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 AboutLUA80-123 • �^ is •ter;' • :?:*�`"S i 't M1v:/I :\i��:. 1 4t S /Y C•Y 1' I n' i:i%1'r: -Y.�" - l l h ��a 1M- �,l'i q • .a ,J1, .f �e 7F , . ,.K�. ,•�.war• .: ,:. :i:'"'�r t • ,Ni`. n, ,1. unc 1 `f n on Ci t -Co Y` - a 2' 8 _2 1 2 ,>;+ P 9 .4. i' e .rq. o riu s n A enda� C n't 1 Cone t ;� 9 wi h cond.i t ion l ' ``1 ''r:`F�red :Ka�'u'fman`-.recom_mended; 'a royal t Schne.ider.: iiear.i„ng Exam fie, PP, �?- - � r' ,.the�'Ger'aTiJ";1tn'e i der: (�H i•11'taP).:.Rezon'e.,R=,124 80 from R-2' to'" ` `,'' _Con't'ruet�i on'' Co;Cp,:;+ o;,,.;• • i al°� ;�, `f ,4'8'un'i t res dent i:al:"Perini t for'-,,for'.. '1 r, y.R,ezone 'l"2�' 80:a�::and'.. ` 3; and"�>Spec ;,.,- S reef. •� s: 's�i.de``'of:;�Monroe:::NE`'"no.r'tN.'of NE 4th t �:. �SP 1.2 -80`��` cotnpl'ex'�`.on,`t'lie: ea t:' ;: i e. . _ r;-'' r'd nanc ,' mmi` tee:fo a f •he:�.Wa�:s.:an�d: Means:°..:Co t ,:, Re .e.r-`-to��`.t Y .. A G D S �A EN � •ENT 0 N „G= C PT-`:TH E C7. N S •lJ �E 0� D`H H A L K- EC N M VED�':•I3�Y .STRED C E �,- ;Consent"tA 'erida'' 0 ;; _ S T.ED- :C ARR`IE D':PR EN A r oval: AS E • P �' . '.:.' a .. , � ...,:.. „v.. ,'� " , ,1 ice' t t `L�. f ' i o ce 'e i o n t d` ,c t s. �rre orWebae' °an noi�c e re •' '.G Cou11-on,-' :;''Letter��.;f`rom.'Bark �D ct yt- - P �^ �Ali :_�;.. .z 0 door'.. Committee- for ut Wash i n ton,; State: I ntera' nc:'' ,':x. ;Beach P,ark,: `,�`� ;fr`om�`�.the' . g 9. .Y , ,: :., = ' A . _ '.a 'ro os`al� .from Phese 2 ;>'; R rea ion; tiia.t 'fhe C t s: 1'980'°a `r nt p Funds. ec t Y .9 l?' r`'?..c,,•: sf in I. -.,. t s''~'`s e s u'1 t �'i: Bac ar �w ucc • , f:.:' he''+'Gene.' o o Memo r a e h=� a,.. 'd `E'ede'ra`l�`'�fun�'i'n This br i.n' s . �::.'� .,, , _> rno:unt of, $45.0,000of,'::.Sta,t �an 9:• 9. . ro e' i �o 00 for ct f ±'d n"- f-: de` un you� p te:a 9<.,. �4 _ h ^.i1':i. '• i i mb r one n - ro b `w 'ra ed `nu e � s ahe ran `R": Te:�� setter: tated'�' h ,.l ��9 P. P 1 }" wi h f' h t e a` `i i d t- •f. ra e'�S` '_f �are: t 'P r Board'�:a nd' t'a and'�: 'lie''•. a k' w r h' s �d 22 000 00 o t �i�oris ub t- i sd`i� $r ct i:` hr�ee' `�u 4 1� s` Th rt t i Y J _ 's wide with e t ,. fore' 4 �000 000„ fate ��'of' ro'ec'ts.' com �etin $ , If :{~ i h' inquired t hS i lia;.e '�^ ` fie�'a' r e t:,' rant': �+` n loran` n , - :rece:iw;i:n a, a g g - y,xtk �'i arf r"', ed u r' a ro �.from` he::'wote ,�., would 6`e subtracted 't ;�f,::. amo n:t• PP. .>:.• 'a' vi`sed '''.h�e'•:funds.`'h'ad� `been. Gann \•,....�.� Pa'rks'` U i re'ctor?°--Webl:ey�> d t P Ff f he t1, d o t ::',,. b` n s �^,00` o S 5. "v r�`°in la`t �. , - he. �r� 'eCt-, _to��:co. e ,S•. , r�., =k� �,u "d``'< ;s h b ''1 ce � n •d. 'I e t` v.bee o ,iie o a a ssu 'have' 1 p'' bo e' d p %r. s' - f Is 4:.�} t, f r v o :,, iv'ii �a r o al s'�:.r e C" h 'a ece e i t�`;anno "n ced'.;��th Sh':n� och u p �nd�- ''Ma o - � P 'Y't c i. ot ion P am'' n �d n �8�1`.B ock'':-Grant` ro- r Dula' Commun'i�t:' 03�� 209: for,`�t He:'19. 1 9°P si.'S i.- Hu n P.r� r'a m en or o and� needs` fund�5��<for. :Hoes-i n' <As i to c 9. ;ti>',; .•;.11; .-."+'. ria'nJ 'cirr.id.r.•\D'e,,i4.: laena' L'�,,,,y .t Park• .Community ;Funds .and'-,�'Pedest ,: R,. �`:`. Y' ;,f>,,u '�' c.-., , Yuah m o- 'Pro ra t ea.l-. Ca re'.. �P� 'se a -°i'o n:. h'a r'�reno :'a�t 9.'Cena`e v 3',' s i H' � n r •nc o s �a on YW A'' Eme e i' n •oar` t Pr am en Y 9,,'` 'y,>;• �'Ser .ice o r P �': 9 ::air L k F`'' f r Fie a e. :�' lann n` ndu. • "t e to 1' u nd o t 9°'. p. �' f a,. d a' rep',:a: rov�d -i n h amoun o'f':`', `:"';�;' ;;;��:;;- .{. k,�ti.�: -Des'i're��:�Da :Lod"e: o`r '.h n c ,.w:e e t e- t r ' "a '��, Y 9. PP p.P.. 'P, ,l: t st: 1 'd n 's:i` ::Pro r`a'' �i t '., 0�'.00'0,,; nd:=::the. e.l H H P 9 i': a� h t e i 'k fit• a' 'P" �s i'dent t , '''S' Cou�nc l�`, 'b:"" ��u ci 'm n'" h'an �i-r: :�Co n M t. 4: G.}. n d exla e t a t,,'t r 6.;. 's •`,ha J' :V.L: :: p• R e c v een an .; •1' ',wly `:C-r: r �e` 4; t d :µ aa. — .v: _ 5 m• _ i. b i ed rn 'R 11 u tt 'v` `m� �'Commi=t.t.ee'::�Cha'ir an: ockh OLD' 'BUSINE-SS:�� "P1'anni`n" '�an:d'`�De e,lop ent' :_ s' gmm i s i i. o on P 'ann n C 'g'p . .'he� 1:'i' �on` 1A ,t `��' i;n - and: '�comm„ t:tee ,re o,�r_t.`reca 1.1 ,n, f:9% / 9 t " -,'P`' iies- .Element "of.:a,he.' Com rehens-i.ve:'±', :.;�1+;rd:; DeveYoPment' - _ :recommended ;a'p;proval, ofk'. the o.l. c - p f"was e e i em. n J�;� 0 Ei' 80�'';thePo l c:i`e"s:'.E.1 e t -:Comm i t'tee: ; � ..P'1 an.°ao�:Coun,c i, 1 / / �:";,;• _ ;:,E,,;.,,; :' ;;r Y f 'e "i wand'"r.e om-: �, i.n nd' IDev .lo enfi :Comm:i�:�t:tee. .o:r'a;.'r v e C :.t':' 1., , P:evel.' '°.EIen-,'n :'to; n..19:-'' .. g a pm i T'e ,comm i't' ee'``recommended':' ref'erra:l 'of the" re'v i"se'd ;::,;''??;,:';' Comprehens:.v.e:,P.'1'an:,:mendat'on h t , : M' ;`,� 's i:' P'.-a. 'o` the a a n ea Ro-1'i`c`i.es�'�".E"l einen�t�';of the' Com"rehe'n ve. 1. n •t y ,�: - I'Y R KH LL`MrVDB OC - 'i OE f � ` _' on�°f are` o' :o t=C mmi ee.. or:� �e t n • .� �� - = SECOND`',CLYMER' ..COUNCfL'��'CONG,UR`','IN�;THE,>RECOMMENDATION OF THE,,'� ,;:<�F, '-:;r :�,''?=L;�_:;;K\:; • V OPM T •COMMI'TT:EE:: ;Follow'i..n' discussi'on, the, :�',. ,:�4'�a-, :' PLANNING AND. OE EL EN 9 ; RI°ED' - Mo �i on -C AR • -t Public Safety Public Safety Committee' Chai rman'•Hughes"'submi`tted the committee, ': ,r"•.1,'" • 1Comm • re or '.':noti`n" rev.i.ew'` of 'Poll'ice'' De artment'`reques.t for adoption ,...; ;''r. Co ttee P 9 P, Cr'imina Code. T.,.';,,: of section � of, the:�RC,W':State Code.'b C'i t. � ord i Hance re and i n �:�;:: '�.'-;:j�,'J�.:,;;:yes: y. y; g g fraud forgery 4. o obtainingsignature"b dece t-i.n ordure s~'and forged' p rescr l pt l on. ''The''Committee.``concurred'_ I n• the City -'1'r Attorneys .recommendation to adopt; by."reference, certain addi- 's tional sections of.'Title' 9A, Washingto.n::`Criminal Code, _Title,.9:,; ';,cti/`;<tr `:' Cr.i mes and .Punishme•nts ,and Title 69, Food ;,.'Drugs,.• Cosmetics and,:, ' ?,,'< r:r " Possession. The Committee.•recommended'•referra:l to the Ways and : ' '``s Means •Comm i ttee''for,' 'ro er 'll a 'i s.l a't ion.. MOVED :BY HUGHES.;.''SEC:OND:..;tr.;;;=,;fins;:, P P g ROKCH_I,LL,. CONCUR .I N`'COMM ITTEE':.:REC.•OMMENDAT ION':": CARR I:ED 4~. ,� ,a' ,,:,,>, si a: ;,. .., .:. .',:::� a .�, "'.� `t. � , " Pawnb.roker's:', . The Public ,Saf'et ,Commi''t.tee.'":'recommended,' ape",rova`l .of. a pawn- ' ,'.;'r•r;,S,-,::.:, ` Y' pP. ,. s, L'i ense' broker s".license to;,S.M: Stus`ser`and..-S'am L�';:',.;Slo Pioneer, . ` k .',.;;,.,. in L... ;Pro ress i ve 'Jewel�r `�and. o:an `� 234;-.`<S,:Wells"-S't:: .' The. report;.,.c 1,. ,;,.,, • attention•.to the fact that'''th'e'.'l i:cense"'was ,issued •prior to Counci:l,,=;�,_,�35; ;,, x r ha l i cens i n of awnbrokers:' 'Tit:l e -1,202:'2''C i t Code).;;'% <:::;;,,..:-', .app oval ; t t 9:= P, '( `5� . y -;�:.,�,.:..,.� indicates: •that Council - a rova:.l ''be ob.ta:i,nedA,before license i's:.; ;::: -; :':;1>s'r: PP : ' , . :..,.. . din i.n i s tr'a:=' ;:;.7 `;:= ', '':,.:.',.:. :.' �s ued'r;i; :The 'repor;'t:'r.ecommended: <t.hat'' 'i n`. t'.he,:;+future the A i on'com' 1 with-o:rd.i,Hance.':'requirements.'or'.;.r.:e :ues,t`.ordinance change.=t.;;, ; ':r` I 0 r.- Y.,., : �I= M DAT N: 'CA' R�:L_ED'M b`�.RO� .t'��r=.' NC .1 ' OM EN .',',;�: OVED:`B'Y; HUGHES��'�';SECON CKH L C URA'', N,:R-CC R .,,'�.•r�:a l y� ' a.{•F-.1 %iV:S:.'„ : itl'• 'il:.if5ti!J.\ 1: r't�:�.i ,1" /•4 i •a• J Y 1•i} r ' 4' 1 7 s •L,w i:(" FYI 4F'tc BEGINNING OF FILE FILE TITLE S PAC t l4(. PEaM MOn►ROE AVE. NE srwN NE 11/6121 ( , ii+ ) • �CMNE► DER c.UNSrRucnoN co. i Il PG SO / OF i o THE CITY OF RENTON `• ® Z MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON,WASH. 98055 • n rn CHARLES J. DELAURENTI • MAYOR DELORES A. MEAD 0 cD, i-I;!rsad±.r.. Y. S m .apocil CITY CLERK 0,9q��D SEP1E��P February 25, 196 l.'.^-_raid .u. Schneidcr 6516 gS5:�u1 hccn'ter kavd. Luk?�.Lia, .,'i\ 93l;j:5 =eL> AEzone .24/ u ScEii cider Cons'.ruc`±.on Co dear Sir, The Renton City Council, during its regular meeting on Monday, LAru„-zry 23 196i has adopted Ord-,ni,:..cu :as. 35:L0 A copy is enclosed for your information. Yours very truly, CITY OF RENTON Delores A. Mead, C.M. C. City Clerk DAM:jteb ,b, Enclosure I / OF I 10 THE CITY OF RENTON U 4$ yam, ,- MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, WASH. 98055 n ;ti o BARBARA'. Y. SHINPOCH, MAYOR • LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER 9'O FRED J. KAUFMAN. 235-2593 0 9�TFO SEP1E��P January 26, 1981 Mr. Richard Wilson 403 Columbia Street. Seattle, WA 98104 RE: File No. R-124-80, SP-123-80; Gerald E. Schneider (Hilltop) . Dear Mr. Wilson: This is to notify you that the above referenced requests, which were approved subject to conditions as noted on the Examiner's report of January 9, 1981 , have not been appealed within the time period established by ordinance. Therefore, these applications are being forwarded to the City Council for final approval . You will receive notification of final approval upon adoption of an ordinance by the City Council . Sincerely, T—LIJ( Fred J. K fman Hearing Examiner cc: Planning Department City Clerk For Use By City Clerk's Office Only A. I . # AGENDA ITEM RENTON CITY COUNCIL MEETING SUBMITTING Dept./Div./Bd./Comm. Land Use Hearing Examiner For Agenda Of 2-2-81 (Meeting Date) Staff Contact Marilyn J. Petersen (Name) Agenda Status: SUBJECT: File No. R-124-80, SP-123-80; Consent X Public Hearing Gerald E. Schneider (Hilltop) Correspondence Ordinance/Resolution X Old Business Exhibits: (Legal Descr. , Maps, Etc. )Attach New Business Study Session A. Examiner's Report, 1-9-81 Other B. C Approval : Legal Dept. Yes No N/A X COUNCIL ACTION RECOMMENDED: Approval with Finance Dept. Yes No. N/A X conditions Other Clearance FISCAL IMPACT: Expenditure Required $ Amount Appropriation- $ Budgeted Transfer Required SUMMARY (Background information, prior action and effect of implementation) (Attach additional pages if necessary. ) The appeal period for the attached Examiner's Recommendation expired on January 23, 1981 , and the report is hereby transmitted to City Council members for review prior to placement on the City Council agenda of February 2, 1981 for referral to Ways and Means Committee. PARTIES OF RECORD/INTERESTED CITIZENS TO BE CONTACTED: See page 6 of the attached report. SUBMIT THIS COPY TO CITY CLERK BY NOON ON THURSDAY WITH DOCUMENTATION. AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING State of Washington) County of King ) • Marilyn J. Petersen being first duly sworn, upon oath disposes and states: That on the 9th day of January , 19 81 , 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 'A day of (\,A n u ‘- 19 5 \(\ (1,1:J . LUQ4 Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, residing at • Application, Petition or Case: R-124-80, SP-123-80; 'Gerald E. Schneider (The mi.nwtes contain a £&It of the panti.ea o1 necond. ) I M January 9, 1981 OFFICE OF THE LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE RENTON CITY COUNCIL. APPLICANT: Gerald E. Schneider FILE NO. R-124-80, SP-123-80 LOCATION: East side of Monroe Avenue N.E. approximately 600 feet north of N.E. 4th Street. SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The applicant requests a rezone from R-2 to R-3 and a special permit to allow construction of a 158 unit residential complex in an R-2 and R-3 zone. SUMMARY OF Planning Department: Approval with conditions. RECOMMENDATION: Hearing Examiner: Approval with conditions. PLANNING DEPARTMENT The Planning Department preliminary report was received by the REPORT: Examiner on December 24, 1980. PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the Planning Department report, examining available information on file with the application, and field checking the property and surrounding area, the Examiner conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows: The hearing was opened on December 30, 1980 at 10:15 *a.m. in the Council Chambers of the Renton Municipal Building. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner. It was reported that the Hearing Examiner and the applicant had received and reviewed the Planning Department report. Roger Blaylock, Associate Planner, presented the report, and entered the following exhibits into the record: Exhibit #1 : Application File for Rezone containing Planning Department report and other pertinent documents Exhibit #2: Survey Map of Rezone Proposal The Examiner requested testimony by .the applicant. Responding was: Richard Wilson 403 Columbia Street Seattle, WA 98104 Mr. Wilson discussed the purpose of the rezone and special permit requests to allow accessory parking for the proposed development in conformance with city ordinances and regulations, although he noted his opinion that the Parking and Loading Ordinance allows parking for multi-family uses on a contiguous lot with the building it is required to serve. He advised that the development as designed will provide an attractive addition to the City of Renton as well as a transition from the intense apartment complex currently under construction to the south of the subject site. Mr. Wilson reviewed the findings which must be made by the Examiner in order to grant a rezone, and advised that the proposal meets requirements found in Section 4-3014 (C) 1 . (c) and (a) of the Hearing Examiner Ordinance. Mr. Wilson indicated the applicant's exceptions to certain Planning Department recommendations as follows : In Section M.3, which requires installation of off-site improvements in front of existing single family residences located at the northeast corner of the subject site along Monroe Avenue N.E. , Mr. Wilson felt that the requirement is an unfair imposition to the applicant who does not own the property and will not derive any benefit from the improvement. In Section M.6, which requires payment of traffic fees, he advised that the Declaration of Non-Significance did not address this requirement, and therefore the city has no authority to require payment of fees by the applicant at this stage of approval . The Examiner concurred, noting that if the requirement was not imposed during SEPA or plat review, it cannot be imposed by the city at this time. Mr. Wilson objected to requirements contained in Section M.7, which request elimination of storage buildings from the site plan, noting that the two proposed storage buildings are necessary amenities for residents since units do not contain r///' R-124- __ , SP-123-80 Page Two sufficient storage space to meet residential needs , and elimination of these facilities would reduce the desirability of the units. Referencing Section M.8, which contains Fire Department revisions to the site plan including elimination of the proposed berm in the entryway, Mr. Wilson indicated that the proposal provides two 12-foot wide lanes with a 10-foot wide berm and parking would be prohibited by no-parking signs. He advised the applicant's willingness to shift the berm to the east in order to increase turning radius off of Monroe Avenue N.E. , but he encouraged approval of the proposed entryway to provide a more attractive design than a wide concrete strip. The Examiner requested testimony in support of the application. There was no response. He then invited comments in opposition. Responding was: Evan Davis 3517 N.E. 6th Street Renton, WA 98055 Mr. Davis indicated concern regarding the large expanse of parking area and the potential for noise emanating from participants of soccer and other games. In responding to Mr. Davis ' concerns, Mr. Wilson indicated doubt that such problems would develop due to the location of four residential buildings between the parking area and the single family development to the north. He also noted that several organized recreational areas are proposed including a swimming pool and tennis and basketball courts to preclude use of the parking area for organized sports. The Examiner also noted that internal landscaping is proposed within the parking area which would further discourage such activities. The Examiner requested further comments in support or opposition. There was no response. He then invited final comments from the Planning Department staff. Mr. Blaylock requested that the special permit application file'be incorporated into the record since previous testimony appeared to encompass both projects. Mr. Wilson also requested that the previous special permit file be entered into the record by reference. The Examiner concurred in both requests and entered the exhibits into the record as follows: Exhibit #3: Application File for Special Permit containing Planning Department report and other pertinent documents Exhibit #4: File No. SP-064-80 (by reference) Since no further comments were offered, the hearing regarding File No. R-124-80 and SP-123-80 was closed by the Examiner at 10:40 a.m. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS: Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS : 1 . The request is for approval of a reclassification of approximately .71 acres from R-2 (Duplex Residential ) to R-3 (Medium Density Multifamily Residential) together with a request for approval of a special permit to construct approximately 11 units per acre on approximately 4.94 acres of R-2 zoned property. 2. The application file containing the application, SEPA documentation, the Planning 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 the State Environmental Policy Act of 1971 , R.C.W. 43.21 .C. , as amended, a Declaration of Non-Significance has been issued for the subject proposal by the Environmental Review Committee, responsible official . 4. Plans for the proposal have been reviewed by all city departments affected by the impact of this development. 5. The applicant will provide on site storm drainage facilities. 6. All other existing utilities must be brought up to standards to provide adequate service to the development. 7. The subject property was part of the original plat of the city. The site was rezoned to R-2 and R-3 in March of 1979 by Ordinance No. 3293. • The applicant had proposed a special permit for the R-2 portion of the subject property which included using portions of the R-2 property for parking for R-3 density uses. That application was dismissed without prejudice and a PUD application was,submitted. Subsequently, the PUD application was withdrawn and the current application submitted which petitioned to rezone to R-3 that portion of the R-2 property necessary for R-3 parking. R-124�=�u, SP-123-80 Page Three Accompanying that rezone petition was the original special permit proposal (Special Permit 064-80) . 8. The subject site has generally irregular topography although it is generally higher in the north descending with knolls and valleys toward the south. The site is undeveloped and is covered with a variety of vegetation, including grasses, small shrubs and larger trees such as Douglas fir. 9. The Comprehensive Plan designates the area in which the subject property is located as suitable for the development of multifamily housing. 10. The subject site is located between an area of mixed commercial , multifamily residential and single family residential . Single family uses are located primarly to the north of the subject site while the commercial and multifamily uses are located south of the site along N.E. 4th Street. A new 20-lot single family preliminary plat has been approved just north of the subject site along N.E. 6th Street. This preliminary plat also includes Tract 1 which encompasses the subject site (See File No. PP-028-80) . A 244 unit apartment complex is currently under construction just south of the site. Just west of the subject site and abutted by the site on two sides are two single family residences located on Monroe Avenue N.E. The Greenwood Cemetery is located south of N.E. 4th and east of Monroe. 11 . The two single family residences on Monroe noted above are zoned GS-1 (General ; Single Family Residential ; Minimum lot size - 35,000 square feet) . The proposed 20-lot plat is located on property which is zoned R-1 (Single Family Residential ; Minimum lot size - 7,200 square feet) . North of the R-1 zone is a large S-1 (Single Family Residential ; Minimum lot size. - 40,000 square feet) zone. The proposed rezone would encompass property located just north of an R-3 zone and continue the R-3 zone. South, along N.E. 4th Street, between Monroe Avenue N.E. and Union Avenue N.E. is a B-1 (Business/Commercial) zone and two small parcels zoned L-1 (Light Industry) and T (Mobile Home Park) , respectively. 12. The proposed rezone of .71 acres will reduce the current acreage of the R-2 zone to 4.94 acres . The applicant proposes constructing a multiple family complex containing 158 units. The applicant proposes placing 62 of these units on the approximately 4.94 acres of R-2 property with the remaining units located on the R-3 portion of the property. Section 4-708(3) permits the establishment of less than eleven (11 ) units per acre with a special permit approved by the City Council subsequent to recommendation by the Hearing Examiner. Pursuant to Section 4-708(3) 4.94 acres will accommodate 54 units at 11 'units per acre, not the 62 units proposed. 13. The entire multifamily project will increase the population of the city by about 400 persons (2.5 persons per unit x 158 units) . The school age population will increase by approximately 40 students (.25 students per unit x 158 units) . The proposal will generate approximately 950 vehicle trips per day (6 trips per unit x 158 units) . Absent a special permit, only about 30 units could be constructed on the R-2 property. Under those circumstances the respective figures generated by the project would be a population of about 325, a school age population of 32, and a daily vehicle trip count of about 780. 14. Public transit is located along Monroe Avenue adjacent to the subject property. Public schools are located within two miles of the site with the Highlands Elementary School located within one-half mile of the site. Kiwanis Park is approximately one- half mile from the subject property. 15. The entire proposal will include 12 residential structures, a laundry, community building and various recreational amenities including a basketball court, tennis courts, a playground, a swimming pool and a jogging path. The Building Department has indicated that the two storage buildings included in the plans are not properly included in the R-2 or R-3 residential zones. 16. The buildings will be two story structures and some will include basements. There will be a mixture of 39 one-bedroom, 111 two-bedroom and eight three-bedroom units. The largest buildings will have 18 units each, the smallest, eight units. A total of 237 parking stalls will accommodate passenger vehicles and 16 separately fenced stalls will be reserved for recreational vehicles. 17. Section 4-702(1 ) defines an "accessory use or building" as follows: A 4ubandi.nate use an bu,i,tding cuotamanay .incident to and 2acated upan.the came ,tat occupied by the main use an bwi..2dLng. 18. The Fire Department has indicated that the landscaped central island/berm located in the entry driveway will intrude into the required 20-foot wide fire lane (Section 13.208 of the Uniform Fire Code) . The applicant has proposed two separate lanes for ingress and egress and each would be 12 feet wide. R-124 SP-123-80 Page Four The applicant has proposed a crash gate for emergency access at the eastern end of the complex abutting Olympia Avenue N.E. The Fire Department has recommended that the barrier be replaced with a locked gate. The Fire Department has indicated that all roads within the subject site must contain grades of less than 15%. Other fire safety measures will be determined when the applicant applies for a building permit. In order to assure proper response to emergencies originating on the subject property, the buildings must be clearly identified per the Fire and Police Departments. 19. The Planning Department and the Police Department have recommended that Monroe Avenue N.E. be widened and that improvements be installed the full length of the subject property including those portions of Monroe Avenue N.E. north of the subject property and adjacent to the two single family homes north and west of the subject property to ensure the continuity of improvements along Monroe Avenue N.E. 20. The subject property, known as Tract 1 of the Schneider Construction Company Plat of Hilltop, was part of a 21 -lot preliminary plat which was approved by the City Council on June 2, 1980. No final plat has been filed. CONCLUSIONS: (Rezone) 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 circumstances in the area in which the subject site is located since the last rezoning of the property or area. The applicant has demonstrated that the necessary criteria have been met to permit the reclassification of the subject property. 2. While the property was last reclassified only recently, there have been a number of changes in the area including the start on construction of the Mastro Apartments just south of the subject site. This complex will contain 244 units. 3. It was also discovered that the limitations of the narrow bands of R-2 and R-3 zoning which the last zoning created when coupled with the limitation of the restrictive covenants and the city's Planned Unit Development Ordinance placed greater constraints than were contemplated during that last rezone. The covenants and zoning were to limit construction to 180 units on the three parcels of zoning. The twenty-lot plat should have enabled the applicant to construct 160 additional units on the R-2 and R-3 property, but the constraints would have limited the applicant to about 130 units; therefore, the applicant petitioned to rezone the subject site. 4. The proposed classification of R-3 for the approximatelY. 31 ,000 square feet will not harm the adjoining properties nor will it injure the public welfare. The applicant will not increase. the population density of the land in question, but will provide a combination of landscaped parking and open space on the subject property. The R-3 designation is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan designation of Medium Density Multifamily for the area in which the property is located and will amount to an extension of the exising R-3 zone approximately 80 feet north in the center of the subject property. 5. The rezone will not interfere with nor violate the restrictive covenants executed at the time of the last reclassification of the subject property and will preserve the required buffers to the north and east. The remaining R-2 property, when coupled with the landscaping required along the northern property line, will effectively buffer the single family district to the north. 6. The applicant has indicated a willingness to restrict this reclassified R-3 property to parking and landscaping to limit the population density and restrictive covenants insuring this limitation will be required. R-124-80, SP-123-80 Page Five CONCLUSIONS (continued) : (Special Permit) 7. The applicant has proposed to construct approximately 62 units on approximately five acres of property pursuant to Section 4-708(3) . The proposal to place these units on the R-2 zoned land is part of the larger proposal to construct 158 units on the entire acreag e of Tract 1 of the Hilltop Plat. As indicated in Finding 12, the proposed rezone will reduce the R-2 acreage available to 4.94 acres, and therefore the R-2 property will only accommodate 54 units under the formula supplied by Section 4-708(3) . The applicant will have to scale down that portion of the proposal , but may scale up that portion of the property zoned R-3 within the constraints of Section 4-709(A) (2) . 8. Within the framework of Condition No. 7, the proposal to so use the R-2 zoned property is both compatible with the Comprehensive Plan and the transitional character of the area. The property to the north, also controlled by the applicant, is to be developed as a single family subdivision with 20 units. The special permit will enable the R-2 portion of Tract 1 to serve as a buffer between that single family use and the more intense R-3 use proposed for the southerly portion of Tract 1 and also the multifamily apartment complex (Mastro) under construction south of the subject properties. 9. The additional units the special permit will allow will provide additional housing in the city and the additional 30 units will not appreciably impact the adjacent properties nor harm the public welfare. The proposal will provide on site recreational amenities for its residents , thereby lessening impact on city parks and will not intrude on the single family uses to the north, east or west. Buffers will minimize the impact of the proposed use on these properties. The applicant will maintain a .25-foot buffer along the north property line and a 100-foot buffer along the east property line. 10. Because of the size and nature of the subject proposal and the fact that it will generate approximately 950 vehicle trips per day together with the fact that it is intimately related to the 20-lot plat just to the north and is actually part of that preliminary plat, the applicant should be required to improve Monroe Avenue N.E. concurrently with the construction on the subject site both as a safety measure and to assure that that roadway will be able to accommodate the anticipated traffic. The improvements should include but not be limited to street widening, lighting and sidewalks . Monroe Avenue N.E. runs north toward the large shopping complex along Sunset Boulevard N.E. which will certainly serve the residents of the proposed complex. Since the impacts of the project will not be solely limited to that portion of Monroe Avenue N.E. immediately adjacent to the site, the improvements should include the entire stretch of Monroe Avenue N.E. between the southern property line of Tract 1 and the north property line of the twenty lot subdivision including that portion fronting the single family homes on Monroe. 11 . The Fire Department has recommended the removal of the island/berm at the entrance driveway as the berm is in conflict with Section 13.208 of the Uniform Fire Code. While the proposal may be aesthetically more pleasing with the divided entryway, unless the Fire Department approves the safety aspects of the entry, the berm must be eliminated from the roadway and the roadway widened to an unobstructed 20 feet. Further, visibility for the turning movements from the driveway onto Monroe may be impaired by landscaping and the proximity of the island to the public right-of-way. Therefore, if the Fire Department approves the two 12-foot lanes, the berm must be designed subject to that approval so that it does not interfere with sight lines as approved by the Police and Traffic Engineering Departments. 12. The applicant has proposed that two storage structures be located on site as accessory structures to the multiple family units. The Zoning Code, Section 4-702(1 ) has defined an accessory use as a subordinate use customarily incident to the main use and located upon the same lot as the main use. The storage facilities are each approximately twenty feet wide by 80 to 90 feet long. As compared with the remainder of the proposal , they are clearly subordinate and serve an accessory use, namely, storage of personal property of residents of the project. Storage space, either in the form of a basement, attic, shed or cubicle, is customarily incident to residential uses and therefore the storage structures which the applicant has proposed should be permitted. The structures should be given the same outside appearance as the remainder of the structures and access to any unit of storage should be via an internal access rather than a series of separate external openings. 13. The entire landscaping plan including the proposed northerly and easterly buffers must be reviewed and approved by the city. e JAI • • I ''�•4 'o�� !•. ,•'�. °• •. .�1. .r•r.� kS/a,}{tj •j� • {••i.}+I- . ,Q it - ,•(.4!' .. . .4. 1°).3,4." �, •. _ 3 . • 1 .'.'J1,p�` .� • i , • ,, O , .•' \ ', C,• _- ••.a• ▪ ,'"`I.1 ties I I�' L1 „ • 11.4.... ; O• . . . 1 6 11 + ,A7 / • F 0 s;�,,• •,soncav-• \.,.-. {.. •�.,y,1a•,t•1-�....ry-.....•,..- ;....,��I .�oQ ..\ •�n.31 • • • I \!''- *, J- '- �� +j .: lJ} r3 .•,...-.0••'..d�lA •,,.r.lk• c-. .,.. .. . ---. 5 i...z. 7 ,E i Li_ . . • ti, L. ro,.cao..m ,3„...1.-., • • To . ,..• , .a jel ' ;' ;14'.t. '.' 1 '.4-•:?' ••(.4‘....)A▪ ' .,_ . , (G. • ' ..-"'...` • 1-1., %. .1'1: : ••)1,t"; --L. • . '...!,,, 1-..-1 ' :.!... !:1-: .. ;' 11. •' il..;• • , liii.. .,•`'a i . : II :...,-.%. -1: :i ,.. ..,•- ,.. � .1 ` �11� i• .s. . II1'1• �• ,',• Lam— _.-._._. .fig 2 0 �� +J !2 Fi .. • ' `,, lyl . 4• �• I 1 •0,@.6•• •0.69.ov.•..m. r •- I t I . L! - • 1 •z.,,/' 1 :r :,e--- men— —7?200 Imo: • ) ., N•C,7 d„ AZ ••T /rr 'I •'• ..• �'( • :1,•.••: •M 1 ,+ ' Ilk�j,:�." �1° •• ° I I I • . • e . • r . •1;,• • (...2 I[ryV�ytr. ,, r ,,.h!:c; fp ' • 1. ! •i 1 I ,H 4.e •f. ..• \'°•."�t •° 1, • •d Z r , r•i�M ° ••. 1 M • .a}•t• �f��.•„I'!1• ° �,�✓ ' �•� 4.4 �y ~y' [ a' ,� wl rY • • �Ny] 1. A �� w tit •�^,[L „a�:1•�•� y•a s.• I „ C�Y R J • •t,�7 fit; 'f; • •r ri a' g17 • •'R 5� , ' E�72-1• : ' ' „v. !,' "•�t ,�'t , •' �. ' �a ri{+l-1:.. 1*rm r' • 1..:'4...r, LI .,....,•.J 7Ln . ,Q'. ,. ' t S : . , ,r R_1 _. .• ._ ; ., A -. 4..` 1 .. . .�. .:00„,„,. ,,,,•„.e,...mitekili,F, 1 Ili i Ilit I. b• • .„ Vt••••. 0I 11 ��. ... �` it.L I1�, ,. a.45- ..,+w.at: ww . w.n..y.M'•nw.M+.. r^.n.vn..•w I •� � .la ,1 , II�Yjjj ..,.«w' Iiii ] t , '1 C+•'a� •32 ...A. -,.. ,.. vr,^•a•,.7',,......:.,.y.a_7R_'.i.. -•-. 'T— —•-- s®. •c...o r-- - T_ 1 1 °u"-4 es, 1 :t 1 1 . A, GREENWOOD "" I, ° r.:__ + r i sty' �, 11 CEMETERY /1 O L .., ,........,'.»-'a�'ao .. .cvvrs.• Gam, ._ i 3 i _ - - �' 4.• t , , II _ t------- /. ._ k t GERALD E . SCHNEIDER SP-123-80 HILLTOP APARTMENTS s R-124-80 . 1 i APPLICANT GERALD E. SCHNFJDER TOTAL AREA 1 , PRINCIPAL ACCESS V1R_Mouzoe Avenues N. E. • 1 EXISTING ZON I NG B.-2 and R-3 1 EXISTING USE Vacant PROPOSED USE 158 i.init multiple family complex 1 COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN Medium Density Multiple Family 1 COMMENTS • s t i . i 1 , ..._.w,. . . _... ......_ .._,M ,,._..,., . • ......M..,..� C4 - I G I d CROSS HATCHED AREA IS AREA TO BE REZONED - _ • ', , y ' (PRJooSEt'I • •• 1 rT Lam....... ��.ccx � w u"c .r---, 1 ' eAa t F9� I-ff _r�- . c,a: Pi mow •• �' , d: _r "-"• :a v.. _ :t. L •1,� •v� •n.. - . _ % o _ _ � : K -- — - r., - tog.. ...s.,ra tv. ^•u r ...::-...1. t"..'4.,e,...-a7--"--T...- ' [- ''...1i' t 3 A —• - - 5 ik - i : y Tract rrr • • 1- t 5 l _ rJ? 2s ,.e...4.4,�,�i•T`i•'�'Y'7i:� ••,j fi t. • - - .d `.• 1 Et3. �i-� — ( � •yam t •I•,�ar . +�J�S•ii • s t-` t bi+ 1 R,rta: ."X- { Q'1 .0 1•: .?•i;•ra iN GL r 1 r ti r •• < .X :n �, ., r � ' .-2; ...,• StI> l l f � e?: 1-ta. .,b4. t f.� .41 �= .f s`�' . - r j f_ t ` .. - ` .i ,..,5 �w.y¢6�9-ri_r�r ..M .•• 5-• _l i., t_1 {.! { 1 L.ti fie; �< n ! it T� _ -� i -.'y= +"• f �-i r-1 - _w..e ~� _ . _ :_ � "' .� �— �_" Carr, �.,. • I . 3. <. •r'a reTv S. -.,. r ply=,e.dV.•V :a. C. -L. :c :C. .c - o cv_ f-17 'W t •. a: 0 .— •y r^.r� .ram• — -.tug- :7+�3 --.'. • ,MT.. ay.'r lee,y'A• 05 U� .IKF. l A =.�'/6•+ - _ p�gj, - t. -4 - ` - _ •.,,ti,<. .. .`• ".• ap'.• '•:�. s.• ' •a• . •� '46... 0. SITE PLAN• Tract 1 ( ,:. f ' N --- -- ,.1 t I_ -, I . ilk p 4.- /MA ra a r t Me' -t ..t. ...I GERALD E. SCHNEIDER •58unit dov&ioprnent b REZONE REQUEST Shoo! Cor tructiosl Co. R-2 to R-3 ' k FILE NUMBER R-124-80 *33 jl 3 f i il 1 • // \ \ 1 1. / SA-O Q4.6•�j(fl:a?C,�. 7f-�ao evarec4 01 • ~ \ ♦ \\-- (4 C-'•- MC Fla ' -•9- (YS-..a71 •+ _ _ ,. co -r !'t MD Y•.r t v-AY p ^✓-" ��sst _t.. -' - _ _- _ -^-- -- - 1 �. _ tctF�a r..K 'P1. .W -. r. \ a*Vp- .lQT!.1.9KniA.we wrr•cuvrst-1 / /` , • _-_/ l I. I- :xro'Y tx.r5 - it,v.v.-uc _ / i F c.•'»+b M.,1.. trot•1J •i.J s4r. :&b _ -/ / ` ��-sa 's.ac sa // '/ s / /{ l ' Ta.Fo's ce�7 •0' cm*of R - -- •`- 1 \\ JJ/i'///%/r '// � / ;// Y \` --`�`\\`-\♦ -`` ♦ •`\ \ i/ r / C - \ \ \f • / • ' _, ...., I S ► ♦� I a1 rrm / �� CS l tr:SWED SUFEt3 \ o••+-ter r� ng. • \ \ - 1 • -:i"y' 42� Y�9Yv •-(/: (A-,3 i- -Y4LfY -. -••rr3-1 . ♦. . \ 1 . -- ! •. • .CY• t c 1.:''1- rT �- - �r'. L . ,,„,v. I ifj ba' i ,'F yi� __•,._ - . fn:Sv ,�„p.my . rC=-.;�• • `�ay. = - ./-. ts '____Jr. . . .vie.7 0 • ` / I �. } •Imp - i •'. •O / - tH • i ' ' ! 1_ _'amcr-e••1 • 1 •(. I ! t •� i s-‘../..t,xv,..) ..,:z.5..- ;v ' Z• .,g, ,___, ‘ -"f•''F •-"a' —L'17 •L'_. 3 �E .�,�•: -1 t �.?aq I h . (L • t� F yy 1 . I I ' . I ; FNi H 11 ,-.•" 04. , ta•••/• .... ; i I t 1: ri, • ` --♦� 'l_•� p�j '▪ ..I I - — —\'r'-t.�'T�.;J'1 .11 t1 MEIr •MOI • ,..�Y"�)'• i/ _ --.\�•.— _ L - �— LD�e s u.^-.�� '1-- \f 1 I I 1 I ♦ 'l R1 -1 �' N �r . /p-ry -,ii1.+ i ! Y1_—� I>J •••:" "0" '•• .'' ..1 i• . fi .. i A • . -• ''s• •I - Itigili ! r,,/,,,-- —,..,..- ___-_,.-,_.,.___ ._. lami -_(--...- ..:-...0510..,.(:)- af-s11: 0 ro If-0i .,- , ,—r- ,-:--N : 1 • . "../_,,;.1.--,--ei.... ' iC-''r .`�•-sri_ �"B'+..+y•n ��L1=-~ �•�• i F xa•� t. 1 Y10 •-,•\i. • • ♦9 - •• / tea- � -- ci- -_ ' » _ / °,3 _ ram �-- \ .. . { y \ ,,J' f 1 f.(a:.•.1 s••:i-7:r.-•.Pr)i,iz•::. O.ar7.ttrat,,l-•_Th fill PC • - m...e..-. .• • •• f•1 ©D ri( II::W .*J T,S /COC t�OS}itearrba'TL�.:wTEL¢W10 G1 Seat C WU, J - • CRriargreellina .0.+u w......� n.v.a y-/ IL LT SI. • • t • •• 'tt� by Schneider r �CJ� I• _ ♦ .- Lme�y.Ca+Drmn G fantrK .i - • -4. s`-;!'•- a onie� - ... f?wha.a c, +X Lbo1.d - ES _ " q • i •..i :. -'• -{� `n� cji • cam, a�. • ,7 SCHNEID�;R SPECIAL PERMIT SP-123-80 4:?' �' ,,�`r • • F 3' ' • PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING: GERALD E. SCHNEIDER; SP-123-80 & R-124-80 DECEMBER 30, 1980 PAGE TWO • D. P1'SIC ::' C1OUND: 1. Topography: The site has generally irregular topography with several knolls and valleys throughout. 2. Soils : Alderwood Gravelly Sandy Loam (AgC) . Perme- ability is moderately rapid in surface layer and very slow in the substrata. Runoff is slow to medium, and hazard of erosion is moderate. This soil is used for timber, pasture, and for urban development. 3. Vegetation: The site consists of. brush and scrub grass groundcover, together with various sizes of Douglas Fir trees scattered throughout the site. 4. Wildlife: Existing vegetation on the site provides suitable habitat for birds and small mammals. 5. Water: No surface water was observed on the subject site (October 16, 1980) . 6. Land Use: The subject site is presently undeveloped. Tiara single family residences are located to the southwest of the property, adjacent to Monroe Avenue N.E. A preliminary plat of 20 lots for single family residences has been approved to the north, while a 244 unit apartment complex is proposed to the south. Renton Vocational Technical Institute is located to the west of the site across Monroe Avenue N.E. E. 'NEII mOI T O D CHARACTER ISTICS: The area consists of a mixture of undeveloped land, commercial uses , and sparsely developed single family residences. The subject site is within a transitional area from the business uses and zoning along N.E. 4th Street to the single family residential community along and north of N.E. 6th Street. The immediate area is dominated by the function of Renton Vo-Tech Institute. F. P1:LLIC SERVICES : 1 . Water and Sewer: Existing in the area are 6 and 10-inch water mains along Monroe Avenue N.E. , and an 8-inch sewer main, while a 12-inch storm sewer is found on N.E. 4th Street. 2. Fire Protection: Provided by the Renton Fire Department as per Ordinance requirements. 3. Transit: Metro Transit Route # 107 operates along Monroe Avenue N.E. adjacent to the subject site. 4 . Schools : The subject site is within 1/2 mile of the Highlands Elementary School, while McKnight MIddle School is approximately one mile to the north, and Hazen High School is within two miles to the east. 5. Recreation: In addition to the vocational school grounds , Kiwanis Park is approximately 1/2 mile from the subject site. r / PLANNING DE1"ARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE m l:/A I N(G EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING DECEMBER 30, 1980 APPLICANT: GERALD E. SCHNEIDER FILE NUMBER: SP-123-80 & R-124-80 • A. S a mm/A t','7 E PURPOSE OF ," "4 UEST: The applicant requests a rezone from R-2 to R-3 and a special permit to allow construction of a 158 unit residential complex in an R-2 and R-3 zone. B. GENERAL II 'O m\TI ONT 1 . Owner of Record: GERALD E. SCHNEIDER 2. Applicant: GERALD E. SCHNEIDER 3. Location: East side of Monroe (Vicinity Map Attached) Avenue N.E. approximately 600° north of N.E. 4th Street 4. Legal Description: A detailed legal description is available on file in the Renton Planning Department. 5. Size of Property: approximately one out of a 9. 34 acres (total site) ; 0. 71 acres - rezone 6. Access: Via Monroe Avenue N.E. 7. Existing Zoning: R-2, Residence Multiple • Family; Minimum lot size 7200 + square feet. 8. Existing Zoning in the Area: GS-1 , R-1 , R-2 , R-3 , B-1 9. Comprehensive Land Use Plan: Medium Density Multiple Family 10. Notification: The applicant was :notified in writing of the hearing date. Notice was properly published in the Seattle Times on December 17 , 1980 and posted in three places on or near the site as required • by City ordinance on December 18, 1980. . C. IIS` rlfi A GN(i 1D: The subject site was part of the original plat of the City of Renton. It was rezoned from GS-1 to R-2 and R-3 by Ordinance # 3293 of March 16, 1979. PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING: GERALD E. SCHNEIDER; SP-123-80 & R-124-80 DECEMBER 30, 1980 PAGE FOUR L. PLANNING DEPARTNENT ANALYSIS: • 1 . The proposed rezone and special permit generally complies with the Comprehensive Plan designation. 2. The proposal complies with the restrictive covenants filed under Zoning Ordinance #3293 which limited maximum development on the R-1 , R-2 , and R-3 portions to 180 units. 20 units are proposed in a single family residential plat leaving a maximum 160 units for the multiple family development. A total of 158 dwelling units are proposed. 3. The Police Department recommends that the applicant make all necessary improvements to Monroe Avenue N.E. to its full width including that one small portion in front of the single family residences fronting on Monroe Avenue at the northwest corner of the proposal. The specific improvement plan submitted to the Engineering Department include street improvements except for the extention of the sidewalk across the front of those properties. The Police Department also requests that the house numbers on the buildings be at least 12 inches high in contrasting colors for identification purposes. 4. The Engineering Division advises that the plans for both utilities and roadway improvements are approved by the Public Works Department and are subject to appropriate Systems Development charges. 5. . The Traffic Engineering Division of the Public Works Department has stated that it is necessary to require specific assessment based on trip generation of 20 dollars per site generated vehicle to supply necessary funds for traffic and transportation im- provements resulting from the project. 6. The Building Division has stated that storage buildings are not specifically allowed in a residential zone because they are not typically considered accessory in use. 7. The Fire Department has stated that the minimum fire flow for the project will be 3750 gallons per minute and that the following modifications to the site plan should be accomplished: A) Elimination of berm off of Monroe Avenue N.E. in the entry way to provide a 20 foot wide fire lane as required per the Uniform Fire Code Section 13. 208. B) Elimination of the crash through barrier at the east end of the project and replace it with a pad locked gate. C) All fire lanes must be paved of materials which support fire emergency equipment such as grass grid and shall meet specific Fire Department approval. D) Access roadways and fire hydrants are to be serviceable previous to building construction. 1' PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING: GERALD E. SCHNEIDER; SP-123-80 & R-124-80 DECEMBER 30, 1980 PAGE THREE G. AT1AE SECTIONS OF THE ZONING CODE: 1 . Section 4-708, R-2, Residence District 2. Section 4-709 A, R-3, Residence District H. APPLI( ' t t1f F SECTIONS OF CtowIrREEENSIVE PLAN OR DER OFFICIAL CITY : 1 . Comprehensive Plan, 1965, Land Use report, Objective 6, Page 18. I. IMPACT OF THE NATURAL OR ,oltoi,j; iN . IrOM;,i VNi I : 1 . Natural Systems : Conversion of the subject site to multiple family residential from undeveloped will disturb soils and vegetation, increase storm water runoff , and have an effect on traffic and noise levels in the area. However, through appropriate landscaping and screening, many of these impacts can be mitigated, while increasing the human activity on the site. 2. Population/Employment: The total proposal of 158 units will increase the area population by approxi- mately 400 persons. • 3. Schools : The subject proposal will increase the school population by approximately 40 students (2. 5 students per unit x 1.58 units) . These students are likely to be scattered throughout the grades and not significantly impact existing services. 4 . Social: Increased opportunities for social interaction will be available for the new residents of the proposed units. The community building, laundry and outdoor recreational facilities will provide focal points. 5. Traffic : The proposed complex will increase traffic in the area by approximately 950 trips per day (6 trips per unit x 158 units) . This will be routed on Monroe Avenue N.E. J. ENVI'',(0NMENTAL ASSESS '/TE ES,:;OW DETERMINATION: IION: 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 issued a Final Declaration of Non-Significance for the subject proposal on July 30, 1980. On December 12, 1980 the Environmental Review Committee issued a Memorandum of Concurrance supporting their decision of July. 30, 1980. K. CIF /IIDEPARTMENTS CONTACTED: 1 . City of Renton Building Division. 2. City of Renton Engineering Division. 3. City of Renton Traffic Engineering Division. 4. City of Renton Utilities Division. 5. City of Renton Fire Department. 6. City of Renton Parks Department. 1 ''e I '•"' 3 1•, I,N•It '.a f. .", r t le;" .;.y' '• ''? .W r f �• 3' „ i • -.r...... , ..". ...,--1, . : . • ` I\�}»sS.rx.,,,;r,-' mod• • 1_ .e S ••• • O•. .;".y .'„`•r..i‘ , • �.. -,�. is•�• 14 9 d d °•• •' , ' J. •,' .°.• ) '. ••. . a nt-. r.,• •9 .• ; - , .SR C nizi • • • • '!•eF� Vr IC. i1 -• '• ••- '.r 1 1jYQ�7}t••/.4 •I r+.,a.--ewr«,. .v.s.•s.o.©.®. .®.� � ' 3K •''. - '3N1e lydn :; 1 .31_T- r„l• . .. �•� , 11.:�.ii' -�Y®72OO i, • 1(j ;,,Y Y,,.k''. e e e e i .• •o . • . r . •'.. 7 • e tl o d -t �Y+.x.u:a r `� {@q� L'e .v, �M ,, ,. — -1 i I .a ,e'r• {',•d: a, ;.r • • • da 1 , e !. •"fie 1 .yy•• •. .r w� t•• •' • • tya� Z ..p •• ® tl'..•'•e .r•,p, ie �) .. � • (>{ '!'•.T• .•• •. 9 e sue;• . f: a4 t O A a VI fi 4.4 4. ,. .. 440 if a. ef � .4, 61 14,4447 •� • 1'� . ii, ii " v. fli.2,9• . ..: i . 01, x Ny«hw ,.• . �' wv ' •t-; Irk ,,b__-:-' 1-'1c,4.' ,Nsy +r 1 IRIIAI1I 6 • r • tea• �p �,�`.ir4 v a d •y 1 4 1r,rt. .. "''®5 y 1 f■e Un•7, V µf (F •. • '` O , 3 ';•.•i' t+f+ FMw^li.t-v T-. ."SYf wx-,ti(4 .nk.'d.' .Zr:.: •.M?^:•F^,•.F./iNYi l'4'�."i'.I[C.V.#�.M Y":a. y I. 'ufX'x. ., 1 Ai t • Z J. •`` '•k s,.. M„�ik.%.. w.u: '.u.. »< �• w.,:..s x», ;y:+, .a t"!_.y�. 4vtt fiy. goo ___ -� I • -• ••o •rr 1.1 I E ► •I •r T �_„ . ., A F Q 1 T I GREENWOODt , ' . r,—_ • t •,• MOW s .O�i t I s , I I W.o-. + j — — — — • • 11 I ,I GERALD E. SCHNEIDER SP-123-80 HILLTOP APARTMENTS R-124-80 APPLICANT GERALD E. SCHNEJDER TOTAL AREA PRINCIPAL ACCESS Via Monroe Avenue N.E. EXISTING ZONING R-2 and R-3 EXISTING USE Vacant PROPOSED USE 158 unit multiple family complex COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN Medium Density Multiple Family COMMENTS PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING: GERALD E. SCHNEIDER; SP-123-80 & R-124-80 DECEMBER 30, 1980 PAGE FIVE E) Fire alarm system may be required, to be determined at the time of review of the specific building plans by the Fire Marshall. F) Portable fire protection will be required and serviced annually. G) Access roads must be less than 15% grade. H) Fire lanes will be required per City Ordinance. I) Building plans will be required to be reviewed by the Fire Marshall' s office. 8. , Other department comments are attached for review. M. DEPARTMENTAL Om r^1I\'iI>ATIC : Based upon the foregoing analysis it is recommended that the request for a rezone and special permit File Nos. R-124-80 and SP-123-80 be approved with the following conditions : 1 . Maximum unit development is not to exceed 158 ' units. 2. A minimum 25 foot landscape setback is required adjacent to the single family residences at the northwest corner of the proposal per Section 4- 2709 (c) , 3. Required off-site improvements shall include that portion of street and sidewalks in front of the single family residences located at the northeast corner of the subject site along Monroe Avenue N.E. 4. Placement of house numbers on each building to comply with Police Departments request. 5. Approval of utility plans and roadway improvements by the Public Works Department prior to issuance of a building permit. 6. Payment of proportionate share based upon Traffic Engineering assessment for necessary traffic and transportation improvements required as a result of this development. (Conforming to Analysis Section L-5) 7. Elimination of the storage buildings from the site plan. 8. Compliance with Fire Department additions as outlined in the Analysis point 7 , as outlined on site plan. . . :• . • • . . . ' . . ca:e. itr'ORM/S•11.0'.-1 Ltirtraa). '''e . Z bte 40 . I 11.0.• • • - %A ,1 ( kl (--••'%' ..vwoa-e..fctl.-tis-.way 1F:t 1 . .tGeel-meomWpr(=roacrzrman w-i, ••n••5., . 7C ,ttO ei- . . , - • • t-n.- Z- - . P -n, - S. • •caworcuzl4 rira v-1-1 t 4,0•1••••0 • DA.. la* ..........., ,:terNIA ...• 1 . .." ... ... ..... 7.004r90.:=6:421,0:W1,111.7.v114,0u6//•:•I'Vta! / / A- -,1- '. • / / / 1, 1 w4,NRU 41..as•.esecc, 4117 1 . , / , i• . . . . I -/ . i. I . ,.... _.............. a UK:: t.40•Seer : ---..... _....//I - . ...-, // ... / ..s. f "••• --''' / . z i w•es mmste,co ,-** ,.--- .......e- •"' / •. t ' .• • \ ....• ,,,.. . //". '..- / , .....941•41.40 fili%. TL1•91*C61.4.7 PliZitVtAtelt• Cr.444, • : •C, cs..astsr 1Y 440 len .71. 25') ..., _ _.._ ...- —.................. .... , \ *-....,, - • S. - • , /- i / . / • N. -- .... . / i 1 • • • • • - ... - .. / i i .. .....• - -!... _ - • -. . .----'1j--" /. i i \ : . 7. ..„..... _ ,... .......,./ .., '... \ '., • .... 1 / , ••••• . • % A - • ....• . ) S. A • I/ . I . \ -... ir...-.-.--.... •••" --- . / `.... ‘ . . • I • % .1 • .It eary.cei: v.... / . 6 1.... .... s 0. \ , • ./ . I I- . I 1 . 1 ..." __ _..t.i_ 's% . . 1 li • . . ' ...••"" ..•'''' --.t.5'it:MOPED 50119.-. '... ct.yrt.u.• x•••••:••1-,a, • - le-LI r"2'CL _ --...,____ _-— _- -- ss 44/.110,-‘" - -1. - - - -....§.&%-.T..&44--- . . k.,. • X ‘.. i 1:1:2 • ',•4 .1.S4- . , . .... - ,•,,,,....VE)$5,',4,k.,..$,Cf1/4 7M17%•• - &W ,',.„_ 1 t .4w "nf'.thilry- "t.;•••••• --,-- • • - ••••• t -- - . :1 • .- .."-1-1 • (..p.._LL J-....2 ..-'W :4. -• (..,. _,,,,..41 .,, yoz.,. 0P,,... Y.-- .... - -, s . X 16 Ir.:•4:11..;4c.mi.__2,4:!/A,:.',' ____ . .._... :7,;,:er,::4 ,.4.1"' L-4---,-... ;c.v..L. -.. ,-•0 ..- ,4,) . . _____ , 7,....,,,. ,,, ,.__, n . i • - .4,47,71.71---1 . • ....__ - . ' . . , • -_ _.i.:,--,,-,-.- — ---- rv-!;•%:!:•,-. iz• ..7.1a ‘, ..._1. 0 ---..-s...,:c.,.. -- _ .... . •s. • ,--,(.:. XT.. V.I'I , ;..,1 j rI., -• - • • . . .,'••••.-3.-•• I I '-- -_-- t.,,t-i.--..- '!‘.41‘-,,N.1 :•,:,:- f' ...... ... , ...,_ 0 i_bl• - ..... , , , ... • .. .---, • - 0 ;<1 E ...— ..____ .....:....!.... _._. .. 1 , ..., al):-:6411 76: . : v'9.44:6 '71 .-'--1::\ c)..„,.„4",?' =-----11 s.,-s, s..r.-) -"--.7...--.)- (L.,.•'' - (.4„.„. • ,.„ _ ei ' '. ' i :4-..- i • •-,_,, 1 : i ,.1;:e., I . -1 -1 1.11 1 4 ...• 1: i — D .. • k...,, ._ . .I. • ... - A—'. : • 1 i • . -.1.'.. . :,;: ;"1.1A„.1-1 -171-1-1. tea._ % • •, • 1 i • 1 O. -- - -..1--•- i % i . • • • ... . • .-\ : - • ......---'''''---.... 1 ‘ . I , • I - :••,‘? . . •j% ., .4,„i (:\....) - ' • -I I I I f,4 11 si.1 . Li 1 III I WE I . I 11-A 4 101) 5 i r ‘•. ti .1. •&:•.._•7 L. / 111 . III 1 II .1/4 --Th''• • , • . -. •-.-'ga'' • ,,,,,,- ..t.,_. , '1,,c..-- '''. a _ . .....-• _,.(. - 4:1-12".4•1' ;;,;,--ka--. 1...4 Lt.e.g•-;•--I . . try,, ,s,..-- , , i __‘ 1,‘ • , ••• ' •• : 1 *. )! I r r t.„. __ i • 1 . •• , , i •_ -•=---- , -,ri-7:1 C •=-- ..--- t- .,k. '---, - • 1,11.4 ift4 ..-- • .....b..1 . • ! , I i- •1/ Al-5.. ---•+.)-..a.......----' -1•_:',- -'(""'Y - ..- 0 ,c, • ... I''-V.L.--1 _L. .EL ....;-',.„ 3, -.:'---.:;.,z: ••e•• : ' qy„;....'7_.:)_._, - ', ') ,......) - • --. \..4./ .- , :.,, •- •C!•- /L_ ......_••••'0' IT-1___ __•.,1 .,_',7;..___,K ii._,_ : _ --_:i_...._:_.:.Ae z_g_'15.. — ) . \ , .. ' I •'• . :--i`----_,_ -- G 47, .; —1-!-1,_.. L.:, ii:•.77-vi, 13..,...,nrops›.1-12_,-.• e..- -,1.,-;--.,,T,i.......:...IR,\•,- —•,,,, .._.... . - ,---F, • lo-D-% . ,- . . — .. I I' ..„,, —,., ; ,,,....-1-...,.....--, „,• Lon.-..,,..- -• It s - • ...'' ..-- 2__2...,...Is ,.-- -- C• • 2) .-• __ k 9 -•-•,..) •••••• \---. ! .) • ‘I '- - ----' .. _ . , : 7..... eq .....7"ZI- 1 'aft••• •••• . • ...„.., -., .,...,.._...,____ ,•••• A... --- --- ...---., 's, :•• • .._e:. ..• if 0'1'4; ' f' :- --— ——-- ——, • ` ..i. •• \ — , •••\-t‘,4‘,;.,..11 .S-•••-fa'eog-if I— ' x : • .. 8 _..- .--r--7.-----------7----77:-.---, • . . . . 0 DE[10014..11,1411 TOM XII/G'I43-/'/Z:C.14 O.0.16=11111• .-rus a 7:a 3--6. . • h ''' .; ' s it .. •- ./-:;i::),\'' L--- . ,„ •r-!\ •--.. J. ., • ___. •-. . ..--1.2---_.: .. . -,,,••1••• . 1,1 EaRoars rat aux 1,$'AroG CD afiligelziFtWi Slial8 az S111.1 Comma:4 . . 7/--\., (ri--1'' -'' •_.:,•• /,',-. ,-; ', I. • 11 • . .. •" . I• •-•...., Gl3tiarg-reerthic. . IL ..• . . ..."- •_ •_. . -. L/To. 4E. . ....1..,..„ .; • • . I/(...) .. .....,,,,,t• 4,,,,. ,t: - ......-.,f 0 4 MI liame 11.....•IP 1%11.11 Len , . •.:4 t.',__.,7•1 a 4 ,A....A., - . . by Schneider Homes 11 Liesd=ape DasigMrs ed Coaltraclan , • ,e•I- '--' 7' ;11/ I.reiii...-1.-. .. •-'•,%. '\ _ •. D.III.Id De•.-. Ek=s,...1 , -- rigl ." . . . -, . „z, - — 0, ---- ...,._......‘._ • __---RA -------- . acalo..1".0•• fated'el• .. •,,,„...,-• . 4.- - ".''.A.•,1- • . - • . lbstasnor • • - • . --- lipp004,011. -...1..£4,..,ti, T-3.::.,.• • I C'.. •,,;.a-e' , ' ' • • - . •• • . . • • - ' \'‘ • .- 3'-.3k. :., .... . .-4 .‘. q ..I.I.II.:c• ... - . • • -•;:.- ,. ., ''..--i" • . .. SCRNEIDER SPECIAL PERMIT SP-123-80' : ...:i,I.rri .;7V.2 '.„ 1 1: ••• . '..... ••-• l'..... -..•'•..• . ' •". • . , . . ., : . _ . . . . . .,.f , •-•4 -4 ..•,,;-.. • 4...11.•4.: 4 .1. i•4% i..1, 4 • * • • /,•,r.s. r-ta t- !. _•• , • - i :: • • ,! '. • 4;:il....ili.: ••••• ..;' ,• 1- .-:: . .._._ . •• .• - -..',•••••:,IP..•7.74 -..•-•:.• . 47 . 0 . • • CROSS HATCHED AREA IS AREA TO BE REZONED - - -- 4 (PROPOSED$ qC 4P`T.je tyw rr Fa MKc 4,....s. - SCTtS .� x: • .•h'y * - • I: .♦ Y'G /g Fp 2 J • ,.._ _ ___. ..a...t...._.._ ._ et ti 1 ` —_ ,• • • // x .. trot»• -or. I _ `Fad•!. iV7'• r•• R s�7"ry ♦Y.J _ �.nf V l � h .4, O♦• •. •6'.,y•♦ .+s ••• � .*ice• •.•••••N �>s. 6• I gN. •---_I ! x' `• •`_Oise'"1O .74:lae{', 2' • :74:4�• t iL t••a.♦:►i::•... C • ".., ' - / ® .' R Ct� -.•1 '/s - .'�1Se:~ -•.��I�1 •��„4 •�•Fri'•1, j<'1yi••�'L�S�� 0♦'..iJd��•sai♦� •r+t'��a•F'�'s''. t �,�w "ram I - --a � - ---_ - .•r 4, • ! I •VOW, •_./ •• • y`s..�iT.•v'I.•i •'Yti es g.• w•••. i w�.� t••\ -,i+,f. •' - . pww1.•�'i a•Cs. • ♦a'i•moti' tic' .�r� •w rw••• R•`t'•a<'_iti i•ti`f.•• •` .a y,"'r�t• to f4* it"$: w1*P:*" r ^:i.-• 5.'•.aab l`�.�r .?*.�: • ®emu a. iM. ..vfi \�`' ::% f..•.4' w •+.. w i-t.-•.+'w� <w•'z.o s�...t• �*.e,C._ `�,i •A��.f ,. .'�; J-%-,�J, t - '� , p : d �'ia d! a• l"y `��•j •�s d•�� ♦ ♦ • ••` r•J 4 J JpN /f itr•. t t�1'a!' �� •!✓': o�v -?c.y . pig ��^�, f,, i, �! ` f .-1 9•'V ,, 2. r •pp o. -- - • r •r-7 ,a•<i wm.; y•fs Lair!' •i-re re -- 4 =.-I I 1_J L l L . 1 1 I 30. off: Np A.11 .. . p 1 i + - ... _ _ -� 7 . _ _-_ �11 a • C F . • :o �_ . y. - -- 4.4. - �$ ¢ ��Z s: • •�"'�� 1 ye.ri4S T- . P-••CWJV•J� ... - -- G'�' G V•m • G .-C ,i.•^ In:.. � ' -C..o--- - v .• 3 - pagt.y• - �.• /Rl f. i a 6 aeff SITE PLAN• Tract 1 ` r ''''' I,: . .k. . .t. , ,- nte. ,. GERALD E. SCHNEIDER 6gunit development i'17 REZONE REQUEST Schneider Conti, ruction Cc. • R-2 to R-3 FILE NUMBER R-124-80 i I a • .14 47/4S/40 . P121 .a:111911179n.C. 1 RENTON PLANNING DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET •.10i,,... ----„- 3-1 '47 _i k 4 STt' 1. 04-,P1l7v,,iV-f:- - ° N E - • .. ti E 1. „. • ..,..., 1 4,..0174. 0-4.'1,1.„;'• • '-i•,--ci'zi1.1-5•0•i4.,.•,;.•,.-'''X.44•,:4'.,,-.4',TI'i •41,qir4:11-1'-' • • --' ' NE IOTH PL a. ,L to,:r 8.4 ---1‹ ••', • :-. ..•v,,,• ••",/• `,..1 ,.?„-,-,',;1:1-.=.,-,yfi.i;,,,,,t4,,•.4,,,::,,,,,,,,1,3',r,,,,,.4,,,,,,r.;,3,4,k,,, ,‘...p.,,, . • 1 ,,,,4,44.,. rr,',i1*.v,-' :"..,:14'4-;-.1'lc?i'-,j.","..Ve-5,71,-1,`.`Arkii. a.. •cl.'i : 7" -s.!, ''''' -29=103,zia ° f ic""T P,,,, li a .'' . ' ..,,E e's".„:••-?-,,t 0'41•.•A Ir.,' ,1-,. t• : v"Alitlf.4t 1%110 1 P .', . --a.- IA N ', , " . -.... '0 .. - . „.,,,,A ,:Coei.eee••;'4 " 41'4'4"e Ar "4 ..0'- .• /D,.e" *.N.C., ei'7. 4. \ r:v. ' — 1 M NE 10i""H CI • .. . 1 r'' :o • 4 i -4. • -;,•.• ril, . •t. d iii,e:• %( 1,'..;''F.t!'ir•a.41 O ',,V_i.'1'7'i 4W'I,..:',•',:,.,/i'r..;l..14'0:l:34,1''k4.7V F1M:.1 Sk.•1''V'?h;,t i.i'•'e',*'' p0 .. •':r'•'" 1 ..• PCOTA4b4t IN,C Ei,E• 4444.,7A:i,t.er. ,.' 4•=x •e... L W. . 4 ,'' •47•,,-4....-. ...%.i:1 , ', '..........k-• Zif-t '!'c•.'z.',u,'4..-.,...,e.,,.,..—.,•',.....,i 4i' .f ...-•..%r t,'''T:.t•,''' '','•:;'-.'f•;.'''', •t C,C . 1,.., •,,-,I, • ".'"...,.., ' ." ta '.4,„,, •10TH •.' *-LN . ' • •• ,A,•••-ir--o4nit.-.•,i f;„,--••ti•L-•:,•;.4.i ''s f••:..:1';:7,- -, •• , V '0... 1:..!1'1',k *.• ..i. .-...:- ''' 0: ' • • • 7P*I.Ell .• 0 • • .r.-1. ' •: .". • 4. .::. •t.•4 ''S'...-F? '.'.1;;;.1./.)Ateber,r „LN,,,,ereei!);- .44.'Ne. ,04,44,,,.. •.:, . •,...1:31 e •e.•• ,. . . -• • ..,..sr ••,• . . im. e. )4 4. ,i•:.4,7:e... }4 '..‘4,',VIV.V1CP7,1`,,'?1, '''s";.,',11-,71,Vt:4, :'... 1 6.*''''"*4 .C1 T'P.' : ••' • N E ••. •` ROTH • •• • •.: ST -.4-.4._ - • !1,....,;,!-y , `,.. -p.' .., 4 I.1.14,4; . ,.1.,d•,,t,... .. . 44 ANAA AA I,* ' 1.1AL A,....444.4*-.• .,,,`. A I. llf' . r • .• ,.. ••,.., , ..... ..ki, v *Da i ,4•I.'' •••••- " 1 le l'a ta."..0' g ; • 'N, ' - .;''' ••, •,Z „pitii,t4i.,.1, hi t 4'41 T. - .i.-,: . •ri. •, .•g ••...,: k zr,t5 0 4 t .,t, .. , NE. ,.. ., 9TH••4„:..,•-•...,.'......8•• T• . .• Soltea••. . I.,'•t, '4.- %.,'' ii M..'"C.,*-11,.ai;. f •, I. ;i. 04,,, ...k.J,: „,,, i •,.. ,•••-:,., W.* ' ..zrzr=140.4.4,44 4„,, 4. 0,.4„,,,,,,,,„,.. ,,,,,,,,,,...„„ov, ..,_mi,=La, . 91 8 glr• ; 4 a „ ....34.. 11 -.,,;..,:.:',,,,,.. '.-.•,c,:. . i i • • 44,// . , .. ',4=•'4'...ni, _,,,,,,,„„ IV,SteMlytk' -•,%.'•4p...,. i ., -i. ---‘, :1 ., •fi: 4.: L. .•'r,..'•11---- -1s. • I'd Pa U Air • e , v), ..,4,,,,,l,fs.;,•- •,x--z,-.4-rvw- .....--- -' p 1,44:k ,,,,,,v,-. -4'*.t• ea•••• • ° , ••• ,4 • .4" ', ,..- • 43..g 02 , 0 ch.,44,0,- ‘." (..44.0, A.•,,•4,--4.•il' 1 .4- --..T.....4•:•••.. .••4'-,,,• , %.'1,ti•"'! •" 2 ,1 f .•7,: ..„.• ,-. . Et ', .;•:.A, • '.'' ..., ,'' .7 .c:. •,) 1,F.Ag;v4.4,triirill•••t: '7,•'t -,,, › : Itto -‘,.t„t„.„,„,,,,,,,er , w it,--,— -. - • -.. •0,,--•,4irkif y-.,' -._,,, -,,....- •,--„,,,_, „.1.,„,--,,,,IN.,.. .-. 4,,4.,,-: , -.7,••?•.:1-..-• ta -- _c,,. eal-,,-;.1.,41...v)4 •. ',- --: , :..7 i '0,1*-7-'iiir `"J. ,. ..i.:,.. '','''.. ikl.E ,,..Erg., . .;.,[., ,,,,..„,.. .4k..sti. :4-,-4-/ 7 emm-A.A.- II . ' :Fatb.,,.. . k . 1 ''.' cil-ic ; r..: ,...t*Lir4:pto• ., ..:.„. ••••*, . i , • •• •=-4* -, '' 't, tl,,,. ., DE t !- 1/4 gi r.4•-•,* ' (rg 0 • ''.;• • ,'.--,./,.,,,.. 4-4.. ..,, - ,4,.,.., •; ,,,...,„ , • -... • rn-ir " V 144-4' ''''' • • - •'." • ,'""''''`'.''..:'P:i "; +0. '''' ,.n1 • ' - - • ' ea 3•4....• •,• • '•-.41' : • ,. --,4. • • ' St ., •. -, , u.• ., . .. „„ „ . . - '. ; ,,,, F • ''.• - ',fr.'?Ig•-;.,' '''::,.',A.'.• SE- 1 2*T --0 •. 4. 4, f .., toj le, ezt 1 •••. .';`. 1,,., i'.2. • r ' 1,(5/... , of . ,.,4ei . .,. ti . Sp: • . -' ,.• -1.• - , ,:,,,... .. . .. 4,4,...,014.40414,I ''''• 1 9I '''' 'TP'. ''' n•:' • 1 _...,.. 0.. GI*i.o• ',:to '?... ;ez,31 ,...,,L, • r ••: -.- '. • ' ';' ca , . , r.,04""m".'•-•• - • -'ti t '• .. 1 ,3 .0 • -4,y,t, 0 • • • 7' ..1,.p•,..„ -. - .- • ; a ' ---' .7.-• ...... , ,,,,, . .....,;••• . pil4i .,...,,:_,..,..;,....x....”7=2. . • lo.,.04)........... ,....-,---4 3 i Ntr••7TH • Jr t'cl,mg w;.t.,--, ‘1,,,••.,--'''I'11`&' ,00471 6 ' , . .0 • , • I. :..*6',..4 '''''4 I rd E ,-4,t - •: -.\ . it :.:1,,ifi • • ..' ' 0 70' A 0 a . Di., ...„,--,..,•..-. "" . . ,,...,. .,;')';'.5 1 . el . .0 / 1,• ' 4 ••• - . • •• ,,,E 1 •: r ,,, ,, , ,,,,k 9‘-' 10.1 .:tz-n-vidvIT Eq E..•7TH .' - ,..,, • 4. 1 . x-t LA P u. 1 t ';.4 ; ' v ,-.44-, :,-A cf„. .w..••••-'''''. • ' . n - '‘:,' . i a;r:°' "-I'm", .. . —• ... • ,-L„,\':::71.."•''. '.' ' r 74 - , ,E ..•uth'''"5 4.-5; id .,,t..-•6y, tt,'i sn•.;:tt E A Leg la 1....,'4. e 6e'T Zit . ', '''''' N E .." WI tl 4'. .. crg $ p4.7,.,, E , .,,' "*."`".......7r:„ ••-h:e. .,- •i' ..,7 1.. ..,,. 4,AA'404, A Ot Vt., .1,I.V...At AAN.AA'At‘„ ,..,....,,,,•......„-f ;4 0 R.'.v4.1,-•"" ... -‘!..'' -; ''.. 4..-' ,11 '4 < taUL4 • ' • :‘ .....110 1 t 1 •,-- t t.3 .?, 'At'•,a ,.,.la• • _., . A 1 . •t.44..tz 4 0 '• . -r %12§42.• ,t i , . I.- ,• :•t," .• ‘,-• i - 4 i.''', :'.---,r' t .•-, N E IL . < 6T 11 - ,T, ,:7,111 i . 4 -.4 -4 fal k, 11- i•- x-c 6T I-4 'i•b• t",... La A . >...-Izi i L. •-.. .• - -.t.,.,.... .-, • ;I. . mat — " ,•;-:.., .;‘,..., ...-4,,,iffee.,...?f,.......,..,...ti,s, 0 ' ,.....#1 •,,,,,s .--i...;,..,,,,...,,?. k•' -*•;-;..,,,,1:. ,;7,..4,7,r, F, :i..i.4':,•,\'••.7\:,,,'..,„,,,,..r'.,71,,,,' ••%, ;.,',',.-4;',,;',..A, ,,,''' .*:,,...1,440,„ 44 i , „-,..,..„'t-„„,,,,--,, ,.i,,i'•;i•',1.•••,•°Sit,;' ••• '',:31'1'..'•: .'. .V.' -•'''''''4,-..'-';•-'4'-''''''''''''''' F • . . ,,,,,., . ,,,,,. , ,,,,„ , , .,•.• , „. to CV 4,4; PIE %-:'.''•t::4!,2'.:4§' 4'.,',1iP'''''Lly.':1:'''.4. ''.-: t' ,/It!'''.. A :• 4\...i4.'...4.4..,1:e IV°1 c 0;I, f!..1 ill i I, 1 . L1. ',4-,, 'f'j1414-, , ,7,,',i... ''',:,,,V W,,:,t v •%c.„r., 'i i''•:'.'o.M,',! -, GI, .try.-- ,. It i 1,1:' .‘'.4,F kt ... ' 1_0 ,, .. , r^..ij, I IV '•• - 1' 4 P'F'4-'virie'V,' , I • ':. i 14"f g 1 j •", 4 .:V ".• • '.. I' °''' '•'''•:**•44N;:* ' ' . ! • 11!;'!' ',1-Wi''.o''9-1-Tr'' '.'''-i74-1 41°' 9* 1 1,g, 4' ' i' k• •,,,,,,,..**.---t. , * • •,-t, A4, clio...",A• • 4. ••'.. ,,,4,i.: : t•-•4• -• - . ••.-4,...-.•;•• • 4', • q•ifi' ,r/' ' '•• . ,,,,:,.., -41(11 Ls., ' ify,r,' ''•0.0 '-',.•'-, ,,,,'pL 14,1: FIENITON.,--.-/ ' '1'4 ''p• ,,sli..,1.'",1„,.-',- ., k. .,,,,044, i r i• .,V., •0••e•••• •• ' ,%ia •-••• -0- 4. L er'..1-• 40 Pi ,,•'. ir . ' '''` '• 4 • r':."R'-1'.11*C.TEC t-0444 kg,•-•$.4.,..'0,4-y. :14,..i,h.,f wo, ,,,,,,,,,,v 41, .. ....,rt.• ,,,,,i. .„.„,. 4. . •, •, r AI(''1. . •,••-r s-L -: .44 ,. ,,,,..„ x,„.• ., -,ti ,;...-4„,,,,,y.. A• - ,•••. .,),•• 1, 44,j .t•.,•• I MST,• i-,t• ' - •'%-•.,. ;# • -.4,,-, .. h.,,,,V,it , ) ",.''' *,,I.' • ,„ "•• ,.„14, „4 •.?.; 4 : . •. ... 'st, 4p, 4 P,0,,i,,, ii., • it,,,f *. , - 11* . Vw h • • '' . ':•4.4 ^ pt-...... h At, .,, , ,...„,. . ..4 [A i e'• 14 ' i 1 er;,,,:.,,1*.:;I * it 4i-oi,,, Ia.' ,,,,„: ...,toi, .-., ...t•ri..,,,tly,r,,, ft i e.,1.:?,„r24.i, k •F,,,,";.,..i.,_ 0 ,... . 114"'„;,, .,, 4..., v-44-' ,r,•*4 ?:. Tt''''''.1-,fi-,1,•'' , .. ;.z... e er-; '1',•'!'' • . • . • 1,'‘''.''ive••• 140, ..) . .1*'Y,;,`3,.,44,4,'...u:,, ,,,i es-A,P,,, ',1", A-. ., : :.. a ;",. .,., Al 7.0N1 ,1, --., :+.1",i'!':"1,,,,t '- .,-,.-t,,,,,,,,, ..--;,,&,,,,,, ....7.„,#1,:, ,All...,..:, itee-ijoNi.:4,,,,ws,',,:•?4, e",-;,,,,,,Atair :;,t't „LI:4,-.5".:44,10-01, .:ig% i ',id,,p40,, 61.-, ,,, _. ‘-•;)I Nrr3oetp.4. is ..•'. 1" 4.1v.t. ., - -,,r,,-;* _,,, -- ,;"*cte,?,,,k •=s,,;,,-. 74A' ,. .,,z,•• FP-.0-*?..r414, , , , • .,... ,,x!,•.,.. •,••.*•••itiVe'vbf k.: , 'Tv ' fit'n•' ;`,4•:„.•A '',11.4,4 -,:.-‘.. ....7•il.,. '41 V'',., , . 40,„,,., , ,,,,.,,,,„,9,,,,,Lx.,,.., . , . . , ,4 ;.4, l'• 4* N. 1•" 0•1,%eli 'I fa,}I. .44• 41 •• •••.1) ., ,••.,''-;5 '4-*4:4''''.4' ''oet41''1.14,,,,.-,n.1'15.44;I ENNA ,... . .,,, ,,..' 42". '''''.1.11/4' i 431.5 t "./.1 „p '4AfW4-5-'''.'' -. .,'., 4A,-0,;;;.4,'9'-.:''-;;,',' •,71, ' a'''.'`I'''.4- 'e* .."*‘ .• • I, .-"' S HC „,•• • •-.,• ....4 tv.,.'"44 i•-*r,1 44, •••' rAA• l!--,. t''.:, .11••4-•:. V--t,,,,,Z,kliil.'4;.) 1.-. "4'4, ',.‘,-,,is -11.Z*,,r,,.. _ eii .., ...L.,.;•,t,-,:,., iti i....,t-41, .1.; ',,, ..kl-.pc. i, :.kar.- :,.,- ,**. .-".*•:, ,.,9,,,,,,...i v.,tz.... vs!,!'41.!.' . i 4,,, '. ', ,' .)•• i .,- o 4. 1-4 n.,,-* 'V... 4: i .,i -'s- •*!tpk',',. 1 , IN.I. .-<,47-'• k,c,-",1:00-, •„*1..4t' *,,40.T.,, , , . A • „,', •'"41 . .... . „,. ., .04..• t .• t . es ...?,..., t . A.., , ' l'• ' ...' r"..„1'..., 4.. .,'f..t.,4.9,0,,i4 ''.4 t.; • ' ' , '-, ..." ,/ t,t••....,i; ..4 h... . 41:,..'e ,. . •••"`" .1(*.•1 1•'-i -''•••4•'-'.gr'41' 4. .-. ,.0 t,ri'lliPtN C At ''' A • ,v"---0•.‘ ...•'''''''''' . N '''''' 61*,..„ ' - ' . .7.-...Lr„-c-Ar. • .. 11 '!.. :1;*--"R. .. 4\'ti„•Vv.``7 il,,110• i,..1 A'4,'. --,'' ''F°..•'':$?f''' '' .'''' ..... .k 4"-- ••'" / ' illYft440.,*'Crit'il4X.IV •' L:'•-.)' ...'h' ::44-,'.-;x..,'''0.I.4.g,'ika`.c4',V*5' • '','4 ,Lrt,,:_;•'..,:.'5!f. ' r ...• „.• ;•,•..--0:',.„.i.,-trkaTge,:.::... ....,....i.„ c,..,... T. ,,e.;,,,;',L,iii 1"ej! ',j.iee!!.,7.;..•)''` ,,'f'44.1.4" 'I'll' &aril • . L. •;,. 'Its.et,r)i,. 4 r,,,, Dv Vlit(!I j R./ •. ,•„. fit,J.,71,1,14.:_.w4,,‘,..... , 7",•,. ,,, .k.w..$ i„,i7,v....,, - ...— , ;OUNT V . .' • •`•• ' ../ ,''' ,•4 :,.t•lr•t"'••.:,.‘hY', z‘'4';,.. .1IS'i'...'I?'} r.i''V - •,.;• ::•• 4. .••,.: 1 - ., . al .,,,, , lir. ,;..,, ,,,,-: • „. . . ,..: L.. i..... ,..,...,...,....:•_.:,,...:.::,......,t,•;...::t.,.::..tti i;‘,,•,,-;,,,,•e•....'i c:.1,,...i MA ' 'NANCEV •'estuz.' . .i,4 ' ."'' ,•••'" ''•;.',•;ti,."'1•1‘,: ,-;., -,,,,,:,,,,:ii...-Li• / I,.. ,, SHOP . • ' l•-• 'i . ,•(.1. / •2 1 i ,," ' ' ( 4 ._ • 4,Iiipl .... .. . . ''.•' )'. ,•''''j: ., . .. 1,.. •.':";•••••‘j-. i / •• . • . .. , . . •1 • QS p 4,.,,,44 ,ff .•'''''''''''W''' I -04.0 • ; . • •• - • ir A4144orion 4 ,1., ,''•• 4 -----,.i...1 • 1, - ,, '''''' -41' ', KP,' "alL, L.Ea;132," SE 12NEY ST' •••.,, 1,1 - ''%:•..il'i '-'.i',• ‘. .,'''...: • r . , ., ,. - •4.-i/?;(0.:` '-' ..." ''.; • •-' 1 ? ,1, i • • • 'll''.: A$1'401444010.' I., . .441,1.'t`,1414AA., . • . •. Eil '''"r..• *es. ' \ '.• • . . 1 I 1.1„. , , ........... A—.. _ . .., , .. , , • ,, , . . '...I.Li.'._, L'..e..r.........m,14',.,0% 1,.,1.',... . .... 1•• L , . .... ,I _G [2) . . . ,,.. i . ..,_, _ . ,.- . • C? , -AG-FICA1,_ ,....,..1 ._R -- L-1 - 1 , . . ....„ r— 511,4,4G-LE. EAMILY Hi _ 1-1 ,FA„..).\ie I ‘L :;1;71._ 1-7 A , pi' A-1'. P I ,,e 7-1,0\V 1r .i.51.-ry NAL11/ .Lei .. _ , m r - . :i-N,L: :....:, , -fa.' 1 ..., 1 N L67- PARK 4 p.,.. MUM M.15ify ML 110.-• 0 1 rw-_-.:tk I'c. Rd-r‘s, A Al 1 1 -ir ' = Planning an ��% 12-1979 j' RENTON PLANNING DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET Application: .,16".24, Oar ®rvP 0alia +fr®fot. • ale fes ° fr ea '°,A° • _®� � A Pam$ Location : � ��. „ ' gePE� u, Applicant: • � e TO: Parks Department SCHEDULED HEARING DATE : + . Police Department A. R.C. MEETING DATE : dfs,.400 Public Works Department '..Co Engineering Division Traffic Engineering r 'y � �'P®° emeenve•ea. *0 4 ;«A i Building Division ©e8agl (Pdg` '®6 "Xo Utilities Engineering Fire Department (Other) : COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITING FOR THE APPLICATION REVIEW CONFERENCE (ARC) TO BE HELD ON AT 9:UO A.M. IN THE THIRD FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM. IF YOUR DEPARTMENT/DIVISION REPRESENTATIVE WILL NOT ABLE TO ATTEND THE ARC, PLEASE PROVIDE THE COMMENTS TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT BY 5:00 P.M. ON REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : r.e _ X. Approved Approved with Conditions Not Approved i - JL Signature of Direc or r Authorze Representative Date REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : B co Approved Approved with Conditions Not Approved a4% /2 /6 Y Signatur f` Director or Autho ized Representative Date 1-4, :R„pt9 P 1 a•n n i n c, 12-1979 RENTON PLANNING DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION) REVIEW SHEET Application : `` Pad. • ft. , . et1 0 Location :Eg side ofkib4z-' !ie ' L: ' 0L' WePc' 96° 4fo41 k," FY ' 1 6raJ IQ Applicant: e � �e TO: Parks Department SCHEDULED HEARING DATE : iW3'®�+ Police Department A. R. C. MEETING DATE : Public Works Department 4::� P'o © ° e • f• Engineering Division /'•—• ;;;''a ) • Peoliv Traffic Engineering Building Division CartegVerew� #� K x ; ""_ • 't tea : AC Utilities Engineering Fire Department (Other) : COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITING FOR THE APPLICATION REVIEW CONFERENCE (ARC) TO BE HELD ON AT 9; U A.M. IN THE THIRD FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM. IF YOUR DEPARTMENT/DIVISION REPRESENTATIVE WILL NOT ABLE TO ATTEND THE ARC, PLEASE PROVIDE• THE COMMENTS TO THE. PLANNING DEPARTMENT BY S:OU P .M. ON REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : Approved b/ Approved with Conditions Not Approved /.244c Siratur o bri ector or 7/1;:ized Representative Date REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : -riur`i Approved V/ Approved with Conditions Not Approved Sus-b jec+ otptinvek 06 t o V s Q. ET. w t -ev SAS , � Chn,e.6 p SO0 k Ga8- on. I D"LJR L4t.; 1 - 1v/8 Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date I / / , r ^ 162/%49 Planninc 12-1979 RENTON PLANNING DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET Application : *t ~'®dV . c ® 'lay 08a' ke?ri`A 1 © e p Location : . 6►'�k •,- k' 'QuoN ' • it. d © o a'.. Applicant: 0�4Pp (- ' A` . e.;c . ' TO: Parks Department SCHEDULED HEARING DATE : ' 4, %F: , Police Department A.R. C. MEETING DATE : it?//t:IND Public Works Department e0 !ae. o ° a® En neering Division / Traffic Engineering - - T. 'el ®aPorweeD ,?' Building Division C eureem *4= be Utilities Engineering Fire Department (Other) : COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITING FOR THE APPLICATION REVIEW CONFERENCE (ARC) TO BE HELD ON AT 9:U0 A.M. IN THE THIRD FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM, IF YOUR DEPARTMENT DIVISION REPRESENTATIVE WILL NOT ABLE TQ AITEND THE ARC, PLEASE PROVIDE THE COMMENTS TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT BY :OU P.M. ON REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : -7--�,/ /.:_-_/ C ne,/ F )(- /AJ� AApproved Approved with Conditions Not Approved 2. `7 rU4/ /� e) "� Signature of Director or Authorized Repr sentative Date g REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : POLICE XXXX Approved Approved with Conditions Not Approved LTMCPERSSON 12/9/80 AR M /, Pl anni nc 12-1979 � RENTON PLANNING DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET Application ,. rt�. �. A ide2,, t %" � :�.� ..t: ,' < ��- , sue � � 0 o # 0 3 0 + ‘0101% ®� a *4' 1, � g Location •%•-`• ciefrilavrtte et:Apr(1144 &A:to At.a ofolftel Applicant•: $G��I��, ��,� e,`�. - . TO: Parks Department SCHEDULED HEARING DATE : / /3O/ Police Department A.R.C. MEETING DATE : Public Works Department Eke. • Q Engineering Division arterisOL Traffic Engineering Building Division ®� CMCVP �ae e �a6 cteglihnolteite Utilities Engineering Fire Department (Other) : COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITING FOR THE APPLICATION R V EW CONFERENCE (ARC) TO BE HELD ON AT 9:UU A.M. IN THE THIRD FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM. IF YOUR DEPARTMENT/DIVISION REPRESENTATIVE WILL NOT ABLE TO A TEND THE ARC, PLEASE PROVIDE THE COMMENTS TO THE. PLANNING DEPARTMENT BY 5:0U P.M. ON REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : Approved X Approved' with Conditions Not Approved K—,/T4 /L/ p Signature of Director or Authorized R pr sentative Date REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : POLICE Approved XXX Approved with Conditions Not Approved See comments submitted on 7/10/80 Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date ,} ' Planning 12-1979 RENTON PLANNING DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET A p p l i cation 4. k"�- � ° Z K , ' '.Y.. a ` i 1.,.. ©*. ,'"'. �'•�' .<.,(P NIA; ,,fr AI,.r,: t ° f' h, •+r u e tern Mai 'rei4 Y-..'Aaa yAOe?amm5 (63.' ' �'x cieRe " ,4 Location •£" v $III of 0,4..4 aQ .70 •1 ,,,,(i t. :40° ,Jy 0016 6-i:a coo Appl i cant.: SeAgtg•der• af, edo , TO: Parks Department SCHEDULED HEARING DATE : / / 4/ Jo Police Department A, R0C1 MEETING DATE : , ` .,A7 i0 Public Works Department < :eo�o e Q 0 x /,. _�� Engineering Division / Traffic Engineering , p Building U'ttaiedmDa , ' goo. : '° 'wear t go!C Utilities Engineering 'r Fire Department (Other) : COMMENTS 'OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS. APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITING FOR THE ,APPLICATION. REVIEW..CONFERENCE (ARC) TO BE HELD ON AT ; 9:UO A.M. IN THE THIRD FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM. IF YOUR DEPARTMENT/DIVISION REPRESENTATIVE WILL NOT ABLE TO ATTEND .THE ARC, PLEASE:;PROVIDEi,THE ',COMMENTS: TO THE: PLANNING DEPARTMENT BY 5:Ou P.M, ON REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : I (BCD C f (?C Approved Approved with Conditions Not Approved 4 i , 4 /7 7./..,./:.--.-4,--,r--- -c..e,- C - / _.....i.,--,..4____________ / '-- /0 Sign '11`re of Director or ut orized Representative Date REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : //e/)-F�7G E N6/1/6-e,e/Ar6 Approved X Approved with Conditions Not Approved P/ea s-e— I, cI vrS.„a/ /ha/ 7 5 e. t_ 4, 6%I r/-3 -P a f,--/Y Tyak,s17vr i'aezi:,y /w,��rod�z-e---,e4.__f ¢o c-dcc p 4,-, ,-,-, o cYale-- '4-2-e-e--) a 1J j7vl.e f s is cD arm//i,.•5 cve r� --. o%/j� 7/-5.-.:=' /c.e. 'yd f'- b y 1-1�.e ci' '`"/D/2''`-•-1, 7-i/2,3 ei,e,ru' .'a'7s ^�'rC'._. /-15'i, cL cii -Z'� -571i-.,i. Tri P Gene.rd l 44y X 4.,"•,,_S 1n.1 c..-{- .x, UH F if P b y-2 e .�SS e_,9 ee._. 7 /// X a20 X /5 _ 17 66� Oe';2.0/,e.c, .,io Planning Department, City of Renton November 26, 1980 Page two the request of the owner of record, Gerald E. Schneider, the property was rezoned into three separate horizontal strips: R-1, R-2, and R-3. In a replat of the property, the R-1 • land was designated as Tract 2, while the R-2 and R-3 zoned land was designated as Tract 1. The rezone of the property into the three zones was accomplished in Ordinance No. 3293, dated March 16, 1979. At the time of the rezone, a declaration of restrictive covenants was also prepared by the City and executed by the applicant limiting uses on the various zoned sectors of the property to those allowed in the respective R-1, R-2, and R-3 zones. A copy of those covenants is in the prior special permit file. In order to achieve a flexible and creative development on the property, the applicant requested a special permit to allow construction of apartments in the R-2 zoned area of the property. Although the City's administrative staff initially supported the application and did not notify the applicant of any difficulties in the design of the site, the staff report for the special permit, issued approximately four days prior to the public hearing, indicated that the placement of parking required for the R-3 area in the R-2 zone was impermissible, increasing the use and development intensity of the R-2 zone above that allowed for the property under the zoning ordinances of the City. (See page 4 of Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner, dated August 26, 1980, under Heading No. 2, ) This was the first the appli- cant had heard of any discrepancy in the parking requirement. Thus, although the Planning Department supported the proposal' s design and indicated that the design created the two-zone buffer between the R-2 and R-3 zones that was intended at the time of the rezone (,see page 4 o2 the above Preliminary Report, second paragraph of Heading No. 2) , the Department felt constrained to recommend disapproval because of this alleged nonconformance with the parking requirement. The applicant's next course of action was to request a variance from the strict requirements of the parking ordinance, as recommended by the Planning Department in the third paragraph of Heading No. 2 on page 4 of the above Prelimi- nary Report. The Hearing Examiner did not believe such a variance was permissible and consequently denied the request, ultimately dismissing the special permit application without prejudice. The Examiner, in a letter to Mr. Schneider dated September 16, 1980, recommended that the applicant either / r 1 • • LAW OFFICES OF HILLIS, PHILLIPS, CAIRNCROSS, CLARK & MARTIN GLENN J.AMSTER A PROFESSIONAL SERVICE CORPORATION H.RAYMOND CAIRNCROSS MARK S.CLARK 403 COLUMBIA STREET 623-1748 MARK R.HAMILTON AREA CODE 2Oe JEROME L.HILLIS SEATTLE,WASHINGTON 98104 • GEORGE A.KRESOVICH GEORGE W.MARTIN,JR. SALLY H.MILLEN DAVID E.MYRE,JR. LOUIS D.PETERSON JOHN E.PHILLIPS November 26, 1980 WENDY W.REED RICHARD S.SWANSON _ \ BARBARA A.WILSON RICHARD R.WILSON � ` • ° -1 1 (•„j1 • . • 23 yO • • �! 0 Planning Department, City of Renton • •�•`. ' Municipal Building 200 Mill Avenue South • Renton, Washington 98055 Re: Schneider Construction Company, Inc./Proposed Rezone and Special Permit for Hilltop Apartments Dear Sirs: On behalf of Schneider Construction• Company, Inc. , we are submitting this supporting letter to accompany the enclosed applications for a special permit to allow develop- ment of the Hilltop Apartments and a rezone of two portions of the property from the current R-2 zoning to the R-3 zone to permit the necessary parking to accompany the proposal. Environmental Considerations The total proposal is the development of the Hilltop Apartments, as reflected in the site plan submitted with this application. The Hilltop Apartments development has already been the subject of a special permit application to the City• and has not changed in any material respect from that application. An environmental checklist was submitted with that special permit application (Checklist No. ECF 580-80) , and a Declaration of Non-Significance (DNS) was issued by the City on August 6, 1980, for Application No. SP 063-80. Because the project is still the same, we request concurrence by the .City in the prior environmental checklist and DNS already on record. Background of Proposal The property in question involves approximately 15 acres of land located on the east side of Monroe Avenue N.E. , approximately 600 feet north of N.E. 4th Street. At • Planning Department, City of Renton November 26, 1980 Page four It is submitted that both permitted private development and other circumstances affecting the subject property have undergone significant and material change since the last. previous land use analysis of the area zoning of the subject property, thus warranting the requested rezone. Parenthetically, it may be noted that the ordinance' s requirements that the applicant sustain his burden of proof in a rezone proceeding should not be as stiffly applied in a proceeding requesting an "upzone" (permitting more intensive use of property) than in a "downzone" of property. In Parkridge v. City of Seattle, 89 Wn.2d 454, 573 P.2d 359 (1978) , the Supreme Court declared that the burden of proof is on rezone proponents to show that a rezone bears a reasonable and substantial relationship to promotion of the public health, safety, morals, or general welfare. However, in Hayden v. City of Port Townsend, 93 Wn. 2d 870, 613 P.2d 1164 C1980) , the Court substantially narrowed the Parkridge requirement, observing that the rezone at issue in Parkridge was a downzone of property, rather than an upzone. The Court therefore noted that it is perhaps not necessary to scrutinize as meticulously the relationship between a rezone and the promotion of the public health, safety, and welfare when the restrictions on the use of one' s property are to be relaxed (pursuant to an upzone) as when the restrictions are being further circumscribed (through a downzone) . 93 Wn.2d at 877. The Examiner should thus take into account the differing burden of proof requirements in an upzone, as opposed to a downzone, in this case. It may also be briefly noted that there is initially a question whether any rezone at all is required in order to achieve the. uses desired by the. applicant under the proposed site plan. The only reason a rezone is requested is to allow necessary parking for the R-3 uses. Under the view of the Planning Department, parking for R-3 uses cannot be located in an R-2 zone. However, no provision of the Building Regulations prohibits such a situation. Section 4- 2204 (3) (A) (2) notes that parking for multi-family uses "may be on a contiguous lot" with the building they are required to serve, the clear implication being that they may also he on the same lot. In the present situation, all of the R-3 parking is on the same lot, since all of that parking is on Tract 1 of the site plan. The auxiliary parking requirements // Planning Department, City of Renton November 26, 1980 Page three file a petition to rezone the R-2 portion of the property to R -3 in order to resolve the parking discrepancy or file an application to develop a planned unit development Mao) . . Schneider Construction Company, Inc. (the developer of the property) , chose to submit an application for a planned unit development. It was only after the application was submitted, and as a result of conversations with planning staff, that it became evident that the intended density of the Hilltop Apartments project as shown on the site plan could not be achieved under the City's planned unit develop- ment ordinance. Schneider Construction Company, Inc. , has therefore chosen to suspend the PUD application and now requests a rezone of two portions of the site presently zoned R-2 to the R-3 classification in order to permit the parking on that property related to R-3 uses. The applicant is also submitting another special permit application in order to obtain the same approval originally applied for, if the requested rezone is granted. The applicant is willing to enter into a concomitant zoning agreement (contract rezone) which would limit uses of the rezoned property to parking only. Such an agreement would ensure that more intense R-3 uses would not intrude onto the adjacent R-2 property, in order to comply with the intent of the original rezone. The contract would thus simply allow the parking intended all along for the property at that location, since it is not the intent of this rezone application to achieve any higher density or uses different from those originally proposed on the Hilltop Apartments site plan. Justification for Requested Rezone Under Section 4-3014 (C) of the Building Regulations of the City of Renton, the Hearing Examiner must find, before a rezone may be granted, inter alia: (c) That since the last previous land use analysis of the area zoning of the subject property, author- ized public improvements, permitted private develop- ment or other circumstances affecting the subject property have undergone significant and material change. Planning Department, City_ of Renton November 26, 1980 Page six One remaining issue which may be raised is whether the requested rezone is in conformance with the restrictive covenants filed on the property in March 1979. It should be noted that this issue should not be a bar to a rezone, even if there were a violation of those covenants, since the City should not concern itself with private restrictions which burden a parcel of property. However, even if the issue is examined, it is evident that there would be no violation of these covenants in allowing the proposed rezone. The pertinent language of the covenants notes that "the remaining middle portion of the property shall be limited to uses allowed in the R-2 Residence District . . . . " Parking is a use allowed in the R-2 district, as it is in the R-3 district, and the fact that the parking would bp used for units located in the R-3 district to the south does not alter the fact that such parking is still a permitted use in the R-2 zone. The intent of this provision of the covenants is to ensure that more intense uses do not intrude into the R-2 portion of the property. The proposed parking at this location would not be any more intense than it would if it were R-2 parking, since the size of stalls is the same and the use of the land is the same. There is therefore no violation of this provision of the covenants, and it should not even enter into the decision of the Examiner and the City as to whether this property should be rezoned to permit that parking. In conclusion, we would hope that the proposed rezone would be granted, as well as the special permit. The intent of the rezone is to accomplish exactly what was intended in the last rezoning of this property to R-2 and R-3. It is purely because of technical (and, in our view, questionable) interpretations of Renton parking requirements that this rezone application has become necessary. In that light, it is submitted that the proposed rezone meets not only condition 1 (c) of Section 4-3014 (C) , but also meets condition 1 (a) of that section: That substantial evidence was presented demon- strating the subject reclassification appears not to have been specifically considered at the time of the last area land use analysis and area zoning . . . . Planning Department, City of Renton November 26, 1980 Page five of Section 4-2204.(31 (C) do not even come into play unless "sufficient parking is not available on the premises of a use . . . . " We submit that since such parking is avail- able on the premises, immediately adjacent to the R-3 uses, no such rezone should be required. However, in order to eliminate any confusion and uncertainty in this situation, we are requesting the rezone reflected on the enclosed application. As noted above, we submit that circumstances affecting the subject property, as well as permitted private development, have undergone significant and material change since the previous land use analysis of the area zoning of the subject property. Those circumstances include the applicant's prior application for a special permit under this same site plan; its denial on the ground of nonconformity with parking requirements; the application for a variance from those requirements and its denial; and the application for a PUD and the subsequent revelation that the proposed density of this project would not be permissible under the PUD ordinance. Other circumstances affecting the subject property include the increased intensity of development in the vicinity. For example, the property immediately south of the R-3 portion of the Schneider Construction Company property is owned by Mike Maestro and is approximately 6 acres in size. That property is presently the subject of a pending building permit application before the City to develop 244 apartment units in five buildings. The intensity of this apartment development certainly justifies a very slight extension of the R-3 zone boundary slightly northward on the Schneider Construction Company property in order to accommodate parking associated with the R-3 development. That development will be in the form of four-plexes and six-plexes on the property, providing a good transition between this very intense apart- ment development to the south and the less intense R-2 and R-1 development to the north. Other circumstances could also be cited. . There i , for example, the continued increase in population in the City of Renton and the King County region in general, with the consequent increased demand for apartment housing, as well as housing of all types. The grant of this rezone wil]. help meet this continuing demand by permitting the development contemplated in the first place by the R-2 and R-3 rezones. . HEMOI:Avo*UM OF CON C1: • • -APPLICATION NO(s) : R-124-80, SP-123-80 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: • Request to rezone R-2 area to R-3 for parking and special permit approval for multiple family housing PROPONENT: SCHNEIDER CONSTRUCTION CO. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: East side of Monroe Avenue N.E. approximately 600 feet north of N.E, 4th Street LEAD AGENCY: PLANNING DEPARTMENT DATE OF ERC REVIEW: December 10, 1980 Acting as the Responsible Official, the ERC has determined that the requested modifications to the initial proposal reviewed under ECF-580-80 on August 16, 1980 are within the scope of that original proposal and the environmental deter- ' mination of non-significance is still valid. This decision was reached following a presentation by Roger Blaylock of the Planning Department. There were no oral comments. Incorporated by reference in the record of proceedings of the ERC on application ECF-580-80 are the following: 1 ) Environmental Checklist Review Sheets , prepared by: Steve Munson and Roger Blaylock, Dated July 7, 1980 and July 21, 1980 2) Applications : SP-064-80 SIGNATURES: . '" /r c Ai caal , r. n -E. Webl , Park Director Go on Y. r. an, arming Director Warren C. Gonnason Public Works Director . y ' Planning Department, City of Renton November 26, 1980 Page seven Certainly, the technical locational requirements of pa king (.the purpose of the subject rezone) were not considered at the time of the last area zoning or at the time this property was rezoned to R-2 and R-3, thus bolstering the argument that the proposed rezone is appropriate at this time. The proposed development is a site-sensitive and creative approach to housing development at this location. It is far better than the kind of development which could be achieved if the R-3 parking must be moved south onto the present, R-3 portion of the property. Not only will a number of buildings have to be relocated, resulting in a loss of privacy aid loss of southerly exposure for these units, but a numb r of units would be dropped completely from the development; to no one's benefit. By limiting uses on the proposed reasoned property to parking, via a contract rezone, there can be no question that other undesirable and more intensive used would occur on the rezoned parcels. The proposed rezone will merely permit the kind of development contemplated by both the City and the applicant at the time the 1979 rezones to the property took place. We therefore believe that both the proposed rezones and the accompanying special permit should be granted. Ve tru 17 , I kir * .,, e 1 Richard R. Wilson RRW:ko Enclosure cc: Schneider Construction Company, Inc. Mr. Val Rupeiks I' s P i ,i c Y LAW OFFICES OF HILLIS, PHILLIPS, CAIRNCROSS, CLARK & MARTIN GLENN J.AMSTER A PROFESSIONAL SERVICE CORPORATION H.RAYMOND CAIRNCROSS MARK S.CLARK 403 COLUMBIA STREET 623-1745 MARK R.HAMILTON AREA CODE 206 JEROME L.HILLIS SEATTLE,WASHINGTON 98104 • - GEORGE A.KRESOVICH - - - --- GEORGE W.MARTIN,JR. SALLY H.MILLEN -— - --DAVID E.MYRE,JR.- _ __ ____ - _____.___ —_-- __ _ -- LOUIS D.PETERSON— JOHN E.PHILLIPS WENDY W.REED November 26, 1980 RICHARD S.SWANSON f�; t nr'-:1 1b1-'l i.,.'� BARBARA A.WILSON f1.1 RICHARD R.WILSON Zit Planning Department, City of Renton Municipal Building . - 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, Washington 98055 Re: Schneider Construction Company, Inc./Proposed Rezone and Special Permit for Hilltop Apartments Dear Sirs: On behalf of Schneider Construction Company, Inc. , we are submitting this supporting letter to accompany the enclosed applications for a special permit to allow develop- ment of the Hilltop Apartments and a rezone of two portions of the property from the current R-2 zoning to the R-3 zone to permit the necessary parking to accompany the proposal. Environmental Considerations The total proposal is the development of the Hilltop Apartments, as reflected in the site plan submitted with this application. The Hilltop Apartments development has already been the subject of a special permit application to the City and has not changed in any material .respect from that application. An environmental checklist was submitted with that special permit application (Checklist No. ECF 580-80) , and a Declaration of Non-Significance (,DNS) was issued by the City on August 6 , 1980, for Application No. SP 063-80. Because the project is still the same, we request concurrence by the City in the prior environmental checklist and DNS already on record. Background of Proposal The property in question involves approximately 15 acres of land located on the east side of Monroe Avenue N.E. , approximately 600 feet north of N.E. 4th Street. At Planning Department, City of Renton November 26, 1980 Page two the request of the owner of record, Gerald E. Schneider, the property was rezoned into three separate horizontal strips: R-.1, R-2, and R-3. In a replat of the property, the R-1 land was designated as Tract 2, while the R-2 and R-3 zoned land was designated as Tract 1. The rezone of the property into the three zones was accomplished in Ordinance No. 3293, dated March 16, 1979. At the time of the rezone, a declaration of restrictive covenants was also prepared by the City and executed by the applicant limiting uses on the various zoned sectors of the property to those allowed in the respective R-1, R-2, and R-3 zones. A copy of those covenants is in the prior special permit file. In order to achieve a flexible and creative development on the property, the applicant requested a special permit to allow construction of apartments in the R-2 zoned area of the property. Although the City's administrative staff initially supported the application and did not notify the applicant of any difficulties in the design of the site, the staff report for the special permit, issued approximately four days prior to the public hearing, indicated that the placement of parking required for the R-3 area in the R-2 zone was impermissible, increasing the use and development intensity of the R-2 zone above that allowed for the property under the zoning ordinances of the City. (See page 4 of Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner, dated August 26, 1980, under Heading No. 2. ). This was the first the appli- cant had heard of any discrepancy in the parking requirement. Thus, although the Planning Department supported the proposal ' s design and indicated that the design created the two-zone buffer between the R-2 and R-3 zones that was intended at the time of the rezone (see page 4 of the above Preliminary Report, second paragraph of Heading No. 2) , the Department felt constrained to recommend disapproval because of this alleged nonconformance with the parking requirement. The applicant' s next course of action was to request a variance from the strict requirements of the parking ordinance, as recommended by the Planning Department in the third paragraph of Heading No. 2 on page 4 of the above Prelimi- nary Report. The Hearing Examiner did not believe such a variance was permissible and consequently denied the request, ultimately dismissing the special permit application without prejudice. The Examiner, in a letter to Mr. Schneider dated September 16, 1980, recommended that the applicant either Planning Department, City of Renton November 26, 1980 Page three file a petition to rezone the R-2 portion of the property to R-3 in order to resolve the parking discrepancy or file an application to develop a planned unit development (PUD)- . Schneider Construction Company, Inc. (the developer of the property)- , chose to submit an application for a planned unit development. It was only after the application was. submitted, and as a result of conversations with planning staff, that it became evident that the intended density of the Hilltop Apartments project as shown on the site plan could not be achieved under the City' s planned unit develop- ment ordinance. Schneider Construction Company, Inc. , has therefore chosen to suspend the PUD application and now requests a rezone of two portions of the site presently zoned R-2 to the R-3 classification in order to permit the parking on that property related to R-3 uses. The applicant is also submitting another special permit application in order to obtain the same approval originally applied for, if the requested rezone is granted. The applicant is willing to enter into a concomitant zoning agreement (contract rezone) which would limit uses of the rezoned property to parking only. Such an agreement would ensure that more intense R-3 uses would not intrude onto the adjacent R-2 property, in order to comply with the intent of the original rezone. The contract would thus simply allow the parking intended all along for the property at that location, since it is not the intent of this rezone application to achieve any higher density or uses different from those originally proposed on the Hilltop Apartments site plan. Justification for Requested Rezone Under Section 4-3014 (C). of the Building Regulations of the City of Renton, the Hearing Examiner must find, before a rezone may be granted, inter alia: (c). That since the last previous land use analysis of the area zoning of the subject property, author- ized public improvements, permitted private develop- ment or other circumstances affecting the subject property have undergone significant and material change. Planning Department, City of Renton November 26, 1980 Page four It is submitted that both permitted private development and other circumstances affecting the subject property have undergone significant and material change since the last previous land use analysis of the area zoning of the subject property, thus warranting the requested rezone. Parenthetically, it may be noted that the ordinance's requirements that the applicant sustain his burden of proof in a rezone proceeding should not be as stiffly applied in a proceeding requesting an "upzone" (permitting more intensive use of property) than in a "downzone" of property. In Parkridge v. City of Seattle, 89 Wn.2d 454, 573 P.2d 359 (-1978) , the Supreme Court declared that the burden of proof is on rezone proponents to show that a rezone bears a reasonable and substantial relationship to promotion of the public health, safety, morals, or general welfare. However, in Hayden v. City of Port Townsend, 93 Wn.2d 870, 613 P.2d 1164 (1980) , the Court substantially narrowed the Parkridge requirement, observing that the rezone at issue in Parkridge was a downzone of property, rather than an upzone. The Court therefore noted that it is perhaps not necessary to scrutinize as meticulously the relationship between a rezone and the promotion of the public health, safety, and welfare when the restrictions on the use of one' s property are to be relaxed (pursuant to an upzone) as when the restrictions are being further circumscribed (through a downzone) . 93 Wn.2d at 877. The Examiner should thus take into account the differing burden of proof requirements in an upzone, as opposed to a downzone, in this case. It may also be briefly noted that there is initially a question whether any rezone at all is required in order to achieve the uses desired by the applicant under the proposed site plan. The only reason a rezone is requested is to allow necessary parking for the R-3 uses. Under the view of the Planning Department, parking for R-3 uses cannot be located in an R-2 zone. However, no provision of the Building Regulations prohibits such a situation. Section 4- 2204 (3) (A) (2) notes that parking for multi-family uses "may be on a contiguous lot" with the building they are required to serve, the clear implication being that they may also be on the same lot. In the present situation, all of the R-3 parking is on the same lot, since all of that parking is on Tract 1 of the site plan. The auxiliary parking requirements Planning Department, City of Renton November 26, 1980 Page five of Section 4-2204 (3) (_C) do not even come into play unless "sufficient parking is not available on the premises of a use . . . . " We submit that since such parking is avail- able on the premises, immediately adjacent to the R-3 uses, no such rezone should be required. However, in order to eliminate any confusion and uncertainty in this situation, we are requesting the rezone reflected on the enclosed application. As noted above, we submit that circumstances affecting the subject property, as well as permitted private development, have undergone significant and material change since the previous land use analysis of the area zoning of the subject property. Those circumstances include the applicant' s prior application for a special permit under this same site plan; its denial on the ground of nonconformity with parking requirements; the application for a variance from those requirements and its denial; and the application for a PUD and the subsequent revelation that the proposed density of this project would not be permissible under the PUD ordinance. Other circumstances affecting the subject property include the increased intensity of development in the vicinity. For example, the property immediately south of the R-3 portion of the Schneider Construction Company property is owned by Mike Maestro and is approximately 6 acres in size. That property is presently the subject of a pending building permit application before the City to develop 244 apartment units in five buildings. The intensity of this apartment development certainly justifies a very slight extension of the R-3 zone boundary slightly northward on the Schneider Construction Company property in order to accommodate parking associated with the R-3 development. That development will be in the form of four-plexes and six-plexes on the property, providing a good transition between this very intense apart- ment development to the south and the less intense R-2 and R-1 development to the north. Other circumstances could also be cited. There is, for example, the continued increase in population in the City of . Renton and the King County region in general, with the consequent increased demand for apartment housing, as well as housing of all types. The grant of this rezone will help meet this continuing demand by permitting the development contemplated in the first place by the R-2 and R-3 rezones. Planning Department, City. of Renton November . 26, 1980 Page six One remaining issue which may be raised is whether the requested rezone is in conformance with the restrictive covenants filed on the property in March 1979. It should be noted that this issue should not be a. bar to a rezone, even if there were a violation of those covenants, since the City should not concern itself with private restrictions which burden a parcel of property. However, even if the issue is examined, it is evident that there would be no violation of these covenants in allowing the proposed rezone. The pertinent language of the covenants notes that "the remaining middle portion of the property shall be limited to uses allowed in the R-2 Residence District . . . . " Parking is a use allowed in the R-2 district, as it is in the R-3 district, and the fact that the parking would be used for units located in the R-3 district to the south does not alter the fact that such parking is still a permitted use in the R-2 zone. The intent of this provision of the covenants is to ensure that more intense uses do not intrude into the R-2 portion of the property. The proposed parking at this location would not be any more intense than it would if it were R-2 parking, since the size of stalls is the same and the use of the land is the same. There is therefore no violation of this provision of the covenants, and it should not even enter into the decision of the Examiner and the City as to whether this property should be rezoned to permit that parking. In conclusion, we would hope that the proposed rezone would be granted, as well as the special permit. The intent of the rezone is to accomplish exactly what was intended in the last rezoning of this property to R-2 and R-3 . It is purely because of technical (and, in our view, questionable) interpretations of Renton parking requirements that this rezone application has become necessary. In that light, it is submitted that the proposed rezone meets not only condition 1 (c) of Section 4-3014 (C) , but also meets condition 1 (a) of that section: That substantial evidence was presented demon- strating the subject reclassification appears not to have been specifically considered at the time of the last area land use analysis and area zoning . . . . • Planning Department, City of Renton November 26, 1980 Page seven Certainly, the technical locational requirements of parking (the purpose of the subject rezone): were not considered at the time of the last area zoning or at the time this property was rezoned to R-2 and R-3, thus bolstering the argument that the proposed rezone is appropriate at this time. The proposed development is . a site-sensitive and. creative approach to housing development at this. location. It is far better than the kind of development which could be achieved if the R-3 parking must be moved south .onto the present R-3 portion of the property. Not only will a number of buildings have to be relocated, resulting in a loss of privacy and loss of southerly exposure for these units, but a number of units would be dropped completely from the development, to no one's benefit. By limiting uses on the proposed rezoned property to parking, via a contract rezone, there can be no question that other undesirable and more . intensive uses would occur on the rezoned parcels. The proposed rezone will merely permit the kind of development contemplated by both. the City and the applicant at the time the 1979 rezones to the property took place. We therefore believe that both the proposed rezones and the accompanying special permit should be granted. Ve tru lgo : s, Richard R. Wilson RRW:ko Enclosure cc: Schneider Construction Company, Inc. Mr. Val Rupeiks r d MEMORANDUM OF CONCURRENCE APPLICATION NO (s) : R-124-80, SP-123-80 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: Request to rezone R-2 area to R-3 for parking and special permit approval for - multiple family housing PROPONENT: SCHNEIDER CONSTRUCTION CO. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: East side of Monroe Avenue N.E. approximately 600 feet north of N.E. 4th Street LEAD AGENCY: PLANNING DEPARTMENT DATE OF ERC REVIEW: December 10, 1980 Acting as the Responsible Official, the ERC has determined that the requested modifications to the initial proposal reviewed under ECF-580-80 on August 16 , 1980 are within the scope of that original proposal and the environmental deter- mination of non-significance is still valid. This decision was reached following a presentation by Roger Blaylock of the Planning Department. There were no oral comments. Incorporated by reference in the record of proceedings of the ERC on application ECF-580-80 are the following: 1 ) Environmental Checklist Review Sheets , prepared by: Steve Munson and Roger Blaylock, Dated July 7 , 1980 and July 21, 1980 2) Applications : SP-064-80 SIGNATURES: o n E. Webl , Park Director Go .on Y. rr ' sent ' anning / Director f Warren C. Gonnason Public Works Director / -o OF i? & o THE CITY OF RENTON 0 O$ 111 z z. : •.. , � .y MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE.SO. RENTON,WASH.95055 0 .. ,,. 4 .� BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH. MAYOR ® PLANNING DEPARTMENT °9,� 235- 255® °9�TSD SEP-C -'4 5 December 12, 1980. Mr. Gerald E. Schneider 6510 Southcenter Blvd Tukwila, WA 98188 Re: Applications for r ezone from R-2 to R-3 to allow tenant parking and circulation for the proposed Hilltop Apart- ments , file R-124-80, and special permit to allow con- struction of apartment buildings in the R-2 zone; property located east side of Monroe Ave. N.E. approximately 600 feet north of .N.E. 4th St. . Gentlemen: • The Renton Planning Department formally accepted the above mentioned application on November 26, 1980. A public hearing before the City of Renton Hearing Examiner has been set for December 30, 1980, at 9: 00 a.m. Representatives of the applicant are asked to be present. All interested persons are invited to attend the hearing. If you have any further questions , please call the Renton Planning Department, 235-2550. Very truly yours, Gordon Y. Ericksen, Planning Director • • By: 1;!i--- (.-66 1-7--4-eY1 Roger J. Blaylock Associate Planner RJB:wr cc: Group Four 19707 44th Ave. W. Lynnwood, WA 98036 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING RENTON LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER RENTON, WASHINGTON A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE RENTON LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER AT HIS REGULAR MEETING IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, RENTON, WASHINGTON, ON DECEMBER 30, 1980, AT 9: 00 A.M. TO CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING PETITIONS: 1 . BARBER, KLOPPENBURG, OLDS (SUNSET SQUARE) Application for site approval of small neighborhood shopping center (to include bank and/or restaurant) and condominiums or professional offices; File No. SA-104-80; Variance for 10-12 foot rear-yard setback instead of the required 20 feet is also requested; File No. V-105-80; property located on the Northeast corner of Sunset Blvd. N.E. and Union Avenue N.E. 2. RICHARD L. KLOPPENBURG (SUNSET SQUARE SHORT PLAT) Application for 4-lot short plat for the future development of the neighborhood shopping center of Sunset Square; File No. Short Plat 116-80; and Exception to the Subdivision Ordinance for access by easement to proposed Lot #2; File No. E-117-80; property located on the Northeast corner of Sunset Blvd. N.E. and Union Avenue N.E. 3. BRAD CUNNINGHAM (MERCURY MARING EXPANSION) Application for site approval and variance to construct a 15.9,800 sq. ft. addition to an existing warehouse; File No. SA-113-80; and Variance to eliminate 5% interior landscaping requirement; File No. V-114-80; property located vicinity of 4060 Lind Avenue S.W. 4. GERALD E. SCHNEIDER Application for rezone from R-2 to R-3 to allow tenant parking and circulation for the proposed Hilltop Apartments; File No. R-124-80; property located east side of Monroe Avenue N.E. approximately 600 feet north of N.E. 4th Street. 5. GERALD E. SCHNEIDER Application for special permit to allow construction of apartment buildings in the R-2 zone (proposed Hilltop Apartments) , total project to be 158 units; File No. SP-123-80; property located east side of Monroe Avenue N.E. approximately 600 feet north of N.E. 4th Street. Legal descriptions of files noted above are on file in the Renton Planning Department. ALL INTERESTED PERSONS TO SAID PETITIONS ARE INVITED TO BE PRESENT AT THE PUBLIC HEARING ON DECEMBER 30, 1980, AT 9 : 00 A.M. TO EXPRESS THEIR OPINIONS. PUBLISHED: December 17 , 1980 GORDON Y. ERICKSEN, RENTON PLANNING DIRECTOR CERTIFICATION I, STEVE MUNSON, HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THREE COPIES OF THE ABOVE DOCUMENT WERE POSTED BY ME IN THREE CONSPICUOUS PLACES ON THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED ABOVE AS PRESCRIBED BY LAW. ATTEST: Subscribed and sworn to before me, a Notary Public , in and for the State of Washington residing in King County, on the llth day of December, 1980.LS14, akle SIGNED: k i1 i1yyj i f `. i , J f 31 GENERAL LOCATION: AIM, OR ADDRESS: PROPERTY LOCATED EAST SIDE OF MONROE AVENUE N,E , APPROXIMATELY ' 600 FEET NORTH OF N.E. 46TH STREET, LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LEGAL DESCRIPTION ON FILE IN THE RENTON PLANNING DEPARTMENT I S POSTED TO NOTIFY, PROPERTY. OWNERS OF • • • C TO BE HELD IN CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, MUNICIPAL BUILDING ON DECEMBER 30, 1980 BEGINNING AT 9:00 A.A.M. �...___ P.M. CONCNING ITEM PT ZO 'E - FROM R-2 TO R-3 TO ALLOW TENANT PARKING 1 T AND CIRCULATION. FOR PROPOSED HILLTOP APARTMENTS - R-124-80 1' ! — TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION `'' '� ' LA' OF APARTMENT BUILDINGS IN R-2 ZONE, SP-123-80 III /V* 1 Y M' sV h• L r Etw: • S4-v .tt ,t'3 '`'..,.Ll k � .amrv5 Y$ ikA ''+.5. a s ,.r�, 4,t _ T Pt...,, Y. �-"sNk � h54 Y , "`� +. �. � » T Y f '� M r,'-`>r'. RIM!' NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF SIGNIFICANCE (ECF-550-80) FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CALL 235 2550 THIS NOTICE NOT TO BE REMOVED WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION v w z THE CITY OF RENTON,s-I-?3 A° MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE.SO. RENTON,WASH.98055 NALt` BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH. MAYOR • PLANNING DEPARTMENT 0940 Pam• 235- 2550 941. SEP'�,t a / 7. „eL ugb, ANDUM December 3, 1980 TO: OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS FROM: Gordon Y. Ericksen, Planning Director By Roger J. Blaylock, Associate Planner SUBJECT: Special Permit, SP-123-80, Gerald Schneider Hilltop Apartments Mr. Schneider has submitted the exact plans that were reviewed by all city departments. under special permit application, SP-064-80, in July. Those comments would still be appropriate and are attached for your review. The applicant has now applied for a rezone to comply with recent processing decisions by the Hearings Examiner. The request for a preliminary Planned Unit Development has been withdrawn and a new special permit request Submitted. RJB;rjb • 'S LAW OFFICES OF HILLIS, PHILLIPS, CAIRNCROSS, CLARK & MARTIN GLENN J.AMSTER A PROFESSIONAL SERVICE CORPORATION H.RAYMOND CAIRNCROSS MARK S.CLARK 403 COLUMBIA STREET 623-1745 MARK R.HAMILTON AREA CODE 206 JEROME L.HILLIS SEATTLE,WASHINGTON 98104 GEORGE A.KRESOVICH GEORGE W. MARTIN,JR. SALLY H.MILLEN DAVID E.MYRE,JR. LOUIS D.PETERSON JOHN E.PHILLIPS November 26 , 1980 WENDY W.REED RICHARD S.SWANSON d'a R ARA WILSON ,,p�1\ RICHARD R..WILSON � rg� cp Planning Department, City of Renton :\,,p� 2t1 Municipal Building 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, Washington 98055 Re: Schneider Construction Company, Inc./Proposed Rezone and Special Permit for Hilltop Apartments Dear Sirs: On behalf of Schneider Construction Company, Inc. , we are submitting this supporting letter to accompany the enclosed applications for a special permit to allow develop- ment of the Hilltop Apartments and a rezone of two portions of the property from the current R-2 zoning to the R-3 zone to permit the necessary parking to accompany the proposal. Environmental Considerations The total proposal is the development of the Hilltop Apartments, as reflected in the site plan submitted with this application. The Hilltop Apartments development has already been the subject of a special permit application to the City and has not changed in any material respect from • that application. An environmental checklist was submitted with that special permit application ,(Checklist No. ECF 580-80) , and a Declaration of. Non-Significance (DNS) was issued by the City on August 6, 1980, for Application No. SP ' 063-80. Because the project is still the same, we request concurrence by the City in the prior environmental checklist and DNS already on record. Background of Proposal The property in question involves approximately 15 acres of land located on the east side of. Monroe Avenue N.E. , approximately 600 feet north of N.E. 4th Street. At Planning Department, City of Renton November 26, 1980 Page two the request of the owner of record, Gerald E. Schneider, the property was rezoned into three separate horizontal strips: R-1, R-2, and R-3. In a replat of the property, the R-1 land was designated as Tract 2, while the R-2 and R-3 zoned land was designated as Tract 1. The rezone of the property into the three zones was accomplished in Ordinance No. 3293, dated March 16, 1979. At the time of the rezone, a declaration of restrictive covenants was also prepared by the City and executed by the applicant limiting uses on the various zoned sectors of the property to those allowed in the respective R-1, R-2, and R-3 zones. A copy of those covenants is in the prior special permit file. In order to achieve a flexible and creative development on the property, the applicant requested a special permit to allow construction of apartments in the R-2 zoned area of the property. Although the City' s administrative staff initially supported the application and did not notify the applicant of any difficulties in the design of the site, the staff report for the special permit, issued approximately four days prior to the public hearing, indicated that the placement of parking required for the R-3 area in the R-2 zone was impermissible, increasing the use and development intensity of the R-2 zone above that allowed for the property under the zoning ordinances of the City. (See page 4 of Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner, dated August 26, 1980, under Heading No. 2. 1 This was the first the appli- cant had heard of any discrepancy in the parking requirement. Thus, although the Planning Department supported the proposal' s design and indicated that the design created the two-zone buffer between the R-2 and R-3 zones that was intended at the time of the rezone (see page 4 of the above Preliminary Report, second paragraph of. Heading No. 2) , the Department felt constrained to recommend disapproval because of this . alleged nonconformance with the parking requirement. The applicant's next course of action was to request a variance from the strict requirements of the parking ordinance, as recommended by the Planning Department in the third paragraph of Heading No. 2 on page 4 of the above Prelimi- nary Report. The Hearing Examiner did not believe such a variance was permissible and consequently denied the request, ultimately dismissing the special permit application without prejudice. The Examiner, in a letter to Mr. Schneider dated September 16, 1980, recommended that. the applicant either Planning Department, City of Renton November 26, 1980 Page three file a petition to rezone the R-2 portion of the property to R-3 in order to resolve the parking discrepancy or file an application to develop a planned unit development SPUD' . Schneider Construction°Company, Inc. (the developer of the property). , chose to submit an application for a planned unit development. It was only after the application was submitted, and as a result of conversations with planning staff, that it became evident that the intended density of the Hilltop Apartments project as shown on the site plan could not be achieved under the City' s planned unit develop- ment ordinance. Schneider Construction Company, Inc. , has therefore chosen to suspend the PUD application and now requests a rezone of two portions of the site presently zoned R-2 to the R-3 classification in order to permit the parking on that property related to R-3 uses. The applicant is also submitting another special permit application in order to obtain the same approval originally applied for, if the requested rezone is granted. The applicant is willing to enter into. a concomitant zoning agreement (contract rezone) which would limit uses of the rezoned property to parking only. Such an agreement would ensure that more intense R-3 uses would not intrude onto the adjacent R-2 property, in order to comply with the intent of the original rezone. The contract would thus simply allow the parking intended all along for the property at that location, since it is not the intent of this rezone application to achieve any higher density or uses different from those originally proposed on the Hilltop Apartments site plan. Justification for Requested Rezone Under Section 4-3014 (C). of the Building Regulations of ' the City of Renton, the Hearing Examiner must find, before a rezone may be granted, inter alia: (ci That since the last previous land use analysis of the area zoning of the subject property, ,author- ized public improvements, permitted private develop- ment or other circumstances affecting the subject property have undergone significant and material change. Planning Department, City of Renton November 26, 1980 Page four . It is submitted that both permitted private development and other circumstances affecting the subject property have undergone significant and material change since the last previous land use analysis of the area zoning of the subject property, thus warranting the requested rezone. Parenthetically, it may be noted that the ordinance's requirements that the applicant sustain his burden of proof in a rezone proceeding should not be as stiffly applied in a proceeding requesting an "upzone" (permitting more intensive use of property) than in a "downzone" of property. In Parkridge v. City of Seattle, 89 Wn.2d 454, 573 P.2d 359 (1978) , the Supreme Court declared that the burden of proof is on rezone proponents to show that a rezone bears a reasonable and substantial relationship to promotion of the public health, safety, morals, or general welfare. However, in Hayden v. City of Port Townsend, 93 Wn.2d 870, 613 P.2d 1164 (1980) , the Court substantially narrowed the Parkridge - requirement, observing that the rezone at issue in Parkridge was a downzone of property, rather than an upzone. The Court therefore noted that it is perhaps not necessary to scrutinize as meticulously the relationship between a rezone and the promotion of the public health, safety, and welfare when the restrictions on the use of one's property are to be relaxed (pursuant to an upzone) as when the restrictions are being further circumscribed (through a downzone) . 93 Wn.2d . . at 877... The. Examiner should thus take into account the differing burden of proof requirements in an upzone, as opposed to a downzone, in this case. . It may also be briefly noted that there is initially a question whether any rezone at all is required in order to achieve the uses desired by the applicant under the proposed site plan. The only reason. a rezone is requested is to allow necessary parking for the R-3 uses. Under the view of the Planning Department, parking for R-3 uses cannot be located in an R-2 zone. However, no provision of the Building Regulations prohibits .such a situation. Section 4- 2204.(3) (A) (2) notes that parking for multi-family uses "may be on a contiguous lot" with the building they are required to serve, the clear implication being that they may also be on the same lot. In the present situation, all of the R-3 parking is on the same lot, since all of that parking is on Tract 1 of the site plan. The auxiliary parking requirements Planning Department, City of Renton November 26, 1980 Page five of Section 4-2204.(31 (C) do not even come into play unless "sufficient parking is not available on the premises of a use . . " We submit that since such parking is avail- able on the premises, immediately adjacent to the R-3 uses, no such rezone should be required. However, in order to eliminate any confusion and uncertainty in this situation, we are requesting the rezone reflected on` the enclosed application. As noted above, we submit that circumstances affecting the subject property, as well as permitted private development, have undergone significant and material change since the previous land use analysis of the area zoning of the subject property. Those circumstances include the applicant' s prior application for a special permit under this same site plan; its denial on the ground of nonconformity with parking requirements; the application for a variance from those requirements and its denial; and the application for a PUD . and the subsequent revelation that the proposed density of this project would not be permissible under the PUD ordinance. . Other circumstances affecting the subject property include the increased intensity of development in the vicinity. For example, the property immediately south of the R-3 portion of the Schneider Construction Company property is owned by Mike Maestro and is approximately 6 acres in size. That property is presently the subject of a pending building permit application before the City to develop 244 apartment units in five buildings. The intensity of this apartment development certainly justifies a very slight extension of. the R-3 zone boundary slightly northward on the Schneider Construction Company property in order to accom►todate parking associated with the .R-3 development. That development will be in the form of four-plexes and six-plexes on the property, providing a good transition between this very intense apart- ment development to the south and the less intense R-2 and ' R-1 development to the north.. . Other circumstances could also be cited. .. There is, for example, the continued increase in population in. the City of Renton and the King County region in general,: with the consequent increased demand for apartment housing, as well as housing of all types. The grant of this rezone will help meet this continuing demand by permitting the development contemplated in the first place by the R-2 and .R-3. rezones. Planning Department, City. of Renton November 26, 1980 Page six One remaining issue which may be raised is whether the requested rezone is in conformance with the restrictive covenants filed on the property in March 1979. It should be noted that this issue should not be a bar to a rezone, even if there were a violation of those covenants, since the City should not concern itself with private restrictions which burden a parcel of property. However, even if the issue is examined, it is evident that there would be no violation of these covenants in allowing the proposed rezone. The pertinent language of the covenants notes that "the remaining middle _ portion of the property shall be limited to uses allowed in the R-2 Residence District, . . . . " Parking is a use allowed in the R-2 district, as it is in the R-3 district, and the fact that the parking would be used for units. _located in the R-3 district to the south does not alter the fact that such parking is still a permitted use in the R-2 zone. The intent of this provision of the covenants is to ensure that more intense uses do not intrude into the R-2 portion of the property. The proposed parking at this location would not be any more intense than it would if it were R-2 parking, since the size of stalls is the same and the use of the land is the same. There is therefore no violation of this provision of the covenants, and it should not even enter into the decision of the Examiner and the City as to whether this property should be rezoned to permit that parking. In conclusion, we would hope that the proposed rezone would be granted, as well as the special permit. The intent of the rezone is to accomplish, exactly what was intended in the last rezoning of this property to R-2 and R-3. It is purely because of technical (and, in our view, questionable) interpretations of Renton parking requirements that this rezone application has become necessary. In that light, it is submitted that the proposed rezone meets not only condition . 1 (c) of Section 4-3014 (C) , but also meets condition 1 (a) of ' that section: That substantial evidence was presented demon- strating the subject reclassification appears not to have been specifically considered at the time of the last area land use. analysis and area zoning . . . . Planning Department, City of Renton November 26, 1980. Page seven Certainly, the technical locational requirements of parking Ithe purpose of the subject rezone) were not considered at the time of the last area zoning or at the time this property was rezoned to R-2 and R-3, thus bolstering the argument that the proposed rezone is appropriate at this time. The proposed development is a site-sensitive and creative approach to housing development at this location. It is far better than the kind of development which could be achieved if the R-3 parking must be moved south onto the present R-3 portion of the property. Not only will a number of buildings have to be relocated, resulting in a loss of privacy and loss of southerly exposure for these units, but a number of units would be dropped completely from the development, to no one' s benefit. By limiting uses on the proposed rezoned property to parking, via a contract rezone, there can be no question that other undesirable and more intensive uses would occur on the rezoned parcels. The proposed rezone will merely permit the kind of development contemplated by both. the City and the applicant at the time the 1979 rezones to the property took place. We therefore believe that both the proposed rezones and the accompanying special permit should be granted. Ve tru s, • Richard R. Wilson RRW:ko Enclosure cc: Schneider Construction Company, Inc. Mr. Val Rupeiks • CITY OF RENTON. Cl' 1,� �"' fI �� 6 • . APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL PERMIT � I. , • Nov 23 FOR OFFICE USE ONLY \\ s ,'��' File No. SP- /,f2,� —' O� • fr_ l Date d,i i � ��_ 1 9P� OCR • ` ° ✓c9 �'i Application Fee $ //„L7 , • Receipt No . Environmental Review Fee $ ' ( I t4 1 —86) APPLICANT TO COMPLETE ITEMS 1 THROUGH 6 : • 1 . Name • Gerald E. Schneider • Phone 248-2471 Address - 6510 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, Washington 98188 2, Property location East side of Monroe Avenue N.E. , between N.E. 4th Street and N.E. 6th Street 3. Legal description (attach additional sheet if necessary) • (See attachment for legal description) • • • • • • • • • • • 4 . • Number of acres or square feet 9 34 Present Zoning R-2 - R-3 5 .. What do you propose to develop on this property? 62 Multi-family units on R-2 portion of tract 1 (5.58 acres) and 96 multi-family units on R-3 portio: of tract 1 (3. 76 acres) 6 .. The following information shall be submitted. with this application :• • A. . Site and access plan (include setbacks , Scale • existing structures , . easements , and other factors limiting development) 1" = 10' or 20 ' B. ' Parking , landscaping and 'screening plan 1 " 10 ' C. Vicinity map (include land use and zoning • on adjacent parcels) • 1" . = 200 ' to 800 ' D. Building height end' area (existing and proposed) E. 'A special permit required by the Renton Mining , Excavation and Grading Ordinance shall submit the information listed in • • Section 4-2307.5 in addition to the above. • 7. LAND USE 'HEARING EXAMINER'S ACTION: ' Date Approved ' Date Denied ' Date Appealed. • • Appeal Action • Remarks • • ' Planning Dept. . 1-77 • 'I .. • ' ' . .' i‹,''''. .•• f ff • r :NOV 6 1980 )'. • • • 4-. / . -', r HILLTOP APARTMENTS • . . .. `, D ti ACC • LEGAL DESCI1IPT)ON• �'21G 1 • • . . • That portion of the North :1/2 of. the Southwest 1/4 , of the Southeast 1/4 of Section .9, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M. , in King. County, Washington described as follows: COMMENCING at the monument at the Northwest corner' of said subdivision; thence ' • S 0°09'20"E along the West line of said subdivision 419.40 feet to the South line of the North 89.70 .feet -of North 1/2 of the South 1/2 of .said subdivision; '.thence S 88°59'27" E • along said line 30.01 feet to the 'East line of the West 30•.00 feet of said subdivision and the POINT OF BEGINNING; .thence S 0°09'20" E along said line 239.94 feet to the South • line of said subdivision; thence 'S 89'01 '39" E along said line '1091 .38 feet to the :East line of the West 460.00 feet of the South 1/2. of the Northeast 1/4 of said Southwest 1/4 of, the Southeast 1/4; thence N 0°14'55" W along said line 328.97 feet to the North line of said subdivision; thence N 88°59'27" W along said line. .100.00 feet; thence N 34°18'07" W 38.53 feet to 'a ' point on the arc •of a curve to the right from which the center bears N 34°18'07" W 46'.00 feet; thence Westerly along said curve through a central angle of 80°34'50" an arc distance of 64.69 feet to 'a' point of reverse curvature and the beginning of a curve to the left .having a radius of 25.00 feet; thence Westerly along . . said curve through a central angle of 45°13'59" an arc distance of 19.74 feet to a point ' of tangency; thence N 88°57' 16" -W 159.59 feet- to the beginning of .a curve to the right having a radius of 125.00 'feet; thence Westerly along said' through a. central angle of 31°07'46" an arc distance of 67.91 feet; thence N 88°57' 16" W 468.61 feet to the East . line of the West 230.00 feet 'of the North 1/2 of the Northwest 1/4 of said Southwest 1/4 f . of the Southeast 1/4; thence S 0°09'20" E along said line 62.47 feet to the South line of said subdivision; thence N 88`59'27" W along said' line 46.01 feet Co the East line of the west 184.00 feet of the North, 1/2 of the South 1/2 of the Northwest 1/4 of said Southwest . 1/4;. of the Southeast 1/4; thence 'S 0°09'20" E along said line'89.72 feet to said South line of the North 89.70 feet of said subdivision; thence N 88°59'27" W' along said line 154.03 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. . • • • • . • • . , u.� • o76.,.-,-# ri._r r AFFIDAVIT `'ar ` �, � 1, %ir, :; i . . 0,7;,\, , . • . . • NOV 26 1280 • • r: • .\•-, ��• jj I , Gerald E. Schneider ,. being dul.y'sworn, declare that I am the owner of the property involved in this. ap.plicati�'o,n 'and:cthat the r • 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 25th'day of November , 1980 Notary Public-in and for the State of ' Washington, residing at Seattle • . ' __:-/'/:,,--:>:--At.-A-?: : c./ , "i-dli /- • 1 a 1 ;._(1 ?Name of Notary Public) ' (Signature of Owner g Robert7H. Kessey • ;e/r • 7,.grc,71., ...e.:1,"-- /7/ �;. 6510 Southcenter Blvd Wdd`ress) 7 (Address) • • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (City) (State) 248-2471 ' (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 , 19 • By: • • Renton Planning Dept . . 2-73. . '