iRr9110,11112,1,213,41516 7 -''. 1 -R.T•`-',. 7/ itITEMNO. T /a ?- 7e' - September 26, 1978 Renton 0; 8 N145 I&'zane. . f!€Grr i j My name is Kathy Keolker, My address is 532 Cedar Ave. So. fyrrJ I am responsible for the petition asking for a rezone of Cedar Avenue South that was submitted to the mayor and the city council in June 1977. A .second petition was circulated on the remainder of Renton Hill in support of the original petition. It also opposes zoning, planning or building of multiple family dwellings or industrial concerns on Renton Hill or in any adjacent area that might require access through our neighborhood. The two petitions have over 250 signatures and they represent a majority of Renton Hill property owners. They are a matter of public record in Planning Commis±ion proceedings, City RECEIVED Council proceedings and previous proceedings before the CITY OF RENTON HEARING EXAMINER Hearing Examiner in June of this year.SEP 2 61978 AM I am also president of the Renton Hill Community Association, ' 2 3 4 5 a group that was formed to support and encourage growth that is in the best interests of the residents of the Hill. We are here to support the Cityls recommendation to rezone Phase II properties on Renton Hill from R-3 to R-1 in complaiance with the comprehensive plan and the needs of the community at large. This property was rezoned in October 1963 in anticipation of the decline of Renton Hill as a single family residential community - a decline that has never materialized. We are also in support of the recommendation to rezone Phase III property from H-1 to R-1 and S-1 . The portions of the Phase III rezone action that we are concerned with include the property on the Hill"the slope to the north down to the bottom of the slope next to the property occupied by Interpace. This property was zoned in 1953. Please keep in mind that the zoning of all of these properties occurred before a comprehensive plan existed and before there was a written concept for orderly and Appropriate growth for the city. In the recent review of this property, the planning commission found that R-3 (Ind H-1 designations were inappropriate for these properties. Our position is to encourage growth for the Hill that is practical, responsible, safe, healthy, aesthetically appropriate to EXHIBIT NO. // ITEM Q & i7t i( Page 2 provide a pleasing addition to the existing older neighborhood, and we strive to maintain the residential character of the neighborhood. 60 I will talk about.1thw specific issues at this time and go on to some of the concepts we are concerned about. At issue- are many concerns for the welfare of the people residing in the community, their safety and their feelings about the neighborhood in which they liver- ee A ACNMGg Renton Hill is not a dying community. It is an old community that is continaally giving birth to new life and new awareness of the importance of the quality of life for each member of the society. It is interesting to nate that we have a precious mix of economics, races, religions, lifestyles, ages, politics, But the thing that remains universal is a feeling of belonging, being part of the community, being important and being needed and respected by the other members of the community. There have been many physical changes on Renton Hill since the 50 ' s and 60 ' s. I-405, reduced access, new street improvements, undergrounding of power lines, a new park, new homes, many remodeled homes some of them quite extensive) , more concern with the community needs, more political awareness. But the feeling of caring and the willingness to fight for those things that are important - the things that mean the life or death of an entire community and their spirit - those things have remained and have grown in strength. In the past 20 years we have become accustomed to the idea of planned housing developments.Renton Hill is not a planned housing development and it can never be a planned devleopment as we have come to define that concept. The Hill is a self-maintained development bound together, not by a dollar membership ,in a required association, but bound by a sense of belonging, a feeling of family orientation and a freedom for each person to be themselves. No membership fee is required. Page 3 In our society today, the American family is undergoing severe change. Psychologists havegpredicted that unless some progress is made in keeping families together, there will come an end to the security and sanctuary of the family as we know it. Renton Hill acts as an extended family for everyone who lives there. People care about each other and there is a constant pulse of friendship and caring and security for both homes and for people in them. I have received numerous inquiries from people in the area about buying a house on the Hill because they have heard so much about the kind of community we have and they want to be a part of it. The house I live in belonged to my husband's grandparents who came from Italy' as did many of the original settlers of the Hill. There are many descendants of the old Italian settlers on the hill even now. Many of these people looked elsewhere for a family home and came back to the Hill because they discovered that the Hill is a on-of-.a-ki nd ne igh b o ri kcod , How many neighborhoods can boast finis kind of continuity and re-building and re-vitalizing of itself? We feel that the addition of multi-family housing on Cedar avenue. which is a single family neighborhood would have a severe detrimental impact on an existing long established community. The houses on this property, with one exception are single family homes. This block is inappropriate for multi-family development that would entail destruction of existing homes. In fact, the federal government has recently granted funds for the improvement of older Renton Hill homes for people who do not have the financial resources to provide major improvements required by older homes. . This will give an added boost to the neighborhood and especially to those who would like to stay here but need help to fix up their homes. There is potential here for a dramatic adverse impact and we have already experienced a part of this potential. Page 4 The comdominiums that were built on Phase II property in early 1977 required destruction of an existing single family home that would have been eligible under the grant._ program that now exists. . Not only has this condominium taken a single family home fro m the community, it has been vacant because it has not passed the minimum building code inspection for the City of Renton, In addition, it has taken a recent court order to require completion of this unit in accordance with the minimum code. These vacantunits have certainly not added to the appearance of the neighborhood nor have they added housing to the neighborhood. fe buiddkr had utilized an extensive advertising campaign for the last year 5+n le C-"" and the units have not sold. Yet, at the same time, single e l family homes on the Hill are selling before they can get to 1S'2,va rulgr lythemarketandtherearepeoplewhoarewaitingtobuyhomes on the Hill. There is remodeling activity going on in H'i II , the same block where these units are located and people on this block have been contacted by local realators who have potential buyers for their homes - buyers who have families and who like the concept of a family-oriented neighborhood that is safe and friendly. Renton Hill has inherent opportunities for our family and others to live in a socially rich community with people from all backgrounds and economic levels. We are a progressive, vital community embracing people from all walks of life who share the concept that family and a sense of belonging are. important aspects to our survival and our happiness. We have a vital, living force that will continue to grow, refine and develop if it is nurtured well. We are not against change or against progress. But we prefer to improve on what we have rather than tear it all down and start over. It is not necessary to destroy an existing community to provide for progress. Our kind of progress is making the community a better place to live, improving the quality of life, fixing the old, adding some new that will blend with the old, and Page 5 encouraging the spirit of pride by building people up instead of tearing them down. Renton Hill is an awakening community. We have realized that what we have is special. We have come to know that our community is unusual in its mixture and its wisdom of age. We have realized that people never a truly appreciate what they have until there is a threat to take it away. We value the quality of life on Renton Hill and we feel that what we have is priceless. We are asking you today to help us remain a viable single family community that is cohesive® an asset to the city and a neighborhood we can continue to be proud of. Anything this good is definitely worth fighting for. 7r) AFgAror-XUAli Ce9- 9/91-A RENTON HILL COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION Concerns for our neighborhood 1 . Traffic Volume - 'The numbers of vehicles using Renton Hill streets cause severe congestion at times. An increase in traffic volume would be impossible to handle. The following traffic counts are from city records. 1972 - The pipeline road was open during the Boeing slump. Count taken on S. 3rd east of Mill for 24 hours. Results: Eastbound - 1279, Westbound - 1466. 1973 - The pipeline road was closed. Same location for 24 hours. Results: Eastbound - 716, Westbound - 831 . When the pipeline road was open, traffic volume dramatically increased and residents requested closure of the road due to the many other problems caused by the increase in traffic. 2. Parking - On street parking is mandatory for most residents. Those who have garages have realized that they were not built for modern day cars. 3. Street Width - ' The streets are not adequate for safe passage of two cars going opposite directions unless one pulls over to the side to allow the other to pass. According to city ordinances, residential streets must be at least 50 feet wide and neighborhood collector streets at least 60 feet wide. Cedar Avenue (where the proposed development would be) has a 40 foot right of way but the actual street width is only 26* feet. Cedar Avenue was improved with an L.I.D. last year and we are now paying for a new, substandard street because there is simply not enough room to widen the street. 4. Access - Although we have only one access, past experience has shown that another access creates more problems for us than it solves. It makes our community a thoroughfare for residents in other areas and causes extreme congestion. We prefer to live with just one access. Page 2 Renton Hill concerns 5. Sa_„_fe y - Pedestrian safety is adequate if there is a single access point. Fire safety is assured by a mutual aid agreementwithFireDistrict #40 who will come through the gate at thetopoftheHillifthecityisunabletorespond.6. A1- a - Alleys are inadequate to develop for major use duetowidth, grade and no right of waythrough manybackg yards.7. Crime Rate - At the present time we enjoy the lowest crimerateinthecityofRenton. There is rarely a seriousdisturbanceontheHill. From the records of the RentonPoliceDepartment, the following are the last statisticskeptoncrimeratebyneighborhood. 1976 Number of calls January 9 February , 10 March 14 April 16May June 11 July 18 TOTAL - 7 months 80 calls Most of these complaints were nuisance calls i.e. kids throwingrocks, cars parked over 24 hours,• etc. In comparison with other areas for the month of July, the Highlands had 36 callsandthedowntownareahad94calls. Renton Hill had 14 less calls in 7 months than the adjacent downtown area had in onemonth. Since the Hill is directly adjacent to the downtownbusinessdistrict, it is unusual to have such a low crime rate.8. Children's Safety - Since there is no other access, our children enjoy the safety of knowing most of the people who come ontheHill. Unfamiliar cars are easily spotted and there are few strangers. 9. School Bussing - There is no elementary school within walking distance of Renton Hill so the children catch the bus fromtheparkatthetopoftheHill. The Renton School DistrictwillnotallowitsbusestorunontheHillbecauseitis rage 3 Renton Hill concerns too dangerous because of the steep grade. It is unsafe for children to wait for the bus at the bottom of the Hill due to the railroad track and the traffic. A surge in population would compound the bussing problem. 10. Property Value - The Hill has become a desirable place to live due to the character of the neighborhood, our single family status and our view property. There are few vacant houses which adds to the safety and appearance of the neighborhood. 11 . Quality of the Neighborhood - We feel nothing will be gained by changing the quality of the neighborhood by the addition of multi-family housing. We have a very unique neighborhood. It is old, well established and has historical value. In fact, a picture of one home is shown in the book Renton - From Coal lb Jets. There are many second and third generation families on the Hill today which is unusual in our highly mobile society. There is pride of ownership which shows up in the vast remodeling activity on the Hill. People choose to keep an older home and restore or remodel it because they like living on Renton Hill and they are unable to duplicate the atmosphere in another neighborhood. We are one of the oldest residential communities in the city and we are proud- that our homes have stood the test of time.. There is value in repairing old homes rather than tearing them down to build new ones. Unlike many older neighborhoods, ours is being revitalized and is not deteriorating. 12. Quiet - We have a quiet and peaceful neighborhood which is no small accomplishment considering our proximity to the downtown area, Interstate 405 and the railroad tracks. i3. Community Facilities - Philip Arnold Park is adequate to provide for our needs and is used by many residents in the city. But the addition of apartment complexes would seriously over-crowd the park... Renton Hill concerns 144. Public Works - We have concern that our sewer and drainage systems could not withstand the strain of providing for the needs of a large increase ing population. The points we have listed are only guidelines to help you understand how we feel about Renton Hill and the many concerns we have weighed to formulate our position. We hope this will be of help to you in making your decision about the future of Renton Hill. Mm1• 1.W.,:0, 1 A— 7---• 7cwoot.. KNooL '•7d1E. 1' 6 l,. 1- a,., l0- m-". w/.. E_., eT. r.-.;,.'-. o..,,- 31,., yam., 7 LIl-EP9Ii, i'->„ 5C!. 2 6r• 1fi,=_ l"il. 1 a,Ris--l,.AiliiilIil. i--,i"i m. l^ ir nQit.z. s,i i•:iI1I,c,- rar= r.sr^ias' wm m. oz1—rwrki. smiwoiworr1r-ri,„.., i,'l0/7' L l'- 1. 1'.,.... 1:- N04.._,_- I-- I' Kls I. l.\-..._a,_, 7\ 0 rE a _+' r ai-, I' i r. 3 7.. r.s^ railT 1 7 rWr7 7 vidiv ill kil7_ I 'I t"• \ a-!. 1,,• 4 l N it iforrcvl i SITI.E rI T 17!1 1... sSUBJECT k. 1Pi r7.., Iv ai WilWil`i I I r r•. ..- 17 rnia 17 y r7-mr] 7 elle t- yr• r- 7!f r+7 f 6J Cti , in.=am rtI r7 Ma r'! 7 C` lz,l.it 4 • lG m . ran 11/ I 1 , I _ b gia Qr., A • .r) • 3 III Il W.••r• \ \ M go iii RIIF4diii9rr ii.. .L ..,-,: gloi. il --h IS R a P ems`. r Ul : r 1. .. © . ., G ,= i R 1111 IH— I ' , / l Oz,NN 6• G!GN'0 I VIL.AG DL J j• i i 5 R 4 i GS— Ir nvs.-1..... Two. w w 14a " ; +ilia .1 r / ' '' I ... _ - t. -L f I tAi. - .r. ,; 7 Ji1 .mil . i APPL I CANT CITY OF RENTON TOTAL AREA ±1.23 acres PRINCIPAL ACCESS Cedar Ave. South between South 6th and 7th Streets EX! S"i ING ZONING R-3, Residential Multiple Family Four single family dwellings, one 8-plex condominium, one' EXISTING USE undeveloped lot. To establish zoning classification compatible with the Comprehen- PROPOSED USE sive P]an and xistijlg zoning and lAnd oes (single family residence) COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN Single Family Residential COMMENTS The proposed rezoninct_will bring the zoning of the subject site into conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. No plhsical development is proposed at this time. RECEIVED CITY OF RENTON PLANNING DEPARTMENT HEARING EXAMINER PRELIMINARY REPORT TO HEARING EXAMINER SEP 2 61978 AM.' PM PUBLIC HEARING 718r9110J11121112i3141516 SEPTEMBER 26, 1.9.7.8, HIBI T NO. 2 APPLICANT : CITY OF RENTON ITEM NO. FILE NUMBER: R-218-78 , REZONE - RENTON HILL , PHASE II A. SUMMARY OF REQUEST : The applicant requests a rezone of the subject property from R-3 , Medium Density Multiple Family , to R-1 , Single Family Residential . B . GENERAL INFORMATION : 1 . Owner of Record : Homeco , Inc . Lyman E . Riley Gene 0. Farrell Walter Smith Theodore C . Cole Tillie Cole 2. Applicant : City of Renton 3 . Location :Property is located on the west side of Cedar Ave- nue South between South 6th Street and South 7th Street. 4. Legal Description : Tract 15, Plat No. 1 of Renton Cooperative Coal Company's Acre Tracts. A detailed legal descrip- tion is on file with the Renton Planninn flpnartmPnt. 5. Size of Property : The parcels total approxi - mately 53 ,619 square feet or approximately 1 . 23 acres . 6. Access : Via Cedar Avenue South and South 6th Street. 7 . Existing Zoning: R-3 , Residential Multiple Family. 8. Existing Zoning in the Area : R-1 , Single Family Residential District ; R-3 , Residential Multiple Family . 9. Comprehensive Land Use Plan : Single Family Residential . 10. Notification : The property owners were notified in writing- of the hearing date . Notice was properly publishe1 in the Record Chronicle and posted in three places on: or near the site as. required „by City ordinance. C . PURPOSE OF REQUEST : The application was filed to review the existing zoning' in rela- tion to the Comprehensive Plan . D . HISTORY/BACKGROUND : The subject site was part of the original plat of the City . E . PHYSICAL BACKGROUND : 1 . Topography : The site slopes downward from east to west at approximately a 24% grade. PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT TO HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING : CITY OF RENTON , FILE NUMBER R-218-78 SEPTEMBER 26, 1978 PAGE TWO 2 . Soils : Beausite gravelly sandy loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes BeD ) . Runoff is rapid , and the hazard of erosion is severe. This soil is used for timber and pasture . 3 . Vegetation : The site consists of holly and fruit trees , some vegetable gardens , and other ground cover consisting of grass and blackberries . 4. Wildlife : Existing vegetation on the site provides suitable habitat for birds and small mammals . 5 . Water : There was no water observed on the site at the time of field inspection . However , portions of the area do con- tain seasonal drainage ditches . 6 . Land Use :. Of the six parcels involved , four contain single family residential structures , one remains undeveloped , and one multiple family structure at the corner of South 7th Street and Cedar Avenue South is a condominium. Adjacent to the west are two apartment buildings . The remaining surrounding properties contain single family dwellings except for the undeveloped land to the south that is included in Renton Hill Rezone , Phase I . F . NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTERISTICS : Renton Hill was subdivided and developed prior to the turn of the century . When it was developed and for many years there- after , it was considered one of the nicer areas in which to live . This was due in part to being above the flood plain , having a view, being at a higher elevation than industrial activities , and a variety of other reasons . Over a period of years , the Hill began to decline . IFowever , this trend has reversed itself in recent years . Some homes were converted to apartments and new apartments were constructed . During the early 1960 ' s , FAI-405 was constructed leaving only one access to Renton Hill . In 1953 , the City adopted a zoning ordinance which tended to segregate the single and multi -family residences on the Hill . This helped contain multi -family to Mill Avenue (along FAI -405 ) and to minimize the spread of multi -family throughout the Hill . During the early 1970 ' s , a sense of community pride began to redevelop which led to cohesive community action .. Eventually , a community club was formed to represent Renton Hill. The City of Renton and the residents of Renton Hill have invested considerable amounts of money in the area since Janu- ary , 1976. Cedar Street between South Third and South Ninth Street was completely rebuilt with a new street , curbs , gutters , sidewalks , illumination; and overhead utilities were placed underground . The project cost $200 , 162 . 04 , of which the resi - dents paid $43 , 310. 11 through a local improvement district LID 293 ) . Sixty-nine parcels participated in the LID , which calculates to an average of $627 . 68 per parcel . Since January , 1976 , considerable private investment has taken place on Renton Hill including five new single family dwellings , one new addition to single family residence , one new story on single family residence , two new private garages , one lowered basement , and a new eight-unit apartment . The new homes were erected on lots that were due either to demolition of a home , never had been developed , or were short platted from a larger lot . ti iiiarte/ 6 i' i- s 33' -r: Jai 14 p tee Vq a ,e/ 4 r t/Ty 7+ nervieb sT r VQ'Ir1ok Phaax, Gaza. 26-78 GEOLOGY She • fr ga.rroN mcmicrioN Mom, is-25-1) At IC S*tJD I`IL`,MUp6TDIJ . 4 SH Atz.. CGNr^INS eie .-CQAL-CEDE,Moer Ne#JG M6e dC. Mrooc.e. am Fo+env.T1«.L.NUMI u FAULT'S CP .L. 51"E.L P (25-'401 D) otsPt AC MCNr, WAVY t36DDINb.1 l xI.JC6b= Atfour 2,311D' ZOl1Kl d' COAL-4 CLAY. real U.4.('.4. Anil. I-354.1 1i P 1 I.ts.(o.5. 1.461.10411 I-6Ss-E } 149S a. 1 , j If 1,111r:- i- A4t ....x ti . . . ti 1` ix r I /9 ra, ,, 11 :II //i hc/ f i. , ii sot ME / F. 6 ,,,,. ..- ' . i / 1 . 91 ! , it P ; 1 1,„ , ii. l i 1 i I, 'iii ,i I; ; „1„ ., i fili L14.1i Mr 1 Ifli:s 1 II /Pi r lNI. N / I ' ! / I H / I ' OrIli o7 11: x 1 11 r 11: x 1 • J i w ii o 1ti IIl o I I ; II I I x — tJ N inN. 1. I II II //Lr ky I I I I o i i i I ( I I J ill" illli I y \ ri, ity1 f _ 11 d 41II' I IIIIII 1' li 1l1' Ir1itsaIIIII l ill MI I / 1 JIIIIIiiiiiiii4 • 4 I 1 '1 KE I i!iiiiii!E{ 1 200 100 - 0 200 100'000 Y00 • , 1000 hot Contour/Illsrv1=11he1 a-,.-_-.....„.,_--_7,k7,-_x----- ---- --4, 1! 0 a, 8 Zoo r yst i;. 41. . I • - - IISOVIIIIII ll miatz' t eall 1111\lk i V 1 W. . . - •-- A': ill 4 I'llNiii,-. I mow- 2 jog -----aulmuno . 7_,---i-- -_--- 7=-----7-7:-_---- -1-...------- i Z13 1 • . - 8 j„,..___.......„w, 4.virto i 1.1 •,_0. i Ak„..).......m. intmul 1. ,..f.„._ i z 5rgi tit 4- - ul CY( L ass mil"- 1 PLANNING DEPARTMENT. PRELIMINARY REPORT TO HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING: CITY OF RENTON, FILE NUMBER R-218-78 SEPTEMBER. 26, 1978 PAGE THREE Two short plats ,(two lots each) and one preliminary Planned Unit Development applications were received by the City from Renton Hill since 1976. In addition, a large tentative plat 2. 45 acres., 93 lots) application wa.s received on a parcel south of and contiguous to Renton Hill ; this subdivision does not propose to have access via Renton Hill . Effective July 1 , 1978 , low and moderate home owners will be eligible for grants up to $2 ,500 for rehabilitation of their detached single family dwellings through the City.. of Renton Housing Repair Program. Renton Hill is designated as one of the City ' s target neighborhoods . ' G. TRAFFIC: Renton Hill is essentially a large cul -de-sac with one access , Mill Avenue South. The Seattle Cedar River Pipeline right-of- way provides a secondary access for emergency vehicles. This facility was closed in 1973.at the request of the residents of the Hill to eliminate the through traffic that came to and from the Cascade area to the: south . The residents of Renton Hill considered the through traffic inappropriate and dangerous to the community. The streets are rather steep , and serious questions can be raised concerning traffic safety if too, many cars use the streets . Between South Third and South Seventh Streets , Renton Avenue and Cedar Avenue average 9. 2% and 7 . 7% slope respectively. Renton. Avenue has. a short' stretch that has a :. grade in excess of 15% between the same streets . With the grid iron street pattern , a vehicle (and anything which the vehicle might hit) can bet, in serious trouble should a serious mechanical problem occur, such as brake failure. On January 22 , 1978 , traffic counts were conducted and a movement of 2 ,650 vehicles were found during a 24-hour period. This represents 1 ,350 vehicles entering and leaving the Hill each day . Burlington. Northern Railroad has a major east-west track across Mill Avenue South, the sole access to Renton Hill . During the 16 hours per day that the Renton railroad station is manned , there is an average of 14 trains that pass through the City. This does not include the numerous short blockages due to switching activities . Blockage of Mill Avenue can be critical should an emergency occur on Renton Hill while _ a train crosses Mill Avenue. H. SOUND: Sound°. :reading=s, ,were :taken. in, mid-September, 1978,. at the two locations noted on the map in Exhibit . Reading.s from mid-May, 1978, of Phase I are also noted. The detailed sound records are available on file in the Renton Planning Depart- ment. The freeway is the major source of sound in the subject area , with aircraft, automobiles , animals , and the usual neigh- borhood sources included to lesser degrees . Listed below is a snyopsis of the findings : dBA .LEVELS ' Site High, .Mode Low PHASE II , Site 1 66 51-62 49 PHASE II , Site 2 73 59-67. 58 PHASE I , Site 3 79 65-76 63 PHASE I , Site 66 59-62 56 iij1 141111 . 11. k. 3 0 4 ii ram 011s 12 1 g 4.-:-__ --- i- lit.„•_...._ . ": 17, _ __._::__,___:__________ J kr,,k_..,.. 4. X. T /// I! I 4 ANT r l 1IIN a 42e li y-- fthillibblail id fl' il 5-.....-,.......---...-__....-.... 111 - • •- 1 ii ifftmu I• i1- 1 -_` S....-- 1 • L - PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT TO HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING: CITY OF RENTON , R-218-78 PAGE FOUR Generally, the closer to FAI-405, the greater the sound. It is anticipated that traffic will increase as :growth occurs in ' South King County on FAI-405; and, therefore , the sound levels on Renton Hill will increase also . Sleep interference occurs at 40 dBA; speech interference at 55 dBA; hearing loss with continuous exposure at 80 dBA, although some experts believe hearing loss happens at a lower level . As indicated by the above data , there is speech interference with outside activi - ties during the day and a potential loss of hearing if exposed for a long period of time. Sound inside a dwelling is generally 10 to 15 dBA less when the windows are open and15 to 20 dBA quieter when the windows are closed. Dwellings constructed on the site could experi- ence sound levels that will cause interference with normal conversation and perhaps sleep. I . PUBLIC SERVICES: 1 . Water and Sewer:. A four-inch water main extends east-west along the south side of South 7th Street east of the inter- . section of Cedar Avenue South and South 7th Street. A second four-inch main runs north-south along Cedar Avenue south of the intersection of South 7th and Cedar, and a third four-inch main extends east-west on South 6th Street adjacent to the southern boundary of the subject site. In addition , a six-inch main runs north-south along Cedar adjacent to the easterly boundary, and an eight-inch main extends east-west on the north side of South 7th Street. The existing ten-inch sanitary sewer extends north-south along Cedar adjacent to the subject site, and an eight- inch sewer runs east-west along South 7th Street adjacent to the north property boundary. 2. Fire Protection : Provided ,by the Renton Fire Department as per ordinance requirements. 3. Transit: Metro provides bus service along the periphery of Renton Hill . Routes ' 107 and 240 operate north of the Hill on Mill Avenue outh. Bronson Way South is served by route number 142 and route number 155 serves Main Avenue South. All of these busses are within walking distance of Renton Hill . 4. Schools : Talbot Hill Elementary School is located within two miles to the southwest of the subject site , with Fred Nelson Middle School approximately two. miles to the south and Renton Senior High School approximately one mile to the northwest. 5. Parks : Liberty, Cedar River and Jones Parks are approxi - mately one-half mile north of the subject site , while Phillip Arnold Park is one-fourth mile. to the east. J . APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE ZONING CODE: 1. Section 4-706, R-1 Residential Single Family District. 2. Section 4-706A, R-3, Residential Multiple Family District. 3. Section 4-725, Amendments. K. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OR OTHER OFFICIAL CITY DOCUMENTS : 1. Land Use Report, 1965, Residential , pages 6, 7 , and 11 , and Objectives , pages 17 and 18. 2. Arterials and Streets Plan , 1965 , pages 2 , 3 , 4, 5. 3. Policy Statement , Comprehensive Plan , 1965, pages 4, 6, 9, 10, 11 , 17 . NOISE L.EVELS QQ L0C.4770NS RECCi ID. R1CCRDED rfiaNf 'VASE I. i 1 iiii dal z. Irkir, .( y I 4. i. _,) iI( 1 , f: ri -- x P ' Mi. 1 1" # ' i,*I if 1 . .ii , , 1 1 mai : I 1:111 le 4,7 ;I I iire:!..:i rt+, s, ./ t, x I( , 1 1 'I. 111 irw- in., 4)i ji r .1,.. ,..,. ,,,,,i ..r141..I ir. , Vii cc 1 Ilii i ,\ ', Atri1,. , im s. 7N In . • IN0 iN MO OM .. ....... noses PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT TO HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING: CITY OF RENTON , R-218-78 SEPTEMBER 26, 1978 PAGE SIX 4. The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Report., page. 17, also has an objective number 4 , "Protect property values within the community for the benefit of its residents and property owners , through the effective control of land use and the enforcement and application of building and construction . codes . " The proposed rezone will control and regulate the land use of the subject area to a degree that is compatible with other property in the area , thereby encouraging and strengthening the livability, both physical and social , within the existing neighborhood. This would further the present character of the Hill as highly desirable single family residence area. 5. The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Report., page 18, clearly states as a method of implementation (number. 6) the need to "conduct planning studies on problems of current interest or need as conditions change and revisions or .amendments to the Comprehensive. Plan are - deemed desirable. " Conditions have changed in the area through the continued construction , revitalization , investment, and community involvement in the area as a single family neighborhood , as well as the lack of adequate access for multiple family residential being devel - oped , and the overall attitude of the legislative body and the community toward the retention of. a viable and signifi - cant single family area through the revision to the Compre- hensive Plan . It is further noted in this implementation section that the purposeful and consistent attention to the overall purposes and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan will produce .continuing and long term benefits for the commun- ity. " The proposed rezone is a reflection of the "overall purposes and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan" through the proper use of land use regulations and zoning to pro- tect the citizens of the community and provide for orderly and compatible growth trends . The "continuing" benefits to the community will be reflected by the proposed rezone consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The aspect, of planning as a "continuing" process is important. As the City grows and changes in its physical character so also do the attitudes of its citizens . The Comprehensive Plan and its implementation methods ( i . e. , zoning , capital improvements , arterials and streets plans ) must reflect these changes to be an effective planning tool . 6. The Policy Statement of the Comprehensive Plan , page 6, E. , Traffic Ways , states that " It shall be the objective of the City to develop or require the development of its traffic-ways in accordance with their intended use . Generally , heavy and fast moving traffic will be routed around neighborhoods with only minor residential streets bisecting them. Right-of-way width standards for different classifications of streets shall be those developed in detail and contained in the Arterials and Streets Report of the R. U .A. Comprehensive Plan . The construction o.f streets shall be related to need and function as determined by traffic engineering studies . " Reference to the Arter- ials a'nd Streets Plan , as well as the City ' s Subdivision Ordinance, indicates that this access to the subject area is not adequate for any higher density use than single family residential . However , it is one of the last remaining large undeveloped areas of the Hill. and , there- fore, would not create significant additional traffic problems if developed as single family residential . 7. Access to Renton Hill is restricted to one entrance that is subject to blockage by trains . Several of the streets PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT TO HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING: CITY OF RENTON, R-218-78 PAGE FIVE L. IMPACT ON THE NATURAL SYSTEMS : Rezoning of the subject site will not have a direct impact upon the natural system. Development has already occurred on five of the six parcels . Development of the .final lot is not pro- posed as a part of this rezoning. M. SOCIAL IMPACTS: Development of the subject site for residential use will increase the opportunities for social interaction . N. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT/THRESHOLD DETERMINATION : Pursuant to the City of Renton ' s Environmental Ordinance and the State Environmental Policy Act of 1971 , as amended, RCW 43-21C, a declaration of non-significance has been: issued for the pro- posal . 0. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION : A vicinity map and a site map are attached. P. 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. 6. Renton School District #403 7 . Department of Ecology Q. PLANNING DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS : 1. The proposed rezone to R-1 is consistent with the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan , which designates the subject site as single family residential . 2. The existing zoning around the site is R-1 in all directions except for a narrow corridor of R-3 on Mill Avenue South to the northwest of the subject site. The. freeway to the west is not zoned and acts as a physical barrier. The R-1 . zoned property immediately west and south of the subject site was recently rezoned from R-3 to R-1 by Ordinance 3241 effective September 2 , 1978. The R-3 portions are developed as zoned , while the recently rezoned property to the south remains undeveloped . The other R-1 areas are developed as zoned. These patterns along with other elements seem to establish the subject site as a single family area which requires protection from other uses to retain its identity. 3. The goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Land Use Report, page 17 , objective number 1 , states : "Prevent blight by protecting residential and other exclusive dis- tricts from the unwarranted infiltration of incompatible uses which would contribute to premature decay and obso- lesence, and prevent the development of orderly growth patterns . " The majority of the Renton Hill area is an existing single family, residential neighborhood. ' Rezone and development of the subject area to single family resi - dence' density, either by standard subdivision or by P . U . D. cluster-type development , would b'e compatible with the existing neighborhood and consistent with such objective. Development to higher densities would result in infiltra- tion of incompatible zoning , land use's , and such Compre- hensive objectives. PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT TO HEARING EXAMINER , PUBLIC HEARING : CITY OF RENTON', R-218-78 PAGE EIGHT of the R-1 zone would be more compatible with such objec- tives . 10.. The site is subject to loud sound levels , especially from FAI-405. -The Department of Ecology recommended that per- formance .standards be applied to sleeping areas of the dwelling to permit sleep. STAFF .RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. Adopt the following findings : a. The property has been zoned R-3 , .multiple family, since October 21 , 1963. b. That one parcel consisting of approximately one-sixth of the site has , been developed in accordance . with .the R-3 district standards . The remaining parcels are single family homes and one undeveloped lot. c . That substantial changes and circumstances have occurred on the site in the form of construction of an eight-unit condominium 'as indicated in "b" above. Substantial changes also occu,rredin the vicinity of the site in the form of construction of FAI-405, construction of Phillip Arnold Neighborhood Park, and street improvements to Cedar Avenue South . 2. Approve R-1 , single family, zoning for the subject area with the following additional considerations : a. The existing vegetation and other natural characteristics of the site should be retained as much as possible and incorporated into. the site planning design and development. b. Access . shall be limited to existing streets and improved as part of any site development.' c. . On-site soils and geologic investigations should be con- ducted to determine whether the site is safe to develop and under what circumstances . II PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT TO HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING: CITY OF RENTON , R-218-78 PAGE SEVEN which provide access to the various areas on the Hill are steep, laid out in a grid arrangement , and as such should not be overloaded. The grades of the streets pre- sent a potential hazard not normally found in a residential development. Also , one street has had a small section sub- sidence. (Comprehensive Plan , Arterials and Streets , 1965 , Purposes and Objectives of Study , pages 2 and 3) . Both Cedar Avenue South and Renton Avenue South have a right-of- way width of forty feet with improvements less than that which is normally required. Standard residential access streets are 50 to 60 feet in width. Due to existing struc- tures and improvements , there is little likelihood that these streets can be enlarged. Given this situation , the proposed rezone would have fewer impacts to the existing streets than the existing zoning . . In fact, the Streets and Arterials Plan , page 5 , states that "in the planning , design , and location of the major street system, considera- tion should be given to esthetics and community amenities in order that the system may provide attractive as well as safe , efficient circulation routes , and do the least dam- age to adjacent land uses and improvements. Conversely, the design and location of adjacent improvements should present the least possible interference with the traffic carrying capabilities of these traffic ways . " 8. The Streets and Arterials Plan also states as objectives page 3 ) : a . Provision for the safe , efficient and conven- ient movement of peoples and goods . b. Arterial and street patterns compatible with and complimentary to the general land use plan. c. Adequate and safe access to allow convenient and efficient utilization of abutting proper- ties . The proposed rezone would be consistent with these objec- tives by reducing densities and resulting traffic volumes and providing for land use more compatible with the Com- prehensive Plan and roadway system. Also , the intro- duction of any larger street system into and through the area would be contrary to these and other Comprehensive Plan objectives . ( i . e. , Policy Statement , Comprehensive Plan , page 4 , "These trafficways should be so designed that they function efficiently. . . their operation should not confilict or interfere with the functions of the resi - dential neighborhoods . " ) In addition , page 4 of the Streets and Arterials Plan says , "Traffic should be con- centrated on comparatively few roads which are adequately designed to accommodate the expected volume , rather than dispersed on many low standard residential roads . " 9. It is apparent from the attached exhibits that the site has physical characteristics such as slope , mined-out coal beds , soils , and existing heavy vegetation which create potential problems in development and which should be considered when reviewing the size and intensity of development. Certain types of higher intensity develop- ment may in fact create potential hazards . Therefore , it would be in the public interest to minimize such possible hazard by proper planning , zoning , and develop- ment controls . The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Report designates the site as 15-25% slope (moderately steep) . Slopes to the west are even steeper (over 25%) and the Plan indicates that " in these areas , isolated slide problems will be encountered which must be recognized and the land utilized accordingly. " The lesser density REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : J Department : at.T !Ge JohfeeY'1 Approved C7 NotprovedAC PPP Comments or conditions : ee•34.4 c e of Tin"act 414411" g5t4it t. ` a///e Signature of Director or Authorized Repres 1ative Date REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : Department : / 4 Q-.Approved Not Approved Comments or conditions : Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : Department: p Approved d Not Approved Comments or conditions : Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : Department : Approved Q Not Approved Comments or conditions : Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date ROUTING SCHEDULE FOR APPLICATION TO: Finance Department Fire Department Library Department Park Department Police Department Public Works Department 7 44 fi Building Div'. Engineering Div. (Please verify legal description) Traffic Engineering Div. 0. Utilities Engineering. Div. FROM: Planning Department, (signed by responsible official or his designee) ahadedniar DATE : OV/a PLEASE REVIEW THIS APPLICATION FOR: X . REZONE 2/ — g MAJOR PLAT SITE APPROVAL SHORT PLAT SPECIAL PERMIT WAIVER SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PERMIT OR EXEMPTION AND RETURN TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT WITH ANY COMMENTS YOU MIGHT HAVE , BEFORE 9 /0 6'h REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : Department : Approved Not Approved Comments or conditions : S gnature irector or Authorized Representat ve-------- 4 Date REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : Department :c/,P ne7 2%u- Cg'Approve tApprove Comments or conditions : r offZa4/2"F Masi /`'lGG 7 S. O. /eiVai/ it-1c-v7S fe e y o e ..)73 Ax14 9ccccS , $ / Pu,/eeZ7 ay, fiat- cho G c Signature of Director or Authorize Representative Date REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS: Department: 77419.4a9 251Viple.CY !,7ElApprovedNotApproved Comments : DirectoreZazze P7•144m-- 74frorAuthorizedSignatureofRepresentativeDate REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : Department : 0 Approved Q Not Approved Comments : Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : Department : I Approved Not Approved Comments : Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS :. Department : 0 Approved Not Approved Comments : Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date ROUTING FOR REVIEW OF ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORMS TO: O Finance Department Fire Department Library Department Park Department Police Department Public Works Department IPA Building Div. , 0 Engineering Div. Traffic Engineering Div. 0 Utilities Engineering Div. FROM: Planning Department , ( signed by responsible official or his designee ) As . algae/ SUBJECT: Review of ECF- OV~ hl' ; Application No. : ('' 24' 7Z6 Action Name :10764, J/, A414 s,ll e Zr Please review the attached. Review requested by (date) : 0/'J Note : Responses to be written in ink. REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : De artment : ZZ.."d G ommen Aff roved EINot Approved rr G~o.-. 9— ems—-7) Signature o Erector or Authorized Representative Date REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : Department : /RTDiv/ CEll men 'proved tJ Not Approved Z4 2.,...........„..... / vc, ,i4._,......e..,4YI Sigma-ture of Director or Authorized Representative Date PROPOSED/FINAL DECLARATION OF SIGNIFICANCE/NON—SIGNIFICANCE Application No . R-218-78 (PHASE II) 0 PROPOSED Declaration Environmental Checklist .No. ECF-383-78 X FINAL Declaration Description of proposal The City initiated a rezone of seven contiguous parcels consisting of ±1.23 acres from R-3 to R-1. Proponent CITY OF RENTON Location of Proposal In the general area of Renton Hill . Lead Agency City of Renton Planning Department This proposal has been determined to 0 have © not hay a si nificant adverse impact upon the environment . An EIS U 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 : This negative declaration applies only to the rezone of the subject site. No physical development is proposed at this time, or as a part of this rezone. Further environmental review will be required as part of specific site development review. 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 Ti t l e P1 i ng 'rector D a t e September 18, 1978 Signature City of Renton Planning Department 5-76 R/`/ y 12, 1978 a0_1) 9 OFFICE OF TIE LAND USE HEARING_ EXAMINER c L i s ig a CITY OF RENTON REP—RT ANDr,C ENDATION TO THE RENTON CITY COUNCIL, A ICANT: S City of Renton FILE NO. R-178-78 LOCA Na Property is on the west side of Renton Hill south of S. 7th Street; east of FAI-405; north of the Puget Sound Power and Light Company transmission line easement and east of the subdivided property. SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Applicant initiated a rezone from R-3 District, Medium Density Multi-Family to R-1, Single Family District. SUMMARY OF Planning Department: Recommend approval. RECOMMENDATION: Hearing Examiner: Recommend approval with conditions. PLANNING DEPARTMENT The Planning Department staff report was received by the REPORT: Examiner on June 9, 1978. PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the Planning Department report, examining available information oh 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 June 13, 1978 at 9:04 a.m. in the Council Chambers of the Renton Municipal Building. The Examiner disclosed being acquainted with certain residents on Renton Hill although he advised that discussion regarding the subject application had not occurred and the relationships would not interfere with his ability to objectively review the request and render a recommendation on the matter. He asked if parties in attendance objected to proceeding with the hearing on the basis of the disclosure. There was no objection. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner. It was reported that the Hearing Examiner, the property owners, and interested parties had received and reviewed the Planning Department report, and the report was entered into the record as Exhibit #1. Gordon Y. Ericksen, Planning Director, reviewed Exhibit #1. Mr. Ericksen clarified the purpose of the series of hearings to review the zoning of the entire Renton Hill area in phases, beginning with the subject request, in response to recent amendments to the Comprehensive Plan by the City Council. He noted a correction in Section E. , paragraph three of Exhibit #1 in the first, fourth and sixth lines to change the word, "subsistence," to-"subsidence," and reported that the Goals and Policies Statement of the Comprehensive Plan should be included as applicable sections of the Comprehensive Plan or other official city- documents listed under Section K. of the report. Gary. Kruger, Senior Planner, submitted and reviewed the following exhibits: Exhibit #2: Aerial Photograph of Renton Hill and Surrounding Areas Exhibit #3: Topography Map Exhibit #4: King County Assessor's Map Mr. Kruger presented a series of 24 slides depicting existing topography, streets, structures, park and coalfields of the Renton Hill area and the subject site. The slides were labeled Exhibit #5 by the Examiner. Mr. Ericksen submitted an excerpt from Renton Planning Commission minutes, dated September 25, 1963, reporting approval of the original rezone of the subject property to R-3 designation. The minutes were labeled Exhibit #6 by the Examiner. He also referenced minutes of the Planning Commission and Renton City Council meetings relative to the recent amendment to the Comprehensive Plan for the Renton Hill area. The minutes were labeled as follRE( EIVED CITY OF RENTON Exhibit #7: Minutes of the Planning Commission, dated HEARING EXAMINER September 14, 1977 and October 12, 1977. SEP 2 61978 AM PM 7:8r9110o11112:1:2i3e415,6 R-1, _ 78 Page Two Exhibit #8: Minutes of the Renton City Council, dated November 21 & 28, 1977, and December 5 & 19, 1977. The Examiner reported receipt of_ a legal brief from James R. Irwin, legal counsel for Transamerica Development Corporation, dated June 9, 1978. Responding to the Examiner's inquiry, Mr. Irwin indicated that the brief would be reviewed during his subsequent testimony. The brief was labeled Exhibit #9 by the Examiner. The Examiner requested testimony in support of the application. Responding was: Kathy Keolker 532 Cedar Avenue S. Renton, WA 98055 Mrs. Keolker, President of the Renton Hill Community Association, entered copies of two petitions previously submitted to the Planning Commission and City Council during public hearings held during 1977 regarding the proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan for the Renton Hill area. The petitions, labeled Exhibit #10 by the Examiner, contained a request for rezone of Cedar Avenue S. in its entirety for single family dwellings and expressed concern regarding traffic volume, parking, street width, access, safety, alleys, crime rate, childrens' safety, school busing, property values, quality of the neighborhood, noise level, community facilities and utility systems. To support her testimony concerning the character of Renton Hill as' a self-rejuvenating, vital community, Mrs. Keolker entered the following exhibit: Exhibit #11: Photographs (39) of Renton Hill Residences She emphasized that establishment of R-3 zoning of the subject property in 1963 occurred prior to the existence of a comprehensive plan to promote orderly growth within the city. Mrs. Keolker stated that additional multi-family development on Renton Hill would destroy the unique, residential character of an established neighborhood consisting of many generations of residents. Referring to existing access roadways, she advised that residents on Cedar Avenue S. had recently participated in an LID which resulted in the creation of an inadequate, narrow street, and that existing steep grades and blind spots on S. 7th Street and Renton Avenue S. create dangerous safety hazards, particularly during winter months. Mrs. Keolker reported that condominiums constructed on Cedar Avenue S. during 1977 have not received final building code approval to date and remain vacant, and to illustrate residential opinion that the development had not contributed to the appearance of the neighborhood, she entered a series of nine photographs of development on the site, which were labeled Exhibit #12 by the Examiner. Mrs. Keolker emphasized that in addition to construction of new homes, many older homes had been remodeled in the Renton Hill community, and that the neighborhood did not require economic stimulation through development of multi-family residences. She indicated that residents did not oppose progress or growth, but felt that construction of apartments would destroy the character of the quiet, family-oriented, residential neighborhood and could not be considered progressive action. Responding was: Ruth Bradley 709 High Avenue S. Renton, WA 98055 Mrs. Bradley addressed the existing problem of increased traffic and insufficient access streets in the Renton Hill area. She submitted the following exhibits to illustrate problems of parking and access: Exhibit #13: Photographs of Cedar Avenue S. Exhibit #14: Traffic Count Data Referring to Exhibit #13, Mrs. Bradley advised that the actual substandard width of Cedar Avenue S. is 26-1/2 feet as a result of a previous LID formed to improve the street. She noted that on-street parking is mandatory for most residents because of the lack of garages in the area and advised that because of the existence of parked cars on the narrow street, it is impossible for two oncoming vehicles to pass simultaneously. Referring to Exhibit #14, Mrs. Bradley indicated that a 24-hour count totaling 2,745 trips had been taken in 1972 during a period in which the pipeline road was open, and reported that residential opposition to the open pipeline access roadway had resulted in subsequent closure. Exhibit #14 also contained 24-hour counts taken in the same location during 1973 following closure of the pipeline road (1,547) , in June, 1977 on Cedar Avenue S. 1,263) , and in January, 1978 (2,650) . She noted dangerous situations created by winter conditions and existence of railroad tracks and trains which limit access to Renton Hill. R-178 Page Three Responding was: Peggy Jernigan 412 Mill Avenue S. Renton, WA 98055 Mrs. Jernigan addressed the matter of crime rate and residential safety. She advised that a neighborhood crime watch had been established for many years and close neighborhood relationships ensured safety for children. She submitted an exhibit comparing crime rates in Renton Hill to other areas of the city. The exhibit was labeled as follows: Exhibit #15: Crime Rate Statistics The exhibit denoted a total of 80 calls to the Renton Police Department during the first seven months of 1976 as well as the number of calls during the month of July, 1976 from the Highlands (36) , downtown area (94) , and Renton Hill (18) . She attributed the low rate to square block configuration of streets, single access, and proximity of the Renton Police Department. Mrs. Jernigan emphasized that apartments have a high turnover of tenants which was contrary to the established single family residential tenancy in the neighborhood, and she supported R-1 zoning to allow continued single family residential growth established for the past 70 years. Responding was: Ruth Larson 714 High Avenue S. Renton, WA 98055 Mrs. Larson addressed the safety problems associated with the high number of children residing on Renton Hill. She indicated opposition to provision of additional access to the area which she felt would increase sexual crime rates and traffic fatalities. She stated that the Renton School District currently routes school buses to the top of the hill at Philip Arnold Park but that an increase in enrollment would relocate the bus stop to the bottom of the hill and would create a dangerous situation because of traffic, trains, and large, plate-glass windows of existing businesses in that location. Responding was: Amelia Telban 508 Cedar Avenue S. Renton, WA 98055 Miss Telban discussed history of Renton Hill and reported that she is residing in the same home in which she was born. She reviewed establishment of the Renton Hill community upon discovery of coal in the community in 1873 when miners purchased single acre tracts from the coal company. She advised that until the 1920's, a school and church were the only structures other than single family residences which existed in the area and at that time several homes were remodeled into multiple family dwellings. During World War II, she reported, a huge influx of workers created a need for additional apartments in the area. Miss Telban advised the existence of a high percentage of second and third generation residents in the area as well as representation of all age groups and income levels, and stressed the importance of maintaining the sense of community which has been established and perpetuated. Responding was: Jim Breda 1002 Grant Avenue S. Renton, WA 98055 Mr. Breda commended members of the Planning Commission and City Council for courtesy and competence during previous public hearings regarding the Comprehensive Plan revision in the Renton Hill area in arriving at a mutually satisfactory decision. He reiterated testimony previously entered during the hearing regarding access, quality of life, safety and crime rate, and orientation to single family living. Mr. Breda also advised that while 43 elementary school children reside in the area and utilize school buses, 30 middle school students board buses at Holmes Electric building and 20 to 25 high school students walk to Renton High School. He read a list of second and third generation residents in the area and emphasized that the character of the Renton Hill neighborhood would be destroyed if the zoning to R-1 was not approved and multiple family dwellings allowed. Responding was: Robert McBeth 1906 Rolling Hills Avenue S.E. Renton, WA 98055 Mr. McBeth, legal counsel for the Renton Hill Community Association, indicated receipt this date of Exhibit #9, legal brief filed by Transamerica Development Corporation, and requested additional time for review and response since he would be required to leave the hearing early in the afternoon. He agreed that the R-178-78 Page Four Examiner and the city must weigh the merits and benefits to be derived in a zoning change, and stressed that the more impact that is created for the property owner the more benefit must be derived from the zoning. In this instance, he felt that R-3 zoning would allow a tremendous benefit to the developer. He briefly reviewed history of the original request for R-1 zoning in the area resulting in a change in the Comprehensive Plan following many months of Planning Commission and City Council meetings. He noted that in its review the City Council had agreed that the change was desirable and necessary due to assurance • of proper land use of property, existing circulation pattern, traffic volume, and narrow access streets. Mr. McBeth pointed out that existing traffic patterns must remain as currently designed due to heavy volume, inability to widen narrow streets because • • of proximity to property lines, and existence of railroad trains blocking access. He noted that additional access would not be possible due to the creation of an increase of through traffic from the south into Renton Hill instead of providing access from the area for residents. He objected to statements contained in the legal brief relating to diminished property value in an R-1 zone, and stated that residential property is highly desirable and valuable in Renton Hill due to the nature of the neighborhood• and existing city view. Mr. McBeth referred .to the existence of subsidence in the parking area of the recently constructed 8-plex condominium on Cedar Avenue S. and noted that the potential for slides existed when the property was rezoned to R-3 in 1963. He explained that the City Council has the authority to change zoning when substantial change has occurred to warrant such action. He concluded his testimony by indicating support of Planning Commission and City Council recommendations during previous Comprehensive Plan hearings and also statements contained in Exhibit #1 that multi-family development would create tremendous problems for the Renton Hill community. The Examiner called a recess at 10:45 a.m. The meeting was reconvened at 11:05 a.m. The Examiner requested further testimony in support of the application. Responding was: Dennis Stremick 2532 Smithers Avenue S. Renton, WA 98055 Mr. Stremick, President, Victoria Park Homeowners' Association, indicated his support for proposed R-1 single family residential zoning in the Renton Hill area. He felt that the issue was of city-wide concern and indicated agreement with previous testimony relating to traffic problems, soils, and narrow access. Regarding increased school enrollment due to construction of 90 condominium units, Mr. Stremick felt that although district-wide capacities could accommodate additional enrollment, local schools could not, and noted that a high transient rate accompanies multi-family developments. The Examiner requested testimony in opposition to the request. Responding was: Jim Irwin 1000 Norton Building Seattle, WA 98104 Mr. Irwin, legal counsel for Transamerica Development Company, indicated that in addition to his own testimony, an appraiser and a traffic expert would provide information to support retention of the existing R-3 zoning of the subject property. He noted that the pending application was not a typical request from a landowner requesting a rezone to upgrade the use of his property, and that because the City of Renton had downzoned the property on the Comprehensive Plan, the burden of proof rests with the city to show that substantial changes have occurred since the previous rezone of the property to R-3 in 1963 prior to purchase of the site by Transamerica in 1965 to justify such action. Mr. Irwin referred to Exhibit #9, legal brief, page 7, which references a recent Supreme Court decision of Parkridge v. Seattle and read portions of the decision into the record. The decision concluded that consideration of the evidence in a rezone must be based upon: • 1) There is no presumption of validity favoring the action of the rezoning; 2) The proponents of the rezone have the burden of proof in demonstrating that conditions have substantially changed since the original zoning; and 3) The rezone must bear a substantial relationship to the public health, safety, morals or welfare. The Examiner noted that the case was settled in January, 1978. Mr. Irwin stated that the action of the city would create inverse spot zoning, and noted a difference in calculation of the size of the property by Transamerica of 11.25 acres and the city of 10.05 acres. He advised that 1.07 acres is owned by Mrs. Mary Tyrrell and a small sliver on the east owned by Puget Western which total 12.1 acres according to city calculations. Mr. Irwin stated that R-3 zoned property to the north of the subject site which contains a recently constructed 8-plex condominium is not owned by Transamerica. He compared access on Mill Avenue S. which contains multi-family development and has been R-178-its Page Six that location of railroad tracks in other areas of the city restrict access and is notaproblemthatisuniqueonlytotheRentonHillresidents. He suggested that in lieu of a downzone, the city restrict density and impose controls to assure proper development. He reported that a previous study by his firm to determine soils and geology capabilitieshadbeenhaltedduringCityCouncilactionregardingtheComprehensivePlan, but that no potential danger had been discovered during preliminary review. Referencing a slide contained in Exhibit #5 presented by the Planning Department depicting collapse of parkingsurfaceofthe8-plex condominium construction, Mr. Jaddi reported that the deterioration was not due to geological problems but had occurred because landfill had not been properlycompacted. He reported the demand for middle income housing in the area and noted that the subject property would create a buffer from the freeway to existing residential areas. Responding was: Frank Raney Real Estate Appraiser 16625 Redmond Way, Suite 206 Redmond, WA 98052 Mr. Raney indicated that appraisals had been made of the subject property in both R-3 and R-1 categories. He outlined the review process utilized to attain a viable appraisal for the subject property entailing comparisons with similar sales of properties. He cited four such sales located as follows: 6.6 acre site located on the north side of S.E. 176th in the 1500 block, 3 miles from the subject site, which sold for $25,888/acre, located on a major street with good accessibility, but more remotely located from the center of population and not as steep as the subject site; 28 acre site located on the east side of 140th in the 17600 block which sold for $50,000/acre, level parcel ready forimmediatedevelopment; 2.9 acre asite located off Interstate 5 on 188th Street at the south entrance to Sea-Tac Airport which sold for $43,000/acre, level site, good access and noise level similar to the subject site. From these comparable sales, Mr. Raney indicated that an estimated unit value had been established at $25,000/acre in R-3 zoning designation for the subject property. To establish sales value in an R-1 zone, he referenced four sales of similar zoning in the immediate property to the east and south which sold for 4,000 to $6,000 per acre. He explained the difference in value between a developed single lot and undeveloped acreage property which requires expenditures for roads, sewers, utilities and other improvements and can increase the original cost of the property from three to four times. Mr. Raney noted that although the city view from the subject propertyisexcellent, the topography would create difficulties and expense in construction of foundations and single family residences, and he noted that the four other sites considered in appraisal were more desirable because of the level topography of the properties. He advised that these factors were considered upon establishing a potential sales price of 4,000/acre for the subject property under R-1 zoning. Mr. Raney summarized the total value of the 11.25 acre site as $281,250 under R-3 zoning and $45,000 under R-1 zoning. He submitted an updated copy containing more recent sales information of a previous appraisal report, dated June 12, 1978, and the report was entered into the record by the Examiner as Exhibit #20. Responding was: Bill Montagne Vice President, Transamerica Development Corporation 600 Montgomery Street San Francisco, CA 94111 Mr. Montagne reported maintaining ownership and paying taxes on the subject. property for 13 years and indicated that his company had participated in LID 293 during 1976 for Cedar Avenue S. improvements. He reiterated previous comments relating to zoning at time of purchase and although he respected the spirit of residents in the community, he emphasized that the position of the company was reasonable and acceptable and encouraged careful consideration by the Examiner of information submitted during the hearing. Responding was: John Albertson 155 N. 35th Seattle, WA 98103 Mr. Albertson indicated that he was representing Mrs. Mary Tyrrell, an owner of record in the subject application, and requested Mr. Ericksen to designate the property located on the southeast portion of the total site on Exhibit #4. He reported that Mrs. Tyrrell, who is 77 years old, had invested a substantial percentage of her inheritance in the property in 1973 and objected to condemnation of the value of her estate by the proposed downzone to R-1 designation. Responding was: Mrs. Ray Hansen 336 Mill Avenue S. Renton, WA 98055 R-178-78 - Page Five exempted from the Comprehensive Plan change to access on Cedar Avenue S. 4nd felt that Mill Street access was more limited than access to the subject property on Cedar Avenue S. He reported his opinion that elimination of Mill Avenue S. from the Comprehensive Plan change was arbitrary and discriminatory and directed the proposed downzone at one landowner utilizing no reasonable basis for making a distinction. He reviewed zoning designations of R-3 and R-4 in surrounding areas to emphasize the compatibility of the R-3 zoning of the subject site, and requested a definition of the Renton Hill neighborhood from staff. Mr. Irwin discussed limited construction on Renton Hill since 1963 and again noted that the burden of proof that significant change in the area has occurred remains with the city. He felt that testimony previously entered was contrary to that fact, referencing comments • relating to longevity of residents in the area. He noted that downzoning would substantially destroy the value of Transamerica property without just compensation and discussed sales values of R-3 zoned property at $25,000 per acre versus $4,000 per acre value of R-1 zoned property which would result in a $236,250 loss to the company. He requested that the substantial loss in value to Transamerica be weighed against the city's gain if the proposed downzone were approved. Mr. Irwin reviewed history of acquisition of the property in 1965 subsequent to the rezone to R-3 in 1963 and noted that taxes in accordance to the existing zoning had been paid to date. To support his opinion that the property should remain. as R-3 zoning to provide a buffer between the freeway and the residential property, Mr. Irwin submitted a series of 28 slides which were subsequently shown. The slides, which were entered as Exhibit #16 by the Examiner, depicted topography on the site, adjacent 8-plex condominium, existing residences surrounding the subject property, multi- family developments located on Mill Avenue S. , and access streets of Mill Avenue S. and Cedar Avenue S. In summary, Mr. Irwin indicated that as evidenced by the slides, Exhibit #16, land use of the subject property was more compatible with multi-family development than single family residential development because of existing topography. He noted that high noise levels emanating from existing FAI-405 created a need for a buffer area from residential areas, and felt that construction of multi-family dwellings had exceeded single family construction since 1963. He noted that subsequent testimony relating to traffic counts by an expert traffic witness would correspond with previous traffic studies accomplished by the city to prove that Cedar Avenue S. was currently being utilized at 50% capacity. He referenced a previous poll taken of residents on Cedar Avenue S. to elicit opinions regarding restriction of parking on that street and reported that results indicated that opinion was divided equally and action to restrict parking had not occurred. He concluded that traffic volume resulting from construction of 90 additional units on Cedar Avenue S. would not increase traffic to the established capacity. Mr. Irwin submitted the following additional exhibits: Exhibit #17: Map of Tracts 21 and 22 of Transamerica Development Corporation Property Exhibit #18: Memorandum, dated April 21, 1976, from Bob Hammond, Traffic Engineering Division, regarding Cedar Avenue S. Parking Survey Exhibit #18 was read into the record by Mr. Irwin and reported results of the Cedar Avenue S. parking survey. He then deferred further comments to the traffic expert. Responding was: Ahmed Jaddi Consulting Engineer, Milligan, Anderson, Jaddi Building C-10, Fisherman's Terminal Seattle, WA 98119 Mr. Jaddi was affirmed by the Examiner. He reported that a traffic study had been undertaken by his firm in November of 1977 on Cedar Avenue S. during morning and evening peak hours and that the resulting traffic count coincided with traffic counts taken by the city in 1976. He advised that the capacity of Cedar Avenue S. is estimated to be approximately 1200 vehicles and reported the total 24-hour traffic count computed by the city is over 600 cars. He estimated that a proposed 90-unit development would increase the count by. 450 vehicle trips per day, and added to the existing traffic generation would total less than capacity of the roadway. He reviewed five alternatives to improve traffic circulation in the area and submitted a traffic study, dated November, 1977, which encompassed these alternatives. The study, entitled, Traffic Study by Joseph J. Milligan & Associates, Inc. , was labeled Exhibit #19 by the Examiner. The alternatives were briefly described as follows: 1) Restrict parking on the east side of Cedar Avenue S. during peak hours of traffic; 2) No parking on both sides of Cedar Avenue S. between S. 3rd Street and S. 4th Street and no parking on east side south of S. 4th Street; 3) Traffic circulation to make Cedar Avenue S. one-way southbound and Renton Avenue S. one-way northbound between S.' 7th Street and S. 3rd Street; 4) No left turn at S. 7th Street intersection with Cedar Avenue S. for the•eastbound traffic from Cedar Crest Condominium complex; 5) Remove sidewalk along east side of Cedar Avenue S. thus widening the road width to 33.6 feet between S. 7th Street and S. 3rd Street. . Mr. Jaddi reported R-178-78 Page Seven Mrs. Hansen objected to the proposed rezone as unjust and unfair to residents on Mill Avenue S. because depreciation of their property would oc°ur and rind with higherrshadcbeend d been paid for R-3 zoned property. She indicated that she sympaproblems by residents located on Cedar Avenue S. and enjoyed her residency on Renton Hill. Mr. Irwin submitted a page from an environmental checklist routing review request, dated November 28, 1977, containing comments from James C. Hanson, Building Division, referring to requirements for extension of streets for either single or multi-family development in the area; and comments from D. A. Monaghan, Engineering Division, recommending:Grant Avenue connection to Puget Drive be retained as an alternative means of access to Renton Hill. The Examiner entered the checklist into the record as Exhibit #21. The Examiner requested further testimony in opposition to the application. There was no response. He then opened the period of the hearing for cross-examination and rebuttal. Mr. Robert McBeth referred to Mr. Irwin's comparison of Mill Avenue S. and Cedar Avenue S. and indicated that Mill had been previously developed and established as a multi-family residential area, but opportunity for control of development was still available on Cedar Avenue S. He objected to Mr. Irwin's comment that property surrounding the subject site on three sides is currently zoned R-3 and felt that property locatededswesta ofnaturalh bfreeway has no relevance to the subject property because the freeway p rovibetweenzoningdesignations. He noted that property the in the arearandnobjected zoned to- 3 and R-4 which provides sufficient multi-family development further incursion of that use into single family residential areas on Renton Hill. Mr. McBeth referred to the opposition's comment that no substantial development has occurredintheneighborhoodsince1963andreportedconstructionof10to12newhomesaswellas extensive remodeling to existing residences. He objected to calculations of depreciation of land value provided by Mr. Raney as well as utilization of dissimilar properties for comparison purposes, and reported sale prices of lots on Renton Hill of approximately 15,000 or more. Utilizing 150t000averagelocatingcone ouseMcBethper acre orestimated 300a000t theifs oectsingle property could be sold for $150,000 He expressed the opinion that family residences were located on each acre of property.the property was highly desirable for single family residential development because of excellent city views and quality of neighborhood. Mr. McBeth questioned the specific time of day the traffic study was conducted in November of 1977 and felt that existing access streets would not accommodate additI„nalMcBethtrafficemphasized that narrow significant change steep grades. Summarizing his testimony, had occurred in the area sincethat the proposed Rl zoning be recommended, 3he burden o nTecfrom the rezone was minimal, and he requested The Examiner called a lunch recess at 12:10 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 1:35 p.m. The Examiner inquired if Mr. Ericksen had further comments at this time.Mdr. i Ericksen introduced additional evidence pertaining to building p dt ct in, 1in8, lettetter to Gary Kruger, Planning Department, from Building Division, dated May was entered into the record as Exhibit #22 by the Examiner. He advised that although the letter contained building activity information for the years 1976 through 1978, further information dating back to 1963 could be obtained if requested. Referencing Exhibit #21, Mr. Ericksen advised that the excerpt containingiipartmental amendment comments been included in the environmental checklist for the Comprehensive he subsequently submitted the entire final environmental checklist form, dated December 2, 1977 as Exhibit #23. Mr. Ericksen also submitted a copy of the Comprehensive Planning Committee Report, dated October 12, 1977, which had been submitted to Planning Commission members prior to aExhibit final recommendation on the Comprehensive a copy ofvtheon.finalhe report declarationsofanonesignif cant 24 by the Examiner. He also submitted for the proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan for the Renton Hill area, dated December 2, 1977, which was labeled Exhibit #25 by the Examiner. The Examiner-requested further comments in rebuttal of previous testimony. Mrs. Keolker reiterated Mr. McBeth's comments relatinglanglrwin's comparison commentsfrelatingmto utilonizationill Avenue S. and Cedar Avenue S. , and objected property adjacent to the freeway as buffer area since residents had not requestedmort r desired construction of the freeway. Regarding the matter of significanten on the hill, Mrs. Keolker designated ° Shexclarified that# 11 the nExhibitf#19mcontainedes which honlyad edata remodeled or constructed since 1 . relating to Cedar Avenue S. and other streets such as S. 7th, S. 3rd and Renton Avenue S. are utilized as access on Renton Hill. Regarding the five alternativeseor roaccessno be discussed by Mr. Jaddi, Mrs. Keolker objected to each asfollows: r pi yrkingecs andd tuetss restricted on Cedar Avenue S. due to limited parking space ton Cedar Avenue S. limited to one-way southbound traffic anddr enmotonsAvenues S. of toaone way northbound traffic would not be feasible during on S. 7th Street. She submitted °thephotographsbytaken Examiner 7thasStreetExhibitillustrating grade steep grade which were entered into of S. 7th Street would also preclude utilizing the alternative which suggests restrictinc R-178' Page Eight left turn movements onto Cedar Avenue S. at S. 7th Street, she noted, and removal of sidewalks on the east side of Cedar Avenue S. would be opposed by residents because of recent assessment for LID to install sidewalks and improve streets and removal would create inconvenience and safety hazards. Mrs. Keolker reviewed previous comments regardingtopographyofthesiteandnotedthatdevelopmentofsinglefamilyresidenceshadoccurredonMercerIslandandtheCaliforniacoastinareasofsimilartopography. She felt that the sales price of the existing 8-plex condominiums was not affordable to purchasers of middle income bracket who are impacted by the housing shortage, and noted that the ComprehensLve Plan had not existed in 1963 during the rezone to R-3 designation. Responding was: Mary Lou Gustine 910 High Avenue S. Renton, WA 98055 Mrs. Gustine reported that she has been a real estate salesperson for nine years in the Renton Hill area, and although she agreed with Mr. Raney that sales prices for property are established by comparing sales within a three mile radius she objected to the choice of properties which were utilized for the comparison as being dissimilar. She reported that two lots in the Renton Hill area had recently sold for more than $20,000 which totaled the same price as representatives for Transamerica had testified would be received for its 11-acre site under R-1 zoning. She advised that the demand for single family residential lots on Renton Hill existed and expressed willingness to sell 44 building lotsof1/4 acre each for $528,000 more than the lots had been appraised by Transamerica. Responding to. earlier comments regarding ownership by Transamerica of the existing 8-plex condominium recently constructed on Cedar Avenue S. , Mrs. Gustine reported that the same builder had signed an earnest money agreement for purchase and development of the subject property. Mr. Jim Breda urged the Examiner to obtain additional traffic counts and building activity statistics as suggested by Mr. Ericksen, and reiterated previous concerns regarding traffic congestion and access. He noted that the property owned by Mrs. Tyrrell contains less slope and more accessible access and inquired if her property had been included in the appraisal and requested an estimate of difference in value for R-1 and R-3 zoningdesignationofthatproperty. Responding was: Manley Grinolds 308 Cedar Avenue S. Renton, WA 98055 Mr. Grinolds advised that he is also the owner of properties located at 310 Cedar Avenue S. and 1223 S. 3rd Street. He discussed difficulty in access for residential and emergency vehicles because of location of railroad tracks and opposed additional traffic created by development of multi-family dwelling units. The Examiner asked Mr. Irwin and his associates to respond to previous inquiries relating to the application. Responding to the question regarding inclusion of the Tyrrell propertyintheappraisal, Mr. Raney reported that only the property owned by Transamerica had been included in the appraisal. Before inquiring regarding specific proposals for development of the subject property, the Examiner advised that since the subject of the hearing was review of a rezone, consideration of specific development was not required but the option for discussion was open to the property owner. Mr. Irwin deferred the inquirytoMr. Montagne who indicated that no specific plan had been determined and sale of the land had not occurred to date. Responding to the Examiner's inquiry regarding specifichoursduringwhichthetrafficcountwastakenin1977, Mr. Jaddi reported that a traffic count totaling 49 trips was taken between 4:30 p.m. and 5:30 p.m. on November 11, 1977 and a count totaling 27 trips was taken between 7:30 a.m. and 8:30 a.m. on November 12, 1977. Mr. Irwin requested clarification of testimony given by Mr. Ericksen regarding review of Exhibit #22, Renton Hill Building Permit Data. Mr. Ericksen indicated that all building activity, including remodeling and additions, had been reported and grouped as new residential construction. Mr. Irwin then made the following inquiries: location of each construction denoted on Exhibit #22 in relationship to the subject property; whether review was made of building permits on the property to the north in relationship to Mill Avenue S. or to the south or west of the subject site; if additional building activity review occurred of other areas than Renton Hill; date of construction of a large apartment complex on Mill Avenue S.; if the city conducted a counter traffic study on Cedar Avenue S. during peak hours and results of that study if conducted; if property owners on Mill Avenue S. could obtain a building permit for multi-family construction or if an existing single family residence could be removed and multi-family dwelling constructed in its place; if consideration ,had been given for the need for multi-family development in the area or other comparable R-178-78 Page Nine Renton areas; and the city's definition of the neighborhood and if consideration of surrounding property had been given in addition to Renton Hill area as part of the neighborhood. Responding to the Examiner's inquiry regarding Mr. Irwin's comment relating to building activity on Renton Hill, Mr. Ericksen indicated that the information is available from the Building Division of the Public Works Department. Regarding:the original adoption date of the Comprehensive Plan, Mr. Ericksen recalled adoption in the spring of 1965 but the exact date would be researched. Regarding zoning of the property prior to 1963, Mr. Ericksen reviewed various zoning categories previously established for properties contained in the application by Puget Properties, Inc. during the 1963 rezone action by the Planning Commission and indicated that the specific information would be subsequently obtained. The Examiner inquired if city staff had obtained traffic counts on Cedar Avenue S. Mr. Ericksen indicated that an updated traffic study was published on February 22, 1978, and although it did not contain counts for Cedar Avenue S. , traffic statistics for Mill Avenue S. , S. 3rd Street, and Renton Avenue S. were included. The traffic study was labeled Exhibit #27 by the Examiner. The Examiner asked if multi-family residences could be constructed if existing homes were removed on Mill Avenue S. Mr. Ericksen reported the feasibility of construction if compliance with the existing Comprehensive Plan and various other city ordinances and requirements occurred. The Examiner inquired if consideration was given in the staff review of the need for multi-family development in the area and existing vacancy rates of other multi-family complexes. Mr. Kruger advised that according to a vacancy survey conducted during March, 1978, the vacancy rate was less than 1%. Mr. Ericksen clarified that the vacancy rate on Renton Hill was .8% and although the apartments on Mill Avenue S. had been included in the survey, the newly constructed 8-plex which is vacant had not been included in the review to his knowledge. Mr. Kruger noted that during a recent population survey of a 15 square mile area, the vacancy rate for single family residential housing was approximately 2% but this information had not been included in the staff report, Exhibit #1, because of availability of undeveloped property in the area. The Examiner inquired if development on Renton Hill had been compared to other areas of the city. Mr. Ericksen indicated that although such a comparison study was not conducted, he felt that all residential areas in the city were developing at a comparable rate. The Examiner asked for the definition of the neighborhood utilized by the Planning Department during review of the Renton Hill area. Mr. Ericksen reported that the definition was based upon the service area of Earlington Elementary School site east of Philip Arnold Park acquired in 1963. . Other factors such as location of the freeway, hillside areas and existence of restricted access define the Renton Hill area as a neighborhood, he stated. He referenced the Comprehensive Plan, Community Facilities Plan, which describes the Renton Hill neighborhood as well as the adjacent neighborhoods of Rolling Hills and Thunderhill. The Examiner asked Mr. Irwin for additional comments. Mr. Irwin submitted additional photographs of property located on Mill Avenue S. and Cedar Avenue S. which were labeled Exhibit #28 by the Examiner.. Mr. Irwin stated that according to law the City of Renton has the burden of proof to show a substantial change in the neighborhood and that a rezone is in the public interest. He felt that insufficient evidence exists to prove that fact for the period between 1963 and 1978 with regard to new construction comparing the Renton Hill area to other surrounding areas of the city. He referred to Mr. Raney's credentials as an M.A.I. appraiser in noting that testimony refuting his appraisals had not been substantiated, and entered a document designating Mr. Raney's qualifications into the record. The document was entered as Exhibit. #29 by the Examiner. Mr. Irwin questioned the reason the zoning designation of the subject property had not been protested in 1963, and inquired if undeveloped areas existed on property adjoining Cedar Avenue S. for parking purposes. Mr. Ericksen indicated the existence of certain undeveloped areas consisting of alleyways and access roads located throughout the community between High Avenue S. and Grant Avenue S. and also between S. 7th Street and S. 9th Street, but that only a 30-foot right-of-way located at S. llth Street existed directly adjacent to the subject property. Responding to the Examiner's inquiry regarding the normal width of an alley, Mr. Ericksen advised the width to be from 10 to 16 feet. Mr. Ericksen corrected a statement made by Transamerica representatives that the company had been singled out individually during the rezone proceedings. He explained that three separate ownerships are involved in the subject hearing, and that although the original intent'of the Planning Department had been to review the entire Renton Hill area simultaneously, an agreement had been reached by attorneys for the city and property owners that separate rezone hearings would be conducted by the Hearing Examiner. He noted that an area-wide rezoning action would be required to be referred back to the Planning Commission, which had already recommended the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan regarding the area. Mr. Ericksen clarified previous comments relating to data pertaining to new construction versus remodeled dwelling units and noted that the building activity had not been segregated since it all related to substantial upgrading of the neighborhood. He reported that further data would be supplied if requested by the Examiner. He concurred with Mr: Irwin's statement regarding the nature of the area today compared to 1963 and that review of R-178-78 Page Ten Planning Commission minutes of September, 1963, indicated very little consideration had been given to extensive proposals and large tracts of property of which the subject property was a small part. Mr. Larry Warren, City Attorney, reiterated Mr. Ericksen's explanation of rezone hearing procedures in response to comments relating to spot zoning and discrimination to one property owner. He noted that public hearings for properties in question had been divided into manageable portions not only for the benefit of the Planning Department research, but because of lengthy transcripts which may be submitted to Superior Court since the decision on the Comprehensive Plan amendment was currently in litigation. He also advised that to avoid jurisdictional problems within the city which requires all area-wide zoning matters to be reviewed by the Planning Commission, properties had been separated for hearing by the Hearing Examiner to comply with city ordinance requirements. Referencing Section P.3 .of Exhibit #1, Mr. Ericksen advised that the subject property had been rezoned in 1963 prior to adoption of a Comprehensive Plan, and that goals and objectives of that plan provide effective controls to prevent blight by protecting residents from unwarranted infiltration of incompatible uses. Since Renton Hill is predominantly single family residential use, he noted, high density development would create incompatible zoning, and land uses in that area. Mrs. Keolker reported that traffic counts contained in Exhibit #10 including a count accomplished in June, 1977 on Cedar Avenue S. were obtained from the Traffic EngineeringDivision. She also requested that the Examiner allow submittal of additional rebuttal material from Mr. McBeth since he was unable to remain in attendance and wished to respond to legal brief, Exhibit #9, submitted by Transamerica. Referring to discussion regardingdevelopmentofalleyways, Mrs. Keolker indicated that such alternatives had been rejected by residents because of creation of disturbance by traffic and parking and substantial reduction of lot size necessary to increase width of alleyway. She emphasized the need for additional single family lots on Renton Hill and supported Mrs. Gustine's testimony regarding real estate values in the area. Mrs. Keolker concluded her testimony by suggesting that as an alternative the property be dedicated as a city park. The Examiner requested clarification of potential density on the subject property in the R-1 and R-3 zoning categories. Mr. Ericksen indicated that topography was of prime importance in determining density on the subject site, and although in an R-1 zone approximately five units per acre could be allowed, the topography could limit densityto3.5 units on this site. He advised that in the R-3 zone, the zoning ordinances allows 30 units per acre, but attaining that density would not be feasible because of requirements for parking, access and open space area which would reduce the approximate density to 14 units per acre on a site of average slope,. He noted that the existence of steep slopes on the subject property would further reduce potential maximum density to6or7unitsperacre. Responding to the Examiner's inquiry regarding construction date of FAI-405, Mr. Ericksen estimated that construction was commenced in 1963 and completed in 1966 or 1967 although he indicated the matter would be researched. The Examiner inquired if records were available to substantiate the, status of the Renton Hill communityin1963regardingexistingcharacteristics, traffic volume and access. Mr. Ericksen indicated that an aerial photograph taken in 1963 was on display in the Renton Municipal Building which may be compared with recent aerial photographs of the area. The Examiner referred to a 99-year easement use permit issued to Transamerica by Puget Sound Power and Light Company, and inquired if the document included rights of access. Mr. Irwin read portions of the permit pertaining to permitted use into the record, but reported that the document was signed only by Puget Sound Power & Light Company and evidence of legal recording was not established. The Examiner inquired if Transamerica had reviewed the rights of use of the easement for provision of alternate access to the site to the south. Mr. Irwin was uncertain if review had occurred but felt it would be a matter which would be reviewed during sale of the property. The Examiner asked the Planning Department to clarify its intent of conclusions regarding sound levels in the area. He inquired if data indicated that only single family development or only multi-family development would be appropriate adjacent to the freeway or neither of the two alternatives. Mr. Kruger explained maximum noise levels allowed to prevent hearing loss and provide appropriate sleeping conditions, and reviewed requirements for specific design and construction methods to minimize noise from the freeway. He advised that because of the high level of noise, it had been determined that single family residences could be designed more effectively to buffer noise and that impact to fewer residents would occur under this zoning designation. Responding to the Examiner's inquiry regarding drainage problems, Mr. Ericksen referred to slides, Exhibit #5, which illustrated existing drainage problems in the area, and deferred the question to Mr. Kruger. Mr. Kruger reported that comparison of soils data and research of existing geological mines with the U.S. Geological Survey showed that although the soils were stable when not located on a steep slope, other factors such as 30% slope, mined-out coal beds and stability of foundations resulted in a recommendation R-178-78 Page Eleven for on-site soils and geology investigations to be conducted .to determine whether the site is safe to develop; and if determination occurs that it is developable, recommendations for development procedures should be obtained also. Responding to the Examiner's inquiry, Mr. Kruger reported that test drilling could occur during environmental review of the specific development or during the building permit process. The Examiner advised that because acquisition of pertinent information was necessary from various city departments regarding questions relating to building permit activity since 1963 and traffic circulation, and also because of Mr. McBeth's request for an opportunity to respond to Exhibit #9, he proposed continuance of the public hearing. for one week. He asked for response from parties of record to his proposal. Mr. Irwin indicated his objection to the continuance. Mrs. Keolker also indicated her objection to the limited notice and ability of residents to attend a meeting held during the day. She requested that the subsequent continuance be scheduled in the evening. The Examiner explained that a spokesperson should be in attendance to relay the testimony of residents who are unable to attend and emphasized that testimony should be relevant and entered into . the record only once. The Examiner asked for further comments. Since there were none, the hearing on File No. R-178-78 was continued to Tuesday, June 20, 1978 at 9:00 a.m. in the Council Chambers of the Renton Municipal Building. CONTINUED HEARING: ' The continued hearing regarding File No. R-178-78, City of Renton, was opened on June 20, 1978 at 9:10 a.m. in the Council Chambers of the Renton Municipal Building. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner. The Examiner entered and read the following exhibits received in response to written inquiries for information. resulting from testimony at the previous hearing: Exhibit #30: Letter to Hearing Examiner from Planning Director, dated June 15, 1978, regarding date of R-3 zoning of subject property. Exhibit #31: Letter to Hearing Examiner from Building Division, dated June 16, 1978, regarding building activity on Renton Hill from 1963 to 1978. Exhibit #30 reported that the subject property was zoned GS-1 prior to October, 1963 when it was rezoned R-3; and Exhibit #31 contained building permit statistics for the Renton Hill area by year from 1963 until 1978 and listed building permits issued for a total of 22 new residences, 3 apartments, and 69 additions, remodels and garages. The Examiner asked Mr. Ericksen, Planning Director, for additional comments. Mr. Ericksen submitted a map designating the Renton Hill area by block and tabulated building activity which had occurred from 1962 through 1978 in each block. The map was labeled Exhibit #32 by the Examiner. Mr. Ericksen reported that information had been compiled by comparing aerial photographs taken in August, 1962 and March, 1978, not from building permit data, and the map notes changes which have occurred specifically at the southerly end of the area adjacent to the subject property. Mr. Ericksen entered and displayed two slides which compare aerial.photographs taken in August, 1962 and March, 1978 of the Renton Hill area and designate significant changes occurring from construction of the freeway, apartment development and residential structures. The slides were entered into the record as Exhibit #33 by the Examiner. Mr. Ericksen also indicated that 1978 assessed values of the subject properties had been researched and he presented the following information regarding five tax lots comprising the subject request: Tax Lot 85 of 5.37 acres, owned by Transamerica, assessed at $21,400; Tax Lot 194 of 1.54 acres, owned by Transamerica, assessed at $7,100; Tax Lot 196 of 3.22 acres, owned ,by Transamerica, assessed at $16,100; Tax Lot 191 of 1.15 acres, owned by Mary Tyrrell, assessed at $28,800; and Tax Lot 195 of .81 acres, owned by Puget Western, Inc. , assessed at $2,000. Mr. Ericksen noted that the 1978 King County Assessor's Map contains a slightly increased tabulation for the property owned by Transamerica of 10.13 acres, but the acreage reported by representatives for Transamerica was 11.25 acres. Referring to previous testimony regarding land value and possibility of development of the subject property, Mr. Ericksen advised that the Planning Department had received a request for a tentative Planned Unit Development for single family and townhouse development on the Transamerica property from agent, Gene 0. Farrell, and he entered a drawing, dated April 28, 1978, labeled Cedar Crest P.U.D. The tentative Cedar Crest P.U.D. was entered into the record as Exhibit #34 by the Examiner. R-178-78 Page Twelve Mr. Ericksen reviewed the request for townhouse development on the lower portion of the property at the south end of Cedar Avenue S. Mr. James Irwin objected to introduction of the exhibit and subsequent discussion on the basis that the property had not been sold to date, and discussion was not related to the proposed rezone. The Examiner recognized Mr. Irwin's objection since the property has not yet been sold and Transamerica is not a party to the transaction, but indicated that the tentative request would be accepted into the record although detailed discussion would not occur. He then asked Mr. Larry Warren, City Attorney, for a legal opinion regarding submittal of the tentative P.U.D. Mr. Warren advised that the exhibit was admissible if the purpose of introduction was to rebut prior testimony regarding potential use of the property. The Examiner asked Mr. Ericksen to clarify the intent of submittal of the exhibit. Mr. Ericksen confirmed the submittal of the request for rebuttal purposes. He explained that according to the signed and notarized affidavit, dated April 28, 1978, included with the proposed application, Gene 0. Farrell is indicated as agent for Transamerica Development Corporation although he could not verify the validity of the affidavit. He also submitted a letter addressed to Mr. .William Graham, consultant on the project, from the Planning Department, dated June 8, 1978, which contained comments from various municipal departments regarding the P.U.D. proposal. The letter was labeled as Exhibit #35 by the Examiner. Mr. Ericksen submitted an additional letter addressed to Mr. Graham from the Planning Department, dated June 19, 1978, which contained comments relating to a meeting held with Mr. Graham and representatives of city staff on June 14, 1978, and noted acceptance of the Cedar Crest P.U.D. tentative plan subject to certain conditions. The letter was labeled Exhibit #36 by the Examiner. Mr. Irwin expressed a continuing objection to introduction and discussion of the Cedar Crest P.U.D. The Examiner advised that the matter could be addressed during Mr. Irwin's period of cross examination and rebuttal of testimony. The Examiner reported receipt of a letter from the Traffic Engineering Division, dated June 20, 1978, which he read into the record. The letter was labeled Exhibit #37 and contained responses to written inquiries from the Examiner resulting from the testimony at the public hearing of June 13, 1978. The Examiner requested testimony from Warren C. Gonnason, Public Works Director, regarding information contained in Exhibit #37. Mr. Gonnason was subsequently affirmed by the Examiner. Responding to the Examiner's inquiry, Mr. Gonnason reported that he had not received or reviewed Exhibit #37 although he would respond to inquiries regarding traffic volume and emergency vehicle access to Renton Hill. He reviewed the original comprehensive circulation plans for connection of access to the south to be accomplished as scheduled in the Six-Year Street Program in 1973-1974, but he reported that as a result of protests by property owners in the area, those elements of the program were subsequently deleted. He advised that an arterial plan for provision of circulation in the area of Renton Hill or access to the south via Grant Avenue no longer exists and limits emergency access to a single signalized controlled intersection containing a railroad crossing. Referencing Section P.9 of Exhibit#1, statements regarding potential hazard of grade of access streets in the area not normally found in a residential development, Mr. Gonnason noted that while streets in the Renton Hill area are fairly steep, similar street grades are not uncommon in the Puget Sound area and are difficult to avoid in development. He indicated that because of the narrow width of Cedar Avenue S. of 27 feet from curb to curb consisting of two parking lanes and one traveling lane, it would be necessary to provide a reasonable level of service if an additional 100 units were constructed by restricting parking on one side of Cedar Avenue S. to allow two lanes of traffic. He noted that from. an interior circulation standpoint, such revision would provide an adequate capacity of that street. Mr. Gonnason reviewed the limited access from Renton Hill and suggested that adequate access to high density developments could be provided to the south to Eagle , Ridge Drive and Benson Road. He noted that Section P.9 of Exhibit #1 refers to the Streets and Arterials Plan and advised that although no streets in the area are currently iesignated as arterials, if there is a desire in the future to develop an arterial system in the area a compromise would be necessary to provide access service to abutting property owners and through traffic which should be designed to function effectively and yet not interfere with the existing residential neighborhood. Mr. Gonnason reviewed anticipated trip generation from an additional 100-unit development which he felt could be accommodated ny Cedar Avenue S. in its existing condition although he noted that certain inconveniences and delays may occur. The Examiner called a recess at 10:10 a.m. The meeting was reconvened at 10:35 a.m. Mr. Gonnason indicated that he had reviewed Exhibit #37 during the recess and felt that information contained in the letter represents an accurate account of the street capacity xnd access problems in the Renton Hill area. Prior to Mr. Morgan's testimony regarding the letter Mr. Gonnason advised that as a result of meetings held to review possible aulti-family development on Renton Hill the Public Works Department had recommended that in environmental impact statement be required for any future development prior to issuance f a building permit because of the probability of adverse impact of increased traffic ipon the area. R-178-78 Page Thirteen the Examiner requested testimony from Clint Morgan, Traffic Engineering Division, who was subsequently affirmed. The Examiner referred to Exhibit #37, memorandum regarding traffic apacities and volumes on Renton Hill and requested clarification of certain terms and principles. Mr. Morgan reviewed the divisional analysis and reported that the traffic signalized intersection of S. 3rd Street at Mill and Houser Way could absorb an increase pf 36% and the anticipated increase generated by the proposed R-3 development would be approximately 18.5%. However, he noted that the increase would not be desirable because Df the minimum distance between traffic signals in that location for waiting vehicles and the division would prefer not to revise the signalization of these intersections. He listed the 24-hour traffic volume counts for Cedar Avenue S. , south of S. 3rd Street (511) ; Renton Avenue S. , south of S. 3rd Street (1,182) ; and Grant Avenue S. , south of S. 7th Street (171) ; . and noted that although the streets can absorb increased traffic volumes it would increase the strain on the community and produce undesirable effects in traffic flow. He reported a critical situation on Cedar Avenue S. which contains parking provisions on both sides f the street resulting in an 11-foot wide space for access lane, and noted that although the streets could absorb an increase of 900 to 1,000 vehicles, an increase above that amount would necessitate restriction of parking on one side to allow a free flow of traffic. He reported tabulations of potential trip generation in R-1 zoning of 425 vehicles per day which would not necessitate restriction of parking on Cedar Avenue S. but would create undesirable restricted flow of traffic. The Examiner inquired if proposed densities of the tentative Cedar Crest P.U.D. 'had been utilized to compute trip estimates. Mr. Morgan indicated that the proposed P.U.D. had been utilized. In response to one of the Examiner's inquiries contained in Exhibit #37, he advised that records containing traffic capacities and volumes in 1963 are not available. Reviewing alternative access routes to the subject properties which had been studied in the past, Mr. Morgan discussed proposals for a straight connection between the two existing Grant Avenues, connection between Renton Avenue and Eagle Ridge Drive, connection between Cedar Avenue S. and Benson Road S. , and connection from Mill Avenue S. passing underneath the freeway, FAI-405, to S. 4th Street. He indicated that the proposed connection between the two existing Grant Avenues had been determined the most desirable during citizen committee meetings held in 1972. Responding to an inquiry regarding proposed density figures from Mr. Irwin, Mr. Morgan reviewed the computation method utilized to arrive at the projected trip generation figure of 1350 per day within full development of 245 units in the R-3 zone, and development of 53 units in the R-1 zone. The Examiner requested testimony from Mr. Robert McBeth, legal counsel for Renton Hill Dommunity Association. Mr. McBeth submitted a legal brief from the community association in response to Exhibit #9, legal brief submitted during June 13, 1978 public hearing by Transamerica Development Corporation. The legal brief was labeled Exhibit #38 by the Examiner. Mr. McBeth advised that the brief contained different interpretations of previous Supreme Court decisions than had been determined by Transamerica as well as reporting factors that should be taken into consideration in weighing the competing interests of the general public and the property owner. He indicated that the determining factor of review is to establish whether substantial change has occurred since 1963 to warrant a revision in the zoning code, and expressed his opinion that changes and ircumstances had occurred to revise the existing zoning in the Renton Hill neighborhood to single family residential. He objected to inclusion of R-4 zoned property to the south and property across the freeway in review of zoning areas by Mr. Irwin and defined the Renton Hill neighborhood as separate from Rolling Hills, Victoria Park and other individual neighborhoods to the south established since 1963. Mr. McBeth reported that the change in development attitude and community sense was the most significant change in the area since 1963, and noted that the rezone in 1963 had been unopposed and occurred prior to adoption of a Comprehensive Plan. He indicated that building activity statistics contained in Exhibit #31 illustrate a tremendous upgrading of the neighborhood and demonstrate pride Df ownership and sense of community. He also reported that traffic studies and aerial photographs had provided indication of significant change. Referencing Exhibit #19 ontaining traffic count data compiled by representatives for Transamerica, Mr. McBeth toted that the count had been taken on November 11, 1977 which had been a legal holiday, leterans' Day, and could not be considered a valid indication of traffic volume in the area. He objected to proposals to extend existing access streets on Renton Hill since opulation to the south had increased substantially in recent years and would generate rare traffic through Renton Hill than had occurred when the pipeline road was temporarily opened in 1972 and create many hardships and problems to the residents. dr. McBeth objected to proposals to restrict parking on one side of Cedar Avenue S. , rioting creation of inconvenience to residents because of lack of space for all residential Iehicles; objected to unknown factors of density and eventual dense multi-family development f the subject property; and objected to increased traffic due to statements made during he hearing that such increase would be undesirable. He felt that spot zoning was not ccurring because the Renton Hill area as a general district had been included in the omprehensive Plan amendment to revise zoning in that specific neighborhood. He objected o Transamerica's statement that the property was being devalued since property taxes had Lot been high and single family residential use of the property would be profitable. R-178-78 Page Fourteen The Examiner requested further rebuttal testimony in support of the application. Mrs. Ruth Larson reported that during 1972 when the pipeline road was open, an increase of traffic of 41% had occurred and noted that extension of access at this time would create traffic counts substantially higher at a rate of 41% increase even if additional residential units were not constructed. Referencing discussion of emergency vehicle access, Mrs. Larson reported that the City of Renton has a mutual aid agreement with Fire District 40 in Spring Glen during periods when trains block the access road to Renton Hill. She advised that in addition to personnel at Fire District 40, the Renton Fire Department, Renton Police Department and Renton Street Department personnel possess keys to the gate at the pipeline road and can gain entry for emergency purposes. The Examiner requested verification of the mutual aid agreement from Mr. Warren, who confirmed Mrs. Larson's statement. Mrs. Kathy Keolker reported a significant change of attitude and political awareness by Renton Hill residents since 1963, and reviewed other changes as follows: construction of FAI-405; extensive remodeling involving more than one-third of all properties; change in population to provide younger, more active community; additional children; change in boundaries of the neighborhood and occurrence of massive development; increased value of properties as a result of the city view and neighborhood qualities; utilization of PhilipArnoldParkbytheentirecommunity; and closure of 4th Avenue S. upon construction of FAI-405. She indicated that in 1963 the older community was expected to deteriorate in value, desirability and quality of homes, and zoning had been established with expectation of multi-family development. However, she noted, because of a reversal of that trend, a resurgence of pride has created a change in the community. She objected to traffic counts accomplished by Transamerica because of the choice of location since Cedar Avenue S. is not utilized by all vehicles, and time of day because peak hours for traffic in a residential area are much earlier than 7:30 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. In reporting a change in the neighborhood, Mrs. Keolker referred to Exhibit #24, Comprehensive Planning Committee Report to the Planning Commission, dated October 12, 1977, and read Finding No. 3 which notes that while the area has been in a state of transition, with increased land values, the physical amenities of the hill area such as view, makes the area highly desirable for residential development. She reported that during the LID on Cedar Avenue S. , residents were promised that parking on both sides of the street would be allowed and it was anticipated that the street would be widened to provide easier access. However, she noted, because of city requirements for sidewalk width, all sidewalks were replaced with 6-foot wide sidewalks which reduced the width of the street to a substandard 2611 feet and created residential concern regarding additional traffic volume. She referred again to Exhibit #24 and read a section relating to circulation which indicated that extensive input on the part of the residents in the hill area indicates the desire to continue the limited access to the hill as it is presently constituted to enhance the amenities of the hill as a residential community and preclude through access. Mrs. Keolker also referred to previous City Council action deleting the Grant Avenue S. connection proposal from the Six-Year Street Program, noting that residents to the south are also opposed to such connection which would create problems significantly more severe than existed during the opening of the pipeline road in 1972. The Examiner requested further rebuttal tesimony in support of the application. Responding was: John Giuliani 1400 S. 7th Renton, WA 98055 Mr. Giuliani was affirmed by the Examiner. He reiterated previous testimony relating to limited access and traffic volume on Renton Hill, and noted severe problems incurred by location of railroad tracks blocking three major access roads from the area. He stressed that expert testimony had not provided alternatives to solve the problems which already exist and would increase with additional development or extended access to the south. The Examiner requested rebuttal testimony from Mr. James Irwin, representing Transamerica Development Corporation. Mr. Irwin submitted the following additional exhibits into the record which were labeled by the Examiner: Exhibit #39: Aerial Photograph of the Renton Hill area, taken April 12, 1977 by Walker & Associates, Inc. Exhibit #40: Aerial Photograph of the Renton Hill area, taken July 27, 1964 by Walker & Associates, Inc. The exhibits were displayed and reviewed by Mr. Irwin who requested his associate, Mr. David H. Binney, to designate the subject property on each photograph as well as the existing apartment complex on Mill Avenue S. as a point of reference. Mr. Binney noted the location of the recently constructed 8-plex condominium development on Cedar Avenue S. on Exhibit #39 and Mr. Irwin concluded that because of the similarity of the two photographs significant change was ;lot evident to the viewer. He then entered the following additional R-178-78 Page Fifteen exhibits which were labeled by the Examiner: Exhibit #41: Aerial Photograph of the subject property and adjacent areas to the south, dated April 12, 1977, 1-1500 scale. Exhibit #42: Aerial Photograph of the subject property and adjacent areas to the south, dated July 27, 1964, 1-1000 scale. Responding to the Examiner's inquiry, Mr. Irwin indicated that the exhibits encompassed a broader area than is designated on Exhibits #39 and #40. Mr. Irwin requested Mr. Binney to circle developments which had occurred to the south of the subject property since 1964, to illustrate significant change which had occurred in other areas of the city. Mr. Irwin then entered a document which contains information from the Polk Directory from 1963 to 1977 for residences on Mill Avenue S. , Cedar Avenue S. , and Renton Avenue S. The document was labeled Exhibit #43 by the Examiner. Mr. Irwin reviewed information contained in the directory noting decreases from 24 addresses on Mill Avenue S in 1963 to 20 in 1977; and decrease from 61 addresses on Cedar Avenue S. in 1963 to 55 in 1977. He also reported that certain addresses are listed as 1/2 indicating additional living units within the residence, and he felt the document evidenced that significant change had not occurred on Renton Hill since 1963. He referred to testimony reporting population figures totaling 650 to 675 residents on the hill and computed a percentage of increase adding 22 new residences as approximately 3.5% from 1963 to 1978, which he felt was not substantial compared to development in King County or to the south of the subject property. Mr. Irwin computed percentages of increase in relationship to additions or remodeling, although he felt the evidence was not clear regarding the nature of the improvements, which totaled approximately 11.5% and he felt that this increase did not indicate significant change in the area. He pointed out similaries in aerial photographs, Exhibits 39 and #40, and clarified Mr. Ericksen's review of Exhibit #32, noting Block No. 15 joins Puget Western, Inc. property and not Transamerica property. Referring to comparisons of aerial photographs and computations of increased building activity, Mr. Irwin maintained that the city had not met the burden of proof in showing that substantial change had occurred in the area. Mr. Irwin referenced Exhibit #6, excerpt from Renton Planning Commission minutes of September 25, 1963, and read a portion referring to a letter from Puget Properties, Inc. regarding the deletion of certain areas designated for public use which included school sites no. 1 and 2, reservoir site no. 1 and a portion of the reservoir site and portion of proposed Benson Highway relocation area. He felt that the dedication of these public use areas was beneficial to the city and residents of the area and was met with public approval. He reviewed history of the purchase of the property in 1965 by Transamerica at $15,000 per acre in R-3 zoning and indicated that although a proposed sale of a portion of the property to Mr. Farrell had been discussed during the time of City Council public hearings on the proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, sale of the property had not occurred, and he felt introduction of Mr. Farrell's tentative plan was extremely prejudicial to the rezone hearing which should pertain only to the proposed downzone of the subject property. Mr. Irwin commented that because of existing terrain and situation of the site between the existing freeway and single family residential areas, use of the subject property for clustered, multiple family development and not single family is appropriate and desirable with limited density of approximately 90 units. He felt that traffic studies provided by Mr. Jaddi and the city were consistent and that existing traffic problems can be solved since it had been reported that capacities of Cedar Avenue S. would not be exceeded by addition of a proposed 90-unit development. He reviewed solutions to problems consisting of restricted parking and improved alleyways, but noted residential abjection to each suggestion and lack of concern that an 84% reduction in the value of Transamerica's property would occur if the downzone were approved. He indicated that testimony from Mr. Frank Raney, an M.A.I. appraiser, regarding value of the property under two separate zoning designations had not been refuted by representatives of similar aackground although much speculation regarding value of the property had occurred during the public hearing. Referencing the Parkridge v. Seattle case, he stated that Mr. McBeth's testimony illustrated that a change of attitude had occurred in the Renton Hill neighborhood put not a physical or structural change, and he read a portion from page 461 of that Supreme court decision which referred to a contention that a significant change in attitude las occurred in the surrounding neighborhood since previous zoning to RM 800 in 1959. He toted that while the court commended the residents for a changed attitude and strong community spirit, it could not be found that the original rezone of these lots in 1959 4as invalid at the time it was made. Mr. Irwin indicated that although he was aware the subject rezone request encompassed only three parcels of property of 12.1 acres, he felt hat the city was initiating spot zoning because the subject site was‘the only property Ln the general area for which the City Council was proposing a rezone. and Mill Avenue S. sad been eliminated from the proposed downzone. R-178-78 Page Sixteen Mr. Irwin clarified an earlier reference to a 99-year use permit provided by Puget Sound Power & Light Company for easement rights, which was entered into the record as Exhibit #44 by the Examiner. He noted that the permit contracted limited use rights between- - Transamerica Development Corporation and Puget Sound Power & Light Company to be reassigned upon sale of the property. He advised that Exhibit #44 had not been recorded because transaction between Mr. Farrell and Transamerica had not occurred. Mr. Irwin referred to a discrepancy noted by Mr. Ericksen on Exhibit #7 regarding size of the subject property, and reported that the property had been represented as consisting of 11.25 acres at the time of sale to Transamerica and the city had acquired its information from the King County Assessor's Map. The Examiner requested further rebuttal testimony in opposition to the request. Mr. Ahmed Jaddi, traffic consultant, reiterated previous comments relating to consistency of traffic studies accomplished by Transamerica and city staff. He reviewed traffic count figures and noted a traffic count reduction on Cedar Avenue S. from 691 in 1977 to 511 in 1978. He corrected traffic generation estimates provided by the Traffic Engineering Division testimony utilizing a density figure of 245 units, noting that the property would be developed at a density of 6 to 7 units per acre which would result in an increase of 450 vehicle trips per day. Mr. Jaddi advised that testimony regarding the city's mutual aid agreement for emergency vehicle support eliminated that problem with railroad tracks and he reported that the traffic volume at Bronson Way and Sunset Boulevard where railroad tracks are also located as 10 times higher than at the subject intersection. He suggested restricting 7th Avenue to one-way southbound traffic to solve access problems on the hill. Mr. Jaddi concluded his testimony by reporting a typographical error in Exhibit #19, Traffic Study, and dates of traffic counts should be revised from November 11 & 12, 1977 . to November 15 & 16, 1977. He submitted handwritten copies verifying the original date of the study. The Examiner indicated that corrections would be made to Exhibit #19. Mrs. Keolker corrected Mr. Irwin's percentage computations in utilizing existing number of residents and adding number of new constructions since an average of 3 to 6 people reside in each household and felt the comparisons were invalid. She also indicated that although building permit figures show that over one-third of the 280 homes on the hill have been remodeled, other remodeling has occurred without application for a permit and the statistics for building activity may be much higher. Referring to testimony regarding90unitsasbeingmaximumproposeddensityonthesite, Mrs. Keolker recalled a CityCouncilmeetingduringwhichMr. Farrell had stated that 180 units would be constructed on the subject property. She questioned the validity of the 1977 parking restriction survey taken on Cedar Avenue S. which resulted in an equally divided consensus, due to the fact that many residents had not been contacted, and concluded her testimony by stating that traffic congestion on Cedar Avenue S. occurs with only two cars attemptingtopassinoppositedirections. Mr. McBeth read a paragraph from the Parkridge v. Seattle Supreme Court case, page 462, in which the court states that they agree that the current views of the community urging rezone to single family use may be given substantial weight in matters of this nature, but they cannot be controlling absent compelling reasons requiring a rezone for the public health, safety, morals or general welfare. Mr. McBeth emphasized that community attitudes count for one factor to be taken into consideration and he urged the Examiner to review those supporting facts in the record. The Examiner asked Mr. Ericksen for final comments. Mr. Ericksen reiterated the purposeofthesubjecthearing, the first phase in a series of forthcoming rezone requests, to expedite consideration of the proposed cahnges in zoning as a result of the Comprehensive Plan amendments by the City Council. He referenced Mr. Irwin's testimony regardingdonationofpublicuseareasbyPugetProperties, Inc. during 1963 rezone action, and clarified that the City of Renton and the Renton School District had purchased those sites on a per acre cost basis for public use and the purchase may have occurred priortotherezoneprocedure. Mr. Ericksen submitted the Planned Unit Development application with attached affidavit for Cedar Crest P.U.D. , dated April 28, 1978, signed by Gene 0.Farrell and notarized by Gloria E. Medley. The application and affidavit were labeled Exhibit #45 by the Examiner. Mr. Irwin stated his continuing objection to the submittal of the document. Mr. Ericksen referred to the final recommendation denoted on page 9 of Exhibit #1 and indicated that the departmental report would remain as submitted. The Examiner inquired if recent review of the Comprehensive Plan accomplished by the Planning Commission and the City Council of the Renton Hill area constituted an area land use analysis and zoning consideration. Mr. Ericksen indicated that the review by the Planning Commission exceeded the specific area of Renton Hill and included Rolling Hills,Royal Hills and other areas to the south, and that action taken which affected the specific Renton Hill area occurred as a result of a request by residents in that area. Therefore, he noted, the review could not be considered an area wide consideration, but was confined to a smaller area. The Examiner inquired if a study of the area zoning was conducted. Mr. Ericksen responded that a study was not conducted. R-178-78 Page Seventeen The Examiner reported ordinance requirements to render a recommendation on the matter within 14 days from the date of the hearing, but inquired of the City Attorney if it would be legally possible to extend that deadline because of the volume of material to be reviewed. Mr. Warren referred to a building moratorium established by the City Council due to expire on July 5, 1978 and would place substantial pressure to provide a recommendation as soon as possible; however, he advised that a legal problem would not exist if all parties were amenable to the request. The Examiner inquired if parties of record would accept his proposal to extend the review period to 30 days.. Mr. McBeth indicated his concurrence although he stated his intention to request an extension of the moratorium from the City Council. The Examiner advised that a 14-day appeal period as well as an additional 7-day waiting period is required following date of publication of the recommendation prior to placement of the rezone request on the Council agenda, which would occur after the expiration date of the moratorium even if the Examiner was able to render a decision within the 14-day period. Mr. Irwin indicated his concurrence in the request, although he noted that action on the property had been delayed for a period of time and he encouraged the matter to be resolved expeditiously. Prior to closure of the public hearing, Mr. McBeth made the following comments for the Examiner's consideration: 1) he is a resident of Rolling Hills and does not consider himself in any way a resident of Renton Hill; 2) the Polk Directory is totally inaccurate in its statistics and he feels the information is irrelevant and unworthy; and 3) trains divert in opposite directions at the bottom of Renton Hill and the situation should not be compared to the location of railroad crossings at Bronson Way and Sunset Boulevard. The Examiner requested further comments. Since there were none, the hearing on File No. R-178-78 was closed by the Examiner at 12:35 p.m. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND 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 reclassification of approximately 12.1 acres from R-3 to R-4. 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 therein. 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 proposal. 5. All existing utilities are available and in close proximity. 6. On December 5, 1977, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 3186 amending the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map from a designation of Medium Density Multifamily to a designation of Single Family pursuant to an analysis performed by the Planning Commission of area land use, which included the three properties contained in this application. The public hearing on this rezone application does not constitute a review of the validity of that decision by the City Council. 7. The Planning Department has found that the existing zoning of R-3 does not conform to the Comprehensive Plan. A recommendation has been for the three properties to be rezoned to R-1. (Exhibit #1) 8. However, per the testimony of the representative of the Transamerica Development Corporation (TADCO) (Exhibit #9) an issue was the apparent selection of only three properties on Renton Hill for rezoning. The City Attorney testified and stated in the aforementioned attached memorandum that the selection was made to expedite and facilitate the current litigation concerning the December 5, 1977, change of the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. The Planning staff testified that this application containing the three subject properties was the first in a series of similar applications involving other properties in similar circumstances. 9. Per Section 4-3014, the Examiner's recommendation to the City Council regarding this application is to be rendered within fourteen (14) days. However, all parties in the public hearings expressed agreement to allowing the Examiner 30 days to render this recommendation in view of the substantial amount of material entered into the record. The City Attorney stated that this procedure. was acceptable. R-178-78 Page Eighteen 10. A tentative P.U.D. for residential development of the TADCO site was submitted as Exhibit #34. The application for this development was filed by Mr. Gene 0. Farrell as agent for Transamerica Development Co. (TADCO) (Exhibit #45) . Mr. Irwin (TADCO representative) testified that the property had not been sold and that Mr. Farrell did not represent TADCO. 11. In addition to the findings of Section 4-3014 (Hearing Examiner Ordinance) the case of Parkridge v. Seattle., 89 Wn 2d 454 (January, 1978) presented the following findings: a. The presumption of validity of the rezone action by the City Council does not hold. Sufficient proof must be presented to support the rezone. The burden of proof for rezoning the property rests with the city to prove that conditions have substantially. changed since the previous zoning. b. The rezone must bear a substantial relationship to the public health, safety, morals or welfare. c. Current views of the community must be given substantial weight, but cannot be a controlling reason for the rezone. 12. The Carlson v. City of Bellevue, 72 Wn 2d 41, 51, 435 P. 2d 957 (1968) case set forth additional considerations for evaluating the rezone: a. The character of the neighborhood. b. , Existing uses and the zoning of nearby property. c. The amount by which property values are decreased. d. The extent to which the diminution of values promotes the public health, safety, morals or welfare. e. The relative gain to the public as compared with the hardship imposed upon the individual owner. f. The suitability of the subject property for the purpose for which it is zoned. g. The length of time the property has remained unimproved, considered in the context of the land development in the area. h. No single factor is controlling but each must receive due consideration. i. The aggrieved property owner must show that if the rezone occurs the consequent restrictions on his property preclude its use for any purpose to which it is reasonably adapted. j. The aggrieved property owner must show that there is no possibility for profitable use under the restrictions of the rezone, or that the greater part of the value. of the property is destroyed by the rezone. Economic and functional use is assumed and that some permitted use can be profitable. 13. All portions of the Comprehensive Plan apply to the proposed rezone; however, the specific circumstances surrounding the proposal render the following goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan most applicable: In planning neighborhoods the creation of residential districts free of overcrowding influences, arterial traffic, and the unwarranted encroachment of commercial and industrial uses are important objectives. (Page 4, Comprehensive Plan, Renton Urban Area, 1965.) 1. Within the single-family detached dwelling residential areas, population densities should not exceed six families per acre. In single-family attached filling areas (townhouses) densities should not exceed ten families pZr acre. 2. Within the multiple-family areas, population densities should not exceed forty (40) families per acre. 3. Population densities recommended for any given area shall take into consideration the physical limitations of the soils and topography, the community facilities available, and the trends of existing development. (Page 5, Comprehensive Plan, Renton Urban Area, July, 1965.) R-178-78 Page Nineteen It is the plan and policy of the City of Renton, through its physical, economic, and cultural development, to encourage the appropriate use of land throughout the municipality. To this end, the city will encourage proper employment of construction methods and land use principles, and promote the coordinated development of undeveloped areas. It will further give consideration to the prevention of overcrowding of land; the avoidance of undue concentrations of population; and provision for adequate light and air by securing open arrangements of carefully spaced buildings and building groups. It will be important for the city to reserve appropriate allotments of land in new developments for all the requirements of community life. At the same time, the conservation and restoration of the natural beauty of the community's cultural and natural resources will be a primary goal. As these, goals are achieved, the formation of functional, natural neighborhoods and community units will result. (Summary, pages 9 and 10, Comprehensive Plan, Renton Urban Area, July, 1965.) Residential. The successful utilization of land for low density residential development will depend on the availability of easily accessible areas which are relatively free of recurring or potential hazards such as floods, slides, and land subsidence. Residential districts should be free of manufacturing or commercial uses which would be detrimental to the community and its residents. The natural features and amenities that may exist or can be developed should be utilized to best advantage for the use and benefit of the community. Convenience to place of employment, shopping districts, schools, parks and other cultural activities, should be inherent features of the location. In medium and high density residential use districts the proximity to major employment centers, shopping districts, financial districts and office centers is important, as is convenient access to major arterials and highways. The nearby convenience of a larger variety of cultural features such as libraries, museums, parks, theaters and other forms of entertainment and relaxation is a desirable feature which may distinguish high density from low density residential districts. Other compatible or complementary intensive uses may include research and office centers, shopping districts and other functions which are not detrimental to the maintenance of desirable living conditions. While commercial or industrial uses are not easily adapted to hillside locations, residential development may be successfully planned to take good advantage of the amenities which such locations often provide. Natural features such as rock out-croppings, streams, stands of native trees, and the views often available from these locations should be used to greatest advantage. (Page 11, Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Report, July, 1965.) 1. Prevent blight by protecting residential and other exclusive districts from the unwarranted infiltration of incompatible uses which would contribute to premature decay and obsolescence, and prevent the development of orderly growth patterns. 4. Protect property values within the community for the benefit of its residents and property owners, through the effective control of land use and the enforcement and application of building and construction codes. 6. Encourage the development and utilization of land to its highest and best use in such a way as to promote the best interest of the community and contribute to its overall attractiveness and desirability as a place in which to work, shop, live and play. (Objectives, pages 17 and 18, Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Report, July, 1965.) A. Zoning of R-1 would allow a maximum density of 6 units per acre and R-3 would permit a maximum density of 30 units per acre. Since the reclassification of the property in 1963, FAI-405 was completed (1967) , thereby eliminating all but one access point to Renton Hill. In addition, the LID for improvement of Cedar Avenue S. (LID 293) was completed, and the proposed extension of Grant Avenue S. was deleted from the Six Year Street Program. In the period from 1963 to 1978 a total of 22 new residences and 3 apartment buildings containing a total of 21 units) were constructed in the neighborhood. There also occurred during this period 69 remodels, additions or garage construction permits Exhibit #31) . Beacon Way S. was opened and closed (1972-1973) to the south over the Seattle Cedar River Pipeline (Exhibit #1) . R-178-78 Page Twenty 15. The subject properties are undeveloped and have remained so since prior to beingreclassifiedin1963. The topography of the TADCO and Tyrrell properties is of afairlysteepslope (Exhibit #1) which is in relative character with existingdevelopmentonthewesternslopeoftheRentonHill. The Puget Western, Inc. property is of a moderate slope. Underlaying much of Renton Hill is old, mined- out coal beds (Exhibit #1) . Soils on the subject sites present hazards for development as in other portions of Renton Hill (Exhibit #1) . Testimony indicated that the only slippage or slide occurrence was in the form of subsidence withinRentonAvenueS. in the 600 block (Exhibit #1 and verbal testimony) . Substantial vegetation exists on the subject sites, predominantly on the TADCO property. 16. Frank R. Raney, MAI, testified that based upon his analysis (Exhibit #20) the TADCO property possessed a value of $25,000 per acre (total of $281,250) for multi- family development and a value of $4,000 per acre (total of $45,000) for single family development. The King County Assessor's Office placed a total value of 44,500 on the property under existing R-3 zoning. He estimated that development costs would increase the original cost of the property three or four times. MaryLouGustine, real estate salesperson, testified that current sales of undeveloped single family lots with improvements is approximately $20,000. Mr. Raney indicatedthattheTADCOpropertywaspurchasedinNovember, 1965 for $171,492 ($15,246 peracre) . Expert or substantive testimony relative to property values was not entered into the record concerning the Tyrrell and Puget Western, Inc. properties. The KingCountyAssessor's Office placed a total value of $28,800 upon the former and $2,000 upon the latter properties under existing R-3 zoning. 17. Traffic information. (Exhibits #19, 27 & 37) indicated that existing streets on Renton Hill could absorb the projected amount of traffic from the three properties if developed under R-3 zoning. From testimony in the hearing it was apparenttthat traffic would not flow as easily as witnessed at this time. The main problem for vehicular circulation appeared to be the intersection of Mill Avenue S. and S. 3rd Street, the intersection of the only access to and from Renton Hill. However, the Public Works Department testified that modification of the traffic signal at this intersection could accommodate the projected increased traffic (Exhibit #37) . No costs were given concerning this modification. It was very apparent that a secondary access to and from Renton Hill was needed and preferred. Streets on Renton Hill are not designated as arterials. Public safety vehicles can reach Renton Hill via the Seattle Cedar River Pipeline. 18. Properties in the areas northeast, southeast, and south of Renton Hill have developed substantially since 1963 (Exhibits #2, 41 and 42) . 19. The view of the Renton Hill community was clearly expressed of supporting rezoning the property to R-1 and single family development on the three subject properties. A strong sense of community and identify was presented in testimony by residents of the community. Several generations have- lived and are living on Renton Hill. The consensus appeared to be that the community is unique in these and other ways and that R-3 development would seriously impact and endanger the existing character and livability of the community. 20. Renton Hill is predominantly a single family community with a small "pocket" of multi-family located abutting the freeway. For the most part, the housing stockisolderhomeswhichhavebeenrestored, remodeled or in need of some maintenance or repair. The age of the homes is as varied as the style of architecture. But testimony indicated that revitalization of the homes has been most noticeable within the past few years. Most homes are constructed on sloped or fairly steephillsidelots. CONCLUSIONS: 1. Testimony and the evidence substantiated that the Planning Commission and City Council considered the area land use, not area zoning, of Renton Hill and the surrounding community. -The result of their public hearings was a change in the Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the subject properties to single family residential Section 4-3014. (A) ) . 2. Since the property was rezoned in 1963, Renton Hill has experienced the significant changes of: a. Completion of FAI-405 which introduced a large noise source and eliminated all but one access to the neighborhood. b. Completion of improvement of Cedar Avenue S. R-178-78 Page Twenty-One c. Inclusion and subsequent exclusion of the extension of Grant Avenue S. from the • Six Year Street Program. d. Opening and closing of Beacon Way S. to vehicular traffic. e. Increased community awareness of and involvement in land use decisions. Taken together these changes appear to be sufficiently significant to apply to Section 4-3014. (C) . Most significant was the reduction of access to a single intersection of Mill Avenue S. and S. 3rd Street. All of the traffic from Renton Hill moves through this intersection, except for emergency public safety vehicles which can use the Seattle Cedar River Pipeline (Beacon Way S.) when the intersection is blocked. Several times a day trains block the intersection for several minutes at a time, thereby stopping all traffic to and from Renton Hill. In effect, the end result is a long and densely populated cul-de-sac which exceeds the limit of Section 9-1108.K Subdivision Ordinance) . Alternative access to the south was explored to help relieve the access problem. Opening Beacon Way to vehicular traffic produced a heavy through-traffic burden on Renton Hill without alleviating the intersection problem at S. 3rd Street and Mill Avenue S. Therefore, this access was closed except to emergency public safety vehicles. Finally, an extension of Grant Avenue S. was proposed, but was eliminated recently from the Six-Year Street Program. The access problems created by FAI-405 remain unsolved. Of some help was the first LID for improvement of Cedar Avenue S. While this improvement helped traffic movement somewhat, the traffic capacity and maneuverability of the street is restricted and impaired by the narrow pavement. The interest and involvement of the neighborhood in land use decisions has apparently increased substantially since the public hearings concerning rezoning the subject properties in 1963. As a result of neighborhood pressure the Planning Commission and City Council re-evaluated the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. The conclusions of the City Council were to change the map from Medium Density Multi-family to Single Family Residential. Other changes have occurred but were not comparatively significant. Exhibit #31 showed that building permit activity has remained relatively steady and stable since 1963, not displaying the alleged substantial change in renovation or new homes in the neighborhood. However, testimony clearly indicated that the neighborhood was a vital, rejuvenating one which does not exhibit a transitional character often seen in areas experiencing pressure for a change in land use. The slope of the land has not been changed, and people continue to build upon moderate to steep slopes. The properties continue to appreciate in value for - single family development. Some multifamily construction has occurred since 1963, most pertinent being the building at the northwest corner of Renton Avenue S. and S. 7th Street. The property was zoned R-3 since 1963, and apparently multifamily development has only occurred slowly in the neighborhood. At least since 1963 the subject properties, although zoned R-3, have remained undeveloped. Based upon these conclusions, it 'is apparent that the conditions on Renton Hill have significantly changed since 1963. Thereby, a test of Parkridge v. City of Seattle has been met. 3. The subject properties are potentially suited for reclassification pursuant to the Comprehensive Plan (Section 4-3014. (C) . Sufficient justification was given to warrant a reclassification from the existing zoning of R-3. It was apparent that the "overcrowding influence" (Pages 4, 9 and 10, Comprehensive Plan, Renton Urban Area, July, 1965) occurring on Renton Hill are primarily traffic related. Residents feel that existing streets will be overburdened by traffic from R-3 development. TADCO's expert witness testified that existing streets can . absorb this traffic. The Public Works Department agreed that the streets could handle the traffic, but expressed the opinion that the projected volume of cars would not be desirable. Everyone was in agreement that inconvenience would occur to motorists using the streets on Renton Hill due to traffic produced by R-3 development. R-178-78 P; yz Twenty-Two The proposed R-1 is within the six units per acre density guideline of the Comprehensive Plan (Page 5, Comprehensive Plan, Renton Urban ARea, July, 1965) . Testimony of the Planning Department relative to the capability of the soil and topography to support this density was that 3.5 units per acre for single family residential development was probable and 6 to 7 units per acre probable for multi- family development. This testimony was not refuted. The Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Report, page 11, indicates that "low density residential development" should occur on land ". . .relatively free of recurring or potential hazards such as floods, slides, and land subsidence." Testimony has substantiated that subsidence has occurred near the subject properties. Uncontested information was supplied by the Planning Department in Exhibit #1 to indicate that severe hazards exist on the properties due to soil, topography and mining conditions. Therefore, it appears that "low density residential development" should not occur on the properties; however, this term is not defined in the Comprehensive Plan. These hazards present problems to any development on the sites. Zoning of R-3 is not compatible with R-1 when the two zones directly abut under normal circumstances (Objective No. 1, page 17, Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Report, July, 1965) . Testimony touched lightly this issue and whether under the specific conditions of the subject properties the incompatibility could be mitigated. Sufficient documentation was given that vegetation and topography separate the subject properties, particularly TADCO, from the adjacent R-1 zoned properties. The most pertinent testimony given was that a PUD was appropriate for the site, which seemed to be agreed upon by. all parties. But residents offered the unsupported contention that R-3 development would produce "decay and obsolescence. . ." (Ibid) in the neighborhood. In this case it is difficult to balance the impact upon property values of the property owners as well as the residents of the neighborhood (Objective No. 4, page 17, Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Report, July, 1965) . TADCO presented expert testimony to support that a rezone to R-1 would severely decrease the value of their property. No expert testimony refuted this evidence submitted by Mr. Raney, MAI. However, it was contested by residents that a reasonable profit could still be made from development of the property at a single family density. A concept of a P.U.D. (Exhibit #34) was submitted to illustrate the point that something else besides R-3 was possible for the TADCO property. It was apparent that the P.U.A. process would be an appropriate land use control method for this site. But similar testimony was not entered relative to the other two properties other than unsupported allegations that the value of the property would decrease if rezoned. Disagreement exists as to what constitutes the "best interest of the community" while providing the "highest and best use" of the subject properties (Objective No. 6, page 18, Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Report, July, 1965) . It was clear that not increasing the traffic problems in the neighborhood would be in the community's best interest and in the best interest of anyone developing on Renton Hill. Under the circumstances, it is also clear that R-3, while yielding the most profit, will conflict with this community's best interest. Something less than R-3 is more appropriate, but testimony was lacking relative to alternatives other than R-1 which TADCO showed as clearly impacting their investment. Testimony regarding the contribution of R-1 to the ". . .overall attractiveness and desirability as a place in which to work, shop, live and play. . ." (Ibid) seemed to substantially support the proposed reclassification to R-1. Again, traffic impact from a more dense development than R-1 appeared to cause the greatest concerns on the part of residents and the greatest detrimental impact upon the attractiveness and desirability" of the neighborhood. However, testimony did not explore to any great extent the effects that a planned unit development (P.U.D.) might have upon R-1, R-3 or other zoning. 4. Mr. Raney, MAI, substantiated (Exhibit #20) that the property was purchased in 1965 for $15,246 per acre and had a current estimated value of $25,000 per acre and $4,000 per acre as R-1. (It should be noted that TADCO and Mr. Raney used a total acreage figure of 11.25 acres while the King County Assessor's Map, Exhibit #4, showed that the TADCO property consists of 10.05 acres.) In his tesimony, Mr. Raney stated that development costs for single family lots would increase the property costs by as much as four times. This appraisal was not refuted by similar evidence or expert testimony. In applying the consideration of the decrease in property value of Carlson v. City of Bellevue it appears that development of single family lots on the TADCO property can yield a profitable use. Using the aforementioned estimate of $4,000 per acre the development costs (factor of four) would raise the cost of the property to R-178-78 Twenty-Three 16,600 per acre. The question becomes then of whether or not a profit can be realized from this type of development. Mrs. Gustine, real estate salesperson, testified that single family lots in the neighborhood recently sold for at least 20,000 per lot. Mr. Erickseri, Director of Planning, testified that a realistic estimate of the density of single family for the property would be 3.5 units per acre. This would mean a gross sale of $70,000 per acre. If the aforementioned analysis holds true, a potential developer would realize a net profit of approximately 54,000 per acre for the land ready for construction ofhomes. This analysis does not include the economies available through development as a P.U.D. since specific testimony was not submitted relative to these savings in development costs. But this analysis sufficiently supports a conclusion that R-1 permits the property owner/developer a reasonable return on the original investment and reasonable use of the property. Although specific appraisal testimony was not provided regarding the other two subject properties, it can be reasonably assumed that their value would in all probability approach at least the appraised values provided by Mr.. Raney. The valuation of the King County Assessor's Office appears to substantiate this conclusion. 5. Both Carlson v. City of Bellevue and Parkridge v. City of Seattle require that the loss of property value bear a substantial relationship to the public health, safety, morals or welfare. Many opinions were presented that the safety of traffic movement, pedestrian movement, and general living were threatened by retention of the existing zoning of R-3. . The Public Works Department testified that the projected increased traffic would not be desirable, but the neighborhood could absorb it with some inconvenience. Mr. Raney in Exhibit #20 submitted that a_ rezone to R-1 would reduce the value of the property by $236,250. While some disagreement existed with his appraisal, no other expert testimony was entered into the record to refute it. 6. Carlson .v. City of Bellevue requires addressing the suitability of the property for use as R-3. Testimony predominantly dealt with either the maximum density of 30 units per acre or Mr. Ericksen's estimate of approximately 6 to 7 units per acre (assumed reasonable development under existing circumstances on the site) . A P.U.D. (Exhibit 34) was submitted to illustrate that R-3 zoning was unnecessary and that less dense development was possible. However, this proposal must of necessity be discounted due to Mr. Irwin's testimony that the P.U.D. applicant did not possess authority or rights from TADCO for such application. Soils, topography, gology (including mining activity) , and noise information was submitted in Exhibit #1 by the Planning Department. This information indicated severe constraints upon development. However, specific soil studies or tests were not made to substantiate this information. It appears that this data was compiled from very general information and maps. However, no opposition to this information and its accuracy was expressed. Based upon the topography of the site and the aforementioned general information, it can be reasonably concluded that development will experience problems in the properties. But testimony did not substantiate or address whether or not these problems would be any greater, lesser or the same as experienced in development of other sloped properties in the neighborhood. It appears from the general information and testimony in the record, that perhaps the same problems will be experienced in single family development and that single family development is feasible, producing a stable condition on the properties. Relatively little multifamily construction exists in the neighborhood to draw the same conclusion with the same conviction. However, the multifamily structure at the northwest corner of S. 7th Street and Cedar Avenue S. appears to substantiate that multifamily construction can occur on the sloped properties with exercise of perhaps greater care and caution. In terms of land use, the Comprehensive Plan would indicate that transition is necessary between R-3 and R-1. The topographic and vegetation conditions on the subject properties, for the most part, provide some transition. The adequacy of the transition depends upon the proposed development for the properties. . Specific testimony was not submitted of generalized or detailed nature to be able to draw any more specific conclusions except to indicate that less intense use of the subject properties would be more compatible with the adjacent and abutting R-1 properties. 17. The subject properties remain undeveloped. Other properties in the general area as well as the neighborhood have developed and are in the process of developing Exhibits #2, 41 and 42) within the past 15 years. R-178-78 Pi_ - Twenty-Four 8. The final test for the proposed rezone is whether or not there exists a preponderance of proof supporting R-1 (Parkridge v. City of Seattle) . It appears that a preponderate amount of evidence is available in support of R-1. 9. The record substantiated that natural constraints of the site indicate that a P.U.D. would be a necessary approach to development on the site. This would mean common- wall (attached) units spread over the sites but located on the more stable, less impacted by natural constraints, areas of the sites. Therefore, the central issue becomes not the zoning category but the appropriate density for the properties based upon the natural constraints. Only Mr. Ericksen, Planning Director, provided testimony relative to this issue. He provided an estimated density range of 3.5 (single family) to 7 (multifamily) units per acre based upon his experience and knowledge of the site. Alternatives to achieving this density are: a. R-3, limited to 3.5 units per acre. b. R-3, limited to 7 units per acre. c. R-2, limited to 3.5 units per acre. d. R-2, limited to 7 units per acre. e. R-1, limited to 3.5 units per acre. Specific environmental data was not provided to select one alternative with great conviction. However, upon examination of the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map, the Zoning Map, Comprehensive Plan Goals and Objectives and the record, a specific recommendation was achieved. The R-1 zoning surrounding the properties, except at the northern edge of the TADCO property, would indicate that multifamily development at 7 units per acre is not the most appropriate in this location. Single family, R-1, is the most appropriate zoning and can be adequately buffered from FAI-405 (via vegetation and acoustical walls) and the R-3 zone abutting the TADCO property (via vegetation and space) via the P.U.D. process. Whether or not the property will support 3.5 units peracre depends upon receipt and review of more specific environmental information that can be included in review of the P.U.D. A need does not apparently exist to buffer the existing R-1 properties from FAI-405 and the transmission line easement by intermediate zoning of R-3 of the subject properties. Continuation of R-1 through the three subject properties is more appropriate under these circumstances. Noise data submitted in Exhibit #1 indicated the severity of impact from FAI-405 to be sufficiently significant to necessitate some acoustic treatment for noise protection on the site. Testimony mentioned special treatment of the building walls and windows to reduce the noise levels inside the residential dwelling units to acceptable standards. Any residential development, R-1 or R-3, would be impacted the same. Acoustical protection can be reviewed during the public hearings on the P.U.D. ; however, evidence was not submitted showing that the city has regulations requiring acoustical protection and treatment of buildings. For the purposes of this analysis it is sufficient to conclude that alternatives are available to reduce noise impact such that noise does not become an objection to residential zoning. 0. From the testimony and the record it can be reasonably concluded that reclassification of the subject properties would be of substantial benefit to the public health, safety and welfare. The existing traffic circulation and access problems would be lessened, including possible traffic or pedestrian accidents. Overcrowding of the neighborhood would not occur. Less potential harm to the future residents of the subject sites due to subsidence would occur. The neighborhood would not absorb a multifamily development which potentially conflicts with the existing single family character. Traffic would not be interrupted or delayed as frequently as predicted at the intersection of Mill Avenue S. and S. 3rd Street. The stability of at least a portion of the neighborhood would not be threatened. The benefits to the public health, safety and welfare appear, upon weighing the evidence, to be predominantly in favor of the rezone to R-1 as opposed to the loss in value of the subject properties. Predominantly, the benefit to the existing and future residents of Renton Hill and the general public rests in the relative reduction of traffic associated impacts upon existing streets and the intersection of Mill Avenue S. and S. 3rd Street. A reasonable use remains for these properties which appears profitable as well. R-178-78 Page Twenty-Five 11. The issue of spot zoning was raised by TADCO in Exhibit #9. This does not appear tobethecaseinthisapplication. Pursuant to a change in the Comprehensive Plan theCityinitiatedtherezoneapplicationduetoitsfindingthatthesubjectpropertiesdidnotapparentlyconformtotheComprehensivePlan.Department and the City Attorney that the subject rIt ess erettdre h by theettofanningfsseveraltoreceivesuchreviewforconformancewiththeComprComprehensivePlanandthatTADCOwasincludedinthefirstphaseofthisreviewmostlyoutofconveniencetothecurrentlitigationinvolvingthatproperty. The Examiner's conclusion is thatforthisreason, not an arbitrary and capricious reason of selecting the propertiesforreasonsofdisbenefittothethreeproperties, this application was filed.Grounds for allegations of spot zoning or aribrary and capricious action by theCitywerenotsufficientlysubstantiated. RECOMMENDATION: Based upon the testimony, record, findings and conclusions herein, it is the recommendationoftheExaminerthattheCityCouncilapprovereclassificationofthethreesubjectpropertiesfromR-3 to R-1 subject to occurrence of development under the Planned UnitDevelopmentOrdinance, Chapter 27. ORDERED THIS 12th day of July, 1978. 411Irk1.4 4 Al Ri eeler Land Use Hearing Examiner TRANSMITTED THIS 12th day of July, 1978 by Affidavit of Mailing to the partiesofrecord: Kathy Keolker, 532 Cedar Avenue S. , Renton, WA 98055RuthBradley, 709 High Avenue S. , Renton, WA 98055PeggyJernigan, Al2 Mill Avenue S. , Renton, WA 98055RuthLarson, 714 High Avenue S. , Renton, WA 98055AmeliaTelban, 508 Cedar Avenue S. , Renton, WA 98055JimBreda, 1002 Grant Avenue S. , Renton, WA 98055RobertMcBeth, 1906 Rolling Hills Ave. S.E. , Renton, WA 98055DennisStremick, 2532 Smithers Avenue S. , Renton, WA 98055JimIrwin, 1000 Norton Building, Seattle, WA 98104AhmedJaddi, Consulting Engineers, Milligan, Anderson, Jaddi,Building C-10, Fisherman's Terminal, Seattle, WA 98119FrankRaney, 16625 Redmond Way, Suite 206, Redmond, WA 98052BillMontagne, Transamerica Development Corp. ,600 Montgomery Street, San Francisco, CA 94111JohnAlbertson, 155 N. 35th, Seattle, WA 98103Mrs. Ray Hansen, 336 Mill Avenue S. , Renton, WA 98055MaryLouGustine, 910 High Avenue S. , Renton, WA 98055ManleyGrinolds, 308 Cedar Avenue S. , Renton , WA 98055JohnGiuliani, 1400 S. 7th, Renton, WA 98055DennisL. Linch, 320 Mill Avenue S. , Renton, WA 98055JerryGlennDunnihoo, 434 Mill Ave. S. , Renton, WA 98055Mr. & Mrs. F. G. (Mike) McCutcheon, 918 Renton Ave. S. ,Renton, WA 98055 Eric Pryne, Seattle Times South Bureau, 320 Andover Park E. ,Tukwila, WA 98188 Nancy Sparrow., 316 Renton Ave. S. , Renton, WA 98055JoeMcCaslin, 17637 S.E. 123rd Place, Renton, WA 98055RentonRecord-Chronicle, P.O. Box 1076, Renton, WA 98055JoanWalker, 1433 Monterey Ave. N.E. , Renton, WA 98055 TRANSMITTED THIS 12th day of July, 1978 to the following: Mayor Charles J. Delaurenti Councilman Richard M. Stredicke Councilwoman Patricia Seymour-Thorpe Warren C. Gonnason, Public Works Director Gordon Y. Ericksen, Planning Director Ron Nelson, Building Division Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney R-178-78 Page Twenty-Six Pursuant to Title IV, Section 3015 of the City's Code, request for reconsideration mustbefiledinwritingonorbeforeJuly26, 1978. Any aggrieved person feeling that thedecisionoftheExaminerisbasedonerroneousprocedure, errors of law or fact, errorinjudgement, 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 withinfourteen (14) days from the date of the Examiner's ,decision. This request shall setforththespecificerrorsrelieduponbysuchappellant, 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 forinspectionintheCityClerk's office, first floor of City Hall, or same may bepurchasedatcostinsaidoffice. EX H/B/T i , r,. h•\ 0 CeMerE4¢r 4 it : -..--_-: A Eire,*„.' if p-ri L....,. ii....._; . c. a...., . 7..4 a' libliiiihn lif 1. 7: 1119 7 711111 ni.,: r.. t: c.3... ,, ..._. vil ' lirlignigli, ..... ::;. ::iiiii,' .it.:.1::.,,.!:::.::::::.:'!!!!!!!:::;.!;.' rllrltlll r,' t _ 'Et1 r7T melon 41.'__``- moan 1 ire Fri wa'mrt rye an melon Enli ,—.6 ais topi>2:r.7 r. ft-- - ik\ s„Hiss2cst. ii -:'::':ii:::::: ..:::::ii:: ri124 riiir.wiiwtt 1 1.1 ,.%.„0 , H-I 44,,p, 4....404,.._ . vI RD ..-:-r am,, %. . icenA -el ix1-i. 0 G our 1.-,...-V E." a:- fit rri • . e" .A, . 13 ., - ! ', le , _. ... nk.s. ....::::shrz:.. 1$74wd R— I) rff,1 : 1.11,0- 1 06I11- , s,,,,:,,,,,,,, 4 owl 1 SR- I{1n .r ©Ql GS/ If/1 BEI du 1 hNg 1 p-IP Ai ' - CI 1:111 . .41 A ., CI 1:11 . R_ ' i1A.i4B1RL 1 1 M . REZONE : CITY OF RENTON, File No. R- 178-78, APPLICATION FOR REZONE FROM R-3 TO R- 1 ; property located on the west side of Renton Hill and situated south of South 7th Street, east of FAI-405, north of the Puget Sound and Light Transmission Line Easement, and east of the subdivided property. APPLICANT CITY OF RENTON TOTAL AREA 12 . 1± acres PRINCIPAL ACCESS Cedar, Renton , and Grant Avenues South EX! S'i !NG ZONING R-3 EXISTING USE Vacant PROPOSED USE ' Residential COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN Single Family Residential COMMENTS This is the first phase of an` area-wide rezone initiated by the City of Renton . Three ownerships are involved in this phase. 3 , OF R J OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY• REY ITOI I.WASHII dGTON POST Orrice OX f2i 100 and AMNIA amixitts3 1 NT0N.MALMWIOTON •DOS a+s-*sill 0 am' •LAWRENCE J.WARREN, CITY ATTOANRr DANIEL KELLOGG, AsSI;TM1T CITY ATT Yd• O June 22, 1978rosEpZE MEMORANDUM TO: Rick Beier, Hearing Examiner FROM: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Re: Renton Hill Dear Rick: In response to your Memo dated June 9, 1978 , . concerningdivisionofRentonHillintoseparateportionsforrezoneconsideration, please be advised that it is my opinion that such action will not pose any problems for your decision orthependinglitigation. I do not believe the entire area should be considered as one entity as this might be considered as area-wide zoning under the jurisdiction of the PlanningCommission. Furthermore, I suggested that this one particular area be considered so as b limit the number of pages of transcriptthatwillbenecessaryiftheareaisrezonedandTransamericafollowsthroughwithitst'Ireatened lawsuit. To burden the record with pages of irrelevant testimony as to the Transamerica property would be unduly time consuming and expensive to trans-cribe.. I hope this adequately answers your qu stion. La rence J.ren LJW:nd cc : Gordon Ericksen Mayor Council President Chairman, Planning & Development Committee Dan Kellogg RECEIVED CITY OF RENTON HEARING EXAMINER JUN 2 31978 AM PM 7181911A1111I2111243,4,516 4 s% 7 c OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY * RENTON,WASHINGTONA L ` ti POST OFFICE BOX 626 100 2nd AVENUE BUILDING • RENTON.WASHINGTON 98055 255-11679A p 0 LAWRENCE J.WARREN, CITY ATTORNEY DANIEL KELLOGG, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY gTf° SEP1 - JULY 5 , 1978 MEMORANDUM TO : Rick Beeler, Hearing Examiner FROM: Lawrence J.Warren, City Attorney Re : Renton Hill Rezone Dear Rick : I have been asked to correspond with you concerning your stated inability to render an opinion on the Renton Hill Rezone within the time given to you by City Ordinance. It is my opinion that if it is in fact impossible for you to render that opinion within the required time, and , if there is no showing that the delay was unreasonable or prejudicial to any party, then you may have the additional time . I might note that this opinion is consistent with State case law. The Supreme Court of this State recently set down such a ruling in the case of In Re Donohoe , 90 Wn (2d) , 173 (June 1978) . In that case the State said : The delay was not unreasonable in view of the necessity of obtaining and reviewing 3 days of testimony, plus the exhibits . That fact , coupled with no claim or showing of prejudice , justifies denial of a dismissal . " In that particular case a hearing board of the State Bar Association was to be able to render an opinion within 20 days as required by Court rules . I find that situation analogous to yours and find that/Ole delay is appropriate . r i • \ . • . , ( Lawrence J. WArren LJW:nd cc : Mayor Council Members RECEIVED Del Mead CITY OF RENTON HEARING EXAMINER JUL 61978 AM PM 7,Ri9d0,1111211121:1•41516 Tyrrell's Inc. NOTE: This letter was received and accepted by the 155 North 35th Examiner following closure of the public hearing P.O. Box 30756 regarding File No. R-178-78 due to the fact that Seattle, WA 98103 Mr. Albertson was unable to attend the continued hearing on June 20, 1978. June 22, 1978 Mr. L. Rick Beeler City of Renton, 200 Mill Ave. So. Renton, Washington 98055 Dear Mr. Beeler, In discussion with Mrs . Tyrrell she expressed great concerns over the possible re-zoning of her property. There was a great deal of emotionalism at the meeting on the 13th . of June by some residents of the "first hill" . It was almost as if they had decided that there was a potential problem in their midst and that it might be in their own best interests to enlist . the aid of the City of Renton to forestall any possibility no mat- ter the costs or hardships to others. It reminded her of a sort of "vigilante" group in reverse. In this case the creation of financial hardship and an injustice by selfish group actions at- tempting to take something of value from an individual without the individuals permission and without compensation. This, of course, really defines theft. It amounts to condemnation of her property and she should be compensated if it is allowed to happen. If the residents of first hill were requested to pay the cost of devaluation or suppose $250, 000. 00 I suspect they would very quickly adjust to the idea of an imaginary changed traffic pattern, or more school buses . On the positive side, an attractive multiple dwelling complex would be an asset to the aesthetics of the community. There is a definite need for more and better housing in all communities. The cost of building single family residences prohibits lots of good decent families from owning their own homes and they should not be denied the proximity to good transportation and family ser- vices by a group of selfish people . The surrounding business com- munity would benefit from increased needs . I hope that you will be honest and fair in rexcom'nding that the R-3 zoning for which she paid for and paid taxes on these years and for which there is a need, be retained. Sincerely, RECEIVED eCITYOFRENTONp-.L44'6,4, HEARING EXAMINER AM JUN 2 31978 n C. Albertson n&ri r,1449 PM 71R:9:10111e12i l 1213'4156 ti PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT TO HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING JUNE 13, 1978 APPLICANT: CITY OF RENTON FILE NUMBER:R-178-78,' REZONE A. SUMMARY: Applicant initiated a rezone from R-3 District, Medium Density Multi-Family toR-1 , Single Family District. B. GENERAL INFORMATION: 1 . Owner of Record: Transamerica Development Company Puget Western, Inc. Mary Tyrrel 2. Applicant: City of Renton 3. Location: Property is on the west side of Renton Hill south of South 7th Street; east of FAI-405; north of the Puget Sound Power and Light Company transmission line easement and east of the subdivided property. See Exhibits B-1 , 6-2 (not included in this report) , B-3 not included in this report) , and 6-4 (not included in this report). 4. Legal Description: Detailed legal descriptions are available on file in the Renton Planning Department. 5. Size of Properties: The parcels total ± 12.1 acres. 6. Access: Primarily via Cedar Avenue South with less access available on Renton Avenue South, Grant Avenue South, High Avenue South, and Jones Avenue South. 7. Existing Zoning: R-3, Medium Density Multi-Family Residential District. 8. Existing Zoning in Area: R-1 , Single Family Residential District and R-3, Medium Density Multi-Family Residential District 9. Comprehensive Land Use Plan: Single Family. 10. Notification: The property owners were notified in writing of the hearing date. Notice was properly published in the Record Chronicle and posted in three places on or near the site as required by City Ordinance. PURPOSE OF REQUEST: The rezone was initiated to review the existing zoning in relation with theComprehensivePlan. RECEIVED CITY OF RENTON HEARING EXAMINER SEP261978 AM PIN 718191101111121112131415,6 71- r I ) x,-iisir B--I - t Puc P11RK ' cf.,.rekvJ 1 :- 1/:- :---1-' i...J. 'As :‘'-'.''' - •i .1 \ p.1 \ '., l_. (--_ foR SA , f- , .,at 3. y rill 1 1 p-f . tp-i yr: 411, -:01 : / ./ 7.1,_. 4 i..._„,:.. .t, ......,„ _ 7i,., 4 . • I .' .t ar fir'F11ii, .:: -. 1E -- a .s . V.'-'6 gm: M 1 r Ir 1 1 ' —/ ,, iti- ~ ter 1 w IE r- 7rrJLIII. • ___ ST R.... 1„ r _LI ,_, jilt" to,.• •f.' , i' _,_,. GSA SR—I -- ti A i AO l rat, co O ao A M O i ii , 10 0 4.,- _,•••a. , br .op,: ,.•sv ,,, 9 ,-?s--: . i.: as4:-- 421krilillirmpppo _- - GS— I s. e---: 1,1414 B—I r REZONE : CITY OF RENTON , File No . R- 178-78, APPLICATION FOR REZONE FROM R-3 TO R- 1 •, property located on the west side of Renton Hill and situated south of South 7th Street , east of FAI -405 , north of the Puget Sound and Light Transmission Line Easement, and east of the subdivided property. APPLICANT CITY :OF RENTON TOTAL AREA 12 . 1 ± acres PRINCIPAL ACCESS Cedar, Renton , .and Grant Avenues South ' EX! S11NG ZONING R- 3 EXISTING USE Vacant PROPOSED USE Residential COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN Single Family Residential COMMENTS This is the first phase of an area-wide rezone ' initiated by the City of Renton . Three ownerships are involved in this phase. PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT TO HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING: CITY OF RENTON, FILE NUMBER R-178-78 JUNE 13, 1978 PAGE TWO D. HISTORY/BACKGROUND: The subject site was annexed by Ordinance Number 1547 in May, 1956. E: PHYSICAL BACKGROUND: 1 . Geology - See Exhibit E-1 Ground Moraine Characterisitc Artificial Fill Renton Formation Deposits Special Feature Partly cemented, Intimately graded but contains mixture of clay to uncemented beds. gravel sizes. Drainage Highly variable. Runoff excellent. Runoff variable. Foundation Stability Highly variable. Excellent, but Excellent. subject to limitations of slope. Slope Stability Higly variable. Stands for long Stands in steep periods in steep natural and cutslopes natural and for long periods. articifial cuts. Dip of beds may affect slope stability. Seismic Stability Very poor. Good. Good. Information Source: Geologic Map of the Renton Quadrangle, King County, Washington by D.R. Mullineaux (Map GQ-405). Renton Hill is underlain with coal deposits, much of which have been mined out. The remaining deposits are considered marginal quality and are usually in thin, twisted beds at great depths. It is not economically feasible to mine this coal at the present time due to a variety of reasons. Although it is possible that the coal could be mined someday as energy demands increase, technology, economic feasibility, and political realities would have to be taken into consideration. There are approximately 50 million tons of reserve coal in the Renton Coal Field, of which Renton Hill is a portion. The mined-out coal beds are under most of the area except in the south western corner (contiguous to FAI-405). These mined-out coal beds are approximately 150 feet below the surface of Renton Hill . The south western corner is probably underlain by unmined coal . (Source: Map showing nonmetallic mineral resources in part of West-Central King County Washington by William Rice; Map I-852-D. ) See Exhibit E-2 for illustration of coal beds. A few years ago there was subsistance of a street in front of 611 Renton Avenue South undoubtedly due to the collapse of an abandonded coal mine shaft. Several truck loads of material over a period of time was required to fill the shaft. The rate of subsistance has declined substantially and periodic resurfacing of the street is necessary to fill the depression. See red dot on Exhibit 8-2 for location, of subsistance. 2. Topography: Ths site has moderate to very steep slopes. The northerly portionhasslopes30% and greater; the center portion has slopes ranging from 17 to20%; and the extreme southerly portion has a 10% slope. See Exhibit E-3 for slopes. e•a...w....-- a -is 8 -.1 d.2 ill/ H 1 a o N w••,••••••••••••oew.•o•••••.`-- S .'9 .5•••••••••.••••••••••••••••••••••o•. A „„ O . v, ••••••00•• kr,\ ti.. ., • . Own•••••••.\e044. \ 11dsCr _.t••••• •V •••••. d 1d- ' ppo•••• o • ••••••• e r•'•••• \, 0. \ ' 1/ b..s••••• •'l eao• ,,;, ••••oo•• . 'M,q•VP,1 DSYNd b•o•• ..I t .- 0•.-(,,-- - se , •• .• "'y1 i caws, ,1 771u /VOJ.r/311 , •-••••• i • ••• •• • , - 9,. VV rI as ) ii•o•• •• •• .I = r e•['pIi y- • •••••• i{ F •••••• •• ••• •••-• •,iti} •, •••••••• i1 gg••••• • •• I.••• .•I,•.'hh•• ••••••••1 bi••••! O• •• +• ti•.I%t/••.t•o••••••• ii r•,•••••• ••• -I ••O'G -•••w'••••• .' ••••••••• N1tb••e•• •••• ••• . •ON••• •; ••••••••e'. i z•• ••••a •e•I ••• ••••;o•ie• •w•••••• • I3,•1 • r• •• •-4N i. V ••.*-• • •W• AAA• •.e••••• •• 1 = \00006•000• 000600000 000 8f'kMq rs lib • II•b'• 4 ••« . • "" ••• i., s. •• :::• 11 Eii• • •• ••.: •,•••• ••••• • '•••••• ii4,Q•• • . • •••o ••••• it, t ••••i• ••••••b?W• ••• ••fi • ••'•••i• • • ••••• • ••••••• , • i••r• l••" e$ •••• • •••••-er• •••••• b••• ••••• ••• •• • •C•••.L- •••••5%3S • •••••••, • 0 a •• •••••• lose • raM••• 4 ••••e•J e •.ry1•• • • A, • e•a••• qq•••• ••4 •••••o •; • lc e •••T• •4-• •• • • b•M••• • •••.••®•-N ••••••• 44•_ .1y. •0• ••,rl•••••gp•0, •••••••E.: ••••••• t.• l••• a o-i•II••• • ••••• •Vr ,••••••• • ' • .rO p • . Y •op•• • h,•oe•••••• ..••••••• '. • (7 SpeQ y •••••• r,A•• ••••• •• ••• ••o••; ••• •w.••••o •••••••, • 0• , •NP••••*}• , • ••• 0 ••1fje•d • •••••pp•• +••••••• ••F•1o•. ••l •er• •••Tt•• • ••I•i7"••• •••••• • • 0-p?'I1W ••••••. • ••.• •p• V • ••4• • • 4 • i•.w•••• ••••••• ,'•e b... • • •a w..• lqp . IV 07.••• •• ;•••• •• IS9a-1 AT• ° a::::•V•: '7:::.: •V•::: 4 ••• •••••••• •••••.• •-•••• •. sags' 7%'0'7 ..cflo Q9N/W Z— g I18/HX3 Hlao gob -to deW i7TTT*T.1• •••••• Aly, Cr.•... d-.T"8 q W <JII A NC M so v II Hopi3a 1 ••. I•• We• : •Alil . i •••••• p ,''fir •. o,.Q•. ••7 ',V: ••• • •' . G..' ••••• '' • 7,t I'';:% ` fc y p9!O•; w.4 D., •:: t.•• • • . . 1,•2 1/+. t''''• z 117 4 a 1 C5 0,01( 0:` :: r ,L• I •4: Lent L • • ' ., 7 w' t, ' :i: :R \,/ L 4' 9SP4IV."0 1,1/0•••••111 .:. 1:3 i....:::.0- ,i:. :... .ii:,* . C. •:, ; z:•.-iya,:,‘ . VI'(64 . O. :.:':,iiiiii i p3N 1 4J fy 1, a11MCP‘i-?-P"I-4a i :•<;‘ ..T/k-1; •- :..,..". .:i'.. .ti.,'..: :n. :;;o;; o:;,i,i-: ,ii 7410 rlirt il ' 1.-'-• 1 r/., •.f . :movor2ki ...%.„..........,: .: /-i - : .!!-I.i"i ..: ., Iii..'•:::.:- ili....•• ;::5...„,0, 11.• r Atirip, '... ifj.4.1 4...., . 3.,:,,, y, ,41,-, .., .4 f ::.::.. ::: h .. :::". •• •wigs• 17 /NI r.r - , Ap-- ,.,—,,. .,gd r,.•. 1.,. 1 ... .i iSlir ••• w••• ••rit. lr- .1tJ••y.' ! f"1.< . vr7. 1 d Diet:. it 1• 7le,t7IM?Y'ie h4404,r 1-•,• i may, 0 ,y ` .Y. r•r , ., , 1 •10.o 0 ' ' d .i.ri '4 cky,e,i.,, e<4,,,•..„.„ 3.. da• ••• .•. • •.,-- - • . I ••• - •• ' rii t A0070gJ g ..L1III01X5 1 • I X }' ' -\X 3677 • T H 338 X - AVE r !(EK'oN PILL FEuwes K. k-:."--- 1 j l I 1 b I1 ij I1, 1 1 I I I I Imo I I I J IJ i I1I‘ lIj' 1 1 ; 1 I! , i 1- 11 1 f Ld , 1 1 1 1 I1IIfj1pI' I] jaiN NORTH I,y j,, , E \ $Ol T uI I 121j0 ,7..::_ j 4r II QJ o - jLiiiIII1II • d' I1 js ifi• ll I I w ik"; .?1 1 1 I_J I i 1 11 x 1 iittIIQ 1" a ' • , 1I I I I: © Io1 f/ `w// A. ,, .-1': •,: 11' 1 14-; I. 1 / , n C_ ] I=, Iz hr I z, 1 in i/i 4 II // J Q / I Il a I iwif i! 1cr1 L I 1., 1 3 49 1 o oI Q' 1 + x ] I i/pit'C., i 1 I I 1, ' 11 0 h i ,i^D I I 1 X, _ ; L X_8 TH\ --- /363 r rAvE -- -- -:`I I 9 S 303 11' a I I I1 74 1. \ '‘, J 0 f I I ll I tiJ1 I 0 ILat I I ; 11Qr, ,N ti 9 pJ N \ 1 III i 10 11 1 I I 0* l 1 (^isOl\\\ ``. . 1 )/ y 1 i 1 \, i1` I I rl tlijJ .I K.Lki I I` \ T A E' ' r max- 1 1 x--'-• I PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT TO HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING: CITY OF RENTON, FILE NUMBER R-178-78, REZONE JUNE 13, 1978 PAGE THREE 3. Soils: The site has four soil classifications which are illustrated on Exhibit E-4.. The northerly most portion is Beausite gravely sandy loam, 15 to 30% slopes (BeD); foundations for low buildings is considered severe. In the south western corner is Alderwood and Kitsap soils, very steep (AkF) ; foundations for low buildings is considered severe with moderate and severe slippage. potential . A small portion of the site by Grant Avenue South has Arents, Everett soil (An); the hazard for foundations to low buildings is slight to none. Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 6 to 15% slopes (AgC) occupies the south easterly portion of the site; this soil has moderate limitations for foundations of low buildings and a seasonal high water table. Considerable erosion has occured on property (multi-family) to the north of the site which apparently does not adequately control surface drainage. 4. Vegetation: The site has alder, maple and willow trees with blackberry, ferns, hazel and ivy for shrubs and ground cover. The vegetation is con- sidered abundant except where the land has been clearcut for an apparent road west of and parallel to Cedar Avenue. 5. Wildlife: Due to the surrounding development, the site would be suitable for only small birds and mammals. 6. Water: There are two seasonal drainage ditches on the site. Both appear to have their primary sources of water east of the site from developed single family areas. 7. Land Use: FAI-405 lies to the west and lower in elevation than the site. A Puget Sound Power and Light Company transmission line right-of-way is contiguous to the south. Established single family dwellings lie to the east of the site. To the north of the site are apartments and condominiums. F. NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTERISTICS: Renton Hill was subdivided and developed prior to the turn of the century. When it was developed and for many years thereafter, it was considered one of the nicer areas in which to live. This was due in part to being above the flood plain, having a view, being at a higher elevation than industrial activities, and a variety of other reasons. Over a period of years the Hill began to decline. However, this trend has reversed itself in recent years. Some homes were converted to apartments and new apartments were constructed. During the early 1960's, FAI-405 was constructed leaving only one access to Renton Hill . In 1953 the City adopted a zoning ordinance which tended to segregate the single and multi-family residences on the Hill . This helped contain multi-family to Mill Avenue (along FAI-405) and minimize the spread of multi-family .throughout the Hill . During the early 1970' s a sense of community pride began to redevelope which lead to cohesive community action. Eventually, a community club was formed to represent Renton Hill . The City of Renton and the residents of Renton Hill have invested considerable amounts of money in the area since January 1976. Cedar Street between South 3rd Street and South 9th Street was completely rebuilt with a new street, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, illumination and overhead utilities were placed underground. The project cost $200,162.04, of which the residents paid $43,310.11 through a local improvement district (LID 293). Sixty nine parcels participated in the LID which calculates to an average of $627.68 per parcel . Since January 1976 considerable private investment has taken place on Renton Hill including 5 new single family dwellings; one new addition to single family residence; one new story on single family residence; two new private garages; one lowered base- ment; and a new eight unit apartment.The hadnew beenhomesdeveloped erected were lotsshortthatplatedwere due either to demolition of a home, never from a larger lot. X1-I131T . E - % SOILS lit fit 7 y11•••4 f.Z_ YV t , ,1 ' *:<.::. 0 LEGEND O ifir'aftl i:ti4;1{:f7 }Jii:•:•f.fi•X:v:v;•' ', ::v..Y.•.w:. J J_ Ir;' PA v-:•:•; v:J::fti;i:?::::y:,tyi::•: J')D.J„), 1 1 f'Yi: '{.••:,i:•iif:a::,• §iii>•a :. . o°o.o 4 r. .A.... i: y I ( J i• :ff::;.. .i}}::••:: '•iYi"::i::1a{ti %{J;r3. vv:}.}:+if:::::>:iti }.;r:a pj:?ti•:v:,::::• :1•.: 4 U r ti'( 43 i:j:aS•:1i:f:'{?:j:;{ip • :ti: :?::::•:{ 1. •{ ` t: v¢;.}:•.tit:;I•`,,•:<? :::'ti{:.:::vw.;i.,”:{:in•::,,,; A yr• ki ih%} :^fff{:{-y:< +::vitiy^; •{::;:•;L:f}il•:{•i :yt:'"'r:';.•:•i 1 h...iY.,:,'{.::``{.:,,•..}''}i :k:::.:k : k n:::i.'+t'S7C;:•:?Lti;1 h i i ::4 f.•.YA a 74 ii:.r y'i'ati!hk .vY:Y;t. Y; ix; •) :xf{:.:•i r k. 1 (J1 ' Y :•.ff•{4:•{:I'' r,•: ti%*•:•: i/.{J: Be. DeI. I! .... •{: 14:•J.ti:;..,J\: • hM1'::•:•'. {:.•.{•f::••.•r::..•:. may\ Jf• C/! t iti rif' 't#•'•r+ x+` A$'^'• c'Yy3'•,::•;?J;:•YY':r.}i'G:;f 1' f. ,+ d y•• ':x:r^:#Y:if:4•++i' >hh,{.iyx•+ {?;'{:3$ 1- 1 r/ T' C•:.••fix'. •:if,'" Q d ^ftr i•'3' J :•'A{•• Y '•:•• r ::f• :. is ' v'{r}•. 1Y ,., =i7rfi ti u%S?di':.r•• 0 REK7oN RILL:• ••.•: • )'' l SiifzklF., :a f 1• REl6v S 1 UJ.i J .,J.,U1: NORTH pit`.. ..JVJ J O. EXHIBIT H-I SOUND fEAsuR& lENTS in calla o a o 'N,,'(>,•\LE6EN 0 0 p 0 0 co OC 0 7' sr l 0 0 p O\ 2 Lo.Z rohs o wl eve seu" 0 0 0El N." 8 a a YeaallnJs were.Ezt i • y a 0ha Ci 0 6 y-4K h c • u Q 0 d loc it a D 0 do I co1o .; o oh ACDrja.. o.p q.. 0 I0 D a O D 5 9n, ,sr C c i D d;d 0 0 43 d Q h i'Q 0 o ° i 0 d S,P`d Q1 ,; 0 O Oi; `J• r sJ- v--;.REPtToN NILL RE,e,,, S i1 \ p C:rr .,(/gnw. Iw+1 AIID R.w4•.r.P1 7 r 1..44, tiIl•i,V,•M 4\ r- ----- ------------ NORTH PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT TO HEAR_, __ EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING: CITY OF RENTON, FILE NUMBER R-178-78, REZO,' " JUNE 13, 1978 PAGE FOUR Two short plats (two lots each) and one preliminary Planned Unit Development applications were received by the City from Renton Hill since 1976. In addition, a large tentative plat (2.45 acres, 93 lots) application was received on a parcelsouthofandcontiguoustoRentonHill ; this subdivision does not propose to have access via Renton Hill . Effective July 1 , 1978 low and moderate home owners will be eligible for grants up to $2,500 for rehabilitation of their detached single familydwellingsthroughtheCityofRentonHousingRepairProgram. Renton Hill is designated as one of the City's target neighborhoods. G. TRAFFIC: Renton Hill is essentially a large cul-de-sac with one access, Mill Avenue South. The Seattle Cedar River Pipeline right-of-way provides a secondary access for emergency vehicles. This facilitiy was closed in 1973 at the request of the residents of the Hill to eliminate the through traffic that came to and from the Cascade area to the south. The residents of Renton Hill considered the through traffic inappropriate and dangerous to the community. The streets are rather steep and serious questions can be raised concerning traffic safety if too many cars use the streets. Between South 3rd and 7th Streets, Renton Avenue and Cedar Avenue average 9.2% and 7.7% slope respectively.Renton Avenue has a short stretch that has a grade in excess of 15% between the same streets. With the grid iron street pattern, a vehicle (and anything which the vehicle might hit) can be in serious trouble should a serious mechanical problem occur such as brake failure. On January 22, 1978 traffic counts were conducted and found movement of 2,650 vehicles during a 24-hour period. This represents 1 ,350 vehicles entering and leaving the Hill each day. Burlington Northern Railroad has a major east-west track accross Mill Avenue South, the sole access to Renton Hill . During the 16 hours per day that the Renton railroad station is manned, there is an average of 14 trains that pass through the city. This does not include the numerous short blockages due to switching activities. Blockage of Mill Avenue can be critical should an emergency occur on Renton Hill while a train crosses Mill Avenue. H. SOUND: Sound readings were taken in mid May 1978 at six locations on or near the site as illustrated in Exhibit H-1 . The detailed sound records are available on file in the Renton Planning Department. The freeway is the major source of sound at the western side of the site while airplanes, dogs, the city park, and other urban sources were more important as the loud-sound generators at the eastern extremity.Even at the eastern end, the freeway provided audible background sounds through- out the site. Listed below is a synopsis of the findings: dBA LEVELS Site High Averages Low 1 79 76 - 65 63 2 66 62 - 59 56 3 73 61 - 58 55 4 68 54 - 53, 52 5 59 55 - 52 51 6 61 56 - 44 44 Generally, the closer to FAI-405, the greater the sound. It is anticipated that traffic will increase as growth occurs in South King County on FAI-405 and therefore the sound levels on Renton Hill will increase also. Sleep interference occurs. at 40 dBA; speech interference at 55 dBA; hearing loss with continuous exposure at . 80 dBA, although some experts believe hearing loss happens at a lower level . As indicated by the above data, there is speech interference with outside activities during the day and a potential loss of hearing if exposed for a long period of time. PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT TO HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING: CITY OF RENTON, FILE NUMBER R-178-78,REZONE JUNE 13, 1978 PAGE FIVE Sound inside a dwelling is generally 15 to 20 dBA less when the windows areopenand20to25dBAquieterwhenthewindowsareclosed. Dwellings con- structed on the site could experience sound levels that will cause interference with normal conversation and perhaps sleep. I. PUBLIC SERVICES: 1 . Water and Sewer: There are existing 4 inch water mains located in Cedar andRentonAvenueSouthandSouth10thStreet. An 8 inch water main is locatedinSouth9thandllthStreets. An 18 inch sanitary sewer line is located in the Puget Sound transmission line right-of-way that could serve the site. 2. Fire Protection: Fire protection is provided by the Renton Fire Department as per ordinance requirements. Any future development of the site will be subject to the City of Renton standards. 3. Transit: Metro provides bus service along the periphery of Renton Hill . Metro Transit route numbers 107 and 240 operate north of the hill on Mill Avenue South. Bronson Way South is served by bus route number 142 and routenumber155servesMainAvenueSouth. All of these busses are within walkingdistanceofRentonHill . 4. Schools: Renton Hill is served via school bus by the Bryn Mawr ElementarySchool , and Dimmitt Junior High School . Renton High School serves Renton Hill . 5. Parks: Phillip Arnold Park', a neighborhood park, is within walking distanceofallareaswithinthesite. Three additional city parks, Liberty, Cedar River and Jones Park, are approximately half a mile north of the site. J. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE ZONING CODE: 1 . Section 4-706, R-1 Single Family District. 2. Section 4-709A, R-3 Medium Density Residence District. 3. Section 4-725, Amendments. 4. Chapter 22, Parking and Loading. K. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OR OTHER OFFICIAL CITY DOCUMENTS: 1 . Land Use Report, 1965, Residential , Page 11 , and Objectives Pages 17 and 18. L. IMPACT ON NATURAL SYSTEMS: The rezoning of the property will not have a direct impact on the natural systems. However, any development of the site will disturb present soil and vegetation conditions, increase storm water runoff, thereby increasing the possibility of erosion, and add to the noise and traffic levels. These conditions may beminimizedbytheapplicationofproperdevelopmentcontrols. M. SOCIAL IMPACTS: The development of the site for residential use will increase opportunity for social interaction. G..:::. . e... o ,-Siz' iaT2G sY 4;+ .'1, r_ •5,»y. t.: •y. hq1'; h4• ._<. m.) Ly.,,,ip., 4 ii.: °j.,;4 s`.1:.i•.•' .v'+.i I^ f'RI•I IMlNAHY REPORT 10 HEARING LXAMINCR MR 11' HLARING: CllY OF RI=NION, I.II I NIIMUfR R- I7H-7H, RI 7ONF JUNL 13, 1978 PAGE SIX N. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT/THRESHOLD DETERMINATION: Pursuant to the City of Renton Environmental Ordinance and the State Environmental Policy Act of 1971, as amended (RCW 43.21C), a declaration of non-significance has been issued for the subject proposal . 0. 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 6. United States Geological Survey 7. Renton School District Number 403 8. Puget Sound Power and Light Company 9. Pacific Northwest Bell 10. Department of Ecology P. PLANNING DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS: 1. The proposed rezone to R-1 is consistent with the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan which designates the site and area as single family residential . 2. The existing zoning around the site is R-1 to the east, R-3 to the north, and GS-1 to the south. The freeway (FAI-405) to the west is not zoned and acts as a physical barrier. The R-1 and R-3 zones are developed as zoned; the GS-1 zone is developed as an electrical transmission line which pre- cludes more intensive development. These circumstances together with other elements appear to establish the subject site as a single family area which requires protection from other uses to protect the existing single family area. (Comprehensive Plan Land Use Report, 1965, Objectives 1, page 17; Policy Statement, Summary, pages 9 and 10) 3. The goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Land Use Report, page 17, objective number 1, states: "Prevent blight by protecting resi- dential and other exclusive districts from the unwarranted infiltra- tion of incompatible uses which would contribute to premature decay and obsolesence, and prevent the development of orderly growth pat- terns. " The majority of the Renton Hill area is an existing single family residential neighborhood. Rezone and development of the • subject area to single family residence density, either by standard subdivision or by P.U. D. cluster-type development, would be compati- ble with the existing neighborhood and consistent with such objective. Development to higher densities would result in infiltration of incom- patible zoning, land uses, and such Comprehensive Plan objectives. 4. The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Report, page 17, also has as objective number 4, "Protect property values within the community for the benefit of its residents and property owners, through the effective control of land use and the enforcement and application of building and construction codes. " The proposed rezone will control and regulate the land use of the subject area to a degree that is compatible with other property in the area, thereby encouraging and strengthening the livability, both physical and social , within the existing neighborhood. This would further the present character of the "Hill" as highly desirable single family residence area. 5. Such rezone to R-1 will continue the present trend for new single family residential construction and remodeling of existing residences in this community, which further indicates the desirability of the area as a separate single family residence area. It would, therefore, be consistent with the objective number 6 of the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Report, page 18, to "encourage the development and utilization of land to its highest and best use in such a way as to promote the best interest of the community and contribute to its overall attractiveness and desirability as a place in which to work, shop, live, and play." PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT TO HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING: CITY OF RENTON, FILE NUMBER R-178-78, REZONE JUNE 13, 1978 PAGE SEVEN 6. The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Report, page 18, clearly states as a method of implementation (number 6) the need to "conduct planning studies on problems of current interest or need as conditions change and revisions or amendments to the Comprehensive Plan are deemed desirable." Conditions have changed in the area through the continued construction, revitalization, investment, and community involvement in the area as a single family neighborhood, as well as the lack of adequate access for multiple family residential being developed, and the overall attitude of the legislative body and the community toward the retention of a viable and significant single family area through the revision to the Comprehensive Plan. It is further noted in this implementation section that "the purposeful and consistent attention to the overall purposes and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan will produce continuing and long term benefits for the community." The proposed rezone is a reflection of the "overall purposes and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan" through the proper use of land use regulations and zoning to protect the citizens of the community and provide for orderly and compatible growth trends. The "continuing" benefits to the community will be reflected by the proposed rezone consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The aspect of planning as a "continuing" process is important. As the City grows and changes in its physical character so also do the attitudes of its citi- zens. The Comprehensive Plan and its implementation methods (i .e. , zoning, capital improvements, arterials and streets plans) must reflect these changes to be an effective planning tool . 7. The Policy Statement, Comprehensive Plan, defines the ideal neighborhood as an area "consisting of a relatively solid pattern of homes, linked by by quiet streets and centered around an elementary school and park. " Although this concept has changed somewhat in recent years', the Renton . Hill neighborhood basically reflects such a concept. This? portion of the Plan also states that "in planning neighborhoods the creation of residential districts free of overcrowding influences, arterial traffic are important objectives. " Such objectives will be significantly upheld by the proposed rezone. 8. The Policy Statement of the Comprehensive Plan, page 6, E. , TRaffic Ways, states that "It shall be the objective of the City of develop or require the development of its traffic ways in accordance with their intended use. Generally, heavy and fast moving traffic will be routed around neighborhoods with only minor residential streets bisecting them. Right-of-way width standards for different classifications of streets shall be those developed in detail and contained in the Arterials and Streets Report of the R.U.A. Comprehensive Plan. The construction of streets shall be related to need and funtion as determined by traffic engineering studies. " Reference to the Arterials and Streets Plan as well as the City's Subdivision Ordinance, indicates that this access to the subject area is not adequate for any use higher density than single family residential . Even as a new- single family residential area the access would be questionable. However, it is one of the last remaining large undeveloped areas of the "Hill" and, therefore, would not create' significant additional traffic problems if developed as single family residential . 9. Access to Renton Hill is restricted to one entrance that is subject to blockage by trains. Several of the streets which provide access to the various areas on the "Hill" are steep, laid out in a grid arrangement, and as such should not be overloaded. The grades of the streets present a potential hazard not normally found in a residential development. Also, one street has had a small section subsidence. (Comprehensive Plan, Arterials and Streets, 1965, Purposes and Objectives of Study, pages 2 and 3) Both Cedar Avenue South and Renton Avenue South have PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT TO HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING: CITY OF RENTON, FILE NUMBER R-178-78, REZONE JUNE 13, 1978 PAGE EIGHT a right-of-way width of forty feet with improvements less than that which is normally required. Standard residential access streets are 50 to 60 feet in width. Due to existing structures and improvements, there is little likelihood that these streets can be enlarged. Given this situation, the proposed• rezone would have fewer impacts to the existing streets than the existing zoning. In fact, the Streets and Arterials Plan, page 5, states that "in the planning, design, and location of the major street system, consideration should be given to esthetics and community amenities in order that the system may provide attractive as well as safe, efficient circulation routes, and do the least damage to adjacent land uses and improvements. Conversely, the design and location of adjacent improvements should present the least possible interference with the traffic carrying capabilities of these traffic ways." 10. The Streets and Arterials Plan also states as objectives (page 3): a. Provision for the safe, efficient and convenient move- ment of peoples and goods. b. Arterial and street patterns compatible with and com- plimentary to the general land use plan. c. Adequate and safe access to allow convenient and effi- cient utilization of abutting properties. The proposed rezone would be consistent with these objectives by reducing densities and resulting traffic volumes and providing for land use more compatible with the Comprehensive Plan and roadway system. Also, the introduction of any larger street system into and through the area would be contrary to these and other Compre- hensive Plan objectives. (i.e. , Policy Statement, Comprehensive Plan, page 4, "These trafficways should be so designed that they function efficiently. . .their operation should not conflict or interfere with the functions of the residential neighborhoods.") 11. It is apparent from the attached exhibits that the site has physical characteristics such as slope, mined-out coal beds, soils, and existing heavy vegetation which create potential problems in development and which should be considered when reviewing the size and intensity of development. Certain types of higher intensity development may in fact create potential hazards. Therefore, it would be in the public interest to minimize such possible hazard by proper planning, zoning, and development controls. The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Report designates the site as 25% - 40% slope with certain portions over 40% slope. The Plan indicates "that extreme caution should be exer- cised in the utilization of these potentially dangerous areas for residential sites." The lesser density of the R-1 zone would be more compatible with such objectives and present fewer hazards, especially if developed by P.U.D (Planned Unit Development) within the single family residence density which would provide for clustering of units within more appropriate areas of the site, preserving steeper areas, significant trees, and natural open spaces. The Comprehensive Plan, Policy Statement, page 6, infers such a relationship between land use, topography, and other physical conditions of the terrain when it states that "properly designed plats related to terrain conditions will be pleasing to the eye, economically sound, and safe for the residents." 12. The site is subject to loud sound levels, especially from FAI-405. The Department of Ecology recommended that performance standards be applied to sleeping areas of the dwelling to permit sleep. PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT TO HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING: CITY OF RENTON, FILE NUMBER R-178-78, REZONE JUNE 13, 1978 PAGE NINE STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Based upon the above background data, analysis, and the Comprehensive Plan r. recommend approval of R-1 zoning for the subject area. It is further suggested that reasonable development of the area can and should be pursued by means of a P.U.D. (Planned Unit Development). Existing vegetation and other natural characteristics of the site should be retained as much as possible and incorporated into site planning, design, and development. Access shall be limited to existing streets and approved as part of any site development. On-site soils and geology investigations should be conducted to determine whether the site is safe to develop; and if it is safe to develop, to obtain recommendations on how to develop. ROUTING SCHEDULE FOR APPLICATION TO: O Finance Department Fire Department Library Department oPark Department Police Department Public Works Department 0 Building Div. Engineering Div . Traffic Engineering Div. IBUtilities Engineering Div. FROM: Planning Department, (signed by responsible official or his designee ) 47418/-4 ' / 1— 7-12-f-f 1..,,/ DATE : 5=26-78 PLEASE REVIEW THIS APPLICATION FOR: f;- / 73- 74 REZONE 27114,,,,.-.,6,1,,yy- MAJOR PLAT SITE APPROVAL SHORT PLAT SPECIAL PERMIT WAIVER SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PERMIT OR EXEMPTION AND RETURN TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT WITH ANY COMMENTS YOU MIGHT HAVE , BEFORE ,,$L.,. ?, i i7g REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : Department : Z..,0 --7" Comments : 4%,-,0%-ret•-, C.: /4.1-7e--s-- Signature irector or Authorized Representative Date REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : Department : t> r (. , ;„.: Comments : 1\1.0 sf`1NMc-r- Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : Department : Cit , /24;(2,-,,.L p ? I Comments : 11"- L• l lTlc c lcc M Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : T Department : u Me ZIP.% , Comments : J Signature of Director or Authorized Opresentative Date REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : Department :7— Comments : 2_ 211L /1/4 S a Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : Department : Comments : Si fjature of Director or Authorized ' Repfesentative Date 04 gENTO 0L\, W ° w 44 o r ,NNING I r I y De l:r 1". ulJt" f: Ee,•;`K./ iY/; 12.c y /rfrf '%ia !)'. ;_.'• ,;rLiv ////,/ i°ii'r f!e' ' //4i•J er,a, s? i C• i7`'•,t •.!t r. /i: i1 ' tti) C-L., I • U_l cr. e /;,7 re/ '//JY. .'•\:1,r '.i, .. • 7, ., :t/etTet. J•z fir..,s r/ r• 1;•.'[jt Jti1%! 'S _•r 1 I: 7./ r..? J/J t a' _:7_ f,r f, J i _ e.4 J;G i < i. /!r ' • ••) '' J c ..i 7i1 r r J1 •L. /J.r f :i 1.'ii '' 'r.r •'` CL i•C r rlL r I COPY OF THE ABOVE MEMO ; ok'd by - WCG ) 6/5/78) Engineering Department Gary Kruger , Planning Department Subject : Renton Hill Rezone The drainage basin encompassed by the proposed rezone area , and a large portion of already developed portion of RentonHill , empties into an already overloaded system. Anydevelopmentinthisareawouldrequireextensivestorm water detention and/or other means of controlling the run-off . The rezone as proposed would in effect reduce the possibleimpactofstormwaterrun-off over the present zoning . Signed-- ) BOB BRAY ROUTING FOR REVIEW OF ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORMS TO: O Finance Department III Fire Department Library Department Park Department Police Department 0 Public Works Department 8 Building Div. Engineering Div. Traffic Engineering Div. 10 Utilities Engineering Div . FROM: Planning Department, (signed by responsible official or his designee) A / 4,4;_e- erns+- SUBJECT: Review of ECF- 35-/-7$Application No . : R -/73 -'s Action Name : e,Ye „, / , Please review the attached. Review requested by (date) : G ., A. 24/f Note: Responses to be written in ink. REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : Department : OL4)63' Comments : 6 r mac„...„" ems.-.- !c2 i/-eQ-w. ,r ay zAre ICCJ j/ Signature of Director r Authorize Representative Date REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : Department : Alt/ „n 4,,, Comments : 5_72‹_L .r•(rc:`i e C-4 5-__3e) _--7e Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : Department : a / 1/1, vcg ti E'GYfy Comments : y A.0"e- _Z; /72 a44/2/ O'i1=-yt if',She. 0 4/7ff Signature of Director or Authorize d Repr sentative Date REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : i Department : Comments : Signature of Director or Authorized 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 r w PROPOSED/FINAL ''_.LARATION OF SIGNIFICANCE/NGN-SIGNIFICANCE Application No . R-178-78 PROPOSED Declaration Environmental Checklist No . ECF-351-78 0 FINAL Declaration Description of proposal City initiated rezone of five contiguous parcels consisting of 12. 1± acres from R-3 to R-1 . Proponent CITY OF RENTON Location of Proposal Renton Hill Lead Agency City of Renton Planning Department This proposal has been determined to have x not have a significant adverse impact upon the environment . An EIS 0 is Bois not required under RCW 43 . 21C . 030 ( 2 ) (c ) . This decision was mane after review by the lead agency of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency . non Reasons for declaration of environmental/significance : This negative declaration only applies to the rezone of the subject site. Additional environmental review will be required as part of specific site development review. 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 Officia' Gordon Y . Ericksen Title P nin . sir;, or 7Date June 5 , 1978 Signat A di-- f City of Renton Planning Department 5-76 1MU it/ illi ''`'8% ,, ,pso• ! ,in, „...,:i.r.i41,17: 1: ii, 1 leirmife. ii. i.:Jillit pa iitiqd 1 im bo 17,:r,„...,,, r- Maim V • ,11iir, 7 f . r1.JCL atlinupippi,ram c' Ti Ill`• 1. ii/ / 0 N.2; u 1-;c; ...P'..' -i.•, i.LraiXtY.•• ' .s. r. .mur i ,- , K-4 \ ‘‘77 i7 LA, min Fw lm, I , ;-,...t, 4., I 43 • -,._.:V ..±.W. 1,,wi" / T 0 IN Sli_ E 1W-40' 71 ,- ,.. r>911ft! 74,5111r I I._ r 1 'f?' '' L/BERTY a'' .fd GS RJgRK I p eV II ali I MT OLIVE T M. ,_. • • 6 ' f, or 4M CEMETERY II I raf:, mounn, ristiar,9 lai il NUMMI 1 i It1,11,, .Rim For,!wart , 1...1 4.. .„.,:.... 0 rr f s.• :4.r, titir i+:C;:rw• r a Si \; ` r g1— 1• 7 tea. jJ. "+: } • .*., y.. : t7 J ...(••::Y{!'t.I i., ,ii ari• 1 ,. I i;-•"rti?-JY:~F'rc`'f%9• trig.. ' n.'=:. f- \ R _ I ' or I t. te W 1. -_ ce.,.,,i,:v., ..,,..2,.......;.„...:,:...:Atic,: a_ g I.I l I jti:tv1.3"::fti'•'fi•'..`r: :t.S. :?:• 1' + W. \ 1 1-Tr it rt1-• ^4;. .t •jt,• t'A'J:i•+.yF7.',...c ' i:..'N I I I J 7 r1 4f-;. ....•x:Pl.:.' t.;,M'•. ]*><,•.'!`'v:•d .., 1. 1'I As ,... .t7 an LI Eno:if` \ t•t•?'L.;.. .,Y. .....:'%• h•:i. 7.: w,4 r•ter a.' ini t kr Ida IFF., . 1 ita ex.: ,N::1111. \ -f-- liggs I n 1 ti/:;. SI2 of'..;'`t ry' •"'e:.! IN,•ra \ « '.yft••'Fr+:, r`!.• Tt. •i..''Hr(y...k 1 4ii/7T4--''1-I _9L\ •.ti•• `>:'Wi^1•- "l'ir+ ':',";' II liST. r•-. •7 I I 1 GS. ..-1 SR-I . t. t, + .•.f Co N TRPE,A l APPLICANT . CITY OF RENTON TOTAL AREA 74. 58+ acres PRINCIPAL ACCESS Mill Avenue South and Houser Way EX? SUNG ZONING H-1 Heavy Industry and P-1 Public Use EXISTING USE Approximately 15% in Industry , remainder vacant PROPOSED USE Single Family 'residential conforming to the Comprehensive P1aTi COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN Single Family , Greenbelt, and Recreation COMMENTS The proposed rezoning will bring the zoning of the subject site into conformance with the Comprehensive Plan . No physical development is proposed at this time . RECEIVED CITY OF RENTON HEARING EXAMINER PLANNING DEPARTMENT SEP 2 61978 PRELIMINARY REPORT TO HEARING EXAMINER AM PM 718r91101111121112a3,4i.5/6 PUBLIC HEARING SEPTEMBER 26 , 1978 EXHIBIT NO. / APPLICANT : CITY OF RENTON ITEIVI NO. q_ / ?- 7g' FILE NUMBER: REZONE-219-78 - RENTON HILL , PHASE III A. SUMMARY OF REQUEST The applicant proposes a rezone of the existing H-1 Heavy Industrial to R-1 and S-1 Single Family Residential for the Phase III area of Renton Hill . B. GENERAL INFORMATION : 1 . Owner of Record : City of Renton, Puget Sound Power & Light Co. Lona Chapman Interpace Corporation Burlington Northern Railroad Stoneway Sand & Gravel Co. 2. Applicant: City of Renton 3. Location:Property located east of the existing Renton Hill single family residence neighborhood and north of South 7th Street in a northeasterly direction to the center of the Cedar River. 4. Legal Description: A detailed legal description is available on file in the Renton Planning Department (as attached) . 5. Size of Property:76. 88 acres 6. Access : Via Grant Avenue South and South 7th Street. 7. Existing Zoning : R-3, Residential Multiple Family; H-1 , Heavy Industrial District; P-1 , Public Use District. 8. Existing Zoning in the Area : R-1 , Residence Single Family; GS-1 , Residence Single Family; O" , General Classification District ; R-3 , Residential Multiple Family. 9. Comprehensive Land Use Plan : Single Family Residential , Green - belt. 10. Notification: The property owners were notified in writing of the hearing date . Notice was properly published in the Record Chronicle and posted in three places on or near the site as required by City ordinance. C . PURPOSE OF .REQUEST: The application was filed to review the existing zoning in relation to the Comprehensive Plan. vi-I,J---- --)-1-t4Loaziciaacog0:219 a* oar -,,,42-....•••••••• • mi im on. . • cecir-incxm.81••,. 7---...-:.•-7:• ...if iNi tit99/21 /soly-be ervyv * 2.c.in l'-‘050- Let•si: i . 1-- . ri r ?, i.el_ •i4/ . qii . fuer t . iTij.:L NV' ll ild1,--.' 1 ,de e • • " ' • 1" i- ' • 1 .11 •°, Tiit:T•iii:i•ii:::•Pa% i C-a_rceursti--1-A-AlaNn 1. 4. . .. •• ..• : • • • .• .• : - el, Os A." "L. i 0 •0•10.71 • .. • • , 1. itlii, 7 zie- r . .. ...-::......- 1,.•- • •• •_ .. • . 0. .. I .d-.7-71wr :•:.A.::•‘":'-'••••••':• e:: • e ••••°: ••• • : • °I SI ;'. Q.' • e• .'•••• • 1 ::iii.!::iiiiiii.li 11.100'; ' ‘-- ricl -1vri*-16 90ilUIT •''''''":........... %., •• •• • e•• • • •° ° 0 '• ) ' i':'::::=::::V::::':* I• 16 s .. ,mly.i.,) up T a, Ill. ::.:...:.:•.;"..!... .. 0 i_a - Atirkil I : . ...•••:: .. ::::: i- Oe• :- at•e 0.• .°ae° • •-.eae ° * • -.1: • 1• • . • •:;--:.:;.. :: ••• f AriSVy•• • .00. . 1 i A s. , y.::::::i::!:::: •,. ,. :::: liN_.. iRr .ii',..,.... .:\•i' . ii! • ,. .:':::::•:.: r*. -:::••• .....,.m" 4 2/.• 0.0•144,--/ • 7- • 1, A..%•••••:.:''''.-'•••••••••••••••::••••.... . a.. ty..._ 1•=11-a4C1 Cl11.1-.4G424_.*I It' . p ;:: . ::iii !!:.:1F.! ItilltlIT'l b [I:,W caw- . •:::•,,,::iii:_:: ,.._,....,,,, r''',...;.....s.:-,........, : e°% V- ,' -5," ,••• •• . •..,:•::::::.: 1, 1. i 1:„•;;;: i7,F.:41i;:aricar,:-..--„.• 07 ...-.....,.....-.........:.........::::,...... ''......._• 43 • 0.0 iiai,ii..::::i ..i: .F•;.i.:•,:ii,:i f it .„...itj 4 • ---tN011 _Loni.::•::••:..,.i..1:5....... .5,..............................,... 4:4 i;:::.":•::..;::...!,:---, ; E:iiii.F ii::i.:- .44.„,,:.::::::.:•:::•. 4skli.-„,.:-...:-..... • • c-- • ;,• •- --:•:•• ! Ei;iiir'iii:i:::::"iii: :: :::::" irtir-I - . a . '- 2.:i.: :::f".ii.1 iiiL•-:--.I:--..aearriniexklaW -•,- -- "••::•*•:•-••:.-•••. 1 .• " I'41.. . 7p%.i,f,---.::.:....--.......•MA'u" va;rv•-.,... AfirsiLm''''`__ ......iimma:.-Skl.,,„ ...........:........::.:?.:•......::.§.•:. 1. \ 11.,.._. . ., le _11,, . _.................................................................. '. iik" 4r Ile . . _t_r_d2, ,,c1 •, i..14.,„eil..4wy•,-,,..-_.s..„• o• ___ , -‘,,...,••••••:.:::::::.:....%,- 7,-- • a L. •:::::.:::::::: .•:•!:::.::::. ::::: : ... • v•+.%-- ------- - ---,% . ,, iv..:::::5•..,k,,kif- evete„;sal..--*••.,--. .,..i!F.,::::!::.:--,..:::...ii:.F....!;::.;: 1; v , ,,,-... ,, ri 47:-•i:"•!:i:: i. i:::!•.*::::!:: iiii:i:.•:i:!.;i:'ii::i• ii: i:.i:%'.i:i: i.': I•.:'.i•::".i::.i.:' .•;,;. i:!;•i!;:: E::.::::::; i:;:i::;:i:;:::l-”::i:l::;„::;:!.,!'.:•.• i-"--: J•,-_--_.-2-- P-=_=-- L_•.•..•,:.-•1A. 4- i 0iZi IiI• '''.• i‘.•.i.l..:.....**:.*..*. 4..„..1,.,..:••:...:...•......,"....;e.-R...-..... j,...,.:, 1.,.: n$.. s- a,-:.'4''5"',,-:'"' N•••:.•..:"-.t.........,2'.:..:::•... .-••-,-.-,,,., c•.:;•::: i!•,: i:- i::;' Y: i•..::i• ii:...-r.':::.-.:ii.F7:::.:: v.::? i..•..:::'::!.:::•:, i: 1:: E:;-::':•:i,::...-;:?::::::;.:•„:::::..i,. 7.:: i:-:,:.,! i- i,, _.-j--f_-----a- Th••-•. ri• o• i' I,fo,.,,.r i,,i0-I.. I.. J. r..l. r. m- 0..,;•1,^ Ii-' .,• CiN.a)ze 490 callSOcra iii:i3::-'""-- ....- 7;iiger"'",..,eaCi‘% --------, 11111IF plle'.:-: .7.1`n,, .., '"4'C'.. 1 ,,,, .i5.i.•. .: . !' --•:-ii-F_-%41111 1 1.15-Li-f.- t . i.,t''.:..":•...... , '% ...••••..'•••---. - ar t 4-zram J.Na2r3-__LiiNn no - n.._ ...,..:•......:::: •---- . i ,,..... , ,......„. gm., maw po s. 11 . s, .." ILILIkkk ..,:-....,---:. 1 • . .1 y"".- s• 7-1-""-......:."`,-,. ..-''.„,...\ F.it•• p :i.....;„:::::::i -12'L- ta...,_,,,Kul .•.' •' ::.....:'::::.':• -- - --,••• l••• -- QS r 4 I II i 1(('. . er..--7-2., .,,t !,,,, E__-•AltoIII )) kli)i ".. tk_ .-t---=---.....- -, ---zr-:---A V,11 x A I..... ',:iiFi:: -_z- -.,- Z: • l•-•AN - .-.-•••st&,.i. -''.--.2.47-2"•'-.....:;$V:-..-.4. ,1•5111,:ikk\ i..... .li ._-___ 41 er-.-E•A . gc.,a •-aci CoNt.1c)4/\A- -)9(VA)iiiN •:::.r... : ''' i' ir11 1 ,kiNs''rift.-...--2--!!"..•44 -4t•---=..._.,,,,%'7 R,4•V•VVN„ 14.1. 4 : ii::::H::w:ii. ----- -- • i 415INin '"-7-=-.. --:17,- --- --.-„,--;.-_-: ‘.A.„, ... ::?,:.:..?:::-::: -.•_;' ---4.; Ai_,, --1. 11, Av 1 unn.1.1... •.-k.,:-.T.;_.- --_..:.7 _..,....„....,, z,..,,..-.4. , ,t.,,st _„ :•::::. :::.:.:... -__ •-_____. ,..,_i \ 4, 11 ;:r---- •:•••. i . iii ii. iiiii 1 0...,...„z. - -, . . .,:".::::::::,:::.,: ., _____ . _-.-.17‘. • .. ." /nt 11.1611 1., I 1 1 rel.' .. "41 .'"` ii.:.:ii; ::::.... --- • ..--.. . . .•art.:: • •• ,I,.. . I,' I .. . ,_ ,- - t!iii•'./..... ,...: ... Ifrt•-r- -••I.... 41 p... -av•-:',.:4;iii giiir ii` II -4!1.:Fizz.------z-vi - i. . ; :!::'i.:!!;:ii :; - ---:_--et4Its.4 k kr.,.Ni.ti,:.• . EL•. ..... •• :.. ••:•...-• •Z...,„ , • i 11.11.11,1., •111 1111 '•-.77,:, 4... .;.:i.f.ii. _-G.' ,, IR.,-AI I 1-401-1,VVIOA N 1,-Ti.,_._ 39:: . ii --• II IIIIIIIIII . , 11111) iiii`F. S lis-li :iiiiF.::_iiiiiii:NE.;i:::ii!:11,.i',.1.-",i -L•7_7, •,1:- I ; 1--10.14N45•J .61.1. 0• , 'utiti. ------ ----_. V.,1•• • A II , 1 I'. " I . 111 ii:'( V ',. ., II -tr:;-•:::::-:...:::: .: - -1.-::.:•.;,;,inr:•=, . .. v 4••• II 1 , •, -, :::::i:::::,.::::::.•:,,,,,::......i:.:........ A.••MM. ... •• :•• • •• .. . •N....,,•' I,VIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII1 III 1 N i :::.:.::::::.::::::::;!;.,.;ii:iii:,:i..,;,,*rektititir:- I II I " 1 11111 : ' 45k,.-•!:F;iii:::'•E'''.i•i:--; ;:;--1-4-••:**II---. • p,.4. I III 8‘.., IIIIIMINI 1 ; '! • 7' .q"i'i%::•.;;:i;•:1'7iiiV.n::::F'::::* 66.,i 11111 i• • --111 h\A aNsce-1 -1NvIL D• •••\ , -71` ••• - titt - ' z: 11111 1111111 1 1 . \ii:•....J. ;,:..fii, i:ji:.;,;!i. iff.:.:7r, . nr" e-I. i• _ 43:Fr,'",..r- . a34, , , ,_ I 1111111 I I It . :iii;:-.''........ ',.!...:7".....'S. ' •• -`,.I II I '4N I ' ' ,.i:.2.,•:::;"4%-::::::."=• • - "'''irP Milli 'I - riat-ii -210 N'yclSrin L.4,410 I•••••• 19.:fif", - ..,.. i nil '11 .(kit ••Ii................•.•.:•..i.j...•............................ f* il'IlliOates.- -4'-. . 4 A......: -, .„, . 1144 •....,.sk:.:::•..:;,•.••::•.::2-. 111A; ''' 1.•ii--41 , 11..7.: •-joa•06 #• - -: .7 - :',,,4.t,. -..st%,,,,........... .r•z.:•,. ." 4•• Ill .0'1 s it..• ••. •••• PO4 a 4*-. 4, ' . * ----',7',-- "- 14:•..""=...---‘,•,,.....=..:= --- Li 1 iii API i Aro 4 ‘--••••4•*o.s. •woo • 6::••_• • . T•*. •\ 6-•-••••., ..-7-,-,. ..,,,.'...4*.___ mi..' ' ,----..::. ,J'e 14••••••• 0.11 ••• 04---,. ""••••..iiii.-4,--.-____-__ . . dr ,-.iv, i t I IIIIL k;I:'::.. s • io4. .. 4-0•-•_urreys - dpu••4p• • .•••••---- ,..1 -., ow • 41. if g.I.V...:•::;'5",, •••• 4. eral -:.: _ 40•...... .•: •411c1:411.• :::: ••. 46' ••0....' , . iv,'• , ---,WA III iNvi•Dliiw 4ptilmIvi 2?..::....... i„• - ,.... 14411"---„,,, ,,, li ;.\-or 1-524.-::::- -. ', : 44,,, '4_000_ -_ sp TB 111111111 -11111 .i 11414":...... .:•• it • ., ,. . % mmi It' tilitilli 10- , :Vb a • - et v1:1$:.• '. **••••-• \ •• *' ••• A., e. 0• 1 1 1 11 111111 11 1/-4(1 I ArrriN,i, ' / 0 ••••;;••••••:# • •• ''l . N •,_‘, 111111111111111g3;:,-...4,-% • -,•••%. e'Ite m••.• ••••••• • •,..• AiLi.: ' ••••••••:..-:••••... .t, it 1 1 II db.N - inuillowiliii .- .9i\rs - 1\7/CIQ 01701:1:.:1.:1•41:1:::. y..t.mit.3...,.... ....••••:,....... .. ..I* •::• i ••:•-•• ••::• t•••::••• •'••:•••••••/ 111 11111/1 411111111MM t.%:::•§I:K:1:::§§..::::::::::•:•::::::...•:.::-./..1.-.% % 0‘,4 . • ••6•..1••• t:••• •••••:••b••4•••• III 1111 111.11 .111.11.. '1111111111110:.§....M.0:.1.?:::M.n....**4.-1iM:.. .:•., ••••• ••••a• •••• • • •• ••••••_ ••••. iii. , il 11.1 .1 11111111111111.111111%.. '114114143.::::?:4..:W:t??;; . *:::.: :W? ':. • ••••• •• •• • •• a,*••• •••••• VIII 11 1 'v:::••••••-•••••,---•••••••••-• •••••• •••••• •••••• •••••• ••••••• milipindin666h l'il Ae0-10001,1,3:4-,.....,,,,,,,,......,:::,,,,::::,:::::,::::::::.:::,:,..*::,::::,::::... ••••••:••••...••••••,:••.....•••••.• . t tIJAWRIII I 111111111111111111111111.1111.1i. .' A.,....474-vA477,A.F. ...7.--4-7, 7.,::: :: ••••__ ••••-_ _ ::•••• _ 440••...::::••• 11.111.911.M.1.1.1111.1.1.1.11111111111111111i.,,A.:4,...... .-..-46.. ,,,,...,,ws.,...v.........,,W6m.:::. 06:::!,•;::_ 4,...!_ PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT TO HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING : CITY OF RENTON , R-1,29-78 SEPTEMBER 26 , 1978 PAGE TWO D. HISTORY/BACKGROUND : A small portion in the northwest extreme of the subject site was part of the original plat of the City. The middle portion to the east was annexed by Ordinance #738 in 1925. The eastern and largest portion was annexed in Ordinance #1965 dated May 27 , 1959 and repealed by Ordinance #1787 of September 1 , 1959 and Ordinance #1789 dated September 9, 1959. The original zoning classification was adopted by Ordinance #1472 on. December 18, 1953 . E. PHYSICAL BACKGROUND : 1 . Geology - The geology of this area is closely related to the formation of the Cedar River Valley in this area . At the north end of the site, the existance of the Cedar River has created an area of QaC Cedar River alluvium north of its banks . To the south , urban development of the shallow bench above the river has created an area designation both af-artificial fill and afm-urban or industrial land with fill . The steep slopes along the southern valley wall area a combination of Qg-glacial drift (undifferentiated ) , Tr-Renton formation , Qu-undiffer'entiated deposits , and an area of Qmc-colluvium. Above the valley area and trending to the south and east is a continuous deposit of Qgt-Ground Motaine deposits forming the plateau above Renton Hill . See figure E-1 for more detail on geologic conditions in this area . Source: USGS Map QG-405 ; 1965. 2. Topography - The subject site lies on the southern slope of the Cedar River Valley which trends. in a northwesterly direction. Commencing at the extreme north end of the site , slopes are gentle-moderate along the banks of the Cedar River. Moving southerly, slopes become flat-gentle in an area encompassing about 30% of the site area. To the south and east this shelf is bounded by steep and very steep slopes extending to the top of the valley area at the extreme south . This steep slope area encompasses about 40% of the subject area . Above the valley area , at the extreme south of the site , the hill rolls south and east at flat-gentle slopes . See figure E-2 for more detail on slopes in this area . Souce: USGS Map #1 -852-E ; 1975. 3. Slope Stability - Related to both underlying geologic conditions and slopes is slope stability. USGS has classified five general categories of stability. This site is classified in four categories . Slopes areas of less than 15% slope to the north (along Cedar River) and above the valley. to the south are classified as stable even when modified by man . Portions of the steep valley slopes in excess of 15% slope are designated as normally stable , but may become unstable due to man ' s activities . The steepest slope areas ranging through . the center of the valley walls are areas which readily become unstable due to natural events and to man ' s activities . One corner of the site contains an old landslide PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT TO HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING : CITY OF RENTON , R-219-78 SEPTEMBER 26 , 1978 PAGE THREE deposit which is apparently stable now, but stability could change with changes in ..climate or slope . See figure E-3 . Source : USGS Map 1 -852 A; 1973. The material that moves as a result of slope stability is a landslide. Landslides occur when the pull of gravity on earth materials overcomes their frictionaly resistance to downslope movement. Slope stability is affected by ( 1 ) type of earth materials - unconsolidated, soft sediments or surficial desposits will move downslope easier than consolidated , hard bedrock; (2) structural properties of earth materials - the orientation of the layering of some rocks and sediments relative to slope directions , as well as the extend and type of fracturing and crushing of the materials , will affect landslide potential ; (3 ) steepness of slopes - landslides occur more readily on steeper slopes ; (4) water - land- sliding is generally more frequent in areas of seasonally high rainfall , because the addition of water to earth materials commonly decrease their resistance to sliding ; water decreases internal friction between particles , decreases cohesive forces that bind clay minerals together , lubricates surfaces along which slippage may occur, adds weight to surficial deposits and bedrock , reacts with some clay minerals , causing volume changes in the material , and mixes with fine-grained unconsolidated materials to produce wet, unstable slurries ; (5 ) graund ' shaking - strong shaking during earthquakes can jar and loosen bedrock and surficial materials , thus making them less stable ; (6) type of vegetation- trees with deep penetrating roots tend to hold bedrock and surficial deposits together , thereby increasing ground stability; 7 ) proximity to areas undergoing active erosion - rapid undercutting and downcutting along stream courses and shorelines makes slopes in these areas particularly susceptible to landsliding . Source: Urban Geology Master Plan for California : California Division of Mines and Geology: 1973. Landslides are an especially common risk in class 3 areas . See the attached excerpt from USGS related to slope stability/landslide problems designated figure E-4 . Source : USGS Map 1 -852 A; 1973 . 4 . Soils - This site is underlain by numerous soils types related both to the formation of the Cedar River Valley and man ' s urban development in recent times . Alderwood gravelly sandy loam (AgC ) : Permeability is moderately rapid in the surface layer, and subsoil ; very slow in the substratum. Runoff is slow to medium, and the hazard of erosion is moderate . This soil is used for timber , pasture , berries , row crops and urban development. This soil has a moderate limitation for foundations , due to a seasonal high water table and slope. It has severe limitations for septic tank filter fields due to very slow permeability in the substratum. Alderwood and Kitsap soils , very steep (AkF ) : This consists of about 50% Alderwood gravelly sandy loam and 25% Kitsap silt loam. Slopes are 25 to 70 percent. Permeability varies . Runoff is rapid to very rapid and the erosion hazard is severe to very severe. The slippage potential . is severe. This soild has a severe limitation for founations and septic tanks and filler fields , due to slope and slippage potential . This soil is used for timber. 1 t 10ad I G09 G Oa& a7Z w%••a SLbI Z _I d S i U:AI!'D air Irr -' .' . .. I I I 1 01 1`Ip y yrr".r•'A/. ^\ w I • ';* }. 17 E.: G. A/ I - w F i NI 1 I..................... rwPCji p- f. 1 i.i:q': e.'`. : a 41,474,464.447,7 tr••••l f1*1/A.4e L•. 1 i`•` e f xM 4 Ij 4' /1t ry 1...Q 1.•11. •!•l,• .• • 1• ' a it .••• t T tso, lL.Ir1,:41/j 4.$48•!1 1• •- "•,:?ii:•.;: ..:•ii':" .;.:..i•.'..'•'r" a II, I. 1. • - 1 ! r •• 1.1 i11••1•a' a 3 ... Tn•. . io-.r ri.. Il as it t`-I` i9 V il/Ir 1 l:A;'a`ter•Q •.••i`.. 1, o,• e e t • f •:E" a 1_ t I,t rt tj/••ri;t - ,70-16,6"•i.•A.4 4•4 111V1,4A1 ,`--ram..' r* 1 ,-•'f: rnY .:. : 1 "!or `I r`'. , , acl r.h l 4 ! C, rq..e7 s•/re C•• •1 j v , .r t •. 1{1• •" ®' ir?••_4, •••.! •iiCt r 1;• •• .r.•1a Ar_ dt 41®d jam. i :!.r.,w R«140 1 1 1 1.••, e i,+_Dire6 )1t140•6 6Ape..c .•:0°t.',° ac•.; a - 1_ *:.y -. J-S h4p11i 1y 1,1 fi• {• a : ~ V r11 I Ij'f- , ids •;_, , •8a' 13 p d^i. _rioQ 0,.. r n04t••'1M'.1~I yA• 0:-•. ::—. a • J h 1 I4x -.40-•st a •'' • aI Q ll rif 4. 0. '• 1:' '•1*t'~41 1i 1. rac- a 5, `.'.•.14.74. -ti-1/0+1 i,h® i •,,- ''yi y-. r'' 1:. 1 ir1,,,y:,j 1•1S* 7 e e`'t ja• y.ri i1 i1`+3.•. ' .` I G I 1 ac Qi440,1 1 h ii 1 i ilk ' Mj1111 1b4011 vi r/'1i tir $0,0 1 0. j i ' •®; rill®e tc 1•a •i`1 1 1/j/r11•' 1 1t 1 sr•!i!n! . O A < ram. ir ew+ 9•I 1 1`•a°111i 1 j r a.. Ii 1-•'ir i1`1 0+1 1•`+i1 r_ s• w r44i v:;: ;: :+w,v'.!;• e'`•:: : a; •`/y•vii,66• Q I*dj i4•4. :••',4 * 044a4t•0 A:re•-4 115 -' - e a® • 'P l: '7:ate 0jam way 11 i 1i1y'4.*4its 0J•aw 8 111.4* -' 10 f •• • '® l ti4,4 t" ¢t "F: r •- i,4r.. /11`Far;.1 ,-\,1•..r r } r .- ®•` 151-1 nS:>:.: •., wr .;. . ::.• > • -..'..':'` :•1 Aar*4 1 1.tj+1v•ar:•M 1 1••1).'i, ••f: Ir®9 •` ® ; ). ® 1CJ i,,. x .. r:»»:>:::. o*'' A:1j?I nl"",,,,.)111..1NA itti ia t;i.n. ,.s ii:..a•1 r• i,;, a :ft• S,f• -jam•:.::::..'t ti • i:> :?;::; ::i:>:: fi,.;n„ :<ak00 gild 1" r.: °• ••"^'tea ••. C:' 1\a..,1.• r Yr • t t.' , `•i x.:.:. .....:.:.:.:.::::::::::.:...::::.::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::..........„..........„....„...„,„„:„.„:„..:..:.:,..,..._.„......„,„:„.„,...,„,,„„...„„,_.,....,,,.. R a r/ r's W •lat ore- '-7;: dr.. ektir: N. \\i.iiiing?...:Inniip:W:i::.: zzEisi.;;::::-..s,,,,,... .,:ii:::: :•:,:::,.::::::::.:i...,„,"%::::: :,,,::::::0:0?:::ii*:;i:i*:':.:•..,:•.::.::-i-:-i.i.:::::i:: '41117:::;PI- Q i s qi i e ° .a5_ v.'264,••. v., s.-.».°:.:.rya- e° 1. R, J.70•' eY d,411. `•R,•t/... i x d..r ;-;p S. xr° r 1 -,„-,.a •a r c'• ^ 4 r.4^gp yO g• ` Pe rrit3 4 e,.ems eo•.. Yn.y vim2.11:::k.,1y ' 7.-N.11::::.:::;•it::::::: ° L*: t.s: lam r;.;1):E:ii:: yi 7 I xi is • ::::.v.:•••, q ram:,,;,,, r 2\\\ y:5:} :4.:{. X..:.i•i•.i•:ti :i':5: }:?::'$5: Y,{ {:i::•W.:_. :::: .:ti fig Mi*E:EiliiiiE:i:1:EiiEiii:iii:i:i:i:M:- • 43,:L3riG iti}0::'i•.. J: 1.. . :.:. :::::::..... s,„,„,.t. ..,„:„.,:::,,,:::::„.......—.—....."...„.... L 1 PtO SOME POSSIBLE IMPLICATIONS TO LAND USE Slopes potentially most troublesome to land use are those Geologic conditions may strongly influence relative stability classified as 2 and 3. Landslides are an especially common on slopes of similar steepness.Most of the geologic materials risk in class 3 areas. Costly construction, such as large-scale in the map area are flat-lying and relatively weak glacial or excavation and removal of unstable ground, installation of alluvial deposits. The composition and physical characteristics drains, and special foundations may be necessary to insure of such deposits vary greatly, both laterally and vertically:- stability. Some alternative land uses include open space for Of particular importance is the occurrence of relatively greenbelts, refuges for wildlife, park land, golf courses, and impermeable materials, such as tight silt or clay, beneath or hiking trails. within more permeable materials,_such as sand or gravel In class 2 areas, minor changes made by man may or may figs. 14). Water moving through earth materials can saturate not affect slope stability. The apparent stability of class 2 those which are permeable (sand or gravel) and is impeded slopes can be deceptive: their potential instability might be by beds which are impermeable (silt or clay).The result may obscured and the necessity for special regulation of land be to cause springs to flow from a hillside near the contact developments might not be apparent. between the sand and clay, or to saturate the thin overlying Land areas of class I generally should pose few.stability soil materials that blanket the slopes, or to saturate the sand problems during land development. Uncontrolled construc- above the silt or clay;such saturation may cause the materials tion activities,however,can convert stable slopes into unstable to lose cohesion and move downslope. ones. Other kinds of geologic materials also are important to the stability of a slope. Hard rock forms steep. normally stable UNDERSTANDING SLOPE STABILITY slopes along some of the bluffs bounding mainland stream valleys: it also forms slopes of variable steepness in the moun- Stability of slopes is influenced by two general kinds of tains in the eastern part of the mapped area..In most places. conditions: constant and changing. The constant factors. slopes on hard rocks are stable. However, soil and slope such as the general steepness of the land surface and the types debris overlying the rock may be unstable. Commonly, the and interrelation of geologic materials, tend to determine the thin soil and debris are highly permeable but the underlying location of slope instability. Changing factors, such as rock is not. When saturated, the soil and debris move down- erosion, man's activities, and addition of moisture tend to ward and the surface of the rock acts as a slip surface. determine the timing and frequency of landslides. Of these Two aspects of slope stability are not evaluated on this changing factors, the addition of excess moisture, most map. No attempt is made to determine or depict the effect commonly by rainfall, is probably the most crucial in the of landslide debris encroaching upon flat, stable surfaces Puget Sound region. As a result,most landslides occur during from unstable slopes uphill; sites along the base of class 3 the rainy season. slopes should be evaluated for this potential risk. Also, no. assessment is made of the stability of man-made cuts and fills. v_., 04. ../ h , N S- 1, ,;',.s. N% _SWIM 5TAINLire c ....... 0 630 ') E,-::::•" 0-.-_--,-,-_-_-_„--_ L-- ---,s, \\.1,--1"- 7 7.-.„2".46;...:-- .41111.^ ''....•.e 0 \- '• 4-411ip k. N s • eiew••••-•-. . -*.-_*-- - 4\IZZ:::7 ---. .--...", 4 ......::. * V-(\,---j \ - r\ls'-‘‘s•\ .. x..412,p4"?' ..•N;C:0:::::::,::,:::.5-... '--- *4 c,, '10,',:</:- _. . Aliti,-"._\ •‘.....r.-- :I"-EW: CY11± LH_. ,.__l:•...::::::••;:•::::: :i: : Ii....-,,-...::::•:;:•:•::::::: 0,..., ',.• e ----... •:,,, ,....4livaikaarint. t.:••.. iiti..•••'.136- :' -.;..;:'.,!:::.•:- • .^ .N.,, --t '') '''-. ';'...„. — wiikv;.;•....::::-:.::;:.::::Z'''''•••....''''-'7'w.%10::::•':; ::....* - 0 q t;'''Fa't tilai;:',1".:i ::. 10.kly::::,.:::A."::::•:::.::‘, ii:i.60• :::::::.:.:::•):•..../:,:•.:.4:,..'::: ::.;... .•'`::.::.•::::', ..:.•'. 1 A \i:i:..K:123' •-;;;;.:: :::#:::Ii#.. 0.1141112 :.::•:•::.?':..:3 ..:•:. I 1 IIN:r . g s --'Wie ' 'ge.:iii-,•,.. val.,gi :iiii:i:::::-,.,,„9;u:ii„:::--:..-.:i:iiiiii-1., ::.. :.:::•::: .•:, iiiiiiii::. -,i,E14:iifaills'...-..::.:x:e'ii,:•••••::.::-....:.•• •••••-•!•:' ''':•:•; :::.:' • 0 N..CL.Acf7 r . 7..,:m::.:.:::: ::::,,,,,,,,...1.:1, :::.::., • I 11t:-i.i.i::7 .••.•.:- ••.:!:`:;:-.:•.:-.:".7.•:::11::.7.:r.'n:*:•i• 7.:7.'':'PI:V. :'?:::1;',_ I # to,ei.ii : :,: :. .Igniaiii:...::....?...5:!...:.: :,.:.•!:::::?:,.1:t.::: Slopes stable even where modified by man. Slopes low, gen- ii.....i:1:i • i 2 e 4 4,....,. ' -z• 4 ' :'-,... X'....4, , ..:•511:•:•:•:•:•:•:•: 7%''.10:•.'0.*:e.'. *:::•:+:•:•:..- 4 0 -.14. r--- 1 .'"-•-• ...-',... •-... •1::., 4 J V‘erally lower than 15%. E..,:i:::......• :-*i..0.0,.:ii*i::::•:*i:::::•":. :•:•:•.•:•:•::::•:•:•••••:••••••.,-,',":,•:,:...••:..:10 :•:.3:4:::.... . a/*.i:0::::00„-::::.:::•:,, kt.-'•-;,,,,NogV5'.';''':!:•:;:•:::;'::..,....i::r.::i:i::... t-, trz;44:,.i::•*.-. qe.tr,...•'t*,',..•-:1•:-•:::•:,:. *::::•;:'•"•:-::::•.•.- L.,n iy... . 4.. .1.:;::::::M:i*::' ..r.::::::::::./:.::.°.*i:i. 4':.•:•"::•.--::•:.:•::•:•:::••-••••::•::„....*:*:.: . - (2)- 74i.i:i::::::x:x .:m i..**i:i::••x:i.:... .. 1 L:.,::::::...:::::...,.:::::-:;,.,,,- \*-:•:•:•..., ... z.-:•••••::-.7,!----:;.,,,-;.;V::::... 444:.::••• -...• ...... . a7 .:.:,.. ..e.......: ::..::iv::.*.::ea.,•,,,,:•::..,.......w.'.::::::::::: . -..:::,:.::•fe.,-;•:•.".%::•Z`::::::%;.,-4::":*"....... .".1,411111111aNt, e2,:• •...:::.:.:::::-.:::::::::::::44-g-kyi8.wr6..::::::::::::::.::- :•:::••••!:•:-.-,-,::....,•:•::-. -::i::.•::::.::.:..:.^ , = 4 IL.,4..:::::*::1:'::::::,::,.-..-:: , 5:55.:::::if::i:i:i:::','•.%.:••:•:•;:••:,..":••••.::•,',,'0. ::...'-:::::::::::::::::::::.*::::::*:.•-% k,-.0.::,* •;I; „,'.... ...:::::::::::::::::::f:::::-.-••::":,!:•:•••..•-..'••••,V:::•:•::••.-::,..„•.••::::::::::i::KM:A.;:.::*..;.;.....„.- .„,, C.1-06 2_ 1%•::::: IN:s::::::::::::::::: 49:' ....II'4:.1,-.74.....,....::.:*::.:1::,(4‹.:•:•.:::::::::::::::.::::::::":::::::::::::::::,..... ‘ ,.... ii:.t?,... : iii::-.::iii::::::;ili:i::::.1.,.: ••*.:::::-::::: c .:•:.;:•.:.;%!.::,;• 7.,::•;;::•:".;%::::::::::::::::::::::;:::K:::e•- -•:-::::i:::•::::.:„ „..- --2r-7Slopesnormallystable. but may become unstable due to r........... k.' r as4... t., 2%...,man's activities. Slopes moderate, generally steeper than 0,::?:.;,:i•iii:i::.it:;w:::-• ..:••--.:"FrAgerlik- ,%.,,V•:::::::,,•!-':::•::,:i:::::':V:-:f::.-:;.":;•;:-:.-.‘•...:••:-::-:::-.• . .,!?4'::::: iii..... .:Z3V...1114•-•••:•i::.*:.:.:.M:::!--*-7."...-:•:i::*::...:.....,•,...:-:•:::::.:1:::...-,>;;%::K:-..:... 15%. Not underlain by clay beds, but may include ancient 40.•• P:-•,:,:.:-..;-.::i*:.•••:. ::•••••••• iihexiiv-•••'-'._ ••••A-*:::•=20:'.'::::::•::.':::•:;-...::::!:;::':•*-::e..,•:::::::::::•:;:4, ,r ,- .......i;.i.:*:.,'':.:....... f...•• .::::::.:,..x.:-.•,,,:.:.:..-:,.:.....:..:::f:1i:. „...3J.*..:.:„.,:.:.::::....:.:..!I ,41.5,,..... ...,,,,k A .............:.:-..:....:,-..:.,::- • • • •• •• -• •• ,l' • • -"." ••inactive landslides. P:•ri...:;. 'In::::::::::::::.: ::?:::::::*. :::•::- 1.17,1%.:41:4,.1%,;•••:.i;:iiii::i.:-..i'i4'::-::;::::;:::::•::::'.';.-".1:::*:;!•:::.:*:'::::",A :*::::::::::::::::::::* :*:::*:: i•Cf:i:::iia.:;7.:ii*:::;: ''....::',_‘:.......::::7.:..' 1.4-te-- ) ,---1 .....tS.... - .. Y0.-..:f:.,•;......:•••••••••••,-:••••••-.,, it,e ./imi,,, z*::.::...:2•,::3-.7::?.:::!-:.-:::::.1:::,:.'-'::::::7.1.1:: ::.•:.::;: ::•:.: *i:':;.:-:`.1:::•:.*:M.,.::ii. .f:.:•iialiiiiiii:i:i:X:iiiii::-:::•:MAK:•'-?':::•:::::::.:*::iiiiiiis:-.,::::§§::::.... ;•:::-1-,..;;,-,iii-.:ipi:-...,.!az:-::•••::.-•iii:....gise 4rer yie , .,.,.,„•;::::::,,:•::;:::!:•.•_:;:•:,:.•_'::::i*:•::::::•':::-:.;,::::,::;:::::' :F:7::.:.,:fie::•.:.....•:*::::.•:::); '.*::.::::-:4Ciiigiii:ii::.:•.::K:K:: •,/,•••:::i.::.:KI:i:...:::::Kii „':::.•'. .•;:i:::::•-•:::::..%::`‹i•:.:t.::•i„•:5::::.:*:8./.•.:::..-:-..i'*Al , _,6P,,, ../ ' „t„••••:::.:.!:::.:..!.:_:::::;„:„....:;,:::::.:::,--.:::•:::::.:;•."1:.::•:•::::-:•:C.:•.:-.-::•:•!1".,..'• -:K::::•::::::::•,'...:: 4•::::::..'•.''.:i*:.:::i::::::::nkiff...„:\l'•• :.• ••*::::'•:•'::tip!. .i.•••&' Y•:•-:•••`,''',':•'-':7.•"...•--':':-:-:•:-*',..t.11....,":•:-:.:•.....= , :::::•:',......:::::•-•,... ,„ •••?•••••••:•:•:•:::::,..%."•••• .,::::•...:.:::::::::;::•:•:.:::::,...iiii?:.00•.:':,t4: .:.1:i;_.::E• , ., /7,-",,,,,141...:, .:' ..,- ---••••"•',-**••••."•;:n.1:::-•:':•.*:'..'":!;.'•...':-.-:1::,:::-..,,,!':...:':•::;•P,‘.....::-:•::-.:'::*:...•.-;..'...,,...:.:::::::4-••-•-•-•......••••.**:••••:•::::.•••Vf*::i::::...„•.:*i_•::::X:E:i.if::::::::: 1_,4:iti*;::: 2,_ .f::::i::.::::::::'•:*: /no,fe„/ ....tror :. , 7,::,...-":,-.*7:.::!;--:::.:,''*'.:1.....::Iir:.;::.::::::'.:i'ji::•:::.;:,!:::::.'i;:-.*:i::::i:.::::.:,..t' ''...'":-...;,,f,--;.:.:':., :;.:•::: '...*;:::i:.".: -- ;:i:::1 iiiiigli:::::1E4:::::::.iit'': k -:•:•:34111 •si,ot, '••:::',. .: •: - 0 1 -•:•:. .•:•::::•..-,..,....-...........:.•:•:.....•-•.-..........,...........,..„.7,,,,,,,-,, „,.•f , . •••• ....sve , :::::44 P :.zi...::::::::::::.:...:..'•::?..., ,, r, -% ,:-:::,.:•::::::::,,-;:•••:1.*:•••.":•:•.,:,:,:•.::••,..•:••.'..:..-,:.,,,;.:.-•:.::•;,-;.-.177.::•:.:.....,„,-,7-,.:,.,.•,---:..--.::. ...... , .;;..CLos. 5 74 c•i:al" i::::46.,..:..* i:-0 :! )1.1sr' . ,-:;;;::.::E.::::*::::::::7t-.......;i6.:.:*;f:'''' .- 1:::..:::E.ii.:::;;:::.: 1.*::.::. :.. '. r':!:.:i:.::;1:1;:1:i.: ':.i-:;:..:.:.:.1-:‘:';;'•.%::!.::ii,..:t..'4;1":..i:..::':-.::-:.':::...:?:;.:':....1..1vtl.-r'::: :. i:::::i.:1:..:::.'''':::',..:.::f::'::.!::1.:.;:::.1.:,::::;'::''Slopes readily become unstable due to natural events and to man's activities. Slopes moderate to steep,generally steeper SI' •'`34* ' i :::i••••:i:A.:'::i•':. ' .1f.*:::::iEi.ti:: ':-:::.:*. .than 15% and in places steeper than 40%. Probably under- ;.:.(sx. 4 emi .::.:., :i :;.,_...,:•:....::7::: sr i - ..cge:•:.'..; — —--- /I - s ..:.::,::::::*:*::•:':':':...:...- :'• 05;-'- -1•'"•'....*'-.•'•••::'•:'*••••••••.`•*:'4.:'..'••'''',•••••••••••••••••••:•••••6j•rs,,.., 40.0 ..:::::.•••• ' ..,' ----$:::T:i:. •r.' 4i:''''...,„..lirr.'ii,-.- ,lain by tight silt or clay beds lizill .2:;6_, j :.::: 4;: i ....4..lor!!:ii::0:;!,)a!'ii.c*:::::::7::ii.', /''. '..,.._sy-4231 '\, l' 4( 0 4.:.-%..-...:-...-,,:::,4.:•••.•:....:•:.•:•:.:: AP:(firi •:g:;.::::•:::: ::::. :.i:. i:??, 1,,, ..:',.:?:•,A*:;:..iV•r4 ..; s;-,-/5— 1%::::..) ':•:.:::::' ....:{.::::!::::::•:,• 0,-r i', .. .. i:i;i:i:. ::: ,:.•:••••:-:-...%.,:•:••:••••••••:•:•:.•:•:.::-..:-:•:••:••.I `.:%.k' .:•:. ••::.1, hii ri::::' ,sii.;.i:?ik::.::f..., rj D , ,.,:k•../,' yr ••• •• ••4•. i ,sx4- ::/•• , ..ii fa::.:. . ::•:Y-•:•:.'.:•• ' g, K *::,:..„.•'•':iiiiiii:: :.'::.:::'•::.'r''.':::::.t.:•.':i.,?-..'::•::::;:'::: tAl '44....4 ‹,:..,:' 1 li.... ..0 • •i•ia ..*::;ki ,.;(3 D,,-,, , - 1--:',' i , v:..-:-:. ••;:•:::::*...,•:•••••:::.:...1-.::::f2:::.:-....:.::i:0- -'•A It•ev.(1-•.:.„I ,i.:...-:..-::; - -...,:i*:::--- - - ..-- ---"-- , T.-r k•- - ,-, • • •.-•-• •gi.i.D.hyt• . • .•.7., .-:::::: ... r • I-852-A 1173 2 11:42”::7 40.•ems*b,...• 0 ZCZ, la9 6crn 8er, FI6. E-5 SOILS i;. As c, ....0,...„wooD 6,,,,„.,...L.,,, N, N,. ••... . e ?it : • • " "---...- -,.....-' • s 6ANDY LOANI N/ s- '- 11r : ....- ,,-- fido. .• 7 d :... „ ';'`.vew.. ; :..A L. Ak F P•wrxwood z_uir o : .h '' i t - Vne'1Y Y ••/1 tea•"—.+ ;`L2:7 \ \ iTONIwAY;: X. 7 AL wood C7 YYY 0. o s. ,,, ----'-' 11111 ilk.' ... \. .:, ,. el d, : , A . ..„, : iii: - C 1/ELLY SANC?f LO•- • i i t '• \\ L-0 g1•4•41 rit•-le. 6AND: ''. a' Ai ir.'. Ai;aoe:/0411:07.:4,44, :::---1 '‘ -%-. •--- 4 A Pc. ii 1 . e 111-{ 1/ sop ../. ,--"y ,.._ 4",,,,,,. 40 it .\\ k ss, ". It";_,/'i 4:111 • Li .-iip s...!,....... 41141111111P°7-1 1 .ii r ai \ r ll Rh pivl; v 4. ; r U V -(.'":' ,N..-k iii• -:), . ; i\'')? 6-ri4. .' '4 ,..-' . Uull. Y r r li i tit ;, J ll. ar,. r , - (.. • •t](..)A, L--v i ma3V. s ' i F j si; 4 a vts. 44.6 MAYO'Kn3 s GOUNITV 1•ia/VNVl.Kr• r r i F./11r/, f,41,11.7•4 f' r II PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT TO HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING : CITY OF RENTON, R-219-78 SEPTEMBER 26 , .1978 PAGE FOUR Arents , Alderwood material, 6-15% slopes (AmC ) : Permeability in the upper, undisturbed soil material is moderately rapid to moderately slow, depending on its compaction during construction. The substratum is very slow. Runoff is medium and the erosion hazard is moderate to severe. This soil is used for urban development. Indianola loamy fine sand , 4-15% slopes ( InC ) : Permeability is rapid . Runoff is slow to medium, and the erosion hazard is slight to moderate. This soil is used for timber and for urban development. Riverwash (Rh ) : Consists of long , narrow areas of sand, gravel , and stones along channels of the larger streams . Some areas are barren of vegetation, and others support scattered cottonwoods , willows , and other trees and shrubs . Overflow and alteration by severe erosion and deposition are frequent. Urban Land (Ur) : The erosion hazard is slight to moderate. This soil is used for urban development. See figure E- 5 for additional details on soils . Source: U. S. Soil Conservation Service Map of King County (Renton) #11 . Renton Hill is also underlain with coal deposits , much of which have been mined out. The remaining deposits are considered marginal in quality and are not economically feasible to mine at the present time. See figure E-5. Source : USGS Map #1 -852-D ; 1975. 5. Vegetation - Site vegetations consist of big leaf maple. juniper fir, black berry, honey locust, popular, scotch broom trees and around existing buildings on site are good landscaping and some vegetable gardens . 6. Water - As previously noted the Cedar River crosses the site at the north . Intermittent drainage occurs from the hill area to the river. Water is available to the existing Interpace facility on the river shelf and from the adjoining residential areas to the west on the plateau above the valley. 7 . Land Use - The most extensive existing land use on the subject site is the undeveloped valley wall and hilltop plateau to the south of the Cedar River. This area appears to encompass about 60% of the subject site. The Interp.ace industrial facility occupies the central 30% of the site . The remaining 10% of the area of the north contains the Cedar River and Cedar River Park. The Milwaukee Road Railroad crosses the site on the south side of the Cedar River. Surrounding the site are the following uses : West - Renton Hill neighborhood , predominantly single family homes . North - Easterly end of the Central Business District including City Hall ; Cedar River and Liberty Parks ; Stoneway Concrete Products . PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT TO HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING : CITY OF RENTON , R-219-78 SEPTEMBER 26, 1978 PAGE FIVE East Primarily undeveloped Cedar River Valley ; Cedar River Park Apartments . South - Primarily undeveloped hilltop plateau ; Phillip Arnold Park , southerly extreme of Renton Hill neighborhood An effort has been made to evaluate those physical changes in land use which have occurred since original adoption of the zoning for the subject site. Although no aerial photographs of the subject site are available precisely for the date of adoption., photographs used for a September 1962 Zoning Map were evaluated and compared to the current (May 1978) air photo. The following changes are noted in the vicinity of the subject site : 1 ) Construction of I-405. 2 ) Construction of the new City Hall and Library on Mill Avenue South. 3) Demolition of former war time housing and replacement by Cedar River Park play areas , including Carco Theatre. 4) Construction of a three fold addition to Cedar River Park Apartments . 5) Widening of Maple Valley Road from 2 to 4 lanes east of I-405 . 6) Recreational development of Phillip Arnold Park. 7) Closing of apparent quarrying activity south of Interpace . 8) Initial and ongoing construction of the Cedar River Trail System. 8. Noise - Sound readings were taken in mid May 1978 at six locations on or near the site as illustrated' in Exhibit H-1 . The detailed sould records are available on file in the Renton Planning Department. The freeway is the major source of sound at the western side of the site while airplanes , dogs , the city park , and other urban sources were more important as the loud-sound generators at the eastern extremity. Even at the eastern end , the freeway provided audible background sounds throughout the site. Listed below is a synopsis of the findings ( Figure E-7 for location ) : dBA Levels Site High, Mode Low 1 65 51 -63 50 2 55 54 53 3 68 61 -65 61 4 90 , 65-89 64 56 The property owner was contacted 7 regarding access to these locations . 8 to take noise readings . Access, was 9 denied , and no readings taken . Generally, the closer to FAI-405 , the greater the sound . It is anticipated that traffic will increase as growth occurs in South King County in FAI-405 and therefore the sound levels on Renton Hill will increase also. Sleep interference occurs at 40 dBA; speech interference at 55 dBA; hearing loss with continuous exposure at 8OdBA, although some experts believe hearing loss happens at a lower level . As indicated by the above data , there is speech interference with outside activities during the day and a potential loss of hearing is exposed for a long period of time . rI&: -S 2) ALLUVIUM OLDER CLAY TILL YOUNGER GRAVEL RENTON FORMATION ARTIFICIAL FILL OILS PA AND GRAVEL QYG Tit AF QC Much vertical and Generally well sorted, Partly cemented,May contain aecontaen peat lateral variation of poorly graded and but contains SPECIAL FEATURES and muck physical properties. loose. Where unit uncemented beds. Interbedding of overlies impermeable materials with very material, springs near different size range base cause erosion and engineering pro- and subsequent sliding perties also character- of sand. istic. Runoff generally Runoff variable. Runoff poor.Runoff excellent. Highly variable. poor because of Infilitration slow.Infilitration Infilitration DRAINAGE low slope. Seeps common.moderate on natural slow. Few Infilitration surfaces, fast on cut springs. moderate to very surfaces. Springs slow. Susceptible _ common near base. to flooding. Presence depends on GROUND WATER dater table near Generally contains topography and under- Permeability Highly variable. surface. water, much of which lying material. low. Permeability is under high Contains perched variable. hydrostatic head. ground water in lower Permeability generally part in many areas. _ low to medium. Permeability high. Generally easy Highly variable. to excavate with Generally difficult to Generally easy to Blasting or heavy Highly variable. EASE OF hand or power excavate with hand or excavate with hand power equipment EXCAVATION equipment. Can light power equipment. or power equipment. usually required generally be Compact and cohesive. Noncohesive. for excavation. dredged. Till lacks bedding or fractures. Fair; may settle Fair to excellent. Fair to excellent;Excellent, but Highly variable, may excessively and Dependent on local best on areas of subject to limi- be highly FOUNDATION irregularly conditions of slope little or no slope. tations'of slope. compressible and have STABILITY because of and ground water Little settlement No settlement low supporting value. layers of conditions. expectable. expectable. compressible or- ganic material. SEISMIC STABILITY Very poor. Good. Good. Good. Very poor. SLOPE STABILITY Generally poor Highly variable. Generally unstable Stands for long Highly variable. because on slopes steeper periods in steep saturated. than about 300. natural and artificial cuts. From: U.S.G.S. Hap 1-354 1962 I i FIC. E -(o COAL Kenoutze . p. ,.....s. N- 1 1 -•'" t " 0 ss, 3., , ....‘.— •c•- 1N2 ,7,%./ I # ii-li ir--% -- - 4' S ..4 s t, . :.:, i i1,i• AI.F' __A Uh117EPtLA;hd fi t.1 0 STONENAY EA 1 _ _ Jl y. BY MIN Et7 OUt" CQoJ.j A/` 5..=L OCK' I 1 ..jr,. ij,‘B y J V ‘.ZY' a . T Ss '• ?'• M • ..... A\o IC LE ( ` ` ` - L Se. I ` el:,a • . . ?wadi/, // I \ . \. l: ',i : l, // M / f ///1/ V • y ti.:::. . : : ::.: : 17 0, i Erg 'nil......:"../..I/' la a‘t" iir4-,: ftryiffinP; d•jz.k.I.-,,'..z.i.'• '\;'. ": 17---:---,...,-",: dei",,,, 4_.. c...s. . :q!...••:•:::Jcit,.... r„.: 14; •::.:::::::::::: z,:t•---, r' 1' R /n ! y/L J/ Yalpf !. 1 f rll ; • l . •.i ::: FA:::::..:2::'1,. l /, /AtitvJ -','t /' Nrip,•—:."q' 1 • t;,•t isin• ••" •:::: I '' r . 1/1 i• i 1 / tOi '• ! /4-.-,4 l / • i-.o.4llM N i 1 1t. ,// 9N //1/i, 1j/ %11LJ11. 17, Nww 1 Ill'• ! ly /P1 1 l,,//11/f Rr !' ////,/T/ip/if ',Pe. /1 t 11 t•'•"'"*:•,...,amxvi-'.-;'-'_, 111! • 't}/ liuII /. /! / 1; ',. /! // Ir vL/ ,Gfi/ I 1 1 y Jl r ' // it'i•rlow"t % 'CI LiI /%/lp/1is // /%/ i - i' ,,i.f p Ai°/fig ' lr 'a' ' Pl'•I, - :i ills %''' I; 1_! /!1l// L1 /' , 1 T:, 1(/ 1 S ,{•i' ! i r 1/, t!' •., 4- 1 X YiF. 7' I II 1, I. Opi... 46 • ,1, / / / I1,1/. 4 yy // ` IV ' 17 ,/ /' O , r ' fT..1e, 1 M 1/ / i `2W/— M-- - - 1 fi••'C•F'1 /!{ f' (14 y 4• r r11;///`L.L(y 1/ 1`/ l41lj ;, //1 1L!I/1!'1i1/! ! Lj '! i ' ' 1 L+ L/ ` f I ' . I•,, i . l ! /,//I 1 L, /l,/,1 ,/,,i• (,1 1 / 1 Y / /1 /1/1/ l I1/ 1//11/ 1 I 111 + ! l 1 i0 1 Vl J Itll 11, l f 1 410-0, / I 1 ,i //L / // ,l///1I1/ L1l 1! 1. IJ 1 / la A /1 1/1/l/ 1/ / i! / , 4, 1,/,/,/,1 /// /1/1l / + 1/ 1 / I- ,1/ • 1 / / i' t1 dj) n / // ,} , ,/ /1hfv' / I / l / L / / l 1 ! lIll:1 / / I / L Pt uL1d 1 IL /. w t /{ , /,l !, ,/,1 /,1/ ///111 1/r J1171A 1 ? i ,i 1i /1/ i/ /. i j 1•I.1j,I •) 111 ;l/ / 1/11 , 1 /1 • , / 1 / 1i:/7y / ill /I li 1 l r1 8prA F, L 1 L.I r,l•pL,r /'/1 I /Jr r I . 4 •, , , /1 1. 11 1 .% /..il , I!.. r 1 , , ,/ •L.• , ,/ ,.11J 1 ,/ {•/1,lL./ J/.ff, r vf l. , w r (ref1I ' 7 • • ji ' .—..•• r,1••... U•'•V• ' t-tAr '1'87Z.—L 9 PLANNING DEPARTMENT, PRELIMINARY REPORT TO HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING : CITY OF RENTON , R-219-78 SEPTEMBER 26 , 1978 PAGE SIiX Sound inside a dwelling is generally 10 to 15 dBA less when the windows are open and 15 to 20 dBA quieter when the windows are closed. Dwellings constructed on the site could experience sound levels that will cause interference with normal conversation and perhaps sleep . F . NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTERISTICS : Renton Hill was subdivided and developed prior to the turn of the century. When it was developed and for many years thereafter , it was considered one of the nicer, areas in which to live. This was due` in part to being above the flood plain , having a view, being at a higher elevation than industrial activities , and a variety of other reasons . Over a priod 'of years the Hill began to decline. However , this trend has reversed itself in recent years . Some homes were converted to apartments and new apartments were constructed . During the early 1960 ' s , FAI-405 was constructed leaving only one access to Renton Hill . In 1953 , the City adopted a zoning ordinance which tended to segregate the single and multi -family residences on the Hill . During the 1970 ' s a sense of community pride began to redevelop which lead to cohesive community action. Eventually , a community club was formed to represent Renton Hill . The City of Renton and the residents of the Renton Hill have invested considerable amouts of money in the area since Janauary 1976 . Cedar Street between South 3rd Street and South 9th Street was completely rebuilt with a new street, curbs , gutters , sidewalks , illumination and overhead utilities were placed underground . The project cost $200 , 162 . 04 of which the residents paid $43 ,310 . 11 through a local improvement district LIID 293 ) . Sixty nine parcels participated in the LID which callculates to an average of $627 . 68 per parcel . Effective July T, 1978 low and moderate home owners will be eligible for grants up to $2 , 500 for rehabilitation of their deltached single family dwellings through the City of Renton Housing Repair Program. Renton Hill is designated as one of the City ' s target neighborhoods . At the present time the Renton Hill area leads the City in this type of rehabilitation . G. PUIBLIC SERVICES : 1 .1 Water and Sewer: 6 inch water mains exist serving the Interpace industrial development along with additional 6 inch lines in Cedar River Park , Renton Avenue South and'JHigh Avenue South . Sanitary sewers exist in Renton Avenue South and South 7th Street for local use . Additional off-site sewer capacity will be required to serve extensive development of this area . 2 ., Fire Protection : Fire protection is provided by the Renton Fire Department as per ordinance requirements . Any future development of the site will be subject to the City of Renton standards . 3. Transit: Metro provides bus service along the periphery of Renton Hill . Metro Transit route numbers 107 and 240 operate north of the hill on Mill Avenue South . Bronson Way South is served by bus route number 142 and route number 155 serves Main Avenue South . All of these Pl&. E--7 NOISE LEVELS r. .. . . p .:.4 IC r NI' _)0 kZ...-. `--Z 7 : • ' 45 / .' 0. '‘‘‘..... 1., \ i . CD 0 • 1.7 0 • '4, LOCAT/ONS RECORDEDN i i.,JI.43. _. .. ....„ 3, NN, JP.. 4.-r Pir%." ---- • 0e. t•11. s., s. . 3,, boc ,40,..... r,- z 2::_. ,Its 1;,... qf•Ibt; 0. .# Nr_„,... :-.1.°1-•„,.....__::::.).---q:.:-.. -.-----.:.' s NJ .- to _ co .c , 11, 4........, a,\\ ' N• ',`, \ t 7- . 1 .11A116:-...{--A---..... . -.•••4 . . 4414-*/* —• ___ ( - (STONEW AY 1:_fA ... --- ---• _." ,:.s......... \\ le - • , ,,•,,. q ,,, 4-.., \416::-.z \ "a4....d.4. - -., 1" ''•. - 043 'lf1-1-- •:11,.....116- 'A. • .• , c'1' ...-- ..." ;, t. •- e: ..._---411111M.Nt•c> . i.. ,_. • . -.. C' •• if ir—,,-,.._:„ - , . ;_:::•:-..< 7 mi . auyu 0 t--r\zY. 0 4. 0%•• —. -7- 77:.7--.. i. .. -7 --- 0 . 7 / , 10 CI '1 -'-q, ,,E19----..''',IN A 3 5. MI .ii-fA dr!.- Ll., 0 N 0 I to .r= '...- .Il ". a•", -. '.1-,'-7.2__n_. f, ' ;, 111110 11. ' ..0 .0- ,3, . 3 3.1 0 s'N''`.. \!, ‘..:"?•., ED,• , .0 roe a :• , i' • 0 ' ._„. ._, . R Vt-', •0/*4", ...":-...' .4",,, , is allsma' - b. O•i L'7 '; f'"-:''t- If :' I '‘'\To j '' 0 -7 ' . '• ' .k %. .. ., - I = Arpi, P. f .-k--.-.1-, '1: .. 2. r. : Ab . \ •.z-: ',,,z__ ..'44-,, Mir ARS z s, -'-';• tt...,.,.,_11„.:;,.., --' Igl ic)(1f • --: 7. ,.....,- icari C - e 11*. , . \i• .! a :.,tai i...? A 7• / N.- , ell M I- 15'.' . e,-/ . .21.- -.5) ‘..., „, ...,.. 1I• .. ., _ . TII I ;. p; I, ..; 0/• . I(37,' Ase ; ; i 1, •t ilii , :6i. :?! '' • .44! • 3(' 1 / y * / r .‘ \ (\\, '... ,.;.-- i1 1 1;.''!° 11.' J 4r)'.•; i4 Ilt1i1,:,-•%!-.'•1e_ ig0:•. y, i.."4e?,':.,:1. 71.:- w.• y. i, • ., 1. tI7di;ra/d,/r,.li,o, Af/r eJ/rif-.-i1-( 4, l 4: o7, 1/a4,. .3•0•(.,'• /,-• n-- 1'• ;-•-''--N--rN.-•.;--._0--'._.4-.. e_ 1-_.- z•. E-rJ2-)4I-.1,.- I-Li 0. 1i•. 11fr11,.- t,%- Pi4, 4. b.-..'. N 41bt.*iimAu " il-.- 1.l.„•-. vi.:.. m. I 33? 3,zi , ',opt; • s';'-'''.' dialii‘: w 1 ..! fr , 1 , il_h :! Do flc"-%. i • is 4- ...( asa% L\ 771,, , , 111 0 0, - -.•14 ) 16. i•X Do ,. f I 1 li / . .1 . . f-I 3-1 , • • E I 0735=:7 a ••• mme. •• 3••••3•••••••313••• TABLE H-1 TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ESTIMATE Projected daily trips at full development) GEOGRAPHIC AREA Rivers Edge Steep Slope Upper Plateau TOTAL TRIPS Acres 22+ acres 30+ acres 15+ acres Type of Land Use General Light Industry 16.4 employees/acre 3.2 trips/employee 1150 trips 0 trips 775 trips 1925 trips Industrial Park 19 employees/acre 4.1 trips/employee 1700 trips 0 trips 1170 trips 2870 trips Manufacturing 25.2 employees/acre 2.2 trips/employee 1200 trips 0 trips 825 trips 2025 trips Low-rise Apartment 40 units/acre 25 units/acre 40 units/acre 5.4 trips/unit 4750 trips 4050 trips 3250 trips 12,050 trips Single Family 1 1 unit/ acre 1 unit/acre 1 unit/acre 10 trips/unit 220 trips 300 trips 150 trips 670 trips Single Family- 2 5 units/acre 1 unit/acre 5 units/acre 10 trips/unit' 1100 trips 300 trips 750 trips 2150 trips Planned Unit Developments 7.9 trips/unit 875 trips 250 trips 600 trips 1725 trips Source: Trip Generation: Institute of Transportation Engineers Information Report 1976 NOTES: 1) Corresponds to the recommended rezoning of all but 2 parcels to S-1 zoning. 2) Reflects the potential future rezoning of the subject site with lesser slopes to SR-1, from the proposed S-1. 3) Assumes that the development portential of Note 2 was utilized via a Planned Unit Development concept. In order to estimate the number of estimated trips for development which is a mix of industrial and residential land uses the number of estimated trips for each area and land use should be used. For instance, an industrial use of the River's Edge" will generate 1150 trips. Apartment use of the remaining two areas would be. 4050 and 3250 respectively. Thus, the total is 1150 + 4050 + .3250 = 8450 trips. PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT TO HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING : CITY OF RENTON , R-219-78 SEPTEMBER 26, 1978 PAGE SEVEN busses are within walking distance of Renton Hill . Metro route #161 operates along Maple Valley Highway to the north of the site . 4. Schools : Renton Hill is served via school. bus by the Bryn Mawr Elementary School , and Dimmitt Junior High School . Renton High School serves Renton Hill . 5. Parks : Phillip Arnold Park , a neighborhood park, is within walking distance of the southerly end of the site. Cedar River Park is part of and adjoins the site with Libery and Jones Parks just off of the site at the northwest. H. TRAFFIC : Renton Hill is essentially a large cul -de-sac with one access , Mill Avenue South . The Seattle Cedar River Pipeline right-of- way provides a secondary access for emergency vehicles . This facility was closed in 1973 at the request of the residents of the Hill to eliminate the through traffic that came to and from the Cascade area to the south . The residents 'of Renton Hill considered the through traffic inappropriate and dangerous to the community. The streets are rather steep and narrow. Serious questions can be raised concerning traffic safety if too many cars use the streets . Between South 3rd and 7th Streets , Renton Avenue and Cedar Avenue average 9 . 2% and 7 . 7% slope respectively. Renton Avenue has a short stretch that has a grade in excess of 15% between the same streets . With the grid iron street pattern , a vehicle (and anything which the vehicle might hit) can be in serious trouble should a serious mechanical problem occur such as brake failure . On January 22 , 1978 traffic counts were conducted and found movement of 2 ,650 vehicles during a 24-hour period . This represents 1 , 350 vehicles entering and leaving the Hill each day.. Burlington Northern Railroad has a major east-west track across Mill Avenue South , the sole access 'to Renton Hill . During the 16 hours per day that the Renton railroad station is manned , there is an average of 14 trains that pass through the city. This does not include the numerous short blockages due to switching activities . Blockage of Mill Avenue can be critical should an emergency occur on Renton Hill while a train crosses Mill Avenue. No public street currently. provide access to the lower area of the subject site adjoining the Cedar River. Access to this area is also restricted to a single point at Houser Way and Mill Avenue due to the location of the freeway', railroad track alignment , river and street slopes to the south and east. Table H- 1 estimates the total number of trio ends by several types of uses . Due to the diversity of types of industrial uses , three possible types are shown . Further, the current H-1 Heavy Industrial zoning will allow uses conforming to the requirements of the R-4 High Density Multiple Family. Due to the potential of this type of use in the hillside portions of the site, this residential use has been evaluated also. The proposed rezoning to Single Family has been evaluated under three approaches ; first, as proposed to be rezoned to primarily S-1 , second , the potential future rezoning of portions of the site to SR-1 , and lastly the development potential of the site used in a Planned Unit Development. PLANNING DEPARTMENT. PRELIMIjNARY REPORT TO HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC1HEARING : CITY OF RENTON, R-219-78 SEPTEMBER 26 , 1978 PAGE NINE 5. City of Renton Fire Department 6. Renton School District #403 7 . Department of Ecology N. PLANNING DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS: 1 . The proposed rezone to R-1 and S=1 is consistant with the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan which designates the site as single family residential , greenbelt and recreation. 2 . , . Existing zoning around the site is GS-1 to the south, with R-1 to the south and west. Northwest of the site across I-405 is B-1 and P-1 with additional P-1 - to the north as Cedar River Park. Northeast of the site across the Cedar River is H-1 zoning , R-3 and pockets of B-1 between the river and Maple Valley Highway. To the east and southeast are G and SR- 1 classifications . These circumstances together with other elements appear to establish the subject site as a single family area which requires protection from other uses to protect the existing single family area . (Comprehensive Plan Land Use Report, 1965, Objectives 1 , page 17 ; Policy Statement, Summary , pages 9 and 10) . 31 The subject site 'has been zoned H-1 Heavy Industry since 1953 . Limited development in that classification has occurred in minor additions to the existing industrial facility. These additions do not extend beyond the original boundaries of said industrial operation . Although the subject site is zoned for industrial use , the Zoning Ordinance does provide a's a permitted use high density residential conforming to the requirements of the R-4 district. Because this ordinance allowance exists , the potential for this specific use has been considered and evaluated in the remainder of this report , because of the probability that such use would be considered in the hillside portions of this site. 4. If the proposed rezoning is approved , the existing Inter- pace industrial facility located within the subject site will become non-conforming . . The provisions. of Section 4-726(B) of the Zoning Ordinance will apply which limit future expansion off development of the Interpace facility to 50% the existing value. 5. The Comprehensive Plan Land. Use Report, page 18 , clearly states as a method of implementation (number 6) the need to conduct planning studies on problems of current interest or need as conditions change and revisions or amendments to the Comprehensive Plan are deemed desirable. " Conditions have changed in the area through the continued construction , revitalization , investment , and community involvement in the area as a single family neighborhood , as 'well as the lack of adequate access for multiple family residential being devel - oped , and the overall attitude of the legislative body and the community toward the retention of a viable and signifi - cant single family area through the revision to the Compre- hensive Plan . It is further noted in this implementation section that the purposeful and consistent attention to the overall pur- poses and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan will produce continuing and long term benefits for the community . " The proposed rezone is a reflection of the "overall purposes and. objectives of the Comprehensive Plan" through the proper 0 use of land use regulations and zoning to protect the citi - zens of the community and provide for orderly and compatible growth trends . PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT TO HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING: CITY OF RENTON , R-219-78 SEPTEMBER 26 , 1978 PAGE EIGHT See attached TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ESTIMATE. The table estimates the number of toal trip ends by type of land use for each of the geographical areas of the site. Based upon the topography, it can be assumed that those trips generated from the "Rivers Edge" and "Steep Slope" zones will use access along the river to Houser Way. The "Upper Plateau" zone will almost certainly move through the existing single access point at South 3rd and Mill Avenue. Based upon the January, 1978 traffic count, 2 ,650 trips occurred from Renton Hill . Further development of the area east of the existing community based on the estimates in the preceeding table will approximately double traffic counts to 4,650 to 5,450 trips if industry occurs under the existing zoning. If multiple family residential is developed as provided by the existing zoning the impact will be nearly five (5) times that now experienced . Development to single family standards as proposed will approximately double existing traffic at 3 ,300 to 4,800 trips . Although traffic counts for both low density residential and industrial use of the site are similar in number, their composition differs substantially. Industrial uses of virtually every type will require substantial number of truck movements to provide products or raw materials . Safe movement of trucks on the steep hillside streets is certainly questionable. It should also be noted that industrial traffic will tend to have more intense peak hour movements than residential . I . APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE ZONING CODE:. 1 . Section 4-706 , R-1 Single Family Residential 2 . Section 4-707 , S-1 Single Family Residential 3. Section 4-713, H-1 Heavy Industry 4. Section 4-710 , P-1 Public Use District 5. Section 4-709B, R-4 Apartment House and Multiple Dwellings 6. Chapter 27 , Planned Unit Development 7. Section 4-726 (B) Non-conforming uses J . APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OR OTHER OFFICIAL CITY DOCUMENT 1 . Land Use Report, 1965 , Residential Page 6, 7 , and 11 ; objectives pages 17 and 18 . 2. Arterials and Streets Plan , 1965, page 2 , 3, 4 , 5. 3. Policy Statement, Comprehensive Plan , 1965, pages 4, 6 , 9, 10, 11 , 17 . K. IMPACT ON THE NATURAL SYSTEMS : Rezoning of the subject site will not have a direct impact upon natural. systems . Future development of the property will be evaluated for disturbance of the natural systems as individ- ual applications are made. Due to the physical constraints associated with the property , an Environmental Impact Statement and associated mitigation will be required for any future development. L . ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT/THRESHOLD DETERMINATION: Pursuant to the City of Renton Environmental Ordinance and the State Environmental Police Act of 1971 , as amended (RCW 43. 21C ) , a declaration of non-significance has been issued for the subject proposal . M. 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 . PLANNING DE.PARTMLII . PRELIMINARY REPORT TO HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING: CITY OF RENTON , FILE NUMBER R-219-78 PAGE ELEVEN g, The 1965. Land Use Report of the Comprehensive Plan expresses caution in the devel.opmen.t of steep slopes and states (page 7 )., " In areas where slopes exc#ed 25% or more, future. devel - opment ' of green belt di'str.icts might be envisioned for in- corporation as part of City., County, or Regional open space. systems. " The section further states , "In a number of gen- eral areas soil conditions are questionable and slides occur. . . Extreme caution should be exercised in the utiliza- tion of these. potentially dangerous areas . " Under the section of General Land Use Requirements the Land Use. Report states (page 11 ) , "Whil.e commercial or industrial uses are not easily adapted to hillside loations , residen- tial development may be successfully planned to take advan- tage of the amenities which such locations often provide. Natural features such as rock out-croppings , streams , stands of native trees , and the views often available from these locations should be used to greatest advantage. " In the case of the subject site the natural characteristics , steep slopes , and generally unstable conditions , and adja- cent uses point towards a low density residential use as the maximum site development. intensity . 10.( To determine the appropriateness of this proposed rezoning I the similarities and differences between eventual develop- ment scenarious must be considered as they relate to the existing residential neighborhood . See Table N-1 ) The foregoing analysis (Table N-1 ) demonstrates that a hill - side industrial area will adversely affect the existing neighborhood. Also , the physical differences between high density residential and the existing single family neigh- borhood are specified . The potential for substantial adverse traffic impacts on the existing Renton Hill street system are most readily identified , although other physical and social conflicts have already been discussed in this report. The analysis of the site specifics and previously stated objectives and criteria of the Comprehensive Plan illustrates the clear potential for hazards to the public health,safety, morals , and welfare of the existing resi - dents . 11 . Although this site has been zoned for industrial use since 1953 , only a limited portion of the site has been used for this purpose. In the period since this rezone , the Ren- ton Hill neighborhood has been separated from th.e remainder of the community by I-405. The City has spent several millions of dollars relocating the City Hall and central library to a point near the subject site and is currently constructing and proposing recreational and flood protection improvements to Cedar River adjacent to and through the site. Further, the Cedar River Park and Carco Theater have been accomplished on former federal housing lands adjoining and within the site , and Phillip Arnold Park has been con- structed in the adjoining Renton Hill. neighborhood. These substantial expenditures of public funds for physical development of property combined with current efforts of housing rehabilitation with Federal Housing and Community Development Act funds indicates the strong desire of the community to retain a sound and vital "neighborhood" con- cept. In addition , new development on Renton Hill accord- ing to documentation in the Phase I rezoning includes con- struction of more than twenty new single family homes , three apartments , and seventy or more additions , remodels and garages . The evidence underscores changes in conditions at the site since the original adoption of the zoning of H-1 on these properties. PLANNING DEPARTMENT ' PRELIMINARY REPORT TO HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING: , CITY OF RENTON , FILE NUMBER R-219-78 PAGE TEN The "continuing" benefits to the community will be reflected by the proposed rezone consistent with the Comprehensive Plan . The aspect of planning as a "continuing" process is important. , As the City grows and changes in its physical charcter so also do the attitudes of its citizens . The Comprehensive Plan and its implementation. methods (i . e. , zoning , capital improvements , arterials and streets plans ) must reflect these changes to be an effective planning tool . 6. Access to Renton Hill is restricted to one entrance that is subject to blockage by trains . Several of the streets which provide access to the various areas on the "Hill " are steep , laid out in a grid arrangement , and as such should not be overloaded. T:he grades of the streets pre- sent a potential hazard not normally found in a residen- tial development. Also , one street has had a small section subsidence. (Comprehensive Plan., Arterials and Streets , 1965 , Purposes and Objectives of Study , pages 2 and 3) . Both Cedar Avenue South and Renton Avenue South have a right-of-way width of forty feet with improvements less than that which is normally required. Standard residential access streets are fifty. to sixty feet in width. Due to existing structures and improvements , there is little likelihood that these streets can be enlarged . Given this situation , the proposed rezone would have fewer impacts to the existing streets than the existing zoning . In fact, the Streets and Arterials Plan , page 5 , states that " in the planning , design , and location of the major street system, consideration should be given to esthetics and community amenities in order that the system may pro- vide attractive as well as safe , efficient circulation routes , and do the least damage to adjacent land uses and improvements . Conversely, the design and location of adjacent improvements should present the least possible interference with the traffic carrying capabilities of these traffic ways . " 7 . The Streets and Arterials Plan also states as objectives page 3) : a . Provision for the safe , efficient and convenient movement of peoples and goods . b. Arterial and street patterns compatible with and com- plimentary to the general land use plan . c . Adequate and safe access to allow convenient and efficientutilization of abutting properties . The proposed rezone would be consistent with these objectives by reducing densities and resulting traffic volumes and providing for land use more compatible with the Comprehensive Plan and roadway system. Also , the introduction. of any larger street system into and through the area would .be contrary to these and other Comprehensive Plan objectives . ( i . e. , Policy Statement , Comprehensive Plan , page 4., "These trafficways should be so designed that they function efficiently. . . their opera- tion should not conflict or interfere with the functions of the residential neighborhoods . " ) 8. The July, 1965 , Comprehensive Plan Policy Statement sets forth the purpose (page 1 ) is to serve for the citi - zens of the City of Renton and its urban environs the social and economic advantages which result from an orderly and well planned use of land with the City . " The Policy Statement goes on to state (page 7 ) , " Industry cannot be adapted to just any site or locale. Unless well planned for , certain detrimental influences such as excessive heavy traffic, high sound levels , smoke , glare , ground vibration , etc . , may produce blight in surrounding areas. " This same section suggests that "level land with good drainage" and "direct access to transportation" are basic and desirable conditions for industrial development. TABLE N-1 DEVELOPMENT ANALYSIS AND COMPARISON LAND USE-TYPESingle Family_Residential High Density Residential Industrial Development Criteria Hillside Location High degree of flexibility Moderate degree of flexibility Minimal Flexibility, except of design, location and office-type industrial parks intensity Site Coverage 20 to 30% for PUD`s to 35 to 30 to 35% for high-rise to From 50 to 90% depending buildings & access) 40% for standard subdivisions 50% or more for low-rise on industrial type Impact on natural Minimal to moderate Minimal to severe Moderate to severe , site conditions Traffic Generation Approximately double existing, Approximately five (5) times Approximately double existing, similar composition existing, similar composition includes trucks and severe peak hours Traffic Using Renton Approximately one-third Approximately one-third Approximately 40% Hills Streets Alternate Access from Possible through subdivision Same as single family Not probable due to minimal Hill area design to connect to river potential to develop steep level of site slope areas Noise generation Similar in type and intensity Similar in type, greater Dissimilar in type and to existing neighborhood intensity due to development expected to be greater in intensity intensity Architecture Similar in type and design to Low-rise somewhat similar, Dissimilar in size, shape, existing neighborhood high-rise very dissimilar and bulk PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT TO HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING : CITY OF RENTON , FILE NUMBER R-219-78. SEPTEMBER 26 , 1978 PAGE TWELVE 12. The issue of proper land use for Renton Hill began with a petition placed before the City Council on June 6, 1977 , containing a total of 63 area signatures . Follow- ing appropriate study, analysis and citizen input, the Planning Commission considered the matter at public hear- ings on September 14 and October 12 , 1977 . The final Commission action was a recommendation to the City Council that all of Renton Hill be shown on the Comprehensive Plan as single family residential . Upon receipt of the Planning Commission recommendation the City Council considered the matter at public hearings on November 21 , 28 and December 5 and 19, 1977 , the City Council ' s action after receiving extensive public input was to concur with the Commission recommendation. Sub- sequently, •a rezone application for a portion of Renton Hill was initiated by the City and heard at public hearings before the Hearing Examiner on June 13 and June 20 , 1978. The record of all these public hearings clearly illus- trates a substantial concern on the part of the Renton Hill neighborhood to remain stable and vital . 13. The vacant portions of the subject area will have their development potential changed from the current industrial to single family residential . The lack of development of the subject site for industrial use over the past 25 years , while total regional population has risen by 50% and the job market has expanded , suggests that the development potential of the site for industrial use has been limited by physical as well as economic constraints . Although the physical constraints of slope and stability, along with vehicular traffic access will remain , the development analysis illustrated in item #11 above supports the ability to utilize subject site for low density residential purposes . To determine the potential market for commercial /industrial , and single family residential uses in the City, the following building permit valuations are provided for the period 1973-1977 : Commercial/Industrial 16. 723 million Single Family Residential 26. 287 million The first eight months of 1978: Commercial/Industrial 12 . 930* million Single Family Residential 5 . 498 million Source : Renton Building Department, 1978 Note: $9. 0 million of this total commercial/ industrial development was for the Benaroya Industrial Park on S .W. 43rd. This analysis clearly shows that a .substantial market exists for single family residential uses . On that basis , a potential use of the property remains . Based upon the relative development potential of the property due to its physical characteristics , even the relatively higher value of the property for industrial use may well be offset by the PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT TO HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING: CITY OF RENTON, FILE NUMBER R-219-78 SEPTEMBER 26 , 1978 PAGE FOURTEEN 3. Further , approve S-1 single family zoning on Assessor Parcels : a. Parcel #.1 of the Henry Tobin .4onation Claim. b . Parcel #112 of the Henry Tobin Donation Claim. c . Parcel #182 of the Henry Tobin Donation Claim. d. Tax Lot #15 Je. Tax Lot #16 f. Tax Lot #33 g . Tax Lot #141 h . Tax Lot #110 i . Tax Lot #71 j . Tax Lot #142 Based upon the following : a . S-1 zoning is the only classification which conforms to the Comprehensive Plan designation of "greenbelt" other than P-1 Public Use. P-1 zoning would appear to require purchase of the property since it removes all non-public development potential and is therefore not acceptable at this time. S-1 zoning in conjunction with the technical considerations recommend below: Submittal and approval by the City of a geologic report indicating that the proposed development intensity will not adversely effect the stability of the area or adjoining properties . Any traffic impacts upon the existing neighborhood can be mitigated by on-site design , alternate access , or satisfactory off-site improvements . Specific consideration shall be given to preservation of significant "greenbelt" features in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT TO HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING : CITY OF RENTON , FILE NUMBER R-,219-78 SEPTEMBER 26 , 1978 PAGE THIRTEEN development costs of industrial uses on this site. Further , the industrial development potential of the steep slopes is low if not zero, whereas in a residential P . U . D. the development density can be readily clustered on suitable adjoining areas . The existing industrial use of the site is not directly affected by this rezoning action and alternate use of the land has been demonstrated. 14 . One cost of development of the subject area to H-1 provisions which can be defined in economic terms is that of the increased traffic which will be created by development of the upper hillside areas . One way of defining the cost of keeping this future traffic from the effected neighborhood area streets is to estimate the cost of providing alternate access . In the case of Renton Hill , the cost will be the installation of an alternate street from the top of the hill to Houser Way . This will involve about 1800 feet of roadway at an estimated cost of $95 ,000 for the purchase of right-of-way , grading , and installation of curb, gutter, and paving . Right-of-war ($5 ,000/acre)X (60 ' width )X ( 1835 length )=$12,'600 43 , 560 square foot/acre Grading and surface improvement ($45. 00/foot)X ( 1835 length )=$82, 575 This does not, however , consider the larger problem of traffic from the existing neighborhood any any new development leaving the area via the lone access at Mill Avenue and Houser Way. Any new development will surely require improvements to this intersection which will involve widening , channelization of travel lanes and revised signalization. Due to the physical constraints at this intersection involving the freeway, railroad tracks and existing streets it may not be feasible to achieve an adequate solution even if the money to do so were available. 0. PLANNING DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION 1 . Adopt the following conclusions based upon the above analysis : a. That the property has been zoned H-1 Heavy Industrial since 1953 . b . That 15% of the subject site ha's developed in accordance with the H-1 District allowances . c. That substantial changes in circumstances have occurred in the vicinity of the site including Arnold and Cedar River parks , Cedar River Trail , and new City Hall and Library, construction of I-405 freeway and apartment development along Maple Valley Highway and physical improvements to the Renton Hill neighborhood . 2 . In accordance with Comprehensive Plan and City Council direction , approve R-1 single family zoning on Assessor Parcels : a . East 40 feet of Tax Lot 113 . b. Parcel 187 of the Henry Robin Donation Claim. Based upon the following : a . Minimum size consisting of approximately 1 . 2 acres or the potential of 6 homes . b. Proximate to existing single family homes adjoining on the west and south . c . Due to minimum detrimental effects of added traffic 60 trips ) , or potential for reduced value on adjoining single family homes . REVIEW BY 'OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : // Department : ,U1XG Ovoi2 13 Approved C=3 Not Approved Comments or conditions : 7 sr Signature , of Director or Authorized Representative Da e REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : Department : Ya !c to,Y Q Approved Not Approved Comments or conditions : e csiee 7g7/5) Signature' of Director or Authorized Repre entative Date REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : Department : p Approved Not Approved Comments or conditions : Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS: Department : C Approved Q Not Approved Comments or conditions : Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date ROUTING SCHEDULE FOR APPLICATION TO : O Finance Department 8 Fire Department Library Department OPark Department Police Department Public Works Department Building Div . Engineering Div . (Please verify legal description) 8 Traffic Engineering Div . Utilities Engineering. Div. FROM: Planning Department , (signed by responsible official or his , dsignee ) Mal4/0/ DATE : 9/17, PLEASE REVIEW THIS APPLICATIONi FOR : c> REZONE Xj2 --7X MAJOR PLAT SITE APPROVAL SHORT PLAT SPECIAL PERMIT WAIVER SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PERMIT OR EXEMPTION AND RETURN TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT e/05WITHANYCOMMENTSYOUMIGHTHAVE , BEFORE REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : 4)6'Department :1 Approved Not Approved comments or conditions : Lv ,i 1 17/.olAs $ 1T !4/ULi r'A r1S / o S O F r 417-c i(F.4-c e..z.-2- cr-pi--2 e-z--- Signature of Direc or-Authorized epresentative Date L REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : Department : 7i.54 /9A/-'4,47.7 j Q Approved No t Approved Comments or conditions : D,,1 , 7-D,e ilf'L .UL _, j , 7— 1 S$. G. /f Q.4"et 1 L/(S F& c/eL-7 , . 0,. . t> - /y y, ieil c/=s- /9•(.--'° 4 cce cs 4s X'c u're'c- ) I?>- F/,ram )'l/' 7 - A1ei i /—f7 C'.. e ( aiie69.4Cti S V/ e:/...el- --L ( 9 /i S.4e Signature of Director or Au horiz d Representative Date REVIEW BY OTHER 'CITY .DEPARTMENTS,: De artment : z lLIApprovedNotApproved Comments : 1 7"71 . 57-9AF/7R Signature 'of Director or Authorized Repres ntative Date REVIEW BY. OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : Department : di Approved t] Not Approved men s : Signature, of Director or Authorized Representative Date REVIEW BY1OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : Department : j ( Approved FI Not Approved Comments : Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : Department : Approved E=Mot Approved Comments : Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date ROUTING FOR REVIEW OF ENVIRONMENTAL 'MC.1M r FORMS' TO: O Finance Department Fire Department Library Department Park Department Police Department 4 Public Works Department k 4 Building Div. 4 Engineering Div. 4:, Traffic Engineering Div. 6:: Utilities Engineering Div. FROM: Planning Department, (signed by responsible official or his designee) Arid , Lt./ SUBJECT: Review of ECF- ,4¢ ""g ; Appl ica ion No. : 2/"/-7Xj Action Name : rG/l 4// Me, - /Cidid 7, Please review the attached. Review requested by (date) :0423 Note : Responses to be written in ink. REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : Department : 0 C-7). mentsppAroved Not Approved Com ffX al/a/7 AA) ci x044i.f;0 A.) 0 F 1-14 A)i- A P term- e. ./Z09-0,,II: ),d Signature o i erctororAuthorizedRepresentativeDate REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : Department: pI/e, irh 0 Approved Not Approved Comments : 1c, (24I-7/:,r--,02 e-0- 7---02,..-Z S f /f7/ Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date PROPOSED/FINAL DECLARATION OF SIGNIFICANCE/NON-SIGNIFICANCE I Application No . R-219-78 (Phase III ) 0 PROPOSED Declaration Environmental Checklist No . 384-78 0 FINAL Declaration Description of proposal City initiated rezone of 15 contigious parcels consisting of 76 . 68+ acres from H-1 Heavy Industry to S-1 and R-1 single family Proponent City of Renton Location of Proposal South of Cedar River and east of Renton Hill Lead Agency City of Renton Planning Department This proposal has been determined to 0 have ® not hay a si nificant adverse impact upon the environment . An EIS Lj is is not required under RCW 43 . 21C . 030(2 ) (c ) . This decision was mane 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 : This negative declaration applies only to the rezone of the subject site . No physical 1 development is proposed at this . time , or as part of this rezone. Further environr ental review will be required as a part of specific site development. 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 IPlannin , Dir - for Date 9 y/?,t9 Signature I City of Rentone:Planning Department 5-76 CREA PROPOSED FOR REZONE 1 to R- 1 Single Family)/TDC 11 4/?. . Ns\ ss\ ss\ 0014/4. i "BOUNDARY PHASE III VP1` l ., Planning Department RecommendationWAate,:. J Rezone from H-1 to R-1 : ezz. Parcels 113 and 187 of the 0 Henry Tobin Donation Claimb a 9 40 ki6 a ..D C ii:a .:: >:: :: ::::;::.••:•: •:. ::::;:::;:: >:::ai::: >:::::::: ::>:. Rezone from H-1 to S-1 Tax 1 umberss 15 16 21TDC .:::::: ::..::::..::..::::::•::::::::::.........:::::::::::. .:::::::::. ..::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::..::::::::::;:::. .:......... 33 7 k it. 1 110 41871 1 and 142 and Par cels1es 1 112 , an d 81 2 of al CiiiiiiI1W11110gIONEIIIIIMIOUNgNaomgamum the Henry To binn Dona tionon Claim. F ii..........4;\ . 1 illimullssssoommoolgogglitixummormiwystiNt 4 i7Z2:140AIMEWMIEMMOWNIiiiiiiiggnINARr0 % J::•:•:•::•: :•:P:.: :::;i:}}}:•}: :::{i::}:•::•:v:::•:::::••:•::•:•::{•::4:•:•}}::tiff!}:}}}ti.••:•:•::is i:tii:!:(::::•:l::•i::::'}:V:•:'•:4. ::V ' •y:::::: •::::: AREA PROPOSED FOR REZONE ` m 4 H-1 to S-1 Single Family : : ::;. m N J y T D C .. o 1 8 n 4 l 1 1" s. ,,i111111111111111111111111111111111 vit masa ii•=lot ow--En 11— TDC Tobin Donation Claim RENTON HILL REZONE PHASE III-R-219-78 TL# Tax Lot Number O F Ft x1 THE CITY OF RENTON Z MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, WASH. 98055 2 41. o - "a CHARLES J. DELAURENTI , MAYOR • LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER o 45- L. RICK BEELER , 235-2593 4T.D S E P-0'1 October 10, 1978 I • TO: ' Mayor Charles J. Delaurenti Council President Earl Clymer Councilman George J. Perry, Chairman, Planning and Development Committee FROM: L. Rick Beeler, Hearing Examiner SUBJECT:Renton Hill Rezone, Phase III, File No. R-219-78 During today's public hearing on the last phase of the 'Renton Hill rezone it was brought to my attention that per Resolution No. 2209 the existing moratorium on development on Renton Hill expires on October 27, 1978. The complexity of the application and abundance of testimony and exhibits necessitated that I request an extension of the normal 14-day deadline for my recommendation to October 27, 1978. All parties were in agreement. My concern is what happens during the interim between October 27, 1978 and the final action upon my recommendation by the City Council close to a month later? Does underlying zoning apply to any building permits submitted in the interim? My intent in bringing the matter to your attention is to allow sufficient time for any action by the Council. You may wish to contact the City Attorney regarding this matter. 7-717\ , Ri k Beeler Hearing Examiner cc: City Attorney Planning Director As OF R V O OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY • RENTON,WASHINGTON POST OFFICE BOX 626 100 2nd AVENUE BUILDING • RENTON.WASHINGTON 98055 255-8678 Z O LAWRENCE J.WARREN, CITY ATTORNEY DANIEL KELLOGG, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY 4 October 16 , 1978 0gT D SEP M E M O R. ,A N D U M RECEIVED CITY OF RENTON HEARING EXAMINER TO : Rick Beeler, Hearing Examiner OCT 1 ?1978 AM PSIFROM: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney 7i8r9il®1lii1Zc1c2t3,4c5c+fi Re: Inverse Condemnation by the City by Down Zoning Dear ; Rick: ThisMemo is in answer to your Memo of October 11, 1978 . In that Memo ; you request some guidelines as to whether or not the City would be "takings! property by certain zoning action. In down zoning cases, it is well to review the Parkridge case as it sets forth certain guidelines by which a City or other municipality may down zone property. If the property is down zoned improperly, and results in eliminating the economic use of the property, for all practical purposes , then that would be a "taking" . The "taking issue" in down zoning is much more limited in many other cases and is usually in the nature of an inverse condemnation. Both the State and Federal Constitutions prohibit the taking of property by a governmental agency without just compensation to the owner. While it is clear that the City is not taking property, per se, when it down zones property, if it eliminates all economic use for that property, it may be a taking. To apply these statements to your fact situation, if the City downlzones certain property on a steep hillside area and restricts all clearing, grading and landfill and requires the property to be partHof the preserved greenbelt area, the owner of an individual property site, not voluntarily joining in these actions , might likely claim that the City was taking his property. That owner would undoubtedly feel that all practical uses for the property had been eliminated and that the property ,no longer had any economic uses . In such a case, the City should proceed slowly and makelsure that the tests for down zone as defined in your Renton Hill1Phase I opinion were all met. The City should be quite careful not to attempt to coerce- someone into a dedication of a preserved greenbelt area if it includes that individuals entire parcel of property. In such a case, a down zone might be appropriate with certain restrictive covenants that would permit the property owner to develop the property in some limited fashion depending on the factors considered such as topography, access , soil stability, etc. Should you require any further information on this t "pgfc , please feel, free to contact me. Lawrence J. Wa4 en LJW:nd 0F RkA 0 THE CITY OF RENTON 431 Z MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON,WASH. 98055 0 CHARLES J. DELAURENTI , MAYOR • LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER co- 09 0 Q- L. RICK BEELER , 235-2593 glEp SE PS October 11, 1978 TO: 1 Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney • FROM: L. Rick Beeler, Hearing Examiner SUBJECT:Rezone No. R-219-78; Renton Hill Phase III The staff recommendation for reclassifying these properties included imposing restrictive covenants on the steep slope areas, which reduces development potential. Instead of the existing H-1 zoning on the steep hillside, M-P• zoning was recommended with the covenants restricting clearing, grading and landfill and creating a preserved greenbelt area. 1 At what point does the "taking issue" become applicable in this case? One property owner alleged in the public hearing that the staff recommendation would preclude the use of his property within the steep slope area. Have you any guidelines relative to this issue that; I may use in reviewing the evidence and testimony and formulating my recommendation? Please respond as soon as possible since this matter may significantly impact my review. My decision is due by October 27, 1978, but your legal opinion is needed before then. Sinc y L. Rick Beeler Hearing Examiner OF RI' Z OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY• RENTON,WASHINGTON POST OFFICE BOX 626 100 2nd AVENUE BUILDING • RENTON. WASHINGTON 98055 255-8678 ml O 0 LAWRENCE I.WARREN, CITY ATTORNEY DANIEL KELLOGG, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY 09 October 16 , 1978 97-Eo MEMORANDUM TO : Rick Beeler , Hearing Examiner FROM: Lawrence J.Warren, City Attorney Re: Interpretation of S-1 Zoning Regulations Dear Rick: This letter is in response to your Memo of October 4 , 1978 asking me to reconsider my Memo of October 3 , 1978 concerning the S-1 Zoning Regulations . Please be advised that I have reviewed by opinion and this letter is in confirmation of my oral opinion rendered to you on the telephone the date of your Memo. Please be advised that I still stand by my opinion that the S-1 Zoning intends a requirement of 40 , 000 . square feet. Certainly, it is a close question and your analysis has merit. My analysis is based mostly on the duplication that would exist between the S-1 and R-1 Zones if your interpretation was adopted. While there are minor differences , such an interpreta- tion would do damage to other portions of the Zoning Ordinance . As expressed, this is my opinion only, and this matter should be taken up in due course by the City Coi-ncil for arification. g4.11*__ Lawrenci J. arren LJW:nd cc: Mayor Council President Planning g Development Committee Chairman Gordon Ericksen RECEIVED CITY OF RENTON HEARING EXAMINER OCT 171978 AM gy ! PM 71819110d1a12a1121 1, d I 4 Of Z THE CITY OF RENTO.N GO . r MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON,WASH. 98055 op CHARLES J. DELAURENTI , MAYOR • LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER co- O Q L. RICK BEELER . 235-2593D1/4 October 4, 1978 qt fb SE P. r TO: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney FROM: L. Rick Beeler, Hearing Examiner SUBJECT: Interpretation of S-1 Zoning Regulations Upon receipt of your memorandum of October 3, 1978, I would like to offer the following additional comments, and request reconsideration of your opinion. Normally in zoning, "net lot area" is defined as the minimum lot area remaining after subtraction of property for streets, easements, etc. This is the normal, traditional method of calculating the density of development on property per the underlying zoning. regulations. Another method is not contained in our zoning regulations relative to single family development. Therefore, it appears reasonable to apply this principle to the interpretation of Section 4-707. (3) . Applying Section 4-706. (6) , relative to lot coverage, does not seem relative or pertinent since lot coverage is not at issue. Section 4-707. (3) refers to utilizing lot area calculations of R-1 (Section 4-706. (6) ) . Per Section 4-706. (6) the minimum lot area would be 7200 square feet. This is not identical, as asserted in your memorandum, to SR-1 (Section 4-704. (3) ) , which requires a minimum lot area of 7500 square feet. Clearly these two zoning categories are different, although admittedly only slightly. Furthermore, S-1 (Section 4-707. (1) ), permits a different use than SR-1 of truck farming and stock raising under certain specified conditions. Therefore, it seems highly tenuous to disregard the specific lot area requirement of 7200 square feet in S-1 in favor of the requirement of 40,000 square feet specified in the agreed erroneous and contended inapplicable Table 1, Section 4-709.B. (i) (R-4) . S-1, not R-4, is at issue. It is my suggestion that you reconsider your opinion, but only as far as the net lot area definition. The above mentioned information would indicate that further consideration is necessary to finalizing any position. However, I couldn't agree with you more that the subject be referred to the City Council. A policy issue exists of what density the City Council wants in S-1. Until the Council provides that direction, it would be more logical to apply a 7200 square foot lot area requirement for S-l' instead of the more tenuous connection of S-1 to a 40,000 square foot lot minimum. Since the subject is pertinent to the Renton Hill Rezone, Phase III, I may need this informs 'on to add to the record. Please respond by Tuesday, October 10, 1978. AA-MA IV L. Ri k Beeler cc: Mayor Charles J. Delaurenti Council President Earl Clymer Planning & Development Committee Chairman, George J. Perry Gordon Y. Ericksen, Planning Director OF R U ;$ ® OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY • RENTON,WASHINGTON POST OFFICE BOX 626 100 2nd AVENUE BUILDING • RENTON,WASHINGTON 98055 255-8678 Z OLAWRENCE J.WARREN, CITY ATTORNEY DANIEL KELLOGG, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY 9 0 O October 3 , 1978 qTE p SEP-MEMORANDUM TO : Rick Beeler, Hearing Examiner FROM: Lawrence J . Warren, City Attorney Re: Interpretation of S-1 Zoning Regulations Dear Rick: In response to your recent letter concerning the S-1 Zoning District, please be advised that it is my conclusion that the Zone requires 40, 000 square feet. My opinion is based largely on the language contained in 4-707 (3) wherein it states that : net lot area regulations and requirements shall be the same as for R-1 Residence Single Family District as heretofore defined." The key words are "net lot area regulations" and my attention is focused on the words "net" and "regulations" . A net figure pre-supposes some deductions from the gross area . The only net figure that I can find in the R-1 Zoning portion of the Code is located in 4-706 ( 6) wherein it is stated that 65% of the area of all sites must be left vacant and free from structures . The second emphasis is on the word "regulations" and this could be viewed again as referring to the 65% coverage . In any case, the Ordinance sections, together with the Table, 4-709B, Table 1, are ambiguous . As mentioned in your letter, the Table is erroneous with respect to the R-1 District and I assume that the Table has not been updated since the latest Ordinance change. I would also note that with your interpretation, the SR-1 'designation and the S-1 designation would be identical. It is a rule of statutory construction that all sections of a law will be read together to yield a construction that will not render one section void. To determine that the S-1 District required 7500 square foot minimum lot size would be to make the S-1 and SR-1 Districts identical and it is presumed that the Council meant to create separate Districts rather than two identical Districts with different designations . RECEIVED CITY OF RENTON HEARING EXAMINER OCT 4197 AM ff a2 2 6sfPAS n " w 4 I would suggest that your office point out the problem to the City Council and request. that an Ordinance change be initiated to clarify these sections . If you have any further questions on is matter, please feel free to contact me . 4'4' Lawrence J. j en LJW:nd cc: Mayor Council President Planning g Development Committee Chairman Gordon Ericksen Del Mead THE CITY OF RENTON MIoNICIPAL BUILDING 200 Mil L AVE SO. RENTON. WASH. 980552Dr • O asen CHARLES J. DELAURENTI , MAYOR • LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER O4P4 e Q- L. RICK BEELER , 235-2593 teD SEPIE September 27, 1978 TO: Lawrence J. Warren, CityAttorney Y FROM: L. Rick Beeler, Hearing Examiner SUBJECT: Interpretation of Section 4-707, Zoning Regulations During the public hearing on Phase III, Renton Hill Rezone (R-219-78) , the interpretation of the required minimum lot area in the S-1 zone (Section 4-707) was discussed without resolution. The Planning Department opinion was that S-1 requires. a minimum lot area of 40,000 square feet. My opinion was that only 7,200 square feet is required. Two portions of Section 4-707 are at issue: 2) ! On any tract of land having an area in one ownership of forty .thousand 40000) square. feet or more and a width of at least one hundred forty feet 140') , the following uses are permitted: " 3) Front yard, rear yard, side yard, open space and height limit, off- street parking, minimum room sizes, net lot area regulations and requirements shall be the same as for R-1, Residence Single Family District, as heretofore defined. (Ord. 1472, 12-18-53) " It was the contention of the Planning Department that Section 4-707. (2) clearlyrequiredlaminimumlotareaof40,000 square feet in the S-1 zone. My contention as that, this section was inapplicable and not a requirement at all, but that Section 4-7Y . ( 3) actually established the minimum lot area as ". . .the same as for R-1.,. . ". Per Section 4-706. (6) (R-1) , lots of ". . .not less than seventy two hundred (7,200) square feet. . . " are required. However, we both agreed that Table 1, 4-709B, specifies a minimum lot area for S-1 as 40,000 square feet and 5,000 s:luare feet minimum for R-1. My analysis is that Section 4-707. (3) (S-1) clearly sets forth the minimum lot area requirements. Table 1 of Section 4-709B (R-4) is not referenced in either Section 4-7•)7 (S-1) or Section 4-706 (R-1) , which would indicate limited, if any, applicability of table 1 to these sections. Furthermore, Table 1 is clearly inaccurate relative to Section 4-706 (R-1) (minimum lot area) , thereby severely disturbi!r.c; the credibility of Table 1 (R-4) . While there is a discrepancy between Sectio!: '4-707. ( 3) (S-1) and Table 1 (Section 4-709B) (R-4) , Section 4-707. (3) (S-1) prevails a:; valid clue to 1) the noted discrepancies of Table 1; 2) the lack of reference to Table. 1 in Srct.ion 4-7u7; and 3) the reference only to ,R-1 in Section 4-707. 'Therefore, Section 4-707 (S-I) requires a minimum lot area of 7,200 square feet. y i Lawrence 1 .;. Warrer. Page Two. September 27, 1978 bo you agree? 1 • it appears that this issue is not of pressing importance in my formulating a recommendation to the City Council. Resolution of the question will, however, affect future land use decisions by staff and the Examiner. ii L. • k ,Beeler HearingjExaminer i cc: Pinning Director I R-219-78 Page Two the record: for purposes of clarification of recommendations previously reviewed and discussed during Phase I and Phase II public hearings. The Examiner inquired if propertyownersinattendanceatthehearingwouldrequirecopiesofreferencedexhibits. Mr. Richard Sprague, legal counsel for Interpace Corporation, indicated provision of the exhibits would not be necessary at this time. Mr. Clemens entered the following additional exhibits into the record: Exhibit #6: Slopes Map Exhibit #7: Slopes Stability Map Exhibit #8: Aerial Photograph, 1978 Exhibit #9: Aerial Photograph, 1963 Exhibit #10: King County Assessor's Map The Examiner referenced the Planning Department recommendation for S-1 zoning as denotedinSection0. 3. He requested clarification of requirements of Section 4-707 (S-1) which requires that ". . .net lot area regulations and requirements shall be the same as for R-1 Residence Single Family District. . . ", noting that the net lot area requirement is 7200 square feet in an R-1 zone; however, the Planning Department recommendation denotes a net lot area of 40,000 square feet in the S-1 zone. Mr. Ericksen indicated that Section 4-707.3 establishes requirements for setbacks, lot coverage, height limits, and off-street parking in accordance to R-1 zoning, and he referred to Table 1, Section 4-709B of the Zoning Code which stipulates height, area, and yard requirements, lot coverage, minimum room sizes, and off-street parking for all zoning designations. He noted that the table designates a minimum lot size of 40,000 square feet for S-1, Suburban Residence District. The Examiner indicated that a legal opinion would be necessary to, clarify the discrepancy between the two sections of the code, but the hearing would proceed at this time. The Examiner, requested testimony in support of the application. Responding was: Robert McBeth P.O. Box 26 Renton, WA 98055 Mr. McBeth, legal counsel for the Renton Hill Community Association, submitted a written copy of Mrs. Kathy Keolker's verbal testimony during the public hearing for Phase II of the Renton Hill rezone. The document was labeled as follows by the Examiner: Exhibit #11: Testimony of Mrs. Kathy Keolker, President, Renton Hill Community Association, Phase II 1 Renton Hill Rezone Application, File No. R-218-78. The exhibit related to concerns of Renton Hill residents regarding multiple family zoning which would allow development not in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan designation in the area and would create a detrimental impact in the neighborhood. The exhibit listed concerns of residents regarding traffic volume, parking, street width, access, safety, alleys, crime rate, childrens' safety, school busing, property values, qualityofneighborhood, peace and quiet, community facilities and public works. Mrs. Keolker's testimony also reviewed changes which have occurred on Renton Hill since the previous rezone of the property such as construction of FAI-405, reduced access, new street improvements, undergrounding of power lines, a new park, new homes, many remodeled homes as well 'as increased concern with community needs and increased political awareness. Other matters reviewed in the exhibit were maintenance of single family residential character of the neighborhood, recent revitalization efforts of residents, and opportunity to apply for federal grant funds for improvement of older homes. Mr. McBeth referenced Exhibits #6 and 7 pertaining to slopes and reported major concerns of residents regarding development of Parcels 113 and 187 adjacent to S. 3rd Street as well as the plateau located on the southwestern portion of the site, and support of rezone to single family residential designation. He reported no objection to the industrial use of Interpace Corporation located at the bottom of the hill, but felt that the slope area should be retained as greenbelt open space although he recognized that no zoning category currently exists for that.designation. He reported concern regarding the existing intersection at S. 3rd Street and Mill Avenue S. which is the only access to Renton Hill and the Interpace facility. He also noted possible impact to Interpace Corporation by federal safety standards imposed by OSHA as a result of a zoning change, but emphasized that the single family residential character of the neighborhood must be maintained for developable areas and greenbelt designation for N tober 23, 1978 OFFICE OF THE LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE RENTON CITY ' COUNCILI • APPLICANT: City of Renton; Renton Hill, FILE NO. R-219-78 Phase III LOCATION: Property located east of the existing Renton Hill single family residence neighborhood' and north of South 7th Street.; ,. in. a northeasterly direction'to the center:of the Cedar: River. SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Applicant proposes a rezone of the existing H-1 Heavy Industrial to R-1 and S-1 Single Family Residential for • the Phase III area of Renton Hill. SUMMARY OF Planning Department: Approval RECOMMENDATION: Hearing Examiner: Approval (See page 18 for zoning designations.) PLANNING DEPARTMENT The Planning Department staff report was received by the REPORT: Examiner on September 21, .1978. 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 September 26, 1978 at 1:20 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Renton Municipal Building. The Examiner disclosed being acquainted with a member of the Planning Department staff who resides adjacent to a portion of the subject .property. ' He advised that discussion regarding the proposed rezone had not occurred and the relationship would not affect his ability to render a decision in the matter. He inquired if parties in attendance objected to proceeding with the hearing on the basis of the disclosure. There was no objection. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner. It was reported, that the Hearing Examiner had' received and. reviewed the Planning Department report,' and the report was entered into the record as Exhibit #1. Gordon Y. Ericksen, Planning Director, assisted by David Clemens, Associate Planner, reviewed Exhibit #1, and entered, the following additional exhibits, ,into the record: , Exhibit #2: Planning Department Staff Report; dated June 13, 1978, Phase I, File No. R-178-78 Exhibit #1) . Exhibit #3: Examiner's Report and Recommendation, Phase I; File No. R-178-78, dated July 12, 1978. Exhibit #4: Planning Department Staff Report, dated September 26; 1978, Phase II, File No. R-218-78 (Exhibit #1) . Exhibit #5: Aerial Photograph, dated June 1, 1978. The Examiner referenced Section 0.3 of Exhibit #1 which denotes parcels and tax lots to be included in rezone to S-1 category. • Mr. Clemens advised that Tax Lot 27 had inadvertently been omitted from the recommendation but was included correctly on the supplemental map attached to Exhibit #1 (final page) . He also indicated that information obtained ,from the King County Assessor's Map incorrectly identified one of the parcels:, . ' denoted in Section 0.2.a. as. a tax lot. He noted 'that the correction to Section 0.2.a. identifying Parcel 113 and Parcel 187 had also been denoted on the supplementary map attached tO Exhibit #1. Mr. Ericksen corrected Section 0.2.b. , revising the word, Robin" tO "Tobin." ' ' The Examiner referenced Exhibits #2, 3 and:4 and inquired if excerpts pertinent to the subject application would be provided to support ,the Planning Department analysis and recommendation. .Mr. Clemens indicated that, additional exhibits would be entered into: 1 11 R-219-78 Page Four 1 Mr. Clark, pining geologist, reviewed relationship of the geology to the use of the site. He submitted the following map containing an engineering evaluation of the geology of the Seattle area which had not been included in the ,Planning Department report, Exhibit #1. The'map was, labeled as follows by the Examiner: Exhibit #13: U.S. Geological Survey Map, #I-354 1 He reported that four or five materials compose the geology features of the subject property which would be discussed individually in relationship to the potential use of the land. He disagreed with staff that the river was the dominant feature in producing the existing geology in the area, and stated that rocks existed prior to the river. He stated that the Soils Map, Figure E-5 of Exhibit #1, was inaccurate in .its. analysis of the subject site, noting that the map was utilized for agricultural purposes only and analysis evaluates only the top two feet of the earth's surface. He reported geology and !soils profiles to not exist for approximately 60% of the subject site which have been formed as a result of man's activity. Referring to the island or buffer area located north of the Interpace facility between the railroad tracks and the Cedar River, Mr. Clark indicated that as a result of hydraulic fill, the level of the island is 15 . to 20 feet higher than the existing river valley and is in unstable condition. He . referred to !geological formations on the steep slope area which consist of bedrock and a series of sedimentary materials such as sandstone, silkstone, shale and coal, and noted the existence of seven coal mine entries. He indicated that large embayments are carved in the slope as a result of clay mining. Mr. Clark' reported that glacial materials of several different types as well as artificial fill are deposited in areas above the slope. He indicated that Figure E-2 of Exhibit #1, Slope Map, designates areas of steep slopes which generally contain a glacial material subject to slides. He noted, however, that bedrock Renton formation exists on the slope area and is generally considered extremely stable, and he indicated that stability of soils must be determined not only by 'contour of slope but also the geology on the site. He stressed also that the entire slope area may become unstable as a result of any construction activity. He discussed'degrees of elevations from the river to the top of the hill and advisedtheexistenceofunminedcoalresources. Mr. Clark indicated that seismic stability should be considered prior to any development of the slope area because of the creation of a high risk of slides and because residential foundations are not. designed for stability. He advised that ease of excavation should be considered and stated that construction.of roadways would be impossible due to existence of grade and steep banks and the requirement for drilling and blasting for excavation purposes. Mr. Clark indicated that water rights are owned by Interpace and reported that water is near the surface and seeps from springs and from mine entries on the site. ! He concluded his testimony by stating that any type of development on the steep slopes would cause considerable development problems. Mr. . Sprague requested clarification regarding existing zoning on the subject site. Mr. Clemens corrected Exhibit #1, Section B.7 to delete the R-3 'category which' is designated as part of the subject rezone site. He also reported that although P-1 zoned property is included as part of the rezone application, there is no intention to change that zoning designation which is 'part of the recreational area that extends across the centerline .of' the river. Mr. Sprague' indicated that because .the slope area is not appropriate for development, the intent of theIInterpace 'Corporation ,is to maintain it as greenbelt area. He concurred in the suggestion of the Renton .Hill Community Association to rezone the flat area in the southwestern portion of the site to S-1, residential designation. He reiterated background information regarding the existence of the Interpace Corporation in the same location for 76 years and maintaining a low profile in the community, and noted that retention of the slope area as greenbelt provides a buffer for the facility and the single family residential area of Renton Hill. He indicated objection to rezone of the property uponjwhich the facility is located which would create a non-conforming use and impose a severe inhibition upon the company. Regarding a possible zoning. designation for the greenbelt area, Mr. Sprague suggested reviewing with the City Attorney the possibility of establishing restrictive covenants to prevent development of the property which would be a more expeditious procedure than amending the 'zoning code. He also indicated that the island to the north of the plant between the Cedar River and the railroad tracks provides a buffer for the facility and the company has no intention of developing that' . property because the soil is unstable as a result of landfill operations. He concluded his statement by requesting the opportunity to provide a written responseregarding exhibits previously entered following closure of. the public hearing.1 The Examiner reiterated. Mr. Sprague's comments for'the purpose of clarification of his recommendation. He stated that Mr. Sprague favored the recommendation for R-1 zoning on ' Parcels 113 and 187 located on the northwestern portion of'the site, S-i zoning on the level property located on the southwestern portion 'at the top of the hill, establishment of restrictive !covenants.to preclude..development 'of the slope, and retention of..the existing zoning of H-1 in the .location of the plant facility and' the railroad tracks. 1/r/2 R-219-78 Page Three property containing steep slopes. Responding was: Kathy Keolker 532 Cedar Avenue S. Renton, WA 98055 Mrs. Keolker indicated that she was representing nine residents on Renton Avenue S. supporting preservation of the property abutting their lots on' the east as greenbelt designation because of the existence of steep slopes and potential hazard of landslides . resulting from development. She noted that the residents have no objection to the existing operation of Interpace Corporation because it has discontinued use of the hillside area and has not encroached on the land or increased the noise level on the hill. Responding was: Robert E. White 330 Renton Avenue S. Renton, WA 98055 Mr. White was affirmed by the Examiner. He expressed opposition to development of the greenbelt area east of his property which has served as a buffer for his residence for 17 years. He noted that Puget Sound Power and Light Company owns an easement for right-of-way in that location,• but because of the existing slope, construction of roads would not be feasible. He inquired regarding potential development of Parcel 187 located east of S. 3rd Street, reporting a rumor that several homes would be constructed in that area. The Examiner read and entered the fallowing exhibit into the record: Exhibit #12: Letter to Hearing Examiner from J. J. Gordon, Manager, Property Management, Burlington Northern Railroad Company, dated September 25, 1978, regarding request to delete railroad property from proposed rezone request. The Examiner requested testimony in opposition to the request. Responding was: Richard Sprague 23rd Floor, Bank of California Center Seattle, WA 98165 Mr. Sprague indicated that because he had.not received the .Planning Department .staff report, Exhibit #1, until the previous day, proper preparation for the public hearing had been difficult and he requested the option to prepare responses to various exhibits and testimony in writing .subsequent to closure of the hearing. He indicated that testimony would be provided on behalf of the Interpace Corporation by the manager and site geologist. Responding was: Mike Kochanek Manager, Interpace Corporation 1500 Houser Way S. Renton, WA 98055 Mr. Kochanek reviewed the operation. of the Interpace•Corporation, noting his employment. for •the past 25 years. He designated location of Steep slopes in the surrounding area of the,plant and indicated that approximately 14 acres is owned by the Interpace Corporation. Mr. Kochanek reported incorporation of the company in 1902 and subsequent name change to Interpace in 1962 as a result of a merger. He reviewed the function of the company as northwest supplier of firebrick to customers such as Alcoa Aluminum, Reynolds Metals, Kaiser Aluminum, and Martin Marietta Aluminum as the only refractory manufacturer' in the area. He indicated that•the company employs 85 people and has a payroll of $825,000 with net sales of $4,610,000. He reported expenses Of $700,000 for future major equipment improvement, $30,000 for extended utilities taxes, and 34,000 for 1978 property taxes, and noted that the company has provided. safe and stable employment opportunities for many individuals for the past 76 years. Responding was: Ralph I. Clark 9254 Points Drive Bellevue, WA 98004 • • R-219-78 Page Six Mr. McCaslin specified that potential use in a business zone would pertain to his construction business to allow office and parking space for trucks and vehicles utilized for his company. He suggested that restrictive covenants be imposed to assure compliance with that use. The Examiner inquired if Mr. Sprague's request to respond in writing to exhibits previouslylentered remained necessary. Mr. Sprague indicated that it would not be necessary if Mr. Ericksen revised the Planning Department recommendation. If that did not occur, 'the request remained in effect. Mr. Ericksen reported that in order to provide a long-range, protective mechanism in the event the property were redeveloped for a different use in the future, the Manufacturing Park zone may be a more appropriate designation for the Interpace facility property, as well as the island north of the railroad tracks. He indicated willingness to negotiate restrictive covenants with the Interpace Corporation to protect the greenbelt area, but felt that proposed S-1 zoning for the plateau area at the southwest portion of the subject property was appropriate for potential single family residential development and the recommendation for R-1 zoning on Parcels 113 and 187 would remain. The Examiner requested Mr. Sprague's answer to the previous inquiry regarding written response to; exhibits entered at the hearing in view of Mr. Ericksen's revision in the Planning Department recommendation. Mr. Sprague requested the opportunity to review the Manufacturing Park zoning designation and respond in writing following closure of the public hearing. The Examiner indicated his intent to continue the public hearing to allow all parties of record the opportunity to review the revised Planning Department recommendation for M-P zoning. It was agreed by the Planning Department representatives, the Examiner and parties in attendance that an appropriate date for continuance would be Tuesday, October 9, 1978 at 9:00 a.m., The Examiner requested further comments. Since there were none, the hearing on File No. R-219-78 was, closed at 4:55 p.m. and continued to October 9, 1978. CONTINUATION: The hearing was opened on October 10, 1978 at 9:00 a.m. in the Council Chambers of the Renton Municipal Building. The Examiner, reminded all parties in attendance that the oath of affirmation previously administered on September 26, 1978 remained in effect. He indicated that an addendum to the Planning Department report, Exhibit #1, was available to all parties in attendance and the addendum was subsequently labeled Exhibit #15 by the Examiner. Gordon Y. Ericksen, Planning Director, assisted by David Clemens, Associate Planner, reviewed the ,addendum containing a revised Planning Department recommendation resulting from discussions with representatives of the Interpace Corporation and city staff as follows: 1) Rezone from H-1 to R-1 of Parcels 113 and 187 of the Tobin Donation Claim due to proximity to existing single family homes on the west and south, lack of access except at S. ,3rd Street and Renton Avenue S. , and steep slopes to the north and east; 2) Rezone from H-1 to S-1 of Parcels 1, 16, 112 and 182 of the Tobin Donation Claim and portions of Tax Lots 15 and 142 due to steep slopes extending generally from south to north, potential for highly unstable slope conditions, and poor to minimal access to the subject area; 3) Rezone from H-1 to M-P of a portion of Tax Lot 15 along with Tax Lots 27 and 110 subject to restrictive covenants running with the land to establish buffer areas and restrict removal of material and vegetation, prohibit construction of new structures within the open space buffer areas, and restrict grading or filling operations to preserve and enhance open space areas. Mr. Ericksen also explained that Tax Lots 141, 33, 15 and 71, and a portion of Tax Lot 142 would remain in the H-1 zoning category and consists of the property upon which the Interpace plant facility is situated. Mr. Clemens corrected an error in Recommendation No. 2 of the addendum, Exhibit #15, and deleted ". . .and 142. . ." from line two to be added to Recommendation No. 3, line 1, which now reads ". . .that portion of Tax Lots 15 and 142 described. . . ". Mr. Clemens entered an additional exhibit which was labeled as follows by the Examiner: Exhibit #16: Map of Revised Staff Recommendation The Examiner inquired if Exhibit #5, Aerial Photograph, was available for review. Mr. Clemens advised that slides of the exhibit had been provided to the Examiner since the original exhibit had been transmitted to the City Attorney for inclusion in the Renton Hill Phase I rezone files. The Examiner requested testimony in support of the recommendation. Mr. Richard Sprague, legal counsel for Interpace Corporation, concurred with the revised recommendation with the exception of S-1 zoning designation in steeply sloped area. He indicated that 111 R-219-78 Page Five Mr. Sprague confirmed the Examiner's summary of the recommendation and noted the unfeasibility of constructing single family residences adjacent to the railroad tracks and below the freeway. He advised that restrictions of the Shoreline Master Program may preclude development of any kind within 200 feet of the Cedar River. Mr. Sprague also reported that a private agreement between the Interpace Corporation and Burlington Northern Railroad Company allows access across the railroad tracks. The Examiner requested further testimony in opposition to the request. Responding was: Robert DeBoer P.O. Box 509 Renton, WA 98055 Mr. DeBoer, Plant Manager of Stoneway Concrete Company, concurred with comments made by Mr. Sprague regarding preservation of the island area between the river and the railroad tracks in H-1 zoning and reported ownership by Stoneway of a portion of that property. Mr. Clemens reviewed the location .of properties owned by Interpace Corporation and Stoneway, noting that the Planning Department had recommended that all of Tax Lot 26 be retained as H-1 and rezone to S-1 of Tax Lot 110. Mr. DeBoer indicated his request to retain the entire area of the Interpace facility and property to the north as H-1 zoning category. Responding was: Joe McCaslin 17637 S.E. 123rd Place Renton, WA 98055 Mr. McCaslin reported that he is a licensed general contractor in the State of Washington and has contracted to purchase.Parcel 187 on the northwestern portion of the subject rezone site. . He indicated plans to construct .one single family residence on the upper portion of the site, but requested that zoning remain H-1 for .the purpose of possible future business development, although he reported his intent to maintain the sloped area for greenbelt use. He submitted a conceptual plot plan for the proposed residence which was entered into the record by the Examiner as follows: Exhibit #14: Conceptual Plot Plan for T.D.C.-167 Mr. McCaslin indicated potential plans to maintain the sloped' area as greenbelt and utilize the lower plateau for future business or office use since it would not be feasible for residential development due to the proximity of the freeway and railroad tracks, and due to the existing undevelopable slope. The Examiner requested further testimony in opposition to the request. There was no response. Mt. Ericksen requested the opportunity to question representatives of the Interpace 'Corporation. He inquired regarding the status of the access roadway into the plant facility. Mr. Kochanek indicated that he was uncertain of the ownership of the easement; however, he reported that the' corporation maintains the roadway and existing drains. Mr. McCaslin reported possession of a quit claim deed which may contain ownership information. The Examiner advised that the matter 'may be resolved separately from the subject application but requested a copy of the quit claim deed for future review by the Planning Department. Mr. Ericksen reported receipt of information that the Interpace Corporation facility may be phased out on the existing site and requested clarification of future plans. Mr. . Kochanek provided additional statistics related to the distribution and sales of the firebrick product of the company and reported a $700,000 expenditure for machinery improvements in the near future. He indicated that he had also received similar information but had been assured 'by the president of the division that no plans for phasing out the operation exist. Mr. Ericksen inquired regarding the future use of the island of property located north of the railroad tracks. Mr. Kochanek indicated that the area is utilized as a buffer for the facility and no plans exist for future development. Mrs. Keolker reported her concurrence in testimony provided by Mr. Sprague relative to retention of the property of the Interpace facility in H-1 zoning and imposition of restrictive covenants to retain the slope area'as greenbelt. However, while she concurred with Mr. McCaslin's proposal to construct one single family' residence on Parcel. 187, she objected to retaining the property in H-1 zoning category because of the possibility of future rezone to R-3 or R=,4 which would allow multiple family dwelling units and would-be contrary to the single family residential character of the existing neighborhood. Relative to Mr. McCaslin's comments regarding office or. business use on the site, she felt that the proposed use would not be compatible with existing uses on Renton Hill. R-219-78 Page Eight Mrs. Keolker referenced previous testimony presented by Mr. McCaslin regardinginappropriatenessofdevelopmentonthesteepslopeareaandhazardsofslides. She noted his' concern regarding loss of 50% of the value of the property and suggested thatR-1 zoning would allow development of the entire parcel. She objected to H-1 zoning on the northeastern portion of the site which would be incompatible with proposed S-1 and M-P zoning with restrictive covenants on adjacent properties as well as inconsistent with existing single family residential character on the remainder of Renton Hill. The Examiner requested Mr. McCaslin's comments regarding content of restrictive covenants. Mr. McCaslin objected to covenants which would restrict removal of vegetation. He restated his support for H-1 or M-P zoning and reported that development of single ' family homes on the northeastern portion of the site would not be feasible. Mr. Sprague inquired regarding the Planning Department's view of rezoning the slope area to M-P designation with restrictive covenants. Mr. Ericksen indicated that the department had no objection to M-P zoning with restrictive covenants, and had recommended S-1 zoning initially because it is a single family residential classification in conformance with the recent Comprehensive Plan revision. He reported that he had reviewed the status of Parcels 113 and 187 in relationship to the Shoreline Master Program and indicated that all development occurring within that property would fall under the jurisdiction of the program. The Examiner requested clarification that both Parcels 113 and 187 would be located in the 200-foot boundary of program requirements. Mr. Ericksen indicated that although he had not established the exact boundaries of the properties, it appeared that the Shoreline Master Program would apply only to Parcel 187. Mr. McBeth reported that a single family residence exists on Parcel 113 on the easterly portion of that site. The Examiner called a recess at 10:08 a.m. The meeting was reconvened at 10:30 a.m. The Examiner requested Mr. Ralph Clark, Interpace geologist, to testify regarding stability Of area on the steep slope which is underlain with coal mines. Mr. Clark reported that the entire slope is underlain with three extensively mined coal beds. He indicated that subsidence of land is more likely to occur near entries to mines due to existence of water and waste piles of material removed from the mine. He stated thatIthe mined areas were not considered stable and the most dangerous areas were located at the six entries. The Examiner requested a representative from the Traffic Engineering Division to testify. Responding was: Clint Morgan Traffic Engineering Division The Examiner referenced Exhibit #1, page 8, paragraph 2, relative to traffic studies, and inquired if the intersection of S. 3rd Street- and Mill Avenue S. would accommodate increased traffic projected in the report for single family residential development. Mr. Morgan indicated that he had not computed the statistics contained in the report but felt that the intersection could accommodate projected traffic denoted in the data. The Examiner inquired if the intersection could absorb traffic from a full development of multifamily or industrial uses. Mr. Morgan felt that capacity of the intersection, would be exceeded under those circumstances and provision for alternative access would, be required. The Examiner inquired if the Traffic Engineering Division had reviewed' alternative access to the lower portion on the plateau adjacent to the Cedar Rivera Mr. Morgan advised that an analysis had not occurred. The Examiner requested clarification that the intersection at 3rd and Mill would absorb all traffic from existing single family and industrial development. Mr. Morgan responded affirmatively. Mr. Clemens inquired if high density development of the slope area could be accommodated by the intersection. Mr. Morgan indicated that such development would create 'a critical situation at the location of the intersection due to the short storage length of the traffic signal and coordination of other traffic signals in the area to expedite traffic through the intersections. He noted that consideration of alternative access would be required if such development occurred. The Examiner ,inquired regarding the location of City of Renton property in the subject proposal. Mr. Clemens reported that Parcel 182 located at the top of the hill parallel to High Avenue S. and extending north from S. 7th Street is an unutilized city-owned right-of-way. The Examiner noted that determination had been made that certain parcels were included within Shoreline Master Program jurisdiction and requested a staff recommendation in relation to that program. Mr. Ericksen indicated that he had denoted on Exhibit #6 the general boundary lines of the program jurisdiction. He reviewed the exhibit with regard to the Shoreline Master Program Urban as well as Conservancy Environment requirements, and indicated that future development of all properties contained in the boundaries would be required to conform to requirements relating to development, R-219-78 Page Seven meetings had been held with representatives of Puget Sound Power & Light Company who had authorized the Interpace Corporation to make a determination for appropriate zoning on the slope area. Mr. Sprague objected to S-1 zoning directly abutting the H-1 zoning of Interpace facility property. He requested that M-P zoning be allowed on the entire slope area with imposition of restrictive covenants to preclude future development. He requested clarification of ownership by Stoneway Company of a portion of Tax Lot 26. Mr. Clemens reviewed the location of Tax Lot 26 which extends from Stoneway property across the centerline to the south bank of the river. Mr. Sprague inquired if the island or buffer area located between the Cedar River and the railroad tracks was included in the area proposed for H-1 zoning, and requested clarification of Recommendation No...3.c. : regarding restriction of grading or filling operations in the open space areas. Mr. Ericksen indicated that the island area proposed for continued filling and the small settling pond were outside the subject area and reported that restrictions regarding filling and grading would be subject to specific approval or extenuating circumstances and noted concern that encroachment on the river would not occur. Mrs. Kathy Keolker indicated her support of the revised recommendation with the exception of proposed S-1 zoning on the slope area. She concurred in Mr. Sprague's recommendation that the entire slope area be rezoned to M-P with imposition of restrictive covenants to preclude future development. Mr. Joe McCaslin reported concern regarding rezone to R-1 of Parcel 187 of the Tobin Donation Claim. He referenced Recommendation No. l.a. of the addendum, Exhibit #15, which is based upon proximity to existing single family homes on the west and south and felt that the rezone would be incompatible with H-1 zoned property to the north. He referenced Recommendation No. O.2.a. of Exhibit #1 referring to a potential development of six homes on 'the parcel which he felt would not be feasible due to the existence of the slope and would create a greater traffic impact than his proposal. He proposed that the southwest portion of the property be rezoned to R-1 which would allow construction of one large home. He submitted a 'plan of his proposed residence which was labeled as follows by the Examiner: Exhibit #17: Development Proposal for Southwest Corner of Parcel 187. Because the remainder of the property on the northeast portion of the site is undesirable for single family residential development due to the proximity of the freeway, railroad tracks and vehicles utilizing the Interpace access, Mr. McCaslin supported retaining the existing zoning of H-1 for possible future industrial use. He concurred in the recommendation to retain the slope area as greenbelt property. Regarding Mr. McCaslin's proposal, Mr. Ericksen clarified that although the staff report indicated a potential of six homes on Parcel 187, due to' the physical nature of the site, a maximum of two homes would be feasible for development. He also stated that access to the north or east is not available and division of the parcel would eliminate all access to the northeast portion of the property. He noted that the elevations of the property are 25 feet above the lower elevation of the access road and the Interpace facility, and provisions of access would require extensive excavation, grading and disruption of vegeation, which would be detrimental and create hazards in' the area. Mr. Bob McBeth, legal counsel for the Renton Hill Community Association, reported that adjacent properties to be rezoned either S-1 or M-P would be protected by restrictive covenants to preclude development. He inquired if Mr. McCaslin would be willing to impose similar covenants if the northeastern portion of Parcel 187 were rezoned, noting his opposition to H-1 zoning in the area. Referencing previous discussions regarding access from the northeastern portion of the property, Mr. McCaslin indicated that the property would be landlocked and questioned ownership of the access roadway into the Interpace facility. He advised that research had not disclosed ownership of the roadway'. Regarding restrictive covenants, Mr. McCaslin indicated that prior review would be necessary for compliance, but he would object to restriction of removal of vegetation since it would devaluate the property by 50%. The Examiner requested clarification of content of restrictive covenants proposed by staff. Mr. Clemens reported that because research, review and testimony had indicated the property on steep slopes was unfeasible for urban development, covenants for the area would preclude any construction, removal of vegetation or materials, and additional landfill operations. He stated concerns regarding limitations imposed by the Shoreline Master Program in relationship to the development of the island area and viewed the area as a visual buffer. R-219-78 Page Ten 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-SignificancehasbeenissuedforthesubjectproposalbyGordonY. Ericksen, responsible official. 4. Plans for the proposal have been reviewed by all city departments affected by theimpactofthisproposal. 5. All existing utilities are available and in close proximity. 6. On December 5, 1977, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 3186 amending the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map from a designation of Medium Density Multifamily toadesignationofSingleFamily, greenbelt and recreation, pursuant to an analysis performed by the Planning Commission of area land use, which included the properties contained in this application. The public hearing on this rezone application does not constitute a review of the validity of that decision by the City Council. 7. The Planning Department has found that the existing zoning of H-1 does not conform to the' Comprehensive Plan. A recommendation has been for the properties to be rezoned to R-1, S-1 and M-P (Exhibit #15) . 8. Per Section 4-3014, the Examiner's recommendation to the City Council regarding this application is to be rendered within fourteen (14) days. However, all parties in the public hearings expressed agreement to allowing the Examiner until October 27, 1978 to render this recommendation in view of the substantial amount of material entered into the record and termination on that date of the existing moratorium on development (Resolution No. 2209) on Renton Hill. 9. In addition to the findings 'of Section 4-3014 (Hearing Examiner Ordinance) the case of Parkridge v. Seattle, 89 Wn 2d 454 (January, 1978) presented the following findings. a. The presumption of validity of the rezone action by the City Council does not hold. Sufficient proof must be presented to support the rezone. The burden of proof for rezoning the property rests with the city to prove that conditions have substantially changed since the previous zoning. b. The', rezone must bear a substantial relationship to the public health, safety, morals or welfare. c. Current views of the community must be given substantial weight, but cannot be a controlling reason for the rezone. 10. The Carlson v. City of Bellevue, 72 Wn 2d 41, 51, 435 P. 2d 957 (1968) case set forth additional considerations for evaluating the rezone: a. The character of the neighborhood.. b. Existing uses and the zoning of nearby property. c. The amount by which property values are decreased. d. The extent to which the diminution of values promotes the public health, safety, morals or welfare. e. The relative gain to the public as compared with the hardship imposed upon the individual owner. f. The suitability of the subject property for the purpose for which it is zoned. g. The length of time the property has remained unimproved, considered in the context of the °land development in the area. h. No single factor is controlling but each must receive due consideration. i. The aggrievedgg property owner must show that if the rezone occurs the consequent restrictions on his property preclude its use for any purpose to which it is reasonably adapted. j. The aggrieved property owner must show that there is no possibility for profitable use under the restrictions of the rezone, or that the greater part of the value of the property is destroyed by the rezone. Economic and functional use is assumed and that some permitted use can be profitable. R-219-78 Page Nine excavation, grading and 'environmental impact. Responding to the Examiner's inquiry, Mr. Ericksen indicated that. the recommended zoning on the site conforms to the Shoreline Master Program goals and policies. The Examiner. referenced Figure E-5 of Exhibit .#1 and inquired if it should be labeled a geology map. Mr. Clemens responded that it was properly labeled as a soils map. The Examiner referenced Exhibit #1, page 5, paragraph 8, regarding noise levels, and . inquired if noise from railroad trains had been considered in the studies. Mr. Clemens reported that actual readings did not.reflect railroad train noise, but felt that the noise would increase the- readings substantially. The Examiner, referenced Exhibit #1, . . page 6, Section F. , last sentence, which states that the Renton Hill area. leads. the - city in rehabilitation and would be eligible for the City of Renton Housing Repair Program, and asked Mr. Clemens if documentation of the eligibility of the neighborhood exists. Mr. Clemens indicated that documentation could be obtained from the Housing and Community Development Coordinator. The Examiner noted that reference in the recommendation could indicate that documentation is on file with the Planning Department. The Examiner referenced Exhibit #1, page 12, Section 12, relating to previous review of the area by the City Council and Planning Commission and inquired if the; zoning was considered by the City Council at the time of the' last land use analysis in accordance to standards for rezone established in Chapter 4-3014. (A) of the Examiner's Ordinance. Mr. Ericksen reported that although the matter of revision of the Comprehensive Plan had been reviewed in detail, in his opinion the matter of zoning was not specifically discussed, but considerable change has occurred" since the last comprehensive review of the zoning in the area. The Examiner inquired if the Planned Unit Development concept could be utilized in development of the subject properties. Mr. Ericksen indicated that the PUD Ordinance applies to any parcel of land, ,and development. under that concept is an option of the developer or property owner: Referencing Exhibit #15; 'revised recommendation, 'the Examiner inquired'if the original declaration:of environmental non-significance remained in effect for the subject application. Mr. Ericksen 'reported that it would remain in effect if the entire slope'area were rezoned with imposition 'of restrictive covenants to protect open space areas. The Examiner .inquired regarding development rights which would accrue to the property owner. if the sloped property were rezoned with requirement of dedication of open space. Mr. Ericksen indicated that dedication of the property would not be required, but the intent of the covenants was to restrict development to preserve the hillside areas and greenbelt as. buffers to. existing : developments and would not apply' to existing operations On the lower portion of the site or preclude development on the upper plateau at the southwestern portion of the site. Mr. .Ericksen indicated that the Interpace Corporation and other property owners could receive tax benefits through the .open space taxation law which would provide .an exemption' up to an 8 or 9% reduction in taxes; however, he noted the restrictive covenants would still apply to all rezoned properties on the slope to assure compliance in the future. The Examiner reported that covenants may or may. not be required as a condition of the Examiner's recommendation on. the matter and all parties of record would have an opportunity to review the recommendation during the 14-day period for request for reconsideration or appeal. Due to the length, of testimony and number of exhibits entered into the record, the Examiner inquired if parties in attendance would object to an extension of time to render a recommendation on the rezone request. Mr. McBeth referred to the building ' permit moratorium established by the City Council to expire on October 27, 1978, and requested that a recommendation be issued prior to that time. The Examiner indicated that the report would be published prior to'October 27, 1978' in coordination with the expiration date of the moratorium. The Examiner requested further comments. Since there were none, the hearing on File No. R-219-78 was .closed by the Examiner at 11:12 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 reclassification of approximately 76.88 acres from R-3 to R-1. 2. . The. Planning Department report accurately sets forth the' issues, applicable policies' and provisions, 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 therein. R-219-78 Page Twelve 6. Proximity to markets. 7. Proximity to raw materials or supply resources." (Pages 7 and 8, Comprehensive Plan, Renton Urban Area, July, 1965) While some light industries may be located near residential neighborhoods, others should, be located only within special light industrial areas with more open space, or adjacent to heavy industrial districts. Heavy industry should be located where adequate utilities, communication, and transportation are available, where reasonable distances to living areas will minimize commuting time, but where the community will be protected from the greater noise, smoke, odors, and activities of such installations." (Ibid, page 8) It .is ,the plan and policy of the City. of Renton, through its physical, economic, and cultural development, to encourage the appropriate use of land throughout the municipality. To this end, the City will encourage proper employment of ,construction methods and land use principles, and promote the coordinated development of undeveloped areas. It will further give consideration to the prevention of overcrowding of land; the avoidance of undue concentrations of population, and provision for adequate light and air by securing open arrangements of carefully spaced buildings and building groups. It will be important for the City to reserve appropriate allotments of land in new developments for all the requirements of community life. At the same time, the conservation and restoration of the natural beauty of the community's cultural and natural resources will be a primary goal. As these goals are achieved, the formation of functional, natural neighborhood and community units will result." Ibid, pages 9 and 10, Summary) In the 'area where slopes exceed 25% or more, future development of greenbelt districts might be envisioned for incorporation as part of the City, County and Regional open space systems. Such open spaces may be of limited value for active recreation uses but could form a part of the network of the park system. " (Page 7, Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Report, July, 1965) 1. Prevent blight by protecting residential and other exclusive districts from the unwarranted infiltration of incompatible uses which would contribute to 'premature decay and obsolescence, and prevent the development of orderly growth patterns. 2. Increase community livability by improving environmental factors which are closely related to the residential districts and other community areas. The incorporation of park and open spaces throughout the community plan will aid materially in avoiding overcrowding and achieving this goal. 3. Provide opportunities for employment of the City's residents within convenient walking or commuting distance. 4. Protect property values within the community for the benefit of its residents and property owners, through the effective control of land use and the enforcement and application of building and construction codes. 6. Encourage the development and utilization of land to its highest and best use ;in such a way as to promote the best interest of the community and contribute to its overall attractiveness and desirability as a place in which to work, shop, live, and play. " (Ibid, pages 17 and 18, Objectives) a. Provision for the safe, efficient and convenient movement of peopls and goods. b. Arterial and street patterns compatible with and complimentary to the general land use plan. c. Adequate and safe access to allow convenient and efficient utilization of abutting properties." (Page 3, Comprehensive Plan, Arterial and Streets, Purposes and Objectives, June, 1965) 3. Promote quality development that will enhance the image of the city and provide public access to the river. 4. Preserve and enhance natural slopes, vegetation, wildlife habitats,. including views and vistas from adjacent hillsides and river banks." (Page 2, Cedar River Master Plan, Goals, May, 1976) R-219-78 Page Eleven 11. All portions of the Comprehensive Plan apply to the proposed rezone; however, the specific circumstances surrounding the proposal render the following goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan most applicable: The purpose of the Comprehensive Plan' is to secure for the citizens of the-City of Renton and its. urban environs the social and economic advantages which will result from an orderly and Well planned use of the land within and adjacent to the City." (Page 8, Comprehensive Plan, Renton Urban Area, July, 1965) Residential. . The successful utilization of .land for low density residential , development will depend on the .availability Of easily accessible areas'which are " relatively free of recurring or potential hazards such as floods, slides, and land subsidence. ' Residential districts should be free of manufacturing or commercial uses which would be detrimental to the community and its residents. The natural features and amenities that may exist or can be developed should be utilized to best advantage for the use and benefit of the community. Convenience to place of employment, shopping districts, schools, parks and other cultural activities, should be inherent features of the location. While commercial or industrial uses are not easily adapted to hillside locations, residential development may be successfully planned to take good advantage of the amenities. which such locations often provide. Natural features such as rock out-croppings, streams, stands of native trees, and the views often'available from these locations should be used to greatest advantage. Commercial. Major commercial centers are dependent for continuing growth and expansion upon locations which are central to a relatively large population. Access to the major circulation system is of paramount importance. The terrain for a' commercial center should be relatively flat and large enough to provide ' potential expansion. ' An' important factor in assuring the economic success of such districts are locations adjacent to or convenient to developed residential districts and other compatible uses of a complementary nature. Minor retail centers or neighborhood shopping districts commonly will be located near the perimeters 'of several neighborhoods and at the intersection of major roads and arterials. In contrast with the major shopping districts which provide comparison shopping, the neighborhood shopping centers should serve as convenient outlets for a limited number of goods and services. Such locations will normally contain grocery, drug, and hardware stores, restaurants and other related shops and personal services. industrial. • Basic industry, . the main stay and the main economy of many communities may include both large and small enterprises employing a few of'many persons. Fundamentally, basic industry exports its goods and services, whereas the raw materials and supplies used in production may be imported. Therefore; the availability and access to major transportation systems such:as rail, water, highway and airport facilities, is highly important. Concerns such as the Boeing Airplane Company utilize railroad, water, highway, and air transportation in its operation. Since many concerns are dependent upon large quantities of water for use in manufacturing processes, it is common in spite of periodic or potential flooding, to locate in flood plain areas such as the Green River Valley. In some instances, industry will locate at or near the source of raw material. Gravel excavations, mining operations, and brick-tile manufacturing operations provide examples of this." (Page •11 and 12, Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Report, July, 1965) Industry cannot be adapted to just any site or locale. Unless well planned for, certain detrimental influences such as excessively heavy traffic, high sound levels, smoke, glare, ground vibration, etc. may produce blight in the surrounding areas. Certain basic factors and site conditions are desirable for industrial development.. They are: 1. Level land with good drainage. 2. Larger parcels and tracts not broken up by many small ownerships or uses. 3. Direct access .to transportation (railroads, highways, airports and waterways) . • ' • 4. Availability of electrical power, water and natural gas systems, and sewage facilities. 5. An immediate or potential ,labor supply. R-219-78 Page Fourteen 16. Properties in the areas northeast, southeast, and south of Renton Hill have developed substantially since 1963 (Exhibits #2, 41 and 42) . 17. The view of the Renton Hill community was clearly expressed of supporting rezoning the property to a combination of M-P, S-1 and R-1 (Exhibit #15) including M-P onthewesternportion. This rezone configuration (including Interpace facility to remain' H-1) was acceptable to the Interpace Corporation (which indicated it also spoke on behalf of Puget Sound Power and Light Copmany) ; but Mr. McCaslin objected to R-1, on the northeastern approximate one-half of his property (T.D.C.-187, Exhibit #15) . Mr. McCaslin favored H-1 or whatever the abutting easterly propertyisrezoned. The Interpace Corporation agreed to covenanting the hillside area of steep slopes to no development. A strong sense of community and identity was presented in testimony by residents of the community. Several generations have lived and are living on Renton Hill. The consensus appeared to be that the community is unique in these and other ways and that R-3 development would seriously impact and endanger the existing character and livability of the community. 18. Renton Hill is predominantly a single family community with a small "pocket" of multi-family located abutting the freeway. For the most part, the housing stock is older homes which have been restored, remodeled or in need of some maintenance or repair. The age of the homes is as varied as the style of architecture. But testimony indicated that revitalization of the homes has been most noticeable within the past few years. Most homes are constructed on sloped or fairly steep hillside lots (Exhibit #3) . Most of the applications under the Renton Housing Repair Program have been received from residents of Renton Hill. 19. The staff recommended, due to slope stability problems on the slopes along thewesterlyandsoutherlyportionsofthePhaseIIIarea (Exhibits #6 and 7) , that restrictive covenants be imposed on these slopes to: a. Restrict clearing and grading; b. Restrict landfill operations; and c. Create and preserve a greenbelt buffer. Mr. McCaslin expressed the only disagreement with these covenants. 20. The northeastern portion of Parcel T.D.C.-187, the northerly portion of Tax Lot #15, Tax Lot #27, the southerly tips of Tax Lot #110 and 141, and the eastern portion of Tax Lot #71 are located within the Shoreline Management wetland area (Exhibit #16) . Except for the eastern portion of Tax Lot #27 and Tax Lot #71 (Conservancy Environm'ent) , these parcels lie within the urban environment specified in the Shoreline Master Program. 21. Three coal beds exist within the Phase III area within the Phase III area with a total of six entries or shafts. Danger to development from the past mining activity is greatest around these six entries or shafts. Subsurface water drains from these entries or shafts. Subsurface geology presents high risks to single family development. Some time ago, a landslide occurred at the easterly portion of Tax Lot #15. An access road along and up the westerly slope of the Phase III area would be very difficult and unlikely due to ,the slope and soil conditions (Exhibit #1) . CONCLUSIONS: 1. Testimony and the evidence substantiated that the Planning Commission and City Council considered the area land use, not area zoning, of Renton Hill and the surrounding community. The result of their public hearings was a change in the Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the subject properties to single family residential (Section 4-3014. (A) ) . 2. Since the: properties were rezoned in 1965, the following significant changes have been experienced: a. Completion of FAI-405 which introduced a large noise source and eliminated all but one access to the neighborhood. b. Increased community awareness of and involvement in land use decisions. c. Construction of the Carco Theatre and Cedar River Park. R-219-78 Page Thirteen 2. Promote a variety of land uses that are compatible with the river site and • recreational system. 3. Expand greenbelts to adjacent hillsides to preserve open space, wildlife habitats, and the natural environment." (Ibid, Objectives) 4.01.02. (1) Short-term economic gain or convenience in development should be evaluated in relationship 'to potential long-term effects on the shoreline. 2) Preference should be given to those uses or activities which enhance the natural 'amenities of the shorelines and which depend on a shorelines location or provide public access to the shorelines. 3) Planning; zoning, capital improvements and other policy and regulatory standards .should not increase the density or intensity of shoreline uses or activities except on a demonstrated need considering the shorelines and then only in,accordance with the policies contained herein. 5) Multiple use of shorelines should be planned where location and . integration of compatible uses or activities are feasible." Page 25, Shoreline Master Program, Policies) 4.03.01 Goal: Existing economic uses and activities on the shorelines are to be recognized and economic uses or activities that are water related are to be encouraged. " (Ibid, page 27) 4.04.02:I. Views of the shoreline and water from shoreline and upland areas should be preserved and enhanced. Enhancement of views shall not be construed to mean excessive removal of vegetation." (Ibid, page 29) 5.03.01 A. ' Objective. The objective of the urban environment is to ensure optimum' utilization of shorelines within urbanized areas by providing for intensive public use, especially access to and along the water's edge and by managing development so that it enhances and maintains shorelines for a multiplicity of viable and necessary urban uses. B. High-intensity Land Use. The urban environment is an area of high- intensity land-use including residential, commercial, and industrial development. The environment does not necessarily include all shorelines within an incorporated city, but is particularly suitable to those areas presently subjected to extremely intensive use pressure, as well as areas planned to accommodate intensive urban expansion. Shorelines planned for future urban expansion should present few biophysical limitations for urban activities." Ibid, page 36) 12.. Since the reclassification of the property in 1953, FAI-405 was completed (1967) , thereby eliminating' all but one access point to Renton Hill. In the period from 1963 to 1978 a total of 22 new residences and 3 apartment buildings (containing a total of 21 units) were constructed in the neighborhood: There'also occurred during this period 69 remodels, additions or garage construction permits (Exhibit #3)-. Public facilities were constructed westerly and across FAI-405 and the Cedar River Exhibit #1) . 13. Of the properties contained in this application only the properties owned by the Interpace Corporation and Burlington Northern Railroad are developed. Zoning of H-1 has existed on the properties since 1953 (Exhibit #1) . The manufacturing use of the Interpace Corporation property begain in 1902 :and continues to date. 14. Testimony was not presented substantiating impact upon property values of or quantifying hardship imposed upon the subject properties. 15. Traffic information (Exhibits 41, 3 and 4) indicated that existing streets could absorb the projected amount of traffic from the subject properties under single family zonin''or existing development. Multifamily zoning or additional industrial development may exceed the capacity of the intersection of Mill Avenue S. and S. . 3rd Street .or at least produce a critical condition at this intersection. The main problem for vehicular circulation appeared-to=be this intersection, the only access to and from Renton Hill and •the subject properties. While alternate access'may be preferable, ,the Public Works Department had not analyzed'alternatives. . R-219-78 Page Sixteen Residential uses appear to not be appropriate also for the hillside area, except the relatively level area at the southwest corner of Tax Lot No. 15 and the relatively level two plateau areas of T.D.C.-187 (Page 11, Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Report, July, 1965; and pages 9 and 10, Summary, Comprehensive Plan, Renton'', Urban Area, July, 1965) . Unstable conditions of the hillside present dangers to residential development. The topography appears too severe in consideration of the underlying soils and geology to accommodate residential development even via a planned unit development. Access down the slopes is infeasible for these same reasons. In summary, the Comprehensive Plan provides the strongest direction in favor of establishing a greenbelt for the steeply sloped hillside of the subject properties. But since the zoning regulations do not contain a greenbelt classification, the Examiner must apply land use planning principles to existing zoning classifications. In so doing, consideration is required of appropriate transition/buffering of the Renton Hill community, the impact upon existing industrial uses of OSHA requirements if residential uses are located in close proximity, limited access to the properties and the adjacent Cedar River, park development and H-1 zone. 4. Staff's recommendation of M-P for the hillside area appears too intense a use considering the natural constraints and the abutting Renton Hill community. More appropriate would be the P-1 category which principally permits public uses (Section 4-3014. (B) . This seems in terms of intensity of use most near to the greenbelt intent of the Comprehensive Plan than any other zoning category. Non-governmental structures must be approved by the Examiner (Section 4-710.3) as must be quasi- public recreation facilities (Section 4-710.2) . The potential uses in the P-1 zone would be less intense and produce less traffic (page 3, Purposes and Objectives No. C, Comprehensive Plan, Arterials and Streets, June, 1965) than in other zones and at the same time requiring review by the Examiner of uses that are not initiated by the city or other governmental jurisdiction. In order to buffer the adjacent R-1 zoned areas, a 100-foot landscape buffer should be reserved along all property lines abutting R-1 zones (Page 7, Objectives No. 1, 2, 4 and 6, Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Report, July, 1965; and pages 8 to 10, Purpose and Summary, Comprehensive Plan, Renton Urban Area, July, 1965) . Furthermore, because of the existing natural constraints of the steep hillsides, all clearing, grading and landfill operations should not occur unless approved by the Examiner, and development site plans and landscape plans should be approved by the Examiner. An alternative is P-1 zoning with restrictive covenants prohibiting development on the steep hillsides. This was suggested by the Interpace Corporation and comes the closest to the Greenbelt intention of the Comprehensive Plan. While this action is preferable, the city appears constrained to not require such an imposition in order to avoid the issue of taking without compensation and/or or not permitting a reasonable and profitable use. Such a challenge may in fact be very wea due to the voluntary nature of the covenant. But since only the Interpace Corporation has so volunteered, not the other affected property owners, the Examiner is constrained to treating such a covenant as completely voluntary and an alternative to the recommended action. 5. The southwest corner of Tax Lot No. 15 and most of T.D.C.-182 should be rezoned to R-1 in the configuration shown in Exhibit #15 (Section 4-3014. (B) ) . This property is relatively level, similar to and relating to the Renton Hill community (Pages 8 to 10, Purpose and Summary, Comprehensive Plan, Renton Urban Area, July, 1965; page 11, ,Residential, Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Report, July, 1965; and pages 17 and 18, Objectives No. 1, 4 and 6, Ibid) . 6. Parcels T.D.C.-113 (east 40 feet) and T.D.C.-187 relate to the Renton Hill community and have direct access to S. 3rd Street. If T.D.C.-187 were developed as single family, it was estimated that two dwelling units could be constructed on the property. Per Exhibit #17, the owner of the property proposes to construct one home on the westerly portion of T.D.C.-187 and utilize the easterly plateau for commercial purposes., Although this property consists of two plateaus, sufficient topographical separation exists from the abutting industrial uses to more appropriately use the entire property as R-1 (further buffering is provided via Conclusion No. 4; Section 4-3014. (B) ) . 7. The northerly portion of Tax Lot. No. 15 (Interpace Corporation) , Tax Lot No. 141, T.D.C.-112, Tax Lot No. 71, the northerly portion of Tax Lot No. 142, and Tax Lot No. 53 (Burlington Northern Railroad) should remain H-1 (Exhibit #15; Section 4-3014. (B) ) . Adequate buffering of the existing industrial uses from the Renton Hill community R-219-78 Page Fifteen d. Construction of the new city hall and library across FAI-405, e. . Cedar River Trail System. Taken together these changes appear to be sufficiently significant to apply to Section 4-3014. (C) . Most significant was the'reduction of access to a single intersection of Mill Avenue S. and S. 3rd Street. All of the traffic from Renton Hill moves through this intersection, except for emergency public. safety vehicles which can use the Seattle Cedar River Pipeline (Beacon Way S. ) 'when the intersection is blocked. Several, times a day trains block the intersection for several minutes at a time, thereby stopping all traffic to and from Renton Hill. In effect, the end result is a long and densely populated cul-de-sac which exceeds the limit of Section 9-1108.K Subdivision Ordinance) (Exhibit #3) . Alternative access has not been explored. to help relieve the access problem at the intersection of S. 3rd Street and Mill Avenue S. The access problems created by FAI-405 remain unsolved. The interest and involvement of the neighborhood in land use decisions has apparently increased substantially since rezoning the subject properties in 1953 and land use analysis in 1963. As a result of neighborhood pressure the Planning Commission and City Council re-evaluated the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. The conclusions of the City Council were to change the map to Single Family Residential, Greenbelt and Recreation. Development has intensified on surrounding properties. The Renton Hill Community has. become a stable single family area. ' Commercial or public uses border the property. aside from the Renton Hill Community. Based upon these conclusions, it is apparent that the conditions surrounding the properties have significantly changed since 1953 (and 1963) . Thereby a test of Parkridge v. City of Seattle has been met. 3. . The subject properties are 'potentially suited for reclassification pursuant to the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map; however, the goals and objectives appear to indicate zoning other than single family (Section 4-3014. (B) ) . The two most significant factors of the Phase III area are the existing industrial use and the unstable steep slopes along the westerly and southerly "walls" which rise steeply to form Renton Hill. This slope area has experienced landslide; mining and quarrying activities over the past 75 years. Testimony in the record indicates that development on these slopes is most difficult and probably infeasible since ,the 'underlying geology and soils will probably not, support development. . A greenbelt area is indicated in the Comprehensive ,Plan goals and objectives for the hillside area (page 7, Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Report,' July, 1965; page 17, ' Objective No. 2, Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Report, July, 1965; Section 4.04.02.I, Shoreline Master Program; and Goal No. 4 and Objective No. 3, page 2, Cedar River Master Plan, May, 1976) .. But a greenbelt classification does not exist in the zoning regulations, although the natural constraints and Comprehensive Plan seem to require this treatment of the hillside (Page 18, Objective No. 6, Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Report, July, 1965) . Industrial uses are not necessarily appropriate for this hillside area in close proximity to an established single family residential area (Pages 7 and 8, Comprehensive Plan, Renton Urban Area, July, 1965; and page 17, Objective No. 1, Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Report, July; 1965) . Appropriate land use control is needed (page 9, Summary, Comprehensive Plan, Renton Urban Area, July, 1965; and page 17, Objective No. 4, Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Report, July; 1965) . More appropriate is the existing location of the Interpace Corporation and Burlington Northern Railroad developments on level land '(pages 7 and 8, Comprehensive Plan, Renton Urban Area, July, 1965; and pages 11 and 12, Comprehensive Plan, Land Use . Report, July, 1965) . Commercial uses. are not necessarily, appropriate for the hillside area because of the natural constraints and lack of adequate and appropriate access (page 11, Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Report, July, 1965; and pages 9 and 10, Summary,, Ibid) . The poor access to the subject properties' from Houser Way S. and lack of direct access to and from the abutting Renton Hill community would probably render development of the remaining level property into commercial uses impractical. Unstable conditions on the hillside would make commercial development with attendant ' parking for all practical purposes .infeasible. R-219-78 Page Eighteen safety and welfare. The existing traffic circulation and access problems would be lessened. Traffic would not apparently be interrupted or delayed as frequently as predicted at the intersection of Mill Avenue S. and S. 3rd Street. The stability of the northeastern portion of the Renton Hill community would not be threatened. Benefits to the public health, safety and welfare appear, upon weighing the evidence, to be predominantly in favor of the recommended reclassifications and retention of H-1 zoning for the Interpace Corporation and Burlington Northern Railroad facilities. Predominantly, the; benefit to the public rests in the relative reduction of potential traffic associated with impacts upon existing , streets and the intersection of Mill Avenue S. and S. 3rd Street. Of equal import is reduction of potential impacts upon the steep hillside area of potential development. A reasonable use remains for these properties which may be profitable as well. RECOMMENDATION: Based upon the record, testimony, findings and conclusions, it is the Examiner's recommendation that the City Council approve reclassification of the following properties:' (See attached map, revised from Exhibit #15) 1. That hillside area of Tax Lots No. 15, 142, 16 and T.D.C.-1, 112 and 182 to P-1 subject to: a. 100-foot landscape buffer of existing natural vegetation preserved along property lines abutting single family zoned property, and b. Clearing, grading and landfill operations are prohibited except as approved by the Hearing Examiner. c. Approval of development site plans and landscape plans by the Hearing Examiner. 2. The southwest corner of Tax Lot No. 15 and T.D.C.-182 to R-1. 3. The east 40 feet of T.D.C.-113 and T.D.C.-187 to R-1. 4. Tax Lots No. 110, 27 and the southerly portion of 26 lying.,south of the Cedar River to M-P subject to: a. Clearing, grading and landfill operations being prohibited except as approved by the Examiner. b. Approval of development site plans and landscape plans by the Hearing Examiner. 5. These conditions being implemented in appropriate restrictive covenants. ORDERED THIS 23rd day of October, 1978. L. i eeler Land Use Hearing Examiner TRANSMITTED THIS 23rd day of October, 1978 by Affidavit of Mailing to the parties of record: Robert McBeth, P.O. Box 26, Renton, WA 98055 Kathy Keolker, 532 Cedar Avenue S. , Renton, WA 98055 Robert E. White, 330 Renton Avenue S. , Renton, WA 98055 Richard Sprague, 23rd Floor, Bank of California Center, Seattle, WA 98165 Mike Kochanek, Manager, Interpace Corporation, 1500 Houser Way S. , Renton, WA 98055 Ralph I. Clark, 9254 Points Drive, Bellevue, WA 98004 Robert DeBoer, P.O. Box 509, Renton, WA 98055 (Stoneway Co.) Joe McCaslin, 17637 S.E. 123rd Place, Renton, WA 98055 Clint Morgan, Traffic Engineering Division, City of Renton Leslie A. Donner, Vice President, Puget Sound Power & Light Co. , Puget Power Building, Bellevue, WA 98004 Lona Chapman, 920 N. Pearl St. K5, Tacoma, WA 98406 Interpace Corporation, 260 Cherry Hill Road, Parsippany, New Jersey, 07054 Burlington Northern Railroad, Property Mgt. Dv. , Lobby 2, Central Building, 810 3rd Ave. , Seattle, WA 98104 Michael Smith, 1234 S. 3rd Street, Renton, .WA.. 98055 R-219-78 Page Seventeen is provided in Conclusion No. 4, and the property is level (pages 8 to 10, Purpose and Summary, Comprehensive Plan, Renton Urban Area, July, 1965; pages 7 and 8, Industry, Ibid; pages 11 and 12, Industrial, Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Report, July, 1965; pages 17 and 18, Objectives No. 1, 3, 4 and 6, Ibid; page 2, Objectives No.. 2 and 3, 'Cedar River_ Master Plan, May, 1976; and page 27, Goal 4.03.01, Shoreline Master Program, March, 1976) . 8. Tax Lots No. 110, 27 and the portions of 26 lying south of the Cedar River relate primarily to the existing industrial uses of the Interpace Corporation and secondarily to the northerly abutting,Stoneway Sand and Gravel Company industrial.' uses. Per Conclusion No. 7, the Interpace Corporation property should remain H-1, leaving Tax Lots No. 110, 27 and the southerly portion of 26 between two H-1 zones. These lots consist of fairly stable and level landfill material and are essentially unused and undeveloped. Topography and vegetation separate them from adjacent properties. The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map indicates Recreation use for these lots. Testimony was not provided substantiating recreational use for the properties, but was recommended to be reclassified. to M-P which would permit upon review of the Examiner, uses in L-1 and some H-1 uses (Section 4-730.020 - M-P) . The purpose of the M-P zone (Section 4-730.010) appears nearer than H-1 to the intent of the Comprehensive Plan ' (Page 8, Comprehensive Plan, Renton Urban Area, July, 1965; pages 7 and 8, Industry, Ibid; pages 9 and 10, Summary, Ibid; pages 17 and 18, Objectives No. 3, 4 and 6, Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Report, July, 1965; page- 2, Goal No. 3, Cedar River Master Plan, May, 1976; page 2, Objective No. 2, Ibid; page 25, Policy 4.01.02(1) , Shoreline Master Program, March, 1976; and page 36,' Objective 5.03.01.A, Ibid) (Section 4-3014. (B) ) . Appropriate control of site planning can be exercised by the Examiner in review and approval of proposed site • plans. Some landscape buffering/transition between M-P development, and the Cedar River is appropriate. However, testimony did not address this matter. The Examiner's review of proposed' site plans might be sufficient, . but more appropriate would be retention of existing vegetation until site plan(s) are finally approved by the Examiner (Page 2, Goal No. 3, Cedar River Master Plan, May, 1976) . 9. In applying the consideration of the decrease in property values of Carlson V. City of Bellevue, it appears that development of the properties according to Conclusions No. 4 through 8 will be a' reasonable use; however, it is uncertain from the testimony whether or not the reasonable use would also be profitable. 10. Both Carlson v. City of Bellevue and Parkridge v. City of Seattle require that the loss of property value bear a substantial relationship to the public health, safety, morals or welfare. Opinions were presented that the safety 'of traffic movement, pedestrian. movement, and general living were threatened by retention of the existing zoning and potential development. Testimony was also presented that development on the steep slopes poses danger to that development. The relationship of this danger to any loss in property values is unclear. 11. Carlson v. City of Bellevue requires addressing the suitability of the property for use as currently zoned. Soils, topography, geology, and noise information was submitted' in Exhibit #1 and in testimony. This information indicated severe constraints upon development on the steeply sloped, hillside area to the extent that development would be essentially infeasible and impractical. Therefore, per Conclusion No. 4, a zoning classification of P-1 was found to be the more appropriate of existing zoning categories. The existing industrial facility was found to be suitable to the current H-1 zoning (Conclusion No. 7) . Two portions of the total Phase III area were found to be unsuited for H-1 zoning and more suited for R-1 zoning based upon adjacent land use and relative absence of the natural constraints present in the steep hillside (Conclusions No. 5 and .6) . One area was found to be less suited for H-1 zoning than for, P-1 zoning along the Cedar River and within the Shoreline Management area (Conclusion No. 8) . 12. The final test for the proposed rezone is whether or not there exists a preponderance. of proof supporting the recommended reclassifications of. the properties (Parkridge v. City of Seattle.) . In ,the aforementioned conclusions and findings it appears that the preponderance of evidence and testimony supports the recommended reclassifications and retention of some H-1 zoning.. 13. From the testimony and. the record it can be reasonably.. concluded that reclassification of the subject properties would be of substantial benefit. to the public health,' R-219-78 Page Nineteen TRANSMITTED THIS 23rd day of ,October, 1978 to the following: Mayor Charles J. Delaurenti Councilman Richard M. Stredicke Councilwoman Patricia Seymour-Thorpe Warren C. Gonnason, Public Works Director Gordon Y. Ericksen, Planning Director Ron Nelson, Building Division Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Pursuant to Title IV, Section 3015 of the City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed in writing on or before' November 6, 1978. 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 inspectioniin the City Clerk's office, first floor of City Hall, or same may be purchased at cost in said office. vq•LPs..774-c-_.r7-',77,---.-7::::-v..-z-,.,;',..--.-..:-.7T.---.-_,,-•-•,',"4"t,.-----" ---::-ivr'i------.5x4•11r.1- 717,,'N-7-* ' s''''T- 1-4,,T.f,,“;704 -.'71,7i"t7-- "47r.:z..7*o`t,t1_.qi, rii.1- . .,4,13p7i,::.xi of,-.6:-.44.-- -..--Q....,•;!:.,;--44,, . t 'l-3 l,, •';-- '- - • 1.1.z_-.T.iiirr -z;411•4 no din iti-'la's-;* 14:10 • ;2 16: : • ' .,./ ii4, a:,....mi: lap_ me I., -.1" imaim '.a jlt "...7,... . , letnaL• / : i.illeir, ..,,,ifd 1.1.2 -,....n -•1--.' 5.4 mg l''12. " - — • L. 1166.' I,' I , 4-7„ ,n,,,,47 . :14'7 -":i n :i 4t- a >itli..... . : / 4/iir ,,,3,,, !ill. - - 1.- - , 6:—....1.---B;21.2 IP.;2 - q mire L. i......• .... ....., .. Salm um-. CIIIIIIV, o-ii 92,, -,1 -.116-.. •",,S,.r'•sib 1.1r:. -.7•;•.70 -•41: • 1 Wj 'in lii="arai .ill air' 4,ai, MleMOi "\!..:i A',L: ...i _ii:41 4i,riiri iii..... ,,-217.p •• .•"allW /4.'‘ Iiii111 C---iiiilL 1-- '--se. mi, . newsA,' . -it 4 awD 11 . • . .. .lit 1! ti,-,w7 . 1 4, , . • 4 l', i . " • .7 . 1 Iikill/TO w. .. ri 74'.1^ 11-;.allE -74.3 ftc::: i:Iiiiir m 1. L ,m_ ...4, 4,/,, .. -, Ili_.,- SI, 4 it. 14 ,.. _ ,... , _. ,. • ,,1''.... N VII, . 1/ ,„*‘... in,, r ,Idelt1.11.° . ,/,•/,'.. , ' . .•. ' tj gill:II A - • : • ' '- .• ', ‘, • - '.'. •o . •-'. I ..: ..ur 49.Nillr:o' •-crrr z?\_, • 4 r.. 7 ,‘, .._ • • L/BERT Y / /. • \ '` Eimi rir a 0. 1. 11- 1: 114 1:3,711411 . GSM,' : \4 177--+-- Jr_ !.a i \ 4. '. p 1 V-14104 :_L.:. 4. • 4444 r.""--N • • i• / / - 4- ma ik - P RK • "•`. ,111:r: ruricillilijirmermalireveRyr 1V6+-171 MI gbh. 1 i an . ii:ro• ; ,\, 04 i . is,....., tglle p• E. .. . tinny% Mahan ME ' 1 a2,,,, ,;;,,,-,, ,,,,15---.T4• .._ , , • ......... //, , IR name in, ' m elm Tiji 41, • " i.t•",:.'::17....."......A..-..-.-.q,.i.. 40...,'. is_ r,._. d.e,',.,.Z, i,ir,>-,..-.'-: a,l 7l .I.-7.-•••-„.,-..*....'-'. R. -1141 R-2. 6 r ,... 3 e iii .,4. .1 m , 7a 1pirrj A • '''...C$F,/'.: 4g I I. il li 111 V:: 0 T., ''...,:44,.7 4 ma - , .Zio II 1 4 I ' 30 i''' <.- : ' •••• .*.f " C....119 j':'.'1(41:::17..! .Z9.1•••••N•C2•'.*:::›‘„.z9...ri!,:44 . s* . , t . a,:: ' X o' ,. a Milleil 1 L, IWOti:::•••;i••••.p'if11,:g•-,,:'•'''''*1,.." 4;.-.rei,..,TA74:3,;",a'.1..:&-4. 41,111(._El _10 _._ 1 i 77,11 1:42'•''..41.:11.f'in.49.' o'Air -v.,.:::,:.,,1:.4.,,,, ,A.4.t.4 i.e. .............,. ... .A,,:i.:„4.::i..,.,„„......4:„„4..t,:?::::,........... 4:.:. •:V.e: .tttz-,;',,i;Af:-AIF'N' N:.1•14',V..*:'i:..: i . 1, ,2 E ,, • •• _ .., .? ,•••• .,...,...--.. ..,....i. - • .-.;.::,.. ..,,... pl._,1t - Fie ak, - 1 s • •-• ••••17 .,....•-"..?1, - •/ . ,1.Y.• 7" . ,,...., 1........G;i:fit. ROM 4,,,,,, ,fadI•W lir,. I k 1 , t r •••..... 1 W !I I Ur, N4e.it,;t1N; 'gir• ,- rir,=-''' • i 1 1 ... , .. ‘ , 14-,..14... ik.,,,.;:: ...,..? .,.....,.....,.....,.... :::..,.„....:,.......:,:, las.' i Ii, slim sm.... --, .•• ',,...,... ......_ ,,,,,...-,;.„..:.. 0,,,,,,-.,,,,,:c.....-,$,,,,...:,,f.,,-,..:s,,.,. ,...,.. . . y•a . ..r) ,---,, ., . . f-- - - -c_ -.- -- -. . ,,-..-,..t.:.?„1-el,. • ::-s- -eY4..: -:.•:‘• 1. I„ I gow •=7-p., 2 r , t itrI z. ,........ ........ , , ,......„,..., 4,....• .:A...::,: 4. :4:.:::,.:k:.. :!...tv..i. .1 .4•Vgt. -:;.;;;.i.i, ',..,....;,:c4IvIt i N , v.'.. 1•i. j,•".".•••^4,41.."D t7,10e, 1 •E ,4:11 a.5- ', 1 r :It. . . i,A: •,. :z.7.-::•:.!,.-- • ...cr,r,Act:-.A4 AJrr gir.- . ; i; . 3 if,t.• .. . \ .. , '•74'?.4r4i;Vi. 44:4'1+.4e.4%/4.4AliC‘.. ... 4%.,,,. tigNMI; !Ii 4, I .4.1 i-w-- _-•„,... ._ c•„ ..5,,..;:.• .t.c..-,14:zit.1*-:,..:1:;.'-,-t•::.'•-•,:a `• a i H. '' !g ----;- -t. , •.: '-'-1• ,-;- ,,..11,:.•31:.-.4.1•14,:,-:5;.-....t. i_ -no z ; - . - ,..- ...".-.4; .Yze,s.v.,• ;...7,1,:„..._:- ...44z.k.i G . t114_1..., OW. II iii it - s....„,..,,..,IttP".4" ''.i..' 2 - •r-— . •-x& •..• ••.,•,--.-, lv ,a-p.. 3.,.......1... -' 7..et.-...Z#V, -,4,4,•-tit.ii il I AIM L Dm 4,11 f--1.•• %,,,...c,i:•,,,„.-..• .........4:izti. 4.•,• :-%,.-44::::;i'''.1)1..4-..........if4,'•;!••r'''..-- 1..- -- . 5-,. - • • '' • - -eV--.,..,,tor,,,1:* ift I''1 5 to PA Y 1 rx— i 9. 9 to . to * on, 4. , •. li 1ii00. is tii. li" . . . ii. 4/ I . . I T 416 Ia. .) i 4-- 4. •. L,,!11 L'_,.,_ i- it;- id s.es- • o.d•.Sam.l SR-. .I . •, ftaist 1 . i • i-45R-P• -T c •CO 1,- - •'. 4'. -.. 1 .- . '. . ' " .'' ' 4,0*±_e-P..: ,- • A. i 1. APPLICANT • CITY OF• RENTON TOTAL AREA . 74 . 58+ acres PRINCIPAL ACCESS Mill Avenue .South and Houser Way EMS) ING ZONING H.1 Heavy Industry and P- 1 Public Use EXISTING USE Approximately 15% in Industry, 'remainder vacant PROPOSED USE Single Family residential conforming to the Comprehensive i • ' Plan • 1 Single Family, Greenbelt, and RecreationCOMPREHENSIVELANDUSEPLAN. COMMENTS The 1propo rezoning will bring the zon. inv .of the. subject site into conformance with the' Comprehebsive Plan ... No physical 1 deVelopment ' is proposed at time. . • I- •• . 1•.2- 1 • .• • - i. u If I,. 1 .1• • ..... 2 r.•-•' • • ' I Melo a A' ,fG4141 11Altriro 411P I A • ''' '.• . •.'''.:'•• • - : -' . . . .- 4 . • I T D c 40>/ loy, 11 iv- - 44P.,41-Lca. BOUN.DARY PHASE III itl _ X° 0 ilidst : 2 ,,. -1. .. .;-, -,,',•;:::;,:izif„tet...,0.„ , , N4 ,,,.-:.,.....44,E ;..,,,•1,:i\'....gv,::::,,:,,,:::-:.:%:\v:.,,,....„,,q,,,,,,..k.,; 14.:,, A114b40.4::.: jittrio s.. 4.4'. 444 .-.':-.A'J'Ag '-' ''''NM'.. .:.:', ,,,,,i....„.,.„%ijia4,11 DC '111\ \,, T L# gitZq:\,::::::,::.:... f.:::::',,.-R .,...„....,kyvyyz:g...:skilk,1.. 113 TDC I 1 141 4642::, 4,. 1.:.:,.:,....... „„„„ „. -..:::::.?...:::e..•..:.„?,:v:.:.:„::::„„„ . ikl" 187 T L# N. -‘\44:HFOSS. .:'., •,'..:',,,....,:v.,:,,,,,;'..1.':q...-....,:y:gz,...,:gs.. .. v.q.g...v.i,..,,..g,AA,:i-....,..v.,....114..v,..,..qgg:g.......5mg IZIejjatinazasyl P ii - p: 4,,,:,.• . ,, ..„.•••...,...,..,...:::.::::„. z v, 1.,0„,,,,,....,,,:.. portion T L# 4.N ''''..410•218te . \ \ N 411.011 It Celf4sr) N,1•11. Nx. ss INcl\ \\• N,orsAst) T L#41 71 114 1111V AA ! e 0.* I 3:. cu tli 4 V‘••••\1 \ *, . 1 ; m 1 ch •-+ kl 11 N\ e ..*' 1. 6 N ...A•.4. 0 = 4 N.., 0 x,0 En ro K' 11`,V• 6' :\"\\\;•;\ `: • • to = NZ L , • , \ % -,`Q,,.. cm rt ca 0 1= 6771m.‘ '1 lA .gM''---4 2 TDC Tobin Donation RENTON HILL REZONE PHASE III-R-219-78 Claim 11. TL# Tax Lot Number Notil% CAPtlk) ? MOMMWDA:Z:11.00 61.vospo fiZoKti Vgliitrt *15) 1 1 1 AREA PROPOSED FOR REZONE_ AR.EA . PROPO.SED FOR REZONE . H-.i to R-1 Single Family H-•1 to S--1 S_ingle. Family TiL1 5,. ^ 1 `/ G,,., _"BOUNDARY PHASE III S.. b10 ter: f::. . L y 17 - - - -. 41.i -, s - --.- p Ali...am VDC k .. I k 33 0 . e 2. b. portion •TL# n,„:-..,':!:,„::!:„1:„,...1;.4.,.-- 1.:,„:.':,}::... g?„.:.: J:.: i:•„i.,_:. 0f1 AREA PROPOSED FOR REZONE77!::::::::.:§tN s ........ i _ H71 to MP with restrictions on deve'lopment e I \\ 4:::::.....NR:::::,..N8, , . 4 -- t. Ne..en...:::-.. -:0-..Egoomg::-..: :.., fi :•:. % 41 r cum Z lit 27c ;f; { 1wr"'{nksi . riig.'ir : j1 - . N E. gi r t o 5 T pc Q 18 il`. Z woAtV TDC . T.obin Don.ation imiC'l a RENTON HILL REZONE PHASE III-R-219-78 TL# Tax Lot Number 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 23rd day of October 1978 , 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. ac Subscribed and sworn. this Z9 ''day of o 19 4. . Notary Public in and for :the State of Washington, residing at Rencon . Application, Petition or Case : City of Renton, Phase III; R-219-78 The. minu,tez contain a Us"t o6 the pailtie4 o6 necond). 4 . .. 1 . • 1 i • 1 k. 0 - 2 THE CITY OF RENTON c)•0 4:30: MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON,WASH. 98055' 2 I gicn . CHARLES j. DELAURENTII MAYOR • LAND USE HEARING EXAMINERQPkr 0 0,. - • L. RICK BEELER • 235-2593 P4p 1 v ED SEPIt 1 October 30, 1978 Members, Renton City Council Renton, Washington RE: File'No. R-219-78; City of Renton; Renton Hill, Phase III • . ' : 1 Dear Council MeMberg: Attached is the. Examiner's Report and Recommendation on the'referenced - . • . rezOne .request.„Aated October 23, 1978. The appeal period for the application expires on NoveMber 6, 1978, and the report is being forwarded to you for review by the Planning and Development Committee following'the 'sevenday period from the date of publication. The.1 complete file will be transmitted to the City Clerk, on November 7, 1978, and will be placed on the Council agenda on abvemb er 13, 1978. I If You require additional assistance or information regarding this matter, pleaSe contact the Undersigned. I BinOere Iti- l irilliall . '1 ._ . . . ... . .. .. . 10,21-M-M.PrEoteret ' --- 7"' L. Rick Beeler • Hearing. Examiner cc: Planning pepartMent City Clerk MEMORANDUM TO V 1 - H J( ! OI3 DATE 16131178 FROM , SUBJECT 10 r E z„_IIITS 1 *1 pal-• t' 4 u.#Ci C'C`Ut'cmi coves /pst ris nt2•-ts, l N.e O Y___ t•`.. r1S1s 1 (E. xV LEAL D SCtatio` IO GAL) i've oisc ht W( - AER. Katnn faicrztLN I so sHE Lows 1-WE is 11k S 1 •t '"lc, t ur MA'( tss ABLE 11) t;Y:'LIV t r. 114,40i, f p.-, n- f 7 1 P7•li1 ? 0, 4../, it>` BOUNDARY PHASE III V 40 10;:111,2. s'"'t_.'7:-.."..* .•.. qg' • l' br' , 4(94 °.. 7MPF le ‘11" v Lz...- -.3.17 v\V.; \f‘:I, t.::':- '.;, " C - it, l4 T L» IL113TDCa2 : r\t‘ss Zal it\\ ,,,,\, \\,3 3 k l w+ portion T g_ ty v_gel v 15 N Cam) i 44 .1 N• N ' Ti CwuST)T L#Q 1 71 e 1 m til Z i L: \ — -: \ i 6\ \ I. V. x c+ L ....t 18 ` 1 • 1\N 23 0 t t 4, ro can r+ r 0 , ,r•,t' b w o T ii C v r.4-.-.,.: 0V-iH 'I OJTf.6 T- ar rr.r ' rrr us'r ai TDC Tobin Donation RENTON HILL REZONE PHASE III -R-219- 78 Claim LI- TL# Tax Lot Number tiOtilk 161\11\A I M MO MOMMa)p, flok) clzsvp90 rizAm Qc14+5“ (5) l w , 'V , ". A 7 • - rutairsaiiv, • it4 . r I f ffi firigfYilItalimvivi s tirl w•orAy7 - 1 • wimon,, i; p •Tqf TMi, I74.S 0 I i I n7Air OOS7S 67dlbtlr2s oe df9 # "4"k E 1'9.1 ocpso-J MItt D Y-1 s ir97 fd,,,d •v+O ry 7 A 7S 0)7d z4/0 47 S 1d vE N7 d O h7S s .79$ 40 VQ ? Vi S r/Q de4Er/ . 4.09 W :Lgee'9E 1/ z d bd S .9,V,Ve V7 3' Al o 4Anig •dvd s4.p .dr1- (cj b0 -!P 7 /3S 153 a 30,rtie to m0 u'Va a7 1' fiC7 S'As tI•7-Lu a .0Ob40. -1v 3V ce? 4r9A d s, N7fr1QNA7a py v woe Aw7 s L Val0 '°d i7r.n•1 ;r s no II"c.0-C os i, of V V J o sasue/) 44), v79d0 /11117 .379 d 9 )17 S 1)7 d 1 try S 1. 1O'`.)-'1' ', ,,• x 11I..• r -art._d''"..j'Sa$yiN .7°7 SV`t..ii ;.r elf.,' ,'r 0 1 1 Er r • 10, A A A. LOLYInatilikP. A . a . 411:1 A. . d. :: • • 0 • • 0 a Fl 0 C. se eo A. o C nttoP C OP' a C. IC I- gtift lc, Pat/ 4ZiV 1 J3,9 rnTOPATIEriu el506.4 I e ". • V '' ,.. a. A 4 I 46 • 40 lir A ig* a i I. pi; 7 74../,';, 4'1:.i./ 1/ r/•/, ZSO 4 loS 1QV low to o 6„„t , :,,, Ali,/ /.,), , 1 SC 64 1 1143 Z c•-•,, IN 1 1 I D ' '' t a 0 Il •••A.• a • 40 U ' 2 f EL sISEc , 1 I "/ MOS/A(6 #3.10.,Terr efS ii kefie/L+ S'it 136 ZeS5 1: 59jitex4esiaj, le' 9z.,47 4:elit,"4,: c,2-0-z4A- 3 ti f ja 6 , /9/ hd . 2/. 7 . a. a._ g--- w.- e/ e- eL t aL el 3 LAW OFFICES BOGLE & GATES ROBERT W.GRAHAM DELBERT D.MILLER CHRISTOPHER J.BARRY THE BANK OF CALIFORNIA CENTERCHARLESF.OSBORN ROBERT D.KAPLAN STEPHEN J.SIRIANNI MAX KAMINOFF DAVID M.SALENTINE SANDRA R.CRIBBS ROBERT V.HOLLAND DALE B.RAM ERMAN JAMES M.JERGE SEATTLE,WASHINGTON 98104J.TYLER HULL E.M.DUFF ARCHIBALD RICHARD A.BERSIN ARTHUR G.GRUNKE RICHARD M.CLINTON WILLIAM E.VAN VALKENBERG RONALD E.M.KINSTRY MICHAEL S.COURTNAGE RICHARD A.MONTGOMERY EDWARD C.BIELE KARL J.EGE LINDA B.EASON RICHARD S.SPRAGUE MICHAEL W.DUNDY PATRICIA H.CHAR IRWIN L.TREIG ER CHARLES R.BLUMENFELD STEPHEN L.ROTH PAUL W.STEERE JAMES A.SMITH,JR. RICHARD A.ALCORN ROBERT A.STEWART THOMAS C.GORES GEORGE C.ALLEN DONALD L.JOHNSON KIMBERLY W.OSENBAUGH CHRIS ROBERT YOUTZ CABLE"BOGLE SEATTLE"DON PAUL BADGLEY JOHN F.BOESPFLUG,JR. MARY L.GAUDIO PETER D.BYRNES FREDERICK T.RASMUSSEN MICHAEL E.CAVANAUGH 206) 682-5151 TELEX: 38-1087GERHARDTMORRISONDEANA.MESSMER LINDA E.F.LACH JOHN T.PIPER JAMES F.TUNE TERRENCE P.MURPHY THOMAS J.MCKEY THADDAS L.ALSTON GREGORY J.TRIPP EDWARD G.LOWRY III SPENCER HALL,J R. JOHN P.SULLIVAN ARTHUR C.CLAFLIN Counsel DUSTINTC.M.CRESCHAPS RY ROBERD.MICH C.GRAYSON November 1 197 8RONALD ES.JR. P J.• MICHAEL S YOUNG ED B.LONG MIKE LILES.JR.AR• KE PETER SHAPIRO EDWARDANK G EDOBRINCHEMWILLIAML.PARKER EN L.CORR FRANK B.KELLOGGDAN C.COUGH ELAINEUZ E SPENCER ORLML.MORROWJOHNC.COUGHENOUR UZANNE A.SMITH THOMAS L.MORROW PETER M.ANDERSON GUY P.MICHELSON M.BAYARD CRUTCH ER RECEIVED CITY OF RENTOI HEARING EXAMINER Mr. L. Rick Beeler NOV 31978 Land Use Hearing Examiner AM PM Renton City Hall 7181,9110111112111213141516 Renton, Washington Re: Interpace Corporation - Renton Rezoning File No.. .R-219-778a Dear Mr. Beeler: We represent Interpace Corporation, one of the property owners affected by the recommendation contained in your Report And Recommendation to The Renton City Council regarding the captioned matter, dated October 23, 1978 (the Report") . On behalf of Interpace Corporation, we respect- fully request reconsideration of recommendation No. 1 as set forth on page 18 of the Report. Specifically, we request that the reclassification of the hillside area be to the M-P classification and not to the P-1 classification. You will recall that the hearing was continued from September 26th to October 9th. During this period the under- signed met with Mr. Erickson and Mr. Clemens of the Planning Department for the purpose of reaching an understanding regard- ing the rezoning proposed. The discussion included a change in the Planning Department' s recommendation for the hillside area from S-1 to M-P. At the continued hearing on October 10th the Planning Department presented its amended recommendation which included reclassifying the hillside area owned by Interpace to M-P but continuing its recommendation that the hillside area owned by Puget Sound Power & Light Company be reclassified to S-1. Presumably the recommendation that the hillside area owned by Puget Power be reclassified to S-1 was for the reason that BOGLE & GATES Mr. L. Rick Beeler Land_Use Hearing Examiner November 1, 1978 Page Two Puget Power had not been represented at the hearing and there- fore had not agreed to the imposition of restrictive covenants with respect to its hillside property. ) We then advised that representatives of Interpace had talked with representatives of Puget Power and were assured that Puget Power would comply with Interpace's recommendation regarding the hillside. On this basis, we urged that it was appropriate that the hillside area owned by Puget Power should also be reclassified to M-P. The Renton Hill Community -Association indicated that it supported Interpace' s position on the matter and that the entire hillside area should be reclassified to M-P. The Examiner' s reasons for not accepting the consensus regarding the M-P classification appear to be set forth in para- graphs 3 and 4 on pages 15 and 16 of the Report. Those para- graphs refer to the Comprehensive Plan designation of the hill- side area as a greenbelt area, and the Examiner, specifically recognizes that the zoning regulations do not have a "greenbelt classification. " The Examiner concludes that under the circum- stances neither industrial, commercial nor residential uses are appropriate for -the hillside area. Interpace agrees with these conclusions. Representatives ' of Interpace stated at the hearing that the hillside was unstable and therefore 'inappropriate :for any Use other than as a green- belt area to serve as a buffer for the Interpace plant operations. That is why the Interpace representatives' agreed that restrictive covenants be drawn to prohibit any development of the hillside. The question is not what zoning classification is perhaps the closest to the greenbelt designation of the Compre- hensive Plan, but rather what zoning classifications are the most inappropriate under the circumstances. One reason why the M-P classification was agreed to for the hillside is because it will pose 'the least potential problems to the existing operations of Interpace On the property to remain in the H-1 classification. The M-P classification provides its own noise and pollution standards.' It also requires approval of site plans by the Hearing Examiner, and from an overall standpoint is the most appropriate 'classification for property adjacent to H-l' property. The hillside should not be developed and the restrictive covenants will provide assurance that it will not. BOGLE & GATES Mr. L. Rick Beeler Land Use Hearing Examiner November 1, .1978 Page Three On the other hand, the potential for future diffi- culties with the existing use of the H-1 classed property on the grounds that it is immediately adjacent to P-1 zoned property, which classification permits everything from govern- mental buildings to hospitals, parks, and libraries, cannot be ignored. There is no justifiable reason to impose any poten- tial hardship or restriction on the use of the H-1 property, over and above what now exists, by means of reclassifying the immediately adjacent property (which cannot be used) to a category like P-1. We likewise do not perceive any difficulty with the Examiner recommending the M-P classification for the entire hillside upon condition that restrictive covenants be executed. Contract rezoning of this nature occurs with increasing fre- quency. In fact, recommendations 1 and 4 of the Report, page 18, recognize the function of conditions by spelling out certain conditions with respect to landscape buffers, clearing, grading etc. .. We therefore urge the Examiner to revise recommenda- tion No. 1 on page 18 of the Report to provide that the entire hillside area be reclassified to M-P, subject to conditions a, b and c, or to the execution of restrictive covenants pro- hibiting development. Respectfully submitted, BOGLE & GATES Richard S. Sprague Attorneys for Interpace Corporation cc: Mr. Ralph Clark Robert McBeth, Esq. Ms. Kathy Keolher LAW OFFICES BOGLE & GATES ROBERT W.GRAHAM DELBERT D.MILLER CHRISTOPHER J.BARRY THE BANK OF CALIFORNIA CENTERCHARLESF.OSBORN ROBERT D.KAPLAN STEPHEN J.SIRIAN NI MAX KAMINOFF DAVID M.SALENTINE SANDRA R.CRIBBS ROBERT V.HOLLAND DALE B.RAM ERMAN JAMES M.JERGE SEATTLE,WASHINGTON 98104J.TYLER HULL E.MCDUFF ARCHIBALD RICHARD A.BERSIN ARTHUR G.GRUNKE RICHARD M.CLINTON WILLIAM E.VAN VALKENBERG RONALD E.MCKINSTRY MICHAEL S.COURTNAGE RICHARD A.MONTGOMERY EDWARD C.BIELE • KARL J.EGE LINDA B.EASON RICHARD S.SPRAGUE MICHAEL W.DUNDY PATRICIA H.CHAR IRWIN L.TREIGER CHARLES R.BLUMENFELD STEPHEN L.ROTH PAUL W.STEERE JAMES A.SMITH,JR. RICHARD A.ALCORN ROBERT A.STEWART THOMAS C.GORES GEORGE C.ALLEN I, DONALD L.JOHNSON KIMBERLY W.OSENBAUGH CHRIS ROBERT YOUTZ CABLE BOGLE SEATTLE" DON PAUL BADGLEY JOHN F.BOESPFLUG,J R. MARY L.GAUDIQ PETER D.BYRNES FREDERICK T.RASMUSSEN MICHAEL E.CAVANAUGH GERHARDT MORRISON DEAN A.MESSMER LINDA E.F.LACH 20(3) 682-5151 TELEX:32-1087 JOHN T.PIPER JAMES F.TUNE TERRENCE P.MURPHY THOMAS J.MOKEY THADDAS L.ALSTON GREGORY J.TRIPP EDWARD G.LOWRY III SPENCER HALL,JR. JOHN P.SULLIVAN ARTHUR C.CLAFLIN CounSElDUSTINC.MCCREARY ROBERT C.GRAYSON November 15RONALDT.SCHAPS D.MICHAEL YOUNG STANLEY B.LONG 197 3 MIKE LILES,JR. J.PETER SHAPIRO EDWARD G.DOBRIN WILLIAM L.PARKER KELLY P.CORR FRANK L.MECHEM DAN P.HUNGATE ELAINE L.SPENCER ORLO B.KELLOGG JOHN C.. ANDE SOUR SUZANNE. E M. YAL.MORROW RECEIVEDPETERHNCOUGHSONGUYPNMICHELSONA.SMITH THOMAS O ER CITY OF RENT ON HEARING EXAMINER Mr. L. Rick Beeler Land Use Hearing Examiner NOV 1 71978 Renton City Hall AM PM Renton, Washington 98055 718:9rfOBlhrl211$213t41516 Re : Interpace Corporation ----Renton Rezoning File No. T--219'-:78 Dear Mr. Beeler: You mention in your November 3, 1978 letter to us that our November 1 request for reconsideration does not con- tain an explanation of the impact P-1 zoning would havebn the ' existing H-1 zoning. The same basic reasons for concern that were expressed at the hearing with respect to theS-1 zoning category apply with equal if not greater force 'to the P-1 cate- gory. Specifically, •that concern is that more stringent noise, , pollution, environmental, or other operating restrictions might be imposed on the H-1 property on the grounds -that it would then be immediately adjacent to property zoned P-1. In fact, .the Planning Department recited at the hearing and used as onebf its arguments 'for the recommendation made to change the overall zoning on Renton Hill the Tact that public facilities had been developed in the area to the 'north 'and west. We strongly believe that the emphasis on endeavoring to find a zoning category that is closest to' the 'green belt classification of the Comprehensive Plan is misplaced. ' TheMain- tenance of the status quo; that is,. the 'prevention of any develop- ment of the hillside, will be 'accomplished legally and practic- ably by the imposition of negative 'covenants. or zoning conditions. That being the case, it seems to us that the focus 'should then be upon the selection of a zoning category that prospectively imposes 'the least impact on the 'continuing operation of the H-1 zoned property, which everyone agrees should continue.' The M-P category is just the category for this situation. It provides a form of transition to' the S-1 zoned property on the top of the' BOGLE & GATES Mr. L. Rick Beeler November 15, 1978 Page Two. Hill and contains its own basic controls regarding any develop- ment of the hillside. Not only that, the M-P category was agreed to by the Planning Department as an appropriate category. It is of course difficult and we think that you will appreciate this to point out specific situations where the P-1 category would impede the continued operation of the H-1 property. Nevertheless, our concern is a real one and applies with equal if not greater force to that category as it does to. the S-1 category. For these reasons, we urge that the M-P category is the appropriate one under the circumstances, as discussed and agreed to with the Planning Department, in that it provides an appropriate transition, will not impede the continued operation of the H-1 property, and when coupled with negative covenants or zoning conditions will insure that development of the hillside will not take place. We trust the foregoing answers your inquiry. Very truly yours, BOGLE & GATES T Richard S Sprague cc: Mr. Ralph Clark Robert McBeth, Esq. Ms. Kathy Keo:lker F R , v o THE CITY OF RENTON 2 Z MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, WASH. 98055 Sp CHARLES J. DELAURENTI • MAYOR • LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER 4 42- L. RICK BEELER . 235-2593 04tED SEP1C" 0<c, November 15, 1978 Mr. Richard S. Sprague Bogle & Gates Bank of.California Center Seattle, WA 98164 RE: File No. R-219-78; City of Renton Rezone, Phase III., Dear Mr. Sprague:V . In response to your request for reconsideration of the referenced matter, dated November 1, 1978, we transmitted a letter to you on November 3, 1978, which requested clarification of the impact of P-1 zoning on the existing H-1 zoned property containing the Interpace Corporation facility. We are requesting that a response to this inquiry be submitted to the Examiner by November 21, 1978; otherwise, the application will be reconsidered on the basis of information already provided. Respectfull L. Rick Beeler Hearing Examiner Attachment 1 ,- 0 THE CITY OF RENTON 4MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON. WASH. 98055 o 6 CHARLES J. DELAURENTI , MAYOR • LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER co- p L. RICK BEELER • 235-2593 4TED SEr.P1" ' November 21, 1978 Mr. Richard S. Sprague Bogle & Gates Bank of California Center Seattle, WA 98164 RE: File No. R-219-78; City of Renton Rezone, Phase III. Dear Mr. Sprague: Upon receipt of your letter of November 15, 1978, regarding reconsideration of this matter, I have re-evaluated my October 23, 1978, decision recommending P-1 zoning on the southern portion of the Interpace Corporation property. I find insufficient justification to change my recommendation of P-1. This recommendation was the result of considering several factors, all of which are contained in my decision. Under the specific circumstances surrounding your property these factors indicated that P-1 was a more appropriate zoning category than M-P or H-1. Relative to the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and goals and objectives it was agreed that a "greenbelt" designation was most appropriate. Admittedly, existing ordinances do not provide a zoning category corresponding to "greenbelt. " Therefore, the decision became, among other factors, one of which of the existing zoning categories most closely approached "greenbelt" while forming transition from R-1 to H-1 and which were inappropriate. After considering both questions, I arrived at a recommendation of P-1 subject to conditions. The use of restrictive covenants, as volunteered, to preclude development altogether on the southern portion of the Interpace Corporation property would produce a type of "greenbelt. " However, requiring such covenants, although voluntary, in connection with the rezone becomes entangled with the "taking issue." Due to these legal implications the recommendation seemed more prudent under the circumstances. The record and your request for reconsideration contain your opinion regarding potential impact of "operating restrictions" pursuant to reclassifying the property to SR-1 or P-1. As mentioned in my letter of November 3, 1978, my concern continues to be the lack of justification to support this opinion. Your letter of November 15, 1978, stated, "It is of course difficult. . .to point out specific situations where the P-1 category would impede the continued operation of the H-1 property." Therefore, I cannot find substantive evidence showing undue or adverse impact of "operating restrictions" upon the Interpace Corporation brick manufacturing plant. a.— .. _ .. Mr: Richard S. Sprague November 21, 1978 Page Two For these reasons, the October 23, 1978 recommendation is affirmed after reconsideration pursuant to your request of November 1, 1978. Respectfully, 4111.° ____ .. kerefitNi L. Rick Beeler Hearing Examiner cc: Parties of Record Mayor Charles J. Delaurenti Councilman Richard M. Stredicke . Councilwoman Patricia Seymour-Thorpe Councilman George .J. Perry Warren C. Gonnason, Public Works Director Gordon Y. Ericksen, Planning Director Ron Nelson, Building Division Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney INFORMATION: A new appeal period has been established for this application to expire on December 5, 1978. J BOGLE & GATES Mr. L. Rick Beeler November 15, 1978 Page Two Hill and contains its own basic controls regarding any develop- ment of the hillside. Not only that, the M-P category was agreed to by the Planning Department as an appropriate category. It is of course difficult and we think that you will appreciate this to point out specific situations where the P-1 category would impede the continued operation of the H-1 property. Nevertheless, our concern is a real one and applies with equal if not greater force to that category as it does to the S-1 category. For these reasons, we. urge that the M-P category is the appropriate one under .the circumstances, as discussed and agreed. to with the Planning Department, in that it -provides an appropriate transition, will not impede the continued operation of the H-1 property, and when coupled with negative covenants or zoning conditions will insure that development of the hillside will not take place: We trust the foregoing answers your inquiry. Very truly yours , BOGLE & GATES Richard S. Sprague cc: Mr. Ralph Clark Robert McBeth, Esq. Ms. Kathy Keolker LAW OFFICES BOGLE & GATES ROBERT W.GRAHAM DELBERT DRILLER ' CHRISTOPHER J.BARRY THE BANK OF CALIFORNIA CENTER CHARLES F.OSBORN ROBERT D.KAPLAN STEPHEN J.SIRIANNI MAX KAMINOFF DAVID M.SALENTINE SANDRA R.CRIBBS ROBERT V.HOLLAND DALE B.RAMERMAN JAMES M.JERGE SEATTLE,WASHINGTON 98164 J.TYLER HULL E.M5DUFF ARCHIBALD RICHARD A.BERSIN ARTHUR G.GRUNKE RICHARD M.CLINTON WILLIAM E.VAN VALKENBERG RONALD E.MCKINSTRY MICHAEL S..COURTNAGE RICHARD A.MONTGOMERY EDWARD C.BIELE KARL J.EGE • LINDA B.EASON IRWIN• HAEL W.DUNDY PATRICIA H.CHAR L.TREIGER CHARLES ARD GUE AR ES R.BLUMENFELO STEPHEN L.ROTH PAUL W.STEERE JAMES A.'SMITH,JR. RICHARD A.ALCORN ROBERT A.STEWART THOMAS C.GORES GEORGE C.ALLEN DONALD L.JOHNSON KIMBERLY W.OSENBAUGH CHRIS ROBERT YOUTZ CABLE"BOGLE SEATTLE" DON PAUL BADGLEY JOHN F.BOESPFLUG.JR. MARY L.GAUDIO PETER D.BYRNES FREDERICK T.RASMUSSEN MICHAEL E.CAVANAUGH 208) 682-5151 TELEX:32-1087GERHARDTMORRISONDEANA.MESSMER LINDA E.F.LACH JOHN T.PIPER JAMES'F.TUNE TERRENCE P.MURPHY THOMAS J.MCKEY THAOOAS L•ALSTON GREGORY J.TRIPP EDWARD G.LOWRY III SPENCER HALL,JR. JOHN P.SULLIVAN ARTHUR C.CLAFLIN Counsel November 15 1978 S DUSTIN G. CCREARY ROBERT C.GRAYSON RONALD T.SCRAPS • D.MICHAEL YOUNG STANLEY B.LONG MINE LILE S.JR. U•RETER SHAPIRO EDWARD G•DOBRIN WILLIAM L PARKER KELLY P.CORR FRANK L.MECHEM DAN P.HUNGATE ELAINE L.SPENCER • ORLO B.KELLOGG JOHN C.COUGHENOUR SUZANNE A.SMITH THOMAS L.MORROW RECEIVEDPETERM.ANDERSON GUY P.MICHELSON M.OAYARD CRUTCHER CITY OF RENTON HEARING EXAMINER Mr. L. Rick Beeler NOV 1 71978LandUseHearingExaminer. AM PMRentonCityHall. Renton, Washington 98055 718a9a10,11,1211a2a3,415,6 Be : Interpace Corporation - Renton Rezoning File No. 'R-219-78 Dear Mr. - Beeler: You mention in your November 3, 1978 letter to us that our November 1 request for reconsideration does not con tain an explanation of the impact P-1 zoning would have on the existing H41 zoning. The same. basic reasons for concern that were expressed at ,the hearing, with respect to the S-1 zoning category apply. with equal if not greater force to the P-1 cate- gory.. Specifically, that concern is that more- stringent noise, . pollution, environmental, or other operating restrictions might . be imposed on- the H-1 property on the grounds that it 'would then be immediately adjacent to property. zoned P-l.. • In fact, the Planning Department recited at the hearing and used . as one of its arguments for• the recommendation made to change the overall zoning on Renton Hill the fact that public facilities had been • developed in the: area to the north and west. We strongly believe that theemphasis. on-, endeavoring to find a zoning category that is closest to the green belt classification of the• Comprehensive Plan is misplaced. The main- tenance Of the status quo; that is,- the prevention of any develop- ment of the hillside, will, be accomplished legally and practic- ably by _ the imposition of negative covenants or zoning conditions. That being the case,. it seems, to us that the focus should then be upon the selection of a zoning category that prospectively imposes the least impact -on the continuing -operation of the H-1 zoned property, . which everyone agrees should continue. , The M-P category is just the category for this situation. It provides a form of transition to the S-1 zoned property on the top. of the 1 o THE CITY OF RENTON Z MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE SO. RENTON. WASH. 98055 0 _ o CHARLES J. DELAURENTI , MAYOR • LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER 4 L. RICK BEELER . 235-2593O,Q rfo SE Pit. November 3, 1978 yr. Richard S. Sprague Bogle & Gates Bank •of California Center Seattle, WA 98164 RE: File ,No. R-219-78; City of Renton Rezone, Phase III. Dear Mr. Sprague: . Your November 1, 1978, request for reconsideration does not contain an explanation of the impact P-1 zoning would have on the existing H-1 zoning. Since testimony regarding this information was not available at the hearing, it is needed for my review of the reconsideration request. Re laect ully. L. Rick Beeler Hearing Examiner LAW OFFICES BOGLE & GATES ROBERT W.GRAHAM DELBERT D.MILLER CHRISTOPHER J.BARRY THE BANK OF CALIFORNIA. CENTERCHARLES'F OSBORN ROBERT D.KAPLAN STEPHEN J.SIRIANNI MAX KAMINOFF DAVID M.SALENTINE SANDRA R.CRIBBS ROBERT V.HOLLAND DALE B.RAMERMAN JAMES M.JERGE SEATTLE,WASHINGTON 08164 J.TYLER HULL. E.MODUFF ARCHIBALD RICHARD A.BERSIN ARTHUR G.GRUNKE RICHARD M.CLINTON WILLIAM E.VAN VALKENBERG RONALD E.M.'KINSTRY MICHAEL S.COURTNAGE RICHARD A.MONTGOMERY EDWARD C.BIELE KARL J.EGE LINDA B.EASON RICHARD S.SPRAGUE MICHAEL W.DUNDY PATRICIA H.CHAR IRWIN L.TREIGER CHARLES R.BLUMENFELD STEPHEN L.ROTH PAUL W.STEERE JAMES A.SMITH.JR. RICHARD A.ALCORN ROBERT A.STEWART THOMAS C.GORES GEORGE C.ALLEN DONALD L.JOHNSON KIMBERLY W.OSENBAUGH CHRIS ROBERT YOUTZ CABLE`BOGLE SEATTLE" DON PAUL BADGLEY JOHN F.BOESPFLUG.JR. MARY L.GAUDIO PETER D.BYRNES FREDERICK T.RASMUSSEN MICHAEL E.CAVANAUGH WOG) 682-5151 TELEX: 38-1081GERHARDTMORRISONDEANA.MESSMER LINDA E.F.LACH JOHN T.PIPER JAMES F.TUNE TERRENCE P.MURPHY THOMAS J.MOKEY THADDAS L.ALSTON GREGORY J.TRIPP EDWARD G.LOWRY III SPENCER HALL,JR. JOHN P.SULLIVAN ARTHUR C.CLAFLIN CGU(ISBl , DUSTINCT..MCHAPS D.MICH C.GRAYSON November 1, 1978RONALD ES.JR. J.•PETEA S YOUNG EDWARDMIKEGEDOBRINCHEMWILLIAMHUNGATEELNL.ORRSPENCER FRANK L..KELLOG MDOH C.COUGH ELAINEUZ E A. SMITH ORLM L.MORROW G JOHN C. ANDE S OUR SUZANNE THOMAS L.MORROW PETER M.ANOERSON GUY P.MICHELSON M.BAYARD CRUTCHER • RECEIVED CITY OF RENTON HEARING EXAMINER Mr. L. Rick Beeler NO V 31978 Land Use Hearing Examiner " AM PM ' Renton City Hall 7t8t9,101.1111211 i2131415,6 Renton, Washington Re: Interpace Corporation - Renton Rezoning File No. R-219-78 Dear Mr. Beeler: ' We represent Interpace Corporation, one of the property owners affected by the recommendation contained in your Report And Recommendation to The Renton City Council regarding the captioned matter, dated October 23, 1978 (the Report") . On behalf of Interpace Corporation, we respect- fully request reconsideration of recommendation No. 1 as set' forth on page 18 of the Report. Specifically, we request that the reclassification of the hillside area be to the M-Peclassification and not to ' the P-1 classification. • You will recall that the hearing was continued from September 26th to October 9th. During this period the under- signed met with Mr. Erickson and Mr. Clemens of the Planning Department for the purpose Of reaching an understanding regard- ing the rezoning proposed. The discussion included a change in the Planning Departments recommendation for the hillside area from S-1 to M-P. At the continued hearing on October 10th the Planning Department presented its amended recommendation which included reclassifying the hillside area owned by Interpace to M-P but continuing its recommendation that the hillside area owned by Puget Sound Power & Light Company be reclassified to S-1. Presumably the recommendation that the ,hillside area owned by Puget Power be reclassified to S-1 was for the reason that BOGLE & GATES Mr. L. Rick Beeler Land .Use Hearing Examiner November 1, 1978 Page Two Puget Power had not been represented at the hearing and there- fore had not agreed to the imposition of restrictive covenants with respect to its hillside property. ) We then advised that representatives of Interpace had talked with representatives of Puget Power and were assured that Puget Power would comply with Interpace's recommendation regarding the hillside. On this basis, we urged that it was appropriate that the hillside area owned by Puget Power should also be reclassified to M-P. The Renton Hill Community Association indicated that it supported Interpace' s' position on the matter and that the entire hillside area should be reclassified to M-P. The Examiner' s reasons for not accepting the consensus . regarding the M-P classification appear to be set forth in para- graphs 3 and 4 on pages 15 and 16 of the Report. Those para- graphs refer to the Comprehensive Plan designation of the hill- side area as a greenbelt area, and the Examiner specifically recognizes that the zoning regulations do not have a "greenbelt classification. " The Examiner concludes that under the circum- stances neither industrial, commercial nor residential uses are appropriate for the hillside area. Interpace agrees with these conclusions. Representatives of Interpace stated at the hearing that the hillside was unstable and therefore inappropriate for any use other than as a green- belt area to serve as a buffer for the Interpace plant operations. That is why the Interpace representatives agreed that restrictive covenants be drawn to prohibit any development of the hillside. The question is not what zoning classification is perhaps the closest to the greenbelt designation of the Compre- hensive Plan, but rather what zoning classifications are the most inappropriate under the , circumstances. One reason why. the M-P classification was agreed to for the hillside is because it will pose the least potential problems to the existing operations of Interpace on the property to remain in the H-1 classification. The M-P classification provides its own noise and pollution standards. It also requires approval of 'site plans by the Hearing Examiner, and from an overall standpoint is the most appropriate classification for property adjacent to H-1 property. The hillside should not be developed and the restrictive covenants will provide assurance that it will not. BOGLE & GATES Mr. L. Rick Beeler Land Use Hearing Examiner November 1, 1978 Page Three On the other hand, the potential for future diffi- culties with the existing use of the H-1 classed property on the grounds that it is immediately adjacent to P-1 zoned property, which classification permits everything from govern- mental buildings to hospitals, parks, and libraries, cannot be ignored. There is no justifiable' reason to impose any poten- tial hardship or restriction on the use of the H-1 property, over and above what now exists, by means of reclassifying the immediately adjacent property (which cannot be used) to a category like P-1., We likewise do not perceive any difficulty with the Examiner recommending the M-P classification for the entire hillside upon . condition that restrictive covenants be executed. Contract rezoning of this nature. occurs with increasing fre quency. In fact, recommendations 1 and 4 of the Report, page 18, recognize the function of conditions by ,spelling •out certain • conditions with respect to landscape buffers, clearing, grading etc. We therefore urge the Examiner to revise recommenda- tion No. 1 on page 18 of the Report to provide that the entire hillside area be reclassified to M-P, subject to conditions a, b and c, or to the execution of restrictive covenants pro- hibiting development. Respectfully submitted, BOGLE & GATES L1 Richard S . Sprague Attorneys for Interpace Corporation cc: Mr. Ralph Clark Robert McBeth, Esq. Ms. Kathy Keolher OF I v oa o THE CITY OF RENTON MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON. WASH. 9s°r55 CHARLES J. DELAURENTI MAYOR o PLANNING DEPARTMENT 0 235- 2550 0, 9g7-ED SEP11-. EB March 2 , 1979 111 MAR2- 1979 Mr . Richard S . Sprague CITY CLERK Bogle and Gates Bank of California Center Seattle , Washington 98164 RE : File No . R-219-78 ; City of Renton Rezone , Phase III Dear Mr . Sprague : Pursuant to our conversation of Friday , March 2 , this is to indicate that the Planning and Development Com- mittee will be further reviewing the Renton Hill , Phase III , Rezone matter at their meeting of March 15 . As we discussed , we will be reviewing the proposed modifications to boundaries of greenbelt area and will respond to you as soon as the decision is made . It appears that some adjustment is more than reasonable . If you have any further questions , please feel free to contact me . Very truly yours , Gordo Y . Ericksen Plan i g Dir o 24„,e,e. vcd R. Clemens Associate Planner DRC :wr cc : Planning and Development Committee 1(E-I\I1a( /y- /LL p •• " ; -', o THE CITY OF RENTON U ®® MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE.SO. RENTON.WASH. 98055 o CHARLES J. DELAURENTI, MAYOR 0 PLANNING DEPARTMENT 9a co- 235- 2550 P 94, SEP O4 IMarch 16 , 1979 Richard Sprague , Attorney BOGLE & GATES p The Bank of California Center Seattle , Washington 98164 RE : INTERPACE/PUGET POWER COVENANTS Dear Mr. Sprague ; Transmitted herein are copies of the above referenced covenants with revised Exhibits denoting the Greenbelt Area . We have also hand delivered similar copies to Mr. Michael Kochanek at the Renton Interpace facility . As soon as the required signatures are obtained , we will forward the covenants to the Planning and Development Committee for final action on your appeal . If you have any questions regarding this matter , please feel free to contact this office at your convenience . Very truly yours , Gor'on Y . Eri ks , Planning Dir c irvi . C em f Associate Planner cc : Mr. Michael Kochanek Planning & Development Committee City Attorney GYE : DRC: sh OF R4,4, CJ 411 t% 42) F OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY • RENTON,WASHINGTON POST OFFICE BOX 626 100 2nd AVENUE BUILDING • ',ENTON.WASHINGTON 96055 255-11117S LAWRENCE J.WARREN, CITY ATTORNEY DANIEL KELLOGG, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY O it 1009gT SEPWk"" August 17, 1979 TO: Del Mead, City Clerk FROM: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Re: Rezone Ordinance - Interpace Corporation Dear Del: Please find enclosed the original of a proposed Ordinance as above captioned. You may note that in Section I there is contained language except the requirement for Restrictive Covenants being deleted; . . . " We deleted that because there is no com punction on Interpace to sign the Restrictive Covenants . If we do not delete that requirement from the Ordinance it will simply hold the Ordinance up . Interpace and Puget Power have held the ordinance up for for a long time refusing to sign the restrictive covenants so we ate simply going to delete them, have the Ordinance passed and in effect. If you have any questions, feel free contac me. Lawrence J. arren LJW:nd Encl. cc: Ways and Means Committee Mayor Council President Public Works Dept. way; thence westerly along the railway to the norcn line or n7 ,4- 47 Dont,,n r„_„n rnaJ r„_ Arra Tracts: thence east to the north- DECLARATION OF-RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS WHEREAS, Interpace Corporation ("Corporation") is the owner of 0 real property in the City of Renton, County of King, State of Washington, and , WHEREAS, the Renton facility of the Corporation is a specialty brick manufacturing facility located in an H-1 "Heavy Industrial" zoning district, and WHEREAS, the Corporation finds that to meet the mutual desire of itself and the general public, it is appropriate to provide for the usual as well as physical separation of the industrial activities from surrounding residential areas, and WHEREAS, the perimeter portions of the Interpace property lie along slopes that are generally steep (exceeding 20% slope), and said slopes have been identified as hazardous to Urban Development due to soil, geologic and hydrologic factors, and WHEREAS the majority of these steep slope areas are heavily wooded with varie4ies of big leaf maple, juniper fir, blackberry, honey locust, poplar and scotch broom trees, and WHEREAS, the Corporation desires to impose the following re- strictive covenants running with the land as to use, present and future, of the aforementioned perimeter areas: NOW THEREFORE, the aforesaid owner hereby establishes, grants and imposes restrictions and covenants running with the land as to the use of the land hereinbe'low described with respect to the use by the undersigned, his successors, heirs and assigns, as follows: A. ESTABLISHMENT OF GREENBELT AREA The following area, described on Exhibit "A" attached, and il- lustrated on Exhibit "B" attached, is hereby established as a GREENBELT AREA providing a physical and visual separation of land uses and 'minimizing potential hazards of the steep slope areas. B. REMOVAL OF VEGETATION No existing vegetation shall be removed from the above described GREENBELT AREA. 3t-I,Y\AULt1( ___ g 1 7 C. CONSTRUCTION No new structures shall be erected within the Greenbelt Area and no existing structures within the Greenbelt Area shall be modified or 'expanded. This restriction is not intended to eliminate normal maintenance of structures within the subject area. D. EXCAVATION AND FILING No native rock, minerals or other mining materials shall be exca- vated from the Greenbelt Area, and no filling, grading or other placing of any such similar material shall occur within the Greenbelt Area. E. EXCEPTIONS The City of Renton Hearing Examiner may recommend to the City Council an exception from the requirements of these restrictions when, in its opinion, undue hardship may be created as a result of strict compliance with the provisions of these restrictions. In recommending any exception, the Hearing Examiner may prescribe' conditions that it deems necessary to or desirable for the public interest. No exception shall be recommended unless the Hearing Examiner finds: 1) That there are special physical circumstances or conditions affecting said property such that the strict application of the provisions of these re- strictions would deprive the property owner of the reasonable and safe use of his developed land area; • 2) That the granting of the exception will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the vicinity; Application for any exception shall be submitted in writing by the property owner to the Planning Department. The application shall state fully all substantiating facts and evidence pertinent to the request. The Hearing Examiner shall consider such application at a public hearing following notice as prescribed for a special permit application. F. AMENDMENTS Upon mutual consent of the property owner and City of Renton, and following proper notice and public hearing thereon, any specification of these covenants may be amended. G. DURATION These covenants shall run with the land and shall remain in per- petuity. Proper legal procedures in Superior Court of King County may be instigated by either the City of Renton or any property owners adjoining subject property who are adversely affected by any violation of breach of these restrictive covenants. Reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, including expert witness fees, if any, incurred during an enforcement proceeding will be borne by the parties whom the court determines are in error and shall be entered as a judgment in such action. INTERPACE CORPORATION By By STATE OF •WASHINGTON ) ss COUNTY OF KING On this day of 1979, before me personally appeared e_.._.. the person who executed the within and foregoing instrument, and acknowledged said instrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said person for the uses and purposes therein mentioned. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year first above written. Notary Pu is inand for the State of Washington, residing at EXHIBIT "A" That portion o6 .the W 1/2 o6 the SE 1/4 06 Section 17, Town4hip 23 North, Range 5 East W.M. debcA.Lbed az 6ottowz: Beginning at the SE eon.nen. o6 .the West 1/2 o6 the SE 1/4 o6 said section 17; Thence north aty aeong the east tine o6 said subdivision a distance o6 750 Thence wezteAty on a tine pan.aeeet with and 700 beet nonthene.y as mea,5uhed attightangtez6nomsouthtineo6saidsubdivisionadistanceo6600beetmom. on .eese; Thence non thwestekty a'ong a tine to a point on the went tine o6 the SE 1/4 o6 said Section 17, zaid point being 1400 beet nontheaty o6 the SW cornea o6 said section; Thence eoutheAty aeong .the west Pine o6 the SE 1/4 a d ztance o6 1400 beet more on Zes s -to the SW eoanen. theaeo 6; Thence eae.ten,Cy atong the south tine o6 .the SE 1/4 o6 Section 17 to the SEconneno6 .the W 1/2 o6 .the SE 1/4 theaea6 and the point o6 beginning; Except thente6ao n the 6ottow.i.ng descAibed paacee: Beginning at the SW coanen. o6 SE 1/4 o6 said section 17 ,thence non theatyaeongthewesttinethen.eo6 a distance o6 500 beet mono on. ters; Thence boutheasten.ey along a .sine to a point on the south tine o6 the SE 1/4 o6 said Section 17, wUch point ties 4200 beet mom, Oh £ezis east o6, as measuaed along the south tine 06 said subdivision Wm the Sw con.nen o6-bald SE 1/4; Thence westeaey along the south tine o6 the SE 1/4 o6 Section 17 a distance o6 1200 beet move on. tess -to the SW con.neI theaeo6 and the point o6 beginning. 1_ // EXHIBIT "B" Municipal I^lTERPACE .Building S • a e'( ` aa F ee CP ad r I' Riper 1--(--/--;/// iy/ is 9z. \ NORTH 7 0,2 No/-. s c a l e hoh 1" equals h R approx . 450 ' I lc PP 1NTERPACL od o Facilities d N C 1 ro L . x i, O Ot 1• c o cn I c o n I a) a) 0 ¢ c c r i 5- O O M a) vim + C c.,""l600' — v "n 1 Z3 c c •,- a) a a, Cr) GREENBELT O n c a) o CD J = 11--,,,4-) 1 3, O v, L- r W cc I I South %th 'Street l DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS WHEREAS, Puget Sound Power and Light ("Corporation") is the owner of real property in the City of Renton, County of King, State of Washington, and WHEREAS, a portion of said property owned by the Corporation adjoins properties owned by Interpace Corporation, and WHEREAS, the Renton facility of Interpace Corporation is a special- ty brick manufacturing facility located in an H-I "Heavy Industrial" zoning district, and WHEREAS, The Corporation concurs with Interpace Corporation and finds that to meet the mutual desire of itself and the general public, it is appropriate to provide for the usual as well as physical separation of the industrial activities from surrounding residential areas, and WHEREAS, the Corporation's property lies along slopes that are generally steep (exceeding 20% slope), and said slopes have been identified as hazardous to Urban Development due to soil, geologic and hydrologic factors, and, WHEREAS these steep slope areas are heavily wooded with varieties of big leaf maple, juniper fir, blackberry, honey locust, poplar and scotch broom trees, and WHEREAS, the Corporation desires to impose the following re- strictive covenants running with the land as to use, present and future, of the property: NOW THEREFORE, the aforesaid owner hereby establishes, grants and imposes restrictions and covenants running with the land as to the use of the land hereinbelow described with respect to the use by the undersigned, his successors, heirs and assigns, as follows: A. ESTABLISHMENT OF GREENBELT AREA • The following area, described on Exhibit "A" attached, and il- lustrated on Exhibit "B" attached, is hereby established as a GREENBELT AREA minimizing potential hazards of the steep slope areas. B. REMOVAL OF VEGETATION No existing vegetation shall be removed from the above described GREENBELT AREA. C. CONSTRUCTION No new structures shall be erected within the Greenbelt Area and no existing structures within the Greenbelt Area shall be modified or expanded. This restriction is not intended to eliminate normal maintenance of structures within the subject area. D. EXCAVATION AND FILING No native rock, minerals or other mining materials shall be exca- vated from the Greenbelt Area, and no filling, grading or other 'placing of any such similar material shall occur within the Greenbelt Area. E. EXCEPTIONS The City of Renton Hearing Examiner may recommend to the City Council an exception from the requirements of these restrictions when, in its opinion, undue hardship may be created as a result of strict compliance with the provisions of these restrictions. In recommending any exception, the Hearing Examiner may prescribe conditions that it deems necessary to, or desirable for the public interest. No exception shall be recommended unless the Hearing Examiner finds: I) That there are special physical circumstances or conditions affecting said property such that the strict application of the provisions of these restric- tions would deprive the property owner of the reasonable and safe use of his developed land area; 2) That the granting of the exception will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the vicinity; Application for any exception shall be submitted in writing by the property owner to the Planning Department. The application shall state fully all substantiating facts and , evidence pertinent to the request. The Hearing Examiner shall consider such application at a public hearing following notice as prescribed for a special permit application. F. AMENDMENTS Upon mutual consent of the property owner and City of Renton, and following proper notice and public hearing thereon, any specification of these covenants may be amended. G. •DURATION These covenants shall run with the land and shall remain in perpe- tuity. Proper legal procedures in Superior Court of King County may be instigated by either the City of Renton or any property owners adjoining subject property who are adversely affected by any violation of breach of these restrictive covenants. Reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, including expert witness fees, if any, incurred during an enforcement proceeding will be borne by the parties whom the court determines are in error and shall be entered as a judgment in such action. PUGET SOUND POWER AND LIGHT By By STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ss COUNTY OF KING On this day of 1979, before me personally appeared the person who executed the within and foregoing instrument, and acknowledged said instrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said person for the uses and purposes therein mentioned. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year first above written. Notary Public in and—for the State of Washington, residing at EXHIBIT "A" PARCEL "A" : That portion of the Tobin Donation Claim No . 37 lying within the SW 1 /2 of Section 17 , Township 23 North , Range 5 East, W.M . , described as follows : Beginning at the intersection of the east line of the donation claim and north line of the Cedar River Pipeline right-of-way ; thence north to the northeast corner of the donation claim; thence north 594 ' thence north to the Puget Sound Electric Railway; thence westerly along the railway to the north line of Plat #1 Renton Co-op Coal Co. Acre Tracts ; Thence east to the northeast corner of Tract #43 thence south 5 ' , thence east 310 ' ; thence south to the northeast corner of tract #25 of said plat, thence southeasterly to a point 40 ' east of the northeast corner of Tract 37 of said plat , thence east 300 ' thence south to the northwest line of the Cedar River Pipeline right-of-way thence southeasterly on said right-of-way to the beginning less a portion south of the north line of Tract 38 plat #7 of the Renton Co-op Coal Co . Acre Tracts extending east except coal mining rights less the state highway . PARCEL "B" : Also that portion of the SW 1 /2 of Section 17 , Township 25 North , Range 5 East , W.M . , described as follows : Beginning at a point north of 08°41 ' 00" west 30 ' from the northwest corner of Gladding McBean property in Government Lot 5 , thence south 26°55 ' 00" east 216 ' , thence south 41 °25 ' 00" east 160 ' , thence south 79° 35 ' 00" east to the east line of Government Lot 5 , thence south to the southeast corner thereof, thence west 594 ' . to the southwest corner thereof , thence north to the south line of the Pacific Coast Railroad right-of-way , thence easterly along the south line to the point of beginning less the northerly 30 ' of and parallel with Pacific Coast Railroad right-of-way. N . EXHIBIT "B" Municipal PUGET POWER Building 72---""\NO •c ee Led, Sep F — d r 4ilik.River N e NORTHof 0 scale7re, oehh 1" equals d approx . 450 ' INTERPACE rodd o Facilities N c PARCEL B co 0 N 0) n) I c GREENBELT N N m PARCEL A cn ¢ C N. c t CI r CO 3 In r C C Ol C .r Q1 QJ a N jiCr, 1 I 1 1 South( I %th Street I 4-c\..--- N Renton City Council 8/20/79 - Page 2 Old Business - Continued City Water Councilman Stredicke noted complaint by Mr. Ernest Lobe on 8/13/79 re use of city water by building contractors, submitting letter from Warren Gonnason, Public Works Director, noting water service connection to the meter box from the street had not been installed properly by the developer. Also, the City Water Department will make the necessary corrections to the service line, install the meter and bill the developer for these costs. Councilman Stredicke requested the record show that Mr. Lobe had been informed of the City's findings and action taken. Public Safety Public Safety Committee Chairwoman Proctor presented report Committee Report recommending the low bid of Tony M. Koenig Landscaping for Fire Station the Fire Station Landscaping Project be accepted in the Landscaping amount of $5,050. 19, also authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk Award of Contract to sign. Moved by Clymer, Second Trimm to concur in the recommendation. SUBSTITUTE MOTION BY STREDICKE, SECOND CLYMER TO ACCEPT THE LOW BID, SUBJECT TO APPROVAL OF THE CITY ATTORNEY. CARRIED. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS Ways and Means The Ways and Means Committee Chairman. Clymer presented report Committee Report recommending the following ordinances for second and final - readings: ORDINANCE #3346 Ordinance was read vacating a portion of alley between SW 12th Alley Vacation-and SW 13th Streets as petitioned by Gunnar Ostlund. (VAC-11-79) Between SW 12th & MOVED BY CLYMER, SECOND SHANE, TO ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS READ. SW 13th-VAC-11-79 ROLL CALL: ALL AYES. CARRIED. ORDINANCE #3347 Ordinance was read vacating a portion of alley between SW 12th Alley Vacation- St. and SW 13th St. as petitioned by Mr. Pierotti . VAC-14-79. Between SW 12th & MOVED BY CLYMER, SECOND SHANE, TO ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS READ. SW 13th -VAC-14-79 ROLL CALL: ALL AYES. CARRIED. ORDINANCE #3348 Ordinance was read providing for appropriation of funds for the Appropriating Funds payment of relocating a light standard in the amount of $1,614.00. Relocating Light MOVED BY CLYMER, SECOND SHANE, TO ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS READ. Standard ROLL CALL: ALL AYES. CARRIED. Councilman Stredicke requested the record show the, money was paid by a developer. ORDINANCE #3349 Ordinance was read, amending City Code relating to routine inspection Cabaret of cabarets and investigation of complaints. MOVED BY CLYMER, Ordinance SECOND SHANE, TO ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL: ALL AYES. CARRIED The Ways and Means Committee recommended the following for first read and advancing to second and final : ORDINANCE #3350 Ordinance was read relating to improvements at the Gene Coulon Gone Coulon Memorial Beach Park and amending Ordinance No. 3343 passed and Memorial Park approved Aug. 6, 1979. for a bond issue. MOVED BY PERRY, SECOND Bond Issue CLYMER, TO SUSPEND THE RULES AND ADVANCE TO SECOND AND FINAL Amending) READINGS. CARRIED. After readings it was MOVED BY PERRY, SECOND . SHINPOCH, TO ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL: ALL AYES. CARRIED. (9/18/79 Election Ballot Issue, $7,825,000.00) The Ways. and Means Committee recommended the following for first reading: Renton Hill Rezone Ordinance was read changing the zoning ;classification of. certain,. R-219-78 'properties within the City from heavy industrial district. to Interpace Corp. residence single family district (R-1); public .district (P-1) and manufacturing park district (M-P). Renton Hill , R-219-78. MOVED BY PERRY, SECOND SHANE TO REFER BACK TO THE WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE. CARRIED. RENTON CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting August 20, 1979 Municipal Building Monday, , 8: 00 P . M. Council Chambers MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Mayor Charles Delaurenti led the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag and called the 'Renton City Council meeting to order. ROLL CALL OF BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH, Council President; RICHARD M. STREDICKE, COUNCIL MARGARET PROCTOR, GEORGE J. PERRY, EARL CLYMER, THOMAS W. TRIMM, CHARLES SHANE. CITY OFFICIALS C.J. DELAURENTI, Mayor; LAWRENCE WARREN, City Attorney; DEL MEAD, PRESENT City Clerk-Finance Rep. ; GORDON Y. ERICKSEN, Planning Director; JOHN WEBLEY, Parks and Recreation Director; WARREN GONNASON, Public Works Director; RON HEIRET,. Park Supt. ; BRUCE PHILLIPS, Fire Dept: Rep. ; CAPT JAMES PHELAN, Police Dept. Rep. PRESS • GREG ANDERSON, Renton Daily Record Chronicle MINUTE APPROVAL MOVED BY SHINPOCH, SECOND CLYMER, APPROVE COUNCIL MINUTES OF AUGUST .13, 1979 AS WRITTEN. 'CARRIED. PUBLIC HEARING This being the date set and proper notices having been posted, Alley Vacation published, and mailed according to law, Mayor Delaurenti opened between N. 35th the public hearing to consider proposed alley vacation located N. 36th St. , between N. 35th & N. 36th St. , East of Burnett Ave. N: as East of Burnett petitioned by Brown/Strand Homes. VAC-13-79. Letter was read Ave. N. from Warren Gonnason, Chairman-Board of Public Works, noting VAC-13-79 no objections to vacation, no easements and suggestion of no- fee. Letter was read from Walter L. Cook, 903 N. 36th St. , noting his approval of vacation. MOVED BY PERRY, SECOND SHANE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. CARRIED. MOVED BY PERRY, SECOND SHANE, TO APPROVE ALLEY VACATION WITHOUT A FEE. CARRIED. MOVED BY PERRY, SECOND SHINPOCH, TO REFER TO THE WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE FOR ORDINANCE. . CARRIED. AUDIENCE COMMENT Rose Gilbert, 10409 SE .174th, noted previous request of council SW Victoria St. to review appraisal of SW Victoria St. street vacation, VAC-12-79. Street Vacation Letter was read from Public Works Director, Warren Gonnason, VAC-12-79 noting reappraisal of property to $5. 10 for a portion and $3.00 a sq. ft. for the remainder, the new totals owing . would be Kaczmarek - $16,957.50 and Allers - $3,600.00. Following discussion it was MOVED BY TRIMM, SECOND SHANE, TO CONCUR IN THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR. CARRIED. Executive MOVED BY SHINPOCH, SECOND CLYMER, COUNCIL HOLD EXECUTIVE Session SESSION TO DISCUSS LABOR NEGOTIATIONS. CARRIED. 8:35 p.m. and reconvened. at 9:05 p.m. Roll Call - All council members present, OLD BUSINESS Gene Coulon Council President Shinpoch urged individual endorsement of Memorial Beach Park the Gene Coulon Memorial Beach Park bond issue. City Attorney Bond Issue cautioned council not to endorse as a legislative body, but individually. Fire Services Per request of the administration to make a presentation - SE Quadrant of MOVED BY SHANE, SECOND SHINPOCH, TO PLACE ON THE COMMITTEE OF City THE WHOLE AGENDA THE MATTER OF FIRE SERVICES FOR THE SE QUADRANT OF THE CITY. CARRIED. MOVED BY PERRY, SECOND SHINPOCH, TO REMOVE MATTER FROM THE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE & REFER TO COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE. CARRIED. Community Services 'Community Services Committee Chairman Stredicke presented report Commit'tee Report recommending referral of mosquito control in the Springbrook/ Mosquito Control Talbot Hill area back to the Mayor's office to see if any spraying can be done and if it would be effective at the present time and for inclusion in the 1980 budget to provide for control in that area. MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECOND PROCTOR, TO CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. 6 gip'-•::./ _0 F= r,., i OFF-I'CE OF 'THE'.CITY. ATTORN•EY._RENTON,WASHI'NGTON POST"OFFICE SOX 626 100 2nd AVENUE BUII0ING' '.RENTON.WASHINGTON .9!l05S 258-e67e O ; LAWRENCE rI WARREN;.:CITY.ATTORNEY '.DANIEL.`KELLOGG, ASSISTANT.CITY ATTORNEY A4itst9g F.D E SS • De `Mead: it" 1 erTO. 1': FROM: Lawrence`'`J';,' .Warren, City Attorne ..f y: ation-,n'aee;' Iri,ter ,aee`;Co' ,o:rReRe:z< ne Qrdi A rp;. t DeYDe 'ra Please find:enclosed the, original of:. a proposed. Ordinance, . as above ,captioned h `t= n:.Section`:l=`:•there:.is. contained :lan ua eYou'.may ,no'te:''t a g . .g: e.°re uirement `fo Restrictive:`Covenants beinexceptthrq deleted -:`.: ... - We deleted'• that `. he'l s'e. there: is, no 'com-` g pun,ction on;: Int`erp:ace,. .to.`--sgn: the'Restrictive., `Covenants..'. ' If `we .°do..delete: that,requireiiment .'from,:the Ordinance it` ctio :.not y '1 old;..:the .Ord-inance '.up -': ,.Interpace. and Puget ._ Power':have :held the-,...ordinance 'up fo;r :,for-,,for.",a long time . s- so we are .. refusr%g ao sign the_`restrictive." covenant ' simply going to delete ,them;. have. ;the Ordinance.'passed and in effect u:'h:'a n i es ions fe:e'1-,;'free ' comic me il Lawrence:=:J.. arren LJW nd` s' End Means °Committee Ma .or_y . _ i''Council President P.ublic`;Works De t. Il% It ki: v.. . . s' ,,, w CITY,OP RENTON, WASHINGTON ' ' • y'. t ORDINANCE NO. As,, ,_ ' • , , c;,' t1AN..ORDINANCE Or 'rii$ CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON CHANGING THE ZON ° CI,AAi*ICA?ION OF CERTAIN PROPERTIES WYTHIN THE'CITY OF RAMON FROM HEAVY INDUSTRIAL . DISTRICT. TO REIIOENOR SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT (R-1); PUBLIC DISTRICT (P-1) AND MANUFACT- A' r,; URING,PARK DISTRICT :(11 P) R-219-78 (RENTON HILL) WHEREAS under Chapter,7, Title :IV (Building Regulations) of Ordinance No. 1828 known' as the "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton", as A amended, and the maps and reports adopted in conjunction therewith, the property hereinbelow described has heretofore been zoned as Heavy Industrial District; and WHEREAS a proper petition for change of zone classification of said property has been filed with the Planning Department on or about September 7, 1978, which petition was duly referred to the Hearing Examiner for investigation, study and public hearing, and a public hearing having been held thereon on or about September 26, 1978,,and said matter having been appealed to the City Council and the City Council having affirmed the Hearing Examiner's decision, and said zoning request being in conformity with the City's Comprehensive Plan, as amended, and the City Council having duly considered all matters relevant thereto, and all parties having been heard appearing in support thereof or in opposition thereto, NOW THEREFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I: The following described property in the City of Renton is hereby rezoned to' Residence Single Family District (R-1); Public District (P-1) and Manufacturing Park District (M-P) as hereinbelow specified; subject to the findings, conclusions and decision dated October 23, 1978, except the requirement for Restrictive Covenants being deleted; the Planning Director is hereby authorized and directed to change the maps of the Zoning Ordinance, as amended, to evidence said rezoning, to-wit: See Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof as if fully set forth herein. Said property being located at east of the existing Renton Hill single family residence neighborhood and north of South 7th Street in a northeasterly direction to the center of the Cedar River) 4}-,6,.. L..-.• ,, . r,,,i,`,,,,,4',..11.:,*,',,,:,,,i'i, .' '''I ,':i.'• PARCEL,"O'i. ' ,,, ',••. ,... •',7„. ...' ' . •. ',.•:... ,':.-•••....:•••,-,-,..,:.--;•".,',,'•';', ',,',• .r. :;• . .:.' . „ . . . . , ;,,.:•'.,,,,,,,..-......).•,.;::-.„;,..,';'',. ; :"4,' 3.‘•••i,f. :., ..;-.;„•.,,'...,V, • ., .- ,i'...,,:.:'••'.•.,,That portion• d.f.t'ha75W '2/2 .o.f..5eati oa...47,,..:i Township:'23,„North,, • ,,,. . . . . •',,,-. ... ;'..', . ...',.:,•,'.4'..1. 4';..,ii,-;,c;;:•-,,..;',...':,: ••0', •''',:; ., -..,,,.-.Range .5 East,•W.M.:'; ,deseilked -4S1-.follows'i.':, : ''.•.• : '--...-• ' :•. -• .. . •' ''. '-.. .". • ,,...,.,/..,......;,!';.:7:.....,...,JA V„ifAt;;;':',?,:••=. .,r..-,,,4 • .,....',,r:•,'.-:.:,',;•.,.'''•••:....: ,.,.“"..' • . .: ..,.' '...',.....:;.:,,-,.,:.,.'..:'..,•'','.....,L,;.,•,..:. '''';...,'..•.,:-:.-,:..:,:'. ..!.,..,.:..;..--;••:', • ,' .• ......*::•.". .•...':-..:,1 :;!..'• • ..•g,,1;•.ii,..:-.Y.c..,';''.'1'i'i'; ',.ti'e?$' T.'ki,A;`,;,;,-;',,k',!-:(r',..;':.:1-,. ,*-.-'-. ' ...--.:,.-..-. •: •'•' ,•'r.....-''.,:' .:',: .',..'-'0 ,-,' 'A'.„'.1,.- ":-':•::,''..' ..::. t4,,-.7,'?‘:::;,•,, , ,,•.' ,':':• • •;':,.I. .: Beginning at•,a ipoint;:nOtff.:'(,)+,•'0; ;•,...,•1•Ati•Lf.,1•,,,'!,.:1west,'-30,1:,,:froTn•••the,'xicirthr,•;r:• ..,!•••.'• ' ••:4:'‘'..",....-2.:•'•,'J'• ',•-P., -,1 r,;;,,;;;- e.:,-,,,,.,,2...,...,,,,'•:?'• • -•...., ,.„.. . • ;west ,•aorn'er...of Glaiidinggc4,0a.n',R.repe.r;.ty,.-;.,,In• qo.i.rarnment.,•Lbt: 5, .- ,.., •: • ..... - ...•;,••.:•,,,..-,,0;,,,,•. .•,,•,..•,„ ,,4 c'.•'),:gr.N•P.;.',H,-..i•';;',.'i :' ...-. • ••• • .•..thence..south-0894P'00:7,''''eaSt.',.4'4,71:.::•5T;',•thetl'Oe';';dOuth 2,69. 5.100" east . •••' '' , ' ,• ••:":'," " 1:.•,''''''0/44 p.... .i.,e.;•,:c0,.2,.,,..?„,,,'..:..,,.: • ,.. .. , . .216i, ..thence.-.§66h ?429,j45;40&").0adt'160!..;.4lienge•Oodh 19°35.100" gi.::::i•;,:: :11.,-11-).i,:;,‘;::i,.„,.. 1.'L.!'i,,.i.li.:,;?„; '':... :. .. •',:..: ',,',' east ''t'o the...10St.:,l'i..neof,:.:90y p 17'103i.:9t..:;Aq, ',:,, ;.:)•..t'h q p0.0:.;south .tp .the,. . . . ,. . :;',,• •.,,,,...:...,,,,,,,,,, ,A.4 y:-,,,,.:?-,i•if.'4 .,.,„'•.-,' ,.',I,2:',i, . • ,. • . .• -.. southeast corner.,,,thereof,•, 1•, thence....West-'594'.;••to the southwest ccir'-, . ,.-, N,4. 1.•,:::::• Z.';',,,,!,:.i;••••;,',',•, ;',41 v''.4,,•'•'1-,:i .i .0,i:-',',. .:.., . . .-, t......, , . ,..' ner • he.raoi,,,•,;',..OAP..n,c,e,..-pp,..rPh ;t0',.'',#1*;:O.,550 0.' line Pf-'C.• Pacifict407J' Coast .•••::.,.',' „'•.' - r/t-0.i:T.',.:1'''4:VJ:.:',:..i:1 lAk,ffo'i„,ii:,,,:;,•::,•,.. :.V.;1,::' ,.. . ' .• . Rai Ir pa d...right-of-way,'-.1.:4er..ige•,,:;.ea'..S:te*:T:Y.;•:,#,40.pg.'..,. .he.:south•'line to. ' ;.;•, -, ,' ' 1'..••',.( r.1-;,:: 1;;;.',,,:'}';',',-::`,.',':•':•;,';' ''' i,'''' Ale-i.'....-'f.L,,,P.,,-f.,,-. ;',..1?1,• ,•', •the point of •he.Vinn.04.,.1•6.0S1':.'th'elii3rithei4..g.,.':;30,1:...:: 9`f and parallel ; ' ',.• .' 1',..,•'•:: ,:.` 1.4,W;•..1.,...•.P...7,'.1...,,,,Il• .,,,,t1.-.;q:%..,-.1.:R,,,,J with Pacific Coast :4,?a.7../'read '27i4,ht;Tof4.401aY.,. -,•,..• ::,..; • - — 1.%•,,-4-,-,...!:•;-......:,. .:1,',::figi'' i"..,.-•,1,•..%',•,•1'.,'.':-, ..,.f...,•• • REZONE H-i TO R-i3•.*\!.,;-.1-'...,::•,4,..',--•: 1 '. • ,S1'''4',.`:`';i-..','.',.•'' ' '''Y.', e- •-,•-• -.•••.-. ... . .• :, ., ., • That• portion of the W 1/2. of the SE •;,o.,-1/4,• f Section 17,, Township 4',1".,..i:-Z.:,'.•-,•.,:,-,:",;,..',,,,,; l',i'i.,"'•'•;-:..".''''.".:.,''.1.' '•1" '23 North,. Range 5' East W.11. desOr4he'cl:'aa,follbws:. ,' . . •. '• . • ••f' ' ','. '4i'..,4:....4•,:•,' • :,,'...,.:::..1-..• 1•'-',r`;,2,•.:"...,.: .'-'!..1-•.',`.•')rc. A.!.. 1.1.,,':•. 1g;,;..'..:;:':',;-.'...„:. . : . . " , • . Beginning at' the'SW-corner' of SE '1/4. c42';''sa.14, Section.' 17 •thence ' '• ,',, .. • 1;,. ','.'..-': :• :.•;:,,,.521..t ce.:1,1.1,;,',.,''..:',:',• ' " 4...:„.,::,northerly along the West line, thereof 'a distance' of,500 .feet ' •.• ... . ''.';',:"...'...• ' ...,' ','.......:', mare or less; i:,',.::',,i..1,' .•,,., ,•,, Thence southeasterly along a .line to a•point on the.. south line 7.',(,-,- , ; "-'., :„ • , ' . 'of the SE 1/4 of. said ,Section 17, whiOh. pOint •lies .ppp, feet • ,. - more or•.'less, east. of, as .measured. elehg...the' south line. of said section from •the...S.V. corner,Of. .ssid 'qz,,//41•:•. ' .. ,• --. v.. . - .. Thence -westerly..along the -south line of the SE, 1/4 of Section 1;:.: 'i';-.: !. !-: . ' 2 ' •17 .a distance of ..1200..feet iflo.ce, or less to. th SW corner thereof and the pbiat, of beginning. •,.• ''.. : ' ' •• • • ' REZONE 1-I-i TO 1-Pi."•.•-•,'...'s.„',1":..', • ''':., : 1 i;.',1,;..,1,-.;;;;:;,.;,., ' 1•':' 1 -•.•'...1'.'.!':'.';'.•' That portion of the west 1/2 of the :SE' 1/4 of Section 17 Town- V••' ' ...• ..i..,.',:: ship 23 North, Range 5 East W.M.: described as follows: PARCEL ''.A." ' . Lot•' " That portion of Government ,6..'an4 the southwest //4 of the • 1.. 7... SE 1/4 of Said section, lying northerly of the Columbia and Puget Sound Railroad Company right-of-Nay and southerly of that line established by Superior Court decree #90072 dated February 6, 1913. i PARCEL ''B".. , That portion 'of. Government lot lying northerly of. that line established by Superior Court decree 1190072 dated February 6, 1913, and southerly of the present Cedar, River bank. Vi)• , •, , .. •„ , . en- ,.. ' • ' ', i- 11'...1•,•..•••:'•-• : ' -.- 7 • 7'., 1,','111: 'f...'I' '• , f t, 7 ., . . . 1 • 7' t:',,,'''', i;',..••••,...,,....,.,:t.',',.. .'7.4-:.., . ijii;3-',',-'',...f.';;'.•,•',''''....-•-'-' • ' • • , • -' . , . . ,-, , • , • ;''. ' • ' :- • . 1', . •"•' : . ' , • V.: • •"-.''' ''1,' ZW.:4 ki'-.1.1.'''''':''':.Vi'.-...'''''..,.'...:'.i• ' '',. '''., „'''' . , ' , '... , ' • •' ;;•''"t,..:•',.%, ':,. •..,'':':, ,'''" ',' ',,''.:',::,'-..,: ';'....''':,i' '::,' :,''-;' :.'' l' ''' :'" • : .' • .1i i:. ,. .,.. ," l.'•'., '. : ' •. •''• - :••, . . '. ••• .:':•'.... ,' `: '.' ,, ;' ''..'.:..•. ' ..',. - .* -; : . ''•..'. ' / b6, \ar•1 1' PM' gime.K t 1,4''-4111L 1 A.-----.::.::2'-'. \ E - or- ,0.- ,/ 4''`a""*.•... Ni-I4ih: di I:4k o 1 C3 t:=) 0 0 _. .. 1111111M1 ,. 40 ''',,,- 111% : lit 7. `=, O- Pact .„.\\''al o o 0 IFall 1 ; 4Dw,` al' 0 __ r Str... .,4144:4. 4t, S• srM sr Iiii Ni. i VIA o- I_ , a + p d ins 0lilrl01 biâufJ ow 111X46 4(". 8.=! it" 0 Q° 13 1 il 1 SOAL :-*aQZ3' Rcoms •nu. Pae•i 3t I s a jT4^U'LI1city oarrclI Hange'5:East; W.M., dehavi44dulyconsidered::all 'scribes as follows:., I. matters :relant- thereto Beginning•attheintersection .and.all.-parti ;having been, of the-east'line of.the dons-a heard appeerin"g'in-aupport 'tion.clatm and north:line.of;.thereof or in-opposition-.,the'•Cedar,.River,,Pipeline',f'.•thereto,NOWTHEREFORE: right-of-way;.th`ence`north to•, .THE CITY COUNCIL OF'-the northeast corner•of.the;THE ,CITY :OF RENTON, donation claim;,thence westWASHINGTON,° DO-,OR=-.;594'- thence:,north,.to-:the„DAIN AS.FOLLOWS:• :l • Puget Sound Electric;Rail= ;Affidavit of Publication SECTION 1 Thefollowing- way; thence westerly-along•`.described iproperty,,irr the. the=railway,to•the norCoth line":City•_of'Renton -is„hereby.'of Plat #1-,Renton., -opirezon'ed to Residence`Sing=";:Coal Co:'`Acre_•,Tracts;'STATE OF WASHINGTON f_'le`FamilyDistriet.(R-1);Publ-,Sthence.eastto:the-northeast;-COUNTY OF KING SS. rc District.(P-;1);and,Manu-=,corner:.of.TraCt#43 thence;facturing,)Park'District(M=p)- ,.south 5', thence:;east 31.0'.;'aS:-.'fl'ereinbelow sPecified.;. 'thence`south-to,the'north=,-subjecttothe findings,-eon= east,corner of,tract;#25'of:. terlofusions:and •decisions.`said piet,'-thencesoutheas-'.heT'Qs 3•••a.'ll.L.i?.r irl being firstdulyswornon jdated...October '23, 1978, F ytga.point40':eastoftfie•except;the:requirement for;'northeast corner of Tract37:: A Restrictive..Convenants lie-::";ofsaid-Ofoath,deposes and says that.5.7.e..is the .Ck ea,.f C J,— ..} of yirig;deleted;.the,;Planning .-thence south'•to the;north:,,.THE DAILY RECORD CHRONICLE,a newspaper published six(6)times a Director '.is" hereby`,au= west'line-of the-Ce'dar-Riverweek.That said newspaper is a legal newspaper and it is now and has been thorized;<and;directed- to Pipeline,right of=way;thenceformorethansixmonthspriortothedateofpublicationreferredto, change.;;the maps`of.;:the "southeasterly`on said right •iprintedandpublishedintheEnglishlanguagecontinuallyasanewspaperZoningsaOrdinance, :as:' of-way to the beginning.less=;published four(4)times a week in Kent,King County,Washington,and it is amended to evidence said a portion south of the north `now and during all of said time was printed in an office maintained at the rezoning *wit line-of Tract 38 Iaforesaidplaceofpublicationofsaidnewspaper.That the Daily Record Se Exhibit •A' attached • Renton Co-o pat Co ci `,Chronicle has been approved as a legal newspaper by order of the Superior hereto_annd-:made'a-,_ Ping as_Here:• Court of the County in which it is published,to-wit,King County,Parf `'Tracts'extending east: ass.. hereof as if fully set forth cept coal mining rights lesshereinthe.state highway ; Washington.That the annexed is a Ordinance `3 3 53 S property being io PARCEL 'C'.cated ateastof.the-exist 'Thatportion.of.theSW+ of° ingfam Renton'-Hill :single,-_`Sectiona 17p` Township;•.23y.,y residence.neigh--• North,-.Range 5'East,,W..M.,borhood•sand:=north;of decribed a_s-follows: South,7th ;Street, in.a`'.: :Beginning at a pointnoithof;', as it was published in regular issues(and northeasterly:direction to' '::08 41'00.'west30"from thenotinsupplementformofsaidnewspaper) once each issue for a period the,center'of•the Cedar`. 'northwest;corner•of:;Glad-River-: -• -- ,•,:' _ P .P rty,,irqsiSECTIONII::This 'Ordi- Government Lot 5;-thence`:nance:shall be*effective_up- -•south:08°41'00":east;473:5'dof1 consecutive issues,commencing on the r on its passage,approval and 'th'ence scuffs 26°55'00"east•;five,:days'after.=its-publics 2,1 6'..,;---.•th'ence: *sou'th::tion:•;;• : 41°25'0,"east 160';'tfience:.3 day of August 19 79 ,and ending the PASSED:BY THE CITY.-,south-79°35'0'..ea:of to:1 eCOUNCIL, this,27th day of•;east.lineof'.Government LotAugust, 1979 5 thence south to the south- Maxine E. Motor east-corner thereof .thenceDeputyCityClerk.-west:594':to;the southwest;inclusive, and that such newspaper was regularly distributed to its sub- ' `.APPROVED BYE T.scribers during all of said period. That.the full amount of the fee HE'- to'tbe-thouth thencof the`-,"MAYOR'.this•_;27th.day.of to,'the isouth line ,of._.ttiAugust;,.1979:-:: `:°.,.. .,•.••,.; e' i 5 Facific:Coast Railroad rigfit=charged for the foregoing publication is the sum of $ 1 $' which = , Charlesharles;l.;Delaurenti;.,,,of-way;'.thence: easterly-.?has been paid in full at the rate of per folio of one hundred words for the Mayor ;along?she south line,to thefirstinsertionandperfolioofonehundredwordsforeachsubsequentapprovedSeto;form -i.: point of•,beginning,tees:tFie':insertion. LBw[enceJ:'Warren;°`. _'- -. fJ—+ .; C Attorney'noh'Paci is ` of anT'p lralle linritli'Pacific.Coast'Railroad, right-of=way..... . ;_ :. 1xi"- EXHIBIT-"A'' Y • REZONE•HA TO'`R=1:::%: '.4OrdinanceNo.'-3353 That••portion•of-the'W V of rtCheifClerk -E;H R'219-78- the-SE,I -of-Sectionl:7":-REZON -1,to:P=1:.:a-. 1:•. ` Township 23 North,RangetThatportiohof_theW+ of.-.East..:the SE'+ W.M. -described,:;as';xaofSection;,17,:'•follows: '-'"sSubscribedandsworntobeforemethisdayof :;Township,23-North,Range 5:'Beginning;at the SW`cornera-East W.M. deso_ribed:•as--;of SE 1 of.,said Section-- 7SepteI11berfollows:'.=•.p 1979 whence;northerly-along'the;;PARCEL'"A" ' westl'ine thereof a`distance 1Beginningat-the SE•corner'" of 500:feetmore.or less'• goad$action 10 the SE+ of .,Thence southeasterly.along r;Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, a line to a`pointonthesouth a residing at Kent, King County.may, Passed by the Legislature,1955,known as Senate Bill 281,effective June R;1;. ':..g; 79th, 1955. r ` _ Western Union Telegraph Co. rules for counting words and figures, :- w=:„adopted by the newspapers of the State. i ' - '° V.P.C.Form No.87 Rev.7-79 Public Notices CITY OF RENTON, Ther IIIIISiii• iU aWASHINGTONeastORDINANCENO. 3353 SE ? ' .. , •AN ORDINANCE OF distaTHECITYOFRENTON, Then sWASHINGTONparalCHANGINGTHEZON- north + "ING CLASSIFICATION rightOFCERTAINPROPER- of saiTIESWITHINTHECITY600fiOFRENTONFROMThen( 4#HEAVY INDUSTRIAL a lineDISTRICTTOREST- lineDENCESINGLEFAMI- Secti.LY DISTRICT (R-1); 1400 A PUBLIC DISTRICT(P-1) SW .AND MANUFACTUR- Then.ING PARK DISTICT(M- westP) R-219-78 (RENTON distaHILL) or le-WHEREAS under Chap- ther-.ter 7,Title IV(Building Regu- Thenclations) of Ordinance No. south1628knownasthe"Code of SectioGeneralOrdinancesoftheoftheCityofRenton,"as amend- there•ed, and the maps and re- begin ports adopted in conjunction Exceptherewith, the property ing dehereinbelowdescribedhasBeginheretoforebeenzonedasofSEHeavyIndustrialDistrict; then-and • west liWHEREASaproperpeti- of 500tionforchangeofzoneThencclassificationofsaidproper- a line . ty has been filed with the line oPlanningDepartmentonorSectioaboutSeptember7, 1979, 1200 fwhichpetitionwasdulyre- of, asferredtotheHearingEx- southaminerforinvestigation, from thestudyandpublichearing, SE 1/4; and a public hearing having Thence westerly along thebeenheldthereononorsouthlineoftheSE1ofaboutSeptember26, 1978, Section 17 a distance ofandsaidmatterhavingbeen1200feetmoreorlesstotheappealedtotheCityCouncilSWcornerthereofandtheandtheCityCouncilhavingpointofbeginning.affirmed th Hearing Ex- PARCEL "B" aminer's de••ision, and said That portion of the Tobinzoningrequstbeingincon- Donation Claim No.37 Ivinaformitywiththarir„,,.__ ...- 166 Renton City Council 8/27/79 Page 2 Old Business - Continued Applications Community Services' Committee report recommended the City Co-sponsor for Interjurisdic- three applications for interjurisdictional funds (1.. King County tional Funds Unified Weatherization Program, 2. Cedar River Trail System, 3. King County Senior Housing Program). MOVED BY CLYMER, SECOND SHINPOCH, TO CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION. CARRIED. Executive MOVED BY SHINPOCH, SECOND STREDICKE, COUNCIL HOLD EXECUTIVE SESSION Session TO DISCUSS LABOR NEGOTIATIONS. CARRIED.. 9:15 p.m. and reconvened at 10:20 p.m. Roll Call - All council members present. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS Ways and Means The Ways and. Means Committee Chairman Clymer presented report Committee Report recommending the following ordinance for second and final readings: ORDINANCE #3353 Ordinance was read changing the zoning classification of certain Renton Hill Phase properties within the city from heavy industrial district to III Rezone residence single family district (R-1); public district (P-1) R-219-78 and manufacturing park district (M-P) Renton Hill Phase III, R-219-78, Interpace Corp. Interpace Corp. MOVED BY CLYMER, SECOND SHANE, TO ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL: ALL AYES. MOTION CARRIED. The Ways and Means Committee recommended the following ordinance for first reading: Alley Vacation-Ordinance was read vacating a portion of an alley between N. 35th Between N. 35th & and N. 36th Streets, East of Burnett Ave. N. as petitioned by Brown/ N. 36th Sts. , Strand Homes. VAC-13-79. MOVED BY CLYMER, SECOND SHANE, TO REFER VAC-13-79 BACK TO THE WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE. CARRIED. Atlantic Services Ordinance was read changing the zoning classification of certain Rezone properties within the city from light industrial district (L-1) R-363-79 and residence. district (R-3) to business district (B-1) . Atlantic Services, Inc. , R-363-79. Property located at the southwest corner of south Grady Way and Main Ave. South. MOVED BY CLYMER, SECOND SHANE, TO REFER BACK TO THE WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE. CARRIED. The Ways and Means Committee recommended the following resolution for adoption: RESOLUTION #2292 Resolution was read setting a public hearing on October- 1, 1979 Street Vacation to hear the matter of a proposed street vacation of a portion Tacoma Ave. NE of Tacoma Ave. NE, north of NE 17th St. , between Shelton Ave.- NE VAC-17-79 and Union Ave. NE. (VAC-17-79) Petitioned by Valley Investment Properties/Robert C. Olson. MOVED BY CLYMER, SECOND TRIMM,TO ADOPT THE RESOLUTION AS READ. CARRIED. Voucher Approval Ways and Means Committee report recommended approval of Vouchers No. 24503 through No. 24717 in the amount of $353,555.31. (Voids 24498 - 24502) LID #302, Revenue Warrant,R-42,$18,446.48; Cash Warrant,C-100,$18,081.76; Cash Warrant,C-101, $227.70; Cash Warrant,C-102, $137.02. LID #307, Revenue Warrant, R-7, $32,479.15; Cash Warrant,C-8, $32,479. 15. MOVED BY CLYMER, SECOND TRIMM, TO APPROVE THE VOUCHERS. CARRIED. CONSENT AGENDA The following items are adopted by one motion without discussion, unless requested. Motion follows the items included. Police Auction for Letter from Hugh R. Darby,Chief of Police, notice of Auction for Disposition of Disposition of Unclaimed Property, to be held on Tuesday, September Unclaimed Property 25, 1979. Notice to be placed in the local .newspaper. For information only. Reappointment Letter from Mayor Delaurenti , reappointing Mr. Felix Campanella to Board of the Board of Adjustment, position #1, term- to expire Sept. 6, 1983. Adjustment Refer to Ways and Means Committee. RENTON CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting August 27, 1979 Municipal Building Monday, 8: 00 P.M.Council Chambers MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Mayor Charles Delaurenti led the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag and called the Renton City Council meeting to order. ROLL CALL OF BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH, Council President; RICHARD M. STREDICKE, COUNCIL GEORGE J. PERRY, EARL CLYMER, THOMAS W. TRIMM, CHARLES SHANE. MOVED BY SHINPOCH, SECOND CLYMER, EXCUSE ABSENT COUNCILWOMAN MARGARET PROCTOR. CARRIED. Councilwoman Proctor arrived shortly thereafter. CITY OFFICIALS C.J. DELAURENTI , Mayor; LAWRENCE WARREN,City Attorney; MAXINE PRESENT MOTOR, Deputy City Clerk; GWEN MARSHALL, Finance Director; WARREN GONNASON, Public Works Director; JOHN WEBLEY, Parks and Recreation Director; DAVID CLEMENS, Planning Dept. Rep. ; JAMES MATTHEWS, Fire Dept. Rep. ; HUGH DARBY, Police Chief. PRESS GREG ANDERSON, Renton Daily Record Chronicle MINUTE APPROVAL MOVED BY SHINPOCH, SECOND CLYMER, APPROVE COUNCIL MINUTES OF AUGUST 20, 1979 AS WRITTEN. CARRIED. PUBLIC HEARING This being the date set and proper notices having been posted, Proposed Condo published, and mailed according to law, Mayor Delaurenti opened Conversion the continued public hearing to consider the proposed condominium Ordinance conversion ordinance. Letter from Henry Dean, Attorney, '1700 Peoples National Bank Bldg. , Seattle, was read suggesting number Cont. from of days to complete the ordinance and possible exclusion of certain 8/13/79 sections. Henry Dean (representing Misty Cove Apts.. ) inquired about section regarding updating apartments being converted to present building code requirements may not always be feasible of older units and requirement of guarantees of items within the unit. Councilwoman Shinpoch noted objective was to prevent conversion of substandard buildings. Mike Moyer, 16803 254th P1 , So. King County Tenants Union, noted favorable response to the proposed ordinance except for exclusion of financial aid to tenants forced to move elsewhere. MOVED BY SHINPOCH, SECOND PERRY, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. CARRIED. MOVED BY SHINPOCH, SECOND CLYMER, REFER TO THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTFF TO CONSIDER SUGGESTIONS AND COMPLETE THE ORDINANCE. CARRIED. AUDIENCE COMMENT Judy Pierce, King County Emergency Medical Services, explained recommendation for King County to directly operate paramedic services to residents of South King County. The main objective of such a program would be to handle administration and funding. Also, explaining proposed county wide six year levy issue to fund basic and paramedic services at approximately $.21/$1,000 from Renton would total 195,775.00. King County Councilwoman Pat Thorpe noted desire for City to be aware of the program coming before the County Council probably next week requesting the County administrate such a program. Councilman Stredicke requested that a countywide 911 program be included. OLD BUSINESS Community Services Community Services Committee Chairman Stredicke presented report Committee Report re special needs and joint funding presently available through the Housing and Community Development Block Grant Program noting the following: South Burnett Community Services Committee recommended that the City endorse an Park Project application for $20,000 of additional funds for the South Burnett Park Project. MOVED BY CLYMER, SECOND SHINPOCH, TO CONCUR IN THE RECOMMENDATION. CARRIED. Funds for'South Community Services Committee report recommended that $5,179 of additional Burnett Park 1979-1980 population funds be committed to. the South Burnett Park Project. Project MOVED BY CLYMER, SECOND SHINPOCH, TO CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION CARRIED. CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. 3415 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF CERTAIN PROPERTIES WITHIN THE CITY OF RENTON FROM HEAVY INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT . (H-1) TO RESIDENCE SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT (R-1) WHEREAS under Chapter 7 , Title IV (Building Regulations) of Ordinance No. 1628 known as the "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton" as amended, and the maps and reports adopted in conjunction therewith, the property hereinbelow described has heretofore been, zoned as Heavy Industrial District (H-1) ; and WHEREAS a proper petition for change of zone classification of said property has been filed with the Planning Department on or about September 7, 1978, which petition was duly referred to the Hearing Examiner for investigation, study and public hearing, and a public hearing having been held thereon on or about September 26 , 1978, and said matter having been appealed to the City Council and the City Council having affirmed the Hearing Examiner' s decision, and said zoning request being in conformity with the City' s Comprehensive Plan, as amended, and the City Council having duly considered all matters relevant thereto and all parties having been heard appearing in support htereof or in opposition thereto, NOW THEREFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS : SECTION I : The following described property in the City of Renton is hereby rezoned to Residence Single Family District (R-1) as hereinbelow specified; subject to the findings , conclusions and decision dated October 23, 1978 ; the Planning Director is hereby authorized and directed to change the. maps of the Zoning Ordinance, as amended, to evidence said zoning, to-wit; See Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof as if fully set forth herein Said property being located at east of the Existing Renton Hill single family residence neighborhood and north of South 7th Street in a northeasterly direction to the center of the Cedar River) SECTION II This Ordinance shall be effective upon its passage, approval and five days after its publication. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this 15th. day of April, 1980 . De ores . Mead,Niteylerk APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this 15th day of April, 1980 . c& bcir 5 tumpo at) Barbara Y. Shinpoch, Mayor Approved as to form: r• La tenc'e J. Wa9en, City Attorney Date of Publication: April 23, 1980 r . EXHIBIT "A"^ ORDINANCE NO . 3415 RENTON HILL REZONE R-219-78 THAT PORTION OF THE H . H. TOBIN DONATION CLAIM NO. 37 LYING WITHIN THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 17, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST , W.M. , DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS : BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF TRACT 32, PLAT 1 OF THE RENTON CO-OPERATIVE COAL COMPANY 'S ACRE TRACTS , AS RECORDED IN VOLUME 9 OF PLATS, PAGE 29, RECORDS OF KING COUNTY , WA. , THEN NORTH. 60 FEET , THENCE WEST 10 FEET , THENCE NORTH 85 FEET , THENCE EAST 310 FEET , THENCE SOUTH 145 FEET , THENCE WEST 300 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. 0 y ~ / EXHIBIT B" Ordinance No. 3415 TDC y., 1I at r ' BOUNDARY PHA J i/ ."``' "_ • SE III V TL113TDB1 7L 14N.,,,, ,.,.. : 187 141 P iialZ r ?: g.i. 0 \ e' '' portion TL# rt 1. 61\•• ' 47\77:470 1' 4 ' N, ikb...,,,.•.:........,...i.: :::, !f.,.!Ir ................. . tW N\ TL, , • i Ai i .., 441', .\_\ .,. ‘. \ - ...,. NON 1 r-an CU 11\7 N 1 i : i 1! 1 18 fli.\\IX k . ode 41,.,.! -4'. 0 = is 1% ‘t‘•` k•%,\•\‘' ' . • •ilhh„,` - • 5\ d era tm s c 1=zia calms a clrs i -- az, ._. RENTON HILL REZONE PHASE III-R-219-78 plain Donation Ti# Tax Lot Number 1;) '74,11t(1 ,4?14,5 OMMjpz1JQJ 601e60 PROM act *is) r 1. - T'-' -. ---:-:--.-..'.--; ;,..:•':,-..--,-.-:::,..:-- • ; ----'• I . f..„--...-.,--z-,.;..„.,:. ,.. . :.. . •-, -,:-.--.....---,;,•_...-•,.,:.-: .,...,:)...----.. ,.--,...----.-:-.---,--'..,.:.-.....-•• :-_• .....-•-i',(--: :',,,.•,,-,-..e'.--;:t.;•,;.'_-3,,,,, .‘--,,-....,.:,,,:.:-..„.:1-•-•._.i,-,.-,..-ii-_,,,,-:-.:,-,f k,.;,N./.:.,,,,.?.,..i..,:.1;;.(1:..1::j..4 -...:,,.:)'-'1',.....:4:-'t 1,..,,,1"...:"'-,,,.1y:',-f...,,:„.F).1-gf,:,,,,'".1‘j.",,,Z-6;11,-,i'.•-:.i.:,77„,1%.,',:, X, .. 7:',..:7;F.-'.',;,.A"i^Tri.Styi;1.,,IC:Aili;07,?.)r,V*.:1::74.,:.le;.:q!..,^04:7::..i.'?"fi:'i",..''''.'7!Zr.:'''..'.'.:;7-,.''' er;'14.;:-..';':''F1'....'.,':,."'.,'.'y. ,2':,,•;!•-•.,,, ,, ,,,z,...; ..,.; ,,,-,-.: •••, ,,, r,.. k,..,,y..„,,,,.,,, ,,..,:.,•;,tii:-.;-,.. ,,,.......;•;,J-„,,,,'.i.,,:°,•;,...',.r0-..r•••,,,r,...:.!, i•:;].-. ..:,,,,2,., ;.::.,,".--:.•..:;)1-.W.ii.C.4!"...:3---'.;:-71''''''''''--',:.''.'':':'....': '•"'::'''.'..'•,,,..,..:`,'' ':: 5.,•';.'''.:'',..,...!,-11';'•':,,„.'..,:;',: 2•„;--,,..) -7..:'''-`'.:';'''''': ''.':' :-::' : ..:. ':,.•:V..":'..'''', i'11;''.."..'''';;:1.-.1:';',7:?..:4.-:';-'''','":"‘."'',...:' ..--;.-:'.: ::::.'".::.--- ". 7...'•••-„,',,:-•,:,,,,,,;,...,...,.,-.,..,-.,. .,„,.,,,,,:;,,,,:,-,,?,,c!...:,..-•,,.. ...;''', .. 4° IP:k s''' * 4 4b''''' cyCt.....,,... BOUNDAR'Y. PHI:S'E 1.1.1 ... ',.....'".:.- 1. :. ' ' ,2„t„,,,,,,,e4,. „,..„......, ,,,,.., „.•,,,L.. .. '..e .4.,•,,.. ,...,., ..„, ------ 26. - Ns.j....-'• •• . ..- , t i7.-**;1‘,..`,.,---s•,*4:-.',4- ....,. . 7.,f),-,......?•.,..i.-,;;rer—e,..- --„•-' , ' C.::.k-, --,--..k. ,..-k,,,,,,,,•-','.....„.--:,;:•:,3...,....47- e.,. .'-..---.-T.,,,I,,,,c,-- L,,,,.) 74.•4„ . ,,,t,,,,, • . , .. e H. II d .„,...,...-- . .. : ,.._ •-y-......-,,,p ,..,-,,v ' 1' 4,, L DC 11,\;‘,.1 . r.,,, •, T.L - . ... •::-,f'7,,,-,44.,,,, -, •. : , 1 113 T DC ts.N 1 li © .•. ---,.. .".., ',. 11, •11,,-,2ii.,F.:-:-...;:'-.: 1',..•, . 187 .fl's.,...‘ . . tri, '..,..,/0,\ N„\\::- ,.. .,:•::::.-rieL:., :, -,', ..,„-•.,,,,,,.• rt..,,,.,,,,,..„,,,,,,,,,,.,„.„,... .,,,,,:.•c•.:,,..::-..,...,...,-1 s,, • .,,,..,,,,...,.N,„„,,• e...., .,,,.....- •:.•'. I\N JA,1. -: :•:••: •••;.."•' -..q. 1 q M 0 • • . 0. . 1\' ,' ..N• carr.fr) T10--!-- ..ir--,, c 71 - 1 ,a-,„,. • 1, ,,,,,,i,• :.‘,.. .;... • • n = • 14-• • r:s•.,...- \...\.\\•••,,,, + •_ on,..4 i-i-i s\ s•••,. .\••....\..., \ N- \\H g,' - . 1 IV ‘•1 1 .1:0 '.'.\\'':\i.:Lt.'i%t\b14t.ZO•\ \\' s. \\.st..1 a:: er.:1\\\\• • . \'\;:a ',i o.= 1 . '''''\\ '''‘NC''''X'•'\ ,.., ''. , .‘'. ' ‘. ! .'', . . II t.........t I 14':.'N',;.,\.. \•\,\‘.,.\...‘,'\\\ ''• i% \A ' '2,, ' • ' i i I di p i.' ••-•'.."•• ,`..\\,\\ '‘.*\NI • ,, - R-1 • ••.. \\\ \\, , \il -g . 0„ ,,,. . , r.. , .. ..,,,-.. 7).,,\.\\\,\.\\,..\ , wo • 10 1—1 --2•41-Werr TOE Tobin Donation 1 ' • ' RENTON KILL REZONE PlIA'A III-P.-29-78 ----7 Clain • . -: , ... i . . rTL,'Tax Lot Ilucthe'r 1/.. 0 M OXAMN1:tt ••,1\Dr)/...01 KN.4 MDloitei157‘.;•. Renton City Council 4/14/80 Page 3 CORRESPONDENCE AND CURRENT BUSINESS City Property Letter from Public Works Director Gonnason recommended referral Lind Ave. SW to the Committee of the Whole to consider request from Commercial Fire Training Pacific Brokerage Services, Inc. to purchase City-owned property Site)on Lind Ave. SW consisting of 5.68 acres. The letter noted the 2.00 per sq. ft. purchase offer; that property is located in the Industrial Park, consists of approximately 247,421 sq. ft. and $494,842 would be selling price. MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECOND TRIMM, THIS SPECIFIC OFFER BE DENIED AND THAT THE SUBJECT BE REFERRED TO THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE. CARRIED. OLD BUSINESS Committee of Council President Trimm submitted Committee of the Whole report Whole Report recommending concurrence in Mayor Shinpoch's letter of 3/13/80 Uncommitted Funds regarding the uncommitted funds in the amount of $35,188.60 and included in the 1980 budget. The Mayor's letter recommended Excess Revenue 11 ,982 for Building Division permit clerk; $1 ,000 travel account; 15,000 for Salary Survey ($13,631 appropriated in 1980 budget) . The Committee of the Whole report also recommended concurrence in Mayor Shinpoch' s letter of 3/13/80 regarding the City's excess revenue in amount of $1 , 122,382.72, recommended proposed expendi- tures of $860,212.34 for City Shop relocation; $68,787.48 - finishing Burnett project and balance for Contingency and Special Funds. MOVED BY TRIMM, SECOND STREDICKE, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE RECOMMENDATION. CARRIED. City Shop MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECOND CLYMER, MATTER OF CITY SHOP DEVELOPMENT Development AND RELEASE OF ANY PROPERTY ALONG CEDAR RIVER BE REFERRED TO THE COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMITTEE. CARRIED. Utilities Utilities Committee Member Reed submitted committee report Committee recommending the systems development charge for water and sewer Systems connections be increased from the present 1 per sq. ft. to 4t Development per sq.ft. on a City-wide basis. The report stated charges Charge Increase would be adjusted annually in accordance with Consumer Price Index for Seattle area; refer to Ways and Means Committee. MOVED BY CLYMER, SECOND REED, CONCUR IN COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. Committee on MOVED BY HUGHES, SECOND STREDICKE, COUNCIL PRESIDENT APPOINT Committees A COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES .AT THIS TIME. CARRIED. Councilman Trimm appointed Stredicke, Reed and Shane. SW 43rd Project Councilman Stredicke requested status of SW 43rd Street project. S. 180th St.) Public Works Director Gonnason used wall map and explained 4/17 deadline for meeting with Urban Arterial Board, matter referred to Transportation Committee; fund for undercrossing would require 7,000,000; Forward Thrust Funds not sufficient. Gonnason recommended project be modified; Gonnason explained five lane proposal wedging down to 44 ft. in area of railroad tracks and then returning to five-lane width to eliminate immediate need for right-of-way acquisition; that Kent Transportation Committee has approved plan and requested Council concurrence in an alternate plan. MOVED BY HUGHES, SECOND STREDICKE, THAT ALL FUTURE NEGOTI- ATIONS AND DISCUSSIONS BE HELD JOINTLY WITH CITY OF KENT OR EQUIVA- LENT KENT TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE AND REPORT BE MADE TO OUR CITY COUNCIL. CARRIED. (Councilman Stredicke called attention to December 1974 Council Minutes.) Transportation Transportation Committee report stated committee concurrence with Committee Public Works Department recommendation for improvement of SW SW 43rd Street 43rd Street from East Valley Highway to the West Valley Highway Improvement as presented 4/10/80 and requested Council concurrence in five lane plan with four lane at-grade railroad crossing. MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECOND HUGHES, CONCUR IN REPORT. CARRIED. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS Ways and Means Ways and Means Committee Chairman Clymer presented committee Committee report recommending second and final readings for the following ordinances: Ordinance _#3413 An ordinance was read amending taxicab zones and establishing Taxicab Zones two taxicab zones for one taxicab each at any one time. MOVED BY CLYMER, SECOND REED, ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL: ALL . AYES. CARRIED. R.a R- 7g Renton City Council 4/14/80 Page 4 Ordinances and Resolutions - Continued Ordinance #3414 An ordinance was read appropriating and transferring funds in Funds for amount of $5,807.30 for airport tower air conditioning. MOVED Airport Air BY CLYMER, SECOND REED, ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL: Conditioning ALL AYES. CARRIED. Ordinance #3415 An ordinance was read changing the zoning classification from Renton Hill H-1 to R-1 single family residential for property located at Rezone east of existing Renton Hill R-1 and north. of South 7th St. in a northeasterly direction to the center of the Cedar River. Renton Hill R-219-781 MOVED BY CLYMER, SECOND ROCKHILL, ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL: ALL AYES. CARRIED. First Reading The Ways and Means Committee recommended first reading for an ordinance providing for LaRue property rent monies (ordinance on first reading 4f.7 was revised) . Following reading, MOVED BY CLYMER, SECOND ROCKHILL, REFER ORDINANCE BACK TO WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE. CARRIED. Resolution #2327 The committee recommended reading and adoption of a resolution Alley Vacation establishing a public hearing 5/19 regarding proposed vacation Public Hearing of an alley located between Burnett N. and Park N. and N. 30th 5/19/80 and N. 29th St. (Petitioned by Casper) MOVED BY CLYMER, SECOND HUGHES, ADOPT THE RESOLUTION AS READ. CARRIED. Voucher Approval The Ways and Means Committee recommended approval for payment of Vouchers No. 27699 through 28008 in the amount of $936,722.98. Vouchers No. 27694 through #27698 machine voided. Vouchers received departmental certification as to receipt of merchandise and/or services. Also included: LID #312 Revenue Warrant R-2 43,943.97. MOVED BY ROCKHILL, SECOND CLYMER, APPROVE VOUCHERS AS PRESENTED. CARRIED. NEW BUSINESS Councilman Hughes suggested the Park Department consider adding lawn bowling court at the Senior Center. Councilman Hughes noted used car lots using public right-of-way in vicinity of Sunset NE and N 3rd St. Mayor Shinpoch noted several departments were checking the matter. ADMINISTRATIVE Mayor Shinpoch requested resolution transferring $5,616 for REPORT Senior Center improvements to Park category; noted previous request for discussion of uniformed longevity and rate increase for solid waste noting that without policy decision, the City is spending $38,000 ($9,700 month) . MOVED STREDICKE, SECOND CLYMER, MATTER OF $5,616 BE REFERRED TO WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE FOR ,PROPER LEGISLATION REFERRING FUNDS TO PARK DEPARTMENT FOR SENIOR CENTER IMPROVEMENTS. CARRIED. MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECOND CLYMER, THE WAYS AND, MEANS COMMITTEE PRESENT AN ORDINANCE ESTAB- LISHING POLICY WITH REGARD TO SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL RATES. CARRIED. (See meeting schedule with regard .to longevity for uniformed personnel .) City Shop Site Public Works Director Gonnason reported King County has authorized County Executive to enter into agreement with City to negotiate property for City Shop site and called attention to Gonnason's letter of 8/6/79 requesting Council grant authority to commence process to proceed for consolidated shop site. MOVED BY CLYMER, SECOND HUGHES, REFER THIS INFORMATION TO THE COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMITTEE. CARRIED. MEETING CONTINUED MOVED BY HUGHES, SECOND TRIMM, COUNCIL CONTINUE MEETING TO TUES- 9:55 p.m. DAY; APRI.L 15, 1980 AT 11 :30 AM FOR PURPOSE OF PARK BOND BID OPENING AND AWARD. CARRIED. a[ :41.4 /.& Q. a0( Delores A. 'Mea CMC City Clerk OF 0 THE CITY OF RENTON U `$ MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE.SO. RENTON,WASH.98055 nINNIS 425BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH. MAYOR • PLANNING DEPARTMENT 235- 2550 0, 94Teo SEPte06 March 17, 1980 MEMORANDUM TO: City Attorney FROM; Gordon Y. Ericksen, Planning Director By: David R. Clemens , ,Senior Planner RE: RENTON HILL REZONE PHASE-3 It has come to our attention that the Renton Hill Rezone for Phase-3 missed two small parcels . These are identified on the map of the Examiner' s decision as TDC 113 and 187 . As you will note, the Examiner' s recommendation called for a zoning of R-1. Attached is the legal description of the parcels in question, along with the Planning and Development Committee' s recommendation to the Council on the remainder of the rezone. Your assistance in the preparation of the appropriate ordinance would be appreciated, cc: Mayor City Clerk l T D C • 100eco•••:•••1414 7:4;;;;!;:::::::7:SE i71.1\‘)j 12k46 ieimmy II° '45 - 14 .. Tik 4t'lb' ate; i.c , L IL;x: , S TLC 141 1' t: T L 33 Nil'QI7:-;'\::''..L.I:14.;;k::::•12:!?='.451:::;. '2 R portion TLO1eliRtip ; i ' • it 15 N e '.4h.::Fall it \` -\tl ill•k.-=341 •N. iiil I'd 4. \\ `7\F Csascslr) w . •, v\ 1, ,\\\ i.., 71 11iii„..„ r r 2.: op Is\ 4kt: ,;,•, 6 , i TDC ' t ill, • d 18 . • • 1. 1 to = tog\I• s\ IlittriNtaft •a\ s, , r E.,..,,. ....,,‘,,,,„;,..‘,., , =6 isiezwb Z.'s- am -. nIlLRENTONHILLREZONEPHASEIII-R-219-78 TDC To Claibim Donation T` Tax Lot Number RAM I Mr5 OMMkDflQL oilsF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE COMMITTEE REPORT AUGUST 13, 1979 REFERENCES: Renton Hill Rezone, File No. R-219-78; and Interpace Corporation Appeal RECOMMENDATIONS : The Planning and Development Committee has reviewed the appeal filed by Interpace Corporation from the decision of the Hearing Examiner regarding the Renton Hill• Phase III rezone. The Committee has considered the record of the hearing and the arguments set forth by the applicants and concludes that no substantial error in fact of law exists in the record. Therefore, the Committee recommends that the appeal of Interpace Corporation can be denied, and that the Hearing Exam- iner's recommendation (copy attached) of October. 23, 1978 be approved. George Perry, Chairman Barbara Shinpoch Earl Clymer XHI : IT NA" ORDINANCE NO . R-219-78 THAT PORTION OF THE H . H . TOBIN DONATION CLAIM NO . 37 LYING WITHIN THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 17, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH , RANGE 5 EAST , W.M. , DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS : BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF TRACT 32 , PLAT 1 OF THE RENTON CO-OPERATIVE COAL COMPANY ' S ACRE TRACTS , AS RECORDED IN VOLUME 9 OF PLATS , PAGE 29, RECORDS OF KING COUNTY , WA. , THEN NORTH 60 FEET , THENCE WEST 10 FEET , THENCE NORTH 85 FEET , THENCE EAST 310 FEET , THENCE SOUTH 145 FEET , THENCE WEST 300 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. W,tfJ December 4 , 1978 0 c \ Renton City Council co P kilai RO\110A z Renton Municipal Building C GLERK'S (°1Gti 200 Mill Avenue South C> .. 1)l ` Renton, WA 98055 Re: Interpace Corporation - City of Renton Rezoning, Phase III File No. R-219-78 Dear City Council Members: Interpace Corporation ("Interpace") hereby appeals the Recommendation of the Hearing Examiner, dated October 23 , 1978, regarding the captioned matter, and enclosed is a check for $25. 00 to cover the appropriate fee A. FACTS: This rezoning action was commenced by the City of Renton and constitutes Phase III of the rezoning of Renton Hill. Phase III in large part covers the north slope of Renton Hill. The property of Interpace involves a portion on the top of Renton Hill, part of the north slope of the hill, and the plant site of Inter- pace located at the foot of the hill. The Planning Department recommended rezoning of the entire property in Phase III to R-1 and S-1, with the property of Interpace to be rezoned from H-1 to S-l. At the hearing, it was made clear by the Planning Department and representatives of the Renton Hill Community Association that the fundamental objective of the rezoning request was to forestall any development of the north slope of the hill Renton City Council December 4, 1978 Page Two because of unstable soil conditions 'and the traffic 'and other problems that would be generated thereby for the existing single family residential areas on the hill. Interpace representatives advised at the hearing that its ownership of the slope and the area to the north of its plant site between the railroad right-of-way and the Cedar River was for the specific purpose of providing a buffer for its plant site operations and that it likewise did not wish. to have any develop- ment of the north slope of the hill. Interpace representatives also pointed out that: 1) Rezoning the hillside to S-1 would create poten- tial problems for the plant operations of Interpace in that a single family residential classification would then be immediately adjacent to H-1 zoning, and this could engender more stringent air pollution, noise standards etc. 2) The hillside could not be used for single family residential development or for any development, as a practical matter, and therefore focusing on the use of the hill was not the way to proceed. 3) The zoning category for the hillside should be compatible with the H-1 zoning of the plant operations of Inter- pace and form a suitable transition to the single family zoned areas on the top of the hill. Renton City Council December 4 , 1978 Page Three Interpace therefore proposed that the hillside and the area between the railroad right-of-way and the Cedar River be subject to restrictive covenants or open space easements to prevent their development and that these areas be zoned M-P. As a part of its proposal, Interpace agreed that the portion of its property on the top of the hill could be rezoned to S-1 and further advised that Puget Sound Power & Light Co. , the owner of the balance of the hillside affected had indicated that it would agree to the recommendations made by Interpace with respect to the hillside. B. MEETING WITH PLANNING DEPARTMENT: After the proposal was made by Interpace at the hearing, it was continued to permit further discussions between Interpace and the Planning Department. A meeting was -held on September 28 , 1978 between the Planning Department representatives and the undersigned on behalf of Interpace. An understanding was reached to the following effect: 1) .The area on top of the hill would be zoned S-1. 2) The slope of the hill would be rezoned to M-P and subject to restrictive covenants to prevent its development. 3) The existing plant site would remain H-1. 4) The area between the railroad track and the Cedar River would be rezoned M-P. Renton City Council December 4, 1978 Page Four 5) The Planning Department would obtain appropriate. legal descriptions of the various areas from the Engineering Department and would visit the Interpace plant to be certain that the description of the area to remain H-1 would be large enough not to impose any undue restrictions on the operations of the plant. By letter dated September 29 , 1978 , a copy of which is attached, the Planning Department acknowledged the discussion that had taken place. C. RESUMED HEARING: On October 10,. 1978, the hearing was resumed and the Planning Department presented the results of the discussions that had taken place with representatives of Interpace. The only variance was with respect to that portion of the hillside owned by Puget Sound Power & Light Co. Because Puget Power had not appeared at the hearing, the Planning Depart- ment recommended that its portion of the hillside be rezoned to S-1 instead of M-P. Interpace representatives advised that Puget Power would also agree to restrictive covenants preventing development of its portion of the hillside, and on that basis, the Planning Depart- ment recognized that the entire hillside could be rezoned M-P. D. EXAMINER`S RECOMMENDATION: Neither in the notices of the rezoning application, in the recommendations of the Planning Department, nor in any Renton City Council December 4 , 1978 Page Five testimony at the hearing or the resumed hearing was there any mention of the rezoning of any portion of the subject property to P-1. Nevertheless, the Examiner on his own initiative, and without any prior notice to any of the affected property owners, declined to follow the compromise understanding that had been reached among Interpace, the Renton Hill Community Association, and the Planning Department, and recommended that the hillside be rezoned to P-1 rather than M-P. E. ARGUMENT: The compromise understanding that was reached with the Planning Department met the concerns of the Renton Hill Community Association and the objectives of the City operating through its Planning Department. Why the Examiner felt compelled to disregard the understanding in this one important aspect is difficult to comprehend. His recommendation for the P-1 category seems to have been motivated by a desire to search out and affix to the hillside that zoning category which in his judgment is closest to the greenbelt" classification set up in the City Comprehensive Plan. However, it was recognized by everyone at the hearing that there is no zoning category for the "greenbelt" designation. The understanding that was reached by the affected parties accomplishes all of the objectives of the City and the Renton Hill Community Association in proposing the rezoning in the first place. Interpace proposed this solution and one of Renton City Council December 4, 1978 Page Six the principal ingredients was to have the M-P zoning category for the hillside in order to afford a proper zoning transition and to prevent any additional burdens being placed on the operation of the plant site that would result from the selection of an incompatible zoning category. Both S-1 and P-1 are such incompatible zoning categories. The examiner expresses concern about the "taking" issue if he recommended the imposition of restrictive covenants for the hillside. On the other hand, the Examiner recommends the imposi- tion of conditions as a part of his rezoning recommendations. Because the imposition of restrictive covenants was volunteered by Interpace and Interpace advised that Puget Sound Power & Light Co. would likewise agree, we fail to see the problem envisaged by the Examiner. The M-P zoning category could be recommended for the hillside upon condition that the restrictive covenants be imposed, just as the Examiner recommended the imposition of other conditions. The impetus for the entire rezoning process for Renton Hill came from the Renton Hill Community Association. It partici- pated fully in the hearing on Phase III and its representatives concurred with the Interpace proposal, including specifically the rezoning of th.e hillside to M-P. If the hillside is too unstable for S-1 zoning use, which it is, the designation of the hillside for P-1 zoning use is incomprehensible. P-1 is not a compatible zoning category Renton City Council , December 4, 1978 Page Seven adjacent to either the S-1 or the H-1 zoning category, and its existence next to the H-1 zoning could be used as the basis for imposing restrictions and hardships on the continuing operations of the Interpace plant. On the other hand, M-P represents an appropriate transi- tion zoning category and affords protective 'mechani.sms from the standpoint of the City and the' adjuacerit S-S1 zoned property should any type of development ever be 'proposed.. Development could not occur in any event because of the operation of the-restrictive covenants that are proposed for the hillside.' M-P would also not provide S. climate for imposing more restrictive conditions on the 'continued operation of the Interpace plant. Operation of the plant is already subject 'to stringent noise, air pollution and other operational and environmental standards. The Interpace plant has been in operation at this site for 76 years. It has been a good neighbor. By and large the residents of Renton do not even know- that the plant exists and would probably not be able to find it if they were told that it does exist. 'One of the principal reasons for the plant's low profile is because of Interpace' s acquisition and ownership of the hillside and other property adjacent to the' 'plant site *as 'a buffer. In this way it has been able effectively to forestall any development of the hillside.. The impositionofrestrictive covenants to prohibit development from a legal standpoint will Renton City Council December 4, 1978 Page Eight therefore merely provide a legal structure for what Interpace has been doing on its own initiative for many years. E. SUMMARY: 1. Rezoning of any of the affected property to P-1, a category that was not mentioned in the rezoning application, in the notice of the hearing, in the Planning Department' s recommen- dation, or discussed in any way at the hearing is definitely ina- ppropriate. 2. There is no compelling reason why the compromise pro- posal advanced by Interpace and concurred in by the Planning Depart- ment and the Renton Hill Community Association should not be accepted by the City Council. The designation of M-P for the hillside coupled with restrictive covenants will accomplish the objectives of the Renton Hill Community Association and the City without the prospect of imposing any future hardships on the Interpace operation. 3. Compromise solutions achieved by the major affected property owners, Interpace and the Renton Hill Community Association should not be cast aside, not only because of the effect on this matter, but because of the long range implications to the City and its many community groups. The selection of P-1 zoning for any portion of the affected. property strikes at the heart of the entire compromise and renders it unworkable. Renton City Council December 4 , 1978 Page Nine The City Council should therefore adopt the S-1,- M-P, H-1, and M-P zoning categories for the areas proposed by Enter pace and for which legal descriptions were obtained by the Planning Department, coupled with. the restrictive covenants offered, and should not reclassify any of the affected property to the P-1 category. Respectfully submitted, BOGLE & GATES r l C7t B Richa d S. Sprague Attorneys for Interpace Corporation ITY. OF RENTO 'Noati '7308. FINANCE DEPARTMENT RENTON, WASHINGTON 98055 , Imo^' -19 78 RECEIVED OF nef20E 4) tO u - a n Ct cJ d ZD kci TOTAL ac,rj QD GWEN E. MARSHAL , FINANCE DIRECTOR BY Cc I B GLE & I ATES DETACH AND RETAIN THIS STATEMENT TTACHED CHECK IS IN PAYMENT OF ITEMS DESCRIBED BELOW 4. DATE RSS/sf DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 12/5/78 Interpace Corp. re: Renton Rezoning (2206/13574) Fee for Filing Appeal 25 . 00 DV-2 t NT TY OF RENTOI RISiD R1.G1Ki• , No. 7308jousts FINANCE DEPARTMENT RENTON, WASHINGTON .98055 19 RECEIVED OF 6 RC a.ff oi,1Xc 2-5 87:3 2- akq - 0 TOTAL a ) OQ. GWEN E. MARSHAL , FINANCE DIRECTOR. BY a Lfij 1 ' ,n' -' ',- - Os' 1;1 ,. 4 V ,. 4.! c 4i d THE -CITYITY OF RENTON - iihr Z. MUNICIPAL Sul LOING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, WASH. 98055 2 8 01 CHARLES J. DELAVRENTI ,"MAYOR DELORES A. MEAD0momrv_ 1:) . ' ti A) CITY CLERK ' • .* 0 i"4 cp SE P1‘.• . December-5, 1978.• ..- - APPEAL FILED BY INTERPACE CORPORATION BY R,S. SPRAGUE. OF BOGLE & GATES, ATTORNEYS - SEATTLE., WASHINGTON RE: Appeal of Hearing. Examiner's Decision Dated 10/23/78 (Reconsidered 11/21/78) City of Renton Rezone of RentOn. Hill, Phase III R-219-78 _ , '"-'' . .. To Parties of Record ' ' ' Appeal of Land Use fleabibg Examiner' s decisibb and reconsideration has been filed with the public records office this date,- along with the proper fee of $25.00,. pursuant-to Title 4, .Ch, 30, City Code, as amended. The City Code requires the appeal must. be set forth in writing. The written appeal and all other' Oertinent documents, will. be revieWed by the Council ' s Planning and Development CoMmittee, Please contact the COuncil Secretary, 235-2586, for date and time of the committee Meetings if so desired. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that.the: abOve-referenCe'd: apPeal -will be considered by the Renton City, C.6001 '.at its regular meeting of December 18, 1978 at 8:00. p..elin, the .CoUndll Chambers, Second Floor, Renton Municipal •Buildirig, . 200Miil Ave. So..: .. You.rs very truly, QITY: OF RENTON- 7-7: lk!,.:1 22 eT-. •. . 1 Maxine .E' Motor . I-Deputy City Clerk MEM/st i,:.:_y• v 1 o THE CITY OF RENTON 7. MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE.SO. RENTON,WASH.98055 CHARLES J. DELAURENTI, MAYOR • PLANNING DEPARTMENTOVA235-2550 o94TED,ec atO `.September 29, 1978 Mr, Richard Sprague2SCIETRI23rdFloor Bank of California Center :OCT . 2 1978 Seattle, Washington . 98164 RE: INTERPACE - RENTON H L PHASE-III REZONE BOGLE GATES Dear Mr. Sprague: Pursuant to our meeting of Thursday, September 28, and an on-site inspection of the Interpace property, the City is in the process of preparing legal descriptions for areas to be restricted by easement or covenant. Our Engineering staff should complete these legal descriptions early in the week of October 2nd. Per our discussion, I contacted the City Attorney; and he is in agreement that either a covenant or open space or scenic easement would be a satisfactory means of achieving the desired open space goals. The City is most interested in restricting the following, • but not necessarily limited to: 1. Restricting removal of vegetation. 2, Construction of new structures within the open space areas. 3. Grading or filling .of the open space areas.. Mr. Ericksen and other members of our staff will be in contact with you regarding more details as soon as the legal descriptions have been completed. Very truly yours, Gor. . Y. Eri se P1' ng 'r c c7,/d4.r 1 emens Associate Planner DRC:wr l.. e THE CITY OF RENTON C.MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, WASH. 98055 0 CHARLES J. DELAURENTI , MAYOR DELORES A. MEAD cav CITY CLERK 04) ` D SEP1 December 5, 1978 APPEAL FILED BY INTERPACE CORPORATION BY R.S. SPRAGUE OF BOGLE & GATES, ATTORNEYS - SEATTLE, WASHINGTON RE: Appeal of Hearing Examiner' s Decision Dated 10/23/78 (Reconsidered 11/21/78) City of Renton Rezone of Renton Hill , Phase III R-219-78 To Parties of Record: Appeal of Land Use Hearing Examiner' s decision and reconsideration has been filed with the public records office this date, along with the proper fee of $25. 00, pursuant to Title 4, Ch. .30, City Code, as amended. The City Code requires the appeal must be set forth in writing. The written appeal and all other pertinent documents will be reviewed by the Council ' s Planning and Development Committee. Please contact the Council Secretary, 235-2586, . for date and ti.me of the committee meetings -if so desired. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the above-referenced appeal will be considered by the Renton City Council at its regular meeting of December 18, 1978 at 8:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Second Floor, Renton Municipal Building, 200 Mill Ave. So.. Yours very truly, CITY OF RENTON 722:0---X—t--74—e-- - )22e Maxine E. Motor Deputy City Clerk MEM/st V - fit._': - ',;ti;,^'," I. Renton City .Counci'1 . 12/18/78 Page ,6 Co n'sent Agenda Con ti n ued. A i ntment A of ntment,of',Muni;c=i a1}+'Court :Judge Pro Ter-'for.,''the"'yearfpoPp. erson. peter•':`Banks Richard Conradof. Municipal 1979 o;f>''.Robera,.Arid 18,- gem.:;o .i,:,r tA',iid'''Robert..McBeth.. 'Refer to-Ways'Court Judge Gary, .::Fa'u'1:1` :,Roger:;Lew,.s-,, ,a, Pro' Tem and Means Committee u h lr,Pub':hi%cati'ont l)td t00eni n 'December 18, 1978 •one b',id';;`"'1979 -Legal T97;9;:L`e `a p. 9' Publications rece;ived ,`:;:':Refer a'to°.Ways:"and Means Committee.',(See later bid Call for Bid award page`7) pley Lane ' Letter' -from'Warren C..Gonnason,. Public Works ,Director ,recommended; Sewer Replacement°.;::,. counc'i l accept' completion° of:the..Ripley Lane`•Sewer Replacement Project :as=:of:-;'December 18,: 1978 and if:-after thirty days no liens; or.. claims`.are :fi1ed`•against this project and proof of payment of.' tax:'liabilities'-.i•s 'received.,the retained ;amount of $2,016.39 be'pa`i.d ;to;''Frank ColucciO.Construct:ion •Company.' Council Concur. ' aril ngton Letter;:from•John. E.'.Weble y;"::Parks and ..Recreation Director, 'recommended Park • 1 fi na.l payment:. to•Graham ;Landscape Company,.for •constr,ucti on; 'landscaping • CAG-058-78 I r and' si:'te°approval at-`•Earl ington•:Park..'in..the:amount of ..$3,110.04. ' Work...was:completed• on:Nov.ember `9; 1978accepted .by Parks and Recreation.'Dept.;;as of-,,December 28, 1978 'and Council;:acceptance , ,, i s recommended for December 18, 1978.' . •If, after. 30 days, no liens or•:`cl=aims are: filed ag•ai"nst- this':jproject;:•'and upon proof ;of payment;of: tax- liabi'li:t `es';';.the retained,.°;amount of;$2,390. be paid the. contractor: (CAG=058-7$), ;'Counci l ;'•Concur.- fir•.,,:`s'+ recommended,.Rogers - - Letter;`from'.Warren C ,.Gonnason ".Publ i•c'.;Works Di,rectorr ,W 11 Wiley Pose Counci'l `accept the comp:letion''of '.CAG=008-7.7:, Will. 'Rogers-Wi ley Post Seaplane,' Base' Seaplane;''Base:as of• December, 18, '1'978 and:; that'4fi'nal' payment in CAG-008-77 the amount,of `$485.'40: be`.:made to Tripp:;Construction Co. and the s retained amount of•,;$7;210 00 be retained until satisfaction-of . ; the•:claim. Council :Concu'r: Claim for , Claim.-for -.damages was f:il.edbyPacific 'Northwest: Bel1:.Telephone Damages Co.,'1600 Bel':l ':Plaza, ,Rm: .1'813, Seattle,al,l'eging, damage_sto, buried- cable•• •Referj,:• to' City 'Attorney_and ;Insurance Carr1,er. Si final Letter from:•'Gwen.'Marsha,l`:l, Fi:nange. D"irector, requested •disposition- Communications of surplus communication equipments Refer to Ways and Means' '' ' •iSurplusEquipment 'Committee 'for: Resolution `- A ointment Letter •from, Mayor;.Delauen:ti':.'a`ppoi;nti:ng James F: Matthew 'to',•the'PP Battal ion' ,Chief posi;ti on Of. Battalion Chief:r;i n:the.- Fire;,Department effective :. Fire ,Dept. January: 1, 19.79 'and ,subj,eot to:'the. customary six-month probationary per'i`od': Council ;concur Letter of- • Letter::from::Kenneth:,`.D:'`Long`, Arch expressed appreciation Appreciation to the City'•for:::'the'',courtesyand. efficiency shown in dealing with him as ,an Archite.ct in'business affairs with the City. .` For,••information `only <,, CORRESPONDENCE-'AND:CURRENT-BUSINESS:. Appeal of Hearing Appeal'::of Hearing;, E•xam'iner's decision- 'of. RrezPPone. File No: 'R219-78 Examiner's Decision'' filed° by Richard S ``.Sprague,' Attorney for Interpace :.Corporation Renton Hi 11 Rezone Was/read :MOVED-,;BY:; STREDICKE, SECOND THORPE TO REFER„TO THE Phase III ,R-219-78 PLANNIrNG':AND DEVELOPMENT': COMMITTEE FOR RECOMMENDATION._ -CARRIED. Fire Management Letter'.from;Chi:e,f':Ge;issler and .:Ba'ttal-.ion ;Chief' Phillips was read Longevity Pay requesting: recons deration of, Fire'Management longevity pay between Battalion:,Chief and:•Chief be:.set,.at •that of a Captain. MOVED BY SHINPOCH,''SECOND THORPE TO REFER.''TO"WAYS AND MEANS r COMMITTEE.: CARRI;ED. ,.;.;-MOVED :BY PERRY_;,`SECOND TRIMM TO REFER ,THE MATTER OF ALL MANAGEMENT-LONGEVITY PAY :BE REFERRED TO WAYS, AND' • ` . MEANS .COMMITTEE, CARRIED. ice- PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE' COMMITTEE REPORT AUGUST 13, 1979 REFERENCES: Renton Hill Rezone, File. No. R-219-78 ; and Interpace Corporation Appeal RECOMMENDATION: The Planning and Development Committee has reviewed the appeal filed by Interpace Corporation from the decision of the Hearing Examiner regarding the Renton Hill Phase III rezone. The Committee has considered the record of the 'hearing and. the arguments set forth by the applicants and concludes that no substantial error in fact or law exists in the record. Therefore, . the Committee recommends that the appeal of Interpace Corporation be denied ,and. that the Hearing Examiner' s ., recommendation (copy attached) of October 23, 1.978- be - approved. Q Orge Perry, Chairman Barbara Shinpoch Earl Clymer attachment I CITY CLERK ' S OFFICE INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: Yity Attorney DATE :4JI FROM: C,ity CierLs Office SUBJECT : InterPace Rezone R-219-711 Attached file for Or(linance We also request a written conJi:nion from your office that Restrictive Covenants are mot requirod - 1-A:r conversation with Lr Kellogg. Than'v. you. S: C:I N.TON .. MUNlCIRA'G-BUI'LQING 200 MILL`AVE SO.` RENTON,WASH" 9 A o> UR NT1'''MAYOR DELORES A-,MEADCHA;RL.ESDEL`A„ E , RK1YCLECT O isTfSPEE 979 Bogle &;Gates:• Bank of California``Center:' 23rd Floor Seattle, WA ,•98164 g.,Sr 4. ae`' ;A t aATTN.: Mr: "R-i:cttar'd S ra. :u ,'` y;. :; RE: Interpace; Corp Appeal:`=. Rezone, R-219 78 Renton Hills Phase III ` Gentlemen: The Renton-.City` Co,unci l: at :its,.,regul=ar meeting" o,f: August 13, 197,9, has denied the appeal of Interpace ;Corporation •.from Hearing Examiner'-s decision of• 10/,23/78, as above- efer.enced. The Planning 'and, Development,Commi=ttee reported examination •of the hearing record and the written appeal and concluded that no substantial error i n:'.fact ;or.s,la.w.;.e Gists i n.;'the':record, .recommending -.appeal.•denial.',' which was .adopted byte`: Council We are. forwarding -the 'fi les:, to, the,::C.ity Attorney and Ways -and:Means.,' , Committee for`preparation`of, the .:. rezone ordinance.; If you have,;any 'questiions regarding• •the matt•er,, please. feel. free -.to call 0') Yours very ,truly, CITY,-OF.i'RENTON,, Delores 'A. Mead, C.M.C. cc Inter ace-Cor •: Stonewa Y Puget-Souna'`Pb'we Ma or Council Preside•nt` City Attorney. Fi nance 'D;i rector;• ;...•: Publ c`'W"orks 'Di reeto`r:°;'; P1annin Di'rector I I RENTON CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting August 13, 1979 Municipal Building Monday, 8: 00 P . M. Council Chambers MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Mayor Charles Delaurenti led the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag and called the Renton City Council meeting to order. ROLL CALL OF BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH, Council President; RICHARD M. STREDICKE, COUNCIL GEORGE J. PERRY, EARL CLYMER, THOMAS W. TRIMM. MOVED BY SHINPOCH, SECOND TRIMM, EXCUSE ABSENT COUNCILWOMAN PROCTOR. CARRIED. CHARLES SHANE arrived at 8:20 p.m. CITY OFFICIALS C.J. DELAURENTI., Mayor; GWEN MARSHALL, Finance Director; LAWRENCE PRESENT WARREN, City Attorney; DEL MEAD, City Clerk; GORDON Y. ERICKSEN, Planning Director; JOHN WEBLEY, Parks and Recreation Director; SHARON GREEN, Personnel Director; RICHARD HOUGHTON, Public Works Rep. ; JAMES MATTHEWS, Fire Dept. Rep. ; CAPT. WM. BOURASA, Police Department Rep. PRESS GREG ANDERSON, Renton Daily Record Chronicle MINUTE APPROVAL MOVED BY SHINPOCH, SECOND TRIMM, APPROVE COUNCIL MINUTES OF AUGUST 3, 1979 AS WRITTEN. CARRIED. PUBLIC HEARING This being the date set and proper notices having been posted, Proposed published and mailed according to law, Mayor Delaurenti opened Condominium the public hearing to consider proposed ordinance regulating Conversion conversion of residential rental units to condominiums and Ordinance providing protection for tenants and purchasers. Planning and Development Committee Chairman Perry explained the proposed ordinance. Moved by Clymer, Second Perry, to close the public hearing. Henry Dean, Attorney, .1700 Peoples Natl . Bank Bldg. , Seattle, requested more time to review the entire ordinance. Continued Public Following discussion, SUBSTITUTE MOTION BY PERRY, SECOND SHINPOCH, Hearing - Aug.27th TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR TWO WEEKS, TO AUGUST 27th. CARRIED. (Ord. to be mailed to REMI, rental landlords and tenants. ) ' AUDIENCE COMMENT Sandy Webb, 264 Chelan Ave. SE, urged the City to enforce the Signs sign code concerning political signs.. City Water Ernest Lobe, 2709 Talbot Rd. , requested City check on use of City water by building contractors at no charge. Mayor noted address would be given to engineering and investigated. Recess MOVED BY SHANE, SECOND SHINPOCH, COUNCIL RECESS. CARRIED. Council recessed at 8:40 p.m. and reconvened at 9:00 p.m. Roll Call - All council members present. Executive MOVED BY SHINPOCH, SECOND STREDICKE, COUNCIL HOLD EXECUTIVE Session SESSION TO DISCUSS LABOR NEGOTIATIONS. CARRIED. 9:00 p.m. and reconvened at 10:12 p.m. Roll Call - All council members present. , OLD BUSINESS Planning & Planning and Development Committee Chairman Perry presented report Development noting its review of the Floyd Bailey letter, referred 5/14/79, and Committee . its referral to the Planning Director for response due to its Floyd Bailey Letter comprehensive nature. For information only. Interpace Corp. Planning and Development Committee report recommended that the Appeal/Renton appeal of Interpace Corporation, re Renton Hill Rezone (R-219-78) , Hill Rezone be denied and that the Hearing Examiner's recommendation of approval R-219-78 , with conditions. MOVED BY PERRY, SECOND CLYMER, TO CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION AND REFER TOME WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE. CARRIED. 0 Al Renton City Council 8/13/79 Page 2 Ordinances & Resolutions ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS Ways and Means The Ways and Means Committee recommended the following Ordinances Committee Report for first reading: Appropriating Ordinance. was read appropriating funds to provide for the payment Funds-Relocating of relocating a light standard in the amount of $1,614.00. Light Standard MOVED BY CLYMER, SECOND PERRY, TO REFER BACK TO THE WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE. CARRIED. Cabaret Ordinance was read amending City Code relating to routine inspection Ordinance of cabarets and investigation of complaints. MOVED BY CLYMER, SECOND SHANE TO REFER BACK TO THE WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE. CARRIED. Alley Vacation- Ordinance was read vacating a portion of alley between SW 12th Between SW 12th & St.and SW 13th St. as petitioned by Mr. Pierotti . VAC-14-79. ' 13th Sts. MOVED BY CLYMER, SECOND SHANE TO REFER BACK TO THE WAYS AND MEANS VAC-14-79 COMMITTEE. CARRIED. The Ways and Means Committee recommended the following Ordinances for second and final readings: ORDINANCE #3344 Ordinance was read changing the zoning classification of First City certain properties within the City from general classification Equities Rezone district (G) to manufacturing park district (M-P) , First City R-328-79 Equities, R-328-79. Property located west of Powell Ave. SW and west/north of SW 7th Ave. between Grady Way on the south and the, Milwaukee Railroad on the north and proposed P-1 channel includes Earlington Golf Course area) . MOVED BY CLYMER, SECOND SHANE TO ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS READ.ROLL CALL: ALL AYES. CARRIED. ORDINANCE #3345 Ordinance was read approving and 'confirming the assessments and Approving and assessment roll of LID 309 for the improvement of a certain area Confirming Final in the vicinity of Monterey Terrace, by doing all work necessary in Roll - LID 309 connection therewith, levying and assessing the amounts therefor Monterey Terrace- against the several lots, tracts, parcels of land and other property Underground Power as shown on the assessment roll as confirmed by the City Council ; and Other Utility and providing for payment of such assessments into the Local Lines Improvement Fund, District No. 309 as created by Ordinance #3221. MOVED BY CLYMER, SECOND SHANE TO ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL: ALL AYES. CARRIED. The Ways and Means Committee recommended the following Resolutions for adoption: RESOLUTION #2288 Resolution was read approving Koll Business Center Final Plat. Koll Business FP-362-79. Property located Block 3, Burlington Northern Orillia Center - Final Industrial Park of Renton Div. 1. MOVED BY CLYMER, SECOND SHANE, Plat FP-362-79 TO ADOPT THE RESOLUTION AS READ. CARRIED. RESOLUTION #2289 Resolution was read requesting the Washington State Department Regional Traffic of Transportation to conduct a regional traffic study. MOVED Study BY CLYMER, SECOND SHANE, TO ADOPT THE RESOLUTION AS READ. CARRIED. Councilman Stredicke voted no. Voucher Approval Ways and Means Committee report recommended approval of Vouchers No. 24273 through No. 24497 in the amount of $528,835.11. (Voids 24268 - 24272) L.I.D.' #302 Revenue Warrant, R-41, $257,545.65; Cash Warrant, C-98, $244,895.03; Cash Warrant, C-99, $12,650.62. LID #307, Revenue Warrant, R-6, $1,557.90; Cash Warrant, C-7. 1,557.90. MOVED BY CLYMER, SECOND SHANE TO APPROVE THE VOUCHERS. CARRIED. i\k\\i ry PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE COMMITTEE REPORT ' AUGUST` 13, 1979 . REFERENCES: ' Renton Hill Re;zbne-, File No. R-219-78 ;. and Interpace Corporation' Appeal. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning and. Development Committee has reviewed the appeal filed .by Interpace Corporation from the decision 'of the Hearing Examiner regarding the Renton Hill Phase II= 'rezone. The Committee has considered the record of the, heating .'and the arguments set .forth by the applicants and concludes that no substantial error -in. fact or law exists in the record. Therefore, the Committee recommends that the appeal of Interpace Corporation be. denied and that the Hearing. Examiner' s recommendation (copy attached) of October 23, 1978' be approved. t' i: ±s '' :. . :. : C,eorge terry, Chairman .t Barbara Shinpoch Earl Clymer ft '. . attachment 0a BOUNOARY,'PHASE IIN\ . 0 Qr SA, a,•\"`0 `=, r`,,:.'•`' - a ti , .. ";- t" '. . A - ' ` ,% ke..k.) 1. sie.(. 4:c. ,..."..,x. ..i. c. lti 113.- , TDC r',`:.. ii: ,.:--•-' lit :; :.:,. •..: ff ' . ,,;,' ' , :- -:1. 8.7' -..;,' :7'. TL 33 itv.,. 1. I\\\. \:-.' • .\-...\\\ . . ' - 4i..014. 4;4,4 ,1is 5t. k.."44' . r.C.;\ V \i\.\\. .., . . .%. . tastp.STAI\TL# . - . . . .j ; . ,.i* ,:-.: ,-,, , .14.' s\ .\\:‘ I.Cs.\ _ .., . ...,,. . ' N 7 1 Ac , .46\. \ . \ .,\ , \ ,p.r.. s \\\ ' 111 .m. _ . a i - '• '-. • - tailor wit%.\'4. ' . 'l' 'Z.el. k . Pe• 44;......-,..."::.,....:-..,,,,,..1.,... ...--.4 \ . E . it .• • I\i 4.---',4. ..6 . k' • v'e'''. VI TDC. , ' o 18 N. V ittRei\\\‘ ' '' .Irl . ‘„ ‘ ‘ \ \ s ^., tik . , in, i O,t bit ' Z TOC Tob-in Donation RENT.ON: HILL REZONE. PHASE III-R-2.19'-78 Claim TL4 Tax -Lot Number v.1 ..x i ,2 1 iii..i.,.)I • ' 45 '' OMMKUZflOLJ Cu 15. U `°Z OFFICE;OF;•THE 'CIT,Y T NATO;RE RENT,QN,WASHINGTON POST'OFFICE aOX 626 10Q 2-hiAVENUE.G UILOING • RENT ON,W. ,..., TON 90055 2S5=B67S 0' I:;WARRE2>I;,cIrY;.ATTORNEY A'NIEL:KEL'LOGG,-ASSISTANT CITV ATTORNEY 9, 00q " O.. , - Auugus 1'7 19 7 9.; SEP. k`T0 el `Ma A eFROM: Lawrence';J`:`:: Tarrei -:C t horny Y': Rezone 'rdinRearice' nterpac,e.;.:Co:' o_raron'. •. Del"D ear•' Please-'.•find.:•enc.los'ed: the:' on in:al--;of: a:' ro, osed OrdinancegPP a s: :above, captioned::, You 'ma note'~t'hat:.in Se'cti.''';.;-.':there• :is=•.'conit'aine'd languagey' except; the ;:.requirement.,-fo.r -Restrictive' Covenants being; deleted, We''. deleted tha•t---becaus'e, 'there is, no com- pun:ctionn`..'on:;;'Interp'a,ce.: 'to,. -si`,gn the'., Rest•rict`ive .Covenants If: we. ,do' :no:t,;delete.°.that r•equ cement'.•from. the. Or.dinance. i;t will`' simply .'hold the:'Ordinance '.up'. Interpace and Puget Power have;:`h'eld':th•e` ..,,ordinance,• 'up '.for•fo :.'.'a 'long time, refusing t'o' ;sign::,th;.e:;,restrictive covenants::::so ;we: ale . simply going to delete them, have:,'tle Ordinance• passed and' in effect y t eel' cuntac me.If you 'have;•an ,;.quesions ",;f .,free 2%1Gam _ r .enLawrenceJ' - a r LJW.:nd' Enc1 cc: Ways 'and-Means: Committee Mayor. Council President Public'„Works 'Dep'•t:::• I, i CITYOff 'morrow, hlABHItiOTQN c A" ORliI1h1RCB MO. s car. 1' y'';,. AN 'ORDINANCE OF THE 414 Og RENTON, WASHINGTON 1.:, ' ' ' CNAMOING' THE ZOMG CL OF CERTAIN' kr, PRO 'R$S WITHIN 't CN i ejt.o 'E FROM-HEAVY.' 1 1NIiUBi'RIAL DISTRICT TO 4 SIII FAMILY' ' MANUF AC'f=rDISI"R1CT "(R-1)i. YJSLIC '1), I1D A t • U1UNQ,.PA&R DISTRICT.‘ , R•!-78' (ABNTON HILL) ' 4fIIE*EA8 under Chapter 7,"Title IV (Building.Regulations) of Ordinance No. 182i 'know):as''the ,"Code';of General•Ordinaneee of :the City, of Renton", as, , . 1 s i, amended, and•the' maps and reports adopted in conjunction therewith, the property f: -•• ' hereinbelow described has heretofore been zoned as Heavy Industrial District; and W11E1i.EAS a proper petition for'change of zone classification of said property has been filed with the Planning•Department on or about September 7, 1978, which petition was duly',referred to the,Hearing'Eiaminer for investigation, study and public hearing, and a public hearing having been held thereon on or about September 26, 1978, and said matter having been appealed to the City Council and the City Council having affirmed the Hearing Examiner's decision; and said zoning request being in conformity with the City's Comprehensive Plan, as amended, and the City Council having duly considered all matters relevant thereto, and all parties having been heard appearing in support thereof or in opposition thereto, NOW THEREFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN,AS.FOLLOWS: SECTION I: The following described property in the City of Renton is hereby rezoned to Residence Single Family District (R-'1); Public District (P-1) and Manufacturing Park District (M-P) as hereinbelow specified; subject to the findings, conclusions and decision dated October 23, 1978,except the requirement for Restrictive Covenants being deleted; the Planning Director is hereby authorized and directed to change the maps of the Zoning Ordinance, as amended, to evidence said rezoning, , to-wit; See Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof as if fully set forth herein. Said property being located at,east of the existing Renton Hill single family residence neighborhood and north of South 7th Street in' a rtortheasterly direction to the center of the Cedar-River) • 4 it jt;' ` ' SECTION II: ,This i•, I, ',,': ''•`' Ordinance" Shall effietive upon ita,peasage, approval;' and five days'after its ,publication. PASSED::BY THE,,CITY COUNCIL, hiI'-'27t,#ay,'of.August,''1979, 'i, Maxine E.,..Motor,', aeputpa City Clerk" " APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this 2 7 t'14lay:of August,' 1979. 1 har es ,e urenti,•Mayor - Approved a9 to form: c2<a<Ap,,,,.....4.t Lawrence J. aw en, City Attorney Date of Publication: August 31, 1979 I Y/• , rr ' n•!. ', a i. i/ r 3^' %>'y,r 4p1, i:, :a,hs. q,. r'•,;. i:" `,', e r'-' R..1;"t 1;i •yi:od Jt x f',tl r,EXH IBI T` 'Af:,r: 1:•, 4; /,'; ,rK'fit;, Y y'p%irl•',l':, • .,::v C.` ' f` µ,'%„-4:^^ ,,nrr, r.i.' ance' No. 5r:'"r'""Leo X'd. nt. l 5> 'Jt'"' '''dig.8s.Y 1 iw +t4.::, ?l,'• REZONE H-1. TO •'P--1' tad t d tl, W,afs4urr ,:ir j . y ,:A.,P)•`;'!r That;p0rfion'.of„tHeWZ/2i;iOf;th .SE.I/Qer' if SeC oil J Yq t•.i t s b.. r.- f- ,,s,. ' x Townsi` 23`'Nrfh;'':°Rane ,'S. s 'w''tl.` ,d cbe '•:as.fo2'1oWs.a:;:: r,,.. r iv' Y. t.,. a' a.r', a'» h al Lprt i.- ,{'26 PARCEL' 1:: k t'h'. 'i;'; °;';:7,'" Beginning at the SE 'corner,,Of', thee:•:West' 1'/2.' of the SE 1/4 of 4,,9. 9 g! s id:Secti'on. 1'T 4. tie' A.. West 1 2 of the" SE ' e;'.''a'', 4'-„ Thence northerly along .the'e'ast 'line of t'he. r:.ba " i;`.17 a 'distance,:'of'•`7Q0''feot';'P;' 1/4 of said;aecti(on„ Thence westerly:Oil a line parallel 'with!pi ,, and 700 feet, northerly j' ;:; as measured at 'right angles from south line of said section a distance of 600 .;feet more or .less, Thence, northwesterly ,along a"'line to ''a point. on•"the west line of'the 'SE 1/4 of said.'Section. .7, said point being 1400 feet northerly of thee: SW corner of 'said. section;:: Thence southerly along ,the•west line of the SE 1/4 a distance of 1400: feet more or less 'to'the SW corner thereof; Thence' .easterly along the, south line of, the SE 1/4 of Section 1< 17 to the •SE corner• •of the°,W rl/ 'o2 f' the :SE' 1,/4 thereof. and the point of beginning; Except therefrom the following described parcel: Beginning at the SW corner of 'SE. 1/4 of said Section 17 thence northerly along the West. line thereof a distance,of 500 feet more 'or less; Thence southeasterly along a line to a point on the south line of the 'SE 1/4 of said Section 17, which point lies 1200 feet more or less east of, as measured along the south line of said section from the SW corner of said SE 1/4; Thence westerly along the south line of the SE 1/4 of Section 17 a 'distance of 1200 feet more or less to 'the SW corner thereof and the ,point of beginning. PARCEL "B" That portion of 'the Tobin Donation Claim No. 37 lying within the SW 1/2 of Section 17, Township 23 North; Range 5 East, W.M., described as .follows: Beginning at the intersection of the east line of the donation c claim and north line of the.Cedar River Pipeline right-of-way; thence north to the northeast corner of the donation claim; hence west 594' thence north to'•the Puget Sound Electric Rail- way; thence westerly along .the railway to the north line of Plat #./ .Renton' Co-op Coal Co., Acre Tracts; thence east to the north- east corner ,of Tract #43 thence south 5' , thence east 310'; thence south to the northeast corner"•of tract #25 of said plat, thence southeasterly to a point 40' east of .the northeast corner of Tract 37 of said plat, thence east 300' thence' south to. the northwest line of• the Cedar River, Pipeline right-of-way thence southeasterly i.;':,' :.' . on 'said right-of-way'.to the beginning less a portion south of the north lin'e ,of"Tract 38"plat #7 'of, the Renton Co-op Coal Co. Acre" Tracts extending east except coal'.mining 'rights less the state highway. ti.. Ri;, 1'n,",..+' 1<I Ire ri c, ,.;:..;'. ... .. .... ......f tl'+ ;'T:i jf}> ;L, vi{ar rfl.;'Sfl`P'IhA'7 ,7°,:$ .mV„"t Fst^,M,^ny..1," V.;`.V'''':y:•I" i: In,;l; a.rV!fh ':':.!..,, ,'e•: S`..> •. Sv l' ni vi 4 t.p,1' 61 ltom,•i.1 Y' rr'Y''-'7!r ,,r, ti 11,: 7..,. ' .., 7 f,:,w t.{.'.''j,, PARCEL''.; G; . p', :,:.''c :' ,t,, f.w •shi'' '23. orth 4 .,r'a< That 'orti on 'of:.'thle'.'SW l' &•of'`S'ection:':2 7 2'o n, p' N i r' a). is as, follows• r:,,;",, 'r :1.Ran a `'5. East W,M, t descr ,oe.; 5 SYJ:niir4'v..F: nt.h''jiapt: i•G„O.i1 i1s OB 4-1 'DO wes' `30 from''+th z f tBe'.'i•nntn ••at;,a'' Ri,re.tis'ti6{thh. :af r,a;,.o-;:..::,,.-rs.fir•.,,,(t }+::, 9'•P e: '''"T ,d,.., a•!'a'.f ert i'n':''. i ' ' inO' ', Lot 5 W1"ja<.ui,z9''I•,g;:,.:, .': ,., west'.oorne.t,-of':.Gl;a'3d'i''ril MpB an prp Z;,' ,. ;,'r;;thehve. ,sou'th 08 4'.I,f,.0 0. •oa's`a"':4.7'• 3,^5.• "thence ,south 26, SS 00 east , a-f: r;,;,.s„ 1. cjt•.t a; ;;y,: °,, 61,4 f t:,,a'1%,c f4 `'lri^ 2 '6'I hence"south:':9l°' 25'`0'0''/ 'ees`t• 160!-•;;• 'thence south' 7993,5 00 i'•,• FYi.°.-J t`Nc -e,;,r.''• to the 1,'. ,., y`i,y..-t{ 1 •,}+,3't,.a:i 'c east •fo the eas•t ,''1ane;:'of':Gowe.,,n .t' 'Lot 5', 'thence 'south A.i. ,;,,, , f[M1r;I; `gf','i:; sou'theast..cornei',.•thefeof;',th'enoe,•,west '59.4 •r•to:.;the'.southwest co,z,-, i.,;,F.:,- 1'? t k1v i•'" ac ific Coa's t.'" I;' ;4. , v'Se• 1.11s.•,,.'? , tr` ner:•tf er;eof'; aher Ce. 'i o'rth"{o;.t'he: 'sout'h;..'line'';of;•the;'k? c iv. ,' .' F C i'r, 7z•;? Lh..1`I f .4',•CC. ;r'. ,t P?v.,1,:,,fr<,p?, a tfie'rYce":=e'aster3 ''':a1bn ,the:soptholine to'. r; .., f-..b .f„,,''' ,F,. Rai 1road: ?. • .of••.w y: 9':.. Lr..•y the:'point of'',te innin -less,=the'nor.ther.1' :3b..,• 'of„`a'ndJ'parallel a" ,f, .,,; a ,t, a "s ,r. i} f% '4)''''IA'1 ,.f: 4' ;", with Pacific Coa•st'•Rai'.Iroad'right-of-way ' .• :,:'•t a a,,:'''•'" ' v`:;: REZONE H-i .TO R-1: U:' yr lra'Lf , 4': W• 2' f t 'e `SE'1/4 '.of'Section '17 xownshi f,r'{c<' o.:; •; Y.,:,••: T'haE'por,tton o• the.•. 1/ q h I P. rr 4• i 23 'North, .Range 5 East W,,R, described ,a. follows. 4;'} :},d":•5:,' :'i'. - !n.. Beginning at the. ' SW":corner of;.SE' '1/4 of said Section. 17 thence northerly..along .the west line thereof 'a 'distance of,500- feet' F9' Y'a,.' more or less; Thence southeasterly.'along a.,;line to .a point.on the.'South,line, of. the SE',1/4 of'said Section 17, which point 'lies 1200. feet r,:, rs.' more or less' east 'of;' as",measured. aloe ;the.,south line of said i section from. •the.'SW'.co'rner. of. said SE' 1/4j Thence westerly,along• the:'South; line of the 'SE• 4/9 of Section i', 1`7 a distance of 1200.feet'' more. or less .to the SW corner thereof and the point of`,beginning. ' . F,- REZONE 'H=1' TO:M-P 7--1— That portion of the west 1/2 of the SE 1/4 of Section 17 Town- ship 23,North, Range 5 East W.M. described as follows: f PARCEL "A" That portion of Government Lot 6 and the southwest .1/4 of the SE 1/4 of said section, lying'northerly 'of the Columbia and Puget Sound Railroad Company right-of-way and southerly of that line 4 established ,by Superior Court decree #90072 dated ,February 6, 1913. PARCEL'"B11 That portion of Government Lot 7 lying northerly of that line , established by Superior Court decree .#90072 dated February 6, 1913, and southerly of the present Cedar River bank. .. i. ,• S! f. 0: i n( tit• .,..n,..,,. ..- ._..- 4'•v.. esr I RKM Y i L i r MAIL a i s o Ll MINIM• Nis ma min ilizi J.- _-_- irrzfe te.; 4.1 a. 4. c?..,.... 1.,.. s :, larJ 111111• 111, 000". j 19 -'.-... VI P.- . 2‘ -. 1f./. S. 111114424N44 \ N I 1 C3 N• ta 5 .. .. ii-- 0 • N, ..-----, N„... , lk aski. 7, 11 A • . II lips a l_ i- N 11:‘, sN Et . lk CI am dm 40 . . 1.. 411111114%: 1/4444. S. 7•. 11 r ems- 1 I all 00 L J: 1 0 c 1014 ' fit 1 1 , illiii\. I Jo N • C I fl -- J 1' S. s Apr _ _ q e 4\ i v ,,, etv r[C raw e— I- ; 10 J. k I i 4. x41, Imo: ® I aIt0 ` A I 11111111 iii v,` ACI W 0 0 O 1° 1' i - " Da , COI 1' d o - 15 b a S. a" s' 2 4- sr.. r tSa q23 I 1 r I I I rat OF RA, THE CITY OF RENTON MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON,WASH. 98055 IL rn CHARLES J. DELAURENTI , MAYOR DELORES A. MEAD 090 CITY CLERK 0gT SEP10" Rucru t 30 , 1979 mr. Richard Sorac;ue 23rd ricer 8an3: of California Center Seattle , Wa. 90164 RE : Ordinance No. 335'3 Renton Hill Rezone (Int: -_c.,1 Dear Mr. Sprague , The Renton City Council, during its regular meeting on Monday, Jugu,t 3T , 1979 has adopted ordinance No. 3353 . A copy is enclosed for your information. Yours very truly, CITY OF RENTON Delores A. Mead, C.M. C. City Clerk DAM:J.0'2'db Enclosure 1 i