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

No preview available

The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutLUA82-064BEG ! NNIN( OF FILE FILE TITLE 1:1) As A 4 _ le% ass Applicant LOUIS G. MALESIS File No. R-064-82 Project Name Property Location NE 16th Street & Kirkland Ave. NE HEARING EXAMINER: Date April 11 , 1983 Recommendation Denial Req./Rec. Date Received Date Response Appeal - Date Received Council Approval - Date Ordinance/Resolution ft Date Mylar to County for Recording Mylar Recording # Remarks: Req. Reconsideration filed 4/25/83 ; Examiner's response dated 5/2/83 (denial ) ; Remanded back to Hearing Examiner by Council 6/6/83 ; No action taken by applicant after several attempts to schedule new hearing ; Hearing Examiner dismissed 1/3/84. 1 i Y • R- OCo1 - W°/ ill lb Affidavit of Publication STATE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY OF KING ss. Cindy StrupP being first duly sworn on oath,deposes and says that Sheis the cl'}ief clerk of THE DAILY RECORD CHRONICLE,a newspaper published six(6)times a 4114111/1 week.That said newspaper is a legal newspaper and it is now and has been for more than six months prior to the date of publication referred to, T--- printed and published in the English language continually as a newspaper published four(4)times a week in Kent,King County,Washington,and it is now and during all of said time was printed in an office maintained at the RENTON LAND USE • aforesaid place of publication of said newspaper.That the Daily Record HEARING EXAMINER Chronicle has been approved as a legal newspaper by order of the Superior RENTON,WASHINGTON Court of the County in which it is published,to-wit,King County, A public hearing will be held by the Renton Land Washington.That the annexed is a Notice of Public Use hearing examiner at his regular meeting in the Coun- cil Chambers, City Hall, Re- Hearing nton, Washington on March 15, 1983, at 9:00 a.m. to consider the following peti-, as it was published in regular issues(and tions: not in supplement form of said newspaper) once each issue for a period LOUIS MALESIS Application to rezone 3.16- acres of property from R-2 to R-3 for a medium density of ..one. consecutive issues,commencing on the housing development of 72 units,file R-064-82;property 4 h..dayof 1dlx'.Gtl lg 8 located approximately 150 and ending the feet east of Kirkland Avenue N.E. at the end of the N.E. 16th Street. day of 19 both dates Legal descriptions of the inclusive, and that such newspaper was regularly distributed to its sub- files noted above are on file scribers during all of said period. That the full amount of the fee in the Renton Building and Zoning Department. All interested persons to charged for the foregoing publication is the sum of $ 18•O,Qvhich said petitions are invited to has been paid in full at the rate of per folio of one hundred words for the be present at the public first insertion and per folio of one hundred words for each subsequent hearing on March 15, 1983, insertion. at 9:00 a.m.to express their Q___,_ opinions. Ronald G. Nelson 1YA- ••,_! L Building and Zoning Director Chief...Cl\}}erk Published in the Daily Re- cord Chronicle March 4, 1983. R8469 Subscribed and sworn to before me this...4 th, day of Marsh 19.83.. Notary lic in and f he State ofe76ngton,Dry ci C.tu 1_______ _ ^ resi i Kin County. j+ Building&Zoning Dept I Federal Wayy Passed by the Legislature,1955,known as Senate Bill 281,effective June 9th, 1955. Western Union Telegraph Co. rules for counting words and figures, adopted by the newspapers of the State. APR 8 1983 VN#87 Revised 5/82 A 1-61' rl 11 VI NOTICE OP PUBLIC HEARING AUG 311983 RENTON LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER RENTON, WASHINGTON B0=i0IN' ZONING OLT I A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE RENTON LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER AT HIS REGULAR MEETING IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, RENTON, WASHINGTON ON JULY 5, 1983, AT 9:00 A.M. TO CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING PETITIONS: LOUIS MALESIS Application to rezone 3.16 acres of property from R-2 to R-3 for a medium density housing development of 72 units, File No. R-064-82; property located approximately 150 feet east of Kirkland Avenue N:E. at the 'end of N.E. 16th Street. Legal descriptions of the files noted above are on file in the Renton Building and Zoning Department. ALL INTERESTED PERSONS TO SAID PETITIONS ARE INVITED TO BE •PRESENT AT THE PUBLIC HEARING ON JULY 5, 1983, AT 9:00 A.M. TO EXPRESS THEIR OPINIONS. • PUBLISHED: JUNE 24, 1983 Ronald G. Nelson Building and Zoning Director CER ['IFICATION I, JERRY LIND, HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THREE COPIES OF THE ABOVE DOCUMENTS 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, in and for the State of Washington residing in the King County, on the 24th day of June, 1983. tvtrz' z SIGNED 1 ' ( OE R O U dip NOTICEZ9,0 O9ATFD S _ ng) EPl City of Renton Land Use Hearing Examiner will hold a pooLle HEARING in CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS , CITY HALL ON _ JULY 5, 1983 BEGINNING AT 9:00 A.M.P.M. CONCERNING:FILE NO, R-O64-82 rx1 REZONE From R-2 To R-3 I I SPECIAL / CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT To SITE APPROVAL SHORT PLAT/SUBDIVISION of Lots PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT VARIANCE FROM GENERAL LOCATION AND/OR ADDRESS: PROPERTY LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 150 FEET EAST OF KIRKLAND AVE, N,E, AT THE END OF N,E, lEmH STREET, LEGAL DESCRIPTION ON FILE IN THE RENTON BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT. ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION E SIGNIFICANT rd NON—SIGNIFICANT FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CALL THE CITY OF RENTON BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT 235-2550 THIS NOTICE NOT TO BE REMOVED 1 ITHOUT OF i? THE CITY OFRENTON410MUNICIPALBUILDING200MILLAVE. SO. RENTON, WASH. 98055 BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH. MAYOR • LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER co- FRED J. KAUFMAN. 235-25930, 9 r o SEPTE O P Januar/ 3, 1984 Mr. Louis G. Malesis 8208 S. 124th Street Seattle, WA 98178 RE: R 064-82/Dismissal Dear Mr. Malesis: The above entitled matter was remanded to this office in June of 1983. The matter was scheduled for a new public hearing and was twice continued at your request. Since no further action has occured on this matter per our letter dated July 15, 1983, the matter is this date dismissed. If you choose to reinitiate your application, you may do so by filing a new request with the Building and Zoning Department. The matter should then be handled as an entirely new request and be given an entirely new application number. If you have any questions concerning this request, please contact this office. Sincerely, Fred J. Raifman Land Use Hearing Examiner FJK:se 0367E cc: Mayor City Council City Attorney City Clerk - Building and Zoning Dept. Kenneth B. Shellan OF R4, 71/ THE CITY OF RENTON MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, WASH. 98055 o BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH, MAYOR • LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER co FRED J. KAUFMAN. 235 -2593 09gt60 SEPSE ' July 15, 1983 Mr. Kenneth B. Shellan Attorney at Law P. O. Bo:K 26 Renton, WA 98056 RE: MALESIS REMAND Dear Mr Shellan: Please be advised that a public hearing on the above-referenced matter which was continue3 at your request to July 19, 1983 at 9:00 a.m. in the Council Chambers of the Renton Municipal Building has been continued again per your request. The matter will not be rescheduled until your client submits in writing the proposed modifications to the original rezone request. Such submission shall be in the form of an original request to rezone the property and must be submitted to the Building and Zoning Department. After review by the Building and Zoning Department the item will again be scheduled for a hearing. It is unfortunate that your architect has been out of town and has been unable to submit the new plans for your client's proposal but the city cannot proceed until it has had a chance to review the specifics of your client's modifications. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please feel free to contact this office. Sincerely, Fred J. Kalif n Land Use. Hearing Examiner FJK:se cc: C'.ty Clerk Building & Zoning Dept. Louis Malesis MEMO 'OM: CITY CLERK' S OFFICE TO:ROGER BLAYLOCK, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DATE: 6/10/83 RE: MALES IS REZONE, R-064-82 MEMO: MATTER REMANDED TO HEARING EXAMINER FOR PUBLIC HEARING TO REVIEW NEW EVIDENCE. // u _ i HANK YOU, MARILYN Renton City Council June 6, 1983 Page Two CONSENT AGENDA continued Renton Ave. S. City Clerk reported 6/1/83 Bid Opening for Renton Avenue S. Water Project Bid Improvements, Sanitary Sewer Repair, Storm Drain, Street Improvements; Opening five bids received. Refer to Utilities Committee. MOVED BY TRIMM, SECONDED BY CLYMER, COUNCIL ADOPT THE CONSENT AGENDA AS PRESENTED. CARRIED. CORRESPONIIENCE Letter from Conrad E. Hermsted was read reporting deleterious Request to condition of Union Avenue N.E. and Union Avenue S.E. south of N.E. Upgrade Ur ion 4th Street . MOVED BY REED, SECONDED BY ROCKHILL, THIS MATTER BE south of HE 4th REFERRED TO THE TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE. MOTION CARRIED . OLD BUSINESS At Councilman Stredicke's request , letter from Public Works Director Northward Houghton was read regarding impacts of the proposed Northward Development Development (west of Duvall Avenue N.E. , north of N.E. 4th Street) upon sanitary sewers and storm drainage in the Heather Downs/ Maplewood Creek area. The letter stated that the Heather Downs 10-inch sanitary sewer interceptor in Renton provides sewer service to the Northward development; however, further extension increments of that sewer will require oversizing or parallel sewers. Additionally, regulation of the storm drainage runoff using ponds or tanks will reduce peak runoff from the developed site to pre- development rates; and an assessment fund will be used to construct a maintenance access and provide channel stabilization of the creek bed. Councilman Stredicke questioned 5% contribution by Northward developers. Houghton explained 5% required contribution to be spent within five years on a design project for storm drainage, and in cooperation with King County as development occurs , latecomers fees and other charges will be imposed to finance the project . Responding to inquiries regarding whether access to the creek, privately owned property, will be allowed to accomplish stabilization, City Attorney Warren explained various legal means of acquiring access, and Houghton advised anticipated cooperation from property owners , Maplewood Maintenance Corporation. Councilman Stredicke questioned whether the 10-inch sanitary sewer line would serve the present city limits if built at its current zoning. Houghton stated that the system which will serve the Northward development together with unsewered Heather Downs Drainage Basin includes those areas within the city limits; however, once development expands beyond city limits, another route must be designated because the sewer system down to Maplewood does not have capacity to go beyond the present city limits. Planning and Planning and Development Committee Chairman Rockhill presented a Development report recommending the City Council remand the matter of the Malesis Committee Rezone to the Hearing Examiner for further consideration of new Malesis Rezone evidence at a new public hearing at which comments may be received Appeal from interested parties. New evidence submitted by the applicant R-064-82 concerned actual existing densities of the uses surrounding the subject site. MOVED BY ROCKHILL, SECONDED BY STREDICKE, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TO REMAND THIS MATTER TO THE HEARING EXAMINER. Councilman Stredicke requested the record reflect that the appeal was based on a change in zoning from R-2 to R-3 which was just a blanket zone, and the committee' s discussion was about the density and whether or not there should be restrictions on the land as to density if an R-3 zone were recommended. With new evidence, the rezone should carry some restrictions. MOTION CARRIED. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS Ways and Means Ways and Means Committee Chairman Clymer presented a report Committee recommending the following ordinances for first reading : Jackson An ordinance was read annexing Jackson Property, located at S.E. Annexaticn 167th Street, south of Parkwood Subdivision, east of Nelson Middle School . MOVED BY CLYMER, SECONDED BY HUGHES, THIS MATTER BE REFERRED BACK TO COMMITTEE FOR ONE WEEK. CARRIED. PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE COMMITTEE REPORT JUNE 6, 1983 MALESIS REZONE APPEAL (R-064-82) - Referred 5/16/83 The Planning and Development Committee has considered the appeal from the Hearing Examiner's recommendation dated April 11 , 1983, regarding the above matters and has received additional evidence presented by the applicant regarding the actual existing densities of the uses surrounding the subject properties. Because of the new evidence presented, the Committee recommends that the City Council remand this matter to the Hearing Examiner for further consideration of the new evidence at a new public hearing at which comments may be received from interested parties. Gc-rZ Randy ckhill , Chairman e000e.fi ~ v v John Reed Richard Stredicke Renton City Council May 16 , 1983 Page Two AUDIENCE COMMENT George Kresovitch, attorney representing owner of Northward site, Northward Rezone 403 Columbia Street, Seattle, requested Council suspend the rules Appeal and advance to the Planning and Development Committee report regarding the Northward Rezone appeal . MOVED BY ROCKHILL, SECONDED BY REED, COUNCIL SUSPEND THE RULES AND ADVANCE TO PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE REPORT UNDER OLD BUSINESS. CARRIED. Advance Council Versie Vaupel , 400 Cedar Avenue S. , indicated she had called Committee Reports Council offices earlier to obtain a copy of the Planning and Development Committee report which was not available until late today. She felt the public would be better served if copies of committee reports were provided in advance of Council meetings. Advancement Responding to Mayor Shinpoch' s request to discuss management of to Adm. Report the Green River, it was MOVED BY REED, SECONDED BY ROCKHILL, requested COUNCIL SUSPEND THE RULES AND ADVANCE TO ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT ITEM 12) FOLLOWING CONSENT AGENDA APPROVAL ( ITEM 7) . CARRIED . CONSENT AGENDA Items on the Consent Agenda are adopted by one motion which follows the listing : Malesis Rezone Appeal of Hearing Examiner ' s Recommendation of denial , filed on Appeal behalf of Louis G. Malesis, File No. R-064-82, of request to rezone R-064-82 property located at the east end of NE 16th Street and east of Kirkland Avenue NE from R-2 to R-3 for 72-unit development. Refer to Planning and Development Committee. Bid Opening - City Clerk reported bid opening 5/9/83 for Well No. 9 Production Well No. 9 and Observation Well Drilling (W-665) ; 2 bids received. Refer to Utilities Committee. (attached) Bid Opening - City Clerk reported bid opening 5/10/83 for Rainier Avenue 12-inch Rainier Avenue Pipeline Extension (W-664) ; 5 bids received . Refer to Utilities Pipeline Committee. (attached) Bid Opening - City Clerk reported bid opening 5/11/83 for Well Level Telemetry Conduit & Cable Conduit and Cable (W-701 ) ; 7 bids received. Refer to Utilities Committee. (attached) Rentonites Court case filed 5/9/83 in Superior Court by Rentonites v City of Court Case Renton; Ronald G. Nelson; David R. Clemens; Richard C. Houghton; L. Peretti ) and Fred J . Kaufman, appealing Final Declaration of Non-Significance conditions for site approval request, SA-002-83 (Administrative Appeal File No. AAD-019-83) . Refer to City Attorney and Insurance Carrier. Mayetich Claim for damages in the amount of $200 filed by Andrew and Pauline Claim fcr Mayetich, 513 SW 3rd Place, for water damage to basement and yard Damages allegedly caused by broken water meter (4/29/83) . Refer to City CL 15-83 Attorney and Insurance Carrier. Joint Purchase Public Works Department requested authorization to negotiate with with Kirg County King County a proposed joint site purchase of additional property of property near adjacent to Springbrook Watershed for passive recreational uses Springbrook Water- in the amount of $65,000 from each agency. Refer to Utilities shed Committee. MOVED BY TRIMM, SECONDED BY STREDICKE, COUNCIL ADOPT THE CONSENT AGENDA AS PRESENTED. CARRIED. Planninc and Copies of the Planning and Development ComrrLttee report regarding Developnent the Northward Rezone appeal were distributed; Council advanced to Committee Old Business as previously approved . Planning and Development Northward Committee Chairman Rockhill presented a report indicating the Associa :.es Hearing Examiner has erred as a matter of fact and law, and Rezone Appeal recommending approval by the City Council of the requested rezone R-018-8. subject to the following conditions and modifications: Finding G.M. Associates) #13: Delete subparagraph 2 and modify subparagraph 4 to read as follows: The traffic impact of this development will be adequately mitigated by the applicant's proposal . Finding No. 17: Should be modified to read as follows: There is currently sufficient water and sewer service to accommodate populations anticipated to live within the city limits although extensions of such services to this property will be necessary. RENTON CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting May 16, 1983 Municipal Building Monday, 8:00 p.m. Council Chambers MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Mayor Barbara Y. Shinpoch led the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag and called the meeting of the Renton City Council to order. ROLL CALL OF THOMAS W. TRIMM, Council President; EARL H. CLYMER, ROBERT J . COUNCIL MEMBERS HUGHES, RANDALL ROCKHILL, RICHARD M. STREDICKE, JOHN W. REED, NANCY L. MATHEWS. CITY STAFF IN BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH, Mayor; LAWRENCE J . WARREN, City Attorney; ATTE DANCE DAN KELLOGG, Assistant City Attorney; MAXINE E. MOTOR, City Clerk; MICHAEL W. PARNESS, Administrative Assistant; DAVID R. CLEMENS; Policy Development Director; JOHN WEBLEY, Parks Director; ED 1 HAYDUK, Housing Coordinator; LEE WHEELER, Fire Chief; CAPTAIN DON PERSSON, Police Department. I PRESS Jan Hinman, Renton Record-Chronicle. MINUTE APPROVAL MOVED BY TRIMM, SECONDED BY CLMER, COUNCIL APPROVE THE MINUTES OF MAY 9, 1983 AS PRESENTED. CARRIED. Mayor Shinpoch welcomed Barney Ruppert, former Building Director, in attendance at the meeting. PROCLAMATION A proclamation by Mayor Shinpoch declared the month of May, 1983, Poppy Month as Poppy Month, and May 20 and 21 as Poppy Days in Renton; poppy being adopted by the American Legion Auxiliary as its memorial flower to pay tribute to all those who gave their lives in patriotic duty for America. PUBLIC HEARING This being the date set and proper notices having been posted and Ashley published according to law, Mayor Shinpoch opened the public Annexation - hearing to consider the 75% petition for Laurence W. Ashley to 75% Petition annex one single family lot located on the south side of SE 165th between 108th Avenue SE and Benson Highway. Correspondence was read indicating circulation of the petition was authorized at the preliminary meeting held by the City Council 4/11/83, and the owner has signed the petition agreeing to accept the City ' s Comprehensive Plan and zoning designation, and assume any pre-existing bonded indebtedness of the city. David Clemens, Policy Development Director, advised the signature of the applicant represents 100% of the assessed valuation; the environmental assessment of the site has been completed; and the final declaration of non- significance issued on 4/25/83 has not been appealed within the specified period. Councilman Stredicke requested confirmation that the applicant has accepted the city' s pre-existing bonded indebtedness, Comprehensive Plan and zoning, since those specific questions were not asked at the 4/11/83 meeting. Following discussion, it was noted those conditions were included in the 75o petition, agreed to and signed by the petitioner, Mr. Ashley. MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECONDED BY REED, CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. CARRIED. MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECONDED BY HUGHES, COUNCIL ACCEPT THE ASHLEY PETITION FOR ANNEXATION CONDITIONED UPON AGREEMENT TO ACCEPT THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, ZONING, AND PRO-RATA SHARE OF THE PRE-EXISTING BONDED INDEBTEDNESS BY THE PETITIONER; AND, FURTHER, THE MATTER SHOULD BE REFERRED TO THE POLICY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT TO PURSUE COMPLETION OF THE ANNEXATION WITH THE BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD.* Councilman Mathews indicated she is not satisfied all adjoining property owners have been contacted to join in the annexation; and city policies have not been met in allowing a single residential lot to annex. MOTION CARRIED. AUDIENCE COMMENT Mary Ellen Hamblin, 13025 138th SE, requested a copy of the Planning & Planning and Development Committee report regarding the Northward Development Appeal to be presented under Old Business. Mayor Shinpoch advised Committee Report/ copies would be run for distribution; other audience comment would Northward Appeal be invited until the report is available. (See later action: motion to suspend rules and advance to Old Business; Planning and and Development Committee report, last paragraph, page 2. ) For. Use By City Clerk's Office Only A. I . # AGENDA ITEM RENTON CITY COUNCIL MEETING SUBMITTING Dept./Div./Bd./Comm.City Clerk For Agenda Of May 16, 1983 Meeting Date) Staff Contact Maxine E. Motor Name) Agenda Status: SUBJECT: Appeal of Hearing Examiner's Consent XX Public Hearing Recommendation; File No. R-064-82; Correspondence Louis G. Malesis Request for Rezone; Ordinance/Resolution filed by Kenneth B. Shellan on 5/9/83 Old Business Exhibits: (Leial Descr. , Maps, Etc. )Attach New Business Study Session A. City Clerk' s Notice of Appeal Other B. Letter of Appeal 1 C. Hearing Examiner' s Report 4/11/83 Approval : D. Request for Reconsideration/Examiner's Respons(hegal Dept. Yes_ No N/A COUNCIL ACTIO4 RECOMMENDED: Refer to Finance Dept. Yes_ No. N/A Other Clearance Planning and, Development Committee FISCAL IMPACT: Expenditure R,.:quired $ Amount $ Appropriation- $ Budgeted Transfer Required SUMMARY (Background information, prior action and effect of implementation) Atta :h additional pages if necessary.) PARTIES OF RECORD/INTERESTED CITIZENS TO BE CONTACTED: SUBMIT THIS COPY TO CITY CLERK BY NOON ON THURSDAY WITH DOCUMENTATION. l Vain dlffires of 71200O$ ' ennctIi . c* 1itI1an i.321 urttett tnnue Knuth t r` Post(lDffice *lox 26 t` rnton, ansliingtnn 9805 7 31 206) 255-5600 g May 6 , 1983 Fred Kaufman7OfficeoftheHearingExaminer Renton City Hall Renton, Washington 98055 R - 0(0Y'82- RE: Malesis rezone Dear Mr. Kaufman: I appreciate your having taken the time to again anal#ze the proposed Malesis Development. Although I do not completely agree with your evaluation or your conclusions, your care in considering this matter was greatly appreciated. With best regards , Very truly yours, Kenneth B. Shellan KBS :lg yIav9 CITY CLERK OF I o THE CITY OF RENTON U ,• © Z MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, WASH. 98055 0solLrn BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH, MAYOR MAXINE E.MOTOR, 90 co- P CITY CLERK • (206) 235-2500 4/7' D SEP.1Et° May 9, 1983 CERTIFICATE OF MAILING STATE OF WASHINGTON) COUNTY OF KING ss. MARILYN J. PETERSEN, Deputy City Clerk of the City of Renton, being first duly sworn on oath, deposes and says that she is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Washington, over the age of 21 and not a party to nor interested in this matter. That on the 10th day of May, 1983, at the hour of 5:00 p.m. , your affiant duly mailed and placed in the United States Post Office at Renton, King County, Washington, by first class mail , to all parties of record, a true and correct NOTICE OF APPEAL OF THE HEARING EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDATION FILED BY KENNETH B. SHELLAN, ATTORNEY FOR LOUIS G. MALESIS, File No. R-064-82 V(;);(.r-----/ Marilyn J. ter&, Deputy City Clerk SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE me this 10th day of May, 1983. 4, /6-)i„ CAz Not ry Public in and for the ytate of Washington, residing in Renton OF I y o THE CITY OF RENTON Z MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON,WASH. 98055 o rn BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH, MAYOR MAXINE E.MOTOR, CITY CLERK • (206) 235-2500 9gT 0 SEPZE` O May 9, 1983 APPEAL FILED BY KENNETH B. SHELLAN, ATTORNEY FOR LOUIS G. MALESIS Re: File No. R-064-83; Louis G. Malesis Request for Rezone; Appeal of Examiner's Recommendation of Denial . To Parties of Record: Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 30, City Code, written appeal of Land Use Hearing Examiner's Recommendation has been filed with the City Clerk along with the proper fee of $75.00. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the written appeal and other pertinent documents will be reviewed by the Council 's Planning and Development Committee and will be considered by the City Council when the matter is reported out of committee. The Council Secretary will notify all parties of record of the date and time of the Planning and Development Committee meeting. Yours very truly, CITY OF RENTON e 1 Maxine E. Motor City Clerk MEM:mp OF R4, THE CITY OF RENTON L. U ` O MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, WASH. 98055 o ' m BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH, MAYOR MAXINE E.MOTOR, 9 co- CITY CLERK • (206) 235-2500 099TFD cEp,E.0 May 9, 1983 APPEAL FILED BY KENNETH B. SHELLAN, ATTORNEY FOR LOUIS G. MALESIS Re: File No. R-064-83; Louis G. Malesis Request for Rezone; Appeal of Examiner's Recommendation of Denial . To Parties of Record: Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 30, City Code, written appeal of Land Use Hearing Examiner's Recommendation has been filed with the City Clerk along with the proper fee of $75.00. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the written appeal and other pertinent documents will be reviewed by the Council 's Planning and Development Committee and will be considered by the City Council when the matter is reported out of committee. The Council Secretary will notify all parties of record of the date and time of the Planning and Development Committee meeting. Yours very truly, CITY OF RENTON t:Tt„__ e". 2 Maxine E. Motor City Clerk MEM:mp CITY OF RENTON N°1353 FINANCE DEPARTMENT RENTON, WASHINGT/ON 98055 19 REC]:IVED OF I'et )7F % 7 SLJ ,o//v, TOTAL J" ('c t:itn(nfficrs RECEIVED of Iteuneth _ MAY 11 1983 321 Burnett Aftenur, nut11 Post Office lux 26 CITY OF RENTON Renton, i4uslin gton 98037 CITY COUNCIL 2116) 235-3600 May 6 , 1983 rEEOVEEMAY1t, ,9 ,, Clerk of the City Council City Council Members CITY CLERK 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, Washington 98055 RE: Malesis rezone (File No. R-064-82) : Appeal of the decision of the hearing examiner and appeal of the reconsideration denial. Dear Council Members : Please accept this letter and the appended material as our formal appeal of that decision of the hearing ex- aminer dated April 11 , 1983 and of that denial of recon- sideration dated May 2 , 1983 . We look forward to having the opportunity to address the council concerning this issue. With best regards, Very truly yours , Kenneth B. Shellan KBS :lg cc: Hearing examiner lam Mlffirrs sf Rennet! !. Ahrllan 321 ilurnrtt Abrnur South Vast Off irr Nor 26 Renton, Washington 98057 206) 255-5600 April. 25, 19-83 Hearing Examiner City of Renton Renton City Hall Renton, Washington 98055 FE: Request for reconsideration of File #R-064-82 Malesis Rezone) , Hearing Examiner decision of April 11, 1983. Dear Hearing Examiner: During your review of the above referenced rezone request and the multifarious facts related to the proposed project, you unfor- tunately committed several factual and legal errors. Although the errors were relatively few in number, they were never-the-less critical; these errors provided you with askewed or distorted per- ception of the proposed project. The purpose of this request is two-fold: To set the factual and legal record straight so that you can better analyze this project and second, to briefly point out the errors of fact and law previously committed. SETTING THE LEGAL AND FACTUAL RECORD STRAIGHT To set the record straight and clear up the misinformation previously communicated, the actual facts of the present rezone case must be set forth. The following delineates the facts, all of which collectively point toward the desirability of approving the rezone. 1 . Approval by the Building and Zoning Department. This approval (with several conditions attached) was given after thorough review and input by the following agencies and de- partments : Design Engineering Division, Traffic Engineering Divi- sion, Utilities Engineering Division, Fire Prevention Bureau, Parks and Recreation Department, Building and Zoning Department, and the Policy Development Department. Only the Policy Development objected to the R-3 rezone, stating that such zoning was not consistant with CO PY April 25, 1983 Rearing Examiner, City of Renton Page 2 RE: Request for reconsideration of File 4R-064-82 neighboring zoning. The contiguous zoning is in fact, however, R-3 and R-2, and R-3 zones are scattered throughout the region. There- fore, the proposed R-3 zoning is in fact compatable with contiguous areas . 2. The subject sight is zoned for medium or low density multi- family usage on the comprehensive plan and the proposed rezone is consistant with the policies of the comprehensive plan (see speci- fically policies 3 ana 4 on pages 8 and 9) . The proposed development was specifically and scrupulously designed so as to fully comply with this medium density multi-family designation which was set forth after thorough analysis by the various city departments and agencies and by the city council. 3 . The current R-2 zoning of the subject sight is deceptive, irrelevant, and in need of review and revision to R-3. The city annexed the subject property in 1980 and, as is the case when the city annexes land, the land is automatically zoned G. The G classification in these annexation cases means in effect that the zoning designation',-subject to change and will be reviewed upon request. In 1981, the city, the Department of Housing and Urban Devel- opment and a developer considered placing a 30 unit low income, medium density housing project on the sight. So as to expedite the project, the developer early on requested a rezone from G to R-2 in the event or upon the condition that the 30 unit development ever was contracted for by the Department of Housing and Urban Develop- ment. The R-2 zoning was placed on the property because this was a necessary condition precedent of the low income project; the proposed project was subsequently turned down by the Department of Housing and Urban Development for technical reasons (the proposed project was to close in proximity to other federal projects) . The R-2 zoning was placed on the subject property prior to the rejection of the project by the Department of Housing and Urban Development; in other words, the R-2 zoning was placed on the property in contemplation of a specific housing project which was never built. The city simply did not conclude in 1981 that R-2 zoning was ideal for the sight. The city only concluded that if the specific project reached fruition, then the R-2 zoning would be acceptable and approved. Since the precedent condition of the building of the project never reached fruition, the ' R-2 ' zonJ.ng is meaningless. Be- cause of this situation, in 1983, the Building and Zoning Department reviewed the subject sight and stated that the R-3 zoning was appropriate. April 25, 1983 Rearing Examinei , City of Renton Page 3 RE: Request for reconsideration of File $R-064-82 4. There was and is absolutely no public opposition to the rezone and proposed project. (The hearing examiner confirmed this fact as Item 5 of his Findings. ) 5. , The final Declaration of Nonsivnificance has been issued by the Renton Environmental Review Committee pursuant to RCW 43. 21C.030 2) (C) . The Environmental Review Committee (ERC) thoroghly analyzed the environmental impact of the proposed project, and determined that the impact was not significant. One such impact reviewed was the consistancy of the proposed zoning with the current neighboring zoning; the ERC concluded that the proposed zoning and the zoning in the area were consistant (and essentially complimentary) . 6. Sewers pose absolutely no problem for the subject sight. The sight is not within the geographical area of the sewer mor- itorium (see Resolution 2381) and a gravity activated sewer system could and would serve the area well. 7 . All other public utilites including streets and water are also available. ERRORS OF FACT AND LAW COMMITTED BY THE HEARING EXAMINER The Hearing Examiner ha's committed several errors of fact and law. These errors can and should be reviewed thoroghly in a public hearing, but, in brief, these errors include the following. 1. The hearing examiner is factually incorrect in holding that the proposed R-3 zoning is inconsistent with neighboring zoning. Contiguous zoning is in fact R-2 and R-3, and therefore not in- consistent. The comprehensive plan and it's recent revisions upholds and supports R-2 and R-3 zoning in the area (in fact, such R-3 zoning permits the construction of 79 units on the subject sight whereas the applicant requests a less dense 68 to 72 units) . The Building and Zoning Department concludes that the proposed zoning is not inconsis- tent with current zoning. The Environmental Review Committee con- cludes that the zones are not inconsistent. No neighbors or inhabitants of the area expressed opposition to the project; surely the public outcry would have been great should such a zoning incon- sistency in fact have been the case. 2. There is some doubt whether the subject sight was actually rezoned to R-2 in 1981 . April 25, 1983 Hearing Examiner, City of Renton Page 4 RE: Request for reconsideration of File #R-064-82 The hearing examiner acknowledged the legal importance of this issue on Page 3 of his April 11, 1983 report. The hearing examiner admitted that this issue is very important yet rendered his decision before having a legal opinion from the City Attorney's office. Such a legal decision should have been rendered by the City Attorney and reviewed by the hearing examiner prior to the ruling of the examiner. If, for example, the rezone was never legally adopted because the rezone conditions were not complied with, then the G zoning still obtains. In that case , the G zoning, a mere statutory consequence of annexation, should and must be immediately reviewed in light of the current proposed project. 3. The hearing examiner is factually incorrect in stating that the 1981 proposed medium density, low income project was held by the council not to be in the best interests of the area. In fact, the opposite is true: the council , the federal govern- mant, and the Department of Housing and Urban Development thought the subject sight was ideal for a medium density housing project. The sight was rejected for a technical reason - it was too close in prox- imity to other federal projects. The real conclusion in 1981 of the aforementioned agencies is that a medium density project is appro- priate for the subject sight. 4 . The hearing examiner is incorrect in stating that there has not been a significant change in circumstances since the last rezone. There has in fact been a major change : the very medium density complex which was a cause for the rezone has not and never will be constructed! Furthermore, since the 1981 apparent rezone was made for the specific purpose of that one project, and that one project was never undertaken , then the subject sight needs to be reviewed once again to determine the appropriate zoning for the sight. Apr:.l 25, 1983 Hearing Examiner, City of Renton Page 5 RE : Request for reconsideration of File #R-064-82 The above facts set the record straight in an attempt to point out a few of the hearing examiner 's errors which collectively indi- catE that the proposed rezone and project are in the public interest, wil] not impair the public health, safety and welfare , and, in addi- tior , comply with not just one criterion of Section 4-3010, but all thrEe conditions . Respectfully submitted this 25th day of April, 1983 . Very truly yours , Kenneth B. Shellan KBS :lg 1 • Into d)ffices of tennetli 'A. *llellan 321 Burnett Abenue , nutii ytast Office iiox 26 Erntnn, Washington 98037 206) 255-3600 May 6, 1983 Clerk of the City Council City Council Members 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, Washington 98055 RE: Malesis rezone (File No. R-064-82) : Appeal of the decision of the hearing examiner and appeal of the reconsideration denial. Dear Council Members : Please accept this letter and the appended material as our formal appeal of that decision of the hearing ex- aminer dated April 11 , 1983 and of that denial of recon- sideration dated May 2 , 1983 . We look forward to having the opportunity to address the council concerning this issue. With best regards, Very truly yours , Kenneth B. Shellan KBS :lg cc: Hearing examiner 111EMAY 9, 1983 CITY CLERK tntu Offices of 1tennetll 33. .11ellan 321 igurnett Abenue Sauti! Vast(Pffire Wax 26 Benton, Ninsitingtan 98057 206) 255-5600 Apr 25, 1983 Hearing Examiner City of Renton Renton City Hall Renton, Washington 98055 1 : Request for reconsideration of File #R-064-82 Malesis Rezone) , Hearing Examiner decision of April 11, 1983. Dear Hearing Examiner: During your review of the above referenced rezone request and the multifarious facts related to the proposed project, you unfor- tunately committed several factual and legal errors. Although the errors were relatively few in number, they were never-the-less critical; these errors provided you with askewed or distorted per- ception of the proposed project. The purpose of this request is two-fold: To set the factual and legal record straight so that you can better analyze this project and second, to briefly point out the errors of fact and law previously committed. SETTING THE LEGAL AND FACTUAL RECORD STRAIGHT To set the record straight and clear up the misinformation previously communicated, the actual facts of the present rezone case must be set forth. The following delineates the facts; all of which collectively point toward the desirability of approving the rezone. 1 . Approval by the Building and Zoning Department. This approval (with several conditions attached) was given after thorough review and input by the following agencies and de- partments : Design Engineering Division, Traffic Engineering Divi- sion, Utilities Engineering Division, Fire Prevention Bureau, Parks and Recreation Department, Building and Zoning Department, and the Policy Development Department. Only the Policy Development objected to the R-3 rezone, stating that such zoning was not consistant with C® Y' April 25, 1983 Hearing Examiner, City of Renton Page 2 RE: Request for reconsideration of File #R-064-82 neighboring zoning. The contiguous zoning is in fact, however, R-3 and R-2, and R-3 zones are scattered throughout the region. There- fore, the proposed R-3 zoning is in fact compatable with contiguous areas. 2. The subject sight is zoned for medium or low density multi- family usage on the comprehensive plan and the proposed rezone is consistant with the policies of the comprehensive plan (see speci- fically policies 3 ana 4 on pages 8 and 9) . The proposed development was specifically and scrupulously designed so as to fully comply with this medium density multi-family designation which was set forth after thorough analysis by the various city departments and agencies and by the city council. 3 . The current R-2 zoning of the subject sight is deceptive, irrelevant, and in need of review and revision to R-3. The city annexed the subject property in 1980 and, as is the case when the city annexes land, the land is automatically zoned G. The G classification in these annexation cases means in effect that the zoning designationsubject to change and will be reviewed upon request. In 1981, the city, the Department of Housing and Urban Devel- opment and a developer considered placing a 30 unit low income, medium density housing project on the sight. So as to expedite the project, the developer early on requested a rezone from G to R-2 in the event or upon the condition that the 30 unit development ever was contracted for by the Department of Housing and Urban Develop- ment. The R-2 zoning was placed on the property because this was a necessary condition precedent of the low income project; the proposed project was subsequently turned down by the Department of Housing and Urban Development for technical reasons (the proposed project was to close in proximity to other federal projects) . The R-2 zoning was placed on the subject property prior to the rejection of the project by the Department of Housing and Urban Development; in other words, the R-2 zoning was placed on the property in comtemplation of a specific housing project which was never built. The city simply did not conclude in 1981 that R-2 zoning was ideal for the sight. The city only concluded that if the specific project reached fruition, then the R-2 zoning would be acceptable and approved. Since the krecedent condition of the building of the project never reached fruition, the ' R-2 ' zoning is meaningless . Be- cause of this situation, in 1983, the Building and Zoning Department reviewed the subject sight and stated that the R-3 zoning was appropriate. April 25, 1983 Hearing Examiner, City of Renton Page 3 RE: Request for reconsideration of File #R-064-82 4. There was and is absolutely no public opposition to the rezone and proposed project. (The hearing examiner confirmed this fact as Item 5 of his Findings. ) 5. The final Declaration of Nonsignificance has been issued by the Renton Environmental Review Committee pursuant to RCW 43. 21C.030 2) (C) The Environmental Review Committee (ERC) thoroghly analyzed the environmental impact of the proposed project, and determined that the impact was not significant. One such impact reviewed was the consistancy of the proposed zoning with the current neighboring zoning; the ERC concluded that the proposed zoning and the zoning in the area were consistant (and essentially complimentary) . 6. Sewers pose absolutely no problem for the subject sight. The sight is not within the geographical area of the sewer mor- itorium (see Resolution 2381) and a gravity activated sewer system could and would serve the area well. 7 . All other public utilites including streets and water are also available. ERRORS OF FACT AND LAW COMMITTED BY THE HEARING EXAMINER The Hearing Examiner ha's committed several errors of fact and law. These errors can and should be reviewed thoroghly in a public hearing, but, in brief, these errors include the following. 1. The hearing examiner is factually incorrect in holding that the proposed R-3 zoning is inconsistent with neighboring zoning. Contiguous zoning is in fact R-2 and R-3, and therefore not in- consistent. The comprehensive plan and it' s recent revisions upholds and supports R-2 and R-3 zoning in the area (in fact, such R-3 zoning permits the construction of 79 units on the subject sight whereas the applicant requests a less dense 68 to 72 units) . The Building and Zoning Department concludes that the proposed zoning is not inconsis- tent with current zoning. The Environmental Review Committee con- cludes that the zones are not inconsistent. No neighbors or inhabitants of the area expressed opposition to the project; surely the public outcry would have been great should such a zoning incon- sistency in fact have been the case. 2. There is some doubt whether the subject sight was actually rezoned to R-2 in 1981 . A April 25, 1983 Hearing Examiner, City of Renton Page 4 RE: Request for reconsideration of File #R-064-82 The hearing examiner acknowledged the legal importance of this issue on Page 3 of his April 11 , 1983 report. The hearing examiner admitted that this issue is very important yet rendered his decision before having a legal opinion from the City Attorney ' s office. Such a legal decision should have been rendered by the City Attorney and reviewed by the hearing examiner prior to the ruling of the examiner. If, for example, the rezone was never legally adopted because the rezone conditions were not complied with, then the G zoning still obtains. In that case , the G zoning, a mere statutory consequence of annexation, should and must be immediately reviewed in light of the current proposed project. 3. The hearing examiner is factually incorrect in stating that the 1981 proposed medium density, low income project was held by the council not to be in the best interests of the area. In fact, the opposite is true : the council , the federal govern- mant, and the Department of Housing and Urban Development thought the subject sight was ideal for a medium density housing project. The sight was rejected for a technical reason - it was too close in prox- imity to other federal projects. The real conclusion in 1981 of the aforementioned agencies is that a medium density project is appro- priate for the subject sight. 4 . The hearing examiner is incorrect in stating that there has not been a significant change in circumstances since the last rezone. There has in fact been a major change : the very medium density complex which was a cause for the rezone has not and never will be constructed! Furthermore, since the 1981 apparent rezone was made for the specific purpose of that one project, and that one project was never undertaken , then the subject sight needs to be reviewed once again to determine the appropriate zoning for the sight. April 25, 1983 Hearing Examiner, City of Renton Page 5 RE : Request for reconsideration of File #R-064-82 The above facts set the record straight in an attempt to point out a few of the hearing examiner 's errors which collectively indi- cate that the proposed rezone and project are in the public interest, will not impair the public health, safety and welfare, and, in addi- tion, comply with not just one criterion of Section 4-3010, but all three conditions. Respectfully submitted this 25th day of April, 1983 . Very truly yours , Kenneth B. Shellan KBS :ig OF R4, 4 Q z THE CITY OF RENTON t$ MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON,WASH.98055 o BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH. MAYOR • LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER 9A FRED J. KAUFMAN. 235-2593 oi) SEP v, 4P May 2, 1983 Mr. Kenneth B. Shellan Attorney at Law P. O. Box 26 Renton, WA 98057 Re: Request for Reconsideration: Malesis Rezone - R-064-83 Dear Mr. Shellan: I have reviewed your request for reconsideration in the above entitled matter and my response follows. The analysis parallels your numbered paragraphs. 1. The Building and Zoning Department did not approve the proposed rezone. The Department is only empowered to make recommendations to this office. This office, in turn, makes its recommendation to the City Council. The Policy Development Department was not the only City department to question the effects of the proposal upon the neighborhood. The Police Department indicated that the impacts on police services would be major and that conflicts with the surrounding neighborhood, especially the elderly residential area, could be significant. The Traffic Engineering Division also stated that the traffic will have an impact on the quiet residential neighborhood. While the requested zoning could be considered compatible with some adjacent zoning, that is not the sole determinant. Policy considerations require review of surrounding uses as well as the zoning. The zoning to the south may be R-3, but its impacts are more similar to R-2 uses because the site is utilized for elderly housing. Other considerations revolve around the implementation of the Comprehensive Plan. The site, while obviously split by a multi-designation of low and medium density multi-family in the plan is not necessarily suitable for either or both those uses. Just because a designation is applied to property on a map does not mean that is the only and ultimate use. In this case, the site is more suitable for transition between uses than as a site for the extension of more intense uses to the north. Kenneth B. Shellan May 2, 1983 Page 2 It is an unfortunate rule of land use, but an inevitable one — a boundary between different uses must be drawn somewhere: The elderly housing to the south is of relatively low intensity and expanding R-3 zoning to the subject site would only reintensify densities and require the next property north to serve a transitional purpose. While it is possible to provide the transition to the north of the subject site, it is not warranted. The subject site with its current R-2 already serves the necessary transitional role between dissimilar densities. Acceptable land use considerations bar low intensity uses, higher intensity uses, and then again low intensity, which in the subject area, would be reflected by the elderly housing (low impact), the subject site (higher impact), and then the northerly property (once again, lower impact). Rather, as now provided, there is a gradual transition between the elderly housing's R-3 zoning, the subject site's R-2 and the northerly and easterly R-1 and single family zoning, not to mention the large R-2 zone contiguous to the site to the west. 2. As explained in the original recommendation and above, the site is designated as potentially suitable for two different multi-family categories: low density and medium density. The map designation does not purport to describe legal boundaries of properties, nor does it reflect at all times the reality of development of adjoining property. The property south of the subject site is zoned R-3 and as such, the designation of the subject site for either identical zoning or zoning one level less intense would appear appropriate in the Comprehensive Planning stage, but reviewed in light of actual development of the R-3 parcel and other nearby zoning and uses, it is clear that the site should be zoned for not more than low density multi-family development. There is no requirement that land be zoned as potentially designated in the Comprehensive Plan if other similar zoning would better serve the public interest. 3. The current zoning is not deceptive, but indicates the uses which may be made of the property. While the classification was applied at the request of a prior developer/applicant, that does not indicate that the zoning is or was erroneous. It was potentially suitable for R-2 then and after further review, R-2 was found to be still suitable, and R-3 unsuitable. The rezone had no condition attached specifying that it was to be used for low cost housing; the zoning was approved solely on the merits of the R-2 request. Conditions relating to landscape buffers and road improvements did not mandate reversion if the site were not used for low income housing. Similarly, if the current request had been approved, such approval would not necessarily be contingent upon construction of the proposal submitted, although it could be. 4. The recommendations of this office and the actions of the City Council are not necessarily predicated upon either public approval or opposition to a rezoning action. The criteria enunciated by the courts in matters of reclassifying property require findings regarding the effects of the rezone on the public welfare, neighboring property, and compliance with various goals and policies, as well as a demonstration of significant change in circumstances. (Parkridge v. the City of Seattle, 89 Wn. 2d 454, at 462, 463, 1978). Kenneth B. Shellan May 2, 1983 Page 3 5. The decision of the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) was directed at fulfilling its responsibility under the city and state environmental laws. They are not empowered to, nor do they, review the merits of the proposal. The ERC limits its review to the determination of environmental impacts and conditions related to such impacts. 6. The Examiner's report concluded that the area was outside of the Moratorium Area geographically, but questions raised by staff indicated that the actual topography of the site was such that it might drain into the Moratorium Area. The applicant provided additional profiles and further staff review indicated that the site could probably be served by gravity sewer outside the Moratorium Area. This issue again indicates that map references, whether they be for comprehensive planning or identification of moratorium boundaries, cannot be the sole determinant of policy. While the site was geographically outside the Moratorium Area, its topography led to the possibility that, nonetheless, its sewer discharge could, in fact, flow into the moratorium zone. While this did not prove to be the case, the possibility could not be reasonably ignored, nor could the map be completely relied upon in the review. Only after an analysis of the facts could a determination be made. The same type of analysis is followed when reviewing the Comprehensive Plan map; the map alone is not, nor should it be, the sole basis for a decision. Further, review did indicate that careful site design would be required to permit gravity sewers to operate effectively on the site as the elevation difference is slight. This leads to the presumption that sewer backups might occur if construction is not carefully designed. 7. The compatibility or non-compatibility of the requested zoning with surrounding uses and zoning districts was reviewed in the original analysis and explored above. The recent amendment to the Comprehensive Plan did not modify the site's designation. Construction of the low cost project was not mandated by the R-2 reclassification. Therefore, there is no significant change in circumstances warranting a reclassification. To conclude, there is no justification to modify the recommendation to the City Council. Any errors cited regarding the current zoning, or the interpretation of actions of city and federal officials regarding additional low income or subsidized housing in the area, do not ultimately affect the conclusions to deny the request. Therefore, the recommendation to the City Council stands - the request to reclassify the subject property should be denied. Sincerely, Fred J. K f man Land Use Hearing Examiner cc: Parties of Record 0081E w t_ato ((time RECEIVED of CITY OF RENTON tnnrtli i. ,*hellan HEARING EXAMINER 321 iurnett Abenue auth APR 2 51983 Post U9ffire Vox 26 AM KPM lrntnn, ttshinatnn 9803! 71819110Illl l1lAbrlr ltfl l6 206) 235-560t1 6 April 25, 19-83 Hearing Examiner City of Renton Renton City Hall Renton, Washington 98055 FE: Request for reconsideration of File #R-064-82 Malesis Rezone) , Hearing Examiner decision of April 11, 1983 . Dear -Tearing Examiner: During your review of the above referenced rezone request and the multifarious facts related to the proposed project, you unfor- tunately committed several factual and legal errors. Although the errors were relatively few in number, they were never the less critical; these errors provided you with askewed or distorted per- ception of the proposed project. The purpose of this request is two-fold: To set the factual and legal record straight so that you can better analyze this project and second, to briefly point out the errors of fact and law previously committed. SETTING THE LEGAL AND FACTUAL RECORD STRAIGHT To set the record straight and clear up the misinformation previously communicated, the actual facts of the present rezone case must be set forth. The following delineates the facts , all of which collectively point toward the desirability of approving the rezone. 1 . Approval by the Building and Zoning Department. This approval (with several conditions attached) was given after thorough review and input by the following agencies and de- partments : Design Engineering Division, Traffic Engineering Divi- sion, Utilities Engineering Division, Fire Prevention Bureau, Parks and Recreation Department, Building and Zoning Department, and the Policy Development Department. Only the Policy Development objected to the R-3 rezone, stating that such zoning was not consistant with April 25 , 1983 Heating Examiner, City of Renton Page 2 RE: Request for reconsideration of File #R-064-82 neighboring zoning. The contiguous zoning is in fact, however, R-3 and R-2, and R-3 zones are scattered throughout the region. There- fore, the proposed R-3 zoning is in fact compatable with contiguous areas . 2. The subject sight is zoned for medium or low density multi- family usage on the comprehensive plan and the proposed rezone is consistant with the policies of the comprehensive plan (see speci- fically policies 3 and 4 on pages 8 and 9) . The proposed development was specifically and scrupulously designed so as to fully comply with this medium density multi-family designation which was set forth after thorough analysis by the various city departments and agencies and by the city council. 3 . The current R-2 zoning of the subject sight is deceptive, irrelevant, and in need of review and revision to R-3. The city annexed the subject property in 1980 and, as is the case when the city annexes land, the land is automatically zoned G. The G classification in these annexation cases means in effect that the zoning designationsubject to change and will be reviewed upon request. In 1981, the city, the Department of Housing and Urban Devel- opment and a developer considered placing a 30 unit low income, medium density housing project on the sight. So as to expedite the project, the developer early on requested a rezone from G to R-2 in the event or upon the condition that the 30 unit development ever was contracted for by the Department of Housing and Urban Develop- ment. The R-2 zoning was placed on the property because this was a necessary condition precedent of the low income project; the proposed project was subsequently turned down by the Department of Housing and Urban Development for technical reasons (the proposed project was to close in proximity to other federal projects) . The R-2 zoning was placed on the subject property prior to the rejection of the project by the Department of Housing and Urban Development; in other words, the R-2 zoning was placed on the property in comtemplation of a specific housing project which was never built. The city simply did not conclude in 1981 that R-2 zoning was ideal for the sight. The city only concluded that if the specific project reached fruition, then the R-2 zoning would be acceptable and approved. Since the precedent condition of the building of the project never reached fruition, the' R-2 ` zoning- is meaningless. Be- cause of this situation, in 1983! the. Building and Zoning Department reviewed the subject sight and stated that the R-3 zoning was appropriate. April 25, 1983 Rear'ing Examiner, City of Renton Page 3 RE : Request for reconsideration of File #R-064-82 4 . There was and is absolutely no public opposition to the rezone and proposed project. (The hearing examiner confirmed this fact as Item 5 of his Findings. ) 5. The final Declaration of Nonsignificance has been issued by the Renton Environmental Review Committee pursuant to RCW 43 . 21C. 030 2) (C) The Environmental Review Committee (ERC) thoroghly analyzed the environmental impact of the proposed project, and determined that the impact was not significant. One such impact reviewed was the consistancy of the proposed zoning with the current neighboring zoning; the ERC concluded that the proposed zoning and the zoning in the area were consistant (and essentially complimentary) . 6 . Sewers pose absolutely no problem for the subject sight. The sight is not within the geographical area of the sewer mor- itorium (see Resolution 2381) and a gravity activated sewer system could and would serve the area well. 7 . All other public utilites including streets and water are also available. ERRORS OF FACT AND LAW COMMITTED BY THE HEARING EXAMINER The Hearing Examiner has committed several errors of fact and law. These errors can and should be reviewed thoroghly in a public hearing, but, in brief , these errors include the following. 1. The hearing examiner is factually incorrect in holding that the .proposed R-3 zoning is inconsistent ;with neighboring zoning. Contiguous zoning is in fact R-2 and R-3, and therefore not in- consistent. The comprehensive plan and it ' s recent revisions upholds and supports R-2 and R-3 zoning in the area (in fact, such R-3 zoning permits the construction of 79 units on the subject sight whereas the applicant requests a less dense 68 to 72 units) . The Building and Zoning Department concludes that the proposed zoning is not inconsis- tent with current zoning. The Environmental Review Committee con- cludes that the zones are not inconsistent. No neighbors or inhabitants of the area expressed opposition to the project; surely the public outcry would have been great should such a zoning incon- sistency in fact have been the case. 2. There is some doubt whether the subject sight was actually rezoned to R-2 in 1981 . April 25, 1983 Hearing Examiner, City of Renton Page 4 RE : Request for reconsideration of File #R-064-82 The hearing examiner acknowledged the legal importance of this issue on Page 3 of his April 11, 1983 report. The hearing examiner admitted that this issue is very important yet rendered his decision before having a legal opinion from the City Attorneys office. Such a legal decision should have been rendered by the City Attorney and reviewed by the hearing examiner prior to the ruling of the examiner. If, for example , the rezone was never legally adopted because the rezone conditions were not complied with, then the G zoning still obtains. In that case , the G zoning, a mere statutory consequence of annexation, should and must be immediately reviewed in light of the current proposed project. 3 . The hearing examiner is factually incorrect in stating that the 1981 proposed medium density, low income project was held by the council not to be in the best interests of the area. In fact, the opposite is true : the council , the federal govern- mant, and the Department of Housing and Urban Development thought the subject sight was ideal for a medium density housing project. The sight was rejected for a technical reason - it was too close in prox- imity to other federal projects . The real conclusion in 1981 of the aforementioned agencies is that a medium density project is appro- priate for the subject sight. 4 . The hearing examiner is incorrect in stating that there has not :peen a significant change in circumstances since the last rezone. There has in fact been a major change : the very medium density complex which was a cause for the rezone has not and never will be constructed! Furthermore, since the 1981 apparent rezone was made for the specific purpose of that one project, and that one project was :never undertaken , then the subject sight needs to be reviewed once again to determine the appropriate zoning for the sight. April_ 25 , 1983 Hearing Examiner, City of Renton Page 5 RE : Request for reconsideration of File #R-064-82 The above facts set the record straight in an attempt to point out a few of the hearing examiner ' s errors which collectively indi- cate that the proposed rezone and project are in the public interest, will not impair the public health, safety and welfare, and, in addi- tion, comply with not just one criterion of Section 4-3010 , but all thre: conditions. Respectfully submitted this 25th day of April , 1983 . Very truly yours , Kenneth B . Shellan KBS : Lg h NEED COPIES TO: SENT/ CITY ATTORNEY' S OFFICE b RECORD CHRONICLE (PRESS) jjj MAYOR' S OFFICE CITY COUNCIL FINANCE DEPARTMENT HEARING EXAMINER PLANNING DEPARTMENT PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR PARK DEPARTMENT PERSONNEL DEPARTMENT POLICE DEPARTMENT q fi L1'j)// A D1I,6i • e/b6a toeifeJ2 t/ikaeg. P k2 5i 5, s-dr4, / APPEAL FILED 5/9/83 AGREE 1T TO GRANT EASEMENT AND ] TICIPATE IN PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY RECEIVED art OF RENTON TO: Mr. Louis Malesis HEASONG EXAMtM R 28 March, 1983 313 Rainier Avenue South MAR 2 91983 Renton, WA 98055 4819s16,ll,211 t2i3a415,C) For a mutually agreed consideration, the undeQsigned, Owner of Tax Lot 143, in Section 4, Township 23 N, Range 5, EWM, in King County, Washington, agrees to grant to Louis Malesis , proponent of Rezone Application R-064-82, the following: 1. Easement over the westerly 20 feet of said Tax Lot 143 for emergency vehicle use and underground utilities . 2. Participate in development of a right of way to landlocked area to the east by deeding not more than 15 feet of the southerly portion of said Tax Lot 143 adjacent to Tax Lot 286, owned by Malesis . This agreement is subject to the following conditions: 1. All costs in connection with construction of improvements shall be at the sole expense of the proponent. 2. The Grantor, and assigns shall be granted full use at no cost in the future of any utilities constructed in the easement or right of way. 3 . Easement and land for right of way shall not be encumbered by others . 4. Proponent shall pay all legal and engineering costs in connection with development of improvements in the easement and right of way. 5 . The proponent shall hold Grantor harmless for any liability arising from development of the proponent' s property. 6. This agreement is subject to rezone to R-3 being granted. A l / Yvonne A. Lucker, Trustee, with power to convey, Owner of Tax Lo 143, Sec 4, Twp 23 N, R 5 b (7/2 67/„.,644 Louis Malesis , Proponent OF R4,, 11/ db 0 THE CITY OF RENTON MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, WASH. 98055 BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH, MAYOR • LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER p° O FRED J. KAUFMAN, 235-2593 o9gT D SEPS P MEMORANDUM DATE: April 1, 1983 TO: Don Monaghan, Design Engineer FROM: Fred J. Kaufman, Land Use Hearing Examiner SUBJECT: Gravity Sewer Service: Malesis Rezone #R-064-82 The applicant submitted this survey subsequent to the public hearing. I would appreciate a quick review of the enclosed survey as the decision regarding the above referenced rezone is on hold. The question is whether or not the subject site can gravity feed into the sewer line contained within Kirkland Avenue N.E. or whether the site contours are such that the site drains to the east. Thanks. FJK:se 0086E AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING State of Washington) County of King SUE ELLISTON being first duly sworn, upon oath disposes and states: That on the llth day of April 1983 affiant deposited in the mails of the United States a sealed envelope containing a decision or recommendation with postage prepaid, addressed to the parties of record in the below entitled application or petition. Subscribed and sworn this 11th day of April 19 83 a/42._4_ _. 0_, Notary'ublic in and for the State of Washington, residing at Renton Application, Petition or Case: LOUIS G . MALESIS - FILE NO. R-064-82 The minuted contain a t id.t os the paAti.ea o6 necoad. ) f April 11, 1983 OFFICE OF THE LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON REPORT AND DECISION. APPLICANT: LOUIS G. MALESIS FILE NO. R-064-82 LOCATION: East end of N.E. 16th Street and east of Kirland Avenue N.E. SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The applicant seeks a rezone of the subject site from R-2 to R-3 for a medium density housing development of 72 units. SUMMARY OF ACTION: Building and Zoning Department Recommendation: Approval subject to conditions. Hearing Examiner Decision: Recommend Denial to City Council. BUILDING & ZONING The Building & Zoning Department Report was DEPARTMENT REPORT: received by the Examiner on March 10, 1983. PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the Building and Zoning Department Report, examining available information on file with the application and field checking the property and surrounding area, the Examiner conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows: The hearing was opened on March 15, 1983, at 9:45 in the Council Chambers of the Renton Municipal Building. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner. Roger Blaylock, Zoning Administrator, presented the Building and Zoning Department report, and entered the following exhibits into the record: Exhibit #1: Application File containing Building and Zoning Department report and other pertinent documents. Exhibit #2: Assessor's Map showing the subject site with its relationship to the vicinity. Exhibit #3: Schematic site plan showing the configuration of the proposed development in relationship to the ERC's conditions. The Examiner noted at this point that one of the conditions previously imposed to rezone the property to R-2 was that the roadway was to have been improved; he inquired if that had occurred, and if not, is the property really zoned R-2. Mr. Blaylock stated he was not certain how this would effect the rezone, but would investigate the matter; however, he felt the condition would be imposed at the time of construction. The Examiner inquired if the subject site was inside the sewer moratorium zone. Mr. Blaylock reported that it was not, it was located just outside of that zone. The Examiner noted that this particular property was rezoned two years ago and asked what circumstances have changed since that date that would require a rezone from R-2 to R-3. Mr. Blaylock indicated that the basis for the original rezone was for development of a public housing project; that project is now defunct; that is the only physical circumstance that has changed on that site. The rezone to R-2 was in specific conformance to the Comprehensive Plan at that time. The Examiner stated he believes there was concern about the access at the time the property was going to be rezoned to R-2. There is no through access and the fire department is generally concerned about that. File No. R-064-82: Louis G. Malesis April 11, 1983 Page 2 Mr. Blaylock answered that secondary emergency access would have to be provided to the north to N.E. 18th Street at the present time; the property to the north is controlled by the applicant's architect and this would be possible at this time. Applicant would have to provide an easement for emergency access and actual construction of the roadway upon completion of the project. The Examiner indicated that the proposed northern road is not on the applicant's property and does not believe the City can impose a dedication requirement when the property is not part of the rezone property. The Examiner further noted that the rezone was predicated on the improvement of 16th Street last time and that was not done. Mr. Blaylock noted corrections to the Building & Zoning Department Report to the Hearing Examiner on page 5, Item N(6) to read N.E. 18th Street rather than N.E. 17th Street, and in Item N(8) to read the Police Department rather than Policy Department. Mr. Blaylock then reported that the Building & Zoning Department would recommend approval of this request, subject to the following conditions: 1.Dedication of the necessary right-of-way for N.E. 16th Street extension across the northern 35 feet of the subject property. 2.Dedication of the southern 15 feet of the adjacent property to the north for that extension of N.E. 16th Street. 3.Construction of the street extension to city standards. 4.Construction of emergency fire access to the north to intertie with N.E. 18th Street. The Examiner indicated there is some concern with respect to the grade of the property and, therefore, which way the sanitary sewer would flow; if it would not gravity feed to the west and south, would it not have to go east into the moratorium sewer? Mr. Blaylock stated this would be a possibility; however, the the Public Works Department has not determined that the grade of the sewers was impossible at this point; there is capacity to the west and the structures may have to be placed above a minimum elevation to utilize those grades. The Hearing Examiner called for testimony from the applicant or representative. Testifying was: George W. Lucker Architect 8101 Rainier Avenue S. Seattle, WA 98118 Mr. Lucker reported the property in question was rezoned to R-2 in early 1981 for a specific project which was solicited by the City of Renton for providing public housing; there were several sites competing for this project and this was one of the sites being considered; the project the city had requested was for family housing; the units that they had specified in the bidding documents contained a large number of three and four bedroom units and the density they requested was a low density project because of the large number of children that would develop with this type of a project. The R-2 was a convenient zone for that type of project. However, since that time, Renton has adopted the Northeast Comprehensive Plan which somewhat expanded the R-3 or middle density zone into this property. The land is already zoned R-2; however, in the Comprehensive Plan, the city saw fit to retain the medium density designation. Mr. Lucker stated that the medium density on the site (as shown in the Comprehensive Plan) would take in almost the entire site, all but the northwesterly tip of the property in question. The Examiner asked if the property was inside or outside the city on the Comprehensive Plan map. Mr. Blaylock stated that the Comprehensive Plan map does not appear to be updated and does not properly show this property in the City. Mr. Lucker read justification from the application previously submitted, citing the Comprehensive Land Use Plan and referring to Policies 3 and 4 on pages 8 and 9. File No. R-064-82: Louis G. Malesis April 11, 1983 Page 3 Mr. Lucker stated that the applicant has received a committment from the property owner to the north to purchase land necessary for night-of-way. The Examiner asked that the written agreement for this purchase be submitted to him for the file. Mr. Lucker indicated that the Public Works Department is concerned about access to the east and that they should also be concerned about access to the north because there is no access to the property to the north either in that particular area; they were taking care of both concerns by configuring the road in this manner. The Examiner noted that the owner is also not willing to dedicate the property for a public road; that the applicant is apparently going to provide an easement; and however, that is not what the city has indicated it needs for public roads. Mr. Lucker stated that the road would be dedicated as a public roadway, but the point is when does it need to be dedicated — when the project is developed or at time of rezone. His recollection is that the city wanted a 25 foot reserve on the north property line for a future street; and believes this matter should be addressed as a condition of the building permit or site plan approval The Examiner indicated that adequate access to a site is part of the consideration given to whether or not the property should be rezoned. At the present time, this site lacks adequate access. The previous rezone required adequate access be developed at that time, which was not done. The Examiner requested information on whether or not the site will gravity feed to the sewer to the west. Mr. Lucker advised that he felt it would. The elevation of the buildings was set in such a way that it would drain and possibly will need some type of a profile with respect to this problem to satisfy the Public Works Department . The Examiner requested the profile for sewer drainage be provided, as well as submission of the written agreements for the property to the north that will provide access to N.E. 18th Street and access along the north property line. The Examiner called for testimony in opposition to the application or any neutral questions to be asked at this time. There were none. The Examiner called on Mr. Blaylock for any additional comments. Mr. Blaylock asked if the attorney needed to address the question of whether the property is still legally zoned R-2. The Examiner indicated that he did need this information also. The Examiner then indicated the written information must be received by the office of the Hearing Examiner for the City by March 29, 1983 at 5:00 p.m. There being no further comments, the Examiner closed the hearing at 10:20 a.m. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & DECISION: Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: 1. The applicant, Louis G. Malesis, filed a request for approval of a reclassification of approximately 3.16 acres of property from R-2 to R-3. 2. The application file containing the application, the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) documentation, the Building and Zoning Department Report, and other pertinent documents was entered into the record as Exhibit #1. 3. Pursuant to the City of Renton's Environmental Ordinance and SEPA, a Declaration of Non-Significance has been issued for the subject proposal by the Environmental Review Committee (ERC), responsible official. 4. Plans for the proposal have been reviewed by all City departments affected by the impact of this development. 5. There was no expressed opposition to the proposal 6. The subject property is located at the east end of N.E. 16th Street and east of Kirkland Avenue N.E. KIRKLIA-N AVE NE o 2 In., / AL L. 0 i. . ,,,...i: ..\\ A efltrot eivt.-/- ,\ r.--) .uts. 7 erliPallb.4. , 0 _ 1 imiL - 49 t•-, e, •. .. , ._-_--_,.-, r--- ------ f. ram: w i. n i_ 1- : t- O. - - yr • -A CP / L/ in Aft j il--• ,i -.. . . .:-: a 11. a Wes— a 7tj Y s i 7 :. l • } riii. i. 1 . I N •9. : :. . .... I . e.V -. - . ". . .1!-- - -,, • '• • , I i • • , I c, f:., - • .Le,.- -. -: : ...,t.,, . ..-:, - .4-A) .: . - .-- '' - ... 0 L_I- ..i.A •iii.,. ...••. 4.Tiriti"iiiicr.zi... - 03 A 410 * DI . . 2 1 ' /' e , l x' O1c7 lM , eaNMw• _ i /. A ao--- u... I ti y / j ' 1 t nos f,-,Ili LOUIS MALESIS R-064-82 REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVIS ; DAPPROVEE APPROVED WIT CONDITIO S NOTAPPROVEDKJ 4146V/, 7‘ /4- i)aA abl 754e. , vgd/, // I 641 5/S44t L "rlei k)eJ le,620 a*i_e_o:/) yfi-opu - DATE: SI U E OF DIRECTOR OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE REVISION 6/1982 REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION; r F 1121 APPROVED APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS El NOT APPROVED y s r DATE:7 SIGNATURE OF DIRECTOR OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE • REVISION 6/1982 REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION ; APPROVED•El APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS NOT APPROVED Ye /G '- sue- - 1,.1 F*./ A_ ate 4? SIGNATURE OF DIRECTOR OR vDATE, 9 1 L.- A HQ IZED R! .PRE ENTATI . tttVltW1NG DtrAKIMtNI/111VISION : L""'" 1 I 0 APPR VED Di.. . ROVED WITH CONDITIONS El NOT APPROVED UTILITY APPROVAL SUBJECT TO 9/ /8z LATE COMERS AGREEMENT • WATER NO LATE COMERS AGREEMENT • SEWER ND SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE • WATER MO a4- e - /,;'- /- S'a_ /t) /e Jac+ t<<)e% SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE • SEWER bevel• Fees bo..E-icy "/ /, /r.,,,,/ SPECIAL ASSESSMENT AREA CHARGE • WATER No S, i ''e en '// t i.1? e , SPECIAL ASSESSMENT AREA CHARGE • SEWER $141110 df y reeeie ayeir Coff 47o e d. APPROVED WATER PLAN YR5 APPROVED SEWER PLAN APPROVED FIRE HYDRANT LOCATIONS 7 2rfrtit-l' Agt/ 34fr1/ 1/ 11-- BY FIRE DEPT. fFIREFLU. LYSIS Imo" 14A. DATE:9/ ? 72-- SIGNATURE OF DIRECTOR OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE REVISION 6/1982 REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: Ft1(.• EJAPPROVED.VI APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS JNOT APPROVED CeZo rJ6 /,o",e.,(7 .o / 6a7.- /'GO r p2 A.A.) W/L.` ,e.&-ck,.ai'E aP z ,4,p, Lraft, /Uer4 A/r oie Ace ers ,4 r /7 e,/ale b / 7W e v`C. CPk,(/s>' -1/cr7L' ) Sid J - . "1010140 /L1rltrT 4 ..L. 1 PSG/C.4 Se 6- .4.2be'>$A e,ovje,-cS f' ,40,4I 40 QgO/00.44 C e.s 1 r DATE. 9-'ir gL SIGNA E 0 DIRECTOR OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE REVISION 6/1982 r REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : El APPROVED APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS n NOT APPROVED I-epee VR ` OF r,Pi3Ff /c E-N6-, 0/cliS/OA% is &' .Se-A,' 7744. l-/6 /i /fn f',9 C T' ox) LUOk'TA/ / ///XJ J/ 'et c 971J 14-7e 23;fTM2 c II i 7-A/6- re-VA /J. Cec)gr 6E92L CO c/i2%. I-/Z- /UL'-(G/ X'17-f/.0c"N/.S iee GfJ/LG//U( Tv •l rnUC-4- 5 J C' 'T dO/J 7 i+ 4 e- O o ;//F'77 l'/9l'/ -f 7/II:- /i7f'/7c/- tu / 4- 4- ry o , r 6er /12/7J0X, O G / 7 — 77/6- ita- GJ /'i?c pc: S/d e_ v tJ 4 ,o ,-z./.r-7/4v,9rc= n c/ (> 7 /9/4) CD/UCbi'iv `OR Oti-57Te C4? -7/0,J. /T S,fov yjgee:, 7/1L: /rn/'AcroN /vae i- ./iG4,z/n o.. rciR ' carx 4..cis ss etien iaz enC d DATE : 1/ 3 A/Z.- SIGNATURE OF DIREC OR OR4iHZED REPRESS TATIVE REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVIS 1 : POLICE APPROVE])'El APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS NOT APPROVED A full impact statement on this project is needed prior to approval so all of the impacts on th2 surrounding neighborhood are revealed. And then the impacts can be evaluated and conditions placed on the rezone. I DATE : r SIGNATURE OF DIRECTOR OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE REVISION 5/1982 REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : OLD APPROVED OAPPROVED WITH CONDITIONS NOT APPROVED FfL- ,,246 6-C1 260 C4z- ,b 6 oa/L.7-1_41-- WORSIGNATURE0ORAUTHORIREPRESENTATIVE REVISION 5/1982 FINAL DECLARATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE L2?lication No (s) : R-064-82 Environmental Checklist No. : ECF-066-82 De. cription of Proposal: Application to rezone 3. 16 acres of property from R-2 to R-3 for a medium density housing development of 72 units. Proponent: Louis Malesis Location of Proposal:Property located 150 feet east of Kirkland Avenue N.E. at the end of the N.E. 16th Street. Lead Agency: City of Renton Building and Zoning Department This proposal was reviewed by the ERC on September 15, 1982, anti October 13, 1982, following a presentation by Jerry Lind of the Building and Zoning Department. Oral comments were accepted from: David Clemens, James Matthew, Ronald Nelson, Robert Bergstrom, Roger Blaylock, Jerry Lind, Donald Persson ani James Hanson. Incorporated by reference in the record of the proceedings of the ERC on application ECF-066-82 are the following: 1 ) Environmental Checklist Review Sheet, prepared by: Louis Malesis DATED: August 23 , 1982 2) Applications : R-064-82 3) Recommendations for a declaration of non-significance: Fire Prevention Bureau, Building and Zoning Department, Design Engineering Division, Traffic Engineering Division, Utility Engineering Division. Recommendation for a declaration of significance: Police Department. More Information: Policy Development Department, Parks and Recreation Department. Acing as the Responsible Official, the ERC has determined this development has a non-significant adverse impact on the environment. An EIS is not required under RCW 43.21C. 030 ( 2) (c) . This decision was made after review by the lead agency of a complete environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. Reasons for declaration of environmental non-significance: Will not adversely impact the environment or adjacent properties and that the following requirements shall be complied with: 1 ) Provide on-site recreation in approximately the same proportion per dwelling unit as proposed in revised site plan received October 6, 1982, by the Building and Zoning Department. 2) Only passive type recreational activities shall he sited with 100 feet of the south property line to mitigate noise and land use conflicts. FINAL DECLARATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE Louis Malesis October 13, 1982 Page Two 3) Provide for the public street extension of N.E. 16th Street eastwardly through the subject property. A street end cul-de-sac or approved turnaround must be approved by the Public Works Department. Signatures: I( 0/ / 2 / Ao/ - Ronald G. Nelson Da CI R. Clemens Building & Zoning Director Policy Development Director 45Glitt,ti O.t7C,_. Richard C. Houghton i Public Works Director DATE OF PUBLICATION: October 18, 1982 EXPIRATION OF APPEAL PERIOD: November 1 , 1982 A tl i Date circulatek ptember 2, 1982 Commer. , due:September 13, 1982 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST REVIEW SHEET ECF - 066 - 82 APPLICATION No(s) . Rezone (R-064-82) PROPONENT : Louis Malesis PROJECT TITLE : Brief Description of Project : Application to rezone 3. 16 acres of property from R-2 to R-3 for a medium density housing dev. of 72 units Property located 150 feet east of Kirkland Avenue n. e. LOCATION: at the end of the N.E. 16th Street. SITE AREA: 3. 16 BUILDING AREA (gross) DEVELOPMENTAL COVERAGE (°d) : IMPACT REVIEW NONE MINOR MAJOR MORE INFO 1 ) Topographic changes :X 2 ) Direct/Indirect air quality : X 3 ) Water & water courses : X 4 ) Plant life : X 5) Animal life :X 6) Noise : X 7) Light & glare : X 8 ) Land Use ; north: Undeveloped east : Undeveloped south: Multi-Family west : Multi-Family Land use conflicts : View obstruction :Minimal 9 ) Natural resources : X . 10 ) Risk of upset : X 11 ) Population/Employment : X 12 ) Number of Dwellings : 72 X 13 ) Trip ends ( ITE ) : 389 Trip Ends traffic impacts :Kirkland/N.E. 16th and Kirkland/N.E. 12th 14 )) Public services :X 15 ) Energy : X 16) Utilities: X 17 ) Human health: X 18) Aesthetics : X 19 ) Recreation: X 20) Archeology/history : X COMMENTS : Signatures: Ronald G. Nelson David R. C emens Building Official Policy Development Director At 4‘f/ V4-2/ Ri hard C. Houghton, Public Works Direct NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING RENTON LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER RENTON, W ASHINGTON A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE RENTON LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER AT HIS REGULAR MEETING IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, RENTON, WASHINGTON ON MARCH 15, 1983, AT 9:00 A.M. TO CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING PETITIONS: L O UIS MALESIS Application to rezone 3.16 acres of property from R-2 to R-3 for a medium density housing"development of 72 units, file R-064-82; property located alproximately 150 feet east of Kirkland Avenue N.E. at the end of N.E. 16th Street. Legal descriptions of the files noted above are on file in the Renton Building and Zoning Departm 3 nt. ALL INTERESTED PERSONS TO SAID PETITIONS ARE INVITED TO BE PRESENT AT THE PUBLIC HEARING ON MARCH 15, 1983„ AT 9:00 A.M. TO EXPRESS THEIR OPINIONS. PUBLISHED : MARCH 4, 1983 Ronald G. Nelson Building and Zoning Director CERTIFICATION I, JERRY LIND, HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THREE COPIES OF THE ABOVE DOCUMENTS 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 No' ary Public, in and for the State of Washington residing in King County, on the 4th day of March, 1983. 40.46, fiz-1 C%<- SIGNED: Q.R... ..4. 6Lottii OF R . o 9,0 IN T I E 09gtFo S°PtE OP City of Renton Land Use Hearing Examiner will hold a PUBLIC HEARING in CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS , CITY HALL ON MARCH 15 BEGINNING AT 9:00 A.M. P.M. CONCERNING: X ' REZONE From R-2 To _ R-3 SPECIAL / CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT To SITE APPROVAL J SHORT PLAT/SUBDIVISION of Lots PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT VARIANCE FROM GENERAL LOCATION AND/OR ADDRESS: PROPERTY LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 150 FEET EAST OF KIRKLANND AVENUE N,E AT THE END OF [i. E, 16TH STREET, LEGAL DESCRIPTION ON FILE IN THE RENTON BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT. ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION E, SIGNIFICANT © NON-SIGNIFICANT FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CALL THE CITY OF RENTON BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT 235-2550 THIS NOTICE NOT TO BE REMOVED WITHOUT GEORGE W. LUCKER ARCHITECT iPi.S_ RAINIER AVENUE SOUTH • SE ATTLE , W ASH INGTON 98118 • 722 .0272 8101 March 1, 1983 CITY OF RENTON v IN il Wl City of Renton Building and Zoning DepartmentD0MunicipalBuildingMAR21983 Renton, WA 98055 BUILDING/ZONING DEPT. RE: Rezone Application R-064-82 Proponent: Louis Malesis Environmental Check List No . : ECF-066-82 Gentlemen: The following is response to requirements stated in Final Declar- ation of Non-Significance dated October 13, 1982. 1. Recreation: On site recreation will be provided in approx- imately same ratio to dwelling units as shown in the October 6th drawing referenced. Types of recreation will change to more passive, and be distrubuted throughout the develop- ment. Active recreation will be concentrated near the com- munity building. 2 . As stated above, passive recreation opportunities will be available throughout the site near each building. Active recration will be located at the community building, more than 170 feet from the south property line. 3 . As required, a reserve for extention of NE 16th Street is provided along the west and north margin of the site , with provision for turn-around at the east end of R/W. Along the north line, 15 feet of the right of way provision will be obtained from property adjacent to the north, the owner of which will cooperate in providing access . Emergency access is also available through the north property to connect with NE 18th Street. Sin rely, 4 Georg W. Lucker, Architect REND BUILDING & ZONING DEFOTMENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET ECF -82 APPLICATION NO(S) : RFZ. NF (R-n4-R2) PROPONENT : Louis Malesis PROJECT TITLE : BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Application to rezone 3.16 acres of property from R-2 to R-3 for a medium density housing development of 72 units. LOCATION :The property is located 150 feet east of Kirkland Avenue N.E. at the end of N.E. :L6th Street. TO : n PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SCHEDULED ERC DATE : 9-15-82 ED ENGINEERING DIVISION TRAFFIC ENG , DIVISION SCHEDULED HEARING DATE : E] UTILITIES ENG , DIVISION n FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT n BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT 0 POLICE DEPARTMENT XPOLICY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT f IOTHERS : COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITING , PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT BY 5: 00 P .M, ON Sep emher 13. 1982 CIRCULPTED: September 2, 1982 REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : A7' DAPPROVED DAPPROVED WIT NDITIO S NOT APPROVED S 4 / MIS(s/4/(7z- C/f 41/ 45/ yr /44eti-1 74- 5 a 5 &-11 76w) at/ n/n v) 5/s 44t ai L , r-sOV ele!.±0 0/0/17e 1/C _- DATE : tG SI ,TURE OF DIRECTOR OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE REVISION 5/1982 REIV--N BUILDING & ZONING DEI TMENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET lMERWR CITY OF REN1QN_ kiECF -82 OCT 12 1982 n APPLICATION NO(S) : RF9.r)NF. (R-ne4-R2) BUILDING/ZONING PROPONEN1 : Louis Malesis PROJECT 1ITLE : BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Application to rezone 3.16 acres of property from R-2 to R-3 for a medium density housing development of 72 units. LOCATION :The property is located 150 feet east of Kirkland Avenue N.E. at the end of N.E. L6th Street. TO : I l PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SCHEDULED ERC DATE : 9-15-82 Ell ENGINEERING DIVISION TRAFFIC ENG , DIVISION SCHEDULED HEARING DATE : EIUTILITIES ENG , DIVISION n FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU l IPARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT l ! BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT n POLICE DEPARTMENT I ! POLICY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT OTHERS : COMMENTS DR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITIN3 , PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT BY 5: 00 P .M. ON September 13. 1982 CIRCULATED: September 2, 1982 REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : 1-1 APPROVED 171APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS i ( NOT APPROVED c p'y S z=-- 2 ' )/ 7° - --- DATE : SIGNATURE OF DIRECTOR OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE REVISION 5/1982 REN N BUILDING & ZONING DE !WENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET CI((T Y OF RENTON ECF -82 1 t' N MM APPLICATION NO(S) : RRzn n (R-nFg--Ra) OCT 12 1982 PROPONENT : Louis Malesis BUILDING/ZONING DEPT. PROJECT TITLE : BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Application to rezone 3.16 acres of property from R-2 to R-3 for a medium density housing development of 72 units. LOCATION :The property is located 150 feet east of Kirkland Avenue N.E. at the end of N.E. 16th Street. TO : Ei PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SCHEDULED ERC DATE : 9-15-82 XENGINEERING DIVISION C TRAFFIC ENG , DIVISION SCHEDULED HEARING DATE : C1UTILITIES ENG , DIVISION n FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU n PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT n POLICE DEPARTMENT El POLICY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT OTHERS : COMMENTS JR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITIN,3 , PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT BY 5 : 00 P .M, ON September 13, 1982 CIRC"ULATF.D: September 2, 1982 REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : APPROVED APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS NOT APPROVED G igo• DATE :1 Z 7617 SIGNATURE OF DIRECTOR OR A H• IZED RBRRE ENTATIVE REVISION 5/1982 REP N BUILDING & ZONING DE ITMENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET ECF - 82 APPLICATION NO(S) : RTZflNF, (R-nh4--R2) PROPONENT : Louis Malesis PROJECT TITLE : BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Application to rezone 3.16 acres of property from R-2 to R-3 for a medium density housing develont of 72 units. LOCATION :The property is located 150 foot east of Kirkland Avenue N.E. at the end of N E. :.6th Street. TO : Eil PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SCHEDULED ERC DATE : 9-15-82 0 ENGINEERING DIVISION C TRAFFIC ENG , DIVISION SCHEDULED HEARING DATE : El UTILITIES ENG , DIVISION VIFIRE PREVENTION BUREAU n PARK:) & RECREATION DEPARTMENT i l BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT POLIvE DEPARTMENT Ell POLICY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT n OTHERS : COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITING, PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT BY 5 : 00 P .M, ON Seatemtpr 13. 1982 CIRCULATED: September 2, 1982 REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : pe"-• APPROVED APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS I INOT APPROVED eZt9A. 6Ut- r rG A,.J z iy,apze,v Lro,,t7 /?-'1-4i/r of Acc ars fl f i7 e //tvF a / TA/e (Jf:C. kAJ,C I/c /0lJ S"-At-L / le-A- 14L P,04._ c a E 14.P 0e-c5- A/A),O Qi2O iscJ.4d G Es. DATE : 9-4-- S2 SIGNA E 0 ' DIRECTOR OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE REVISION 5/1982 REP N BUILDING & ZONING DE ITMENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET ECF -82 APPLICATION NO(S) : RPZflT\7E! (R-nAl-P, 1 PROPONENT : Louis Malesis PROJECT TITLE : BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT : Application to rezone 3.16 acres of property from R-2 to R-3 for a medium density housing development of 72 units. LOCATION :The property is located 150 feet east of Kirkland Avenue N.E. at the end of N.E. . 6th Street. TO : PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SCHEDULED ERC DATE : 9-15-82 0 ENGINEERING DIVISION C TRAFFIC ENG , DIVISION SCHEDULED HEARING DATE : El UTILITIES ENG , DIVISION FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU SPARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT n POLICE DEPARTMENT POLICY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT I I OTHERS : COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITING , PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT BY 5: 00 PM, ON September 13. 1982 CIRCUL1TED: September 2, 1982 REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : f l APPROVED I- F APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS I I NOT APPROVED f J'R 0 t)n L D/- 7-/9/7- S O /t s e-fs 770-c, 77 Pf9 C r 0,1 ,'zi oe pW / '/6,+/ , tteez c eiT z-3,z-PM 1 Y 77V67 e711A/if Cdu/erT BAJ115,7-9,92 L CO v al. 77/e ,Z) 2 J /ee,5/000711 7.5 9,ee Gv i L G/ivJ( 7-v Tf Rue-4- AA,/c'> O/J'j—G G' d o ?-//e- /°/9,e/l7 7-/be 97/9/Cf ru ry d ' /38- /!2-47JOoP, 7 3 — TAG-' A/z ) P/?O PC s/a L (0 v G. /0 ,G//70/ti.9,--6-7 g///J CD/UC.7P/i ,-d S/re R sc/e1 -77o,J. / 0 r tri g-/t61 7r/t L" /rn efic r o.v N a/er7,, Ali G/66L. ,o s 2b'r cauvra r 63-rs sort/eRtr. DATE : 9/ 3 Z_ SIGNATURE OF DIREC OR OR A THOR ZED REPRESE 1TATIVE REVISION 5/1982 REI N BUILDING & ZONING DE TMENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET ECF -82 APPLICATION NO(S) : RFzn : (R-fleet-R7I PROPONENT : Louis Malesis PROJECT TITLE : BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Application to rezone 3.16 acres of property from R-2 to R-3 for a medium density housing development of 72 units. LOCATION :The property is located 150 feet east cf Kirkland Avenue N.E. at the end of N.E. 16th Street. TO : n PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SCHEDULED ERC DATE : 9-15-82 ED ENGINEERING DIVISION TRAFFIC ENG , DIVISION SCHEDULED HEARING DATE : EIUTILITIES ENG , DIVISION n FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT El BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT NIPOLICE DEPARTMENT 11 POLICY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT n OTHERS : COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITING , PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT BY 5 : 00 P .M, ON September 13._ 1982 CIRCULATED: September 2, 1982 REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : POLICE El APPROVED n APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS NOT APPROVED A full impact statement on this project is needed prior to approval so all of the impacts on the surrounding neighborhood are revealed. And then the impacts can be evaluated and conditions placed on the rezone. DATE : l-- 6 5 -5 SIGNATURE OF DIRECTOR OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE REVISION 5/1982 REN— - N BUILDING & ZONING DEI TMIIENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET ECF - 82 APPLICATION NO(S) : RF7.nNF. (P-n64-12) PROPONENT : Louis Malesis PROJECT TITLE : BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT : Application to rezone 3.16 acres of property from R-2 to R-3 for a medium density housing development of 72 units. LOCATION :The property is located 150 feet east of Kirkland Avenue N.E. at the end of N.E. _6th Street. TO : n PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SCHEDULED ERC DATE : 9-15-82 0 ENGINEERING DIVISION C TRAFFIC ENG . DIVISION SCHEDULED HEARING DATE : RfUTILITIES ENG , DIVISION n FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU inPARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT CITY OF RENTO N n BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT R ( n POLICE DEPARTMENT OCT 12 1982 n POLI CY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT BUILDING/ZONING DEPT. n OTHE RS : COMMENTS JR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITIN3 , PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT BY 5 : OO P .M. ON September 13. 1982 CIRCULATED: September 2, 1982 REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : UTicATN{ n APPROVED R APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS 7NOT APPROVED PITY APPROVAL SUBJECT TO 9/9/SZ LATE COMERS AGREEMENT • WATER p LATE COMERS AGREEMENT • SEWER 14D SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE • WATER GZ4-J der Sam S. ) r SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE • SEWER eI• es Dc'. -{or /6f (pyz„/ SPECIAL ASSESSMENT AREA CHARGE - WATER No S^, L° ' a t # u c c SPECIAL ASSESSMENT AREA CHARGE -SEWER 544j'40 *my&rearm C4 !H elreef- APPROVED WATER PLAN Se APPROVED SEWER PLAN Yi: A/A?L- APPROVED FIRE HYDRANT LOCATIONS BY FIRE DEPT. y•5 FIRE FLO Aim eis Pc1 DATE SIGNATURE OF DIRECTOR OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE REVISION 5/1982 REN N BUILDING & ZONING DEE TMENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET ECF - 82 APPLICATION NO(S) : RF:7nTVF: (R-nF4-u2) PROPONENT : Louis Malesis PROJECT TITLE : BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT : App1ication to rezone 3.16 acres of property from R-2 to R--3 for a medium density housing development of 72 units. LOCATION :The property is located 150 feet east of Kirkland Avenue N.E. at the end of N.E. :..6th Street. TO : PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SCHEDULED ERC DATE : 9-15-82 0 ENGINEERING DIVISION FITRAFFIC ENG , DIVISION SCHEDULED HEARING DATE : UTILITIES ENG , DIVISION FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU 0 PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT gBUILJING & ZONING DEPARTMENT n POLICE DEPARTMENT I ] POLICY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT l ] OTHERS : COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITIiN3 , PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT BY 5 : 00 P .M. ON September 13, 1982 CIRC'UL1TED: September 2, 1982 REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : jAPPR'OVED F-1 APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS i 1NOT APPROVED 2-c),06- e3-7-c4 v t) z..ka e.)1`,12-e--)"-ej r—°1/) AV-%t 216—c,,4,,„„,„ 6„(? DATE : SIGNATURE 0 CTOR OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE REVISION 5/1982 OF RA,A z BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT i 4- RONALD G. NELSON - DIRECTOR p ONEM MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, WASH. 98055 • 235-2540 9, 0 o- O P 94T D (EP O BARBARA 1. SHINPOCH MA(OR February 4, 1983 Mr. George W. Lucker 7915 Rainier Avenue South Seattle, Washington 98118 RE: 'IALESIS REZONE R-064-82 Dear George: Since I have not received any further communications during the last three weeks, I must assume that the applicant is ready to proceed with the rezone reques:. The conditions imposed by the ERC are binding. I have preliminarily scheduled the item before the Hearing Examiner in early March. I will send the suhsequent letter informing you of the specific date within the next two weeks. Si ncerifly, c Roger 'I. Blay ock Zoni ng Admi ni strator RJB:ci 0050Z NOTICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE RENTON, WASHINGTON The Environmental Review Committee (ERC) has issued a final declaration of non-significance with conditions for the following project: LOUIS MALESIS (ECF-066-82) Application to rezone 3. 16 acres of property from R-2 to R-3 for a medium density housing development of 72 units, file R-064-82; property located approximately 150 feet east of Kirkland Avenue N.E. at the end of N.F. 16th Street. The Environmental Review Committee (ERC) has issued a proposed declaration of non-significance for the following project: CITY OF RENTON PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT (ECF-070-82) For the Honey Creek sanitary sewer interceptor. The project is to construct a 7,000 foot long, 12 inch sanitary sewer interceptor and pump station to relieve an existing sewage overflow situation in the area bounded by Honey Creek, May Creek, 142nd Avenue S.E. extended northerly and Honey Dew School. The proposed project will serve limited additional properties in the subject area. A final environmental declaration is required by December 31 , 1982 , in order to obtain state grant funding for the construction of this facility. Further information regarding this action is available in the Building and Zoning Department, Municipal Building, Renton, Washington, 235-2550. Any appeal of ERC action must be filed with the Hearing Examiner by November 1 , 1982 . Published: October 18 , 1982 FINAL DECLARATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE Application No (s) : R-064-82 Environmental Checklist No. : ECF-066-82 Description of Proposal: Application to rezone 3. 16 acres of property from R-2 to R-3 for a medium density housing development of 72 units. Proponent: Louis Malesis Location of Proposal:Property located 150 feet east of Kirkland Avenue N.E. at the end of the N.E. 16th Street. Lead Agency: City of Renton Building and Zoning Department This proposal was reviewed by the ERC on September 15, 1982, and October 13, 1982, following a presentation by Jerry Lind of the Building and Zoning Department. Oral comments were accepted from: David Clemens, James Matthew, Ronald Nelson, Robert Bergstrom, Roger Blaylock, Jerry Lind, Donald Persson and James Hanson. Incorporated by reference in the record of the proceedings of the ERC on application ECF-066-82 are the following: 1 ) Environmental Checklist Review Sheet, prepared by: Louis Malesis DATED: August 23 , 1982 2) Applications : R-064-82 3) Recommendations for a declaration of non-significance: Fire Prevention Bureau, Building and Zoning Department, Design Engineering Division, Traffic Engineering Division, Utility Engineering Division. Recommendation for a declaration of significance: Police Department. More Information: Policy Development Deportment, Parks and Recreation Department. Acting as the Responsible Official, the ERC has determined this development has a non-significant adverse impact on the environment. An EIS is not required under RCW 43. 21C. 030 (2) (c) . This decision was made after review by the lead agency of a complete environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. Reasons for declaration of environmental non-significance: Will not adversely impact the environment or adjacent properties and that the following requirements shall be complied with: 1 ) Provide on-site recreation in approximately the same proportion per dwelling unit as proposed in revised site plan received October 6, 1982, by the Building and Zoning Department. 2) Only passive type recreational activities shall be sited with 100 feet of the south property line to mitigate noise and land use conflicts. FINAL DECLARATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE Louis Malesis October 13, 1982 Page Two 3) Provide for the public street extension of N.E. 16th Street eastwardly through the subject property. A street end cul-de-sac or approved turnaround must be approved by the Public Works Department. Signatures: 2/ 91/ Yfit(-10 Ronald G. Nelson Dad (/ 1/4R. Clemens- Building & Zoning Director Policy Development Director OGG a-- Richard C. Houg ton ; Public Works Director DATE OF PUBLICATION: October 18, 1982 EXPIRATION OF APPEAL PERIOD: November 1 , 1982 Date circulate eptember 2 , 1982 Comme..,.j due :September 13 , 1982 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST REVIEW SHEET ECF - 066 - 82 APPLICATION No (s) . Rezone (R-064-82) PROPONENT : Louis Malesis PROJECT TITLE : Brief Description of Project : Application to rezone 3. 16 acres of property from R-2 to R-3 for a medium density housing dev. of 72 units. Property located 150 feet east of Kirkland Avenue n. e. LOCATION : at the end of the N.E. 16th Street. SITE AREA : 3. 16 BUILDING AREA (gross) DEVELOPMENTAL COVERAGE ('o) : IMPACT REVIEW NONE MINOR MAJOR MORE INFO 1 ) Topographic changes :X 2 ) Direct/Indirect air quality : X 3) Water & water courses : X 4 ) Plant life : X 5 ) Animal life :X 6 ) Noise : X 7 ) Light & glare : X 8 ) Land Use ; north : Undeveloped east : Undeveloped south : Multi-Family west : Multi-Family Land use conflicts : View obstruction :Minimal 7 T 9 ) Natural resources : X 10 ) Risk of upset : X 11 ) Population/Employment : X 12 ) Number of Dwellings : 72 X 13 ) Trip ends ( ITE ) : 389 Trip Ends traffic impacts :Kirkland/N.E. 16th and Kirkland/N.E. 12th 14 ) Public services :X 15 ) Energy : X 16 ) Utilities : X 17 ) Human health : X 18) Aesthetics : X 19 ) Recreation : X 20 ) Archeology/history : X COMMENTS : Signatures: A(// e( j- Z{ 1/ /(((/7( Ronald G'. Nelson David R. Clemens Building Official Policy Development Director J/(// Richard C. Houghton, Public Works DirectO eA.131,..44Datecirculated : SPptPmhPr 2, 19R7 Comments due : SPptamhPr 11, 1 82 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST REVIEW SHEET ECF - n, - R2 APPLICATION No (s ) . REZONE (R-064-82) PROPONENT : Louis Malesis PROJECT TITLE : Brief Description of Project : Pwlication to rezone 3.16 acres of property from R-2 to R-R for a meiiiirn density honsina developmemt of 72 units. LOCATION : The property is located 150 feet east of Kirkland Avenue N.E. at the end of N.E. 16th Street. SITE AREA : 1_16 acres BUILDING AREA (gross ) DEVELOPMENTAL COVERAGE (%) : IMPACT REVIEW NONE MINOR MAJOR MORE v _ INFO 1 ) Topographic changes : 2 ) Direct/Indirect air quality : 1.7 3 ) Water & water courses : V 4 ) Plant life : 1 5 ) Animal life : 6) Noise : 7 ) Light & glare : 8 ) Land Use ; north : todeeeo/ east :r south : 11/L,0 4fJi west : Land use conflicts : 751f ' 7 k, j- View obstruction : 107/0 / 9) Natural resources : 10 ) Risk of upset : 11 ) Population/Employment : 12 ) Number of Dwellings :72 13 ) Trip ends ( ITE ) : @ a./ . traffic impacts :l#d c /'Z l 4 4nd of /Zs, 14 ) Public services : 15 ) Energy : 16 ) Utilities : 17 ) Human health : 18 ) Aesthetics : 19 ) Recreation : 20 ) Archeology/history : COMMENTS : tOd /4/it IA r 77( Grp s-R g o "dih f de iGea5y Recommendation : NSI DOS More Information V Reviewed by : p title : Date : 9) FORM: ERC-06 ite C)oiLolroo, zorvirvG Date circulated : Sapi- mhar 7, 19R7 Comments due : Saptamhar 1"i, 19R2 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST REVIEW SHEET E C F - n R2 APPLICATION No (s ) . REZONE (R-064-82) PROPONENT : Louis Malesis PROJECT TITLE : Brief Description of Project : Application to rezone 3.16 acres of property from R-2 to R-1 for a marl i inn _dPnsi ty hon_sina dpvPlopnt of 72 units. LOCATION : The property is located 150 feet_east of Kirkla-id Avenue N.E. at the end of N.E. 16th Street. SITE AREA : 3_16 acres BUILDING AREA (gross ) DEVELOPMENTAL COVERAGE (%) : IMPACT REVIEW NONE MINOR MAJOR MORE INFO 1 ) Topographic changes : 2 ) Direct/Indirect air quality :kc< 3 ) Water & water courses : SC,/ 4 ) Plant life : 5 ) Animal life : 6 ) Noise : Yi7 ) Light & glare : V 8 ) Land Use ; north : east : south : west : Land use conflicts : View obstruction : i 9 ) Natural resources : 10 ) Risk of upset : 11 ) Population/Employment : 12 ) Number of Dwellings : 13 ) Trip ends CITE ) : traffic impacts : 14 ) Public services : 15 ) Energy : 16 ) Utilities : 17 ) Human health : 1 18 ) Aesthetics : 19 ) Recreation : 20 ) Archeology/history : COMMENTS : Recommendation . NSI 7 DOSO--More Information 4. Reviewed by : 0- 7(--- itle : Date : q--ff` Si, FORM; ERC-06 LS-k14M ea4G'7. Date circulated : ;iPpi- mhor 2, 19R7 Comments due : saptamhar 13, 1982 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST REVIEW SHEET ECF - R9 APPLICATION No (s ) . REZONE (R-064-82) PROPONENT : Louis Nalesis PROJECT TITLE : Brief Description of Project : Applicationication to rezone 3.16 acres of property from R-2 to R-3 for a medium density housina development of 72 units. LOCATION : The property is located 150 feet east of Kirkland Avenue N.E. at the end of N.E. 16th Street. SITE AREA : 3_16 acres BUILDING AREA (gross ) DEVELOPMENTAL COVERAGE (%) : IMPACT REVIEW NONE MINOR MAJOR MORE INFO 1 ) Topographic changes : 2 ) Direct/Indirect air quality : t/ 3 ) Water & water courses : 4 ) Plant life : 5 ) Animal life : 6 ) Noise : 7 ) Light & glare : c 8 ) Land Use ; north : east : south : west : Land use conflicts : View obstruction : 9 ) Natural resources : T 10 ) Risk of upset : 11 ) Population/Employment : 12 ) Number of Dwellings : 13 ) Trip ends ( ITE ) : traffic impacts : 14 ) Public services : 15 ) Energy : 16 ) Utilities : 17 ) Human health : 18 ) Aesthetics : 19 ) Recreation : 20 ) Archeology/history :L/ COMMENTS : 601-S G%% Recommendation : SI_X DOS More Information Reviewed by : Date : FORM: ERC-06 Date circulated : :,Ppi- mI- r 2, 19R2 Comments due : Ppi-pnhPr 11, 19R2 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST REVIEW SHEET APPLICATION No (s ) . REZONE (R-064--82)1 p . PROPONENT : Louis Malesis BUILDING/ZONING DEPT,PROJECT TITLE : Brief Description of Project : Application to rezone 3.16 acres of property from 1-2 to _R-1 for a medium density hDusina cipvfAlopmprit of 72 units. LOCATION : The property is located 150 feet east of Kirkland Avenue N.E. at the end of N.E. 16th Street. SITE AREA : 1_1A acres BUILDING AREA (gross ) DEVELOPMENTAL COVERAGE (%) : IMPACT REVIEW NONE MINOR MAJOR MORE INFO 1 ) Topographic changes : 2 ) Direct/Indirect air quality : 3 ) Water & water courses : i 4 ) Plant life : v— 5 ) Animal life : 6 ) Noise : 7 ) Light & glare : 8 ) Land Use ; north : east : south : west : Land use conflicts : View obstruction : 9 ) Natural resources : 10 ) Risk of upset : 11 ) Population/Employment : 12 ) Number of Dwellings : c 13 ) Trip ends ( ITE ) : traffic impacts : / v 3 , ,.< 7 1> >K 14 ) Public services : Her 15 ) Energy : 16 ) Utilities : 17 ) Human health : 18 ) Aesthetics : 19 ) Recreation : 20 ) Archeology/history : COMMENTS : o 9Stye7 4 7S e ,v r `= Recommendation : DNSI DOS More Information Reviewed by : _,JL 11A4 i".;16" "l itle : / 6 ., 'f, Date : / // b/ FORM: ERC-06 P73 Date circulated : SPptPmhar 2, 19R2 Comments due : Sept-rgmhPr 1 R, 1982 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECIKLIST REVIEW SHEET ECF - nap - R7 APPLICATION No (s ) . REZONE (R-064.-82) PROPONENT : Louis Malesis PROJECT TITLE : Brief Description of Project : Application to rezone 3.16 acres of property from R-7 to R-1 for a n ilmitlensity housinu clPvelogPnt of 72 units. L 0 C A T ION : The property is located 150 feet east of Kirkland Avenue N.E. at the end of N.E. 16th Street. SITE AREA : 3_1F arrps BUILDING AREA (gross ) DEVELOPMENTAL COVERAGE (%) : IMPACT REVIEW NONE MINOR MAJOR MORE INFO 1 ) Topographic changes : 2 ) Direct/Indirect air quality : 3 ) Water & water courses : 4 ) Plant life : 5 ) Animal life : 6) Noise : v/ 7 ) Light & glare : CITY O5= t;ENTON 8 ) Land Use ; north : Orf) CuJ 11/ R east :ot 0 C T 12 1982 --) south : west • BUILDING/ZONING DEPT. Land use conflicts : View obstruction : 9 ) Natural resources : 10 ) Risk of upset : 11 ) Population/Employment : 12 ) Number of Dwellings : 13 ) Trip ends ( ITE ) : traffic impacts : 14 ) Public services : 15 ) Energy :v/ 16 ) Utilities : 17 ) Human health : 18 ) Aesthetics : 19) Recreation : 20 ) Archeology/history : COMMENTS : Recommendation : DN DOS More Information Reviewed by : Utle :: 0j71-iT y 4—AlGiAlE,Ge2 Date : Ngz FORM: ERC-06 Date circulated : septemhPr 2, 19R2 Comments due : spptrz.mher 13, 1982 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECIKLIST REVIEW SHEET ECF - flF - R7 D Renton Fire Dept 7' ,777 APPLICATION N o (s ) . REZONE (R-064.-82) Fire Prevention Bure° PROPONENT : Louis Malesis PROJECT TITLE : ppBriefDescriptionofProject : 4pplication to rezone 3.1A crres d property fmm R-2 to J-3 for a mdi housing dcvelopnt of 72 units. L DCATION : The property is located 150 feet east of Kirkland Avenue N.E. at the end of N.E. 16th Street. SITE AREA : 3.1F ac-rPs BUILDING AREA (gross ) DEVELOPMENTAL COVERAGE (%) : IMPACT REVIEW NONE MINOR MAJOR MORE INFO 1 ) Topographic changes : 2 ) Direct/Indirect air quality : 3 ) Water & water courses : 4 ) Plant life : 5 ) Animal life : 6 ) Noise : 7 ) Light & glare : 8 ) Land Use ; north : east : south : west : Land use conflicts : View obstruction : 9 ) Natural resources : 10 ) Risk of upset : 11 ) Population/Employment : 12 ) Number of Dwellings : 13 ) Trip ends ( ITE ) : traffic impacts : 14 ) Public services : 1 15 ) Energy : 16 ) Utilities : 17 ) Human health : 18 ) Aesthetics : 19 ) Recreation : 20 ) Archeology/history : COMMENTS : ,/'vvv a fr-o,e ,eE2o, ' - ,exo-r- d/.Pf- Gt//G G r-z4Jo , tr:., 0 Ei‹, /tICQiU.S AeCec s,0f 2)G ' ;A) THE jji /9 79. 0 4IVA, &/G G ,43E- Recommendation : DNSI DOS More Information Reviewed by : l it le :e9 i`1G2le_ . Date : Q'- FORM: ERC-06 F7L.I G Date circulated : z,t.ptimhp.r 7, 1 9R 2 Comments due : pii- 1- r 1 , 1 RR ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST REVIEW SHEET ECF - R9 APPLICATION No (s ) . REZONE (R-06¢-82) PROPONENT : Louis Malesis PROJECT TITLE : Brief Description of Project : Application to rezone 3.16 acres of property fmm_ R-2 to R- l_ far a medimidensity housina develowent of 72 units. LOCATION : The property is rotated 150 feet Past of Kirkland Avenue N.E. at the end of N.E. 16th Street. SITE AREA : 3.1A arrPs BUILDING AREA (gross ) DEVELOPMENTAL COVERAGE (%) : IMPACT REVIEW NONE MINOR MAJOR MORE INFO 1 ) Topographic changes : 2 ) Direct/Indirect air quality : 3 ) Water & water courses : 4 ) Plant life : 5 ) Animal life : 6 ) Noise : 7 ) Light & glare : 8 ) Land Use ; north : east : south : west : Land use conflicts : View obstruction : 9 ) Natural resources : 10 ) Risk of upset : 11 ) Population/Employment : 12 ) Number of Dwellings : 13 ) Trip ends ( ITE,) : traffic impacts : xxxx 14 ) Public services : xxxxx 15 ) Energy : 16 ) Utilities : 17 ) Human health : 18 ) Aesthetics : 19 ) Recreation : 20 ) Archeology/history : COMMENTS : This rezone should not be granted unless a full impact statement is made to identify the possible conflicts it presents with the surroundigg neighbor hood( housing for the elderly, residental ). Also very concerned about the traffic this will generate and the impact on N.E. 12th & Kirkland. SX Also will have a major impact on Recommendation : DNSI DOS xxxx onW&eIF0paogrnvices in that are Reviewed by : Lt. D.R. Persson Title : Date : 1- lc FORM: ERC-06 Date circulated : SpptPmhpr 9, 19R7 Comments due : Saptprnlnr 1 , 1 (122 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST REVIEW SHEET E C F - n66, - R APPLICATION No (s ) . REZONE (R-064.-82) PROPONENT : Louis Malesis PROJECT TITLE : Brief Description of Project : Application to rezone 3.16 acres of props ty from 1l-2 to R- fnr a marl i um do nsi ty bo si nc7 develoFgmiat of 72 units. LOCATION : The property is located 150 feet east of Kirkland Avenue N.E. at the end of N.E. 16th Street. SITE AREA : 3_1F arrps BUILDING AREA (gross ) DEVELOPMENTAL COVERAGE (%) : IMPACT REVIEW NONE MINOR MAJOR MORE INFO 1 ) Topographic changes : 2 ) Direct/Indirect air quality : 3 ) Water & water courses : 4 ) Plant life : 5 ) Animal life : 6 ) Noise : 7 ) Light & glare : 8 ) Land Use ; north : east : south : west : Land use conflicts : View obstruction : 9 ) Natural resources : 10 ) Risk of upset : 11 ) Population/Employment : 12 ) Number of Dwellings : 13 ) Trip ends ( ITE ) : traffic impacts : 14 ) Public services : 15 ) Energy : 16 ) Utilities : 17 ) Human health : 18 ) Aesthetics : 19 ) Recreation : 20 ) Archeology/history : COMMENTS : Tfi/S P fO - G r 15 A &G c L c1 s T c) TCIf OR I* /-J/6= Irz46I#zs ,E c ceit;re-7e ,. rde-re,rv, ec 'r :S So u 1 i /} 1 '/6 if //7r/j Cr D ' T///7-T ems; , Tif c Pe o P e1 O N-s-e} T- (,7Z/'e T/D/u Gd c/ L,e m T//i1 /17/over ,1 r7/N41 cu,2 r 9N0/, ,t3 l sy'TG'/zL cov2r /we-Puss/i3c c/ries Recommendation : DNSI_ DOS More Information Reviewed by : u41-40(4- 1 itle : Date : .0J / 3 - XZ- tn T 7 T/fG- /vimw pira i 0s7/ FORM: ERC-06 J 7/?6 J9 f) /,7, i r/l1 JtJ .s/i4 tfZiTJ rl/T/G-,i T//(7 /, 1",c% 0 4) /U, /7//6,V4/ o r /PtC cc-J7 GEORGE W. LUCKER ARCHITECT Vl RAINIER AVENUE SOUTH • SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98118 • 722 .0272 October 5, 1982 City of Renton Building and Zoning Department Municipal Building Renton, WA 98055 RE: Rezone Application No. R-064-82 Proponent: Louis Malesis Gentlemen: We enclose the following items in connection with the above Re- zone Application: 1. 7 copies, revised Site Development Plan. 2. 7 copies, response to ERC concerns . Very truly yours, P George W. Lucker, Architect v CITY CI" t k? T9N 7)p,P6 P_, 5 vi 171, 1 ,\ A' OCT 6 1982 BUILDING/ZONING DEPT. GEORGE W. LUCKER ARCHITECT 19+111 RAINIER AVENUE SOUTH • SEATTLE, W ASH I NGTON 98118 • 722 -0272 October 5 , 1982 C 1 tii0 1 I ri 7 !` OCT 6 1982 Environmental Review Committee City of Renton Municipal Building BUILDING/ZONING Renton, WA 98055 RE: Rezone Application No. R-064-82. Proponent: Louis Malesis . Site: NE 16th St. East of Kirkland Ave NE. Gentlemen: The following statements are in response to concerns included in the Proposed Declaration of Significance issued by the ERC, and dated September 15, 1982. 1. Density: 72 units proposed, (22.78 units per acre) , is less than density permitted in R-3 Zone. Density concerns have appeared to center on the issue of the site being crowded with buildings . This can be mitigated by creating three story buildings for four out of six buildings, thus reducing lot coverage. Two buildings were already two stories, plus base- ment parking. Total building height in all cases will not ex - ceed 35 feet. A previous proposal for R-2 Zone by Stonebridge Co. contained 30 units , however had potential for higher ratio of population per unit with a total of 72 bedrooms . This pro- posal has a total bedroom count of 108 for the unit mix shown. Impacts on the neighborhood will be mitigated further with a generous buffer strip surrounding the site which will be kept natural and supplemented with additional landscaping. 2 . Recreation: Recognizing the impacts upon City Parks for rec- reation, and limited facilities available in this neighbor- hood, space on site is available for recreational opportuni- ties and development of recreational facilities . Total space for outdoor facilities could total about 12,500 sq. ft. , enab- ling construction of such amenities as a tennis court, basket- ball court, outdoor barbecue and picnic areas , and play areas for small children. In addition, limited indoor facilities could be included in the Community Building. Each dwelling ERC Comments Malesis Rezone page 2 unit is provided with a private outdoor area for use of in- dividual residents . 3 . Emergency Access : A second means of access is available through the parcel of land adjoining on the North boundary of the subject site, connecting to NE 18th Street. This access will be developed for use of emergency vehicles per latest Fire Code requirements . Provisions for future access to property to the East have been provided, for emergency use. 4. Traffic/Circulation: To prevent greater impacts to resident- ial area to East of subject site, traffic should be routed over Kirkland Ave NE. Provide improvements in NE 16th Street per City requirements, including street lighting. If neces- sary, provide warning signs at intersection of NE 16th St. and Kirkland Ave NE. This development will create about 400 trips per day load, not a very heavy traffic impact. Y2 V ry truly yours , eor W. Lucker, Architect NOTICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE RENTON, WASHINGTON The Environmental Review Committee (ERC) has issued a proposed declaration of significance with conditions for the following project : LOUIS MALESIS (ECF-0(o(i-82) Application to rezone 3. 16 acres of property from R-2 to R-3 for a medium density housing development of 72 units, file R-064.-82; located approximately 150 feet east of Kirkland Avenue N.E. at the east end of N. E. 16th Street. Further information regarding this action is available in the Building and Zoning Department, Municipal Building, Renton, Washington, 235-2550. Any appeal of ERC action must be filed with the Hearing Examiner by October 4 , 1982 . Published: September 20, 1982 File No. R-064-82: Louis G. Malesis April 11, 1983 Page 4 7. The subject site is relatively level rising to the northeast approximately 10 feet. While some of the site has been cleared, there is a mixture of evergreen and deciduous trees covering most of the site. 8. The subject property was annexed into the City in February of 1980 by Ordinance 3401. The property was reclassified from G-1 (General, single family residential, minimum lot size - 35,000 sq. ft) to R-2 (Duplex Residential) on March 25, 1981 by Ordinance 3520. 9. The Comprehensive Plan in 1981 indicated that the subject site was suitable for low density and medium density development when the site was reclassified to R-2, its current status. The recent amendment to the Comprehensive Plan for the Northeast Quadrant made no apparent change in this designation; it is still considered suitable for low and medium density multi-family. 10. The property was originally proposed for low income housing when reclassified in 1981. Subsequently, the federal government and the City Council determined it was not in the best interests of the area and denied approval of the low income proposal. The site has remained undeveloped. 11. Under the original reclassification of the site, the applicant was required to improve N.E. 16th Street as a conditon of the rezone. The condition was not executed as required. The rezone was specifically conditioned upon the road improvement and not subsequent development. The development of the street was to accomodate potential development of the property to the north which is landlocked. 12. Development in the area is a mix of duplex residential and single family. East of the site is a small undeveloped property, a Puget Power transmission line and the Honey Creek subdivision. 13. Immediately to the south of the property is an R-3 district containing the low density senior citizen housing. A relatively large R-2 district, of which the subject site is a part, is located west of the site. Immediately west of the subject site in this R-2 zone is another low intensity senior citizen housing complex. Within the vicinity of the subject site are two P-1 districts containing the Hillcrest Elementary School, the McKnight Middle School and the North Highlands Park. There are some scattered one and two-lot R-3 districts west of the subject site. Immediately north and east of the site is a suburban residential district within King County. 14. The applicant has prepared a conceptual site plan for the subject site. The complex would consist of approximately 72 apartments. The plan is not binding upon either the applicant or the City. 15. Reclassifying the site to R-3 would increase the potential traffic by 440 vehicle trips per day or approximately 200 additional vehicles per day over the R-2 zoning. The population would increase by an estimated 134 persons over what the R-2 would permit. 16. The Policy Development Department has indicated that the proposal is an inappropriate northward expansion of the R-3 zoning. That department has stated that the R-3 zoning is incompatible with the zones to the north and east, which are both single family, and is incompatible with the duplex district to the west, the district in which the subject site is located. That department has also indicated that the request would generate additional traffic and population and unnecessarily increase land use intensity in an area of concentrated low intensity senior citizen housing. 17. The Engineering Division has reported that a gravity activated sewer system apparently could serve the subject site, subject to design, approval and extension by a licensed civil engineer. File No. R-064-82: Louis G. Malesis April 11, 1983 Page 5 CONCLUSIONS: 1. The proponent of a rezone must demonstrate that the request is in the public interest and will not impair the public health, safety and welfare in addition to compliance with at least one of the three criteria listed in Section 4-3010, which provides in part that: a. The subject site has not been considered in a previous area-wide rezone or land use analysis; or b. The subject site is potentially designated for the new classification per the Comprehensive Plan; or c. There has been material and substantial change in the circumstances in the area in which the subject site is located since the last rezoning of the property or area. The applicant has failed to demonstrate that the requested rezone is justified. 2. The request is not in the public interest. The R-2 zoning is already compatible with surrounding uses and zoning. To the north is a single family district. Single family uses are also located east of the site. The requested more intense usage is intrusive. 3. The site also serves as a buffer between the more intense R-3 zone to the south and the single family zones and uses to the north. Since the Comprehensive Plan indicates that the site could be utilized for either low or medium density development, the current zoning would implement good land use practice and buffer more intense uses from lower intensity uses. Reclassifying the subject site to R-3 would only extend the more intense uses toward the single family zone and toward the senior citizen housing. Since some property sooner or later will have to serve as a delineation between zones and the general uses surrounding the subject site are generally low key, the site should be retained in R-2 zoning. 4. The site was reclassified within the last two years and there has been no substantial change in the area or vicinity which makes R-3 more appropriate than the R-2 zoning now covering the site. The applicant has reasonable development rights without imposing incompatible uses on adjoining property. 5. The traffic generated along a relatively quiet street by the proposal will be more than two times the traffic potential of the current zoning. The additional traffic would be intrusive in this area and disturb both the nearby park and senior citizens' housing. 6. The applicant has failed to demonstrate that the request complies with the criteria enumerated above. The site was recently reclassified to a higher use. The Comprehensive Plan for the area has not been changed since that reclassification. And while the Comprehensive Plan designates the site for two alternative densities, the map element is only a generalized indication of the potential uses and the current R-2 zoning is well suited to this location. 7. The "non-development" of the subject site with the low income housing is not a significant change of circumstances. It is a non-event having no bearing on the request for more intense zoning. The area is still the same, and the surrounding properties are still zoned as they were and surrounding development is compatible with the site's existing zoning. Under the circumstances indicated above, the request for a reclassification of the subject site to R-3 should be denied by the City Council. RECOMMENDATION: The City Council should deny the request. ORDERED THIS 11th day of April, 1983. 61 ^' Fred J. Kauf n Land Use Hea ng Examiner File No. R-064-82: Louis G. Malesis April 11, 1983 Page 6 TRANSMITTED THIS 11th day of April, 1983 by Affidavit of Mailing to the parties of record: George W. Lucker Architect 8101 Rainier Avenue S. Seattle, WA 98118 Louis G. Malesis 313 Rainier Avenue S. Renton, WA 98055 TRANSMITTED THIS l lth day of April, 1983 to the following: Mayor Barbara Y. Shinpoch Councilman Richard M. Stredicke Richard Houghton, Public Works Director David Clemens, Policy Development Director Members, Renton Planning Commission Ronald Nelson, Building & Zoning Director Roger Blaylock, Zoning Administrator Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Renton Record-Chronicle Pursuant to Title IV, Section 3015 of the City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed in writing on or before April 25, 1983. 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 upn 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 $75.00 and meeting other specified requirements. Copies of this ordinance are available for inspection or purchase in the Finance Department, first floor of City Hall. ift4.,--ow,s..-.....11....simmilipmp...1)111111111111111111111141011TOw'1" • KIRKLAND AVE NE 1.4 IL, •• • _ Ilik,...;:-•-• . 4.%:."'- \A . . It.;; ..:,....0 \ lii, •._,:. , ‘ 411, 1 i ///: . 0 ..'• :Voi‘ / - 41 le' 0' ..-•.'• s - \\ 1 4... . ..,....f.\ . Ii• ,,,.......-., . \ sab 1 1'7...... • • .: '• •• • ''-.•• • ti. .•''' lik\ i : . •••••'.-•;.•:•.:';'t•• '...'• ....' f. .... ''• . i -• / 1;.::''.,.!,.....7.7.....4....•.-;• •• it: .....' . :: '. 6 .. '.•-:-. -. ., :1.--,,': ''""). * . ,. -.; 0 tiik0 1101.'11111, titte41/1t4t)40: 7 7--_.1.it—ANL -• • IS', -- •• Ars., ,• , N. 4.-,e..s::4-.:':::r.,,i4,44'...." '• -..-.1' . """..,S'il„iirik• . '.. 4. '. 1, ..' .-.1.:': •.•:.-7,-. .•'-'‘...::•:1•1-it`re& -,-,,-70'...:0..._. ..',A••,-,.•::,..-1:.r% -7- . .sit i- r t,-L. , - -: ;.:i co ,tf 6 1''',,i. • . got ! '• '.•,. leil0. ' all - 4..r..• P y. 1 .. •'..• , :341-' o i • -:. :-. ... •/• • , •• • ..",, ..,..2. .k.. sm J. i .-.- ---.., 41. co -, - ',.. • . v---- p . 3 -. - f ••••...,.,;1t4._ •:, -, , •-• , • . • 1514P • . t .1 \ k Jr • • I.; ' i' i'. ,,l'.'.,,,,,- . ',... ,„.„ -,. •: \.i.,- ..,•,...i . ,. .ti , .0..i • •,... 4'......‘..' 7: . „. ..•• • ‘• ',I'::-.. . ''.••*:' \\‘. \'.....' ..` . MN irli ( N I 4 i? :.%.• : 4- :.-..s.;'C'•:...7 .••.., . 1.•. 77, .'.•. . . \ ''.•• ,\..... ...... ' • • ' t . 1Ca4 • .• t. .r ...... 414 Iti 4,4f. it.: .. _,:,,- ,„. 1.. oil' .. 2. .. s.-- : 4.p. i j. 40••' .. , 14' • •:'ICIP ,•••• • 1 I ' • 0 --. - ' t.-- . 1. .-/T. 1.,_/. s' , 4-- 4 . . •....,,,,a .I... ti .IN . :.4b,- („.:.—A:31 .di, • t•,•.o•., 1. . A... .•',,.........' 41• .'.-_! t I 1.-.,. .,• 0,,. , .,..V• e•• a)b..,-.0. • • , , 10 e i . i, il••' 11 o. ••• # t F a- 3 ..- . 0... . .:0 ' 0,04 •0 v • I. g • - 0 elk 0,4k.foe _jii I/•4. 1 0 9111.441111/ GO ,....•1 I1Sdk• gt iC4illis - awl I somar.argraWiteAtiNAN.411. .." - -.' - A low ; •••••• 430. I LOUIS MALESIS R-064-82 OF R4,+ o PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Co z. DESIGN/UTILITY ENGINEERING 235-2631 MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON,WASH. 98055 9, o co. 0, 941 7'D SEPTE O P BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH MAYOR MEMORANDUM Date: April 8, 1983 To: Fred Kauffman, Hearing Examiner From: Don Monaghan, Design Engineer Re: Gravity Sewer Service - Malesis Rezone R-064-82 I have reviewed the information provided by Mr. Lucker and it appears that the above-referenced property can be gravity sewered to the sewer system in Kirkland Ave. N.E. Such service is subject to the approval of final design and submittal of the sewer exten- sion by a licensed civil engineer. I might point out that this review in no way includes the proposed alignment of the extension of N.E. 16th St. through the property. jft BUILDING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING MARCH 15, 1983 APPLICANT: LOUIS G. MALESIS FILL; NUMBER: R-0 f 4-8 2 A. SUMMARY & PURPOSE OF REQUEST: The applicant seeks a rezone of the subject site from R-2 to R-3 for a medium density housing development of 72 units. B. GENERAL INFORMATION: 1. Owner of Record: Louis G. Malesis 2. Applicant: Louis G. Malesis 3. Location: Vicinity Map Attached) East end of N.E. 16th Street and east of Kirkland Avenue N.E. 4. Legal Description: A detailed legal description is available on file in the Renton Building & Zoning Department. 5. Size of Property: 3.16 acres 6. Access: Via N.E. 16th Street. 7. Existing Zoning: R-2, Two-family Residential; minimum lot size 7,200 square feet. 8. Existing Zoning in the Area: R-2, Residence Two-family, minimum lot size 7200 square feet; R-3, Residence Multiple Family, minimum lot size 7200 square feet; P-1, Public Use District; SR, Suburban Residential King County Zoning). 9. Comprehensive Land Use Plan:Low Density Multiple Family; Medium Density Multiple Family. 10. Notification: The applicant was notified in writing of the hearing date. Notice was properly published in the Daily Record Chronicle on March 4, 1983, and posted in three places on or near the site as required by City Ordinance on March 2, 1983. C. HISTORY/BACKGROUND: The subject site was annexed into the city by Ordinance 3401 of February 20, 19.80, at which time it was zoned G-1. The property was rezoned from G-1 to R-2 by Ordinance 3520 of March 16, 1981, and became effective March 25, 1981. D. PHYSICAL BACKGROUND: 1. Topography: The subject site is relatively level with a slight slope to the northeast. REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER LOUIS G. MALESIS, R-064-82 MARCH 8, 1983 PAGE 2 2. Soils: Indianola Loamy Fine Sand (InC). Permeability is rapid; available water capacity is moderate; runoff is slow to medium; and the erosion hazard is slight to moderate. This soil is used for timber and for urban development. 3. Vegetation: The subject site consists of a mixture of evergreen and deciduous trees, although a portion has been cleared. 4. Wildlife: The existing vegetation provides suitable habitat for birds and small mammals. 5. Water: No surface water was observed on the subject site. 6. Land Use: The subject site is presently undeveloped as is the land to the east. To the south is public housing. Development to the west is single family residences. E. NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTERISTICS: The surrounding properties are a combination of some low density multiple family, single family, and undeveloped uses. F. PUBLIC SERVICES: 1. Water and Sewer: A six-inch water main extends east-west on N.E. 18th Street, and an eight-inch main runs north-south on Kirkland Avenue N.E. An eight-inch sanitary sewer is also located on Kirkland Avenue N.E. 2. Fire Protection: Provided by the City of Renton as per ordinance requirements. 3. Transit: METRO Transit is available in close proximity to the area along the major arterials (Routes 107, 108, and 240). 4. Schools: Hillcrest Elementary School is within one-fourth mile to the west of the subject site, while McKnight Middle School is approximately the same distance to the southwest, and Hazen High School is approximately one and one-half miles to the east. 5. Recreation: The North Highlands Park is within one-fourth mile to the west of the property, while Kennydale Lions Park is approximately one mile to the northwest. The Hillcrest School facilities also provide certain open space and recreation for the area. G. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE ZONING CODE: 1. Section 4-708, R-2; Two Family Residence. 2. Section 4-709A, R-3; Medium Density Multiple Family. H. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OR OTHER OFFICIAL CITY DOCUMENT: 1. Northeast Comprehensive Plan: Land Development Policies 3 and 4, pages 8-9. 2. Policies Element of the Comprehensive Plan: Section 4, Residential Goal. IMPACT ON THE NATURAL OR HUMAN ENVIRONMENT: 1. Natural Systems: Rezoning the subject site will not directly affect the property. However, subsequent development would remove the vegetation, disturb the soils, increase storm water runoff, and have an effect on traffic and noise levels in the area. Through proper development controls and procedures, however, many of these impacts can be mitigated. 2. Population/Employment: Development of the subject site into a medium density housing development of 72 units will result in a population increase of approximately 134 persons (1.85 persons/unit x 72 units). REPORT TO THE HEAKIL G EXAMINER LOUIS G. MALESIS, R-064-82 MARCH 8, 1983 PAGE 3 3. Schools: School population would increase by approximately 18 students with a 72-unit development. 4. Social: Increased opportunities for social interaction would result for the residents of the new housing, if constructed. 5. Traffic: the proposed development of the subject site would generate approximately 440 additional vehicles trips per day (6.1 trips/unit x 72 units). This would represent a 7.2% increase over present levels on the nearest street for which traffic counts are available, N.E. 12th Street. J. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT/THRESHOLD DETERMINATION: Pursuant to the City of Renton's Environmental Ordinance and the State Environmental Policy Act of 1971, as amended, RCW 43-21C, the Environmental Review Committee on,October 13, 1982, issued a final declaration of non-significance. The appeal period expired November 1, 1982. K. AGENCI'. S/DEPARTMENTS CONTACTED: 1. City of Renton Building & Zoning Department. 2. City of Renton Design Engineering Division. 3. City of Renton Traffic Engineering Division. 4. City of Renton Utilities Engineering Division. 3. City of Renton Fire Prevention Bureau. 6. City of Renton Policy Development Department. 7. City of Renton Parks & Recreation Department. L. DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS; 1. Louis G. Malesis, the applicant, is requesting a rezone of 3.16 acres from R-2 to R-3 for a medium density housing development of 72 units. 2. The Environmental Review Committee determined that there will be no adverse impact on the environment or adjacent properties and have imposed the following conditions on the proposed rezone: a. Provide on-site recreation in approximately the same proportion per dwelling unit as proposed in revised site plan received October 6, 1982, by the Building and Zoning Department. b. Only passive type recreational activities shall be sited with 100 feet of the south property line to mitigate noise and land use conflicts. c. Provide for the public street extension of N.E. 16th Street eastwardly through the subject property. A street end cul-de-sac or approved turnaround must be approved by the Public Works Department. Recreation: On site recreation will be provided in approximately the same ratio to dwelling units as shown in the October 6th drawing referenced. Types of recreation will change to more passive and be distributed throughout the development. Active recreation will be concentrated near the community building. Street Extension: As required, a reserve for extension of N.E. 16th Street is provided along the west and north margins of the site with provision for turnaround at the east end of the right-of-way. Along the north line, 15 feet of the right-of-way provision will be obtained from property adjacent to the north, the owner of which will cooperate in providing access. Emergency access is also available through the north property line to connect with N.E. 18th Street. 3. The Land Use Hearing Examiner must review four specific criteria under Section 4-3014(C) to determine that the circumstances surrounding the rezone request are adequate to recommend approval of the reclassification. The following evidence clearly demonstrates that the rezone request is appropriate. a. That substantial evidence was presented demonstrating the subject reclassification appears not to have been specifically considered at the time of the last area land use analysis and area zoning. REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER LOUIS G. MALESIS, R-064-82 MARCH 8, 1983 PAGE 4 The subject site was annexed into the City in February, 1980, before the last area-wide Comprehensive Plan analysis approved in December, 1980. b. That the property is potentially classified for the proposed zone being requested pursuant to the policies set forth in the comprehensive planning and conditions have been met which would indicate that the charge is appropriate. The proposal is generally in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan designations of Low Density Multi-family and Medium Density Multi-family. The majority of the subject site is classified as Medium Density Multi-family. The proposed roadway along the northern property line could provide a logical division point. c. That since the last previous land use analysis of the area, zoning of the subject property, authorized public improvements, permitted private development, or other circumstances affecting the subject property have undergone significant and material change. The site, although rezoned to R-2 in 1981, was not developed. Development has occurred in the surrounding area. The property adjacent to the south was rezoned from GS-1 to R-3 by Ordinance 2247 of May 13, 1966, and was subsequently developed into the Evergreen Terrace Senior Citizen Housing. Approximately 500 feet to the north, another parcel was rezoned from R-1 and G-7200 to R-2 by Ordinance 2462 of February 14, 1969. Other properties to the north and west consist of existing apartments and duplexes (Sec. 4-3024C-lc). d. Timeliness: The final test to determine whether a rezone request is appropriate is to address the question of timeliness. The subject site is the next incremental parcel to be developed. Residential developments exist on both the south and west. Public utilities including streets, sewer, and water are available to the subject site. It is outside of the Honeydew Creek Interceptor area and not within the moratorium under Resolution 2381. Thus, it would appear timely to allow the rezoning of the subject site. 4. The Policy Development Department has stated that the rezone request is not consistent with the surrounding zoning or uses. The Housing Authority site to the south is a special case of low intensity population traffic, which is inconsistent with the proposed R-3 rezone. The subject site is located in a borderline area between medium density multi-family and low density multi-family classifications of the Comprehensive Plan. The schematic site proposal would allow the construction of 72 units, which is twice the allowable density under the present R-2 zoning. However, the original R-2 zoning was placed upon the subject property as a direct result of a contemplated public housing project. Since that project has been constructed in another location at this time, the property should be reconsidered. 5. The Public Works Department, advises that N.E. 16th Street will have to be extended to the east as part of the development of this property. The Environmental Review Committee has also required this as a mitigating measure. The applicant intends to provide the property for future street extension in the form of an easement or reservatic;n and not dedicate the street right-of-way to the City at this time. This would place the burden of future street development upon the City or the adjacent developer to the east. Sanitary sewer grades may be critical, and further review is necessary at the time of building permit approval. Street lights will be required on the entrance roadways per City standards. The Utilities Division advises that a per unit charge of $175 will be required for water and sanitary sewer service. REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER LOUIS G. MALESIS, R-064-82 MARCH 8, 1983 PAGE 5 6. The Fire Department advises that a secondary means of access, as defined by the Uniform Fire Code, will be required for the project. Access can only be acquired to the north of the site linking it with N.E. 17th Street. This was an original requirement in the rezone to R-2 approved by the Council in 1981. 7. The Parks and Recreation Department originally saw a major impact by new residents upon the existing public recreational facilities at the North Highland Recreational Center. With the revised plans showing a community building and on-site recreation, their concerns have been addressed and eliminated. Some additional impact upon the City's facilities are still anticipated. 8. The Police Department's and Building and Zoning Department's comments are attached for the Examiner's review. The Building and Zoning Department's approval is for the rezone only, and the Policy Department does not approve of the proposal. 9. The subject site is 3.16 acres. Under the R-3 zoning classification, this will allow a total project of 79 units. The applicant has proposed a project of 72 units. However, the extension of N.E. 16th Street would require a minimum dedication in the northwest corner of the subject site. The site will be reduced to 2.96 acres and allow the development of 74 units. If the reservation across the northern boundary of the subject site was required to be a dedication, the site would be reduced to 2.75 acres and a total of 68 units could be constructed under the R-3 zoning. M. DEPARTMENTAL RECOMMENDATION: Based upon the above analysis, it is recommended that the rezone request by Louis Malesis, file R-064-82, be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. Dedication of the necessary right-of-way for N.E. 16th Street extension across the northern 35 feet of the subject property. 2. Dedication of the southern 15 feet of the adjacent property to the north for that extension of N.E. 16th Street. 3. Construction of the street extension to City standards. 4. Construction of emergency fire access to the north to intertie with N.E. 17th Street. AST " e,i- 1 11. pprlr,C CO _ - z% fee », , t 1 _, SAO I 1 _ fez I1110IIi- 5,1 j, j 1 I » 1 1•01! 404 40e 4 i I RENT©N Ct1' LIA,L7 3t--- -rr- bT/ - - - - 1—• r;-7 , I ii, 4- , ,,,, ., i.- i y I Y• I SIERRA HEIGHTS 5 i 1 I• t• D V"`' 1., 1. 11 /' ELEMENTARY SCHOOL j_`! 41 I I • - ,• S 1 W a: \',`-"'. ,'' to- J „ .... 1„.1. r_r;:, 1•I,1:J. ._} ;'. 7/.. I ' ' H w 110111 f24;, , ,,•1 . 1,..,•_ oo B., • riqt • s •H no E \ at. 0 ,.„,_____. :„.,.. , . ligijilisimm i ,::. J :Tir• I ,15474 fj, tolt---T\.!: . ‘ e no:IMEMNIni1411 : : 117 .ex---r- i *„... •,,1 ,4 r• % . j .. gar ,_Ik•Gm l•••.• IN IV 0.s• all. •' 7-'4 R- 1 i,--. R'(" 1-'--.• * 117 1•4tt... ‘; : ., : liti 35 %N. ITT L h Vl w1J ,' .r, '' / o., li 1 l• , • I F` i;,,, l•-tir 1,'•'' : uucR(s• R' i 1 [• l kill) ' E 1 1 ` • M M J I I r• ,f 6,,,ANDS' / /1 I N..,Y. —-; I y`.=, t• T, R-3 ; j /,- I 2 G-i 1 i 1,:.. (-..--•I rlcAN1(FII V— rl _ 3 7 III jI, 4e ,J r i.IP • ' . 4,• In r 1.. i i • 0,, 1,: j, 1_, N. p_1 I I J'LIn .•• it r• • I 1 ry. __ L1 \ % jT2fli 1_ 41 j • Til I • t i ttoIt1I,::J,.1 fit14 LOUIS MALESIS R-064-82 APPLICANT Louis G. Malesis TOTAL AREA - 3.16 acres PRINCIPAL ACCESS N.E. 16th Street EXISTING ZONING R-2, Residential - Two Family EXISTING USE Vacant PROPOSED USE 72 Unit Medium Density Housing Development COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN Low & Medium Density Multiple Family COMMENTS PROPOSED DECLARATION OF SIGNIFICANCE Application No (s) : R-064-82 Environmental Checklist No. : ECF-066-82 Description of Proposal: Application to rezone 3. 16 acres of property from R-2 to R-3 for a medium density housing development of 72 units. Proponent: Louis Malesis Location of Proposal: Property is located 150 feet east of Kirkland Avenue N.E. at the end of N.E. 16th Street. Lead Agency: City of Renton Building and Zoning Department This proposal was reviewed by the ERC on September 15 , 1982, following a presentation by Jerry Lind of the Building and Zoning Department. Oral comments were accepted from: Ronald Nelson, Roger Blaylock, Jerry Lind, Robert BErgstrom, David Clemens, James Matthew, Gary Norris and Richard Houghton. Incorporated by reference in the record of the proceedings of the ERC on application ECF-066-82 are the following: 1 ) Environmental Checklist Review Sheet, prepared by: Louis Malesis DATED: August 23, 1982 2) Applications : REZONE (R-064-82) 3) Recommendations for a declaration of non-significance: Fire Prevention Bureau, Building and Zoning Department, Design Engineering Division , Traffic Engineering Division, Utlity Engineering Division. Recommendation for a declaration of significance: Police Department More Information: Policy Development Department, Parks and Recreation Department. Acting as the Responsible Official, the ERC has determined this development has a significant adverse impact on the environment. An EIS may be required under RCW 43.21C. 030 ( 2) (c) . This decision was made after review by the lead agency of a complete environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. Reasons for proposed declaration of significance: The committee has identified the following four areas of concern: 1 ) Density- The proposed density of 72 units will have a high impact on this neighborhood. The Committee recommends a reduction of approximately one-third this number of units. PROPOSED DECLAR. ON OF SIGNIFICANCE LOUIS MALESIS: .. ,,64-82, ECF-066-82 SEPTEMBER 15, 1982 PAGE TWO 2) Recreation - The proposal will have a significant impact on the Renton parks system. Proper on-site recreation facilities such as a tennis court , tot lots, open active recreation space is a possible mitigation solution . 3) Emergency Access - The development will require two approved means of access as defined in the Uniform Fire Code, 1979. 4) Traffic/Circulation - Neighborhood circulation and traffic impacts are disproportionate to adjacent single family areas . Traffic analysis of neighborhood traffic patterns and project impacts are necessary. Signatures : Ronald G. Nelson id R. Clemens Building & Zoning Director Policy Development Director Richard C. oug on Public Works Director DATE OF PUBLICATION: September 20, 1982 EXPIRATION OF APPEAL PERIOD: October 4 , 1982 I _ Date circulate_ . September 2 , 1982 Comme,,La due : September 13 , 1982 EKVIROK'HEXTAI CHECKLIST REVIEW SHEET ECF - 066 - 82 APPLICATION No (s ) . REZONE (R-064-82) PRGPONENT :Louis Malesis PROJECT TITLE : Brief Description of Project : Application to rezone 3. 16 acres of property from R-2 to R-3 for a medium density housing developmentof 72uni Property is located 150 teet east of Kirkland Avenue LN .r-. LOCATION :at the end of the N.E. 16th Street. SITE AREA :3 . 16 acres BUILDING AREA (gross ) DEVELOPMENTAL COVERAGE (% ) : IMPACT REVIEW NONE MINOR MAJOR MORE INFO 1 ) Topographic changes : X 2 ) Direct/Indirect air quality : X 3 ) Water & water courses : X LI ) Plant life : X 5 ) Animal life :X 6 ) Noise : X 7 ) Light & glare : X 8 ) Land Use ; north : Undeveloped east :Undeveloped south : Multi-Family vest :Multi-Family land use conflict :; : View obstruction : Minimal 9 ) Natural resources : X 10 ) Risk of upset : X 11 ) Population/Employment : X 12 ) Number of Dwellings : 72 X 13 ) Trip ends ( ITE ) : 389 trip ends traffic imparfs :Kirkland & N.E. 16th and Kirkland & N.E. 12th 14 ) Public services : 1 X 15 ) Energy : X 16 ) Utilities : X 17 ) Human health : X 18 ) Aesthetics : X 19 ) Recreation : X 20 ) Archeology/history : X COMMENTS : Signatures : 7/ / 2(/ S.L 0/'ea Ronald G. Nelson Arid R. Clemens Building Official Policy Development Director Richard C. Houghton, Public Works Director ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE SEPTEMBER 15, 1982 AGE ':' DA COMMENCING AT 10 :00 A.M. : THIRD FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM PENDING BUSINESS ECF-024-82 M. V. PROPERTIES R-025-82 NEW BUSINESS ECF-064-82 LOUIS MALESIS R-066-82 Application to rezone 3 . 16 acres of property from R-2 to R-3 for a medium density housing development of 72 units; property located approximately 150 feet east of Kirkland Avenue N.E. at the end of N.E. 16th Street. FOR ERC' S INFORMATION: The U. S. Post Office is searching for a site of approximately 85 ,000 square feet to construct an office of 18 , 895 square feet for the main office facility in Renton. The project is declared to be categorically exempt under NEPA. DEPARTMENT OF GAME The Department of Game would like to discuss concerns and permit requirements. V OF R4, 4 4r PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT DESIGN/UTILITY ENGINEERING 235-2631 NEIL IMMO MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON,WASH. 98055 9, 0 co- 0, 9gT60 SEPj INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDUM BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH 71 rY MAYOR I) J 1SEp i E: Date: September 13, 1982 9 82 To: Roger Blaylock, Building & ZoningU' ®ttVG/Z(? 14; d;p 1G GEf T From: Bob Bergstrom, Engineering Supervisor Subject: Louis Malesis Rezone R-060-82 Our staff has reviewed the proposed rezone and apartment development off of Kirkland Ave. N.E. and N.E. 16th St. In addition to the com- ments by the staff on utilities and other items, I would like to point out that N.E. 16th St. should be extended to the east and north across the subject site. This neighborhood, lying north of N.E. 12th St. and east of Edmonds Ave. N.E. , has a poor circulation pattern around the commercial strip along Sunset Blvd. and is severely limited for access to the north by Honey Creek. N.E. 16th St. should be extended east to west between Newport Ave. N.E. and Kirkland Ave. N.E. for better emergency access to all properties in this neighborhood. I request that this be made a condition of the rezone. REB:jft CITY OF RENTON RP70"1E APPLICATION FOR OFFICE USE ONLY 1130 ONINOZ/DNIQ11118 LAND USE HEARING APPLICATION NO. Z EXAMINER 'S ACTION Z86c d3S APPLICATION FEE $ " APPEAL FILED( - RECEIPT NO .24237 CITY COUNCIL ICTii N{A\ LI ' Q FILING DATE Q"' 1—a ORDINANCE NO. AND DATE ALD HEARING DATE APPLICANT TO COMPLETE ITEMS 1 THROUGH 10 :1;U, Ckelicoal7ZZOZ7Z 1 . Name Td,t,i c Ma1Pci s Phone 228-6622 Address 311 Rainier AvP Smith, Renton, WA 9S055 East end of NE 16th St. , and 3. Property petitioned for rezoning is located on of Birklaud Ave between and CP-IC-LAA 3 /6 er, 4 . Square footage or acreage of property 3 .16 acres , M/L 5 . Legal description of property (if more space is required, attach a separate sheet) That portion of the West 2 of the East2 of the NEB of the SW 4 of Sec. 4, Twp 23 N, R 5, EWM, described as follows : Beginning at a point N. 01° 16' 12" E 1305 . 19 ft. , and N. 88° 38' 40" W 640.23 ft. from the South k corner corner of said section; thence N •O1° 05 ' 22" E a distance of 430 ft; thence S 88° 38' 40" E a distance of 320.81 ft. ; thence S 01° 10' 52" W to the South line of said sub- division; thence N 88° 38' 40" W to point of beginning. R-2 Requested R-36 . Existing Zoning ZoningII NOTE TO APPLICANT: The following factors are considered in reclassifying property. Evidence or additional information to substantiate your request may be attached to this sheet. (See .Application Procedure Sheet for specific requirements . ) Submit this form in duplicate. 7. Proposed use of site Medium density apartment of condominium development, together with required off street parking, landscaping, and appurtenances . 8. Listthe measures to be taken to reduce impact on the surrounding area. Retain natural vegitation where possible in site interior, and main- tain natural buffer around perimeter with supplemental plantings . 2 . Provide reasonable distance between new buildings and surrounding structures . Additional measures on attached page) 9 . How soon after the rezone is granted do you intend to develop the site? Within eighteen months unless financial climate does not improve 10 . Two copies of plot plan and affidavit of ownership are required. Planning Dept. 1-77 IL Louis Malesis Rezc Measures to be taken to reduce impact on the surrounding area, continued. 3 . Provide erosion control devices during construction, and include storm water detention facility to control run off of storm water from completed development. 4. Provide fire protection in the form of access and hydrants before beginning construction of buildings . 5 . Improve NE 16th Street for safe travel for increased load result- ing from this development. 6. Provide on site recreational opportunities for residents of this development. 7 . Control storage of vehicles on the site by removing those that are not operable . 8. Control exterior lighting to provide safety but reduce glare to surounding area. 9. Develope a pleasing design for structures, utilizing existing contours of the land, with minimum cuts and fills, particularly adjacent to neighboring properties Ci T Y OF RENTO'! BUILDING/ZONING DEFT. v ------ 0 -- m N Nr oo ozue .z owms gpmsn _ GEORGE W. LUCKER ARCHITECT 7 9 1 5 RAINIER AVENUE SOUTH • S E A T T L E , WASHINGTON 9 8 1 1 8 • 7 2 2 - 0 2 7 2 24 August, 1982 oTO: Land Use Hearing Examiner City of Renton SEP 11982 200 Mill Ave South Renton, WA 98055 BUILDING/ZONING DEPT. RE: Application for Rezone, R-2 to R-3 . 3 . 16 acres at the end of NE 16th St . , East of Kirkland Ave NE . Louis G. Malesis , Applicant. BACKGROUND INFORMATION AND CRITERIA FOR REZONE A) Although this parcel was rezoned from General Use to R-2 in March, 1982, that rezone action by Stonebridge Co. was for a specific low density multi-family proposal (30 units) for submittal to the Renton Housing Authority in response to their request for such proposals . However, after the rezone was grant- ed, the Stonebridge proposal was not selected by R. H. A. to develop the needed housing. The Comprehensive Plan in existence at the time of the re- one, designated the subject site for Medium and Low Density Multi-Family Use. In late 1981, a new Comprehensive Plan wa adopted. The new Plan indicates the use for this site to be Medium Density M-F, or R-3, an increase in density from the previous Plan. B) As stated above, a significant change in the Comprehensive Plan has occurred as noted by the potential use of this parcel now being designated for Medium Density M-F Use. The low den- sity housing proposal which was the basis for rezone to R-2 is no longer valid and not feasible for private development of this site . City of Renton Building Regulations, Ordinance No. 1628, was recently amended by Ordinance No . 3641, relating to R-3, and Criteria for Re: e, Continued page 2 Louis Malesis Application 24 August, 1982 R-4 Zones . Significant changes are included in requirements for Medium Density M-F, defined therein as the R-3 Zone. The following items are a part of those changes : 1. Density: Reduced permitted density from 30 dwelling units per acre to 25 d.u. per acre . 2. Building Height: Maximum height of buildings is reduced from 60 feet to 50 feet. 3 . Yards : Side and rear yard requirements have been increased significantly. 4. Special Setbacks: Additional setbacks and screening requirements are included in the new Ordinance for R-3 developments adjacent to residences in R-1 Zones and potential R-1 Zones . C) Rezone of this parcel from R-2 to R-3 is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map, which indicates potential R-3 use. This proposal is also consistent with applicable "Land Development Objectives and Policies" of the Comprehensive Plan. Following are some of those Policies and how they pertain to this Rezone Appli- cation: 10 "Vacant land surrounded by developed land should be given priority for development." Explanation: The site, annexed by the City in February, 1980, is on the edge of an older fully developed section of the City. It is surrounded by medium density, low density residential, and is adjacent to the Renton High- lands Business District. Almost no new development has taken place in this area for several years, except for medium density multi-family and business expansion near- by. This property is clearly a by-passed site ready for a good development. 2. "Land where adequate public utilities are available should be given priority for development." Explanation: All required utilities are available in NE 16th st. and Kirkland Ave NE . Extention of these utilities to the site is feasible. page 2 Criteria for Re ie, Continued page 3 Louis Malesis Application 24 August, 1982 3 . "A balance of residential, commercial, and industrial areas should be achieved." Explanation: Although the land use pattern is already established for this area by the Comprehensive Plan, R-3 use as proposed in this application will carry out this policy. See explanation for item No. 1. 4. "The upgrading and/or redevelopment of marginal areas should be encouraged." Explanation: We cannot deny that the surrounding neigh- borhood does contain many older buildings, some of which may be obsolete. A good R-3 development planned with discretion will help achieve this policy. CONCLUSION: For reasons given above, R-3 use for this property is clearly consistent with the Comprehensive Land Use Map and Policies contained in the Plan. Taking into account requirements of Ord- inance No. 3641 and other Building Regulations , including the Fire Code, maximum density permitted for R-3 will probably not be reached. page 3 A F F I D A V I Tre" 7 ,ti- ..2yr;, nt7" 11 wi - SEP 1 1982 BUILDING/ZONING DEPT. I , LOUIS G. MALESIS being duly sworn, declare that I am the owner of the property involved in this application and that the foregoing statements and answers herein contained and the information herewith submitted are in all respects true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Subscribed and sworn before me this day of 190 , Notary Public in and fo e State of Washington, residing a f r)... lm, of Notary-Pu ic) Signature Owner Oa , 8208 South 124th Street Add ss) Address) Seattle, WA 98178 City) State) 206-228-6622 or 206-772-1982 Telephone) FOR OFFICE USE ONLY) CERTIFICATION This is to certify that the foregoing application has been inspected by me and has been found to be thorough and complete in every particular and to conform to the rules and regulations of the Renton Planning Department governing the filing of such application . Date Received fh 19 g). By: iigt 2141010e4er".— Renton Planning Dept . 2-73 i SAFECO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY M :.,, — I ,+ rl '' SAF I 1 r. THIS SPACE RESERVED FOR RECORDER'S USE t f, 7 j( i ZAT r t1et,'+51 Filed 11) 19g2 F19 Ads, 2 klb S FITTS ESCROW COMPANY U 1'\0 ©r' T TH 4- + r:} +T fjfrNAME — c01450SHATTUCKAVESOUTH K:i,i IONS t aDDREss P. 0. BOX 1102 r iCOUNTY, . C`4 r L _. 4`LITY AND STATE___. RENTON, WA 98055 fi i is 7 cO at Red r C?) al c`E eR E f: 4 SPFE i, , JpSt STATUTORY N i(a,)/ s -r(k.tt WARRANTY DEED THE GRANTOR SANDRA JEAN MILLER, as her separate estate; SHARON JAN ROZANSKI, formerly known' as SHARON JAN LAZETTI, as her separate estate; and ANTHONY DEAN LAZETTI, as his separate for and in consideration of Ten and No/100 Dollars ($10.00) estate eo fi. h ;. in hand paid, conveys and warrants to Louis G. Malesis and Mary Malesis, his wife, as NomineesCll the following described real estate,situated in the County of King State of Washington: PARCEL A: South 143.50 feet of West half of East half of Northeast quarter of Southwest quarter of Section 4, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M. , in King County, Washington. PARCEL B: Beginning North 01°16' 12" East 1 ,305. 19 feet of South quarter corner of Section 4, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M. , in King County, Washington; thence North 88°38'40" West 640.23 feet; thence North 01 °05'22" East 143.50 feet to true point of beginning; thence North 01°05'22" East 143.00 feet; thence South 88°38'40" East 320.65 feet thence South 01°10'52" West 143.00 feet; thence North 88°38'40" West 320.49 feet to point of beginning. PARCEL C: North 143.50 feet of portion of West half of East half of Northeast quarter of Southwest quarter in Section 4, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M. , in King County, Washington, described as follows: Beginning North 01°16' 12" East 1 ,305.19 feet and North 88°38'40" West 640.23 feet from South quarter corner; thence North 01°05'22" East 430.00 feet; thence South 88'38'40" East 320.81 feet; thence South 01°10'52" West to the South line of said subdivision; thence North 88°38'40 West to point of beginning. Dated August 14 19 79 1 (1,1f& CQ-Mlitqkv V4/\n/T::)119Sk. Sandra J'an Mi' le,.r (Individ l)e h . iller 1„-A..-_,--xr / w -—>- 1._..-.c i' By Shap6n Jan Roz,.on Individual)_ //7 President) By Anthony Dean zgtti i/ CC,/ Secretary) STATE OF WASHINGTON STATE OF WASHINGTON I COUNTY OF King SS' COUNTY OF ss. On this day personally appeared before me Sandra On this day of Jean Miller, Sharon Jan Rozanski , and 19_, before me,the undersigned, a Notary Public in and Anthony Dean Lazetti and Keith L. Miller for the State of Washington,duly commissioned and sworn, to me known to be the individual described in and who personally appeared executed the within and foregoing instrument,and acknowl- edged that they and signed the same as their to me known to be the President free and voluntary act and deed, for the uses and purposes and Secretary, respectively, of therein mentioned. the corporation that executed the foregoing instrument, and GIVEN under my hand and official seal this acknowledged the said instrument to be the free and volun- 1 5th_ day of August , 19 79 tary act and deed of said corporation,for the uses and pur- poses therein mentioned, and on oath stated that authorized to execute the said instrument and that the seal affixed is the corporate seal of Notary Public in and f r he Sta e of Washington, residing said corporation. at B thel Witness my hand and official seal hereto affixed the day and year first above written. Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, residing sAneco 11,1.It' Inirourtmilmou, vi • on.. Lilne! 114.1?,'ARY C00.,17•9 7.47.117r rORt4 CROW Aw-hue or4 Att,etatIl Don 7ittn OPtMa"r Ito f !.A!,r171/1tONAN'';W:T/t,fi',' Or If r Jaly• 17 r7c, TN the, ttpiN triloosettOn falls tO 010M,' 4 raart,AlatIon ehari•.6.4 for hp,rvicon romelorii Inat....torrIgrIc'ef with our uch.-.71/J1 SM.T.Cf) 7!.rt.F TIVVRANCr 4:1,1%..vs rOrji it'T 4PIP fon r ta t.4.1 .fioc;,.irt...at INA nr fpril c.-10, $4 4 al NN f or Vi rk; erm;=ro,:•e. as ridiebItcrti thit: pre.1 int nary' coypu rrl,v!rttf!=at t r to .th-,t r•rnrrty 1p7),,irt, ithroiro ahm.I. 1.n SANDRA ..11'AN ,Nittr'R at=1 hq,r elop,IrQtr. v., t••; PrccJ A. •:11ARON JAN ftfriMItt •orroorl SRAMON JAN rTI rt tat,, coitoPetrcv! prwic DAN L ,7„r•77 .!i4.!-7,arary. ,T,totati? ay. to 112i rce.0 Al, et nte tn th t orom 'loin ir t rum ce: 1‘,41 r tlr.ts 2v-! u-vcoot :oat volt-1111mi tr ool A‘,..!y rm rt ccrifital 2hall ro :forcl° or o-frt.‹!'". t!7C011 44 'NfOPIO t7',P r:ovorap,:! norr,lo 14//liol& tAR01.3.) .? 4..! 7ovo.At:,-..;•11.1qr1 t'.7 :!.ri,rowr ervi tr,•r t on p.rttc t " T1 a r.„-,'s : or vitt triar or ,.. tricity I . 4Ak. • •••.•; t:' Ori.t.4".r 2.7 rINI$IT "I" MCA. A South 43 .5 foet 1kt.4t NI!! 1:10'. Tatar, P'131 !. c uarterofSouthwt-nt quari,.-r of Sedtion 4 Township 21 North t'ugttnKingConntyWashin4ton PAIC,9, Iteglhoil7 North 6' 12" . aet 1. . 105 11 romt of South quarter tornfrofauction4Towns-hi, 23 Worth. Rain 5 Zsat U.K, in Kiwg ConntY, Washington:thonee North OR.38'40" West 640, 25 feot: tlwees North 41'03'22 Kant 143. 5 flet to trim point o!' 6stionint!thrnce Worth n1"0,122" &sat 143 feet! thenou Veuth $4"31.1'40'' Kest 1v1,i5 feet, thsnoo !Tooth 01"10. 2" West 143'reet! thesol North ii '4a" U4tit Th4fer,,t to point of beginning PART.. r North 141 i !set o! nort,ton of Vest be4f of rast half ofNortheastquartsrofSouthwestquarterInSe7lotion4Township23NorthRaneeT.Irst V fl in King County Washington, dtsertSee AO follgirs MorfnnIng 116t0111.14'12" EftstI 31)5. P fevt on4 North 384W40" West14("./• 21 fe,tt from South qoArt(t.t. rorott- tht.Inel NortN•01",5'22" tant 4,31.: feet: thence it 3101"3.8'40".Yast 320, 91 fnot, theme* South 0114052" Were to the Soutb lino, ofnaI4thence, Norei 58.38'40" %tat :to roint *f heginning rtft,'";CIALPTION rrlr, ATTAatiED NWT° AND NADr A ',A,11"7 c7C:F.PTION5 JAVIMOMt affecting portion o: at nrpliive-t1 4014 or tilt& pnrr#vm,on tokto.;chicly/104 by ,t'llUrtsMetAlt rcord(A4'.! NoV4,441 .r INTO ttwo co, tee of 0-0.1 n-mordrry , r,,t.:er rity:-. C000ty tranbIngtoo tirtdor rk,,nor4i AR, ntamhkr 35134174 To r Road Affectc West It) ft,et 04 t1-00 Soutt, 43 5 ;'..t,e1 of Pare421 C the Wet 30 firet tl-e North 1.1. 5 fttlot of Paree4 NOTZ Ottoiiral taxes 1'or Chi,: 11IN Cho sou 0 $71 ,t)0, hwiheirat p tit Parcel A - Account No 0423-0A) 7 Getv.,riAl taloti for th/ the vcst 17 ll the Amoottt of 147 3) Al Cecti; Atozolat GitnefraL t tor Vat sncond )$al..f 4.0 th yoAr Ilr it th'y .1nomat 47.13 At eta Parrci t 4230-5- 25,6-On) 3 1.5....to or. real, *state Itteise z4Orir, t4 !iron any sole PPAil r..aritto§ tf unpall 30TP It is or D rtnifl ttt taq to vest in LOUIS G MAL:751:1 AND 'MA": hnahand an4 wife sk not no AcCP3* ot; rocord to NireLl A ! *AO parcels are to 1* Art'i ,t,0 tn 01.1 futore An *Ammon? to Parce:. A OVIAt h* validly cresteco recov41 to estAhlivh anCS anni*Mo Own r et& 8t*1' 1tdCOV.4riaft,t Ataottat $86 son op Prvniqm 14:1 '')f) rit:4 Is SJiatps. fl f m0o.por vi./I th 9-01 zrani'elc:7 1 .17XC; i Z I - i,•-• t rn( P Z-•'917.0.6121 1 _4e) v I : 1 t._ __.._!._ 11N fli vi IA I i I ce.eze ii 1 1 IN I i: I' ! i: IA k110 I ',I ire c iit. 9Cir; ""451,, . Z r 71;t1 Z d•-.) r, 1 I• , 1 1 , . I-is s.. ••,-- G, RII11OHzi1 III 4)og ,og 1 11 N 1 1 c,..•.,,, I •••• v.4 tv,..1 ,—,-- ;.-- .- •-••iii..--77, dcrL,. -t7 ''"'w ; krrev. i •, ..,,• .• '• h0K•Ae41010:64‘.40416010c*,4,gretvAitb— moai r.,.. 0* v$0,`:- 1,14i:''' 9 r 01i . TY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM pI; i!p, ti : f, i; Li FOR OFFICE USE ONLY SEP 1 1982 Application No.t2-' )(o-4—f42 BUILI. 1NG/ZONING DEPT. Environmental Checklist No. f.:Lf ^ 0(p(p-4110... PROPOSED, date: A - n'-32. FINAL , date : Declaration of Significance Declaration of Significance 0 Declaration of Non-Significance D 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 explanatior in the space provided, or use additional pages if necessary. You should include references to any reports or studies of which you are aware and which are rele- vant to the answers you provide. Complete answers to these questions now will help all agencies involved with your proposal to undertake the required environmental review with- out unnecessary delay. The following questions apply to your total proposal , not just to the license for which you are currently applying or the proposal for which approval is sought. Your answers should include the impacts which will be caused by your proposal when it is completed , even though completion may not occur until sometime in the future. This will allow all of the agencies which will be involved to complete their environmental review now, with- out duplicating paperwork in the future. NOTE: This is a standard form being used by all state and local agencies in the State of Washington for various types of proposals . Many of the questions may not apply to your proposal . If a question does not apply, just answer it "no" and continue on to the next question. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM I . BACKGROUND 1. Name of Proponent Louis Malesis 2. Address and phone number of Proponent: 313 Rainier Ave South, Renton, WA 98055 228 - 6622 3. Date Checklist submitted August 23, 1982 4. Agency requiring Checklist City of Renton Planning Dept, 5. Name of proposal , if applicable: No name 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) : Rezone of subject site from R-2 to R-3. Site area is 3. 16 acres. Potential development of approximately 72 dwelling units, together with parking, recreation, landscaping, and necessary utilities. Maximum development p_ermitted in R-3 Zone could be 79 dwelling units for this site. 2- 7. Location of proposal (describe the physical setting of the proposal , as well as the extent of the land area affected by any environmental impacts , including any other information needed to give an accurate understanding of the environ- mental setting of the proposal ) : Parcel is located at the Easr end of NE 16th St. , East of Kirkland AVE NE. , City of Renton. A wooded site with average slope of 5%. Ac- cecs is free Kirkland Avc NE by NE 16th Street. Areas affected by environmental impacts include the site itself, adjoining properties, and the access streets to the site. 8. Estimated date for completion of the proposal : For ultimate development: during 1984, subject to long term inter- est rates . 9. List of all permits , licenses or government approvals required for the proposal federal , state and local --including rezones) : Rezone, and Building Permits. 10. Do you have any plans for future additions , expansion , or further activity related to or connected with this proposal ? If yes , explain : No. Only the proposed rezone and future residential development. 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: An nppliHarinn fnr Building Permit will he £i1' d at a future date which is the reason for this Rezone Application. 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? YES MAYBE NO b) Disruptions , displacements , compaction or over- covering of the soil? YES MAYBE NO c) Change in topography or ground surface relief features? X ES MAYBE NO d) The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? YES MAYBE NO e) Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils , either on or off the site? X YES MAYBE NO f) Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands , or changes in siltation , deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay , inlet or lake? X YES MAYBE NO Explanation: (b) Normal excavations , displacements, and overcovering of soil, required by future construction. c) Minor grade changes necessary for private driveways, and siting of buildings . e) Temporary erosion may occur during construction before land- scaping and paving is in place. This will be mitigated by tem- porary erosion control measures.. 3- 2) Air. Will the proposal result in : a) Air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? X YES MAYBE NO b) The creation of objectionable odors? X YES MlBE NO c) Alteration of air movement , moisture or temperature , or any change in climate , either locally or regionally? YES MAYBE NU Explanation: (a) Temporary dust emission during early construction period, which can be controlled. Short term presence of odors while paving is taking place. 3) Water. Will the proposal result in: a) Changes in currents , or the course of direction of water movements , in either marine or fresh waters? X YES MAYBE NO b) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns , or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? X YES MAYBE NO c) Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? X YES MAYBE NO d) Change in the amount of surface water in any water X body? YES MAYBE NO e) Discharge into surface waters , or in any alteration surface water quality, including but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? X YES MAYBE NO f) Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of X ground waters? YES MAYBE NO g) Change in the quantity of ground waters , either through direct additions or withdrawals , or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? X YES MAYBE NO h) Deterioration in ground water quality, either through direct injection , or through the seepage of leachate, phosphates , detergents , waterborne virus or bacteria, X or other substances into the ground waters? YES MAYBE NO i ) Reduction in the amount of water otherwise available Xforpublicwatersupplies? YES MAYBE NO Explanation: (b) Surface water runoff will increase due to con- struction, and replacement of pervious surfaces with impervious, (roofs and paving) . Storm water retention will be pLuvided in final development. 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 , yXmicrofloraandaquaticplants)? YES M YBE IVt7 b) Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of flora? YES MAYBE c) Introduction of new species of flora into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing X species? YES MAYBE NO d) Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? Y-! MAYBE NO Explanation: 4- 5) Fauna. Will the proposal result in: a) Changes in the diversity of species , or numbers of any species of fauna (birds , land animals including reptiles , fish and shellfish, benthic organisms , insects or microfauna)? X YES MAYBE NO b) Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of fauna? X YES MAYBE NO c) Introduction of new species of fauna into an area , or result in a barrier to the migration or movement X of fauna? YES MAYBE NO d) Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? X YES MAYBE NO Explanation: 6) Noise. Will the proposal increase existing noise levels? X YES MAYBE NO Explanation : Normal increased noise levels caused by construction activity, which will be only temporary. Permanent noise levels will be increased by the presence of additional population and traffic. 7) Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or glare?XY - MAYBE WU— Explanation: New light created by proposed dwelling units . Outdoor lighting can be controlled by proper fixture selection, and screening between development and adjoining properties . 8) Land Use. Will the proposal result in the alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? YES MAYBE NO Explanation: 9) Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in : a) Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? X YES MAYBE NO b) Depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource? X YES MAYBE NO Explanation: 10) Risk of Upset. Does the proposal involve a risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including , but not limited to, oil , pesticides , chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? X YES MAYBE NO Explanation: 11) Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distri- bution, density, or growth rate of the human population X of an area? YES MBE Explanation: Density of population will increase when development is completed, however the increase is planned as noted in the Compre- hensive Plan. 1 6- d) Sewer or septic tanks?X YES MAYBE NO e) Storm water drainage? X YES MAYBE NO f) Solid waste and disposal? X YES MAYBE NO Explanation: Development will require extention of utilities to the site from those existing in Kirkland Ave NE. No major alter- ation of facilities should be required. 17) Human Health. Will the proposal result in the creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? X YES MAYBE NO Explanation: 18) Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view?X YES MAYBE NO Explanation: 19) Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? X YES MAYBE NO Explanation: Please refer to explanation in 14(d) above. 20) Archeological/Historical . Will the proposal result in an alteration of a significant archeological or historical site, structure, object or building? YES Mom- N 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 rel'i,an upn this checklist should there be any willful misrepresentation or willfuJ(__j: c o ul 1disc/ sure on my part. F Proponent: `- signed)1, 77 Luis Malesis name printed) City of Renton Planning Department 5-76 5- 12) Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing , or create a demand for additional housing? X YES MAYBE NO Explanation : Proposal will meet demand for additional housing. 1 ) Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in : a) Generation of additional vehicular movement? X YES MAYBE NO b) Effects on existing parking facilities , or demand Xfornewparking? YES MAYBE NO c) Impact upon existing transportation systems? X YES MAYBE NO d) Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? YES MAYBE NO e) Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? X YES MAYBE NO f) Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles , bicyclists or pedestrians? X YES MAYBE NO Normal increased traffic from additionaldwellingExplanation: (a) units will occur. (b) No effect on existing parking facilities; new parking facilities will be provided to meet new demand. f) Increased hazards could occur from increased traffic load. 14) Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon , or result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas : a) Fire protection? X YES MAYBE NO b) Police protection? X YES MAYBE NO c) Schools? X YES MAYBE NO d) Parks or other recreational facilities? X YES MAYBE NO e) Maintenance of public facilities , including roads? X YES MAYBE NO f) Other governmental services? X YES MAYBE NO d) Increased population from this developmentcouldExplanation: ( increase use of local parks, or shift use of parks from others in in the City. Recreational opportunities will be included in the development. 15) Energy. Will the proposal result in : a) Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? YES MAYBE NO b) Demand upon existing sources of energy, or require X the development of new sources of energy? YES MAYBE NO Explanation : 16) Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or alterations to the following utilities : a) Power or natural gas? X YES MAYBE NO b) Communications systems?X YES MAYBE NO c) Water? X YES MAYBE NO eceipt # CITY OF RENTON PLANNING DEPARTMENT NAME DATE e/)- , PROJECT & LOCATION application Type Basic Fee Acreage Fee Total Environmental Checklist Environmental Checklist Construction Valuation Fee TOTAL FEES Please take this receipt and your payment to the Finance Department on the first floor. Thank yot . LNDING OF FILE Fig TITLE